Food News
"Will genetically modified crops
feed the world
or increase poverty in the developing countries?"
It was with considerable interest that I attended a seminar with this title held by the PANOS institute.
Setting the picture
Kitty Warnock, Director of Panos Institute's Environment Programme set the scene. The first licensed genetically modified crops were grown in China in 1983. Now, in America, at least a third of all soya grown is from GM seed. Next year it will be two thirds. To put matters in perspective, agropharmaceuticals are relatively small beer to the big trans-world companies compared with their other pharmaceutical interests.
However, there are many questions still to be answered:
"We do not need GM seeds or plants in
Africa. All the
African countries need are incorruptible Government Officials!"
This sums up the message from Martin Kimani from the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI), Kenya. His job was to promote organic farming among small farmers, and the management of pests without damaging the environment. Farmers used to grow a wide variety of traditional crops which met the demands of the local food supply. They kept seeds for the following year and knew how to keep the soil fertile with animal manure. Then in the 1960s and 70s came the "green revolution." Fast growing hybrid seeds were given free to farmers along with synthetic pesticides and fertilisers. They were paid to grow certain cash crops, coffee for instance, and forbidden to grow anything else.
An imbalance in food production has been allowed to happen. For instance maize is exported and cattle feed imported. The growth of sugar cane has become uneconomical because cane sugar is imported. Research and advice do not have to come from the top. In fact sometimes the advice is bad advice because the officials are in the pockets of the chemical industry. There is knowledge within the farming community but it is not shared. As a result many farmers have not renewed the fertility of their soil with organic matter, and used to depend on subsidised artificial fertilisers. Now there is no subsidy and their soil is not good enough to produce the food needed locally.
The message is "do not give up what we have for what is coming". We do not need GM seeds and plants, what we need to do is put money into disseminating the knowledge that is already there.
"It's all about making money!"
That is what Dr. Owen Williams, researcher into trade-related intellectual property rights and biodiversity for the Gala Foundation, said when he examined the global picture. Many firms were engaged in research into genetic engineering, and the giant corporations 'cherry picked' the research that fitted their objectives, which were, of course, to make profits. This means that the researchers are dependent on big business to enable them to continue, and he was worried that this would result in too narrow a field with loss of diversity. Products were 'best for profit', not 'best for us He drew an analogy with the enthusiasm which greeted the building of atomic power stations in the 1950s.
He was concerned about granting patents for products of genetic modification research. They made wide-ranging claims. He gave as an example the Terminator Gene. A firm in America had isolated a gene modification which prevented saved seed from germinating. There were arguments both for and against whether this was a good thing. So far, it has been shown to work only with cotton and tobacco, but the patent covers all cultivated seeds and the company has applied for patents in 78 countries. '[he company has now been bought by Monsanto. Monoculture using GM seeds, particularly the Terminator seeds, would reduce plant diversity. This was a bad thing for farmers and also for research. A wide gene pool was essential for successful and beneficial development of genetic modification, but did the big companies care about this? He thought it was all about making money. One questioner suggested that some African Governments were still in love with the chemical industry. Agricultural advisers were, in fact, salesmen for chemicals.
Comment
There was something missing, and badly so. Despite the best efforts of PANOS, there was nobody to speak of the advantages to be gained through genetic modification. This seminar was fascinating and informative but, for me, it was inconclusive. I suppose, it could not have been anything else because, so far, the evidence, whether good or evil, is itself inconclusive.
What is the PANOS Institute?
Founded in 1986 its aim is "Information and ci=ommunication for sustainable development" A quote from their brochure asking for support may help.
"In the developing world many people are unable to participate in the debates and decisions on which their lives depend. They are often denied both the information they need to make their voices count, and access to the ears of the powerful. PANOS is helping to amplify the voices of people living in poverty. This costs money but the costs of excluding ordinary people from democratic debate are far greater."
PANOS is active in many parts of the world.
John Brown
Return to Index for current issue Return to Main Magazine Index