Cotton is more than just a fibre for textiles.

It is also an important source of raw materials used in animal feed and for various processed food ingredients. Many countries are now growing genetically modified cotton. In China, GM cotton could drastically reduce pesticide use. Cotton fibres used in textiles around the world come from the seed hairs of a plant known as Gossypium hirsutum. Cotton, which is cultivated on five continents, develops in closed, green capsules known as bolls that burst open when ripe, revealing the white, fluffy fibres. After harvest, the fibres must be separated from the seeds. The protein- and oil-rich seeds can be processed into various sideproducts that are used in food and feed: Cottonseed oil is a high-value cooking or frying oil and is sometimes used to make margarine. The oil is also a source of vitamin E (tocopherol). Protein-rich cottonseed meal is mostly used as animal feed. Some, however, is used for protein preparations and cottonseed milk.

A bollworm on a cotton boll. Insect pests are a problem for cotton.

Bt cotton is an alternative to chemical insecticides.

Leftover fibres that are too short to be spun into textiles consist almost completely of cellulose and can be used as food additives. Cellulose (E 460) and methylcellulose (E 461) can be used as thickeners, stabilisers, emulsifiers, or fillers.

Bt cotton cultivation in many countries

GM cotton has become widespread, covering a total of 15 million hectares in 2007, or 43 percent of the world's cotton. Most GM cotton is grown in India and the US, but it can also be found in China, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, Mexico, and Columbia. The GM cultivars grown today are resistant to herbicides or insect pests. More than half (68%) of China's cotton production is genetically modified to produce a substance (Bt toxin) that protects it against insect pests. A few types of caterpillars are especially problematic because they bore into cotton bolls reducing yield and compromising quality. Cotton used to be protected from insects by repeated pesticide applications. Bt cotton has now enabled Chinese farmers to dramatically reduce pesticide use. The production of GM cotton has not yet been approved in the EU. Applications have been submitted, but a decision is still pending. Several lines of GM cotton have been approved in the EU, but only for use as food and feed.

Genetically Modified Cotton: Much Higher Yields

07.02.2003 Genetically modified (GM) pest-resistant cotton may provide yields up to 80 per cent higher than traditional types. This has been observed by scientists from the University of Bonn and the University of California at Berkeley in field trials in India. Their conclusion: peasants in the tropics and sub-tropics can benefit substantially from GM plants. These findings are surprising, since it has hitherto only been possible to detect very minor increases in yield, if any, in similar studies in temperate climate zones such as the US and China. The researchers are publishing their results in the forthcoming issue of the prestigious journal Science (Vol. 299, No. 5608) on 7th February. The enemy is small, but greedy: the bollworm destroys a large part of the worlds cotton crop every year; farmers spray insecticide up to 20 times a year to combat this most important cotton pest. In 1997, therefore, Monsanto launched a type of cotton on the market which is largely resistant to this pest: Monsanto scientists had introduced a bacterial gene into the plant which contains the blueprint for a very specific insect poison. What is known as Bt cotton (Bt stands for the gene donor Bacillus thuringiensis) produces its insecticide itself, so to speak. On more than one third of Chinas total cotton-growing area this GM type is being grown; the use of pesticides has been reduced by over 70 per cent. Pesticide pollution, which used to be the norm, has been greatly reduced. However, the yield only increased by a maximum of 10 per cent; in GM soya beans scientists have sometimes even noticed slight reductions in yield. However, the pressure from pests in the US or China, where the studies have been taking place up to now, is considerably less than in the tropics and sub-tropics. Also, chemical pesticides are less affordable to farmers in those poorer countries. For example: whereas in the US insects only destroy about 12 per cent of cotton production annually, the losses in Indias small farm sector amount to 50 to 60 per cent. Dr. Matin Qaim of the University of Bonns Centre for Development Research (Zentrum fr Entwicklungsforschung, the ZEF) has therefore been investigating the success of Bt cotton in India together with Professor David Zilberman from Berkeley. In 2001, a successful field trial was started, involving 395 farms from seven Indian states. In three adjacent fields the farmers were to plant Bt cotton, the same sort without the resistant gene and a third type which is a popular local hybrid. The use of insecticide for the Bt cotton was on average 70 per cent less than for the two other types; however, the yield was more than 80 per cent higher. Despite the higher costs for the seeds, the farmers were able to increase their income five-fold with the GM type. Admittedly, infestation with bollworm was particularly high in 2001, Dr. Qaim cautions. In preliminary studies with fewer farmers between 1998 and 2001 we were able to detect an average increase in yield of 60 per cent. The Bt cotton findings are basically also applicable to food plants. Particularly regions in the tropics and sub-tropics, which are under severe pressure from pests could benefit from GM plants with increased pest resistance, the scientists conclude. We expect the biggest increases in yields to take place in South and South-East Asia and in Central and Southern Africa, i.e. precisely in those areas with the highest population growth, which are especially dependent on increasing yields. Even so, Qaim argues in favour of taking the potential risks of green genetic technology seriously. In all the previous studies Bt cotton has been proved to be harmless to humans and the environment; however, we should test each new application on its individual merits. He recommends that the production of GM seeds should not simply be left to the big companies, since the dependence of developing countries on the developed nations would then increase further. However, in his view this problem cannot be laid at the feet of gene technology: It is in our hands to create the general conditions which enable this promising technology to be made available to the poor at affordable prices.

Cotton Research Filed trials Approvals Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, adaptation to local factors EU 76 in many countries EU 6 (11 applications) many in the USA, Japan and additional countries USA, China, India, Argentina, Brazil and additional countries Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance Food and feed from GM cotton are on the market; not cultivated in the EU

Cultivation Traits Perspectives Agriculture

Worldwide, cotton plants are cultivated primarily in tropics and subtropics and also in arid, warm climate regions in moderate latitudes. India, China, the USA, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Brazil are the leaders in the cotton production. In Europe cotton is cultivated in Greece, Bulgaria and Spain. Utilisation Cotton is a natural fibre that is won out of the seed hairs of the Gossypium hirsutum plant. Cotton has been processed into natural textiles for a long time. In the 19th century, the cultivation of flaxseed for the linen production strongly decreased in Europe because cotton replaced this local plant. In the 20th century, polyester fibres competed with cotton. At the beginning of the 21st century for the first time worldwide, more textiles from synthetic fibres than from cotton were produced. After the harvest, the fibres are separated from the albuminous, fatladen seeds. During processing, by-products that are used as food and feed accrue: Oil: the high-quality cotton seed oil is utilized for cooking and deep frying, as well as in margarine. Whole grain: the albuminous pellet is used primarily for feed. It is also a the base for protein compounds and isolates, as well as for cotton seed milk. Linters: These very short, non-textile fibres cling to the cotton seeds. They consist almost exclusively of cellulose. Various food additives such as thickening agents, stabilizers, emulsifiers or fillers are made from these.

Renewable resources

Genetically modified cotton stops one bug but fosters others

A Chinese crop designed to thrive without pesticides needs them again.

May 16, 2010|By Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times

o o o o o o
The widespread planting of a genetically engineered crop designed to withstand a menacing pest has had the unanticipated consequence of transforming benign bugs into agricultural predators, according to a new study.

Emai l

Shar e

In findings that drive home the difficulty of trying to stay one step ahead of nature, scientists explain how farmers of bioengineered cotton in northern China were able to drastically reduce their insecticide use for more than a decade, only to find themselves spraying a crop that wasn't supposed to need such measures.

Ads by Google

Crop ManagerPredictive data for proactive decisions - every day. dataintoprofit.com What Happens When You DieNew scientific theory says death isn't the end RobertLanzaBiocentrism.com

The genetically engineered plants were designed to withstand attacks from the cotton bollworm by growing their own pesticide a deadly toxin that was originally discovered in a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Splicing the Bt genes into the cotton plants' DNA has kept the bollworm at bay. Opponents of genetically engineered crops had warned that insects like the bollworm would inevitably breed resistance to the Bt toxin. So far, that hasn't happened. Instead, the crops effectively created a new category of pests called mirid bugs. Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center in Beijing documented that as adoption of Bt cotton rose and pesticide use declined mirid bugs did more damage to cotton crops. What's more, the growing population of hungry critters also devoured crops of Chinese dates, grapes, apples, peaches and pears. In essence, the introduction of genetically engineered cotton transformed the fields into a habitat that enabled mirid bugs to thrive and spread, the researchers reported Thursday in the journal Science. Researchers from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., first noticed the problem in 2004, when they surveyed 481 farmers in five Chinese provinces. They suspected something was amiss when they discovered that Bt cotton farmers were using more pesticides than farmers planting conventional cotton. "That made no sense to us," said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, a professor of food, nutrition and public policy at Cornell who oversaw the survey. Then they realized that mirid bugs had emerged as secondary pests. "They had had a field day because farmers were using very little pesticide, since they didn't have to spray for the bollworm," said Pinstrup-Andersen, who published his findings with colleagues. "Over time, the farmers had to go in and use pesticide again." Historically, mirid bugs were considered minor pests in China. Insecticides sprayed on conventional cotton took care of the bugs, and the need for additional measures arose "only sporadically," according to the study team. That began to change in 1997, when genetically modified cotton was approved for use in China. The plants use genes from the Bt bacterium to make a toxin that lodges in the cell walls of an insect's digestive tract. That causes cells to swell and break apart, with lethal results. The toxin is not harmful to higher animals, including humans. By killing off insect larvae, Bt cotton also benefits conventional corn, peanut, soybean and vegetable crops, the researchers found in a previous study. Today, 95% of the cotton grown in China is genetically engineered.

Cotton farmers in Arizona faced the same dilemma after they began planting Bt cotton in 1996 and the absence of pesticides made fields safe for lygus bugs, a type of mirid bug. Farmers there dealt with the problem by using targeted pesticides that spared insects like ladybugs that feed on lygus bugs, said University of Arizona entomologist Bruce Tabashnik. "The lesson here is that Bt cotton is not a silver bullet," said Tabashnik, who nonetheless endorses the crop for its role in reducing the need for anti-bollworm pesticides. There's no reason to think that other types of genetically engineered crops would be immune to this type of problem, PinstrupAndersen said. Ultimately, he said, the solution is to develop genetically modified plants that are resistant to a variety of insects, but that will be a continuous process. "We have to constantly stay ahead of those things," he said. karen.kaplan@latimes.com Times staff writer Amina Khan contributed to this report.

Genetically modified cotton gets high marks in India

Engineered plants increased yields and profits relative to conventional varieties.

Gayathri Vaidyanathan

03 July 2012

Indian cotton farmers see higher yields and greater profits with Bt cotton than with conventional strains. J. Boethling/Alamy

Article tools

Print Email Rights & Permissions

o o o o o o

Share/bookmark
Connotea Facebook Delicious Twitter Digg Friendfeed

Smallholder farmers in central and southern India who planted genetically modified (GM) cotton achieve larger yields, greater profits and a higher living standard than those who grow conventional cotton, finds a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences1. The study includes data collected from 533 farm households between 2002 and 2008. During that time period, almost all of the farms switched from conventional to Bt cotton, which contains genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that make the plants resistant to the cotton bollworm caterpillar. The analysis showed that the yield of plots planted with Bt cotton increased by 24% compared with conventional cotton plots. This translated to a 50% increase in profits, and during 200608, families that adopted Bt cotton spent 18% more money than conventional farming households, suggesting an increase in living standards. The benefits were due solely to reduced pest damage, say Matin Qaim, an agricultural

economics researcher at the Georg-August University of Gttingen and Jonas Kathege, his PhD student. When you are going to farmers, and interviewing them and visiting them, and over time you could see the living standard had improved, says Qaim. Some had furnished their houses, and many of them were eating more. Similar benefits have been seen globally a 2010 review of 168 farmer surveys from 12 nations found positive overall benefits from planting GM crops2.

Related stories

War on weeds loses ground Misplaced protest India investigates Bt cotton claims

More related stories Bt cotton was officially approved for sale in India in 2002. Before that, a bollworm infestation could halve yields. Within a decade, Bt-cotton was adopted by nearly 7 million farmers, and they cover 97% of the area planted with the crop today. Yields have doubled, and insecticide use has halved. But researchers have debated how much, if any, of the yield increase can be attributed to the Bt technology. Farmers who buy expensive GM seeds also start irrigating and applying fertilizer to protect their investments, so any observed increase may be due to better farming. The surveys also tend to sample wealthy, progressive farmers who can afford the seeds and who are skilled enough to get high yields regardless of technology. Qaim says that his study has accounted for some of this bias by using a statistical model that controls for unobserved variables, such as better farming habits and skill levels, that can increase yield. This allowed the researchers to attribute the observed benefits to Bt, he says.

Limits of surveys
But farmer surveys may not always reflect the contribution of Bt to average cotton yields in India as a whole, warns Guillaume Gruere, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC. The study is based on the data you get so, even though these are original surveys, you dont get into all the states and it wont cover every situation, says Gruere. Just like in a political poll, there will be a margin of error. In India, cotton is grown in a variety of soil types, weather conditions and pest burdens, and what is true in southern and central India may not be true in the north. In fact, the benefit may not be consistent across all farmers in the states sampled.

This inconsistency is reflected in statistics collected by the Indian government. The largest yield ever recorded in Maharashtra, the largest cotton growing state in South and Central India, was an average of 1,065 kilograms of cotton per hectare in 2010, according to the Cotton Corporation of India. This is much lower than the highest individual yield reported in the latest study, which was 2,072 kilograms per hectare, says Keshav Raj Kranthi, director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research in Nagpur, India. Other reports using government statistics have also shown more modest increases in yield3. The extent to which the Bt genes are responsible for any benefits is still in question, says Kranthi. But overall, Bt cotton seems to be advantageous for Indian farmers. The Bt technology is brilliant, he says. You cant imagine farmers will make a choice if there is no economic benefit. Journal name: Nature DOI: doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10927

References
1. Kathage, J. & Qaim, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1203647109 (2012). Show context 2. Carpenter, J. Nature Biotechnol. 28, 319321 (2010). o Article o PubMed o ISI o ChemPort Show context 3. Gruere, G. P. & Sun, Y. International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper 01170 http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01170.pdf (2012). Show context

Related stories and links

From nature.com
War on weeds loses ground
22 May 2012

Misplaced protest
09 May 2012

India investigates Bt cotton claims

14 February 2012

Transgenic grass skirts regulators

20 July 2011

Kenya set to give green light to GM crops

11 July 2011

GM maize offers windfall for conventional farms

07 October 2010

A Limit to Gains From Genetically Engineered Cotton

By SOPHIA LI

Geneticall y modified cotton in a field near New Delhi.

Since genetically modified cotton was introduced in India a decade ago, its popularity has skyrocketed. Last year more than seven million farmers there used insect-resistant varieties of the crop. As engineered versions of the crop have become more prevalent in India, its use has drawn sharp criticism from activists who argue that the corporations that develop and distribute modified seeds have done little to improve farmers yields. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that growing genetically modified cotton instead of conventional varieties has indeed increased Indian farmers yields and boosted their profits. At the same time, the researchers warn that pests could evolve to reverse those gains. Farmers were first able to grow genetically modified cotton in India in 2002, when the countrys Genetic Engineering Approval Committee approved three varieties of seeds developed by Monsanto and Mahyco, an Indian seed company. (Genetically modified cotton plants contain genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which makes them toxic to bollworms. This allows farmers to avoid using conventional pesticides but protects the plants from the insects, which bore into the plants cotton-bearing boll and eat the fibers inside.) That same year, Matin Qaim, one of the papers authors and an agricultural economist at Germanys Gttingen University, began interviewing cotton farmers in central and southern India for his research. His group asked several hundred farmers with small holdings on average, 10 to 15 acres in size about their farming, including how they fertilized their plots, the yields they obtained on each plot of cotton they planted

and what they spent on health care. Every other year until 2008, the researchers returned to the same farmers, using the same detailed battery of questions. After collecting four rounds of data from more than 500 farms in total, Dr. Qaim and a graduate student, Jonas Kathage, looked at the farmers cotton yields profits as well as their household expenditures, a marker of the farmers standard of living. They found that using the modified seeds increased the farmers cotton yields by 24 percent and their profits by 50 percent. Farmers harvests improved mainly because the genetically altered plants suffered less damage from insects, Dr. Qaim said; profits grew as a result of the larger yields. The researchers analysis compared harvests from different plots and seasons within a single farm, he said. This controlled for other variables that might contribute to a difference in yields, like the skill and education level of the farmer and the type of fertilizer used, he said. Switching to modified seeds eventually yielded tangible improvements in the lives of farmers and their families, according to the researchers analysis. Growing genetically altered cotton had little effect on households spending in the initial years of the study, but their expenditures including spending on health care and education went up in 2006 and 2008. This suggests that farmers waited to see if their increased profits would continue before starting to spend more, Dr. Qaim said. But as genetically modified seeds take over cotton production in India in 2010, socalled Bt cotton plants covered about 90 percent of the land used to grow the crop in India, according to a report by the Central Institute for Cotton Research farmers may cease to reap added benefits from their use, Dr. Qaim said. Because the modified seeds are used so widely, bollworms may develop a resistance to the toxins, he explained. Although farmers are planting more and more acres with cotton, their productivity seems to have plateaued; cotton yields have not increased since the 2007-8 growing season. A technology can lift yields, but once you have lifted yields, what else can that technology do? Dr. Qaim said.

GM crops good for environment, study finds

Plants engineered to repel pests use less pesticides, allowing natural insect predators to thrive and spread to non-GM fields

Share307 Email Damian Carrington The Guardian, Wednesday 13 June 2012 18.00 BST
Jump to comments (216)

GM cotton grown in a field in Dali county, Shaanxi province, China. The plant produces a toxin lethal to insects but harmless to people. Photograph: Nelson Ching/Getty Images Crops genetically modified to poison pests can deliver significant environmental benefits, according to a study spanning two decades and 1.5m square kilometres. The benefits extended to non-GM crops in neighbouring fields, researchers found. Plants engineered to produce a bacterial toxin lethal to some insects but harmless to people were grown across more than 66m hectares around the world in 2011. Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China's vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields. "Insecticide use usually kills the natural enemies of pests and weakens the biocontrol services that they provide," said Professor Kongming Wu at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, who led the research team. "Transgenic crops reduce

insecticide use and promote the population increase of natural enemies. Therefore, we think that this is a general principle." Professor Guy Poppy, an ecologist at the University of Southampton, said the scale of the work gave "robust" results that ended a long-running debate pitting plant scientists against ecologists. "The argument was that, with Bt crops needing no pesticide spraying, other pests would go crazy so you would subsequently have to spray lots more pesticide," he said. But the study shows this did not happen for aphids, a major pest. "This is also the first time it has been shown comprehensively that the surrounding fields benefited from being next to GM crops." With the global population rising quickly towards an expected 9bn in 2050, food demand is rising fast. Poppy said: "The research demonstrates that, when managed properly, GM crops can enable you to intensify agriculture sustainably." But he noted: "GM crops are neither all good nor all bad and GM is not going to feed the world overnight. But it is a very powerful tool and should be kept in the tool box." Previous work by Wu had shown that one pest, the mirid bug, has increased since Bt cotton was introduced, one reason why pesticide use has not dropped further than 50%. The new research, published in the journal Nature, monitored both insect pests and predators between 1990 and 2011, during which time Bt cotton swept aside traditional GM cotton. It examined 36 sites across six big cotton-growing provinces in northern China, where about 2.6m hectares of cotton and 33m hectares of other crops notably maize, peanut and soybean are grown each year, by more than 10 million smallscale farmers. The Bt cotton is designed to kill cotton bollworms and does so very effectively: it is virtually absent in cotton fields. But it does not harm aphids, which are also a major pest for cotton and other crops. Nevertheless, the researchers found that, despite the large reduction in pesticide use, aphid populations plummeted by two-thirds after Bt cotton was introduced. This was due to a doubling of natural predators, which eat a wide range of pests. "As one of the measures for pest management, transgenic crops have a great advantage," said Wu. He noted that predators usually disperse widely and can attack a range of pests: "Not only can they synchronously attack different insect pests in one field, but they can also colonise different habitats in different seasons." The scientists concluded: "Broadly speaking, the deployment of Bt crops may favour biocontrol services and enhance economic benefits not only in Bt crop fields but also in the whole agricultural landscape." The team also state that, while difficult to conduct, further large scale and long term studies are needed to determine the effect of other types of GM crops on wildlife. "We should take encouragement from this research," said Professor John Pickett, the leader of a GM wheat trial at the Rothamsted research institute which required police protection against protesters in May. "It shows the technology works to control pests, reduces pesticide use which is why it is so popular in China and the US and has

the added benefit of looking after the predators that could have been killed by the pesticides." He said: "GM cotton is actually quite a crude use of genetic engineering, but it was a first use this technology developed 30 years ago with government funding. It is a prelude to our own second generation crops, which will actively use the predator insects, not just help them." The wheat in Pickett's trial is being developed to produce a pheromone used by aphids as a chemical alarm signal, because the pheromone also attracts the predators of those aphids. There are billions of tiny parasitic wasps naturally present, Pickett said, but currently they do not arrive early enough at the crop to stop the aphid causing economic damage."

Genetically modified cotton and farmers' health in China.

Hossain F, Pray CE, Lu Y, Huang J, Fan C, Hu R.

Source
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-8520, USA.

Abstract
This study provides the first evidence of a direct link between the adoption of a genetically modified (GM) crop and improvements in human health. Estimation of the impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton adoption on pesticide use from data from a survey of cotton farmers in northern China, 1999-2001, showed that Bt cotton adoption reduced pesticide use. Assessment of a health-production function showed that predicted pesticide use had a positive impact on poisoning incidence. Taken together, these results indicate that the adoption of Bt cotton can substantially reduce the risk and the incidence of poisonings.

Detecting un-authorized genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived materials.

Holst-Jensen A, Bertheau Y, de Loose M, Grohmann L, Hamels S, Hougs L, Morisset D, Pecoraro S, Pla M, den Bulcke MV, Wulff D.

Source
Norwegian Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 750 Sentrum, 0106 Oslo, Norway.

Abstract
Genetically modified plants, in the following referred to as genetically modified organisms or GMOs, have been commercially grown for almost two decades. In 2010 approximately 10% of the total global crop acreage was planted with GMOs (James, 2011). More than 30 countries have been growing commercial GMOs, and many more have performed field trials. Although the majority of commercial GMOs both in terms of acreage and specific events

belong to the four species: soybean, maize, cotton and rapeseed, there are another 20+ species where GMOs are commercialized or in the pipeline for commercialization. The number of GMOs cultivated in field trials or for commercial production has constantly increased during this time period. So have the number of species, the number of countries involved, the diversity of novel (added) genetic elements and the global trade. All of these factors contribute to the increasing complexity of detecting and correctly identifying GMO derived material. Many jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU), legally distinguish between authorized (and therefore legal) and un-authorized (and therefore illegal) GMOs. Information about the developments, field trials, authorizations, cultivation, trade and observations made in the official GMO control laboratories in different countries around the world is often limited, despite several attempts such as the OECD BioTrack for voluntary dissemination of data. This lack of information inevitably makes it challenging to detect and identify GMOs, especially the un-authorized GMOs. The present paper reviews the state of the art technologies and approaches in light of coverage, practicability, sensitivity and limitations. Emphasis is put on exemplifying practical detection of un-authorized GMOs. Although this paper has a European (EU) bias when examples are given, the contents have global relevance. Copyright 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A genetically modified cotton plant, which makes up 35 percent of China's crop, is damaging the environment despite its success in controlling the bollworm, according to a report released in Beijing Monday. The plant, Bt transgenic cotton, harms natural parasitic enemies of the bollworm and seems to be encouraging other pests, according to the study by the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIES) under the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA). Researchers have seen a significant decrease in populations of the bollworm's natural parasitic enemies. Bt transgenic cotton, containing anti-bollworm genes from certain bacilli, is in large-scale commercial production in China and the planting area was estimated to top 1.5 million hectares last year, accounting for about 35 percent of the total area planted in cotton, according to the Cotton Research Institute under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The report says that the diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks of certain pests, said Xue Dayuan, the NIES expert in charge of the report. Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests, the report says. Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation. New GM organisms and products can benefit agriculture and many other industries, but people should always beware of the long term and underlying impacts on the environment, said Zhu Xinquan,chairman of the Chinese Society of Agro-Biotechnology which jointly hosted the seminar with the NIES and Greenpeace China. China is a centre for diversity of several plants such as the soy bean and faces the problem of how to protect original genes from imported GM products. (Xinhua News Agency June 4, 2002)

GM cotton

In the early days of the Ord River Irrigation Area (ORIA) cotton was a promising crop, but had to be abandoned because of uneconomic yields caused by enormous insect problems. With the advent of insect-resistant GM cotton varieties from 1996, trials on the Frank Wise Institute proved that cotton could be grown successfully. Progress of this industry is summarised in the GM cotton factsheet or in more detail in the Ministerial Reference Group report published in 2007. Research involving the Department of Agriculture and Food, CSIRO and other industry parties resulted in publication of the NorPAK report which provides basic agronomical information for those considering growing cotton in the north, or seeking details of its recommended management.

Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India

1. 2. Jonas Kathage1 and Matin Qaim1 1. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, D37073 Goettingen, Germany
1. Edited by Calestous Juma, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved May 15, 2012 (received for review March 2, 2012)

+ Author Affiliations

Abstract
Despite widespread adoption of genetically modified crops in many countries, heated controversies about their advantages and disadvantages continue. Especially for developing countries, there are concerns that genetically modified crops fail to benefit smallholder farmers and contribute to social and economic hardship. Many economic studies contradict this view, but most of them look at short-term impacts only, so that uncertainty about longer-term effects prevails. We address this shortcoming by analyzing economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt cotton in India. Building on unique panel data collected between 2002 and 2008, and controlling for nonrandom selection bias in technology adoption, we show that Bt has caused a 24% increase in cotton yield per acre through reduced pest damage and a 50% gain in cotton profit among smallholders. These benefits are stable; there are even indications that they have increased over time. We further show that Bt cotton adoption has raised consumption expenditures, a common measure of household living standard, by 18% during the 20062008 period. We conclude that Bt cotton has created large

and sustainable benefits, which contribute to positive economic and social development in India.

Kenya set to give green light to GM crops

Bt cotton first in line for open release. Natasha Gilbert

Cotton that uses genes from Bacillus thuringiensis to fight pests is likely to be the first crop approved under Kenya's new rules for genetically modified organisms.Daniel Pepper/Getty Images
Kenya is expected to become the fourth African country to allow the commercial production of transgenic crops. The country's National Biosafety Authority is due to publish long-awaited regulations governing the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in open fields for research and commercial purposes. Kenya follows Burkina Faso, Egypt and South Africa in giving commercial production of GM organisms the go-ahead. Kenya's agricultural researchers say the move could not come soon enough, as the absence of regulations was stalling research. "Without the regulations, projects can't move forward into unconfined trials where crops are released into the environment and their performance is tested under different climatic and soil conditions," says Simon Gichuki, crop scientist and head of the biotechnology centre at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in Nairobi. Pest-resistant cotton The first transgenic crop likely to be put forward for approval for open trials and commercial release is Bt cotton which has added genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium, making the plant produce toxins that confer resistance to some insect pests. A Bt cotton variety is being developed for Kenyan farmers at KARI. According to the regulations it will take a minimum of three months to get the green light for environmental release after permission is sought from the authorities. Next in line will be Bt maize (corn), also being developed by scientists at KARI, says Gichuki. Other crops undergoing confined field trials include virus-resistant sweet potatoes and drought-resistant maize, he says.

Kenya passed a biosaftey law in 2009 which allowed the commercial production of transgenic crops in principle. These regulations set out the details of how the law will be implemented, including rules governing experimental lab work and confined field trials, and the import, export and in-country transport of GM products. For example, when seeking permission to release a transgenic product into the environment or place it on the market, applicants must submit a risk assessment and set out all the uses of the GM crop to the Kenyan biosafety authority. The authority will screen the submissions for accuracy and completeness and must make a decision within 90 and 150 days. The authority must inform the public of all applications for environmental release by, for example, publishing notices in a least two widely circulated newspapers, the draft regulations say. Setting regulations Permission for environmental release is granted for a period of 10 years, after which consent must be re-sought. Once a product has been released for 20 years with no reported risks to human health and the environment, it can continue to be released or placed on the market without further approval. Breach of the regulations could result in a fine of up to 20 million Kenyan shillings (around US$221,000) or imprisonment for up to 10 years. Francis Nang'ayo, an ecologist and regulatory affairs manager at the African Agriculture Technology Foundation based in Nairobi, describes the regulations as "precautionary but facilitating the development of biotechnology". "Biotechnology has the potential to help solve some agricultural and health problems in Kenya. So it should be harnessed, but safely," he explains. For example, Kenya is suffering from a shortage of maize, in part because a drought has destroyed large swathes of local farmers' crops. Without the regulations, Kenya is unable to import the white variety of maize Kenyans like to eat as the majority of this is transgenic, says Gichuki. Nang'ayo says Kenyan farmers are keen to adopt new technologies, including transgenic crops, that will enable them to produce greater volumes for less money. Dissident voices But not everyone is in favour. Anne Wanjiku Maina, advocacy coordinator for the African Biodiversity Network, an anti-GM group based in Thika, Kenya, believes the patenting of seeds is "unethical" and "undermines farmers' rights to save seeds". ADVERTISEMENT

< div><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/news@nature.com/;abr=! NN2;artid=articleone;pos=left;sz=300x250;ptile=2;ord=123456789?"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/news@nature.com/;abr=! NN2;tile=1;ord=123456789?" alt="Advertisement" /></a></div>

"Our public research institutions must shift their focus back to farmers' needs rather than support the agenda of agribusiness," she said to Nature. Kenya has the strongest economy in east Africa and will set an example to other countries in the continent, including Nigeria and Ghana which are taking steps to improve national provision for biotechnology and biosaftey. "If Kenya succeeds it will have an impact on others to follow," says Getachew Belay, biotechnology policy adviser for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) a regional trade block. Belay is leading efforts to create common biosafety rules between COMESA member countries. (See 'Transgenic harvest')

The use of genetically modified (GM) crops for food divides opinion, especially when it comes to Africa. Sharp views on the technology in the developed world, honed by more than a decade of arguments in Europe and elsewhere, are too easily projected onto Africa, with the continent portrayed as a passive participant in the global melodrama over GM food. So it is heartening to see a group of 19 African nations working to develop policies that should make it clear to all sides in the debate that Africa can make up its own mind.

After more than nine years, talks between member states of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) have produced a draft policy on GM technology, which was sent for national consultation last month. COMESA is a trade bloc, and its proposals aim to develop research and trade in GM crops. But they also state that decisions should be based on sound science and evidence.

Under the proposals, a nation that wants to grow a GM crop commercially would inform COMESA, which would then carry out a science-based risk assessment COMESA seems to have sufficient access to scientific expertise to fulfil this role. The body would judge whether the crop is safe for the environment and human consumption. If the assessment proves positive, blanket approval would probably be given for the crop to be grown commercially in all COMESA countries. National governments would retain the power to decide whether or not to proceed.

Risk assessments are currently left to individual countries, but this requires scientific expertise, money and a well-established regulatory system. That combination is rare in Africa, and only four countries Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Kenya have passed laws specifically to govern GM organisms. This helps to explain why there are so few GM crops grown commercially across Africa. Even field trials of GM crops are scarce, although tests of a banana engineered to resist bacterial disease will begin in Uganda this week (see Nature doi:10.1038/news.2010.509; 2010).

Under the COMESA plan, the African nations are consulting on a biosafety road map to guide the development of national regulations on transgenic organisms, and on regimes and mechanisms for monitoring and inspection. A communication strategy to provide countries with the latest scientific information on GM organisms is also under discussion.

The consultation is expected to continue until March, with a decision coming from the relevant ministers soon after. If agreed, the proposals will help many more African nations to explore agricultural biotechnology should they wish to, and perhaps to profit from the

increased food security that the technology has the potential to provide. By working together, nations will also benefit from greater access to the experience of commercial issues relating to GM technology that is currently the preserve of just a few African countries.

For their efforts so far, these nations should be applauded, as should the African scientists who have managed to get their voices heard in a difficult and contentious debate. The moves signal a shift towards evidence-based assessments of technologies that could hold much promise for the continent.

African countries have been wise to draw from the speed and enthusiasm with which nations such as Brazil have exploited GM technology, rather than the confused and fearful stance of European countries such as France. The few GM crop initiatives across Africa are already dispelling some myths peddled by the anti-GM lobby, such as the image of poor African farmers being exploited by profiteering multinational companies. In fact, many of the existing projects involving GM organisms in Africa are publicprivate partnerships through which companies donate their best technologies royalty-free.

It is by no means certain that the COMESA proposals will get through the consultation unscathed. A key sticking point is concern in some countries that regional guidelines would usurp national sovereignty. And although Zambia is the only country in the bloc to take an explicit anti-GM stance, others are pushing for tougher rules that could restrict the adoption of the technology.

African countries should not let ideological opposition to GM technology cloud the admirably clear view that they have taken on the issue so far. Food and water shortages that already ravage the continent will only get worse, and GM technology offers a promising way to tackle poverty and poor agricultural productivity. The question is not whether countries there should adopt GM crops, but how quickly.

War on weeds loses ground

The rise of herbicide-resistant varieties drives a search for fresh methods of control.

Helen Thompson

22 May 2012

Standing tall: glyphosate-resistant pigweed growing in Roundup Ready cotton. Bill Barksdale/AgStock Images/Corbis

Article tools

Print Email Rights & Permissions

o o o o o o

Share/bookmark
Connotea Facebook Delicious Twitter Digg Friendfeed

With its jumble of leaves and pointy, green, flower spikes, the plant known as pigweed or palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) isnt much to look at. But to farmers in the southeastern United States, it is a formidable foe. Having evolved the ability to withstand glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsantos popular herbicide Roundup, it now flourishes unchecked alongside crops such as cotton and soya bean that are genetically modified to be glyphosate tolerant.

And it is not unique, says agronomist Harold Coble at the Office of Pest Management Policy in Raleigh, North Carolina, part of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), who notes that 383 known weed varieties have the genetic defences to survive one or more herbicides. Weed resistance is a game changer for agriculture in the same way that drug resistance has been a game changer for the health-care industry, says Coble, who spoke on 10 May at a Weed Summit in Washington DC convened by the National Academies. The problem has escalated since the widespread introduction of Roundup Ready and similar crops over the past decade allowed farmers to apply glyphosate more liberally. At the summit, distinctly different responses to the challenge were up for discussion. The conventional approach is to switch to a different herbicide and engineer crops to withstand it. This has produced a wave of genetically modified crops under review by the USDA, which earlier this year made changes to speed up its approval process. Next to receive a green light could be maize (corn) that is tolerant to glyphosphate and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Created by Dow AgroScience in Indianapolis, Indiana, the plants can break down both of the chemicals in Dows newly formulated herbicide Enlist. Youre applying two different ways of killing the weed at the same time, says Mark Peterson, global biology team leader at Dow. The odds that youre going to have a weed thats resistant to both are very low. Environmental groups oppose Dows application, which drew more 365,000 public comments last month. News reports have drawn attention to the fact that 2,4-D was one of the ingredients (although not the most toxic) in the defoliant Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam War.

Related stories

Misplaced protest Plant biotechnology: Make it a decaf Transgenic grass skirts regulators

More related stories Researchers are also wary of engaging in a continuing arms race with nature. A number of analysts feel that such an approach is short sighted and doomed to fail, says agronomist Matt Liebman of Iowa State University in Ames. The chief worry is that new herbicide blends will accelerate the emergence of resistance to multiple chemicals. In a paper published in January, weed ecologist David Mortensen of Pennsylvania State University in University Park and his colleagues argue that the growing number of multiresistant weed varieties proves that weeds can defy the probabilities (D. A. Mortensen et al. BioScience 62, 7584; 2012). Mortensen expects that increased reliance on two herbicides will favour plants with multiple mutations for resistance to each, as well as the emergence of plants with more general survival strategies, such as the ability to break up certain molecular structures or to confine herbicides in cell vacuoles. These are traits that could overcome more than one chemical mode of action and see an increase in selection pressure, says Mortensen.

How much of an increase depends on how widely the multitolerant crops are planted and how frequently the herbicide combinations are used. Although Dow will include a set of recommended management practices with its products, there are no enforcement regulations, says Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. The threat of multiresistance has prompted a return to older methods of weed control. Stanley Culpepper, a weed scientist at the University of Georgia in Tifton, has shown that planting a cover crop of rye blocks sunlight and reduces the number of pigweed seeds that germinate by 75%. In Georgia and elsewhere, Culpepper says, herbicide resistance is already forcing farmers to combine such techniques with conventional herbicide use. New machinery could also help. At the weed summit, agronomist Michael Walsh of the University of Western Australia in Crawley described the Harrington Seed Destructor, a harvester that collects weed seeds along with the crop, smashes up about 95% of them, and sprinkles the harmless remains in its wake. The weeds that have survived the crop season are the ones that are the most likely to have stacked resistance because theyve survived herbicide applications, so thats why were pushing these harvesting techniques, says Walsh. And then there are biocides. The USDA and the agrochemical industry are looking into the use of the natural chemical defences of plants and microbes to control weeds. On 17 May, the US Environmental Protection Agency approved a bioherbicide from Marrone Bio Innovations in Davis, California. Its primary component is derived from the soil bacterium Streptomyces and disrupts weed-cell division. Such solutions may be easier on the environment but if overused could still breed resistance. Most agree that farming in a post-Roundup era will be more complicated. The reality of weed management without the silver bullet of glyphosate is that we need to revert to a many-hammers approach crop rotations, cultivations, tillage, appropriate herbicide application, says agronomist Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State Universitys Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources in Puyallup. Its going to take more time, it will take more management care, and it will probably cost more money. Journal name: Nature Volume: 485, Pages: 430 Date published: (24 May 2012) DOI:oi:10.1038/485430a

Hazards of Genetically Engineered Cotton

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCTPF.phpISIS Press Release 20/01/05 GM Cotton that People Forgot GM cotton has aroused relatively little resistance outside the Third World for the simple reason that it is wrongly perceived to be a non-food crop. Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho report A longer, fully referenced version is posted on ISIS members website. Details here. GM cotton a triple-threat Cotton is a triple-treat (or threat) crop because it produces fibre, food and feed. Fibre is recovered from the flower bolls, while the seeds are pressed to yield oil for the kitchen and cake for animal feed. Monsanto Corporation has been a major source of genetically modified (GM) cotton lines. Bollgard cotton A line called Bollgard was first marketed in the United States in 1995, followed in later years by Canada, Australia, China, Argentina, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, India and the Philippines. In 2002, an enhanced line called Bollgard II was approved in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and the Philippines. Bollgard II was made from Bollgard simply by inserting into the plant cells a gene cassette containing a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, Cry2Ab, different from the one in the original Bollgard, Cry1Ac. From the transformed cells, a line containing the two different Bt toxin genes were selected. Two toxin genes were more than twice as effective in pest control than the original Bollgard and theoretically, far less likely to allow insect resistant mutants to evolve. The Bt toxin genes, unlinked, are reported to be driven by different versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter: that of crylAc has a duplicated enhancer, while that of cry2Ab has the enhancer and also the leader sequence from petunia heat shock 70 gene as an extra booster. CrylAc is accompanied by the kanamycin resistance marker gene, nptII, while cry2Ab is accompanied by the marker gene uidA that produces a staining reaction. CrylAc confers resistance to lepidopteran-insects in general, and cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, and pink bollworm, in particular. Upon ingestion of this protein by susceptible insects, feeding is inhibited, eventually resulting in death. The Bt toxin genes are both synthetic versions of the natural genes in the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, with coding sequences modified to improve expression in plants. The synthetic genes have not been subject to evolution and their recombinational and other properties relevant to safety are unknown and untested. Thus, Bolgard II has two separate transgene insertions with some regions of DNA homology (similarity). Such regions could act as recombination signals for somatic or meiotic recombination, leading to drastic chromosome rearrangements. The claim to genetic stability reported in the governmental reviews is simply the finding that the insertions segregate according to Mendelian ratios in a few crosses and does not consider molecular and chromosomal instability associated with interand intra-chromosomal recombination at sites of DNA homology. Signs of instability and other failures have been observed in the field (see "Australia adopts GM cotton" and "GM cotton fiascos around the world", this series). Seed distribution is controlled by the licenses of the patentee, and seed lines can, and should be screened at that point for translations, duplications or deficiencies resulting from intra- and inter chromosomal recombination.

Furthermore, in evaluating safety to humans and the environment, the toxin proteins are frequently isolated from liquid culture of the bacteria to avoid having to carry out the more expensive isolation of the toxins from cotton plants. As the toxin transgenes are synthetic approximations of the natural genes and the toxin proteins are not identical, the test results with bacterial proteins do not truly represent the impact of the toxins from the transgenic cotton plants. Some feeding studies indicated that Bollgard II cotton controlled insect pests more effectively. One research group predicted that the need for supplemental insecticides would be reduced or eliminated for lepidopteran pests. Another research group indicated, however, that insect-resistance to Bollgard II could best be controlled with an overspray of chemical insecticide. Further studies showed that resistance to the two Cry toxins seemed to evolve simultaneously, raising considerable doubt over the efficacy of gene stacking in delaying insect resistance. Studies reported by researchers from Monsanto Corporation showed that the Cry1Ac toxin and the Cry2Ab toxin were produced in equivalent amounts in Bollgard II, but that Cry2Ab was the larger contributor to insect toxicity, and they suggested a relatively simple resistance monitoring policy. It seems likely that chemical pesticides will be needed to combat insect resistance arising in Bollgard II after all (see "Australia adopts GM cotton", this series). The regulation of Bollgard II has been Ofast and loose. Bollgard II was supposed to address the major concern of resistance management, but research is already indicating that gene stacking is not a panacea and that chemical pesticide overspray will be required to cope with developing resistance. Round up Ready Cotton Roundup Ready cotton, like Bollgard I and II, is also used for fibre, food and feed. Roundup Ready (rr cotton) was first marketed in the United States in 1995, and in later years, in Canada, Japan, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, the Philippines and in 2004, in China. The herbicide tolerant cotton marketed as rr cotton was originally derived from two different transformation events of a cotton line called Coker 312. These events, designated 1445 and 1698, differed in both gene sequences inserted and insertion sites in the cotton genome. Currently, event 1445 is the primary rr cotton marketed. Event 1445 was obtained by transformation with a plasmid containing a synthetic version of the glyphosate oxidase (gox) gene driven by a modified figwort mosaic virus promoter and terminated by the nos terminator tnos from Agrobacterium, plus a synthetic CP4 epsps gene derived from Agrobacterium strain CP4 (encoding the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) preceded by a chloroplast targeting sequence from Arabidopsis, also driven by the figwort mosaic virus promoter, and terminated by a terminator from the pea plant. In addition, two antibiotic resistance marker genes were present: aad from a bacterial transposon,Tn5, conferring resistance to streptomycin and spectomycin, inserted after the epsps gene cassette; followed by kanamycin resistance gene, also from Tn5 driven by the CaMV promoter and terminated with the tnos. In the marketed crop, event 1445 appeared to have lost the gox gene but retained aad, which the company claims, is inactive in the cotton plant. However, the rr cotton failed to gain approval from the European Commission in 1999 on account of serious concerns over the aad antibiotic resistance marker. The fact that it is inactive in cotton plants is irrelevant, because it is surely active in bacteria, to which it could be transferred.

Event 1698 is similar except that it has an additional epsps gene. The events were described as being "stably inherited", with no molecular genetic evidence. Monsanto and the regulators seem to agree that direct human exposure to the transgenes and their products will be very limited because cottonseed oil contains very little protein and DNA. Nevertheless, farm animals consume a great deal of seed cake. Monsanto's safety assessment of rr cotton dismissed the possibility that the epsps gene and the antibiotic resistance marker genes could participate in horizontal gene transfer with soil bacteria. However, the bacterial marker gene for kanamycin reistance in transgenic sugar beet was found to readily transform soil Pseudomonas, while transgenic potato marker gene readily transformed soil Actinobacter through homologous recombination. In both cases, the marker persisted for long periods in the soil bacteria and such bacteria are capable of exchanging genes with animal pathogens. It is very likely that the streptomycin resistance marker gene will transform soil bacteria. Monsanto's claim, that to effectively transform bacteria the marker genes require co-transformation with a bacterial promoter, is not realistic; operator fusions are commonplace in bacteria, suggesting that the marker genes can easily become activated. There are also special mobile genetic elements called integrons containing sites with ready-made promoters for insertion of antibiotic resistance coding sequences so they can be expressed. Glyphosate applications can be used to control weeds prior to flowering, but glyphosate application after initiation of flowering in rr cotton reduced pollen viability and seed set, resulting in reduced yield; while glyphosate application to rr cotton combined with water stress resulted the young cotton bolls dropping off. Use of rr cotton seems to require irrigation technology and considerable technical savvy. An additional concern related to using glyphosate on cotton is that the herbicide has been shown to move from cotton fabric into and through human skin. GM cotton not safe Regulators seem to have taken a relaxed attitude towards many safety issues including antibiotic resistance markers going into GM crops. The potential toxicities of the synthetic genes, their ability to recombine and stability have yet to be documented. Already, all the transgene products, Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab, CP4 EPSPS, as well as the marker gene product, UidA, show stretches of amino-acid sequence identities to known allergens, and are hence suspected allergens; at least, until proven otherwise by further studies. The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR telephone: [44 20 8452 2729 ] FREE 44 20 8452 2729 ] [44 20 7272 5636 FREE 44 20 7272 5636

General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List press-release@i-sis.org.uk - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

Review genetically modified cotton policy

Review genetically modified cotton policy

Ruchira Singh

First Published: Tue, Mar 20 2012. 01 15 AM IST

RELATED

Updated: Wed, Mar 21 2012. 07 33 PM IST New Delhi: Indias policy on the use of genetically modified cotton seed needs to be reviewed in the wake of lower than expected productivity, said members of Coalition for a GM-Free India on Tuesday. This year there has been large scale failure in the cotton crop. Failure in that the yields have been less than 50% in states like Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, said Kiran Vissa, co-convener of the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture at a press conference. In the last seven years, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)cottons yields have been almost flat. Other members of the Coalition for a GM-Free India claimed the crop had grown resistant to pesticides resulting in no decrease in overall use of fertilizers. They also claimed that organic and hybrid cotton seeds were being edged out by the marketing might of Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, the seller of Bollgard seed technology in India. This is a corrected version of an earlier story.