By John Vidal and John Aglionby
GuardianJuly 11, 2001
The United Nations Development Programme says that many developing countries may reap great benefits from genetically modified foodstuffs, that the technology can significantly reduce the malnutrition which affects 800m people, and that it will be especially valuable to poor farmers working marginal land in sub-Saharan Africa.
The report is one of the agency's most provocative, and grassroots groups, development charities and environmentalists in more than 50 countries described it as "simplistic", "pandering to the GM industry" and "failing to take into account the views of the poor".
Published yesterday, it says there is an urgent need to develop "modern" varieties of millet, sorghum and cassava, the staple foods of millions in developing countries. But it says that commercial research mostly caters for the needs of high earners, and it urges greater public investment in GM research and development to ensure that it meets the needs of the poor.
Mark Malloch Brown, the agency's administrator, said recently developed new varieties of rice had 50% higher yields, matured 30-50 days earlier, were substantially richer in protein, and were far more disease and drought resistant. "They will be especially useful because they can be grown without fertiliser or herbicides, which many poor farmers cannot afford," he said.
The report said GM risks could be managed, but most developing countries would need help doing so. Biotechnology and food safety problems were often the result of poor policies and inadequate regulations, it said.
Oxfam, Greenpeace International, Actionaid, the Intermediate Technology Development Group and more than 290 grassroots groups around the world objected strongly to the report's conclusions. "It diverts attention from other technologies and farming practices that could also raise productivity," Kevin Watkins, policy director of Oxfam, said. "It ignores the fact that most hungry people live in countries with food surpluses rather than deficits, and overlooks the fact that companies like Du Pont and Monsanto have sought to discover transgenic manipulations designed solely to enhance the value of their own patents."
"Complex problems of hunger and agricultural development will not be solved by technological silver bullets," Von Hernandez of Greenpeace South-east Asia said. "The real crisis is the neglect of research and investment in the development of sustainable and ecological agriculture technologies. The UNDP has reduced its support for traditional agriculture and is now insisting on GM crops as a means of 'helping humanity'."
Robert Vint of Genetic Food Alert, speaking on behalf of 290 groups in 54 developing countries which disagree with the report and do not want to see GM crops in their countries, said: "It contains frightening echoes of recent biotechnology industry propaganda."
Klaus Leisinger of the Novartis Foundation, which was set up by the GM company Novartis, described Greenpeace as "Luddites" and urged reliance on "good science". "Let's support public research and not prevent field trials," he said. "The myths have tricked down. This is an ideology with people on both sides trying to prove their case."
The main author of the report, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, defended her work. "I think the first-world environmentalists should put on the shoes of a farmer in Mali faced with crop failures every other year and think what technological development could do for his harvest," she said.
Meanwhile in Bangkok the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, told an international biotech meeting organised by the British government and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that the world would eventually support GM crop production because it was "widely agreed that it has tremendous benefits".
The meeting was boycotted by many grassroots groups, and Mr Prescott's views were not shared by the Thai deputy prime minister, Suwit Khunkitti, who said Thailand would not embrace agricultural biotechnology until it was scientifically proved that it could benefit all people. "I insist that Thailand stays neutral," he said. "Scientists must prove that genetically altered foods increase yields and are safe to humans and the environment in the long run."
Two hundred members of five organisations, grouped under the Thai People's Network against GMO, demonstrated outside the venue and distributed GM food.
Seeds of conflict
GM crops are being grown in 13 countries and tested or developed in dozens more
FOR:
They could significantly increase yields and raise incomes, lifting people out of poverty and providing food security
Health benefits, such as extra vitamins, can be engineered in
They could help farmers cultivate marginal land prone to drought or salt
They could help the environment by reducing the need for herbicides and pesticides
They benefit corporations and western shareholders
AGAINST
May be unsuitable for poor farmers who could become locked into a technology they cannot control
Expensive: could force farmers into debt and prevent them saving seed
Land reform, manure and traditional breeding techniques could deliver more benefits
Many claims are exaggerated or unproved. Reduced use of chemicals is debatable
More Information on the Environment
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
