The gains from Bt cotton must be consolidated by introducing new genetically modified varieties.
In less than a decade since its approval for sowing in 2002, the gene-altered, insect-protected Bt cotton has spread to cover more than 90 per cent of cultivated area, pushing most other varieties and hybrids out of cultivation. Farmers have eagerly adopted the transgenic variety, having seen the effect on their crop output; Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar told Parliament that income has increased, on an average, by Rs 10,000 per hectare because of a reduction in the use of pesticides and higher yields. However, most of the Bt cotton hybrids available are for long staple cotton; thus, there has been a distortion in the output mix — and therefore in the availability of cotton of differing staple lengths and lint qualities, required for various end-uses. Extra long staple cotton, for example, is needed to make top-of-the line fabric, and its harvest is now just a tenth of what it was in 2003-04. Short staple cotton, which is used in hospitals for surgical purposes and by household industries for making quilts and mattresses, has also become scarce, with its output halving.
Equally disquieting is the impact on the pest regime of the universal adoption of Bt seeds. True, the most common and dreaded of pests, the American bollworm – targeted specifically by the insect killer gene transferred into Bt cotton from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis , or Bt – has been, by and large, controlled. But conditions have turned positive for the growth of other pests. Sap-sucking pests, such as mealy bugs, thrips, jassids (in the central and southern belt) and others, are reported to have become a formidable menace to the crop. Yet those who seek to blame Bt cotton or genetic engineering technology for this unintended fallout are in error. Bt cotton has been a boon for farmers; the real culprit is the virtual mono-cropping of Bt hybrids because there are simply no other equally useful alternatives. What is needed, thus, is a continuous flow of new seeds to maintain genetic diversity and provide farmers a wider choice of varieties to grow.
For this, the government would need to clarify its policy concerning GM products and put in place a transparent mechanism for the approval of GM seeds on true merit. Otherwise, neither public-sector farm research institutes nor private biotech companies are willing to invest in evolving GM seeds with desired genes drawn from diverse sources to impart resistance against different pests and diseases. The well-designed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, which seeks to create an autonomous, three-winged scientific body to approve, regulate and monitor the application of biotechnology for various purposes, has been without parliamentary approval for far too long. The regulatory structure mooted in this Bill is far better than the existing genetic engineering approval committee, headed by a bureaucrat. Continuous, well-regulated, technical progress is essential for agriculture.