This is with reference to the editorial titled “Driving a Wedge”published on Thursday, July 31, 2014, in your esteemed publication. We would like to bring to your notice some inaccuracies against GM technology and gross representation of facts against Monsanto.
The editorial points to two arguments against GM crops. The first is that it promotes monoclonal culture. This is factually incorrect. Biotechnology, on the other hand, increases farmers’ choices. One only needs to look at the Indian cotton seed industry to realise the truth.
India’s cotton farmers have the widest choice in the world when it comes to varieties of seeds — over 800-plus hybrids, each with innate characteristics and capabilities. Biotechnology has only served to impart these seeds with an inbuilt resistance against a single, widespread pest. The wide variety of seeds available allows farmers to plant seeds most suited to his soil and climatic conditions. India’s farmers have a choice of seeds, as well as competing technologies.
Again, Monsanto is not the only seed company that specialises in biotechnology. The truth is that in India alone, there are over 40 Indian and global seed companies selling cotton seeds with five distinct in-the-seed insect protection Bt cotton technologies that have been approved. Today, over 80 percent of planted hybrid cotton seeds with Bt cotton technologies are produced and marketed by Indian seed companies on 90 per cent of India’s cotton acres.
Contrary to your assertions, Monsanto believes greater competition benefits India’s farmers. We strongly believe agriculture in India can succeed only when the entire agricultural ecosystem works together.
The author works with Monsanto India Region
dna replies
The objections raised by Mr Arun Gopalakrishnan of Monsanto India to the edit, "Driving a wedge" is based on a misperception that it is directed against Monsanto. The editorial was about GM crops, and the objections to it from various quarters.
It was the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) which had referred to Monsanto and expressed fears about its monopolistic advantage. The edit recapitulated the position of SJM. It is the position of many critics of the company in the country as well. The edit is about GM crops, and not Monsanto, and we have argued that the issue needs to be debated in an informed manner.
On the question of monoclonal culture, it is now a known fact that GM crops exclude the natural variety of the extended gene pool and narrow down the range with the intention of increasing productivity. It is manipulation of the genetic pool, which is an exclusionary exercise. This is an issue of science and it does not pertain to Monsanto as such.
Monsanto remains a dominant player with a monopolistic edge, and this is felt most acutely by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Monsanto will have to argue this point in the public sphere. The dna has no special interest in arguing against Monsanto.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}