https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/farmer-leaders-from-18-states-resolve-to-oppose-gm-crops/amp Farmer leaders Kavita Kuruganti and KT Gangadhar said the present government should hold consultations with all stakeholders before finalising a national policy on GM crops. “In fact, we need is a biosafety policy, not a policy on GM crops. In 2009, public consultations were held by the then Congress government and the introduction of Bt brinjal crop was stalled,” they said.
Text of resolutions:
RESOLUTION OF NATIONAL FARMERS’ LEADERS CONCLAVE,
AUGUST 22ND 2024, KISAN BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH
GMOs (and products thereof) in our food and farming systems are unneeded, unsafe and
unwanted - Farmers in India want sovereign, Nature-conserving farming
Modern Biotechnology is a costly and unsafe distraction with false promises, to capture
and control our farming systems, which cannot and will not be allowed by us
We, leaders of many farmer unions and farmers’ rights activists from 18 states of India, actively
representing different kinds of farmers growing different kinds of crops and also agricultural
workers, livestock-rearers, tenant, adivasi, women farmers and beekeepers, have met for a day
on 22/08/2024 in Kisan Bhawan, Sector 35, Chandigarh on the issue of Genetically Modified
(GM) crops. We took cognisance of the Supreme Court of India’s 2-judge Bench’s judgement and
orders of 23/07/2024 in some PILs that were primarily seeking a precautionary approach to gene
technologies in our food and farming systems to uphold Article 21 fundamental right of all
citizens.
The Court had ordered the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change of the Government
of India to evolve a National Policy on GM Crops, preferably within 4 months, through public
consultations involving all stakeholders, and involving “representatives of the farmers”. We
cautiously welcome this order from the Court.
We are aware of the fact that 30 years after the first GM crop was commercialised in the USA, a
vast majority of countries around the world do not allow GM crop cultivation. In fact, more
territories and regions of the world are placing bans and severe restrictions on this uncontrollable
and irreversible living technology. Many countries (14) which had allowed GM crop cultivation for
a few seasons are retracing their steps and prohibiting the technology now. The false claims
have been proven wrong, and promises have fallen totally flat.
There is a vast body of scientific published literature that shows that GM technology, including
currently loosely regulated, and unregulated genome editing techniques in India, have adverse
implications for our lives. Molecular level changes that further lead to several environmental and
health impacts (including from the increased use of chemicals) are a major risk and concern in
an already risky profession. The lack of safety of GM crops applies to all crops, including those
developed by the public sector research bodies and scientists of India.
Given large-scale rejection of GM crops and foods worldwide, India will also lose its global
market advantage of remaining GM-free, and will actively risk its trade security by opting for GM
crop cultivation. This then has negative implications for farm livelihoods too.
The dependency of farmers on IPR-based technologies, with corporate monopolies emerging in
a situation of intense market consolidation by big agri-business capital, is completely
objectionable. The contamination of our rich agro-diversity needed to make our profession
sustainable and climate-resilient is unacceptable to us.
The story of Bt cotton failure in India is a classic illustration of this disastrous technology hyped
as a solution. In Punjab alone, the area under cotton has fallen by 46% this year, a testimony to
the failure of Bt cotton to control pink bollworm and other pests. Chemical usage in cotton
cultivation has increased, while yields have stagnated or fallen, while nearly all cotton seed is
being controlled by an MNC Bayer/Monsanto with corporates benefiting from other
accompanying inputs that farmers are coerced into buying. Most farm suicides continue to be of
cotton farmers, and the Government of India itself admitted in a Court in its affidavit that Bt cotton
has led to increased farmer suicides in the country.
It is a matter of great worry to us that the regulatory regime is inadequate, and the inherent lack
of safety of the technology is being hidden by compromised testing, opaqueness, allowing the
crop developers to decide what testing will they do and how they will do it, and keeping the
biosafety dossiers shrouded in secrecy. The conflict of interest pervading the different
departments and agencies, and the regulatory bodies is well-known.
We are aware of the multiple credible committees including Parliamentary Standing Committees
that have flagged serious issues of concern like negative impact of Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crops
on rural employment and permanent contamination of our rich biodiversity. They have asked for
an umbrella biosafety legislation for India, not a fast-track clearing house regulator.
We recall that nearly all state governments in the country have adopted a cautious approach to
GM crops and several have formal policy positions for a ban on the technology. There is no
mechanism to ensure that their constitutional authority over agriculture and health can be
exercised by them, when the Union of India thrusts its decisions of promoting GM crops. This
push and promotion is being done even though there is no liability and redressal regime in place
for those who will be severely adversely affected with GM crops.
It is surprising that the Government of India talks about natural/organic farming on the one hand,
and is arguing in the favour of GM crops aggressively, taking contradictory policy positions.
Meanwhile, it is important to recall that in 2010, when the regulators’ green signal to Bt brinjal
commercial cultivation became a big controversy and met with stiff resistance, the Government
of India’s Ministry of Environment organised widespread democratic consultations in 7
carefully-chosen locations of the country, with the then Union Environment Minister spending
more than 25 hours listening to more than 7000 stakeholders sharing their views.
Despite the determined anti-people, anti-Nature unscientific and irresponsible push for GM crops
by the Union Government, for 22 years now, no other GM crop (other than the fait accompli of Bt
cotton approval) could get an approval for cultivation. We have been at the forefront of resisting
GM crops for decades now, and have successfully ensured that no GM food crop gets approved
for commercial cultivation, and that no GM crop produce/seeds/feed are imported. We are
reminded of the nation-wide resistance from farmers, consumers and domain experts against Bt
brinjal, when 7 public consultations were organised by the then government in early 2010.
Citizens’ resolve to protect themselves from the dangers of GM crops and foods led to an
indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal.
Against this backdrop, we firmly resolve that:
● We will ensure that the MoEF&CC undertakes widespread and truly consultative processes
for evolving the policy; we will also ensure that state governments do not take a compromised
stand in these consultations, going against public interest;
● We will ensure that the policy is actually a biosafety protection policy, which addresses
biosafety and biosecurity, as well as socio-economic considerations, embedded in a
precautionary approach that will allow the government to err on the side of caution, and not
thrust a technology which is risky, dangerous, unneeded by farmers;
● We will ensure that the Government of India first addresses the fall-outs of the intensive
agriculture paradigm thrust on farmers of the country, by charting a new path of sovereign
agro-ecology, and not add more disastrous technologies into our risky professions. We will
make sure that corporate control does not happen by way of IPRs on seeds and genetic
material.
● We appeal to the farmers of the nation to stay away from the false promises of biotech
proponents and short-term lures, and improve economic viability in our farming, improve
resilience, protect our valuable natural resources, health of the people, sovereignty of the
country, and enhance the domestic and international trade possibilities by transitioning
gradually to agro-ecology..