'A Dangerous Pattern of Bad Science': Civil Society Members Allege Govt 'Misleading' With GMO Rice Varieities

New Delhi: The Indian government’s flagship gene-editing campaign using the CRISPR in agriculture may have hit a hurdle. In a recent press conference in the national capital, Delhi, members from a social agricultural development alliance called 'The Coalition for a GM-Free India' made a presentation on the various “scientific frauds” in the two genome-edited rice varieties developed by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Ministry of Agriculture.  

On May 4, 2025, Union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan had introduced these two genome-edited rice varieties – Pusa DST-1 (IET 32043) and DRR Dhan 100 ‘Kamala’ (IET 32072) – and hailed them as the first of a kind globally. He had emphasised, "These new varieties will play a leading role in heralding the second Green Revolution.”

Pusa DST-1 is reported to surpass its conventional parent MTU-1010 (Cotton Dora Sannalu) in saline and alkaline conditions, while ‘Kamala’, developed from BPT 5204 (Samba Mahsuri), is said to yield 17% more, mature 20 days earlier, and use nitrogen more efficiently. 

However, members of the anti-GMO alliance seem to disagree.

Speaking on the issue, Soumik Banerjee, an independent researcher, who was one of the two speakers at the press conference, said, “If we look at Dhan-100 Kamala, we see the contradictions clearly. Kamala was projected as a miracle variety — with 17% higher yield, early maturity, and superior nitrogen use efficiency. The ICAR’s own documents clearly show that in 2023, Kamala underperformed in 8 of 19 trial sites. In two zones (eastern and central), it performed significantly worse than its parent. In the southern zone, the supposed yield gain was only 4.3%.” 

Further, Banerjee explained, in 2024, “several sites were excluded without explanation, and results from just six sites were used to project a +17.21% yield advantage. The data for such a conclusion is not shown”. He suggested that “the overall mean yield was 4% lower than the parent variety, and no published field data supports the claim of “20 days earlier maturity”.

He also spoke on the importance of safe use of genetic modification technology, especially as India is hotspot for biodiversity and stands to lose much is genetical modification goes wrong. He was concerned with the data misrepresentation and toning down of scientific scrutiny in dealing with GMOs.

“These manipulations are not minor errors but a dangerous pattern of bad science, repeated over time to justify controversial technologies. Contradictions exist even in basic parameters – like panicle density (per sq/m), days taken for 50% flowering, and grain quality – all altered to suit the narrative,” he said.

Kavitha Kurungati, a member of the alliance, expressed too her doubts of the agricultural gene-editing program. “We want to tell the government, please stop doing jumla (false promises) with Indian agriculture. Even the government’s own ICAR data is now showing this. India is has rich rice biodiversity we should encourage that instead of adding GMOs into our fields an agriculture,” she said.

She also raised some questions regarding the two varieties, with regard to human health and rice diversity conservation, and the intellectual property rights of these two varieties. Meanwhile, she raised another pivotal question which remains unanswered: does it have a China connection?

The presentation raised this question in a pointed manner: “What is the involvement of a Chinese entity in the R&D of these varieties, where a cloning into a vector from Shanghai Centre for Plant Stress Biology seemed to have occurred? What are the terms and conditions of the "gift" from this Chinese entity?”

The gene-editing campaign appears to run into many puddles. Speaking on solutions, Kavitha further explained, “First, we think there should be an immediate withdrawal of all promotional claims about genome-edited rice varieties until an independent, transparent scientific review of ICAR’s AICRPR trial data and methodology is done.”

“We need to also have public accountability of ICAR and the Ministry of Agriculture for misleading the nation, so the system can be corrected. Meanwhile a moratorium on genome-edited crop releases until credible biosafety regulations and independent oversight mechanisms are in place and all genome editing needs to be brought under stringent regulations, and all reports related to the R&D of these varieties to be placed in the public domain to avert a disaster for our food system,” she concluded.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.