Skip to main content
Log in

Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: a case of Bt eggplant in India

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Building on the evidence from the impact of hybrid technology on varietal diversity loss, this paper explores ex ante the possible effects of introduction of Bt eggplant on on-farm varietal diversity of eggplant. The public–private partnership involved in the development and introduction of Bt eggplant provides a great opportunity to develop locally-adapted Bt open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) instead of having a limited number of generic hybrid varieties. The study shows that introduction of multiple Bt OPVs by public institutions will reduce the rate of replacement of OPVs by hybrids and thus help in conserving varietal diversity. However, the cost of developing multiple Bt OPVs is high; hence policy makers need to look at alternative measures to maintain the varietal diversity of crops such as eggplant in its centers of diversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bt eggplant, developed through genetic modification, contains the “cry1Ac” gene transferred from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt eggplant provides resistance against eggplant shoot and fruit borer (ESFB), one of the major pests of the crop (see below for more details).

  2. In this study “modern” varieties refer to those varieties developed by human intervention using techniques of plant breeding. GE varieties are those varieties developed using techniques of ag-biotechnology, especially, genetic modification.

  3. Because of tight regulations, public sector was the major player in Indian seed industry until late 1980s. After the 1980s, private companies were allowed to obtain breeder seeds directly from public research institutions. However, the “New Policy on Seed Development” introduced in 1988 permitted import of germplasm for research and import of commercial vegetable seeds, which enhanced private research in vegetable seed development (Ramaswami 2002).

  4. Subsequent to the moratorium, the name of the apex regulatory authority has been changed from Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee.

  5. A landrace is a local variety of a domesticated plant species which has developed largely by natural processes, by adaptation to the natural and cultural environment in which it is grown.

  6. To draw a comparison, field trial data of Bt cotton in India suggested 70% reduction in insecticide use and 80% increase in yield (compared to non-Bt counterpart) due to use of Bt technology (Qaim and Zilberman 2003). Based on panel survey data in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, Subramanian and Qaim (2009) reported that insecticide use in Bt plots was less than that in conventional plots by 50, 5 and 21% in years 2002–2003, 2004–2005, and 2006–2007, respectively. Similarly, yields from Bt plots were higher by 34, 35 and 43% in years 2002–2003, 2004–2005, and 2006–2007, respectively.

  7. Stakeholders in the public sector expect that farmers would purchase Bt OPV seeds annually to ensure seed quality. This might be a realistic assumption given the high seed replacement rate of eggplant in India. However, there are concerns about the performance of the Bt gene in varieties over subsequent generations.

  8. Using results from a probit model of hybrid adoption and extrapolating the same to village level gave the same distribution of villages as that based on farmers’ revealed preference gathered through the survey instrument.

  9. Farmers’ expected adoption behavior is calculated as follows. After running the MNL regression, predicted probabilities for each of the alternatives were estimated for each of the farmers in the sample. The alternative with the highest probability was selected as the expected choice. For example, if the predicted probabilities for the first observation were 0.6, 0.3, and 0.1 for Bt hybrid, hybrid, and OPV alternatives, respectively, then Bt hybrid was taken as the expected choice for the first observation. Once the expected choice for each of the observations was calculated, frequencies for each of the alternatives were calculated for the whole sample. Tabular analysis was used to classify villages based on farmers’ expected adoption behavior.

  10. This information is based on personal communication with Mr. Vijayaraghavan K, the coordinator of Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II in India.

Abbreviations

Bt:

Bacillus thuringiensis

CV:

Contingent valuation

ESFB:

Eggplant shoot and fruit borer

GE:

Genetically engineered

GURT:

Genetic use restriction technology

MNL:

Multinomial logit

OPV:

Open-pollinated variety

R&D:

Research and development

USAID:

United States Agency for International Development

WTP:

Willingness to pay

References

  • Bellon, M.R. 1996. The dynamics of crop intra-specific diversity: a conceptual framework at the farmer level. Economic Botany 50: 26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D., O. May, and J. Creech. 2003. Genetic uniformity of the US upland cotton crop since the introduction of transgenic cottons. Crop Science 43: 515–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briol, E., E.R. Villalba, and M. Smale. 2007. Farmer preferences for Milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. IFPRI discussion paper 00726. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S.B. 1991. A farmer-based approach to conserving crop germplasm. Economic Botany 45: 53–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary, B., and Gaur, K. 2009. The development and regulation of Bt brinjal in India (eggplant/aubergine). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA. Brief No. 38. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/38/download/isaaa-brief-38-2009.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2010.

  • Cleveland, D.A., D. Soleri, F. Aragon Cuevas, J. Crossa, and P. Gepts. 2006. Detecting (trans) gene flow to landraces in centers of crop origin: Lessons from the case of maize in Mexico. Environment and Biosafety Research 4: 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D., R. Vellve, and H. Hobbelink. 1992. Growing diversity: genetic resources and local food security. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhandapani, N., U.R. Shelkar, and M. Murugan. 2003. Bio-intensive pest management in major vegetable crops: an Indian perspective. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 1: 330–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda, J., G. Traxler, and R. Nelson. 2000. Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2): 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, D. 2007. Monsanto and smallholder farmers: a case study in CSR. Third World Quarterly 28: 851–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goeschl, T., and T. Swanson. 2000. Genetic use restriction technologies and the diffusion of yield gains to developing countries. Journal of International Development 12(8): 1159–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., R. Hu, C. Fan, C. Pray, and S. Rozelle. 2002. Bt cotton benefits, costs, and impacts in China. Agbioforum 5(4): 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kataria, A. S. 2005. Development of F1 hybrid in vegetable crops and the availability in public and private sector. Available at http://www.seedassociationofindia.com.paperbysai.asp.

  • Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2006. Who adopts what kind of technologies? The case of Bt eggplant in India. Agbioforum 9(2): 94–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2008a. Potential welfare benefits from the public-private partnerships: a case of GE Eggplant in India. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 6(3 and 4): 333–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2008b. Can owners afford humanitarian donations in Ag biotech—the case of genetically engineered eggplant in India. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 11: 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, V.V., and M. Qaim. 2008. Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’ health in India. Agricultural Economics 38: 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louette, D., A. Charrier, and J. Berthaud. 1997. In situ conservation of maize in Mexico: Genetic diversity and maize seed management in a traditional community. Economic Botany 51: 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MANAGE. 2002. Seed business: Indian scenario. Spice 1(2). http://www.scribd.com/doc/19837646/Seed-Business-Indian-Scnerio. Accessed 1 November 2010.

  • National Horticulture Board (NHB). 2008. Production statistics of vegetables in India, 2007–2008. http://nhb.gov.in/statistics/area-production-statistics.html. Accessed 1 November 2010.

  • Qaim, M., and D. Zilberman. 2003. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299: 900–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., C. Yarkin, and D. Zilberman. 2005. Impact of biotechnology on crop genetic diversity. In Agricultural biodiversity and biotechnology in economic development, ed. J. Cooper, L.M. Lipper, and D. Zilberman, 283–308. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswami, B. 2002. Understanding the seed industry: contemporary trends and analytical issues. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(3): 417–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raney, T., and P. Pingali. 2005. Private research and public goods: implications of biotechnology for biodiversity. In Agricultural biodiversity and biotechnology in economic development, ed. J. Cooper, L.M. Lipper, and D. Zilberman, 39–50. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M.J., and R. Straughan. 2001. Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, B., and C. Thirtle. 2005. Pesticide productivity and transgenic cotton technology: the South African smallholder case. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sianesi, B., and D. Ulph. 1998. Species loss through the genetic modification of crops: a policy framework. CSERGE Working paper GEC 98-25, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/gec/gec_1998_25.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2009.

  • Sidhu, A. S. 1998. Current status of vegetable research in India. http://www.agrsci.unibo.it/wchr/wc2/asv.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2009.

  • Smale, M. 1997. The green revolution and wheat genetic diversity: Some unfounded assumptions. World Development 25: 1257–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneller, C.H. 2003. Impact of transgenic genotypes and subdivision on diversity within elite North American soybean germplasm. Crop Science 43: 409–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soleri, D., D.A. Cleveland, F. Aragon Cuevas, L.H. Rios, L.M.R. Funtes, and S.H. Sweeney. 2005. Understanding the potential impact of transgenic crops in traditional agriculture: maize farmers’ perspective in Cuba, Guatemala, and Mexico. Environment and Biosafety Research 4: 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbrecher, R. 1996. From green revolution to gene revolution: the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. Ecologist 26: 240–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, A., and M. Qaim. 2009. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. Journal of Development Studies 46: 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulph, A., and L. O’Shea. 2002. Biodiversity and optimal policies towards R&D and the growth of genetically modified crops. Environmental & Resource Economics 22: 505–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. 1981. Germplasm resources are losing ground. Science 214: 421–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L.L., and P.R. Phifer. 2000. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290: 2088–2093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge the financial support of the Agricultural Support Project II (ABSP II) for the study. Special thanks to the farmers in Maharashtra, who actively participated in the farm-household survey conducted by the research team. Authors are grateful to Dr. Usha Zehr of Mahyco, for sharing with us the field trial data of Bt eggplant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepthi Elizabeth Kolady.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 Companies producing eggplant in India

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kolady, D.E., Lesser, W. Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: a case of Bt eggplant in India. Agric Hum Values 29, 3–15 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9320-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9320-3

Keywords

Navigation