The Bt gene fails in India

ABDUL QAYAM AND KIRAN SAKKHARI

Farmers in Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh were excited about planting Bt cotton, which they saw as a way out of the trap of pests, pesticides and debt they were stuck in. At the start of the season in 2002, many were optimistic and hopeful about the new crop, but as the season progressed their enthusiasm was transformed into disappointment and, for some, despair. Meanwhile, many women already disillusioned with Green Revolution agriculture, are rediscovering the virtues of biodiverse cropping systems and sharing their results with their neighbours.

Cotton is an important commercial crop in India. It ranks second among cotton-producing countries, with around 8.9 million hectares of land under cotton cultivation. Cotton is a big money-spinner for the corporations selling seeds, pesticides and non-formal credit supplies, which are often bundled together under the term “input dealer”. Cotton cultivation has rapidly expanded in Warangal District in Andhra Pradesh over the past two decades, and this has coincided with a marked increase in the frequency and intensity of insect pest incidence, characterised by high levels of pest resistance to even the latest pesticides. Two recent bollworm (Helicoverpa sp.) epidemics in 1997 and 2000 broke the backbone of the farming community in the district. More than 200 cotton farmers, trapped in the vicious cycle of pests, pesticides and debt, committed suicide.

This crisis drew a lot of attention to the region, both from NGOs and corporations. For Mayhco-Monsanto [1], it provided an ideal opportunity to promote its bollworm-resistant, genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton. Following approval from India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the company released two Bt cotton hybrids in the state of Andhra Pradesh in 2002, where it was sown on approximately 3,800 ha. Andhra Pradesh is the third biggest cotton-producing state in India, but tops the ranks with respect to pesticide use in cotton production. When the cotton was planted in Warangal district, a study was initiated by two local NGOs to monitor the progress of the GM crop and to compare all aspects of its production with popular hybrids. [2]

A season-long study (August 2002 - April 2003) was initiated in two villages in the district where 22 farmers had planted Bt cotton. Two farmers were selected randomly from the villages and were interviewed each month and were captured on video. A mid-season study involving 21 farmers spread across 11 villages in the district was also conducted in November 2002. While these 21 farmers were the primary respondents, more than 200 were consulted altogether. Other stakeholders (such as scientists and the manager of the ginning mill) were also included. At the end of the cropping season, a survey was conducted of 225 out of the 12,000 farmers (ie 20%) who took up Bt cotton production in Warangal district. All the farmers in the study that chose to plant Bt cotton had been cultivating all the important crops including cotton for the last 15-20 years. They were well aware of popular varieties and hybrids of cotton, its pests and diseases, and had access to print and electronic media.

The findings

Table 1 outlines the different qualitative charact-eristics of the Bt and non-Bt cotton grown in Warangal district. The Bt hybrid was most affected by the prevailing weather conditions (hot and dry). It was also evident that though the Bt cotton plants produced more bolls, these suffered from heavy premature drying as well as boll shedding. MECH Bt 162, which constituted 98% of the Bt cotton grown, appears to be characterised by small boll size and short staple length, which affected market preference as well as the price of seed cotton. Another important finding was Bt cotton contained more seeds than non-Bt hybrids, which affected the lint to seed ratio as well as its price. In addition, pickings from the non-Bt crop extended till March, as compared with late December/early January for the Bt cotton in most areas, which reduced the yield of the Bt cotton crop.

Early sucking pests like aphids and jassids were absent in both the Bt and non-Bt plants during the first 30 to 35 days after germination, as all the hybrid seed sold in the market is pretreated with the pesticide Imidachloprid. But, from early October, when the crop was 80 to 90 days old, moderate to heavy infestation of aphids and white flies was reported throughout the area, more prominently on Bt than on non Bt crop.
There was unanimous agreement amongst all the group meetings and individual interviews that the pest load was lower than usual until the end of September. Even the much dreaded pink bollworm pest (Helicoverpa armigera) was at the lowest level till that time. Scientists opined that the dry and hot season suppressed this pest. But from November, the bollworm infestation increased in both the Bt and non-Bt crops, with 81% of non-Bt and 71% of Bt farmers pointing the finger at the bollworm as the pest that did the most damage to their crop. Most farmers concurred that sucking pests attacked the Bt crop more than the non-Bt crop. So even though there was some reduction in the incidence of the bollworm in Bt cotton, there was a simultaneous increase in the incidence of sucking pests on Bt crop. This meant that the level of pesticide use was almost identical for Bt and non-Bt farmers.

Table 1: Qualitative differences in Bt and non-Bt cotton crops

A hard look at the economics

The economics of Bt and non-Bt production are presented in Table 2 (over page). Bt cotton cultivation cost $10/ha more than non-Bt cultivation. Farmers who cultivated Bt cotton spent 15% of the total cost of cultivation on the seed as against 5% in case of non-Bt farmers, in the hope that it would reduce their spending on pesticide sprays and improve their yields substantially. But in reality, expenditure on plant protection was only $1/ha less for Bt cotton farmers. Non-Bt cotton farmers averaged a yield of 276 kg/ha compared with 180 kg/ha for Bt cotton farmers, which represents a net 35% decrease in yield. So, in spite of spending 3.5 times more on pesticide-resistant seed, a Bt farmer had only a 4% reduction in pesticide costs, and ended up with a 35 % loss in final yield.

These losses were compounded by the fact that the market value of Bt cotton was lower than non-Bt. To offset the reduction in the price of Bt seed cotton, almost all farmers resorted to mixing both Bt and non-Bt cotton before marketing, but they still only received $45/100kg for the mixed seed versus $47/100kg for the non-Bt cotton. In the end, non-Bt cotton farmers netted four times as much as Bt farmers from their 2002-2003 cotton crop. Some 71% of Bt cotton farmers experienced losses, compared with 18% of non-Bt farmers.

Biosafety issues

All farmers professed compliance to Mahyco-Monsanto's refuge guidelines, which required planting border rows of non-Bt hybrids in 3 to 5 lines. This was conveyed to them through audiocassettes and product literature supplied with the seed packets. But farmers were not clear about what the purpose of the refuge was. Most thought it was to serve as a barrier or trap for the migrating moths and caterpillars or to prevent the transfer of pollen to other plants and varieties. The real purpose of the refuge is to serve as a host for susceptible bollworms to mate with resistant insects to delay the development of resistance. Mayhco-Monsanto abdicated any responsibility for monitoring the enforcement of refuges. The study team could not easily identify the refuge crop from the main crop. This mixing of seed that occurred when farmers resorted to mixing their non-Bt and Bt cotton crop in order to get a better price for the Bt cotton paved the way for GM crops to enter the food chain. Cotton seed oil is used in cooking in India and the seed is used to make cattle fodder, which enters the human food chain through dairy products. This is an extremely critical biosafety concern, and it indicates the total failure of regulatory mechanisms.

Table 2: The economics of cultivating Bt and non-Bt cotton

Does Bt cotton have a future in Warangal?

When asked about what their future preference would be for their cotton crop, farmers offered a variety of answers:

The study team concluded that the GM hybrids are not a desirable proposition at present. The faltering toxin content of the plant and seed during the crop period is likely to encourage the development of resistance among Helicoverpa and other Lepidopteran pests. Indeed, it has already been reported in some countries that the toxin is not effective against the 3rd and 4th generation of Helicoverpa. This should be a warning signal.

The development of resistance would create a more serious problem than the pesticides currently used, and will lead to an unavoidable war between GM hybrids and the pest complex. As in the case of pesticides, wherein pests have been successful in developing resistance to the most toxic of pesticides, they are also likely to succeed in overcoming the toxins produced by the genes, warranting ever more aggressive toxins to achieve the kill. This is a dangerous trend fraught with dreadful environmental consequences, including the devastation of natural predators and soil-borne pest pathogens by the toxins produced by the GM cotton plant.

The farmer will have no security of seed and will also lose control over her/his own seed because of the restrictions placed on seed saving, breeding and seed sharing by the corporations. The indebtedness of farmers will also increase because of the greater dependence on external resources needed for the cultivation of the GM crop. This study emphasises the need for a wholesome review and critical examination of the policy of encouraging genetically modified cotton from the point of view of the environment, diversity and health.

Reference for this article: ABDUL QAYAM AND KIRAN SAKKHARI, 2003, The Bt gene fails in India, Seedling, July 2003, GRAIN

Website link: www.grain.org/seedling/seed-03-07-3-en.cfm

What is Seedling? Seedling is the quarterly magazine of GRAIN. It provides thought-provoking articles on all aspects of GRAIN’s work and more. To receive Seedling in paper or electronic format (on a CD Rom), or to inform us of a change of address, please