sell

Organic Cotton Farming In India

Out of the frying pan...? The Indian farmer seems to be caught between
the green revolution and the new gene revolution.

http://www.foodfirst.org/backgrounders/winter2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/photosvideos/photos/out-of-the-frying-pan-the

In a country where environmental pollution and poverty are reaching epidemic proportions and reports of farmers committing suicide are everyday news (GOSH, A.,2007, p.1), a concerned India is looking for a solution. Cotton is a very important fiber crop, with a production of 23 million tons of lint worldwide in 2005. India is at present the third largest cotton supplier to the international market according to a recent publication by CHANDRASHEKHAR, G. (2006). Yet, the country still faces many of the problems existent in cotton farming: the rising cost of production, the increased use of ineffective pesticides and herbicides (due to increased pest and plant resistance), inability to enhance production even during the profuse monsoons (usually due to unsuccessful water management), genetic impurity, and the deterioration of soil quality. Bt cotton introduction in 1995 appeared to be a solution to their problems, although for many farmers this failed to increase their yield and often lead to dismal consequences (GENTLEMAN, A., 2006, p. 3). Given these challenges, an increasing number of farmers have turned to organic cultivation in order to restore soil fertility, reduce production costs or to get a better price for their certified organic harvest. Growing consumer demands for organic textiles in the west, pesticide related health and environmental problems, and increased awareness circulating throughout different communities in India have also encouraged several farmers to experiment with growing green textile crops, especially organic cotton. Numerous Indian clothing companies, governmental organizations, development agencies, and NGO’s are beginning to consider the possible financial gains, poverty easing, and ecological improvement that organic and environmentally conscious textiles and products may offer. Yet, it’s doubtful that the obstacles, including contradicting information concerning GM seeds (Bt cotton), public awareness, rigid and costly certification, and competition from a global liberalized economy are going to go away any time soon. This paper aims to take a deeper look at the last ten years of organic cotton farming throughout India, with a focus on the effects of organic cotton cultivation on small farmers livelihoods and how it is connected to the introduction of Bt cotton and the international market.

During 2006-07 cotton seasons, India is expected to overtake Turkey, the current global leader in production of organic cotton. India’s harvested organic cotton volumes are around 10,834 tones. These volumes represent roughly 35% in the total global organic cotton production of 31,016 tones or 1,42,159 bales reported during 2005-06 season (GURUMURTHY, G., 2006, p.1)

The bulk of organic cotton production in India occurs in the following states: Gujarat, Madhya Pradhesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, and Andhra Pradesh (table 1).

The fertilizers used on organic cotton are animal manure and agricultural crop waste, as opposed to synthetic fertilizers. A number of bugs, such as sucking pests and bollworm, are effectively controlled with neem oil, which is often mixed with buttermilk. Other organic farming techniques practiced by Indian farmers include crop rotation, drip irrigation, rain water-catchments, and soil management.

In a field study by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture[1] (RIOA) it was found that organic cotton farming improves families livelihoods, has the potential for more sustainable use of natural resources, and reduces overall vulnerability of farm households (EYHORN, F. et al., 2005, p. 60). RIOA’s research report analyzed the impact of conversion to organic cotton farming on the livelihoods of smallholders in Maikaal bioRe organic cotton project in Madhya Pradesh, central India. The institute compared farm profiles data, material and financial input/output, and soil parameters of organic and conventional farms over two cropping periods between 2003-2005.The results of the study show that smallholder organic farms achieved the same or even higher cotton yields as conventional cotton. Soil fertility significantly improved after conversion, but with only minor differences in organic matter content and water retention. In addition they discovered that due to less production cost and higher incomes from the organic harvest, farmers where less vulnerable to become indebted. However, the institute’s research also found that some farmers did not adhere to the organic standards (usually more wealthy farmers), the motivation being opportunism rather than need. RIOA concluded that the potential for organic cotton farming to reduce poverty can be further improved and requires more research. (EYHORN, F. et al., 2005, p. 60)

In another study by the Central Institute for Cotton Research[2] (CICR) in Maharashtra discovered that seed cotton yield in the organic plots was significantly greater than the conventional cultivation plots in 2003-2004 due to well distributed normal rainfall and low pest incidence (BLAISE, D., 2006, p.247). CICR found that growing cotton under the organic cultivation system created better fiber length and strength compared to the conventional cultivation and the improvement of fiber quality did not affect the yield (BLAISE, D., 2006, p.250). This is important because the textile industry demands cotton with improved fiber quality, due to advances in spinning technology; this helps them to stay competitive globally. Given these findings it is important to note that, according to CICR, this study was done under normal rainwater conditions and the data is limited.

Mr. Ferrigno, a member of the Sara Elgi[3] group, in an interview with Business line said, “unlike the first streak of organic cotton drive in the eighties, which lost its steam by 1990s, the phase two acceleration for organic cotton currently raging across nations was consumer-driven, which has propelled big and medium sized brands and retailers to enter into organic cotton based garment manufacture In India, too, the textile trade is becoming conscious on issues such as the pesticides poisoning, environmental declarations among global supply chains and farmer suicides” (GURUMURTHY, G., 2006, p.1). Mr. Ferrigno also believes that the higher value of organics will give them the competitive edge over China.

In 2004 another cotton program called Solidaridad began in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Solidaridad is a development agency from The Netherlands focusing on Fair Trade. The program intends to create a supply chain of organic cotton for mainstream garments, based on environmentally and socially responsible production (Solidaridad, 1969). The cotton produced under this program will be certified organic with the ginning and spinning units being certified under the social accountability standards to ensure good working conditions. Solidaridad sub-contracted the setting up of production and ginning through ETC international group (2005), a development consultancy firm based in Bangalore. ETC, with the funding of Solidaridad, then established India’s Organic Cotton Association, which works with NGOs and farmers in South India to reduce the use of chemical pesticides. ETC has also conducted several Farmer Field Schools in order to train the farmers in integrated crop and pest management. There are currently 403 farmers in five different zones, who produced a total of 40 tones of seed cotton in 2005. All the farms are currently in either their first or second year of organic conversion (ETC, 2005).

Many of these projects, including Maaikaal BioRe, Prathiba, and Syntex, all have fully integrated supply chains allowing sourcing from fiber to finished garment. Spinning is done with Super Spinning Mills (2004), who processes the organic cotton for its product, manufactures and export merchandise. They have also taken up direct farming of organic cotton through contract cultivation in the South. Super Spinning Mills (2004), has been certified by the Netherlands-based Skall International for its natural fiber processing standards as well as its field organic cotton farming development project. The company has 2,000 acres in Orissa and 350 acres in Tamil Nadu's Salem/Villupuram districts under organic cotton and is currently being audited against the Ethical Trading Initiative[4] standard.

Indian clothing companies like Anokhi[5] and Fabindia[6]are offering vegetable-dyed block print fabrics that are grown chemical free to both the local and global market. NGO’s such as Dastkar are offering vegetable–dyed hand woven cotton that ensures fair practices and a market for women artisans whom are often on the margins of the Indian male-dominant economy. Many of these companies and NGO’s headquarters are located on organic farms, with regenerative power sources and rainwater catchment systems in place in order to make their production as sustainable as possible. Trendy Indian magazines such as Andpersand Magazine are dedicating articles to organics with the April 2006 issue of Femina India being completely devoted to saving the planet. While this is clearly a general carbon copy of western magazines it’s also evidence that the Indian textile and commercial community is becoming more conscious of consumer demands and market trends for organics. The International Natural Dye Symposium in Hyderabad and the Organic Fair in Bangalore in November 2006 is further evidence that India desires to be a key player in the eco-conscious boom and is conscience of the potential economic growth in the sustainable textile industry.

According to the Organic Exchange[7] as of 2006, India is the second largest producer of organic cotton worldwide, with eleven known active projects. The largest projects are Pratibha, Syntex, EcoFarms, and Maikaal BioRe. In a write up on organic cotton farmers, The Organic Exchange (2002) demonstrates that many farmers show comparable or better yields than conventional cotton.

One such farmer is Mr. Singh. He currently farms 19½ acres under the Pratibha project and has another 17 acres on a five-year lease in the village of Moti Badai. He lives with his wife and three children on the farm. He converted his land to certified organic in 2001 after experimenting with integrated crop management[8] in 1997. He grows cotton, bajra, groundnuts, and wheat, rotating cotton on different plots each year. He planted eleven acres of cotton in 2004. He plans to install drip irrigation for which the check dam he has built will prevent run-off. Mr. Singh stated, “ he feels that they have lower health risks to himself and his family due to the complete elimination of synthetic pesticides” (Organic Exchange, 2002). According to the data he supplied to the Organic Exchange(2002) from his farm accounts, Mr. Singh's farm is more profitable under organic than conventional production (table 2). His net profit is over 20 times higher with organic cotton, and his average yields are the same, with lower production and labor costs.

Conventional Organic Difference

Another farmer interviewed by the Organic Exchange (2002) was Mr. Walan. He has been part of the Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association[9] since early 2006, which currently has 340 members (Fair Cotton Growers Association, 2005)). He owns 7.5 acres of uneven terrain in Bhutakiya Village, Rapar Taluk. His farm is certified as both organic and Fair Trade. Mr. Walan converted to organic farming in 2003. His organic yields are very similar to his conventional yields, but he uses much less water (Table 3). He sees both his individual farms and his region’s organic production becoming increasingly based on local and international brand demand. His farming techniques included: natural pest control methods[10], crop rotation, natural pesticides from neem[11] and buttermilk, and he uses animal manure, green manure, castor cake, neem oil, and other organic inputs. He usually grows cotton on 50% of his land. For irrigation, he has one 75 foot open well that can provide water for up to four hours a day. At present, he does little water harvesting but does practice contour banding[12] to reduce water loss. Mr. Walan's stated, “ I believe organic farming uses less water due to the elimination of the synthetic fertilizers that had previously depleted my soil’s mineral content”. (Organic Exchange, 2002)

Coventional Organic Difference

The Organic Exchange (2002) found that A major problem most of these organic farms face is access to crop finance, interest rates from local banks that are as high as 18-20%, and that the associated pre-finance rates can add up to 30% of the farmer's total contract value. The Organic Exchange (2002) felt that this was an important issue for brands, investors, and NGOs to understand. The major problems many of the organic cotton farmers faced was the cost of growing a business. In addition affordable capital was a major need along with market forecasting systems and more agronomic research and information. Many of the larger farms expressed the need for improved policy lobbying and market communication. Organic Exchange (2002) also expressed the need to promote organic farming as the escape route for farmers from debt and suicide.

In India Bt cotton was the first GM crop technology to enter the market and was enthusiastically indorsed by the Indian government. Commercial approval for Bt cotton[13], was given by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in early 2002, for the southern states of India. Under a licensing agreement with the U.S. Company Monsanto, Mahyco backcrossed the Cry1Ac Bt gene into its breeding lines (QAIM, M. et al., 2006, p49). The modified seed claimed to be resistant to bollworms, a major pest of cotton. The approval to commercialize Bt cotton was granted on the grounds that it had been fully tested in Indian conditions, required little to no pesticides, and gave higher yields to farmers providing them with higher incomes. All this implied that Bt cotton would be more environmentally friendly, result in money saved due to less pesticide use, give higher cotton yields, and provide a competitive edge in the local and global cotton market (GRAIN, 2007). Monsanto also makes use of religion in its advertising to farmers in order to project its seeds as miraculous (ISIS, 2005). There are a growing number of studies on the impact of Bt cotton in India, all with very contradicting and opposing views and outcomes.

Not surprisingly most of the studies and reports that Bt cotton is successful are by QAIM, M. (2003, p.p. 2115-2127) and QAIM, M. et al. (2003, p.p. 900-902) market researchers commissioned by Monsanto- Mahyco rather than scientist (R. AKHILESHWARI, 2005, p.1). The researchers papers are based on data collected by Monsanto-Mahyco Corporation, although none of Monsanto-Mahyco’s official studies on Bt cotton have ever been publicly released (Shiva, 2003, p.9). These studies did not reveal the actual farm practice with commercial cultivation and they estimated potential yield benefits of 80%. A later farm-level study by MORSE S. et al (2005, pp 1-6) found significant, but smaller, yield advantages.

A recent study by QAIM, M. et al. (2006, p. 48) wrote an article explaining why Bt cotton was unsuccessful in certain regions of India but was still successful in other areas. The article explain that most previous studies reviewed the impacts of Bt cotton in a deterministic way, neglecting existing variability’s such as: differences in germplasm, pest pressure, and patterns of pesticide use. The research team decided to carry out their own study of adopters and non-adopters of Bt cotton in India. In 2003 they interviewed 341 cotton farmers in four states: Maharashra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu (Table 4). These states account for over 60% of cotton production in central and southern India. The team used a multistage random sampling procedure for both adopters and non-adopters of Bt cotton. They found that the average impact of Bt cotton was less spraying, higher cost, higher yields, and large net gains from Bt cotton adoption at the national level. The researchers explanation for areas that did not do well with Bt cotton in Andrha Pradesh was the lack of locally adapted cultivars.

Performance advantage of BT over non-BT cotton in India, listed by state, expressed as a percentage.

Values were calculated for the year 2002/03. Source (QAIM, M. et al., 2006, p. 48)

In an executive study by C. James on the global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops, suggested that Bt cotton is helping India reach it’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on poverty. Claiming one million of the beneficiary farmers in India were resource-poor farmers, whose increased incomes from biotech crops contributed to the alleviation of their poverty (James, C., 2005, p. 5).

The Council for Biotechnology Information[14] (2000) interviewed Mahalingappa Shankarikoppa on his experience with Bt cotton. Bollworms had been damaging his cotton crops for many years, sometimes destroying up to 80% of the cotton he had planted. The article goes on to explain that Shankarikoppa was one of the first to plant biotech cotton commercially and was very impressed by the yield gains and reduced spraying from the biotech seeds supplied by Monsanto- Mayhco. Shankarikoppa stated that "With biotech cotton, I make two to three times what I used to with the old traditional seeds and I spray 80 percent less now than I did before." (WHY BIOTECH, 2000)

Also it should be noted that in April 2003 the Genetic Approval Committee under the Ministry of Environment and Forests[15], denied the commercial clearance of Monsanto’s Bt cotton for the northern states of India due to it’s failure in the south. However, in April 2003 the Indian Council of Agricultural Research[16] approved seven alternative Bt cotton varieties for trial sowing in the Punjab-Haryana region in hopes that it could help with the mass failure of pesticides on conventional crops.

There are also some loud voices in opposition to Bt cotton. One of the main arguments against Bt cotton is that Monsanto-Mahyco has sold their Bt cottonseeds under false pretenses. Which has lead to many farmers investing the extra money to buy the more expensive genetic seeds. When the crops fail the farmer goes into debt, which has often led to mass suicides (GHOSH, A., 2007, p.1). Other arguments are that GM crops cause environmental destruction and that Bt cotton is an overall failure in many areas of India.

The Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology[17] (RFSTE) have warned the Indian government about the severe repercussions they believe Indian farmers face to their livelihoods if further clearance to the Bt. Cotton is allowed. RFSTE also conducted independent research in late October 2002 on Bt cotton in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and found very different results from those of the Monsanto-Mahyco market researchers. RFSTE’s studies concluded that Bt cotton is not resistant to bollworms, it has been devastated by non targeted pest such as jassids, aphids, and especially sucking pest, Bt cotton requires more pesticides than non-Bt cotton, and that Bt cotton is inadequate in harsh environmental conditions such as drought. (BIOTECH, 2002).

The Center for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in Andhra Pradesh, India, released a report in 2005 showing that Bt cotton growers in 2004 incurred 690% higher costs in pest management when compared to those growing conventional cotton varieties using more eco-friendly pesticides and natural control agents. It also found that farmers sprayed chemical pesticides on Bt cotton fields just as much and some times more than conventional cotton. The typical cost of spraying chemical pesticides on Bt cotton fields was Rs 2,632 per acre, while the cost of using bio-control agents on conventional cotton fields was only Rs 382 per acre (OCA, 2005). These findings are documented by the women of the Deccan Development Society’s[18] Community Media Trust, who have made a film called "Bt Cotton in Warangal: A three year fraud" and "Why are Warangal Farmers Angry with Bt Cotton" made in 2003.

An independent study by agricultural scientists Dr Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari on Bt cotton was conducted on a season-long basis for three years in 87 villages of the major cotton growing districts of Andhra Pradesh (Warangal, Nalgonda, Adilabad and Kurnool). They established an argument against Bt cotton in almost all areas: Bt failed miserably for small farmers in terms of yields, non-Bt cotton surpassed Bt in yield by nearly 30% with 10% less expense, Bt cotton did not significantly reduce pesticide use or bring profit to farmers, Bt failed to reduce the cost of cultivation and did not result in a healthier environment (TWN, 2005)

Environmental activist and thinker Vandana Shiva recently released an article (VANDANA S. et al. 2003, p17-22) where she claims that Bt cotton also has serious environmental impacts. In her paper describing the failure of GMO’s in India she lists several reasons why she feels Bt cotton is a threat to India’s environment. First, the stabilities of insect communities, pest sub communities, and pest natural enemies sub-communities in Bt cotton fields may be less than those in conventional cotton fields, and the possible outbreak of certain pest in Bt cotton is higher. Second, genetic pollution can cause the weedy relatives of the GM plant to become supper weeds. Third, insecticide Bt toxins are often engineered into plants in a pre-activated form, and are already known to be harmful to bees directly, and to other insects further up the food chain. Finally, Bt cotton requires more fertilizers, water, and at times more pesticides, which is environmentally destructive and unsustainable. (DR. SHIVA, V. et al., 2003, p17-22).

. Between 2003 and March 2007, 8,263 farmers have committed suicide in nine states, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Punjab, and Gujarat (GHOSH, 2007, p.1) One such recent suicide case takes place in Vidarbha Maharashtra and was reported by GENTLEMAN, A. (2006, p. 3). Cotton farmer Subhash Mamidwar drank monocrotophos[19] and died in his cotton field. Subhash owed 40,000 rupees to the bank and around 100,000 rupees to private lenders. In Maharashtra’s Vidarbha cotton belt 451 cotton farmers took there own lives during the 2006 harvest year and around 2,300 have committed suicide since 2000. The Bt cottonseed cost about four times more then the conventional seed, but many farmers took out loans to buy it because they believed it would provide them with a better yield. In an interview with Herald Tribune Sanja Mahadeorao Todase, a senior medical officer in a hospital located in the near by town of Pandnarkawada said, “ That treating farmers who have poisoned themselves with insecticides had become so routine that he barely had the emotion left to feel shocked by it” (GENTLEMEN, A., 2006, p. 3).

It is not surprising that five out of the nine states experiencing mass cotton farmer suicides connected to failure of their GM crops are also the leading states converting to organic cotton cultivation (Gujurat, Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Andhra Pradesh). The programs being established by organizations such as EcoFarms, Pratibha, Maikaal BioRe, and Solidaridad have definitely offered numerous farmers a way out of the vicious debt cycle that many Bt cotton farmers currently find themselves in today. The smallholder farms found throughout India are much more ideally suited for conversion to organic when compared to large corporate farms. This places India in a particularly ideal situation. However, It is to early to say if organic cotton farming can become a sustainable solution, both in terms of small farmers livelihoods and environmental impact. Much is dependent on the global and India’s local organic textile market. The Organic cotton farmer still faces difficult access to crop finance, the need for improved policy lobbying and market communication, extreme global competition (especially from China) and costly certification. The important question for India is will the nation be able to adapt to these changes and challenges while pursuing a profitable, ecological, and socially beneficial textile industry that still retains the heart and spirit of Mother India

Akhileshwari, R. (2005), Genetically Modified Bt Cotton a Cropper, The Deccan Herald News Service Hyderabad, p.1

Gentleman, A. (May 31, 2006) Despair takes toll on Indian Farmers, Harold Tribune, pp.1-5

Ghosh, A. (2007), Farmer suicide in prosperous western UP, Times of India, p.1

Gurumurthy, G. (Nov. 15, 2006) India may soon turn No. 1 organic cotton producer, The Hindu Business line, p 1

Journals

Blaise D.(2006) Yield, Boll Distribution and Fiber Quality of Hybrid Cotton as influenced by Organic and Modern Methods of Cultivation. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 192 (4), pp.248-256

Dr. Shiva, V., Jafri, A., (2003) Failure or the GMO’s in India, Navdanya, p.1-22

James C. (2005), Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/ GM crops. ISAAA 34, pp 1-12

Morse, S., Bennett, R., Ismael, Y. (2005), Comparing the Performance of Official and Unofficial Genetically Modified Cotton in India. AgBioForum 8, pp. 1-6.

Qaim M., Zilberman, D. (2003) Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299, pp. 900-902.

Qaim, M. (2003) Bt cotton in India: field trial results and economic projections. World Devlopment 31, pp. 2115-2127

Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G., Zilberman, D. (2006), Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability, Review of Agricultural Economic 28, issue 1, page 48-58

Biotech (2002) Homepage: < http://www.biotech-info.net/bt_failure.html> accessed June 3, 2007

ETC India (2005) Homepage: < http://www.etc-india.org/> accessed June 8^th, 2007

Fair Cotton Growers Association (2005) Homepage: <http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/cotton_india.pdf> accessed June 11th, 2007

Grain (2007) Homepage: <http://www.grain.org/research_files/Marketing_in_India.pdf > Accessed June 8th, 2007

(ISIS) Institute of Science Technology (2005) Homepage: <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IBTCF.php>

Organic Exchange (2007) Homepage: < http://www.organicexchange.org> accessed June 12^th, 2007

(OCA) Organic Consumers Association (2005) Homepage: <http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/india022805.cfm> accessed June 2, 2007

Solodaridad (1969) Homepage: <http://www.indianorganicproducers.org/partners.asp> accessed June 10th, 2007

Super Spinning Mills (2004) Homepage: <http://www.superspinning.com/products.html> accessed June 12th, 2007

(TWN) Third World Network (2005) Homepage: <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service190.htm> accessed June5, 2007

Why Biotech (2000) Homepage: <http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=4515> accessed June 11^th, 2007

[1] The mission of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, founded in 1973, is to contribute to the development and improvement of organic and sustainable agricultural practice worldwide. http://www.fibl.org/english/index.php

[2] (CICR) is located in Maharashtra and aims to develop economically viable and eco-friendly production and protection technologies for enhancing quality cotton production by 2-3% every year on a sustainable basis for the next fifteen years (till 2020). http://cicr.nic.in/

[3] The SARA ELGI is a group of compananies established in the late 20’s. they have manufacturing facilities in South India, In house design & development infrastructure and IT consolidation capabilities. The group has diversified operations ranging from Spinning, Engineering to Software. http://www.saraelgi.com/

[4] The Ethical Trading Initiative is an alliance of companies, NGOs and trade union organisations. (ETI) exist to promote and improve the implementation of corporate codes of practice which cover supply chain working conditions. http://www.ethicaltrade.org/

[5] Anokhi is a clothing and bedding company whose headquarters are located on a farm outside Jaipur. Anoki considers itself an equal opportunity company, placing special emphasis on providing job opportunities for women

[6] Fabindia was founded in 1960 to market the vast craft tradition of India. Their products are sourced from villages throughout the country in hopes of providing and sustaining rural employment. http://www.fabindia.com/

[7] The Organic Exchange through its global facilitation programs for organic cotton also works through the brands, retailers, and textile processors to support the growers of clean cotton by providing market linkages

[8] . Irrigation consists of using water collected via a 276 foot bore well that provides sufficient water for fifteen acres

[9] are group of cotton farmers from the Mandvi area of Kutchwho who are participating in an organic conversion project established by Agrocel Industries Ltd. With guidance from Agrocel Industries, this loose association was formalized in 2005 into a legal entity with a democratic structure. This enabled it to achieve Fairtrade certification and to supply the seed cotton for the UK launch in November 2005 of products made from Fairtrade certified cotton.

[10]he puts out bird food and bird baths to attract birds that feed on his pest

[11] Neem is a tree found throughout India and is revered for its antibacterial properties and pest repelling quailities

[12] Alternating zones of different soil, sediment and vegetation approximately following the contour on gentle slopes in the arid zone. Often stony and stone-free bands.

[13] developed by the Maharastra Hybrid Seed Company Mahyco with the U.S. company Monsanto. http://www.mahyco.com/

[14] The Council for Biotechnology Information communicates science-based information about the benefits and safety of agricultural and food biotechnology. Its members are the leading biotechnology companies and trade associations. http://www.whybiotech.com/

[15] The Ministry of Environment & Forests is the nodal agency in the administrative structure of the Central Government, for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and overseeing the implementation of environmental and forestry programmes. MoEF oversees all environmental matters in the country and is a permanent member of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council. http://www.moef.gov.bd

[16] An antonomous National Organization which conducts and promotes research and training in the field of agriculture and allied sciences http://www.icar.org.in/

[17] The Research Foundation for Science,Technology and Ecology was founded in Dehra Dun, Uttar Pradesh (INDIA) in 1982 by Dr. Vandana Shiva. It works on biodiversity conservation and protecting people's rights from threats to their livelihoods and environment by centralised systems of monoculture in forestry, agriculture and fisheries. http://www.navdanya.org/

[18] The Deccan Development Society is a two-decade old grassroots organization working in about 75 villages with women's Sanghams (voluntary village level associations of the poor) in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh http://www.ddsindia.com/www/default.asp

[19] Monocrotophos is a highly toxic organophoshate, banned in the U.S., that is used to kill insects.

Conventional Organic Difference

Coventional Organic Difference

Journals

Blaise D.(2006) Yield, Boll Distribution and Fiber Quality of Hybrid Cotton as influenced by Organic and Modern Methods of Cultivation. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 192 (4), pp.248-256