Monsanto

[Guest guest]

Published on

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

 

Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food

Gamble

by Robert Weissman

 

There have been few

experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside

as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of

Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a

report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops.

According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12. 3 million

hectares, to reach 114. 3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest

area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that

biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and

poverty in developing countries.”If we are to achieve the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by

2015,” says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released

report, “biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next

decade.”

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small

farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply — and posing

enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all

planted genetically modified seed is for only four products — soy,

corn, cotton and canola — with just two engineered traits. Most of the

crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold

by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are

known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally

occurring pesticide, Bt.

Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are

soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food

Safety and co-author of “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” a report issued

at the same time as ISAAA’s release. These crops are exported to rich

countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to

supply food to the hungry.

As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power

away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods

and maintain their land tenure.

Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less

frequent spraying, but, concludes “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” these

biotech seeds “allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more

frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop.”

This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers — but

reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.

ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially

reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit

of biotech crops.

Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says

Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers

may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their

crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, “Who Benefits from GM Crops”

shows how secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops

might offer.

Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support

longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops

would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased

anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers

for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal

for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown

onto their fields from neighboring farms.”That has nothing to do with

feeding the hungry,” or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope

Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent.

It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.

Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech

may yield someday for the poor, “we have yet to see genetically

modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better,” says

Shand. “Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or

socially useful,” although they have been useful for the profit-driven

interests of Monsanto, she says.

Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor

for a decade and a half — but hasn’t delivered. Products in the

pipeline won’t change that, he says, with the industry focused on

introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.

The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there

is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA’s Clive

James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields

somewhat. “Who Benefits from GM Crops” carefully reviews this claim,

and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple

factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds

alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect

against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.

Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and

displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and

sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging — even

though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating,

details “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” meaning that farmers will have to

spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is

rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of

biotech seeds — the United States, which has half of all biotech seed

planting — glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use

in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to

“Who Benefits from GM Crops,” and use of other and more toxic

herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows

what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech

crops.

Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to

eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is

slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically

modified seeds can destroy farmers’ ability to maintain biotech-free

crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food

system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with

the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech

crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable

short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.

Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky

technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech

planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a

few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and

China.

Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist

Monsanto’s seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this

stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a

rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits — and an

appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very

nature of nature.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational

Monitor,

and director of Essential

Action.