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.

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.

Uptake of a free coronary heart disease risk screening programme in community pharmacy: the Healthy Heart Assessment service

Introduction Health promotion (HP) aims to enhance good health while preventing ill-health at three levels of activity; primary (preventative), secondary (diagnostic) and tertiary (management).1 It can range from simple provision of health education to ongoing support, but the effectiveness of HP is ultimately dependent on its ability to influence change. HP as part of the Community Pharmacy Contract (CPC) aims to increase public knowledge and target ‘hard-to-reach’ individuals by focusing mainly on primary and tertiary HP. The CPC does not include screening programmes (secondary HP) as a service. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the UK. While there is evidence to support the effectiveness of some community pharmacy HP strategies in CHD, there is paucity of research in relation to screening services.2 Against this background, Alliance Pharmacy introduced a free CHD risk screening programme to provide tailored HP advice as part of a participant–pharmacist consultation. The aim of this study is to report on the CHD risk levels of participants and to provide a qualitative indication of consultation outcomes. Methods Case records for 12 733 people who accessed a free CHD risk screening service between August 2004 and April 2006 offered at 217 community pharmacies were obtained. The service involved initial self-completion of the Healthy Heart Assessment (HHA) form and measurement of height, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol and highdensity lipoprotein levels by pharmacists to calculate CHD risk.3 Action taken by pharmacists (lifestyle advice, statin recommendation or general practitioner (GP) referral) and qualitative statements of advice were recorded, and a copy provided to the participants. The service did not include follow-up of participants. All participants consented to taking part in evaluations of the service. Ethical committee scrutiny was not required for this service development evaluation. Results Case records for 10 035 participants (3658 male) were evaluable; 5730 (57%) were at low CHD risk (<15%); 3636 (36%) at moderate-to-high CHD risk (≥15%); and 669 (7%) had existing heart disease. A significantly higher proportion of male (48% versus 30% female) participants were at moderate- to-high risk of CHD (chi-square test; P < 0.005). A range of outcomes resulted from consultations. Lifestyle advice was provided irrespective of participants’ CHD risk or existing disease. In the moderate-to-high-risk group, of which 52% received prescribed medication, lifestyle advice was recorded for 62%, 16% were referred and 34% were advised to have a re-assessment. Statin recommendations were made in 1% of all cases. There was evidence of supportive and motivational statements in the advice recorded. Discussion Pharmacists were able to identify individuals’ level of CHD risk and provide them with bespoke advice. Identification of at-risk participants did not automatically result in referrals or statin recommendation. One-third of those accessing the screening service had moderate-to-high risk of CHD, a significantly higher proportion of whom were men. It is not known whether these individuals had been previously exposed to HP but presumably by accessing this service they may have contemplated change. As effectiveness of HP advice will depend among other factors on ability to influence change, future consultations may need to explore patients’ attitude towards change in relation to the Trans Theoretical Model4 to better tailor HP advice. The high uptake of the service by those at moderate-to-high CHD risk indicates a need for this type of screening programme in community pharmacy, perhaps specifically to reach men who access medical services less.