1. 1

2. SEMINAR -II
2

3. Introduction
Flow of Presentation
Status of GM Crops In India and World
Economic Impact on production and Indian Economy
GM crops-Pros and Cons
Some of Issue and Fact
GM crops Development Objectives
Case studies
Conclusion
3

4. World Health Organization
GMOs as “Organisms in which the genetic material
(DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur
naturally”. This is usually done by inserting genes of
related or unrelated species into an organism's DNA in an
attempt to transfer, or stop expression of, a specific trait.
4

5. Creating GM Plants Eg-IR maize
5

6. 6

7.  First crop introduced was Flavr Savr tomato in USA in
1995
 So far 20 crops approved for commercial cultivation
in different countries
 Only four crops being marketed commercially I.e.,
corn, cotton, soybean and canola
Commercial production initiated for papaya, squash,
rice and alfalfa in USA and other countries,
Others are approved but not yet being
Marketed
Major countries include USA, Canada, Japan, China,
India, Brazil, EU, Argentina, South Africa
7

8. Transgenic Crops:
Development Objectives
 Integrated pest management (IPM)
Herbicide tolerance (HT)
Nutritional enhancements
Product quality improvement
Increase in yield
Stress tolerance (ST)
Plant based pharmaceuticals 8

9. Status of GM Crops In India and World
9

10. GLOBAL
Source: FAO Stat and ISAAA, 2013 10

11. 79.1
USA
40.3
Brazil Argentenia India
24.4
11.80 10.8
Canada
TOP 5 COUNTRIES
BY HECTRAGE
Millions of biotech
crop hectares planted
1996 2013
11

12. Source: Clive James, 2012 ISAAA 12

13. COUNTRY AREA(MH) CROPS GROWN Rank
USA* 79.1 Maize, soybean, cotton, canola,
sugarbeet,alfalfa, papaya, squash
1
Brazil* 36.6 Soybean, maize, cotton 2
Argentina* 23.9 Soybean, maize, cotton 3
India* 11.80 Cotton 4
Canada* 11.6 Canola, maize, soybean, sugarbeet 5
China* 4.0 Cotton, papaya, tomato,
sweet pepper
6
Paraguay* 3.4 Soybean, maize, cotton 7
South Africa* 2.9 Maize, soybean, cotton 8
Pakistan* 2.8 Cotton 9
Uruguay* 1.4 Soybean, maize 10
Bolivia* 1.0 Soybean 11
Philippines* 0.8 Maize 12
13

14. Australia* 0.7 Cotton, canola 13
Burkina Faso* 0.3 Cotton 14
Myanmar* 0.3 Cotton 15
Mexico* 0.2 Cotton, soybean 16
Spain* 0.1 Maize 17
Chile* <0.1 Maize, soybean, canola 18
Colombia <0.1 Cotton 19
Honduras <0.1 Maize 20
Sudan <0.1 Cotton 21
Portugal <0.1 Maize 22
Czech Republic <0.1 Maize 23
Cuba <0.1 Maize 24
Egypt <0.1 Maize 25
Costa Rica <0.1 Cotton, soybean 26
Romania <0.1 Maize 27
Slovakia <0.1 Maize 28
total 170.3
* 18 biotech mega-countries growing 50,000 hectares, or more, of biotech crops
** Rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand
Source: Clive James, 2012.ISAAA
Contd…
14

15. Global Area of Biotech Crops,1996to 2011: By
Crop(Million Ha)
Source: Clive James, 2012 ISAAA 15

16. Govt. of India approved Mahyco’s
Bt-cotton
for control of bollworms
India’s first transgenic crop
16

17. India
 Only one crop approved i.e. Bt cotton
Three hybrids containing Cry1Ac gene
approved in 2002 and one in 2004
Six hybrids approved for northern states in 2005
62 hybrids approved for Kharif 2006
Three new events approved I.e.
i. Cry1Ac gene (event 1) by M/s J.K. Agri Seeds Ltd.
ii. Fusion genes (cry 1Ab+cry 1Ac) 'GFM by M/s Nath Seeds
iii. Stacked genes cry1Ac and cry1Ab by M/s MAHYCO
17

18. Adoption of single and multiple gene Bt cotton hybrid 2002 to 2010-11
Source: Compiled by ISAAA, 2010-11
18

19. Year
Total
cotton area in
hectares
Bt-cotton area in
hectares
% of cotton area
occupied by Bt-cotton
2002 8.73 0.03 0.3
2003 7.67 0.09 1.2
2004 7.63 0.55 7.3
2005 8.92 1.27 14.2
2006 9.16 3.80 41.5
2007 9.40 6.20 66.0
2008 9.27 7.60 82.0
2009 9.64 8.40 87.0
2010 10.94 9.20 92.0
2011 11.80 10.08 93.0
2012 11.80 11.00 94.75
2013 11.80 11.20 94.91
CAGR (%) 4.06 63.86
Source: www.GEAC.com 19

20. BT Cotton yield of Major cultivating state India
Source: ECONOMY SURVEY, 2011-12 20

21. Source: ECONOMY SURVEY, 2011-12
21

22. Brinjal is the poor men vegetable
India is the centre of origin of Brinjal.
Brinjal is susceptible to fruit and shoot borer
(Leucinodes orbanalis) and Helicoverpa armigera.
These insect damage leads to 50 to 70% yield
loss ($ 221millons)
22

23. 1. No study as to safety of Bt-Brinjal for environment
was made.
2. Bt- toxin(16-17mg/kg) is unsafe and harmful for
mammalian consumption.
3. Bt Brinjal produces protein in the vegetable that
induce resistance to antibiotics.
23

24. Economic Impact on production
and Indian Economy
24

25. Table.3: Major impact on yield
Source: Carl E. Pray ,2009
25

26. crop
1996-2011 additional
production
(million tonnes)
2011 additional
production
(million tonnes)
Soybeans 110.2 12.74
Maize 195.0 34.54
Cotton 15.85 2.48
Canola 6.55 0.44
Sugar beet 0.45 0.13
Source:Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot 2013
Note: GM HT sugar beet only in the US and Canada since 2008
26

27. Source: Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, 2012
Average yield gains GM IR crops (cotton and maize) 1996-2011
Notes: IRCB = Insect resistance to corn boring pests, IRCRW = Insect resistance to corn rootworm
India
38.0
27

28. Export and import of cotton in India, 2001-2010
Source: 28

29. 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07
Bt Conventional Bt Conventional Bt Conventional
Insecticides
(kg/acre)
2.07*** 4.17 2.05***
4.19
1.22*
1.55
Yield
(Kg/acre)
658.82*** 490.86 742.94*** 550.52 841.65*** 589.93
Net
revenue
(Rs/acre)
5294.22** 3132.99 4921.83*** 2152.08 7120.82*** 4181.26
Table.5: Comparison of insecticide use, yields, and net revenues between Bt and
conventional cotton plots in India
*, **, *** Mean values are different from those of conventional cotton in the same
year at a 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level, respectively
Arjunan Subramanian and Matin Qaim, 2008
29

30. Particulars Argentina China India Mexico South Africa
Yield 33 19 34 11 65
Revenue 34 23 33 9 65
Pesticide
cost
-47 -67 -41 -77 -58
Seed Cost 530 95 17 165 89
Profit 31 340 69 12 299
Table.6: Performance advantage of IR over conventional cotton expressed
as a percentage.
Source: Terri Raney, Science direct,2006
30

31. GM HT
soybeans
GM HT
maize
GM HT
cotton
GM HT
canola
GM IR
maize
GM IR
cotton
Total
US 10,422 1,402.9 804 149.2 4,778.9 2,232.7 19,789.7
Argentina 7,815 46 28.6 n/a 226.8 67.9 8,184.3
Brazil 2,868 n/a n/a n/a n/a 65.5 2,933.5
Paraguay 459 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 459
Canada 103.5 42 n/a 1,289 208.5 n/a 1,643
South
Africa 3.8 5.2 0.2 n/a 354.9 19.3 383.4
China n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,740.8 6,740.8
India n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,220.73 3,220.73
Australia n/a n/a 5.2 n/a n/a 190.6 195.8
Mexico 8.8 n/a 10.3 n/a n/a 65.9 85
Philippines n/a 11.4 n/a n/a 33.2 n/a 44.6
Romania 92.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 92.7
Uruguay 42.4 n/a n/a n/a 2.7 n/a 45.1
Spain n/a n/a n/a n/a 60.0 n/a 60
Other EU n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 8.6
Colombia n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.6 12.6
n/a = not applicable.
Table 7. GM crop farm income benefits in selected countries, 1996-2007 ($ million).
Source: Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, 2012 31

32. Years
Cost Saving
(Net after cost
of technology:
$/ha)
Net Increase in Gross
margin
Increase in farm Income
at a national level ($
millions)
Increase in national
farm income as % of
farm level value of
national production
2002 -12.42 82.66 3.69 0.26
2003 -16.2 209.85 20.98 0.47
2004 -13.56 193.36 96.68 1.86
2005 -22.25 255.96 332.74 5.26
2006 3.52 221.02 839.89 14.04
2007 26.41 356.85 2093.97 22.84
2008 24.28 256.73 1.790.16 24.27
2009 22.19 211.17 1754.96 23.47
2010 23.10 265.80 2498.53 24.26
2011 23.65 299.56 3220.73 22.05
Table.8:Farm level income impact of using GM IR cotton in India 2002-2010
Source: Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, 2012
32

33. Country Area of
trait ('000
ha)
Yield
assumptio
n %
change
Base yield
(tonnes/h
a)
Farm level
price
($/tonne)
Cost of
technology
($/ha)
Impact on
costs, net
of cost of
technology
($/ha)
Change
in farm
income
($/ha)
Change in
farm income
at national
level
('000 $)
Production
impact
('000
tonnes)
US 2,585.2 +10 0.93 1,202 -46.95 -5.77 +106.02 +274,078 +240.4
China 3,800 +10 1.18 807.4 -48.07 +152.48 +248.08 +942,695 +449.9
South
Africa
9.9 +24 0.692 1,172.0 -49.43 -31.23 +163.42 +1,617.8 +1.6
Australia 55.3 0 1.91 1,458 -251.3 +212.0 +212.09 +11,734.3 0
Mexico 60.0 +9.28 1.18 1088.7 -70.41 +20.49 +139.71 +8,382.1 +6.6
Argentina 162.3 +30 0.418 1,455 -37.85 -21.17 +161.31 +26,180.8 +20.3
India 5,868 +50 0.43 1,536.9 -55.29 -8.86 +321.57 +1,886,986 +1,261.6
Colombia 20.0 +9.28 0.95 1,900 -70.41 +20.49 +187.99 +3,749.8 +1.8
Brazil 358 +6.23 1.32 1,316.6 -43.94 +71.21 +135.54 +48,524 +29.4
Table.9: GM IR cotton, 2011.
Source: Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, 2012 33

34. Economic impacts of GM crops on farmers
 Suitability of the crop for local conditions
 Climate
 Pest and disease prevalence
 Cost of weed management
 Subsidies and incentives offered by governments or
corporations
 Cost of seed
 Availability of markets for the crop.
34

35. 35

36. Human health
Environmental hazards
Effects on Non-Target organisms and
plants
36

37.  Allergen and toxin
 Antibiotic resistance
 Unknown effects on human health
37

38. Growing of GM crops may lead to monoculture
The creation of pest or herbicide resistant
GM crops could result in superbugs or super
weeds
38

39. 39

40. Some of
Issue and
Fact that
Everyone
should
know
40

41. GM contamination is a very serious risk for farmers and the nation.
According to a survey by ASSOCHAM, the demand for organic food in
India is estimated to be growing annually at 40%.Moreover, India is
also ideally placed to meet the growing global demand for organic
produce. Already India is the largest producer of organic cotton.
GM contamination is unacceptable to many countries. The discovery
in May 2013 of GM wheat growing in US farms, years after field trials
ended, has deeply worried wheat farmers. They recall the huge losses
to US rice farmers and exporters when GM contamination of US long
grain rice was detected in Europe in 2006. Protracted litigation forced
Bayer CropScience to pay $ 750 million compensation.
Bt contamination of Indian organic cotton has been detected in
Europe. Indian farmers do not have the financial capacity to litigate
against large corporations.
41

42. Do GM crops increase yield?
Has cotton yield increased in India due to Bt cotton?
Have GM crops increased global food security?
42

43. 43

44. To Feed a growing global population that may touch 9 billion by 2050.. The
world already produces enough food for 13 billion people, so the problem is not
of food production but of access to it by the poor.
The world’s largest GM crop adopters are USA, Brazil and Argentina. They
account for 76% of all land under GM. In the US, the percentage of food insecure
has risen from 12% in 1995 to 15% of the population in 2011.
In Brazil, the rate at which hunger is reducing has decreased. In Argentina
hunger has not decreased after the introduction of GM crops. In Paraguay,
where nearly 65% of the land is under GM, hunger has increased from 12.6% in
2004-06 to 25.5% in 2010-12.
44

45. 45

46. Case Study-1
Inequality and GM Crops: A Case–Study of
Bt Cotton in India
Stephen Morse, Richard Bennett, and
Yousouf Ismael
AgBioForum, 2007
46

47. Table. 10 : Production and cost statistics for Bt and non–Bt plots of
adopters and non–adopters.
Bt plots of adopters Non–Bt plots of non–adopters
2002 2003 2002 2003
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Yield (quintiles/acre) 7.67 3.16 8.16 2.94 4.15 2.53 4.49 2.69
Revenue (Rp/acre) 17,259 8,094 18,900 7,503 8,576 5,756 9,592 5,973
Cost (Rs/Acre)
Seed 1,423 617 1,356 373 417 112 415 137
Total fertilizer 876 591 976 850 892 592 967 731
Bollworm insecticide 487 798 314 330 517 491 450 474
Irrigation 55 74 90 157 30 54 45 74
Total labour 2,033 1,093 2,116 1,337 1,723 1,099 1,815 1,240
Total costs 4,736 2,074 4,852 2,589 3,622 1,948 3,636 2,303
Gross margin
(Rp/acre)
12,523 7,749 14,048 7,672 4,954 5,662 5,956 6,172
Sample size 38 51 45 50 47

48. Case Study-2
Socio-Economic Impact of Bt Cotton — A
Case Study of Karnataka
V.R. Kiresur and Manjunath Ichangi
48

49. Inputs
Bt cotton Non bt cotton
Small
Farmers
Medium
farmers
Large
famers
Overall Small
Farmers
Medium
farmers
Large
famers
Overall
Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value
1.Seed (kg) 3.36 3710 3.44 3721 3.36 3725 3.38 3718 2.5 2050 3.0 2555 3.5 3045 3.0 2550
2.Labour
a) Human
labour
100 6005 100 6100 102.7 6135 101.3 6080 122 7415 124.5 7529 129 7665 125 7534
b) Bullock
labour
14.0 4400 14.7 1345 15.6 4530 14.7 4425 13.3 4240 15.0 4320 15.5 4565 14.6 4375
c) Machine
labour
6.5 1950 6.5 1950 7.5 2250 6.8 2050 6.5 1950 7.0 2100 7.5 2550 7.0 2200
3.FYM
(toones)
6.4 2425 6.5 2456 6.7 2470 6.5 2350 6.5 2350 6.6 2456 7.0 2700 6.7 2502
4.Fertilizer
(Kg)
243 2506 246 2515 247.8 2510 245.8 2510 265 2555 275 2610 276 2650 272 2605
5.PPC (Rs) - 4350 - 4412 - 4422 - 4394 - 6340 - 6377 - 6390 - 6369
Table.Input utilization pattern, cost incurred and yield realized by farmers in Bt and non-Bt
cotton
49

50. Contd…
Inputs
Bt cotton Non bt cotton
Small
Farmers
Medium
farmers
Large
famers
Overall
Small
Farmers
Medium
farmers
Large
famers
Overall
Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value
6.Yield(quint
al) 23.6 24 24.5 24 17.8 18.5 19 18.4
Gross
returns(Rs) 66080 67200 68600 67284 49480 51800 53200 5193`
Net
Returns(Rs) 30014 3080 31035 30618 11797 11912 11854 12189
Net returns
per rupee of
investment
1.83 1.84 1.82 1.83 1.31 1.33 1.28 1.31
Additional
cost over
non-Bt(Rs)
-1617 -2495 -3781 -2631
Additional
returns over
non-Bt (Rs)
16600 15400 15400 15791
Additional
net returns
from Bt (Rs)
18217 17895 19181 18429
50

51. 51

52. 52