Revamp policies for seed sovereignty

It’s a common sight in Telugu States that many roadside tree trunks are nailed with propaganda boards of seed companies. However, farmers seldom get quality seeds at affordable prices, and their lack of self-sufficiency in seeds production is greatly exploited. Irrationality in pricing seeds started with the entry of genetically modified (GM) seeds.

There are many critical remarks and warnings by environmentalists and food scientists, while a few plant breeders support the entry of such seeds. Why this contradictory approach in the seed sector? Interestingly, agri sector experts through the recent Economic Survey rooted for adoption and expansion of GM crops to enhance production in agriculture.

However, doubts are cast these new technologies by the concerned scientists who point to the inexperience and inefficiency of regulatory bodies to test efficacy of the GM seeds. Pleas for putting in place an effective regulatory mechanism of international standards with high standard precision methods by several agricultural scientists including M S Swaminathan have fallen on deaf ears.

Without considering the affordability of such seeds for farmers, and eventually paving for technology transfer, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has hastily cleared the proposals of GM companies. The result: Monopoly of seed trade by trans-national companies is extracting its price from the farmers.

The government is unable to put a check on the high royalty charged by the foreign seed companies from their franchisees. Of late, some local companies have started fighting legally with Monsanto (now merged with another major MNC) for its abnormal royalty fee. Indian companies opine that there is no meaning in honoring the patent rights at this stage, when the negative impact of GM seeds is showing up.

The arguments are that the company that defied the regulatory bodies of sovereign country and marketing regulations of state governments deserves to lose the rights on such trade, they allege. The deficiencies of Bt Cotton are evidenced with target pest flare-ups, which it claims to fend off.

The national seed companies also represented to the government to develop new varieties through local germplasm which possesses virtues of pest resistance, through public funded research so that royalty question does not arise. According to them, such a situation would facilitate reduction of costs and also enhance the quality of seeds. Seed village concepts should be restored, and seed sovereignty can be ensured.

The intentions of the MNC were clear when it disallowed Bt technology in cotton varieties, instead of hybrids, through public research institutes. It is well-known that no other cotton growing country produces cotton hybrids like India. Monsanto hides the fact and promote only hybrids in India, so that farmers remain constantly seed purchasers, rather than seed producers.

Unfortunately, policy makers have yielded to the arguments of the company and adopted a policy of seed replacement in every season. Many of the scientists of public institutes could grasp the real intentions of such companies, which never pay any royalty to the most valuable public institutes’ germ plasm, which was exploited by them, but claim royalty for their technology.

As per the Cartagena agreements, neither genes nor living beings can be patented. However, in the guise of IPR sponsored by the WTO, Monsanto claimed ownership through manipulations. The attempts made by the company to expand the Bt technology to other crops like brinjal was put forth for public debate by the UPA government.

That received much attention and several ecologists and civil society activists and legal experts reacted and made the government review the GEAC decision. The release of Bt brinjal has been withheld. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, with the aid of technical experts, has given a ruling that until the prescribed regulations related to the safety and sustainability of technology are verified by competent indigenous institutes, the release of GM technology seeds should be stopped.

The special standing committee appointed by the Parliament, in which present ruling party members were partners, opined that the technology can be used, only after strengthening the regulatory bodies. Where is the justification to allow GM food crops in the name of hybrids which require further verification in terms of its safety and efficiency? It is time to review and reform the seed policies as a whole, if the rulers want to favour farmers, the principal stakeholders of this primary sector. (The writer is a retired Professor of ANGRAU)

By N Venugopal Rao