Meanwhile, demand for pesticide-free, organic and fair-trade produce in export markets is growing and has created new markets for Southern producers (IFOAM, 2003), al­though farmers must negotiate complex and costly certifi­cation processes. Burgeoning consumer interest in "green" and "pesticide-free" products, particularly in countries with growing middle class populations (e.g., Thailand, China, In­dia), has supported the emergence of new domestic markets that encourage transition towards IPM.
     IPM has met with significant success in rice producing Asian nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, China, India and Sri Lanka (Pretty, 1995, 2001). Millions of farmers have reduced pesticide use through IPM, without experiencing reduced yields (Heong and Escalada, 1998; Mangan and Mangan, 1998; Barzman and Desilles, 2002). Yield advan­tages of IPM have been particularly strong in the South and thus have significant policy implications for food security in developing countries.
     Some actors have questioned the ability of pesticide-free IPM methods—and sustainable and organic agricul­ture more generally—to produce adequate quantities of food. However, a growing body of literature demonstrates the high productivity of both organic and low-external in­put systems, particularly when the production of multiple outputs is calculated (Pretty, 2000; Pretty and Hine, 2000; FAO, 2002a; Parrot and Marsden, 2002).
     The community-wide economic, health and environ­mental benefits of IPM have been widely documented. IPM Farmer Field Schools, in particular, have led to improved farm profitability and yields; significant reductions in pes­ticide  use;  improved  occupational health,  reductions in medical costs and lost working time caused by pesticide poisonings; reduced environmental harm; positive social im­pacts at the individual farmer and community level; better returns on government investments in extension and longer-term advances in food security (ter Weel and van der Wulp, 1999; Mancini, 2006; van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007).
     It is clear that IPM is an example of AKST that not only provides an alternative to harmful pesticides, but that also brings benefits in its own right. The challenge is to main­stream its adoption, while providing the necessary policy support. A growing number of bilateral donor agencies are investing in ecological IPM strategies. The Global IPM Facility, FAO and EU have provided considerable techni­cal and policy assistance to countries seeking to develop national IPM programs and to establish favorable policy environments.

3.4.4     Genetic engineering
Genetic  engineering,   also   called  modern   biotechnology or genetic modification, is a departure from conventional breeding, involving the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another, often unrelated, species. This results in a transgenic organism containing new genes or novel com­binations of genes.
     The introduction of genetically engineered (GE) crops (biotech crops, genetically modified crops or transgenic crops) has been accompanied by controversy over the role of genetic engineering in addressing agricultural problems in both developing and developed countries. Advocates cite

potential yield increases and reductions in pesticide applica­tions, among other factors. Critics point to environmental and health risks and widening socioeconomic disparities as significant drawbacks.
     Although GE technologies have the potential to affect both traded and non-traded products, most applications to date have involved highly traded agricultural commodities (Diaz-Bonilla and Robinson, 2001). Agricultural commodi­ties such as soybean, maize and canola, for the purposes of food, feed or processing use, are the major genetically modified  organisms   (GMOs)   that   are  currently  traded internationally.
     In addition, two GE traits, herbicide tolerance and in­sect resistance, have thus far dominated the market. In 2006, herbicide tolerant crops accounted for 68% of the global GE crop area, insect resistant (Bt) crops, 19% and stacked genes for the two traits, 13% (James, 2007). Almost four out of every five hectares of GE crops are engineered to withstand the application of proprietary herbicides sold by the same company that markets the GE seed and thus have little, if any, relevance to farmers in developing countries who often cannot afford to buy these chemicals (FOEI, 2007).
     The major exporters of GE crops and their products are the US, Argentina and Canada, with Brazil recently join­ing the ranks. Analyses show that in 1961/1963 develop­ing countries as a whole had an overall agricultural trade surplus of US$6.7 billion, but that this has gradually disap­peared so that by the end of the 1990s trade was broadly in balance. The outlook to 2030 suggests that the agricultural trade deficit of developing countries will widen markedly, reaching an overall net import level of US$31 billion (Bruin-sma, 2003). Given the current limited distribution and traits of GE crops, it is likely that the major GE crops importers will continue to be developing countries, with the excep­tion of a few large agricultural developing country export­ers. Furthermore, the cautious stance of the European Union towards GMOs and the overwhelming public opposition there, has led to the domestic market in the EU being largely GE-free, or at the very least, only allowing GMO products that are clearly labeled for consumer choice. This restricts the export market for GE crops.
     The changing focus to trade in agricultural commodi­ties and export-oriented agriculture may have serious rami­fications for developing countries. As farmers and peasants directly link to the international market, economic forces increasingly influence the mode of production characterized by genetically uniform crops and mechanized and/or agro-chemical packages (Altieri, 2003). This situation is expected to be aggravated by genetic engineering, whose development and commercialization is increasingly concentrated in a few corporations, accompanied by the increased withdrawal of the public sector as the major provider of research and ex­tension services to rural communities.
     Even if the rural poor benefit from GE crops, because GE crops are mainly traded cash crops, this benefit would be likely reduced. Technological crop improvements tend to lower the market price and therefore the value of the farmer's marketable surplus (Santaniello, 2003). Moreover, the great majority of GE crops cultivated today are used as high-priced animal feed to supply rich nations with meat.