|
By Kasturi Das
Bt cotton has not delivered what it had promised to India. During the last three years of its commercial cultivation, thousands of farmers have experienced this firsthand. Several empirical studies, the most recent by CICR, Nagpur, have exposed the inappropriateness of Bt cotton technology in India. Why aren't the powers-that-be listening?
The inappropriateness of BT cotton technology in the Indian context has once again been proved. This time, through rigorous scientific research being carried out at the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, an acclaimed research institution under the purview of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The research, published in the July 25 edition of Current Science, is based on the findings of a series of field experiments conducted at the CICR in 2003 by a group of scientists led by Keshav R Kranthi, on eight Bt cotton bollgard hybrids commercially grown in India.
The principal reason for the introduction of Bt cotton in India in 2002 was its purported ability to make the cotton plant resistant to bollworm -- the most dreaded cotton pest in India. This genetically engineered cotton is developed by inserting the gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thurigiensis (Bt) that allows the plant to produce Cry1Ac protein that bollworm find toxic. According to the findings of the CICR study, in order for Bt cotton to be lethal to bollworm, the critical minimum expression level for Cry1Ac should be 1.9 mg/g in the plant tissue. Levels below this would not seriously harm the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). The study clearly showed that, 110 days after the cotton seed was sown, Cry1Ac expression declined below this critical lethal level.
The authors of the study say that these results help in understanding the late-season survival of bollworm in Bt cotton.
The CICR study also found substantial variability in Cry1Ac expression between the various plant parts. Most importantly, Cry1Ac expression levels turned out to be the lowest in the ovary of flowers and boll rind of green bolls, which happen to be the most favoured sites of the bollworm. The authors claim that such variability in Cry1Ac expression among the different plant parts “clearly help in explaining the differential rate of bollworm survival on fruiting parts in Bt cotton fields in some parts of India, especially under conditions of high pest pressure”.
Quantitative levels of Cry1Ac and seasonal decline in expression have been found to differ significantly between the eight commercial bollgard hybrids tested in the study.
The study further indicates that the poor response of Bt cotton to bollworm in India is because, here, it is being grown as a ‘hybrid’, as against ‘true breeding varieties’ being grown in other parts of the world including the US, China and Australia. A global analysis of the comparative performance of Bt cotton ‘varieties’ vis-à-vis ‘hybrids’ shows that Bt cotton ‘varieties’ are much more effective in controlling cotton bollworm than Bt cotton ‘hybrids’. The authors say: “The data available support the presumption that Bt cotton hybrids in India may require more supplemental insecticide sprays than is being used on Bt cotton varieties elsewhere in the world.” Hence, according to the authors, “the Indian farmer would have to be mentally prepared for the possibility of extra supplemental insecticide applications for bollworm control on Bt cotton hybrids”.
The authors also assert that cotton bollworm (the Helicoverpa species) is at least tenfold more tolerant to the Cry1Ac protein compared to tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens), which is the major cotton pest in the US. Therefore, although Bt cotton varieties in the US succeed in causing 99-100% mortality in tobacco budworm, the same Bt technology is unlikely to succeed in India where the major target pest is a bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and not a tobacco budworm.
The CICR study vindicates some of the principal findings of empirical studies being undertaken by civil society organisations like Gene Campaign, Greenpeace, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Deccan Development Society (DDS), etc, which have been carried out in various parts of the country, during the three years of commercial Bt cotton cultivation in India. The CISR study also provides a scientific basis for the observed poor performance of Bt cotton, by exposing the inherent flaws in Bt technology, in the Indian context.
It is appalling that despite such clear-cut scientific evidence regarding the inadequacy and inappropriateness of Bt technology in India, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has taken no initiative whatsoever to stop the commercial cultivation of Bt cotton in India. Instead, it continues releasing newer varieties of Bt cotton, bringing more regions of the country under commercial cultivation of an inappropriate transgenic technology.
Notably, during April-May this year, the GEAC granted fresh approval for commercial cultivation of Bt cotton to the north Indian states of Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana. Approval has also been given for the cultivation of 13 new varieties of Bt cotton hybrids in various parts of the country. And, with the completion of the three-year period for which commercial cultivation was initially allowed in six Indian states, in March 2002, approval has been renewed for all three existing hybrids of Mahyco-Monsanto’s Bt cotton in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Only two existing hybrids have been granted renewal in the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
The only exception was Andhra Pradesh, where none of the existing hybrids of Monsanto’s Bt cotton were given renewed approval for commercial cultivation. This exception may be attributed to the fact that the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh was not only consistently revealed in all the empirical studies undertaken over the last three years, but it also found credence with the Andhra Pradesh government itself. In fact, the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh was so blatantly exposed by the violent reaction of distressed farmers in the state that it was impossible to ignore. Some of the worst affected districts of Andhra Pradesh saw thousands of outraged farmers going on the rampage asking for compensation from Monsanto for losses incurred by cultivation of its Bt cotton hybrids. In fact, it was Monsanto’s refusal to pay compensation (reported to amount to Rs 4.5 crore) to the farmers that was instrumental in the landmark decision later taken by the Andhra Pradesh government to ban Monsanto from marketing, selling or conducting trials of its Bt cotton hybrids in the state.
While on the one hand, the GEAC continues to promote the failed Bt cotton technology without paying heed to the existing scientific evidence regarding its inherent flaws, on the other, efforts are being made at the highest level of policy making at the Centre to put in place a full-fledged policy framework that would give a huge push to all transgenic crops (not only Bt cotton) in the country. The proposed policy framework, which is in the form of a draft National Biotechnology Development Strategy, was released by science and technology minister Kapil Sibal on April 1, 2005, and kept in the public domain, on the department of biotechnology (DBT) website, for six weeks. The last date for receiving feedback from the public got over on May 16. According to an announcement made by Sibal, the draft was supposed to be finalised after all suggestions had been reviewed.
Notwithstanding the poor performance of Bt cotton -- the only genetically modified (GM) crop commercially grown in India at present -- priority has been accorded in the draft biotech strategy to promoting GM cultivation of a wide range of crops including food crops. These include rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, pigeon pea, chickpea, moong bean, groundnut, mustard, soybean, cotton, sugarcane, potato, tomato, cole crops, banana, papaya and citrus fruits.
Close scrutiny of the draft biotech strategy document clearly reveals that while the system of single-window clearance and other proposals on regulations are clearly aimed at speeding up the process of approval for the commercial cultivation of transgenic (GM) crops in future, the regulatory mechanisms proposed in the draft do not ensure that the environmental and health safety aspects are adequately taken into account before commercial cultivation is allowed.
It is indeed ironical that although the economic wellbeing and livelihood security of farmers has been identified in the draft biotech strategy as one of the prime objectives behind the promotion of GM crops, no attempt has been made either to involve the farmers actively in the policy making process or to judge their opinion by citizen’s jury or some other means before taking the crucial policy decision of promoting GM crops in India.
Despite lofty claims made in the policy document regarding the beneficial implications of transgenic technology for farmers, the fact remains that the credentials of GM technology in delivering these benefits have not yet been conclusively proved anywhere in the world.
Proponents of GM crops in India often justify their promotion by claiming increases in yield that would feed the country’s growing population. However, it may be recalled here that on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific and other evidence relating to the performance of genetic engineering, an Independent Science Panel Report, published in 2003, concluded: “The consistent finding from independent research and on-farm surveys since 1999 is that GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits of significantly increasing yields...” In the case of India, empirical studies show that Bt cotton performs poorer that its non-Bt counterparts in different parts of the country.
Unsatisfactory yields, high price of GM seeds and other costs of cultivation are grounds enough to assume that the promotion of GM crops could end up worsening the economic condition of hundreds of small and marginal farmers in India, rather than uplifting them. The situation is already upon us, as thousands of Bt cotton farmers all over the country face huge financial losses, forcing them to take extreme steps.
As regards the question of food security, even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that GM crops could help boost agricultural yields, would it guarantee two square meals for the entire population of India? The answer is an emphatic ‘No’. Because, if the physical availability of foodgrain had been the only constraint, then a substantial chunk of the current population of this country would not have been deprived of their basic right to adequate food when government granaries are overflowing with surplus foodgrain. The principal constraint in realising the right to food in India is economic accessibility, or affordability, not physical availability.
One should not also forget that most Indian farmers, living on roughly 70% of total cultivable land in the country, still practise traditional/organic farming techniques. It is these farmers who have acted as the custodians of biodiversity even in this era of chemical-intensive agriculture. India’s rich biodiversity has played a vital role in ensuring the food and livelihood security of this section of the farming population. There is every possibility that the monoculture-based GM technology, by endangering our biodiversity, will end up threatening the livelihood of these farmers.
Another major source of anxiety surrounding transgenic crops is the threat of contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops. This could arise from a variety of reasons and in different stages of the plant’s lifecycle. Given the ground realities of agricultural conditions and practices in India, it would be virtually impossible to segregate GM from non-GM crops. Accidental contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops is inevitable once large-scale cultivation of more and more GM crops is allowed alongside non-GM crops. Hence, the rigorous and complex system of ‘identity preservation’ (IP) and ‘traceability’ would be virtually impossible to implement in India. Even if we were to assume that IP was possible in India, the excessive operational costs associated with the implementation of such a system would make agriculture such an expensive activity that it would be out of the reach of most small and marginal farmers. It may safely be asserted that peaceful co-existence of GM and non-GM technology is virtually impossible under Indian agricultural conditions.
For all practical purposes, therefore, once widespread cultivation of more and more GM crops is allowed, Indian farmers will not be in a position to exercise their freedom to practise the (non-GM) technology of their choice, owing to contamination from GM crops. Can the Indian government wash its hands off its obligation to protect and uphold the basic rights of millions of farmers in this country? Who will compensate the non-GM conventional and organic farmers whose produce will likely be rejected both in the export market and domestic markets owing to contamination?
Proponents of GM crops in India often cite statistics in order to justify the promotion of transgenic agriculture: how much the area under Bt cotton production has grown in the past three years. This is seen as the farmers’ preference for transgenic crops. But, like any other aspect of Bt cotton in India, the actual area under its cultivation is a controversial issue, with various agencies coming out with different, often contradictory, statistics. Authenticity of data apart, the question remains: Even if an increasing number of farmers do opt for Bt cotton, could such a choice be regarded as being objective, and based on a perfect knowledge of the pros and cons of Bt cotton? Perhaps not!
In places where government-run agricultural extension machineries operate, farmers’ decisions regarding choice of crop variety are likely to be influenced by the guidance provided by extension workers. However, studies show that extension workers often lack the required knowledge and training to offer farmers appropriate and objective guidance in taking vital decisions such as choosing between Bt and non-Bt cotton.
The situation becomes worse in places where government-run extension machineries do not exist at all, or have ceased to exist. In such places, it is the private agents of the seed companies (like Monsanto) that act as the source of extension to farmers. It goes without saying that in such a situation, private agents will always try to influence farmers in favour of their business interests, rather than provide objective guidance on the probable outcomes of cultivating Bt cotton, even if they are aware of the outcomes.
Farmers’ decisions are also likely to be influenced, to a large extent, by the hype created by companies producing Bt cotton hybrids. And by the fact that the government appears to be backing Bt cotton cultivation.
The Andhra Pradesh government’s Commission on Farmers’ Welfare says in a report submitted earlier this year on Bt cotton cultivation in the state: “Farmers are not adequately informed either about the nature of the seeds, or the requirements for their cultivation, or the likely outcomes.”
Interestingly, before approval for commercial Bt cotton cultivation in six states was granted in 2002, two ‘citizen’s jury’ exercises were carried out in Karnataka (by ActionAid, etc) and Andhra Pradesh (by the UK-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Institute of Development Studies (IDS), etc) in 2000 and 2001 respectively. In both exercises, when given the pros and cons of transgenic technology vis-à-vis alternatives, the jury rejected GM crop cultivation and voted in favour of traditional and sustainable alternatives.
Transgenic agriculture is a very new and extremely complicated technology about which even scientists know very little. The ecological and health implications of GM crops are also not yet fully understood, despite years of rigorous scientific research. Instead of promoting GM crops on the basis of subjective statistics and the misguided logic of “raising agricultural productivity and improving the economic wellbeing of farmers,” the government of India should take the prudent step of declaring a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM crops until the implications are fully evaluated.
(Kasturi Das is researcher at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi)
InfoChange News & Features, September 2005
|
