Planting new seeds in old mindsets

It was disappointing to find that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has been generally taking a negative view on these seeds. The GEAC doesn’t quite tell us why it rejects some and not others. One would have thought that in something as important as biosafety, the highest standards of transparency would be followed. For the issues involved are of the highest importance, namely human safety and environmental protection. Discussions with knowledgeable friends in Delhi, however, showed that the committee not only looks into questions of safety, but also of “yield”. The committee also makes judgments on whether a new seed is commercially superior to the traditional varieties. Now this seemed to be the kind of reasoning heard earlier, namely (my) traditional seeds are better than (your) GM seeds. A scientist can always convince himself that under ideal conditions the seed he discovered would perform better than others. This is truly outrageous for an agricultural economy attempting to fight global competition.

For one thing, the GEAC should be a purely scientific body. The exalted administrative services have no business to be involved in an exercise where they don’t understand the basics. In this country the science group is an advisory group to the committee chaired by a generalist. Second they should handle the safety issue and not the general issue as to whether the new seed is economically a more profitable proposition. We do know that some evangelical groups are convinced that the genetic revolution has no benefits to bring to mankind, but they cannot be given the privilege of unilateral economic decisions where the cost is borne by others. If a seed is safe it should be allowed to be marketed. At the most, there can be an educational warning that according to official testing, the yield potential has limitations. After that the farmer should be allowed to make the decision himself. Anything short of that is grossly unfair, inefficient and iniquitous, in an economy in which the farmer is charged with bearing the cost of liberalisation.

A number of companies which are marketing the new seeds are small professional firms and agencies. They are owned by technically qualified youngsters making money out of the private sale of technology to the agricultural sector. Some are agents of large multinational companies. This is a grey area. Transparency is important for many reasons. If safety is the only criterion for approval, these companies will become open and transparent and the feeling that many have, probably not justified by facts, that the large boys follow any means to get their products approved and others scotched will also disappear. This whole area definitely needs a policy clean-up.

Somebody also needs to look into the hybrid paddy potential that is at present neglected. Dr E.S. Siddiqui’s group had set up two lead centres, one at Kapurthala and the other at Coimbatore. DRRH 1, CNHR 3, KRH 1, KRH 4, APHR 1 and APHR 2 all produce between 6 to 8 tonnes of paddy, but they are all in AP, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. What happened in the north? When at Chandigarh I wanted the next stage of the paddy revolution, the attitude to the hybrids was amazingly regressive. The private sector is involved in both the development of the technology and its marketing in a big way.

It shouldn’t plateau at less than half a million hectares. A policy target for the next kharif should be 2 million hectares and after that, the super rice. Is anybody listening?