Bt Cotton: An Investigation of its Social Implications in India. By: Olivia Price

Transcription

1 1 Bt Cotton: An Investigation of its Social Implications in India By: Olivia Price Imagine you are a smallholder cotton farmer in India. Your crops are your livelihood, and they support your financially-struggling family. You hear about Bt Cotton, a breed of seeds that wards off pests, increases yields, and raises profits. While purchasing these improved seeds seems like an opportunity worth investing in, you learn of another farmer who purchased them and received no benefits. In fact, the seeds caused an outbreak of stronger pests and diminished both his yields and his profits. Do you invest in this potentially advantageous seed brand that also runs the risk of substantial crop failures, or maintain current, more predictable methods, and continue to struggle to make ends meet? This is a dilemma many smallholder farmers face today in India. To understand the social implications of Bt Cotton in India, it is necessary to comprehend the science behind the technology. The seeds are a form of biotechnology, which is the modification of an organism s genetic material to manufacture a beneficial product. These products genetically modified organisms (GMOs) made their first round on the market in the 1990s and have since gained word-wide popularity among farmers, thanks to the marketing and large-scale production of biotechnical corporations (e.g. Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Novartis, and Mitogen.) The But toxin is derived from the naturally-occurring bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and is designed to harm cotton s primary enemy: the bollworm. The University of California San Diego s Aroian Group, which devotes its research to studying the interactions between worm pests and various drugs, explains how the toxin works: when ingested by the moth larvae,

2 2 the bacterium identifies and binds to receptors on the insect s gut. This binding initially causes the worm to cease eating; however, the toxin s effects are much more drastic. Bt produces proteins that amass to form crystals. These crystals eat away at the lining of the gut, punching holes throughout it. The new openings allow Bt spores to enter and germinate, leading to the worm s death. Indeed, Bt Cotton sounds like an effective, preventative method in inhibiting the bollworm destruction of cotton crops. Yet, unexpected problems are starting to arise. Professor of biotechnology at Delhi s Indraprastha University, Nandula Raghuram, explains that farmers initially purchase Bt seeds because they are told yields are 80 percent greater than non-bt strains in test trials. Now that the seeds are more commercially used, this is hardly the case. In 1996, Science Magazine s Jocelyn Kaiser explained that globally thousands of acres of Bt Cotton fields had been under attack from bollworms, one of three pests the GM crops are supposed to ward off. Now, in addition to paying top dollar for Bt Cotton seeds, farmers must purchase more pesticides. Strong pest resistance is not so much a flaw of the technology as it is the unstoppable biological process that allows bollworms to rapidly evolve such that eventually the Bt toxin will no longer affect it in the intended manner. In the Journal of Economic Ecology, experts explain that to produce crops resistant to insects and weeds, biotech companies pump the Bt toxin, and others, into the seed all at once. Scientists warn that the use of multiple GM toxins at one time, versus one at a time, allows insects to develop strong resistance to pesticides. Jocelyn Kaiser claims that while pest resistance is a possibility for all forms of pesticides, the resistance resulting from the use of GM plants develops at a faster rate than spray-based pesticides. This is because GM plants constantly release toxins, exposing the insects to the pesticide more often,

3 3 which facilitates beneficial evolution for the insects. This resistance forces farmers to purchase even higher doses of insecticides, which is extremely costly. To benefit fully from Bt Cotton, the practice of planting refuge crops is advised. Refuge crops are the portions of cotton fields that farmers reserve specifically for the mating of wild, nonresistant bollworms and Bt-exposed, resistant bollworms. The refuge areas are designed to border and/or exist throughout the pesticide-ridden crops in order to ensure controlled pest populations. University of California San Diego s Aroian Group explains that it is the combination of genes that ensures future generations of non-bt resistant bollworms. Examples of recommended agricultural field designs can be observed in the image below: Photo courtesy of the Aroian Group Notice from the graphic that in order to be considered a refuge crop, the non-bt strains should be adjacent, within, or near the Bt strains. In the U.S., the EPA requires farmers to incorporate refuge crops into their Bt fields, in patterns resembling the above image, in order to ensure pesticide resistance does not spur superbug outbreaks in crops. With the implementation of refuge crops in countries like the U.S., it is safe to say that GM seeds alone are not enough to repress bollworms indefinitely. The seeds may be able to provide the initial resistance, but it is the refuge crop that maintains the resistance, which is arguably the most important part. However, as Kong-Ming Wu, professor and head of the

4 4 Institute of Plant Protection at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and colleagues illustrate in their study of Bt Cotton, the biotechnology may be affective in the U.S., but it is far harder to implement such regulations and education in rural, agricultural villages elsewhere. Quantitative data may show the agronomic strengths of Bt Cotton, but it is the social scientist s task to analyze why many Indian smallholder farmers are not able to reap the benefits of the seed and, in fact, find themselves in even more debt. It is the social scientist who highlights what others disregard: Bt Cotton seeds are unsuitable for Indian agriculture due to increasing pest resistance and the mounting dependence they trigger along rural constituencies. Farmers notice these miracle cotton crops and the money large-scale farmers make and perceive the seeds as an opportunity to get their families out of debt. They invest their money and lives into these seeds, but with the ever-increasing pest resistance to the Bt toxin, farmers are forced to pay even more for pesticides, in addition to expensive GM seeds. According to a report by Hina Nazli, doctor of food, agricultural and resource economics, the already-expensive Bt seeds require a technology fee (usually $32 per acre,) making them a higher price than traditional, non-bt seeds. Indian farmer indebtedness is attributed to Bt varieties not being suited to local conditions. A sample study performed by Orphal in 2005, utilized in a 2008 International Food Policy Research Institute, showed that Bt Cotton varieties perform better with irrigation systems than with the rain-fed conditions that most Indian farmers use for crops. As reporter Jayashree Nandi points out, the indigenous cotton seeds are more beneficial because of their natural ability to resist the harsh conditions (i.e. drought) often associated with Indian agriculture. However, due to the widespread use of Bt seeds (90% of cotton production in India is Bt Cotton

5 5 production) and cross pollination, indigenous seeds are hard to find. This forces farmers to keep purchasing biotech seeds, despite potential crop failures and indebtedness. In addition to the unfortunate loss of traditional seeds that GM seeds are causing in India, the adoption of biotechnology promotes monoculture farming, which strays, yet again, from India s indigenous methods. A monoculture agricultural system is ill-suited for a place where, according to the May 2007 edition of Global Researcher, 60% of the population relies on agriculture for income. Farmers plant various crops in addition to cotton, like corn and soybeans. These all, unfortunately, also act as hosts for bollworms. Planting only one kind of crop forces farmers to put all of their eggs in one basket and rely on the success of one cash crop. This is a risk that many farmers are understandably unwilling to take as it is too expensive and requires top-notch farming technologies, e.g., irrigation systems. These are technologies that most Indian farmers do not have the means to obtain. In the U.S., the EPA regulates pest resistance by requiring farmers (who on average farm 250 hectares of land) to plant refuge crops as a buffer for pests. There is no equivalent in India. This policy is specifically designed for monoculture systems, out of reach for smallholder farmers in India who need every bit of their 2.3 hectare farm to make a living. Consider this: 20% of 2.3 hectares are reserved strictly for the breeding of nonresistant bollworms compared to 20% of the average American farmer s 250 hectares. The amount of risk involved in the Indian smallholder farmer s operation is much more significant than that of a large-scale American farmer. While quantitative measurements have weight in assessing the effects of GM cotton seeds in India, it is equally essential to assess qualitative measurements. Quantitative data demonstrates biotechnology does increase yields; however, that does not dismiss its negative

6 6 effects in India and other agriculturally-dependent nations. The biggest threat to the wellbeing of smallholder farmers is the ever-increasing resistance of the cotton bollworm. Farmers resulting indebtedness, due to high prices of Bt Cotton seeds and additional pesticides, is the driving social implication of the technology. This social implication is additionally attributed to the promotion of Bt Cotton seeds in countries incapable of reaching the technology s full potential. Indian agricultural areas are comprised of small, multi-crop farms owned by families dependent on the farms successes for income. Because these families are financially unable to set aside the recommended refuge crop cover, Bt Cotton seeds are unable to resist pests to the intended capacity. Furthermore, the disappearance of indigenous cotton seeds leaves farmers stranded in a vicious cycle, becoming Photo courtesy of Global Hand dependent on the foreign biotechnology market. This threatening lifestyle is something that quantitative measurements often overlook. The social science behind this delicate situation in India indicates the need of cautionary measures and further research before any additional heavy promotion of the Bt Cotton seeds.

7 7 References GM in India: the battle over Bt cotton. (2006). SciDevNet. Accessed on 5 Feb Retrieved from Gruère, G., Mehta-Bhatt, P., & Sengupta, D. (2008, October). Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India Reviewing the Evidence. International Food Policy Research Institute. Accessed on 15 Jan Retrieved from Nandi, J. (2013, August 16). Karnataka farmer develops non-bt cotton seed bank. Accessed on 5 Feb Retrieved from Nazli, H. (2010, December). Impact of Bt cotton adoption on farmers' wellbeing in Pakistan. Accessed on 15 Jan Retrieved from proquest.com Tabashnik, B., Carrière, Y., Dennehy T., Morin, Sisterson M., Roush, R., Shelton, A., and Zhao, J. (2003, August). Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: Lessons from the Laboratory and Field. Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 96, Issue 4, pp Accessed on 28 Jan Retrieved from bioone.org The University of California San Diego s Aroian Group (n.d.) Bacillus thuringiensis. Accessed on 21 Jan Retrieved from bt.ucsd.edu Tojiksodirotbonk, Tajikistan's Third-largest Bank Lends a Hand to Cotton Farmers. Global Hand. Accessed on 14Feb Retrieved from Wu, K., Lu, Y., Feng, H., Jiang, Y., & Zhao, J. (2008, Sept. 19). Suppression of Cotton Bollworm in Multiple Crops in China in Areas with Bt Toxin Containing Cotton. Science, New Series, Vol. 321, No. 5896, pp Accessed on 1 Feb

8 Retrieved from 8