Opinion
Genetically modified crops: Widen consultations to reduce food security risks
Summary
- As the Indian government pushes ahead with a newly set-up committee for policy advice on GM crops, it must heed the Supreme Court and take duly diverse views into account as a prudential measure. We need higher yields for food security, no doubt, but safely so.
There is the letter of the law and then there’s the spirit of the law. The letter could be followed while ignoring the spirit. This is not lost on the government, which might be veering that way on genetically modified (GM) crops.
Towards the end of July 2024, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict—as well as significant observations—on a case going back to October 2022.
Back then, the University of Delhi had developed GM mustard seeds which the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MOEFCC) approved for cultivation.
This was opposed and a case filed; the apex court not only stayed the distribution of these seeds, but also added them to a two-decade-old case it has been hearing on constitutional challenges to India’s regulatory regime for GM crops.
Also read: The hot potato of GM crops is back on the government's menu
The July verdict being split means the case is headed for a larger bench, but both judges asked the government to develop a national policy for GM crops, after due consultation with all stakeholders and adequate publicity for the exercise.
The government has now duly set up an expert committee, but secrecy around the panel’s composition gives rise to suspicion over how bipartisan it is. A larger question has arisen too. Does the Centre’s policy push for GM crops miss real concerns about food security?
Reservations over the new panel’s neutrality are aroused by the government’s recent record on exercises that need a bipartisan approach, which has not been exemplary.
Consider the manner in which the ruling party managed the passage of bills in Parliament during the last Lok Sabha’s tenure, bypassing the time-tested ritual of letting departmental standing committees critically examine the validity of various provisions, or overlooking the need for a wide range of views.
Also read: Genetically modified corn is welcome but won’t help much
In August, a confederation of agricultural activists and citizens wrote to the MOEFCC secretary, expressing the hope that the proposed panel will adhere, in spirit, to the Supreme Court’s direction on meaningful stakeholder consultations.
However, news reports now suggest that the GM committee is expected to submit its report in two months. Given the complexity of the issues at stake, this hurry is inconsistent with the top court’s obiter dicta to engage in wide consultations.
To be fair, the government’s policy predilection for GM crops perhaps emanates from concerns over future food security; in other words, it may be looking to mitigate future risks arising from India’s food demand outstripping its production, given that the country is now the world’s most populous, and that too, with its agriculture sector contributing only 18% to GDP.
Add to this the myriad problems that plague the farm sector: fragmented land holdings leading to low productivity, an over-dependence on monsoon rains resulting in frequent crop failures, and uncertainty over the supply and pricing of both raw materials and finished products.
In the face of these challenges, GM crops promise higher yields, which would translate into higher income for farmers and better food availability for consumers.
Also read: India says GM technology important for food security, import reduction
But that may turn out to be a simplistic line of reasoning; there are many unresolved concerns about GM plants, especially when combined with herbicides that are suspected carcinogens.
The Supreme Court’s call for wider consultation has merit. Diverse representation on the panel will help contain future health and environment risks.
