Modern agricultural biotechnology has been heralded as a boon to developing countries. Its breakthroughs include food crops genetically engineered to resist disease, pests, drought, or to contain nutrients severely lacking in the diets of the poor. These crops are seen as the 21st century version of the 1960’s and 1970’s Green Revolution, when hybrid crop varieties, heavy use of fertilizers, and irrigation boosted crops yields. However, while proponents advocate that agricultural genetic engineering is a necessary development for meeting the world’s future food needs, critics argue that the risks of agricultural genetic engineering outweigh the possible benefits and that alternative technologies are available but not adequately underwritten (1). The purpose of this article is to provide multiple perspectives on the role that agricultural genetic engineering and alternative agricultural technologies may play in helping to meet the world’s food needs.
On July 10th, 2001, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released The Human Development Report 2001 (2). The authors of this report conclude that developing countries could reap possible benefits from genetically modified (GM) foods, crops, and other organisms (GMOs). While acknowledging that environmental and health risks need to be addressed, the authors stress the unique potential of GM foods and crops to significantly reduce malnutrition, which still affects more than 800 million worldwide. They emphasize that such crops could be especially valuable for poor farmers working marginal lands in sub-Saharan Africa, and urge greater public investment in research and development to ensure that agricultural biotechnology meets the needs of the world’s poor. The authors also point out that there is an urgent need to develop modern varieties of millet, sorghum, and cassava, which are staple foods for poor people in developing countries.
The authors of The Human Development Report 2001 further suggest that current debates in Europe and the United States over new agricultural biotechnologies mostly ignore the concerns and needs of the developing world. Western consumers naturally focus on potential allergic reactions and other food safety issues. Multinational biotechnology companies, eager for sales, tend to downplay the difficulties that developing countries may have in managing environmental risks posed by GMOs. The authors of this report argue that GMO risks can be managed, but that most developing countries will need assistance in carrying out proper risk assessment procedures. They point out that problems with biotechnology are often the result of poor policies, inadequate regulation, and lack of transparency. They also note that such challenges can be especially great in developing countries where resources are scarce and expertise is often lacking. Finally, the report calls for more research into the long-term impacts of GMOs, and advocates labeling GM products so that consumers can make informed choices. Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the United Kingdom already requires such labels, and surveys show that more than 80 percent of consumers in the United States want them as well(2).
Not everyone agrees with the conclusions reached by the authors of The Human Development Report 2001 (1). Dr. Peter Rosset, a crop scientist and Co-Director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First) - a leading food policy think thank based in Oakland, California - argues that the approach of agricultural genetic engineering (GE), which is to produce single genetically uniform crop varieties, ignores the real needs of poor farmers in marginal environments. As an alternative, he advocates for hands-on, participatory plant breeding where farmers themselves take the lead in producing crop varieties best suited for their own environments (3).
Dr. Rosset highlights in his report (3) that small, peasant farmers’ agriculture is complex, diverse, and risk prone because historically they have been displaced into marginal agricultural zones characterized by broken terrain, slopes, irregular rainfall, little irrigation, and/or low soil fertility. They have also been disadvantaged by pervasive anti-small farmer biases in national and global policies. In order to survive under such difficult circumstances, and to improve their standard of living, these farmers must tailor agricultural technologies to their own environments and unique circumstances, in terms of local climate, topography, soils, biodiversity, cropping systems, market insertion, and resources. Under such highly varied circumstances, Dr. Rosset believes that uniform varieties - such as those put forth by GE crops - are unlikely to be widely adopted or found useful by many farmers in developing countries. Furthermore, he is concerned that when GE crop varieties are introduced into such cropping systems, the risks are likely to be much greater than in larger farming systems, or farming systems in Northern countries. One reason being is that in developing countries there are typically more sexually compatible wild relatives of crops present, facilitating pollen transfer of genetically engineered traits to weed populations that could result in serious economic and ecological harm to farm or wildlife habitats. Poor farmers in developing countries are also unlikely to plant refuges, making resistance evolution by insects more likely. Finally, Dr. Rosset argues that crop failures already reported for some GE crop varieties would pose much greater economic risks for poor farmers in developing countries (3).
In conclusion, Dr. Rosset believes that the risks associated with genetic engineering are likely to outweigh the potential benefits for small farmers, considering the factors that currently limit resource-poor farmers’ ability to improve their own livelihoods. In addition, proven alternatives such as agroecological and organic farming practices are available. Finally, he argues that it is not a lack of technology that hold farmers back, but rather pervasive injustices and inequities in access to resources including land, credit, the market, and other anti-poor policy biases. Two approaches that make the most sense under such conditions include: 1) adopting technologies that have proven benefits to poor farmers, such as agroecological and organic farming practices, and 2) building social movements capable of exerting sufficient political pressures to reverse policy biases (3).
This article summarizes divergent views on the role that different agricultural technologies may play in helping to meet the world’s food needs. Before making any final decision as to what is the best way to ‘feed the world,’ the voices of all individuals and groups directly affected by this issue must be brought into the discussion, particularly the voices of farmers and consumers in developing countries. Without strong participation and representation by farmers, consumers, and community-based groups, decisions regarding the world’s food supply will most likely reflect the needs and concerns of the privileged and not those of the poor and marginalized.
Berlin Snell, M. Against the grain: why poor nations would lose in a biotech war on hunger. July/August 2001. Sierra Magazine. http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200107/profile.asp
United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. Human Development Report 2001. Oxford University Press: Cary, NC, 2001: http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/
Rosset, P. Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger, and Lagging Productivity? Institute for Food and Development Policy. Oakland, CA, 2001. http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html
For more information on food biotechnology, agricultural genetic engineering, and the future of the world’s food supply, see the 3 part point-counterpoint on biotechnology published in the November 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association:
Greger, JL. Biotechnology: mobilizing dietitians to be a resource. J Am Diet Assoc 2000; 100(11):1306-308.
Babcock, BC, Francis, CA. Solving global nutrition challenges requires more than new biotechnologies. J Am Diet Assoc 2000; 100(11):1308-1310.
McCullum, C. Food biotechnology in the new millennium: promises, realities, and challenges. J Am Diet Assoc 2000; 100(11):1311-1314.
The following websites provide additional reports on bioengineering of food agriculture and food safety, the environment, food security & ethical issues related to agriculture and food production.
SAP Report No. 2001-09. A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Regarding: Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning Starlink TM Corn. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, July 17-18th, 2001.
Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology Rome, Italy, January 22nd-25th, 2001.
Release of GMOs in the Environment: Is it a Health Hazard? World Health Organization [WHO], European Centre for Environment and Health, Rome Division, Rome, Italy, September 7th-9th, 2000.
Transgenic Crops: An Environmental Assessment Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy at Winrock International, Arlington, VA, November 2000.
Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence [Executive Summary] Pretty, J., Hine, R. University of Essex, Center for Environment and Society. February 2001.
Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture Rome, FAO, 2001.
FAO Ethic Series: 1) Ethical issues in food and agriculture and 2) genetically modified organisms: consumers, food safety and the environment FAO, Rome, 2001.