Vol.4, No.10, 541-548 (2013) Agricultural Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2013.410073 Genetically modified crops and climate change linkages: An Indian perspective Amanpreet Kaur1, Ravinder Kumar Kohli2*, Paramjit Singh Jaswal3 1Department of Environment, Post Graduate Government College-46, Chandigarh, India 2DAV University, Jalandhar, India 3RGNUL, Patiala, Punjab, India; *Corresponding Author: rkkohli45@yahoo.com, rkkohli45@gmail.com, aman_envirocare@yahoo.com Received 29 June 2013; revised 29 July 2013; accepted 19 August 2013 Copyright © 2013 Amanpreet Kaur et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ABSTRACT Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs) and Climate Change (CC) are the two most contentious eco- logical issues the world faces today. Application of transgenics in agriculture is most debated be- cause of its direct and indirect implications. The advertized bene fits in the backdrop of the poten- tially harmful effects on health and environment make this an issue of greater concern. On the other hand, Climate Change is a problem of enor- mous scale and it s after-effects ev en more grav e. The impact of climate change on agriculture, though well researched, is still very uncertain. Further, the introduction and global embrace of a technology with unverified credentials may prove to be an ill-conceived and ill-timed act. The future of GMC technology in India will be both challenging as well as exciting. Therefore any decision on this front should be taken with scientific rigor and logic. Our aim is to explore this complex inter-relationship and provide im- petus for further research. Keywords: Genetically Modified Crops; Climate Change; Carbon Emissions; Agriculture; Bt Crops 1. INTRODUCTION Climate Change (CC) is the greatest challenge mankind faces today. Its impacts like rising sea levels, melting of glaciers, droughts, floods, loss of biodiversity, spread of diseases, continue to increase at rates far steeper than the rate of social change [1]. Scientists, climatologists and governments world-over are striving to find ways to combat this phenomenon. Among its most worrying as- pects is the effect on agriculture. Potential impacts of CC estimated under HadCM3 glo- bal climate model of IPCC (Inter-Government Panel for Climate Change) indicate net loss in crop yields by 9 to 22%, even after including beneficial effects of increa- sed CO2 levels and various farm level adaptations [2]. Predictions of changes in crop yield seem difficult, since global CC is bound to alter the cropping pattern in time and spatial scale. To combat this issue, man is ma- nipulating the genetic traits by inserting/altering desired genes into the crops to produce Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs) as per suitability. Since the first commercial cultivation of transgenic Tomato in 1996, nearly 170 million hectares (mha) of glo- bal land is under GMCs cultivation, with USA, Brazil and Argentina as the top three countries (Figure 1(a)). Soya, Maize, Cotton and Canola (Figure 1(b)) are the top four crops [3]. Herbicide tolerance and insect resis- tance, the two most widely transgenically induced traits (Figure 1(c)), are expected to decrease pesticide usage and increase crop yields. In India, Bt cotton is the only GMC being grown com- mercially. Released for commercial cultivation in March 2002, today it covers 9.4 mha of the total 10.3 mha land under cotton [4]. Despite the wide acceptance, it remains shrouded in controversy and has received a mixed re- sponse from the Indian farmers. In the overall context of the extensive an d rich backgro und of farming in Ind ia, Bt cotton remains a minor change. It is perhaps too early to critically evaluate the impact of such a change. The direct and indirect impacts of these crops on human health, ecology and environment remain to be evaluated and hence, GMCs today still stand at the crossroads of acceptance. 2. DISSECTING LINKAGES In the present scenario of changing climate, huge skep- ticism surrounds the ability of our agricultural system to Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 542 (a) (b) (c) Figure 1. (a) Country wise Distribution of GMCs Source: Clive 2012; (b) Crop wise world distribution of GMCs Source: Clive 2012; (c) Trait wise distribution of GMCs, Herbicide Tolerance the most popularly grown Source: Clive 2012. feed the world. High degree of uncertainty imputed to CC and its interactions with agriculture cast doubts on the safety of GMCs. Moreover, agriculture in India is the backbone of the economy. It covers 60.5% of land area, accounts for 15.7% of the country’s gross domestic pro- duct (GDP) and provides employment to 55% of the work force [5]. Tampering with it, in backdrop of potential CC impacts and carbon emission liabilities, could be disas- trous for the country. In the light of given problem, Bi- otech companies now herald GMCs as solution to CC for feeding our ever growing popul ati on in t he warmer worl d. Interaction between climatic factors and crops is very strong but replacing the conventional crops with GMCs in a warming world gives a new perspective. Intensive crop farming requires large inputs of oil, fertilizers, pes- ticides which collectively are major contributors to cli- mate change. GMCs also appear to be going on the same lines [6]. Most of the pretensions about th ese crops as a solu tion to CC appear to be overdrawn and entirely premature. Successful crop plants are the resultant of interaction be- tween genes and environment (product of dose and pe- riod of exposure). Introducing or changing gene(s) is thus no guarantee of success. A multifaceted approach broa- dens the horizon as GMCs are b elieved to mitigate green house gas (GHG) emissions in number of ways. 2.1. Reduced Pesticide Usage with Increased Yield Herbicide Tolerant (HT) and Insect Resistant (IR) crops claiming to reduce pesticide usage can further reduce the carbon footprint of the whole process. Low pesticide use means less manufacture, storage, transport and spraying, which collectively brings down the carbon emissions of the process [7]. Increased yield s with lesser pesticide use on the same piece of land, reduces the pressure on the system [8]. Increasing the crop yield or reducing the pest attack, in short, converts into profit for its grower as he can grow more on the same piece of land. This is the main objective behind GMC cultivation. Whether it has really been achieved, is still questionable. It is reported that only in areas where there are fre- quent disease outbreaks, especially during planting sea- son, the HT and IR crops show better performance. Otherwise, under normal conditions they show little or no impact on crop yields [6]. Compared to conventional cropping/organic systems, GMCs are not expected to show similar results especially in terms of yield and qua- lity. On the other h and, pesticide usage is hardly any dif- ferent when compared between HT crops and their con- ventional counterparts. Instead, cultivation of GMCs has led to increased pesticide usage because of the conve- nience factor. An even worse scenario which has been widely re- ported is the development of resistant weeds/super-weeds and secondary pests [9]. Widespread infestation of the exotic mealy-bug species, Phenacoccus solenopsis, was reported on Bt cotton in 2007 in India [10]. Further, the Bollworms have already started showing signs of field evolved resistance to Bt cotton [11]. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 543 New enemies of GMC fields Super-weeds—Gene flow from transgenic crops to its wild relati ves co uld unintentionally confer such benefits to these weedy relatives resulting in the evolution of super-weeds. Such weedy relatives are mostly species related to the crop and so become very difficult to control. Secondary Pests—A species which was not a pest before but its population increases to densities that cause damage to the crop is called as a secondary pest. Development of secondary pests has recently increased in GMC fields where pesticide applications kill natural enemies of such species and disturbs the biological control [12]. Source—Powles 2008 2.2. Increased Carbon Retention Since man started agriculture, plowing has been a pro- cess of aerating the soil, to integrate organic matter and release large amount of carbon gases trapped. However, GMCs are considered as no-till crops which in turn de- crease the carbon lost during tillage. In this way, these crops can increase retention of carbon and further bring down the emissions. But conservation tillage was discovered and practiced even before GMCs came in. It has been practiced as tra- ditional farming technique in India for decades. Thus, re- duction in carbon loss by this process is expected to be minimal. 2.3. Climate-Ready Crops Apart from these indirect benefits, some GMCs are being climate proofed to bear the environmental stress in changing climate such as droughts and floods. In some cases, both direct and indirect benefits can also be looked upon from GMCs like the bioengineered nitrogen fixing crops which are expected to increase the nitrogen use efficiency as well as reduce our dependence on fossil fuel based nitrogen fertilizers. It also helps to reduce GHG emissions and water pollution due to leaked nitro- gen products. But there has been very little progress in terms of de- veloping GM nitrogen-fixing and drought resistant crops. Such modification requires major changes in plant meta- bolism. Its interactions with the agro-ecosystem are un- known. It is a known fact that no seed can germinate in complete absence of moisture. Thus development of a drought resistant crop appears to be relatively impractical. A safer option would probably be to use the wild rela- tives of crops growing in the geographically diverse re- gions of India and develop climate resistant hybrids. 2.4. Biofuels World over, GMCs are being grown for agro-fuel pro- duction with 70% of total GM Soya grown for this pur- pose only. Bio-fuels are believed to be a cleaner fuel with lower emissions and a befitting altern ative to fossil fuels. However, this role of GMCs for increased agro-fuel pro- duction replacing fossil fuels is based on very little evi- dence. Instead, rapid expansion of agro-fuel cultivation can lead to loss of land primarily used for food produc- tion, increased chemical usage, displacement of farmers and indigenous people and loss of biodiversity [13]. 2.5. Genetically Engineered Trees Genetically engineered trees are also being developed for a range of uses. In China, Poplar species have been genetically engineered, cloned and planted on commer- cial scale to prevent soil erosion [14]. These fast growing trees fix more CO2 and produce more cellulose fo r indus- trial use than conventional trees and appear as a very at- tractive option. Regarding genetically engineered trees, meaningful and adequate benefits are currently uncertain, keeping in view the complexity of their large habitats and numerous interactions. DATA MISREPRESENTATION Biotech companies often combine several GM traits together in a crop and refer them as stacked GM traits. For example, Monsanto and Dow have developed a maize variety called Smart-Stax containing two herbicide tolerance and six insect resistance traits. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non profit organization primarily funded by biotech MNCs, publishes an annual report on GMC status of the world. While calculating the area under GMC, it calculates the are a under different GM traits individually and by doing this it multiplies the area under stacked GMCs with the number of GM traits it contains. Thus for the crop with two stacked traits, it claims double the area or in the case of Smart-Stax w here it is eigh t times the area [15]. By suc h count ing, a h ighly exaggera te d and misguiding pict ure is pres ented to the world. Source FOE 2010 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 544 Whether GMCs can be helpful in reducing carbon emissions or not, is still question able. These possibilities need to be studied and researched extensively to prove their relevance. Despite claims and counter claims on the pretension of GMCs as solution to climate change, a large number of biotech companies around the world are patenting climate ready genes in a rush. At the recently held United Nation Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan (18 - 29 October 2010), it was claimed that under the pretext of developing climate ready crops, these biotech companies seek to control worlds’ plant bi- omass. Over 262 patent families, subsuming 1663 patent documents published worldwide (both applications and issued patents) make specific claims on environmental stress tolerance in plants (such as drought, heat, flood, cold, salt tolerance). Out of these over two-thirds are held by three major biotech companies where as public sector researchers hold only 10% [16]. 3. DICHOTOMOUS GLOBAL DIVIDE The acceptance of GMCs is sharply divided over the continents. While, Americans are grow ing nearly 80% of total GMCs, Europeans have taken a stringent stand against these crops. Similarly the developing world too is confused over adopting GMCs in a hurry. Geographically, Southern hemisphere, which is expected to suffer more due to climate change, grows negligible GMCs (Figure 2). If GMCs can actually mitigate climate change impacts, then why they are not being grown in regions of the Figure 2. Complete mismatch between countries growing GMCs and the ones’ mosteffected by climate change, in wake of claims of GMCs mitigating climate change impacts. world which will suffer earlier and more severely by it? GMC is monoculture based, more suited to large land holders. However in India, where, 80% of farmers have marginal and small land hold ings of less than 2 ha, GMC may not augur well. As they grow a variety of crops to- gether and cannot afford to leave large isolation distan- ces as a pre-requisite in GMC cultivation. Performance of GMCs varies with region, cultural practices, agrocli- matic conditions and geographical conditions. In India, Bt Cotton failed miserably in South but fared better in Punjab in North [10 ] . Lack of legal capacity to monitor, assess and control activities involving GMCs further decreases their chanc- es in developing world. Thus GMCs are not an asset to us, unless they are developed keeping in mind geogra- phic concerns, needs, farming practices, economic back- ground, local innovations and ecology on a whole. This can be best done by involving the local groups, govern- ment research agencies, farmers and allowing them to in- novate and evolve need based GMCs. But patenting of GMCs by the biotech companies hampers such efforts. Independent research by government agencies becomes difficult because of huge investment involved and lack of information and technological exchange. Further it is very expensive and difficult to prove the safety of GMCs in the light of various claims of b iotech giant which some NGOs and scientists term as mis- guiding and misleading [17]. Some of the adverse ef- fects attributed to GMCs include new allergens in food supply, antibiotic resistance, production of new toxins, concentration of toxic metals, enhancement of the envi- ronment for toxic fungi to grow, increased cancer risks, degradation of the nutritional food value, and other un- known risks that may arise later [18]. An initial study which raised major concern amongst scientific community showed that on consumption of GM soybeans containing brazil-nut gene could induce poten tially fatal a llergies in people a llergic to brazil nut [19]. GM potatoes, that contained Galanthus nivalis agg- lutinin, caused ripples in the scientific community and biotech companies alike. These potatoes were found to damage vital organs, immune system and stomach lin- ing of rats and affect other non targ et species [20]. Bt cotton growers from Bathinda (Punjab), India, com- plained of a chronic skin allergy among the field wor- kers and have to take antihistamines. Increased incidents of dead cattle and sheep grazing on harvested Bt cotton fields in Warangal district (Andhra Pradesh) in Sou- thern India as well as other parts of the country has been reported since 2005 [21]. Such repeated patterns of ill- ness, corroborating evidence, and health reactions have consistently increased and superimposed the known po- tential risks of GMCs [22]. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 545 BtBrinjal—A controversy in India that Refuses to D ie! BtBrinjal, India’s first GM Food crop got inter- twined in controversies right from the beginning. Following its approval by Genetic Engineering Ap- proval Committee, a safety debate broke out in the country. Union Minister of Environment, Jairam Ra- mesh took the issue in public domain where it was strongly opposed by various sections of the society. Consequently, a moratorium was put on its release on Feb 9, 2010 and in his decision, the minister ap- pointed six premier academies to scrutinize safety of BtBrinjal and give a rigorous scientific opinion on GMCs. This Inter Academy report on GMCs when released declaredBtBrinjal safe. The very next day, Coalition for GM free India, highlighted malice in the above report terming it as superficial overview witho ut any critic al ana lysis. T he BtBr inja l sectio n of the report is accused to have been copied from a pro-GM newsletter of Dept of Biotechnology. Poorly researched, containing plagiarized sections, it had reflected badly on the science academies and was consequently withdrawn [23]. Later an updated re- port released was tidied up by adding references and details of the only meeting held on June 1, 2010 to discuss this crucial issue. Updated report was termed as scientifically invalid and socially sterile than the original one, by P.M. Bhargava, expert nominated to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. Amount of discontent and doubt in minds of co mmo n man ha s reached to limits from where winning the trust will now be even more difficult. Source: Jayaraman 2010 Considering the economic front, it is generally re- cognized that GMCs can go a long way in boosting the economy of agriculturally rich countries [24]. Bt Cotton has contributed to the observed leap in cotton produc- tivity, turning India into major cotton exporter [25]. Comparing such obvious econo mic benefits with intangi- ble ecological losses predicted due to mass GMC cultiva- tion is arduous. There are two contrasting approaches to it. One weighs short term economic gains ignoring the basic law of nature and its ecological impacts. On the contrary, other accounts for long term ecological losses over short term economic gains due to perpetuating loss of biodiversity, development of super-weeds, secondary pests and disturbing the food web oscillations. Long term ecological research only, can settle this economic issue. GMC and CC have ethical issues also, as success of any new technology depends on its acceptance by the so- ciety. Any scientifically feasible process may not be ethi- cally right. These values are of great prominence in India where people of different religious beliefs live and joint- ly worship various plants and animals. India, a major center of biodiversity and is more sus- ceptible to genetic pollution in the wake of increased cul- tivation of GMCs.The trans- boundary movement, transit, handling and use of all GMCs may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological di- versity. Taking into account its possible impact on human health and the environment, it is restricted under the Car- tagena Protocol on Biosafety to CBD. The protocol lays down provisions for direct use as feed or food or pro- cessing of GMOs, where information of centers of origin and centers of genetic diversity of the recipient or pa- rental organisms is mandatory [26]. Interestingly, the top three GMCs growing countries have not ratified to this protocol (Table 1). Even if all above mentioned issues are ignored and a developing world laced with GMCs is imagined, the picture still looks murky. Effects of mass cultivation of GMCs on ecology, agriculture, economy and health are many. These effects may compound every year with every new GMC. On analysing effects of any particular GMC in a particular geographical region, we anticipate many ecological, economic and ethical problems. Now, if we accumulate the effects of every single GMC growing in every corner of the world, the results may be disa- strous. This in the backdrop of completely uncertain, un- known potential changes in climate could be even worse. Changing climatic condition s coupled with mass cultiva- tion of GMCs could accentuate climate change impacts than mitigating them. Moreover, abrupt, extreme and uncertain changes due to climate change require, agriculture model to be flexi- ble and diverse so that it can easily adapt to changing situation. GMCs, grown as monoculture, are highly sus- ceptible to complete crop failure in case of disease break- out or an environmental calamity like drought or flood. It also narrows the crop diversity and accentuates the dan- ger of genetic pollution as well as extinction of many wild varieties even before they are discovered. It is an inflexible technology that requires years and millions of dollars for every new transgenic plant to be invented. Thus cultivation of these crops deteriorates the stability of the agricultural system and holds little hope for com- bating climate change. 4. CONCLUSION The inherent power of GMCs, which can go a long way in serving mankind, is not doubtful. However, con- troversies over its health, economic, ecological and ethi- cal implications, mar its role in serving mankind in any possible way. On the basis of ab ove insight into both the Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS 546 Table 1. Countries growing GMCs and their respective Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety status. Country GMCs grown Cartagena Status Argentina# Soybean, Maize, Cotton Not ratified Australia# Cotton, canola Not ratified Bolivia@ Soybean Ratified Brazil$ Soybean, Maize, Cotton Accession Burkina Faso@ Cotton Ratified Canada# Canola, Maize, Soybean, Sugarbeet Not ratified Chile# Maize, Soybean, Cotton Not ratified China@ Cotton, Tomato, Poplar, Papaya, Sweet pepper Ratified Colombia@ Cotton Ratified Costa rica@ Cotton Ratified Cuba@ Maize Ratified Czech Republic@ Maize Ratified Egypt@ Maize Ratified Germany@ Potato Ratified Honduras@ Maize Ratified India@ Cotton Ratified Mexico@ Cotton, Soybean Ratified Myanmar@ Cotton Ratified Pakistan@ Cotton Ratified Paraguay@ Soybean Ratified Philippines@ Maize Ratified Poland@ Maize Ratified Portugal@ Maize Ratified Romania@ Maize Ratified Slovakia@ Maize Ratified South Africa$ Maize, Soybean, Cotton Accession Spain@ Maize Ratified Sudan@ Cotton Ratified Sweden@ Potato Ratified USA# Canola, Maize, Soybean, Sugarbeet, Cotton, Squash, Papaya, Alfalfa Not ratified Uruguay# Soybean, Maize Not ratified Source: Clive, 2012 and List of parties, CBD. Notes: @-ratified (States which have signed a treaty, when it was open for signature, that can proceed to ratify it. Signature of itself does not establish consent to be bound, hence the further act of ratification.); $-accession (States which have not signed a treaty during the time when it is open for signature can only accede to it. Therefore the term “accession”); #-not ratified. contentious issues; Climate change and GMCs, it emerg- es that the occurrence and impacts of both are highly un - certain and unsettled. So , overlaying the doubtful asp ects of GMCs on the uncertain, sudden potential impacts of Climate Change, paints an unsettling face for our future. Based on the literature study, gaps in current know- ledge in GMCs and its prospect as a solution to Climate Change are acknowledged. Lack of factual scientific data, absence of post commercial cultivation monitoring, mis- represented data, wrongful interpretation and modifica- tion of existing information, together generate massive asymmetrical knowledge base. Providing food for all, remains at the heart of the entire problem. But research and development have lost focus from this important need and wandered in different directions. Providing food to all not only requires produ- cing more but also maintaining, storing and transporting it hygienical ly with minimu m wastage. Accor din g to Fo od Corporation of India, food wo rth Rs.500 billion ($120 bn) is wasted every year. These post-harvest losses are about 25 - 30 percent of total agricultural produce [27]. Grain saved is grain produced. So the need is to save the exist- ing food than producing more by altering genetic path and disturbing ecology. Along with it, increasing the existing food production with minimal energy inputs like pesticides, fertilizers, from the existing land und er agriculture is required. This is possible only if we change our input intensive form of cultivation to a sustain able one. Redu cing pesticide, ferti- lizers and irrigation facilities to bare minimum and using
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 547 alternatives like organic farming, will help in solving the problem of climate change to an extent as well as a be- fitting replacement to GMCs. Unless this is done, in- ternational efforts, like Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change, will continue being failures like the re- cently held COP16 at Cancun, Mexico. Such conventions are more of political and economic negotiating efforts with little result. Until economic concerns remain the main driving force beh ind such conv entions, drawing an y real, remarkable gains from them appears impossible. Thus, we deduce from the above synthesis that the cur- rent approach to the issue of GMCs usage in agriculture and/or as a solution to CC, is still subject to scrutiny. It is economic driven and is based on illuso ry benefits. A fair, extensive and underpinning research is the need of the hour. Aim of this synthesis is to trigger thought process and research in the field of GMCs as a forbearer to cli- mate change. We need to rethink our agricultural inno- vations and tech nologies, change our industrial appr oach to agriculture and collaborate with indigenous knowle- dge of locals to give it a new direction. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We express our gratitude to our institutions for al- lowing and encour aging us to wor k . REFERENCES [1] Nisbet, M.C., Hixon, M.A., Moore, K.D. and Nelson, M. (2010) Four cultures: New synergies for engaging society on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi- ronment, 8, 329-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-8.6.329 [2] Parry, M.L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M. and Fischer, G. (2004) Effects of climate change on glo- bal food production under SRES emissions and socio economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14, 53-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.008 [3] Clive, J. (2012) Global status of commercialized biotech/ GM crops: 2012 [Internet]. ISAAA, Ithaca. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44 [4] Choudhary, B. and Gaur, K. (2010) Bt cotton in India: A country profile [Internet]. ISAAA, Ithaca. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_crop _profiles/bt_cotton_in_india-a_country_profile/download /Bt_Cotton_in_India-A_Country_Profile.pdf [5] MoA (2010) Department of agriculture and co-operation, annual report 2009-10. Ministry of Agriculture, Govern- ment of India Press, New Delhi. [6] Heinemann, J.A. (2009) Hope not hype: The future of agriculture guided by the international assessment of ag- ricultural knowledge, science and technology for devel- opment [Internet]. Third World Network, Penang. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/books/Hope.not.Hype.ht m [7] Phipps, R.H. and Park, J.R. (2002) Environmental bene- fits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 11, 1-18. [8] Qaim, M. and Zilberman, D. (2003) Yield effects of ge- netically modified crops in developing countries. Science, 299, 900-902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1080609 [9] Wang, S., Just, D.R. and Anderson, P.P. (2008) Bt-cotton and secondary pests. International Journal of Biotechno- logy, 10, 113-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2008.018348 [10] Nagrare, V.S., Kranthi, S., Biradar, V.K., Zade, N.N., San- gode, V., Kakde, G., Shukla, R.M., Shivare, D., Khadi, B.M. and Kranthi, K.R. (2009) Widespread infestation of the exotic mealybug species, Phenacoccus solenopsi s (Tin - sley) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on cotton in India. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 99, 537-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007485308006573 [11] Tabashnik, B.E. and Carrière, Y. (2010) Field-evolved re- sistance to bt cotton: Bollworm in the US and pink boll- worm in India. Southwestern Entomologist, 35, 417-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.3958/059.035.0326 [12] Powles, S.B. (2008) Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest management. Science, 64, 360-365. [13] Sanvido, O., Stark, M., Romeis, J. and Bigler, F. (2006) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops [Inter- net]. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tanikon Research Station ART, Zurich. http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/data/publikationen/ART_ SR_01_E.pdf [14] Su, X.H., Zhang, B.Y., Huang, Q.J., Huang, L.J. and Zhang, X.H. (2003) Advances in tree genetic engineering in China. Paper Submitted to the XII World Forestry Con- gress. Quebec City. [15] FOE (2010) Who benefits from gm crops? The great cli- mate change swindle [Internet]. Sept 2010. Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam. http://www.foei.org.en/resources/publications/pdfs/2010/ who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2010 [16] Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (2010) Gene giants stockpile patents on climate ready crops in bid to become “Biomassters”. Paper Presented at UN’s Convention on Biodiversity, Nagoya. [17] Godfrey, J. (2000) Do genetically modified goods affect human health? Lancet, 355, 414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74043-5 [18] Acosta, A. (2000) Transgenic foods: Promise or peril? Americas, 52, 14-15. [19] Bakshi, A. (2003) Potential adverse health effects of ge- netically modified crops. Journal of Toxicology and En- vironmental Health, 6, 211-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10937400306469 [20] Pusztai, A. and Ewen, S.W. (1999) Effect of diets con- taining genetically modified potatoes expressing Galan- thus nivalislectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354, 1353-1354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7 [21] Ramdas, S.R. (2010) Bt cotton and livestock: Health Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS
A. Kaur et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 541-5 48 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OPEN A CCESS 548 impacts, bio-safety concerns and the legitimacy of public scientific research institutions. Paper Presented at Natio- nal workshop on Genetically modified crops/foods & Health Impacts. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Doc- tors for Food & Bio-Safety, Greenpeace India and Sus- tainet. India International Centre, New Delhi. [22] Smith, J. (2009) Genetic roulette: The documented health risks of Genetically Engineered foods. Yes! Books. [23] Jayaraman, K. (2010) Bt brinjal splits Indian cabinet. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-296 [24] Raney, T. (2006) Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries. Current Opinions on Biotechnology, 17, 174-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2006.02.009 [25] Gruere, G.P., Mehta-Bhatt, P. and Sengupta, D. (2008) Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: Reviewing the evi- dence [Internet]. International Food Policy Research In- statute, Washington DC. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/dp/ifprid p00808.pdf [26] Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) List of parties [Internet]. 2011. Convention on Biological Diversity, Quebec. http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/ [27] Boxall, R.A. (2001) Po st-harvest losses to i nsects: A world overview. International Biodeterioration & Biodegrada- tion, 48, 137-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(01)00076-2
|