By: Chelsea Warren
April 2020 - Reflections on Bt cotton
Genetically modified Bt cotton seeds were first introduced to India by Monsanto, a United States agrochemical company, in 1993 through an Indian seed company, MAHYCO. It was not until 1998, when Monsanto and MAHYCO formed a joint-venture called MAHYCO-Monsanto Biotech that Bt cotton seeds started gaining popularity with Indian farmers. The seeds were advertised as something of a “cure-all” crop, expensive, but guaranteed to resist pests, decrease pesticide usage, and increase yields for struggling farmers all over India. Soon after Bt cotton took off, India did indeed see a dramatic increase in national average cotton yields, but in the years to follow there has been a great deal of controversy over whether Monsanto truly delivered on their promises to farmers.
There are many different perspectives on this issue, often with some organization or entity behind them, responsible for propagating their story. Some, portray the arrival and continued use of Bt cotton as a crisis for Indian farmers, brought on by immoral corporations and perpetuated by a negligent government. Others site the increased yields and reduced pesticide usage in some areas and claim Bt cotton as a great success. The farmers themselves also seem to be split on the issue.
However, I think farmer opinion is of utmost importance here. It is their families and livelihoods at stake – factors which have been largely ignored by giant greedy corporations like Monsanto and their Indian business partners as well as the Indian government.
Since farmer opinion was my main focus, I tried to find real testimonials or interviews from farmers or families affected by Bt cotton. Most, if not all, of the “positive” content I found in support of Bt cotton or genetically modified seeds in general, were sponsored by an organization or corporation. The 2015 video titled, Understand Bt Cotton and Its Impact on the Sector, was produced by MAHYCO (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co.). Of course, this video presented a long list of benefits supposedly produced by Bt cotton. One of the first videos that appears when researching Bt cotton is a testimonial by a farmer in Sirsa, India, who talks a lot about the environmental benefits of Bt. The original video was created by the Cornell Alliance for Science who, as an organization, advocate the continued production and consumption of GMO’s and argue publicly against anti-GMO campaigns in India.
A well-known environmental activist, Vendana Shiva, is one of the biggest voices, along with her organization, Navdanya, against the use of GMO seeds in Indian farming. She encourages the cultivation of native seeds as a means of securing biodiversity and sustainability and many people, especially Indian women, are behind her movement. It is important to note that media played a huge role in convincing (or scamming) Indian farmers into buying genetically modified seeds in the first place. There were numerous advertisements made for Bt cotton, when it was being introduced, that promised prosperity.
So, who is telling the truth? In my opinion, Bt cotton seeds themselves are not to blame for the plight of the Indian farmer. Bt cotton seeds have proven to be effectively resistant against the pink bollworm, one of the main problem pests for Indian cotton crops. However, the most important component of this agricultural system, the farmer, was largely ignored by corporation and government. It is undeniable that farmers were not given enough information to guide their purchasing and cultivation of Bt cotton. Corporations like Monsanto do not have a moral compass by which they regulate their actions, especially not in countries where they are used to getting away with anything. This leaves the responsibility of educating and protecting cotton producers, who are in many cases uneducated, to the government. Farmers should have been told that the already expensive Bt seeds would have to be repurchased each year, that they would still have to use irrigation and pesticides for good yields, and that taking loans from private money lenders results in an inescapable mountain of debt. The Indian government had to know that the desperate financial circumstances farmers were already facing before the arrival of Bt cotton would drive them to try almost anything that promised results – in many cases without resources to understand the risks. They should have stepped in to protect their farming communities from corporate predation.
April 2020 - Reflections on Bt cotton
Genetically modified Bt cotton seeds were first introduced to India by Monsanto, a United States agrochemical company, in 1993 through an Indian seed company, MAHYCO. It was not until 1998, when Monsanto and MAHYCO formed a joint-venture called MAHYCO-Monsanto Biotech that Bt cotton seeds started gaining popularity with Indian farmers. The seeds were advertised as something of a “cure-all” crop, expensive, but guaranteed to resist pests, decrease pesticide usage, and increase yields for struggling farmers all over India. Soon after Bt cotton took off, India did indeed see a dramatic increase in national average cotton yields, but in the years to follow there has been a great deal of controversy over whether Monsanto truly delivered on their promises to farmers.
 |
| Separating cotton seeds from fiber in Coimbatore, India (photo: R. Sivanpillai) |
Since farmer opinion was my main focus, I tried to find real testimonials or interviews from farmers or families affected by Bt cotton. Most, if not all, of the “positive” content I found in support of Bt cotton or genetically modified seeds in general, were sponsored by an organization or corporation. The 2015 video titled, Understand Bt Cotton and Its Impact on the Sector, was produced by MAHYCO (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co.). Of course, this video presented a long list of benefits supposedly produced by Bt cotton. One of the first videos that appears when researching Bt cotton is a testimonial by a farmer in Sirsa, India, who talks a lot about the environmental benefits of Bt. The original video was created by the Cornell Alliance for Science who, as an organization, advocate the continued production and consumption of GMO’s and argue publicly against anti-GMO campaigns in India.
A well-known environmental activist, Vendana Shiva, is one of the biggest voices, along with her organization, Navdanya, against the use of GMO seeds in Indian farming. She encourages the cultivation of native seeds as a means of securing biodiversity and sustainability and many people, especially Indian women, are behind her movement. It is important to note that media played a huge role in convincing (or scamming) Indian farmers into buying genetically modified seeds in the first place. There were numerous advertisements made for Bt cotton, when it was being introduced, that promised prosperity.
So, who is telling the truth? In my opinion, Bt cotton seeds themselves are not to blame for the plight of the Indian farmer. Bt cotton seeds have proven to be effectively resistant against the pink bollworm, one of the main problem pests for Indian cotton crops. However, the most important component of this agricultural system, the farmer, was largely ignored by corporation and government. It is undeniable that farmers were not given enough information to guide their purchasing and cultivation of Bt cotton. Corporations like Monsanto do not have a moral compass by which they regulate their actions, especially not in countries where they are used to getting away with anything. This leaves the responsibility of educating and protecting cotton producers, who are in many cases uneducated, to the government. Farmers should have been told that the already expensive Bt seeds would have to be repurchased each year, that they would still have to use irrigation and pesticides for good yields, and that taking loans from private money lenders results in an inescapable mountain of debt. The Indian government had to know that the desperate financial circumstances farmers were already facing before the arrival of Bt cotton would drive them to try almost anything that promised results – in many cases without resources to understand the risks. They should have stepped in to protect their farming communities from corporate predation.
No comments:
Post a Comment