Modified food for thought

The future of GM crops is not in technology, but in economics

Sumit Bhaduri

There have been over 2,000 suicides by farmers in Vidarbha over the last few years. The count is still rising, the reason almost uniformly being indebtedness. Two-thirds of these farmers mainly grew cotton and, from 2004, genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton at that.

The Supreme Court’s directive that the government stops any fresh approval of GM crop field trials is therefore significant. Don’t we live in the much-hyped age of biotechnology where genetic manipulations are supposed to provide magical solutions to a variety of problems?

Aren’t GM crops necessary to increase food production substantially so that we can feed our one billion-plus population that still grows at a rather alarming rate and usher in a ‘second Green Revolution’? In theory and in the long run maybe ‘yes’, but in practice and, as of now, ‘no’.

The proponents of GM crops point out their potential to enormously increase productivity—almost 30 percent in the case of Bt cotton. This increase has apparently almost doubled the profits from Bt-cotton compared to traditional varieties.

Critics of GM crops point out that such claims are exaggerated. The increase in productivity does not reduce the potential risk associated with the use of GM plants, and there are other methods like ‘organic farming’ to achieve the same objectives.

They also point out that the proponents of GM technology are interested parties and data supporting their claims must be subjected to objective scrutiny.

The Supreme Court appears to concur with the last point and has suggested to the government that independent experts be associated with the GEAC, the government agency that has the authority to allow further field trials.

In the light of the SC ruling the agriculture minister is also talking about the cost benefit analysis of GM crops on a ‘strict scientific’ basis.

However, from a long term perspective this basic question remains unanswered: Does progress in technology evaluated on a ‘strict scientific’ basis automatically lead to economic benefits, or is it the other way round—that investments made in S&T are productive and lead to social welfare only when the socio-economic climate allows diffusion and adoption of new technologies?

The recent Bt cotton case clearly shows that the latter generally holds true. Even assuming that all the increased productivity numbers claimed by the Bt cotton proponents are correct, higher productivity is only one of the necessary conditions to lift farmers out of chronic indebtedness.

The landholding pattern, irrigation facilities, minimum support price of cotton, not to mention natural calamities such as drought or flood, are some of the factors that determine the economic success or failure of cotton as a crop.

This is not something unique to India and cotton. It is worth recalling that genetic engineering came into existence only in the 80s, when the original Green Revolution (GR) pioneered by Norman Borlaug and based on plant breeding, was already about 20 years old. This was spectacularly successful in the Indian subcontinent, but failed in Africa.

While wheat and rice productivity in Asia increased two to three fold, special breeds of maize and cassava failed in Africa, although these crops were specifically suited to the African climate. The reasons for this were many: lack of political will, corrupt administration, poor distribution, etc.

The debate around GM crops also illustrates the impact of globalisation on the interface of technology and economics. The most visible aspect of globalisation has been the shrinking influence of nation-states and the global search by private capital for new markets. Almost all the work that made the first GR possible was unpatented.

Contrast this with the frenzied patenting activities that started around the same time that WTO and the TRIPS agreement came into effect.

From the year 2000 almost 400 patents in gene-based plant breeding have been filed every year in America. This is more than ten times the total number of patents filed between 1960-80. The intense patent activity in plant breeding is a manifestation of global search by private capital for new markets and all claims of a ‘second Green Revolution’ must be judged keeping that in mind.

The ultimate economic impact of GM crops will be determined less by trumpeting its magical power and more by its societal acceptability. Advertisements, political pressures, etc. will have an effect, but a careful and objective risk-benefit analysis must find a place. The Supreme Court’s ruling is hence a welcome step in the right direction.

The writer is a scientist. These are his personal views.