27th March 2002

Permission to Commercialize Bt Cotton: A Death Trap for Indian Farmers

It is very unfortunate that the government has cleared the controversial genetically engineered Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.) cotton seed for commercial planting. The 26th March 2002 will go down as a black day in India's contemporary history.

Ironically, in spite of the fact that a Supreme Court case challenging the 1998 field trials is ongoing and that there were numerous irregularities and violations of biosafety laws and guidelines in previous year field trials, yet the GEAC have cleared Bt cotton for commercial release by Monsanto-Mahyco.

The clearance comes just few months after the government ordered the uprooting and burning of Bt. cotton in Gujarat. When 11,000 hectares were found under cultivation of Navbharat 151, which had Bt. genes, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in their petition to the Delhi High Court had stated:

"The crop which is standing may pass to the soil that modified genes which it contains. The effect on soil microorganisms can not be estimated and may cause an irreversible change in the environment structure of the soil ... The destruction by burning is to ensure safety to environment and human health and to obviate any possibility of cross-pollination. The destruction of the cotton produce as well as seeds harvested from this plant is also equally necessary. The cotton, which has been produced, is genetically modified cotton the effect of which i.e. allergenicity and other factors on mammals are not tested. The precautionary principles would require that no product, the effect of which is unknown be put into the market stream."

The precautionary principle has suddenly been thrown to the wind. That too with inadequate testing and trials in the assessment of risks and benefits. The four major issues related to the ecological and socio-impact of Bt. cotton trials conducted last year which are relevant to whether or not the trials are complete and adequate as grounds for commercialization, failed to provide scientific and objective answers. These were:

1. Risks of genetic pollution and genetic contamination through cross-pollination and hybridisation.
In the data on the pollen flow studies there is a variation of 2m to 15m, leading to possibility of a 7500% margin of variation, a margin too high for sound science.
2. Impact of the Bt. toxin on non-target beneficial species.
The study shows that the trials have been carried out with zero populations of beneficial species in both Bt. and non-Bt. varieties. Impact on non-existent populations of beneficial insects is not proof on "no significant difference" in impact but evidence of "no significant study" on impact. Moreover, Bt cotton is designed to be resistant only to cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) while the cotton crop in India is faced with a complexity of pest attacks. Pests such as whitefly, jassids, aphids and pink bollworm have emerged as major pests in the last few years with crop losses being as high as those caused by the bollworm. Consequences can severely threaten to jeopardise other ecologically sound methods of pest control and eventually prove devastating to the farmers. Farmers have been forced to apply all kinds of pesticide cocktails to control pest infestation. As seen in Andhra Pradesh, when these costly chemicals fail, thousands of farmers are forced to commit suicides. Genetically Engineered Bt. is more like a biological trap, more potent than the toxin it produces that kills the American bollworm. The 'chemical treadmill' is now being replaced with a more dangerous 'biological treadmill'.
3. Emerging of resistance in target species viz., boll worm
No studies have been carried out on insect resistance to Bt. Experience with Bt. crops from around the world shows a quick buildup of resistance, which has become a main concern in the US and Canada, and has not been detected even in China. Farmers have to spray pesticide to control third and fourth generation of American bollworm insects. In Australia too, farmers have now been advised to go in for more sprays because of a drop in expression levels. With the insect increasingly developing immunity against the Bt. toxin in the plant, GE seed companies are now suggesting farmers to adopt refuge method that is now reported to be fifty percent of the transgenic field.
4. Socio-economic comparison with other alternatives to synthetic pesticides for controlling pests like the boll worm.
It is falsely claimed that the trials indicated that both yield increase and cost savings have been the major benefits of Bt. cotton to the farmers. This is misleading for 2 reasons; (i) In data reported that the yield of the non-Bt. LNH 144 is higher than the Mech 184 Bt. variety; (ii) Cost savings need to be compared not to chemical agriculture but to organic agriculture. Savings are as high as Rs. 4350/acre and costs can be reduced upto 80%, compared to the 50% cited in the case of Bt.

The issue of biosafety in the context of Bt. cotton trials relates to impact on biodiversity through genetic pollution, impact of Bt. toxin in Bt. cotton on non-target beneficial species, and on emergence of resistance on the target species - boll worm. It also raises concern about farmers' costs and risks. On all these important issues there is inadequate data provided by the last year trials. The impact of Genetically Engineered cotton goes much beyond the immediate environment to potentially affect human and animal health because in several Indian states cottonseed oil is the primary edible oil and the seed cake is used for animal feed.

The Gujarat case also shows that biosafety capacity is totally absent at State level and the issue of liability is totally open ended. The capacity and functions of the regulatory systems at local, state and central levels have to be strengthened before any commercial release is allowed. Granting permission for commercialization in the current contexts would amount to GEAC undermining its own mandate to ensure biosafety.

Research Foundation will continue its campaign against the Bt cotton and other transgenic crops and would provide and promote the organic farming which saves farmers money on pesticides. The national farmer unions have also decided to intensify and spread their campaigns against genetic engineered crops especially Bt cotton.