GM Crops

The issue has resurfaced after the India–US interim trade framework released by the White House, where genetically modified (GM) crops are central to American agriculture.

Rather than being a threat, the editorial argues this moment offers India a policy reset opportunity — to revisit long-standing biases against GM technology and reassess its role in food security, sustainability, and competitiveness.

What are GM crops?

Genetically Modified (GM) crops are plants whose genetic material has been artificially altered using biotechnology to introduce desirable traits such as:

• Pest resistance
• Herbicide tolerance
• Improved nutrition
• Stress tolerance (drought, salinity)

This is done through recombinant DNA technology, unlike conventional breeding.

Why does India need GM crop technology?

1. Food security pressures

• Rising population
• Climate stress
• Stagnating yields
• Shrinking land and water availability

GM crops can:

• Improve yields
• Enhance pest resistance
• Reduce chemical pesticide use
• Increase resilience to climate variability

India’s refusal to even test many GM crops risks making agriculture uncompetitive and resource-intensive.

2. Global reality vs Indian hesitation

• GM crops are now widely adopted worldwide
• Even the developing world is embracing biotech
• India — despite its strong scientific base — has become an unlikely holdout

The paradox: India needs the technology but refuses to scientifically evaluate it.

What has caused the policy logjam?

The editorial identifies three core reasons:

1. Wrong categorisation of GM crops

GM crops have been politically framed as environmentally hazardous, rather than being evaluated case-by-case on scientific evidence.

This blanket suspicion ignores:

• Crop-specific impacts
• Differences between traits (pest resistance vs herbicide tolerance)
• Potential environmental benefits

2. Regulatory paralysis

Environmental “protection” has been enforced via administrative orders, not legislation.

This has:

• Rendered India’s GM regulator ineffective
• Created uncertainty for researchers
• Prevented field trials and evidence generation

An indefinite moratorium on testing means policy decisions are being made without data.

3. Centre–State conflict

• GM regulation is driven by the Centre
• Field trials are resisted by States
• This federal tension blocks experimentation

The result is a system where no authority can decisively act, leading to policy drift.

What does the editorial recommend?

1. Let scientists decide

• Regulatory decisions must be science-led
• Politicians should not substitute evidence with ideology

2. Restore regulatory credibility

• Replace ad-hoc administrative bans with clear legislation
• Enable transparent testing and risk assessment

3. Build informed public choice

• Allow data-based debate
• Let consumers and farmers decide, backed by evidence

4. Use the US trade deal as a re-entry point

• The trade framework offers diplomatic cover to restart GM evaluation
• India can reassess without appearing to “concede”