The reactions for and against Bt. brinjal underscore the need for further discussion. Monsanto as well as biotechnology experts emphasise that there are several myths and misunderstanding about Bt. technology. Some even brand the non-government organisations and social activists opposed to Bt. brinjal as regressive. One of the experts questioned the credentials of the distinguished scientist P.M. Bhargava, who was instrumental in exposing the negative side of the technology. As a field-level researcher in the science of plant protection and volunteer in the peoples' science movement of Andhra Pradesh (Jana Vignana Vedika), I wish to highlight the target insects and toxin of the bacteria to justify our doubts about the technology.
The toxins produced by B acillus thuringiensis (Bt) were identified long ago and were shaped as potent insecticides to manage some of the Lepidopteron (moths of butterflies) insect pests. Naturally, some formulations of Bt. insecticides were commercialised initially in North America and Europe, and later in Asian countries. Bt. formulations gained momentum because of their selectiveness. They became part of an integrated pest management (an alternative to chemical control of insects) of various food and non-food crops including cotton.
But subsequently, it was realised that many of the serious insect pests — diamond back moth, Hehothis bollworm, leaf worms and pink borers — quite rapidly developed resistance to Bt formulations also as they obtained resistance to other group of insecticides. Experts in ecology, nutrition and toxicology also documented the impact of these formulations on human health, besides other detrimental factors they create in the environment. Hence, it is incorrect to state that Bt. is safe in all respects.
Now in the light of the ‘recombinant DNA technology' that took shape initially in developed countries, the bacterial gene responsible for the release of endotoxin — crystalline protein (cry Ac1) — was introduced in cotton, maize, soybean and conola-like field crops, and later in rice, wheat, tomato, brinjal, cabbage and cauliflower-like food crops. That is how the era of Bt. crops started in India during 2001. One must remember that this phase is in continuity to that failure of various groups of insecticides (organo-chlorines, organo-phosphates, carbamates, synthetic pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, avermetins, spinosins etc.,) that were periodically claimed as wonderful (miracle) tools of pest management until their negative sides started surfacing. Many of the serious insect pests in agriculture and human dwellings acquired manifold resistance to all these groups of insecticides (toxins).
This repeatedly reminds us that insects are capable of altering their external and internal characters and withstanding toxins in the process of becoming super pests. At the introductory stage, every formulation (from DDT to Spinosad) was claimed as selective and safe to the environment. Everybody knows what happened later. The country that lauded the discovery of DDT and awarded the Nobel Prize to Paul Hermann Muller was the first country to ban it. The fate of other formulations, including Bt., is well documented in the history of insect-control.
The sequence of events starting from Navabharat Bt. to the royalty struggle of Monsanto in India reminds us of the events of the earlier phase of pesticide conspiracy. The most favourable precipitation through monsoons and the less remunerative market price to non-cotton crops (pulses and oil seeds) during 2005-2008 contributed to the expansion of the cotton crop in area and production. However, one should recognise that there was continuity of distress among cotton farmers because of the high input involvement (including pesticides). Comparing pesticides usage in terms of quantity is inappropriate under the changed conditions. The experience of 2009 further exposed the exaggerations of the claims. Due to the “selection pressure” created by Bt. toxins, one of the major pests of cotton, pink bollworm, boomeranged in the shape of its increase in population in Gujarat, Punjab, and Andhra Pradesh. One must know that the brinjal fruit and shoot borer ( Leucinodes orbonalis) is also a characteristic monophagous insect (single host pest) and will naturally try to struggle to withstand bacterial toxins.
The existing technologies in Indian agriculture are insufficient to reduce the impact of weather aberrations: extreme drought and inundative rains and degraded soils. Many biotechnology experts frequently highlight the role of this new approach to solving such problems of dire need for the small and marginal farmers. But nothing has emerged so far.
These situations and requirements naturally should lead to certain questions, as raised by the Union Minister on February 9, in the context of the moratorium on Bt. brinjal.
— Why is there so much pressure on bacterial toxins-based ‘crop hybrids' alone when it is evident that it is very difficult to reduce insects through this approach?
— Why were the cotton varieties like Bt. Bekener Nerma evolved by public institutes — the UAS, the CICR, the IARI — withheld for a long time while giving clearance to cotton hybrids of a monopoly company?
— The company as well as the experts in biotechnology or molecular biology claim that the ecology, including the behaviour of major insect pests of cotton or brinjal, was well understood. Then how come they could not predict the threat of “selection pressure” through the pink bollworm in cotton and the fruit borer in brinjal?
— Who will compensate for the failure of Bt. genes and for the new pest problems that surface in the sub-tropical climate already witnessing a sporadic outbreak of several macro and micro pests?
— Why do the backers of Bt. hybrids relegate the relevance of an integrated pest management in cotton proposed by public-funded institutes? Why could not they emphasise that farmers continue the maintenance of ‘refugee crop' as they agreed to in the beginning of Bt. entry?
— Is it incorrect to say that because of the ‘Bt. gene mania' in cotton, several traditional germplasm lines (with diversity of virtues) are vanishing? Is it a myth that a similar fate will occur to brinjal, whose origin is South Asia, if not India?
(The writer is a former Professor, ANGR Agricultural University, and president, Jana Vignana Vedika, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.)
