Can genetically-modified (GM) crops benefit farmers in the developing world? Cotton genetically engineered to contain the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been celebrated as a successful example of GM crops in developing countries. Recent studies looked at experiences in three countries.

In China, cotton is an important export crop. A high proportion is produced by the country’s smallholder farmers, making it a key source of income in many provinces. Since 1997, several separate Bt cotton varieties have been commercialised in China. By 2002, the area planted with GM cotton varieties had grown to 2.1 million hectares (mha) out of a total cotton area of 4.1 mha. Bt cotton is reported to have contributed to increased yields, financial and labour savings and a reduction in poisonings linked to pesticide use. The total benefit was calculated as US $334 million nationally, most of which was received by farmers.

Since 1997, Bt cotton varieties have been planted in the Makhatini Flats, South Africa, with apparent success. The trials have become an important demonstration of the potential benefits of GM crops to smallholder farmers in Africa. The higher cost of Bt cotton seeds was reportedly offset by lower chemical use and yield increases of 20-40%.

Varieties of Bt cotton only received formal approval for commercialisation in India in 2002. However, it was discovered that an unauthorised variety had been marketed and planted during two growing seasons on 10 000 hectares in Gujarat and elsewhere, without being detected. The rapid adoption of illegal Bt varieties indicates a high level of demand for GM cotton among some farmers.

These examples are a powerful argument for the benefits of GM technology to poor farmers in developing countries. However, it is not possible to conclude from these that Bt cotton can benefit all poor farmers. Research suggests that:

• The positive results shown in the first few years are likely to be highly contingent. The insecticide added (Bt) cannot protect cotton against diseases or non-target pests, which can reduce the profits gained dramatically. Paying the higher price for GM seeds remains a risky choice, especially for cash-poor farmers.
• The performance of GM crops depends heavily on the suitability of the local varieties into which genes are inserted. In Zimbabwe, Bt cotton was only introduced into cotton varieties to which Monsanto had access, rather than the locally-adapted hairy cotton varieties.
• Pest resistance to the Bt toxin may already be emerging. Pest refuges, areas of conventional varieties planted next to the Bt crop, are recommended as a way of controlling this problem. However, these may be impractical or ineffective on the tiny plots of land farmed by smallholders.
• Most seed varieties only remain competitive for a few seasons, before being replaced by newer and better varieties. By the time new GM varieties reach farmers, they may already be outdated.
• As a non-food crop, Bt cotton has not been affected by resistance to GM crops in some export markets, such as the European Union. The adoption of GM food crops for export would expose smallholders to the risk of exclusion from these markets.

Adopting Bt cotton varieties may be beneficial for farmers in some places, provided the economic conditions are right and a supportive infrastructure is in place. However, the early findings on Bt cotton serve as a timely reminder that GM crops can never be a ‘miracle cure’ against poverty and hunger. There are many institutional and governance questions at the heart of the GM crops debate which must also be considered.

Source(s):
‘Bt Cotton: benefits for poor farmers?’, Democratising Biotechnology Briefing Series, Briefing 9, Institute of Development Studies, D. Glover, 2003 Full document.
‘Bt cotton benefits, costs and impacts in China’, IDS Working Paper 202, J. Huang, R. Hu, C. Fan, C.E. Pray and S. Rozelle, 2003 Full document.
‘Can GM-Technologies Help the Poor? The Impact of Bt Cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal’, World Development, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 717–732, C. Thirtle, L. Beyers, Y.  Ismael and J. Piesse, 2003 Full document.

Funded by: Department for International Development (DFID), UK

id21 Research Highlight: 14 December 2004

Further Information:
Dominic Glover
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK

Contact the contributor: d.glover@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
'Regulatory manoeuvres: the Bt cotton controversy in India', IDS Working paper 197

Sites for sore eyes

'Diversity in international biosafety regulation'

'From risks to rights in southern Africa'

'Regulating biotechnology'

'GM crops and the politics of international trade'

'Corporate dominance and agricultural biotechnology'