Cottoning on

Incentives needed for development of Bt technology

Has the Bt gene-driven cotton revolution, which transformed India from a net importer of cotton into the world’s second-largest producer and exporter of this natural fibre, run out of steam? Some analysts tend to believe so, given that the overall production and productivity of cotton have stagnated in the past five years. However, their analysis and the conclusions being drawn from it are not wholly indisputable. For sure, the output numbers used by the analysts do not tally with the Union agriculture ministry’s official estimates. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the output has remained static or that growth has decelerated, it would still be far-fetched to attribute this to any decline in the efficacy of Bt technology. The gene derived from the common soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt gene) and infused into cotton hybrids is not a yield enhancer but merely an insect killer. Its presence helps produce a toxin in the plants that kills the sap-sucking pests, notably the most destructive bollworms, thereby reducing the need for spraying pesticides. Other pests and diseases still need to be controlled through pesticides or other means.
The Bt technology, therefore, has little direct role in determining crop yield, except through the plant protection route. Crop output depends on the inherent yield potential of the cotton hybrid in which this gene has been incorporated. That apart, the current cotton glut in the country, thanks to a record cotton harvest of 33.4 million bales in 2010-11, does not bear testimony to any perceptible slowdown in output growth. But the chances of such a decline cannot be ruled out. There is a possibility that the existing Bt-cotton hybrids will run out of their useful life over a period, which normally happens in the case of all hybrids and even non-genetically engineered varieties. Besides, many illegal and unapproved seeds are in circulation. Their below-par performance does sully the image of Bt technology. Moreover, once one pest is suppressed effectively, as bollworm has been owing to the prevalence of Bt hybrids, others tend to turn aggressive, necessitating newer approaches to combat them.
Therefore, there is a need to regularly replace existing Bt hybrids with better ones with higher innate yield potential and a capacity to withstand emerging threats. The onus lies on private seed companies, which virtually monopolise the cotton seed business, as well as the public sector farm research network. At present, most of the 35-odd companies marketing Bt seeds have licensing arrangements with technology developers, a handful of multinationals. Unfortunately, many companies with resources and the know-how to develop new gene-altered plant types are wary of investing in this cost-intensive pursuit. This is because of the cumbersome process of getting government approval for commercialisation of their technology. Moreover, the unreasonable price caps placed by state governments on genetically modified seeds have become a disincentive for investors, given the large overhead cost of technology development. These issues need to be addressed to facilitate a constant flow of investment into new technology development even with new Bt and other biotech hybrids or non-hybrid varieties. This will ensure that seeds are replaced at shorter intervals. Finally, public funding of research can play a constructive role in facilitating greater competition, ensuring that privately-funded research is more forthcoming