[corp-focus] Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble

[robert weissman]

Links and forum to comment on this and other columns at:
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog

Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose;
The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
By Robert Weissman
March 18, 2008

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, <http://www.multinationalmonitor.org> and director of Essential 
Action <http://www.essentialaction.org>.

(c) Robert Weissman

This article is posted at: 
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2008/000278.html>