Gene Edited Rice: Indian Government's War against India's Food Sovereignity and Economic Prosperity

On May 4th, 2025, the Government of India announced the release of two new rice varieties : Kamala and Pusa DST Rice 1. These were not bred by conventional methods but were developed using gene-editing, a powerful technology that alters the DNA of living things in a lab

What is Gene Editing? Why Should You Worry?

Gene editing is a set of laboratory techniques that allow scientists to make supposedly 'minor’ changes to the DNA of a plant or animal. One popular tool is called CRISPR-Cas9 — often known as “genetic scissors”. It enables scientists to “cut” the DNA at specific points, removing or changing a gene.

When scientists edit DNA, they can never be certain what changes will happen, even while they do the editing with the intention of effecting a ‘desired’ change. A 'desired’ change could be anything from pest and disease resistance, to drought resistance, better productivity etc, and in the case of these two varieties it meant increase in yield, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, less water use and better tolerance to drought, salinity, and climate stresses, according to the press release from ICAR.

What these scientists don't tell us is that in the process of effecting the 'desired' change, they may also end up with undesired changes. Just as a minor tinkering with a complicated machine could fail it in multiple ways, some of which may have dangerous unintended consequences, editing a single gene can unintentionally affect other genes. These unintended changes can result in the creation of new proteins that can potentially be toxic or cause allergies to humans. They can also impact the plant's behaviour in nature—with consequences for the environment.

And because these changes happen inside the DNA, you obviously cannot see or taste them. Only detailed biosafety testing can reveal whether something has gone wrong.

However, India does not conduct any such testing. Let us find out why.

Is Gene-editing Genetic Engineering?

India has relatively strict laws for regulating risky technologies such as genetic engineering. The 1989 Rules under the Environment Protection Act (Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989) state unequivocally that any change to an organism’s DNA using laboratory techniques, including deleting or modifying genes, is considered genetic engineering and must be regulated.

In 2022, however, the government arbitrarily exempted two types of gene editing (Site-Directed Nuclease editing technique or SDN-1 and SDN-2) from any of the biosafety checks, claiming that these two types do not involve any foreign genetic material (foreign to the organism in which the gene editing is being done). That decision was both unscientific and illegal as regards the technique used and as per the above law.

This compromise on biosafety is one more important one that got added to a notorious list of such violations and compromises of the regulatory system that it eventually took a Supreme Court order in July 2024 to tell us that the regulators had failed to protect the biosafety of the people, environment & farms in India. The Court called for a fresh policy to ensure biosafety. In addition, Justice B.V. Nagarathna in her judgement specifically reiterated the precautionary principle – a principle that says if something has the potential to cause serious harm and we do not have scientific certainty on it, we should take a precautionary approach and stop the activity until the time we are certain that it does no harm. “Better be safe than sorry”, simply put.

Yet, barely months later, ICAR went ahead with announcing these gene-edited rice varieties—disregarding legal warnings, ethical obligations and public interest.

Ask Questions, Be Silenced!

Perhaps more shocking than the release was the silencing of a critical voice within ICAR’s own governance structure. Venugopal Badaravada, a respected farmer leader and member of the ICAR Board, raised some serious questions about these varieties. Had these gene-edited crops undergone any biosafety assessment? Were they tied to patents? Would farmers’ rights to save and share seeds be protected?

Instead of responding to his questions, ICAR just removed him from the Board. False, frivolous, and scandalous allegations were levelled against him in order to justify the repressive action, with the clear intent of defaming and intimidating. This was more than just an attack on one person; it was an attack on transparency, accountability, and farmers' role in shaping India's agricultural future.

Why Are These Rice Varieties Risky?

The two rice varieties—Kamala (developed by ICAR’s Rice Research Institute in Hyderabad) and Pusa DST Rice 1 (from IARI, Delhi)—were developed using SDN-1 gene-editing, a method that purportedly removes or modifies genes without adding anything new.

However, research shows that this method is also not safe or clean. It can lead to unintended genetic changes, like rearrangements, deletions, or the formation of new genes both at the targeted site as well as off-site in other places in the genome. It can also cause the formation of unknown proteins that may trigger health problems in humans or animals. Foreign DNA can accidentally get introduced into the plant’s genome, sometimes from bacteria, lab tools, or even the culture medium.

The dangers of the technology of gene-editing are well documented. Studies on gene-edited cattle revealed the unexpected presence of antibiotic resistance genes, which the company responsible for their creation had not detected. In another case, mice subjected to gene-editing had traces of goat or cow DNA, simply because serum from these animals was used in the lab.

To put it simply, gene editing can be compared to a blindfolded surgical procedure - it is possible to target the correct area, but it also carries the risk of unintentionally harming other organs.

Such risks are not exceptions; they are warnings. And these warnings are being ignored.

India is a global Centre of Origin for rice. Our living heritage includes thousands of traditional rice varieties that have been cultivated and preserved down through generations. Releasing untested gene-edited rice into open fields poses a real and irreversible threat of genetic contamination. Furthermore, countries like the European Union, which require strict labelling and regulation of genetically modified and gene-edited foods, may reject Indian rice exports, jeopardising both trade and reputation causing an economic meltdown as Indian currency value depends on the export of all agricultural products to Europe. Europe doesn't grow any GM crops. France and Germany has stringent laws against Genetically modified foods. If the Union Government's move is not withdrawn, India's Internation trade will be severely affected.

A Blow to Seed Sovereignty:

Furthermore, the technologies used to create these new varieties are protected under patent law. This means they are owned by corporations, private institutions (and some individual scientists who can sell them to the highest bidders), and bound by intellectual property laws. Neither farmers nor the general public would have any control over these technologies.

If these seeds spread, farmers risk losing their fundamental right to save, replant, or exchange seed, which is currently protected by India's Plant Variety Protection and Farmers' Rights Act but subverted through de-facto patents on seeds through the existing patentability of genetic materials under India’s Patents Act. In the future, these gene-edited rice varieties could force Indian farmers to purchase seeds every season at exorbitant prices, and potentially face lawsuits for "patent infringement".

This technology poses an inherent danger of allowing corporations to control our seeds, disguised as a scientific advancement. Our seed sovereignty could be at risk!

Is this rice variety truly necessary?

India already produces more rice than it requires. In fact, every year we waste surplus rice on rats and rain because of lack of decent storage godowns in villages. Our food security crisis, if any, concerns distribution, infrastructure, and sustainability rather than production. Meanwhile, monoculture of rice is depleting our soils and drying out our aquifers. So why introduce risky technologies just to claim a “slightly higher yield”, or “reduced water use” or “drought resistance”, especially when no independent tests have confirmed these advantages? Are we not already familiar with how testing was rigged to make Delhi University’s GM HT Mustard look better than old varieties?

What India requires is not risky, proprietary techno-fixes, but rather investment in agroecology—locally adapted, biodiverse, low-input farming that is resilient to climate change and grounded in farmer wisdom and tradition.

In response to the announcement by the ICAR about the these varieties, the Coalition for a GM-Free India—a nationwide alliance of farmers, scientists, and civil society—urged the government to withdraw the gene-edited rice varieties, reinstate full regulation under the 1989 Environment Rules, mandate independent biosafety testing, disclose patent details, and protect India’s rice diversity and seed sovereignty.

The conflict within:

The release of gene-edited rice, the muzzling of farmer representatives, and the circumvention of biosafety regulation are not isolated incidents. They represent a deeper shift—toward corporate capture of public research, opaque decision-making, and the erosion of democratic rights.

The country remains on high alert for external enemies. However, the internal conflict—against seed sovereignty, scientific integrity, and farmer rights—is just as urgent. If we let these threats go unchallenged, we risk jeopardising the very foundations of our food system.

This isn't about being anti-technology. It is about choosing the right kind of technology—transparent, accountable, safe, and rooted in public good.

Because when a nation loses its seed sovereignty, what follows is not innovation, but insecurity: food insecurity, knowledge insecurity, and a silent erosion of democracy—bite by bite, grain by grain, right by right.

Now, Let us fact check and burst some myths and misinformation behind Genetic editing.

MYTH 1

Gene-editing techniques are “new breeding techniques’’, “precision breeding’’ or “breeding innovation’’

✅Fact:

Technically and legally, gene-editing techniques are genetic modification techniques, not breeding methods

MYTH 2

Gene-editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas bring about changes in the genome in a precise and controlled way, with predictable outcomes.

✅Fact:

Gene editing is not precise, but causes many genetic errors, with unpredictable results, in addition to any intended genetic change.

MYTH 3

Changes brought about by gene editing are the same as could happen in nature or mutation breeding

✅Fact:

Gene editing causes genetic changes that are different from those that happen in nature or mutation breeding and their consequences are poorly understood.

MYTH 4

The precision and control of gene editing mean that it is safe-by-design.

✅Fact:

The unintended outcomes of gene editing lead to risks, which are poorly understood

MYTH 5

Gene-edited products cannot be distinguished from products developed through conventional breeding

✅Fact:

Methods can be developed to detect all products of gene editing, provided information on the genetic change is available.

MYTH 6

Gene editing, and the CRISPR tool in particular, puts the power of genetic engineering into the hands of hundreds of thousands of scientists, including those working in publicly funded institutes and small companies

✅Fact:

Gene editing technology for agricultural use is already firmly under the control of the multinationals that dominate the seed and agrochemicals markets. Corteva has become the main gatekeeper of CRISPR patents in the agricultural arena.

MYTH 7

Gene editing achieves desired traits more quickly than conventional breeding.

✅Fact:

There are many lengthy steps in bringing a gene-edited product to market, even without considering regulation, and conventional breeding is more successful in achieving desired traits.

MYTH 8

Gene editing is necessary to grow food that is better for people and the environment, so not applying it would be morally reprehensible.

✅Fact:

We need to scale up proven successful solutions – conventional breeding and agroecology – from which genetic engineering is an expensive distraction.

Further Reading and References,

https://extranet.greens-efa.eu/public/media/file/9065/6768

Credits,

Sridhar Ratha Krishnan's article,

"Gene Edited Rice: The conflict within"

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gene-edited-rice-indias-silent-biosafety-breach-sridhar-radhakrishnan-bsaec