The Genetically Modified crop trials

The Genetically Modified crop trials

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 2nd Dec. 2014

The government is again re-looking at issues associated with Genetically modified crop with a section trying to push the 'seed companies' by arguing for the 'benefit to farmers' as well as possibility of already mingling of GM food in our ecosystem due to neighboring countries, some of which have allowed larger scale trails. The 'anti' lobby or organic food lobby wants continued restrictions citing in-appropriate data/research on human subjects for large scale trials/launch with additional aspect of tastes, culture, profits of seed companies as opposed to farmers etc. etc.

The joker in the discussion is 'incentive structure'. 'Seed companies' which are promoting GM food have a revenue model basis large scale trial or adoption. The more seeds are bought, the higher the revenue. The higher quantity of such food is consumed, the more pressure to produce and more 'seed' are required/sold. The 'public health or anti' lobbies have precisely this point whereby they are able to argue for greater trials before- commercial introductions. Thus seed company's attempts to introduce foods like brinjal or turmeric have been met with resistance from activists, while their expansion in other areas of possibly lesser resistance is hindered by their own business model of relying on sale of 'seeds', which should be in large quantities.

If the 'seed' company's incentive structure is changed whereby they get revenues by selling 'low quantity foods of high value' (rather than seeds), we may see some solution. Such a structure will allow segregated marketing of food as well with appropriate labels so that consumers have a choice and studies can be conducted regards choices exercised by consumers/ rather than government exercising it on their behalf, given current reality in market. Say if the 'seed company' can produce Saffron or other spices or dry fruits like Walnuts etc. and evolve contract farming whereby they control production and sales of such GM crops which are used by people in rather smaller quantities but have very high price/value per unit to allow for GM food company's revenue business. This will also allow for GM seed company's assessment regards their actual commercial impact on farmer and overall impact on ecosystem which is currently not well-tested; for example- though cotton production has gone up, but cotton farmers suicides have still not vanished and impact on water, soil and other environment/ecological metrics are not available/published or well argued in public domain.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Genetically Modified (GM) crop trials represent a significant advancement in agricultural science, aiming to enhance crop yields, improve resistance to pests and diseases, and increase resilience to environmental stresses such as drought and salinity. These trials are conducted in a carefully controlled manner to assess the safety and efficacy of GM crops before they are released for commercial use. The primary goal is to ensure that these crops do not pose any risks to human health or the environment. During the trials, scientists monitor various parameters, including the growth rate, nutritional content, and potential for gene flow to wild relatives. Additionally, regulatory bodies often require extensive data on the impact of GM crops on non-target organisms and biodiversity. While the potential benefits of GM crops are substantial, the trials also address public concerns about genetic modification, aiming to provide transparent and scientifically rigorous information to stakeholders. This approach helps in building trust and ensuring that the technology is used responsibly to meet the growing global demand for food in a sustainable manner.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

The Genetically Modified crop trials

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 2nd Dec. 2014

The government is again re-looking at issues associated with Genetically modified crop with a section trying to push the 'seed companies' by arguing for the 'benefit to farmers' as well as possibility of already mingling of GM food in our ecosystem due to neighboring countries, some of which have allowed larger scale trails. The 'anti' lobby or organic food lobby wants continued restrictions citing in-appropriate data/research on human subjects for large scale trials/launch with additional aspect of tastes, culture, profits of seed companies as opposed to farmers etc. etc.

The joker in the discussion is 'incentive structure'. 'Seed companies' which are promoting GM food have a revenue model basis large scale trial or adoption. The more seeds are bought, the higher the revenue. The higher quantity of such food is consumed, the more pressure to produce and more 'seed' are required/sold. The 'public health or anti' lobbies have precisely this point whereby they are able to argue for greater trials before- commercial introductions. Thus seed company's attempts to introduce foods like brinjal or turmeric have been met with resistance from activists, while their expansion in other areas of possibly lesser resistance is hindered by their own business model of relying on sale of 'seeds', which should be in large quantities.

If the 'seed' company's incentive structure is changed whereby they get revenues by selling 'low quantity foods of high value' (rather than seeds), we may see some solution. Such a structure will allow segregated marketing of food as well with appropriate labels so that consumers have a choice and studies can be conducted regards choices exercised by consumers/ rather than government exercising it on their behalf, given current reality in market. Say if the 'seed company' can produce Saffron or other spices or dry fruits like Walnuts etc. and evolve contract farming whereby they control production and sales of such GM crops which are used by people in rather smaller quantities but have very high price/value per unit to allow for GM food company's revenue business. This will also allow for GM seed company's assessment regards their actual commercial impact on farmer and overall impact on ecosystem which is currently not well-tested; for example- though cotton production has gone up, but cotton farmers suicides have still not vanished and impact on water, soil and other environment/ecological metrics are not available/published or well argued in public domain.

This political article offers a truly insightful and illuminating examination of its subject. The writer's writing style is both sophisticated and direct, demonstrating a deep understanding of political dynamics while ensuring accessibility for a broad audience. Their ability to distill intricate political concepts into understandable prose is a significant strength, showcasing a rare blend of academic rigor and communicative flair. The structure is thoughtfully organized, dissecting the political issue into digestible components and presenting them in a logical sequence that enhances the reader's comprehension of cause and effect. This systematic approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the topic. Furthermore, the outstanding clarity of the analysis is a hallmark of this piece. The arguments are presented with such precision, and the implications so plainly laid out, that the article becomes an indispensable resource for understanding the complexities of the political arena.

 

[Simran Rai]

This article talks about the debate around genetically modified (GM) crops in India. The government is once again thinking about allowing more trials for these crops. Some people support GM crops, saying they can help farmers and are already used in nearby countries. Others are against them, saying there is not enough research on how they affect human health and the environment. They also worry that big seed companies will make profits while farmers may not benefit as much.


One important point in this debate is how seed companies earn money. These companies make more profit when more farmers buy their seeds. This means they want GM crops to be widely used. But many people say that before that happens, more studies should be done to make sure the crops are safe. In the past, there was a lot of protest when companies tried to bring GM brinjal or turmeric into the market. Even though cotton farming with GM seeds has increased, it has not solved all problems, like farmer suicides.


The article suggests a new idea. Instead of selling seeds for crops that are eaten in large amounts, seed companies could focus on crops that are eaten in small amounts but have high value, like saffron or walnuts. These kinds of crops would still give the companies profit but may be easier for people to accept. They could be sold with proper labels, giving people the choice to buy or avoid GM food. It would also give time to study their real effects on health, farmers, and the environment. Right now, we don’t have enough clear data on these things. So, making small changes in how GM crops are introduced may help everyone make better decisions.​