Panel to decide on Bt cotton today

mumbai: arif manwa, who has been planting bt cotton for about two years, is looking at a farm ravaged by pests. his tragedy is echoed by several of his neighbours, all of them small cotton farmers who had planted the `wonder seeds'' of bt cotton.
these genetically modified (gm) seeds were expected to kill the dreaded bollworm, but arif''s farm reveals that the pests in his area have become resistant to the bt toxin.obviously, something has gone wrong with the bt experiment.
although arif''s story is unfolding in sulawesi, indonesia, it holds great� salience for india. india''s genetic engineering approval committee (geac) is meeting today to decide whether commercial cultivation of bt-cotton should be allowed in the country.
many farmers and agrobiotech companies eagerly await what is by most accounts going to be a heads up to bt-cotton cultivators. however, many environmentalists and scientists fear that legalising bt-cotton cultivation could herald a new environmental and economic quandary for the country.
scientists explain that the pest-resistant trait of bt-cotton is unlikely to hold up in india because the country''s agricultural conditions are dramatically different from conditions in north america, where bt-cotton was originally developed. they say that to gauge the stark contrast between indian and american conditions, one should consider the instructions issued by the united states environment protection agency for bt-cotton cultivation. ``at least five acres of non-bt cotton should be planted for every 95 acres of bt-cotton. the size of this five-acre `refuge'' (which is a buffer zone where bollworms can feed) should be at least 150 feet wide.''''
``leave aside refuges, even many of our fields are not 150 feet wide. our tiny land holdings are separated not by five acres of buffer zones but more often by small gutters. given the indian cheek-by-jowl agricultural conditions and the country''s heavy pest load, a rapid breakdown of resistance __ as seen in indonesia __ is inevitable,'''' says suman sahai, founder of gene campaign, a non-governmental environmental movement.
the breakdown of bt-cotton''s pest resistance will mean that farmers will have to start using pesticides again. this has already begun in australia, where the transgenic and insect management strategy committee of the australian cotton growers research association has advised its farmers to spray additional insecticide since ``the bt is failing to control the target pest it was introduced for''''.
more importantly, a widely used, ecofriendly pesticide __ the bt bacteria __will no more be available for use on cotton or on other crops.
monsanto, the multinational company which developed bt-cotton, has countered that to deal with the resistance problem, it is now working on a cotton plant which will have two toxin-producing genes. currently, bt-cotton has one toxin-producing gene from a soil-borne bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis.
environmentalists wryly respond that this strategy of producing gm plants with an increasing number of toxin-producing genes is similar to the past ruinous strategy which forced farmers to use more and more toxic pesticides. ``when fourth generation pesticides were introduced in india, there was great excitement __ not unlike the excitement welcoming bt-cotton. for the first two-three years, the pesticides killed everything, including bollworms. but� soon, insects developed resistance, leading to even more poisonous sprays, and then failed harvests and mounting debts for farmers,'''' recounts a senior official in the ministry of environment and forests, who wished to remain anonymous. by some accounts, a very large number of cotton farmers across the country have committed suicide in the last two decades. their debts and despair have been triggered at least partly by the vicious chemical cycle� which backfired on them.
will the seeming reprieve offered by bt-cotton end up as similarly� short-lived manna? vandana shiva, a leading environmentalist, admits that this is a very real danger, especially since gm crops are being brought into india at a time when the vast majority __ farmers, journalists, government, and scientists __ have not studied the implications of gm technology. ``india''s biosafety ignorance makes it gullible to corporate propaganda, and doesn''t allow us to act on our rights and responsibilities,'''' she says.
ironically, the farmers who have been badly hit by the chemical trap of pesticides are the ones most loudly clamouring for bt-cotton. they are joined by politicians, be it the chief minister of punjab or the agriculture minister of gujarat, economists, and members of the media in criticising the regulatory body, the geac in the ministry of environment and forests, for insisting on field trials to ascertain the suitability of bt-cotton in indian conditions.
these critics bemoan that india''s agricultural productivity and global� competitiveness are being held back. they point to china and how its bt-cotton is racing ahead in export markets without any apparent environmental or social costs.
ms shiva deflates the myth of china''s bt-cotton success by pointing out that the country is exporting more cotton because previously closed markets are liberalising, and not because of bt technology. ``commentators are confusing the consequences of trade with technology,'''' she says.
moreover, little biosafety or environmental data has emerged from china, adds ms sahai. according to her, the absence of data does not mean that there has been no environmental damage, but that there are no regulatory and monitoring processes in place. ``there are many environmental catastrophes in china, but the data might never be collected and will definitely not be allowed to leave the country easily,'''' she says. ``after all, china is not only the country of export successes but also of the cultural revolution and the great leap forward in which several millions of people were killed and the world didn''t know about this until decades later.''''
experts further assert that china is arguably the worst political template for india. ``political and technological questioning is not easily allowed there, especially if these go against policies of the party high command. expecting india to adhere to a similarly non-transparent dictatorial system is not only foolhardy, it is dangerous for our people,'''' asserts the bureaucrat from the� ministry of environment and forests.
``in no democratic country have gm crops been introduced in a hurry. only countries like china have hurriedly heralded them in,'''' affirms ms shiva. in this context, it is worth noting that the united states took about a decade before allowing large-scale gm cultivation. some countries in europe have outright banned gm crops. in other countries such as britain, where there is� no commercial gm cultivation, gm food has been one of the most contentious topics of public debate in the last decade.
as the debate in india on the pros and cons of gm crops builds up, few are calling for an outright ban on all gm crops and gm research. even critics of bt-cotton acknowledge that there are significant advantages to be reaped from this new technology __ be it in developing drought-resistant grains or higher yield pulses. ``it is more a question of whether we are going to be strong-armed into using gm crops in a hurry through a combination of aggressive multinational promotion and domestic gullibility and corruption, or whether we will adopt this technology selectively, under proper regulation, at our own pace, and on our own terms,'''' sums up ms sahai.