Safe Is Bt Cotton For Livestock?
By Kavitha Kuruganti
01 May, 2007
many seem to be aware that a serious controversy is dogging GM crop
cultivation in India after repeated reports emerged about livestock
getting killed or falling sick after grazing on Bt Cotton fields. The
limelight is once again on two important aspects related to GM crops
– their safety and their regulation.
As the area of Bt Cotton
kept increasing year after year within the Cotton extent in various
states, right from 2004-05, there have been reports of goats and sheep
taking ill and dying after grazing on these fields. It has to be noted
that open-grazing of animals on cotton fields, after the cotton is harvested
and before the stalks are removed, is a traditional practice in many
parts of the country. Further, given the shrinking grazing lands in
villages, open grazing on residual crop plants is unavoidable. No experiences
of cotton plants being toxic to animals are present hitherto. It is
also important to note that such practices don’t exist elsewhere,
especially in the developed world from where we seem to import our biosafety
assessment protocols. The regulators here obviously did not foresee
a situation of open grazing given that they are cut off from the reality
of rural India. No studies have been done to this day to test toxicity
in conditions that simulate real life open-grazing situation of farmers/shepherds
of the country.
In 2006, civil society organizations
like the Andhra Pradesh Goatherds’ & Shepherds’ Union,
Anthra (an organization consisting of veterinary scientists, working
on livestock issues) and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (consisting
of agriculture scientists working on ecological alternatives in agriculture)
pointed out an unusual phenomenon on a widespread scale, of animals
falling sick and dying after grazing on residual Bt Cotton fields. Interestingly
enough, the fact finding visits of these groups happened after eleven
shepherds from eleven different blocks of Warangal district brought
their animals to the Animal Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory [ADDL] in
Warangal town for postmortem analysis as they found that their animals
were dying of unusual symptoms. There was a mix of nervous, respiratory
and digestive symptoms observed. Amongst other observations, the concerned
veterinary surgeon wrote “Poisoning fed on Bt Cotton”, as
tentative diagnosis in her postmortem register. It was quite by chance
that a representative of the Shepherds’ Union saw the postmortem
register of February and March 2006 and in the month of April, a fact
finding visit was commissioned by these three organizations.
The initial response to these
reports was ridicule. The reports in 2005 in the local media were completely
ignored. How can Bt toxin kill mammals, was the usual argument - it
only works on lepidopteran pests with an alkaline medium in the intestines,
it was argued. It could be pesticide residues that were causing the
toxicity, said others. The shepherds must be making up the reports in
a bid to claim insurance, speculated yet others. It seemed as though
complete negation of the phenomenon is the only response possible from
the regulators and the biotech industry. There was no scientific temper
exhibited with regard to wanting to investigate the reports further
nor was there a sense of responsibility on the part of the regulators
to put speculation at rest, to act in the interest of farmers and shepherds.
After all, it was the very livelihoods of poor people at stake here
with each death setting the farmer back substantially on the economic
Unfortunately, one small
team that went to the affected villages on behalf of the animal husbandry
department of Andhra Pradesh could not come back with much evidence.
The few Bt Cotton plant samples that they analysed tested positive for
nitrates and nitrites. Nitrate content was found to be more than 2%
[strong positive] and symptoms matching nitrate poisoning.
The Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee [GEAC], the apex regulatory body for GM crops in the country
whose mandate is to assess the biosafety of every product that it allows
for release into the environment, did not pursue the matter beyond discussing
it in a couple of meetings, that too under pressure from civil society
groups. The Department of Biotechnology [DBT], a strong advocate of
GM crops, was instructed by the GEAC to take up a systematic foliar
material feeding toxicity study. The DBT found many excuses for not
doing so! Other than prescribing such foliar toxicity studies for future
biosafety assessment, the GEAC ordered no such studies by the Bt Cotton
companies nor did it keep other issues in abeyance until some transparent,
scientific, independent and systematic investigations were completed.
It was business as usual for the regulators and the industry.
In January 2007, the first
reports of animals getting affected started emerging again and Centre
for Sustainable Agriculture sent a preliminary assessment report to
the GEAC, DBT, animal husbandry and agriculture department officials.
In February, in Adilabad district, after coming across the hitherto-unknown
phenomenon of animals getting affected after grazing on Bt Cotton fields,
the animal husbandry department pro-actively put out an advisory to
farmers asking them not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton plants.
The department officials here are convinced of the toxicity of the Bt
Cotton plant but are waiting for laboratory analyses to understand what
the exact toxin at work here is.
What is amazing to hear however is that no protocols have been put in
place in the past one year in case such a phenomenon erupts again! The
initial samples that have been sent from Adilabad by the department
veterinarians have reportedly been rejected since they were not fit
for analysis. A special team was then sent to Adilabad for collecting
samples and investigations are on to understand the presence of toxins,
if any, in these samples. Initial analysis shows that the samples have
tested positive for HCN. The investigations will obviously not be conclusive
and comprehensive until it is understood wherefrom such nitrogen-compounds
are accumulating on Bt Cotton plants. Is it because of the genetic engineering
process itself which is known to result in unpredictable effects? Is
it related to higher application of nitrogenous fertilizers that farmers
are being asked to use on Bt Cotton? Is it a combination of the Bt Cotton
plant’s interaction with its environment that is resulting in
the toxicity and which was never captured in the field trials because
such trials are done mostly for agronomic assessment? Aren’t there
some indications of such a phenomenon in the sub-chronic toxicity test
on goats in the case of Bt Brinjal that the crop developer submitted
to the GEAC, when statistically significant changes were found in haemotological
and clinical parameters – why did not the GEAC ask for the raw
data on this?
Farmers whose animals are
affected are reporting that because of low pest incidence this year,
they have not used much pesticides and in any case, the last time pesticides
have been used on the crop, it was in the month of October – if
it is pesticide residues that are indeed causing the toxicity, it is
important to ask insecticide regulators in the country why they are
registering such toxic pesticides in the country which leave such lethal
impacts even after four months!
Meanwhile, the GM regulators
of the country are guilty of not having paid attention to an unusual
phenomenon that farmers are convinced is connected to Bt Cotton [the
regulators like listening only to ‘experts’ sold to corporate
science] and for not investigating it systematically. They are also
guilty of not keeping farming livelihoods as the central point of their
regulation. At least now, there should be transparent, scientific, independent
and long term studies to understand this phenomenon now officially recognized
by the animal husbandry department officials of Andhra Pradesh. Until
such studies show conclusively that the causes of this phenomenon lie
elsewhere, no further GM crop development and releases should be allowed
in the country.
[Kavitha Kuruganti is with Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad]
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
here to comment
on this article