Comments on: Bt cotton and suicides in India

By: huemaurice1

huemaurice1 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:51:36 +0000

It is important to hold(retain) that lands… ARE NOT STRETCHABLE! While the population of the globe is it. Where from the constraint to multiply the return in m ².

Il est important de retenir que les terres… NE SONT PAS EXTENSIBLES ! Alors que la population du globe l’est. D’où la contrainte de multiplier le rendement au m².

By: Shameful Shiva | Genetic Maize

Shameful Shiva | Genetic Maize — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:01:49 +0000

[...] Some of these and many other issues surrounding the problem of farmer suicides and Bt cotton in India can be found in a report by IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) in October of 2008. I wrote about the report in November of 2008 in Bt cotton and suicides in India. [...]

By: Inoculated Mind

Inoculated Mind — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:00:23 +0000

The paper does mention that suicide rates have gone down a little bit in the national average in the last year or two. What I find particularly interesting are all the other factors involved – I didn’t know that most of the farmers who committed suicide had taken out loans to pay for weddings and other social events, adding to their indebtedness. Apparently sexist social norms that the dad pays for the wedding is a bigger factor than Bt cotton.

By: Andrew Apel

Andrew Apel — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:29:17 +0000

Most journalists reporting on this obviously didn't read the report. If you look at the data, they show that adoption of Bt cotton correlates with a reduction in farmer suicides.
See, http://www.gmobelus.com/news.php?viewStory=255

By: Will Heaven

Will Heaven — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:50:04 +0000

Excellent post. I also find it bizarre that only one popular media source has reported on this extremely important paper.

It's good to know counterknowledge.com has another ally.

By: Inoculated Mind

Inoculated Mind — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:02:51 +0000

You make an interesting point, one which has occurred to me as well - why, if they ask for crops that specifically benefit the consumers, are they trying to turn the consumers against the technology before that happens? Makes me think that 'traits for the consumer' argument is not being made in good faith.

Output traits (for the consumer), however, will appeal to people eating the crops, and will probably do something to change public opinion.