Most farmers are  more willing to cultivate cash crops with modified seed than they are to cultivate food crops with such seed. Attitude to food is conservative, there is a sacredness attached to food. Most farmers are not very willing  to cultivate food crops with seed they perceive as not natural, neither are they very willing to  eat such food.

About 40% of the farmers studied said they would be willing to cultivate cash crops with modified seed. But 80 % of the farmers said they would not cultivate food crops from seeds containing a poison to control pests. The response was consistent across big and small farmers and educated and uneducated farmers.

Soil fertility and high yield are very highly valued by farmers, as is biodiversity. The farmer is not willing to sacrifice these for other benefits offered by a technology, for instance better pest and weed control or reduction in use of pesticides.

Half the farmers admit pesticides only partly control pests but most (70%) farmers do not want pesticides that will control all pests but negatively affect soil fertility.

About 80- 90% of farmers said they would not use technology ( HT seeds)  that allowed the use of chemicals to control all weeds effortlessly but also destroyed surrounding flora ( medicinal plants, fodder plants, leafy greens etc ) . Farmers were also not inclined to cultivate crops with seeds that would not allow mixed cropping.  This is not surprising since rural and farming communities in India use biodiversity in a number of ways. “Weeds” are not useless plants. They constitute either leafy green vegetables for the family or green fodder for the livestock that the family keeps. Surrounding flora also yields the valuable medicinal plants on which the community depends for health and veterinary care.

The perception that food grown from seed that is ‘modified’ with animal or insect parts is different to food grown from other, normal seed, is seen across all age groups and educational status. This kind of food is viewed as “tampered”, not natural and not desirable. Farmers across the board rejected food that may be nutritious if it was grown from ‘modified’  or ‘tampered’ seed. The arguments of scientists and proponents of GM technology who argue that DNA is the same everywhere and for instance, insect DNA is no different to other DNA, will have to acknowledge the perception of people who make this distinction ! Policy makers must be sensitive to the findings that food grown from seed that is viewed as “modified” in some fundamental way may not be acceptable to rural communities. Going only by the “science based evidence” approach clearly does not take on peoples’ concern especially in an agrarian society like India with deep seated cultural and religious connotations about food.

A section of  food insufficient farmers ( very small land holdings or landless) said they would not be averse to eating food grown from modified seed since they often eat substandard food. It would be cynical to construe this as acceptance of food they also consider ‘tampered’.

Most farmers however,  across all ages and education levels said they  would never offer such ‘modified’ food in temples or use it at religious ceremonies and  festivals; they would also not serve such food at their daughter’s wedding feast ! The cultural embededness and conservatism associated with food is clearly demonstrated here. There is a lesson for policy makers here.

There were interesting revelations about the agencies that farmers trust. Government was found to be the most trusted source of information and materials. The majority of farmers  (87.3 per cent ) across all age and education groups trusted the government more than any other institution. Seed dealers come next and scientists come third, followed by the media. The least trusted source of information were found to be the NGOs. 

In the same vein, farmers said they would take the advice of government agencies and seed dealers on selecting seed and other inputs but not of NGOs or university scientists. 

Farmers said that the government and scientists must regulate and monitor new technologies.

The high trust in government is found across all age groups and levels of education.

Equally the distrust of NGOs is also seen across age groups and levels of education. Scientist seem to have lost the link with farmers. There is no extension system and scientists from agricultural universities in the region seldom go to the field. For the farmer, the scientist has lost the pre eminent position he enjoyed during the days of the green revolution.

Awareness about GM crops and foods is very low among urban consumers. Even among the middle class which is educated and exposed to the media, internet  and sources of information, about 80 per cent of the consumers studied had not heard of GM food. 

The study found that most consumers are not clear about what exactly GM foods are  or how they are produced . Consumers have not heard much either about the risks or the benefits associated with  GM foods.

Consumers are actively aware that they must have the right to chose their food and feel they have these rights. 

Most consumers felt strongly that not enough information is available about the  risks and benefits of GM foods and that much more research is needed.

Consumers overwhelmingly thought that they did not benefit from GM foods but that companies were the prime beneficiaries.

There is confusion about whether GM foods are labeled or not in India. Some consumers said they were, others thought they were not.

Consumers thought that ‘large’ vegetables like tomatoes and cauliflowers were GM. They said these were not natural and were tasteless. Consumers also mentioned in many places that the ready to eat boiled corn dishes sold in the market were American and GM.

Consumers place the  highest  priority on the safety of the food, followed by  nutrition and taste in that order. Any modification that would affect safety of the food would not be acceptable to most.

As seen in the case of farmers, consumers trust the government most as a source of information and materials, like farmers again, the least trust is placed in NGOs.

Consumers are clear they want government to have control of regulation and monitoring of  new technologies , seeds, etc. The pattern of trust is repeated with government being on top and NGOs at the bottom, with media in between. Scientists are not as distrusted by consumers as they are by the farmers.

This poor awareness about GM food and how it is produced must be seen in the context of current government policy that is preparing to release GM foods ( Bt brinjal) to a population which is uninformed and therefore unable to exercise any kind of choice. Attempts to introduce GM foods into a situation where the majority of the population is not aware of the nature of GM foods nor of their benefits and risks is not  democratic or enlightened policy making.