GE crops have therefore not addressed the main agricultural problems and challenges facing farmers in most countries, neither have they proven to be superior to conventional crops (FOEI, 2007). It remains to be seen if large-scale production and trade of commodity GE crops has positively affected overall food security, although the opposite has been argued for some countries.
For example, in Argentina, one of the main exporters of GE soybean, adverse impacts have been observed, including the loss of food diversity and food sovereignty (Pengue, 2005) The export-oriented, commodity-production system is most likely to drive smaller farmers that are not able to face uneven competition out of business. Thousands of small- and medium-scale farmers in Argentina have been forced out of the production system, due to the expansion of GE soybean (Pengue, 2005). This phenomenon is not new or unique to Argentina. In many developing countries, due to historical and colonial inequalities, rural food-producing societies have been pushed off the best land most suitable for farming, into marginal areas (Rosset, 2005). The best lands were converted to production for export and this trend has continued post-independence. Land is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, leaving the rural areas in many developing countries today characterized by extreme inequities in access to land, security of tenure and quality of land farmed.
The marginalization of the majority then leads to narrow and shallow domestic markets, leading land-owning elites to orient their production to export markets where consumers have purchasing power. In an ever-vicious cycle, elites become less interested in the well-being or purchasing power of the poor at home. By keeping wages and living standards low, this preempts the emergence of healthy domestic markets and thereby reinforces export orientation (Rosset, 2005).
The increased focus on agricultural export commodities, particularly GE crops, influences the type of AKST that is generated. The potential implications of technologies for agro-ecological stability and for sustainability and equita-bility have fundamental consequences for the planning of future agricultural research strategies (Bruinsma, 2003). Reluctance to challenge the belief that GE crops can benefit the small farmer and relieve world hunger has led to massive investments in GE technology to the neglect of other more promising but less glamorous approaches (Jordan, 2002). This has led to a disproportionate focus on GE research and investment into those technologies.
Already, in the last decade, national government and international donor support for agricultural research has declined significantly. While more and more funds go into biotechnology research, including GE, other key areas into agricultural alternatives, such as organic research, attracts only a fraction of investment compared to conventional and biotechnological approaches (Parrott and Marsden, 2002). Research in ecology and natural resource management, as well as socioeconomics, are trailing behind (Bruinsma, 2003).
Furthermore, a number of recent World Bank loans are facilitating the introduction of GE crops in Southern borrower countries (Ishii-Eiteman, 2002; Karel, 2004). Through these loans, the Bank is financing the research, development, |
|
field-testing and mass release of newly created transgenic crops (World Bank, 2002). Other Bank loans with implications for developing country uptake of GE technology have focused on introducing or revising IPR laws around genetic resources and/or have included research contracts or grants in support of biotechnology (World Bank, 1999ab; Karel, 2004).
While some analysts argue that all this means that more efforts should be made to redirect research focus towards public sector agricultural biotechnology research, including on genetic engineering (e.g., FAO, 2004a), others call for a reassessment of research priorities, so that more resources and research are directed towards alternative and proven approaches, that could better meet the needs of the poor, such as sustainable or organic agriculture, or agroecology (e.g., Jordan, 2002; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Rosset, 2005).
In addition, a particular situation has developed with respect to research on GE crops. While there has been a large research focus on GE technology advances such as developing GE crops that may bring benefit, there has been rather less focus on biosafety research, i.e., looking at the health, environmental and socioeconomic risks. This is important, as in determining research priorities, it is critical to understand how new technologies, including GE, affect and influence the lives and livelihoods of the poor (Bruinsma, 2003). While the potential benefits need to be considered, so do the potential risks.
It is clear that any introduction of GE crops must assess not just potential health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, particularly in the longer-term, but must also take into account structural, regulatory and economic evaluations that relate economic, political, social and scientific context of GE crops to their region of adoption.
3.4.5 Technology choice for sustainable agriculture: a pro-peasant research agenda
The increasing shift to private sector-driven, GE technology research and knowledge generation privileges farmers that can take advantage of GE crops and these are unlikely to be small or poor farmers in developing countries. Would GE crops be able to increase crop production and, at the same time repel pests, resist herbicides and confer adaptation to stressful factors commonly faced by small farmers? Thermodynamic considerations suggest that they cannot (Jordon, 2002).
Traits important to indigenous and small farmers (such as resistance to drought, suitable quality for food or fodder, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, compatibility with household labor conditions and more advantageous maturity, storage quality, taste or cooking properties, etc.) could be traded for transgenic qualities that may not be important to farmers (Altieri, 2003). Under this scenario, risk will increase and farmers may lose their ability to adapt to changing biophysical environments and to produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs, while supporting food security.
A pro-peasant research agenda comprises the following elements: creation of safeguards against homogenization and in situ conservation and rural development in GMO-free centers of origin (Altieri, 2003). The maintenance of pools of genetically diverse material, geographically iso- |