Genetically Modified Foods: Not So Black & White

PrintEmail

Genetic modification in our foods is an issue that is easy to get riled up about. But when it comes to genetically modified (GM) foods for development, a lot of smart people are taking a more reasoned view. This week, India announced a ban on genetically modified eggplant, foiling Monsanto's grab for that market and raising the issue, once again, of whether these foods are a boon or a bust for developing nations.
 
Experts from a variety of sectors believe that GM foods are going to lead the way to economic growth and prosperity in poor countries. Beyond designing crops that produce more food with less space, water and sunlight, engineers can design crops that supply vitamins deficient in the local diet, and crops that are resistant to climate change. However, scientists do not know the long-term effects of GM plants (or animals) on humans. At the same time, the effects of some of these crops on biodiversity have been discouraging. And there have been instances where GM crops have left already poor farmers empty-handed.
 
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) here in the Philippines "designs" rice breeds that are resilient to climatic events. One breed, called "scuba rice," has been introduced in India and Bangladesh. In an interview with CNN, Bill Gates describes how scuba rice can work to solve the problems of vulnerable farmers:
 
… [W]hen the rice gets flooded it will just wait until the flood goes away and then resume growth. .... And so it'll improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Now the other traits like drought resistance may not be as easy, but they're equally important and that's why we need to invest in that science.
 
According to a press release by IRRI, scuba rice was planted on a small farm in Rangpur district in northwestern Bangladesh, in November 2008.
 
“In the past, many of my plots became fallow because they were flooded too often,” says Mr. [Mostafa] Kamal [whose fields were planted with scuba rice from IRRI…], “If we can cultivate on these plots, it will help us produce rice to sell on the market. Two extra hectares is a big jump.”
 
So, how did the flood-tolerant varieties fare? Twenty-three days after the 8 July transplanting of the 2008 wet-season crop, the farm was hit by a 15-day flood. When the waters receded, Mr. Kamal witnessed a wonderful thing. In his [scuba rice] plots, 95–98% of the plants recovered. In the non-[scuba] plots, the figure was 10–12%. Many of his neighboring farmers, who were not involved in the trial, lost their entire crops. So encouraged was mr. Kamal, he planned to give away—not sell—a kilogram of flood-tolerant seeds to each of his neighbors.
 
When I saw Mostafa’s field flooded, and then saw it recover, I was surprised—it was like magic,” recalls Mr. Kamal’s neighbor, Mohammad Shahidul Islam. The annual flash floods mean that Mr. Islam grows rice on only the upper half of his 1.6-hectare farm in the wet season. Each year, he needs to buy 1 to 2 months’ worth of rice to cover his family’s shortfall. He believes that flood-tolerant varieties will allow him to plant on his low-lying 0.8 hectare and cover that shortage. “these varieties,” he says, “will mean more food, higher income, and a better livelihood.
 
I interviewed Philippine rice farmer, Sesinando Masajo, on the subject last year. Masajo, a Philippine rice farmer, takes a different view on GM crops. A graduate of the University of the Philippines, Los Banos, and a farmer for more than 50 years, he consistently earns more income than the farmers around him (many of whom he has bought out). But though he has grown some of IRRI's products, he doesn't credit genetic modifications for his success. According to Masajo, many GM companies require the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers, which Masajo swears off.
 
Instead, Masajo keeps things as natural as possible. Like his ancestors, he believes that healthy soil is the key to hearty rice. “i have grown more than 2500 crops of rice in my half century,” said Masajo. “If the french claim pride in Jacques Cousteau; if the Russians can claim astronauts that have lived for three months in space; i can claim more than 1000 years of experience growing rice.”
 
William Kramer is a corporate social responsibility expert and co-author of the book, The Next Four Billion. He told me in an interview last summer that the "new corporate social responsibility" would be the product of corporations tapping the expansive market of the poor, and improving their quality of life in the meantime. He cited Monsanto and Pioneer as leaders in this movement.
 
In the developed world, Europeans have been resistant to genetically modified food. French president Nicolas Sarkozy, in 2007, banned the farming of genetically modified crops. That same year, a French court fined Monsanto 15,000 euros for "misleading the public about the environmental impact of their herbicide called Roundup," according to an article from Inter Press Service. Canadians have also taken a stand against GM foods in their diets, in order to guard against the unknown health and environmental risks.
 
Americans have not. Nor has South Africa, though recent findings on the success of Monsanto's crops there is enough reason to question whether the Europeans and Canadians have the right idea.
 
In 2002, the activist group BioWatch filed suit against Monsanto in South Africa's highest court, demanding to see the files on Monsanto's GM crops. Lengthy proceedings and a number of court cases later, BioWatch just won a protracted case against the company. 
 
In South Africa 60 percent of corn crops are genetically modified. And according to Inter Press Service, three of Monsanto's GM crops failed earlier this year "affecting an area of over 82,000 hectares in three provinces. Some 280 out of 1,000 farmers who used those specific seeds found that there was no kernel development."
 
Monsanto compensated the farmers who suffered losses, and they were forced by the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa to change the wording of an advertisement stating that GM products have never caused any harm. But this experience bolsters arguments that there is a lack of understanding of the short- and long-term effects of GM crops.
 
Calestous Juma, professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University has written on this issue, coming down in favor of using biotechnology to reduce suffering. In 2007, after the Food and Drug Administration announced that meat from cloned animals was safe to eat, Juma wrote a controversial article for the BBC in which he argued for animal cloning. He said that "biotechnology could ensure the survival of rare cattle breeds that are well suited to cope with harsh conditions."
 
The needs of developing countries present new ethical issues, argues Juma, and they must have "access to techniques that will help them adapt their production system to changing ecologies and markets." If biotech foods can help them adapt, who are we in the developed world to deny them those resources?
 
My opinions lie somewhere in the middle. I believe that global food production systems need to undergo some sort of dramatic change by the middle of the century to feed the world's population. Biotech could hold a key to short-term poverty reduction and food security. And developing countries have a right to explore all options for growth.
 
I also know that no one has, or ever will account for every possible externality of major biological shifts like these. And since profit-seeking companies like Monsanto, Dow, and Pioneer seem to be driving the cart, I worry that profit motives prevent the kind of caution and exploration these shifts would require to do the least amount of harm. I worry about an imbalance of power. I worry that developing countries are pressured to accept these kinds of innovations from Western scientists and companies without reasoned exploration of their long-term impacts. But then, I would be equally worried if developing countries were prevented from accepting biotech foods on the whims of developed nations.
 
In that light, the news from India encourages me.
 
Looking for more information on global food production? Take a look at this post on the need to rethink our world's food production system.
 
(Photo credit: IRRI images; C.C. 2.0; Description: Rice being studied in the lab at the International Rice Research Institute)