The yield record of transgenic seeds in the US, the largest grower, with close to 29 million hectares under cultivation, threw up some surprising results. A study by the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has showed that yields were not significantly different in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12 out of 18 crop/region combinations. HT cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. Another study, which examined more than 8,000 field trials, found that a particular HT soybean brand produced fewer bushels than similar conventionally bred varieties. Not particularly helpful in preventing world hunger, are they?

Do they reduce producer costs? Not really. HT soybeans have resulted in savings in herbicide use, as the use of other herbicides has declined significantly to offset the increased use of specific herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate. However for Bt corn, costs related to insecticide use have actually increased due to the tendency of Bt crops to lose their pest-resistance traits in the medium-long term. Here again, their performance is mixed. So, farmers, in actuality, have not achieved either higher yields or the promised costs savings which they expected, and which drove them to adopt the seeds in spite of them being more expensive.

So, who has benefited? Studies attempting to analyse the breakdown of profitability of GM crops between biotechnology/seed firms and farmers have indicated great news for biotech companies and not-so-favourable results for farmers. For HT crops, companies profit enormously from their combined pricing strategy and for Bt cotton, companies gained 74 per cent of the total rents against farmers' shares of 21 per cent. Poor yield performance, increased costs for certain crops and profits accruing to big corporates - not really a saviour for Indian farmers, are they?

Now, a take on their relevance for agricultural systems such as ours. The minor yield increases documented so far have been due to GM seeds enabling farmers to practice precision agriculture and narrow row farming...all very difficult to achieve when the majority of the farming continues to be carried out on small, fragmented land holdings with few technological inputs. Only the very rich farmers would be able afford these more expensive seeds. Moreover, these crops have led to increased flexibility in agricultural practices, such as simplified weed control, conservation tillage, broad spectrum control etc, all of which have led to reduced labour requirements. This `convenience effect' can be expected to have a significantly adverse economic impact on labour-intensive developing country agricultural systems, such as ours (India's agriculture sector employs 64 per cent of the workforce).

Additionally, the intellectual property rights system intrinsic to the World Trade Organisation is heavily biased against developing countries. Not only does it provide MNCs the right to seize and patent genetic resources without any/adequate compensation, but it also prevents farmers from saving and reusing the modified seeds. This is a very serious concern as traditionally, Indian farmers have relied upon saved seeds for their cropping activities the following year. Moreover, being forced to come back to seed giants, year after year, for seed purchases would be financially unviable for them, leading to their increased vulnerability.

GM seeds do have the potential to revolutionise world food production systems, but are they necessarily to our advantage? The role of the private sector must be evaluated in this regard. Globally, biotech companies have spun off their agriculture businesses from pharma ventures and entered into collaborations with grain/food processors at the lower end and food retailers at the upper end of the supply chain. Retailers would research consumer tastes and seed companies would then develop seeds with the required output traits, simplifying the task of the food processors. Such a strategy is a win-win situation for the food industry but could contribute towards the increasing marginalisation of the farmer's role in food production.

Apart from the unresolved controversy pertaining to their health risks, there are also genuine environmental concerns associated with GM crops which India would do well to consider. The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on crop health and productivity have been confirmed by scientific research. Because of the convenience they afford to growers on account of their producer-friendly traits, GM seeds could encourage monoculture cropping, contributing to further decline in land productivity and genetic diversity.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee's approval for the draft Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Bill, India's proposed amendment of the Seeds Act, 1966, to restrict the entry and use of GM seeds and its pressure on the Codex Alimentarius Commission, to make labelling of GM seeds mandatory, are all steps in the right direction... provided GM seeds need to be adopted by Indian agriculture. However, the evidence that has emerged so far is to the contrary. The next generation of transgenic seeds would give rise to crops modified to adapt to extreme soil and weather conditions. Of course, they would reduce stress on natural resources and increase productivity. However, the problem in India is not about inadequate production, but inadequate storage, handling and distribution facilities leading to tremendous wastage.

India would do well to examine issues like farmers rights, lack of infrastructure to identify, segregate and/or prevent the entry of GM seeds, intellectual property and its implications. Most important, there is a need to prevent wastage and losses plaguing the system.