Is biotechnology benefitting farmers in developing countries?

By Srinivas Mylavarapu

Photo source: http://planetsave.com

Authors Miguel Altieri and Peter Rosset make the claim that biotechnology crops are not helping developing world to reduce hunger and poverty. Rossett an expert on world hunger and trade issue cites data that the world produces enough food to feed everyone but poor people don't have money to purchase food. He urges that governments in developing countries should reform food supply without adopting biotech, this can be done by encouraging local farming.



Biotechnology varieties of corn, soybean and cotton have been in use since 1996 allowing farmers to pick traits for problem on the field like herbicide tolerance or pest resistance. The authors urge that the cost-benefit equation of biotechnology only makes sense for farmers in the developing countries. To recover costs of growing GM crops farmers have to purchase expensive and proprietary chemicals. The propriety is further extended by the control on the seeds themselves in the form of intellectual property. The farmer is not allowed to store, share and reproduce seeds as needed thus stripping the natural rights of a farmer.

Regarding yield improvements, the author cites USDA studies that suggest no difference between conventional crops and biotech. Sometimes, even if the yields were better the cost of chemicals to achieve improvements are not worth it. This type of dependence only allow farmers to adopt a single crop to achieve maximum economies of scale  to remain competitive in the global marketplace.


Research cited by the authors suggestes that GM food contains proteins and new genetic information that can act as toxins or allergens, alter the metabolism of the plant or animal, and reduce nutrition. Risks are not adequately regulated and there isn't enough testing by regulatory agencies in the U.S and rest of the world to prove that GM foods are safe to consume.

Due to the widespread use of pesticides insects are giving rise to "super bugs" that most insecticides are unable to target. This described as the one gene/one pest method, where one alteration in the DNA of the plant can resist one target pest.  The authors urge that deploying of GM crops on a  large scale can result in loss of biodiversity in both soil and plants.

Regarding the economics of GM crops the authors say that pushing poor farmers into "a chemical dependence" will create further economic pressure due to the nature of agricultural markets. The author asks organizations like the CGIAR to look at smaller scale agridiversity programs that have greated benefited rural farmers in Mexico and Africa. To improve yields with conventional crops farmers need better ecological services like natural pest management, water restoration, conservation of soil and seed. Looking beyond yield improvement, empowering farmers with agro-ecological techniques will result in food security at all levels of the food supply, without the use of extra chemicals and expensive GM seeds.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Ten Reasons Why Biotechonology Will Not Ensure Food Security, Protect the Environment, and Reduce Poverty in the Developing World. Writing Arguments: a Rhetoric with Readings. 8th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010. 608-15. Print.

Would Genetic Engineering be Beneficial?

By Annaliza Alarcon

Photo source: http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn_new.html

According to Coleman from the article, "Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?," many oppose biotech foods and genetic pollution but there are still some people who see biotechnology as a miracle. In regards to world hunger, the Catholic Church is paying close attention to science developments that influences humanity. Many people have been eating genetically modified foods for decades without any health effects. Crops such as soybeans, corn, cotton and some ingredients from processed foods have been genetically modified. Biotechnology agriculture helps the environment by reducing the use of pesticides and making land reusable for farmers. Critics argue that hunger is due to lack of education, poverty and distribution of land. To them, genetic engineering is not the answer to this problem. On the other hand, the Roman conference believe that this development in science can be useful and nonharmful to the society.

Source: Coleman, Gerald D. "Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?" In J.D. Ramage, J.C. Bean, & J. Johnson, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings (pp. 619-621). New York: Pearson Higher Ed.

Food Industry Should Modify Its Stance on Altered Food

By Jatin Prasad

Photo source: http://www.sott.net

Harrop's viewpoint on biotech crops is like many consumers in the United States. She argues that consumers should have a choice when it comes to GM food. Harrop says that companies like Monsanto are selling to the farmer and not listening to the best interests of consumers. The author says that the long-term health and environmental impact of GM crops is unknown and consumers should have a way out of GM food.

Harrop also discusses a legislation that was on the ballot in Oregon; during the campaign the anti-labeling side, funded by companies Monsanto and Tyson Foods, outspent the pro-labeling side 25 to 1. Biotechonlogy companies' insiders working on the science review boards and conflict of interests between the Bush Administration and biotechnology industry are also cited as reasons behind the quick and regulation free adoption of GM crops in the United States.


Source: Harrop, Froma. "Food Industry Should Modify Its Stance on Altered Food." In J.D. Ramage, J.C. Bean, & J. Johnson, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings (pp. 617-618). New York: Pearson Higher Ed.

Are consumers' views being heard on the issue of GM crops.

By Annaliza Alarcon

Photo source: http://biotechnologyjob.info

According to Gregory A. Jaffe, the people behind biotechnology argue that G.M.O crops reduces soil erosion, water pollution and the use of toxic pesticides. Yet, activists and farmers who are against biotechnology require labeling of foods to avoid engineered ingredients and the risks they might encounter. Regarding Food and Drug Administration regulation Jaffe says the system needs to be altered to give consumers more safety. Instead of companies submitting safety data to regulators the regulators should test products to make sure they are safe. In order to better regulate and ensure the safety of engineered products, Jaffe proposed that officials conduct thorough environmental reviews on the chemicals used in the process of applications of biotechnology. The environmental impact with using too much pesticide and the rise of insecticide resistant pests cannot be ignored.

Source: Jaffe, Gregory A. "Lessen the Fear of Genetically Engineered Crops." In J.D. Ramage, J.C. Bean, & J. Johnson, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings (pp. 615-616). New York: Pearson Higher Ed.

Conclusion

In this document, we looked at different viewpoints on the issue of biotechnology crops. Most of the authors agree that biotechonology crops have potential when targeted to specific situations. Experts in the biotechnology field have invested a lot of time and money developing biotech varities of crops. But, farmers and consumers are a big part of the overall adoption of biotech around the world.

Biotechnology does have its issues as highlighted by Peter Rosset and Miguel Altieri who say that use of GM crops has not benfited poor farmers. Countries that recognize the risk the environment and human health have not accepted biotech and some poor countries are rejected food aid that consists of GM food. Regulations in European Union have slowed down the adoption of GM crops with countries choosing only certain traits to plant. To really take advantage of biotechnology efforts should target the fundamental problems of not having food in the first place.

Consumers are looking for alternatives from biotech food and the recent rise in organic food trends is an indication of that. Labeling is a key issue in biotech with consumers identifying the true risks of biotech crops. Froma Harrop's article also cites a ABC News Poll that showed a large amount of consumers want food to be labelled. Health conscious consumers already have nutrition lables and designating GM or non-GM can be a routine process. The final product that reaches the consumer will signal acceptance of GM foods and food producers will be actively purusing healthier ingredients.