Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya

To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 23, 2018   modified Modified on Feb 23, 2018
-The Indian Express

The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world’s No. 1 cotton producer.

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not being effectively controlled, especially in some 700 villages of Maharashtra where the infestation of this insect pest was stated to be high. However, at a review meeting conducted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in October 2017, the participating scientists concluded that there was no case for “de-notifying” Bt cotton as demanded by some quarters. The PBW outbreak, it was emphasised, was confined only to certain areas, even while the technology continued to be effective against other bollworm insects. Moreover, there were prescribed agronomic methods for even managing PBW, as was successfully demonstrated in Gujarat during the recent season.

Subsequently, Union Minister of State for Environment Mahesh Sharma said, in a written reply to a Parliament question on February 5, that Bt cotton had helped double India’s production and minimise the damage caused by bollworms since its introduction in 2002-03. A status paper published in January 2017 by the directorate of cotton development at Nagpur, too, clearly brought out the benefits from Bt cotton cultivation.

Given all these endorsements, it is surprising to see the news of a few seed companies approaching the Union Agriculture Minister and seeking removal of the Rs 49-per-packet trait fee currently payable to the Bt technology provider. The logic for demanding “de-notification” of the technology is its apparent ineffectiveness to protect the cotton crop from PBW attacks. Even assuming that claim to be correct, can this be reason enough to make the technology free and eliminate the trait fee?

The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm — a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade — while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests — barring PBW in certain pockets — through the trait has been pretty good. Proof of it is the undiminished demand for Bt cotton seeds from farmers. Since the trait fee is for control of all bollworms, not just PBW, what’s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can’t seed firms, instead of demanding waiver/reduction of the trait fee, simply sell non-Bt cotton seeds? Why use a technology that has apparently ceased to be effective?

Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn’t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting’s minutes revealed about 30 per cent of seed samples used to plant refugia non-Bt cotton around the main Bt crop to be of low quality. That could have been a major cause of vulnerability to PBW. The quality of seed used and trait purity have important bearing on the technology’s performance. These are the responsibility of seed companies. Blaming the technology provider shows the mala fide intention of a section of the industry that has profited on the back of Bt cotton technology. The distortions from price control and fixation of royalty by the government has, as it is, put off major global technology providers. Removal of trait fee will prove the proverbial last straw, when farmers themselves want newer technologies to bring down cultivation costs and yield losses from pest and disease attacks. Is this the way to achieve our mission of doubling their incomes?

Please click here to read more.

The Indian Express, 22 February, 2018, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close