Perceptions of the impacts of genetically modified cotton varieties: a case study of the cotton industry in Gujarat, India

The paper reports the findings of a study designed to consider the impact of the adoption of Bt cotton on markets, businesses, and institutional arrangements in India. Given that evidence to date suggests that widespread adoption of Bt cotton by farmers is likely to increase production, this study aims to assess possible implications for markets (access to inputs, prices of inputs and outputs, etc.) and local industries and to identify potential winners and losers. The results suggest that there are impacts on the cotton industry following from the release of Bt hybrids, and so far the impacts are most noticeable "upstream" (i.e., the input suppliers), where companies are rapidly moving away from the sale of bollworm insecticide and attempting to sell Bt seeds. Seed companies are looking for partnerships with Monsanto, the owner of the Bt gene. One reason that companies are keen to move away from insecticide is so they can avoid the need for credit supply to their customers. Seed purchase is not normally through credit, whereas insecticide purchase is. Issues for companies "downstream" (gins, textile manufacturers) relate more to the better quality of Bt cotton and the need for adequate segregation of Bt and non-Bt cotton.

Comparing the performance of official and unofficial genetically modified cotton in India

Genetically modified (GM) cotton was approved for commercial cultivation in 2002. Hybrids to date have carried the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene, which confers resistance to Lepidoptera and certain Coleoptera. As well as "official" Bt hybrids (i.e., those that have gone through a formal approval process), there are "unofficial" Bt hybrids produced without such approval. The owners of the official hybrids, Monsanto-Mahyco, claim that the unofficial hybrids are not as good and could even damage the perception of Bt cotton amongst farmers. Anti-GM groups claim that neither type of Bt hybrid provides either yield or economic advantages over non-Bt hybrids. This paper reports the first study of official versus unofficial versus non-Bt hybrids in India (622 farmers in Gujarat State) with the specific aim of comparing one hypothesized ranking in terms of gross margin of (a) official Bt hybrids, (b) unofficial Bt hybrids, and (c) non-Bt hybrids. Results suggest that the official Bt varieties (MECH 12 and MECH 162) significantly outperform the unofficial varieties in terms of gross margin. However, unofficial, locally produced Bt hybrids can also perform significantly better than non-Bt hybrids, although second-generation (F2) Bt seed appears to have no yield advantage compared to non-Bt hybrids but can save on insecticide use. The paper explores some of the implications of this ranking.

Comparative advantage in demand: Experimental evidence of preferences for genetically modified food in the United States and European Union

The United States (US) exports more than US$6 billion in agricultural commodities to the European Union (EU) each year, but one issue carries the potential to diminish this trade: use of biotechnology in food production. The EU has adopted more stringent policies towards biotechnology than the US. Understanding differences in European and American policies towards genetically modified (GM) foods requires a greater understanding of consumers' attitudes and preferences. This paper reports results from the first large-scale, cross-Atlantic study to analyse consumer demand for genetically modified food in a non-hypothetical market environment. We strongly reject the frequent if convenient assumption in trade theory that consumer preferences are identical across countries: the median level of compensation demanded by English and French consumers to consume a GM food is found to be more than twice that in any of the US locations. Results have important implications for trade theory, which typically focusses on differences in specialization, comparative advantage and factor endowments across countries, and for on-going trade disputes at the World Trade Organization.