genetically modified crops and developing countries

8/12/2019 Genetically Modified Crops and Developing Countries

1/11

!"#$%& (

Genetically modified crops and developing countries

Sporadic and unexpected rainfall hit a record amount for Zimbabwe this last January.

Smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe and other countries of southern Africa are knowledgeable of

climate patterns for the sake of harvesting. The combination of violent flooding with the annual

peaking temperatures is leaving a trail of destruction for famers crops and, ultimately, their own

livelihood. Nearly three months ago a farmer in the district of Mhondoro-Ngezi, Mr. Davison

Mandizha, expressed his concern. "If the rains do not come in the next two weeks we are

finished . . . We are likely to face food shortages if the rains do not return soon.1Its now March

and the shortage of maize, a major staple food, has hit significant areas of southern Africa due to

deficient crops. In consideration of local famers this scarcity has a fearful price to pay. For the

first time in years, Zimbabwes faithful maize-supplier, Zambia, has ceased all exports to

Zimbabwe. Its reported that the Zambian governments Food Reserve Agencys losses have

breached 25% due to the maizes spoilage and poor quality.2The cost of maize per ton has risen

from last years $260 to $380 US dollars.2Nonetheless, well over 1.6 million Zimbabweans at

this moment need help accessing food, the highest number Zimbabwe has seen in three years.3

Consequentially, this drop in agricultural production is cutting Zimbabwean cereal production by

a third, with the presumption of food prices to rise through the following season.3

1Zimbabwe: Dry Spell Takes Toll On Crops, 5 Feb. 2013, The Herald, 10 Mar. 2013.

2Maize shortage renews debate over GM in Zimbabwe, 4 Mar. 2013, IRIN, 10 Mar.2013 .

3Nkululeko Sibanda, Poor rains intensify food crisis in rural Zimbabwe, 11 Jan. 2013,Mail & Guardian, 10 Mar. 2013 .


2/11

!"#$%& )

On the other side of the globe, Europe is facing a much divergent crisis pertaining to

sustainable development and food security. Known for their disdainful opposition toward the

rumored Frankenstein foods, these adversaries of genetically modified crops may have to step

down from their soapbox and take a hard look at reality. With a projected global population

exceeding nine billion by the year 2050, risks of food shortages and increased prices are on the

horizon for countries like France and Germany.4In a recent comparison of Europes little

supply to increasing demand with Brazils GM supply to assisted demand, Europe is

expecting an increase of hardly 4% over the next ten years, whereas the latter by an expected

40%.4 Urging these countries to focus on the science rather than the politics of genetically

modified foods, Senior Advisor for Biotechnology at the U.S. Department of State Jack Bobo

makes a foreboding claim on the matter. My fear is that it will take a crisis. It will only occur

when everybody sees and feels the pain of not having biotechnology and then they require it.4

Despite the fact that British farmers have reportedly warned supermarkets of their inability to

feed chickens non-GM food by May, the UK continues to ban genetically modified ingredients

in consumer products.5

Both conditions within countries of Africa and those of Europe compose a unifying issue.

There is a significant amount of stress on the need for alternate innovations in agriculture, yet an

impending uncertainty and a delicate trust in biotechnology with respect to food. Gary Comstock

explains this global dichotomy within the genetically modified food debate. When we are in

good health and happy with the foods available to us, we have little to gain from experimenting

4Philip Case, Food crisis will prompt GM foods rethink, says US aide, 5 Mar. 2013,Farmers Weekly, 10 Mar. 2013 < http://www.fwi.co.uk>.

5Tamara Cohen, Time for Europe to let British farmers grow GM food, saysenvironment minister, 10 Mar. 2013, Daily Mail, 10 March 2013.


3/11

!"#$%& *

with a new food, and no reason to take a chance on a potentially unsafe food.6The issue is not

particularly about countries of excess food supply, but rather those in need. If one were to ask the

one third of the population in the world with feeble food security, would the response be

different from those countries of Europe?7Those in good health that Comstock refers to are

considering genetically modified crops out of indifference rather than necessity. More important

than evaluating the risk of long-term effects from a global agricultural shift is the continual risk

of starvation and malnutrition for many people whose voices go unheard.Genetically modified

crops are the insured sustainability in agriculture due to their utilization for worldwide poverty-

reduction. There is substantial evidence that this form of agriculture could have potential benefits

environmentally, economically, and nutritionally with respect to developing countries.

The ominous threat of the global population peak has people concerned about our stress

on the environment. Theres a compelling argument on the role of biotechnology with the

genetic manipulation of the environment itself. Yet how monumental is genetic modification?

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins shuts down this devotion for all things natural along

with a deep conviction from tampered foods. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically

modified admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the

same.8Dawkins goes on to claim that the unnaturalness of agriculture has been a weapon

6Gary Comstock, Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods, Genetically ModifiedFoods: Debating Biotechnology ed. Michael Ruse and David Castle (Amherst, New York:Prometheus Books, 2002) 97.

7Statement on Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Foods for Human Health andNutrition, 8 May 2012, International Union of Nutritional Scientists, 10 Mar. 2013.

8Richard Dawkins, Dawkins: An Open Letter to Prince Charles, Genetically ModifiedFoods: Debating Biotechnology ed. Michael Ruse and David Castle (Amherst, New York:Prometheus Books, 2002) 17.


4/11

!"#$%& +

Homo sapienswill continually use against nature. If we want to sustain the planet into the

future, the first thing we must do is stop taking advice from nature. Nature is short-term

Darwinian profiteer.8Arable land and natural resources are the two main ingredients for

successful food production. Although this remains a somewhat manageable transaction for most

of the world today, the numbers do not all add up to the same promising stability in the future.

Massachusetts Institute of Technologys Terrascope2014 Mission: How Do We Feed the

Planet?expounds upon the risks of the environments future. The previously mentioned

exceeding population of nine billion will diverge with the expectant decrease of arable land due

to anthropogenic climate change and urbanization.9Biotechnology insures a reversal affect of

this with the application of genetically modified crops. Within the last century, an estimated 75%

of the genetic diversity of crop plants was forfeited due to selective breeding for the sake of food

supply.9 So while agricultural biotechnology seems like a mysterious risk to take, its important

to note that agriculture of any kind affects the environment. Due to this, it is assumed that the

new genetic technology will contribute to agriculture in a more pronounced and accelerated way.

While many millions of people around the world have consumed genetically modified food since

its birth in 1996, there are questions and concerns about their long-term effects. The problem

with predicting long-term effects in this light is genetic variability.10Cross-pollination could lead

to genetic contamination and thus disrupt the ecosystem. A prime example of this is the 1999

Cornell study with genetically modified maize, expressing the bacterialBt toxin against

9"Food and Soil - Arable Land, Grain Production, Fertilizer Use, and Soil Degradation,The Global Education Project, 10 Mar. 2013.

10Robert W. Herdt, "The State of Food and Agriculture, 2003-2004: AgriculturalBiotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?" Agricultural Economics, 32.1 (2005): 109-10.


5/11

!"#$%& ,

pesticides and its affect on non-target species. Milkweed leaves were heavily dusted withBtcorn

pollen proving lethal to species other than corn pests. The test, however, exposed butterflies to

unlikely doses ofBt, causing the experiment to be nullified and the toxin to be considered low-

risk for monarch butterflies environmentally. 10 Other indicators of environmental uncertainty

with genetically modified crops are related to cases found in both herbicide and pesticide

resistance in that of weeds and few pests. The growth of resistant organisms has been delayed by

the planting of non-Btcrops nearBtones.11While this may seem like a conclusive factor to

withstand genetic modification, this threat of biodiversity is apparent in conventional crops as

well. Traditional pesticides and herbicides are known to bring significant damage to habitats,

most notably in decreasing the number of wild birds, insects, and plants. Despite the mystery of

agricultural biotechnologys potential magnification of genetic variability, there is knowledge in

its overall decrease in environmental damage in comparison to traditional crops. The key

argument is that of efficiency and the fact of the matter is genetically modified crops may relieve

limited arable land sources.10 Beyond crop yield increase, the use of genetically modified crops

has contributed to an improved sustainable environment. A study from 1996-2011 concludes an

average decrease of 473 million kg usage of pesticides and, in 2011 alone, reducing carbon

dioxide emissions by 23 billion kg, as well as saving 108.7 million hectares of land.12Another

similar study examining the years 1996-2004 of genetically modified crops showed results with a

significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a 14% reduction of the

11"First Documented Case of Pest Resistance to Biotech Cotton," 7 Feb. 2008, Phys.org,11 Mar. 2013 < http://www.phys.org/news121614449.html>.

12 Press Release: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012, 20 Feb.2013, ISAAA Brief 44-2012, 11 Mar. 2013.


6/11

!"#$%& -

environmental footprint associated with pesticide use.13It is a wonder as to how this mechanism

for increasing crop stability and sustainable development has become, to some people, an

opposing alternative to organic agriculture. One of the major incentives for genetically modified

crops was to reduce the reliance on insecticides, of which poisonings report up to 300,000 deaths

around the world each year.14The healthy and safe intentions of genetically modified crops

could even be paralleled with those of organic crops, with the difference possessing a

progressive purpose rather than an antiquated one.

Economically, the costs and benefits of genetically modified crops vary by location. One

of the leading factors of this is pest pressure. Crops with low pest pressure are usually unable to

make up for the expense of the genetically engineered seed on high yield alone. On the other

hand, due to fewer insecticide treatments, lower costs, and less insect damage, theres a large

profit for crops with high pest pressure. One example of this is seen in genetically modified

crops of Arizona. With the reduction of insecticide by 70%, farmers saved over $200 million

from the years 1996-2008.13 Despite the many success stories, economical opposition toward

genetically modified foods are highly scrutinized on the economic scale. Large agri-businesses,

such asMonsantoand Syngenta, fuel the biotechnology industry and are often accused of

narrowing the liberalization in agriculture. Large and few corporations enforcing patents,

regulations, and high prices seem to portray their lack of incentive to negotiate for the needs in

poverty. According to development ecologist Michael Lipton, the trade off from public to private

funding proves that crop research is more directed toward the demands of wealthy farmers and

13Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, GM Crops: The Global Economic andEnvironmental Impact The First Nine Years 1996-2004, 2005, AgBioForum, 8(2&3), 187-196, 11 Mar. 2013.

14Pamela Ronald, "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security," 1May 2011, Genetics Society of America, 11 Mar. 2013 .


7/11

!"#$%& .

their corporations rather than the poor and their staple foods.15However, more recent studies

show economic evidence that transgenic crops [do not] benefit only large farms; on the

contrary, the technology may be pro-poor.16Raney goes on to claim that the evidence in her

study does not support the fear that the multinational biotechnology firms are accumulating all

the transgenic crop value. After studying several seasons of production in Argentina, China,

India, Mexico, and South Africa, all resulted in higher yields and revenue, even with the

intellectual property rights (IPRs) of Monsanto.16The most notable results were those of Mexico

whoseBtcotton increased the economic value for farmers by 83%; proving the economic

benefits of high institutional capacity incorporating effective innovations on developing

countries.16As of 2012, developing countries are planting 52% of the worlds genetically

modified crops contributing to the $98.2 billion increase in crop production value since its

beginning in 2006.12 ISAA also confirms that the growth rate for genetically modified crop

adoption in developing countries was at least three times as fast, and five times as large, in

developing countries, at 11 percent or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3 percent or 1.6 million

hectares in industrial countries.12

Co-inventor of golden rice, Ingo Potrykus, responds to criticism in an open letter to

Greenpeace, If you plan to destroy test fields to prevent responsible testing and development of

golden rice for humanitarian purposes, you will be accused of contributing to a crime against

15Michael Lipton, Reviving Global Poverty Reduction: What Role for Genetically

Modified Plants?, 28 Oct. 1999, CGIAR, 10 Mar. 2013 .

16Terri Raney, Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries, 2006,Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 12 Mar. 2013 .


8/11

!"#$%& /

humanity.17 Currently awaiting approval by national regulators, golden rice is termed for its

genetic additive of beta-carotene and iron in the grain. The incentive for the release of golden

rice on the market was to reduce nutritional deficiencies, particularly that of vitamin A. Were

still losing one generation after another to malnutrition and this just shouldnt be happening

anymore, says CGIAR Micronutrient Project coordinator Dr. Howarth Buis.18According to the

World Health Organization, over 250 million people worldwide are vitamin A deficient, with an

annual cause of 3 million deaths per year.19The most prevalent areas of vitamin A deficiency are

in rural, poverty-stricken regions where theres a high dependency on staple foods. Globally,

those below the dollar-a-day poverty line consume half of all staple foods.15 These poor sources

of key mineral nutrients are directly linked to mineral deficiency diseases mainly from lack of

iodine, iron, and vitamin A. Since 60% of the earths nitrogen fertilizer is used for growing the

top three staple crops (wheat, rice, maize), it is projected that 50-60% more staple foods will be

needed to feed the worlds population in 2025.20

With 90% of the estimated population peak to

occur in developing countries, it is no wonder the Father of the Green Revolution Norman

Borlaug notoriously warned, "If we fail to keep agriculture moving in less-developed nations,

17Ingo Potrykus, Golden Rice and the Greenpeace Dilemma, Genetically ModifiedFoods: Debating Biotechnology ed. Michael Ruse and David Castle (Amherst, New York:Prometheus Books, 2002) 57.

18Ronald P. Cantrell, Rice: Hunger or Hope? Abolishing Poverty in Asia, 1991,

International Rice Research Institute, 13 Mar. 2013

.19Matin Qaim, "Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops for the Poor: Household Income,

Nutrition, and Health," 30 Nov. 2010, ScienceDirect, 13 Mar. 2013.

20Nand Kumar Fageria, Virupax C. Baligar, Charles Allan Jones, Growth and MineralNutrition of Field Crops (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2011) 11.


9/11

!"#$%& 0

poverty will continue to grow and the social upheaval that will ensue will become a global

nightmare.21

Any decent person would agree that the need for improved nutrition security and

production stability is dire in many parts of the world. The controversy over genetically modified

foods is no secret. In fact, the entire setback of the mechanism is due to the negative public

attitudes toward GMOs. Qaim considers this issue a fundamental obstacle, and overall

limit[s] public investments into GM crop research.19In short, there are safety regulations being

done on genetically modified foods but the key is moderation to prevent the frivolous spending

on technologies with overregulation.19 The most fearful aspect of the negative public outlook is

that this demographic involves scientists with the ability to use deceiving and inaccurate

publications. In 2010, Dona and Arvanitoyannis were accused of that very act from their 2009

publication, Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Biotechnology director at CropLife

International, Craig Rickard, wrote a detailed response to their invalid claims on genetically

modified foods toxic harm, decreased protein nutrition, lethal use of antibiotic-resistant genes,

adverse effects on lab rodents, and even their choice of adjectives as incorrect and misleading. 22

In response to a particularly common suspicion of allergens sourcing from genetically modified

foods, Rickard emphasizes the honest truth. A weight-of-evidence approach to evaluating the

allergenic risk of food proteins has been widely accepted by regulators and toxicologists

worldwide. The safety of commercial GM crops has arguably been investigated more rigorously

21Ministry of Agriculture, His Majestys Government of Nepal Kathmandu, Feb. 2002,Nepal Development Forum 2002, 13 Mar. 2013.

22Craig Rickard, Letter to the Editor, 2010, Critical Reviews in Food Science andNutrition, 13 Mar. 2013 .


10/11

!"#$%& (1

than the safety of any non-GM crop variety ever developed, and to date, there have been no

proven instances of harm to animal or human health from GM crops. In their review article, the

authors ignore the Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003), the most recent and relevant

guidance document pertaining to the allergy assessment of novel foods. No single factor has

been recognized as predicting a food allergy in humans . . . The current safety assessment

approach for predicting potential protein allergenicity has been 100% successful and there have

been no perorated cases of human allergic responses to any approved agriculture biotechnology

product.22

With over 870 million starving people on the planet why is it so difficult for us to take the

chance on genetically modified foods?23The answer is simply the fact that it does pertain to

food: our sustenance, health, and wellness. Comstock reminds us that Our tendency to take

precautions with our food suggests that a single person with a negative view about GM foods

will be much more influential than many people with a positive view.6Why risk our well-being

when we can afford to any other alternative? Its a different story for those dealing with up to

60% in crop losses each season and unable to recognize the title Whole FoodsMarket as a back-

up option.19 Genetically modified crops hold promising potential in poverty reduction, with some

already materializing today. As of last year, a record of 170.3 million hectares of genetically

modified crops was grown, a 6% increase from the year before.12

Its a sound belief to depict this

fact as a reflection of our society installing trust and utilization in agricultural biotechnology.

Rather than occupying opposite ends of the spectrum, Dr. Pamela Ronald of UC Davis asserts a

theory of modern agriculture as a union of organic farming and genetic engineering for modern

society. Fourteen years of extensive field studies have demonstrated that genetically engineered

232012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger EducationService, 2012, World Hunger Education Service, 2 Mar. 2013, .


11/11

!"#$%& ((

crops are tools that, when integrated with optimal management practices, help make food

production more sustainable. The vast benefits accrued to farmers, the environment, and

consumers explain the widespread popularity of the technology in many regions of the world.

The path toward a future sustainable agriculture lies in harnessing the best of all agricultural

technologies, including the use of genetically engineered seed, within the framework of

ecological farming.14

genetically modified crops and developing countries

Documents