GM crops debate: A price tag on consumers' health
The Free Press
June 27, 2019
Bhavdeep Kang
The illegal cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in several states reminds us that, as consumers, we have little or no control over the quality of farm produce we purchase. We buy paalak on faith, with no clue as to the quantum or nature of pesticides it may have soaked up in the field.
The mangoes we consume with such relish don’t carry a label, informing us how many times the tree from which it came has been “washed” with pesticides. We keep our fingers crossed and repose faith in the de-toxifying powers of our livers.
The disconnect between consumer rights and farm policy is not exclusive to India. That consumers are entitled to safe food is accepted. That farmers are entitled to maximise their yield through potentially hazardous methods is also accepted.
Policy-makers prefer not to address the challenge of reconciling the two. As long as food products are available in adequate quantities and at a reasonable price and aren’t outright and immediately poisonous, they are satisfied.
This brings us to GM crops and the persistent attempts to create a narrative that they are the answer to any and all ills plaguing the farm sector. It is in this light that the illegal cultivation of unapproved varieties of ‘HT’ (herbicide-tolerant) Bt Cotton in Maharashtra and Gujarat and Bt Brinjal in Haryana must be seen.
How did the farmers access the GM seeds and who convinced them that these seeds were preferable to regular hybrids? An insidious attempt to create an impression that there is a widespread demand for GM among farmers is underway. GM lobbyists would then find it easier to coax and cajole policy-makers into green-lighting their products.
Consumers do not have a say in whether or not GM produce should be permitted. This is a pity, because health safety concerns have not been adequately addressed. There’s a lot of scientific and pseudo-scientific data floating around on the safety of GM or lack thereof, some of it sponsored by the GM lobby itself.
The debate on GM usually centres around its environmental impact, or “biosecurity”concerns. There’s little doubt that introducing GM is a recipe for wiping out all other existing varieties.
Farmers will attest that ever since Bt Cotton was introduced, finding any other variety of seeds in the market is extremely difficult. If Bt Brinjal is permitted, Indian consumers can soon bid goodbye to 2,500 delicious varieties of brinjal.
If anything has emerged from the controversies over GM in the last couple of decades, it is that Big Seed – a generic term for vendors of proprietary seeds and agro-chemicals — suffers from a trust deficit. Monsanto, the company which became synonymous with GM seeds, underwent a crisis of credibility from which it never recovered. It was bought over by Bayer last year.
Bayer is now suffering its own legal hassles. Earlier this year, it was asked to pay $2 billion in damages to a US couple who claimed that its herbicide, RoundUp, had caused cancer.
More than 13,000 such cases are still pending in US courts. RoundUp is a weed-killer designed for use on ‘HT’ GM crops. It is widely used in India in the “illegal” cultivation of Bt cotton and other crops.
Last week, the Maharashtra agriculture department ordered collection of seed samples from farmers suspected of using ‘HT’ Bt cotton, after the Shetkari Sanghatana publicly sowed these suspect seeds in a protest against the ban on GM crops.
Are the farmers aware that the primary ingredient in the weed-killer used on ‘HT’ Bt cotton is glyphosate, which has been linked with a number of ailments, including cancer? Horrifyingly, newspapers reported that 15 per cent of cotton grown in India comprises the ‘HT’ variety, which accounts for the rapidly growing sales of Round Up or glyphosate.
The secrecy surrounding field trials of GM crops doesn’t help infuse confidence in their efficacy. Nor does the fact that the claims made by Big Seed have proved vastly exaggerated.
For instance, Bt cotton was supposed to be immune to the primary cotton pest, the pink bollworm. But that immunity only lasted for a few years and soon, farmers were reporting bollworm infestation of Bt cotton and were back to spraying pesticides.
Consumers have no way of knowing whether the farm produce they purchase comprises glyphosate-soaked, illegally-grown GM crops and their derivatives, like cotton-seed oil. Experience has shown that given a choice, consumers will opt for non-GM produce even if it costs more. The ethical problem arises when they are not given a choice.
When Indian environment minister, Anil Madhav Dave, succumbed to a heart attack in 2017, it was widely rumoured that he had been under enormous stress, wrestling with the question of whether or not to approve commercialisation of GM seeds.
The story, apocryphal or not, exemplifies the moral and ethical aspects of the GM debate, which are often overlooked on economic grounds. After all, we can’t put a price on consumers’ health.
Comments
Post a Comment