Nobel laureate Richard Roberts says it’s ‘nonsense’ to fear foreign dependence due to genetically modified crop use

Genetically modified crops have deliberately altered genetic material to produce a useful trait, such as pest protection or added nutrition. The change may involve inserting a gene or changing existing genetic material. The article uses “biotechnologically modified,” or BM, because Richard Roberts says “genetically modified” can wrongly suggest something unnatural. He notes that evolution has genetically changed every life form.

CRISPR is a more targeted gene-editing method. A guide RNA directs the Cas9 enzyme to a chosen DNA location. Cas9 cuts there, allowing scientists to alter or insert genes at that site. This differs from older approaches that may introduce genetic material less precisely, though the article does not define every technical distinction between crop technologies.

Both approaches aim to improve crops, but their safety, ownership, and regulation still matter. India’s debate includes food safety, farmer costs, foreign control, and environmental effects. The article notes that foundational CRISPR-Cas9 patents remain in dispute, while Roberts says Indian laboratories can develop and own such crop technologies locally.

Richard J. Roberts rejected the idea that Indian farmers must become dependent on foreign companies if India adopts genetically modified crops. He called that fear “nonsense.” His central claim was about capability and ownership: improved agriculture could be developed in Indian laboratories and owned within India.

Roberts specifically discussed CRISPR-modified plants. He said researchers could learn the method in a laboratory, perhaps within six to eight weeks, and then use it to improve crops. He described the process as straightforward because scientists now understand much more about crop improvement. The article also notes that CRISPR-Cas9 patents are involved in an intellectual property dispute.

His argument does not mean every Indian crop project is automatically independent or commercially ready. It means India can build domestic expertise, research, and ownership rather than relying on foreign companies. The article presents this as Roberts’s view, alongside continuing debates over biosafety, regulation, patents, and the performance of particular crops.

India currently has no genetically modified food crop approved for commercial cultivation, according to the article. That means crops intended as food, such as brinjal, mustard, or Golden Rice, do not have commercial approval under the situation described. The distinction matters because India does permit one major genetically modified commercial crop.

That permitted crop is Bt cotton. It was introduced to protect cotton from certain insect pests and initially boosted crop yield. The article calls Bt cotton a success in India, but also records later problems. The pink bollworm developed resistance to first-generation Bt cotton by 2008 and to Bollgard-II by 2012.

Approval is controlled through a regulatory process. The Department of Biotechnology promotes genetically modified crops, but commercial release requires the Environment Minister’s approval. The Minister does not have to follow the regulator’s recommendation. This system helps explain why GM food crops remain commercially unapproved even when technical bodies assess particular proposals.

If foreign companies controlled important crop technologies or seeds, farmers could face dependence on decisions made outside India. The article specifically mentions fears that a company such as Monsanto could control seed supply and erode India’s independence. Such control could also make access to improved traits depend on licensing, company supply chains, or commercial priorities.

The practical concern is that seeds and crop technologies are linked. Farmers need reliable planting material, while researchers and institutions need permission to use protected technologies. If ownership were concentrated abroad, India might have less control over how traits are developed, priced, distributed, or adapted to local farming. The article does not establish that these outcomes have occurred.

Roberts argues that India can reduce this risk by doing the work in Indian laboratories and owning the results in India. Domestic research could support food and nutritional security, but it would still need effective biosafety rules, independent assessment, and attention to farmer outcomes. The article records calls for a national biosafety policy.

Bt brinjal became controversial because India debated its safety, financial effects on farmers, and the implications of foreign ownership of the technology. In 2010, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh imposed an indefinite moratorium on its release. India has not commercially approved a GM food crop, so Bt brinjal remains an important example of unresolved policy conflict.

GM mustard generated another dispute. A technical body cleared it, but its release later stalled. Kavitha Kuruganti argued that its yield claims were not supported by the developers’ own data. In July 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on GM mustard’s environmental release. However, the judges unanimously asked the Centre to frame a national policy on GM crops.

Regulators therefore assess scientific and environmental questions, while the Environment Minister makes the commercial-release decision and is not bound by the regulator’s recommendation. The article also reports calls for a broader biosafety policy. These events show that technical approval alone has not settled India’s GM crop debate.

India has several possible routes to improve crops without depending entirely on foreign-owned technology. Researchers can use conventional breeding to cross useful traits into local varieties. They can also use gene-editing tools such as CRISPR, or develop other biotechnology in Indian public and private laboratories. The aim is better yields, nutrition, pest protection, or climate resilience.

The article gives a direct example of the domestic route. Roberts said Indian scientists could learn CRISPR methods in laboratories and create improved plants there. He said the resulting work could be owned in India. It also notes that several Indian government institutes hold licences for Golden Rice, showing one possible institutional model for access and development.

These alternatives do not remove the need for testing. Breeding choices must be assessed for yield, safety, environmental effects, farmer costs, and long-term performance. Conventional breeding may avoid some ownership issues, while gene editing can raise patent and regulatory questions. India’s proposed national biosafety policy would help guide these choices.

Genes influence crop traits such as yield, nutrition, growth, and pest response. Breeding changes crop populations by selecting plants with useful traits and reproducing them. Natural selection works similarly over generations, favoring inherited traits that help organisms survive and reproduce. Roberts used evolution to argue that all life has been genetically modified over time.

Bt crops produce insecticidal proteins intended to kill susceptible pests. When a pest population repeatedly encounters the same protection, a few naturally resistant insects may survive. If they reproduce, resistance becomes more common. The article gives India’s pink bollworm as an example: it developed resistance to first-generation Bt cotton by 2008 and to Bollgard-II, which carries two toxins, by 2012.

This mechanism means a successful crop technology may have limits over time. Bt cotton boosted yields and is called a success in India, but later resistance created setbacks. Crop improvement therefore requires monitoring, updated strategies, and careful assessment rather than assuming one genetic trait will work permanently.