Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk
ISIS Press Release 26/01/05
GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Rhea Gala
A <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.php>fully referenced
version of this article is posted on ISIS membersā website.
<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php>Details here
GM cotton not environmentally friendly or safe
Cotton is responsible for more than 10% of world pesticide use
including some of the most hazardous, and 25% of all insecticide use.
As weeds and insects become resistant, more and more pesticides are
needed in a vicious circle that's a recipe for socio-economic, health
and environmental disaster. About half of the GM cotton grown in the
United States is herbicide resistant, and a comprehensive analysis by
Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former Executive Director of the Board on
Agriculture of the US National Academy of Science, confirmed that it
required more herbicide than conventional varieties.
Most GM cotton crops worldwide are engineered with Bt for resistance
to insect pests and promoted by firms like Monsanto as
environmentally friendly, because they need less pesticide.
Monsanto's GM cotton 'Bollgard' carries the cry1Ac gene from soil
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt) to produce a toxin that kills
some cotton pests including the boll weevil. However, Bollgard does
not resist sucking pests, such as aphids, that might also damage the
crop and will therefore require subsidiary spraying.
GM cotton not friendly to farmers
GM cottonseed prices include a 'technology fee' that can go up every
year, and is calculated on supposed savings from reduced pesticide
use with the Bt variety in a particular location.
All farmers growing Monsanto's Bt cotton sign a contract, called a
Technology Use Agreement that is strictly applied. It stipulates that,
Farmers cannot save seed for replanting
Farmers are prohibited from supplying seed to anyone else Farmers
must pay 120 times the technology fee, plus the legal fees of
Monsanto, if they violate the contract.
The Indonesian experience: A cautionary tale
Indonesia was the first country in Southeast Asia to permit
commercial GM farming against the warnings of scientists and
activists on the environmental and socio-economic impacts.
Fortunately, permission was granted only on a year-by-year basis, and
the government reviewed the impact of the failed Bt crop.
The review was scathing. This "Gene Revolution", it said, seemed to
be "a modern tool for cementing farmers' dependence on seeds and
transnational agrochemical corporations appearing in developing
countries in different guises." The evidence from Indonesia is that
"GM crops are nothing more than a profit-motivated deployment of
scientific power dedicated to sucking the blood of farmers."
Monsanto promised Bt cotton would return 3-4 tonnes of cotton per
hectare while requiring less pesticide and fertilizer than Kanesia,
the local cotton variety. The seed was given to farmers with
pesticide, herbicide, (including Roundup) and fertilizer as part of a
credit scheme costing sixteen times more than non- Bt cotton. In
fact, the average yield was 1.1 tonnes per hectare and 74% of the
area planted to Bt-cotton produced less than one tonne per hectare.
About 522 hectares experienced total crop failure. Despite that, the
government extended approval for Bt cotton for another year; and the
results were no better.
In 2001 farmers signed contracts, but in 2002 the seed price rose and
the cotton price slumped. Farmers had no choice but to shoulder the
debt and sell at the company's rate; as a result, 76% of farmers who
joined the credit scheme couldn't repay their debt and many burned
their cotton in protest against the government and the company (see
"Broken promises", SiS 22 <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php>).
In 2003, Monsanto halted operations saying that the Indonesian
Government's decision to authorize Bt cotton production on a
year-by-year basis had been a big obstacle to business investment. PT
Monagro Kimia, a Monsanto subsidiary, was under investigation by the
US Department of Justice and the Indonesian Corruption Eradication
Commission on suspicion that a payment of US$ 50 000 was made to
Indonesian officials in 2002.
In January 2005, Monsanto was found guilty of authorising the bribe
and fined $1.5m (see "<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCCHHTAL.php>GM
cotton: corruption, hype, half-truths and lies", this series).
Bt cotton in India: Lessons not learned
Bt cotton entered commercial production in India in 2002 without
comprehensive assessment for detrimental effects, and despite fierce
protests by farmers and public interest organizations. Only six of
India's 29 states in the south and the west of the country have had
permission to plant Monsanto's Bt cotton. Four strains of Bt seed
were available with at least one Indian variant of the licensed
Monsanto varieties.
A 2002 study of Bt cotton in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh
found a 35% reduction in the total yield of Bt cotton with a net loss
of Rs 1295, compared to a net profit of Rs 5368 for non-Bt cotton. Bt
cotton yield was 50% lower than that promised by Monsanto. Bollworm
were predominant on both Bt and non-Bt crops showing that Bt cotton
was ineffective against its target pest.
In 2003, there was 30% more rainfall than in 2002, and a new Bt
hybrid compared favourably with the previous year; however it was
still 9% less profitable than the non-Bt hybrids.
In 2004, farmers in the state of Andhra Pradesh grew Bt cotton on 10%
of the cotton acreage. Half of the farmers growing Bt cotton bought
licensed seed from Monsanto at 1 500 rupees per 400 gm packet, while
the other half bought unauthorised hybrid Bt seed at between Rs 800
to 1 200 per packet. Non-Bt hybrid seed cost farmers about Rs 400.
Farmers found that, with fluctuating weather as in 2002, much of the
crop showed signs of wilt, and although some Bt cotton recovered from
severe moisture stress, the yield was very poor compared to non-Bt
types; also the yield from the unlicensed Bt cotton was better than
Monsanto's seed because drought tolerant females had been chosen for
crossing to produce the hybrid. Monsanto is now demanding royalties
of 70% from these seed producers.
Many Bt plants were small with few bolls that were infested with
bollworm and other pests, including cercospora leaf spot, so the
cotton had been neither high- yielding nor resistant to bollworm as
promised by Monsanto. On 12 October, hundreds of farmers in Warangal
district protested on the streets where the seed and pesticide dealer
shops were located and demanded compensation for their losses,
staging a sit-in on the highway. A second protest took place two days
later when senior officials promised to attend; a Monsanto official
was subsequently kidnapped. Meanwhile there has been a bumper harvest
in non-GM cotton.
Bt cotton in China
Monsanto received a permit in 1997 for commercial production of Bt
cotton in China and has since shared the Bt cotton market with
domestically developed varieties that have expanded quickly over the
country's cotton-growing area.
China has been held up as the success story in GM cotton, and is the
key to statistics claiming benefit for small farmers from GM.
However, earlier warnings of major problems have now been confirmed
by a Chinese researcher who reports that the technology will not only
be useless within six to seven years, but "could cause a disaster".
Liu Xiaofeng, a researcher from Henan, China's second largest cotton
producing province, told Reuters that the cotton bollworm is indeed
developing resistance and will not be susceptible to Bt cotton after
20-30 generations, or in six to seven years. Moreover, Bt cotton does
not effectively control secondary pests such as Lygus bug.
The early warnings appeared in a study published in June 2002 based
on the work of scientists at a research institute funded by China's
Environmental Protection Agency. It found that although Bt cotton was
effective in bollworm control, it had adverse impacts on the
parasitic natural enemies of bollworm, and was not effective in
controlling many secondary pests that damaged the crop. The study
also found the diversity indices of the insect community in Bt cotton
fields to be lower than in conventional cotton fields, and that the
cotton bollworm could develop resistance to Bt cotton.
Liu's work has received further collaboration by another study
published in October 2004, which found that Bt cotton did not reduce
the total numbers of insecticide sprays because additional sprays
were required against sucking pests.
Field trials in Africa
South Africa, already the sixth biggest producer of GM crops in the
world, grows Bt cotton on large and small commercial scales,
extolling the benefits to small farmers in spite of the serious debts
incurred.
Although there is a glut of cotton in the world market and depressed
prices caused by US subsidies to their own growers worth $3.7 b per
annum, the US government and the world's biggest agrochemical
companies are putting pressure on West African countries to introduce
Bt cotton, the 'trojan horse' for other GM crops waiting in the
wings. In West Africa there are wild relatives of cotton that may be
contaminated, but in the US, GM cotton is prohibited in Florida where
wild relatives grow.
In November 2003, USAID, with the official support of the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, declared that it
wants to 'GM-ize' Africa.
Mali's National Agricultural Research Institute has been negotiating
with Monsanto and Syngenta for field trials of Bt cotton. There is a
plan to convert the country's crop to GM varieties over the next five
years; local farmers and the public are unaware of this intention.
West African farmers, already unable to sell enough natural cotton
because of subsidies, are locked into a cycle of poverty with credit
against next years harvest.
Burkino Faso has been field-testing Bt cotton since July 2003 in
collaboration with Monsanto. But Francois Traore, president of the
National Union of Cotton Producers, says, "If we already have the
means to reduce pesticide use, why look for things that are going to
complicate life?" Benin has had a moratorium on GM products since
March 2002, but is under constant pressure to introduce Bt cotton.
Senegal ran an unofficial field trial of Monsanto's Bt cotton, but
efforts were abandoned after the cotton failed to perform. Egypt has
a pro GM policy with field trials underway for Bt cotton and many
other crops. Kenya has many research institutes pushing GM crops, and
research on GM cotton is under way. Uganda has just published its
first biosafety policy bill, which has yet to be made law by
parliament, however it is expected to take up Bt cotton soon.
Zimbabwe: The government destroyed some unsupervised field trials of
Bt cotton conducted by Monsanto some years ago.
The Americas
In the US, home of Monsanto's Bollgard first planted in 1996, there
have been problems with erratic and disappointing yield, especially
in Southeast Arkansas where costs were significantly higher on Bt
acreage. In 2002, despite the use of supplementary pesticides, 7.5%
of the Bt crop was destroyed by bollworm and 1.4% destroyed by
Spodoptera and Pseudoplusia includens caterpillars. The total
insecticide use has remained relatively stable due to the increasing
importance of secondary pests; it is lower in dry states such as
Texas, but increasing in the Mississippi delta.
Research on Bollgard cotton adopted in North Carolina, conducted
between 1996-2003 by Jack Bacheler, North Carolina State University
Extension entomologist found changes in insect communities, and that
while damage from bollworms decreased, stink bug problems have
increased.
In 2004, Bt cotton was grown in nine states and comprised more than
75% of all cotton grown. Most varieties are Roundup Ready (RR) or RR
and Bt combined [1]. The proposed 'technology fee for Bollgard II was
US $99 ha in 2004, this is to be added to the seed price.
Bt cotton is also grown in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Columbia. In
Columbia the vice-president of the biosafety council works for
Monsanto and was thus able to both apply for and grant permission for
release of a Bt crop in an area that is a centre of origin for some
wild cotton species. Moreover, the pest responsible for 70% of
pesticide use on cotton is the picudo, which is not targeted by
Monsanto's cotton. The small farmer will once again lose out due to
this folly.
Overproduction of cotton devastating the environment and destroying
poor farmers
World overproduction of cotton, a crop that degrades the environment
by escalating requirement for pesticide, demand on scarce water
resources and exhaustion of soil, is a subject for serious concern in
its own right. Large commercial plantings - which attract subsidies
in rich countries - create monoculture deserts and distort world
markets. As a result, the poor producer in the south, who has
traditionally grown a crop of one or two hectares, descends into a
spiral of debt. The aggressive introduction of GM cotton will
exacerbate all the problems of the conventional crop and, in
developing countries, nullify centuries of successful local crop
breeding by farmers, destroying their autonomy and control of seed,
their livelihoods and cultural traditions.
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCFATW.php
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/