Another Victory Against The GE Goliath

On 25th April 2003, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee rejected a proposal to commercialise Bt cotton in Punjab and other northern states. The rejection has come in the wake of RFSTE’s intense Campaign “NO to GM FOOD AND CROPS”. This is the third victory in our campaign against GM.

The first was the decision to not grant immediate approval to ProAgro for commercializing GM mustard.

The second victory was the rejection of imports of corn-soya blend suspected of containing Bt corn “Starlink” as food aid by two NGOs – CARE India and Catholic Relief Services, something that was being actively pushed by USAID. The USAID and the US embassy officials had tried to subvert the GEAC’s decision making process by getting the Prime Minister’s Office to intervene and give USAID a special hearing. RFSTE’s massive signature campaign to GEAC as well as the health and agriculture ministries resulted in an outright rejection of the GM import.

The decision not to allow commericalisation of Bt cotton in the northern states comes after the massive failure of Bt cotton in the southern states. The GEAC, which, in spite of being aware of ecological hazards and GM corporations’ false claims of reduced pesticide use and higher yields, had given permission to Monsanto=Mahyco to commercialise Bt cotton in the southern states on 26th March 2002, had asked for a year’s additional trials in the north. A study conducted by the RFSTE in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka showed that not only did Monsanto’s cotton not protect the plants from the American Bollworm, but there was a increase of 250-300% in attacks by non-target pests like Jassids. In addition, the Bt plants became prey to fungal diseases like fusarium. The Bt cotton varieties gave very low yields. Even the staple lengths of whatever little cotton was produced were so short that the cotton fetched a very low price in the market. Farmers, who according to GEAC’s earlier statements that they would earn an additional income of Rs. 10000 per acre with Bt cotton, actually lost more than this amount by planting Bt varieties. Not only is the cost of the seed higher than of non-Bt varieties, Monsanto’s varieties need more fertilizers and water.

The additional year of trials in Punjab with the Monsanto variety MECH 915 once again exploded Monsanto’s myths that transgenic Bt plants are protected against bollworm. The trial plots were attacked not just by bollworm, but increasingly by non-target pests, forcing participating farmers to spray more often. The yield, once again, was not higher than given by non-Bt varieties.

In addition, the Standing Committee ruled, “the risk of reducing bio-diversity and other environmental hazards, does not make the sowing of Bt cotton a sensible proposition.” This statement is a tacit acceptance of the lack of biosafety regulations being in place in the country. In 1999, the RFSTE had filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India against Monsanto, Mahyco and the GEAC and its parent ministry for allowing open field trials illegally, and in the absence of biosafety regulations. The case has since been transferred to an Appellate Authority, which has been specially set up to look into the ecological and economic impacts of Bt cotton in India.