I believe our farmers need the freedom to access modern technology. Thus, I am strongly opposed to the anti-farmer “green lobby” that is blocking Bt Brinjal in India. As this recent editorial in Mint makes clear, “per hectare, pesticides for Bt brinjal cost Rs752 against Rs5,952 for the non-Bt variety.” The editorial is titled “False fear of GM foods,” and, in the context of this false fear, I have an interesting anecdote to report on the pesticide-laden brinjal we all eat today.
Once, many years ago, I was traveling by train, and my traveling companions were a medical doctor and his wife. After dinner, the wife took to cutting some apples and serving them to her husband and me. I commented to the doctor that wasn’t it strange that she was peeling the apples, for was not apple peel healthy? He said, “No, apple peel contains pesticides and it is better to peel them.” As we discussed pesticide use in agriculture, he told me something fantastic about brinjal. He said that in the old days you always got brinjal with holes, because of insects that would bore into them. People cut these portions out of the brinjals and ate the rest. That was a good practice he said, and far healthier that the shiny brinjals you get today, without holes, but covered with pesticide.
The enemy of public health is not Bt; rather, it is the excessive use of pesticide. Bt Brinjal reduces pesticide use by over 75 per cent. Such brinjal is good for the health.
While I was with the Economic Times in New Delhi in 2002, a similar fuss was made over Bt Cotton. Then, farmers took to illegal Bt cotton farming and protested loudly for the formal approval of the new seeds. At that time, I interviewed Professor CS Prakash, who teaches plant biotechnology at Tuskegee University in the USSA, for my paper. The interview had a tremendous impact and Bt Cotton was formally approved within a few days of its publication. This interview is still available online, and can be accessed here. It reveals a lot about the Bt technology, and the anti-farmer, anti-poor and anti-science attitudes of the “green lobby.”
As I said, at the time of Bt Cotton, it was farmers who took up arms against the State. For Bt Brinjal, it is once again up to our farmers to take up their cudgels against the establishment, and against the greens. As the editorial in Mint says, yield per hectare of Bt Brinjal is double that of the traditional variety. Farmers not only get to grow double the output, they also save hugely on pesticide costs. Thus, the economics is entirely on the side of farmers – and, let us not forget, consumers benefit hugely too.
There are many great farmer leaders in India. My friend Sharad Joshi is probably the greatest of them all, and the tallest Maharashtrian in Indian politics. He is a true-blue classical liberal, and a trained economist. He is also a great fan of Frédéric Bastiat. He believes strongly that Indian farmers need open access to modern technology, and he fought valiantly for the approval of Bt Cotton. I hope farmers’ organizations like his will now take on the establishment and the greens over Bt Brinjal.
And no one knows for sure health effects of BT right? And Your BT cotton has already done wonders for farmers. Just writing something because one has to. And we know who all including Mint can be bribed in India.
ReplyDeleteI generally have a very healthy respect for your ideas but this one is just flawed. BT Cotton farmers have had serious troubles with secondary pests, and they are now spending more on pesticides than non-BT farmers and they are spending more on seeds. And there is a widespread effect as a result of this - you neither get the benefits of lower prices (which you claim BT brinjal will bring), nor do you reduce dependence on pesticides.
ReplyDeleteSee for example: Bt Cotton - the facts behind the hype
I am surprised that someone who has studied economics so deeply always betrays an innocent, almost gullible, belief in markets. Markets only do the right thing when everyone is rational, AND calculating returns over the same time horizon. If I don't give a damn about the next generation and you believe that you want to optimize for the next few generations we will end up with completely different responses to the exact same market conditions. And our actions will generally have an impact on the rest of the market, society etc.
Further, the track record of corporations like Monsanto does not inspire much confidence. I would sooner believe a small time crook than Monsanto.
@Psudo and Stochastix:
ReplyDeleteI say:
LET FARMERS DECIDE.
I have therefore called for a highly respectable farmer leader to lead his men forward, in the path they want to take. If they have failed with Bt Cotton, they will abandon Bt Cotton. If they fail with Bt Brinjal, they will abandon Bt Brinjal. Indeed, farmers will abandon Bt crops universally, and Monsanto will fold up.
Psudo: You allege Mint takes bribes. And Schotastix, you say Monsanto is worse than a small time crook.
But you guys place full faith in the Chacha State's regulatory mechanism, which we all know is totally corrupt and utterly ignorant.
Ultimately, it is not only Economics that guides us. Even deeper goes Political Science.
I say your Political Science is totally in error.
"Markets only do the right thing when everyone is rational, AND calculating returns over the same time horizon." says stochastix.
ReplyDeletesorry mate, the market does a lot of things,but it doesnt guarantee the 'right' things like a date on friday or home made rosgullas.
rational markets is a chicago school fantasy - a neoclassical wetdream.the markowitz and famas of the world are not revered on these types of blogs for their weird ideas of markets.
in anycase,why not consumers and farmers decide?. why does the words of shrill ngos and babus in the govt alone have to decide?
if people are fearful,nobody will buy the bt stuff.that will be the end of it. if not,life will be better for those who made the choice on their own.
markets work when everyone makes free choices.there is no "correct" choice.rational markets and equilibrium, are well, stochastic concepts utterly unrelated to reality
Well i dont believe chaha states regulatory authority. They have been bought long ago. But neither do i trust western media either. I guess logical thinking is best way. Any way when you say let farmers decide? Tell me in today world would consumers would be free to decide? We have to agree that we always have limited choice as consumers depending on what is available in market? Like we are FREE to choose our govt? I guess we have Genetically modified PM/Govt who look Indian but work for west.
ReplyDeleteI am fed up of this debate over BT Brinjal.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Sauvik that we should let the farmers and consumers decide what they want to grow or eat. If farming of BT is not cheap enough the farmers will not grow it, if consumers are not convinced about BT, they will not eat it. Let the market be the final arbiter of any crop or technology.
In this case the best thing the government can do is to SHUT UP.
Environmentalism is dead. It has been throttled to death by the leftist. In late 1980s when Soviet empire collapsed, the leftists were scurrying around for cover like so many fearful cockroaches. The collapse of the Iron Curtain had exposed them in the eyes of the world; their crimes against humanity were out in the open. The leftists had nowhere to hide.
In the end a vast majority of the leftists decided to conceal their pernicious ideology under the grab of environmentalism. The support for Global Warming and the opposition to genetically modified crops like BT have nothing to do with actual science. What we are seeing is the naked dance of leftists.
The farmers are not stupid and neither are the consumers. We are capable of deciding what is good or bad for us. The biggest causality in this debate is real environmentalism. The leftists have managed to pollute the idea of environmentalism so badly that today even a genuine environmentalist becomes suspect in public eyes.