Indian farmersí protests against the Monsanto-Mahyco field trials of genetically modified (GM) Bt-cotton during 1998-99 highlighted global controversies surrounding genetic engineering technology in agriculture. These protests drew the support of anti-GM forces across the world, raising questions such as: what do the protesting impoverished, small cotton farmers in southern India have in common with, e.g., the protesters who impeded WTO negotiations in Seattle? Where, if at all, do their interests coincide?

Molecular biological, organismal, and ecological issues surrounding the Bt-cotton project are examined in order to identify the level of organization at which known and potential problems arise and, thereby, to identify the level/s at which such problems are best addressed.

Some observations

In India, protesters were largely led by small farmers reacting to actual (non-GM) and potential (GM-related: 'terminator' technology, wrongly equated with all GM) agricultural problems related to cotton; another issue was the non transparent regulatory process. The biological questions raised in here and elsewhere⁴ were not at issue in the protests, even though answers to these questions are critical for a better understanding of the regulatory process.

In the USA, protesters were largely led by organic farmers and environmentalists reacting to potential ecological threats posed by all GM crops. A technological means of safeguarding intellectual property rights (IPR's), terminator technology, was seen as a 'moral' problem; however, a social means of doing the same, via legal measures, was neither widely discussed, nor viewed as a problem. The regulatory process (while it could be improved⁷) is relatively transparent and addresses several potential biological problems.

Some conclusions

in both nations protests arise from dominant societal concerns that represent the sum of technological and societal forces, some of which are identical. It is misleading to characterize the issues in terms of EITHER technological OR societal.

in both nations a distorted understanding of technology played an important role in shaping public perceptions. Scientists have an obvious role in clearly presenting the technological issues while separating them from the societal ones, as well as in keeping the regulatory process transparent.

in the prevailing equations in the two nations it is around a societal issue, IPR's, that disparate interests converge.  The 'terminator' technology was patented to fulfill a perceived societal need: a commercial interest to protect IPR's. Monsanto, representing this commercial interest, is merely a convenient target.

 

Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) technology: general technological features and issues
Molecular biological, organismal and ecological (including agricultural)

Bt toxins comprise a large family of proteins produced by the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. The protein, in crystalline form, is deposited on the bacterial cell wall and is toxic to lepidopteran insects (moths, butterflies) on ingestion and digestion. CryIAc is one of these proteins, produced by the cryIAc gene. Bollgard gene is a modified version of the cryIAc gene derived from the strain Btk HD-73. Bt toxins have been used against crop pests (e.g., by organic farmers in the US as bacterial sprays); however, affected insects may be pestilential, benign, or beneficial¹.

---

Resistance to Bt (CryIAc) toxin is likely to evolve under continuous selection pressure in variable populations, in absence of non-Bt plant refuges for susceptible insects and high toxin levels to kill semi-resistant heterozygotes

Loss of an environmentally benign pesticide, Bt, is likely to occur due to evolution of resistance. What are the costs and benefits of this potential loss?

---

Bt technology: specific technological issues (India, USA)
Molecular biological, organismal and ecological (including agricultural)

*Bt cotton has been approved for commercial cultivation by Government of India regulatory body

---

Bt technology and anti-GM, anti-Monsanto* protests
Technological and societal issues surrounding protests

India Bt cotton regulation 1990   Monsanto refused permission to test Bt cotton in India 1996 Mahyco**given permission to import and test Bt cotton seeds 1996-98  Bollgard cotton back crossed into Indian varieties 1998 June: Bt cotton field trials started             Nov.:  Bt cotton field trials publicized 'Terminator' technology 1994   Patented by Delta & Pine Land Co (DPL) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)19 1998   Monsanto^ acquiring DPL 1998   March: international publicity (RAFI)14           June: Indian publicity.  GM = 'Terminator' = Bt cotton in concerned public eye Modernized cotton farming in India 1980's Extension into non-traditional areas17 1997,1998 Nov-Dec Crop failure, indebtedness, farmer suicides15,16,17,18 The conflagration 1998 Nov.  Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton field trials burnt by agitated farmers.  Field trials banned in Karnataka state^^

USA Bollgard gene technology 1992, 1996 Monsanto patents Bollgard gene (US patent 5,500,365) 1995  Monsanto receives approval from USDA and EPA for commercialization 'Terminator' technology 1994   Patented by DPL and USDA19 1998   Monsanto^ acquiring DPL 1998   March: international publicity (RAFI)14 1999   Mention in mainstream press Ecological studies on GM crops 1998  Transfer of pollen from GM to wild relatives in Brassica (rape seed) 1999   Deleterious effect of Bt corn pollen on Monarch butterfly: wide publicity GM = ecological disaster in concerned public eye Protests  1999 onward  Protests against GM and globalization, in general, and Monsanto, in particular

*Transnational corporation based in St. Louis, USA
**Indian seed company based in Maharashtra state, India. Mahyco is the world's largest producer of hybrid cotton seed²⁰
^Deal fallen through since
^^Ban rescinded since
 

Public perception: India Why protests? failed cotton crops (including some Bt trial fields) due to heavy pest infestation, leading to suicides sensitivity to socio-political implications of 'terminator' technology non transparent regulatory process whose decisions were revealed by activists and the press during a period of heightened emotions Why Monsanto? force behind Bt gene technology (cotton) perceived owner of 'terminator' technology representative of transnational corporation, viewed as exploitative

Public perception: USA Why protests? ecological and societal risks of Bt gene danger to non target species (e.g., Monarch butterfly) loss of Bt pesticide to organic farmer ecological risks of engineered gene transmission to wild relatives of crop plants socio-political (=moral?) implications of 'terminator' gene for developing nations Why Monsanto? force behind Bt gene technology (cotton and corn) perceived owner of 'terminator' technology representative of transnational corporation, viewed as exploitative

References

1. deWald, S. 1995. Bt Insecticidal crystal proteins and their mode of action. Information Systems for Biotechnology/NBIAP News Report. Special Issue on BT. December.
2. Gould, F. 1995. The empirical and theoretical basis for Bt resistance management. Information Systems for Biotechnology/NBIAP News Report. Special Issue on BT. December.

---

3. Adamczyk, J. J., Holloway, J. W., Church, G. E., Leonard, B. R., and Graves, J. B. 1998. Larval survival and development of the fall army worm (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae) on normal and transgenic cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(c) partial derivative-endotoxin.  Journal of Economic Entomology 91: 539-545.
4. Bharathan, G. 2000. Bt-cotton in India: anatomy of a controversy. Current Science 79:1067-1075.
5. Chakrabarti, S. K., Mandaokar, A., Kumar, P. A., and Sharma, R. P. 1998. Efficacy of lepidopteran specific delta-endotoxins of Bacillus thuringiensis against Helicoverpa armigera.  Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 72: 336-7.
6. de Maagd, R. A., Bosch, D., and Stiekema, W. 1999. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin mediated insect resistance in plants.  Trends in Plant Science 4: 9-13.
7. Genetically modified Pest protected plants: science and regulation. 2000. National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, DC. USA.
8. Gujar, G. T., Kumari, A., Kalia, V., and Chandrashekar, K.  Spatial and temporal variation in susceptibility of the American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Huebner) to Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki in India.  2000. Current Science 78:995-1001.
9. Koziel, M. G. et al. 1993. Insecticidal crystal proteins of B. thuringiensis. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Review 11: 173-4.
10. Kranthi, K. R., Kranthi, S., Alis, S., and Banerjee, S. K. 2000. Resistance to CrylAc delta-endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in a laboratory selected strain of Helicoverpa armigera (Huebner). Current Science 78:1001-1004.
10a.  Liu, Y-B, Tabashnik, B. E., Dennehy, T. J., Patin. A. L., Bartlett, A. C.  1999. Development time and resistance to Bt crops. Nature 400:519.
11. Luttrell R. G, Wan L., Knighten K. J. 1999. Variation in susceptibility of noctuid (Lepidoptera) larvae attacking cotton and soybean to purified endotoxin proteins and commercial formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis.  Economic Entomology 92: 21-32.
12. Sharma, M.K. 1998. In The Hindu. Nov. 26.
13. Sundaramurthy V. T., and Gahukar R.T. 1998. Integrated management of cotton insect pests in India.  Outlook On Agriculture. 27: 261-269.

---

14. Biotech Activists Oppose the Terminator Technology.  1998. Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) Newsletter. March 13
15. Sengupta, S. 1999. Cotton: the Death Harvest.  Health for the Millions, New Delhi.
16. Sharma, D. 1999. Farmer suicides: the pest in pesticides.  Businessline.  August 24
17. Shiva, V., Emani, A., and Jafri, A. H. 1999. Globalisation and threat to seed security: case of transgenic cotton trials in India. Economic and Political Weekly. Mar 6: 601-613.
18. Sridhar, V. 1998. Lessons from a tragedy. Frontline, Sep 12 .
19. United States Department of Agriculture. 1999. The Control of Plant Gene Function.
20. Whitacre, B. 1998. The Amazing Seed. The American Seed Trade Association Newsletter, October.