Refine your search
Collections
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Gutierrez, Andrew Paul
- A Critique on the Paper 'Agricultural Biotechnology and Crop Productivity: Macro-Level Evidences on Contribution of Bt Cotton in India'
Abstract Views :288 |
PDF Views:71
Authors
Affiliations
1 University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, US
2 Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Kensington, CA 94707-1035, US
1 University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, US
2 Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Kensington, CA 94707-1035, US
Source
Current Science, Vol 112, No 04 (2017), Pagination: 690-693Abstract
This paper is a critique of Srivastava and Kolady who reported a macro analysis of the benefits of Bt cotton in India using state wide average data. The analysis is in error with respect to the economic benefits, biological underpinnings, and the effects of Bt cotton technology adoption on resource-poor farmers growing rain fed cotton. Viable non GMO high density cotton alternatives that increase yields, reduce cost of production, and give higher net average returns were ignored. The authors argue for biotechnology adoption in other crops in India without providing data or analysis.Full Text
- Hybrid Bt Cotton:A Stranglehold on Subsistence Farmers in India
Abstract Views :272 |
PDF Views:76
Authors
Affiliations
1 Division of Ecosystem Science, University of California at Berkeley, California 94720, US
1 Division of Ecosystem Science, University of California at Berkeley, California 94720, US
Source
Current Science, Vol 115, No 12 (2018), Pagination: 2206-2210Abstract
Cultivation of long season hybrid and GMO Bt-hybrid cottons is unique to India. The hybrid technology prevents seed saving, requires annual purchases of high cost seed that leads to sub optimal planting densities. These factors contribute to stagnant low yields and to increases in insecticide use that induce new pests that are increasingly resistant to insecticide and Bt toxins. Subsistence farmers growing rainfed Bt cotton in south and central India have been particularly affected by this hybrid technology.
Pure line high-density short-season (HD-SS) rainfed cotton varieties are available or in development that would greatly increase yields, reduce yield variability, decrease costs of seed and insecticides and increase profits. The high costs of Bt hybrid seed make the technology incompatible with the HD-SS applications. The article questions why pure line HD-SS technology has not been implemented in India.
Keywords
Bt Cotton, Hybrid Seed, High Density Short Season Cotton, Farmer Suicides.Full Text
References
- Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L., Herren, H. R., Baumgärtner, J. U. and Kenmore, P. E., Deconstructing Indian cotton: weather, yields, and suicides. Environ. Sci. Eur., 2015, 27(12), 17; doi:10.1186/ s12302-015-0043-8.
- Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Statistics and News, 27 December 2016, pp. 1–6; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Kranthi_art/Fertilizers_and_Bt.pdf
- van den Bosch, R., The Pesticide Conspiracy, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978.
- Kukanur, V. S., Singh, T. V. K., Kranthi, K. R., Andow, A. and David, A., Cry1Ac resistance allele frequency in field populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) collected in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India. Crop Prot., 2018, 107, 34–40.
- Mohan, K. S., Ravi, K. C., Suresh, P. J., Sumerford, D. and Head, G. P., Field resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis protein Cry1Ac expressed in Bollgard® hybrid cotton in pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), populations in India. Pest Mgmt. Sci., 2016, 72(4), 738–746.
- Dhurua, S. and Gujar, G. T., Field-evolved resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), from India. Pest Mgmt Sci., 2011, 67(8), 898–903.
- Ranjith, M. T., Prabhuraj, A. and Srinivasa, Y. B., Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India. Curr. Sci., 2010, 99(11), 1602–1606.
- Tabashnik, B. E. and Carriere, Y., Field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton: bollworm in the US and pink bollworm in India. Southwest. Entomol., 2010, 35(3), 417–424.
- Kranthi, S. et al., Susceptibility of the cotton boll-worm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry2Ab before and after the introduction of Bollgard-II. Crop Prot., 2009, 28(5), 371–375.
- Kranthi, K. R., Bollworm resistance to Bt cotton in India. Nature Biotechnol., 2005, 23(12), 1476–1477.
- Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L. and Baumgartner, J., A critique on the paper ‘Agricultural biotechnology and crop productivity: macrolevel evidences on contribution of Bt cotton in India’. Curr. Sci., 2017, 112, 690–693; http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/112/04/0690.pdf
- Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Statistics and News, 16 December 2014, pp. 4–7; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Kranthi_art/cotton_prod_system_dec_2014.pdf
- Chu C. C. et al., Reduction of pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) populations in the Imperial Valley, California, following mandatory short-season cotton management systems. J. Econ. Entomol., 1996, 89, 175–182.
- Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Statistics and News, 21 February 2017, pp. 1–8; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Kranthi_art/learn_unlearn_part2.pdf
- Venugopalan, M. V., Prakash, A. H., Kranthi, K. R., Deshmukh, R., Yadav, M. S. and Tandulkar, N. R., In World Cotton Research Conference (eds Kranthi, K. R. et al.), International Cotton Advisory Committee, Mumbai, 2011, pp. 341–346.
- Venugopalan, M. V., Kranthi, K. R., Blaise, D., Lakde, S. and Shankaranarayanan, K., High density planting system in cotton – the Brazil experience and Indian initiatives. J. Cotton Res., 2013, 5(2), 172–185.
- https://www.smartindianagriculture.com/cicr-recommends-high-density-cotton-planting-for-vidarbha-telangana/ (accessed on 25 July 2018).
- https://www.icac.org/getattachment/mtgs/Plenary/74th/BS1Venogupolan.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2018).
- Stone, G. D., Biotechnology and the political ecology of information in India. Human Organization, 2004, 63(2), 127–140.
- Thomas, G. and De Tavernier, J., Farmer-suicide in India: debating the role of biotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 2017, 13(8), doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0052-z
- http://indiagminfo.org/uoi-counter-to-mmbl-wp-21-1-2016/; http://indiagminfo.org/bt-cotton-official-reports/: The High Court of Delhi At New Delhi, Extra Ordinary Civil Writ Jurisdiction W.P(C) No. 12069 of 2015.In the Matter of: Mahyco Monsanto Biotech: (India) Private Ltd. & Anr… Petitioners versus Union of India And Others…Respondents. Filed by Dev P. Bhardwa, Central Govt Standing Counsel, Ch. No. 459, Delhi High Court, Block-1, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. (accessed on 8 September 2018 – copy available).
- When Biotechnologists Lack Objectivity
Abstract Views :293 |
PDF Views:69
Authors
Affiliations
1 Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural System, Kensington CA, US
2 Sunray Harvesters, Mhow 453 441, IN
1 Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural System, Kensington CA, US
2 Sunray Harvesters, Mhow 453 441, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 117, No 9 (2019), Pagination: 1422-1429Abstract
We dismiss Deepak Pental’s strong biased criticisms of P. C. Kesavan and M. S. Swaminathan; evaluate the nature of disagreements of the GMO problem, and review two major controversies concerning GMO’s in India: Bt cotton and the proposed commercialization of GMO herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustards. The data show that the very modest gains in cotton yields were due to increased fertilizer use and not Bt cotton adoption, and that better non-GMO options are available. Using data made available through Right to Information Act, we show that the process of biosafety testing of GMO mustard DMH 11 and its HT parents was flawed and that no yield gains accrued compared to the available non-GMO hybrid DMH-1.Full Text
References
- Pental, D., Curr. Sci., 2019, 117(6), 932– 939; doi:10.18520/cs/v117/i6/932-939.
- Swaminathan, M. S. and Kesavan, P. C., Curr. Sci., 2018, 114, 1585–1586.
- Carson, R., Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA, 1962, p. 368.
- Cohn, B. A., La Merrill, M., Krigbaum, N. Y., Yeh, G., Park, J.-S., Zimmermann, L. and Cirillo, P. M., J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 2015, 100(8), 2865–2872; https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-1841.
- Duforestel, M. et al., Front. Genet., 2019; https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00885 6. Prof. David Schubert: Cell Biologist, Salk Institute, letter dated 23 January 2014 (in evidence to the Supreme Court in PIL 260 of 2005).
- Benbrook, C. M., Environ. Sci. Eur., 2016, 28(1), 3. Feb 2. doi:10.1186/ s12302-016-0070-0
- Nandula, V. K., Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development and Management, John Wiley, NJ, USA, 2010, p. 321.
- Relyea, R. A. and Jones, D. K., Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2009, 28, 2004–2008.
- Mertens, M., Höss, S., Neumann, G., Afzal, J. and Reichenbecher, W., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2018, 25, 5298; https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-1080-1; see Ritterman Jeff, Compilation of studies showing harm from glyphosate, 23 February 2015 (Truthout); http://www.truthout.org/news/item/29244-will-richmond-reject-roundup-the-case-for-banning-glyphosate
- Quist, D. and Chapela, I., Nature, 2001, 414, 541–543.
- Piñeyro-Nelson, A. et al., Mol. Ecol., 2009, 18, 750–761.
- Taleb, N. N., Read, R., Douady, R., Norman, J. and Bar-Yam, Y., Extreme Risk Initiative – NYU School of Engineering Working Paper Series, 2014; arxiv:1410.5787v1 [q-fin.GN].
- The Cartagena Protocol and Convention of Biological Diversity, Preamble to the CBD and Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, 1992.
- Kurenbach, B., Marjoshi, D., AmábileCuevas, C. F., Ferguson, G. C., Godsoe, W., Gibson, P. and Heinemann, J. A., mBio, 2015, 6(2), e00009-15; doi:10.1128/mBio.00009-15.
- Heinemann, J. A., Agapito-Tenfen, S. Z. and Carman, J. A., Environ. Int., 2013, 55, 43–55.
- Broderick, N. A., Raffa, K. F. and Handelsman, Jo., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2006, 103(41), 15196–15199; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604865103.
- www.themonitor.com (accessed on 20 February 2011).
- Gutierrez, A. P., Curr. Sci., 2018, 115, 2206–2210; doi:10.18520/cs/v115/i12/2206-2210.
- Beckert, S., Empire of Cotton: A Global History, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, USA, 2014.
- Basu, A. K. and Paroda, R. S., Hybrid Cotton in India: A Success Story, AsiaPacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions, FAO Regional Office for Asia & the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, 1995.
- Kranthi, K. R., Bt Cotton: Questions and Answers, Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, Mumbai, 2012; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Bt_book_Kranthi.pdf 23. van den Bosch, R., The Pesticide Conspiracy, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 1978.
- Naik, V. C., Kumbhare, S., Kranthi, S., Satija, U. and Kranthi, K. R., Pest Manage. Sci., 2018; doi:10.1002/ps.5038.
- Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Stat. News, 2016, 39, 1–6; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Kranthi_art/Fertilizers_and_Bt.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2018).
- Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Statistics News, 16 December 2014.
- Venugopalan, M. V., Prakash, A. H., Kranthi, K. R., Deshmukh, R., Yadav, M. S. and Tandulkar, N. R., In World Cotton Research Conference (eds Kranthi, K. R. et al.), International Cotton Advisory Committee, Mumbai, 2011, pp. 341–346.
- Kannuri, N. K. and Jadhav, S., Anthropol. Med., 2018, 25, 121–140; doi:10.1080/13648470.2017.1317398.
- Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L., Herren, H. R., Baumgärtner, J. U. and Kenmore, P. E., Environ. Sci. Eur., 2015, 27(12), 17; doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0043-8
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/scientist-who-developed-gm-mustard-hopeful-of-governments-nod/articleshow/59008785.cms (accessed on 28 October 2019).
- Bhargava, P. M., Econ. Polit. Wkly, 2016, 1(44–45), 40–43.
- Reply of the Union of India @ Para 25 states: ‘Thus, according to records, the R&D and technology development as well as biosafety assessment has been fully funded by the public sector and there are no commercial considerations involved’; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/scientist-who-developed-gm-mustard-hopeful-of-governments-nod/articleshow/59008785.cms
- Dr Pushpa M. Bhargava, Letter to the Chief Justice of India, 9 February 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) 260 of 2005, Aruna Rodrigues vs Union of India.
- Prof. Jack Heinemann’s riposte: Statement for the SC of 16 August 2017, @ Annexure 3 of Petitioner’s Rejoinder of Sept 2017.
- Sodhi, Y. S. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2006, 114, 93–99; doi:10.1007/s00122006-0413-0.
- Report on biosafety research level-I (BRL-I) second year trials conducted on transgenic Brassica juncea submitted to the RCGM: Annexure M7 of Supreme Court Submission October 2016 (obtained under the Right to Information Act).
- Report by D. Pental on assessment of food and environmental safety. 2016, Table 7.3 p. 105 (Supreme Court Ref @ Annexure Q1 of Petitioners’ Rejoinder of November 2016).
- Reply of the Union of India in IA 47 @ Pr. 88 at pg. 55–56: ‘No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs non-GMO hybrids’.
- A Reply by Gutierrez et al.
Abstract Views :280 |
PDF Views:79
Authors
Affiliations
1 Emeritus Professor in Ecosystem Science, College of Natural Resources, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, CA, US
2 Former Head of FAO Plant Protection, Rome, IT
3 Sunray Harvesters, Mhow 453 441, IN
1 Emeritus Professor in Ecosystem Science, College of Natural Resources, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, CA, US
2 Former Head of FAO Plant Protection, Rome, IT
3 Sunray Harvesters, Mhow 453 441, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 118, No 6 (2020), Pagination: 867-868Abstract
Biotechnologist Deepak Pental’s strongly worded diatribe1 against P. C. Kesavan and M. S. Swaminathan2,3 prompted our initial rebuttal4 , and now he uses similar invective about myself and coauthors P. E. Kenmore and A. Rodrigues as well as P. M. Bhargava whom we quoted.Full Text
References
- Pental, D., Curr. Sci., 2019, 117, 932–939; doi:10.18520/cs/v117/i6/932-939.
- Swaminathan, M. S. and Kesavan, P. C., Curr. Sci., 2018, 114, 1585–1586.
- Kesavan, P. C. and Swaminathan, M. S., Sci. Cult., 2018, 84, 92–97.
- Gutierrez, A. P., Kenmore, P. E. and Ro-drigues, A., Curr. Sci., 2019, 117,1422– 1429.
- Safety Studies and Field Trials conducted on Transgenic Brassica junceacontaining bar, barnase and barstar genes. Submitted to Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation by Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crops Plants, University of Delhi South Campus, New Delhi on 2 April 2014. Summary of Safety Studies and Field Trials conducted on Transgenic Brassica juncea containing bar, barnase and barstar genes, Pages 27 and 32.
- Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety (AFES) for Environmental release of Genetically Engineered Mustard (Bras-sica juncea) hybrid DMH-11 and use of parental events (Varuna bn3.6 and EH2 modbs2.99) for development of new generation hybrids, Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP), University of Delhi South Campus, New Delhi, 2016.
- Seralini, G., Environ. Sci. Eur., 2020, 32, 18; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0296-8
- Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L. and Baumgärtner, J., Curr. Sci., 2017, 112(4), 690–693.
- Gutierrez, A. P., Curr. Sci., 2018, 115(12), 2206–2210; https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/ v115/i12/2206-2210.