View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Indian farmers judge GM Crops
Report prepared for ActionAid
by Dr Tom Wakeford
Centre for Research into Innovation,
Culture and Technology, Brunel University and National
Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India
Edited by Alex Wijeratna
July 2000
Hamlyn House, Macdonald RoadArchway, London N19 5PG
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7561 7613Email: alexw@actionaid.org.uk
www.actionaid.org
ActionAid is a registered charity no. 274467
ActionAidcitizens’ jury
initiative
Contents Page
Executive summary 3
1.Participation: The forgotten human right? 4
2.Farmers jury verdict on GM crops 4
3.Analysis of the jury process 6
4.Analysis of the jury’s conclusions 8
5.History of citizens juries 9
Appendices
1.A response from Monsanto 10
2.Participants in the Indian jury 11
3.Film transcript 12
Members of the citizens’ jury hearing evidence from witnesses in Karnataka, India, March 2000.
PHOTO: HUGH WARWICK
3
Executive summaryScientists, corporate spokespeople, celebrities and
monarchs have had their say in the debate over
genetically modified (GM) crops, and their potential
for reducing malnutrition and poverty. The only
people who have not yet been fully included in this
debate are the poor and marginalised farmers who
may themselves be affected.
ActionAid recently began a series of citizens’ juries
that are bringing the perspectives of the developing
world’s farmers to national and global debates on
GM crops. We designed the process using a citizens’
jury specialist, and it was guided by a panel of
diverse stakeholders and carried out by independent
local facilitators. We believe that rural people in
the south have a democratic right, and sufficient
knowledge, to judge the issue for themselves.
The full results of this first citizens’ jury, including
conclusions on the GM issue from a cross-section of
Indian farmers, is contained in this report and video.
The Indian farmers turned the debate around.
Instead of experts from the developed world telling
the people of the developing world what is good for
them, a spectrum of those who could be affected by
GM crops judged whether they could make their
livelihoods better, or whether such crops would
increase their poverty and insecurity.
The jury demonstrated that the poorest farmers
can have a sophisticated knowledge of the way new
types of crop can impact on their lives. They saw
interlinkages between different elements of new
agricultural technologies that scientists and other
specialists often miss.
Based on their mixed experience of the Green
Revolution, the farmers were sceptical of GM
crops, with a two to one majority saying they did
not want to grow them. They also called for a 5–10
year moratorium on the commercial release of GM
seeds and for a system of insurance to protect their
livelihood from the increased risks they would face.
They also had some useful suggestions for how
the potential of future crop technologies could be
improved, especially by becoming less expert,
and more farmer, led.
ActionAid believes that only with the full
involvement of poor and marginalised farmers,
such as those who sat on the Indian jury, can
development initiatives of whatever kind bring
benefit to the most vulnerable communities.
ActionAid now wants to repeat this process in other
parts of the world so that the views of those with a
real, practical knowledge of ‘feeding the world’ are
put in their proper place at the forefront of the
biotechnology debate.
1. Participation:The forgotten humanright?Just as political and economic systems are subject
to capture by a narrow elite, so are systems of
knowledge and innovation. In the South, this is
perhaps most obvious in agricultural communities1.
Citizens’ juries can be used as an innovative means of
giving the poor and marginalised a new opportunity
to participate in decisions. They can also be an
effective means of eliciting popular needs and
demands that are independent of the interests of
different stakeholder groups but that are respected
by such groups. Juries can also have symbolic value
in that they show how 12 or so jurors can regain
control over knowledge and be empowered to make
recommendations to governments.
Though they can by no means be claimed to be a
statistically representative sample of the population
in the way a professional opinion poll would be,
a citizens’ jury draws its strength from the parallel
with juries in the legal system. Legal juries,
normally composed of twelve randomly selected
citizens, are a standard feature of the judicial system
in the UK, US and many other countries. Still
practised in a form similar to that of the seventeenth
century, the jury system is considered to have been
a crucial stage in the establishment of the principles
of democratic government2. The jury’s primary
function is “the infusion of community values into
the legal system by interpreting legal standards
and specific factual patterns according to changing
community norms of conduct and justice”3.
When, as in the Karnataka citizens’ jury, issues of
scientific and technical complexity that are outside
their direct experience are put before a jury, the
question of the jury’s competence to discuss them
often arises 4. Contrary to what might be expected
from surveys highlighting apparent public ignorance
of science5, most studies of even the most highly
technical court cases have shown citizens able to
deal with technical issues at least as well as the
judges6. The institution of the jury places a burden
on those presenting evidence to communicate it in a
clear and accessible manner. Even in cases where it
is claimed that trial by jury is inappropriate because
of the scientific nature of evidence, any potential
problems can usually be overcome if the manner of
presenting the evidence is given careful consideration.
In some cases, the supposed inadequacy of the jury
in a technically complex case has been made a
scapegoat by the side losing in litigation, when
in fact it was the quality of the expertise on its own
side that was lacking7. The contrasting political
interests of the stakeholders involved in the
Karnataka jury, such as those of Monsanto (as
shown in Appendix 1), should be borne in mind
when considering their response to the jury’s report.
Studies comparing the decisions reached by jurors
compared with those reached by judicial experts
found that the same verdicts were reached in 75–80%
of cases8. Crucially, this proportion did not change
in complex cases.
Whatever the variant of their approach, the power
of a citizens’ jury comes from the parallel with the
tradition of twelve people being able to decide on
the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen. Since
many countries have successfully the use of the jury
system for this purpose, the onus is on its critics to
provide arguments as to why it shouldn’t be able to
contribute to wider debates about policy options
that best further the common good.
2. Farmers’ juryverdict on GM cropsThe South’s first citizen jury on GM crops took place
on a farm in B G Kere in the state of Karnataka,
India, between 6–10 March 2000. B G Kere is a small
village in a dryland area of the Chitradurga District.
It is 230km north of Bangalore, the state capital, and
contains a high proportion of poor and marginalised
farmers. The jury was made up of 14 small farmers
whose individual details and farms are briefly
described in Appendix 2, as are the expert witnesses
who presented evidence for and against the new
biotechnologies and the other observers and
participants.
Other stakeholders in the process included:
■ University agricultural/ecological scientists and
biotechnologists (e.g. Indian Institute of Science).
■ Commercial biotechnology corporations
(e.g. Monsanto India).
■ ActionAid and other development non
governmental organisations (NGOs)
(e.g. Deccan Development Society).
■ Farmers’ Union representatives (e.g. KPKS –
Karnataka’s state-sponsored farmers’ union).
■ State and National Government (e.g.
Department of Agriculture, Karnataka;
Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi).
ActionAid adapted the citizens’ jury technique
to a developing world context. The new method
incorporates three key elements :
1. The relative advantages of a range of scenarios,
such as different technological pathways, can
be compared from a variety of technical, social,
economic and political perspectives.
4
2. The composition of the jury can include people
drawn from all over a village, region or country
(or, in principle, the world) thereby giving a jury
a degree of significance for a range of societal
scales.
3. Rather than looking at local livelihood issues
and policies, the jury usually gives at least as
much of their attention to regional, national or
global issues, depending on where the relevant
decisions are taken.
Having heard four days of evidence on the possible
future role of biotechnology in farming, a jury of
eight female and six male farmers gave their verdict
on the following question:
Q. Would you sow the new seeds
proposed by the Indian Department
of Biotechnology and Monsanto
on your fields?9
4 Yes
9 No
1 Invalid ballot paper
When asked how GM crops might be made
more acceptable to them, answers included:
■ Microbes and beneficial insects should not be
damaged. Also new seeds should not cause
damage to animal populations and other
environmental elements.
■ They should be lawfully released only after
extensive field trials for 5–10 years (in which
farmers should be involved), not only of yield
assessments but of safety, environmental and
other aspects.
■ They should not damage the next crop that is
grown in the same field or adjoining fields.
■ The success of the new seeds should be judged
not just under lab conditions, but also in fields
involving farmers.
■ The technology must be easy to adapt.
■ A proportion of the jury felt that there was
no use for such technologies since they were
inherently un-ecofriendly and would destroy
biodiversity.
■ Another proportion were ready to grow the new
seeds so long as certificates from the Director of
the company selling the seeds were issued that
would protect them from any potential risk to
their livelihood.
■ A proportion of the jury also felt that GM crops
were acceptable, so long as it was restricted to
non-food crops.
When asked what steps should be taken
by multi-national corporations (MNCs)
to increase farmer confidence in
biotechnology, answers included:
■ A proportion of the jury were afraid of any
contact with MNCs, having heard about them
in the context of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) and patents. They said powerful MNCs,
which develop their seeds in lab conditions,
could ultimately gain control over seeds and
farmers’ sovereignty.
■ If the seeds fail for any reason, whether to
do with the technology itself, or weather
conditions, the MNCs should not only
compensate for the loses, but also buy up
the whole crop at double the price.
The jury reached wider conclusions
on how to:
1. Increase agricultural production
2. Make rural livelihoods more secure
■ A major initiative should be launched that
would increase farmer self-reliance in all aspects
of farming. This should include awareness
building and encouragement. To this end, a
new scheme that presents prizes to a variety of
farmers who show progress being made towards
self-reliance should be enacted.
■ All programmes of development should have
as their focus the increase of self-reliance at the
village level. Highest priority should be given
to returning fertility to the soil.
■ There should be a rapid move away from
chemicals towards farmyard manure and
herbal pesticides.
■ A priority should be given above all to conserving
agro-biodiversity – many varieties of crops like
ragi, rice, minor millets, and cash crops such as
tomato and onions, should be conserved.
■ Any new innovations in agriculture should
ensure the farmers right to save, breed from
and exchange all his/her seed.
■ Livelihood security should exist for farmers, just
as it is available for public/company employees.
■ The financial burden borne by poor and
marginal farmers relating to elements crucial
to their livelihood, such as transport of produce,
maintaining cattle (or otherwise obtaining
farmyard manure) and seed purchasing/exchange
should be reduced. An agricultural minimum-
wage should be set at a level so that labourers
are not exploited. Priority should also be given
to providing an assured market price for crops.
■ Free agricultural advice should be given to poor
and marginal farmers, especially on self-reliance5
}secret ballot
farming practices and the application of new
technologies. This should come from government-
funded agencies and was not available at present.
■ All programmes should promote farmer-centred
watershed technologies and their development.
■ A diet based on diversity of crops should be
promoted because it provides better nutrition.
■ All research into agriculture and rural
livelihoods should include farmers as experts.
■ ‘Farmers’ councils’ could be established in all
states to provide guidance on new technologies.
■ Community seed banks should be established
that would protect traditional varieties.
■ Marketing facilities for organic produce should
be developed, thus leading to an increase in
organic production.
3. Analysis of the jury process“[ActionAid’s] participatory biotechnology
assessment with Indian farmers has shown that the
voices of small and marginal farmers can enter the
policy process when appropriate methodologies are
used. Particularly successful reversals from normal
roles and locations included a) putting the
perceptions, priorities and judgement of ordinary
farmers centre stage, b) holding the evaluative
process under a tamarind tree on a farm, c) getting
government bureaucrats, scientists and other expert
witnesses to travel to farmers in order to present
evidence on the pros and cons of new technologies,
d) using television and video technology to ensure
transparency and free circulation of information
on the process and the outcomes.”
International Institute for Environment
and Development10
The action research project of which the Karnataka
jury was the first stage is still in progress. However,
on the basis of a preliminary review and an evaluation
by the International Institute for Environment and
Development, some initial analysis on the process
and conclusions of the jury are provided below.
Lack of education does not prevent
informed discussion of new technologies
The jury demonstrated the competence with which
farmers, many of whom had not finished basic
schooling, or were even illiterate, could discuss
often highly technical issues to which they had
no previous exposure, such as GM crops. They
achieved this by carefully eliciting from each witness
the information relevant to their livelihoods. Rather
than attempting to build up a basic knowledge of
genetics, they asked whether the ‘new seeds’, as
they called them, could address their needs, such as
returning organic matter to their soils and reducing
their susceptibility to rapidly changing market
prices for their harvested produce.
Having interrogated the witnesses and discussed
the issue among themselves, the jury was asked to
vote on whether they found the GM cotton seeds
acceptable to be planted in their fields immediately.
Their 9–4 vote rejecting the seeds was not a simply
negative response. It was supplemented by a wide-
ranging list of demands as to what action should
be taken by the government and multi-national
corporations as a precondition to the possible
introduction of their new seeds.
The sophisticated way in which scientifically
untrained citizens were thus able to develop a subtle
critique of ‘official’ knowledge mirrors previous
anthropological work, such as the recent study of
the use of indigenous knowledge by sheep farmers in
Cumbria, UK, in the aftermath of Chernobyl (Wynne
1996)11, the analysis of medical biotechnology by
focus groups of the UK public (Cunningham-Burley
et al. 1998)12 and policy work, such as Genetic
Forum’s citizens’ jury on GM food (Wakeford 1999)13.
Trial by jury?
Like the Genetic Forum citizens’ jury and Institute
for Public Policy Research (IPPR) projects, the
Karnataka farmers’ jury demonstrated that the
citizens’ jury system need not be adversarial14.
Contrary to some observers expectations that a
‘guilty/not-guilty’ confrontation would occur, and
despite two outspoken presentations for and against
GM crops, the overall process was marked by an
atmosphere of constructive criticism. The scientist
from the Government of India’s Department of
Biotechnology expressed delight at the way in which
the process allowed him to engage directly with
an audience of farmers who were not merely
paid-up members of a pro- or anti- GM camp.6
Corporate citizenship
Given the stakeholder-engaged approach underlying
the citizens’ jury method, and ActionAid’s global
strategy of ‘encouraging corporate accountability
and social responsibility’, the involvement of the
private sector was a key component of the
Karnataka jury.
As one of the largest corporations in both global
and Indian agriculture, and with a major interest
in GM crops, Monsanto was clearly an important
stakeholder and key witness in such a process15. They
were approached early on in the jury preparations.
The corporation has been subject to sustained
criticism for their development of ‘Terminator’
seeds, (GM seeds which produce sterile plants),
and other products seen to be damaging to the
livelihoods of small farmers. Even the Rockefeller
Foundation, themselves a leading developer of GM
crops, accused the company of risking “removing
the benefit from biotechnology” by rushing ahead
with technologies such as Terminator. In a
statement in June 1999 its President encouraged
Monsanto to develop “participatory approaches”
that increased their “accountability and
transparency”, “strengthened farmers’ own
decision-making”, treated them “as equal partners
in a dialogue” and most importantly recognised
that “the poor have a right to decide for themselves”.
Along with its announcement to halt the
development of Terminator technology, Monsanto’s
involvement in the Indian jury should be seen in the
light of these criticisms.
The witness Monsanto provided – a former
academic researcher into organic pest control
methods, Dr T M Manjunath – avoided using his
company’s name throughout his presentation,
saying he was present to discuss the technology, not
the corporation. It was felt by some in the process
that he lapsed away from an equal engagement with
farmers and towards public relations, telling them
they must now either ‘spray’, ‘pray’, or use his
corporation’s new GM cotton seeds.
As Director of Research and Development at
Monsanto India, Dr Manjunath also provided a
point by point response to the jury’s conclusions.
Its perceived high-handed tone (Appendix 1) is in
stark contrast to the open and equal dialogue called
for in Rockefeller’s statement. However, the very act
of making a detailed response demonstrates that
Monsanto views the process as legitimate despite
the vote against their seed and most of the
conclusions hostile to their present investment
strategy. The company’s response also exposed
many of the normally hidden assumptions that
underlie their work in the South.
Their stated position clearly falls short of both
respecting the knowledge of Indian farmers and
of satisfactorily responding to their legitimate
demands. This gap between Monsanto’s global
rhetoric and the reality of their policies for Indian
farmers has been clearly demonstrated by the jury
process. While the Indian farmers rejected the
technology without many more years of trials,
in which they themselves wanted to be participants
and evaluators, Monsanto has subsequently won
approval from the Indian Department of
Biotechnology and will begin the release of its
GM cotton onto the Indian market.
Long-term power shifts
The citizens’ jury method has been successfully
used to reverse the power relations between those
conventionally regarded as experts and those
dismissed as ignorant and in need of educating.
This reversal has been especially marked in areas
in which technical specialisms are involved, be they
economics, atmospheric chemistry or agricultural
genetics. In the Karnataka jury, it was obvious that
farmers knew far more about the practicalities of
agriculture than any of the witnesses. The future
challenge is to find ways of continuing and
broadening this empowerment beyond the finite
time period and limited population of the jury.
Citizens’ juries have the potential to contribute to
a broader agenda of change that would be marked
by a radical shift in whose knowledge is counted as
valid, and who is seen as having a legitimate stake in
policy decisions. This will only take place if strong
links are established between the juries and those in
power, and that any intermediaries have something
to gain by acting in such a role.
In political and economic issues these intermediaries
include NGOs, trade unions, government ministers
and officials. However, many parts of the livelihoods
of the poor and marginalised are influenced by a
range of experts who must also recognise the value of
the insights of the jurors. These include agricultural
extension workers, economists, geologists, biologists
and various state intermediaries. Means need to be
devised of helping such individuals and institutions
discover that they can achieve greater social and
environmental improvement by recognising the
knowledge and perspectives of all citizens, including
the full range of social diversity16.
The future
The Indian jury was a learning process for all those
involved. Given ActionAid’s involvement with the
poor and marginalised and their struggle to attain
their basic rights, this report and film have focussed
on the contributions to the jury made by such
farmers rather than the more prosperous individuals
who were more inclined towards experimenting with
GM crops, even though four voted in favour of using7
“When the green revolution came, you said it was a
safe technology. But soon we had a lot of problems
with the pollution. Now you say biotechnology is
best. How can we be sure that after 10 years it will
not backfire in a similar way, and we will again be
the victims?” Shrivatsa
“With Monsanto’s new GM cotton, I think the same
resistance to insects will evolve as it did with the old
pesticides.” Surmangala
“Monsanto said that the GM toxin would only
harm the one particular insect. How can we be
certain that when such insecticides are within the
tissue of a food crop that some tiny trace will not
harm human health?” Nargaveni
them. This report has also focussed on the potential
food security implications of GM crops for the rural
poor, rather than the effects of eating GM food on
human health, which has been a concern for other
organisations.
The crucial stage that should follow on from the jury
reaching its conclusions is that appropriate individuals
and channels be found to act as intermediaries
between the jury and those with the power to create
change. NGOs have a role to play and can better
inform their campaigns and lobbying with insights
from such participatory processes. Recently some
citizen participation initiatives, such as those designed
by the International Institute for Environment and
Development, have experimented with regional and
national ‘learning groups’, which directly engage
stakeholder representatives in taking the results of the
citizens’ conclusions forward. ActionAid is looking at
similar structures to take forward the results of its
present round of citizens’ juries.
Having shown that they can engage with such
processes, MNCs such as Monsanto should increase
their effort to respond to the needs of the poor and
marginalised by continuing a dialogue with the
whole range of stakeholders in agriculture, rural
livelihoods and poverty alleviation. If designed in
an open and transparent manner, participatory
methods such as citizens’ juries could form part
of this process.
One of the most powerful messages the jury
members wanted policy-makers to hear is that their
food security largely relied on traditional time-
tested technologies, and they did not want these
to be damaged by GM technology, as had happened
frequently in the Green Revolution. They were
particularly concerned that traditional varieties
of seed and cattle would be lost. A number of jurors
compared the ‘new seeds’ unfavourably with the pest
and drought resistance of their own traditional seeds.
Having demonstrated their own agricultural
expertise on a wide variety of aspects of food
security, the farmers expressed scepticism about the
trials they had heard described by the witnesses
from Monsanto and their government’s Department
of Biotechnology. Having had bitter experience of
inferior seed being supplied from commercial and
public sector sources they did not trust company
guarantees that the new seeds would grow properly.
They wanted these guarantees to be backed up by a
compensation scheme that would cover the risk they
would be taking.
Jury members suspected that their government had
taken a position in support of GM crops – and
GM cotton in particular – based on a mixture of
misinformation from the MNCs and a lack of clear
thinking within and between different government
departments. Having heard from an academic GM
scientist, they did not even have confidence in the
suitability or potential benefits of GM crops that had
been developed purely in public sector laboratories.
The only way the jury members said they would
have any confidence in the new crops would be if
they themselves were involved in a set of long term
on-farm trials that dealt not only with simple
questions of yield, but also safety, environmental
and health aspects.
“My crops are grown purely for eating. I don’t grow
cash crops. By using these new seeds, I would not
only risk losing my old seeds but ruining my soil.
Then what would I do? I wouldn’t be able to feed
myself.” Kalamma
“The Department of Biotech says one of the
advantages of this biotechnology is that we can
save money on the oil needed to make all these
agrochemicals. But there seems no evidence as to
whether individual farmers or the government
really will save money.” Ganesh
“Having heard the evidence, I think it’s all very well
to propose these new crops, but our first priority
is that the traditional varieties that we know are
reliable are conserved. We can only accept the
new crops if the scientists prove they are widely
adaptable to our local conditions and we can also
conserve our own seeds which we know to have
properties of disease and pest resistance.” Borajja8
4. Analysis of thejury’s conclusionsWhile acknowledging the good intentions of many
of those in the national and international agencies
that had implemented it, many members of the jury
had strong views about the negative impacts of the
Green Revolution. Government subsidies had
created a dependence on fertilisers and pesticides,
leading to loss of soil fertility and insect resistance.
They saw the same logic inherent in GM crops, and
questioned the dubious motives of the MNCs.
Some jurors mourned the losses from their rich
agrarian culture that had been brought about by
the Green Revolution. They feared such losses
would be intensified by GM seed.
Having cross questioned witnesses and weighed up
the pros and cons of the new GM seeds, the farmers
voted that they would not want the ones they had
heard described in their fields. A number of the
jurors suggested that there should be 5–10 year
moratorium in the commercial or government release
of GM crops. Such crops should only be lawful if the
comprehensive and farmer-led trials they had
described could show them to be unquestionably
beneficial to the food security of rural people.
5. History ofcitizens’ juriesThe citizens’ jury, and the closely associated
Planning Cells, were developed during the early
1980s in the US and Germany. The process has
similarities to other consultation processes such
as public hearings and Consensus Conferences17,
but with important distinctive features18.
■ Information that is provided to jurors must
provide a diversity of perspectives – usually
via witnesses.
■ Witnesses are chosen by agreement of all
stakeholder representatives or by the jurors
themselves.
■ Random selection of jurors, usually from the
electoral register.
■ Payment made to jurors for participation in
the hearings.
■ Consensus not required; any majority verdicts
should also record minority views.
The size of juries is generally at least 12, and
sometimes up to 25. A wide range of issues has been
considered. In the US, citizens’ juries have not only
been used for issues relating to technology such as
the effects of agriculture on water quality, but have
also been run in parallel to mayoral and Senatorial
elections and to assess the Clinton health care plan,
which received evidence from Senators and
Presidential advisors. In Germany, early panels dealt
with issues of urban planning, with 26 cities or
communities having used them in this context.
The German Consumer Association has used such
a panel to report on its methods of testing new
products; and the German Ministry of Research
and Technology to elicit information on public
responses to different energy scenarios. In
Denmark, variants of a similar method, the
Consensus Conference, has been widely used by the
Parliament to seek citizen participation on a wide
range of issues – from urban planning to GM crops.
The citizens’ jury is a directly democratic means of
societal input into the policy process. What it loses
in comparison to an opinion poll in statistical
significance, it gains in the informed and
sophisticated insights of the jurors. In the mid-
1990s the IPPR started to pilot citizens’ juries in the
UK, usually on questions of healthcare, which
included dilemmas relating to the allocation of
limited funds to different aspects of healthcare.
Beginning pilot projects in 1996, the IPPR
methodology was broadly similar to that taken
in Germany and the US. The first five juries were
considered successful enough for them to
commission their own further jury initiatives, and
help others. During 1996, Hertfordshire County
Council commissioned a citizens’ jury from a team
at the University of Hertfordshire. Its aim was to
assist the council in forming a County Waste Local
Plan. In 1997, the IPPR ran a citizens’ jury
commissioned by the Association of British Insurers
and the Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care
ran a similar jury that discussed the use of genetic
testing for common disorders.
Though citizens’ juries are still in their infancy in
the UK, their use is growing rapidly, especially since
the Local Government Management Board offered
to co-fund experiments with citizens’ juries in
English local authorities.
Along with its direct relevance to national level
policymakers, a key element of the IPPR citizens’
jury methodology is the overseeing of the project by
a stakeholder panel, which includes the key interest
groups to oversee the project to ensure proper
balance. In the ActionAid process, both these
elements are combined with a method to tackle a
largely new dimension: the contrasting possible
future pathways for science and technology19.
During its early use, the process has aimed to:
■ Enshrine the democratic principle that all
citizens can – during a process of deliberation –
gain enough knowledge about a new policy or
technology to draw up useful recommendations
as to how it can best serve the common good20.
■ Be driven by priorities and questions that have
been framed, as much as possible, by the citizens
themselves, not experts, stakeholders or
facilitators.
■ Provide complete transparency by filming all
deliberations and making tapes publicly available.
■ Ensure that politicians, industry, NGOs and
citizen groups are engaged so that they treat the
outputs of the process as legitimate.
9
■ Direct the results to opinion formers and
decision makers in both government and
industry to understand the needs of citizens, thus
enabling them to re-orientate their strategies21.
One important element of the citizens’ jury is that
jurors are provided with information that allows
them to compare and evaluate whole scenarios,
each scenario being the logical product of a series
of interdependent values, assumptions and
predictions. Especially in the case of a controversial
technology such as GM, a wider understanding of
the inter-linkages between biotechnology, corporate
control, and local power structures is far more likely
to be achieved by taking a scenario approach than
by merely asking a jury to say Yes or No to a
particular technology. In Karnataka, these scenarios
comprised of two starkly different technological
trajectories for agriculture – one based on GM seed
and continued chemical use, the other on saved
indigenous seed, traditional technologies and
organic methods.
Appendix 1 – A response from MonsantoDr T M Manjunath, Director of Research
and Development, Monsanto India.
Letter to Dr Tom Wakeford, National Centre
for Biological Sciences, India.
“I would like to compliment Mr Satya Murty
and you for the efforts that both of you have put in
conducting the programme. As I mentioned during
one of the interviews, GM crops are yet to be
commercialised in India and farmers have no
experience with these. They (and also others) have a
long way to go in understanding the science behind
these products. Thus, whether they speak in favour
or against these crops should not be given undue
importance at this stage. Nevertheless, the
programme was a good initiative in bringing the
farmers closer to scientists. It has a lot of educational
value and must continue. I wish to record some of
my personal observations. Although I spoke on
insect-resistant transgenic crops in general, GM
cotton was cited as a specific example as it is the
only crop that has reached advanced stage of field
trials in India. Dr Ghosh also might have done so.
The farmers in the jury predominantly comprised
of those who traditionally grow fingermillet, rice,
coconut, banana etc. Except one or two, others did
not appreciate the plight of the cotton farmers and
were not keen on Bt-cotton or other transgenic
crops for obvious reasons. About the concerns:
I clarified these concerns during the question
and answer session at B G Kere. However, I have
answered these again, point by point, in the
attachment sent by you. My answers are in italic.
We do appreciate farmers concerns. Fears quickly
overtake facts. We have enormous responsibilities
in reversing this general trend. We feel that your
programme is a step torwards this endeavour.
With best wishes, – Manjunath.
■ Microbes and beneficial insects should not be
damaged. Also new seeds should not cause
damage to animal populations and other
environmental elements.
Experimental field data revealed that GM
transgenic crops are safe to non-target organisms
and environment.
■ They should be lawfully released only after
extensive field trials for 5-10 years. They should
not damage the next crop that is grown in the
same field or adjoining fields.
GM crops are released only after the prescribed
field trials are conducted to establish their safety
and benefits and only after approval by the
government regulatory authorities. They are
safe to the other crops grown in the same or
adjoining fields.
■ The success of the new seeds should be judged
not just under lab conditions, but also, in fields
involving farmers.
Data on the performance of the new seeds
are generated both in lab and field trials.
■ The technology must be easy to adapt.
Transgenic crops are to be grown like any other
normal crop. No extra efforts are required.
■ A proportion of the jury felt that there was
no use of such technologies since they were
inherently un-ecofriendly, and would destroy
biodiversity.
Evidences show that Bt-transgenic crops result
in substantial reduction of chemical insecticides
and increased activity of biological control
agents. They do not affect biodiversity.
■ Another proportion were ready to grow the new
seeds so long as guarantee certificates, signed by
the company’s director, ensured compensation
in case of non-germination or crop failure.
The company can give guarantees only for the
performance of the trait introduced in the given
crop and also for the germination of seeds.
■ A proportion of the jury also felt that GM
crops were acceptable, so long as they were kept
to non-food crops.
The GM foods are subjected to vigorous safety
tests before they are introduced into the market.
On the other hand, the traditional foods are not
tested in this manner, yet they are consumed as10
people have faith in these. Once they realise the
safety and benefits of GM foods these will also
be accepted in a similar way.
When asked what steps should be taken by MNCs
to increase farmer confidence in biotechnology,
answers included:
■ A proportion of the jury were afraid of any
contact with MNCs, having heard about them in
the context of WTO and patents. The powerful
MNCs, which develop their seeds in lab
conditions could ultimately gain control
over seeds and farmers’ sovereignty.
Farmers should be more concerned about the
technology rather than who is providing it.
MNCs may provide technologies that may
enable local companies to produce new seeds
and help local farmers.
■ If the seeds fail for any reason, whether to
do with the technology itself, or weather
conditions, the MNCs should not only
compensate for the loses, but also buy up
the whole crop at double the price.
It is unreasonable to hold companies responsible
for crop failures due to weather conditions.
Appendix 2 –Participants inthe Indian jury
Jury members
1. Mr Borajja, 55 years old.
BG Kere, Molakalmur Taluk,
Chitradurga District, Karnataka (KA).
He farms 4.5 acres of dryland, out of which
2.5 acres are irrigated, and 2 acres rain-fed.
His crops are onion, ragi, and jowar. He has
4 cross-breed cows, 1 pair of bullocks. He has
primary education.
2. Mr Chinnappa, 48 years old.
Nellumaru, Dankanikota Taluk,
Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu (TN).
He farms 4 acres of rain-fed dryland, growing
ragi, pulses and rice. He has 4 cross-breed
cows. He has 5 children. He was educated
to secondary school level.
3. Ms Kalamma, 52 years old.
Kootur, Dankanikota Taluk, Dharmapuri, TN.
She farms 1.5 acres of rain-fed dryland, growing
ragi and rice. In her backyard she grows banana,
coconut, papaya, eucalyptus, silver oak. She has
1 pair of bullocks, 20 chicks. She has 3 children.
She is illiterate and supplements her income by
labouring for others.
4. Ms Thimmaka, 58 years old.
Balledoddi, Dankanikota Taluk,
Dharmapuri, TN.
She farms 0.5 acres of rain-fed dryland on which
ragi , jowar, pulses, castor oilseeds are grown.
She is illiterate and has one child. She has half
an acre of community land. She supplements
her income by going out for labour.
5. Ms Ashwathamma, 50 years old.
Chandapura, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District, KA.
She farms of 8 acres and is President of the local
Gram Panchayat. She grows ragi and pulses.
She has 3 children. She completed secondary
school education.
6. Mr Ganesh, 34 years old.
Chakkodabylu, Thirathelli Taluk,
Shimoga District, KA.
He farms 3 acres, growing arecanut,banana,
pepper and rice. He designed a low-cost water-
lifting machine as a rural domestic technology.
He was educated to 20 years of age.
7. Mr Sakrappa, 45 years old.
Kolagal, Bellary Taluk, Bellary District, KA.
He farms 5 acres of rain-fed dryland – 2 with
chilli-peppers, 2 with rice. He has 4 children and
is illiterate.
8. Ms Narsamma, 66 years old.
Haragadde, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District, KA.
She farms 2.5 acres of land with ragi, pulses,
jowar and rice. In her 0.25 acres backyard, she
grows vegetables. She has 4 cross-breed cows and
20 chickens. She is illiterate and has 6 children.
9. Ms Pushpa, 42 years old.
Muthalanur, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District, KA.
She farms 50 acres; 12 are dryland, 38 acres are
irrigated where she grows ragi, sorghum, pulses,
fruit (sapota, banana) coconut and fodder for
her own dairy. She also grows teak, maize and
grass. She has 15 cross breed cows. She was
educated to 20 years of age.
10. Ms Nargaveni, 31 years old.
Illalige Village, Bangalore District. KA.
She has 3 acres on which she grows ragi, pulses,
and jowar. She has 3 cross breed cows, 10
chickens and 5 sheep. She has one child. She
completed secondary school education.
11. Ms Lakshmamma, 34 years old.
Umunapur, Medak District, AP.
She farms 1.75 acres, where she grows sorghum,
pulses, millet and rice. She has 1 cross breed cow.
She is illiterate and has 2 children.
11
12. Mrs Surmangala, 46 years old.
BG Kere, Molakalmur Taluk,
Chitradurga District, KA.
She farms 64 acres organically, using a large
number of borewells and drip irrigation. Crops
include coconut, coffee, guava, banana and
tamarin. She was educated to 20 years, and
has 2 children.
13. Mr Shrivatsa, 33 years old.
Chakkodabylu Thirathelli Taluk,
Shimoga, District, KA.
He farms 8 acres, 3 of arecanut. 5 acres rice
and 3 acres with other crops including 0.75
acres intercultivated vanilla (for export).
He is a science graduate.
14. Mr Shanka Koppa, 70 years old.
Adur, Hannegal Taluk, Haveri District, KA.
He farms 14 acres with cotton and his land
formed part of Monsanto’s trial of GM cotton.
Expert witnesses
Witnesses who gave evidence to the farmers’ jury
included:
Aruna Kumar
Krishi Prayoga Pariwara
(‘Farmers Who Experiment’)
Thirathelli, Karnataka
Dr P K Ghosh
Advisor
Department of Biotechnology
Government of India, New Delhi
Mr Jayanand
Director
ACTIVE
Khammam, Andhra Pradesh
Krishna Prasad
Project Associate
Green Foundation, Bangalore
Dr Laksmi Sita
Associate Professor
Department of Microbiology and Cell Biology,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
Dr T M Munjunath
Director
Research and Development,
Monsanto India, Bangalore
P V Satheesh
Director
Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad
Dr Mihir Shah and Mr Rangu Rao
Samaj Pragati Sahayog (‘Society for People’s
Empowerment’), Madhya Pradesh
Other observers and participants
Edward Cross
Farmer and Member of UK Government’s
Advisory Committee on Genetic Releases
to the Environment.
Archie Montgomery
Council member of National Farmers Union,
and head of it’s Biotechnology Working Group.
D. Satya Murty
Officer of the Indian Administrative Service.
He is Food Rights Co-ordinator for ActionAid
India and was the panel’s facilitator.
Dr Michel Pimbert
Research Associate, International Institute for
Environment and Development, London and
Visiting Fellow, Institute for Development
Studies, University of Sussex. He was
commissioned by ActionAid as the project’s
independent evaluator.
Dr Shanta Kumari
Lecturer in the Farmers’ Training Institute,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
She acted as a facilitator.
Dr Tom Wakeford
Centre for Research into Innovation , Culture
and Technology, Brunel University, UK, India’s
National Centre for Biological Sciences, and
adviser to ActionAid.
Appendix 3 – Film transcript
Indian farmers judge GM crops
Borajja:
My name is Borajja. I have a wife and four
children and two grandchildren. Together we
farm five acres of dryland in Chitradurga
District of Karnataka State, India. I am a
member of the farmers jury here in B G Kere.
Salil Shetty, Director, ActionAid:
We have heard a lot recently about the supposed
benefits of genetically modified crops and ‘GM’
technology.
Unfortunately, what we’ve been hearing has
mostly been from scientists, from trans-national
corporations, and from governments.
In ActionAid we are very concerned that the
debate has not actually involved the people who
would grow the GM crops – the rural farmers.
That’s what we’ve tried to do in this citizens’
jury – to turn the debate on its head. To ask rural
farmers what they think are the potential
advantages and disadvantages of this GM
technology. That’s the conversation you will hear,
which took place over a period of five days.12
Narrator:
The Indian Farmers jury was composed of eight
female and six male farmers from the state of
Karnataka, South India. The jury was held in
the village of BG Kere under the shade of a
tamarind tree. Before giving their own views,
the jury heard and questioned witnesses on a
wide range of topics relating to food security.
The witnesses came from all over India and
represented biotechnology companies, farmers
groups, NGOs and national government.
Dr Lakshmi Sita, Department of Cell Biology,
Indian Institute of Science:
What we are saying is, probably by selecting the
very elite plants, and multiplying them by the
standard methods of tissue culture, maybe a
farmer can have a plantation which is of better
quality. So our experiments shows that there is
a great potential in this technology.
Dr T M Manjunath, Director of Research
and Development, Monsanto India:
Now a stage has been reached when the farmers
will either have to spray or they will have to pray.
So we have reached such a situation today. It is
during this situation that trans-genic technology
seems to have come to the rescue of the farmers.
Dr P K Ghosh, Adviser,
Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi:
Now coming back to this experiment, I would
like to say that things are not done in a hurry,
things are done very carefully, so that the
concern of the common man is fully upheld.
Aruna Kumar, Society of Farmers Who Experiment:
The GMO[rganism] is not a necessary crop.
It is not a technology that is needed to the
Indian condition. Most of the Green Revolution
technologies that have come into India have not
solved the poor. Its only the higher income
people, or the middle class income people,
who have used this – not the poor – and it has
not helped the poor at all.
Dr Mihir Shah, Society for People’s Empowerment:
We are not people who are saying ‘Lets go back
to nature, let’s not use modern technology.’ We
are saying use technology very carefully in line
with principles which maintain the ecology of
the region, and also technology in control of the
people.
P V Satheesh, Deccan Development Society:
Because when we are talking about trans-genics,
or genetic engineering it is not a simple question
of crop – food – productivity. It is basically a
question of control. Who will ultimately have
control over the crops.
Narrator:
Rather than being intrinsically opposed to it, the
farmers were open to the possible advantages of
new kinds of seed.
Shrivatsa:
When we already have 1,000 varieties of seed.
So I don’t see the harm in having one more that
is GM, making it 1,001.
Narrator:
Having heard evidence from Dr Sita, who is
developing genetically modified sandalwood
trees, the farmers had doubts about how much
she knew about the reality of growing them in
their fields.
Kalamma:
I don’t believe in this sandalwood biotechnology
described by Dr Sita. A baby born from a
mothers womb is healthier and stronger than
a test tube baby. In the same way this new
sandalwood tree is not born out of a seed, but
is generated artificially from a root or something
else. Then it’s brought from somewhere far away
to our land. It cannot be good. A plant born out
of a natural seed is bound to be healthier.
Shrivatsa:
Dr Sita seems to think that natural forests
should be turned into a monoculture plantation
for her trees, but she’s wrong. It is full of all sorts
of different plants that are crucial for our
cooking and medicine.
Chinappa:
I asked Dr Sita whether her GM sandalwood
would give the same amount of oil as traditional
varieties. She said that it would. But in her
previous sentence, she had admitted that it
would be forty years before the sandalwood had
grown enough to determine such differences.
So how does she know?
Narrator:
Many of the farmers on the jury had experience
of the increased insecurity of their livelihood
caused by the introduction of new varieties
as part of the Green Revolution. They were
worried that GM crops could make them
vulnerable again.
Shrivatsa:
When the Green Revolution came, you said it
was a safe technology. But soon we had a lot
of problems with the pollution. Now you say
biotechnology is best. How can we be sure that
after 10 years it will not backfire in a similar
way, and we will again be the victims.
13
Narrator
The safety of GM crops, in particular the
GM cotton described by the witnesses from
Monsanto and the Government’s chief
biotechnologist were of particular concern to
the jury, including the farmer who had already
planted GM cotton on his land.
Shankakoppa:
I’m still not sure whether the GM plant toxins
will affect the bacteria in the soil.
Nargaveni:
Monsanto said that the GM toxin would only
harm the one particular insect. How can we be
certain that when such insecticides are within
the tissue of a food crop that some tiny trace
will not harm human health?
Narrator:
While the Green Revolution had been
implemented mainly by a democratically
accountable government, farmers foresaw
dangers in GM crops being largely developed
by trans-national corporations, whose main
aim was to make profit not benefit farmers.
Shrivatsa:
Monsanto says it has invested a lot of money
and so it is very careful in investigating every
aspect before a GM crop release. But the profit
motive of such companies might make them
neglect the safety aspect.
Surmangala:
With Monsanto’s new GM cotton, I think the
same resistance to insects will evolve as it did
with the old pesticides.
Shrivatsa:
Even if their research results are negative, they
can bluff the farmer saying they are positive.
How can we know the truth?
Narrator:
Most of the farmers still use crop varieties
passed down from previous generations, using
sophisticated seed-saving and breeding
techniques. They were very concerned that
their replacement by new seeds could leave
them powerless in the hands of seed companies.
Borajja:
Ever since our forefathers, my community has
used traditional varieties of seed crop, after
crop. None of us use seed from outside sources.
Thimakka:
I am the keeper of traditional seeds in my
village. When people need them, they come to
me, because I have varieties of seed no-one else
has. In the future I want to preserve even more
varieties of seed.
Narrator:
Some of the farmers, especially women, already
saw their local culture as having been damaged
by the introduction of hybrid seeds, and worried
that GM crops could cause further loss of their
cultural heritage and shared community events.
Lakshmamma:
We women have the final say in the choice of
seed and how it is sown. When the season and
the position of the moon are correct we
celebrate the sowing of the seed. Since you can
buy and sow hybrid seeds at any time of year we
lose such festivals.
Narrator:
The poorest farmers on the jury were simply
worried that the GM crops would cause their
families increase risk of hunger. The current
system of growing many different varieties of
traditional crops gave them real food security.
Kalamma:
My crops are grown purely for eating. I don’t
grow cash crops. By using these new seeds,
I would not only risk losing my old seeds but
ruining my soil. Then what would I do?
I wouldn’t be able to feed myself.
Narrator:
The Government’s evidence to farmers included
assurances that all the proper research had been
done into the balance of costs and benefits of the
new technology. However, farmers were sceptical
about how thorough the analysis on which they
based their support for GM crops was.
Ganesh:
The Department of Biotech says one of the
advantages of this biotechnology is that we can
save money on the oil needed to make all these
agro-chemicals. But there seems no evidence as
to whether individual farmers or the government
really will save money.
Narrator:
While being sympathetic to adopting more
sustainable agricultural practices, the farmers
pointed out that the current system of subsidies
drove them into using ever more fertilisers and
pesticides.
Nargaveni:
The government has been subsidising many of
our fertilisers and other chemical inputs. I’m
not sure to what extent an ordinary village
farmer follow organic methods.
Narrator:
As part of their verdict, the farmers asked to
vote by secret ballot on the specific question of
whether, in principle, they would grow the new
crops they had heard described in their fields.
Having heard both sides of the debate the farmers
felt they were making an informed decision.14
Kalamma:
I came here to find out what this biotechnology
was all about. I had plenty to do in my village
but I wanted to come here. Now I know what
biotechnology is.
Lakshmamma:
Most of the jury wanted to put a stop to GM
crops until extensive field trials have been
carried out for at least 5-10 years. Since we have
the real practical knowledge, farmers like me
should be made active participants in these
trials, not only in yield assessments but in safety,
environmental and other aspects.
Narrator:
The jury also made a series of detailed
recommendations about what would be required
to increase their confidence in GM seeds.
As he goes back to his nearby fields, Borajja, for
one, still fears that the introduction of GM crops
would displace the seeds his family relies on for
their food.
Borajja:
Having heard the evidence I think it’s all very well
to propose these new crops, but our first priority
is that the traditional varieties that we know are
reliable are conserved. We can only accept the
new crops if the scientists prove they are widely
adaptable to our local conditions and we can also
conserve our own seeds which we know to have
properties of disease and pest resistance.
Salil Shetty:
ActionAid’s main focus is on the basic rights of
world’s most poor and marginalised peoples.
And one of the most fundamental of these basic
rights is whether these people have a voice in
decision-making on matters that affect their own
lives. You’ve seen one example of that – of how
GM crops could potentially affect their lives.
What we’ve seen is that given the right kind of
information, these farmers are able to make the
most sophisticated of judgements
We think that the voice of these people should
be at the forefront of the debate on GM
technology and in the decision making process
on how we will take forward GM technology;
which is why we think, over the next year or so,
such juries should be tried out in more places
and these voices are heard much more loudly
and clearly.
Thank you.
15
Footnotes1 Baumann M et al. 1996 The Life Industry: Biodiversity,
people and profits. Intermediate Technology, London.
2 Landsman S 1993 The history and objectives of the civil jury
system. in Verdict Assessing the Civil Jury System R.Litan
(ed), Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
3 Hans V P 1993 Attitudes towards the civil jury in Litan R
(ibid.).
4 See Monsanto’s response in Appendix 1
5 See, for example, Durant J 1989 Do you know your atom
from your elbow, Daily Telegraph, September 11:p18; and
Bauer M et al. 1994 European Public Perceptions of Science,
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6:163–186.
6 Edmond G & Mercer D 1997 Scientific literacy and the jury:
reconsidering jury ‘competence’. Public Understanding of
Science 6:327-359.
7 See Hans V P 1993 (Op.Cit.).
8 Lempert R 1993 Civil juries and complex cases: taking stock
after 12 years Litan R (Op.Cit.).
9 The presice question was ‘Would you sow the new
commercial seeds as described by Ghosh and Manjunath
in your fields immediately?’
10 Pimbert M 2000 A Participatory Biotechnology Assessment
by Indian Farmers: Evaluation Report IIED, London
11 Wynne, B & Irwin I (eds) 1996 Misunderstanding Science,
Cambridge University Press.
12 Cunningham-Burley, S et al.1998 The Social and Cultural
Impact of the New Genetics, ESRC & University of
Edinburgh.
13 Wakeford T 1999 Citizen Foresight: a tool to enhance
democratic policy making. 1: The Future of Food and
Agriculture. Genetics Forum and University of East London.
14 Coote A and Lenhaglan J Citizens’ juries: theory into
practice. IPPR, London.
15 www.monsantoindia.com
16 Sainath P 1996 Everybody loves a good drought: Stories from
India’s poorest districts, Penguin, New Delhi.
17 Joss S & Durant J (eds.) 1996 Public Participation in Science:
The Role of the Consensus Conferences in Europe. Science
Museum, London.
18 Adapted from Crosby N 1995 Citizens Juries: One Solution
for Difficult Environmental Questions in Renn O et al. (eds)
1995 Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
19 Wakeford (ibid.).
20 Edmond G & Mercer D (ibid.).
21 POST 1997 Science Shaping the Future – Technology
Foresight and its Impacts. Parliamentary Office of Science
and Technology, London.
16 N184 6/2000
Recommended