India’s Agri-Export Future at Stake: The Fallout of GM Imports in Trade Negotiations

09 Jul India’s Agri-Export Future at Stake: The Fallout of GM Imports in Trade Negotiations

This article covers “Daily Current Affairs”  and the Topic  India’s Agri-Export Future at Stake: The Fallout of GM Imports in Trade Negotiations

SYLLABUS MAPPING:

GS-3- Agriculture- India’s Agri-Export Future at Stake: The Fallout of GM Imports in Trade Negotiations

FOR PRELIMS

What are GM foods? Why is their import into India controversial?

FOR MAINS

Why is the India–U.S. trade deal facing hurdles over GM food imports?

Why in the News? 

The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), an economic think tank, has cautioned that the proposed interim trade pact between India and the United States—expected to be finalized before July 9, 2025—could have serious implications for India’s agricultural exports, especially to the European Union, if it allows the import of genetically modified (GM) farm products such as soybean meal and DDGS.

What are GM Crops?

Genetically Modified (GM) crops are plants whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques to introduce desirable traits. These modifications involve the insertion of genes from different species (bacteria, viruses, or other plants/animals) to enhance crop performance.
Common Traits Introduced in GM Crops
1. Pest Resistance: Crops are engineered to produce proteins toxic to specific pests.
Example: Bt gene from Bacillus thuringiensis helps plants kill bollworms and other insects.
2. Herbicide Tolerance: Crops can survive applications of herbicides that kill weeds. Reduces manual weeding, saves labour costs.
3. Disease Resistance: Genetic traits protect crops from viral or fungal diseases.
4. Improved Shelf-life and Nutrition: Traits to enhance storage life or add nutrients (e.g., Golden Rice with Vitamin A).

India’s GMO-Free Reputation and Agri Export Competitiveness

1. Strict GM Regulations in Key Markets: The European Union (EU), a major importer of Indian agri-products, enforces rigorous GM labelling and traceability norms. Even trace amounts of GM content can trigger shipment rejections or legal action.
2. High Consumer Sensitivity to GM Products: European consumers strongly prefer GMO-free foods, particularly in sensitive categories like organic products, baby food, and natural health supplements, affecting demand for Indian agri-exports.
3. Core Export Items at Risk: Indian exports such as basmati rice, organic honey, tea, spices, and ayurvedic herbs are marketed as natural and GMO-free. GM contamination, even unintended, could compromise this market image and trust.
4. Risk of Cross-Contamination in Supply Chains: India lacks robust segregation and traceability infrastructure. Importing GM feed like soybean meal or DDGS could contaminate local agri-supply chains, leading to unintentional GM presence in export goods.
5. Potential Shipment Rejections and Financial Losses: Contaminated consignments may be rejected at foreign ports, leading to direct losses, brand erosion, reputational damage, and costly testing and compliance burdens for Indian exporters.
6. Organic Certification and Niche Market Threats: India is a leading exporter of organic produce. GM feed usage in animal husbandry or GM trace in crop exports may jeopardize organic certification, affecting premium markets and farmer incomes.
7. Loss of Export Competitiveness: Without adequate labelling, monitoring, and control mechanisms, India may lose its competitive edge in GMO-sensitive export markets, pushing buyers towards alternate suppliers like Sri Lanka or Vietnam.

Domestic Infrastructure and Supply Chain Challenges

1. Fragmented Agri-Logistics: India’s agricultural supply chain is marked by fragmentation, involving smallholder farmers, middlemen, and unregulated markets, making the system vulnerable to contamination and inefficiencies.
2. Lack of Segregation Mechanisms: There is no robust system for separating GM and non-GM products during harvesting, storage, processing, and transportation, increasing the risk of inadvertent GM presence in non-GM consignments.
3. Inadequate Storage and Handling Facilities: Most rural mandis and warehouses are not equipped to store GM and non-GM goods separately, compounding the issue of traceability and regulatory compliance.
4. High Risk of Cross-Contamination: Without strict protocols, importing GM feed like DDGS or soybean meal may lead to its accidental mixing with domestic non-GM produce, especially in animal husbandry or grain handling operations.
5. Weak Traceability and Monitoring Systems: India currently lacks a centralized digital traceability system for tracking the origin and handling of agricultural commodities, essential for compliance with international GM norms.
6. Export Risk Due to Domestic Gaps: These infrastructure gaps can result in the loss of GMO-free status for Indian exports, inviting rejection in high-value markets like the EU, which demand strict segregation and documentation.
7. Urgent Need for Regulatory Readiness: If GM imports are allowed, India needs to urgently establish labelling, certification, segregation, and testing protocols to prevent reputational and economic damage to its agri-export sector.

Religious and Ethical Concerns

1. Use of Animal-Origin Genes in GM Crops: Some GM crops are created using genes from animals, bacteria, or viruses, raising serious concerns for communities that adhere to strict vegetarian or religious dietary laws.
2. Impact on Vegetarian and Vegan Consumers: Even if the final product is plant-based, the presence of animal-derived genes may render it unacceptable to vegetarians, Jains, or vegans on ethical or religious grounds.
3. Violation of Informed Consumer Choice: Without mandatory GM labelling, consumers are unable to distinguish GM from non-GM products, denying them the right to make informed dietary choices based on personal or cultural beliefs.
4. Perceived Threat to Food Purity: In a country where food purity has deep cultural and spiritual significance, introducing GM foods without wide public consultation could create social distrust and backlash.
5. Ethical Dilemma in Public Procurement: Government schemes like midday meals, ICDS, or PDS may unknowingly distribute GM-based foods, raising questions about informed consent, especially for vulnerable populations like children or tribals.
6. Label Transparency and Public Awareness Gaps: India currently lacks a mandatory, user-friendly labelling regime for GM products, creating transparency issues and making it difficult for ethical consumers to avoid GM-linked products.
7. Risk of Social and Political Opposition: GM food imports could trigger opposition from religious groups, civil society, and political parties, especially if ethical and cultural sensitivities are ignored during policymaking.

Regulatory and Policy Landscape

1. Central Role of GEAC in GM Approvals: The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment is the apex body responsible for evaluating and approving GM organisms in India.
2. Lack of Mandatory GM Labelling: India does not currently enforce mandatory front-of-pack labelling for all GM-derived products, unlike countries like the EU. This leaves consumers uninformed and complicates traceability in domestic and export markets.
3. Need for Robust Certification and Traceability Standards: Effective certification mechanisms, supply chain documentation, and product tracking are essential to distinguish GM and non-GM products, both for domestic integrity and export compliance.
4. Weak Enforcement of Existing Guidelines: Although some guidelines exist, enforcement is inconsistent across states and stakeholders. Many food products escape scrutiny due to poor coordination between FSSAI, customs, and agricultural regulators.
5. Absence of Comprehensive GM Policy: India lacks a unified, national policy on GM food, resulting in fragmented regulation, unclear approval processes, and ad hoc decisions. This creates confusion among producers, consumers, and exporters.
6. Contrast with International Best Practices: Countries like the EU, Japan, and Australia enforce strict labelling, public consultation, long-term health studies, and traceability laws. India’s evolving framework still falls short of such global benchmarks.
7. Urgency for Policy Clarity in Light of Trade Talks: With GM imports being considered in the India-U.S. trade pact, regulatory clarity is essential to safeguard public health, ethical concerns, and export interests while ensuring scientific progress.

Trade Negotiations and Strategic Trade-Offs

1. U.S. Pressure for GM Market Access: The United States, a major producer of GM crops like corn and soy, is pushing India to allow GM imports such as soybean meal and DDGS as part of the ongoing interim trade pact negotiations.
2. Potential Diplomatic Leverage: While accommodating U.S. demands may improve trade ties and open doors for broader economic cooperation, it raises concerns about compromising on sensitive domestic issues like food safety and farmer rights.
3. Need to Balance Trade with Domestic Safeguards: India must strike a delicate balance—promoting trade facilitation without undermining its regulatory autonomy, consumer protection, or export competitiveness.
4. Risks to Long-Term Strategic Interests: Short-term trade benefits may come at the cost of long-term reputational and economic damage if India’s GMO-free status is compromised, especially in premium markets like the EU.
5. Precedent for Future Trade Deals: Conceding on GM imports may set a precedent, encouraging other trading partners to demand relaxation of environmental or health standards in future bilateral or multilateral deals.
6. Domestic Industry and Farmer Impact: Opening up to cheaper GM feed imports may affect domestic feed producers, while Indian farmers using non-GM crops could face lower demand from exporters requiring GMO-free certification.
7. Call for Transparent Public Consultation: Any trade-related decision on GM products must involve wider stakeholder consultation, including farmers, exporters, civil society, scientists, and religious bodies, to ensure inclusive policymaking.

Trade Negotiations and Strategic Trade-Offs

1. Pressure from the U.S. to Open GM Markets: As part of the interim trade pact, the U.S. is pushing for access to India’s market for GM products like soybean meal and DDGS, arguing economic and feed security benefits.
2. Strategic Trade Leverage vs Domestic Sensitivities: While accommodating these demands could improve India–U.S. trade relations, it risks undermining domestic regulatory standards, especially in food safety and public health.
3. Trade-Off Between Short-Term Gains and Long-Term Risks: The move may yield limited immediate economic benefits but can result in loss of export markets, public backlash, and reputational damage to India’s agricultural sector.
4. Undermining India’s Position in Other FTAs: If India concedes under pressure, it may weaken its negotiating stance in other trade agreements, making it vulnerable to similar demands from other countries.
5. Impact on India’s Domestic Producers: Cheap GM imports could distort domestic markets, hurting Indian producers of conventional and organic feedstocks while creating unfair competition.
6. Need for Strategic Assessment of Trade-Offs: Decisions should be guided by a holistic cost-benefit analysis, including trade, ethical, consumer, and environmental dimensions, not just commercial gain.
7. Prioritize Regulatory Readiness Over External Pressure: Before opening the market, India must strengthen its institutional readiness, including testing labs, labelling standards, and public communication.

Way Forward and Recommendations

1. Invest in Infrastructure for Segregation, Testing, and Traceability: Strengthen India’s agricultural logistics to enable separate handling of GM and non-GM produce. Establish state-of-the-art testing labs and digital traceability systems to maintain export credibility.
2. Create a Transparent National GM Labelling Policy: Mandate clear and consumer-friendly labelling of GM products to protect consumer rights, promote informed choices, and meet export standards in GM-sensitive markets.
3. Strengthen Bio-Safety Regulation and Farmer Awareness: Upgrade the role and capacity of GEAC and FSSAI to ensure stringent biosafety assessments, while educating farmers about the risks, legalities, and performance issues related to GM seeds.
4. Ensure Public Consultation in Trade Decisions Involving GMOs: Adopt a multi-stakeholder approach that includes civil society, consumer groups, farmers, scientists, and exporters when formulating policies on GM imports through trade pacts.
5. Protect India’s Niche Organic and GMO-Free Market Segments: Maintain strict safeguards to protect India’s lucrative organic, herbal, and non-GMO exports, which fetch premium prices in markets like the EU, Japan, and the Middle East.
6. Benchmark Against International Best Practices: Study and adopt successful models of countries like the EU and Australia that balance scientific innovation with stringent labelling, consumer safety, and public confidence.
7. Develop a Comprehensive National GM Policy Framework: Finalize and implement a coherent national GMO policy covering import regulation, consumer rights, farmer welfare, scientific research, and trade impact mitigation.

Q.  With reference to Genetically Modified (GM) crops, consider the following statements:
1. GM crops are created by altering their DNA using genetic engineering to introduce desirable traits.
2. The Bt gene used in GM crops comes from a bacterium and helps in herbicide tolerance.
3. Golden Rice is an example of a GM crop enriched with Vitamin A.
4. India currently enforces mandatory GM labelling on all food products.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 1, 2 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 4 only
(d) 1, 3 and 4 only

Answer: A

Mains Questions

Q. Discuss the challenges and strategic considerations India faces with respect to the proposed import of genetically modified (GM) agricultural products under the interim trade pact with the United States. In your view, how can India strike a balance between trade facilitation and safeguarding domestic agricultural and ethical concerns?

                                                                                                                                                         (250 words, 15 marks)