Dear Rajashekhar Mandla,

Genetically modified crops (GMOs), if they are carried out under full control, may constitute an alternative to chemical treatment, including the use of chemically produced pesticides as part of the pro-ecological transformation of agriculture towards sustainable organic farming. In view of the above, sustainable organic farming with a controlled share of GMOs should be developed in the future, ie the replacement of chemicals, including pesticides, by GMOs. It is safer and it is possible to achieve many pro-ecological and pro-economic goals and also in the context of the progressing global warming process, to which industrial agriculture also contributes. Instead of industrial production of agricultural produce, organic farming should be developed without the use of chemical plant protection products. Pesticides should be replaced by introducing to the production of agricultural crops more resistant to viral, bacterial, fungal and parasitic diseases of cultivated plant varieties, which are created using modern biogenetic techniques. New varieties of crops can be safe and suitable for consumption, food, drug production, etc. if thoroughly tested. Certainly, there can be safer new plant varieties created, bred using modern, controlled genetic techniques compared to chemical pesticides. Some of the chemical pesticides after their application in farmland were quickly detected in the bodies of penguins in Antarctica, so the chemicals spread through biological food chains. In addition, new varieties of crops grown with the use of modern genetic techniques can be a perfect complement to the developed organic farming, in which no artificial, chemical plant protection products are used. Another important issue concerning the development of organic farming concerns the protection of flower pollinating insects. The value of pollinating the flowers of cultivated plants (excluding non-cultivated plants) is estimated at $ 500 billion. USA annually. Due to the intensification of the production of agricultural crops, including the use of chemical plant protection products, the number of pollinating insects, especially bees, is declining rapidly. The number of bumblebees is also declining very quickly, and only these insects pollinate some crops. In order to limit the sources of this problem, man should limit the development of agriculture based on the industrial production of crops, primarily in the areas of production of crops intended for fodder for farm animals, which is globally 3/4 of the area of ​​arable land. In addition to pesticides used in industrial production of agricultural crops (mainly for the purposes of maintaining animal production, meat production), the increasingly faster global warming process contributes to the decline in the number of insects, including pollinating insects. This is because many insect species are very sensitive to temperature changes in the environment in which they live. In view of the above, in my opinion, agriculture in the future should be developed according to the following formula: Global warming + Green agriculture + Sustainable development = Sustainable organic farming Genetically modified crops (GMOs), if they are carried out under full control, can significantly help in the efficient implementation of the pro-ecological transformation of industrial agriculture towards sustainable organic farming.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The production imposes high risks to the disruption of ecosystem and biodiversity because the “better” traits produced from engineering genes can result in the favouring of one organism. Hence, it can eventually disrupt the natural process of gene flow.

Are GM Crops a Boon or Bane?

Might I suggest that instead of debating whether a particular technology is a boon or bane, we could ask ourselves "how can we make this tech a boon to the society?" A knife can be used to cook food and feed a few, and can also be used to hurt a few.

To the proponents of "natural" food, I say that AGRICULTURE by definition is NOT NATURAL. If we are extremely worried about ecosystems, we should all go back to living in trees and caves, and be hunters and gatherers to eat. When we began agriculture, we started favouring a few crops versus many plants. When we began favouring a few crops instead of many, we also became partial to those insects and microbes that are beneficial to our favourite crops. Therefore, the argument that GM crops are the first and only bane to the Earth's ecological balance, is baseless and meaningless. In fact, Every single human advancement has been negatively impacting other organisms on this planet.

All ecological arguments, however theoretically valid, must also consider socio-political consequences. Real lives are not theories that can be published in high impact factor journals.

When we have become greedy to reproduce to an extent of having almost 8 billion people who do not live in caves and trees, we need to think about feeding all of them as well. We must also consider that ideals of capitalism, free-markets, globalisation, freedom etc., have led to a weird world.

There are countries that can produce copious food naturally and those that can't. Amongst those that cannot produce a variety of natural foods, most of them have enslaved those that can produce food for centuries and exploited them. Through the new world order, these not-haves who are also colonials are still exploiting those who can produce food. These colonialists are also the ones who have an abundance of cheap food available through such exploitations while there is a differnet part of the world that doesn't have much to go around. The economically poor but biodiverse rich countries are being exploited for the benefit of the over-wasting and over-consuming richer economic markets.

I live in a Tundra where we cannot grow bananas. Yet, it is one of the cheapest produce that I can get my hands on. However, I could only get one or two varieties of bananas whereas the place where these bananas are produced could produce at least a few more. Nevertheless, due to exploitation, they are left to growing more of the same variety in search of export gains. Therefore, it is easy to talk theoretical ecology from the high perches of colonialism and economical classism and demonise the technology. In fact, it is the same system that is exploiting the technology as well as the people. They also do this through misinformation and fictional science.

These colonial systems have also monopolised the technology while making it inacessible to those who they exploit. So, let us not pretend to care about ecology so much after thousands of years of changing it for our benefit. Let us think about how to make the best out of this situation. Like any issue, there are many ways to approach this. I suggest a two-side approach, one for emerging/poor economies (low GDP per capita) and one for the exploiters/rich economies (high GDP per capita) in that order.

In India, there are famous non-scientists calling themselves eco gods, going around, demonising the technology. But here is my argument as to why they are wrong.

Hybrid seeds are expensive. Farmers get into a lot of debt and commit suicide. This is a viscious circle. Farmers cannot make their own seed from the hybrids. All of these are very true and very sad. The current technologies of GM when applied to farmers in India will lead to misery as the coupling of technology and its system was desgined for western farmers. An average Indian farm is 3 acres in size while that of US is 470 acres. Small pieces of land were split amongst a large population at the end of British occupation in India. While, 100s of acres of native American land was given to white Europeans immigrants to settle down in the US and exploit the American lands. Therefore, a family farm is not the same in both cases. Therefore, the same system/business model for the technology will not work in both the countries.

In a free market economy, it is still possible to protect one's own interests through proper negotiations aka lobbying. It is not entirely correct to demonise western companies for their tactful lobbying. From their perspective, India is a large market and those companies would want to keep their unit price steady and push a larger volume for more profit. That makes sound business sense. But, democratically elected governments have a responsibility to protect their people, their interest group. Therefore, democratically elected governments or any goverment is the defacto lobbyist for its own people.

Instead of regulating the price of seeds and empowering more indegeneous companies to use GM technologies to make crops for India (de-monopolise), Indian politicians have relied on western companies, their business models and their lobbies. The Indian government which is full of illiterate politicians are easily targeted by business lobbies, and the farmers are left without proper support. Huge royalties were permitted to be added to the seed prices by the government. Instead, farmers were incentivised to convert to Bt Cotton through limited time subsidies and promises by the government to directly buy the new Bt Cotton. This helped convert a lot of farmers to grow Bt Cotton. In the recent past, these subsidies and royalties are being rethought, angering the business owners and not completely working for the poor farmers.

But when the government stopped the subsidies and the acquisition of Bt Cotton, nothing changed for the companies, but everything changed for the poor farmer. All the investments that these farmers made to convert their small farms for Bt Cotton were dead. Furthermore, there were no efforts to educate the farmers about the technology. Several fields started monoculture of Bt Cotton. Any genetic trait, whether it is in a GM crop or a "natural" crop, will break down in large monocultures over a period of time. Therefore, different kinds of bollworms started becoming a problem. The GM cotton is not as effective as it was before. A crop rotation also means use of different implements and machines for a different crop. It is too much to ask of small famers (3 acres avg vs 470 acres in the US) to do such expensive changes. These technical problems were never publically discussed while policies were being developped. I cannot stress more about the absence of any outreach education to farmers from the government on these aspects. Today, the government of India is making several sharp U-turns (again without much thought) on many of the policies in practice when it comes to GM crops and the business models associated with them.

Those pseudo scientists who claim to speak for the farmers are busy demonising the technology and earning money by doing so - in terms of book royalties and foreign speech engagements. They could instead lobby for using the technology to benefit the Indian farmers. There is more personal gain from being the face of change than actually bringing about any. No money is being spent by these farmer-friendly lobbies to suggest alternative policies - they are only there to ban the haphazard policies promulgated by illiterate politicians. This also weakens the credibility of scientists. At the end of the day, one must think about how scientists are also humans and they would also be eating the same technology if it becomes mainstream, and therefore care about the safety of the same. Clearly, spraying a crop for bugs 5 times vs 2 times has its ecological benefits too! But more spraying is in the interest of companies that might be manufacturing pesticide sprays, but not GM seeds. Once again, everybody has the right to protect their interests through lobbying.

So, developing countries or poor economies need to either find a way to peacefully collectivise farming and make it profitable without changing the business model, or tightly regulate the prices of the seed technology and educate their farmers about it - rethink and renegotiate the business model. These countries should consult with actual scientists and accept their recommendations. People should also keep in mind that nothing is perfect or ideal and we are all human, trying to do the best for that time. It is easy to bad mouth green revolution when it has been the source for economic revival and has fueled such bad-mouthing activists to get ahead socio-economically. People should elect, in case of a democracy, representatives based on policies, regardless of their emotions based on religion/race/sex or any other such identities. Asking questions and having healthy dialogues must be encouraged, rather than be discouraged.

So, what about the rich countries?

Europe has higher standards for food and are more anti-GMO and pro-organic than the US. However, they are also reducing their consumption and waste, and making themselves more self sufficient. The idea of eating local and native produce is catching on. Finally, they see merits in both the writings of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. It is possible to produce organic food and non-GM food if we first REDUCE, then REUSE instead of exploit.

Recycling is not that important - compared to REDUCTION and REUSE.

These behaviours are once again tightly associated with the political structure of Europe. The relatively higher transparencies and trust in the democratically elected government to do good by the people, unlike in the US.

Will the rich countries stop exploiting? Well, that is in the hands of those being exploited to stand up to them and say NO! Rather, they must renegotiate so these trade relationships are mutually beneficial and relevant to context.

So, are GM crops boon or bane?

are concrete houses boon or bane to the environment?

are humans boon or bane to planet earth?

Remember, the same Nazis and their technology that made V2 bombers helped the US and USSR send people into space!!!

Balance the build-up of entropy :)

I think Rajashekhar Mandla he wanted to know ""

This is a good question...Why Indian government only approved one GM crop for local cultivation? A lot of GM seeds are patented, and need a licence to use. Probably the government doesn't want their foods are controlled by foreigner countries? But, why they did not approve those GM crop varieties created by its own scientists??

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/only-bt-cotton-is-approved-gm-crop-narendra-singh-tomar/articleshow/70044566.cms

All depends on the kind of genetically modified crop you are dealing with. By and large those resistant against insects and fungal diseases are going to improve the yield while diminishing at the same time the pollution with pesticides. The story with herbicide resistant plant is more mitigated since many country did not allow to use them (public health problems). Regardless of the kind of transgenic crop with time mutants of insect and disease are going to circumvent this resistance, hence more development of transgenic plants. Giving up monoculture and replacing it by the classical rotation and tilling of crops could be part of the solution.

Please see the link below.

http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2016/Feb-Mar/engpdf/71-78.pdf

Please have a look at the link below:

Article Feeding animals with GM crops:Boon or bane?

You may follow the link below:

Chapter Genetically modified foods- Impact on human health. Boon or Bane?

Thank you all for ur kind response..

Rajashekhar Mandla

For your question < ...in India, why only one GM crop that is Bt Cotton was approved by GEAC for commercial cultivation, why not for other crops... >

Look like politically involved. See the article analyzing the situation at the link below:

"There are three classic Indian GM cases. Former University of Delhi vice-chancellor Deepak Pental developed HT GM mustard DMH-11, which, after rigorous tests, was certified as safe by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), which initially cleared its commercialization. DMH-11’s yield is 25% higher than the best non-GM seeds available in India. However, activists went ballistic and the government has backed off. "

Article link : https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-left-or-right-genetic-science-unites-all-luddites-1561711647888.html

Genetically modified crops are obviously boon to farmers. May be in future days it will be commercialized for other crops also. But it needs strong policy measures.

Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment - Medical News Today

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324576

Disadvantages of Genetically Modified or GM Crops

The production imposes high risks to the disruption of ecosystem and biodiversity because the “better” traits produced from engineering genes can result in the favouring of one organism. Hence, it can eventually disrupt the natural process of gene flow.

https://m.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-genetically-modified-or-gm-crops-1521034287-1

I can say it as Boon to farmers !!

Because, GMO are as good as conventionally bred varities if they are tested for biosafety thoroughly, and they are particularly important when there is no source of resistance/Tolerance available within Cultivated genepool or GP1,2,3, at such situation GMO is vaiable alternate approch.

find the attachment sir

Definitely its a boon. But we need to be selective in choosing the right crop. Example: why should we have BT brinjal ? Even if the production of existing brinjal varieties wont de able to compete with GM brinjal it will continue to feed the people. At best naturally available moderately resistant resistant varieties would serve the purpose. On the contrary if BT brinjal is introduced because of high yield and resistance it wil ultimately eliminate other indigenous varieties which is not desireable from the view point of conservation of plant genetic resources and also high production of BT brinjal wil lead to reduction in price and the poor farmers will be poorer. There is less scope for utilizing over produced brinjal for processing. There is lot of diversity in brinjal genetic resources and consumer has a chance to choose according to their preferance.

of course its a boon for modern agriculture but still under political complications along with property rights of marginal farmers in the developing countries.

India's regulatory body is still very much strict in allowing GM Crops for commercial cultivation. To me for meeting the food need of the growing population and to meet the consumer preference for newly developed specific nutrient rich GM crop varieties the government should open the door for selected GM crops on case by case basis.

The GM crops investigated for their beneficial and side effects and approved can be beneficial to agriculture, like GM crops with genes for disease resistance or herbicide tolerance can reduce use of pesticides.

GM crops are both a boon and a bane if managed incorrectly. Evidence from the US and other countries shows that over-use or incorrect application of chemicals, particularly herbicides, on GM crops bred for herbicide resistance has increased the herbicide resistance of some weeds, hence stronger herbicides are required. Thus, as mentioned, earlier strong policy programs need to be in place to ensure the full benefit of the GM crop is achieved.

It's difficult to give a definitive answer.

I think Emmanuel Vijayanand Murray hit the nail on the head, there is no definitive yes or no answer to that question.

Peter Tozer said correctly. way of implimentaiton and utilization of GM crops should be proper direction. Many biotic and abiotic stresses controlled naturally using biocontroles. GM crops development may be developed as option to genetic gain in terms of nutritions and combination of different micronutrient in one species. Biofortification is major challenge to revoke hidden hunger of many countries. Some facts are givne in attachment.

Offcours GM crops are boon only as you claim but the problem what is the impact on environment and bioefficacy is just matters.

GM crops will be used as a weapon to cope with food security and hidden hunger population in the world. Many countries are accepted the GM crops in Agriculture to increase production and quality foods. This is a only technique to develop the desiged foods in situation of natural calamitic pandamic situation to boost immunity. Rajashekhar Mandla

I think the topic is still under serious discussion among different stakeholders. Several comments have been made on both positive and negative sides. The specific concerns related to GMO is it's regulation; majorly How? and Who?

In my view, developed countries are easily welcoming GMO products as they are self- reliant in the GMO production. Under developed, and developing countries are reluctant to use for it's higher price and increased dependency for seed supply in future. I believe there is lot more to come in the future regarding the use of GMOs.

Probably because of this, the increased productivity provides the population with more food. Moreover, these foods are a boon in places which experience frequent droughts, or where the soil is incompetent for agriculture. Genetically engineered food crops can be grown at places with unfavorable climatic conditions too.

There are advantages and disadvantages. Countries and people should be used in good way

Technologies will always pave a path to achieve the target and fulfill the society demand. Many people are defending this GM crops acceptance in the public domain. It is the time to accept GM crops for food security during pandemic condition. There is hiking food price day by day.