The Green Revolution and Genetic Engineering

[Guest guest]

The Green Revolution and Genetic Engineering

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:30:02 GMT

 

 

The Green Revolution and Genetic Engineering

http://www.gmwatch.org

-----

 

 

 

Here are the comments of Friends of the Earth International on the UN's

Millennium Project Draft Global Plan of Action.

 

The comments criticize the Millennium Project papers, which are calling

for a new " African 21st Century Green Revolution " and the use of GM

crops as a key mechanism to erradicate hunger, poverty and malnutrition.

 

The final MP Global Plan of Action is expected to be completed by

December and will be presented officially next year.

 

EXCERPT: " Throughout the draft action plan, the 'need' for a green

revolution for Africa is constantly repeated, yet this is in

opposition to

key findings, such as the ones from the InterAcademy Council report

'Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture', published

in July 2004 and about which Kofi Annan made his recommendations. In

fact, the IAC report did not recommend a new Green Revolution, but what

it termed 'rainbow evolutions' - in other words, bottom up, location

and farming system specific developments, rather than a simple,

technology based approach applied uniformly across the continent, as

is implied

by the action plan. "

------

The Green Revolution and Genetic Engineering

 

Comments on the preliminary draft of the UN Millennium Projectís final

report: 'A Global Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals'

 

Friends of the Earth welcome the possibility to comment on the

preliminary draft of the UN Millennium Projectís final report: " A

Global Plan

to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals " . The following set of

comments will address particularly the goals number 1 of eradication of

extreme poverty and hunger in the context of the proposed new 'Green

Revolution' addressed in the draft report of the Global Plan of Action

(I).

We have also addressed the goals 4,5 and 6 of reducing child mortality,

improving maternal health and combat HIV/AIDs, malaria and other

diseases, in relation to the topic of Gene technology, addressed in the

recent draft report of the Task Force of Science and Technology of

October

3rd (II). The last set of comments is made taking into account that

this draft has not yet been reviewed by the Task Force Coordinators and

the final report has still to take into account the final work of the

taskforces.

 

I. A new 'revolution against hunger and poverty'

 

1. Introduction

 

The Global Plan of Action aims to translate the MDGs from aspiration to

reality, and is calling for increased investments in interventions

recommended in that report over the coming decade.

 

Friends of the Earth International strongly believes in the necessity

to urgently tackle the first MDG goal of eradication extreme poverty and

hunger, and the need for a renewed global effort to achieve this.

Nevertheless, Friends of the Earth is very concerned about the

instruments

that are recommended in the Plan of Action to achieve this goal, namely

the call for a new 'Green Revolution'.

 

The reports underlines in numerous occasions that to achieve this,

particularly in Africa 'the most important initial step in escaping from

rural poverty in most low-income countries is raising the productivity of

smallholder farmers through a package of rural interventions that

collectively lead to a 'green revolution'.

 

As your report states half of the hungry are smallholder farmers, and

in the case of Africa three-quarters of Africa's poor live in rural

areas. While Friends of the Earth believes that there is a need for

creating policies and strategies to support and improve the

livelihoods of

smallholder farmers, we strongly disagree with using a 'green

revolution',

as the key strategy to tackle rural poverty and hunger. A new

'revolution against hunger and poverty' is needed, not a new 'green

revolution'.

 

2. Will the Green Revolution model be the silver bullet to tackle rural

poverty and hunger?

 

Friends of the Earth agrees with the report's recognition that there is

no silver bullet for poverty alleviation, and that every country faces

distinct challenges and therefore requires distinct solutions.

Nevertheless, the Report in fact contradicts itself by overemphasising a

common-global approach to tackle rural poverty and hunger via a Green

Revolution. While Friends of the Earth believes in the urgency of

developing

concrete, solid and adequate strategies to tackle poverty and hunger, it

deeply disagrees in the approach taken in the Plan of Action of using

the dogma of the Green Revolution and ranking low agriculture

productivity as the key problem of rural poverty.

 

The report particularly focuses on Africa, and in numerous occasions

calls for an African 21st Century Green Revolution. It describes the

financing of a '21st Century African Green Revolution' as an absolutely

required element in an African strategy to overcome hunger and poverty.

This approach is based on the previous success of the Green Revolution,

particularly in Asia, and concludes that ìFood production could double

or even triple in Africa in a decade, if policy makers and donors invest

in a 21st Century African Green Revolutionî

 

Nevertheless the Green Revolution's narrow focus on increased food

production is not the 'silver bullet' to solve hunger, and this is

already

recognized by organizations like the World Bank, which in 1986 in a

study on world hunger and poverty concluded that a rapid increase in food

production will not necessarily provide food security. In addition, a

1999 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (part of

the World Bank) found that in 63 countries with malnutrition,

improvements in social factors - health, environment, women's

education & status

- accounted for nearly three-quarters of the reduction in malnutrition

since 1970.

 

Asia is a concrete example of this, where despite increases in food

production from the Green Revolution, hunger was not reduced; on the

contrary, in South Asia for example it was estimated that in 1990

there was

9 percent more food per person than in 1970, but there were also 9%

more hungry people. The draft report itself recognizes the limits of a

Green Revolution in the case of Southern Asia, where ìundernourishment

still remains a chronic problem for many parts of the population despite

the success of the Green Revolution in producing an overall food

surplusî. Overall, the United Nations estimates that in the early

1990s, 80%

of all malnourished children in the developing world lived in countries

with food surpluses. This further emphasizes the frequent disconnect

between national food production figures and the nutritional status of

a countryís population.

 

3. Omission of the negative impacts of the Green Revolution

 

The report completely omits to mention many of the negative impacts of

the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution paved the way for an

increased loss of biodiversity and genetic erosion, and it important

to note

that the loss of biodiversity also threatens food security, particularly

for the poor who depend on biological products for 85-90% of their

livelihood needs.

 

More than 7,000 plant species have been used by humankind since

agriculture began more than 10,000 years ago, according to the UN Food

and

Agriculture Organization. Yet it has been estimated that 75% of the

genetic diversity of cultivated plants has been lost since the

beginning of

the 20th century.

The intensive technologies of the Green Revolution have contributed to

the fast pave of biodiversity loss. This drastic reduction in

biodiversity has been accompanied by an expansion in intensive

agrochemical use,

which has contributed inter alia to soil degradation, contamination of

ground water. The Green Revolution model also transformed and destroyed

many local farming and local-knowledge systems based on the management

of the vast biodiversity present in our countries. The social

consequences have been significant since the dependence on chemical

inputs and

commercial seeds has brought millions of farmers to indebtedness,

landlessness and further impoverishment. In addition, farmers and farming

families have also been exposed to the hazards brought by chemical

pesticides to human health.

 

4. Endorsing an African New Green Revolution?

 

The UN Millennium Project recommends that the world community adopt a

Ten-Year Plan to achieve the MDGs. Action Point 25 in the draft action

plan states that it will ìendorse the recommendations of the

Secretary-General for a ì21st century green revolution in Africaî.

 

It is disturbing that the shorthand of an African Green Revolution is

constantly employed throughout the action plan in a manner that is

misleading and which also suggests an underlying agenda aimed at the

support

of high-input agriculture and unproven, extremely expensive

technologies, such as genetic modification.

 

Throughout the draft action plan, the ëneedí for a green revolution for

Africa is constantly repeated, yet this is in opposition to key

findings from the InterAcademy Council report ìRealizing the Promise and

Potential of African Agricultureî, published in July 2004 and about

which

Kofi Annan made his recommendations. In fact, the IAC report did not

recommend a new Green Revolution, but what it termed ìrainbow

evolutionsî ñ in other words, bottom up, location and farming system

specific

developments, rather than a simple, technology based approach applied

uniformly across the continent, as is implied by the action plan. The

IAC

report specifically states that:

 

" The transformation of smallholder diversified systems into more

specialized systems may not be expected to occur within one

generation; an

evolutionary increase in productivity for the majority of the farmers is

more likely, with many 'rainbow evolutions' across the many farming

systems rather than one green Revolution, as in Asia. This development

pathway can meet local food and income needs while fulfilling social and

cultural desires. In addition, diversified systems offer favourable

options for minimizing adverse environmental consequences " .

 

This is completely at odds with the underlying message of the action

plan, which appears to be that this new African Green Revolution should

simply be a reworking of the original, by the introduction of a

prescriptive list of new technologies and commercial agricultural

practice.

Not only this, but the draft action plan repeats in several places the

specious argument that the industrialization of agriculture and

urban/industrial development are linked, with one leading to the

latter, when in

fact there is no good historical evidence that this is the case.

 

Industrial agriculture uses expensive technologies, including unproven

genetic modification in some cases, and is characterized by large

scale, specialized production using simple rotations and high levels of

external inputs. However, the IAC report states that a transition to

such

specialized production will not occur within the time scale proposed

for the action plan (5 to 10 years). The short scale of the action plan

requires that it focus on approaches that will address the real

immediate needs of resource poor and food insecure farmers, rather

than on

agricultural issues that may not be relevant for another 25 years.

 

There is a large amount of evidence to show that a farmer-led approach,

utilising known and proven agricultural techniques and practices, can

transform the livelihoods of farmers, increase food security and reduce

malnutrition while also preserving the environment. An approach based

on sustainable technologies and participatory research, development

and extension may not be as ëhi-techí or exciting sounding for donors as

a new Green revolution, but it is proven, has been shown to work and

would ensure that aid was actually useful and relevant to the people it

is directed at.

 

For example, a survey of 208 separate projects in 52 countries,

covering almost 9 million farmers, found that improvements in food

production

can be achieved through the use of one, or a combination, of the

following techniques:

 

'i. intensification of a single component of farm system (with little

change to the rest of the farm) - such as home garden intensification

with vegetables and/or tree crops, vegetables on rice bunds, and

introduction of fish ponds or a dairy cow;

ii. addition of a new productive element to a farm system, such as fish

or shrimps in paddy rice, or agroforestry, which provides a boost to

total farm food production and/or income, but which do not necessarily

affect cereal productivity;

iii. better use of natural capital to increase total farm production,

especially water (by water harvesting and irrigation scheduling), and

land (by reclamation of degraded land), so leading to additional new

dryland crops and/or increased supply of additional water for irrigated

crops (so increasing cropping intensity);

iv. improvements in per hectare yields of staples through introduction

of new regenerative elements into farm systems (eg legumes, integrated

pest management);

v. improvements in per hectare yields through introduction of new and

locally-appropriate crop varieties and animal breeds.'

 

The authors state that, based on their survey of these projects,

 

'There is extensive evidence to indicate that sustainable agriculture

can lead to: i) substantial increases in per hectare cereal production,

typically up 50-100%, and in some projects rising to 200% increases;

ii) increases in diversity of systems - as cereal productivity increases,

so commonly farmers reduce the area under cereals and increase

diversity of alternative crops and animals, such as vegetables, fruit and

livestock.'

 

These kinds of yield increases are in the range required by the draft

action plan, and there is a secondary benefit in terms of increasing the

diversity of the diet. Crucially, such improvements can be achieved

using existing approaches, experience and technologies.

 

The report further highlights the need for participatory approaches,

rather than a prescriptive list of solutions, as is set out in the draft

action plan. Even in the case of proven, successful technologies these

could fail if they were not introduced through participation with

farmers. The authors of the survey noted that

 

'If " integrated " systems are entirely designed (or even imposed) by

external professionals with little regard to local people's needs,

desires

and constraints, then they are more likely to fail3. But if " redesign "

emerges from a participatory process, then it is much more likely to be

robust and sustainable.'

 

The IAC report notes that 'Most farming systems in Africa are based on

a multitude of crops, often in combination with animals.' Increasing

food productivity should incorporate increases in diversity of crop

production and take advantage of the existing diversity of agricultural

production in Africa, rather than seeking to erode it.

 

II. GM crops to contribute achieving the MDG?

 

1. Introduction

 

The Plan of Action also calls for the Secretary General to establish an

Office of Science and Technology, to support the integration of science

and technology advice in the implementation of the MDGs, and also calls

on the Secretary General to develop a future list of recommendations to

mobilize science for the poor.

 

In this context, Friends of the Earth would like to express its serious

concerns about the recent report from October 3rd of the Task Force on

Science, Technology and Innovation of the UN Milleniumm Project titled

'Forging ahead: Technological Innovation and the MDGs', where it is

suggested that GM technology can be used to address malnutrition and the

problems of resource poor farmers.

 

Friends of the Earth believes that such an approach would constitute a

costly diversion of funds into an unproven technology that would be

unlikely to produce any meaningful improvements within the timescale of

the plan, if at all.

 

This technology is completely unsuitable for the problems faced by

developing countries. To understand this, it is important to consider

the

decade-old history and current status of commercial GM crops, not just

the promises being made for potential future applications of this

technology. We would argue that the record of this technology to date

provides a much better indication of its potential value to developing

countries than early-stage research projects or mere proposals, the great

majority of which will never be realized.

 

2. Lessons learnt from a decade of GM crops

 

First, over 99% of commerical GM crop acreage worldwide is confined to

just four countries, three of them highly industrialized and

export-oriented: the U.S., Canada, Argentina and China. Secondly,

over 99% of

commercial GM crop acreage is comprised of just four crops used mainly

for animal feed (soybeans & corn), oil (canola) or fiber (cotton), not

for hungry or malnourished people. Finally, over 99% of commercial GM

crops feature just two traits (singly or in combination) -

herbicide-resistance and insect-resistance - designed for the needs of

developed

country farmers. In short, the history of GM crop cultivation clearly

demonstrates that this technology is best-suited to development of animal

feed, oilseed and fiber for farmers in developed countries that

practice a highly industrialized, export-oriented mode of agriculture.

This

excludes the great majority of farmers in the developing world.

 

Another characteristic feature of GM crops is suggested by the

predominance of the herbicide-resistance trait. Fully 83% of global

GM crop

acreage involves plants engineered for resistance to the respective

biotech companyís patented herbicide. Herbicide-resistant crops are

favored by large farmers in industrialized countries as a means to reduce

labor on weed control. Labor-saving, however, is not a high priority in

most developing countries, where the typically high rates of rural

unemployment or underemployment often make labor-saving a detriment

rather

than a boon. Even if desired, most developing country farmers would be

unable to afford the higher costs of the more expensive,

herbicide-resistant GM seeds and the patented herbicide without which

they are

pointless. With 5/6 of global GM crop acreage devoted to crops bearing a

trait (herbicide-resistance) with no relevance to the needs of farmers of

the South, it becomes extremely difficult to believe in biotech

industry rhetoric about ìfeeding the worldî or ìcuring malnutritionî as a

justification for this technology.

 

One might argue that experimental applications of plant biotechnology

will be relevant to farmers in developing countries in the future. Yet

any such argument must overcome a strong presumption against GM, given

the historical record of irrelevance described above. One approach

often used to evaluate the future of agricultural biotechnology is to

read

the press releases of the biotechnology companies, their trade groups

(e.g. the U.S.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization), or the U.S.

government agencies under their sway (e.g. the U.S. Agency for

International Development). Another, perhaps more objective, approach

is to

examine evidence rather than public relations. The best available

evidence does not come from experiments conducted in a laboratory,

because for

each gene or trait explored in the discovery stage, the odds are only

about 1 in 250 that it will make it to market. A better gauge of

future success is provided by those GM crops that have graduated from

laboratory to outdoor field trial. And since the United States is the

acknowledged leader in GM crop development, field testing of GM crops

in the

U.S. will provide the best indication of the future direction and

prospects of this technology.

 

As of September 14, 2004, 32% of the GM traits listed for GM crop field

trials currently underway in the U.S. involved resistance to

herbicides. In other words, one-third of the most likely future

applications of

GM technology involve resistance to patented weed-killers. In

contrast, just 1.52% of experimental GM traits being field-tested

involved

drought-tolerance, an application of GM technology highly-touted for

use in

developing countries. Just 0.48% (6 of 1252 GM traits) involved

production of pharmaceuticals or vaccines, another much-heralded use

of GM

plant technology in the context of developing countries. Only 0.24% of

GM traits presently being field-tested in the U.S. involved

salt-tolerance (3 of 1252), possibly the most heavily promoted

justification for

genetic modification as a tool for agriculture in developing countries.

Much more prominent than any of these latter uses was radical

nutritional alterations to soybeans and corn to increase their 'feed

efficiency'

when fed to animals in factory farm operations. In contrast, we did

not find one field trial for a GM crop designed for enhanced human

nutrition.

 

3. The cost of GM crops, and alternative approaches

 

Even in those rare cases where a GM trait of potential relevance to

developing countries is being field-tested, one must ask whether the GM

route is cost-effective. It can cost between $80 and $300 million to

develop a GM crop from the laboratory to the market, a process that can

take up to 12 years. And as we noted above, for each gene or trait

explored in the discovery stage, the odds are only 1 in 250 that it will

make it to market.

 

Dr. Hans Herren, executive director of the Nairobi, Kenya-based

International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), won the

prestigious World Food Prize in 1995 for saving African cassava (a

staple for

over 200 million Africans) from a devastating pest ñ the cassava

mealy-bug. He accomplished this through introduction of the mealy-bugís

natural predator, a parasitic wasp. Dr. Herren maintains not only that

recombinant DNA technology is not cost-effective for African needs, but

also that it diverts scarce funds from more cost-effective approaches:

 

'Today, I probably would not get the money for such a big programme

[biological control of mealy-bug]. Today, all funds go into

biotechnology

and genetic engineering. The genetic people would try to construct a

cassava that is resistant against the mealy-bug. Biological pest

control, as we do it here at ICIPE, is not as spectacular, not as

sexy. I

see a big problem here.'

 

Dr. Herren is not fundamentally opposed to genetic modification. It is

just that he regards it as expensive and ineffective for the the

pressing needs of African society and agriculture.

After considering the discussion above, it is not surprising that GM

technology has a poor record of developing crops suitable for resource

poor farmers. For example, a joint project of the Kenyan Agricultural

Research Institute (KARI) and Monsanto to develop a GM virus-resistant

sweet potato took 12 years, more than 19 scientists and $6 million, yet

has failed to develop a single suitable variety . In contrast,

conventional breeding of sweet potatoes in Uganda produced a well-liked

virus-resistant variety with yield gains of nearly 100%. This took

only a

few years, and was accomplished with a very small budget.

 

The GM approach is also contrary to a participatory approach, as it is

led by the availability of particular modified traits, rather than the

real needs of farmers. For example, a project to develop

insect-resistant maize varieties by KARI and supported by Syngenta was

not based on

demand from farmers but rather the availability of the technology. In a

review of the project it is noted that 'When the project did survey 30

villages throughout the country, none identified stem borers as the

most pressing constraint upon maize productionÖ project surveys found

that

many farmers were already using their own resistant varieties.'

 

Even if a GM trait is successfully incorporated into a crop, there is

still enormous difficulty in assessing whether unexpected or unintended

effects of the modification on the plant genome have caused changes to

nutrition, agronomic performance, toxicity and so on. Furthermore,

traits such as drought tolerance, nutritional enhancement and salinity

tolerance are often controlled by more than one gene. This means that:

 

*such crops are in many cases still theoretical propositions

*successful modification of such traits will be extremely expensive and

could take many years

the likelihood of unexpected changes occurring is greatly increased, as

is the difficulty in detecting such changes.

 

Furthermore, such traits are exactly those that could cause competitive

disadvantage if the crops escape or traits are passed to wild

relatives. The IAC report points out that

 

'Africa is the origin of the center of diversity of several of the

worldís most important crops, such as coffee, sorghum, lentil, wheat and

barley, African rice (Oryza glaberrima), oil palm, yams and cowpeas.' and

that 'Africa's genetic resources are inadequately known, valued and

utilized.'

 

The experience of the contamination of maize varieties in Mexico as a

result of the import of GM maize highlights the dangers that the

introduction of GM crops pose. As yet, the effects of this type of

genetic

pollution, including introgression of modified genes into related wild

plant populations, are poorly understood. The long term effects of GM

contamination on the environment and future sustainability of Africa -

and

conceivably the rest of the world in the case of world staples such as

wheat - mean that this is not a step that should be taken without

proper consideration of its serious implications - especially as there

is so

little apparent likelihood of even reaching the stated aim of

increasing food productivity by such an approach.

 

4. GM Enhanced Crops to tackle malnutrition?

 

The Science and Technology report places a great deal of emphasis on

the development of nutritionally enhanced GM crops to tackle

malnutrition. This is an extremely simplistic approach to a problem

that is

primarily to do with poverty and access to a healthy balanced diet.

As has

already been shown, a sustainable approach to agricultural development,

focusing particularly on increased diversity of production, would also

help to address malnutrition by broadening out the diet. However, it

is necessary to address some of the specific difficulties inherent in

relying on GM crops.

 

As is acknowledged in the Draft report, ìvery few developing countries

have been able to formulate regulatory frameworks to deal with

biotechnological issues and even fewer have the capability to carry

out risk

assessment on biotechnology productsî (p 180).

 

Yet it is being proposed that these countries introduce GM crops that

would tax even the regulatory assessment authorities of the European

Union. For example, in a review of the science and regulation of GM

crops, conducted by the UK government in 2003, it was stated that:

 

'Testing of second generation nutritionally enhanced products will

therefore not only need to build on the paradigm and methodologies of

first

generation GM crops and novel foods and regulations, but will also

require new considerations and regulations in their own right. Their

characterisation is likely to make increasing use of molecular profiling

techniques, which are still the subject of much active research and

development.'

 

If the UK authorities are unsure whether they have the ability to test

these crops, it seems irresponsible to recommend their adoption by

countries that have fewer resources. The importance of ensuring the

safety

of nutritionally enhanced crops would be great, as they are being

proposed for groups of people for whom they would make up most of the

diet.

This means that any risk from a difference in nutritional content or

toxicity would be amplified by the high exposure rates. The danger of

ignoring this issue is highlighted by the fact that malnutrition in many

parts of Asia is, in part, linked to the lower micro-nutrient content

of the green revolution staple crop varieties, which have displaced

local fruit and vegetables from the diet .

 

Institutional support and strengthening would need to be prioritized

were such an approach to be taken. Experience from developed countries

show that even a purely science based risk assessment of such complex

transformations would take several years even after the institutional

systems were in place, and this does not account for the economic and

social debate that would also be necessary. Considering that there are

already many cheaper alternative methods for addressing malnutrition, and

that nutritionally enhanced crops produced by conventional breeding are

already available , the GM approach appears to be excessively costly

and unlikely to reap significant benefits within the timescale of the

action plan.

 

5. Golden Rice is not the answer to malnutrition

 

The report explicitely mentions Golden Rice as a well known example of

nutritionally enhanced GM crops. So-called 'golden rice' is being

genetically modified to increase its beta-carotene content (a

precursor for

vitamin A that is absorbed and converted into vitamin A in the body).

 

Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is an important cause of illness in

developing countries, resulting in night blindness, total or partial

blindness,

and reduced resistance to infection. In 1994, the World Health

Organisation (WHO) reported that 3 million preschool age children had eye

damage due to vitamin A deficiency. VAD is also thought to contribute

to the

1.1 million childhood deaths from measles each year.

 

Vitamin A is obtained either by eating foods containing the vitamin

(e.g. eggs, whole milk or meat) or by its production in the body from the

precursor beta-carotene, found in plant foods and especially in green

leafy vegetables and fruit. The majority of people with VAD are in those

countries where rice predominates in the diet - south and southeast

Asia - since polished rice is low in beta-carotene because the naturally

beta-carotene rich husk is removed during milling.

 

GM ëgolden riceí produces beta-carotene, as a result of the

introduction of three genes from a narcissus plant which complete the

biochemical

pathway needed for production in the rice endosperm (the rice grain

remaining after milling has removed the outer layer which naturally

contains beta-carotene). But such a significant change to the plantís

metabolism increases the likelihood that the production of beta

carotene may

alter the levels of other components in the endosperm or even the

production of unexpected compounds that prove harmful. Dr. David

Schubert of

the Salk Institute in California warns that retinoic acid (vitamin A)

and its derivatives influence mammalian development at ultra-low

concentrations, and that GM crops producing vitamin A might also produce

derivatives that cause direct toxicity or abnormal embryonic

development in

those exposed to them. The same may be true of crops producing the

pro-vitamin A (beta carotene). Furthermore, there is as of yet no

information as to how well the pro-vitamin A is absorbed from the GM

rice, as

absorption varies enormously according to the type of food involved.

According to Dr. Marion Nestle, nutritionist at New York University,

absorption of beta-carotene is dependent on adequate levels of fat and

protein in the diet. Those suffering from VAD, of course, are often

malnourished in other ways and thus often lack adequate levels of these

macronutrients in their diets. The tests required to establish whether

golden rice is both safe and effective as a source of vitamin A would be

likely take several years themselves.

 

As with other serious mineral deficiencies - such as iodine and iron -

alternative, proven methods of reducing VAD already exist, including

supplementation, fortification of foods and dietary diversification - it

is not a lack of solutions to this problem that has caused ëhidden

hungerí to continue. If the political will is there, such approaches

could

be implemented straight away, rather than relying on an unproven,

expensive GM crops which could not be safely introduced without

significant

additional investment in institutions to manage GM crop introduction,

and which anyway might not even be available within the next decade.

 

If ill-judged enthusiasm for GM modified rice, and other GM crops with

a particular nutritional content, lead to them becoming the focus of

attempts to tackle malnutrition, then the sheer expense is bound to cause

a diversion of resources away from other approaches. If resources are

diverted away from projects that would have multiple benefits, such as

direct poverty alleviation or a general improvement in the diversity of

the diet, then it is entirely possible that the net effect would be

detrimental.

 

III. Conclusions

 

Friends of the Earth International strongly believes in the necessity

to urgently strength the efforts to eradicate extreme poverty and

hunger, and the need for a renewed global effort to achieve this.

However,

FoEI strongly disagree with using a 'green revolution', as the key

strategy to tackle rural poverty and hunger. In this sense FoEI calls

for the

removal of the Action Point 25 of the draft report to endorse a '21st

Century Green Revolution in Africa'.

 

The draft report contradicts itself by recognizing that there is no

silver bullet for poverty alleviation, and that every country faces

distinct challenges and therefore requires distinct solutions, but

nevertheless overemphasises a single common-global approach to tackle

rural

poverty and hunger via a Green Revolution.

 

The draft report omits to mention many negative impacts of the Green

Revolution, which paved the way for an increased loss of biodiversity and

genetic erosion. It important to note that the loss of biodiversity

also threatens food security, particularly for the poor who depend on

biological products for 85-90% of their livelihood needs.

 

Throughout the draft action plan, the 'need' for a green revolution for

Africa is constantly repeated, yet this is in opposition to key

findings, such as the ones from the InterAcademy Council report

'Realizing

the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture', published in July

2004

and about which Kofi Annan made his recommendations. In fact, the IAC

report did not recommend a new Green Revolution, but what it termed

'rainbow evolutions' - in other words, bottom up, location and farming

system specific developments, rather than a simple, technology based

approach applied uniformly across the continent, as is implied by the

action

plan.

 

Friends of the Earth profoundly disagrees with the recent report from

October 3rd of the Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation

where it is suggested that GM enhanced crops can be a meaningful tool in

tackling malnutrition in the framework of the MDGs.

 

Friends of the Earth believes that to invest on Genetically Enhanced

crops in the context of the MDG would constitute a costly diversion of

funds into an unproven technology that would be unlikely to produce any

meaningful improvements within the timescale of the plan, if at all.

Friends of the Earth believes that today the use of GM crops is not

cost-effective for African needs, and that by using it will mean to

divert

scarce funds from more cost-effective approaches.

 

References

 

UN Millennium Project. 2004. A Global Plan to Achieve the millennium

development goals. 23 September 2004.

 

United Nations Millennium Project. 2004. Forging Ahead: Technological

Innovation and the Millennium Development Goals. Report of the Task

Force on Science, Technology and Innovation. 3 October 2004.

 

World Bank. 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and options for food

security in developing countries. World Bank Policy Study, Washington,

DC.

World Bank.

 

As cited in testimony of Brian Halweil, staff researcher with the

Worldwatch Institute, before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on

International

Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion, at the hearing on 'The

Role of Biotechnology in Combating Poverty and Hunger in Developing

Nations,' July 12, 2000.

 

Food First. 2000. Lessons from the Green Revolution.

 

Testimony of Brian Halweil (op. cit.)

 

The Crucible II Group. 2000. Seedling Solutions. Volume 1. Policy

options for genetic resources: People, Plants, and Patents revisited.

 

International Development Centre/International Plant Genetic Resources

Institute/Dag Hammarskjold Foundation.

 

Menini, U.G. 1998. Policy Issues for the Conservation and utilization

of horticultural Genetic resources for food and Agriculture. World

Conference on Horticultural Research. 17-20 June 1998 in Rome, Italy.

 

SAOUMA. 1993. Message from the FAO Director-General Edouard Saouma on

the occasion of the World Food Day 1993. Diversity 9 (3), 5. See also

Hammer, K. 2003. Resolving the challenge posed by agrobiodiversity and

plant genetic resources - an attempt. Journal of Agriculture and Rural

Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, kassel university press GmbH.

See also UN Secretary General. 2004. Secretary General Calls for

'Uniquely African Green Revolution' in 21st Century to end continent's

plague of hunger, in Addis Ababa remarks. Press Release SG/SM/9405.

AFR & 988. 6/07/2004

www.interacademycouncil.net

 

Pretty J and R Hine, 2001. Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable

Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence Centre for Environment and

Society, University of Essex,UK

 

Figures on countries, crops and traits from James, Clive. 'Global

status of commercialized transgenic crops: 2002,' ISAAA Briefs No. 27,

2002. ISAAA = The International Service for the Acquisition of

Agri-Biotech Applications, a biotech industry funded group that promotes

genetically engineered crops around the world.

 

75% herbicide-tolerant + 8% herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant

= 83%. 2002 figures from Clive, J. (2002) op. cit.

 

Graff GD & Newcomb J. Agricultural biotechnology at the crossroads.

Bio-era Economic Research Associates. 2003.

 

Graff GD & Newcomb J. Agricultural biotechnology at the crossroads.

Bio-era Economic Research Associates. 2003.Statistics in the paragraph

from: ìStatistics on Permits Currently in Effect for Field Trials of

Genetically Engineered Crops,î data downloaded September 14, 2004 from

Information Systems for Biotechnology (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Database

of GE Crop Field Trials), HYPERLINK

" http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm " \t " _parent "

http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm , compiled by Bill

Freese, Research Analyst, Friends of the Earth

 

Graff GD & Newcomb J. Agricultural biotechnology at the crossroads.

Bio-era Economic Research Associates. 2003. See also Action Aid. 2003.

GM crops ñ going against the grain. May 2003.

http://websrv.actionaid.org/wps/content/documents/gatg_2462004_1524.pdf

 

See biography of Dr. Herren at: University of Florida, Institute of

Food and Agricultural Sciences, February 22, 2003, at: HYPERLINK

" http://yorklecture.ifas.ufl.edu/Herren.htm " \t " _parent "

http://yorklecture.ifas.ufl.edu/Herren.htm .

 

As quoted in: ìPush-and-Pull: An Innovative and Low-tech Solution to

Control Stemborers in Africa,î Part 1 of Genetic Engineering versus

Organic Farming ñ The Fact and the Fiction, by Florence Koechlin,

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), IFOAM

Brochure 2002, http://www.blauen-institut.ch/Tx/tT/ttGenEngOrgFarm.html.

 

De Grassi A, 2003 Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty

Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa An Assessment of Current Evidence

http://www.twnafrica.org/docs/GMCropsAfrica.pdf?twnID=377

 

Ibid

 

GM Science Review First Report An open review of the science relevant

to GM crops and food

based on the interests and concerns of the public Prepared By The Gm

Science Review Panel (July 2003)

http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/gmsci-report1-pt3.pdf

 

Seymour, J. Hungry for a new revolution. New Scientist pp 30-37.,

30th March, 1996.

 

International Rice Research Institue Press Release Rice essential to

achieving Millennium Development Goals October 27, 2003

 

Schubert, D. (2002). 'A different perspective on GM food,' Nature

Biotechnology 20, 969.

 

Nestle, M. (2001). " Genetically Engineered ëGoldení Rice is Unlikely

to Overcome Vitamin A Deficiency, " Letter to the Editor, Journal of the

American Dietetic Association 101, 289-90.

www.interacademycouncil.net

 

 

 

-------------