According
to a recently published report from the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), the answer is yes, but readers of the Mail on Sunday will
have seen exactly the opposite message.
IFPRI, in a report entitled Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India - reviewing
the evidence (2), concludes that there has neither been an upsurge in farmer
suicides a link between suicide and the introduction of Bt cotton. For the
great majority of farmers, incomes have increased. The Mail report, on the
other hand, is headlined The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are
committing suicide after using genetically modified crops. How can two such
radically different interpretations be published?
IFPRI is a respected, independent organisation which has done its homework
and published a well-argued 64 page report, whereas the Mail has printed a
story by its reporter Andrew Malone, based on a visit to Maharashtra state.
He reports some heartrending personal stories about individual farmers who
killed themselves after running up debts to buy GM seeds which then failed
to produce a crop. There is no reason to disbelieve these personal stories,
and they are indeed tragic. But this story unfortunately has the hallmarks
of biased reporting, with no attempt to understand the full picture.
Malone does himself no credit by repeating the canard that GM seeds are based
on "terminator" technology, to prevent farmers saving seed and planting
it the following season. This more accurately titled Genetic Use Restriction
Technology (and intended to stop the spread of transgenes rather than prevent
reuse of saved seed) is purely theoretical and has never been commercialised.
In fact, the Bt cotton seeds are produced each year by hybridisation, a commonly-used
conventional technique to boost yields. The seeds do not breed true, but are
viable. A classic case of a lazy reporter swallowing an activist line without
question.
In 2006, around 18,000 Indian farmers committed suicide, according to the
best available statistics. This is a truly shocking figure, but this is itself
dwarfed by the more than 118,000 total suicides in India in the same year
(this high figure is a reflection of the size of India's population: the rate
is about the same as most European countries and lower than, for example,
Finland or Switzerland). So, India does not have a particularly high rate
of suicides. Neither do these suicides occur predominantly among farmers:
over 70% of the population still lives in rural areas, but farmer suicides
(and the great majority of rural Indians are farmers) represent less than
15% of the national total. And, although there has generally been a slow increase
in suicides in recent years, the number of farmers killing themselves has
changed very little.
Having established that there has been no big increase in the (fairly average)
rate of farmer suicides, we still need to consider the role of GM cotton on
this. How near the truth is the Mail report of "...an estimated 125,000
farmers...take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India
as a testing ground for genetically modified crops."? Is it true that
"...official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed
confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves
here [Maharastra] each month."?
IFPRI report a figure of 4,453 for the number of suicides in Maharashtra in
2006 (National Crime Records Bureau statistics, which the authors consider
the best available). This is already a worryingly high figure, and there is
clearly a particular problem here because this is not the most populous state.
But Maharashtra has always had a much higher rate of suicides than other states,
according to the statistics. Nothing has changed with the introduction of
GM cotton. Reporting an inflated figure as fact again smacks of irresponsible
reporting.
Cotton is an important crop in India. Statistics show that, over the decade
from 1997 to 2006, the country accounted for over a quarter of the total cotton
growing area in the world: 8.65 million hectares out of a 35 mha total. But
yields have been pitifully low: 263 kg/ha compared with 626 in Pakistan, 1087
in China and as high as 1655 kg/ha in Australia. Despite having a quarter
of the world's growing area, India accounted for only 11% of total production.
Yields in India were growing slowly, but were constrained by lack of irrigation
(thus relying on the monsoon rains) and high pest pressure.
Since the first introduction of Bt (pest-resistant) varieties in 2002, average
yields have now more than doubled, and India has become the world's second
largest producer of cotton. In 2006, 3.8 mha of Bt cotton were grown, nearly
half of this in Maharashtra state. Since some 60 million people are directly
or indirectly dependent on cotton for their livelihood, this is surely a positive
development.
But this good news must be tempered by some more negative aspects. One important
factor is that distribution of illegal, low-quality seeds was facilitated
by the relatively high price of the new Bt seed (about five times the price
of conventional hybrids) and confusion about which varieties had been approved.
This was compounded by a lack of support to farmers in choosing the right
seed or reducing their high level of pesticide spraying. Taken together, this
meant that a certain proportion of farmers had disappointing results or even
crop failure.
Overall, taking all the published studies into account, the IFPRI report concluded
that the use of Bt cotton increased average yields by at least a third and
(despite higher seed costs) increased returns to farmers by more than 50%.
Instances of crop failure were due primarily to drought conditions, not the
GM technology. Results in Maharashtra, while not the best, were certainly
very positive, in stark contrast to the "GM genocide" message promoted
by activists. In this state, as in virtually all others studied, the general
slow upward trend in suicides actually declined as the area under Bt cotton
grew rapidly. Only in Andhra Pradesh, which had the most negative experience
with GM cotton, was the trend of suicides ambiguous.
The facts, carefully analysed, do not show any link between GM cotton and
the rate of farmer suicides. However, the Mail on Sunday article is a typical
example (admittedly rather extreme) of irresponsible reporting, promoting
a negative view of crop biotechnology. No wonder so many Europeans are wary
of the GM crops. But prosperous EU citizens have the luxury of choice. Poor
Indian farmers, on the other hand, need the choice of the best available technologies
if they are to feed their families and lift themselves out of poverty. Hard
evidence, not knee-jerk ideology, is needed.
Sources:
1. Does Bt cotton improve the lot of Indian farmers? Scientific Alliance
(7.11.08) (http://www.scientific-alliance.org)
2. Guillaume P. Gruère, Purvi Mehta-Bhatt, and Debdatta Sengupta (October
2008). Discussion Paper No. 808. Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India
reviewing the evidence. International Food Policy Research Institute
(http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/ifpridp00808.asp)
This article has been reproduced with the permission of The Scientific
Alliance.
<<<back
