[FAO press release below]
ROME (AP)—A U.N. food agency is coming out in favor of biotech crops, saying genetically modified organisms have already helped small farmers financially, have had some environmental benefits and no ill effects on health.
|
FAO's Endorsement for GM Crops
Will This is certainly a very
sad development. I have often said in my writings/analysis that the FAO is
actually riding the GM bandwagon. It has very cleverly, despite the public
pronouncements that are aimed at the galleries, been pushing the GM agenda
in the name of eradicating hunger and malnutrition. Biotechnology (call it
genetic engineering) was among the five priority areas for FAO, but the
reality is that with the kind of zeal that it was demonstrating in
promoting unwanted GM crops, it overshadowed the emphasis on the remaining
four initiatives for sustainable agriculture. Many thanks to Devinder Sharma for sending this commentary |
In a major report released Monday, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says the main problem with agricultural biotechnology to date is that it hasn't spread fast enough to the world's poor farmers and has focused on crops that are mostly of use to big commercial interests.
The report "Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?" is likely to fuel the debate about genetically modified, or transgenic crops, at a time when the technology continues to face public opposition in some European and African countries.
Proponents of gene-modified foods say plants that can resist insects and be fortified with extra vitamins are a boon to farmers and consumers. Opponents warn that the crops pose unknown health and environmental risks and say the ones who benefit most are the corporations who develop and sell GM seeds.
Dr. Harwig de Haen, assistant director-general of FAO's economic and social department, said Monday that biotechnology isn't a panacea to fight world hunger, but that it can help in three major ways: by raising farmers' production and incomes, by increasing food supplies and thus reducing prices, and by contributing to the nutritional quality of crops.
But he said greater regulation was needed and that governments, not just private corporations, must be more involved in the research and development of new seeds to ensure the poor benefit.
"FAO believes that biotechnology, including genetic engineering, can benefit the poor, but that the gains are not guaranteed," he told a news conference.
The U.N.'s policy to date had been that it recognized the potential of transgenic crops to help fight world hunger but that case-by-case studies were needed to assess the risks. While that position hasn't changed, the report gives an altogether positive vote to GM technology.
It said transgenic crops currently on the market are safe to eat and have posed no negative health effects. It said scientists differ on the environmental impact, noting that genes from GM crops can be transferred to wild species.
However, it said scientists differ on whether that in itself is a bad thing and said what's needed most is more research to asses the environmental consequences of this so-called "gene flow."
The report also pointed out some environmental and health benefits from using transgenic crops. It said reduction in pesticides and toxic herbicides that come with transgenic crops has had "demonstrable health benefits" for farm workers in China.
In addition, it said some gene-modified crops, especially insect-resistant cotton, "are yielding significant economic gains to small farmers."
It noted that while private companies have been largely responsible for selling transgenic seeds, "it is the producers and consumers who are reaping the largest share of the economic benefits of transgenic crops."
"This suggests that the monopoly position engendered by intellectual property protection does not automatically lead to excessive industry profits," it said.
However, FAO said the private sector was focusing too much on technology for crops that benefit big commercial interests, such as maize, soybean, canola and cotton. Basic food crops for the poor, such as cassava, potato, rice and wheat have received little attention by scientists, it said.
In fact, FAO said that six countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the U.S., four main crops: maize, soybean, canola and cotton and two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, accounted for 99% of the global area planted in transgenic crops in 2003.
The report is likely to be met with criticism from the anti-biotech camp, including Greenpeace, which has maintained that transgenic crops pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, a Greenpeace science adviser, said Sunday that the problem of global hunger wasn't a lack of food or inadequate technologies.
"We know there is ample food on the planet. Most of the problems are not technical, they're about access to markets, access to credit, land," she said in a telephone interview. "Hunger is not a problem that needs technical solutions. It needs political will and appropriate policies."
While Stabinsky said she hadn't read the report, she said it appeared to be a political statement by FAO and another attempt by the biotech industry "to convince Europe that they ought to be eating the GM food that's being developed by American companies."
The report is being released in the same week that the European Union's head office is to approve imports of a genetically modified corn for human consumption, ending a six-year biotech moratorium that the U.S. has challenged at the World Trade Organization.
Biotechnology holds great promise for agriculture in developing countries, but so far only farmers in a few developing countries are benefiting, according to FAO's 'State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04'.
Rome—Biotechnology holds great promise for agriculture in developing countries, but so far only farmers in a few developing countries are reaping these benefits, FAO said in its annual report 'The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04', released today.
Basic food crops of the poor such as cassava, potato, rice and wheat receive little attention by scientists, FAO said.
"Neither the private nor the public sector has invested significantly in new genetic technologies for the so-called 'orphan crops' such as cowpea, millet, sorghum and tef that are critical for the food supply and livelihoods of the world's poorest people," said FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf.
"Other barriers that prevent the poor from accessing and fully benefiting from modern biotechnology include inadequate regulatory procedures, complex intellectual property issues, poorly functioning markets and seed delivery systems, and weak domestic plant breeding capacity," he added.
Biotechnology, one of the tools of the gene revolution, is much more than genetically modified organisms (GMOs), sometimes also called transgenic organisms.
While the potential benefits and risks of GMOs need to be carefully assessed case by case, the controversy surrounding transgenics should not distract from the potential offered by other applications of biotechnology such as genomics, marker-assisted breeding and animal vaccines, FAO said.
Food and income needed for an additional 2 billion people
Agriculture will have to sustain an additional 2 billion people over the next 30 years from an increasingly fragile natural resource base. The challenge is to develop technologies that combine several objectives—increase yields and reduce costs, protect the environment, address consumer concerns for food safety and quality, enhance rural livelihoods and food security, FAO said.
Agricultural research can lift people out of poverty, by boosting agricultural incomes and reducing food prices.
More than 70 percent of the world's poor still live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their survival. Agricultural research—including biotechnology—holds an important key to meeting their needs.
Biotechnology should complement—not replace—conventional agricultural technologies, FAO said. Biotechnology can speed up conventional breeding programmes and may offer solutions where conventional methods fail.
It can provide farmers with disease-free planting materials and develop crops that resist pests and diseases, reducing use of chemicals that harm the environment and human health. It can provide diagnostic tools and vaccines that help control devastating animal diseases. It can improve the nutritional quality of staple foods such as rice and cassava and create new products for health and industrial uses.
But poor farmers can only benefit from biotechnology products if they "have access to them on profitable terms," the report said. "Thus far, these conditions are only being met in a handful of developing countries."
Neglected crops
Research and commercialization data on transgenic crops show that many crops and traits of interest to the poor are being neglected.
"There are no major public- or private-sector programmes to tackle the critical problems of the poor or targeting crops and animals that they rely on," the report said.
A large part of the private-sector investment is concentrated on just four crops: cotton, maize, canola and soybean.
Six countries (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the US), four crops (maize, soybean, canola/rapeseed and cotton) and two traits (insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) accounted for 99 percent of the global area planted in transgenic crops in 2003, the report said.
Where the research money goes
One of the key constraints many developing countries are facing in adopting and adapting biotechnology innovations is their lack of agricultural research capacity particularly in plant and animal breeding, FAO said.
The private-sector research dominates global biotechnology. The world's top ten transnational bioscience corporations spend nearly $3 billion per year on agricultural biotechnology research and development. Private biotech research in most developing countries is negligible.
Brazil, China and India, which have the largest public agricultural research programmes in developing countries, spend less than half a billion dollars each annually.
The largest international public supplier of agricultural technologies, the CGIAR, has a total annual budget of only about $300 million for crop improvement.
Transgenic crops—an economic success
In the few developing countries where transgenic crops have been introduced, small farmers have gained economically and the use of toxic agro-chemicals has been reduced, FAO said.
"Transgenic crops have delivered large economic benefits to farmers in some areas of the world over the past seven years," the report said. In several cases, per hectare gains have been large when compared with almost any other technological innovation introduced over the past few decades.
In China, for example, more than four million small farmers are growing insect-resistant cotton on about 30 percent of the country's total cotton area. Yields for insect-resistant cotton were about 20 percent higher than for conventional varieties and pesticide costs were around 70 percent lower.
Pesticide use was reduced by an estimated 78 000 tonnes in 2001, an amount equal to about one-quarter of the total quantity of chemical pesticides used in China. As a result, cotton farmers experienced fewer pesticide poisonings than those growing conventional varieties.
Even though transgenic crops have been delivered through the private sector in most cases, the benefits have been widely distributed among industry, farmers and consumers.
"This suggests that the monopoly position engendered by intellectual property protection does not automatically lead to excessive industry profits," the report said.
Effects on human health and the environment
The scientific evidence concerning the environmental and health impacts of genetic engineering is still emerging, the report said.
"Scientists generally agree that the transgenic crops currently being grown and the foods derived from them are safe to eat, although little is known about their long-term effects," said FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf.
"There is less scientific agreement on the environmental impacts of transgenic crops. The legitimate concerns for the safety of each transgenic product must be addressed prior to its release. Careful monitoring of the post-release effects of these products is essential," Diouf said.
FAO recommends a case-by-case evaluation that considers the potential benefits and risks of individual transgenic crops.
The report says that, while some benefits have been observed, adverse environmental effects have not been detected in commercial production. Continued monitoring is needed, FAO stressed.
The report stresses the need for science-based biosafety assessments.
"Where crops have not been cleared through biosafety risk assessments, a greater risk of harmful environmental consequences exists. Unauthorized varieties may not provide farmers with the expected level of pest control, leading to continued need for chemical pesticides and a greater risk of the development of pest resistance."
Furthermore, neither private companies nor public research institutes can be expected to develop transgenic crops for poor producers in countries that lack reliable, transparent regulatory procedures.
The FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission has agreed on principles and guidelines for assessing health risks related to foods derived from modern biotechnology.
Members of the International Plant Protection Convention are developing guidelines for pest-risk analysis for living modified organisms. These agreements can help harmonize regulatory procedures globally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Erwin Northoff Information Officer, FAO erwin.northoff@fao.org (+39) 06 570 53105
source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/41714/print_friendly_version.html 18may04
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |
