www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

A new study on the introduction of Bt cotton in Vidarbha reveals that it has
failed in the region. Suman Sahai, Director of Gene Campaign, told
journalists on Wednesday that despite specific knowledge that Bt cotton
would not work in rainfed areas, the government had introduced it in
Vidarbha, February 2007.

The result was that in an area with a history of indebtedness, the high
input costs of Bt cotton had increased indebtedness. The study had shown
that 70 per cent of small farmers had already lost their landholdings as
collateral for loans that they could never repay.

The Gene Campaign study, which will be ready in four to five weeks,
consisted of a technology adoption study to look at how Bt cotton was
adopted in Vidarbha. It is based on interviews with around 500 cotton
farmers from Amravati and Yavatmal districts. Preliminary data shows that
farmers who had adopted Bt cotton had a net lower income than non-Bt cotton
farmers.

Dr. Sahai said that Bt cotton did better in irrigated areas and that it was
a mistake to introduce it in an area like Vidarbha. It did not perform well
in the region because inputs costs were high, including the cost of the
seeds, there was an abundance of spurious seeds and the technology had been
adopted without any preparation of the farmers for the complex management
practices that were needed. Seed dealers, she said, encouraged farmers to
buy far more fertilizer and pesticide than was needed, thereby raising their
input costs. They promised farmers that they would get between 12 to 15
quintals per acre when the actual production was in the range of three to
five quintals per acre. At the same time cotton prices came down with the
import of Chinese cotton. The study reveals that on average, farmers who
adopted Bt cotton lost Rs. 1,725 per acre. "Such economics cannot work," she
said.

The study revealed that many farmers adopted Bt cotton because they believed
it was a "government seed" and did not know that it was privately produced
and marketed. They also accepted it because the government was actively
promoting the technology. While local officials, like the Agriculture
Commissioner of Amravati, were aware of the failure of Bt cotton, the state
agriculture department continued to promote it. "The role of the government
has been irresponsible and damaging," said Dr. Sahai.

Dr. Sahai also pointed that Bt was a limited time technology. In the United
States, where it has been introduced 10 years ago, it had already developed
resistance. This was also happening in China. In India, she said, "we are
seeing resistance earlier because of rampant proliferation of illegal seeds
and the wrong techniques being used."

The Bt technology was not need driven but supply driven, said Dr. Sahai.

She stressed that cotton farmers had not demanded it and that in any case,
the expression of the Bt cotton gene worked for only 90 days while Indian
cotton took 160 days to mature. In other words, during the crucial period
when the crop needed protection from pests, it remained unprotected.

Side effects

The study had also collected anecdotal evidence about other side effects of
Bt cotton on plants and animals.

For instance, cattle deaths had been reported in areas where they grazed in
harvested Bt cotton fields, women working in cotton fields had complained of
rashes, and there were reports that mango trees were not flowering.

Despite such reports, the government had not conducted tests to establish
whether any of this could be attributed to the introduction of Bt cotton.
The impact of cotton oil, extracted from Bt cotton, on human and animal
health had also not been considered.

Dr. Sahai said it was essential to conduct safety tests and also put in
place a regulatory system before any new technology is introduced.

[www.hindu.com]