The genetically modified (GM) cotton on sale in India has been developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) in collaboration with the US-based life sciences major, Monsanto.
After three years of ‘satisfactory’ field trials and experimentation, and an additional year of trials to overcome the deficiency in the earlier research experiments, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) sought approval for commercialisation of the first genetically modified crop into the country. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, approved the commercial release of three out of four transgenic hybrid cotton varieties developed by Mahyco-Monsanto to be released in central and southern parts of the country. The approval however came with conditions, which are essentially aimed at pacifying the environmentalists.
The GEAC, for instance, asked the companies to ensure that farmers growing
Bacillus thuriengiensis (Bt) cotton keep at least 20 per cent of the land area under refuge cotton. Mahyco has also been directed to monitor and report incidence of any resistance build-up or second-generation susceptibility of the crop to the target insect pest (American bollworm); possible negative impact of pollen transfer to neighbouring fields etc. When reporters suggested that all these riders were difficult to be implemented, the chairman of the GEAC, Mr A.M. Gokhale, remarked: ‘if we can’t implement these decisions, it does not mean that we should not create laws.’
The stakes are obviously very high. A green signal by the GEAC to the controversial
Bt cotton, which has a gene inserted from a bacterium Bt, has opened the floodgates to the release of all kinds of genetically manipulated crops. Research on nine other transgenic crops are at various stages.
The reason for the approval of Bt cotton stems from the fact that intensive cultivation practices and indiscriminate use of conventional as well as fourth generation pesticides like synthetic pyrethroids have created resistance among some of the key pests, including the American bollworm. Dependence on chemicals has, in some cases, been so heavy that farmers often resort to a mix of several pesticides, the so-called ‘pesticides cocktail’, and it is not uncommon to spray more than 30 times per season. In recent years there have been instances where the cotton crop has failed as a result of weather conditions, pest outbreaks and resistance to some of the insecticides used. Coupled with low cotton prices, this has led many farmers to commit suicide, sometimes consuming the same chemicals to end their lives and escape the despair and humiliation of mounting debts. Some reports suggest that more than 10,000 cotton farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Punjab have committed suicide as a result, although the government disputes these figures.
Genetically manipulated cotton is now being promoted as the only solution to the growing menace of pesticides resistance. In to the bargain,
Bt cotton is being promoted as safe for the environment as well as animal and human health. What is, however, not being told is that introduction of
Bt cotton will push the farmers already faced with a ‘pesticide treadmill’ to suffer the onslaught of a hitherto unknown and dangerous ‘biological treadmill’.
The DBT, therefore, tried to address these issues by asking Mahyco-Monsanto to conduct experimentation over the past four years. The first trials, sown late, were held in 1998, and after its approval came from the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) constituted by the department, the results were put before the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), and finally before the GEAC. The next year, in 1999, the crop was sown two months late due to delayed permission coming from the State governments. And yet, the results showed positive performance. Both the committees, overlooking the scientific norms for conducting experiments, were ‘satisfied’. The next year too, the crop was sown late by three months and yet, the two committees approved the results.
Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 56, June 2002, page 19]