The spectacular rise and the lurking decline of the genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton hybrids hold a lesson in how not to handle a potent and highly useful technology. Cotton revolution was the upshot of the introduction in 2002 of transgenic Bt cottons which were genetically equipped to combat devastating pests, notably American bollworm. But the mismanagement and mishandling of this valuable technology has led to the development of immunity among pests against the killer gene, Cry1Ac, transferred to cotton from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, thus, jeopardising the sustainability of the cotton revolution.
The Bt cotton saga is being viewed and interpreted by the proponents and detractors of the GM technology from their own vested perspectives. Fortunately, a dispassionate, yet critical, analysis of the Bt cotton era is now available in a “status paper on Bt-cotton in India” brought out by the Nagpur-based Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR). It broadly indicates the transgenic Bt technology is the victim of bungling at every stage of its development and deployment. The culprits are almost all stakeholders — technology developers, technology appraisers and approvers, seed companies and even farmers, apart from policy makers.
The major follies committed in this field include: a) distancing the public sector from this technology by adopting discriminatory seed approval protocols; b) undue haste in releasing Bt hybrids at the rate of almost 200 a year between 2007 and 2014; c) overlooking emergence of resistance among pests; and d) laxity by farmers in observing recommended precautions in cultivating Bt cotton.
According to the CICR report, till 2006 only 62 Bt cotton hybrids were approved and only about 20 were actually available in the market. But after the launch of Bollgard-II, the upgraded version of Bt cotton hybrids by its developer Monsanto, an amazingly large number of Bt hybrids were released, pushing the total to 1,667 by 2014. Of these 734 were Bollgard-II hybrids. The Bt hybrids, thus, practically saturated the country’s cotton belt.
Such a huge number of Bt hybrids having varied growing durations, flowering periods and pest susceptibilities caused utter confusion among farmers as well as agronomists and pest management specialists. Besides, the presence of cotton flowers in fields over longer durations helped bollworms to get accustomed to Bt toxins and acquire resistance against them much sooner than was anticipated. Monsanto duly acknowledged the development of resistance in pink bollworm in 2010. The New Delhi-based Indian Agricultural Research Institute also noticed it at the same time. Subsequent studies by CICR revealed pink bollworm turned immune even to a Cry1Ac+Cry2Ab toxic gene combination of Bollgard-II in Gujarat.
“Unfortunately, despite these disappointing effects of Bollgard-II, the Indian seed industry appeared to have been oblivious all through to any of these facts,” states the CICR. The industry continued to support these seeds even though the average cotton yields ceased to surge despite Bt hybrids covering 96 per cent of the cotton area. This apart, a majority of Bt hybrids are vulnerable to sap-sucking insects, such as mealy bugs, jassids, thrips and aphids, and maladies like leaf curl and leaf streak viruses. Leaf curl virus and white fly pest have, consequently, emerged as major threats to cotton, especially in the north.
Among the avoidable blunders, a significant one was non-induction of Bt genes in open-pollinated cotton varieties in addition to hybrids. Most countries, barring India, use non-hybrid Bollgard-II varieties with good results. Laxity in forcing the farmers to grow non-Bt cotton on the periphery of Bt cotton fields as “refugia” to serve as alternative hosts for pests has also been a costly mistake. This could have delayed the emergence of resistance among pests.
The CICR paper suggests public-funded research centres should be encouraged to evolve Bt cotton varieties and hybrids by using genes licensed from companies like Monsanto or discovered by them on their own. They can insert these genes in their own elite varieties or hybrids having superior fibre qualities, yield and adaptability to drought, pests and diseases. In fact, some institutions, including CICR, have already developed transgenic insect-protected cottons using their own proprietary genes taken from indigenous sources. These should be approved for cultivation without delay.
surinder.sud@gmail.com
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
