Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Long-term impacts of Bt cotton in India

Matters Arising to this article was published on 12 October 2020

Matters Arising to this article was published on 12 October 2020

An Author Correction to this article was published on 30 July 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Depiction of the ‘technological triumph’ of Bt cotton in India.
Fig. 2: Countrywide cotton yield and Bt adoption.
Fig. 3: Gujarat cotton yields and Bt adoption.
Fig. 4: State-specific cotton yields and Bt adoption.
Fig. 5: Countrywide cotton yields and fertilizer use.
Fig. 6: State-specific cotton yields and fertilizer use.
Fig. 7: New technologies that affected cotton pest management in 2003.
Fig. 8: Countrywide expenditures on insecticides for cotton production.

Change history

References

  1. 1.

    Charles, D. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food (Perseus Books Group, 2001).

  2. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Glover, D. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. J. Peasant Stud. 37, 67–90 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lambrecht, B. India gives Monsanto an unstable lab for genetics in farming. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (22 November 1998).

  5. 5.

    Gruère, G. P. & Sengupta, D. Bt cotton and farmer suicides: an evidence-based assessment. J. Dev. Stud. 47, 316–337 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. 7.

    Two narratives about Bt cotton: technological triumph or abject failure? Economic & Political Weekly Engage https://www.epw.in/node/150121/pdf (2017).

  8. 8.

    Hicks, D. J. Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 50, 1–12 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stone, G. D. Biotechnology, schismogenesis, and the demise of uncertainty. Wash. Univ. J. Law & Policy 47, 29–49 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Stone, G. D. Constructing facts: Bt cotton narratives in India. Econ. Political Wkly 47, 62–70 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Prasad, C. S. Suicide deaths and quality of Indian cotton: perspectives from history and technology and Khadi movement. Econ. Political Wkly 34, 12–21 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kranthi, K. R. Fertilizers gave high yields; Bt only provided cover. Cotton Statistics & News 39, 1–6 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Karp, J. Deadly crop: difficult times drive India’s cotton farmers to desperate actions. Wall Street Journal (18 February 1998).

  14. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. 16.

    Mayee, C. D. & Choudary, B. Adoption and uptake pathways of Bt cotton in India (Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 2013).

  17. 17.

    Sahai, S. A disaster called Bt cotton. Times of India (1 December 2005).

  18. 18.

    Kuruganti, K. Bt cotton and the myth of enhanced yields. Econ. Political Wkly 44, 29–33 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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 Ecology http://www.whale.to/b/shiva1.pdf (2008).

  20. 20.

    Gammell, C. Prince of Wales resumes GM crops debate. The Telegraph (25 October 2008).

  21. 21.

    Herring, R. J. Persistent narratives: why is the “failure of Bt cotton in India” story still with us? AgBioForum 12, 14–22 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Choudhary, B. & Gaur, K. Bt Cotton in India: A Country Profile (ISAAA, 2010).

  23. 23.

    Choudhary, B. & Gaur, K. Biotech Cotton in India, 2002 to 2014 (ISAAA, 2015).

  24. 24.

    Qaim, M. in Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development (eds Smyth, S. J. et al.) 126–138 (Edward Elgar, 2014).

  25. 25.

    Subramanian, A. & Qaim, M. Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: the case of Bt cotton in India. World Dev. 37, 256–267 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Smale, M. Rough terrain for research: studying early adopters of biotech crops. AgBioForum 15, 114–124 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kathage, J. & Qaim, M. Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 11652–11656 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Stone, G. D. Field versus farm in Warangal: Bt cotton, higher yields, and larger questions. World Dev. 39, 387–398 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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. AgBioForum 14, 164–170 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Narayanamoorthy, A. & Kalamkar, S. S. Is Bt cotton cultivation economically viable for Indian farmers? An empirical analysis. Econ. Political Wkly 41, 2716–2724 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Jadad, A. R. & Enkin, M. W. Randomized Controlled Trials 2nd edn (Blackwell, 2007).

  34. 34.

    Krishna, V. V. & Qaim, M. Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India. Agr. Syst. 107, 47–55 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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. 36.

    Herring, R. Reconstructing facts in Bt cotton: why scepticism fails. Econ. Political Wkly 48, 63–66 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jayaraman, K. S. Illicit GM cotton sparks corporate fury. Nature 413, 555 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Shah, E. Local and global elites join hands: development and diffusion of Bt cotton technology in Gujarat. Econ. Political Wkly 40, 4629–4639 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Stone, G. D. in Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge (Ed. McManis, C.) 207–238 (Earthscan, 2007).

  40. 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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Kumar, D. et al. Gujarat’s Agricultural Growth Story: Exploding Some Myths (Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy, 2010).

  43. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Sadashivappa, P. & Qaim, M. Bt cotton in India: development of benefits and the role of government seed price interventions. AgBioForum 12, 172–183 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Vandeman, A. M. Management in a bottle: pesticides and the deskilling of agriculture. Rev. Radical Pol. Econ. 27, 49–55 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Zhang, H. et al. Diverse genetic basis of field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton in cotton bollworm from China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10275–10280 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Buradikatti, K. Pink bollworm a nightmare for Bt cotton growers. The Hindu (5 December 2015).

  52. 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. 53.

    Klümper, W. & Qaim, M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9, e111629 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief No. 49 (ISAAA, 2014).

  55. 55.

    Kranthi, K. R. Cotton Production Systems — Need for a Change in India (Cotton Association of India, 2014).

  56. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn Davis Stone.

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kranthi, K.R., Stone, G.D. Long-term impacts of Bt cotton in India. Nat. Plants 6, 188–196 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0615-5

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing