Genetically Modified Crops: Food Security, Farmer Distress, and the Limits of Biotechnology

The Industrial Revolution resulted in rapid development and large-scale production, as well as an increase in population and increased competition among various sectors, particularly manufacturers, resulting in the commodification of various items and the realisation that food can be used as a tool for trade. This prompted countries to increase crop yields not only to meet the needs of their own people, but also to export. The Green Revolution in India began with similar goals in mind, and while it alleviated hunger and increased productivity, it also generated new issues, such as huge dams that resulted in widespread floods. Irrigation without regard for the environment, as well as the usage of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and herbicides, had a significant influence. It is clear that technology frequently generates new problems while attempting to address existing ones.

Because of the desire to build a name for India and Indians in biotechnology, biotechnology in India was a state-funded enterprise. GM crops are not the same as traditional crops. Recombinant DNA technology is used to introduce new features to make the crop more yielding and resistant, although it is a common fallacy that GM crops boost yields. The majority of GM crops are commodity crops linked to big agribusiness conglomerates and global trade. They are also at the heart of processed goods, and they are to blame for a slew of environmental concerns and challenges. When considering the ethics and economics of permitting GM crops in India, a number of factors must be considered, including the impact on small farmers and their relationship to farmer distress, corporate control and monopoly, public health implications, and stakeholder consensus. There is a direct link between farmer suffering and BT cotton production. Additional yield always comes at the expense of increased inputs, and so socioeconomic issues must be taken into account. If GM crops are allowed to be utilised without restriction, it could result in a slew of problems. The regulatory costs of taking any GM crop through the entire process are in the billions of rupees and take years; by the time it comes around to deployment, only developers with very deep pockets can actually afford it.

The dispute over the introduction of genetically modified crops has traditionally been framed as a matter of food security, presented as a way to alleviate hunger and malnutrition. The right-wing opposition to science and technology is also discussed on the other side of the argument, though it is noted that GM crops are created largely for commercial purposes. MNCs do this because they are in the manufacturing industry, whereas the public sector has few agencies. There is no sustainable public sector BT cotton for farmers, and 98% of it is controlled by corporations. India is the only country in the world where BT cotton is only available as hybrids, which must be acquired every season. As a result, farmers have paid expensive royalties to MNCs, which are the main participants in the cotton seed market. It is critical that biotechnology priorities be refocused to meet the demands of farmers.

Farmers continue to adopt BT cotton with zeal and excitement, resulting in India becoming the world's greatest producer of cotton. However, the reason for its success is that alternative types have vanished, and farmers' reliance on seed dealers has grown significantly. Indian farmers are eager to try new things, and when they were notified that something new was available, they adopted it quickly. Furthermore, most farmers believe BT is a brand name and are unaware that it is genetically modified, and most Indian languages lack a phrase for GM or BT. The use of hybrids was one of the most harmful repercussions of GM in India, and it remains the only country to have adopted them; elsewhere, straight varieties with minor changes are used. Hybrids were adopted in India because corporations requested them. When GM was first introduced in India, socio-economic problems were ignored by the scientists working on it because they were primarily concerned with the science itself.

The sciences must collaborate to meet the demands of farmers and labourers, and to evaluate the role of private and public investment. The argument also raises issues of who should be included in the decision-making process and how binding their conclusions should be. The ability to choose only makes sense when there is knowledge, and most Indian farmers are unaware of genetically modified crops or the widely used BT Cotton. Knowledge is unequally distributed, and there is no clear consensus among the numerous stakeholders. When considering factors from various perspectives, it is clear that there is no direct link between genetically modified crops and sustainability, food security, or stakeholder participation. It is therefore critical to consider socio-economic factors and to focus on other aspects of agriculture, including the interests of farmers rather than corporations, because genetically modified crops are not the most viable solution in the agricultural sector.