• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

When Frankenstein questions crop up

P.T. Jyothi Datta

Aparna Krishnan

NEW DELHI, July 20

ARE lobby-groups robbing the ``stakeholders'' or farmers of their rightful opportunities to experiment with crops by raising the bogey of `Frankenstein foods and crops'?

Or far from scare-mongering, are the lobbies right when they voice their concerns about ``corporations controlling science'', with an eye on the bottomline rather than public interests?

According to Mr P. Chengal Reddy, President of the Andhra Pradesh-based Federation of Farmers Associations, farmers were being denied their rights to experiment with new crops and seeds as the bureaucracy and advocacy groups prevented research from peter ing down to the farmers.

He told Business Line that farmers should be allowed to decide what is good for them, rather than have ``urbanised'' advocacy groups and lobbies to decide on what is good for them.

``Genetically modified seeds and crops are good for farmers as we get better quality and pest control, besides being able to keep a check on costs,'' he claimed.

Making a comparison between China and India, both of which had embarked on the biotech path in 1986, he said, ``China has six transgenic seeds and 50 others are in final stages. About 2.5 million acres are covered by Bt cotton and this is expected to go up to four million this year. Farmers are reported to have benefited by 40 per cent as a result of such crops. But in India, even field trials are not being allowed by interest groups who are not stake-holders.''

He alleged that developed countries with business interests in India were funding advocacy groups to derail progress in agriculture.

Mr Gurumurthi Natrajan, an agri-horti advisor with Greenthumb, also echoed this viewpoint and felt that farmers should be allowed to decide what was good for them.

Dr Suman Sahai, President, Gene Campaign, struck a more cautious note, since, according to her, corporations were increasingly controlling science, with little respect for public interests.

She said that since companies used genetic resources that belonged to the public, to come out with their proprietary technology, they should also be held to a social commitment in terms of sharing a percentage of profits or information on the research.

``If companies were doing work on technology that was truly beneficial, then they should do it in locations that do not affect the germ-pool, should be more transparent about their field trials and should share their technology with stake-holders,'' she said.

Responding to comparisons drawn up between the opposition to drugs/DDT and GM crops, she said, ``GM crops were more threatening in terms of the genetic reactions it could set off. Unlike DDT or drugs where the damage is in controlled environs and remedia l measures can be taken, in GM crops evolution and mutations eventually affect the gene pool and no remedial steps can be worked out thereafter.''