The answer: No damaging side-effects have been detected from any genetically engineered crops submitted for approval. This basic fact must be noted at the outset of the debate itself. 

With respect to Bt Cotton, experience from South Africa and China, where it has been approved for on-farm production, shows large benefits. The use of chemical pesticides have been reduced dramatically.

This has reduced production costs for farmers, protected the environment from pesticide residues, and reduced illness and death from pesticide poisoning.

No damaging side-effects have been found. And huge benefits have accrued to all sections of society. It should therefore not be a surprise that Indian farmers want to grow Bt Cotton.

All new technology should be tested for health and ecological risks before it is approved for release on farmers’ fields.

However, if such tests do not identify any risks or if benefits are judged by a responsible panel of people representing consumers and producers to outweigh risks, I see no reason for withholding approval.

Can the government keep delaying a decision on GM crops? Each GMO should be judged on its own merit. A blanket rejection of all GMOs does not seem to make much sense. If a particular GMO, say a seed resistant to a certain pest, has been tested and no unacceptable risks have been identified, I see no reason for delaying approval.

If GM crops were banned, can the ban be imposed? I predict that the demand for the release of safe GMOs from population groups who stand to gain, including small farmers and poor consumers will be so strong that the government will find the ban to be a political liability.

After all, what would be the justification for the ban? This is especially more true of poor developing countries, where Economics dictates that all possible means of gain be pursued.

Poor farmers are even more likely to go for Bt Cotton because of the potential gain. Governments will be unable to stop them without serious political risk.

And if not, do we risk suffering the side-effects without getting the benefits? As illustrated by the illegal action by the cotton farmers, it may be difficult for the government to enforce a ban on something with large potential benefits and no known risks.

If the government wishes to regulate the release and use of gm crops, it should be able to justify the regulations on grounds that can be understood and agreed to by the population. 

I strongly believe that the risks are hyped out of all proportion while the benefits are being ignored.

This is especially so in the context of the developing world because, unlike the European consumer who spends a very small proportion of his income on food and hence can afford to ignore the cost-reduction benefits of GM food, poor consumers in the developing world spend close to 60-70 per cent of their income on food.

Any reduction in the price of food because of the higher productivity due to genetic modification is a net gain to him. Of course, in the final analysis, it’s a choice that each country must make, it is not for multilateral agencies to try and influence the choice or thrust it down the throats of developing countries. 

There are also some preconditions that must be in place. These include a bio-safety system that can test for possible risks. European NGOs that oppose GM foods don’t say no to genetic modifications in the sphere of medicine. That’s because they know they need it, but they don’t need GM food. Indians must note this!