replicator photos on Flickr

The Genetic Engineering Approval 'CommiLtee (GEAC) has recently approvecl the commercial cultivation of Bt Cotton, whose technology is being propagated by the US based Seed Multinational, Monsanto. While the Indian government has given its gree!l signal to Monsanto,. the wisdom of using the Bt cotton seed is ctill being questioned by many scientists. The technology of genelic modification is still too unpredictable to warrant widespread replication, given the irreversible nature of the technology. .

It is to be noted here that the spray of Bt or Bacillus huringiensis, a common soil bacterium, is probably the single most important biological pest control technique in use worldwide. What the genetic engineers have done is !.o develop transgenic crops containing the insecticidal gene of Bt, so that the plant itself makes the protein necessary for protection against pests. This bas been perhaps the single biggest commercial application of r-DNA technology in the world so far. Cotton, corn anrl potato engineered with this gene were grown commercially in the U.S. for the first time in 1996. Companies producing these transgenic crops promote them as a way of reducing farmers' dependence on harmful pesticides. However, experience over the last five years reveals problems that place a question mark on this entire approach to pest control. In fact, there is growing concern that the very effectiveness of Bt as a hie-pesticide could be irrevocably endangered if use of Bt-transgenic plant varieties is not stopped immediately. .

Since resistance has become a major worry, comp::mies now insist that farmers follow resistance management plans (RMPs), which include "refugia" (keeping a certain proportion of fields free of Bt seeds and insecticides). These fields are to be the refuge of susceptible insects, thus slowin3 down evolution of resistance against the Bt gene. However, scientists team have questioned two fundamental assumption;; behind all Bt RMPs -that resistance to Bt is a rare recessive trait and that cross-resistance to Bt endo-toxins is uncommon. The idea that resistance could be delayed through the use of .two or more endo-toxins has, thus, been seriously undermin~d. Further, field data show that expression of toxirs in Bt-tr~nsgenic crops can develop unevenly in different parts of thl; plant. In one report, Bt toxin expression was found t0 be 90.-95·per cent in the top part of the plant but only 20-25 per cent in the lower nodes, making them more susceptible. Since the lower nodes often produce the highest quality cotton, their 1m's is even more significant. Bt toxin expression also typically StartS OUt high in the early pan Of the Sei'.SOn but tapers off ovc:~ time. _-.

It is also inadequate in harsh enviro=entcl cor:.citi~'ns such ~!: drought. ThiS "sub-lethal dose" of the toxin can facilitate the development of resistance o·1er time, just as it happens with pathogenic bacteria when we fail to corr:.?lce the necessary course of antibiotics. Uneven expression. of Bt ir, <i:e Civp cculu aiso accdt:rme ~mergence of "beiJ.aviounu resistance", because insects may sense which parts of the pliwt to avoid. In India, with so many difficult agm-ecological conditions and millions of poor farmers, Bt-transgenic crop~ <tW likely to grow unevenly across farms leading to many cases of sub-lethal doses of the Bt toxin and, therefore, resistance might be engendered at an even faster rate. Once resistance genes emerge and gain a foothold in populations, they cannot be recalled. And the worst part is that they would also foster resistance against the Bt spray, ultimately destroying the effectiveness of this safer bio-pesticide. This could lead to extensive damage of crops. We have seen this happen in past years in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, leading to a spate of suicides by farmers, whose crops pad been so ravaged. .

For India, the biggest danger in allowing commercial use of GM crops is related to the fact that the technology for .

GM crops will be controlled by Multinational corporations like Monsanto. This is in stark contrast to the introduction of the .

"Green Revolution" technologies of the sevemies in India, where the research was conducted in public funded instirutions .

and was available in public domain. The US has consistently argued for liberal laws regarding trials on genetically altered .

varieties and at the same time is pushing for strong patent protection for seeds, plant varieties, and genetically modified .

plants, animals and micro-organisms. The developed countric;s, led by the US are promoting life form patenting in order to .

wrest control over the remaining biological resources of the globe. Control over GM technologies by multinational .

corporations are part of this effort to wrest control over agricultural production all over the world. Companies like .

Monsanto are the cutting edge of the drive by the United States to wrest control of global food production-and hunger. .

The Jl\TU Science forum is organising a public meeting tonight to debate the whole range of issues associated with .

this technology. We invite all to this public meeting. .

Sd/-Convenor, JNUSF .

Technological, environmental and economical impacts of Bt Cotton .

Sreakers: Prof. Decpak Paintal, Geneticist and Director, South Campus, DU; Dr Devinder Sharma, Former .

Development! Editor, Indian Rxpress and Prof. Utsa PntnaiJ{, E collumist, JNU .

9'" Apdl 2002, J.30 pm Ganga Mess hall .

.

7 .

.

Tags replicator

View allAll Photos Tagged replicator