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: 73
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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: 74
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;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/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683989,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;bt cotton,Pink bollworm&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot; title=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;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/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683989,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 35882
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;bt cotton,Pink bollworm&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot; title=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br /></em><br />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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br /><br />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&rsquo;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.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br /><br />The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;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/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683989,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;bt cotton,Pink bollworm&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot; title=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;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/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683989,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 35882
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;bt cotton,Pink bollworm&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot; title=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br /></em><br />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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br /><br />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&rsquo;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.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br /><br />The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f06e4254012-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f06e4254012-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;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/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683989,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;bt cotton,Pink bollworm&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot; title=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 35882,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;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/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4683989,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 35882
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;bt cotton,Pink bollworm&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&amp;rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notifying&amp;rdquo; 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;de-notification&amp;rdquo; 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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &amp;mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &amp;mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &amp;mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &amp;mdash; 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&amp;rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&amp;rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot; title=&quot;http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br /></em><br />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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br /><br />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&rsquo;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.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br /><br />The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 35882,
		'title' => 'To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br />
</em><br />
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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br />
<br />
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&rsquo;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.<br />
<br />
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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br />
<br />
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br />
<br />
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => '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/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4683989,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 35882,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya',
	'metaKeywords' => 'bt cotton,Pink bollworm',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br /></em><br />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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br /><br />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&rsquo;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.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br /><br />The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 35882,
	'title' => 'To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br />
</em><br />
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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br />
<br />
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&rsquo;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.<br />
<br />
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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br />
<br />
The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br />
<br />
Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br />
<br />
Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => '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/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-ram-kaundinya-4683989',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4683989,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 35882
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | To Bt or not to Bt: 60 lakh cotton farmers or a handful of vested interests? -Ram Kaundinya'
$metaKeywords = 'bt cotton,Pink bollworm'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express

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

During the last cotton season, there were reports of the pink bollworm (PBW) not...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>The government should not succumb to pressures for removal of trait fee on a technology that has made India the world&rsquo;s No. 1 cotton producer.<br /></em><br />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 &ldquo;de-notifying&rdquo; 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.<br /><br />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&rsquo;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.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;de-notification&rdquo; 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?<br /><br />The Bt cotton trait was approved primarily for the control of the American bollworm &mdash; a devastating pest of the crop prior to the last decade &mdash; while effectiveness against spotted bollworm, armyworm and PBW were added features of the technology. Even today, the control of these pests &mdash; barring PBW in certain pockets &mdash; 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&rsquo;s the rationale for its removal? If Bt technology is no longer delivering any value to farmers, why can&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Also, can the seed firms that have incorporated Bt technology into their hybrids absolve themselves of responsibility for resistance development by pests? Shouldn&rsquo;t they also be accountable for the proper utilisation of the technology and following all the related regulatory and stewardship guideline? The ICAR meeting&rsquo;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&rsquo;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?<br /><br />Please <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/" title="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-bt-or-not-to-bt-60-lakh-cotton-farmers-or-a-handful-of-vested-interests-5073403/">click here</a> to read more. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

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

-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.