India’s gene-edited rice is ready for the fields

Source: The post “India’s gene-edited rice is ready for the fields” has been created based on “India’s gene-edited rice is ready for the fields” published in “Business Line” on 27th July 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS 3- Indian Economy

Context: India has developed two genome-edited rice varieties, DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala) and Pusa Rice DST1, using SDN-1 genome editing. Pusa Rice DST1 is expected to enter commercial production in the upcoming rabi season, with transplanting around November.

About the Two gene-edited rice varieties

1. Pusa Rice DST1 was developed by ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi from the established MTU1010 variety.
2. It targets the Drought and Salt Tolerance (DST) gene to improve the plant’s ability to tolerate drought and salt-affected soils.
3. ICAR field trials reported 9.66% to 30.4% yield advantages over MTU1010 under different saline and alkaline conditions.
4. It is expected to be grown in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
5. DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala) was developed by ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research, Hyderabad from the popular Samba Mahsuri (BPT 5204) variety.
6. Scientists edited a gene involved in cytokinin metabolism to increase the number of grains produced by each panicle.
7. Kamala matures in about 130 days, around 20 days earlier than Samba Mahsuri, and has a stronger stalk that is less prone to lodging.

Importance of these varieties

1. They aim to increase rice production while reducing the pressure of rice cultivation on water and the environment.
2. Pusa DST1 can improve rice cultivation in drought-prone and salt-affected soils.
3. Kamala’s shorter duration can contribute to resource-use efficiency and climate resilience.
4. Kamala also has a stronger stem, reducing the risk of lodging.
5. Thus, both varieties are intended to make rice cultivation more climate-resilient.
6. They are developed by making targeted changes in existing rice varieties, rather than creating completely new plants from scratch.

Gene editing vs GM crops

1. Both technologies alter the DNA of plants, but they differ mainly in the nature of the genetic change and the presence of foreign genetic material.
2. Traditional transgenic GM crops involve insertion of genetic material from another organism into the plant.
   1. For example, Bt cotton contains genes derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, enabling it to produce proteins toxic to certain pests.
3. Genome editing can instead make a targeted change in a gene already present in the plant.
   1. SDN-1 disrupts a target gene through small insertions or deletions produced during repair of a targeted DNA break.
   2. SDN-2 uses a repair template to introduce a specific small change in the plant’s DNA.
   3. SDN-3 can introduce a new genetic sequence and therefore remains outside the exemption available to SDN-1 and SDN-2.
4. In 2022, India amended its guidelines and exempted SDN-1 and SDN-2 modifications from the same rigorous process applicable to SDN-3 plants, provided the relevant plants are free of transgenes.
5. Both new rice varieties have been developed through SDN-1 genome editing.

Concerns associated with gene-edited rice

1. The absence of foreign genes does not by itself complete the scientific assessment of a gene-edited crop.
2. Questions have been raised about whether the publicly available evidence sufficiently explains the mechanism behind the reported yield gains.
3. There are concerns about whether the claimed advantages will remain consistent across different environments and locations.
4. Large yield improvements across diverse locations could potentially involve trade-offs in other traits.
5. Unintended mutations may alter patterns of gene function and could potentially cause unintended biochemical changes.
6. Such unintended changes in food crops could include the production of unexpected toxins or allergens or changes in nutritional value.
7. Wider availability of the underlying scientific evidence would enable greater independent scientific scrutiny of the reported benefits and mechanisms.

Biosafety assessment and regulatory experience

1. The government states that the varieties underwent biosafety scrutiny.
2. They were assessed for the absence of foreign DNA, stability of mutations and robustness of the phenotype.
3. They were tested at more than 50 locations each during 2023 and 2024.
4. Unlike GM crops, gene-edited seeds are stated to be similar to normal seeds in the sense that farmers need to purchase them only once or when required, rather than necessarily purchasing new seeds every season.
5. Bt cotton remains India’s only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation, with GEAC approval in 2002.
6. Bt brinjal cleared the regulatory process in 2009 but was not approved for commercial cultivation.
7. GM mustard received conditional environmental clearance from GEAC, but became involved in a Supreme Court case.
8. Concerns around GM mustard include possible effects on honeybees and implications for organic honey exports to the US and EU, where strict non-GMO certification is required.

Global developments

1. Regulators in several countries are increasingly distinguishing transgene-free gene-edited crops from conventional GMOs.
2. The US and Canada have allowed products such as gene-edited anti-browning potatoes and high-oleic soybeans.
3. Japan has approved gene-edited foods such as high-GABA tomatoes.
4. The UK’s 2023 Precision Breeding Act created a separate regulatory pathway for gene-edited crops.
5. The EU adopted a new framework in July 2026 for plants developed using New Genomic Techniques, under which Category 1 crops involving changes that could occur naturally are exempted from stricter GMO rules.
6. This EU framework is expected to be fully implemented by 2028.

Conclusion: India’s gene-edited rice represents an attempt to combine higher productivity, climate resilience and efficient resource use. Pusa DST1 focuses particularly on drought and salinity tolerance, while Kamala focuses on higher grain production, shorter duration and stronger stems. However, commercial introduction should be accompanied by robust biosafety assessment, transparent scientific evidence and wider scientific scrutiny to ensure that the claimed benefits are sustained without unintended consequences.

Question: With reference to India’s gene-edited rice varieties, discuss their significance, the distinction between gene editing and GM crops, and the concerns associated with their introduction.

Source: Business Line