"We have always questioned the precision and effectiveness of
this technology as well as the full ramifications of the deployment
of such a technology. The CICR report once again raises serious
doubts both about the technology and about the decision-making
processes related to GE crops in this country. Why were such
studies not done before permissions were granted for commercial
cultivation? Even when such studies are done, why are the findings
not taken on board?" asked Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for
Sustainable Agriculture.
The CICR study done in the cotton cultivation season of 2003 and
published in the July 25th 2005 edition of Current Science has many
findings of urgent concern about the effectiveness of the
technology and its biosafety. Some of the main findings include
the fact that the quantitative levels of Cry1Ac had a 2 to 7 fold
variability between different Bt Cotton hybrids, that the toxin
expression was clearly inadequate and the lowest amongst the most
favored sites of bollworm attack - square bud, ovaries of flowers
and the boll rind of green bolls of the cotton plant, that the
toxin expression decreases progressively over the crop growth
period and so on.
Incidentally, the CICR study is not the first of its kind
pointing out to the inadequacies of the Bt Cotton technology. Many
such studies are not put into the public domain and even if they
are, they are more in the form of scientific papers published here
and there rather than findings that influence decision-making.
While presenting the findings of the CICR report to the
Commissionerate of Agriculture, Karnataka, the matter was initially
dismissed as mere hype on both sides around the Bt Cotton issue. It
was felt that more research was needed to go into Bt Cotton before
a clear verdict could be passed. Greenpeace was given assurance
that the concerns raised would be examined and a representation
would be made to the GEAC after assessing the same.
"Three years after the commercial release of Bt Cotton, the
Department of Agriculture in the state is unable to see Bt Cotton
in a positive light but continues to promote it. It is time that
they wake up to the Bt Cotton reality on the ground and take a
strong public stand in the interest of the farmers of Karnataka",
said Thangamma Monappa, Campaigner, Greenpeace.
In the light of these findings, which indicate clearly that Bt
Cotton cannot stand up to Monsanto's own claims of controlling
bollworms, the MEC demand that:
· The state government declare its own
stand on the issue and communicate the same to the GEAC which is
scheduled to discuss these CICR findings in its 10th August meeting in
Delhi
· the GEAC revoke all approvals until a comprehensive and scientific review is taken up of all Bt Cotton hybrids
The Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) on Bt Cotton
consists of CEAD, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Krushi, MARI,
Sarvodaya Youth Organisation and Navajyothi from Andhra Pradesh;
Kheti Virasat Mission from Punjab; Pasumai Thaayagam from Tamil
Nadu; Sampark, AKRSP(1), Prasun, VASPS, Rashtriya Satyagraha Dal
from Madhya Pradesh; YUVA from Maharashtra and Greenpeace India.
This committee is set up to monitor Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Tamil Nadu.
For further information contact:
Kavitha Kuruganti:
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture - Ph: +91 93930 01550;
E mail: 
Thangamma Monnappa: Greenpeace- Ph: +91 98454 37337;
E mail: 
Notes
[1]“Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac
expression in Bt Cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton
bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera”, K R Kranthi et al (Central Institute
for Cotton Research, Nagpur), Current Science, Vol 89, No 2, 25th
July 2005