[asia-apec 1783] Think Tank Report Challenges U.N. on Genetic Engineering
Anuradha Mittal
amittal at foodfirst.org
Tue Jul 10 04:23:26 JST 2001
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
CONTACT: Nick Parker
(510) 654-4400 ext. 229
Think Tank Report Challenges U.N. on Genetic Engineering
FULL REPORT ON-LINE: "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third
World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging
Productivity?" by Dr. Peter Rosset
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html
OAKLAND, CA: Comments about genetically engineered (GE) crops expresses
in the just-released "Human Development Report 2001", the flagship
publication of the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), reveal a shocking
lack of understanding of the production problems that must be confronted
by poor farmers in marginal environments in the third world, according
to a crop science expert at a U.S.-based think tank.
The authors of the U.N. report urged rich countries to put aside their
fears of genetically modified organisms and help developing nations
unlock the potential of biotechnology. "Biotechnology offers the only or
the best 'tool of choice' for marginal ecological zones, left behind by
the green revolution but home to more than half the world's poorest
people," they said.
The reality of farming in these regions, however, is such that GE crops
are likely to do more harm than good, according to a report from a
leading food policy think tank, the Institute for Food and Development
Policy (Food First), based in in Oakland, California, USA.
In this report, "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World:
An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?,"
the Institute's co-director and author of the report, Dr. Peter Rosset,
argues the approach of genetic engineering, which is to produce single,
genetically uniform varieties, ignores the needs of farmers in complex
habitats for multiple varieties fine-tuned to local soil and climatic
conditions. "Genetically engineering is just not capable of producing
what poor farmers need," said Dr. Rosset, an agricultural scientist
himself. "Hands-on participatory plant breeding, where farmers
themselves take the lead, has been shown to be far more effective in
producing the crop varieties needed by poor farmers in marginal
environments. Furthermore," he added,"the risks associated with GE
crops are likely to impact poor farmers more than rich farmers."
According the Dr. Rosset's report, small and peasant farmers, despite
their disadvantaged position in society, are the primary producers of
staple foods, accounting for very high percentages of national
production in most third world countries.
Their agriculture is complex, diverse and risk prone. This is because
they have historically been displaced into marginal zones characterized
by broken terrain, slopes, irregular rainfall, little irrigation, and/or
low soil fertility; and because they are poor and are victimized by
pervasive anti-poor and anti-small farmer biases in national and global
economic policies.
In order to survive under such circumstances, and to improve their
standard of living, they must be able to tailor agricultural
technologies to their variable but unique circumstances, in terms of
local climate, topography, soils, biodiversity, cropping systems, market
insertion, resources, etc. ÝFor this reason such farmers have over
millennia evolved complex farming and livelihood systems which balance
risks -- of drought, of market failure, of pests, etc. -- with factors
such as labor needs versus availability, investment needed, nutritional
needs, seasonal variability, etc. Typically their cropping systems
involve multiple annual and perennial crops, animals, fodder, even fish,
and a variety of foraged wild products. Under such highly varied
circumstances, uniform varieties, such as those put forth under the
green revolution, or newer GE or ëtransgenicí crop varieties, are
unlikely to be widely adopted or found useful by many such farmers.
When GE crop varieties, carrying the Bt insecticide gene, for example,
are "forced" into such cropping systems, the risks are much greater than
in large, wealthy farmer systems, or farming systems in Northern
countries. For example, in the Third World there will typically be more
sexually compatible wild relatives of crops present, making pollen
transfer to weed populations of insecticidal properties, virus
resistance, and other genetically engineered traits more likely, with
possible food chain and super-weed consequences. Such farmers are
unlikely to plant refuges, making resistance evolution by insects more
likely. ÝHorizontal transfer of genetic material is also highly risky in
such circumstances. The associated risks of super-weeds, new crop
varieties, among others, are likely to put the poor in a more precarious
position.
Furthermore, the widespread crop failures reported for GE varieties
(i.e., stem splitting, boll drop, etc.) pose economic risks which can
affect poor farmers much more severely than wealthy farmers. If
consumers reject their products, economic risks are equally high. Also,
the high costs of GE crops introduce an anti-poor bias.
The risks seem to outweigh the potential benefits for such farmers,
especially when we consider the factors that currently limit their
ability to improve their livelihoods, and the proven agroecological,
participatory and empowering alternatives available to them.
It is not a lack of technology which holds such farmers back, but rather
pervasive injustices and inequities in access to resources, including
land, credit, market access, etc., and other anti-poor policy biases.
Two approaches make the most sense under such conditions: Ý1)
technologies which have pro-poor diseconomies of scale, like
agroecological or organic farming practices, and 2) building social
movements capable of exerting sufficient political pressure to reverse
policy biases. There is little useful role that genetic engineering can
play, the report concludes.
For more information on the report, please visit the link below. To talk
with Dr. Peter Rosset, please contact Nick Parker, (510) 654-4400, ext.
229.
FULL REPORT ON-LINE
"Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate
Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?"
by Dr. Peter Rosset
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html
###
Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst at foodfirst.org.
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe at igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: asia-apec at jca.ax.apc.org
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
More information about the Asia-apec
mailing list