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.

Official warnings on thromboembolism risk with oral contraceptives fail to inform users adequately

Following the 1995 “pill scare” relating to the risk of venous thrombosis from taking second- or third-generation oral contraceptives, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) withdrew their earlier recommended restrictions on the use of third-generation pills and published recommended wording to be used in patient information leaflets. However, the effectiveness of this wording has not been tested. An empirical study (with 186 pill users, past users, and non-users) was conducted to assess understanding, based on this wording, of the absolute and relative risk of thrombosis in pill users and in pregnancy. The results showed that less than 12% of women in the (higher education) group fully understood the absolute levels of risk from taking the pill and from being pregnant. Relative risk was also poorly understood, with less than 40% of participants showing full understanding, and 20% showing no understanding. We recommend that the CSM revisit the wording currently provided to millions of women in the UK.