| Monday , March 8 , 2010 |
|
| OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT |
New Delhi, March 7: Pink bollworms in India have turned resistant to a set of genetically modified cotton plants, the crop biotechnology company Mahyco-Monsanto has announced, describing it as the world’s first emergence of insect resistance to GM cotton.
The company said its scientists had detected unusual survival of pink bollworms in first-generation single-protein GM cotton plants during field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in four districts of Gujarat.
Tests have confirmed resistance to the Cry1Ac protein — the bacterial protein in the GM cotton which is expected to kill the bollworms — in Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh, and Rajkot, the company said in a statement.
If the findings are confirmed, they would mark the first insect resistance to GM cotton in the world. India introduced GM cotton eight years ago, but it is grown in 11 other countries, none of which have reported resistance so far despite longer periods of cultivation in some of them. Even the US which has cultivated GM cotton for more than 13 years has not reported resistance yet.
But two senior government entomologists have questioned the methodology and the conclusions drawn by Mahyco-Monsanto. “The unusual survival of bollworms in the cotton by itself need not be surprising. This is not the standard method of monitoring resistance,” said Keshav Kranthi, a crop protection specialist and acting director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur.
Kranthi said India is the only country in the world where GM cotton is hybrid and under Mendelian rules of gene segregation the Cry1Ac gene will be absent in 25 per cent of the seeds that form on the first generation plants.
“If the levels of insect infestation is low, farmers won’t notice, but at high infestation levels, survival of the insects will become apparent,” Kranthi said. “So the survival is not something dramatic.”
Mahyco-Monsanto said while the gene segregation argument is “scientifically correct”, bollworm larvae have been controlled “very well” prior to this incidence by the Cry1Ac cotton.
“We have not come across significant damage due to pink bollworm earlier,” the company said. Laboratory tests on the surviving larvae show “they could survive concentrations that will kill susceptible larvae”.
Some scientists are also questioning the conclusion of resistance after tests on larvae surviving GM cotton fields. In a bollworm population, one entomologist said, there is likely to be a small proportion with the capacity to survive the Cry1Ac protein toxin.
“Laboratory tests on them would obviously show them as resistant. But standard resistance monitoring should involve larvae picked up from conventional cotton fields,” Kranthi said.
The second entomologist who requested anonymity said he would agree with Kranthi.
But the company said its methodology is based on good science. “We based our conclusions on the judgement of recognised resistance experts who employed accepted scientific methods,” it said.
“Resistance is natural and expected,” the company said.
The company said it has reported its findings to a government panel responsible for approving GM products. It has also said that no insect resistance has been observed in its second generation GM cotton containing two proteins — Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
The crops with additional Cry2Ab protein would be more effective than plants with Cry1Ac alone. “The stacking of genes is a standard process called gene pyramiding to deal with possibility of resistance,” said a senior crop scientist.
Mahyco-Monsanto said that single protein Cry1Ac cotton continues to control bollworms pests other than pink bollworm in the four districts of Gujarat. And no insect resistance in any of India’s cotton growing states has been observed with the second generation GM cotton.
“The findings are an important reminder to Indian farmers,” the company said. When cultivating GM cotton, farmers are expected to plant non-GM cotton as refuge around the GM cotton to delay the risk resistance, regularly scout fields for insect presence, and use insecticide sprays only when needed.
But Kranthi said more independent tests would be required to confirm that pink bollworms have indeed turned resistant to the single protein GM cotton. “Our own studies so far do not indicate resistance,” he said.
|
Monday, March 8, 2010
NEWS : GM cotton’s resistance under strain
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Bt cotton ineffective against pest in parts of Gujarat, admits Monsanto
NEWS » NATIONAL
NEW DELHI, March 6, 2010
Updated: March 6, 2010 02:41 IST
For the first time anywhere in the world, biotech agriculture giant Monsanto has admitted that insects have developed resistance to its Bt cotton crop. Field monitoring in parts of Gujarat has discovered that the Bt crop is no longer effective against the pink bollworm pest there.
The company is advocating that Indian farmers switch to its second-generation product to delay resistance further. Monsanto's critics say that this just proves the ineffectiveness of the Bt technology, which was recently sought to be introduced in India in Bt brinjal as well.
In November 2009, Monsanto's scientists detected unusual survival of the pink bollworm pest while monitoring the Bt cotton crop in Gujarat. In January and February, samples taken from the field were tested in Monsanto's laboratories. It has been confirmed that pink bollworm is now resistant to the pest-killing protein of Bt cotton in four districts — Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot.
Until now, Monsanto has held that “there have been no confirmed cases of poor field performance of Bt cotton or Bt corn attributable to insect resistance.” Although there have been cases of insects resisting the technology in the laboratory, Monsanto held that “field resistance is the criterion of relevance to agricultural producers.”
Now that the company itself has admitted that its product has been proved ineffective against some insects on the fields of Gujarat, its advice to farmers is to start using its second generation product instead. “Farmers have another choice. We have a two-gene product called Bollgard II which has greater ability to delay resistance,” says Monsanto India's director of scientific affairs Rashmi Nair. She also recommends that farmers conduct better monitoring and plant “refuges,” or areas of non-Bt crop which would attract insects.
Agricultural scientists and activists say Monsanto's advice is “ridiculous”. The Bollgard II product has no additional toxin to combat pink bollworm, says G.V. Ramanjaneyulu of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. It is simply that as a newer product, Bollgard II will take longer for the pest to develop resistance. Anyway, the Bt toxin is only active for 90 days, while pink bollworm is a late season pest, he adds.
“All the hype about the effectiveness of Bt against pests is bogus …This proves that you can't stay ahead of the pest with … this shortsighted approach,” says Kavitha Kuruganti of the Kheti Virasat Mission. Indian farmers with small holdings cannot be expected to give up large parts of their land for non- productive “refuges,” added Dr. Ramanjaneyulu.
Monsanto's Dr. Nair says the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) was informed about the resistance “about eight to ten days ago.” The CICR, which has been collaborating in the field monitoring of Bt cotton since 2003, has reported this to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), she said. However, the Ministry of Environment and Forests seems to have been unaware of the test results until Monsanto issued a statement on Friday.
Over the last month, the GEAC and the Ministry have been at the centre of a storm regarding the government's moratorium on Bt brinjal's commercial release. Critics are now pointing to the ineffectiveness of Bt cotton in Gujarat to strengthen their case against Bt brinjal as well.
SOURCE: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article183353.ece
For the first time anywhere in the world, biotech agriculture giant Monsanto has admitted that insects have developed resistance to its Bt cotton crop. Field monitoring in parts of Gujarat has discovered that the Bt crop is no longer effective against the pink bollworm pest there.
The company is advocating that Indian farmers switch to its second-generation product to delay resistance further. Monsanto's critics say that this just proves the ineffectiveness of the Bt technology, which was recently sought to be introduced in India in Bt brinjal as well.
In November 2009, Monsanto's scientists detected unusual survival of the pink bollworm pest while monitoring the Bt cotton crop in Gujarat. In January and February, samples taken from the field were tested in Monsanto's laboratories. It has been confirmed that pink bollworm is now resistant to the pest-killing protein of Bt cotton in four districts — Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot.
Until now, Monsanto has held that “there have been no confirmed cases of poor field performance of Bt cotton or Bt corn attributable to insect resistance.” Although there have been cases of insects resisting the technology in the laboratory, Monsanto held that “field resistance is the criterion of relevance to agricultural producers.”
Now that the company itself has admitted that its product has been proved ineffective against some insects on the fields of Gujarat, its advice to farmers is to start using its second generation product instead. “Farmers have another choice. We have a two-gene product called Bollgard II which has greater ability to delay resistance,” says Monsanto India's director of scientific affairs Rashmi Nair. She also recommends that farmers conduct better monitoring and plant “refuges,” or areas of non-Bt crop which would attract insects.
Agricultural scientists and activists say Monsanto's advice is “ridiculous”. The Bollgard II product has no additional toxin to combat pink bollworm, says G.V. Ramanjaneyulu of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. It is simply that as a newer product, Bollgard II will take longer for the pest to develop resistance. Anyway, the Bt toxin is only active for 90 days, while pink bollworm is a late season pest, he adds.
“All the hype about the effectiveness of Bt against pests is bogus …This proves that you can't stay ahead of the pest with … this shortsighted approach,” says Kavitha Kuruganti of the Kheti Virasat Mission. Indian farmers with small holdings cannot be expected to give up large parts of their land for non- productive “refuges,” added Dr. Ramanjaneyulu.
Monsanto's Dr. Nair says the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) was informed about the resistance “about eight to ten days ago.” The CICR, which has been collaborating in the field monitoring of Bt cotton since 2003, has reported this to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), she said. However, the Ministry of Environment and Forests seems to have been unaware of the test results until Monsanto issued a statement on Friday.
Over the last month, the GEAC and the Ministry have been at the centre of a storm regarding the government's moratorium on Bt brinjal's commercial release. Critics are now pointing to the ineffectiveness of Bt cotton in Gujarat to strengthen their case against Bt brinjal as well.
SOURCE: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article183353.ece
Bt cotton has failed admits Monsanto
Dinesh C. Sharma | Mail Today | New Delhi, March 6, 2010 | UPDATED 10:39 IST
The ongoing debate on biotechnology crops in India took a new turn on Friday when American seed firm Monsanto disclosed that cotton pest--pink bollworm--has developed resistance to its much-touted Bt cotton variety in Gujarat.
The company has reported to the regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), that pink bollworm has developed resistance to its genetically modified (GM) cotton variety, Bollgard I, in Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot districts in Gujarat.
This was detected by the company during field monitoring in the 2009 cotton season.
The Bt cotton variety in question was developed using a gene--Cry1AC--derived from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. It was supposed to be resistant to pest attacks. But, of late, the pest has developed resistance to the gene.
The same gene has been used in Bt brinjal to make it resistant to pests. Bollgard cotton was cited as a great success of GM technology by Union science minister Prithviraj Chavan in his July 2009 letter to former health minister A. Ramadoss.
"Resistance is natural and expected," Monsanto said in a statement. The company blamed pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat to "early use of unapproved Bt cotton seeds" by farmers and "limited refuge planting". Farmers are supposed to maintain a distance between Bt cotton farms and other farms as a "refuge". It also advised farmers to take up "need-based application of insecticide sprays" and "properly manage crop residue and unopened bolls after harvest". A second generation variety, Bollgard II, introduced by Monsanto in 2006, contains two proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
The company says no resistance has been observed in the variety anywhere in the country, including Gujarat.
The revelation has not surprised environment action groups. "This is the pattern Monsanto has been following everywhere. Once Bollgard 1 fails, they start pushing Bollgard 2 and tell farmers to apply more pesticides. This is a vicious circle that Indian cotton farmers have got into," Devinder Sharma of Forum for Biotechnology and Food Safety said.
"There is a lesson here for Bt brinjal because the arguments in favour of the crop are same as those given for Bollgard cotton," Kavita Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat said.
In a report submitted to environment minister Jairam Ramesh, K.R. Kranthi of the Central Institute for Cotton Research had cautioned about the likely failure of Bt cotton. "Farmers are not following the recommended 'refugia'. With about 90 per cent area under Bt cotton, bollworms can develop resistance soon. The concern needs to be addressed on priority before it is too late," the report says.
Not only has Bt cotton been rendered ineffective, it has also led to detection of some new pests never before reported from India. It is toxic only to bollworm and does not control any other pests of cotton. "New sucking pests have emerged as major pests causing significant economic losses", the report says.
At the same time, productivity of cotton has fallen from 560 kg lint per hectare in 2007 to 512 kg lint per hectare in 2009.
And pesticide expenditure has gone up from from Rs.597 crore in 2002 to Rs.791 crore in 2009.
SOURCE: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Bt+cotton+has+failed+admits+Monsanto/1/86939.html
Setback for Bt cotton; main pest develops resistance
BS Reporter | New Delhi
March 6, 2010 Last Updated at 00:17 IST
In a setback for genetically engineered cotton, Monsanto, innovator of the strain, confirmed what sceptics had said might well happen, that the pests it was supposed to resist better than natural cotton would also innovate.
The company confirmed today that the pink bollworm, the damaging pest against which the genetically modified variety had been successful, had developed resistance to the protein in question, in parts of Gujarat. This has been reported to the government’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.
In a statement issued today, Monsanto said: “Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Acwas confirmed in four districts in Gujarat — Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot. Gujarat is one of nine states where cotton is grown. To date, no insect resistance to Cry1Ac has been confirmed outside the four districts in Gujarat.”
Many who opposed the commercialisation of Bt brinjal in India had said insects could develop resistance to it after some years. They’d made the same predictions earlier on Bt cotton.
Monsanto today said, during field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in Gujarat, its scientists and those of Mahyco (its sister company) detected unusual survival of the pink bollworm to first-generation, single-protein Bollgard cotton.
It said current monitoring efforts by an Indian-expert network to manage insect resistance will be expanded. “The network will continue to conduct extensive insect monitoring, encourage appropriate stewardship practices such as proper refuge planting through an intensified farmer education campaign, and explore new methods of refuge seed delivery,” it said.
Adding, “resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important.” Among the factors that may have contributed to pink bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat are “limited refuge planting and early use of unapproved Bt cotton seed, planted prior to GEAC approval of Cry1Ac cotton, which may have had lower protein expression levels.”
It said there was need for continuous research and innovation to develop new value-added technologies to stay ahead of insect resistance. “To support such innovation, government policies should encourage investment in research and development, which will result in Indian farmers having a wider choice of better and advanced technologies,” it added.
SOURCE: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/setback-for-bt-cotton-main-pest-develops-resistance-110030600019_1.htmlSaturday, March 6, 2010
NEWS : Bt cotton has failed admits Monsanto
US seed firm says pink bollworm has developed resistance to Bt cotton.
The ongoing debate on biotechnology crops in India took a new turn on Friday when American seed firm Monsanto disclosed that cotton pest--pink bollworm--has developed resistance to its much-touted Bt cotton variety in Gujarat.
The company has reported to the regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), that pink bollworm has developed resistance to its genetically modified (GM) cotton variety, Bollgard I, in Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot districts in Gujarat.
This was detected by the company during field monitoring in the 2009 cotton season.
The Bt cotton variety in question was developed using a gene--Cry1AC--derived from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. It was supposed to be resistant to pest attacks. But, of late, the pest has developed resistance to the gene.
The same gene has been used in Bt brinjal to make it resistant to pests. Bollgard cotton was cited as a great success of GM technology by Union science minister Prithviraj Chavan in his July 2009 letter to former health minister A. Ramadoss.
"Resistance is natural and expected," Monsanto said in a statement. The company blamed pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat to "early use of unapproved Bt cotton seeds" by farmers and "limited refuge planting". Farmers are supposed to maintain a distance between Bt cotton farms and other farms as a "refuge". It also advised farmers to take up "need-based application of insecticide sprays" and "properly manage crop residue and unopened bolls after harvest". A second generation variety, Bollgard II, introduced by Monsanto in 2006, contains two proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
The company says no resistance has been observed in the variety anywhere in the country, including Gujarat.
The revelation has not surprised environment action groups. "This is the pattern Monsanto has been following everywhere. Once Bollgard 1 fails, they start pushing Bollgard 2 and tell farmers to apply more pesticides. This is a vicious circle that Indian cotton farmers have got into," Devinder Sharma of Forum for Biotechnology and Food Safety said.
"There is a lesson here for Bt brinjal because the arguments in favour of the crop are same as those given for Bollgard cotton," Kavita Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat said.
In a report submitted to environment minister Jairam Ramesh, K.R. Kranthi of the Central Institute for Cotton Research had cautioned about the likely failure of Bt cotton. "Farmers are not following the recommended 'refugia'. With about 90 per cent area under Bt cotton, bollworms can develop resistance soon. The concern needs to be addressed on priority before it is too late," the report says.
Not only has Bt cotton been rendered ineffective, it has also led to detection of some new pests never before reported from India. It is toxic only to bollworm and does not control any other pests of cotton. "New sucking pests have emerged as major pests causing significant economic losses", the report says.
At the same time, productivity of cotton has fallen from 560 kg lint per hectare in 2007 to 512 kg lint per hectare in 2009.
And pesticide expenditure has gone up from from Rs 597 crore in 2002 to Rs 791 crore in 2009.
SOURCE : http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Bt+cotton+has+failed+admits+Monsanto/1/86939.html
Cotton in India (survival of pink bollworm to first-generation single-protein Bollgard cotton)
Monsanto, 5 March 2010
During field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in the state of Gujarat in western India, Monsantoi and Mahyco scientists detected unusual survival of pink bollworm to first-generation single-protein Bollgard cotton. Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac was confirmed in four districts in Gujarat – Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot. Gujarat is one of nine states in India where cotton is grown. To date, no insect resistance to Cry1Ac has been confirmed outside the four districts in Gujarat.
This has been reported to the Indian Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. Mahyco-Monsanto Biotechii in collaboration with the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) and other agricultural research institutes have been conducting field monitoring research across India since 2003, the second season of Bt cotton in India.
Single-protein Cry1Ac products continue to control bollworm pests other than pink bollworm in the four districts in Gujarat where pink bollworm resistance has been confirmed. In addition, no instance of insect resistance in any of India’s cotton growing states, including the four districts in Gujarat, has been observed with Bollgard II, the
second-generation Bt cotton technology. Bollgard II, introduced in 2006, contains two proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
Current monitoring efforts to manage insect resistance by an Indian-expert network will be expanded. The network is led by the Director of CICR who is nominated by GEAC. The network will continue to conduct extensive insect monitoring, encourage appropriate stewardship practices such as proper refuge planting through an intensified farmer education campaign, and explore new methods of refuge seed delivery.
Resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important. Among the factors that may have contributed to pink bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat are limited refuge planting and early use of unapproved Bt cotton seed, planted prior to GEAC approval of Cry1Ac cotton, which may have had lower protein expression levels.
While single-protein Cry1Ac cotton products continue to deliver value to Indian farmers, increasingly Indian farmers are planting two-protein Bollgard II cotton because it reduces the need for insecticide sprays compared to Cry1Ac products and increases yield. Over 65% of Gujarat cotton farmers chose Bollgard II cotton in 2009, and pre-season bookings indicate that over 90% of Gujarat cotton farmers are expected to plant Bollgard II in the 2010 season. Overall, approximately 80% of all Indian cotton farmers are expected to plant Bollgard II in the 2010 season.
The findings in Gujarat are an important reminder to Indian farmers. When using Bt cotton products it is essential to regularly monitor and scout fields throughout the season for insect presence and plant appropriate
non-Bt refuge. Furthermore, farmers must adopt measures such as need-based application of insecticide sprays during the crop season, and properly manage crop residue and unopened bolls after harvest. Examples of such practices include tillage and cattle grazing to minimize the survival and spread of pink bollworm.
Continuous R&D and innovation to develop new value-added technologies is imperative to stay ahead of insect resistance. To support such innovation, Government policies should encourage investment in R&D which will result in Indian farmers having a wider choice of better and advanced technologies.
Monsanto is committed to developing new high performing products for farmers, and is currently working on a three-protein Bt cotton technology. Monsanto is open to collaborating with other technology providers in India
to develop products that use the best available technologies for the benefit of Indian farmers.
SOURCE: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/india_pink_bollworm.asp
During field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in the state of Gujarat in western India, Monsantoi and Mahyco scientists detected unusual survival of pink bollworm to first-generation single-protein Bollgard cotton. Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac was confirmed in four districts in Gujarat – Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot. Gujarat is one of nine states in India where cotton is grown. To date, no insect resistance to Cry1Ac has been confirmed outside the four districts in Gujarat.
This has been reported to the Indian Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. Mahyco-Monsanto Biotechii in collaboration with the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) and other agricultural research institutes have been conducting field monitoring research across India since 2003, the second season of Bt cotton in India.
Single-protein Cry1Ac products continue to control bollworm pests other than pink bollworm in the four districts in Gujarat where pink bollworm resistance has been confirmed. In addition, no instance of insect resistance in any of India’s cotton growing states, including the four districts in Gujarat, has been observed with Bollgard II, the
second-generation Bt cotton technology. Bollgard II, introduced in 2006, contains two proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
Current monitoring efforts to manage insect resistance by an Indian-expert network will be expanded. The network is led by the Director of CICR who is nominated by GEAC. The network will continue to conduct extensive insect monitoring, encourage appropriate stewardship practices such as proper refuge planting through an intensified farmer education campaign, and explore new methods of refuge seed delivery.
Resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important. Among the factors that may have contributed to pink bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat are limited refuge planting and early use of unapproved Bt cotton seed, planted prior to GEAC approval of Cry1Ac cotton, which may have had lower protein expression levels.
While single-protein Cry1Ac cotton products continue to deliver value to Indian farmers, increasingly Indian farmers are planting two-protein Bollgard II cotton because it reduces the need for insecticide sprays compared to Cry1Ac products and increases yield. Over 65% of Gujarat cotton farmers chose Bollgard II cotton in 2009, and pre-season bookings indicate that over 90% of Gujarat cotton farmers are expected to plant Bollgard II in the 2010 season. Overall, approximately 80% of all Indian cotton farmers are expected to plant Bollgard II in the 2010 season.
The findings in Gujarat are an important reminder to Indian farmers. When using Bt cotton products it is essential to regularly monitor and scout fields throughout the season for insect presence and plant appropriate
non-Bt refuge. Furthermore, farmers must adopt measures such as need-based application of insecticide sprays during the crop season, and properly manage crop residue and unopened bolls after harvest. Examples of such practices include tillage and cattle grazing to minimize the survival and spread of pink bollworm.
Continuous R&D and innovation to develop new value-added technologies is imperative to stay ahead of insect resistance. To support such innovation, Government policies should encourage investment in R&D which will result in Indian farmers having a wider choice of better and advanced technologies.
Monsanto is committed to developing new high performing products for farmers, and is currently working on a three-protein Bt cotton technology. Monsanto is open to collaborating with other technology providers in India
to develop products that use the best available technologies for the benefit of Indian farmers.
SOURCE: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/india_pink_bollworm.asp
Bt cotton flunks pest resistance test in Gujarat
Zia Haq, Hindustan Times New Delhi, March 05, 2010
First Published: 23:56 IST(5/3/2010) | Last Updated: 01:58 IST(6/3/2010)
This cotton variety was genetically modified only to enable it to protect itself against pests, and it failed. The stunning disclosure has swerved the spotlight back on the debate over the efficacy and sustainability of GM crops.
No doubt, there were four different varieties of pests that Bt cotton was expected to resist — and has so far failed the test in only one.
Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India and 522 varieties, including those developed by state-owned institutions, are being farmed.
This cotton variety was genetically modified only to enable it to protect itself against pests, and it failed. The stunning disclosure has swerved the spotlight back on the debate over the efficacy and sustainability of GM crops.
No doubt, there were four different varieties of pests that Bt cotton was expected to resist — and has so far failed the test in only one.
Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India and 522 varieties, including those developed by state-owned institutions, are being farmed.
“During field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in Gujarat, Monsanto1 and Mahyco scientists detected unusual survival of pink bollworm to first-generation single-protein Bollgard cotton. Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac was confirmed,” the company said on Friday.
Monsanto said further studies were being conducted on why the crops lost their pest-fighting ability.
Responding to an e-mail question, the company said use of unapproved Bt cotton seeds, planted prior to approval, which may have had lower potency, and not following farming norms might have contributed to pink bollworm resistance. This has been reported to India’s biotech regulator, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.
Does this put under cloud Bt technology itself? G T Gujar, who heads the insect science division of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, said: “This is just a preliminary report and shouldn’t be viewed as failure of the technology. It’s a chance to understand it better.”
Gujar said some resistance was natural and therefore, farming Bt cotton according to government norms was essential.
Anti-GM groups said Monsanto’s disclosure proved the inefficacy of BT technology. “The shortcoming of any pest management technology that tries to kill an insect rather than control or manage it is apparent as has been predicted. This is true with Bt technology as well as with chemical pesticides,” said Kavitha Kuruganti of Faridkot-based Kheti Virasat Mission.
SOURCE: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bt-cotton-flunks-pest-resistance-test-in-gujarat/article1-515648.aspx
“During field monitoring of the 2009 cotton crop in Gujarat, Monsanto1 and Mahyco scientists detected unusual survival of pink bollworm to first-generation single-protein Bollgard cotton. Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac was confirmed,” the company said on Friday.
Monsanto said further studies were being conducted on why the crops lost their pest-fighting ability.
Responding to an e-mail question, the company said use of unapproved Bt cotton seeds, planted prior to approval, which may have had lower potency, and not following farming norms might have contributed to pink bollworm resistance. This has been reported to India’s biotech regulator, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.
Does this put under cloud Bt technology itself? G T Gujar, who heads the insect science division of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, said: “This is just a preliminary report and shouldn’t be viewed as failure of the technology. It’s a chance to understand it better.”
Gujar said some resistance was natural and therefore, farming Bt cotton according to government norms was essential.
Anti-GM groups said Monsanto’s disclosure proved the inefficacy of BT technology. “The shortcoming of any pest management technology that tries to kill an insect rather than control or manage it is apparent as has been predicted. This is true with Bt technology as well as with chemical pesticides,” said Kavitha Kuruganti of Faridkot-based Kheti Virasat Mission.
SOURCE: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bt-cotton-flunks-pest-resistance-test-in-gujarat/article1-515648.aspx
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Udupi's own plight in saving its Brinjal
By Rajat R., Mangalore [ Published Date: February 6, 2010 ]
SOURCE : http://mangalorean.com/
- Fabled Matti Gulla comes under focus
This hallowed town of legendary proportions is now fighting its own battle over BT Brinjal. It is trying to save a special type of brinjal that has a heritage of 500 years. Known as Matti Gulla, it is a special vegetable endemic only to a place called Mattu near Malpe on Udyavar-Malpe road near Udupi. A small community of farmers who grow this unique type of Brinjal are now fighting against the bio-contamination of Matti Gulla.
Two eminent scientists Ramesh Bhat and M.N. Madhyastha have taken up the scientific study of this vegetable in an exclusive paper produced for this purpose have guided the farmers to save their crop. The paper that has been exclusively given to Mangalorean.com brings out different views about the Matti Gulla.
Two eminent scientists Ramesh Bhat and M.N. Madhyastha have taken up the scientific study of this vegetable in an exclusive paper produced for this purpose have guided the farmers to save their crop. The paper that has been exclusively given to Mangalorean.com brings out different views about the Matti Gulla.
In a bid to get global patent, the Horticulture Department had also come forward to study this famous Udupi Brinjal. A team led by Additional Director of the Department, Dr Ramakrishnappa, had visited Mattu Area, where this special variety Brinjal was cultivated. The team is making a detailed study of this variety by collecting all available data.
Brinjal has been used as a vegetable in India, since time immemorial. The classic Ramayana contains reference to Brinjal. Early Buddhist and Jain works, Sutras like Uttaradhyana Sutra, Prajapana Sutra and Jatakas record Brinjal (Om Prakash 1961) Indian subcontinent (Indo- Burma region, probably Assam) is considered as the Centre of origin of Brinjal (Paroda and Aurora, 1999). The Sanskrit name Varthaku, Vrutanka, Vaantaki, Vantika or Vatinganah is responsible for a number of names in various languages such as Badhinjan in Persian and al-badinjan in Arabic. Arabs have carried the brinjal to Europe around 16th century. The Catalan nomenclature of albergia is responsible for the French and British name aubergine. In the North American continent it is known as egg plant since the fruit of some early varieties were all white and looked like hen's eggs. The Kannada name "Badane" appears to be closer to Persian Badinjan rather than to Sanskrit name Vatinganh. The Tulu/Kannada name Gulla seems to have evolved independently.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Why Does Wearing Organic Cotton Matter If We Don’t Eat It?
by Lynda Fassa, Green Babies , 01/25/10 filed under: Ask a Designer, Eco-Textiles, Featured, Features,Green Designers, Interviews
Fifteen years ago when I founded Green Babies, the term “green” was so disassociated from fashion (or anything else for that matter), that people would ask my husband and business partner: “Green Babies, what’s that?” And he’d answer, “It’s an adoption agency for Martian children.” “Oh”..they’d say, slowly nodding and backing away. Sometimes I’d tell them what it really was and they looked equally perplexed. Things have changed, for the much better and brighter, but the question still remains: Why does organic cotton matter?
COTTONING ON TO COTTON
Conventional cotton takes a much heavier toll than you might know. Consider this:
- Conventional cotton occupies only 3 percent of the world’s farmland, but uses 25 percent of the world’s chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
- Cotton is the second most pesticide-laden crop in the world (after coffee) and number one in the United States.
- Pesticides don’t just land on crops, but make their way into groundwater, which is drinking water for 60 percent of Americans.
- Cancer is the number one disease killer of children in the United States—and the second cause of death after accidents.
There just simply is no magic garbage barge taking these neurotoxins off the planet, our planet. We all cringe when we see the wicked witch handing poor Snow White the poisoned apple and yet, if we’re not choosing organic, we are doing the same. Can we really just close our eyes as our land is being bombed with poisons, some developed as chemical weapons during wartime?
COTTON IN THE FOOD CHAIN
If you eat potato chips, corn chips, [insert favorite salty snack food here], you’re most likely ingesting conventional cotton. Check that label: Cottonseed oil is right near the top in the list of ingredients, and it’s chances are, it’s not organic cottonseed oil.
If you eat salty snack foods, you’re most likely ingesting conventional cotton.
Conventional cotton and its toxic legacy makes it into our food supply in other ways, too. Hulls from cottonseeds are a common feed for beef cattle, so if you’ve got a hankering for a burger, you’re probably getting more than you bargained for in your own personal ecosystem, as well.
THE SILVER LINING
Here’s the good news: Organic cotton acreage is growing, not just here in the United States, but the world over. This is because of clever designers embracing the better promise of organic cotton, along with making appealing clothes that increase awareness and demand for greener textiles.
And more organic cotton not only makes a better quality of life for the farmer and farm workers, but it may also make your food bill cheaper, even in the short run.
Organic cotton could also make your food bill cheaper, even in the short run.
Organic acreage allows for more crop diversity and health. It also doesn’t allow genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that may be linked to Colony Collapse Disorder, a mysterious syndrome in bees that is confusing and killing them. Less bees means more cash at the grocery store, since struggling farmers have to “rent” worker bees and sometimes ship them long distances to pollinate their crops.
VOTING WITH OUR DOLLARS
Conscious consumerism is changing the way we think about our purchases and our relationship with “stuff.” We’ve begun to ask ourselves the questions big ad agencies get paid a lot of money to help us forget to ask:
- Where does it come from?
- Who made it?
- Who touched it?
- Under what conditions?
- What will happen to it when I’m done?
BECAUSE WE’RE WORTH IT
How good does it feel to look good, feel great, be connected to other people and the planet? How good does it feel to pick up a new shirt, smell it, and have it really smell like fresh fields and not a laundry detergent claiming to smell like fresh fields or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the polymers new clothes are treated with?
New clothes often smell like VOCs from the polymers they’re treated with.
How good does it feel to know that the young woman who picked that cotton in Turkey with her toddler on her back does not have to worry about what’s been sprayed on the crop that became your shirt? The answer is really good.
Organic cotton matters and it’s worth the extra couple of bucks. Actually, when you think about it, it’s not so much that organic cotton is worth it. It’s that we’re worth it.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
WATCH: Genetic engineering: The world's greatest scam?
Uploaded on Sep 11, 2009
(French version -- http://www.greenpeace.org/ogm)
Genetic engineering is a threat to food security, especially in a changing climate. The introduction of genetically manipulated organisms by choice or by accident grossly undermines sustainable agriculture and in so doing, severely limits the choice of food we can eat.
Once GE plants are released into the environment, they are out of control. If anything goes wrong - they are impossible to recall.
GE contamination threatens biodiversity respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival.
Genetic engineering is a threat to food security, especially in a changing climate. The introduction of genetically manipulated organisms by choice or by accident grossly undermines sustainable agriculture and in so doing, severely limits the choice of food we can eat.
Once GE plants are released into the environment, they are out of control. If anything goes wrong - they are impossible to recall.
GE contamination threatens biodiversity respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival.
SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9WZGKQeYg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)