Long-term impacts of Bt cotton in India

Most scholarship on the closely-watched case of genetically modified Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in India has focused on short-term impacts and has also ignored other major changes in India’s cotton agriculture. This Perspective combines several data sources over a 20-year span to provide long-term comparisons of Bt adoption with yields and other inputs at both countrywide and state-specific scales. Bt cotton adoption is shown to be a poor indicator of yield trends but a strong indicator of initial reductions in pesticide use. Yield increases correspond to changes in fertilizer and other inputs. Bt cotton has continued to control one major cotton pest, but with Bt resistance in another pest and surging populations of non-target pests, farmers now spend more on pesticides today than before the introduction of Bt. Indications are that the situation will continue to deteriorate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

133,45 € per year

only 11,12 € per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Ecological pest control fortifies agricultural growth in Asia–Pacific economies

Article 31 August 2020

The costs of human-induced evolution in an agricultural system

Article 23 December 2019

Acting pre-emptively reduces the long-term costs of managing herbicide resistance

Article Open access 14 March 2024

Change history

References

  1. Charles, D. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food (Perseus Books Group, 2001).
  2. Stone, G. D. Both sides now: fallacies in the genetic-modification wars, implications for developing countries, and anthropological perspectives. Curr. Anthropol.43, 611–630 (2002). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Glover, D. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. J. Peasant Stud.37, 67–90 (2010). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Lambrecht, B. India gives Monsanto an unstable lab for genetics in farming. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (22 November 1998).
  5. Gruère, G. P. & Sengupta, D. Bt cotton and farmer suicides: an evidence-based assessment. J. Dev. Stud.47, 316–337 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Gutierrez, A., Ponti, L., Herren, H., Baumgartner, J. & Kenmore, P. Deconstructing Indian cotton: weather, yields, and suicides. Environ. Sci.27, 12 (2015). Google Scholar
  7. Two narratives about Bt cotton: technological triumph or abject failure? Economic & Political Weekly Engagehttps://www.epw.in/node/150121/pdf (2017).
  8. Hicks, D. J. Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A50, 1–12 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Stone, G. D. Biotechnology, schismogenesis, and the demise of uncertainty. Wash. Univ. J. Law & Policy47, 29–49 (2015). Google Scholar
  10. Stone, G. D. Constructing facts: Bt cotton narratives in India. Econ. Political Wkly47, 62–70 (2012). Google Scholar
  11. Prasad, C. S. Suicide deaths and quality of Indian cotton: perspectives from history and technology and Khadi movement. Econ. Political Wkly34, 12–21 (1999). Google Scholar
  12. Kranthi, K. R. Fertilizers gave high yields; Bt only provided cover. Cotton Statistics & News39, 1–6 (2016). Google Scholar
  13. Karp, J. Deadly crop: difficult times drive India’s cotton farmers to desperate actions. Wall Street Journal (18 February 1998).
  14. Tabashnik, B. E. & Carrière, Y. Global patterns of resistance to Bt crops highlighting pink bollworm in the United States, China, and India. J. Econ. Entomol.112, 2513–2523 (2019). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  15. Suresh, A., Ramasundaram, P., Samuel, J. & Wankhade, S. Impact of technology and policy on growth and instability of agricultural production: the case of cotton in India. Indian J. Agr. Sci.83, 939–948 (2013). Google Scholar
  16. Mayee, C. D. & Choudary, B. Adoption and uptake pathways of Bt cotton in India (Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 2013).
  17. Sahai, S. A disaster called Bt cotton. Times of India (1 December 2005).
  18. Kuruganti, K. Bt cotton and the myth of enhanced yields. Econ. Political Wkly44, 29–33 (2009). Google Scholar
  19. Shiva, V. Toxic genes and toxic papers: IFPRI covering up the link between Bt cotton and farmers suicides. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecologyhttp://www.whale.to/b/shiva1.pdf (2008).
  20. Gammell, C. Prince of Wales resumes GM crops debate. The Telegraph (25 October 2008).
  21. Herring, R. J. Persistent narratives: why is the “failure of Bt cotton in India” story still with us? AgBioForum12, 14–22 (2009). Google Scholar
  22. Choudhary, B. & Gaur, K. Bt Cotton in India: A Country Profile (ISAAA, 2010).
  23. Choudhary, B. & Gaur, K. Biotech Cotton in India, 2002 to 2014 (ISAAA, 2015).
  24. Qaim, M. in Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development (eds Smyth, S. J. et al.) 126–138 (Edward Elgar, 2014).
  25. Subramanian, A. & Qaim, M. Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: the case of Bt cotton in India. World Dev.37, 256–267 (2009). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Smale, M. Rough terrain for research: studying early adopters of biotech crops. AgBioForum15, 114–124 (2012). Google Scholar
  27. Morse, S., Bennett, R. & Ismael, Y. Isolating the ‘farmer’ effect as a component of the advantage of growing genetically modified varieties in developing countries: a Bt cotton case study from Jalgaon, India. J. Agr. Sci.145, 491–500 (2007). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Crost, B., Shankar, B., Bennett, R. & Morse, S. Bias from farmer self-selection in genetically modified crop productivity estimates: evidence from Indian data. J. Agr. Econ.58, 24–36 (2007). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Kathage, J. & Qaim, M. Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 11652–11656 (2012). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  30. Stone, G. D. Field versus farm in Warangal: Bt cotton, higher yields, and larger questions. World Dev.39, 387–398 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Mal, P., A. V., M., Bauer, S. & Ahmed, M. N. Technical efficiency and environmental impact of Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton in North India. AgBioForum14, 164–170 (2011). Google Scholar
  32. Narayanamoorthy, A. & Kalamkar, S. S. Is Bt cotton cultivation economically viable for Indian farmers? An empirical analysis. Econ. Political Wkly41, 2716–2724 (2006). Google Scholar
  33. Jadad, A. R. & Enkin, M. W. Randomized Controlled Trials 2nd edn (Blackwell, 2007).
  34. Krishna, V. V. & Qaim, M. Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India. Agr. Syst.107, 47–55 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Gruere, G. P. & Sun, Y. Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India’s cotton yields leap (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2012).
  36. Herring, R. Reconstructing facts in Bt cotton: why scepticism fails. Econ. Political Wkly48, 63–66 (2013). Google Scholar
  37. Jayaraman, K. S. Illicit GM cotton sparks corporate fury. Nature413, 555 (2001). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  38. Shah, E. Local and global elites join hands: development and diffusion of Bt cotton technology in Gujarat. Econ. Political Wkly40, 4629–4639 (2005). Google Scholar
  39. Stone, G. D. in Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology andTraditionalKnowledge (Ed. McManis, C.) 207–238 (Earthscan, 2007).
  40. Lalitha, N., Ramaswami, B. & Viswanathan, P. K. in Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton, Rural Institutions and Resource-poor Farmers (Ed. Tripp, R.) 135–167 (Routledge, 2009).
  41. Ramaswami, B., Pray, C. E. & Lalitha, N. The spread of illegal transgenic cotton varieties in India: biosafety regulation, monopoly, and enforcement. World Dev.40, 177–188 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Kumar, D. et al. Gujarat’s Agricultural Growth Story: Exploding Some Myths (Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy, 2010).
  43. Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G. & Zilberman, D. Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: insights from India. Rev. Agr. Econ.28, 48 (2006). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Sadashivappa, P. & Qaim, M. Bt cotton in India: development of benefits and the role of government seed price interventions. AgBioForum12, 172–183 (2009). Google Scholar
  45. Stone, G. D. & Flachs, A. The ox fall down: path breaking and technology treadmills in Indian cotton agriculture. J Peasant Stud.45, 1272–1296 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Vandeman, A. M. Management in a bottle: pesticides and the deskilling of agriculture. Rev. Radical Pol. Econ.27, 49–55 (1995). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Kouser, S. & Qaim, M. Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: a panel data analysis. Ecol. Econ.70, 2105–2113 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Kukanur, V. S., Singh, T. V. K., Kranthi, K. R. & Andow, D. A. Cry1Ac resistance allele frequency in field populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) collected in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India. Crop Prot.107, 34–40 (2018). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  49. Dhurua, S. & Gujar, G. T. Field-evolved resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), from India. Pest Manage. Sci.67, 898–903 (2011). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, H. et al. Diverse genetic basis of field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton in cotton bollworm from China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 10275–10280 (2012). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  51. Buradikatti, K. Pink bollworm a nightmare for Bt cotton growers. The Hindu (5 December 2015).
  52. Gustafson, S. 2018 Farm Bill: protecting the U. S. cotton industry poses risks for developing countries. International Food Policy Research Institute (31 January 2018).
  53. Klümper, W. & Qaim, M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE9, e111629 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief No. 49 (ISAAA, 2014).
  55. Kranthi, K. R. Cotton Production Systems — Need for a Change in India (Cotton Association of India, 2014).
  56. Srivastava, S. K. & Kolady, D. Agricultural biotechnology and crop productivity: macro-level evidences on contribution of Bt cotton in India. Curr. Sci.110, 311–319 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar

Acknowledgements

G.D.S.’s research in India has been funded by grants from the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington D.C., WA, USA K. R. Kranthi
  2. Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA Glenn Davis Stone
  1. K. R. Kranthi
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.R.K. and G.D.S. contributed to the data analysis and writing of this Perspective.

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Countrywide cotton yield and Bt adoption.

This depicts the same data as in Fig. 2 but with Ministry of Textiles yield estimates indicated by the double line.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Gujarat cotton yields and Bt adoption.

This depicts the same data as in Fig. 3 but with Ministry of Textiles yield estimates indicated by the double line.

Extended Data Fig. 3 State-specific cotton yields and Bt adoption.

This depicts the same data as in Fig. 4 but with Ministry of Textiles yield estimates indicated by the double line. Note that the vertical scale for Tamil Nadu has changed slightly to accommodate the MT estimates.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Countrywide cotton yields and fertilizer use.

This depicts the same data as in Fig. 5 but with Ministry of Textiles yield estimates indicated by the double line.

Extended Data Fig. 5

This depicts the same data as in Fig. 6 but with Ministry of Textiles yield estimates indicated by the double line. Note that the vertical scale for Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka has changed slightly to accommodate the MT estimates.