Two new varieties of rice, released on Sunday, promise a 19 percent increase in yield, a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and savings of 7,500 million cubic metres of irrigation water.
Published May 05, 2025 | 8:21 PM ⚊ Updated May 05, 2025 | 8:21 PM
The crops are also said to have improved tolerance to drought, salinity, and other climate stresses.
Synopsis: The Union government has announced two new genome-edited rice varieties, DRR Rice 100 and Pusa DST Rice 1, claiming significant yield gains, reduced greenhouse emissions, and improved climate resilience. However, the lack of transparency about how these traits were achieved and the potential ecological impacts is cause for concern. Farmers already have bitter memories of past interventions and the new rice varieties appears to be more about promoting biotechnology than addressing real agricultural challenges.
Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, on Sunday, 4 May, announced the release of two new rice varieties aimed at improving crop resilience and sustainability.
DRR Rice 100 was developed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research – Indian Institute of Rice Research (ICAR-IIRR), Hyderabad, using Samba Mahsuri (BPT 5204) as the base.
Pusa DST Rice 1 was developed by ICAR – Indian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR-IARI), New Delhi, using MTU 1010.
According to a government press release, the new varieties promise a 19 percent increase in yield, a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and savings of 7,500 million cubic metres of irrigation water.
The crops are also said to have improved tolerance to drought, salinity, and other climate stresses. The release attributes these advantages in part to a 20-day reduction in the maturation period.
However, it does not explain how such wide-ranging benefits – particularly the improvements in yield and stress tolerance – have been achieved.
These traits suggest resistance to multiple climate extremes, such as heat and irregular rainfall, but the mechanisms behind these capabilities remain unspecified.
The lack of detail has raised questions. The public has a right to understand, question, and respond to such claims.
While the two rice varieties might have become tolerant to climate change (a claim that appears specious), other forms of life within the rice fields – each with implications for rice yields – are also under stress.
These include soil, microorganisms and pests. If only the grains have developed stress tolerance, and no other factors, can yields truly be sustainable?
Yield is also a function of these additional factors, which are impacted by climate change, namely extreme rainfall, dry spells and heat.
Primarily, yield of rice is no longer a problem in India.
In fact, according to the government’s own data, total rice production was estimated at 1367.00 lakh metric tonnes (LMT) in 2023–24, compared to 1357.55 LMT in 2022–23, showing an increase of 9.45 LMT.
Stocks of rice, including unmilled paddy, totalled a record 63.09 million tonnes as of 1 April 2025, far exceeding the government’s target of 13.6 million tonnes.
In this scenario, higher yield does not fetch farmers a good remunerative price, given the surplus stocks and record production.
What problem were the scientists trying to address through these new varieties?
Simply put, the perception of the scientists is at variance with that of the farmers. Farmers are not complaining about low yields, but about high costs of cultivation and unremunerative market prices.
This latest release signifies the mismatch between what Indian farmers need and what scientists are thrusting upon them in the name of research.
Genome editing made possible by Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology is all about scissoring specific genes.
This means genes with certain functionality within the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) are removed.
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) informs us that there is no foreign gene insertion.
Thus, these two rice varieties have had one or several genes knocked out from their functions, which, according to theory, help enhance the functionality of other genes within the specific rice genome.
There are CRISPR projects to engineer potatoes for easier chipping, seedless blackberries, and non-browning bananas and avocados.
Bitterless mustard greens have been introduced in the United States. Non-browning banana, vitamin D-rich tomato and early-flowering cowpeas are also in the pipeline.
It can be seen that CRISPR has become a tool for scientists who want to play, tinker and change nature through seeds and germplasm.
Despite the potentially irreversible impacts on germplasm, businesses backing this truculent research do not want regulation or oversight.
What happens when these engineered genes interact with normal, natural genes? Obviously, there is contamination.
Scientists have no clue how this contamination plays out. With unbridled, uncontrolled and invisible spread of engineered genes, planet Earth may permanently lose pure, natural germplasm.
The traditional CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system has been described as a pair of molecular scissors, which scientists can programme to cut the DNA double helix at specific locations in the genome.
Gene edits via CRISPR are typically introduced to “knock out”, or eliminate the function of, a particular gene to achieve a desired trait.
Apparently, Gn1a (OsCKX2), which encodes cytokinin oxidase/dehydrogenase, plays an important role in regulating rice grain yield.
Gn1a is a quantitative trait locus (QTL) for the number of grains per panicle. The enzyme degrades the phytohormone cytokinin.
Reduced expression of Gn1a causes cytokinin accumulation in inflorescence meristems and increases the number of reproductive organs, resulting in enhanced grain yield.
Using CRISPR, researchers edited the cytokinin oxidase gene (OsCKX2), developing a novel allele.
Indian scientists, according to available information, have knocked out not one but several genes to enhance yield and tolerance.
It appears that this was almost like a child’s play – knocking out genes at will, and expecting that the genome will respond as the scientists want it to.
The socio-economic objectives of achieving higher yields and resistance to climate stresses, as claimed, have been inserted into nature, affecting its very core – the genome.
Does a scientist expect the genome to remain stable after scissoring its genes?
Such research on nature is not benign and does not emerge from lofty ideals. It is backed by business and conducted without independent oversight.
Indian farmers have had bitter experiences with different varieties released by ICAR institutions in general, and with genetically modified Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton seed varieties released by private seed companies in particular.
The primary goal of yesterday’s public event releasing two genome-edited rice varieties appeared to be about hyping biotechnology – not enhancing rice production, farmer income or ensuring public safety.
These two rice varieties, and the promise of research on 40 other crops by the Government of India with funding of Rs 500 crore, pose existential threats to health, the environment, the economy, farmers and Indian society.
To reduce or neutralise the risks from this initiative of the Indian government, we require a broad-based, open, transparent and honest debate involving all sectors of society on how to regulate, restrict or prohibit these technologies.
Genome editing biotechnology is aimed at fixing problems that are man-made or fictitious. Enormous harms can follow from gene-editing crops.
These harms can arise by many routes – both directly and indirectly – from commercialised genetically engineered crop products or laboratory experiments alike.
Further, whoever controls this technology determines whether good or ill ultimately results from it.
When public understanding of biotechnology is weak, easily manipulated and compounded by lack of oversight and regulation, the risks grow larger.
Regulation of these technologies should be in the best interests of society as a whole, using the precautionary principle.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
