This article explores the attractions of genetically modified cotton, details the types and varieties available and indicates the extent to which it is being produced commercially. It also explores the problems that are beginning to emerge now that farmers have gained more experience in dealing with this transgenic crop.

Genetically modified cotton is spreading across the cotton fields of China. Chinese farmers have been struggling to deal with pests since they developed resistance to pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides in the 1980s, and it is hardly surprising that they welcome a technology that might help cut their dependence on and exposure to these chemicals.

Over the last 50 years, some of the most toxic and persistent pesticides have been used to fight cotton insect pests, and cotton still requires the use of more insecticides than any other crop. Insect pest resistance to these chemicals is a major problem, reaching plague proportions in some areas, and causing economic hardship to farmers, as well as health and environmental problems.

Genetically modified (GM) cotton plantings world wide indicate that many farmers hope that genetically modified crops will provide an answer.  The acreage of GM cotton increased by 40 per cent in 2000 – against an increase of 11 per cent for all GM crops – and now covers 5.3 million hectares or 16 per cent of the 34 million hectares devoted to cotton production world wide This makes cotton one of the most rapidly expanding transgenic crops. Monsanto – which dominates GM cotton production and supplies 85 per cent of the US cottonseed market claims that Bt cotton is the fastest adopted new product in the history of agriculture. In 2000, it occupied 12 per cent of the total commercial plantings of GM crops world wide. Soybean led the GM stakes with 59 per cent of the global acreage with maize following with 23 per cent.

GM cotton comes in three varieties. Herbicide tolerant cotton was grown on 2.1 million hectares in 2000 and sold mainly under the product name Roundup Ready. An insect resistant, genetically modified variety with a gene of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) producing an effective toxin was cultivated on 1.5 million hectares (Bollgard or Ingard) and a combination of Bt/herbicide tolerant cotton was grown on another 1.5 million hectares. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) plantings of insect resistant crops decreased in 2000. There have been reports of variable performance, particularly with Ingard, and a reduction in sales may indicate that farmers have not found that the expensive technology offers a sufficient return on their investment.

Adoption of GM cotton

The biggest increase in the adoption of GM cotton in 2000 took place in the USA and China, but other countries with commercial transgenic cotton crops – Mexico, Australia, Argentina and South Africa – expanded production as well. However, despite these successes there are growing concerns about GM cotton. In China, for example, although Monsanto successfully introduced insect resistant Bolgard¶ cotton into Hebei Province in 1997 after establishing it in Shandong and Henan, the authorities in Hubei Province rejected it. A speaker at the Asia Crop Protection Markets Conference in late 2000, voiced his concern about the growing reliance on Bt cotton in China and observed that it was getting ‘out of control’. Speaking from personal observation, he warned farmers to be vigilant because there were other problems associated with Bt cotton. It was, for example, more susceptible to the fungal disease Fusarium wilt than conventional cotton.

No new countries declared legal plantings of commercial GM cotton in 2000, but illegal or ‘accidental’ planting may be taking place. In August 2000, Greece had to destroy 9,000 acres when cotton seed contaminated with GM cotton seed was imported from the United States. Farmers received US$ 3.24 million in compensation. India is allowing trials of GM seeds (see also the article by Sharma, Monitor No. 44). However, there is considerable concern that some of the farmers participating in these ‘trials’ had had no guidance about planting GM cotton and no safeguards have been introduced. Generally, in India, all new seed or pesticide trials would be carried out in laboratories or universities under strict supervision. Mahyco (partially owned by Monsanto), the companythat provided the GM cotton seeds, said it had permission from the Department of Biotechnology to go ahead with open farm trials. However, in India such permission must come from the Ministry of Agriculture. Mahyco claimed it had received a letter refusing permission for the trials from the Ministry of Agriculture too late and after it had distributed seeds. The company stated its main interest was in yields. It did not concern itself with environmental impacts.

Appropriate technologies

Farmers in India are currently spending US$180 million a year on low-cost pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides. They face huge problems of pest resistance and suffer adverse health and environmental impacts. If GM cotton seeds were available at an attractive price, Indian farmers might be encouraged to experiment with them even though other technologies might be more appropriate when it comes to reducing dependence and cost. The question as to whether GM cotton helps small farmers to reduce chemical dependence and whether introducing Bt cotton mean swapping one dependence for another are difficult to answer.

Concerns

A report by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in July 2000 indicated that in the USA at least, there had been no significant reduction in the overall use of insecticides in cotton despite the fact that almost one fifth of American cotton is produced with Bt varieties. This may not be surprising, given that Bt controls only some pests. In parts of South Carolina where farmers have planted GM cotton, they have reduced the applications of pesticides other than Bt from 14 to two per season. There is, however, a more complex picture for herbicides in the USA where the acreage of herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) cotton has doubled, but herbicide usage has remained almost the same. Individual farmers appear to be reducing their sprays per season but, as the overall usage remains static, there is no reduction in the environmental burden. The National Agricultural Statistics Service indicates that the sales of herbicides that can be used with various types of GM cotton have risen significantly, giving rise to concern that large-scale use of a limited number of herbicides could lead to resistance to these products.

The biggest concerns with GM crops relate to insect and weed resistance and the impacts of widespread use on non-target beneficial insects and plants. Bt is an important pest control tool, and with less harmful effects than chemical products it is approved for use in organic systems. There is considerable concern that crops genetically engineered to contain Bt will speed up resistance, and may also affect beneficial, non-target insects, as in the case of the Monarch butterfly in the USA. The genes for herbicide tolerance could be transferred from the GM crops to closely related weeds, thus making it difficult to control those species that were originally susceptible to the herbicide glyphosphate.

Given adequate warnings and detailed instructions, farmers can introduce safety measures to reduce the risk of resistance by employing such measures as seed mixtures and buffer zones. If seed companies waive technology fees in developing countries and bring the cost of the seeds within the reach of poorer farmers, there may be considerable take up of the technology. However, it is unlikely that farmers, who lack access to training and advice can be made aware of the complex safety measures needed to delay resistance. While GM crops may be grown under controlled conditions in the vast acreages of the US cotton belt, control is less possible in the small-scale plots farmed by agriculturalists in developing countries where the average cotton plot in India or Africa is well under one hectare.

Furthermore, seeds may be traded illegally or supplied without adequate labelling.Many developing countries lack seed legislation and certainly lack the resources to implement safety regulations. Agricultural extension services are under enormous pressure in most countries and, even if they are trained in the management of genetic technology, have neither the numbers or capacity to train all farmers using GM seeds in how to safeguard and delay resistance.

US Experience

As the most studied area, what happens in the USA is of vital importance for other countries growing GM cotton. Recent fear point to GM cotton plants springing up as weeds in other crops. These could provide a refuge for the cotton boll weevil. Massive amounts of insecticide have been used to eradicate this major pest from the Cotton Belt and no expense has been spared. US$ 1.3 million was spent in South Carolina alone. The glyphosphate (Roundup™) herbicide applied to kill weeds in GM soybeans does not destroy the stray GM cotton plants left over from the previous year. As one entomologist observed, when “I looked across the soybean fields and see hundreds of these cotton plants”. Even a few unmonitored fields could be disastrous given the rate at which boll weevil’s breed.

Worryingly, the promotion of GM could be detracting attention from alternatives, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and organic cotton, which offer an approach based on increasing farmers’ knowledge and their ability to manage crops ecologically and economically. IPM training assists farmers to reduce dependence on hazardous pesticides while improving yields. The European Union (EU) supports a major new cotton IPM project in six Asian countries – India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Philippines. The IPM strategy includes training farmers and extension staff to manage pests through biological control, host-plant resistance and appropriate farming practices. Using a Farmer Field School (FFS) methodology, farmers are trained to recognise pests and predators, to understand and measure when pest attacks are causing economic losses, to manage soil fertility, and to become scientists in their own fields. This approach “minimises the use of pesticides, guarantees yields, reduces costs, is environmentally friendly and contributes to the sustainability of agriculture.” In the EU project, GM cotton is not part of the strategy, although in China this matter will have to be decided by the authorities. The EU has supported a mission of safety experts to China to investigate the biosafety issues involved in the country’s adoption of GM technology.

Questions unanswered

If the objective of a new technology is to help farmers maintain or increase their yields in a sustainable manner, then GM technology leaves many questions unanswered. First, sustainability needs to take into account not only long-term environmental effects and consistent or improving yields, but also the ability of the farmer to make decisions about her or his growing system. Economic issues must also be addressed. It is especially important in developing countries that farmers can choose to avoid a cycle of debt and dependency. GM technology offers no radical departure from reliance on chemical pesticides – rather it further encourages farmers to ‘farm by formula’ by applying chemical fertilisers and pesticides when planting single seed varieties that have not yet been selected for local conditions and where pesticide application is a prerequisite. In the short term pesticide use may be reduced, but agronomic and economic dependence remains. Alternative strategies like the FFS approach aim to provide farmers with the tools to analyse what is happening in their fields, to adopt strategies to make appropriate variations in their practices, to understand when pests threaten economic loss and take preventive measures to improve soil by the addition of organic matter and rely to a greater extent on locally available inputs.

GM technology requires a high level of investment: what could be achieved if this money was invested in farmers?

Pesticide Action Network UK, Eurolink Centre, 49 Effra, Road, London SW2 1BZ, UK.
Phone (+44) 20 7274 8895; Fax (+44) 207274 9084; E-mail barbaradinham@pan-uk.org
http://www.pan-uk.org

Sources
Barber, S. (1999), "Transgenic plants: field testing and commercialisation including a consideration of novel herbicide resistant oilseed rape". In: Gene flow and agricultural relevance for transgenic crops. British Crop Protection Council.

James, C. (2001), Global review of commercial transgenic crops: 2000. ISAAA Briefs No. 21-2000. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), USA.
Preview: http://www.isaaa.org

Smith, C.S. (2000), "An untroubled rudh towards bioengineering" International Herald Tribune, 9 October 2000.

Farmer testimony and interview with Mahyco in: Food? Health? Hope?. A video documentary by Deepti Seshadri and Rajani Mani, Bangalore Talkies, India, 2000.

Coghlan, A. (2000), "POckets of resistance - a pest might make a comeback thanks to engineered weeds" New Scientist, 15 April 2000.

Myers, D. and Stolton, S. (eds.)(1999), Organic cotton: from field to final product. London, UK, IT publications, pp 17-19.