Bt cotton: benefits for poor farmers?

This paper questions whether, on the basis of a few favourable studies and a few years' experience, Bt cotton (cotton genetically engineered to express the insecticidal toxin Bacillus Thuringiensis) can be relied upon to produce benefits for poor farmers.The paper identifies a number of implications:the positive results shown by Bt cotton in the first few years are likely to be highly conditional; paying the higher price for GM seeds remains a risky choice, especially for cash poor farmersthe performance of transgenic crops depends heavily on the local suitability of the varieties into which the gene constructs are insertedecosystems are dynamic and the cotton pest complex is constantly coevolving. The particular ecological dynamics of cotton pests requires dynamic, ongoing managementthere is concern in both China and India that pest resistance to the Bt toxin may already be emerging. Pest refuges are recommended as a way of controlling this problem, but these may be unworkable or ineffective on the tiny plots of land farmed by smallholdersmost seed varieties only remain competitive for a few seasons, before giving way to newer and better onesit is important not to assume that the Bt cotton experience can be taken to indicate that other GM crops will bring benefits to poor farmersin India and South Africa, the smallholders adopting Bt varieties tend to be the richer and better established farmers who have access to productive land and credit, and can afford the higher up front costs of GM cotton seedthe adoption of transgenic food crops for export could expose smallholders to the risk of exclusion from some marketswith low world market cotton prices, questions remain as to whether cotton can continue to be a key crop for smallholders or developing countries. Diversification could be a less risky strategy for smallholder livelihoods.[adapted from author]