C D Mayee, chairman of the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), was former co-chairman of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and head of the agriculture ministry’s committee on endosulfan. He talks to Sreelatha Menon on the decision to ban the use of endosulfan globally and the controversy over genetically modified foods. Excerpts from the interview:
You are described as an agent of the pesticide industry, a promoter of endosulfan for recommending it despite its health impacts in Padre village in Kerala and as an agent of Monsanto and its India subsidiary Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) for promoting Bt seeds in the the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).
I know all this. I want to put the record straight. In fact, I want to declare my assets and put them all on the ASRB website, then people would know how much wealth I have made. I have been chairman of ASRB for six-and-a-half years, which is the longest for any chairman. But I don’t have a house in Delhi, I live in quarters in Pusa. I come from a family that participated in the Swadeshi movement. Even my colleagues are surprised that I don’t own a house here.
Where were you before that?
I came to Delhi from Maharashtra where I was a professor for 25 years in Marathwada. I have a small house in Nagpur that I bought for Rs 2 lakh.
Why did you ignore the health impact pointed out by the earliest report on endosulfan by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH)?
When I was commissioner of agriculture, the new minister wanted a report on the findings of the previous studies on endosulfan. These studies were not clear on the cause-and-effect relationship between the use of endosulfan and diseases in Padre. So my job was to study the three studies available then and give a report. I did not even go to Padre. Besides, there was a drawback in these studies. None of them sought to find out why the health impacts occurred only in Padre. I come from Maharashtra where endosulfan is used a lot. But no such impacts have been seen there. Environmentally, Padre was totally different. It was surrounded by hills and endosulfan was sprayed aerially. No one questioned the Kerala government for violating the norms that forbid aerial spraying. No one was punished.
Endosulfan is used all over the country without ill effects because regulations are followed and because it is the cheapest. All we said was that the ban be continued in Kerala but studies need to be done elsewhere. I banned 10 insecticides after this committee’s report. So how could I be an agent of the pesticide industry? Besides, I recommended a scientific study but is it my fault if this was never carried out?
How do you respond to the Stockholm Convention decision to put an end to the use of endosulfan across the world?
I would say that in India while endosulfan is phased out, we should put all our insecticides and pesticides under scrutiny and study their effects on health.
Do you believe there is a politics behind the ban?
Europe is a hub for the production of new molecules and they invest a lot of money in it. Since India and China are major markets they want to bring in new pesticides the moment Hoechst stopped making endosulfan.
More From This Section
Do you think farmers won’t be able to find substitutes?
Farming 141 hectares is not a joke. You have to think seriously about what will happen to cotton and vegetable farmers once this is taken away.
How do you view the role of civil society in the movements opposing pesticides and Bt products?
If we speak in favour of pesticides they call you an agent, if I speak for Bt technology they say I’m sold out to Mahyco…
But is there no truth in what Pushp Bhargava, a scientist himself, has been saying about the risks in using GM technology in edible crops?
When a gene is inserted in a seed it produces proteins. These proteins destroy the insect by attacking the alkaline in the gut of the insect. But it will attack the alkaline only of this insect, and this alkaline is not present in human beings or animals.
Bhargava says we must first study these proteins. We said the studies can go on but why stop use of the seeds when they are not going to harm anyone but the targeted insects? As for me, as co-chairman of the GEAC, I released Bt cotton in the country, farmers are earning millions and India is a leading cotton producer in the world.
With you as co-chairman, GEAC approved over 300 hybrid Bt cotton seeds, all of them from a single company. If you had released variety seeds, which farmers themselves can replicate, it would have helped them.
We did release BNBT in 2009. But farmers want only hybrids. Earlier also, 60 per cent of cotton was under hybrids. No one buys our BNBT.
A geneticist like Suman Sahai has criticised GEAC for promoting only hybrids…
What is wrong if farmers have to buy seeds? It is ultimately farmers who will produce seeds, too. Mahyco or anyone else doesn’t have the land to make seeds.
Recently members with conflicts of interest in the GEAC were asked to leave. Were you also asked to leave by the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh?
No, I left when my term was over last year. What conflict of interest are they talking about? Only top-ranking bio-technologists will understand bio-technology. I can also say Pushp Bhargava has conflict of interest. He hobnobs with NGOs, is part of several civil society groups. Who is he working for?
I would say that all members of GEAC should declare their assets. And these NGOs should also declare their assets. They should also come under the Right to Information Act and Lok Pal Bill.
What is your suggestion to encourage farming, given that more people are turning away from it?
I had suggested to the government that subsidies should be stopped and instead all farmers with less than four acres of land should be given a direct cash transfer of Rs 1,200 a month. I know the difficulty farming families face. When my father used to go to the tehsil he would not have money to buy a bus ticket. If you give a farmer cash, he will use it on farming. Besides, I feel that short-term courses in farming should be provided to those who continue to farm. For instance, in Nashik, farmers lapped up one-month IGNOU courses in cotton and grapes. The best situation would be to have only 50 per cent of our people dependent on agriculture. They will then have better bargaining power. In the US, only four per cent of the population is engaged in agriculture and in Germany it is 2.5 per cent; yet they dictate terms in agriculture there.
| A clarification
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) has been described as an Indian subsidiary of Monsanto. Mahyco has clarified that it is an Indian seed company established by Dr B R Barwale in 1964. Monsanto only has a 26 per cent stake in the company. |
