At first, the prospect of having a high-yielding cotton plant that needed no pesticides led to rosy projections of bumper crops and profits for farmers who grow it. But Thais will not be seeing hundreds of thousands of hectares planted to Bollgard cotton in the country anytime soon, after fears were raised that the genetically altered plant may wreak environmental havoc and put consumers of Thai traditional medicine at risk.

Last month, the Thai government announced it was calling off safety and effectiveness tests on Bollgard cotton, developed by the U.S.-based chemical company Monsanto. The tests, which began three years ago, were already nearing completion when Bangkok issued the statement.

Bollgard cotton is also known as Bt cotton because it comes from plants inserted with bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which kills off pests. Cotton is among the world's cash crops hardest hit by pests. But activists here say there is no guarantee that Bt would not spread to other plants belonging to the same species as Bollgard cotton and kill insects in wider areas of the country.

Makers of Thai herbal medicine, in which cotton is an essential ingredient, also raised concerns about the effect of using medicines with Bt cotton. The Institute of Traditional Thai Medicine says 16 species of the "Malvacea" cotton family are used in the production of traditional health remedies. According to Witoon Liancharoon of the Alternative Agriculture Network Thailand, Bt cotton is already being grown commercially in the United States and Australia. But this is done only in restricted areas. That would not have been the case in Thailand, if plans had pushed through. Witoon notes, for instance, that the plan was to market the seeds to agriculturists throughout the country. Some 485,000 hectares of land were to be set aside as cotton-growing areas. Witoon says the tests here should have been conducted differently from those in the U.S. and Australia, because tropical Thailand obviously has different biodiversity conditions. He adds the tests should have looked into possible risks if someone takes herbal medicine made with Bt cotton.

"As far as I know," Witoon said, "the tests that have been done focused only on impacts on useful insects in the areas and the economic potential of growing (Bt) cotton."

Dr. Pennapa Subcharoen, director of the Institute of Traditional Thai Medicine, says the Bollgard cotton tests records show that some 30 percent of the bee population in the test sites died. However, she told a local newspaper, no further assessment was made to determine if the Bt cotton was linked to the death of the bees.

The doctor says a sufficient assessment of Bt cotton is needed before it can be grown locally in a larger scale.

The Bt cotton tests are considered Thailand's first genetic engineering experiment in mass production.

Though protests forced the government to rethink the Bollgard cotton project, Witoon says that does not mean Thailand has heard the last of such ventures. The country has no laws that help protect its biodiversity, he says. "Genetic engineering is something beyond the understanding of most Thai agriculturists," he observed.

"It is easy to make them welcome anything that gives quick positive results without knowing of the much more negative impacts that may follow. If the cotton could help them kill insects without spending money on insecticides, they would think this cotton is perfect and the seeds would sell out for sure," he added.

Witoon says this foolhardiness among many Thai agriculturists makes the need for a "biosafety law" urgent. "They have no idea what could happen in the future," he said.

Meanwhile, Witoon's group and the Thai Network on Community Rights and Genetic Resources are using existing laws in their bid to change the composition of the cotton testing board.

Under the new Constitution, government bodies are not allowed to have appointees whose involvement with other groups or private businesses may result in a conflict of interest.

At present, the cotton testing board has three representatives of Monsanto as members. If the board's composition is not altered, no-government groups here say they are ready to sue the agricultural ministry.

1/5/98