|
By Devinder Sharma Opinions are divided about the wisdom of the Indian government's decision to burn the genetically modified cotton crop on 10,000 acres of farmland in Gujarat. In this article, the author points out why Bt cotton is a biological trap.
"Isn't it like sending a soldier to the battlefront and then asking him not to use the latest sophisticated assault rifle?" a British radio journalist asked me the other day. He was obviously referring to the Indian government's initial decision to burn the illegally grown genetically modified cotton on some 10,000 acres of farmland in the state of Gujarat. "It will certainly be tragic to deprive a soldier of the latest weapon. But it will be more sinister and criminal to provide the soldier with an AK-47 gun and then deliberately make him step into a `booby' trap," I replied, adding that Bt cotton - cotton containing a gene from a soil-borne bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) -- is an attractive biological trap, more potent than the toxin it produces that kills the dreaded bollworm pest. Experience has conclusively shown that, over the past few decades, gullible cotton growers have been pushed into `a vicious circle of poison'. The only difference is that the `chemical treadmill' is now being replaced with a more dangerous and hitherto unknown `biological treadmill'. "But then, a majority of cotton growers are happy with the standing crop even if the seed was clandestinely supplied," said the journalist, stating that there was the growing view that genetically modified crops, which have proved effective against bollworm, should not be destroyed. "Yes, you are very right," I replied. "This is exactly what happened when the fourth-generation pesticides -- synthetic pyrethroids -- were introduced into the country less than 20 years ago. Since then, over 10,000 cotton growers have committed suicide." Who will be responsible if and when thousands of cotton growers take the fatal suicide route when the pest becomes resistant to the Bt gene, I asked? Will the secretary of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), who appears eager to hasten the process of commercialisation, be held responsible for the resulting deaths? After all suicide by thousands of farmers, resulting from the targeted pest developing immunity against the chemical or gene, is not `collateral' damage. The Indian farmer has paid a heavy price and is likely to go on paying the price in future with the introduction of more Bt varieties. The jubilation expressed by cotton farmers in the early 1980s, when synthetic pyrethroids were introduced into cotton-growing areas throughout the country, was short-lived. For the first two or three years, the farmers were visibly happy. The chemical killed almost everything including the American bollworm, as the main pest is called. The euphoria, however, did not last long. The insect gradually began to develop resistance towards the chemical and, in the next few years, as the number of costly and environment-unfriendly sprays increased, so did the pest's resistance. In 1987, Andhra Pradesh recorded 37 suicides by cotton growers whose crops had failed as a result of the equation having gone wrong, forcing the farmers into mounting debt. Unable to withstand the humiliation that accompanies increased debt, the farmers drank the very same pesticide that had proved so ineffective against the pests. Ten years later, a serial death dance began. Originating once again in Andhra Pradesh's Warangal district, the suicides spread to neighbouring districts and then into Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana. Government denials notwithstanding, more than 10,000 cotton growers have perished so far. No scientific institution, no chemical industry and no chief minister has been held accountable for what is arguably the greatest man-made human disaster to have struck independent India. Things have not ended here. In fact the same arguments, the same rhetoric and the same vested interests are still desperately touting genetically engineered crops as the ultimate saviour of the farming community. No one, not even the Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee (GEAC) -- the highest regulatory authority in India -- has even raised the question as to how many more thousand farmers will have to be sacrificed at the altar of development. Who is responsible for the families of those farmers who end up being victims of commercial agriculture? The lives of thousands of farmers are too huge a price to pay for scientific experimentation. This reminds one of the dilemma that former Indonesian President Suharto was faced with in the mid-1980s. The brown plant hopper insect devastated Indonesia's rice crop, the country's staple food. No pesticide proved effective against the menacing pest. After trying all kinds of permutations and combinations, President Suharto finally sent an SOS to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Manila in the Philippines. The international scientific community was quick to respond with, for once, a sensible and sustainable alternative. An immediate ban on the chemical spraying of rice was called for. President Suharto understood the importance of the integrated pest management techniques the scientists wanted him to adopt on a mass scale. Under a presidential decree, 57 pesticides were banned. The chemical industry, led by the American embassy in Jakarta, were soon up in arms saying that the decision would prove suicidal, and that Indonesia would be pushed into the throes of hunger and starvation. But President Suharto refused to accept the chemical industry's prescription. Instead, he launched a countrywide integrated pest management programme. Over the next two years, contrary to expectations, rice production in Indonesia increased by 18 per cent. And the consumption of pesticides dropped drastically by 65 per cent. What's more, the cost of cultivation slumped and the environment became much cleaner and safer. Likewise with cotton there is no other escape route. Over the years, the indiscriminate use and abuse of pesticides has pushed cotton farmers into a vicious trap. The more the pests attack, the more potent and repetitive becomes the chemical spraying. Farmers have been forced to resort to every kind of pesticide (much of it spurious) and all kinds of chemical cocktails to control the pest bollworm. Indeed, so widespread is this so-called `circle of poison' that farmers in Punjab are known to have sprayed chemicals worth Rs 3,200 million in 1998-99 in order to harvest some Rs 2,800 million worth of cotton lint. Even lesser known insects like the white fly have turned into major cotton pests, calling on the use of still more pesticide sprays. A fact that is often deliberately overlooked is that there are at least 27 natural predators or benign insects that feed on the American bollworm in any cotton field. Chemical spraying, however, first kills off these benign insects. By the time the American bollworm appears on the scene, the cotton field is bereft of all its natural enemies. And so this pest has a field day devouring the crop. Bt cotton remains a faulty prescription. It is widely accepted that in the case of Bt cotton, the third generation of the pest is the most problematic. And while it may be true that farmers in southern China have been growing this variety for some time, what is not widely known is that they are now being forced to spray pesticides in order to control third and fourth generation American bollworm. In Australia too, farmers are being advised to go in for more sprays. With insects becoming more and more immune to the Bt toxin in the plant, scientists are now starting to introduce genetically manipulated varieties with two Bt genes. It may soon be the turn of a scorpion gene, then a gene from a snake. This 'biological circle of poison' is going to prove far more dangerous than any chemical cycle the farmers have been forced to live with so far. There is one practical solution. Make the secretary of the Department of Biotechnology, and the chairman of GEAC, responsible for any suicides that result from the introduction of Bt cotton. Accountability has to be the hallmark of any scientific decision-making process or else our farmers will continue to pay an enormous price. <<Back toGuntur:The heart of the Bt cotton controversy
|
