- Another gaffe in the Parliament’s cap
This bill just passed allows importing and commercialising Genetically Modified crops in Pakistan, dubbed the GM crops. The procedure requires grafting certain genes of a bacterium into the DNA of plants. B. thuringiensi known as ‘Bt’ which is an insecticidal bacterium has a worldwide demand for controlling many pests attacking plants. Including the genes in the DNA of plants make it poisonous for those insects that attack and damage crops. What it means is reduction of pesticides used for crops at the same time having a better crop at the end of the day.
Taking the example of cotton, the use of GM crop led to India becoming the second biggest country exporting cotton in the world. This however has some huge drawbacks. First, this growth is dependent on one company Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. Monsanto not only sells seeds but also licenses genetically modified traits to companies dealing with seeds. It also buys smaller seed companies to boost its portfolio.
Second, these seeds have to be purchased on a yearly basis. Not only this, the genetic mix needs adjustment time to time as the pests do tend to develop immunity against the original mix. This ensures the farmers must keep on buying the new mix yearly. This in turn means huge debts for small farmers. They end up borrowing from money-lenders. Heavy taxation and related variables resulting in not-s-good crop add to their woes.
Unlike farmers’ own-seeds which can be freely saved and used the following year, farmers have to buy GM cotton seeds every year. ‘Monsanto GM seed costs roughly four times more than the traditional varieties,’ writes Heidi Chow. (29 September 2016)
Third, the purchasing country ends up paying huge royalties to the company selling the GM Crop seeds — for the farmers it means buying expensive seeds, paying added taxation and making produce way more expensive.
Why go in for a controversial bill that can destroy the produce growth of different varieties in Pakistan where the GM crop seeds are used?
India’s farmers are not the only casualty, Burkina Faso farmers (Africa) in 2000, known to be the top cotton grower as bollworms were threatening their crop. Their cotton was excellent quality, a cut above the rest, with a rich texture to it. Monsanto suggested a strain called Bollgard II as a solution to the farmers of Burkina Faso. A trial was agreed and put in place in 2008. The farmers were free of the parasite, had lush crops. Ecstatic with the result, by 2015, two-third of their crops were from GM seeds by Monsanto. The farmers though faced another problem. Though there were no pests, there was a drastic fall in the quality of the cotton produced. In 2016-17 the Burkina Faso farmers moved away from the GM seeds.
‘The country’s GM experience, told by more than three dozen Monsanto insiders, farmers, scientists and cotton company officials as well as in confidential documents reviewed by Reuters, highlights a little-known quandary faced by genetic engineering. For Burkina Faso’s cotton growers, GM ended up as a trade-off between quantity and quality. For Monsanto, whose $13.5 billion in revenues in 2016 were more than Burkina Faso’s GDP, it proved uneconomical to tailor the product closely to a market niche.’ Reuters Dec. 8, 2017)
Look closely at the last line here; “…..it proved uneconomical to tailor the product closely to a market niche.’” Different needs are different in different markets with different weather conditions and related variables. In Pakistan itself the weather in different areas/provinces, lands in mountain areas and those in plains may require different mixes of the recipe instead of a generic one. Will a commercial organisation address these niches putting in billions needed in research to make the venture economically viable in terms of profits?
Because of the harmful impact of GM crops, the Senate chairman had referred the bill to the Senate Standing Committee on National Food Security. After three hours of earth-shaking discussion the bill was passed.
Only one Senate member, Mohammad Mohsin Khan Leghari, opposed the hurry in which the bill was being passed without the regulations governing the import.
‘Pakistan is signatory to Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety, which does not permit import and commercialisation of GM crops without bio-safety regulations and proper infrastructure in place.’ (Local Newspaper, June 11, 2015) For the past many years the various varieties of GM crop have been tried to ascertain it’s suitability to local environment. The farmers complain the trial has been a failure. There is a report of increase of use of fertilisers, less yield per acre, and resistance of pests to GM seeds. There is also a risk to human health reportedly. Why then has the Parliament ignored this eight year old trial period to take off the draft of this bill from the shelf, shake of the dust and pass it in a rush?
A better option could have been use of organic, open pollinated varieties of seeds that can be saved and not purchased yearly. These out-of-box solutions requires research, ingenuity and addressing niche marketing needs.
Why go in for a controversial bill that can destroy the produce growth of different varieties in Pakistan where the GM crop seeds are used? Besides the GM crop seller company making bucks who else is profiting from the transaction?
