Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
export. Prior to the introduction of Bt cotton, farmers in India had to apply large
amounts of broad-spectrum insecticides to control the main pest, the cotton boll-
worm. Surveys showed that 10 to 20 sprays were often used by farmers. In some
years, these applications were not effective as insects developed resistance to the
pesticide or farmers were sold spurious products. The chemicals were also toxic to
the applicators, who in many cases were poor, landless labor. Bt cotton appeared
on the scene in the late 1990s when Monsanto and a local seed company (Mayco)
were given limited license to test Bt lines in secure fields by the government regula-
tory organization. At the time, there was a moratorium on growing transgenic crops
commercially in India. In 2001, there was a severe outbreak of the cotton bollworm
that decimated much of the cotton and resulted in many farmers becoming bank-
rupt, with several committing suicide. However, in Gujarat State, India, some fields
remained green and productive (Herring, 2007). These fields had transgenic Bt cot-
ton grown by some farmers who had obtained seed illegally. The government tried
to burn all these plants and prevent them spreading to other farmers. But, the farm-
ers refused to accept this, and eventually the government lifted its moratorium and
approved Bt cotton in 2002. By 2006, Bt cotton in India had risen to 3.8 million ha.
Farmers are finding they get more yield (less insect damage) at less cost (less pes-
ticides purchased) and so more profit. So, instead of Bt cotton being the culprit for
the suicides as suggested by some GMO opponents, it is actually the solution. This
example is used to demonstrate that biotechnology and development of transgenic
crops has great potential for resolving many world food problems in the future. The
issue at the moment is a skeptical public, who probably need to be better informed
about the advantages this technology can bring to farmers and better understand the
issues of biosafety and ecological risks. Note that in the early 1900s the public were
similarly against the use of pasteurization in milk. Today, it is accepted as a normal
safe procedure.
There is still a lot of controversy over this technology. Issues include health, ecol-
ogy, bioproperty, and politics. The first transgenic crops were planted commercially
10 years ago. In that time, many of the biosafety and ecological concerns of the
public have not arisen. There were some scares about allergies and some reports of
negative effects on rats fed transgenic crops, but none of these health issues have
been any different from those with traditional crops. There are also coordinated
regulatory frameworks in most countries that regulate transgenic organisms and
require data on biosafety and environmental impacts before issuing a license to the
company to continue development and release in agriculture. Transgenic crops are
regulated much more severely than traditional crops, which highlights the public
concern for this technology. Regulation also adds substantial cost to the development
of these crops and the eventual cost to the end user. Ecological risks that include
transfer of transgenes to local wild species and possible development of super species
is another area of concern. Development of resistance to the transgene, especially
if the transgenic variety resulted in farmers only growing that variety, also poses a
problem. However, this is also the case for nontransgenic varieties and is addressed
through resistance management. These concerns seem to be much less important
than first thought 10 years ago, with little evidence it has occurred, although in the-
ory it should happen. There are also issues of cost, ownership, and the domination of
