New Delhi, Nov 26 (PTI) The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has strongly refuted allegations of bias in the evaluation of two gene-edited rice varieties, asserting that both Pusa DST-1 and
DRR Dhan 100 Kamala demonstrated superior performance in their designated growing regions.
In a detailed statement issued on Wednesday, ICAR defended its multi-location trial methodology under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Rice (AICRPR), which has been operational since 1965 and has contributed to the release of over 1,750 rice varieties.
The rebuttal comes in response to criticism from The Coalition for a GM-Free India, which had questioned the evaluation process for the two gene-edited lines developed through advanced breeding techniques.
ICAR emphasised that both varieties were specifically evaluated in their Target Performance Environments (TPEs) — the regions where their parent varieties MTU1010 and Samba Mahsuri are already released and cultivated, primarily in southern states under Zone VII.
For Pusa DST-1, developed as a salt and alkalinity-tolerant version of MTU1010, ICAR reported significant yield advantages under stress conditions.
Under alkaline conditions in Zone VII, the gene-edited line yielded 3,731 kg per hectare compared to MTU1010’s 3,254 kg per hectare—a 14.66 per cent improvement. Under coastal salinity, it showed 30 per cent yield superiority.
DRR Dhan 100 Kamala, modified from Samba Mahsuri, demonstrated consistent superiority across three seasons in Zone VII.
In Kharif 2023, it recorded 9.13 per cent higher yields than its parent in qualified TPE locations.
During the 2023-24 Rabi season—data that ICAR claims critics “deliberately ignored”—Kamala yielded 5,243 kg per hectare against Samba Mahsuri’s 4,299 kg per hectare, a 21.95 per cent advantage.
The research body explained that under AICRPR protocols, rice lines are blind-coded and tested across approximately 100 sites nationwide for 2-3 years.
For near-isogenic lines and gene-edited varieties, evaluation focuses on performance in TPE locations where parent varieties are already notified.
“Only data from locations where trials were conducted properly, stress levels were adequate, and results were statistically significant were considered for analysis,” ICAR stated, adding that this approach is standard across all crop evaluation programs.
The research body accused the Coalition for a GM-Free India of analyzing data from all locations nationwide rather than focusing on TPEs—a methodology ICAR termed “not only unscientific, but also misleading.” ICAR provided detailed rebuttals to specific allegations, including claims about insufficient stress testing, selective data presentation, and grain quality variations.
The research body noted that for Pusa DST-1, some coastal salinity data were excluded due to low stress levels caused by heavy rainfall, following standard protocols.
On grain and cooking quality, ICAR maintained that variations between the gene-edited lines and their parents fell within statistically acceptable ranges under AICRPR procedures.
The research body emphasized that over 250 government officials, policymakers, and 5,000 farmers have visited experimental fields at ICAR-IARI and ICAR-IIRR to witness the performance of both varieties firsthand.
In its conclusion, ICAR stated that these varieties should reach farmers quickly, arguing that “farmers themselves deserve to decide their future based on real-world performance.” “Preventing these varieties from reaching them would be an injustice to the farming community, denying them the opportunity to evaluate and adopt (or reject) the technology on their own terms,” the statement read.
The research body suggested that critics’ “main grouse” is opposition to gene-editing technology itself rather than concerns about trial methodology, noting that Indian scientists have demonstrated “significant capability” in developing and rigorously evaluating gene-edited products—”a first across any country in the world.” ICAR has made all trial data publicly available and invited interested researchers, farmers, and stakeholders to visit the institutes and make independent assessments of the gene-edited lines. PTI LUX LUX DR DR
