Abstract
This study investigates the issues related to the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) crops and examines the regulatory framework for GM crops development and commercialisation in India. It explores the positioning of various organisations and stakeholders that have directly or indirectly influenced this technology and delineates their roles in the technological governance system. The findings of this study show that institutions promoting research and innovation are not appropriately linked with the institutions for its governance and regulation in India. As a result, even after extensive debate and creation of new institutions, there is a persisting situation of antagonism and low public trust in GM technology as a viable solution for India’s agricultural problems. This has impeded the innovation and translation process despite successful field trials of many indigenous GM crop. Further, it underlines that individual and group concerns regarding the environmental, health and economic viability of GM crops as technological intervention can be addressed by promoting it as an alternative in specific conditions only. In conclusion, a group of interventions such as the development of a system to encourage innovation, capacity building and investment in alternate technologies is suggested to equip for the ever-increasing demand of agricultural products in the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacteria from which the gene Cry is taken for the cotton plant.
- 2.
Estimates of 2017 by the latest ISAAA report 2018 as available on May 12, 2020.
- 3.
‘Additionality is the property of an activity being additional. It is a determination of whether an intervention has an effect, when the intervention is compared to a baseline. ‘Interventions’ can take a variety of forms, but often include economic incentives.’ (for more detailed description see- A practical guide to adding value through non-financial support, 2015 EVPA).
- 4.
Bio-Safety:When Genetic modification of organisms are introduced into the ecosystem they can have unpredictable results. The products of such food crops may be unsafe for consumption by human and animals. In addition to this, they may also harm the soil bacteria, bees and other important organisms, thereby affecting entire food web and biodiversity. GM crop may eliminate the wild/indigenous species by cross-pollination. (for detailed description, see—Conner et al. 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment, The Plant Journal 33(1), pp 19–46.)
- 5.
Bio-piracy: It is a concept similar to piracy in software, movies and other intellectual properties. When corporations use the genetic materials well known to farmers and indigenous people without sharing the benefits or paying a compensation for the genetic material it is termed as bio-piracy. Many people believe that GM technology in agriculture is ‘bio-piracy’ because of unfair patenting and patent licensing by MNCs (see Roberts R. 2000, Biopiracy: Who Owns the Genes of the Developing World?, Science Wire).
- 6.
Bio-profiteering: MNCs introduce terminator gene in their GM seeds. This makes the resultant plant sterile, thereby requiring farmers to repurchase seeds for every cropping season. Since GM crops will make wild/indigenous varieties extinct by cross-pollination, so farmer will be at the mercy of these MNCs for the future seeds.
- 7.
FSSAI Gazette Notification no. F.No. REG/11/27/BEVO-Labelling/FSSAI-2018.
References
Aayog, N. I. T. I. (2017). India: Three year action agenda, 2017–18 to 2019–20. Agenda, New Delhi: NITI Aayog.
Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 239–251.
Adenle, A. A. (2011). Response to issues on GM agriculture in Africa: Are transgenic crops safe? BMC Reseach Notes 4, 388–393.
Aggarwal, M. (2016). GM crops: Panel proposes diluted norms for field trials. LiveMint.
Arezzo, E. (2007). Intellectual property rights at the crossroad between monopolization and abuse of dominant position: American and European approaches compared. John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 24, 455–xxx.
Banerjee, R. (2018). Genetically modified processed foods in India. Press Conference, New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.
BioSpectrum Bureau. (2016). Why does India need GM Mustard at all? Biospectrum India. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
Black, J. (2002). Critiical Reflections on Regulation. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 27, 1–35.
Bochm, G., & Frederick, L. J. (2010). Strategic innovation management in globalindustry networks. Asian Journal of Bussiness Management, 2(4), 110–120.
Brownsword, R., & Somsem, H. (2009). Law, innovation and technology: Before we fast forward—A forum for debate. Law, Innovation and Technology, 1, 1–73.
Chaturvedi, S., & Arora, S. (2014). Debates on food technologies in India: R&D priorities, production trends and growing expectations. New Delhi: RIS Discussion Papers.
Choi, S. J. (2015). South Korean institute discovers ‘mystery plants’ from imported GMOs. Sustanible Pulse. https://sustainablepulse.com/2015/01/24/south-korean-institute-discovers-mystery-plants-imported-gmos/#.VRfEP_mUfIY. Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
Choudhary, B., Gheysen, G., Buysse, J., van der Meer, P., & Burssens, S. (2014). Regulatory options for genetically modified crops in India. Plant Biotechnology, 12, 135–146.
Crouch, C., & Streeck, W. (1997). Political economy of modern capitalism. London: Sage.
do MST, Da Página. (2015). Brazilian farmers occupy and cancel approval meeting for GMO trees. Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra. https://www.mst.org.br/2015/03/05/apos-ocupacao-na-suzano-outros-300-camponeses-ocupam-predio-da-ctnbio-em-bsb.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2018.
Dogra, B. (2012). Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering. The Hindu.
Donnelly, S. (2011). Regulation, Innovation and Competitiveness. In M. A. Heldeweg & E. Kica (Eds.), Regulating technological innovation, pp. 36–51.
Survey. (2016). Economic Survey of India Government of India Survey. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance.
EPW Corrospondent. (2003). Thrust on new crops. Economic and Political Weekely, 920.
Express News Service. (2016). Despite RSS associates’ opposition, Niti Aayog pitches for GM crops. The New Indian Express.
FAO. (2015). FAO GM Foods Platform. FAO GM foods platform: FAO GM Foods Platform.
FAO. (2015). How to Feed the World in 2050. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2016.
Fischer, M. M. (2000). Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation. Discussion Papers of the Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience (Vienna University of Economics and Business).
GeneWatch UK. (2016). Worldwide Commercial Growing. GeneWatch UK. https://www.genewatch.org/sub-532326. Accessed 16 May 2016.
Gilbert, N. (2013). A hard look at GM crops. Nature Special Issue, GM Crops: Promise and Reality, 24–26. Accessed 28 March 2016.
Gregory, R. S., & Sattrfield, T. A. (2002). Beyond perception: The experience of risk and stigma in community contexts. Risk Analysis, 22(2), 347–358.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2000). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haq, Z., & Chetan, C. (2015). Govt asks Niti Aayog to draft policy on genetically modified crops.Hindustan Times. Accessed April 2016.
Heldeweg, M. A., & Kica, E. (2011). Regulating technological innovation: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heldweg, M. A. (2011). Legal design of smart rules and regimes. In M. A. Heldweg & E. Kica (Eds.), Regulating technological innovation, pp. 54–76. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Herring, R. J. (2014). On risk and regulation: Bt crops in India. GM Crops & Food, 204–209. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.950543
Hsiao, A. (2013). Ninety percent of soybeans genetically modified: experts. Taipei Times. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/31/2003558445. Accessed 18 Feb 2018.
ICAR. (2012). Committee to examine scientific claims made with regard to the BNLA106 event for insect resistance. Institutional Committee, New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
ISAAA. (2018). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2018. Brief No. 54, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/54/default.asp.
Ishii, T., & Araki, M. (2016). Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing. Plant Cell Reports, 35(7), 1507–1518.
Jitendra. (2019). Why Bangladesh sees golden rice as a threat. Down To Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/why-bangladesh-sees-golden-rice-as-a-threat-63337. Accessed July 2020.
Kanaujia, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2018). The GM crop debate in India: Stakeholders’ interests, perceptions, trust and public policy. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review (RIS), 20 (1 & 2), 27–45. https://ris.org.in/sites/default/files/ABDR%20March%20July%20Issue-2018-min.pdf.
Kotsemir, M., & Abroskin, A. (2013). Innovation concepts and typology—An evolutionary discussion. Working Paper on Science Technology and Innovation under the Basic Research Program. National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Kuntz, M., Davison, J., & Ricroch, A. E. (2013). What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment. Nature Biotechnology, 31, 498–500.
Lalitha, N., Ramaswami, B., & Viswanathan, P. K. (2009). India’s experience with Bt Cotton: Case studies from Gujarat and Maharashtra. In R. Tripp (Ed.), Biotechnology and Agricultural Development (pp. 159–191). London: Routledge.
Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment. Futures, 39(4), 408–431. https://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/6752.
Lynch, D., & Vogel, D. (n.d.). The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A case-study of contemporary European regulatory politics. Workshop on trans-Atlantic differences in GMO regulation. Council of Foreign Relations. Accessed 18 April 2016.
MoEF. (2003). Background note on Bt cotton cultivation in India. MInistry of Environment and Forest. https://envfor.nic.in. Accessed 12 July 2018.
MoEF&CC. (2018–19). Annual Report 2018–19. Annual Report of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. New Delhi: Government of India.
Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2004). Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 26(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00170.x.
Morris, B. (2013). Rogue GMO wheat found in Oregon, Japan bansimport, EU will test. Politics in the Zeros. https://polizeros.com/2013/06/03/rogue-gmo-wheat-found-in-oregon-japan-bans-import-eu-will-test/. Accessed 12 Aug 2017.
Morrison, K. (1998). Management theories for educational change. London: SAGE.
NAAS. (2019). Saving the harvest: Reducing the food loss and waste. Policy Brief No. 5, New Delhi: National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. https://naasindia.org/documents/Saving%20the%20Harvest.pdf.
Nasiruddin, K. M. (2011). Strategizing communication in commercialization of biotech crops. In M. J. Navarro & R. A. Hautea (Eds.), Communication challenges and convergence in crop biotechnology, pp. 203–223. ISAAA and SEARCA.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. and Ors. versus Monsanto Technology LLC and Ors. (2018). FAO (OS) (COMM) 86/2017 (High Court of Delhi, 11 April). https://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SRB/judgement/12-04-2018/SRB11042018FAOOSCOMM862017.pdf.
OECD. (2006). OECD guidance for the designation of a unique identifier for transgenic plants. Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, Paris: OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications. https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV-JM-MONO(2002)7/rev1&doclanguage=en.
PIB. (2012). Regulatory authority to be set up on bio-technology. GOI, Ministry of Agriculture: Press Information Bureau.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961–972.
Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 665–693.
Qiam, M. (2001). Transgenic crops and developing countries. Economic and Political Weekly, 3064–3070.
Rajya Sabha Secretariat. (2017). Genetically modified crops and its impact on environment. Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, New Delhi: Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
Sarant, L. (2012). Egypt's legal battle to regulate Monsanto's GMOs. Egypt Independent. https://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-legal-battle-regulate-monsanto-s-gmos-0. Accessed 8 April 2018.
Sjoberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1–20.
Sun, J. (2019). Genetically modified foods in China: Regulation, deregulation, or governance? In K.C. Liu & U. Racherla (Eds.), Innovation, economic development, and intellectual property in India and China, pp. 347–366. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8102-7_15.
Technical Expert Committee. (2013). Final report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Writ Petetion (Civil) No. 260 (2005) of Aruna Rodrigues vs. Union of India. Committee Report, New Delhi: Supreme Court of India.
The Hindu. (2016). Many states skip meet on GM crops. The Hindu.
Tidd, J. (2006). A review of innovation models. Discussion Paper 1, London: Imperial College London.
Vigani, M., & Olper, A. (2013). GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy, 32–43.
Warrier, R., & Pande, H. (2016). Genetically engineered plants in the product development pipeline in India. GM Crops & Food, 7(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2016.1156826.
Wessel, R. A. (2011). Regulating technological innovation through informal international law: The exercise of international public authority by transnational actors. In M. A. Heldeweg & E. Kica (Eds.), Regulating technological innovation, pp. 77–94. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wetenschappelijke, Regeringsbeleid Raad voor het. (2008). Innovation Renewed. WRR rapport nr. 56, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
World Bank & OECD. (2016). STI outlook 2016 country profile: India. The Innovation Policy Platform. https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/india. Accessed 21 Sept 2018.
Xue, J., & Zhang, Z. (2006). The research on the application strategies of information and communication technologies to promote the knowledge transfer in regional innovation system. In 2006 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing (APSCC'06), pp. 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSCC.2006.106.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kanaujia, A., Bhattacharya, S. (2021). Genetically Modified Crops and Indian Agriculture: Issues Relating to Governance and Regulation. In: Sudesh Ratna, R., Sharma, S.K., Kumar, R., Dobhal, A. (eds) Indian Agriculture Under the Shadows of WTO and FTAs. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6854-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6854-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-33-6853-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-33-6854-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)