GM debate in India:
1.Environmental disaster in the making
2.Increase in acerage indicates its popularity
---

1.Environmental disaster in the making
Financial Express, November 20 2006
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=146846

Will GM crops reduce dependency on pesticides and protect the environment?

A recent Cornell University report has answered this question very well through a study done in China to assess Bt cotton that is in its seventh year of cultivation there. Growing secondary pest populations have slowly eroded the benefits of Bt technology, the study concludes, pointing out that total pesticide use and expenditure for Chinese Bt cotton farmers is the same as their conventional counterparts. The study shows a three-fold increase of pesticide use now compared to the initial years of Bt cotton adoption, taking back the Bt cotton farmers to nearly the same levels of pesticide use as before the advent of Bt cotton, thanks to such changes in farm ecology. This is inevitable, as any knowledgeable farmer would tell you.

Similarly, data from the US compiled from USDA data, 10 years after the adoption of GM crops, shows that the use of chemicals has only increased with GM crops even as super-weeds and super-pests (not easily controllable by the chemicals used earlier) are emerging.

Experience in India from various studies shows that sucking pests are higher on Bt cotton and the pesticide use has not come down as promised. Further, there are newer diseases emerging on Bt cotton - official monitoring by state governments records this.

It should be realised that even a few sprays of pesticides will damage the farm ecology by killing beneficial insects too and GM crops incidentally are not guaranteeing a complete elimination of such pesticides! They target only specific insects with their reductionist science. That is not the case with many non-chemical alternatives, however.

Very often GM crops are shown as part of an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) approach. A closer look will show that GM crops are actually defying many IPM principles. For example, IPM does not advocate a single chemical with the same mode of action and asks for alternation of methods/chemicals with different modes of action. In India, thanks to the generous giving away of the 'Bt' genes on a payment by some institutions, all major crops are being converted into Bt crops - Bt Brinjal, Bt Rice, Bt Tomato, Bt Cabbage, Bt Cauliflower, Bt Maize and so on. It does not take a genius to guess what kind of an environmental disaster this monoculture would lead to.

What is also interesting to note is that the biotech industry would like to paint itself environment-friendly while on the one hand, there are no guarantees against potential environmental hazards from GM crops and on the other, most major players in the biotech industry are selling agri-chemicals and have a major chunk in the pesticide industry themselves! The same players who thrust agri-chemicals down our throats are now saying that these chemicals are bad and therefore, GM crops should be adopted. How about getting accountable for the damage caused so far?

Important also is the recognition that pesticide reduction and elimination can be achieved through simple political will as the Indonesian example shows us. This does not require the answer of GM crops, which comes with a baggage of several undesirable, unpredictable and irreversible environmental and health hazards. One of the glaring problems with decision-making related to GM crops is that the rationale of pesticide use reduction is being employed for glossing over the many ill-effects that they bring along.

It should be realised that the basic problem that the farmer has begun with is pest management and not pesticide management. Our experience in thousands of acres of NPM (Non-Pesticidal Management of crops) shows that elimination of pesticide use itself is enough to restore farm ecologies and to improve the environment.

- The writer is consultant, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
---

2.Increase in acerage indicates its popularity
VR KAUNDINYA
Financial Express, November 20 2006

Will GM crops reduce dependency on pesticides and protect environment?

Genetically modified crops have been at the centre of agriculture, public policy and public debate during the last 10 years of their commercial existence in the world. Perhaps the most violently debated technology that is ever used in agriculture.

Insect resistance (Bt), herbicide tolerance, drought tolerance, etc are in the category of GM ‘input traits’. They change the pattern of use of inputs used by the farmer. Bt protein, that occurs naturally in a bacterium, is isolated and used to give plants the ability to resist certain insect pests.

Vitamin enriched rice, oil with modified fatty acid content, etc are the GM ‘output traits’. They alter the output profile of the crop. Bt protects crops from insects. The cotton farmers who wage daily battles with insects in their crop understand the enormous benefits brought by this technology.

The history of plant protection in Indian cotton puts Bt cotton technology in the right perspective. Cotton is attacked by four types of Bollworms causing heavy economic damage. Since the early 70s, the insecticide use on Indian hybrid cotton has undergone a continuous change. From the use of chlorinatedhydrocarbons (DDT & BHC) in the early 70s, the farmers moved to carbamates (carbaryl) and organophosphorous compounds (malathion, quinalphos, monocrotophos, phosphamidon, etc) by late 70s. In 1982, a new synthetic pyrethroid technology with a dramatically higher power, was introduced. Each generation of insecticides was an improvement in it’s toxicity profile, friendliness to environment and the power.

Many people would remember the large scale suicides by the cotton farmers in the late 80s in AP because they suddenly faced a secondary infestation of white fly which devastated the crop. While using synthetic pyrethroid technology, the farmers had to use resistance management techniques and alternate application of pyrethroids with conventional products.

While the 90s saw the achievement of a balance between the use of the synthetic pyrethroids and the conventionals, by the end of the decade the farmers were looking for something new. Then came two very high powered new insecticides which were instantly grabbed by the farmers inspite of their high cost.

The cotton farmer in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Punjab sprayed more than 15 rounds of pesticides in one season by the beginning of this decade. Against this background Bt cotton was introduced in 2002. The success of the technology is demonstrated by the huge increase in Bt cotton acreage since then to about 30 lakh acres in 2005 and an estimated 80 lakh acres in 2006.

Various studies have been conducted to measure the socio-economic and ecological impact of the GM crops in the world. A study titled "GM Crops: the global socio economic and environmental impact - the first nine years 1996-2004" by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot quantified the environmental benefits in the following way:

* the total volume of pesticide active ingredient (a.i) applied to crops has fallen by 6%

* In absolute terms the largest gains came from the adoption of GM technology in herbicide tolerance. The volume of herbicides used is now 4% less and the environmental ‘foot print’ is 19% lower than the levels that would have probably arisen if all of this GM crop area had been planted to conventional cultivars.

There is adequate empirical evidence which shows that the use of GM technology is resulting in a reduction in the use of pesticides with consequential benefits for the environment and the farmer.

- The writer is MD, Advanta India