LEISA 17.4
LEISA Magazine • 17.4 • December 2001
Genetic engineering: not the only option
“Genetic engineering is often justified as a humane technology, one
that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth.
With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase
the sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers.”
David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, USA
The Gene Revolution
A new agricultural revolution is taking place: the “genetic engineering
revolution”. For the first time it is possible to break through natural
species’ barriers, systematically moving genes from one species to another
that do not combine in nature. This is done by transferring genetic material,
for instance, from bacteria to plants. Proponents of genetic engineering (GE)
claim it will provide new plants and animals that would lead to a more environmentally-sound
agricultural production with crops that produce their own pesticide thus reducing
the use of chemical pesticides. They also promise crops that produce medicine,
plants tolerant to salt and drought and enriched food to restore micronutrient
deficiencies. Many see GE as “the” solution to hunger, poverty and
many health problems. Some advocates go a step further by accusing opponents
of genetic engineering as ‘colonialists who withhold technologies from
poor farmers’ (p.36). It sounds too good to be true. But when we begin
to look behind the façade of this promise-filled development, many important
questions emerge:
• Who benefits from genetic engineering and who loses?
• What are the risks and who will bear them?
• What are the alternatives to genetic engineering?
This issue of LEISA Magazine and the accompanying journal “Biotechnology
and Development Monitor” attempt to explore these questions.
Genetic Engineering is different
GE, also known as genetic modification or manipulation (GM), is part of what
is termed “biotechnology” or “biotech” in short. Biotechnology
is a very inclusive term, ranging from natural fermentation, to safe and relatively
cheap practises like in-vitro propagation to genetic engineering. A good starting
point to understand the different types of biotechnology is the article by Visser
on p.9. It gives an overview of the potential, costs and expertise required
by each of them.
In this issue, the focus is on genetically modified crops as they have far-reaching
implications on sustainable agriculture in general, and farmers’ livelihoods
in the South in particular. Genetic engineering is sometimes presented as just
another step in a continuous process of agricultural development. In other words,
there is no reason to worry. However, this argument cannot be justified. Genetic
engineering is radically different from previous technologies because it allows
for the moving of genes between different species across natural boundaries,
which makes the risks unpredictable.
Ecological concerns
Despite many reassuring words by companies, researchers and some governments,
many concerns about the implications of GM crops remain. Major concerns relate
to the consequences for the ecological systems into which they are being introduced.
These concerns are often neglected by the GM seed industry, the authorities
approving their access to the market and the farming communities making use
of the proposed technologies. For instance, the insertion of Bt (Bacillus Thuringiensis)
genes was thought to be a silver bullet, a permanent solution to insect problems.
But the model of “one pest – one solution” does not work forever,
as is the case with pesticides; sooner or later resistance builds up. Similarly,
building of herbicide resistance in plants is headed for trouble as it unleashes
basic ecological reactions. Excessive use of herbicides as a major or only tool
of weed management, will eventually reduce the sensitivity of weeds to herbicides
and create an even worse weed problem. It is “to a large extent a victim
of its own success”. Recently, more and more evidence is being brought
to support the fact that these concerns are not negligible. Yield decline in
GM soybean, for instance, is being traced to reduced root development, nodulation
and nitrogen fixation.
Another effect is related to the unexpected impact of gene transfer and its
consequences. One example from USA tells how genes from one bacterium Xanthomonas
were transferred to another soil bacterium, Kebsiella planticola. The new organism
was meant to ferment stubble into alcohol, thus providing farmers with an extra
source of income instead of burning the stubble. However, a test by the authorities
found that wheat planted in the soil containing the new organism was killed
by it.
In Europe, scepticism is widespread due to the many ecological concerns that
surround the introduction of GM crops. A de facto moratorium on releasing genetically
modified organisms has been in place since 1998 (p.13) One can draw no other
conclusion than that, in many countries, GM crops have been brought too early
into the market and that precaution should prevail.
Private companies appropriate farmersÕ livelihoods
One thing that makes the development of GE unique in the history of agriculture
is that it is almost fully controlled by private companies. Transnational corporations
(TNCs), often with their roots in the production of agro-chemicals, carry out
the laboratory research, field trials, production and sale of GM crops. They
spend enormous amounts of money on developing herbicide-resistant crops that
are being sold to farmers as a package inclusive of both the herbicide and the
seeds. Through patents these TNCs keep competitors at bay. It appears that GE
technologies are not being developed because of their problem-solving capacity,
but because of the patent - and thus profit - it can bring to the companies.
For instance, in the 1980s, Monsanto was not interested in genetically engineering
virus resistance into plants, as it would bring minimal profits. In the “old
days” public-funded international or national agricultural research centres
could have stepped in and carried out that research. However, the public research
centres seem to be loosing ground in access to the knowledge and genetic material,
thus widening the gap between public and private research. Recently, private
companies have been pushing further, trying to get exclusive rights over nature’s
genetic resources as in the case with Monsanto’s application seeking patent
protection related to (wild and domesticated) soy beans.
Terminator technology takes the issue further. This technology, in which genes
are manipulated to be able to switch seeds on and off by treatment with chemicals
provided by one and the same GM seed company, effectively prevents farmers from
keeping their seeds for replanting. Strong public opposition has forced the
companies to give up this line of research, but they still hold the patents
to the technology.
These examples illustrate very well what kind of agricultural development these
companies promote, namely high-input, highly industrialised monoculture systems,
which force farmers to buy packages of inputs from just one company. In this
context it is rather shocking that, in 2001, the US government generously funded
biotechnology research and development in agriculture with a budget allocation
of US$ 310 million, whereas support for organic farming was less than US$5 million.
Farmers have expressed their concern about these developments, as can be concluded
from the citizen’s juries conducted in many parts of the world (p.27).
Rossett also clearly illustrates that GM crops have very little to offer to
farmers in risk-prone, diverse and complex agriculture (p.6). It is expected
that GM crop research will be very slow in responding to the needs of low-input
agriculture.
Contamination: No guarantee that crops are GE-free
The contribution from the Louis Bolk Institute (p.12) shows that the organic
movement does not consider GM crops as organic. It accepts conventional breeding
and the new technologies available to assist it, but finds manipulation at the
cell level and below as unacceptable. The article describes how the debate on
GE has led organic farmers to reconsider their dependency on seed companies
that focus on high-input agriculture.
But how can farmers be sure that they grow GM crops, considering that seeds
and pollen spread by wind, water, birds and insects. Large areas can be contaminated
by the introduction of GM crops by a single farmer. In the US, contamination
by GM crops is now such a big problem that organic farmers find it almost impossible
to get GM-free seeds. Tests have shown that “organic crops” from
the US are often contaminated with engineered genes despite farmers’ efforts
to stay GM-free. Consequently, the international organic movement (IFOAM) is
considering refusing certification of organic crops from the US. But who will
pay for the damage inflicted on the organic farmers in the US?
Who bears the risk?
With the introduction of agricultural genetic engineering, the costs of contamination
and other costs of reduced market shares are being imposed on farmers, consumers
and the environment as a whole - not only in Europe or North America, but also
in the South! Will GM seed companies bear the risk of releasing these crops
in the South? What will happen if things go seriously wrong, e.g. a GE crop
turns out to have negative health effects or becomes a serious ecological threat?
The GM crop in question may be banned but that does not mean it will stop existing.
This situation is not comparable to that of an agricultural chemical which turns
out to have unanticipated side effects after a number of years. The effect of
such chemicals will eventually disappear from the environment. Not so with GM
crops that are likely to survive in the wild and spread their genes through
crossing with other plants. This is already taking place in Mexico where wild
relatives of maize have been contaminated with genes from GM crops (p.25). Since
Mexico is the centre of maize diversity, such contamination constitutes an irreplaceable
loss. The wide variety of genes in wild plants and in traditional agriculture
is the main insurance we have to cope with new demands on crops – whether
caused by new pests and diseases, increased salt levels or changing climates.
In Southern Brazil, estimates are that despite the ban on GM crops, 30% of the
soybean acreage is already contaminated, thus threatening Brazil’s GM-free
status (p.19).
The risk of an unintended introduction of GM crops is more threatening in countries
where no legal framework exists, as is the case in many African countries. For
instance, one expert from Zambia expressed his concern that illegal trade in
GM varieties is most likely once neighbouring countries have it. Again, who
will bear the risk?
Alternatives
But do we really need GM technology to combat malnutrition, to improve local
production and to make agriculture more productive. Has the introduction of
GM crops contributed to the reduction of poverty? The FAO (United Nations Food
and Agricultural Organisation), in a recent report, indicated that “for
the world as a whole there is enough, or more than enough, food production potential
to meet the growth of effective demand, i.e. the demand for food of those who
can afford to pay farmers to produce it.” This implies that “any
residual hunger problems will be largely poverty, rather than production-related”,
which means that reaching the goal of food security for all should be based
on a premise other than genetic engineering. Alternative approaches to agricultural
production are, therefore, essential.
Over the years, LEISA Magazine has documented a wealth of agro-ecological,
low-external-input alternatives to agricultural production. The articles in
this issue confirm, once again, that the potential of LEISA is far from exhausted.
The case of natural crop protection from the Andes (p.23) indicates that there
are many plants in nature, which provide us with clues for better pest management.
During a forum in the Netherlands, an Indian journalist informed the audience
that agricultural research in India is only making use of 3% of the total of
3000 rice varieties that are known. Research done in Thailand indicates the
potential that exists in nature for selecting and breeding varieties with desired
characteristics such as salt tolerance (p.16). Many ecological principles that
are still being overlooked, underestimated or sidelined, deserve more attention
as they provide relatively cheap, controllable and low external input solutions
to many problems that farmers face. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
is an example of the many roads to sustainable agriculture that are hardly explored
(p.15). Moreover, these approaches are not accompanied by the many risks - both
economic and ecological – that GM crops are posing.
The push-pull system in Kenya (p.17), organic cotton production in Senegal
(p.21) and zero-tillage no-herbicide soybean cultivation in Brazil (p.19), are
examples of ecologically-sound alternatives that already exist. They are not
a danger to the environment, nor do they make the farmers dependent on agricultural
supply companies. Third world farmers will certainly be much better off if research
efforts and resources are dedicated to agroecological approaches that have wide-ranging
possibilities.