The production of Bt cotton in Egypt…
Socio-economic impact & environmental and health effects
Wagdy A. Sawahel
Microbial Genetics Department,
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Division,
National Research Center,
Tahrir st., Dokki, Cairo,
Egypt
July 2006
______
This report has been made possible through the support of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries, Belgium and the grant from Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development, Kuwait.
Content
Comments about the report
Summary
I. Egypt’s cotton
(1) Cotton …. From the Indus Valley to the world
(2) Cultivation history of Egypt's "white gold"
(3) Egypt’s cotton industry…Economic and political roles
(4) Origin of Egypt’s cotton
II. Egyptian cotton leaf worm
(1) Egyptian cotton leaf worm
(2) Classical ways for fighting cotton leaf worm in Egypt
III. Production of Monsanto’s Bt cotton
IV. Monsanto’s Bt cotton …..socio-economic impact on Egyptian small farmers
(1) Lessons from countries that grows Monsanto’s Bt cotton
V. Monsanto’s Bt cotton…. Environmental impact
VI. Monsanto’s Bt cotton…..health impact
VII. Monsanto’s Bt cotton….. Political impact
VIII What is to be done?
(1) Egypt’s biotech legislation
(2) Biotech public awareness in Egypt
(3) GM food in Egypt ……between the American pressure and the European market
IX. Integrated pest management (IPM), non-pesticidal management or organic farming …..the way forward, at least for now
(1) Possible ways to fight Egyptian cotton worm
(2) Egypt’s new strategies of agricultural development
References and further readings
Comments
Nagib Nassar
Departamento de Genética e Morfologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade de
Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Asa Norte. CEP: 70910–900, Brasília – DF, Brazil.
I read with extreme interest your report. You are right in all what you said. I wonder how this person who signed the contract with the corporation made it, and how he had the courage to do so. Below is a summary of one of my articles on the subject in Portuguese published in the Brazilian Journal of science two years ago with special focus to what related to Egypt conditions.
1. The pesticide myth: What is said that Bt cotton will eliminate pesticide use is not true. Experience with all countries where Bt cotton introducedshows that the technology provides onlypartial control of some caterpillar pests. Even thebollworms, it was foundthat Bt cottonwas not able to control it. Moreover Bt cotton is ineffective against sucking pests, which keeps insecticides use high in Bt cotton
2. Yield and profit
In India, West Africa and South Africa, all studies showed that conventional varieties produced more and larger bolls than Bt varieties. Moreover, farmers are obliged to pay for the corporation (technology fees) on top of the price of the seed itself. In some countries they pay 120 times the normal seed, Finally no profit at all.
3. Criminalizing farmers
Cottonseed normally distributed in Egypt for free. For farmers , the seed belong to them because they are derived from their previous harvests and because they paid for the breeding programmes that have developed it. The introduction of Bt cottonupset these traditional practices. Farmers are obligedto pay for the seeds and to sign a contract prohibit them from saving seeds for replanting or to supply seeds to anyone else!!. They should pay 120 times for the technology fee!!
4.Environment contamination.
Once the Bt geneis introducedinto the environment, it is impossible to remove it if harmful effects for human or environment health are discovered. Gene flow would occur between Bt cotton and local varieties (cotton has cross pollination reaches 15%). The corporationholds patents on the trasgenes, even if they arrived in farmers field through accident contamination. They shall pay for this!! (Remember the case ofthe famous Canadian farmer) !! There are agreements now that insects develop resistance to cotton Bt after two or three generations. Insects have been successful in developing resistance in all countries where cotton Bt has been introduced.
5. Soil toxicity. The Bt toxin released in soil accumulates year after year and turn the soil toxic for all useful organisms such as azotobacter. It will be difficult to follow any rotation or farming practises that depends on planting liguminosae after cotton. This will be a great catastrophic to small farmers (99% of Egyptian population).
6. Human food. In Egypt the principal oil used for human consumption is cottonoil. The seedis used alsofor animal feeding. This means that Bt cotton will enter food chain and may represent a great threat to human health.
Sue Mayer
Director of GeneWatch UK
"This report shows how far reaching the decision over Bt cotton will be for Egypt. This wide ranging report shows that it is not the future of the cotton boll worm that it is at stake, but the shape and control of Egyptian cotton farming. Decision makers will need to pay it careful attention as an important counter measure to the pleadings of the international biotech corporations."
Barbara Dinham
Pesticides Action Network, UK
Egyptian cotton is among the finest and most sought after in the world. Until now the government has resisted the pressure to grow the genetically modified (GM) varieties developed by Monsanto. The high levels of toxic pesticides used in cotton production are often cited as a reason for adopting the GM technologies, particularly the crops that incorporate Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). But Bt controls only a limited number of pests, and GM relies on the same intensive production strategies that have created resistance to insecticides, escalating pesticide usage, and harm to human health and the environment. GM cotton does little to promote the ecological strategies for cotton production that are essential for long-term sustainability. At best Bt cotton initially reduces some of the insecticides currently used in cotton.
As this report shows, the benefits are temporary. Elsewhere insecticide use rises again over time and there are potential problems of resistance to the useful Bt bio-control agent. The threats of GM cotton to biodiversity are great, particularly as Egypt currently has inadequate biosafety legislation. Far more urgent are approaches that train farmers to adopt Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and organic cotton - now successfully grown and exported from Egypt for nearly a decade.
This report examines the disastrous consequences for Egypt of adopting Monsanto's Bt cotton, and calls for a moratorium on the commercialisation of GM crops. It reviews problems faced by countries that have adopt GM cotton technologies, and argues strongly for a more measured approach in Egypt. With demand for organic cotton increasing dramatically in Europe and elsewhere, governments need to examine ways to invest in and scale up these more productive and sustainable strategies.
Marc Van Montagu
Founder and Chairman, Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries, Belgium, president of the European Federation of Biotechnology
It would be wise for Egypt to develop its own Bt cotton plant using local technology, which I think that they have the capability to do. However, a fair deal with Monstanto to cross its Bt cotton with the Egyptian one to obtain Bt Egyptian cotton is welcomed. One of the reasons for the problems raised using Monsanto’s Bt cotton variety is coming from the slobbery breeding, which I hope that it will not happen in Egypt.
Godelieve Gheysen
Director, Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries, Belgium
Considering the important problems with the pest Spodoptera in Egyptian
cotton, Bt cotton could bring a major improvement to cotton production in
Egypt. However, it has to be realised that introduction of Monsanto's Bt
cotton will have consequences at many different levels and is probably not the optimal Bt cotton choice for Egypt. Furthermore, continuous research will be needed to resolve some remaining questions on Bt safety in food and environment.
Anwar Nasim
President of the Federation of Asian Biotech Associations and chair of Pakistan's National Commission on Biotechnology
This issue is already complex one. My personal view is that each nation must make up its mind and rely on the available experts from their own national experts. One of the difficulties that we face is that very often bureaucracy and officials in ministries needlessly get involved. Knowledgeable scientists should really debate these issues. In general my impression is that with all proper care and planning Bt cotton has the potential to be of economic benefit. One needs to carefully plan the growing of such crops.
Ijaz Ahmad Rao
Bahawalpur, Pakistan
I am totally agreed that not only biosafety regulation but also workable and transparent regulation and safety assessment should be done; economical evaluation; ecological and environmental are also important after all technology has to offer best alternatives. I am personally not against any multinational but I am fully support that we must have locally developed products and have fair trade war with them.
Tilahun Zeweldu,
Board Chairman of Horn biotechnology forum
My principle is we should be pro science and technology progress and when it comes to business we should be confident enough to be able to say NO if we do not agree and YES when we agree. No dictation and intimidation from any side.
Technology Transfer could be a very smart short cut to access modern technologies. Of course every thing should be based on a win-win situation. I know the dimension of the brutality of the multinationals. We must learn from the Far East Countries like China and others. First we must learn to imitate and then innovate. That is exactly what China is doing.
Currently I am busy to get a public private partnership deal in place with Uganda and multinationals to test biotech cotton in Uganda. The first steps are actually testing transgenic cotton varieties on the Ugandan soil and see how they do perform. The next step will be introgression into the Ugandan varieties through back crossing. Every
thing is driven by Ugandans and the seed business will be based on a win-win arrangement with local seed companies or public seed delivery systems. The best solution is therefore a joint venture arrangement or buying the gene (one time technology fee, like buying a PCR) and introgression into local varieties by local scientists. The seed business will be the matter of local seed companies or public seed
delivery systems. India has good experience with Mahyco Seed Company. I am not endorsing that every thing that is happening in India is perfect.
The bottom line is therefore Egyptians should know what they want and negotiate with any partner who wants to make business with Egypt. If Egypt's interested is fully respected there will be a business deal, if not Egypt will and should say NO.
Dulce Eleonora de Oliveira
Permanent visiting professor
Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries, Belgium
I agree that less-developing countries have problems with agrobusines and subsidises, not with the GM technology. The problem is to work to get the local technology in the field.
Summary
Agriculture represents the spearhead of socio-economic development: accounting for almost 30% of the Egyptian income, employing almost 50% of the workforce; and agricultural commodities generate more than 20% of Egypt's export earnings.
Egyptian cotton, among the world's finest, is the country's main agricultural export and many rural families rely on its production..
Egyptian cotton is vulnerable to dozens of insect pests and diseases especially Egyptian cotton worm (Spodoptera littoralis Boisd.; Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). It also attacks the leaves of cereal crops and lucerne which is the principal fodder crop used in Egypt. The heavy use of pesticides to protect cotton causes a lot of damage to humans, livestock, natural enemies, aquatic organisms and overall disturbance to the environment. In Egypt, The World Health Organization estimates that more than 50% of cotton farmers in the 1990s suffered symptoms of chronic pesticide poisoning, including neurological and vision disorders.
To overcome this problem, Cairo’s Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI) is collaborating with US-based Monsanto, the world's biggest biotech seed company, for developing genetically modified (GM) insect- resistant cotton variety. This is being carried out by crossing Egyptian elite germplasm with a Monsanto's cotton variety called Bollgard II containing both Cry 1Ac and Cry 2Ab genes, which produces two different toxins.
It is anticipated that Egypt will be able to start growing the new Bt cotton crop that contains genes from Monsanto, by at least 2008.
· Monsanto’s Bt cotton
The letters "Bt" stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, which is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that has been used safely for decades by both conventional and organic farmers. When certain insects consume Bt toxins they stop feeding and will perish within a few days. Farmers have always used Bt sparingly and usually as a last resort knowing that frequent use would lead to insect resistance and the loss of an important pest control tool.
Monsanto have isolated certain genes responsible for the production of Bt toxins and have then used genetic engineering techniques to insert them into cotton. The resulting Monsanto’s Bt cotton plants produce the Bt toxins and susceptible pests die when they eat them.
Almost the entire global acreage of Bt cotton is currently sown to Monsanto’s "Bollgard" variety. This company has developed a second Bt cotton variety, "Bollgard II", containing both Cry 1Ac and Cry 2Ab genes, which produces two different toxins.
Below are the expected socio-economic, environmental, health and political impacts of growing such new cotton variety in Egypt.
· Socio-economic impact
By analysing information available from countries that grow Monsanto’s Bt cotton such as India, Indonesia and South Africa, it was clear that Egyptian small farmers would experience a harmful socio-economic effect as a result of using Monsanto’s Bt cotton.
Bt cotton is not designed for small-scale farmers as in Egypt. It is designed for industrial agriculture systems that are characterized by large farms, mono-cropping, subsidies, mechanisation and reliance on external inputs.
Hardly subsidized small-scale farmers that depend on human and animal powers cannot afford the high cost of inputs that accompany the growing of GM crops and mono-cropping is not suitable for them.
Recent reports indicated that Monsanto’s Bt cotton might not be very effective against the bollworm because the Bt technology was created for the US, to protect America’s cotton crops against its major pest, the tobacco budworm, not the Egyptian bollworm.