The Struggle for Seeds and The Future of Food — The Discourse around the Inevitability of GMOs
Since the August 2017, Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST) andDefence Institute of High Altitude Research (DIHAR), in Ladakh, India have been busy researching leaves of poplars and willows; two trees that provide spectacular cover to the regions of Leh and Kargil respectively. (Sharma, 2017)
They have been studying the sudden onset of aphids in the area, a common pest species that has become a nuisance for farmers over five years. Another insect, brown or yellow-tailed moth, commonly known as defoliating caterpillar, is wreaking havoc on apricot trees and causing skin and respiratory problems amongst the local population, forcing them to relocate. (Sharma, 2019)
“Increased temperature could increase insect populations by potentially affecting the insect survival, development, geographic range, population size, and insect physiology and development directly or indirectly through the physiology or existence of host,” notes Prof. D.P.Abrol (SKAUST), on how insect behavior is a reliable marker of climate variation, and these frequent breakouts are deepening their understanding of climate change in trans-Himalayas. (Sharma, 2017)
Agricultural scientists have arranged drives to educate farmers on maintaining sanitation and cleanliness in orchards, setting in motion the practice of a new management system encompassing a mix of physical, chemical, and biological exercises. The increased use of more resilient genetically modified or hybrid plants is another significant development over the decade that coincides with the onset of new pests and diseases, helping in a manifold increase of green cover in Ladakh. (Sharma, Verma and Sood, 2005)
The 1400-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report sees land as a critical resource. It concludes how the global population level rise is going to put stress on agricultural land, add to deforestation and carbon emissions, culminating in a vicious cycle of increased warming. While the report says that with CO2 rise, the farms in temperate latitudes will see an increase in yields, the real damage is predicted to occur in Global South. By its estimates, yields of some vegetables are supposed to decline by as much as 30%, beans between 30–60% and banana up to 40%; putting 183 million people in risk of food insecurity, and adding to ~20% increase in hunger in Africa, South, and South-East Asia. (Mbow et al., 2019)
The report also displays a frustrating account of mainstream environmentalism as it does not feature practices such as organic farming even once. While genetic improvement of crops frequently occurs as a significant highlight amongst solutions to increase food productivity through technology. It explicitly mentions the use of new cultivars from genetic breeding or biotechnology, especially genome editing crops using CRISPR-Cas9, a genome editing tool that a European court has banned in 2018 and majorly opposed by Greenpeace and organic farming community. (Stokstad, 2018)
The opposition to genetic engineering stems from environmentalists’ general disgust for companies like Monsanto. But IPCC’s noting of genome editing as a climate change mitigation strategy to create heat and drought-tolerant crops for Global South is a challenge that is fundamentally not under the purview of companies like Bayer-Monsanto, DowDuPont, and Syngenta-ChemChina, (companies that control over half of the revenues of global seed trade), since the crops under question are not in the market interest or inventory of the corporate seed companies. (Nordhaus, 2019)
While the argument does much to distract from the urgency with which Global South requires climate-resistant crops to be developed and distributed for free by transnational organizations like the CGIAR network. Moreover, the opposition to genome editing compromises the use and deployment of diverse solutions at hand since the IPCC report flatly states, “none of these response options are mutually exclusive,” and in our public debates as well they needn’t be. (Mehta, 2019)
The Role of Technical Expertise in GMO Regulation
In 2016, in a letter presented at the National Press Club, Washington D.C. over 100 Nobel Laureates criticized the standing of Greenpeace and other allied European environmental organizations in opposing Golden Rice as the poster child of the GMO revolution. Golden Rice is a new variety of rice containing Beta Carotine, a source of Vitamin A, in what could be a critical staple in alleviating child blindness amongst millions in the Global South. (Roberts et al., 2016)
While its development and deployment has been steadfast in the USA, the letter brought to light how Greenpeace’s campaign had critically undermined and misrepresented the benefits, risks, and impacts of the new crop and supported almost criminal destruction of its approved field trials and research projects; putting its use in the market several years behind and negating the urgency of doubling global production of food, feed, and fiber by 2050 by United Nations Food and Agriculture Programme (UNFAP) through their actions in general. It also further stated the absence of a single scientific study that confirmed the negative health outcomes of GMO consumption for humans and animals. (Parthasarathy, 2016)
In 2019, Nigeria registered and approved the release of the world’s first genetically modified (G.M.) cowpea to its smallholder farmers. It became the second G.M. following B.T. Cotton and the first food crop to be commercialized in the country. Cowpea is a staple crop to its population of over 200 million, and while Nigeria is the largest producer of cowpea, it still imports around 500,000 tonnes every year to meet internal demands, largely due to 90% yield loss due to insects. (Barrero and Higgins, 2019)
The G.M. Cowpea controls pod-borer Maruca Vitrata, one of the major pests. It could be a game-changer in reducing rural poverty and hunger in a country where 91 million people live without enough food to eat. This new variety named Sampea 20-T carries a microbial insecticidal gene that is fully resistant to damaging pod-borer insects and has taken more than 20 years to be developed by an international team under a consortium of African and Commonwealth Nationsand the U.S. with the critical gene provided royalty-free by Bayer. (Beillard et al., 2019)
This gene from Bacillus Thuringiensis (B.T.), a soil bacterium, discovered by a Japanese biologist Shigetane Ishiwatari in the 20th Century, creates a natural insecticide that has already been used by humans to control insect pests for over 80 years now. This development eliminates the need of smallholder farmers on chemical pesticides bringing down costs while proving to be safer for consumption and environmentally friendly. This development has been made possible after years of effort to curb political resistance and public fear through an extensive information campaign, that could further see the adoption of the crop in West African nations in the coming years. (Suza, 2019)
In the same year, another crop BT Bringal has already started to show results in Bangladesh, accounting for more than 20% of the total production since its adoption in 2013. While the crop has faced regulatory hurdles in India, due to lack of clarity on the source of genetic modification, it has become prevalent in Bangladesh owing to its performance in combating the destructive impact of the fruit and shoot borer by producing a protein that is toxic to the insect but harmless to other organisms. With less pest damage and reduction of pest spray down from 84 to 11 times in a season, the productivity of the farm, health of farmers, and benefits to consumers are immense. With better yield, prices, and earning as much as 6-times the conventional crops according to government estimates, B.T. Brinjal has proven to be a significant booster in the livelihood of crop growers. (Hossain, 2019)
The crop is another example of the philanthropic and public sector, with gene Cry1Ac provided by India based seed company Mahyco in collaboration with institutes and ministries of Bangladesh and the U.S. The controversy related to the crop has been attributed to many organic farming companies such as UBINIG that have come out with unsubstantiated claims on its health concerns and lack of productivity, which although did not cause concern in Bangladesh but led to the imposition of an indefinite moratorium in India in 2010. Some farmers, although, are reported to be growing the crop in India without regulatory approval. (Jayaraman, 2013)
These developments beg us to rethink the role of non-technical knowledge and public participation in environmental regulatory discourse related to GMOs. In 2015, Sharad Pawar, the former Union Agriculture Minister of India, wrote to the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi to remove the existing ruling of the requirement of a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the relevant state government to commence field trials of a G.M. crop. He noted that the process of gaining consent from state governments had become a “socio-political process rather than an objective, science-based process of rigorous evaluation at the state level.” (Sinha, 2015)
It did, however, raised two serious debates in the country. First, around the need for the appropriation of the influence of socio-political factors on decision-making processes regarding the adoption of GMOs, which will consequently have a huge impact on millions of livelihoods, natural environment, and national food supply-chains. Second, around ascertaining the level of belief and trust in science and the neutrality of scientific results in proposing the correctness of said decisions. (Mehta and Mittal, 2015)
While there is a demand for a strictly technocratic approach towards regulation of G.M. crops, there is an equally vocal demand from grassroots organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and affiliates to put field trials of G.M. crops on hold. (Aggarwal, 2015)
And while in context of public interest litigation, the Supreme Court, the apex decision-making body had recognized that scientific expertise continued to remain the dominant consideration in its decisions, it had at the same time characterized the issue as a ‘scientific question’ and one that it did not have the technical expertise to resolve, and ultimately invoking a ban on the release of GMOs until the development of a well-developed regulatory framework. (Thakur, 2015)
How the Indian situation reveals the nuances of Global debates
Both the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture (PSC) and the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointment by the Supreme Court of India departed from the science-only approach to suggest making socio-economic considerations an explicit part of the risk assessment process. Before even that, ban on the B.T. Brinjal by UPA Government during the controversy and handing over veto powers of NOC to State governmentswas an assertion of the fact that biosafety assessments alone wouldn’t trump all other aspects. (Mehta and Mittal, 2015)
Farmer’s concerns over ownership and rights to seeds have become a significant citation in the absence of clear guidelines and statements delineating the states’ decisions. Many reports have also stated the lack of conclusive evidence that rule out adverse impacts of G.M. crops on human health and the environment, thus negating the letter by Nobel Laureates against Greenpeace. This has, however, done little to eliminate arbitrariness in decision-making as the states have failed to put public participation and consultation of statutory bodies as formal procedures and have often been criticized for their ad-hoc and reactive mechanisms undermining science and rationality and guided by emotions and impulses. (Reporters, 2014)
Regulators all over the world have so far struggled to find standard metrics to gauge the impact of GMOs and have so far failed to set of scientific, socio-economic, socio-political, health, and environmental indices against one another. Although the Europe Union (E.U.) has been more successful by acknowledging such interpretations, it still has granted its member states much greater flexibility to prohibit the use of GMOs within their territories even after receiving authorization from the E.U. (Press corner, 2015)
This decision has allowed the debate and research around the use of GMOs to be held in greater detail and measured against regional public policies such as agricultural or environmental policies and objectives, socio-economic impacts, land-use policies, and town/country planning rules. However, the perception and role of science and scientific research as a neutral arbiter remains, although subject to case-specific deliberations. (EUR-Lex — 32015L0412 — EN — EUR-Lex, 2015)
It has kept the arguments around the use of GMOs skewed in countries of Global South that have less evolved regulatory frameworks and more difficult multi-faceted challenges and stakeholder concerns to address. It also leaves the production and trade of GMO related agricultural products in confusion and leaves room for individual governmental departments to seize control of regulation; thus, exacerbating confusion and competition for power. (Mehta and Mittal, 2015)
The case of GM Mustard oil is a case study of how an importer lobby (in the absence of regulatory approval to grow the crop in India), sought scientific approval from Ministry of Environment and Science on the consumption of oil, to begin trade of the commodity without seeking court’s permission. In return, the petition to ban the business was put in place by the Canola Oil importer lobby that would have suffered financial damages due to loss of market share in light of the competition from the GM Mustard oil, which was cheaper. This story revealed the grave undermining of and influence over governmental processes by corporations and the vague distribution of power within regulatory agencies. (Shivshankar, 2016)
In another instance, RSS Affiliates Swadesh Jagran Manch and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh pressured the government to cut down royalties on B.T. Cotton Seeds, the only commercially available G.M. seeds in India, by 74%, forcing Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech India (MMBL) to move to court. While RSS affiliated members of the cabinet have driven a heavy hand in moderating the discussion between the government and G.M. companies, the official stance of the government remains in favor of GMOs. (Bera and Sen, 2016)
India has long maintained that proprietary technologies undermine seed sovereignty and has long opposed intellectual property rights regime in agriculture. Therefore, when Environment minister Prakash Javadekar stated in the parliament that
“The Union government is of the view that research in G.M. and confined field trials for generating bio-safety data with all due precautions should be allowed to continue in the national interest;” all states unilaterally refused to grant permission for state trials. (Kang, 2016)
In an agitated response, RSS affiliates attacked MMBL on all fronts by taking it to Competition Commission of India (CCI) for abusing its dominance of B.T. Cotton market, further lobbying with farmers for the regulation of cotton seed prices, that ultimately led to the setting up of a high-level committee which eventually, along with the National Seeds Association of India (NSAI) questioned MMBL’s restrictive licensing norms. To make the situation worse for MMBL, the Central Institute of Cotton Research found that its G.M. cotton seeds, Bollguard 1 and 2, had failed to be pest-resistant to the pernicious pink bollworm. The developments were a devastating blow to all big-seed MNCs in India who were opposing price regulations on seeds. (Naik, 2018)
It, in turn, started fresh deliberations on whether G.M. crops should be a feature in the next Green Revolution of India. But, while GMOs have seen to be losing ground, Europe’s welcoming ruling on gene editing has found some takers in India’s and the Global South’s GMO opposition lobby, but only under the scrutiny of strict regulatory approvals. While the constitution of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in 1990 under the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) does provide an agency to make decisions, it has serious lax on reforming policy issues. In the meantime, production, distribution, and trade of GMO seeds and their agricultural products illegally or through coercion is rampant in India and the Global South, as identified in the cases mentioned above. (Menon, 2019)
Moving beyond the Truth to Grow Food
While the Nobel Laureates’ letter against Greenpeace might persuade most to believe that Greenpeace’s activism against GMOs is uncalled for, but the proselytizing acts need revisiting and much-needed reasoning. Technology is not just about the technological capacity of high-yielding, pest-repellent crop varieties but a lot more about patent rights, technology, and licensing fees, breeders’ rights, international politics, pressures on national governments to bow down to intellectual property rules of WTO, UPOV, TPP TRIPS Plus agreements. Moreover, technology belongs not in the domain of humanitarian service but as investments of businesses, and hence, is determined by corporate, national and class interests. Thus, technology is also a social construct and has a sociology and therefore it needs to be gauged on the underlying and affected social causes. (Chandra, 2016)
While both the supporters and detractors of GMOs put the onus of their arguments on biological protection of human beings, one by alleviating global hunger, and the other by preventing possible harm to human body, the claim has also to be met not just on the basis of end-consumer but all the people involved in the production process, especially peasants and farmers. The increasing number of farmers’ suicides have laid base the structural and institutional factors that put them to a higher risk of interference with technologies they do not understand and cannot control or (re)produce. For a farmer, even if the right to seeds is ensured, hybridized varieties are often ‘programmed’ to lose their ‘vigour’ and, ultimately, create dependency on corporate seed banks. Predatory lending, land grabbing, extortion, and humiliation are familiar stories when such a scenario matures and unfolds. (Chandra, 2016)
On the other end of the spectrum, the merger of ChemChina-Syngenta, Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto has helped consolidate corporate power in agriculture furthermore. Simultaneously the expansion of corporate control is taking place in three international treaties that delineate the global rights given to all stakeholders of seeds, germplasms and plant varieties, tilting their interest away yet-again from smallholder farmers. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Third World Network, Berne Declaration, and the South Centre, all have pointed out grave contradictions among the rules in various treaties that expose stakeholders in nations and their seed rights and knowledge to exploitative practices. (Hansen-Kuhn, 2016)
While recent studies have pointed out ‘scarcity’ of food and global food shortage as a possible myth create by ‘Big Ag’ when there are cases of excess production and wastage, insecure malpractices, and environmental degradation as possible causes and not climate change. But still, the notion of increasing production is beneficial to the business of the top seed-producing MNCs, which are primarily the manufacturers of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals. It risks the corporate capture of climate change and, ultimately, the food security related to it, by the alignment of carbon capture and sequestration strategies as an underlying part of agricultural economies governed by GMOs. In the absence of conclusive results that neither disprove nor acquit GMOs on standards on public health and safety, misinformation campaigns by corporates are also rampant to tilt public opinion in their direction. GMO adoption in places is linked with an increase in rural poverty rates, an already prevalent low education level, and a lack of knowledge on nutrition, along with risks of conflict and marginalization. (Mann, 2017)
In response, India and the Global South are witnessing an ever-increasing surge of grassroots organizations working in favor of the creation of seed banks, capacity building for research, agricultural biodiversity, policy compliance, Indigenous Knowledge (IK) creation through participatory research and development. These organizations are facilitating upholding of established protocols and regulations are ground-level, collection, conservation, characterization and utilization of native seeds and valuable germplasms in collaboration with national and international systems to develop their varieties to counter the risks of climate change. They are also simultaneously developing ecosystem services that support crops and reduce dependence on proprietary farm inputs and monocropping. Ultimately, in this action and counter-action, what remains actively at war is the future of sustainable agriculture, one that is based on comprehensive agricultural practices, inclusivity, seed genetic diversity, and demographic harmony. (Prabu, 2017)
References
Aggarwal, M., 2015. Govt Cautious In Clearing Field Trials Of G.M. Crops. [online] Livemint.com. Available at: <https://www.livemint.com/Politics/NrP4yqrjNAETVPGMmzU7PK/Govt-cautious-in-clearing-field-trials-of-GM-crops.html> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Barrero, J. and Higgins, T., 2019. Nigeria Okays New G.M. Cowpea Variety — Why It Matters — The Wire Science. [online] The Wire Science. Available at: <https://science.thewire.in/external-affairs/world/nigeria-okays-new-gm-cowpea-variety-why-it-matters/> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Beillard, M. et. al., 2019. Agricultural Biotechnology Annual — 2019; Nigeria Approves The Commercial Release Of Bt. Pod-Borer Resistant Cowpea. [online] apps.fas.usda.gov. Available at: <https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Lagos_Nigeria_5-21-2019.pdf> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Bera, S. and Sen, S., 2016. Govt Cuts Bt Cotton Royalty Fees By 74%. [online] Livemint. Available at: <https://www.livemint.com/Politics/NdDYRxsayfh2655qOqy7mI/Centre-notifies-Bt-cotton-seed-prices-slashes-royalty-fees.html> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Chandra, R., 2016. In Nobel Laureates V. Greenpeace, Don’t Ignore The Sociology Of G.M. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/nobel-laureates-greenpeace-golden-rice-sociology> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
European Commission. 2015. Press Corner. [online] Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_4777> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
European Commission. 2015. EUR-Lex — 32015L0412 — EN — EUR-Lex. [online] Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_068_R_0001> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Hansen-Kuhn, K., 2016. Seeds Of Corporate Power Vs Farmers’ Rights. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/seeds-of-corporate-power-vs-farmers-rights> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Hossain, A., 2019. Why Bt Brinjal Is A Hit In Bangladesh. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/environment/why-bt-brinjal-is-a-hit-in-bangladesh> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Jayaraman, K., 2013. India’s Transgenic Aubergine In A Stew. [online] nature.com. Available at: <https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100210/full/news.2010.65.html> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Kang, B., 2016. RSS Stand On Bt Cotton Forced Government’s Hand On Monsanto. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/rss-stand-on-bt-cotton-forced-governments-hand-on-monsanto> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Krimsky, S. (2019). GMOs decoded. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.
Mann, A., 2017. Growing Food In The Post-Truth Era. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/external-affairs/growing-food-post-truth-era> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Mbow, C. et. al., 2019. Chapter 5: Food Security. [online] ipcc.ch. Available at: <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Mehta, D., 2019. Why We Need Genetic Engineering To Stave Off Climate Change-Induced Global Hunger. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/environment/genetic-engineering-climate-change-induced-global-hunger> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Mehta, D. and Mittal, Y., 2015. How We Should Rethink The Role Of Technical Expertise In GMO Regulation. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/economy/science-doesnt-have-all-the-answers-how-we-should-rethink-the-role-of-technical-expertise-in-gmo-regulation> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Menon, M., 2019. For Genetically Engineered Crops, India Is No Country For Regulation. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/no-country-for-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Naik, S., 2018. Time For India To Set Up A Framework To Use Gene-Editing Tech In Its Farms — The Wire Science. [online] The Wire Science. Available at: <https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/time-for-india-to-set-up-a-framework-to-use-gene-editing-tech-in-its-farms/> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Nordhaus, T., 2019. The Empty Radicalism Of The Climate Apocalypse | Issues In Science And Technology Vol. XXXV, №4. [online] Issues in Science and Technology. Available at: <https://issues.org/the-empty-radicalism-of-the-climate-apocalypse/> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Parthasarathy, K., 2016. Nobel Laureates Slam Greenpeace’s Opposition To Gmos, Golden Rice. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/environment/nobel-laureates-slam-greenpeaces-opposition-to-golden-rice> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Prabu, M., 2017. The International Organisation That Is Preserving And Reviving Native Seeds In India. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/international-organisation-preserving-reviving-native-seeds-india> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Reporters, B., 2014. G.M. Field Trials: Regulator Proposes But Most States Decline. [online] Business-standard.com. Available at: <https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/gm-field-trials-regulator-proposes-but-most-states-decline-114032500905_1.html> [Accessed 27 April 2014].
Roberts, S., 2016. Laureates Letter Supporting Precision Agriculture (Gmos) | Support Precision Agriculture. [online] Supportprecisionagriculture.org. Available at: <https://www.supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Schapiro, M. (2018). Seeds of Resistance: The Fight to Save Our Food Supply. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Sharma, A., Verma, T. and Sood, A., 2005. Some Important Insect Pests Of Poplars In The Western Himalayas And Their Management. [online] Indianforester.co.in. Available at: <http://www.indianforester.co.in/index.php/indianforester/article/view/1730> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Sharma, K., 2019. How Tiny Pests Traverse Long Distance To Attack Mustard-India Science Wire. [online] VigyanPrasar.gov.in. Available at: <https://vigyanprasar.gov.in/isw/How-tiny-pests-traverse-long-distance-to-attack-mustard-crops.html> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Sharma, P., 2017. In Arid Trans-Himalayas, A Rise In Pest Attacks Indicates Changing Climate Conditions. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/arid-trans-himalayas-rise-pest-attacks-indicates-changing-climate-conditions> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Shivshankar, V., 2016. Procedural Lapses Dog GM Mustard Approval As SC Begins Hearings. [online] The Wire. Available at: <https://thewire.in/agriculture/gm-mustard-dmh-hybrids> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Sinha, A., 2015. G.M. Trials: Sharad Pawar Tells PM Modi To Scrap Rule Jairam Brought. [online] The Indian Express. Available at: <https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/gm-trials-sharad-pawar-tells-pm-narendra-modi-to-scrap-rule-jairam-ramesh-brought/> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Stokstad, E., 2018. European Court Ruling Raises Hurdles For CRISPR Crops. [online] Science | AAAS. Available at: <https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/european-court-ruling-raises-hurdles-crispr-crops> [Accessed 26 April 2020].
Suza, W., 2019. I Fight Anti-GMO Fears In Africa To Combat Hunger. [online] The Conversation. Available at: <https://theconversation.com/i-fight-anti-gmo-fears-in-africa-to-combat-hunger-109632> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Thakur, U., 2015. Why India’S Approach To Regulating G.M. Crops Is A Cause For Concern. [online] Caravanmagazine.in. Available at: <https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/why-indias-approach-regulating-gm-crops-cause-concern> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
Vox (2019). The race to save endangered foods. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBUfB7hU6A [Accessed 24 Feb. 2020].
Vox (2020). Should We Be Worried About GMOs? — Glad You Asked S1. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLhrUYtbCi0 [Accessed 24 Feb. 2020].
Thank you for taking out time to read this essay. Fin.
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
