From the abject days of PL-480, to self-sufficiency in food, we ought to be avidly leveraging biotechnology for greater yields with lesser use of pesticides and water amid indifferent soil conditions (Editorial – “Be scientific”, May 15).
Yet our zeal for embracing newer technologies is wanting. If it is largely due to our angst against western researchers fathering technologies for profit, we must take this as a challenge by investing more funds and energy to carry out futuristic studies tailored to our own needs. From apprehension over not having done adequate field tests prior to large-scale commercialisation in the instance of Bt brinjal, to ups and downs before there was some acceptance in the case of Bt cotton, moving towards GM crops has not been easy. Strangely, even indigenously evolved Bt mustard is now suspect. To wait and err on the side of caution is natural, but to be hesitant or circumspect on human ingenuity itself that has been meeting challenges in agriculture over decades would be self-defeating.
R. Narayanan,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
GM crops have the potential to harm our ecology and it is imperative to have a transparent process through which approval is granted. The idea of consuming GM food is a sensitive one and cannot remain concealed from public scrutiny. As far as one knows, GEAC has not made public the safety report conducted on mustard. Our farmers are not asking for GM crops. Rather, their still unaddressed demands remain centred around a robust procurement policy, fair MSP and equitable market access.
Gagan Pratap Singh
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
The fierce debate on GM crops isn’t just located as a fight between multinational companies and the government. Rather it is on the character of the technology in solving farmers’ problems and the threat it poses to the environment. First, the debate is incorrectly positioned as one between indigenous development versus MNCs.
Second, the case of BT cotton has shown how the government is willing to pander to market interests rather than saving and protecting the lives of farmers. The positioning of the GM crop debate should be on whether the consumer is willing to ‘take a bite of’ GM mustard.
Has the government made clear any measures to make the average citizen aware of the dangers to his/her health and the environment if GM cultivation is introduced? Third, the failure of successive governments in uplifting agriculture and understanding the need for public investment in it makes one suspect the intentions behind the push for GM crops.
N. Sai Balaji,
Hyderabad
