2020 Farm Bill India - discussion.

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I think Salim is just doing some last-minute time-pass before he ends up in jail.  

https://www.opindia.com/2020/09/delhi-riots-conspiracy-chargesheet-part-1-yogendra-yadav-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-december-13/

 

The funny part of that article is that he claims the arguments made by Alduri and Iyer are just assumptions, but literally every single point of his is either an assumption or an unsourced anecdote shot off the shoulders of unnamed farmers that he supposedly spoke to or supposed experts that he name-dropped. (Apparently Kejriwal didn't listen to his vast experience with farmers otherwise he would have won the elections in Punjab/Haryana  )   He name-drops people no one has heard of/cares two-hoots about the opinion of, but he doesn't link either a research paper or even another article written by these people to support literally anything he says . 

 

Just an example: groundbreaking arguments like this is considered worthy of publishing by rags like Print 

 

 

Thank you Salim bhai for sharing with us your otherworldly powers of clairvoyance.  What these two economists predict are unfounded assumptions/wishful thinking, but his writing an article filled with his empty assumptions are to be taken seriously because he has spent his career "talking with farmers."   

 

It's a waste of time to give such disinformation agents clicks.

 

Well she made some  baseless claims on a couple of genetically modified organisms such as blaming Bt cotton for farmer suicides(which was debunked by http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/14501/filename/14502.pdf and  https://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907) and then pressuring the Indian government to not accept GMO plants after the Orissa Cyclone in 1999 (basically denying people food because of her opposition to GMOs). She was against the Green Revolution as well while claiming to be speaking for farmers. The Green Revolution had issues, but it also made India food-secure. I doubt one would find any farmer from our wheat-belt who would go back and time and reject the Green Revolution. 

 

What makes her akin to a modern-day supervillain is her opposition to Golden Rice. This was a variety of GMO rice made with increased beta-carotene/vitamin A content, designed for regions which eat rice but also has significant micronutrient deficiencies.  It was being offered to free of charge to developing countries like India, China, and those of SE Asia. Several lakh children in developing countries either go blind or even die due to those specific deficiencies, which Golden Rice was designed to counteract. She and her co-travelers spread so much misinformation/fake news, that the entire project became toxic. There is no telling what number of children died or were forced into avoidable blindness due to her agenda. 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with Navdanya's mission-statement. It's just an NGO that promotes organic farming. There is nothing I have against encouraging organic farming or maintaining plant-biodiversity/soil-health . The only issue with organic farming is that if everyone did it, it would require much more farm land.

 

Ultimately Biotech companies will have more control over the seeds they generate than the farmers who buy them and sow them. That is part of their IP.  The idea would be that the increased yields would increase farmer income to such an extent that they would be able to afford the continual input cost(buying new seeds).

I mean, it shouldn't be mandated that the farmers have to buy GMO seeds, but they should be given the choice of if they want to or not. That would be actual seed freedom, IMO, just like how foods in grocery stores are marked GMO or non-GMO, and one has the option of avoiding them if one is concerned. If farmers want to avoid GMOs, they should have the option, and if they want to use them, that should be available to them as well. 

 

Some people have an issue with the fact that the biotech companies are mostly foreign, but we have Indian biotech companies now as well, and, for those Swadeshi-minded, one could make the requirement that any foreign investment by biotech companies would be required to be a minority partner, while an Indian company has a majority-stake in the venture with tech-transfer. We already do that with other industries. 

 

 

 

 

one could make the requirement that any foreign investment by biotech companies would be required to be a minority partner, while an Indian company has a majority-stake in the venture with tech-transfer. We already do that with other industries. 

 

Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech is an equal partnership company doing just that; there is room for many more, but the onerous regulatory environment is not conducive.  

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Everybody I know in India and their uncles are eating millets on a daily basis. It has high yield (low seeding rate) and there are a lot of indigenous millet crops from India, which has been out of production due to focus on rice, wheat, sugarane etc. India should stop growing sugarcane which needs so much water and also with the stubble burning causes environment issues. Mandya district in Kar grows so much sugarcane, it has caused much turmoil due to using up a lot of cauvery water is a cause for dispute.

Millets have some downsides too.  They are not easy to cook, breads made with them have brittle textures, plus have shorter shelf lives than rice or wheat.   Until these are worked out, they may not become fully mainstream.  

 

Agree in principle about sugarcane.  But, the huge market for sugar is not going down any time soon.  Until they know they can be financially viable with other crops, it is understandable that they will not try them.  There are some new efforts to educate farmers on improving water efficient cultivation.  There are also some institutes world-over looking at water-efficient GMO sugarcane.  But, like I am with everything else, until I see successful, repeatable, large-scale field tests, I won't believe it.  Water use efficiency is a highly complex, multi-gene trait; there's been a lot of hype about developing drought tolerant crops, but little field success.  Plus the opposition will be swift and intense.  

Edited October 2, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

Addressing socioeconomic questions raised with GMO crops, multinationals etc.

 

(1) Seed sovereignty, gene patenting and related issues:

One of the most frequent questions asked about GMO crops is "Should genes be patentable?"  It is important to note that the genes themselves are not patented. What is patented is the technology used to alter the gene for better functioning, the technology used to insert the gene into the plant, and the finished product of the gene insertion (the transgenic seed).  Companies invest a great deal of resources into the R&D and, thanks to fear-based regulations, must invest even more resources into compliance.  Some estimates suggest that the cost of R&D plus regulatory cost can be $130 million per variety (I think that number is inflated, but even half of that is significant).  Patents allow companies to get a decent ROI.  Patents on transgenic seeds are no different than patents on seeds produced by any other breeding technology.  For example, every variety of vegetable or flower seed planted commercially, including the organic ones, are patented.  In summary, patenting is not unique to GMOs.  

 

Another frequently asked question is "Why can't farmers replant the seed from season to season?"  Farmers sign a contract with the seed supplier that they will buy seed every year.  One one level it protects the supplier.  If the farmer chooses to use GMO seed, it is because they are profiting from the specific patented trait, which makes their plants disease-resistant or herbicide-resistant.  Thus, they pay for that added value, which they would not have gotten in any other way.   Of course, if they do not want the added value, they can choose to go back to conventional seeds.  The even more important reason that it benefits the farmer to purchase new seed every year.  Why?  (a) The trait gets diluted out as genes cross and recombine during sexual reproduction of plants.  So, in the first generation, the farmer would have 100% of the plants with the trait.  But in the next generation, it may only be 80% and then 64% and so on.  But if they purchase new seed every year, they will continue to have 100% trait-presence every season.    (b) The genes are inserted into specially developed hybrid varieties (BTW hybrid <> GMO.  Two different things).  These hybrids are developed by special genetic crosses made freshly every year by the company and provide a very real advantage called "hybrid vigour."  Hybrid plants, often for unknown genetic reasons, grow better than non-hybrids (they may have some disadvantages too, but that is for another post).  In the next generation, hybrid vigour goes away.  So, the farmers lose that benefit, too, if they replant seeds.  

 

Like tibarn said, no one is forcing farmers to buy GMO seeds.  But when they see their neighboring farmers planting them and reaping the benefits, they want them too.  But, they must operate within the aforementioned framework to reap the benefits consistently.  

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

(2) Increased regulatory burden and rich multinational corporations

Transgenic crops (GMOs) are made by recombinant DNA technology or transgenesis (gene transfer between species), and are tested rigorously at various levels before being made available to the public.  From a science perspective, gene transfer between species is no different than gene transfer within a species; both types of transfer occur routinely in nature.  Note that DNA is DNA is DNA, and genes are genes are genes - a gene does exactly the same thing no matter which species it is in.  So, the ability to move a gene from one species to another is just another breeding technology - a logical, rational extension of conventional breeding and trait selection that humans have been doing for 10,000 - 15,000 years.  So, why the hoopla?  Transgenic technology became possible only in the 1970s and was applied in agriculture in the early 1990s.  This was the height of the environmental movement that had started in the 1960s, and people were justifiably fearful of large pesticide makers like Monsanto getting into the GMO business.  Also, it is not common knowledge that gene transfer between species occurs in nature all the time, and so there was the fear that we were "playing God" and the consequences could be deadly.  The fear of corporations combined with the "fear of the unknown" drove up public demand for rigid, process-based regulation rather than rigorous product-based regulation.  In other words, instead of basing the regulation on the product or trait, govts base it on the technology obtained to get there.  So, while insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops developed by other means are still unregulated, those same traits developed by transgenic technology are highly regulated.  In the US, any new transgenic product must be approved at various points during the development process separately by the FDA, EPA and, in some cases, USDA too.  So, after product development, a company must spend 5-10 years and 10s of millions of dollars trying to prove compliance.  

 

This plays directly into the hands of the big corporations.  For example, a small, independent scientist like me can easily develop a GMO with 3-5 years of research.  But neither I nor my employer (educational instt) can afford the regulatory cost.  Moreover, the regulatory rules vary widely from country to country, so I must be in compliance in multiple nations separately.  So, if I developed a valuable crop, the only way I can bring it to the farmer is to license my product to a big corporation to complete the regulatory requirements.  If I am unwilling to do it, the product languishes in my research lab and is just for academic interest.  

 

By easing such onerous regulation and devising a uniform regulatory framework, governments can clear the way for small players to play on the same field.  Small companies and academic scientists can collaborate directly with farmers to develop customized solutions.  Technologically, it is not a huge deal.  But irrational public fear drives regulatory policy and makes it impossible for innovators to challenge the big companies with deep pockets, because they are the only ones who can bear regulatory costs.  So, eNGOs who fearmonger and lobby for more onerous, irrational regulations are actually contributing to the monopoly of large multinationals that they claim to be fighting.  The sooner the public sees through this, the better.    

[coffee_rules]

Thanks @Tibarn and @BacktoCricaddict for elaborate responses. @Tibarn, don't mind me asking, what is your background?

 

I didn't read the research paper that Tibarn posted to refute the claim of farmer suicides to Big Seed companies like Monsanto, but here's my logic behind this issue:

 

When chip compnaies like QC or Intel productize/develop patents for their chips that go in devices like Apple, Samsung they provide 100% guarantee that it will work perfectly or even provide tech support to fix/replace the chips. It's all in the contract. But in this GMO patents/seed business, Farmers don't get the same yeild/results as claimed and charged by the companies. There are various factors, esp in Indian context, weather, rain, locusts spreading etc. Where is the guarantee that the farmer can get the best yield out of the crop? In cases of failures, their investment is ruined and are linked to the suicides in some way. In US or developed countries, there is crop insurance to protect them from failure, but poor farmers wouldn't be able to invest in seeds as well as insurance. In Indian context, the government or part of CSR, these companies can get their ROI from taxing the end-user rather than the producer of crops. Esp, if the nutrient claims of GMO crops are to be believed, the end-user would be more than willing to pay extra for the better food they buy. GST can be levied as luxury items and pay the Big companies on their investment. 

 

It is not a case of a few celebrity activists like Vandana that are propagating these myths linking farmer suicides to GMO/Bt Cotton . Just a simple google search "farmer suicides and GMO" gives links from Forbes, Guardian UK, dailyMail (tabloids too), Reuters linking and attacking Big companies over their seed technology etc. I liked the following article debunking that myth, but, I still feel in the Indian context, some policy changes and proactive CSR approach from companies can avoid the criticism.

 

https://issues.org/keith/

 

Quote

2009 op-ed by Vandana Shiva in the Huffington Post. Shiva is a prominent Indian-born environmentalist who, for the past decade, has said repeatedly that Monsanto’s “suicide seeds” have triggered a “genocide” in rural areas of India.

The Monsanto-Indian famer suicide connection is a recurring motif for Shiva. She raises it when she references Monsanto or GMOs in her many writings, media interviews, and public talks. I heard her expound on it during a recent talk on sustainability that she gave at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden in New York City.

 

Shiva’s words are treated with earnest respect in liberal and environmental circles, where she is held in great esteem. If she insists that Monsanto and its GMO seeds have driven hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers to suicide—and she has said this frequently—then there must be something to it.

 

After all, a much-acclaimed 2011 documentary called Bitter Seeds chronicled this heartrending phenomenon and Monsanto’s culpability. As the popular environmental news site Grist put it, Bitter Seeds revealed the “tragic toll of GMOs in India.” Michael Pollan, a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of the bestselling Omnivore’s Dilemma and other food-related books, told his 300,000 followers on Twitter that Bitter Seeds was not to be missed, and lauded it as “a powerful documentary on farmer suicides and biotech seeds in India.”

By now, the “failure of Bt cotton” and Monsanto’s “suicide seeds” are memes firmly embedded in the media ecosystem. Countless blog posts, tweets, and news stories state it as established fact. Monsanto employees get asked about it by their friends and families. The company has a page on its website that discusses the topic. During the 2013 March against Monsanto rallies, protesters held aloft signs that read “Indian farmer suicides.”

 

If you had heard of this issue only from fleeting headlines or from friends on Facebook, or from Bill Moyers on PBS, who was told about it when he interviewed Shiva in 2013, you would be inclined to believe that Monsanto is guilty as charged, that the company was indeed responsible for the deaths of a quarter-million Indian farmers.

But there is one problem with this story. Bt cotton has been all the rage in India since it was officially approved in 2002. The technology has been adopted by over 90% of Indian cotton farmers. Multiple studies point to significant reduction in pesticide spraying and subsequent cost savings for cotton farmers. (Similar findings attest to the same in China, where Bt cotton accounts for 80% of its crop.) India’s agricultural minister said in 2012 that the country “has harvested an average of 5.1 million tons of cotton per year, which is well above the highest production of 3 million tons before the introduction of Bt cotton.” India is the world’s second-biggest cotton producer, behind China.

Apparently, Indian farmers have come to overwhelmingly embrace genetically modified cotton. Yet there is an enduring belief that Bt cotton has failed in India, with tragic consequences.

 

This failure, the story goes, has resulted in burdensome debt and caused more than a quarter-million Indian farmers to take their own lives. Ronald Herring, a political scientist at Cornell University, has studied the seeming paradox and written on it extensively. As he observed in one paper, “It is hard to imagine farmers spreading a technology that is literally killing them.”

 

[coffee_rules]

Did he really say that? Joke's on the captain!

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

8 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Thanks @Tibarn and @BacktoCricaddict for elaborate responses. @Tibarn, don't mind me asking, what is your background?

 

I didn't read the research paper that Tibarn posted to refute the claim of farmer suicides to Big Seed companies like Monsanto, but here's my logic behind this issue:

 

When chip compnaies like QC or Intel productize/develop patents for their chips that go in devices like Apple, Samsung they provide 100% guarantee that it will work perfectly or even provide tech support to fix/replace the chips. It's all in the contract. But in this GMO patents/seed business, Farmers don't get the same yeild/results as claimed and charged by the companies. There are various factors, esp in Indian context, weather, rain, locusts spreading etc. Where is the guarantee that the farmer can get the best yield out of the crop? In cases of failures, their investment is ruined and are linked to the suicides in some way. In US or developed countries, there is crop insurance to protect them from failure, but poor farmers wouldn't be able to invest in seeds as well as insurance. In Indian context, the government or part of CSR, these companies can get their ROI from taxing the end-user rather than the producer of crops. Esp, if the nutrient claims of GMO crops are to be believed, the end-user would be more than willing to pay extra for the better food they buy. GST can be levied as luxury items and pay the Big companies on their investment. 

 

It is not a case of a few celebrity activists like Vandana that are propagating these myths linking farmer suicides to GMO/Bt Cotton . Just a simple google search "farmer suicides and GMO" gives links from Forbes, Guardian UK, dailyMail (tabloids too), Reuters linking and attacking Big companies over their seed technology etc. I liked the following article debunking that myth, but, I still feel in the Indian context, some policy changes and proactive CSR approach from companies can avoid the criticism.

 

https://issues.org/keith/

 

 

There's a lot to unpack here, guru.  Will write in detail - hopefully this weekend!

[rkt.india]

On 10/1/2020 at 11:45 PM, coffee_rules said:

 

Everybody I know in India and their uncles are eating millets on a daily basis. It has high yield (low seeding rate) and there are a lot of indigenous millet crops from India, which has been out of production due to focus on rice, wheat, sugarane etc. India should stop growing sugarcane which needs so much water and also with the stubble burning causes environment issues. Mandya district in Kar grows so much sugarcane, it has caused much turmoil due to using up a lot of cauvery water is a cause for dispute.

Stubble burning happens due to rice, not sugarcane. Sugarcane doesn't need lot of water. Rice does.

[Trichromatic]

51 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Stubble burning happens due to rice, not sugarcane. Sugarcane doesn't need lot of water. Rice does.

 

Why is government charging farmers for burning surgarcane leaves?

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/in-a-first-two-farmers-slapped-with-criminal-charges-for-burning-cane-leaves/articleshow/72322515.cms

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 10/5/2020 at 11:17 PM, Trichromatic said:

 

Why is government charging farmers for burning surgarcane leaves?

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/in-a-first-two-farmers-slapped-with-criminal-charges-for-burning-cane-leaves/articleshow/72322515.cms

 

Bhai, according to the table you posted above, sugarcane needs more water than rice.  2000 mm water for 365 days, 24 times irrigation compared to 1250, 135, 18 for rice.  The table is not in descending order of water requirement.  

[coffee_rules]

20 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Bhai, according to the table you posted above, sugarcane needs more water than rice.  2000 mm water for 365 days, 24 times irrigation compared to 1250, 135, 18 for rice.  The table is not in descending order of water requirement.  

 

I guess he wanted to disprove the statement from rkt - "Sugarcane doesn't need lot of water. Rice does."

[Trichromatic]

57 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Bhai, according to the table you posted above, sugarcane needs more water than rice.  2000 mm water for 365 days, 24 times irrigation compared to 1250, 135, 18 for rice.  The table is not in descending order of water requirement.  

 

35 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

I guess he wanted to disprove the statement from rkt - "Sugarcane doesn't need lot of water. Rice does."

Yeah I was just trying to prove what's already known. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

7 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Yeah I was just trying to prove what's already known. 

Sorry, I thought rkt posted that table in a hurry thinking it was in order of water-use.  

 

In other words, I was having a total Senior moment ... I think I need to change my moniker again to Brainfade.   

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 10/2/2020 at 7:05 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

Millets have some downsides too.  They are not easy to cook, breads made with them have brittle textures, plus have shorter shelf lives than rice or wheat.   Until these are worked out, they may not become fully mainstream.  

 

Agree in principle about sugarcane.  But, the huge market for sugar is not going down any time soon.  Until they know they can be financially viable with other crops, it is understandable that they will not try them.  There are some new efforts to educate farmers on improving water efficient cultivation.  There are also some institutes world-over looking at water-efficient GMO sugarcane.  But, like I am with everything else, until I see successful, repeatable, large-scale field tests, I won't believe it.  Water use efficiency is a highly complex, multi-gene trait; there's been a lot of hype about developing drought tolerant crops, but little field success.  Plus the opposition will be swift and intense.  

It's probably bad form to reply to one's own post, but this information needs updating.  Bioceres corp just completed successful field trials of drought-tolerant GMO wheat and it is now approved for planting in Argentina.  

 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201008005489/en/Bioceres-Crop-Solutions-Corp.-Announces-Regulatory-Approval-of-Drought-Tolerant-HB4®-Wheat-in-Argentina

 

Will be very keeping an eye on this.  If this works out, it will be a game-changer for agriculture.  

[Tibarn]

On 10/5/2020 at 9:32 AM, coffee_rules said:

 @Tibarn, don't mind me asking, what is your background?

 

 

I don't mind: I'm a doc-student in a field of Biology, but not Plant-Biology itself.

 

Quote

I didn't read the research paper that Tibarn posted to refute the claim of farmer suicides to Big Seed companies like Monsanto, but here's my logic behind this issue:

 

When chip compnaies like QC or Intel productize/develop patents for their chips that go in devices like Apple, Samsung they provide 100% guarantee that it will work perfectly or even provide tech support to fix/replace the chips. It's all in the contract. But in this GMO patents/seed business, Farmers don't get the same yeild/results as claimed and charged by the companies. There are various factors, esp in Indian context, weather, rain, locusts spreading etc. Where is the guarantee that the farmer can get the best yield out of the crop? In cases of failures, their investment is ruined and are linked to the suicides in some way.

In your metaphor about chips-contracts from QC/Intel and Apple/Samsung, the key point IMO is the contract itself. If/when farmers form cooperatives ie Amul Dairy, they would be in a better position to negotiate those types of contracts for themselves. I don't think, practically speaking, that any individual farmer would be able to get that type of contract with a company. If there was a cooperative, the company would know they are dealing with a large amount of revenue, which could incentivize them more toward that type of deal. 

 

However, IMO, even in that scenario, a company would only be willing to guarantee aspects for which the crop was engineered. Not all GMO-crops are necessarily designed to be, for example, drought-resistant. If one crop wasn't designed to be drought-resistant, then the company wouldn't really accept liability on that crop in the case of the farmers experiencing a drought. 

 

Quote

In US or developed countries, there is crop insurance to protect them from failure, but poor farmers wouldn't be able to invest in seeds as well as insurance. In Indian context, the government or part of CSR, these companies can get their ROI from taxing the end-user rather than the producer of crops. Esp, if the nutrient claims of GMO crops are to be believed, the end-user would be more than willing to pay extra for the better food they buy. GST can be levied as luxury items and pay the Big companies on their investment. 

 Ideally crop insurance companies would be private companies( eventually they will be), but I think the Centre/state governments would have to continue to assume that role for now. If these GMO-crops/other crops aren't already covered under PM Fasal Bima Yojana, that scheme can be expanded to cover them. 

 

I personally don't agree with the whole concept of CSR. I think that was a big failure of Modi's 1st term to not repeal that measure, along with Retroactive Taxation.  CSR and Retroactive Taxation were two low-hanging fruits that Modi could've easily removed to inspire more confidence in investors. He didn't and still hasn't. That's just my views though. 

[Mariyam]

@Tibarn

 

By retroactive taxation, do you mean retrospective taxation? In the context of India it is called retrospective taxation.

 

Have to agree with most of what you've said.

 

You may like reading about this ( the genesis of the legislation and a landmark case against its validity) and the more commonly known Vodafone case. 

 

Re: CSR;  Could you expand on your point please.

What about CSR do you not agree with? That it is legally mandatory now or the need ( ethically/principally) of a company to indulge in CSR activities? Or both?

Edited November 3, 2020 by Mariyam

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 10/5/2020 at 9:32 AM, coffee_rules said:

Thanks @Tibarn and @BacktoCricaddict for elaborate responses. @Tibarn, don't mind me asking, what is your background?

 

I didn't read the research paper that Tibarn posted to refute the claim of farmer suicides to Big Seed companies like Monsanto, but here's my logic behind this issue:

 

When chip compnaies like QC or Intel productize/develop patents for their chips that go in devices like Apple, Samsung they provide 100% guarantee that it will work perfectly or even provide tech support to fix/replace the chips. It's all in the contract. But in this GMO patents/seed business, Farmers don't get the same yeild/results as claimed and charged by the companies. There are various factors, esp in Indian context, weather, rain, locusts spreading etc. Where is the guarantee that the farmer can get the best yield out of the crop? In cases of failures, their investment is ruined and are linked to the suicides in some way. In US or developed countries, there is crop insurance to protect them from failure, but poor farmers wouldn't be able to invest in seeds as well as insurance. In Indian context, the government or part of CSR, these companies can get their ROI from taxing the end-user rather than the producer of crops. Esp, if the nutrient claims of GMO crops are to be believed, the end-user would be more than willing to pay extra for the better food they buy. GST can be levied as luxury items and pay the Big companies on their investment. 

 

It is not a case of a few celebrity activists like Vandana that are propagating these myths linking farmer suicides to GMO/Bt Cotton . Just a simple google search "farmer suicides and GMO" gives links from Forbes, Guardian UK, dailyMail (tabloids too), Reuters linking and attacking Big companies over their seed technology etc. I liked the following article debunking that myth, but, I still feel in the Indian context, some policy changes and proactive CSR approach from companies can avoid the criticism.

 

https://issues.org/keith/

 

 

 

First, let's unpack the yield issue

There are two ways to look at yield - one is inherent yield and the other is realized yield.  Inherent yield is the maximum potential yield that a crop variety will give you under perfect conditions with no stressors such as drought, insects, fungal damage, bacterial/viral disease etc..  The only way to increase inherent yield is to improve the photosynthetic efficiency of the plant.  The 2nd type of yield - Realized yield - is the yield that you get under real-life circumstances.  It can approach the inherent yield but never surpass it.  The more resistance the variety has to the aforementioned stressors,  the closer you will get to the inherent yield.  Most currently available GMO traits are yield-protectors, not enhancers.  For example, the Bt trait in cotton:  What the companies can guarantee (and they do) is that, the variety will protect against these particular insects.  So, in comparison to the non-Bt plants, Bt plants will have 90% less damage from those insects.  But if the farmer experiences yield drops due to other reasons such as drought or other pests, it is not the company's responsibility.  The other example is herbicide-resistance.  What they guarantee is that the herbicide resistance trait will protect the transgenic plants while killing others.  Again, you are protecting the inherent yield.

 

Inherent-yield enhancing GMOs are already available in the lab, but the fear-mongering and regulatory rigmarole (as I have mentioned in other posts above) is keeping them from hitting the market in a timely manner.

 

Nutrient claims

Nutrient enhancement is a consumer trait.  To date, none of the commercially available GMOs have consumer traits.  They are all yield protection traits that benefit only farmers and not consumers.  The only way the consumer would benefit is if yield increases lead to lower prices.

 

The only nutrient-enhanced GMO that is out in the public domain is golden rice, but once again the utter fearmongering and "eco"terrorism has kept it out of the hands of people.  There are no other GMOs that claim superior nutrient content.  Some other consumer traits - like non-browning apples - are available, but they don't claim superior nutrition.  Again, many such value-added varieties are languishing in research labs.

 

Bad business practices and marketing

Yes, multinationals have provided much needed technology to enhance crop performance to Indian farmers.  I personally know a number of farmers who have benefited from insect resistant cotton and have gone from being smallholder farmers to highly productive large farmers.  However, they had the backing of education, which many of our smallholder farmers do not have.  This leaves them vulnerable to loan-sharks and the companies do not protect them from that.  But, the key point to understand that farmer debt and subsequent suicide is not caused by GMO technology.  It happens at the same rate in the non-GMO space, too.  By conflating suicides to GMOs, activists have perpetuated a tragic lie for their own ends.  

 

The solution is for GOI to support Indian public institutions to develop and commercialize indigenous GMOs using background desi varieties of crops that fulfill the needs of desi farmers.  The development work has been done in some cases.  For instance Indian cotton scientists have developed desi Bt varieties.  But, they never saw the light of day because of some regulatory glitch.  I mean, if Bangladesh can do it (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00106/full), so can India.  Again, by insisting on a fear-driven regulatory framework, we are falling right into the hands of the big corps and losing the opportunity to enhance farmer lives.

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

The Golden Rice story - how eNGOs have continuously used fear-based disinformation to thwart the release of a perfectly safe, nutrition-enhanced rice.  Whether the public accepts it or not is immaterial to the regulatory framework.  Is the product safe?  Yes.  Is its beta carotene bioavailability good?  After much R&D, it has gotten there.  So, Yes.  Now, get out of the way and let the damn marketplace decide if it wants to sustain the weird coloured rice.      

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

https://theprint.in/politics/bjp-sets-up-talks-between-farmers-rajnath-goyal-to-end-deadlock-over-punjab-train-services/540674/

 

On 14 October, talks between a delegation of the protesting farmers and Union Agriculture Secretary Sanjay Agarwal had failed to yield any results, with the farmer bodies demanding to meet the agriculture minister regarding the central laws.

“All issues related to the farmers will be discussed and I am hopeful of a positive solution to the problem,” Grewal told ThePrint, confirming the 13 November meeting.

Dr Darshan Pal, convenor of the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee, which is spearheading the protest in Punjab, however, said they have not received any formal invitation or agenda for the meeting on 13 November.

[BacktoCricaddict]

Why this smallholder farmer in South Africa grows GM crops

 

https://citizentv.co.ke/blogs/south-africas-smallholder-farmer-journey-growing-gm-maize-350870/

 

Quote

‘Every year we do get subsidized seeds and fertilizers from that office, irrespective of what cultivars farmers need, whether GM or conventional,’’ Musi said.

According to Dr. Hennie Groenewald, executive manager of Biosafety South Africa, farmers in the country have been planting GM maize since 1997. First, they grew insect-protected Bt maize. Like Musi, many later advanced to growing varieties with the stacked genetic traits of herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance that could control weeds and insects at the same time.

“We are moving away from using one Bt gene of insect resistance, and now farmers are embracing the stacked genes,” he said.

“So far, South Africa grows three GM crops that are genetically modified: cotton, soybean and maize,” Groenewald said. “Most of the maize that is planted in South Africa, about 85-95 percent, depending on the season, is GM maize.”

Insect and herbicide traits are referred to as input traits because they have a direct value to farmers, he narrated. “You don’t have to spray for insects because Bt has an inbuilt mechanism to deal with insects, while in the case of herbicide tolerance, it changes farmers’ agronomical practices, making it much cheaper. You can spray without damaging the herbicide-tolerant maize cultivar,” Groenewald explained.

“So what we do is conservation agriculture, or minimum tillage,” he continued. “You don’t have to work your land too much.”

Insect-resistant traits benefit both smallholder and large-scale farmers,” he said. “If you plant it, your crops won’t be affected by persistent pests like stem borer and to some extent, fall armyworm.”

Groenewald said there is very little difference in the cost between GM and conventional hybrid seeds.