Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 3–15 | Cite as

Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: a case of Bt eggplant in India



Building on the evidence from the impact of hybrid technology on varietal diversity loss, this paper explores ex ante the possible effects of introduction of Bt eggplant on on-farm varietal diversity of eggplant. The public–private partnership involved in the development and introduction of Bt eggplant provides a great opportunity to develop locally-adapted Bt open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) instead of having a limited number of generic hybrid varieties. The study shows that introduction of multiple Bt OPVs by public institutions will reduce the rate of replacement of OPVs by hybrids and thus help in conserving varietal diversity. However, the cost of developing multiple Bt OPVs is high; hence policy makers need to look at alternative measures to maintain the varietal diversity of crops such as eggplant in its centers of diversity.


Bt transgenic crops Genetically engineered crops Public–private partnership Varietal diversity India 



Bacillus thuringiensis


Contingent valuation


Eggplant shoot and fruit borer


Genetically engineered


Genetic use restriction technology


Multinomial logit


Open-pollinated variety


Research and development


United States Agency for International Development


Willingness to pay



Authors acknowledge the financial support of the Agricultural Support Project II (ABSP II) for the study. Special thanks to the farmers in Maharashtra, who actively participated in the farm-household survey conducted by the research team. Authors are grateful to Dr. Usha Zehr of Mahyco, for sharing with us the field trial data of Bt eggplant.


  1. Bellon, M.R. 1996. The dynamics of crop intra-specific diversity: a conceptual framework at the farmer level. Economic Botany 50: 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowman, D., O. May, and J. Creech. 2003. Genetic uniformity of the US upland cotton crop since the introduction of transgenic cottons. Crop Science 43: 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briol, E., E.R. Villalba, and M. Smale. 2007. Farmer preferences for Milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. IFPRI discussion paper 00726. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Brush, S.B. 1991. A farmer-based approach to conserving crop germplasm. Economic Botany 45: 53–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaudhary, B., and Gaur, K. 2009. The development and regulation of Bt brinjal in India (eggplant/aubergine). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA. Brief No. 38. Accessed 1 Nov 2010.
  6. Cleveland, D.A., D. Soleri, F. Aragon Cuevas, J. Crossa, and P. Gepts. 2006. Detecting (trans) gene flow to landraces in centers of crop origin: Lessons from the case of maize in Mexico. Environment and Biosafety Research 4: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, D., R. Vellve, and H. Hobbelink. 1992. Growing diversity: genetic resources and local food security. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Dhandapani, N., U.R. Shelkar, and M. Murugan. 2003. Bio-intensive pest management in major vegetable crops: an Indian perspective. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 1: 330–339.Google Scholar
  9. Falck-Zepeda, J., G. Traxler, and R. Nelson. 2000. Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2): 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glover, D. 2007. Monsanto and smallholder farmers: a case study in CSR. Third World Quarterly 28: 851–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goeschl, T., and T. Swanson. 2000. Genetic use restriction technologies and the diffusion of yield gains to developing countries. Journal of International Development 12(8): 1159–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang, J., R. Hu, C. Fan, C. Pray, and S. Rozelle. 2002. Bt cotton benefits, costs, and impacts in China. Agbioforum 5(4): 153–166.Google Scholar
  13. Kataria, A. S. 2005. Development of F1 hybrid in vegetable crops and the availability in public and private sector. Available at
  14. Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2006. Who adopts what kind of technologies? The case of Bt eggplant in India. Agbioforum 9(2): 94–103.Google Scholar
  15. Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2008a. Potential welfare benefits from the public-private partnerships: a case of GE Eggplant in India. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 6(3 and 4): 333–340.Google Scholar
  16. Kolady, D.E., and W. Lesser. 2008b. Can owners afford humanitarian donations in Ag biotech—the case of genetically engineered eggplant in India. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 11: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishna, V.V., and M. Qaim. 2008. Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’ health in India. Agricultural Economics 38: 167–180.Google Scholar
  18. Louette, D., A. Charrier, and J. Berthaud. 1997. In situ conservation of maize in Mexico: Genetic diversity and maize seed management in a traditional community. Economic Botany 51: 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MANAGE. 2002. Seed business: Indian scenario. Spice 1(2). Accessed 1 November 2010.
  20. National Horticulture Board (NHB). 2008. Production statistics of vegetables in India, 2007–2008. Accessed 1 November 2010.
  21. Qaim, M., and D. Zilberman. 2003. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299: 900–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Qaim, M., C. Yarkin, and D. Zilberman. 2005. Impact of biotechnology on crop genetic diversity. In Agricultural biodiversity and biotechnology in economic development, ed. J. Cooper, L.M. Lipper, and D. Zilberman, 283–308. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramaswami, B. 2002. Understanding the seed industry: contemporary trends and analytical issues. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(3): 417–429.Google Scholar
  24. Raney, T., and P. Pingali. 2005. Private research and public goods: implications of biotechnology for biodiversity. In Agricultural biodiversity and biotechnology in economic development, ed. J. Cooper, L.M. Lipper, and D. Zilberman, 39–50. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reiss, M.J., and R. Straughan. 2001. Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shankar, B., and C. Thirtle. 2005. Pesticide productivity and transgenic cotton technology: the South African smallholder case. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sianesi, B., and D. Ulph. 1998. Species loss through the genetic modification of crops: a policy framework. CSERGE Working paper GEC 98-25, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Accessed 1 September 2009.
  28. Sidhu, A. S. 1998. Current status of vegetable research in India. Accessed 1 Oct 2009.
  29. Smale, M. 1997. The green revolution and wheat genetic diversity: Some unfounded assumptions. World Development 25: 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sneller, C.H. 2003. Impact of transgenic genotypes and subdivision on diversity within elite North American soybean germplasm. Crop Science 43: 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soleri, D., D.A. Cleveland, F. Aragon Cuevas, L.H. Rios, L.M.R. Funtes, and S.H. Sweeney. 2005. Understanding the potential impact of transgenic crops in traditional agriculture: maize farmers’ perspective in Cuba, Guatemala, and Mexico. Environment and Biosafety Research 4: 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinbrecher, R. 1996. From green revolution to gene revolution: the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. Ecologist 26: 240–273.Google Scholar
  33. Subramanian, A., and M. Qaim. 2009. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. Journal of Development Studies 46: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulph, A., and L. O’Shea. 2002. Biodiversity and optimal policies towards R&D and the growth of genetically modified crops. Environmental & Resource Economics 22: 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walsh, J. 1981. Germplasm resources are losing ground. Science 214: 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolfenbarger, L.L., and P.R. Phifer. 2000. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290: 2088–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Collaborator, International Food Policy Research Institute and Visiting FellowCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Dyson School of Applied Economics and ManagementCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations