Fwd: GMW:_Farmer_doubts_about_GM_cotton_grow/Failure_of_GMOs_in_India

[Guest guest]

GMW:_Farmer_doubts_about_GM_cotton_grow/Failure_of_GMOs_in_India

" GM_WATCH "

Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:09:02 GMT

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

1.Farmer doubts about GM cotton grow

2.Failure of GMOs in India

---

1.Farmer doubts about GM cotton grow

Kultida Samabuddhi

Bangkok Post, 3 January 2004

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/03Jan2004_news12.html

 

While the debate over genetically-modified crops carries on in Thailand, farmers

in India, Indonesia and the Philippines, where GM cotton and corn have been

grown commercially, are complaining that GM crops incur more losses than gains.

 

After planting Bt cotton for a year, some Indian farmers have vowed not to plant

it again because it gives less yield and commands a lower price than non-Bt

cotton, said Satheesh PV, of Deccan Development Society, an Indian-based farmers

organisation.

 

``Furthermore, farmers still have to spray large doses of pesticides despite the

company's claim that Bt cotton is a pest-resistant variety,'' he said.

 

Bt cotton, a transgenic cotton variety developed by biotechnology giant

Monsanto, contains the insecticidal gene of bacillus thuringiensis, a common

soil bacterium, that enables the plant to produce its own pesticide.

 

Mr Satheesh PV spoke at a recent meeting of about 10 activists and farmer

representatives from South and Southeast Asia to exchange lessons learnt from

planting GM cotton and corn.

 

The meeting was hosted by Biothai, a non-governmental organisation working to

promote alternative agriculture and biodiversity conservation.

 

``Bt farmers spend only 10% less than non-Bt farmers on pesticides,'' Mr

Satheesh, citing research conducted in Andhra Pradesh, the first state in India

where commercial planting of Bt cotton was allowed.

 

While the cost of cultivating Bt cotton is 10% higher than for the non-Bt

variety, Mr Satheesh said Bt farmers' yields were 35% less.

 

``On average, Bt farmers got only 450 kilogrammes of cotton an acre while non-Bt

farmers were able to harvest 700 kilogrammes.''

 

As a result, non-Bt farmers made a profit of 5,368 rupees an acre on average

while Bt farmers made a net loss of 1,295 rupees an acre. Non-Bt farmers made

six times the profit of Bt farmers, he said.

 

Mr Satheesh said Monsanto sold the GM cotton seed at 3,500 baht a kilogramme

while conventional cotton seed went for just 1,000 baht a kilogramme.

 

The Agriculture Ministry eventually told small-scale farmers to avoid planting

Bt cotton because the technology would not benefit them.

 

Indonesian activist Riza Jahjadi, of the Pesticide Action Network, said GM crop

plantations in Indonesia had failed, mainly because Monsanto, the largest cotton

seed distributor, failed to buy produce from farmers as promised.

 

GM cotton growers also had to shoulder a heavier debt burden, Mr Riza said.

 

Several Indonesian farmers burnt their Bt cotton fields to protest against the

government and the company for introducing Bt cotton without telling them about

the potential loss.

 

The Thai Agriculture Ministry, meanwhile, is pushing for cabinet approval of

field experiments for GM crops, a process that it hopes will lead to

legalisation of commercial plantations of transgenic crops.

 

However, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry opposes the move,

fearing it would cause severe ecological damage.

 

Monsanto Thailand Ltd insisted GM crops were ideal for farmers in this region

and denied Bt cotton plantations had failed in India.

 

Spokesman Kongtat Janchai cited other research by the University of Agricultural

Science in India, which found that plant protection costs for Bt cotton grown in

Mumbai were 64% less than for non-GM cotton while net profits from GM cotton

were 50% higher than for non-GM varieties.

 

He said the company had no plan to promote Bt cotton among Thai farmers in the

near future.

 

``Our priority product, likely to be launched following government approval of

commercial GM plantations, is Bt corn.

 

At the first stage, Monsanto will focus only on edible crops,'' he said.

---

2.Failure of GMOs in India

by Dr. Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri,

Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology

Synthesis/Regeneration 33 (Winter 2004)

http://www.greens.org/s-r/

 

On April 25, 2003, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the

Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India, denied

commercial clearance to Monsanto’s Bt cotton for the northern Indian states.

This vindicates the apprehensions of the Research Foundation for Science,

Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) and others who have warned the government about

the severe repercussions to Indian farmers and their livelihood if further

clearance to the Bt cotton had been allowed in view of its large scale failure

in the first year of its commercial planting in approximately 40,000 hectares.

 

This is a third consecutive victory for the people for their food security and

food safety after the denial to ProAgro-Bayar for the commercial clearance of GE

mustard as well as the rejection of import of 10,000 million tons of corn soya

blend suspected of containing Bt “Starlink” corn as food aid by two NGOs—CARE

India and Catholic Relief Services. This was achieved despite the massive media

campaign in favor of transgenic mustard by ProAgro-Bayar as well as the massive

pressure from USAID and the US Embassy. They tried hard to subvert the GEAC’s

decision-making process through the intervention of the Prime Minister’s Office

(PMO) by seeking a special audience in the official meeting of the GEAC.

 

This decision of the GEAC is welcomed by RFSTE and others because, GMO’s or no

GMO’s, Monsanto seeds are spreading disaster. Recently, Monsanto hybrid maize

seeds failed in more than 350,000 acres in about 11 districts of north Bihar.

Farmers of these districts are in deep distress because Monsanto sold its 700

metric tons of “Cargill hybrid 900M” maize seeds in the flood- prone areas of

north Bihar. Similarly, the water- intensive hybrid maize seeds were introduced

in the drought-prone regions of Rajasthan, which has put an extra burden of

chemical inputs and water on the Rajasthani farmers. Monsanto India Ltd., a

subsidiary of the US multinational, has been barred from selling seeds in Bihar

for allegedly marketing substandard products.

 

Bt cotton failed in India

 

The GEAC denial to commercialize Bt cotton in the northern states comes after

the massive failure of Bt cotton in the southern states of India. The GEAC, 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 commercialize Bt cotton in the southern states on March 26, 2002, and asked

for a year’s additional trials in the north. Though the official version about

the Bt trials by Punjab Agricultural University is not available, independent

studies by a citizen group found that the Punjab farmers have rejected the first

ever genetically modified commercial cotton hybrid seed, Bt cotton, due to its

poor harvest. Malwa, a cotton- rich area in southern Punjab, is highly dependent

on this cash crop, but successive failures have left farmers in the lurch. Bt

cotton had found many takers among farmers in Punjab when it was introduced.

Though the Punjab Agriculture University was

against the sowing of Bt cotton seeds, several farmers smuggled Bt cotton seeds

from Gujarat hoping for better results. The yield was, however, lower than

claimed. The Daula village sarpanch Mr. Darshan Singh said, “ ... We had to

spray chemicals 4–5 times on Bt cotton. The crops were attacked by various

pests, specially the American Bollworm. The Bt cotton yield was lower than that

of the local varieties, which are more profitable.”

 

Moreover, the Bt cotton seeds are costlier. Farmers who sowed Bt cotton got a

yield of 250 kg per hectare while the local variety yielded almost twice that.

The Bt cotton, however, requires less spraying than the local variety. “The

local variety yields bigger cotton bales, which are preferred by traders. And it

fetches more money for us. Marketing Bt cotton is difficult due to apprehensions

regarding it,” said Mr. Nidhan Singh, a farmer.

 

RFSTE conducted a study in the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra

Pradesh and Karnataka which showed that not only did Monsanto’s cotton not

protect the plants from the American Bollworm, but there was an increase of

250–300% in attacks by non target pests like Jassids, aphids, white fly and

thrips. In addition, the Bt plants became prey to fungal diseases like root rot

disease or fusarium. The Bt cotton varieties gave very low yields. Even the

staple lengths of what little cotton was produced were so short that the cotton

fetched a very low price in the cotton market.

 

Bt cotton does not give higher yields

 

Bt cotton was sold with the claim that it would give 15 quintals [1 quintal =

100 kgs] of yield per acre. However yields have been as low as 20 kgs in one

acre. On average, yields of Bt cotton are 1.2 quintals per acre in Maharashtra

and Andhra Pradesh; nowhere did Bt cotton yield exceed 4 quintals/acre at the

end of the harvest.

 

In Madhya Pradesh, in Badwani, Khargaon, Dhar and Khandwa districts, almost half

the 42 farmers visited reported that their crop had failed. Khargaon farmers

faced total crop failure. In the other districts, only one expected a yield of

12.5 quintals. The average yield expected by the others was 4.01 quintals, as

compared to the 15 quintals promised by Monsanto Mahyco.

 

In Karnataka, 15 of the 40 farmers visited in Bellary, Sirippupa, and

Haveri/Dharwad districts expected a total failure of their crops. The average

yield expected by remaining farmers was 3.82 quintals per hectare (ha, 2.47

acres).

 

In most of the fields visited in the month of late October 2002, the Bt cotton

plants were in a stage of maturity with leaves turning red before dropping off.

The non Bt on fringes looked far healthier, taller and more green than Bt

plants. The early maturity of the Bt crop could be caused by the toxin gene and

not due to environmental conditions since non-Bt varieties and other hybrid

cotton plants were healthy and lush green in October while Bt cotton plants had

started reddening.

 

It means that unlike other hybrid cotton, which yields up to March, Bt cotton

farmers could not get any yield after November–December.

 

In our view, this maturity factor could be caused by genetic engineering or

genetic engineering processes through which the Bt cotton has been developed.

This could also be due to the toxic gene in the Bt cotton plants. Even the CICR

is expecting a maximum yield of 4 quintals per acre in 10 acres of Bt cotton

being grown under the Institute Village Linkage Program (IVLP). Bt cotton

disappointed its growers and the yield was much below their expectation.

 

Bt cotton does not increase farmers’ income

 

The failure of Bt cotton has completely exposed the companies who are trying to

market their genetically engineered seeds at the cost of the farmers’ lives and

livelihoods and calls into question the GEAC clearance given to an unreliable,

untested, hazardous variety. The failure or drastically reduced yield of Bt

cotton has devastated Bt cotton farmers, who are faced with penury.

 

The incomes of Bt cotton farmers suffered not just because of low yields, but

also because of staple size. Monsanto Mahyco claimed a staple size ranging from

26–29 mm. In actuality, it is hardly 15–20 mm and fetched the rate of a short

staple cotton (around 1500 Rupees per quintal), while the normal rate offered

for best quality cotton is Rs. 2000 to 2200 per quintal. One of the buyers in

the Warangal Cotton Market, Mr. Sarangpani of K.N.R. Enterprises, said that Bt

cotton staples are only 6–7 mm long while the staples of good quality cotton are

32 mm.

 

The only paper that bolsters Monsanto’s claim to Bollgard (their Bt cotton seed

product) is a study by Matin Qaim (University of Bonn’s Center for Development

Research) and David Zilberman (Professor at the University of California in

Berkeley), published in the journal Science, which said that the Indian

experience with Bt is positive and yields have increased by 80%. Qaim and

Zilberman have used data provided by Monsanto-Mahyco, which is still not in the

public domain, to substantiate their claims. These claims have been rebutted by

internationally renowned scientists and experts. Shanthu Shantharam, a scientist

who has worked as a regulator with the USDA and is an authority on “pest

resistant genes in managed ecosystems” states that such an increase cannot be

attributed to a single Bt gene, calling it a “preposterous idea.”

 

The study is also rebutted by Dr. Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign, who said that

this paper extolling the outstanding performance of Bt cotton is based

exclusively on data supplied by the company that owns the Bt cotton,

Monsanto-Mahyco. Bt cotton, the first GM crop to be grown in India, was given

approval for commercial cultivation in March 2002, so this is the first harvest

of the Bt crop. The data presented in this sensational paper are, however, not

based on this harvest as one would expect but on a few selected trial plots

belonging to the company. No data from farmers’ fields or from the All India

Coordinated Variety trials conducted by the Indian Council of Agricultural

Research (ICAR) have been included.

 

This amounts to manipulating data since trial plots are experimental fields with

optimal conditions. The performance in real fields under normal cultivation

conditions is very different. Nowhere near these kinds of results are seen

anywhere else in the world where Bt cotton is being cultivated. In the US and

China, 10–15% yield increase is recorded. These sensational data have led to a

spate of media reports about the “superlative” performance of Bt cotton both

nationally and internationally. Such misleading reports can end up influencing

policy makers in a direction that could ultimately be detrimental to farmers,

and therefore must be publicly denounced.

 

Farmers, who according to GEAC’s earlier statements that they would earn an

additional income of Rs. 10,000 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 that of non Bt varieties but also Monsanto’s varieties need more fertilizer

and water.

 

The Indian experience with Bt cotton shows that it neither gives higher yields

nor increases farmers’ incomes.

 

Adverse environmental impacts of Bt cotton

 

Research conducted during the past few years at four domestic academic

institutions shows that Bt cotton is effective in controlling the primary pest

of cotton—bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hbner)—especially in the seedling stage

of cotton. However, laboratory experiments and field research also demonstrate

that there are adverse environmental impacts associated with the cultivation of

Bt cotton.

 

1. In Chinese studies there are no significant impacts on predatory natural

enemies associated with Bt cotton. However, there are associated adverse impacts

on parasitic natural enemies of cotton bollworm. Consequently, the populations

of parasitic natural enemies in Bt cotton fields are significantly reduced.

 

2. Bt cotton is not effective in controlling many secondary pests, especially

sucking pests. Field experiments showed that the populations of secondary pests

such as cotton aphids, cotton spider mites, thrips, lygus bugs, cotton whitefly,

cotton leaf hopper and beet armyworm increased in Bt cotton fields after the

target pest, bollworm, had been controlled. Some pests replaced bollworm as

primary pests and damaged cotton growth.

 

3. The diversity indices of the insect community, the pest sub community and the

pests’ natural enemies sub community, as well as the evenness index of Bt cotton

fields, are all lower than those in conventional cotton fields. However, the

pest-dominant concentration in Bt cotton fields is higher than in the

conventional cotton fields. Therefore, the possibility of outbreaks of certain

pests in Bt cotton is much higher.

 

4. Both laboratory tests and field monitoring have verified that cotton bollworm

can develop resistance to Bt cotton. Laboratory tests for selection of Bt

resistant bollworm indicated that susceptibility of bollworm to Bt cotton fell

to 30% after 17 generations under continuous selection with a diet of Bt cotton

leaves. The resistance index of the bollworm increased 1000 times when the

selection was continued to the 40th generation. Based on these results, the

scientists concluded that Bt cotton would probably lose its resistance to

bollworm in fields after the Bt cotton has been planted for 8–10 years

continuously.

 

5. Bt cotton demonstrates excellent resistance to the second generation bollworm

and chemical control is not generally needed for the seedling period of Bt

cotton.

 

6. However, the resistance of Bt cotton to bollworm decreases over time, and

control is not complete in the third and fourth generations. The fact that

farmers must use chemicals 2–3 times to control bollworm, particularly from mid

July to the end of August, has been commonly recognized in China, but there are

not yet effective measures to postpone resistance development or to resolve the

resistance problem. A high dose of the Bt toxin protein is considered difficult

to obtain, and the refuge mechanism is not easily implemented.

 

 

Note: The complete 19-page report with references is available on the

Synthesis/Regeneration web site, at: http://www.greens.org/s-r/33/shiva.pdf (pdf

format)

 

-----------------------

SUBSCRIPTIONS

-----------------------

 

http://www.gmwatch.org/sub.asp

 

archive

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

 

communications

ngin

 

websites

http://www.ngin.org.uk

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

directory

http://www.ngin.org.uk

 

donations to 'NGIN'

NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK

or e-mail for details: ngin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003