Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Mar 26, 2009 | Read | 66 Comments » Tags: BT Cotton, GM Cotton, India, Indian Farmer Suicide Tragedy
Author: Monsantoco 
Suicide is a difficult subject to discuss, as many of us are likely to know someone who’s taken their own life. This is a particularly emotional topic, and I hope to show due respect and sensitivity for those affected by such a tragedy.
Unfortunately, there have been some sensational allegations lately about farmer suicide rates in India. Speculative reports spawned mostly by anti-GMO groups–not pro-farming groups–have implied that these tragic farmer suicides have somehow become an epidemic since the introduction of biotech cotton in 2002. This is simply not true. The activists’ reports largely ignore many complex cultural, environmental and economic factors and instead try to provoke an emotional reaction to shift blame towards biotech.
Suicidal behavior occurs in all parts of the world with varying rates, according to the World Health Organization.
Weather conditions, religious beliefs, living conditions, drug use, alcohol addiction, job stress and population density are examples of variables which can make suicide rates differ by country. Higher suicide rates among Indian farmers long predate the introduction of biotech cotton in India. Many independent research studies, like one completed by the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS) in December 2008, concluded “Increased Indebtedness Leads to Farmer Suicide.”
Bt cotton farmers in India are experiencing their best economic benefits ever. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) commissioned a study in 2007 to assess the “Socio-Economic Benefits of Bt Cotton Cultivation in India” by research agencies Indicus Analytics & IMRB International. Moreover, India’s media has many recent positive reports about the benefits of Bt cotton in the economy.
For example, India’s national daily paper, The Hindu, reported that “Bt Cotton Gives a New Lease of Life to Vidarbha Farmers,” The Economic Times reported about “The Hybrid Solution,” The Times of India wrote about “New Crop Technology Bringing Joy to Bhatinda Farmers” and The Financial Express quoted India’s finance minister as wanting to “Replicate Success of Bt Cotton.”
In summary, according to press reports farmers are attaining better yields, earning bigger returns on their investment and using less pesticide–which ultimately allows them to afford a much better quality of life for their families.
Furthermore, in October 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute released a study called “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicide in India” which shows no increase in farmer suicides in India due to Bt cotton. Unlike the claims by anti-biotech groups, the IFPRI study provides a deep analysis of other key factors that played a prominent role in Indian debt such as: a lack of formal budget management training; no formal credit institutions; loan interest rates of 20-30 percent; no debt relief laws for farmers; the unwitting purchase of imitation biotech seed from sham artists; crop failures due to poor weather; lack of an irrigation systems; lack of alternative sources of income outside of agriculture; and personal debts such as endowment obligations for the marriage of daughters and/or family medical bills.
Biotech cotton in India has been a controversial topic, but much of the drama has been unfairly fueled by unscientific claims and exaggerated reporting of a manufactured phenomenon.
So, disregard the sensationalistic and speculative spin by anti-GMO groups and take time to investigate how increased yields are actually saving lives. Indian farmers can now afford vaccines for their children and prenatal care for pregnant wives. Biotech advancements have allowed for less exposure to harmful pesticides and more educational opportunities for better, safer farming practices.
Bt cotton has been given an unfair reputation when the true culprit is a smorgasbord of repairable socio-economic problems in India. A variety of third-party studies have proven that personal debt is the historical reason behind an Indian farmer’s decision to commit suicide, not biotech seed. Think about it this way: if Bt cotton were the root cause of suicidal tendencies, then why is it that Indian farmers represent the fastest-growing users of biotech crops in the world? Between 2005 and 2006, India’s adoption of Bt cotton nearly tripled to 9.5 million acres! Today, Bt cotton is currently used in nine states in India on 14.4 million or 63 percent of India’s total cotton acres. So, if the studies don’t disprove the myths relating Bt cotton to Indian farmer suicide, then perhaps the sales figures will.
The bottom line
Bt cotton is making life better in India. Unfortunately, critics of biotech do not like these favorable statistics or news reports, so they rely on baseless smear campaigns to create a visceral reaction in those who are unfamiliar with the facts. Debt is the reason for Indian farmer suicide–but the economic benefits from Bt cotton may be the key to reversing the tragic statistics.
A native of Chicago, Garrett graduated from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with a B.A. in Public Relations in 1996. He is a 2000 graduate of the Defense Information School, and is still an official Navy spokesperson as a lieutenant commander in the reserves. During his 12 years on active duty as a Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for the U.S. Navy, Garrett has conducted media relations during Operations Allied Force, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. From 2000-2002, Garrett served as the PAO aboard the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and later spent three years as the director of public relations for the world-renown Navy flight demonstration team, the Blue Angels, prior to joining Monsanto in 2008. He has an extensive background in crisis communications, strategic message planning and reputation management. In his spare time, he enjoys spending time with his family, carpentry and creating large divots in local golf courses.
Category: At Monsanto
Tags: BT Cotton, GM Cotton, India, Indian Farmer Suicide Tragedy
Julie, Ewan is correct.
At one point earlier you (Julie) had said:
“The following rotations, additional chemicals will be needed to be added to glyphosate (extra cost) and glyphosate is to be removed from the knockdown regime to protect against resistance (additional cost of tillage or less effective SS option).”
I’m just trying to get a FULL cycle TOTAL cost analysis, however YOU want to define “full cycle”. You brought up the additional chemicals and rotations, so I’m giving you an opportunity to add in their costs. But we need ALL costs (and income).
Julie, I know you’re not trying to do this, but the way you keep cherry-picking stats to support your argument makes this seem like a shell game. I want to compare apples to apples, and it seems we are comparing canola to kiwis.
You said:
“The pro-GM farmers that grew it last year did some figures but their are holes in the figures. Interesting how the farmers that are pushing it the most got free seed isn’t it?
You can play with the figures however you want but I have noticed those pushing GM have played with the figures you mentioned without including the additional costs that I mentioned.”
OK, then fill in their holes (and yours). Give us COMPLETE figures, including the additional costs that you have mentioned. But be sure to include the costs (and benefits) THEY mentioned.
Am I being unclear with my request? Please let me know which part(s) you don’t understand, so I can clarify further.
http://www.bcg.org.au/resources/Better_Canola_RR_2008_results_booklet.pdf
Gives a pretty thorough investigation of RR canola growth in Australia – none of the farmers selected appeared to have major issues with the crop, preferred it to TT varieties and enjoyed the ability to not use atrazine – yields werent higher in any of the trials, or it appears on any of the farms – but the ease of use and safety of use (and related economic benefits) paint a picture of RR canola adopters wanting to continue with RR canola use (3 farms from NSW, 10 from Victoria) – it is interesting to note that one of the main issues farmers had with the RR crop was an uniformed or misinformed public perception of the crop “There is a
lot of misinformation, perpetuated through some media.” – it appears that you’re doing a pretty good job in that respect Julie.
With your permission, Brad, I would like to repost your comment here and continue the conversation.
Brad Says:
April 30, 2009 at 9:06 am
Deborah,
Regarding testimony of farmers on suicideThere are testimonies of farmers who claim benefits of Bt cotton as well http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/country.asp?cname=India
The question then becomes, how does one reconcile conflicting testimony. Most rationale individuals will look to sound scientific analysis as the IFPRI study which found no associaltion between Bt Cotton and suicide:
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf
Here is a newspaper article for those not inclined to look at actual data:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india
Previous studies also include:
http://www.igidr.ac.in/suicide/ExecutiveSummary_SFM_IGIDR_26Jan06.pdf
Deborah,
I understand you want to continue conversation about this topic. Fortunately, Brad is working on a post on Indian Farmer Suicides so the conversation can pick up there. As you recall, 2 weeks ago I put up a post stating that 10 days after a post, responses would not be guaranteed. The comments on this particular post have gone very far down and people who wish to join the conversation will not be likely to follow. Which is what we all want, right? Please stay tuned for that post, and some more discussion.
It was only 5 days before my post that Brad had sent me these articles. But I will wait for the new post.
Deborah,
The policy is for the actual, original blog post. Not for each individual comment.
Ewan, your comment ““There is a
lot of misinformation, perpetuated through some media.” – it appears that you’re doing a pretty good job in that respect Julie.”
is typical of Monsanto and GM proponents. They don’t like the detail so they attack the messenger.
Lets look at some of the misinformation:
The first farmer to plant it in WA last week claimed he planted it because of the 30% yield increase not because of the chemical use as he did not have a weed problem.
What 30% yield increase? The GM bit is only resistance to glyphosate!
Its not selective information as every farmers cropping programme will differ. I am comparing what needs managing different between GM and non-GM and the appropriate costs compared to what is the actual difference in the benefit between GM. There is little or no difference yet a massive increase in costs.
Its not rocket science!
Julie, your criticism of Evan could also be directed at yourself. As could mine of you. BUt let’s let it go at that, shall we? Also, his comment is two weeks old, so don’t be surprised if he doesn’t even notice your rebuttal.
Julie said:
“There is little or no difference yet a massive increase in costs.”
So, is your contention that Monsanto maliciously misrepresents their products, which I would guess would be a legal offense, or that Monsanto controls the media so that farmers can’t find the “truth”, or that the farmers in WA are too lazy or stupid to figure out things for themselves?
Or PERHAPS this ONE “first farmer to plant it in WA” is an anecdotal instance, and his experience is representative of NEITHER all WA farmers NOR the value of GM (in this specific case, Roundup Ready crops).
The claims made for ANY crop are based on average results over a LARGE set of data. But as the old saying goes, “Your mileage may vary.” I hear the average family in the US has 2.4 kids. But I doubt there is a SINGLE family that has EXACTLY 2.4 kids. So, some families are getting “yields” ABOVE the average, and some below.
Sure, I can pay a premium to get a Porshe that a salesman claims goes 120 miles and hour. Is it the salesman’s fault if I don’t have a NEED (or even an oportunity) to GO 120 miles an hour?
Julie – half of that comment at least can be attributed to a GM canola grower in Australia who grew the GM canola, and liked it. I’d say that he not only doesnt like “the detail” but fundamentally disagrees with it from actual experience growing the GM crop (their reality contradicts the claims they are talking about thus confirming that it is misinformation)
From the link I gave I’d have to conclude that you are correct in assuming that there is no huge yield increase from the RR canola (some farmers saw a yield increase because of the hybrid used, but one would expect this regardless of whether it was traited or not)
It equally isnt rocket science to take a quick look through the case studies discussed and see that contrary to your predictions farmers have used, and will continue to use, the RR varieties because despite not giving huge yield increases they do actually offer value to these farmers.
If it did add true value, there would be more than a handful of farmers at the NSW accreditation meetings but there was not.
Final figures can’t be given because they are not available as Australia has only grown one year of GM canola. Its not rocket science to work out extra costs and can be done by just looking at EXTRA costs. Every programme is different, it is the additional costs or benefits that need to be factored in.
Re the critical comment regarding delay in posting responses – Not all of us are paid to debate GM like Monsanto’s public relations team. We are farmers and are currently in the middle of a busy 6,000ha seeding program.
Julie, I can’t speak for everyone supporting Monsanto on here, but as far as I know only the OP (original poster), Garrett, in this case, gets “paid to debate GM like Monsanto’s public relations team”. I know I do not get paid for those activities. I use my break and lunch time to support what I think is a worthy effort. And that is likely why Garrett can’t hang around on this topic forever.
It isn’t a “critical” comment, “they” just wanted you to know that Garrett has likely moved on, doing what he is being paid to do, and cannot spend an indefinite amount of time on this one topic. So if oyu are waiting for a response specifically from him, you should move on.
EXTRA costs don’t mean anything to a good businessman. Steak costs more than green beans, but if I open a restaurant that serves green beans instead of steak, it will be a failed business. What a GOOD businessman looks at is how much those increased costs will increase gross revenue. If a $1 increase in cost results in a $2 increase in gross revenue, you can bet I’m going for the $1 increase in NET revenue.
I don’t know what happens in New South Wales, but here in the US (as far as I know) every planting of GM crops has an associated “refuge” required, sometimes as high as 50%, to reduce the likelihood of resistant organisms developing. And thus US farmers get a side-by-side comparison of the relative worth of their GM crops. So if there was no value added, It would be very few seasons before farmers stopped buying GM seeds altogether.
I have no idea what the refuge policy of Australia is, and don’t want to spend my lunch time researching it, but if it ISN’T required, perhaps that would be an additional point for you to lobby for. Then all of the WA and NSW farmers will have direct evidence to make their decision, and I can stop asking for data which you seem reluctant to provide.
It is true that many other factors can cause the suicide of Indian farmers, such as weather condition, religious beliefs, living conditions, alcohol addiction, etc. However, BT cotton makes their survival condition worse. In order to plant the BT cotton, local farmers need to sign the contract with some giant biotech companies, buy their seeds at a high price and also those farmers have to buy their pesticide and fertilizer to make sure that the BT cotton can grow healthily. Sometimes, when weather condition is not so suitable for the growing of BT cotton, the farmers loss every thing except burdening heavy debts. Even if they gain good harvest, whether they can sell the BT cotton at a good price is another problem. That is why some farmers plant the BT cotton with high expectation every year and finally they find that they just get higher debts.
Jack – I don’t believe that Bt cotton makes the survival conditions worse for indian cotton farmers. If you look at the costs you cite in any of the various reports quoted in the above blog discussion (or possibly in other blog discussions – this issue is a pretty big sticking point for opponents of GMOs) you will note that pesticide costs are actually lower for farmers who utilize Bt cotton, and that fertilizer costs remain the same between Bt and non-Bt users – it is however true that the seeds themselves do cost more – however it is arguable that the increased cost of the seed is not actually that significant when compared to all other running costs of the farm operation
Looking at the cost analysis in
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2006-09-04_vgandhi.pdf
seed pricing appears to be about the only significantly higher cost, with pesticide useage being the only significantly lower cost – by region it could be argued that there is a higher fertilizer cost in Maharashtra aswell as irrigation, and that in Tamil Nadu the fertilizer cost appears to be significantly lower for Bt cotton as compared to non-Bt.
In all regions other than Maharashtra the increase in cost of operations is roughly equivalent to the price difference of the seeds. And in all regions the average profitability of Bt as compared to non-Bt is in excess of 50% (57% being the lowest, 300+% being the highest)
I’m going to assume that owing 30000 Ru due to a failed crop is not that much different to owing 33000 Ru due to a failed crop (and nobody has made any claims that Bt crops are immune to crop failure) whereas getting 32000 Ru as compared to 18000 Ru at the end of the season is probably quite a significant improvement in life – as such I dont see, that from these numbers, one can conclude that it is the cost, or added cost, of Bt which is a major factor in suicides – unless you are ascribing the added stress of signing a contract as a major factor?
On pricing – that is an issue that faces every farmer – however if your yield is 50-100% higher due to the use of transgenics you will still make 50-100% more money than you would have otherwise regardless of how your crop is priced (meaning that prices would really have to hit rock bottom for the 10% cost increase of transgenics to be the decisive factor in whether or not you made a profit)