Opinion The case for Bt brinjal

Second,private sector research is driven by the motive of profit,not altruism. Consequently,lambasting the profit motives also gets nowhere.

Third,research in agro chemicals,fertilisers,pesticides and transgenic crops is resource intensive. We are never going to get a perfectly competitive world of small enterprises driving innovation. That may have happened in England during the Industrial Revolution and it can still happen in some sectors (ask Anil Gupta at IIM-A) but is unlikely in agricultural research of the kind we are talking about. Therefore,we will have a world of big and bad MNCs.

Fourth,if significant fixed costs are involved,they have to be recouped and prices will be higher than what marginal cost pricing suggests. At best,these are arguments for better use of competition policy instruments.

Fifth,evidence does suggest that Bt crops improve productivity and reduce use of fertilisers,pesticides and insecticides. True,this evidence can be questioned. But as far as I can make out,no one has questioned whether these changes take place. They have questioned the degree (not as high as seed companies claim) and subsequent immunity in pests.

Sixth,Indian productivity levels are low and Bt offers one option of increasing productivity. It is not the only option and the country can take a decision not to use Bt. However,more importantly,shouldn’t farmers have the right to choose non-Bt over Bt,instead of the choice being precluded?

Seventh,at some point there must be finality. It may be the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) or the proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA). GEAC has been criticised over what it did and did not do and about its composition and expertise. Similar reservations have been expressed about the proposed NBRA.

These issues should have been sorted out before referring Bt brinjal to GEAC. After all,there can’t be a national referendum on something like this. That’s like saying budgets should be prepared through referendums. There will be proposers and opposers but the empowered body has to take a balanced call on food safety.

Eighth,food safety is always probabilistic,it is never certain. Often side-effects surface later but that is part of life. Ninth,beyond safety,there is the question of consumer’s right to information — separating non-Bt from Bt-food. Given the unorganised nature of our agriculture,that’s probably impossible.