The Green, gene revolution: old farming practices die hard in Third World

Catholic New Times, Feb 29, 2004 by Kevin Spurgaitis

During the Green Revolution of the 1970s, food production finally outstripped the world's population growth. Today, there should be enough food to provide everyone, every day, with two and a half pounds of grain, beans and nuts; a pound of fruits and vegetables; and nearly a pound of meat, milk and eggs. Yet more than 800 million people still go hungry daily.

Multinationals hail genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) as the panacea to world hunger. They often prescribe monocultures--the cultivation of a single, cash crop. Wheat, maize and rice, which supply more than half of the world's food, are now widely genetically engineered and patented--swallowed by biotech multinationals. U.S.-based Monsanto and Dupont, Syngenta (Switzerland) and BASF (Germany), own 30 per cent of all seed grown in the world and 80 per cent of all patented seeds in this so-called 'gene revolution.'

However, a single, biotech product may be virtually irrelevant in the Third World, according to independent research by civil society organizations. In response to the Vatican's pro-stance on genetically altered crops, the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace published a paper entitled, GMOs and Biopatents. It reads: "To put a patent on a living organism that represents thousands of years of collective heritage is stealing from the communities who should benefit from the bio-diversity represented by this genetic heritage."

The notion that GM technology will increase yields is a myth, according to D & P. Yields from GM soybeans are reportedly no higher than those from high-yield conventional varieties. In one study, Monsanto's GM soya had 6 per cent lower yields than non-GM soya and 11 per cent less than high-yielding non-GM soya.

They argue there are better ways to improve poor farmers' yields, without expensive foreign technologies. Most GM technology is aimed at high-tech farming, rather than the low-tech traditional methods used by small scale farmers. GM crops require more expensive chemical herbicides and insecticides, usually produced by the same company. It increases the profits for the biotech industry, rather than making life easier for the developing world farmer, D & P says.

In addition, critics maintain GM goods were trumpeted before their biosafety implications were fully understood. The result--the forced reorientation of agriculture and the loss of knowledge of how to grow crops without pesticides, according to Dr. Vandana Shiva, a physicist, ecologist and founder of Navdanya, a movement for biodiversity conservation and farmers' rights in India. The environmental leader has written many books, including Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge, and Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. In an essay entitled, Towards A People-Centred Fair Trade Agreement On Agriculture, Shiva writes that the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, drafted by global agribusiness, is "designed to invade domestic markets by dismantling rural livelihoods and food security, and removing all safeguards preventing dumping of artificially cheap agricultural products on Third World markets, backed by subsidies of $400 billion ... The WTO is blocking the sustainable agriculture and food security objectives, and is in violation of national constitutions under which agriculture is a sub-national subject."

According to Shiva, Indian peasants' incomes have been reduced by more than $26 billion in this system. Farmers have reportedly sold off organs to pay off moneylenders. And more than 25,000 peasants have committed suicide by drinking the very pesticides that placed them in debt.

"Monsanto's herbicides are called 'Round up,' 'Machete,' 'Lasso.' American Home Products, which merged with Monsanto, calls its herbicides 'Pentagon,' 'Prowl,' 'Scepter,' 'Squadron,' 'Cadre,' "Lightening,' 'Assert' and 'Avenge.' This is the language of war, not sustainability, which is based on peace with the earth."

Monsanto claims its biotechnology increases "the quality, reliability and productivity of plant crops, by protecting them from yield-reducing pests and weeds." On its corporate web site, Monsanto also argues its herbicide-tolerant crops free millions of people up to pursue other activities. Its products are deemed a "perfect fit with the vision of sustainable agriculture and environmental protection."

Dr. Margaret Somerville, professor of medicine at McGill University, argues: "It's not that we cannot use technology, we can use it to do a lot of good. But we have to start from the presumption that we shouldn't interfere (with nature) and only do so if we can show that we're justified."

Somerville, who is active in the worldwide development of bioethics, has authored several books, including The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Profits are not evil, she maintains, but they are not a strong enough justification for biopatenting and monocultures.

"I don't think it's inherently wrong to redesign a crop, but it could be ethically wrong if the harms and risks may outweigh the goods. We can't expect to have radical, social or economic change overnight, but we can certainly do more than we're doing."