Bt CROPS IN INDIA-FACING HARSH CRITICISM FROM LAW MAKERS

What has been suspected long ago has turned out to be true going by the recent criticism of GM crops by the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture in India. In a stinging commentary on the scientific groups that cleared Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal, the Committee called for a thorough investigation into its action, implying that the decision to give clearance was based on considerations other than interests of the consumer and the farmer. It is rare that law makers in India take so much interest in matters related to common man and it deserves full kudos for this yeoman service to the nation. It may be recalled that Bt Brinjal almost got through the clearance mechanism of the government and would have become a source of danger to the farming community but for sustained hostility shown by many renowned scientists, consumers and social activists. Wisdom did dawn finally on the Environment Minister of GOI to deny permission for cultivation of GM Brinjal after a series of public debates in some of the cities during 2010. Here is a report on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee that may have far reaching implications for future efforts by vested interests to introduce GM technology based agricultural crops.  

"In a major setback to the proponents of genetically modified technology in farm crops, the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture on Thursday asked the government to stop all field trials and sought a bar on GM food crops (such as Bt. brinjal). The committee report, tabled in the Lok Sabha, demanded a "thorough probe" into how permission was given to commercialise Bt. brinjal seed when all evaluation tests were not carried out. It said there were indications of a "collusion of the worst kind from the beginning till the imposition of a moratorium on its commercialisation in February, 2010, by the then Minister for Environment and Forests." The report came a day after Maharashtra cancelled Mahyco's licence to sell its Bt. cotton seeds. It flayed the government for not discussing the issue in Parliament and observed that the Ministry failed in its responsibility by introducing such a policy, ignoring the interests of the 70 per cent small and marginal farmers. The report criticised the composition and regulatory role of the Genetic Engineering Approval (Appraisal) Committee and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM). According to Committee chairman Basudeb Acharia, there is not a single note of dissent in the report of the 31-member panel, including nine from the Congress and six from the BJP. Observing that GM crops (such as Bt. cotton) benefited the (seed) industry without a "trickle-down" gain to farmers, it recommended that till all concerns were addressed, further research and development should be done only in contained conditions. Citing instances of conflict of interest of various stakeholders, the panel said the government must put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight and surveillance systems. Raising the "ethical dimensions" of transgenics in agricultural crops, as well as studies of a long-term environmental and chronic toxicology impact, the panel noted that there were no significant socio-economic benefits to farmers. On the contrary, farmers have incurred huge debts because of this capital-intensive practice. "Today, 93 per cent of the area is under Bt. cotton because no alternative seeds are available," Mr. Acharia said".

It is very true that more than 80% of the food crops in the United States are raised through GM crop seeds and one may argue that nothing untoward has happened so far to the population there. A counter question can logically be raised as to why GM crops have not been approved universally except in the US and a handful of other countries in this Universe, if it is absolutely safe?. The terrible tragedy that is facing the cotton farmers in India is a classical example of government policies imposed on farmers without giving adequate thought to the damage that can be caused in the long term. To day the cotton cultivators are facing penury because the GM version they used did not get them any where and traditional cotton seeds of assured viability are in short supply. Without going into the merits and demerits of GM technology, it is suffice to say that unless GM foods are proved safe conclusively or its potential to increase crop yields significantly at comparable costs confirmed, no country should accept the same unreservedly. The fact that GM seeds are produced by a couple of monolithic transnational agricultural giants, with a track record of deception and arm twisting, makes the matter worse. There must be a global public initiative under the banner of FAO of the UN to look into Genetic Engineering science in toto and the GM seeds, if found advantageous in any way with assured safety, should be made a common property universally accessible, in stead being monopolistic ownership as it exists to day.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

POLICY PARALYSIS-IMPACT ON FARM FRONT

The present government in India is being criticized by many dispassionate observers for not taking right decisions at right time on many issues leading to distortions in the development of the country. This situation often described as "policy paralysis" can have long term consequences on the orderly progress of the nation affecting the lives of the 1.2 billion plus people inhabiting the country. There is no unanimity within the government itself as reflected by the divergent views expressed by the ministers on many issues that concern the nation. Latest to come to the fore is regarding the export policy which is causing lot of heart burns among some sections of farming community. Whether it is the wheat, sugar or cotton, government invariably takes long time to decide what to do with the surpluses putting every body involved in unnecessary suspense, some time causing economic losses in the process.  Recent open letter by the Agri Minister to the Prime Minister criticizing some of his own colleagues is a classical example of such a policy paralysis whereas what is needed is a dynamism to address the issue promptly before any damage is done. Here is a take on this episode which could have been avoided if there is a vibrant government sensitive to the needs of the country. 

"Irked by curbs on milk, cotton and sugar exports, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has shot off a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stating that the government's policies are hurting farmers who are being asked to subsidise the industry. Pawar wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday, a day after group of ministers disallowed cotton export beyond 13 million bales for the current marketing year. He strongly criticised Food Ministry headed by KV Thomas and the Textile Ministry under the charge of Anand Sharma for the policies which are "ambivalent" and go against farmers. Describing restriction on cotton exports as "retrograde", the NCP chief said: "Indian cotton farmers should not be asked to bear the burden of subsidising the textile mills. "Compromising the interest of small cotton farmers to benefit the textile magnates is indeed a travesty of justice. Moreover, it defies logic to permit the consumer of cotton (textile industry) to dictate terms to cotton producer...". Similarly, he said the "negative approach" of the Food Department in allowing sugar exports has led to heavy losses in export earnings which could have been used to clear cane arrears to farmers that have crossed Rs8,000 crore. Pawar told the Prime Minister, "On numerous occasions I have discussed with you the need to have farmer-centric agriculture policy...On each of these occasions, I have found you in consonance with these ideas. "However, despite this our government has time and again taken decision which go against the interest of the farming community and adversely impacts its growth and stability". High input cost and low realisation from his produce has pushed the farmer into a corner where he fights for his survival, he said, underscoring the need for a free trade regime to ensure a remunerative prices to farmers".

Whether farmer or consumer is supreme is a question that must be haunting the government as any action taken in agricultural front should be equitable to both. Inordinately high prices paid to the farmer can have negative consequences on the consumer in the form of high food inflation making the lives of many poor citizens miserable. Similarly unduly favoring the consumers by depressing the prices of agri commodities will have disastrous impact on the agri front affecting the production and availability adversely. Free trade regime as is being talked about is ideal but if agri production is affected by drought or other reasons, the market conditions can get distorted because of mismatch between demand and supply. Whether any responsible government in India which depends on rain Gods too frequently to come up with normal agri production can adopt such a model is doubtful. Unless a stable and dynamic export policy regime is put in place both farmers and consumers are bound to suffer. When taking decisions the impact of the same on the domestic front should not be ignored. While cotton and sugar are commodities which can be left to the free market forces, more care is needed when it comes to milk and food grains, prices of which in the domestic market should not be allowed to be distorted due to excessive exports.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com