Climate change together with growing world population and change in land use put a serious threat on the availability of water resources. Affected by temperature and changes in precipitation, many regions will experience disproportionate changes in water supply.
Taken from the IPCC Synthesis Report 2007, the graphic above shows "Large-scale relative changes in annual runoff (water availability, in percent) for the period 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999".
The limited extension of cultivable land and the climate scientists' prediction of increasing water shortages has set the stage for the agricultural biotechnology corporations to put a claim that they have the solution for the looming food crisis.
On the 21 of Nov. 2009 the Economist issued a briefing on Monsanto in its "How to feed the world" highlight, which claimed to present a debate on whether the company is a corporate sinner or a saint. The firm's boss Hugh Grant (Scottish-born business manager, not the actor) goes as far as saying "without the sort of technological breakthroughs Monsanto has achieved the world has no chance of doubling agricultural output by 2050...".
The article does not present any arguments that would suggest why Monsanto would be a sinner at all. It is one-sided advertisement of the newspaper's own corporate agenda. In the previous issue (14. Nov 2009) the Economist features an ad of drought-resistant seeds from Syngenta AG, another biotech self-acclaimed savior of the world agriculture. A fundamental question needs to be considered - what is the judgement capacity and objectivity of a newspaper that promotes the case of its sponsors without the slightest attempt of bringing up a single critical argument?
But why would't we look up to the biotech industry to deliver us solutions for the food and climate crisis? It sounds all perfect, the industry is developing genetically modified seeds that will help us grow more food from the same amount of land with the decreasing supply of water. Just like Syngenta's promotional video on water efficiency tells us.
Let's see why not?
Genetically modified crops have never proved their efficacy for any of features they are advertised for. Human health and safety issues, social equity concerns, threat on biodiversity as well as invasion and control of the scientific field are only a number of the issues that we need to be aware of.
The intergovernmental organization IAASTD, which is similar in structure to the IPCC, released a synthesis report agreed upon in April 2008, which examines the topics of bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human health, natural resource management, trade and markets, etc. The three main issues of concern on the use of GM crops refer to:
- persisting doubts about the efficacy and safety tasting of GMOs,
- suitability of GMO to address the needs of most farmers, while not harming others,
- lacking capacity of the modern biotechnology to contribute to the resilience of agricultural systems.
Variable findings and unreliable evidence has been presented for the sustainability and productivity of GMOs. Some regions report increased, other decreased crop yields. Then although GMOs are often advertised as plants that need less pesticides, increased use in herbicides has been reported. The IPR (intellectual property rights) framework has created uneven access in developing countries, imposing prohibitive costs on farmers and damaging the local agricultural practices. Other negative impacts of GMOs include decreased biodiversity and access to traditional foods.
"As tools, the technologies in and of themselves cannot achieve sustainability and development goals". Distribution and adaptation to local conditions need to be considered and it has become obvious that the poor tend to receive more of the costs than the benefits. Moreover human health is threatened by GMOs, which were actually made for animal feed or for some pharmaceutical purpose, but end up in the human food supply chain. To sum up: "The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure."
Patenting life
The power of patent law over farmers' rights becomes obvious in the case of Percy Schmeiser from Canada, presented in "The Future of Food" documentary. Monsanto has made an example of big farmers around North America taking them to court for infringing on their patents. The ultimate aim was to make the farmers so afraid of being prosecuted that they would not save their own seeds. In the case of Percy Schmeiser, some plants were found at the end of his field, which had the features of the company's RoundUp Ready seed, obviously resulting from cross-pollination and not from the farmer intentionally planting the genetically modified seed (because Percy Schmeiser never used the RoundUp pesticide on his property). The herbicide resistant GMO plants according to patent law belong to the company. And that along 11.000 other seeds that Monsanto has patented in order to establish a monopoly control over the seed and nutrition market. The development of a "terminator gene" that commits a suicide after yielding one harvest guarantees that the agricultural system will become completely dependent on the seeds sold by the company.
Genetically modified plants crowd out other seed varieties and pose an eminent threat on biodiversity. Rich genetic material, which contain valuable information, is to be extinct because of GM-contamination through cross-pollination. And there is a serious prospect for the intellectual and scientific field to remain objective. There is no institution that can counter-fund the millions of research and university grants that the GMO-producing companies are making. If anybody dares to speak out, his/her scientific career is to be ruined. Just that happened to Arpad Puszai, who was suspended from the Rowett Institute in Scotland for discovering that rats fed with pesticide producing potatoes suffered serious damages in their immune systems, less-developed organs and increased potential for cancer.
In Conclusion...
I very much hope that my colleagues studying economics and politics or working in the field of environment and development will not be misled by the corporate advertising and will consider all issues at stake when debating on the climate change adaptation measures. Sustainable agriculture is based on local farming knowledge and breeding (part of traditional biotechnology), which can deliver useful knowledge on adapting to decreasing water availability. GM-technology should have never left the laboratory, not for decades to come.
Resources and Links:
(1) Clover, D. (2008) "Made by Monsanto: the Corporate Shaping of GM Crops as a Technology for the Poor"
STEPS Working Paper 11, Brighton: STEPS Centre
ESRC - Economic and Social Research Council
(2) IAASTD, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, (2008): "Agriculture at a crossroads"
(3) IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007): "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report"
(4) Murray, D. L., and P.L. Taylor (2000): “Claim No Easy Victories: Evaluating the Pesticide Industry’s Global Safe Use Campaign,”
World Development Vol. 28, No. 10. (The Multi-Disciplinary International Journal Devoted to the Study and Promotion of World Development)
Posts
hej w , i just started reading up on the subject, however little i know, reading the economist article makes me feel like the whole philosophy behind this project basically is "look with the right technology we dont even have to be sustainable, folks with this you can just keep consuming as much as ever", which obviously might not be the best attitude to deal with sustainability issues. bottomline: these guys seem to be out for fixing the wrong problem i.e increasing efficiency instead of changing underlying mentalities responsible for the mess in the first place.
ReplyDeletes
Guten Abend,
ReplyDeleteWhat you write about the economist is ridiculas. Sometimes I think it is a very informative magazine but your example makes me doubt that. The two examples you cite of Percy Schmeiser and Árpád Pusztai are both at least five years old so I suggest you check out if anything has changed since. If you check out the following organisations they will know:
http://www.aseed.net/
http://viacampesina.org/main_en/
http://www.vandanashiva.org/
The biggest question for me is where these companies get all of their money in the first place. They seems to be very well resouced to carry out research and then to undertake marketing which makes them world leaders in their field. Obviously lots of fund managers, pension funds, and general investors have decided to buy the stock to capitalisze these firms. And obviously the investors don´t give a rat´s ass about the economic, social or environmental impact of these products. Or else they are quite convinced by the marketing. Either way it is hard to compete against such well resourced companies.
Another thing though is that the companies involved are not breaking the law so should they really be the target? I would focus my attention on why they have so much money in the first place and why devoloping country governments, particularily India, have no problem allowing their products into their countries. After all if they are so powerful that they can convince governments, media and farmers to buy their products can they really be that bad? Can this ubiquotous position be compared to any other sector of the economy?
I have heard Vandana shiva say that a single hectare farmed intensivly is 7000 % more productive than large holdings. She would be talking about using all kinds of crop mixing e.g. permaculture. The thing is though that her organisation just can´t get information out about that model fast enough or else all other forces in the play - traditional farmers, governments, agri business, big farmers all have no interest in that model as it is so labour intensive... Would be good to hear more from her though... Maybe you did when she visited Berlin?
They are just some thoughts. The above mentioned three organisations should give you good pointers on where to go next with this.
Hopefully the whole thing is not just another proof that we live in the "Age of stupid"...
Just in reply to Sziri´s comment, I have not read the econimist article, but I imagine that they mention that the world´s population will grow by 2 billion in the next 40 years and those people have to be fed. Then you have the forces of increased demand for biofuels competing for land that had traditionally been used to produce food and also climate change reducing fresh water availability for irrigation. So there are definately real issues in agriculture to deal with. The question though is whether it is the Vandana Shiva or the GM solution or a combination that is best. You are absolutely right though the economist would not deal with the issue of resource scarcity and the impact of consumption on that...
Ciao,
3hugger
In 1968 "Science" Essay of Garrett Hardin:
ReplyDelete"A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality"