Govt Must Debate And Discuss With All Stakeholders Before Finalising Policy Document On GM Crops

Around three decades back, I was invited to speak at the first World Food and Farming Congress, entirely an agribusiness industry event, in London. In the inaugural session where I spoke, the very first speaker, late Dr Per Pinstrup-Anderson, a former Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC and later a World Food Prize laureate, painstakingly explained how important it was for the world to accept and adopt genetically modified (GM) crops. He illustrated his talk with an example from China, which had then introduced GM cotton. Calling it a ‘silver bullet, he talked of the potential the new technology comes with.

In my address at the opening session of the two day conference, which brought the elite from the governments and the industry besides the scientific establishments and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), I devoted considerable time to analyse how the new-found love for genetically modified (GM) crops is not going to be of much help to developing nations. In the years to come, the claims by the GM Industry wouldn’t hold, as by then reports pointed out at how claims about reductions in pesticide usage were coming untrue (later, Dr Pinstrup-Anderson himself acknowledged that the ‘silver bullet’ in China had bitten the dust).

I knew I was stepping on wrong toes but regardless of the pressure group I was pitted against, I thought it was important to stand by what you strongly believe in, based on available scientific evidence.

Nevertheless, it was on the second day that a GM scientist, chairing an US autonomous institute, began his talk by pointing to my presentation in the inaugural session. That was fine but the shocker was when he linked my name with the militant Islamic organisation, Al Qaeda. If I remember correctly, he said something like this: “yesterday you heard Mr Sharma speak about GM crops. Those who oppose GM crops are linked to Al Qaeda.”

Before I could raise any objection, an African delegate to the WTO stood up, telling the chair that he took strong exception to the disparaging remarks against an invited speaker and wanted the chairperson to either direct him to withdraw or tender an unqualified apology.

Another WTO delegate (hailing from a neighbouring country) stood up endorsing the serious objections that had been raised by his fellow-colleague.

To cut the long story short, the speaker was made to apologise before he could proceed any further. It tells you the low to which the scientific establishments can come down to.

That was almost 28 years ago.

But surprisingly, if you follow X it is interesting to see how Brian Dowd-Uribe, editor of a social science journal, has been relentlessly questioning claims by GM scientists. In one of his latest tweets, put out a few days ago, he asked a GM scientist: ‘Still trying to hunt down the reference(s) for your yield improvement and pesticide reduction claims.’ This courage to relentlessly challenge the scientific claims reminds me of the Tank Man of Tiananmen Square.

So when I read news reports based on a collaborative investigation by some strong voices in international media, saying that certain US agencies, including those which are supported by taxpayers, had been funding ‘private social networks’ to throw garbage at the public profiles of some of the better-known critics of GM crops and chemical pesticides, I wasn’t surprised.

While the investigation had named some of the powerful voices, including two UN experts, Hilal Elver and Bascut Tuncak, and also Michael Pollen, Vandana Shiva, Mark Bittman and Nnimmo Bassey, among others.

It only showed that the basic idea behind the derogatory initiative is to silence these voices. And if these voices still cannot be silenced, enough of mudslinging will reduce their credibility in the eyes of the public.

The report said that private social networks had been formed to counter resistance to pesticides and GM crops in Africa, Europe and other parts of the world, while also denigrating organic and natural farming systems. Hilal Elver, a member of the UN food security committee, was quoted as saying: “Instead of understanding the scientific reality, they try to shoot the messenger. It is really hard to believe.”

Backed by the ruling establishments and the scientific community, the thrust of the smear campaign by the ‘private social networks’ is aimed at maligning the image of the leading voices. As per a report in the pan African weekly newspaper The Continent, nearly 3,500 profiles on people and organisations, and that includes of prominent activists, journalists and academicians who have been critical of pesticides and GM crops, have been made branding them as ‘opportunistic stakeholders’ in a ‘protest industry’.

Accordingly, these tainted profiles are shared in Bonus Eventus group, which was created by a former Monsanto employee, to which membership is only by invitation. The body is for officials of the powerful regulatory agencies, multilateral funding agencies, agribusiness corporations and academia.

MariamMayet, who heads the African Centre for Biodiversity, and has been in the forefront fighting against corporate interests that aim to taking over African agriculture, said: “They will not tolerate any kind of dissent – they don’t want any honest conversation. They don’t want criticism.”

This is true, and as Mayet further added: “They believe there is only one narrative, and it’s their narrative. They don’t want to engage with us on these issues.”

Rightly said, while the agribusiness industry would decry any public criticism of the faulty claims, it is not very often that it agrees for a public debate. In India, civil society groups have often challenged the industry organisation for an open debate, but haven’t got any positive response. After the recent split verdict on GM crops, the Supreme Court has now directed the Union government to come up with a national policy on GM crops after a wider consultative process.

First of all, many people have questioned how can a national policy be developed when the fundamental question of the need for accepting GM crops, knowing its harmful impact on health and environment, still remains uncertain?

Secondly, what is generally getting understood is that parleys are being held behind the scenes with the GM industry and pro-technology scientists. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the final draft prepared in secrecy and then placed before stakeholders, including farmers.

The better option should be to have a series of public debates across the country where not only the proponents but also activists and experts, who criticise the technology, are also invited for an honest no-holds-barred debate followed by qualitative discussions. What comes out of these deliberations needs to form the nucleus for a policy document. It can’t be left to mandarins in the government echelons to frame a policy favouring people and environment.

Despite the US pressure to force open the developing country markets for GM crops and pesticides, surveys by the respectable Per Research Centre shows that there is a widespread scepticism about the safety of GM foods, worldwide. It is primarily for this reason that covert global smear campaigns are underway to silence the sensible voices. And don’t be cowed down by these campaigns, there will still be powerful efforts to discredit and damage the reputation of respectable voices of reasoning. Beware and be warned.

(The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)