Evolution of GM crop policies: Lessons for India from global experiences

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)

In recent years, the issue of genetically modified (GM) crops has emerged as one of the most contentious topics in agricultural policy across the globe. The debate has intensified in India, where the Supreme Court recently directed the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change to formulate a comprehensive national policy on GM crops. This directive comes after decades of resistance from sceptics who have successfully blocked the widespread adoption of GM crops in the country. Despite these efforts, the push for GM technology continues, with proponents arguing that it holds the key to another agricultural revolution.

The Legacy of the Green Revolutions: To understand the current debate on GM crops, it is essential to revisit the history of agricultural development. The world has witnessed three major “Green Revolutions,” each marked by significant technological advancements that dramatically increased agricultural productivity.

The first Green Revolution, which began in the 1930s in Europe and North America, was characterized by the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties, the intensified use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the mechanization of farming practices. These innovations led to substantial increases in the production of staple crops such as maize, wheat, and rice.

The second Green Revolution occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, spreading these technological advancements to developing countries, including India. The introduction of high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, combined with the expansion of irrigation and the use of chemical inputs, transformed Indian agriculture. The country, once heavily dependent on food imports, became self-sufficient in food production, leading to a dramatic reduction in hunger and poverty.

The third Green Revolution is still unfolding, driven by the development of GM crops. This revolution began in the 1970s with the advent of genetic engineering techniques that allowed scientists to modify the genetic makeup of crops to enhance desirable traits such as pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, and improved nutritional content. By the 1990s, GM crops were being commercialized, primarily in North America, where they quickly gained popularity among farmers for their potential to increase yields and reduce the need for chemical inputs.

The global divide on GM crops: despite the potential benefits of GM crops, their adoption has been met with widespread scepticism, particularly in Europe. European countries were among the first to confront the challenges posed by GM technology, and they have responded by implementing stringent regulatory frameworks that severely restrict the cultivation and import of GM products.

The European Union (EU) has adopted a precautionary approach to GM crops, guided by the principle of “better safe than sorry.” This approach is rooted in concerns about the potential long-term risks of GM technology to human health, animal welfare, and the environment. EU regulations require rigorous risk assessments of GM products before they can be approved for cultivation or import, and individual member states have the right to opt-out of GM crop cultivation even if the crops have been approved at the EU level.

In contrast, countries like the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil have embraced GM technology with far fewer restrictions. These countries have allowed the widespread commercialization of GM crops, arguing that they offer a powerful tool for increasing agricultural productivity and addressing global food security challenges.

The divergent approaches to GM crops have led to significant tensions in international trade, particularly between the EU and the US. Under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, countries are required to base trade restrictions on scientific evidence. The US, a major exporter of GM crops, has argued that the EU’s restrictive policies violate WTO rules by creating illegal barriers to trade. In 2003, the US, along with Argentina and Canada, filed a lawsuit against the EU at the WTO, challenging its moratorium on GM crop approvals.

The WTO Dispute Settlement Panel ultimately ruled in favour of the complainant countries in 2006, finding that the EU’s regulatory framework for GM crops was inconsistent with WTO rules. However, the EU’s decision-making process for GM crop approvals remains complex and heavily influenced by political considerations. Despite the WTO ruling, European countries have continued to resist the widespread adoption of GM crops, citing concerns about their potential risks and the importance of preserving agricultural diversity. The Indian Dilemma: India, like many other countries, finds itself at a crossroads when it comes to GM crops. The country has a long history of agricultural innovation, having successfully implemented Green Revolution technologies in the 1960s and 1970s. However, the adoption of these technologies was not without its challenges, including environmental degradation, the loss of traditional crop varieties, and the displacement of small-scale farmers.

Today, India faces the difficult task of developing a policy framework for GM crops that balances the potential benefits of the technology with the need to protect human health, the environment, and agricultural diversity. The Supreme Court’s recent directive to the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change underscores the urgency of this task.

One of the key challenges facing Indian policymakers is the polarized nature of the debate on GM crops. On one side are proponents of the technology, who argue that GM crops have the potential to drive a new wave of agricultural growth, similar to the Green Revolutions of the past. They point to the success of GM crops in countries like the US, where they have been credited with increasing yields, reducing pesticide use, and improving the nutritional content of food.

On the other side are sceptics, including many farmer organizations and environmental groups, who argue that the long-term risks of GM technology far outweigh its potential benefits. They raise concerns about the potential for GM crops to harm human health, disrupt ecosystems, and threaten the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. These groups have successfully blocked the introduction of GM crops in India for over two decades, and they are likely to continue their opposition as the government moves forward with its policy development process.

Lessons from the European Experience: As India grapples with the challenge of developing a national policy on GM crops, there are valuable lessons to be learnt from the European experience. The EU’s precautionary approach to GM technology offers a model for how countries can balance the need for scientific innovation with the protection of public health and the environment.

One of the key strengths of the EU’s regulatory framework is its emphasis on transparency and public participation. The risk assessment process for GM crops in the EU involves close consultation with member states’ scientific bodies, and the opinions of these bodies are made accessible to the public for open consultations. This approach helps to build public trust in the regulatory process and ensures that decisions are based on a broad range of perspectives.

Another important lesson from the European experience is the need for flexibility in policy design. The EU’s regulations allow individual member states to opt-out of GM crop cultivation based on a wide range of grounds, including environmental and agricultural policy objectives, town and country planning, land use, and socio-economic impact. This flexibility allows countries to tailor their policies to their unique circumstances and priorities, while still adhering to the overarching principles of the EU’s regulatory framework.

For India, adopting a similar approach could help to address some of the key concerns raised by opponents of GM crops. By ensuring that the policy development process is transparent and inclusive and by allowing for flexibility in the implementation of GM crop regulations, Indian policymakers can build public trust and create a policy framework that is both scientifically sound and socially acceptable.

The Path Forward for India: The development of a national policy on GM crops in India will require careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks of the technology. While GM crops have the potential to drive a new wave of agricultural growth, they also pose significant challenges, particularly in a country as diverse and complex as India.

Indian policymakers must take into account the lessons learnt from the European experience, as well as the unique circumstances and priorities of the country. This includes recognising the importance of preserving agricultural diversity, protecting the livelihoods of small-scale farmers, and ensuring that the benefits of GM technology are distributed equitably across society. At the same time, India must also navigate the complex international landscape surrounding GM crops. The country’s trade relationships with major agricultural exporters like the US and Brazil, as well as its commitments under WTO rules, will play a critical role in shaping its policy on GM crops.

As the Supreme Court’s directive indicates, the development of a national policy on GM crops in India is an urgent and complex task. By drawing on the experiences of other countries and engaging in an open and inclusive policy development process, India has the opportunity to create a policy framework that not only addresses the challenges of GM technology but also sets a global standard for responsible and sustainable agricultural innovation.