State science, risk and agricultural biotechnology: Bt cotton to Bt Brinjal in India

References

• AgBioWorld. 2010. Academies maintain Bt brinjal is safe. December 29. Available from: http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=3035
   Google Scholar
• Agin, D. 2006. Junk science: An overdue assessment of government, industry and faith groups that twist science for their own gain. New York: St Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bambawale, O.M., A. Singh, O.P. Sharma, B.B. Bhosle, R.C. Lavekar, A. Dhandhapani, V. Kanwar, R.K. Tanwar, K.S. Rathod, N.R. Patange, and V.M. Pawar. 2004. Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under integrated pest management in farmers’ participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Current Science 86, no. 12: 1628–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batista, R., N. Saibo, T. Lourenço, and M.M. Oliveira. 2008. Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 9: 3640–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707881105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, R., U. Kambhampati, S. Morse, and Y. Ismael. 2006. Farm-level economic performance of genetically modified cotton in Maharashtra, India. Review of Agricultural Economics 28, no. 1: 59–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00273.x
   Google Scholar
• Bharathan, G. 2000. Bt-cotton in India: Anatomy of a controversy. Current Science 79, no. 8: 1067–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonny, S. 2003. Why are most europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 6, no. 1: 50–71. doi: 10.2225/vol6-issue1-fulltext-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bownas, R. 2008. Framing farmers: The case of GM crops and transnational activist networks in India. Paper presented at the American political science association annual meeting, August 29, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Business Standard. 2014. ‘GM field trials: Regulator proposes but most states decline’. September 26. Available at http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/gm-field-trials-regulator-proposes-but-most-states-decline-114032500905_1.html
   Google Scholar
• Choudhary, B., and K. Gaur. 2008. The development and regulation of Bt brinjal in India (Eggplant/Aubergine). ISAAA Brief No. 38. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J.I. 2005. Poor nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nature Biotechnology 23, no. 1: 27–33. doi: 10.1038/nbt0105-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooley, A., and J. Ron. 2002. The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security 27, no. 1: 5–39. doi: 10.1162/016228802320231217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Current Science. 2011. In Conversation – Jairam Ramesh. V. 100, N0. 11, p 1610. June 10. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/10jun2011/1610.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, S.N. 2008. Forbidden fruit: Transgenic papaya in Thailand. Plant Physiology 147: 487–93. doi: 10.1104/pp.108.116913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFrancesco, L. 2013. How safe does transgenic food need to be?. Nature Biotechnology 31, no. 9: 794–802. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2686
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 & Environment 1, no. 2: 330–9.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M., and A.B. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority. 2010. Adopted part of the minutes of the 55th plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms held on 27–28 January 2010 to be published at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127.htm Brussels: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Union (EU) Research Directorate. 2010. A decade of EU-Funded GMO research (2001–2010). EUR 24473 EN, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Financial Express (India). 2010. On the side of science. Editorial, February 16.
   Google Scholar
• Financial Express. 2010. The Bt. brinjal goes politicking. Seminar # 614. New Delhi 2010. The Financial Express. India. 2010. Editorial – On the Side of Science. Feb 16. http://www.financialexpress.com
   Google Scholar
• Gandhi, V.P., and N.V. Namboodiri. (2006). The Adoption of Bt Cotton in India: Preliminary Results from a Study, Working Paper No. 2006-09-04, Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1999. Risk and responsibility. Modern Law Review, 62: 1–10. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.00188
   Google Scholar
• GM Watch. 2010. 13 Indian states say NO to Bt brinjal. 8 February. Available from: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11911-13-indian-states-say-no-to-bt-brinjal [accessed 15 February 2010].
   Google Scholar
• Gruère, P. Guillaume, P. Mehta-Bhatt, and D. Sengupta. 2008. Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India. Reviewing the evidence. Discussion Paper No. 808. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gruère, G.P., and D. Sengupta. 2011. Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: An evidence-based assessment. Journal of Development Studies 47, no. 2: 316–37. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2010.492863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. 2011. An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance. Food Policy 36: 736–41. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A.K., and V. Chandak. 2005. Agricultural biotechnology in India: Ethics, business and politics. International Journal of Biotechnology 7, no. 1–3: 212–27. doi: 10.1504/IJBT.2005.006455
   Google Scholar
• Haq, Z. 2010. Panel's Disclaimer to Ramesh. Hindustan Times, February 15.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2006. Why did ‘operation cremate Monsanto’ fail? Science and Class in India's Great Terminator-Technology Hoax. Critical Asian Studies 38, no. 4: 467–93. doi: 10.1080/14672710601073010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2007a. The genomics revolution and development studies: Science, poverty and politics. Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1: 1–30. doi: 10.1080/00220380601055502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2007b. Stealth seeds: Bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1: 130–57. doi: 10.1080/00220380601055601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2008. Opposition to transgenic technologies: Ideology, interests, and collective action frames. Nature Reviews Genetics 9: 458–63. doi: 10.1038/nrg2338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2009. Global rifts over biotechnology: What does India's experience with Bt cotton tell us? V.T. Krishnamachari memorial lecture. New Delhi: Institute for Economic Growth, Delhi University.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2010. Framing the GMO: Epistemic brokers, authoritative knowledge and diffusion of opposition to biotechnology. In R. Kolins Givan, K.M. Roberts and S.A. Soule, eds., The diffusion of social movements. NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 78–98.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J. 2013. Re-constructing facts in Bt cotton. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(18), 33.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J., and M. Kandlikar. 2009. Illicit seeds: Intellectual Property and the underground proliferation of agricultural biotechnologies. In S. Haunss and K.C. Shadlen, eds., The politics of intellectual property: Contestation over the ownership, use, and control of knowledge and information Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 56–79.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, R.J., and N. Chandrasekhara Rao. 2012. On the ‘failure of Bt cotton’: Analysing a decade of experience. Economic and Political Weekly 47, no. 18: 45–54.
   Google Scholar
• Hindustan Times. 2010a. Scientists slam key study behind Bt brinjal ban. Zia Haq, New Delhi, February 12.
   Google Scholar
• Hindustan Times. 2010b. ‘I took a decision- I may be wrong’. New Delhi, February 14. Available at http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/i-took-a-decision-i-may-be-wrong/article1-508644.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Hindustan Times. 2012. Jairam differs with PM, says no NGO forced Bt Brinjal ban. HT Correspondents, Thiruvananthapuram/New Delhi, February 25.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, M-W. 2000. Genetic engineering: Dream or nightmare? Turning the tide on the brave new world of bad science and big business. New York, NY: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Indian Horticulture Database. 2006. Government of India. http://nhb.gov.in/area-pro/Indian%20Horticulture%202013.pdf
   Google Scholar
• James, C. Annual. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jayaraman, K.S. 2001. Illegal Bt cotton in India haunts regulators. Nature Biotechnology 19, no. 12: 1090–1092. doi: 10.1038/nbt1201-1090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayaraman, K. 2010. Bt brinjal splits indian cabinet. Nature Biotechnology 28: 296. doi: 10.1038/nbt0410-296
   Google Scholar
• Kanter, J. 2010. Europe's New Approach to Biotech Food. The New York Times, 7 July.
   Google Scholar
• Kathage, J., and M. Qaim. 2012. Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus Thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 29: 11652–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1203647109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2008. Potential welfare benefits from the public-private partnerships: A case of genetically engineered eggplant in India. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 6, no. 3&4: 333–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2011. Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: a case of Bt eggplant in India. Agriculture and Human Values. doi 10.1007/s10460-011-9320-3May
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishna, V.V., and M. Qaim. 2007. Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: Who Benefits from public–private partnership?. Food Policy 32: 523–43. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, S., A. Misra, A. Kumar Verma, R. Roy, A. Tripathi, K.M. Ansari, M. Das, and P.D. Dwivedi. 2011. Bt brinjal in India: A long way to go. GM Crops 2, no. 2: 92–8. doi: 10.4161/gmcr.2.2.16335
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Latour, B. 2003. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 30, no. 2: 225–248. doi: 10.1086/421123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laxman, S. 2012. US NGOs Behind Kudankulam Stir: PM. The Times of India. New Delhi Print Edition, February 24.
   Google Scholar
• Mathur, A., N.P. Singh, and S. Singh. 2012. Management of Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer: Dilemma of Adopting Bt Brinjal over Integrated Pest Management Technology. 2012 International Conference on Clean and Green Energy IPCBEE vol.27. Singapore: IACSIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mehta, S., ed. 2005. Bt cotton: A painful episode. Vadodara, Gujarat: Gujarat Kapas Utpadak Hitrakshak Sangh.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment and Forests. 2010. Decision on commercialisation of Bt-brinjal MOS(IjC)E&F February 9th, 2010. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment and Forests, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. 2009. Report of the Expert Committee (EC-II) on Bt Brinjal Event EE-1 Developed by: M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. (MAHYCO), Mumbai; University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad; and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore. October 8. New Delhi: Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Biotechnology. 2008. Revised Guidelines for Research in Transgenic Plants and Guidelines for Toxicity and Allergenicity Evaluation of Transgenic Seeds, Plants and Plant Parts. New Delhi: Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• Mitta, M. 2010. Challenges posed by Bt Brinjal. Times of India Crest, Feb 6.
   Google Scholar
• Naik, G., M. Qaim, A. Subramanian, and D. Zilberman. 2005. Bt Cotton Controversy: Some Paradoxes Explained. Economic and Political Weekly, April 9: 1514–7.
   Google Scholar
• Narayanamoorthy, A., and S.S. Kalamkar. 2006. Is Bt cotton cultivation economically viable for Indian farmers? An empirical analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, June 30, 2716–24.
   Google Scholar
• Narendra. 2010. VJAS urged Maharashtra CM to oppose Bt Brinjal. 7 February. Available from: http://www.mynews.in/News/VJAS_urged_Maharashtra_CM_to_oppose_Bt_Brinjal_N3493.html#
   Google Scholar
• Nicolia, A., A. Manzo, F. Veronesi, and D. Rosellini. 2013. An overview of the last 10 years of GE crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, Early Online: 1–12. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omvedt, G. 2005. Farmers’ movements and the debate on poverty and economic reforms in India. In Social movements in India: Poverty, power and politics, eds. Raka Ray and Mary Katzenstein, 179–203. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N., and E. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Paarlberg, R.L. 2001. The politics of precaution: Genetically modified crops in developing countries. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinstrup-Andersen, P., and E. Schioler. 2000. Seeds of contention: World hunger and the global controversy over GM crops. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ramaswami, B., C. Pray, and N. Lalitha. 2011. The spread of illegal transgenic cotton varieties in India: Biosafety regulation, monopoly and enforcement. World Development. pp. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, C.K. 2007a. Causes of death of cattle and sheep in the Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh in India. Bangalore: Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education. (Available at http://www.plantbiotechnology.org.in/issues.html [Accessed May 30, 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Rao, C.K. 2007b. Why do cattle die eating Bt cotton plants only in the Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh in India?. Bangalore: Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education. Available at: http://www.plantbiotechnology.org.in/issues.html (accessed May 30, 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Rao, C.K. 2010. Moratorium on Bt brinjal. Bangalore: Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, C.K. 2013. Charges of ‘Biopiracy and Violation of Provisions of the Indian Biodiversity Act Against the Developers of Bt Brinjal. Available from: http://www.plantbiotechnology.org.in/. Bangalore: Foundation for BiotechnologyAwareness and Education.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, N.C. 2013. Bt cotton yields and performance: Data and methodological issues. Economic and Political Weekly, xlviii, no. 33.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, N.C., and M. Dev. 2010. Biotechnology in Indian agriculture: Potential, performance and concerns. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Review of Agrarian Studies. 2011. Transgenic Varieties and India's Agriculture: Questions for Professor M. S. Swaminathan, 1, no. 1. Available from: http://www.ras.org.in/index.php?Article=8725fb777f25776ffa9076e44fcfd776
   Google Scholar
• Roy, D. 2006. Adoption Paradox of Bt Cotton in Gujarat, India. Ph.D. dissertation in the Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, D., R.J. Herring, and C.C. Geisler. 2007. Naturalising transgenics: Official seeds, loose seeds and risk in the decision matrix of Gujarati cotton farmers. Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1: 158–76. doi: 10.1080/00220380601055635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato, K. 2007. Meanings of genetically modified food and policy change and persistence: The cases of France, Japan and the United States. PhD Dissertation. Princeton University. Princeton, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Sahai, S. 2002. Bt cotton: confusion prevails. Economic and Political Weekly, 25 May.
   Google Scholar
• Sahai, S. 2003. MAHYCO-Monsanto Bt cotton is a failure. Current Science 85, no. 4: 426–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuels, J. 2013. Bt brinjal: a risk assessment worth taking?. Current Science 104, no. 5, March: 571–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurman, R. 2004. Fighting ‘Frankenfoods’: Industry Opportunity Structures and the Efficacy of the Anti-Biotech Movement in Western Europe. Social Problems 51, no. 2: 243–68. doi: 10.1525/sp.2004.51.2.243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurman, R., and W. Munro. 2006. Ideas, thinkers and social networks: The process of grievance construction in the anti-genetic engineering movement. Theory and Society 35: 1–38. doi: 10.1007/s11186-006-6779-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurman, R., and W. Munro. 2010. Fighting for the future of food: Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scoones, I. 2006. Science, agriculture and the politics of policy. Hyderabad: Orient Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Scoones, I. 2009. The politics of global assessments: the case of the international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD). Journal of Peasant Studies 36, no. 3: 547–57. doi: 10.1080/03066150903155008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sell, S.K., and A. Prakash. 2004. Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly 48: 143–75. doi: 10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00295.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, E. 2005. Local and global elites join hands: Development and diffusion of Bt cotton technology in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly, October 2.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, E. 2011. ‘Science’ in the risk politics of Bt Brinjal. Economic and Political Weekly xlvi, no 31.
   Google Scholar
• Shaik, S. 2001. Farmers decide to defend their Bt gene cotton crops. The Times of India, Oct 31.
   Google Scholar
• Shiva, V. 2006. Resources, rights and regulatory reform. Context 3, no. 1: 85–91.
   Google Scholar
• Shiva, V., and A.H. Jafri. 2004. Failure of GMOs in India. Synthesis/Regeneration 33 (Winter). New Delhi, India: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
   Google Scholar
• Shiva, V., A.H. Jafri, A. Emani, and M. Pande. 2000. Seeds of suicide: The ecological and human costs of globalization of agriculture. Delhi, India: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
   Google Scholar
• Specter, M. 2009. Denialism. New York and London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, G.D. 2012. Constructing Facts: Bt Cotton Narratives in India Economic and Political Weekly. September 22, 2012, xlvii, no. 38.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, G.D. 2013. A response to Herring and Rao. Economic and Political Weekly, xlviii, no. 33 August 17.
   Google Scholar
• Subramanian, A. 2007. Distributional effects of agricultural biotechnology in a village economy: The case of cotton in India. Gottingen: Cuvillier Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Subramanian, A., and M. Qaim. (2009). Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: the case of Bt cotton in India. World Development 37, no. 1: 256–267.
   Google Scholar
• Subramanian, A., and M. Qaim. (2010). The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. Journal of Development Studies 46, no. 2: 295–311.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. 2009. On rumors. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S. 2011. Power in movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• The Hindu. 2010. Consult scientists, not public, on Bt brinjal, Pawar told. The Hindu, April 24 2010. Available from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/consult-scientists-not-public-on-bt-brinjal-pawar-told/article755165.ece).
   Google Scholar
• The Indian Express, 2010. Another Minister Speaks Up. The Indian Express, February 15 2010. Available from expressindia.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?storyId=579774. February 15.
   Google Scholar
• Thies, J.E., and M.H. Devare. 2007. An ecological assessment of transgenic crops. Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1: 97–129. doi: 10.1080/00220380601055593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesseler, J. and N. Kalaitzandonakes. 2011. Present and Future EU GMO policy. In A. Oskam, G. Meesters, and H. Silvis, eds., EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 323–332.
   Google Scholar