Coalition alleges rigged data and unsafe technology push; demands independent review. It accused the institutions of “rigging results, hiding adverse findings, and manufacturing hype” to present the genome edited varieties as a scientific breakthrough.

A fresh controversy has erupted over the government’s push for genome edited crops, with the Coalition for a GM Free India alleging a “scientific fraud” in the trials of two genome edited rice varieties developed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture. At a press conference on Thursday, the Coalition accused the institutions of “rigging results, hiding adverse findings, and manufacturing hype” to present the genome edited varieties as a scientific breakthrough despite contradictory trial data.

Presenting evidence extracted from official Annual Progress Reports of ICAR’s All India Coordinated Research Project on Rice for 2023 and 2024, the Coalition claimed that the government’s claims around Pusa DST 1 and DRR Dhan 100 Kamala do not stand up to scrutiny. The activists alleged that data was selectively used, negative trial results ignored, and unsubstantiated performance claims amplified in order to push the technology into Indian farms without adequate scientific basis or regulatory rigour.

The allegations strike at the heart of India’s agricultural research apparatus and raise fresh concerns about scientific integrity amid government efforts to promote gene editing as a faster route to crop improvement than traditional genetic modification.

Coalition: Hype Masks Absence of Evidence

According to the Coalition, the genome edited rice lines have been promoted as global firsts and miracle seeds that will sustain yields under saline soils, ensure early maturity, and enhance nitrogen use efficiency. Yet, the activists said, ICAR’s own data contradicts these claims.

They pointed to the official introduction of the varieties in May this year, when union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan declared them as breakthrough innovations and credited Indian scientists for pioneering gene editing in food crops. The announcement triggered widespread media coverage and interviews in which scientists celebrated the developments.

“But behind the orchestrated media blitz, there is neither rigorous testing nor credible evidence,” the Coalition said. According to the Coalition, the hype far exceeds the data –India is being misled by compromised science and hundreds of crore rupees are being poured into risky and unproven technologies, and this becomes a matter of public accountability.

The group referenced earlier controversies surrounding genetically modified brinjal and mustard, saying this episode represents a pattern of scientific manipulation to push contentious biotech products into Indian agriculture.

Trial Data Shows Underperformance, say Activists

The Coalition detailed numerous examples where official findings allegedly contradict the claims made by ICAR.

For Pusa DST 1, the activists said trial data reveals:

• No testing for drought or salinity tolerance in 2023 due to lack of seed.
• Yield performance equal or up to nearly five per cent lower than the parent variety in 2023.
• Underperformance in 12 out of 20 trial sites.
• Only marginal improvement of around one per cent in alkaline soils in 2024 and no benefit in coastal or inland salinity zones.

Yet, the summary table in the ICAR report claims a 30 per cent yield advantage by selectively citing just eight sites in one zone. The Coalition alleged that this was data manipulation and that the report itself states clearly that there was no yield superiority in coastal salinity, yet concludes the variety is promising.

Similarly, for DRR Dhan 100 Kamala, the Coalition charged that the data does not support claims of 17 per cent higher yield and early maturity. They said Kamala underperformed in eight of 19 sites in 2023, and in some zones performed significantly worse than the parent Samba Mahsuri. In 2024, multiple trial sites were reportedly excluded without explanation, and a positive claim was derived from only six sites despite overall yield being lower than the parent.

On maturity, the activists noted that trial data shows only two to seven days variance in most zones, and in some zones Kamala matured later than the parent. “Against this data, how were claims of 20 days early maturity and lower water and fertiliser use made,” the Coalition asked.

Activists Warn of Erosion of Public Trust

The Coalition said the issue goes beyond the two rice varieties and signals a dangerous erosion of scientific integrity in public institutions. “If gene editing is truly safe and effective, why avoid rigorous testing, why hide data, why jump to conclusions that the results do not support,” the activists asked.

Independent researcher Soumik Banerjee said the matter is serious because the public sector has a responsibility to uphold scientific ethics. “Bad science has real consequences for farmers,” he cautioned.

Activist and Coalition member Kavitha Kuruganti described the episode as a “fundamental human rights issue.” She accused ICAR of allowing political slogans to influence scientific decisions. “Jumla culture cannot enter scientific institutions. It is time for honest scientists to speak out before the credibility of Indian research collapses,” she said.

The Coalition said pushing questionable genome edited crops undermines public confidence in science and risks endangering farmers’ livelihoods. They also reiterated that gene editing is genetic engineering, both technically and in law, and must therefore be subject to stringent biosafety regulations.

Demands for Accountability

The Coalition has called for:

• Withdrawal of all promotional claims about genome edited rice.
• An independent scientific review of ICAR trial data and methodology.
• Public accountability of ICAR and the Agriculture Ministry.
• A moratorium on genome edited crop releases until proper regulatory systems are established.
• Mandatory public disclosure of all research and trial data related to genome edited crops.

Emphasising that technology cannot be advanced through what they called “junk science”, the activists urged policymakers to prioritise transparency, farmer safety, and scientific credibility over prestige announcements. “India’s food systems cannot be used as laboratories for untested hype,” they said.

ICAR has denied the allegations in separate statements, calling them baseless and motivated. However, activists insist that only a transparent external investigation can restore public trust.