Farmers in India Reject GM Crops After Whitefly Attack Destroys Cotton Fields
Leading to multiple farmer suicides
Latest News
Farmers in India are having doubts that genetically modified cotton is providing much benefit after a whitefly attack ravaged their fields.
The whitefly attack on the Bt cotton variety in Punjab and Haryana reportedly contributed to the suicides of at least 3 farmers around the city of Bhatinda and tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets to demand state aid. [1]
Some 10 years ago, these same farmers were thrilled when they harvested the first bumper crop of genetically modified (GM) cotton. GM crops immediately caught on because of their seeming ability to produce high yields and the living standards improved. Since 2002, cotton output as increased fourfold. That was the year that commercial cultivation of GM cotton was first permitted in India, transforming the nation into world’s top producer and second-largest exporter. [2]
Monsanto “designed” the Bt cotton seeds in the lab to produce their own insecticide to kill bollworms. But even the agribusiness giants scientific tinkering couldn’t protect the crops against 2 years of persistent drought. Whiteflies, desperate for a drink, latch onto the leaves of the cotton plant and suck out the fluid.
“Bt technology is effective only against specific types of bollworms that are known to cause maximum yield loss and economic damage to the cotton crop,” said a spokesman for Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The pests’ raids on cotton fields have many farmers swearing off GM crops.
“We poured all our money into buying pesticides and worked day and night to save the crop. But it failed miserably,” said Thana Singh, 67, whose son died after taking poison during a protest outside a government office in Punjab.
Singh and other farmers plan to abandon cotton for lentils and other crops to rebuild their lives and their finances.
“My son was unable to overcome the stress. We were staring at massive losses caused either by the Bt cotton seeds, or maybe by fake pesticides,” said Singh, who added that he wouldn’t even touch Bt seeds until he was given an explanation as to how the agricultural disaster occurred despite the protection that Monsanto said was built into the cotton seeds.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office is currently reviewing a proposal that would allow farmers to grow mustard. Modi has sought the help of scientists to come alongside farmers and to introduce high-yielding crop strains, but it’s too little too late for many farmers, many of whom now bitterly oppose GM crops and are lobbying senior officials for a ban on the Bt cotton and to block GM mustard.
In trying to save face, Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt Ltd (MMB), a joint venture with India’s Mahyco, argue that Monsanto and the licensees only market the seeds as being resistant to bollworms = not whiteflies or other pests.
“This technology is effective only against specific types of bollworms that are known to cause boll damage leading to yield loss and economic damage to the cotton crop and not other sucking pests,” a spokesman said in comments emailed to Reuters.
Sources:
[1] Reuters
[2] Reuters
Featured photo credit: REUTERS/Munish Sharma
 | Julie Fidler has written hundreds of articles on key world topics such as health, drugs, and law. She is also the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. Oh, and she loves to take care of two ridiculously- spoiled cats in her free time. |
Do I understand this right? Farmers (what percentage I don’t know) want to ban Bt cotton because it didn’t defend against a pest that it was never intended to be resistant to? Well, congrats to the anti-GMO camp. The disinformation and fear mongering worked.
usually julie is above this sub par Chrissy level reporting, but alas she does occasionally fail us.
That’s a really nice scientific view point, a pest destroys cotton and you blame it all on anonymous internet posters and anti GMO activists.
Like the whiteflys were listening to anti-GMO disinformation and fear mongering, they must have joined the Anti-GMO conspiracy, lmao.
They have been recruited, get real.
Read my comment again. The farmers are misplacing the blame for their losses and this is at least partly due to misinformation spread by anti-GMO activists.
Take the clue, this is where the scientific community and the environmental scientists come in with relevant research, not activist comments, anti-GMO blaming.
There is a big difference between a Scientific comment and an activists comment.
Your comment holds no scientific relevance, so guess what…
Please provide an example citation of this “relevant research”.
The research has not as of yet been conducted, the scientific community is here making activists comments instead of doing their job.
You just said “this is where the scientific community and the environmental scientists come in with relevant research” and then you back track and say the research hasn’t been done???
Guess what, the research has been done and is continuing to be done. It doesn’t support your opinions.
An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Volume 34, Issue 1, 2014
Abstract
The technology to produce genetically engineered (GE) plants is celebrating its 30th anniversary and one of the major achievements has been the development of GE crops. The safety of GE crops is crucial for their adoption and has been the object of intense research work often ignored in the public debate. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.
That report has already been debunked. COI/statistical analysis of COI research work.
Take the clue, “this” (referring to the beginning/starting point) is where the scientific community and the
environmental scientists come in with relevant research (investigation), not activist
comments, anti-GMO blaming.
It could be a simple communication error,
You stated,
Guess what, the research has been done and is continuing to be done. It doesn’t support your opinions.
Citations please, or maybe this will further make my point in a relatively diplomatic fashion without citation on your part.
Now before you go off on a tangent let me explain.
The whitefly issue just developed, ie we just heard about it.
A realistic scientific method would start with questions and appropriate investigation methods.
1. Possible seed contamination
2. soil contamination
3. recent changes within the infested areas, environmental changes
4. possible attractant that would draw these pests into the area
5. outside crop area whitefly infestation
Those are the things that come immediately to mind, I’m sure I could think of more in time.
That is called investigation and the documented results would be considered research/findings, allowing for conclusions and eventually leading to determining to the root cause.
To immediately blame GMO isn’t right, but to just display an uncaring and blaming attitude will lead to assumptions and distrust.
Example,
This year I bought tomatoes and cucumbers, I planted some tomatoes on one side of the house and a couple on the other side with the cucumbers. For the cucumbers I created a raised bed, which involved buying composted soil to raise the level to the barrier that I created. things went just fine, until the whitefly infestation. Man, I got so mad at the nursery that I bought the plants from.
Observations
1. The tomatoes on the other side of the house didn’t get the infestation
2. the neighbor got the infestation, but not on the otherside of his house
3. his infestation wasn’t as bad as mine
Conclusion,
1. the plants themselves weren’t the source
2. the neighbor wasn’t the source
3. It was the compost material that was the source.
Simple investigation and observation lead me to finding the source of my infestation.
All doubts were dispelled and the integrity of the nursery was not tarnished due to my immediate methods and findings.
So simple, but yet very effective.
That report has already been debunked.
Source or citation required. I’m not taking your word for this.
Guess what, the research has been done and is continuing to be done. Citations please
I provided a citation. The Critical Reviews in Biotechnology article.
Nice story, but I don’t know what you’re point is.
Even the simplest of scientific moron could debunk that research paper. If you aren’t able to figure it out, then you just don’t want to see the truth.
Here is what I think of your expectations, I’ll make them a reality for you,
Expect in one hand and crap in the other, see which one fills up first. That my friend is called reality, enjoy your safe space…
Nice story, but I don’t know what you’re point is.
Lmao, because your an activist, legitimate research/investigation will destroy your agenda.
Even the simplest of scientific moron could debunk that research paper. If you aren’t able to figure it out, then you just don’t want to see the truth.
You didn’t answer the question. Since you’re such an expert, why don’t you show me how easily that review can be debunked? I’m quite open minded but I am also very critical of claims.
legitimate research/investigation will destroy your agenda
So, show me this “legitimate research”. I find it very telling that you make statements like this and the one above, yet you NEVER provide citations or specifics. You’re all talk.
My statement gave all of the clues needed to research the study yourself. Besides your the one who used that study as a proof, of what I really don’t know, since this article is about a whitefly infestation.
You have made claims without citation also, Your expectations seem to have a double standard,..
You have redirected away from the point, the scientific community needs to conduct an investigation into this whitefly issue.
Screw your COI referenced study. That is merely patting the scientific community on the back for past achievements and has nothing to do with this article, get to work on the whitefly mess…
This is where the GMO corporations get to prove their humanitarian claims.
Sit back and watch it, they further damage their reputation.
Stand up and do something, they live up to their claims.
I’m sure they will do as you have done, misdirect, distract and blame, hoping time will erase the memory.
Yes, I cited it as evidence. And YOU have rejected but continue to refuse to provide a specific basis for this rejection. Until you can provide clear and specific reasons to reject the study, it stands.
Screw your COI referenced study.
Real mature. Go stomp your feet in the corner and come back when you’ve learned to conduct yourself like an adult.
Again, what does 10 years worth of GMO safety have to do with investigating a whitefly infestation?
Your comparing the study of GMO safety to an infestation and getting offensive by my pointing that out.
So what I said screw the study…
This is a very serious issue with the Farmers in India, humanitarian response is written all over it, I thought the GMO corporations were first and foremost in the areas of humanitarian efforts.
By your comments, distracting from the real issue, I guess the Farmers in India are on their own.
Though I don’t like GMO’s, maybe, since they are forced into using them, they should switch to the SGK321 cotton, that might fight off the whitefly infestation?
And, as far as I was able to determine, the Chinese produce that variation, if so it would be cheaper which would diminish the outstanding effect on the part of a crop loss and possibly the developers would invest into investigating a infestation for product improvements.
Since the version being used, there manufacturer doesn’t give a rats fanny.
Personally, I’d dump the current and try the Chinese versions, since they like to improve their world marketing image and reputation.
As is stated clearly in the article, the genetic modifications present in these crops does not provide protection against whiteflies. Are you seriously criticizing these crops because they didn’t protect against an insect pest that they were never designed to protect against?
Though I don’t like GMO’s, maybe, since they are forced into using them
Rubbish. No one is “forcing” farmers to grow GM crops. Yet another example of your bias.
I merely suggested an investigation be conducted, oh yeah and pointed out your blaming the anti GMO for the disinformation and fear mongering. Are whitefly’s digestive tracts alkaline or acidic? Another question for the big 6’s non investigation.
Back to the humanitarian corporations conducting their scientific investigation and improving their products, which they will not do.
So maybe I’m biased, who cares, I have a right to my opinions.
Since they have choices and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office is currently reviewing a proposal that would “ALLOW” farmers, the choice lmao, to grow mustard, I would switch to the Chinese versions of GMO, they are a lot cheaper and I’m sure they would have more interest in the investigation and findings for future marketing value. This opinion is for the pro GMO crowd, big 6 GMO, Chinese GMO’s same difference except cost.
I left` my desk` `job` and now` I `get` paid` $85` every` h. …Wonder` how? I` freelance` `online!` My` old` job` was` making` me `unhappy` ,so I chose to take my chance on something` new… 2 years` after`…I say it was the smartest` decision i ever` made!` Let` me show you what` i` do…go and check` this “websiteLINK“on my` `Proffile!` for `detailed` `info`
+_aadsa
Are whitefly’s digestive tracts alkaline or acidic?
Forcing,
globalresearch dot ca/sowing-the-seeds-of-famine-in-ethiopia/366
The citations are in the report?
You didn’t actually read it in full?
A simple investigative process, will prove the report should not be taken seriously until it’s verified and peer reviewed. It is full of cherry picked research fed to the research assistants, wouldn’t that be a good example of Pseudoscience? At best it would be considered a time filler for bored students.
Research assistants, lmao, your experts comparing studies fed to them for consistencies is proof.
Again LMAO.
No citation? Ok, ramble away. I’m not going to respond to your personal beliefs any longer. You’re not an expert in this field so your personal opinions are not informed by any work experience or formal training. And further more, you’ve shown extensive bias. No citations, no response from me.
You consider student studies to be experts in the field of scientific research, lmao.
This study is a statistical analysis done by students from expert research studies, which any simple form of investigation could determine the need for peer review.
All of the information is contained in the study for further investigation, Which I’m now inclined to believe you haven’t read.
It’s called, investigation and observable facts, I thought that is what scientists did?
Before you cite this student paper as expert analysis, please show me a peer review on the work, or the students are such experts that the scientific community will say this study is conclusive, proof?
I might be biased, but at least I’m not trying to pass off a student research paper as an expert analysis and convince everyone that it is conclusive and final proof of scientific research.
You consider student studies to be experts in the field of scientific research, lmao.
My goodness, you are incredibly ignorant. Graduate students routinely publish peer-reviewed papers.
Oh, btw the lead author of the review paper I cited isn’t a student, he finished his PhD in 2009. So, yeah, not only are you ignorant but you’re completely wrong and you’ve just shown how little investigating you actually do despite all you’re talk about how important it is.
This study is a statistical analysis
Nope. It wasn’t a statistical analysis. It’s a review of the scientific literature. Clearly, you either didn’t read the review or weren’t about to understand it.
any simple form of investigation could determine the need for peer review.
It was peer-reviewed. From the acknowledgements section of the We gratefully acknowledge the reviewers for their critical
reading and scientific inputs.paper: “We gratefully acknowledge the reviewers for their critical
reading and scientific inputs.”
Which I’m now inclined to believe you haven’t read.
You really shouldn’t accuse someone of not reading something that you clearly didn’t read yourself. It makes you look supremely foolish.
It’s called, investigation and observable facts, I thought that is what scientists did?
Yep. Again, since you clearly haven’t done even the most basic about of investigation regarding this review paper (i.e. you got wrong who the lead author is, what the topic of the paper is and whether it was peer-reviewed), you are in no place to lecture anyone.
please show me a peer review on the work, or the students are such experts that the scientific community will say this study is conclusive, proof?
Try Google. That’s how I looked up the lead author.
I might be biased
You most certainly are.
at least I’m not trying to pass off a student research paper as an expert analysis
I’m doing no such thing. You’re bias is blinding you. You’ve gotten this entire thing wrong.
It’s been hilarious. Thanks for the Monday morning laugh.
greenpeace dot org/international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2015/Twenty%20Years%20of%20Failure dot pdf
My mistake, looks like he recently updated his information,
.linkedin dot com/pub/dir/Alessandro/Nicolia/+/
linkedin dot com/in/alessandro-nicolia-a14ba732
The study is labeled for personal use only, I’m not sure if I can post.
When in doubt, don’t.Either way the report is crap and proves nothing, this report has been used by every pro GMO activist on every Anti GMO argument on every GMO post on the internet. Very old argument and well used, proves nothing.
I might have been wrong on a couple of aspects,
Most of your comment was attacking and insulting, you won, LMAO.
Read it, it proves nothing,
geneticliteracyproject dot org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131 dot pdf
I have read it. What the review shows is that ten years of research has not found any substantial evidence of inherent risk associated with genetic engineering. Basically, all the claims you’re making about genetic engineering being dangerous are not based on empirical evidence.
geneticliteracyproject dot org/2015/11/04/already-developed-whitefly-resistant-gmo-cotton-could-have-protected-indian-crop
This will now be able to pass the regulatory authority.
The first step is to create a problem.
The second step is to generate opposition to the problem
(fear, panic and hysteria).
The third step is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one: A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.
Logical assumption, the larvae were in the provided seeds and by contractual agreement the evidence has been destroyed.
Based on the investigative conclusions, further inquiry is warranted and necessary.
I’m still not sure what your cited COI review has to do with the whitefly infestation?
When I saw the draft which was of
7159 dollars, I accept that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash
in his spare time with his computer. . His aunts neighbor has done this for
only 10 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car
.This is what they are donig …
>>>>> Visit my ƤŘỖƑĮĹẸ for
the site address
!1111111111