Impact of Bt cotton on farmer livelihoods in South Africa

The economic benefits of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in developing countries have been well documented, but little research has been undertaken to date on the impacts of GM adoption on household livelihoods. The research reported here aimed to assess the livelihood impacts of the adoption of Bt cotton in South Africa., and involved 100 interviews of resource-poor farmers growing Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, South Africa. Some 88% of respondents reported a higher income from Bt compared to non-Bt varieties previously grown by them, and this higher income was used primarily for greater education of their children (76%), more investment in growing cotton (46%), repaying debt (28%), investment in other crops (20%) and spending money on themselves. Some 89% had increased their asset base due to Bt cotton, primarily by increasing their cultivable land. These benefits of Bt adoption appeared widespread regardless of gender or farm size.

Why Bt cotton pays for small-scale producers in South Africa

There is much debate about the potential benefits (and costs) of genetically modified (GM) crop technology for developing countries. Studies have been carried out in Argentina, China, Indonesia and most recently India1 to assess the impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton on farmers in those regions.

Bt-cotton boosts the gross margin of small-scale cotton producers in South Africa

This paper explores some of the issues involved in the Genetic Modification (GM) debate by focusing on one crop that has been modified for pest resistance, cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), and commercially released to small-scale farmers in the Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu Natal, the Republic of South Africa. This was the first commercial release of a GM variety (Bt-cotton) in Sub-Saharan Africa, and thus provides valuable and timely insights into some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of the technology for small-scale farmers in Africa. Even though there are wider concerns regarding the vulnerability of small-scale farmers in the area, the survey results suggest that Bt-cotton generated higher yields and gross margins than non-Bt-cotton. In addition, Bt-cotton significantly reduced the use of pesticide with consequent potential benefits to human health and the environment.

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.

Environmental impact of genetically modified cotton in South Africa

This paper presents the results of a large-scale study designed to monitor the impact arising from the introduction of insect-resistant Bt cotton in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Bt cotton provides a degree of resistance to cotton bollworm complex (Lepidoptera). Data were collected on the use of insecticides (type and quantity) as well as the farm-level economics of production from over 2200 farmers in three growing seasons (1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001). and the results are discussed within the context of environmental impact brought about by insecticide. Over the three seasons of the study it was clear that Bt cotton provided benefits in terms of higher yield and gross margin relative to farmers growing conventional (non-Bt) cotton, and the benefits were particularly apparent for the smallest producers. Bt growers also used significantly less insecticide than growers of non-Bt cotton. Once quantities of insecticide applied to Bt and non-Bt cotton were converted into a Biocide Index and an Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) in order to allow for differences in terms of toxicity and persistence in the environment, it was apparent that the growing of Bt had a less negative impact on the environment. While this points to beneficial impacts on agricultural sustainability there are wider concerns regarding the vulnerability of resource-poor farmers in an area with limited (as yet) marketing options for their product and options for livelihood diversification both within and outside agriculture. Cotton producers in Makhathini are vulnerable as they rely on just One company for inputs (including, credit) and for their market. While Bt cotton provides benefits it does not in itself address some of the structural limitations that farmers face. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Isolating the 'farmer' effect as a component of the advantage of growing genetically modified varieties in developing countries: a Bt cotton case study from Jalgaon, India

The present paper explores the 'farmer' effect in economic advantages often claimed for Bt cotton varieties (those with the endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis conferring resistance to some insect pests) compared to non-Bt varieties. Critics claim that much of the yield advantage of Bt cotton could be due to the fact that farmers adopting the technology are in a better position to provide inputs and management and so much of any claimed Bt advantage is an artefact rather than reflecting a real advantage of the variety per se. The present paper provides an in-depth analysis of 63 non-adopting and 94 adopting households of Bt cotton in Jalgaon, Maharashtra State, India, spanning the seasons 2002 and 2003. Results suggest that Bt adopters are indeed different from non-adopters in a number of ways. Adopters appear to specialize more on cotton (at least in terms of the land area they devote to the crop), spend more money on irrigation and grow well-performing non-Bt varieties of cotton (Bunny). Taking gross margin as the basis for comparison, Bt plots had 2.5 times the gross margin of non-Bt plots in both seasons. If only adopters are considered then the gross margin advantage of Bt plots reduces to 1.6 times that of non-Bt plots. This is still a significant advantage and could well explain the popularity of Bt in Maharashtra. However, it is clear that great care needs to be taken with such comparative studies.

Genetically modified insect resistance in cotton: some farm level economic impacts in India

The paper explores the impact of insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton on costs and returns over the first two seasons of its commercial release in three sub-regions of Maharashtra State, India. It is the first such research conducted in India based on farmers' own practices rather than trial plots. Data were collected for a total of 7793 cotton plots in 2002 and 1577 plots in 2003. Results suggest that while the cost of cotton seed was much higher for farmers growing Bt cotton relative to those growing non-Bt cotton, the costs of bollworm spray were much lower. While Bt plots had greater costs (seed plus insecticide) than non-Bt plots, the yields and revenue from Bt plots were much higher than those of non-Bt plots (some 39% and 63% higher in 2002 and 2003, respectively). Overall, the gross margins of Bt plots were some 43% (2002) and 73% (2003) higher than those of non-Bt plots, although there was some variation between the three sub-regions of the state. The results suggest that Bt cotton has provided substantial benefits for farmers in India over the 2 years, but there are questions as to whether these benefits are sustainable. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Can genetically-modified cotton contribute to sustainable development in Africa?

Genetically modified (GM) crops and sustainable development remain the foci of much media attention, especially given current concerns about a global food crisis. However, whilst the latter is embraced with enthusiasm by almost all groups, GM crops generate very mixed views. Some countries have welcomed GM, but others, notably those in Europe, adopt a cautious stance. This article aims to review the contribution that GM crops can make to agricultural sustainability in the developing world. Following brief reviews of both issues and their linkages, notably the pros and cons of GM cotton as a contributory factor in sustainability, a number of case studies from resourcepoor cotton farmers in Makhathini Flats, South Africa, is presented for a six-year period. Data on expenditure, productivity and income indicate that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton is advantageous because it reduces costs, for example, of pesticides, and increases income, and the indications are that those benefits continued over at least the six years covered by the studies. There are repercussions of the additional income in the households; debts are reduced and money is invested in children's education and in the farms. However, in the general GM debate, the results show that GM crops are not miracle products which alleviate poverty at a stroke, but nor is there evidence that they will cause the scale of environmental damage associated with indiscriminate pesticide use. Indeed, for some GM antagonists, perhaps even the majority, such debates are irrelevant – the transfer of genes between species is unnatural and unethical. For them, GM crops will never be acceptable despite the evidence and pressure to increase world food production.

Dr John Snow and an early investigation of groundwater contamination

John Snow was a physician but his studies of the way in which cholera is spread have long attracted the interest of hydrogeologists. From his investigation into the epidemiology of the cholera outbreak around the well in Broad Street, London, in 1854, Snow gained valuable evidence that cholera is spread by contamination of drinking water. Subsequent research by others showed that the well was contaminated by sewage. The study therefore represents one of the first, if not the first, study of an incident of groundwater contamination in Britain. Although he had no formal geological training, it is clear that Snow had a much better understanding of groundwater than many modern medical practitioners. At the time of the outbreak Snow was continuing his practice as a physician and anaesthetist. His casebooks for 1854 do not even mention cholera. Yet, nearly 150 years later, he is as well known for his work on cholera as for his pioneering work on anaesthesia, and his discoveries are still the subject of controversy.