Indian-based biotechnology researcher takes on anti-technology activists
BiotechBloggers
the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP), India, has become the epicenter of
everything going bad in the cultivation of Bt cotton. Reports of
phenomenal failure of Bt cotton, farmer distress, death of sheep,
death of cattle and alleged farmer suicides have show cased the
Warangal District as an example of all that could go wrong with modern
agriculture. Anti-tech activism has extrapolated all this to the other
parts, in and out of AP, such as Vidharbha region of Maharashtra. A
rational and scientific assessment does not support such an intensely
negative outcome from Bt cotton cultivation. To assess the ground
realities first hand, Professor Ronald Herring, Cornell University,
Ithaca, Dr S Shantharam, Biologistics International, of USA, and I,
have visited the Warangal District for about a week in the middle of
December 2006.
Before going to Warangal, we visited the Centre for Sustainable
Agriculture (CSA), Hyderabad/ Secunderabad and the Andhra Pradesh
State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad, for a first hand
assessment of opinions and reports.
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA)
The CSA are the main anti-Bt cotton activists in AP. The two
functionaries of CSA we met raised the following issues against Bt
cotton:
a) Economical and technical features not up to the mark: What is the
mark and whose mark? There is certainly no serious deficiency in basic
technical features and performance of Bt cotton. Achieving maximum
economic benefits from a crop's potential depends upon several local
factors, such as the soil type, irrigation facility, weather
conditions in a particular season that influence pest pressure, and
the awareness of the farmer in adopting appropriate cultivation
practices. There has been a phenomenal increase in the acreage under
Bt cotton, year after year, even in Warangal District. The Bt cotton
acreage increased from 2.27 lakh in 2005 to 8.30 lakh in 2006 in the
AP, from 6.23 to 18.40 in Maharashtra, and from 1.27 million to 3.8
million in the country, during the same period. The horror stories of
failure of Bt cotton in AP and Maharashtra do not reconcile with
statistics from diverse sources.
b) Promises on reduction of pesticide use, yield increase and higher
profit not realized: No evidence was offered other than perceptions
and opinions. This is contrary to all reports, and feed back from the
farmers, which indicate that Bt cotton, did substantially reduce
pesticide use, increased yield by preventing loss due to bollworm,
which enhanced profits, all reflected in the increase of acreage.
c) There was no environmental and socio-economic impact assessment:
Studies prior to commercialization in India and elsewhere for over a
decade, have not indicated any adverse environmental impact. The socio-
economic impact is rooted in a tension free cultivation and higher
financial returns, which were realized by the farmers to a great
extent, when the cultivation conditions and practices were right and
the expectations were not unrealistic. If the farmers from any part of
the country suffer losses, they would immediately dump any technology
and this has not happened.
d) Spurious seed in authentic packaging: This is a serious problem of
marketing throughout the country. Some greedy farmers and unscrupulous
dealers have sustained a vast market for illegal and/or spurious Bt
cotton seeds, which has affected all others. Scientists of the
Agricultural Research Station (ARS), of the Acharya NG. Ranga
Agricultural University (ANGRAU, Hyderabad), at Warangal, also
expressed concern over this issue. The Governments in different States
have taken remedial measures, but there was some laxity on account of
political compulsions.
e) No authentic information on cultivation practices: This is partly
true, as the seed dealers did not always provide adequate and
appropriate post-sale monitoring and guidance in most places. There
were mistakes in choosing the Bt varieties suitable for a particular
area. A large proportion of the farmers did not plant refugia, which
should have been enforced. The Officers of the ARS, ANGRAU at
Warangal, also feel that the farmers need regular guidance on the
choice of seed varieties and on crop cultivation methods.
f) No studies on the efficacy of Bt technology in controlling
bollworm: This is totally baseless. Bt cotton was mainly developed to
control bollworm and its efficacy has been demonstrated all over the
world and so in India too.
g) All India coordinated field trials only on agronomical parameters:
Not true again. The mandatory all India coordinated trials were
conducted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Both
agronomical parameters and biosafety issues were evaluated during
different field trials, which were accepted by the Review Committee
for Genetic Modification (RCGM), before recommending to the Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for commercialization.
h) Andhra Pradesh has neither State nor the District Committees
mandatory under the regulatory regime of GE crops: This is an
administrative lapse, though AP is not alone in this. Cultivating any
genetically engineered crop without these committees to oversee and
monitor is highly irregular. Nevertheless, it is hard to form
scientifically competent committees at the State and District levels.
It seems necessary to review the purpose, need and practicability of
such committees.
i) Death of sheep: At the time of our discussion, death of sheep was
the major issue and the number of dead sheep mentioned was 120, but
not in thousands. The death of goats and cattle on account of
consuming Bt cotton leaves, and farmer suicides on account of
cultivating Bt cotton, was not yet made an issue. The death of cattle
in the Warangal District was discussed on this blog earlier (March 14,
2007). However, like Professor Herring, one would be amazed to note
that the number of both dead cows and dead sheep became 1600, which
also seems to be the number of dead cows mentioned on a poster in
Delhi, in a different context.
j) The undercurrent: The strongest undercurrent behind the tirade
against Bt cotton is the anti-Monsanto campaign. The NGOs have a
tongue-in-cheek admiration for the performance of Navabharath's
illegal Bt cotton, which contained the stolen Monsanto's Cry 1Ac gene.
Almost every other Bt cotton variety contains the same sublicensed
gene. If Monsanto's Cry 1Ac dominates the Indian Bt cotton scene, the
fault lies more with the public sector which has not yet released any
of the promised Bt cotton varieties.
There is a certain element of truth and genuineness of concern in what
the NGOs say, but distortion of facts, exaggeration of problems and
scaremongering ruin their case. The anti-tech activists are stretching
them too far from science to pursue their political agenda of 'GM-Free
India', and in the process are throwing the baby out with the bath
water.
<i>Dr Rao is a biotechnology researcher based in India. He authors
FBAE Biotech Blog - www.fbaeblog.org</i>