
India-US trade deal and farm produce import
One misconception is that the US is trying to push imports of GM Corn seeds. If the US wants India to import GM Corn or GM Soy, or GM animal feed, it does not mean that they are pushing GM seeds into India. The discussion is about the import of grain and not seed. So, the imaginary fears of high seed prices, royalties, seed system dependence, patents, monopoly and export brand image are irrelevant.
Safety of GM food and feed items to human and animal health is the only subject that needs to be considered. Regulator for GM crops, GEAC under the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MOEF), is perfectly capable of assessing the safety of GM Corn, Soy and Animal feeds. The Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is capable of formulating suitable guidelines for trade.
GM Corn and GM Soy, introduced in 1996, are being cultivated in 68 m ha (30% of total Corn area) and 105 m ha (50% of total Soy area), respectively, around the world. In the US itself, nearly 330 m tons of GM Corn is produced for domestic consumption and export purposes. GM Corn and GM Soy are being consumed in a large number of countries, including Europe. India's annual consumption of GM cotton oil is 1.1 m tons and the consumption of GM Cotton meal by animals has been 8 m tons for more than 20 years. We consume about 55 thousand tons of imported GM Canola oil annually. There is no reported incidence of health issues linked to the consumption of GM foods in the world in the last 29 years since their introduction.
Multiple agencies like ISAAA and Biofortified have shown in extensive studies and diverse analyses that in all these years of GM cultivation, there have been no reports of adverse health effects on humans or animals, reiterating the substantial equivalence of GM with conventional crops. 1785 studies on GMO safety are available on the informalhealthcase website. The European Union report, based on 130 research projects conducted over 25 years and involving more than 500 independent research groups, concluded that GM crops were as safe as the conventionally bred ones. In its affidavit filed with the Supreme Court in the GM Mustard case, MOEF stated, 'India is already importing and consuming oil derived from GM crops. Opposition to such technology based on unfounded fears of adverse impact is only hurting farmers, consumers and industry'. So, the safety of GM foods should not be a concern for consumers.
The only aspect the Government has to monitor is if there is any negative impact of such imports on the domestic prices of corn and soybeans. We all agree that there should be no adverse impact on the prices realised by our corn and soy farmers. Demand for corn is going up rapidly due to increasing consumption of poultry feed and for the production of bioethanol. According to the Union Agriculture Minister, India produces about 42.28 million tons of Corn now, and it is planned to take this to 86 million tons by 2047. Our corn yields at 3.5 tons/ha are lower than the world average of 5.75 tons/ha. The demand is growing by 8% per annum, outstripping production and is expected to reach more than 86 m tons by 2047. We have to increase yields to be competitive.
If we have to accept the demand to import GM Corn from the US, then we should negotiate for something in return that India wants to export to the US. We can import GM Corn from the US and channelise it exclusively for ethanol production, thereby minimising the impact on local prices of Corn.
We don't have to accept the US demand for the import of Corn. If we have to reject it, let us reject it for the right economic reasons. Not because it is GM.
However, importing GM Corn and benefiting the US farmers would be a great disservice to our own farmers. Ideally, the Government should approve GM Corn and GM Soy cultivation in India through a well-thought-out strategy and regulatory process. If we do not equip our farmers with the latest and best technologies available in the world, we are putting them at a disadvantage compared to other farmers. Unfounded fears propagated by vested interests have already delayed the introduction of modern GM traits in crops for 20 years, causing irreparable damage to the interests of our farmers.
It is time to use scientific facts and counter the malicious social media forwards being propagated by vested interests. Technology deployment policies of the Nation should be decided by progressive governments based on scientific assessment by the regulatory bodies. They can not be decided based on campaigns being run on social media by those whose sworn objective is GM-free India. Governments have to decide what is good for the farmer, the consumer and the environment.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Mint
6 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Ford's made-in-America strategy hurts it in Trump's trade war
There is an irony in Detroit right now: The automaker most reliant on U.S. manufacturing is among the hardest hit by tariffs. Ford Motor, the second-largest American carmaker, prides itself on making most of its vehicles in the U.S. Some 80% of the cars Ford sells in the U.S. are built there, and it makes more vehicles in the U.S. than any other automaker. But the Dearborn, Mich., company said the Trump administration's latest trade deals with Japan, the European Union and South Korea put it at a disadvantage with foreign rivals. Those deals now set a 15% tariff rate, which is lower than the 25% auto tariff that went into effect this spring. Ford faces steeper tariffs on many parts as well as higher costs for imported aluminum, which is subject to 50% duties. Ford, one of the industry's biggest users of aluminum, buys the material from U.S. suppliers who pass on a chunk of their tariff costs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a CNBC interview that Ford's predicament is due to 'idiosyncratic" factors, as the company's F-series pickups are made with aluminum, which isn't readily available in the U.S. Bessent said the administration hopes to cut a deal with Canada to address aluminum costs in particular. 'I admire Ford," he said. When President Trump rolled out his tariff plan in April, he railed against the tariffs other countries had imposed on U.S.-made vehicles and said his new trade policy would help restore the U.S. to be an industrial powerhouse. U.S. automakers have long complained that they struggle to compete with foreign rivals that enjoy lower labor costs, higher levels of government support and less-stringent regulations. 'For decades now, it has not been a level playing field for U.S. automakers globally, with either tariffs or trade barriers," General Motors Chief Executive Mary Barra said earlier this year. 'So I think tariffs is one tool that the administration can use to level the playing field." As the trade policy was rolled out, the U.S. automakers found themselves also vulnerable to the tariffs. Trump slapped duties on steel and aluminum, on automotive parts and on all imported foreign vehicles, even those made by American carmakers. During the era of the North American Free Trade Agreement, GM, Ford and Stellantis expanded significant portions of their manufacturing capacity to Mexico and Canada. Those products became subject to tariffs. Around half of what GM sells in the U.S. it makes abroad; Ford builds most of its vehicles in the U.S. but relies heavily on imported parts. A trade deal that helps one might weaken the other. 'Ford has more reason to complain," said Daniel Roeska, a Bernstein analyst. 'If you're now lowering tariffs and letting more cars and content flow into the U.S., that relatively disadvantages Ford more than others." All three companies have reported big tariff costs. Ford said it paid $800 million in the second quarter. GM put its tab at $1.1 billion. Stellantis, which makes the U.S. brands Chrysler, Ram and Jeep, said tariffs shaved $350 million from its bottom line. Tesla, which builds all the vehicles it sells in the U.S. domestically and gets most parts in North America, said tariffs cost its automotive unit $200 million. When the Trump administration started striking deals with big trading partners in recent weeks, Ford executives cringed with each deal. Ford said the pacts helped its competitors, from Japan's Toyota Motor and Germany's Volkswagen to GM, which builds lower-cost Chevrolets and Buicks in South Korea. Ford said that the new 15% rate is too low to motivate competitors to move production to the U.S. 'Japan and South Korea have real advantages in labor costs, materials and currency," the company said. 'Meanwhile, Ford is facing billions due to multiple tariffs on auto parts, steel, aluminum and more that increase our costs of building in America." The United Auto Workers and a trade group representing Detroit's automakers have criticized Trump's move to lower tariffs. 'U.S. trade policy should push automakers to build in America, with skilled, union labor," the UAW said. 'A flat 15% tariff doesn't accomplish that." They have said cost advantages of building cars outside the U.S., such as weaker currency and cheaper labor, far outweigh the 15% tariff. Ford said the company's Ford Escape SUV cost roughly $5,000 more to make than a Toyota RAV4 SUV built in Japan. The new deals also could give a boost to Ford's crosstown rival, GM. Analysts estimate that the new 15% tariff on imports from South Korea will lower GM's $5 billion tariff bill this year by close to $1 billion. Ford executives said they have been in near-daily talks with administration officials, who they said have been receptive to the company's argument. 'Ford is a leading auto producer in the U.S. and the leading exporter with the most UAW workers," Chief Executive Jim Farley said on a call with analysts. 'We're very clear with the administration." Ford and the rest of the U.S. industry are awaiting a deal with Mexico, which accounts for a big chunk of auto-parts shipments into the U.S. Trump said Thursday that tariffs on Mexican goods would remain unchanged for 90 days as the nations negotiate a trade deal. Write to Sharon Terlep at


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Law on anvil for blue economy, government tells Lok Sabha
The Centre is taking a systematic approach towards a legislative framework for implementation of the Blue Economy policy, the ministry of earth sciences informed the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. Law on anvil for blue economy, government tells Lok Sabha The draft national policy on blue economy, covering seven thematic areas including ocean governance and marine spatial planning, was placed in the public domain in February 2021 and revised in July 2022 after inter-ministerial and stakeholder consultations, the response said adding that the policy is aiming to harness ocean resources sustainably for economic growth while protecting marine ecosystems ensuring national security and it also provides the foundational basis for future legislation, the ministry said in response to a query, raised by MP Brijmohan Agrawal, on the major legislative steps taken by the government for Blue Economy. The deep ocean mission is a subset of the broader blue economy concept which is focused on technological development for exploring deep ocean resources, promoting climate change advisory services, conservation of deep-sea biodiversity, research on ocean biology, and harnessing energy and freshwater from the ocean. 'The current focus is on strengthening the existing environmental legal framework through targeted reforms, including amendments to existing laws and empowering the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change's umbrella legislation the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These reforms aim to introduce specific rules to address critical challenges such as e-waste (management), plastics waste management, batteries waste management, and end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) scrapping,' said Jitendra Singh, minister of state for earth sciences. He was responding to questions by BJP MP, Brijmohan Agrawal on the 1. major legislative steps taken by the Government for the Blue Economy district from policy-based approaches such as the Deep Ocean Mission along with the draft legislation; 2. inter-ministerial consultations or projected timelines for a Blue Economy Law; 3. existing mechanism which ensures sector-specific, legally binding environmental among others. The various sectors in the blue economy are governed by different laws which include: 1. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems governed by Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, 2. Fisheries and Aquaculture governed by Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (State-specific); National Policy on Marine Fisheries, 2017; 3. Shipping and Ports & Security under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958; Major Port Authorities Act, 2021; International Maritime Conventions (e.g., MARPOL) (via Merchant Shipping Act); Maritime Zones Act, 1976; Recycling of Ships Act, 2019 and Island Vessels Act, 2021, 3. Oil, Gas & Deep-Sea Mining under Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 and Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002, 4. Tourism and Recreation under Environment (Protection) Act & CRZ Rules and Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and 5. Marine Biotechnology & Bioprospecting under Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The regulatory gaps and overlaps are being addressed through the PARIVESH portal of Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change which acts as a single window for environmental, forest, wildlife, and coastal regulation zone clearances and the National Sagarmala Apex Committee and PM Gatishakti portal also aid in integrated planning, Singh said. Further, there are dedicated laws and guidelines for investment, accountability, and liability including 100% FDI is permitted via the automatic route in sectors like sea-ports and aquaculture. Offshore mineral block auctions are open to foreign bidders with specified conditions. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, adopts international liability conventions and mandates compulsory insurance for pollution damage. Offshore safety is governed by the Oil Mines Regulations, 2017, and a draft Offshore Safety Directive. The 'Harit Sagar' Green Port Guidelines (2023) mandate ESG reporting for terminal operators. The Deep Ocean Mission requires Environmental and Social Due Diligence for its projects. Maritime Zones Act, 1976 along with updated rules like the Offshore Wind Energy Lease Rules, 2023, provides the legal framework for leasing and regulating offshore energy and mineral projects, the response said.


India Today
7 hours ago
- India Today
India buying Russian oil ‘point of irritation', but not the only one: Trump aide
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that India's purchases of Russian oil are helping to sustain Moscow's war efforts in Ukraine and it is "most certainly a point of irritation" in New Delhi's relationship with Washington, although not the only point of irritation. In an interview with Fox Radio, Rubio claimed that the US President is frustrated with the fact that India continues to buy oil from Russia despite having so many other oil vendors available and helping to fund Russia's war effort against Ukraine. advertisement'India has huge energy needs and that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy like every country does, and it buys it from Russia, because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap. In many cases, they're selling it under the global price because of the sanctions,' said Rubio. "Unfortunately, that is helping to sustain the Russian war effort. So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India – not the only point of irritation. We also have many other points of cooperation with them," the US Secretary of State added. One of the biggest points of contradiction that has stopped India and the US from signing a trade deal is India's firm resistance to opening up its agriculture and dairy sectors, while the US is pushing for greater access to India's agricultural market, particularly for GM crops, dairy, and products like corn, soybeans, apples, almonds, and ethanol. They have been insisting on tariff reductions in these sensitive sectors. New Delhi argues that allowing cheaper, subsidised US farm goods into the country would harm the income of millions of small has told the US that reducing tariffs on dairy, rice, wheat, and genetically modified (GM) crops like corn and soybeans is not possible right now. According to officials, such a step could hurt over 700 million rural people, including around 80 million small dairy farmers. The US is also pushing for better access to the Indian market across a wide range of products other than agricultural and dairy products. These include ethanol, apples, almonds, autos, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and even alcoholic drinks. It also wants India to cut down its non-tariff barriers, simplify customs rules, and relax laws on data storage, patents and digital trade.- EndsWith inputs from PTI Must Watch