I was very enthused to read a recently published research paper that published a meta-analysis on the impact of genetically modified crops, specifically soyabean, maize and cotton, on crop yields, pesticide use and/or farmer profits. This was a global study, conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen in Germany.

So what exactly is a meta-analysis? In statistics, meta-analysis comprises statistical methods for contrasting and combining results from different (and often independent) studies. In this case, the meta-analysis involved 147 global studies being examined. Incidentally, meta-analysis is most often used to assess the clinical effectiveness of healthcare interventions; it does this by combining data from two or more randomised control trials.

In this context, the researchers combined data from a number of sources — studies, field-trials, research papers to statistically compute the benefits of biotechnology in the agricultural sector.

Given the limited understanding and misplaced perceptions around the benefits of GM crops and their impact in many countries — where farmers and governments are unsure of the long-term benefits — this study should be treated as a definitive and conclusive finding that will come as a shot in the arm for scientists, researchers, public-policy experts and agri-experts globally who have often been caught in the debate between the pro-GM and anti-GM lobby.

Enhancing farming

The results are extremely positive and encouraging. The analysis highlights robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 per cent, increased crop yields by 22 per cent, and increased farmer profits by 68 per cent. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed ones.

Explaining the need to take forward this analysis, the study states, “Numerous independent science academies and regulatory bodies have reviewed the evidence about risks, concluding that commercialised GM crops are safe for human consumption and the environment. There are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production and welfare gains among adopting farm households.”

GM advocates around the world have welcomed this because of the misplaced perception that the general public continues to have of genetically modified crops that prevents farmers from choosing GM crop cultivation.

No radical practice

The fact is that humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way.

In that sense, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not radical at all. The other argument is that GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.

Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.

Despite the GMO bogey and the shrill voices of naysayers, the fact is that biotechnology enabled crop cultivation has increased globally and continues to do so.

The global acreage under GM crops increased through 2013, increasing in acreage to 175.2 million hectares from 170 million hectares the previous year (2012), according to the International Service for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) that tracks GM crop acreages.

In terms of farmers, about18 million farmers across the globe planted biotech crops in 2013 compared with 17.3 million in 2012. As the meta-analysis and other studies have repeatedly shown, farmers have benefited due to significant reductions in the number of insecticide applications.

The story is also true for India. Interestingly, of the 27 countries that planted GM crops last year, 19 were developing nations and eight were among the developed bloc of nations including the US, Canada and countries in Europe.

But statistics reveal only one side of the story. The more important issue here is that of the welfare and economic uplift of Indian farmers.

For farmers’ good

Let’s not forget the pivotal role that agriculture plays in the Indian economy. Although its contribution to GDP is now around one sixth, it provides employment to 56 per cent of the Indian workforce. The biggest challenge the sector faces is average land holdings have decreased exponentially. India’s acreage has remained fairly constant at 140 million hectares over the last 40 years, but the number of farmers has increased from 7 crore to 14 crore.

Estimates by National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) suggest that we are adding one crore farmers every five years. With less land available, there is a decrease in the farmer’s capacity to invest in land. With average land holding halved, the cost of getting inputs and time consumed has doubled.

This is worrisome news indeed. The farmer also has to contend with the dramatic after-effects of climate change — floods and droughts and of limited infrastructure in terms of canals, depleting water tables, depleting soil productivity and pests. Anywhere from 5 to 20 per cent of his/her produce is lost in a normal year even before harvest.

The findings of this study are welcome because they focus on crops that have direct relevance in the Indian context — cotton (one of India’s most important cash crops), maize (the third most cultivated crop in India after rice and wheat) and soyabean (India is the fifth largest producer of soyabean globally).

This is great news for millions of India’s farmers who, for reasons they can barely comprehend, have been denied the benefit of the many wonders of biotechnology. If as a nation we are committed to inclusive growth, we should allow them to exercise their own judgment, instead of imposing on their free will.

The writer is the director general of the Association of Biotech-Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group

(This article was published on December 18, 2014)