STEPS Seminar given by Ronald J Herring, Cornell University. Institute of Development Studies, 9 December 2010.

1. State Science and its Discontents:
Why India's Second Transgenic Crop Did Not Follow the Path of Bt
Cotton
Ronald J. Herring
Cornell University

2. The Puzzle
• Bt brinjal [Solanum melongena, eggplant, aubergine,
baingan] follows Bt cotton
– Same transgene, same protein: cry1Ac
– Same regulatory system, same test methodology
– Bt cotton performed as tested [Rao and Dev 2010]
– Bt cotton now universal, Bt brinjal rejected
• Simple answer: eggplant is a food crop
• But… Simple answers are often deceptive
– [and we are not in France]

3. Science and Democracy
• “I have to be sensitive to the public opinion; I have to be
responsible to science.”
– Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, explaining moratorium on
Bt brinjal, 9-2-2010
• Whose Public Opinion? What Science?
• “…. slogan-shouting and protests cannot be allowed to
cloud our scientific vision.”
– Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan , opposing
moratorium on Bt brinjal, 15-2-2010
• The normative puzzle: Regulation and law assume settled
science; democracy delivers difference. How can democracy
deal with specialized expertise?

5. “Why Does India Need Bt Brinjal?”

6. “Why Does India Need Bt Brinjal?”
• The fruit and shoot borer (FSB, Leucinodes
orbonalis), fruit borer (H. armigera) and stem borer
(E. perticella)
– FSB Destroys up to 70% of crop (ECII)
– Because of reproductive biology, FSB resists even
heavy pesticide spraying

7. State Science Answers: The Need for
Bt Brinjal
• “current practices … *extensive pesticides are+
not only harmful to the health and environment
but also non-sustainable in brinjal crop.” >
• “urgent need for developing alternative control
strategies. “ [but no resistant traits in genome >
• “transgenic crops engineered primarily using the
cry proteins has given excellent results in cotton
and maize worldwide resulting in significant
economic benefits. A similar approach in brinjal
is expected to provide substantial benefits to
farmers.” (GEAC EC II 2009)

8. How Would We Know? The Normal
Science of Field Trials
• Multi Location Research Trials [MRLT] of private sector Bt
hybrids conducted by Mahyco 2004-5, 2005-6
• Indian Council of Ag Research [ICAR] trials under All India
Coordinated Research Improvement Project (AICRIP-
Vegetables) of Mahyco Bt hybrids 2004-2007
• Large scale trials of Mahyco Bt hybrids conducted by Indian
Institute for Vegetable Research, IIVR, Varanasi 2007-2009
• MLRT of public sector Bt brinjal OPV’s conducted by
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 2007-08
• MLRT of public sector Bt brinjal OPV’s conducted by Tamil
Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 2007-08

9. Conclusion on the Technology
• “The data also indicates that all three target pests …. are
highly susceptible to the Cry1Ac protein level expressed in Bt
brinjal hybrids.”
• “Bt brinjal hybrids yielded significantly higher marketable
yield in all three trial models.”

10. Summary Data on Mean Yields: Brinjal Field Trials
(three trial modes, national data 2004-09)
Brinjal Cultivar Marketable Bt Yield
Yield Difference
Bt Hybrids 404.91 q/ha
Non-Bt counterparts 236.84 q/ha 71%
National Checks 205.80 q/ha 97%
Source MOEF, GEAC, EC II, 52

11. Variance in Trial Yields, Brinjal Cultivars 2004-09
[means of three test modes]
Cultivar Low [q/ha] High [q/ha]
Bt Hybrids 293.45 MHB 10 Bt 638.02 MHBJ 99 Bt
Non-Bt 171.76 MHB 10 305.83 MHB 39
counterparts
National 189.70 221.90
Checks
Source: ECII,53

12. Economic Effects [means of three test modes]
Cultivar Mean Cost of Economic Net Economic
Pesticides Effect of Bt Advantage Bt Over
Rs/ha Yield Increase Checks: Pesticide Cost
Over Checks + Yield Effects [Rs/ha]
Rs/ha
Bt Hybrids 752
Non Bt counterparts 5,952 64,800 69,239
National Checks 5,920 80,800 85,291
______________
Source: GEAC ECII, 52

13. Ministerial Preemption of State Science
• October 2009 GEAC concluded:
• Bt brinjal is "effective in controlling target pests, safe
to the environment, non-toxic as determined by
toxicity and animal feeding tests, nonallergenic and
has potential to benefit the farmers."
• Min of Envir and F rejected the GEAC decision, called a
moratorium and planned public consultations
– “The moratorium will continue for as long as it is
needed to establish public trust and confidence.”
• GEAC downgraded as institution of state science, from
“Approval” committee to “Appraisal” committee.

15. Ministerial Logic in Rejecting Transgenic Brinjals
• Food safety
– Séralini’s science: Hazards of Bt protein: organ
toxicity
• Subsidiary concerns
– Biodiversity – but National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources rejects being cited as source
– Monsanto – but more varieties in public sector
than private hybrids: TNAU and post-office Bt
brinjal seeds; Mahyco donated the gene

16. Opposition in the States
• No state supported, some bluntly opposed:
– Kerala letter to MoEF: “State’s policy decision is not to
allow GM crops, even field trials; declare a
moratorium at least for the next 50 years…”
– Uttarkhand (verbal communication): “Ban Bt Brinjal.”
• Andhra Pradesh led the way: cp Bt cotton
• All non-Congress states opposed “GMOs” in
election manifestoes 2009
• Urban stakeholders well organized and connected
at state level, mirroring national level

17. Split Cabinet Reflects Divides on
Science and Scientists
• Min of Envir position opposed by:
– Min of Agriculture; Min of Science and Technology,
Min of HRD
– Indian Council for Agricultural Research; Department
of Biotechnology; Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR); Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee
• Minister’s Counter: “scientists are not Gods.”
– But also “I may have been wrong.”
• Developmental State vs Precautionary State

18. Counter-Mobilization of Scientists: Too Little
Too Late
• Countervailing Epistemic Brokers
– FBAE letter: European Food Safety Authority
Analyzes and Dismisses the new Séralini Paper.
– Hindustan Times [Eng/Hindi], 2-12- 2010
“Scientists slam key study behind Bt brinjal ban”
– ISAAA mobilizes counter-Euros: Marc Van
Montagu and Klaus Amman
– Petition to Agriculture Minister: 540 scientists, 4-
23-10, Bangalore

19. Obvious Answers to the Puzzle: Why
Did Bt Brinjal Lose?
• Consulted stakeholders were few and urban
*8000, 7 cities+: cp M Lipton on “urban bias”
• GEAC as institution damaged by Bt cotton
• Coalition interests in retaining power cover
over Cabinet split
• Epistemic brokers powerful and active [P
Bhargava, MS Swaminanthan] > uncertainty

20. Residues of ‘Operation Cremate Monsanto’:
Penumbra of Anxiety
• Vandana Shiva (2006, 86): “These seeds kill biodiversity, farmers, and
people’s freedom—for example, Monsanto’s Bt cotton, which has already
pushed thousands of Indian farmers into debt, despair, and death. Bt
cotton is based on what has been dubbed “Terminator Technology,”
which makes genetically engineered plants produce sterile seeds.
• “Pushed into deepening debt and penury by Monsanto-Mahyco and other
genetic-engineering multinationals, the introduction of Bt cotton heralds
the death of thousands of farmers. High costs of cultivation and low
returns have trapped Indian peasants in a debt trap from which they have
no other escape but to take their lives.”
• “More than 40,000 farmers have committed suicide over the past decade
in India—although the more accurate term would be homicide, or
genocide.”
• His Royal Highness Charles, Prince of Wales October 5, 2008 “I blame GM
crops for farmers' suicides.”

21. Why Did Brinjal Farmers’ Counter-Case Not Have
Clout?
• Nationally, brinjal farmers are few,
unorganized, lacking economic linkages
– Collective action hindered by diffusion of
interests
• States did not support their brinjal farmers as
they had their cotton farmers: but why?
– No Robin Hood, no stealth seeds, no
demonstration effect: ~ preconditions for CA
• Eggplant is not cotton

22. Cotton is Embedded in Larger State
and Commercial Interests
• Forward linkages to textiles, about 5% GDP
– Intensive Cotton Development Programme for
improving technology, production, marketing
– Technology Mission on Cotton from 2000
• Cotton Research and Technology Generation (Indian Council
on Agriculture), Transfer of Technology and Development
(Ministry of Agriculture)
• Funding through Union and state governments
• Tie in of private and public sector firms
• International competition: China/Bangladesh
– End of Multi-Fiber Agreement
• Farmer organizations around cotton esp Gujarat

23. Conclusions
• There is [some] science about politics
– Collective action theory matters
– Framing has powerful political effects: cp Dehra Dun local
– Outcomes create structural choke points
– Path dependency is fundamental
• Science is inherently vulnerable in politics
– Cognitive distance + information costs > power of
epistemic brokers
– Epistemological commitments preclude closure
– Politics makes impossible knowledge demands: to
disprove negatives > uncertainty/caution
• “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” in 55+ languages

24. Prognosis
There Will Be Stealth Brinjal

26. Official Science: Conclusion from Field
Trials
• 76-80% reduction in FSB insecticide; 42%
reduction in total insecticide
• Marketable yield increases substantial,
variable with level of FSB infestation and
market standards for fruit
• High standard, 2004-06, more than doubled yield
• 2004-06 ICAR > 2007-2009 IIVR [33-45% increase]
• Farmer benefit of Rs 12,000 per hectare

27. Effects on Yields and Incomes
• IIVR estimated economic benefits from data in large-scale
trials at 21 locations, in 10 states over two years (2007, 2008).
– mean cost of sprays (based on ETL) was Rs. 752/ha in Bt hybrids, Rs.
5,952/ha and Rs. 5920/ha in non-Bt counterparts and national check.
– estimated economic benefit due to increased marketable yield in Bt
hybrids over non-Bt counterparts and check was Rs. 64800/- per ha and
Rs. 80,800/- per ha.
– net economic gain in Bt hybrids over the non-Bt counterparts has been
estimated to be Rs. 69,239/- per ha and Rs. 85,291/- per ha over check
hybrid.

28. But Opposition Claims Risk
• Risk = hazard x incidence
• Food safety risk > Seralini’s paper on organ
failure from cry proteins
– Hazard= organ failure, incidence unknown
• GEAC claims existing risk > evidence of
extensive pesticides in brinjals
– Hazard = envir damage, worker/farmer damage,
consumer damage; incidence roughly known

29. What Stakeholders Count? Who Gets
Consulted?
• Minister’s brinjal yatra of 7 cities, 8000 people present:
• These 7 because:
• “Kolkata and Bhubaneshwar were selected because West
Bengal and Orissa account for 30% and 20% of India's
brinjal production respectively. Ahmedabad and Nagpur
were selected because Bt cotton has been under extensive
cultivation in Gujarat and Maharashtra over the past six
years. Chandigarh was selected in order to allow farmers
from the two agriculturally-advanced states of Punjab and
Haryana to express their views. Hyderabad and Bangalore
were selected because these are centres for
biotechnology R&D.”