Marcus Williamson wrote in
:


INDIA'S AP TO COMPENSATE CULTIVATORS OF BT COTTON CROPS

DATELINE: HYDERABAD, March 11
Asia Pulse March 11, 2003
Northern Territory Regional

Andhra Pradesh government Monday promised to compensate the farmers
whose Bt cotton crops failed even as the Opposition demanded that
Monsanto Corporation, which introduced the crop, be "blacklisted".

There have been reports that the first genetically engineered cotton
crop in Andhra Pradesh has failed. Voicing concern over extensive
losses suffered by farmers who opted for genetically modified cotton
seeds, introduced by multinational seed major Monsanto, the opposition
Congress members demanded that the company be blacklisted and
compensation be paid to farmers.

While admitting that Bt cotton crop's yield was 'lower than expected
resulting in reduced market value realisation', the state Agriculture
Minister V Shobhanadreshwar Rao said the genetically engineered seed
was only designed to fight 'Bollworm' pest which was the cause of
extensive crop damages in the past. As many as 6,929 farmers in 1,520
villages had raised the cotton crop last year spread over 9.341
hectares in the state. This followed approval for commercialisation of
Bt cotton seeds by the federal government.

"Certain farmers have complained of smaller Boll size and lesser
staple length for Bt cotton compared to other hybrids in the market,"
the Minister said, adding that the farmers would be 'informed about
the experience' gained during the current season.
...
more on the Bt cottonfailure in Andhra Pradesh - Star TV video
http://www.ndtv.com/template/templat...plate=Btcotton
MBt cotton proves a failure in Andhra Pradesh - article
http://www.sunnt.com/news/regional/a...ra.asp?id=7242




Hi,

the question for me is: what do they mean by "crops failed"? Does that
mean the later stated "Certain farmers have complained of smaller Boll
size and lesser staple length ..."? If so, I would not consider the crops
failed, but the (exaggerated) expectations were not met. Also, how does a
lower harvest compare to a lost harvest (due to the bollworm) or to the
use of pesticides? I am just talking about the costs, not the environment
- I can understand that the environment is one of the "luxuries" a poor
farmer will worry least. The high yield hybrid seeds mostly used nowadays
are often very susceptible to pests. This is known and often considered
the price for the high yield. So, one has to make the decision for
oneself: do I play safe and go for lower yield (and, in this case, lower
quality) by either using naturally resistant varieties (if available) or
GM crops - or do I take the risk and go for a higher, but chancy profit.
AFAIK, the farmers in AP have not been forced to use the GM cotton. But
it seems that they have not been informed very well. Didn't they do any
trials before planting on large areas? That sounds very strange to me.
So, who pushed or deceived them in using those seeds without trials (the
more, that this might have been a variety not well adapted to the local
conditions)?
For me, this "case" just smells of ploitics (in a negative sense) and
mismanagement. The problem here does not seem to be the GM crops per se,
but the apparently irresponsible forecasts for the harvest.
Unfortunately, this case will probably be (ab)used in the already
emotionally overcharged discussion about GM crops.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Klaus