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