Top farmers' group, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), has issued a strong warning to the Union Government against the proposed release of two gene‑edited rice varieties—DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1—arguing that the move threatens India’s seed sovereignty, farmers’ rights and the country’s long‑standing rice biodiversity. In a press statement dated 18 September 2026, the farmers’ coalition said it “strongly opposes the release of any patented seed technologies and of unsafe gene‑edited rice varieties,” and demanded that the government halt all steps toward seed multiplication and distribution before the process becomes “irreversible.”
SKM said reports indicate that seed multiplication for Pusa DST Rice 1 is already underway ahead of the Rabi season, and alleged that both varieties are based on patented CRISPR‑Cas9 gene‑editing technology licensed globally by Corteva Agriscience. The organisation said the terms under which Indian institutions accessed the technology have not been disclosed, raising concerns about intellectual‑property restrictions and the erosion of farmers’ seed‑saving rights. According to SKM, the government is “pushing Indian farmers towards patented seed technologies, using the façade of free seeds,” in violation of Parliament’s intent in India’s seed and patent laws.
The farmers’ body also warned that the introduction of gene‑edited rice could endanger India’s centuries‑old rice biodiversity. India is a centre of origin for rice, with thousands of farmer‑bred landraces known for salinity tolerance, climate resilience and adaptability developed over generations at no cost. SKM said gene‑edited varieties risk contaminating and displacing this indigenous diversity, with potential implications for trade. It cited China’s recent stalling of Indian rice imports over alleged GMO contamination as an example of the risks involved.
The statement further argued that releasing gene‑edited rice would jeopardise India’s organic export sector. India accounts for more than 30% of global rice exports, and gene editing is prohibited under the EU’s New Genomic Techniques Regulation and the USDA’s National Organic Program. SKM said the government’s own stated goal of expanding organic exports would be undermined if gene‑edited varieties enter the supply chain.
SKM accused the government of exempting SDN‑1 and SDN‑2 gene‑editing techniques from GMO biosafety rules in 2022 “in an unscientific and irresponsible move,” allowing Kamala and Pusa DST Rice 1 to bypass environmental safety testing. The organisation said claims of precision in gene editing are “unfounded,” pointing to independent analyses that allegedly found unintended off‑target mutations in both varieties. Such changes, SKM said, could affect crop performance and contaminate other varieties, with farmers bearing the costs in the absence of compensation mechanisms. The exemption from GMO regulation, SKM argued, is “unlawful” and enables biotechnology companies to bypass safeguards established after years of public debate on genetic modification.
The farmers’ coalition also cited scrutiny by the Coalition for a GM‑Free India of ICAR’s Annual Progress Reports, claiming that trial data for both varieties show “serious gaps and irregularities.” According to SKM, ICAR’s coordinated AICRP data indicate that the gene‑edited varieties perform worse than existing indigenous rice lines, with lower milling percentages, reduced head rice recovery and higher disease incidence. Instead of addressing these concerns, SKM said, the Ministry of Agriculture has issued a “gag order” restricting scientific publications.
Calling gene‑edited rice a “Trojan Horse” that promises higher yields but carries “a much larger set of problems,” SKM urged farmer organisations and citizens nationwide to oppose the move. It said agricultural progress must benefit farmers rather than burden them with risks linked to patented technologies and untested genetic interventions.
The organisation demanded a substantial increase in India’s agricultural research budget, arguing that current allocations are “paltry” and force dependence on imported technologies. It called for strengthening public‑sector research capacity so that innovations remain accessible to farmers “free‑of‑cost and without patent‑control and profiteering by multinationals and corporates.”
SKM reiterated that gene‑edited seeds are “the same as other GM seeds” and urged the government to prioritise farmers’ rights, food safety and national seed sovereignty. It demanded that SDN‑1 and SDN‑2 gene‑editing techniques be brought under full biosafety regulation immediately.
Comments