UN Food Agency Highlights Promise of Biotech Crops

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, May 18, 2004 (ENS) - Genetically modified crops hold great promise for farmers in the developing world, but potential benefits remain only a dream because research and technology are focused on crops of little use to the world's poor, the United Nations food agency said on Monday.

Private industry continues to drive biotech research and remains concentrated on corn, soybeans, cotton and canola - crops that have large commercial markets in the developed world.

Genetically modified (GM) varieties of these four crops, grown in six nations - Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the United States - accounted for 99 percent of the global area planted with biotech crops in 2003.

The industry's focus on these large commercial markets "raises serious questions about the type of research that is being performed and the likelihood that the poor will benefit," the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said in its annual report "The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04."

Advocates of biotech crops have long espoused the view that genetically modified plants can help poor farmers overcome drought and poor soil quality to increase yields, decrease pesticide use and improve nutrition.

The FAO says biotechnology could help the world's poor if it is focused on the needs of farmers in the developing world such as these farmers in Peru. (Photo by A. Odoul courtesy FAO)

Agriculture will have to sustain an additional two billion people over the next 30 years from an increasingly fragile natural resource base. To accomplish this, the FAO estimates food production will have to increase 60 percent over today's yield.

Still, commercially available biotech crops are little use to the world's poor, the FAO says, and basic food crops of the poor - such as cassava, potato, rice and wheat - receive little attention by scientists.

There is no significant public or private investment in new genetic technologies for "the so-called 'orphan crops' such as cowpea, millet, sorghum and tef that are critical for the food supply and livelihoods of the world's poorest people," said FAO Director-General Dr. Jacques Diouf.

The investment gap is strking - the world's top 10 transnational bioscience corporations spend nearly $3 billion per year on agricultural biotechnology research and development.

Private biotech research in most developing countries is negligible. Brazil, China and India, which have the largest public agricultural research programs in developing countries, spend less than half a billion dollars each annually.

Governments and public institutions must provide investment and take additional steps to make biotech companies more interested in addressing the needs of the poor, the FAO said.

Other barriers inhibiting the use of biotech in the developing world include "inadequate regulatory procedures, complex intellectual property issues, poorly functioning markets and seed delivery systems, and weak domestic plant breeding capacity," according to Diouf.

Still, the FAO cautions that biotechnology is "not a panacea" for the problems that plague poor farmers and the world's hungry.

FAO Director-General Dr. Jacques Diouf. (Photo courtesy FAO)

But the promise is too great to ignore, the FAO says, in particular given the growing demands of an increasing population and the importance of agriculture to the poor, more than 70 percent of whom live in rural areas and depend on farming for survival.

Biotechnology should complement - not replace - conventional agricultural technologies, the report said.

The FAO reported that in the few developing countries where biotech crops have been introduced, small farmers have gained economically and the use of pesticides has been reduced.

In China, for example, more than four million small farmers are growing insect resistant cotton on about 30 percent of the country's total cotton area.

Yields for insect resistant cotton were about 20 percent higher than for conventional varieties and pesticide costs were around 70 percent lower.

But poor farmers can only benefit from biotechnology products if they "have access to them on profitable terms," the report said. "Thus far, these conditions are only being met in a handful of developing countries."

The FAO's support for biotechnology comes at a pivotal time in the debate over genetically modified crops. It is an emotional subject for many people, with issues of economics, public health, environmental protection, national sovereignty and world hunger all playing a role.

Genetically modified crops are increasing some 15 percent a year and now account for five percent of the world's crop area, according to the FAO.

And it is clearly the early days for an industry that is already beginning to modify crops for industrial and pharmaceutical purposes.

Public interest groups worry that the environmental and public health impacts of GM crops have not been fully analyzed. (Photo courtesy Monsanto)

U.S. and Canadian wheat farmers feared the introduction of the strain would undermine their European export markets. Australians worried that their canola would be rejected.

The EU has refused to grant import licenses for biotech food since October 1998 because many Europeans are worried about possible health and environmental risks, but it has just ended that moratorium and will this week announce its decision to allow imports of a Swiss made genetically modified corn.

Industry groups are encouraged by that decision and by the FAO's biotech endorsement.

"This report should quell the 'global war of rhetoric' and encourage a collaborative effort to redirect that energy into building strong infrastructure and harmonized regulatory policies to realize the promise of this technology," said Dr. Michael Phillips, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

That is unlikely. The European public remains wary of genetically altered foods, and environmentalists are bitterly opposed to biotech crops, in large part because many believe the public health and environmental impacts are poorly understood. Some critics argue it is not lack of biotechnology that fuels world hunger, rather it is unfair trade subsidies and poor food distribution.

FAO's report acknowledges that the scientific evidence concerning the environmental and health impacts of genetic engineering is still emerging.

"Scientists generally agree that the transgenic crops currently being grown and the foods derived from them are safe to eat, although little is known about their long term effects," said Diouf. "There is less scientific agreement on the environmental impacts of transgenic crops."

The FAO recommends that the legitimate concerns for the safety of each transgenic product must be addressed prior to its release and calls for careful monitoring of the post-release effects.