Subscribe
Raising fresh questions about the performance of the two gene-edited rice varieties released by the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, a new analysis of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)’s trial data has revealed that there was no increase in yield and that the varieties were not maturing earlier when compared to the parental varieties, as claimed during their introduction.
On May 4, Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Shivraj Singh Chouhan released two genome-edited rice varieties—DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1—with an aim to increase production, and drought and salinity tolerance.
Scientists at the ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research (ICAR-IIRR) in Hyderabad developed DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) based on Sambha Masuri (BPT-5204) and ICAR-IARI (Indian Agricultural Research Institute) in New Delhi developed Pusa DST Rice 1 based on Cotton Dora Sannalu (MTU 1010).
The government claimed that the two improved varieties have the potential to bring about “revolutionary changes” in terms of higher yield and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and that no foreign DNA has been added into the genome.
However, The Coalition for a GM-Free India has analysed trial results of 2023 and 2024 from ICAR’s own published data and found that major discrepancies exist between the data presented in ICAR’s own annual progress reports and the conclusions drawn from them.
The data showed that advantages like yield, early maturity, and disease resistance claimed during the release of the two rice varieties were not supported by evidence from field trials conducted across multiple locations.
For instance, in the case of Pusa DST Rice, trial results from ICAR’s All India Coordinated Rice Improvement Project (AICRIP) showed that it did not outperform its parent variety, MTU 1010, under drought or salinity conditions. In fact, in several trial sites, the genome-edited line yielded at par or even lower than the parent.
While releasing the variety, the government had claimed that Pusa DST-1 outperforms its non-GM parent under saline and alkaline soils by 20-30 per cent.
However, no testing data for the claimed drought or salinity tolerance in 2023 was available as per ICAR due to “limited seed quantity.” In 12 of the 20 trial sites, the genome edited line underperformed and the yield was at par or 4.8 per cent lower compared to the parent.
In 2024, no yield advantage in coastal or inland salinity trials was found; only a 1.6 per cent marginal gain was observed in alkaline soils. But despite the findings, ICAR claimed a 30 per cent higher yield. This, the Coalition claimed, was the body “selectively drawing on results from just eight locations in one zone”.
“The report even admits that in coastal salinity conditions, ‘no yield superiority was observed’, and still concludes the variety as ‘promising’, the Coalition, which comprises of experts, scientists, farmers and activists, said.
“If the technology being used is truly safe, precise and effective, there should be no hesitation in putting out all data and conducting proper testing, as is done for all GMOs,” said Soumik Banerjee, an independent researcher, who was involved in the analysis.
Similarly, DRR Rice 100 (Kamala), derived from BPT 5204 (Samba Mahsuri), failed to demonstrate any consistent yield advantage or earlier maturity, the analysis found.
Kamala, during its release, was declared to yield 17 per cent higher, give more grains per panicle, mature 20 days earlier, thus saving water and fertilisers, and use nitrogen more efficiently.
But in 2023, Kamala underperformed in 8 of 19 trial sites. In two zones (Eastern and Central), it performed significantly worse than its parent, while in the southern zone, the yield gain was only 4.3 per cent.
The overall mean yield was 4 per cent lower than the parent variety, and no published field data supports the claim of “20 days earlier maturity,” it said.
Discrepancies were observed even in fundamental parameters such as panicle density, days taken for 50 per cent flowering (DFF), and grain quality — indicating that data may have been selectively interpreted to fit predetermined conclusions.
For instance, the analysis found that AICRPR annual reports contain no evidence of a 20-day difference in flowering between Kamala and its parent variety. The overall mean DFF for Kamala is recorded at 101 days, compared to 104 days for BPT 5204. In five zones, Kamala flowered only 2 to 7 days earlier, while in two zones it actually took 8 to 9 days longer.
Scientific trials are done to show a consistency in performance, but no such results were observed, the analysis pointed out.
The Coalition called it a “hasty promotion of untested, underperforming and unsafe varieties — camouflaged in hype around a so-called global breakthrough — is nothing but an attempt to bypass public resistance to risky gene technologies in India’s food systems.”
Earlier, in June, a group of 20 agricultural scientists from across India had expressed serious concerns over the release of the rice varieties.
The group had questioned the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, highlighting its foreign origins and the risk for India becoming dependent on multinational corporations (MNC) for seed rights.
“Doing bad science in agriculture, that too from the public sector, has a direct bearing on the lives and livelihoods of millions of farmers,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, activist and Coalition member.
In a letter written to Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on October 30, the Coalition demanded an immediate withdrawal of all promotional claims about genome-edited rice varieties and an independent, transparent scientific review of ICAR’s AICRPR trial data and methodology.