Bharat Ramaswami Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi ICABR, Ravello, June 2016

 Milind Murugkar, Pragati Abhiyan, Nasik, Maharashtra  N. Lalitha, Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Gujarat  Carl E. Pray, Rutgers University

 Are farmers influential in shaping GM crop regulation and policy?  Farmers have reactive power – they can stop policies from being implemented and resist adverse changes to status quo.  Farmers do not play a substantial role in shaping policy which is primarily determined by urban interests: whether government, NGOs, industry, academics.  The methodology of this paper lies in an examination of media reports in Indian language and in English newspapers. These include general interest, business and agriculture newspapers.

 2002: Hybrid Bt cotton varieties approved for commercial release.  Near doubling of cotton yields after decades of stagnation.  Within 10 years of release, diffusion levels exceeded 90%.  Panel data studies confirm substantial increase in yields and reduction in insecticide use.  Yet political support has not been strong enough for other GM crops to be approved for commercial release.  Bt eggplant approval was denied (at a political level) and the regulator has postponed the release of GM mustard asking for more tests and information.

 There is no evidence to argue that consumers, in general, are mobilized against GM foods.  No easy targets either: Share of processed foods and supermarkets in retail sales is not high enough for consumer boycotts to be effected through these channels.  Opposition exists and there is an active civil society organization movement against GM crops.  These organizations have successfully prosecuted law suits and pressurized regulatory agencies.  Every regulatory release decision is now effectively political.

 Varshney (1999) puts forward a distinction between elite and mass politics.  “Elite politics is typically expressed in debates and struggles within the institutionalized settings of a bureaucracy, a parliament, a cabinet. Mass politics takes place primarily on the streets”.  It appears that regulatory decisions on Bt eggplant and GM mustard have been in the domain of `elite’ politics – in the sense that the debates have been within the institutions of governance – including commissions, regulatory agencies and courts.

 A political economy based on material interests alone would pit farmers and biotech companies against pesticide companies, seed companies that do not have access to the biotech trait and farmers, traders and companies in organic products.  In sheer numbers, farmers can dominate in an electoral democracy – the experience of Bt cotton ought to make them favorable to other GM crops as well.  So why did it not happen?

 But farmers do possess clout at some moments.  Illegal Bt cotton in the fields discovered by the regulator in  These varieties were popular and the local government chose not to enforce the law.  The approval of Bt cotton became a fait accompli and the elite politics of anti-GM forces lost to the mass politics of farmers (Herring 2015, Ramaswami, Lalitha and Pray 2012).

 Although farmers are a potential political force, Herring argues that they were absent in the Bt eggplant debate.  This is because the interests of farmers are formed as a political force only after a technology is proven in the fields.  Farmers lack the foresight and leadership to change a status quo.  On the other hand, they can be mobilized to resist adverse changes in status quo.  In other words, farmers are reactive and not pro-active

 Absent farmers, the debate will primarily be urban – driven by ideologies and the material interests of affected parties (seed companies, pesticide companies, governments).  The political economy will play out in `elite’ politics.  Herring’s analysis is about how civil society organizations created regulatory `choke points’ and managed to dominate them.

 Goal is to examine the following propositions:  Are farmers politically active about their economic interests?  If so, is their political action only about immediate interests or is it also forward looking?  What would we conclude about the presence of farmers in the GM crop debate – whether in elite or mass politics.

 The paper assembles a data set consisting of media reports about GM crops in English, Gujarati and Marathi for the period  Gujarati is the language of the state of Gujarat  Marathi is the language of the state of Maharashtra.  Gujarat and Maharashtra are among the top 3 cotton producing states in India  The media reports are coded as to whether they are pro-GM, anti-GM or neither.  They are also classified for their subject content and coded accordingly.

 Premise is that media is a political actor and that all media reports are exercises in policy advocacy.  This is visibly the case for op-ed pieces.  The necessity of selection, editing, and framing means that news articles are also choices of news reporting agents.  Page (1996): “The canons of bland, `objective’ reporting is perfectly consistent with the selection of quotes and facts, the framing of interpretations, and the attribution of importance (through repeated front page headlines, for example), all so as to support or oppose a particular policy position”

 Each media outlet can be characterized by a product type: which is the vector of issues emphasized by the newspaper.  In a standard industrial organization Hoteling location mode, firms locate their product type to be as close as possible to the preferences of consumers.  If Gujarati and Marathi newspapers are more likely to be read by farmer and agricultural interests, then their product type should be informative about the agenda of farmers.  Similarly if English newspapers respond to the preferences of participants in `elite’ politics, then their product type should inform us of the issues in elite politics.  Question is there a systematic correlation between the product type and the language of the press.

 If farmers have no engagement beyond their economic interest, the Marathi and Gujarati press would not see much debate about the pros and cons of ag. Biotech.  On the other hand, if farmers are more organized that we would expect newspaper articles or op- eds that are forward looking and pro-active rather than reactive.  If some commodity growers are more powerful than others, that should also be seen in marked differences in coverage.  If the biotech debate is primarily urban, then the coverage between the English language and Marathi/Gujarati press would be different.

 There is no published data on urban-rural split of readership for the newspapers under review.  It is commonly believed that it is the big cities that account for most of the readership of English language newspapers.  They account for 40% of advertising revenue but only 10% of newspaper readership.  It is also debatable whether the Indian language newspapers are any more rural than the English newspapers.  If there are no significant differences in constituencies, then the product types will be similar across different languages.

Numeric codeType codes 1Op-ed 2 Reporting on opinion of others 3 No opinion or reporting of opinons for both for and against GM crops Numeric codePosition code 0Neither pro nor anti-GM 1Pro-GM 2Anti-GM

Subject Codes (Binary) Farmer welfare Agronomy (impact on yields, pests and others) Health (impacts on human and animal) Environment (Impacts on environment including bio-diversity) Corporate control and market structure Regulation Food Security Availability and price of GM seeds Information about pests and diseases of GM crops Information and advise about Bt technology and growing conditions International news about GM crops and regulation Research developments in GM crops Others

YearFrequencyPercentage Total580100

LanguageFrequencyPercentage Marathi Gujarati English Total580100

TypeMarathiGujaratiEnglish Op-Eds Opinions of others Not Opinion

MarathiGujaratiEnglish Neither pro nor anti-GM Pro-GM Anti-GM

Subjects Neither pro nor anti-GMPro-GMAnti-GM Farmer welfare Agronomy (impact on yields, pests and others) Environment (Impacts on environment including bio- diversity) Health (impacts on human and animal) Regulation Corporate control and market structure Food Security

Subjects (% of times) Neither pro nor anti-GM Pro-GMAnti-GM Availability and price of GM seeds Information about pests and diseases of GM crops Technology and advise about growing conditions International news about GM crops and regulation Research developments in GM crops Others

Subject CodesMarathiGujaratiEnglish Farmer welfare Agronomy (impact on yields, pests and others) Environment (Impacts on environment including bio-diversity) Health (impacts on human and animal) Regulation Corporate control and market structure Food Security Availability and price of GM seeds Information about pests and diseases of GM crops Technology and advise about growing conditions International news about GM crops and regulation Research developments in GM crops Others

 Coverage dominated by English language newspapers.  Marathi press is pretty much according to expectation – mostly news and not much debate.  English press is also according to expectation – not much news but mostly opinion. Not much concerned about the concerns of farmers.  The difference between Marathi and English is consistent with the hypothesis that farmers are absent in the GM debate.  It is the Gujarati press which is surprising.  Why is the coverage so opinion dominated and anti-GM too? Why has’nt the success of Bt cotton been a factor?

 It turns out most of the negative pieces are because of the efforts of one organization, Jatan – an NGO that advocates organic farming “on the lines of Gandhian values and principles”.  This suggests that even in the non-English press, supposedly closer to the farmer- readers, a motivated and dedicated alternative point of view can prevail over viewpoints based on economic interests of farmers.  This can be interpreted as either the strength of organic farming ideologies or the lack of engagement of farmers in policy debates (or both).

 Huge concern about seed prices and availability  Price controls are popular with farmers  Companies and farmers are adversarial here – farmers concerned about companies conspiring with state governments.  Reports that you will not find in English newspapers  Huge demand for Bt 2 seeds Kanak in Bheed - distribution under police protection - in Deglur cotton seed not available - farmers beat up agriculture officer - in Parbhani, theft in seed centre of Bt seeds worth Rs. 55, 000 but did not touch cash in the drawer. (Divya Marathi, 2011)  Income tax department is watching the black marketing of seed by distributors (Agrowon, 2011)  Farmers have a right to quality seed at a decent price. Despite price control, government has been unable to control blackmarketing or to resist pressures from companies to raise the legal prices (op-ed, Agrowon, 2012)

 Farmers in Maharashtra and Gujarat did not care about Bt eggplant.  2 articles in Marathi and 12 in Gujarati (all against).  Debate about regulation is primarily in English language press.  Pro arguments are about favorable impacts on yields, pests, farmer income, and food security.  Con arguments are about unfavorable impacts on environment and food safety and about corporate control.

 Noticeably, the anti-GM arguments do not stress `adverse’ impacts on farmers. In fact, very few articles trash Bt cotton.  The anti-GM argument for food safety remains the most prominent.  Selling out to corporates is their other persuasive argument.  The environmental safety argument does not seem to be decisive.  The food security argument for GM crops do not seem to carry an urgency.  The pro-GM argument for food safety relies on pesticide reductions.  But the argument is abstract – not concrete. For this, one needs quantitative estimates of the link between pesticide use and health.

 One possibility: Public and opinion makers do not have the time or capacity to understand GM.  The pro-GM lobby is seen as an interested party and not the NGO.  Even if opinion maker knows that NGO position is wrong, the consequences are asymmetric for politicians. (Morris)  A pro-GM position and getting it wrong is much worse than supporting GM and getting it wrong.

 Awakening the latent political clout of farmers may put more pressure on governments to approve GM crops.  It is a double-edged sword. Farmers want low seed prices. So the corporate control argument would appeal to them.  Governments and international donors may seriously consider buying technologies to disseminate them where the payments depend on adoption.