Cotton as food?

As white as snow, as soft as candyfloss and as light as a cloud is cotton. Cotton has been used as clothing for over six millennia. And now cotton seed is being touted as a potentially new source of food thanks to the introduction of state-of-the-art biotechnology.

But will this genetically modified (GM) staple become a healthy option for both humans and the environment?

''Cotton can become a new source of food in the near future,'' insists Mark Messura, executive vice-president of Cotton Incorporated's Global Product Supply Chain.

In 2006, Keerti Rathore, Texas A&M University's plant biotechnologist, who led a research project sponsored by Cotton Incorporated, declared his team's success in eliminating the gossypol toxin from cotton seeds. According to Cotton Incorporated, a global company with a mandate to promote demands for cotton through research and development, this genetic breakthrough could be translated into about 48.5 million tonnes of edible cotton seeds per year since cotton plants produce 1.6lbs (725g) of seed for every pound (0.45kg) of fibre.

All of a sudden, the fluffy crop has been turned into a miracle story. Cotton promotion groups vigorously claim the new breed entails a number of desirable traits _ a multi-purpose plant of which every part can be processed into various products ranging from cooking oil and cotton yarns (producing the so-called renewable and biodegradable ''natural'' fibre) to organic fertilisers. The Cotton Council International (CCI), which promotes cotton export and owns the label Cotton USA, contends that producers in the US who grow (mostly genetically modified) cotton have managed to increase cotton yields while using less land, less water and fewer pesticides.

Biotech (Bt) cotton was developed through plant biotechnology by inserting a gene of bacteria into the plant's genome to enable it to resist the ballworm, a major pest for cotton. At present, the total area catered to cotton farming in the US has been reduced dramatically to 14 million acres (5.66 hectares), three times less than 17 years ago, however, production yields have remained consistent, CCI states. Moreover, according to Cotton Incorporated, US farmers are using 45 percent less water to grow a pound (0.45kg) of cotton compared to 25 years ago. The company also claims that, with new technology, the number of pesticide applications to cotton has decreased dramatically in the US. Its 2006 annual report says that worldwide studies show no pesticide residue on the raw fibre or the textile products made from Bt cotton.

Currently, there are two methods of growing cotton in the US. Conventional farming accounts for 99.5 percent (which typically uses Bt seeds) organic, and non-biotech farming for only 0.5 percent. Each year, the world produces around 25 million tonnes of cotton. China, India, the US, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Brazil are major producers.

Patricia F. O'Leary, senior director of Cotton Incorporated's Agricultural Research, says that organic cotton farming requires hand weeding and non-synthetic pesticides and fertilisers. Meanwhile, conventional cotton farming needs harvest aids, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers and Bt cotton but no tillage. Cotton fibre from both methods, however, is identical, she maintained.

For David Burns, a former Cotton Council International president who is a leading cotton producer in North Carolina, conventional cotton farming using modern technologies and Bt cotton is a success story. ''We try to do things environment friendly. We produce the crops with fewer pesticides. Now, we use maybe two applications per year. And we use chicken waste bought from farmers nearby as fertiliser,'' he said.

Convinced about the superpowers of Bt cotton? At the other end of the spectrum, detractors have raised a number of concerns about the potential health, environmental and social impacts from GM crops.

''A very big problem about Bt cotton is that its genes were genetically modified by adding a toxin, which can affect the ecological system and other beneficial insects,'' said Witoon Lianchamroon, director of Biothai which has been campaigning against genetically modified organisms (GMO).

According to Witoon, the growing of Bt cotton, with its genetic traits modified, could be compared to spraying insecticides, which do harm to ''beneficial insects'' that help to control bad insects naturally. Sooner or later, insects would become more and more resistant to the toxic substance within Bt cotton.

Witoon quoted a paper by B.E. Tabashnik and his team who claimed that 3.2 percent of samples of young pink ballworms collected from Bt cotton plantations in Arizona were resistant to Bt, which meant this strain of Bt cotton would no longer be able to control ballworms in the future. In brief, Bt plants allow insects to become resistant to Bt within three to five years, so they must be replaced by new strains of Bt plants within the same amount of years as well.

''The current strain of Bt cotton contains herbicide tolerant and resistant genes. This is why the use of herbicides has increased almost 10 times in the US,'' the Biothai director argued.

He quoted the research paper, Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years, by Charles Benbrook, the former director of National Council for Agricultural Research in the US, published in 2004. It says genetically modified plants do not give more yields than ordinary plants, but use far more chemicals in general.

Despite the claims by transnational seed companies that the new technology helps decrease the use of pesticide, the Biothai director contended that so many farmers have had bitter experiences with Bt cotton.

In 2001, about 12,000 cotton farmers in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh's Warangal district decided to grow Bt cotton. However, many Indian farmers later found out that Bt cotton returned only 400 to 500kg of cotton per acre (0.405 hectare) and that the ballworm became resistant and came back to many Bt cotton farms after several months. Many of these farmers finally committed suicide following huge financial losses, it was reported. The planting of Bt cotton in some areas of Indonesia was also banned after a corruption scandal.

Besides potential environmental impacts, other critics point out social and health concerns.

Assoc Prof Winai Dahlan, a nutritional expert from Chulalongkorn University who used to work for the Food and Drug Administration's research on GM food, said there are two major conflicts concerning GM plants.

First, the production and sale of seeds of GM plants, such as cotton and corn, is a monopoly. Seeds of GM plants are apparently timeset to become invalid for recultivating after a certain period of time, which means farmers will need to use seeds sold by the GM plant business indefinitely.

Second, there are still academic doubts over the safety of GM plants for human consumption and the environment as well as its impact on biodiversity.

''Questions concerning biosafety for the environment and human health have yet to be answered. Trials on animals have been carried out for only one generation, which is not enough. More, GM ruins chances

[cuts a cycle] for plants to develop themselves to fight insects and diseases naturally,'' he added.

Witoon agreed and said: ''If the GM plants in the US context is applied to Thailand, which has immense biodiversity, a lot of problems including biological and social impacts will arise. A monopoly of plant seeds and problems regarding patents will follow.''

Typically, Thai farmers keep some of the grains as seeds for re-planting in the next growing season. In Thailand, the prices of grains and seeds are similar. On the other hand, the prices of GM seeds, which are patent pending, tend to be much more expensive. In Thailand, local cotton seeds are priced at eight baht per kilogramme while cotton seeds from a US company are priced at 500 to 600 baht per kilogramme.

''If GM plants are grown in Thailand, production costs will suddenly become the majority of the total costs. In the US, the government helps shore up the prices, but it will be very difficult for farmers in the Third World countries to invest without government subsidies,'' the Biothai director added.

Another problem is that growing GM plants requires zoning to ensure no mixing of natural and GM species by accident, such as through airborne means. In some countries, including the US, Bt plants and ordinary plants must be grown separately under strict zoning regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has suggested cultivations of Bt corn and Bt cotton for no more than 50 percent of the total farmland, and Bt potatoes for no more than 80 percent.

This zoning rule, Witoon said, is not practical for developing countries such as Thailand, where the majority of farmers are small-scale ones and have no more than two rai (3,200 square metres) of land for farming on average.

So far, the growing of transgenic crop varieties for commercial purposes in Thailand continues to be banned. In 2001, a leak of genetically modified cotton (from the government-run trial plots) was discovered in the northeastern provinces of Thailand. Three years later, following heavy protests, the Thai Cabinet rejected a proposal by the Agriculture Ministry to lift the ban on field testing of genetically modified crops in the Kingdom.

Witoon of Biothai believes Bt cotton is likely to have a hard time winning social acceptance in Thailand. On the other hand, a successful introduction could be ''like the Trojan Horse that can lead to the growing of other kinds of GM plants'', he said, pointing out how Thai people consume several parts of cotton, such as its young green leaves as food and cotton roots as herbal medicines.

''However, pushing for the use of cotton seeds as food is not an easy task because GM food crops remain unacceptable by many countries.''

Assoc Prof Winai suggested all parties concerned to consider all the pros and cons about Bt cotton and other seeds carefully. According to him, Thailand is a small country with rather lax law enforcement. If GM plants are allowed into this country, they may go out of control one day and the biodiversity of Thailand's ecology could thus be threatened.

''Thailand, one of the world's Top 10 food exporting countries, should not rely on plants from foreign countries. Biodiversity issues are more important. It will be premature for us to choose GM plants as food or fibre,'' the academic said.