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
