The way we talk about genetically modified (GM) crops often sparks heated debates. Terms like “GM-cotton” or “Bt-brinjal” can be confusing and lead to emotional discussions, rather than clear understanding. This article explores the history and science behind GM crops and suggests a new way to name them that focuses on their specific traits, helping farmers, regulators, and consumers make better choices.
DNA, the building block of life, carries genetic information passed from parents to offspring. While nature naturally creates variations in DNA, modern science allows scientists to precisely edit DNA, a process called genetic engineering. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms whose DNA has been changed. However, the term “GMO” is an oversimplification that doesn’t capture the complexity of these changes.
DNA modifications can happen in different ways. Some changes are random, occurring naturally or induced by chemicals or radiation. These methods aim to introduce desirable traits like higher yields or disease resistance, but the outcome isn’t always predictable. Interestingly, current Indian rules for genetic engineering consider any engineered heritable material as “genetic engineering,” regardless of the method used.
Today, advanced tools like CRISPR allow scientists to make very precise DNA edits. This precision raises new questions about regulation and ethics. It’s important to understand that not all DNA modifications are the same. For instance, a natural change in the lactase gene allows many adults to digest milk, while other DNA changes can lead to health problems.
When DNA from one species is inserted into another, the organism becomes transgenic. For example, Bt-cotton was created by adding a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to cotton. This gene produces a toxin that kills bollworms, a major pest. While Bt-cotton has been successful, insect resistance is a growing concern. Bollworms can evolve resistance to the toxin, leading to the development of “superworms.”
Similarly, herbicide tolerance in crops presents challenges. Initially, herbicides like 2,4-D were developed to kill specific weeds. Later, glyphosate became popular as a broad-spectrum weed killer. Crops were modified to be resistant to glyphosate, creating herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops. However, overuse of these crops can lead to “superweeds” resistant to herbicides, and concerns about chemical residues in food and water are significant.
India has strict regulations for genetically modified organisms under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These rules aim to protect the environment by carefully assessing potential risks. Despite this, there’s a need for clearer communication. For example, a rice variety named Robin, developed using a chemical treatment method (often considered non-GMO), exhibits herbicide tolerance. This raises similar environmental concerns as transgenic HT crops, such as potential water contamination and the spread of herbicide resistance.
In contrast, gene-edited crops, like those developed using CRISPR technology to enhance yield, are undergoing rigorous review. India’s recent guidelines make it easier to approve genome editing. The key principle is that regulation should focus on the final traits of the crop and its environmental impact, not just the method used to create it.
A proposed trait-based naming system could bring much-needed clarity. This system would include information about the trait (e.g., herbicide tolerance), the method of development (e.g., chemical mutagenesis, transgenesis, gene editing), and potential risks (e.g., likelihood of resistance). For instance, a name like “HT-1-CM-Y-AA02-D” would tell regulators and consumers that the crop is herbicide-tolerant, developed using chemical mutagenesis, has the potential for weed resistance, and might have chemical residues.
By adopting such a system, we can move away from stigmatizing terms like “GMO” and towards a science-based approach that promotes innovation while managing risks effectively. This will empower farmers, regulators, and consumers with the information they need to make informed decisions about the future of agriculture.