Bill Gates’ Remarks as India as a “Testing Ground,” By Brian Simpson
In late 2024, Bill Gates sparked outrage by calling India "a kind of laboratory to try things" during a podcast with Reid Hoffman, emphasising its stability as a testing ground for global initiatives. The backlash intensified with India's May 5, 2025, release of two genome-edited rice varieties (Kamala and Pusa DST Rice 1), developed using CRISPR-Cas SDN-1 and SDN-2 technologies. Critics, including the Coalition for a GM-Free India and campaigner Aruna Rodrigues, condemned these moves as unethical, citing risks to health, environment, and farmer sovereignty. Social media posts on X echoed this sentiment, with users labelling Indians as "guinea pigs" for Gates' experiments and questioning his influence over Indian regulators.
The article highlights several issues:
Regulatory Capture: India's 2022 exemption of gene-edited crops from biosafety regulations under the Environment Protection Act is seen as premature and potentially illegal, with the Supreme Court still scrutinising the technology. Rodrigues argues that agencies like the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Ministry of Agriculture are compromised, promoting biotech while overseeing it, creating conflicts of interest.
Corporate Control: Proprietary CRISPR patents raise concerns about corporate dominance over seeds, threatening farmers' rights to save and exchange them. Critics demand transparency on intellectual property, suspecting public resources are being used to benefit private entities.
Unproven Claims: Promises of 25–30% yield increases lack public field trial data, echoing debunked claims about GM mustard. India's surplus rice production undermines the need for risky gene-edited crops.
Gates' Influence: His March 2025 meeting with PM Narendra Modi, just before the rice announcement, fuels suspicions of his sway over policy, despite possible coincidence. His history of advocating GM crops and funding biotech (e.g., through the Gates Foundation) is well-documented.
Gates' framing of India as a "laboratory" is perceived as dehumanising, reducing a nation of 1.4 billion to experimental subjects for Western biotech agendas. This aligns with his broader techno-solutionist approach, criticised for ignoring complex social and ecological realities in favour of corporate-friendly fixes.
Gates' actions in India reinforce the claim that globalists aim to collectivise societies under corporate control. The WEF's "stakeholder capitalism," critiqued in Australia for elevating corporations as "trustees," is evident in India's biotech push, where public institutions like ICAR serve private interests. Both cases reflect:
Loss of Sovereignty: Australia's immigration and housing policies, driven by globalist lobbies like the Business Council, and India's biotech deregulation, influenced by Gates, value corporate profits over national interests.
Economic Disenfranchisement: Australians face unaffordable housing (median prices nine times income); Indian farmers risk dependency on patented seeds, threatening their $50 billion organic rice export market.
Cultural Manipulation: Australia's attack on property rights (e.g., "selfish empty nesters") and India's portrayal as a "laboratory" erode individual agency, fostering compliance with globalist systems.
Gates' remarks are immoral because they dehumanise Indians, treating them as test subjects without informed consent, violating ethical principles like autonomy and beneficence. The lack of transparent biosafety data and proprietary control over seeds further exploits a developing nation's vulnerabilities, echoing colonial-era experimentation. In Australia, the immorality lies in taxing individuals to subsidise corporate BTR while pricing them out of homes, betraying the social contract of fairness.
By 2050, both nations risk becoming corporate fiefdoms if trends continue:
Australia: A renter society with 40% non-European demographics, vulnerable to Chinese economic leverage (30% of exports) and Indian diaspora influence, with a weakened ADF (59,000 personnel) unable to resist external pressures.
India: A biotech-dependent agriculture sector, with farmers locked into corporate seeds, undermining food security and exposing 1.4 billion to untested health risks.
To resist, Australia could:
Slash net migration to less than 100,000/year, aligning with historical averages, to ease housing pressure.
Re-nationalise land titles and ban foreign BTR investments, restoring property rights.
Reject WEF-aligned policies (e.g., net-zero building codes) that raise costs and weaken industry.
India's example suggests legal challenges (e.g., Supreme Court scrutiny) and public campaigns can slow globalist advances, but both nations need coordinated resistance to reclaim sovereignty.
Bill Gates' treatment of India as a "laboratory" for gene-edited rice, condemned as immoral by critics, parallels Australia's housing crisis driven by globalist immigration and BTR schemes. Both reflect a WEF-orchestrated shift toward corporate control, eroding individual rights and national autonomy. My concerns about Australia's decline, immigration, multiculturalism, and foreign influence, are validated by India's cautionary tale, where regulatory capture and corporate agendas threaten food security. Resistance requires rejecting globalist policies, restoring local control, and fostering public awareness. If unchecked, globalist domination could reduce both nations to testing grounds for corporate experiments, with Australia's wealth and India's agriculture subsumed by figures like Gates and firms like BlackRock.
By Colin Todhunter
In late 2024, Bill Gates sparked outrage in India after describing the country as "a kind of laboratory to try things" during a podcast with Reid Hoffman. Gates emphasized the nation's stability as a "testing ground" for global initiatives.
His remarks were widely condemned. Social media erupted, with many Indians accusing Gates of reducing their nation to a mere experimental ground for Western interests.
Social media users labelled Indians as "guinea pigs" in Gates' laboratory and questioned the ethics and motives behind such experimentation.
A widely reported response on X captured the sentiment:
"India is a laboratory, and we Indians are Guinea Pigs for Bill Gates. This person has managed everyone from the Government to opposition parties to the media. His office operates here without FCRA, and our education system has made him a hero! I don't know when we will wake up!"
(FCRA refers to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, which regulates foreign contributions to ensure they are not detrimental to the national interest.)
The controversy resurfaced with the May 5 announcement that India became the first country to officially release two genome-edited rice varieties: Kamala (DRR Dhan 100 Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1.
These are not classified as genetically modified (GM) crops. Unlike traditional GM crops, which deliberately introduce foreign DNA, these gene-edited varieties use CRISPR-Cas SDN-1 and SDN-2 technologies, which are often claimed not to introduce foreign DNA but only to alter existing genes.
While this claim does not stand up to examination, the supposed distinction is heavily promoted by the agri-biotech industry in an attempt to ensure gene-edited crops bypass strict biosafety regulations and multi-year field trials required for GM crops.
In 2022, the Indian government exempted such plants from hazardous substances rules under the Environment Protection Act.
Exempting gene-edited crops from rigorous biosafety assessments raises concerns about potential health and environmental risks. Despite this technology being praised by industry for its "precision," this has more to do with public relations than science.
Even small genetic changes can have unpredictable effects. Indeed, Harvard biotechnologist George Church described CRISPR as "a blunt axe," warning of serious unintended consequences and risks.
Critics argue that transparent, independent testing is essential before widespread adoption of gene-edited crops.
The current regulatory exemption in India is seen as premature and potentially unlawful, especially as the Supreme Court continues to scrutinize agricultural gene editing.
Campaigners claim regulatory agencies are under pressure from biotech interests to bypass safety protocols and marginalise public and scientific scrutiny.
Even though these varieties were developed by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), civil society groups, notably the Coalition for a GM-Free India, highlight that gene-editing tools like CRISPR/Cas9 are proprietary technologies, raising concerns about seed sovereignty and farmers' rights.
The underlying patents could increase corporate control over Indian agriculture and undermine farmers' traditional rights to save and exchange seeds.
Concerns about proprietary rights and intellectual property rights are central to the criticism of gene-edited rice in India. The debate extends beyond biosafety and environmental risks to broader issues of farmer autonomy, seed sovereignty and the shift of control from public institutions to private patent holders.
Critics demand transparency regarding the intellectual property status of these new rice varieties and question the use of public resources via the ICAR in developing crops that may primarily benefit corporate interests.
The lack of public disclosure about the development process, safety data and intellectual property details of these varieties is deeply problematic.
Veteran campaigner Aruna Rodrigues, who has long opposed GM crop commercialization in India, warns that the government is repeating past mistakes (such as the failure of Bt cotton in the country; see Bt cotton in India is a GMO template for a monumental irreversible catastrophe) by pushing inadequately tested technologies without proper oversight.
She has exposed regulatory failures, including the commercial release of herbicide-tolerant (HT) basmati rice without proper approval, calling such actions illegal and a violation of rules governing hazardous and genetically engineered organisms (see the article "Amazon Gets Fresh, Bayer loves Basmati").
She has also warned that the ICAR's actions jeopardize India's lucrative organic rice export market and flout a Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee recommendation for a complete ban on HT crops due to their environmental risks.
Rodrigues argues that regulatory agencies have grave conflicts of interest, with government bodies both promoting and overseeing GM and gene-edited crops, resulting in regulatory capture by corporate interests.
The Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture and the ICAR all actively promote GM food crops and now gene-edited crops, while they are simultaneously charged with their oversight.
Rodrigues argues that there has been a wholesale capture of the regulatory apparatus by corporate interests, with government agencies acting as handmaidens to the biotech industry.
The Coalition for a GM-Free India and Rodrigues have repeatedly exposed failures and conflicts of interest within India's biosafety authorities. The aforementioned Technical Expert Committee found major gaps in biosafety assessment and called for a regulatory overhaul, yet these issues remain unaddressed many years later.
Proponents of gene-edited rice repeat claims made for GM crops: boosting yields, feeding the hungry, helping farmers and tackling climate issues. Such narratives are deliberately misleading and serve as talking points with the aim of opening India's agrifood system to corporate control.
Indian farmers' distress is rooted in policy failures, not low productivity and agroecological, smallholder-based systems have proven benefits (see Challenging the flawed premise behind pushing GMOs into Indian agriculture) in terms of climate and stress resilience and yield.
Claims of yield increases with gene-edited rice echo previous unfulfilled promises of GM crops, overlooking existing high-yielding indigenous varieties that have already contributed to substantial rice production.
The Coalition for a GM-Free India and farmer representatives challenge the claims that the two gene-edited rice varieties will lead to 25%-30% yield increases, citing a lack of transparent, publicly available field trial data.
They demand accountability and real-world testing, noting that India already has surplus rice production and that unverified yield claims cannot justify introducing risky gene-edited crops.
The deregulation of gene-editing techniques without biosafety testing is deemed illegal and unscientific, casting doubt on the credibility of yield improvement claims.
We have seen wild claims about yield increases before in India. Developers of GM mustard at Delhi University made similar claims that were debunked via a series of affidavits submitted by Rodrigues to the Supreme Court.
Opponents accuse the government of yielding to corporate lobbying and portraying gene editing as precise and safe, despite a good deal of scientific literature highlighting risks and uncertainties (documented at length on the GMWatch website).
India's embrace of gene-edited crops, encouraged by figures like Bill Gates and facilitated by compromised regulatory authorities, is a case of corporate capture and regulatory subversion.
Gates, a long-time advocate of genetically engineered crops, met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in March, shortly before the government's announcement of gene-edited rice.
While the sequence of events may be coincidental, Gates's influence on agricultural biotechnology is well established.
India's future food security and ecological health depend on resisting unproven technologies and restoring regulatory integrity free from corporate and philanthropic-plutocratic influence.
Gates is often treated as royalty by the media and politicians due to his wealth, but his techno-solutionist ideology reduces complex social, political and economic problems to technical fixes.
Too often, this willful ignorance leads to "testing grounds" for interventions facilitated by co-opted governments and regulators that ultimately serve to concentrate power in the hands of corporate interests. Meanwhile, genuine solutions are sidelined and denigrated."
Comments