Approximately 50 percent of global biotech crops were grown in developing countries in 2011, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Agriculture reported last month.
The non-profit claims that economic incentives are the driving force behind the growing use of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries. Organizations such as Greenpeace, though, are unconvinced of the success of GM crops. They argue that the best way to ensure food abundance is through natural genetic diversity of food crops and agricultural engineering.
“The main point is that GM is, because of its characteristics, perfectly suited for an industrial model of agriculture,” Marco Contiero, EU Policy Director on Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Agriculture for the Greenpeace European Unit in Brussels, tells MediaGlobal. “The problem is that that system is a non-sustainable system. It is a system that relies on external inputs, based on fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, sympathetic fertilizers, and of course fossil fuels, to run machinery.”
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Agriculture (ISAAA), a non-profit that promotes the use of biotechnology in developing countries, dismisses any accusations regarding negative impacts of GM crops on developing countries. They are confident that GM crops such as Bt cotton (gene coding from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis is inserted in cotton to produce its insecticidal toxin) are safe and economically logical.
ISAAA works with national programs that monitor the deployment and performance of biotech crops. For example, China has conducted detailed studies in the past on Bt cotton in the country. “To date no major adverse effects have been reported and verified,” Clive James, Founder and Chair of ISAAA, tells MediaGlobal. “Farmers [are] mainly concerned about the return on investment which is favorable with GM crops leading to almost a 100 percent repeat planting.”
Resource poor farmers in developing countries have taken note of these financial incentives and now constitute 90 percent of biotech farmers globally, the ISAAA report claims. In India, 10.6 million hectares of Bt cotton were grown in 2011, offering a benefit of $1.8 billion for 7 million farmers and their families.
“This extra income provides for better quality of life including more access to benefits. Edible oil from cotton increased three fold from 0.46 million tons in 2002 to 1.31 million tons in 2011.” James tells MediaGlobal. “Based on 15 years of extensive global experience, during which biotech crops have generated an economic gain of $78 billion, it is evident that the greatest risk associated with biotech crops for any country is not use them.”
Despite apparent economic benefits, GM critics continue to voice concerns over health, environment, and the true positive economic impact.
“Genetic engineering is not a solution when it comes to finding the signs and technology for development,” Contiero tells MediaGlobal. “What is the right strategy? The right strategy is to see the local needs of the small-holder farmers, which are those that are suffering from hunger nowadays, those one billion people, and find solutions that are adaptable to that. What kind of solutions? Solutions that allow them to have resilience agriculture solution. To have a system which is capable of regenerating itself.”
In countries such as India, though, massive propaganda campaigns by biotechnology companies have left farmers with only two solutions: proprietary GM seeds or low quality organic seeds. Coupled with high start-up costs, higher interest rates, an unforgiving Indian climate, and lack of water supply, the failure to meet the annual quota using GM crops has ruined thousands of farmers.
Additionally, a 2008 Science Magazine report found GM crops in Africa to be the least beneficial tool to improve agricultural ability and social-economic dilemmas. “You should look at how much one acre of farm produces per one unit of water, per unit of land,” Contiero tells MediaGlobal. “Start considering and evaluating the productivity of a farming system as a whole, not just as per unit of labor.”
Offering alternatives, Contiero advocates a plethora of agronomic technologies to assist developing nations, including: Integrated Plant Management, agroforestry, ‘push-pull’ systems, and Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), a technology that speeds up traditional breeding by allowing a plant’s traits to be tested before it matures.
While these technologies may have a higher financial burden, developing countries are beginning to invest in them due to the continued public resistance to GM crops.
In the EU, GM crops are grown on only 0.017 percent of agricultural lands. With China recently stating that it will prevent GM crops in staple foods, and India preventing the introduction of its first GM food back in 2010 after public protests, the opposition to GM is worldwide.
“When it comes to GM food, not GM cotton, practically 98 percent is grown in these four countries: Canada, US, Brazil, Argentina. In Thailand and South East Asia, also, one year ago they claimed their rice GM-free.” Contiero tells MediaGlobal. In Africa, there are only three states, despite the last 15 years of massive pressure by the US, the ISAAA, Monsanto and the Bill Gates Foundation. The picture globally is much less tolerable then the ISAAA wants to do.”
With the world population having soared past seven billion, ensuring accessibility to food has never been a greater issue. GM technologies theoretically could act as a catalyst for developing countries, but without absolute competence of the technology, the global public may deem the risks too great.