2.Responses to "GM cotton: suicide seeds?"
NOTE: Item 2 gives other views on the same topic, particularly that of the role of Bt cotton in farmer suicides.
1.Scientist: GM technology has exacerbated pesticide treadmill in India
The Organic & Non-GMO Report, February 1 2012
Glenn Davis Stone is a professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. His research has focused on the operation of small farms for the last 30 years, focusing on sustainability, social organization of labor, settlement patterns, land conflict, indigenous knowledge, and intensification. Since 2000, Dr. Stone has focused his research on agricultural biotechnology and small farms. His primary field study has been the cotton belt of India, since genetically modified Bt cotton is India's first GM crop.
He says, "I am not an opponent or proponent of GM crops, and I have been quite critical of 'scientists' who act like activists on both sides of the issue."
*There are a wide range of opinions about the impact of genetically modified cotton on farmer suicides in India. GM proponents say suicides began before the introduction of GM cotton, while opponents blame Monsanto and the introduction of GM cotton seeds for the suicides. Where do you think the truth lies?
GDS: The biggest spike in farmer suicides was in 1998; this is well documented and received world attention (Wall Street Journal, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and other media outlets). This was four years before Bt cotton was released. There is a solid study by economists at IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) showing that suicides have not gone up with the spread of Bt cotton. As I have said in my articles, both sides of the debate are willing to use the suicide tragedy to further their own ends.
*The same can be said about the success of GM cotton in India. GM crop supporters say GM cotton has been a huge success in India, while detractors say it isn't. What is your opinion?
GDS: The question is impossible to answer simply or well. It is well documented that yields have been going up since Bt cotton was released in 2002. GMO enthusiasts routinely make statements implying that Bt cotton should get credit for any increase after 2002. But as I show in my recent World Development article, yields were on their way up anyway; 2002 was an unusually low point in cotton yields. By far the biggest jump in yields was between 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, which some cite as evidence that Bt cotton had an immediate impact, but only 1.3% of the cotton planted in 2003-2004 was Bt! Also, cotton yields have been declining every year since 2007. So while the net effect is a significant rise, the trend has been up sharply then down steadily.
*Has Bt cotton reduced pesticide use in India?
GDS: Yes, but that's not all there is to it. Cotton farmers were spraying ridiculous amounts of pesticide 10-15 years ago. Those with a vested interest in GM seeds will tell you the problem was bollworms, but cotton farmers have always dealt with insect problems. I would say the real problem was they were suffering from agricultural deskilling. I describe this in my published articles, but the gist of it is increasing reliance on rapidly-changing, "opaque" technologies. Introducing Bt cotton appears to be lowering pesticide use while increasing deskilling: curing a symptom while exacerbating the underlying cause.
*You have said that GM technology has exacerbated the pesticide treadmill problem. Why has that happened?
GDS: I would say it has exacerbated the technology treadmill. From a rapid procession of pesticide sprays we have gone to a rapid procession of gene constructs. The way that cotton entomology works is that there are two major classes of insect pests: bollworms and sucking pests. Bt cotton is designed to kill bollworms. Within a few years of its introduction, some bollworms were starting to show resistance; Monsanto actually reported this. To date it has not developed into a major problem, but most people believe it eventually will. In the meantime, there have been surges in populations of sucking pests. The same thing happened in China. So the use of insecticide sprays for sucking pests has been going up. As of a few years ago, there was still a net reduction in pesticide use, but the trends are disturbing. And Monsanto tells us they will keep providing new genes in the cotton; we can count on them. That is a treadmill. There is a lot of money to be made on unsustainability!
*You've discussed Bt cotton as a craze or fad. What is causing this? Are farmers buying the seeds because they see others buy it and feel they need to in order to succeed?
GDS: Well now farmers buy Bt seeds because they have little choiceit is very hard to find non-GM seeds any more. My research shows that with rapidly-changing, "opaque" seed technologies, farmers have a harder and harder time predicting the performance of seeds, and they turn increasingly to emulation. Of course emulation always plays some role in agricultural decision-making, but it has to be based on actual assessments. Careful records of seed choices in a large number of villages over several years show that villages tend to have fads.
*In general what is the cost of Bt cotton seed compared to non-Bt cotton seed in India?
GDS: Initially it cost four times as much in most areas, but with government intervention this dropped to about twice the cost of conventional a few years ago.
*In the US, I've heard reports from seed companies and farmers that varieties of non-GMO soybean and corn seed are becoming harder to find, leaving farmers with less choice and causing them to buy GM seed. Do you see this happening in India also?
GDS: With cotton, definitely. There is still a market for non-GM corn and soybean seed in the US for several reasons. One is that some Asian countries have been willing to pay a premium for non-GM crops.
© Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report, February 2012
2.Responses to "GM cotton: suicide seeds?"
Sam Mason says:
3 March 2011 at 10:16 am
Your article makes a mistake I think in relying exclusively on the IFPRI's stats rather than looking at informed reports rooted in the ground realities in cotton farmer suicide areas.
Here's an analysis that points up the severe limitations of IFPRI's stats http://db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1226402334-BtCottonAndSuicides.pdf and here's an excellent piece of investigative journalism from the big cotton growing belt of Vidarbha that shows the difference between IFPRI's picture on a macro level and the reality on a micro level, when examined farm to farm: http://www.columbiacitypaper.com/2009/11/10/the-suicide-belt/
The findings of that article are consistent with the accounts of others, for example those of P Sainath the renowned reporter on Indian development issues: that the hyping of expensive Bt cotton seed to poor indebted farmers working rain fed (i.e. non-irrigated) land has often been a disaster.
Your article also makes a mistake in accepting at face value the claims of reduced pesticide use with Bt cotton, given the reports of severe secondary pest problems with Bt cotton that have emerged in both China and India http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.242.html, and with even Monsanto acknowledging that resistance to Bt is starting to develop in India.
The short-term and long-term pictures turn out to be very different. The work of the anthropologist Glenn Stone also shows the dangers for poor Indian cotton farmers of simplistic assumptions about technological interventions like Bt cotton
Devinder Sharma says:
4 March 2011 at 12:56 pm
Yes, I agree with the previous comment. You are bound to make a mistake if you rely on IFPRI analysis. IFPRI is an agribusiness lobbying firm masquerading as a research institute.
IFPRI paper says, according to the author, that Bt cotton has brought down the use of chemical pesticides. This is completely untrue. The Central Cotton Research Institute (CICR) estimates that in 2006 pesticides worth Rs 6400 million were sprayed on cotton. In 2008, it had increased to over Rs 8000 million.
Secondly, do GM crops increase yield, my answer is a big No. I would draw your attention to one of my previous write-ups on this controversial claim. http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/feb/dsh-scicoverup.htm
Then the legitimate question that follows is that if it does not increase yield than how come the area under Bt cotton has multiplied in India? This is because the seed industry (with help from the government) has ensured that no non-GM cotton seed is available in the market. Non-GM seed has simply disappeared from the market. Since farmers mainly use hybrid cotton (and Bt cotton too is a trait inserted in hybrid cotton varieties) in India, farmers have to buy fresh seed every year. But with no non-GM seed available in the market, they end up buying only bt cotton.
I know a number of instances where seed companies have through their agents (employed on temporary basis) gone into the villages buying back non-Bt seed from the farmers.
And finally, the author may also find it useful to read my response to the flawed analysis that Science journal had published several years back on the potential of Bt cotton. http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-gm-crop-increase-yield-answer-is-no.html
Bella Brown says:
5 March 2011 at 1:30 am
I read this IFPRI paper and came to a very different conclusion from the one Mark Lynas reaches. The paper states bluntly that the data is just not available that would enable conclusions about the numbers of Bt cotton farmers who have committed suicide: "None of the reported data sources on farmer suicide provide information about the concerned farmers' characteristics”¦ In the absence of such data, we can only provide a second-best assessment of the evidence."
The IFPRI paper goes on to say there are not even numbers on how many of the Indian farmers who committed suicide grew cotton, let alone Bt cotton, or on how many farmers committed suicide after their crops failed. The IFPRI authors say their findings do not allow them to "reject the potential role of Bt cotton varieties in the observed discrete increase in farmer suicides in certain states and years".
However the lack of proper data doesn't stop the authors making a valiant attempt to endorse Bt cotton. In the process, they are forced to do quite a bit of 'creative accounting' for example, blaming drought rather than Bt cotton for farmer suicides, when it is well known that Bt cotton often performs poorly in drought conditions.
This IFPRI paper is hardly a resounding endorsement for the success of Bt cotton.