2-Plants: Indian expert questions cotton trials
- To: GENETfirstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: 2-Plants: Indian expert questions cotton trials
- From: GENETNL <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:24:58 +0200
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
genet-news mailing list
-------------------------------- GENET-news --------------------------------
TITLE: Expert questions cotton trials
SOURCE: The Hindu, India
DATE: November 07, 2000
------------------ archive: http://www.gene.ch/genet.html ------------------
Expert questions cotton trials
An article published in the latest issue of Current Science has raised
questions about Monsanto's genetically modified Bollgard cotton and the
large-scale fields trials which have been permitted. Monsanto's Bollgard
cotton has been genetically modified to incorporate a gene from the soil
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Such Bt-cotton produces a protein which
kills certain insects that feed on the plant, but is not harmful to other
insects or animals. Consequently, spraying of insecticides, which are
costly and environmentally harmful, can be greatly reduced. After two years
of limited field trials, the Department of Environment's Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee cleared large-scale field trials of the
Bollgard cotton in July this year.
But Prof. Geeta Bharathan of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the
State University of New York, Stony Brook, in her Current Science article,
has been critical of ``the science, project design and biosafety
regulations underlying the decision that led to the adoption of the
The article has pointed out that in 1990, a Department of Biotechnology
(DBT) committee, headed by Prof. V.L. Chopra, evaluated an application from
Monsanto for permission to test Bollgard cotton in India. One of the
grounds on which the application was rejected was that backcrossing an
American cotton variety with a local one was rife with problems associated
with traditional plant breeding programmes. The committee felt it would be
better to introduce the Bt gene directly into the local varieties.
In 1996, the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) applied for
permission to import Bollgard cotton seeds and backcross the plants with
local varieties. ``Apparently this proposal was more acceptable to the
second DBT committee (of which Chopra was not a member),'' remarks Prof.
Bharathan. Permission was granted to Mahyco to carry out the experiment.
Since India has the technical expertise to incorporate the appropriate
genes into local varieties, what is the rationale for approving the
project? Prof. Bharathan has also raised the issue whether two years of
backcrossing are sufficient time to evaluate the stability of the new
varieties to be introduced.
The cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), a major pest of Indian cotton,
shows wide variation in its response to the protein produced by the CryIAc
gene carried by Bollgard cotton. So, resistance could evolve every quickly.
The armyworm (Spodoptera litura), a pest next in importance to the
bollworm, is probably even less susceptible. This raises many vital
questions about the suitability of Bollgard for India. But ``detailed
results from the two years of field tests are not available'', she has
There are reports of research in Indian agricultural institutions directed
towards introducing other Bt genes whose protein products are reportedly
effective against the bollworm and the armyworm. Why introduce the CrylIAc
gene into Indian varieties of cotton if it may not be optimal, if
variability in response of the pest increases the chance of resistance
evolving, and also enhances the risk of resistance to potentially more
effective Bt genes?
Dr. Bharathan has also raised questions about the mechanisms in place for
slowing the development of resistant strains among target pests.
The limited field trials of Bollgard cotton have been carried out on one-
acre plots in some 40 locations during two seasons, she has pointed out.
But a study of GM crop trials in the U. S. shows that even 100-acre trial
areas are considered too small for safe extrapolation from field trials to
large-scale cultivation. Are the limited field trials carried out in India
adequate to justify approval of large-scale trials?
| GENET |
| European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering |
| Hartmut MEYER (Mr) |
| Kleine Wiese 6 |
| D - 38116 Braunschweig |
| Germany |
| phone: +49-531-5168746 |
| fax: +49-531-5168747 |
| email: firstname.lastname@example.org |