NEW DELHI: The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has rejected the allegations made by independent researchers who claimed that scientific evidence contradicts ICAR’s assertions about a substantial increase in rice production due to two gene-edited rice varieties introduced earlier this year.
Researchers under the banner of the ‘Coalition for a GM-Free India’ alleged that ICAR and the Ministry of Agriculture were manipulated to create false claims of success regarding genome-edited rice.
They cited data from the Annual Progress Reports (2023 and 2024) of ICAR’s All India Coordinated Research Project on Rice (AICRPR), which is publicly available. According to the researchers, most experimental results showed that the gene-edited varieties underperformed, and that ICAR used selective reporting techniques to exaggerate their relative performance.
At a press conference, the Coalition presented data from ICAR’s annual reports, alleging a pattern of “scientific manipulation,” and claimed that ICAR’s conclusions contradicted its own data.
In response, ICAR dismissed the allegations as “baseless,” asserting that they stemmed from an “anti-development agenda” aimed at undermining Indian scientists. The Council said it had provided detailed, point-by-point responses to every allegation, along with clarifications to several individuals and organizations, including the Coalition for a GM-Free India.
In May 2025, Agriculture Minister Arjun Munda launched two gene-edited rice varieties — Pusa DST-1 and DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala). ICAR claimed these drought-tolerant and high-yielding varieties would boost rice production and support India’s crop diversification strategy.
According to ICAR’s findings, the IET 32043 line — a drought- and salt-tolerant (DST) gene-edited mutant of the MTU1010 variety widely grown in southern India — demonstrated significant yield advantages under stress conditions.
Specifically, IET 32043 recorded a mean grain yield of 3,731 kg/ha, outperforming MTU 1010’s 3,254 kg/ha under alkaline conditions in Zone VII. In inland saline conditions of Zone II, IET 32043 yielded 3,075 kg/ha compared to 2,688 kg/ha for MTU 1010. Similarly, in Zone VII under inland saline conditions, it achieved 3,508 kg/ha versus 3,199 kg/ha for MTU 1010.
Meanwhile, the Coalition has demanded an independent and transparent scientific review of ICAR’s AICRPR trial data and methodology. It has also sought public accountability from ICAR and the Ministry of Agriculture for allegedly misleading the public, along with a moratorium on the release of genome-edited crops until credible biosafety regulations and independent oversight mechanisms are established.
