Reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee on the Genetically Modified (GM) foods have brought back the issue of biosafety of GM crops to the centre stage. The argument of the industry and Ministry of Agriculture is that GM technology is essential to meet the food needs of the growing population. This argument trying to link hunger with a lack of adequate production, which can only be met by GM crops, is untenable. Today, even with record production and buffer stocks overflowing, hunger and malnutrition exist. India has close to half its children malnourished, is ranked at virtually the very bottom (120th / 128 countries) of the Global Hunger Index and has one of the highest proportions of people consuming less than the specified calories.
It has been 18 years since the first GM crop was commercialised. Yet, the technology is stuck at only two commercially viable traits which are cultivated mainly in three countries (United States of America, Brazil and Argentina, which grow 77% of all GM crops). If you add India (with 11.6 m ha under cotton) and Canada (with 11.6 m ha under canola, maize and soybean), then together they account for about 89.79 % of the total GM cropped area. An overwhelming majority of countries worldwide do not grow GM crops. GM crops are grown on a mere 181.5 million hectares that comprise 3.2% of the global agriculture land. About 99% of the area under GM crops is covered by just four crops: soybean (47%), maize (32%), cotton (15%) and canola (5%). The two traits that have been commercialised are essentially: (1) Insect Resistance crops modified with genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, inserted for a new toxin to be produced within the plant to kill insects; and (2) HT or herbicide tolerance, where the engineered plant is able to withstand specific herbicide sprays. Herbicide Tolerant GM crop is the overwhelming trait in commercially grown GM crops today. Significantly, these traits are not for increasing the yields.
The GM 3 and the yield myth
Examining the food security situation of the three countries that have adopted GM crops on a massive scale, it is evident that the situation has worsened or remained the same after the introduction of GM crops. Clearly, these crops are not meant to address food security or hunger, but to fill the coffers of agri-business corporations whose profits during the same period have climbed.
In the USA, in 2011, according to the US Economic Research Service, 17.9 million households were food insecure (constituting 14.9% of American households that were food insecure) at some point in the year. This means that an unprecedented 50.1 million people (1 in every 6 Americans) live in food insecure households in this nation, which has the largest area under GM crop cultivation in the world, after having begun commercialising crops with this controversial technology since 1996. Food insecurity has increased to 15% of the population from where it was at 12% during 1995, and since then there has been a consistent increase. Despite massive adoption of GM technology, the USA does not seem to be able to address increasing hunger in the country. On the other hand, even farming has not become profitable and propping of agriculture with massive subsidies continues with 15 billion dollars given as direct agricultural subsidy in 2012.
Studies by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) scientists have shown that the yield benefits (3-4%) of insect resistant crops depend obviously on pest infestation in a given season. On the other hand, in trials of herbicide tolerant soybean, “yield drag” effects were noticed, adversely impacting yields. Even in India, the experience of Bt cotton shows that the yield increase is not much. During 2001-02 the average yield of cotton in India was 308 kg/ha which increased to 470 kg/ha in 2004-05 and to 552 kg/ha in 2013-14. The area has increased from 5.8 m ha to 11.5 m ha, with much of the spread into rainfed, shallow soils, which has increased the risk of crop failure. The yield increases were in the areas which had good irrigation potential. The reports from Gujarat and also the Vidharba region clearly show that the performance was very bad in rainfed areas. In a country with more than 60% area under rainfed cultivation, this doesn’t seem to be a solution.
Reduction in pesticide use?
The last 10 years’ experience of Bt cotton shows that there is an apparent pesticide use reduction for bollworm management in cotton, which can also be attributed to a shift from high volume pesticides to low volume pesticides and also reduction in use of synthetic pyrethroids, adoption of IPM/IRM/NPM practices which restores the ecological balance. During the same period, a similar trend was observed in other crops as well. However, the insecticide use for the management of sucking pests have increased in cotton, which could not provide any respite to farmers in terms of cost reduction.
The opposition to GM crops is not just because of it being an alien technology or controlled by multinational corporations, but because of serious shortcomings in the technology itself, coupled with regulatory failures. The recently concluded Convention on Biodiversity also brought this discussion to centre stage, and called for a liability and redressal mechanism to ensure biosafety.
On the other hand, every complex problem need not have a complex solution. There is consensus of opinion by virtually all international agencies that the solution to food and nutritional security is through agro-ecological sustainable models of agriculture as stated in the findings of the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report. The IAASTD, to which India is a signatory, is a 4-year study commissioned by the UN and the World Bank, by over 400 scientists. The IAASTD makes it clear that the road map for agriculture for the next 50 years must be through localised solutions, combining scientific research with traditional knowledge, in partnership with farmers and consumers.
The field experience of agro-ecological practices
The emerging new paradigm of sustainable agriculture based on agro-ecological principles shows that the new knowledge synthesised from traditional practices and supplemented with modern science can bring in ecological and economic benefits to the farmers.
One very good example for such a model is the scaling up of Non Pesticidal Management (NPM) in Andhra Pradesh through federated women self-help groups (SHGs). Non Pesticidal Management, an initiative by Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), is an ecological approach to pest management using knowledge and skill based practices to prevent insects from reaching damaging stages by making best use of local resources, natural processes and community action.
Pests and pesticides contribute to the major economic and ecological problems affecting the farmers, crops and their living environment. Two decades of experience in Andhra Pradesh in NPM shows that pest is a symptom of ecological disturbance rather than a cause, and can be effectively managed by using local resources. After more than a decade of participatory research with farmers by Dr. M.S. Chari and Dr. N.K. Sanghi, both ex-scientists from ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), such models have been established in several villages in Andhra Pradesh, which is one of the high pesticide using states in the country.
In 2004, CSA collaborated with the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh and women SHGs to scale up across the state. A ‘Farmer Field School’ approach was adopted to build the knowledge and skills of the farmers in understanding their crop ecosystem and taking up necessary action. Experienced farmers were used as Community Resource Persons for campaigning and reach out. The programme which started in 12 villages in 2004, has rapidly spread across the state. By 2008, the reach was extended to seven lakh acres, and currently the reach is around 36 lakh acres across 11,000 villages. What is interesting is that the state which was using about 1997 mt (metric ton) of pesticides in 2005, could reduce its pesticide use to 1015 mt by 2010. The pesticide use per acre reduced from 0.34 kg per ha in 2001-02 to 0.09 per ha in 2010 (https://ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides.htm). Compared to any other state in the country with similar cropping patterns and practices, this is a significant reduction. The farmers could save about ` 5000 per acre on average on inputs without compromising on yields. The experiences are widely documented by several researchers and media. The programme which started with Non Pesticidal Management has now brought in various other practices from across the country to be integrated into the system.
This model has also been tried in other states like Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh. The model by CSA in Wardha and Yavatmal districts of Maharashtra has won the Best Innovation Award at the Maharashtra Rural Livelihoods Innovation Forum and Bihar Rural Innovation Forum this year. This model is now adopted across the country as part of the Mahila Krishi Sasktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP), another flagship programme of the Government of India to empower women farmers.
This shows that Community Managed Sustainable Agricultural models are better ways to address the agrarian crisis and ensure food security to the nation and income security to the farmer.