Green Versus Industry Lobby

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

Although the proponents of GM crops promote the beautiful advantages of these crops to poor undeveloped/ developing regions; the undesirable effects are often left spoken. Many factors combine to …ethical issues, health implication on consumers, the role of capitalism and if GM crops can be pro-poor, and finally the effects on farmers who are the primary relationship with these crops.

It is from these points that this essay seeks to review these effects of GM crops and its role in solving food security challenges without ultimately affecting social practices.

Constructing Food Security

Food security arrived into the consciousness of the world around the mid-1970s following the definition at the 1974 world food conference as the "Availability at all times of adequate world

Food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and price". This definition was primarily focused on the food supply as the critical determinant to the success or failure of food availability worldwide.

Following various policy changes and revisions, the widely accepted definition came from the world food summit of 1996. According to the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO),

"Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life". (World Food Summit, 1996)

This definition incorporates the multidimensionality of food security: availability, access, utilisation, and stability, and recognises the fact that these dimensions cannot be generalised but should be individually reviewed at each level of ‘individuals, households, nations and international relations’ (Kropiwnicka, 2005).

Also, Swaminathan (in Kropiwnicka, 2005) in preparation for the 1996 summit proposed a more comprehensive definition that includes this definition captures "both the complexity and multi-dimensionality of food security with particular regard to environmental constraints and preservation of ecosystems".

It is almost impossible to speak about food security without mentioning poverty and (under)development in the same context. For most industrialised countries, food security is not a problem as production and supply of food is uninterrupted.

The statistics that support food insecurity and world hunger are alarming. In developing countries where the risks of starvation and malnutrition are more pronounced, these figures are even more disturbing. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 27 percent of the world’s undernourished population with an estimated 234 million of the world’s 868 million; poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year; malnutrition affects one in every three children in developing countries (32.5 percent) with more than 70 percent of these children living in Asia and 26 percent in Africa (FAO, 2012).

Maybe definition of GM crops and Biotech

GM crops are derived from seeds that have been technologically modified to incorporate desired traits and characteristics into the genetic material of the seed. Such characteristics include resistance to herbicides, resistance to pests and diseases, ability to survive in severe conditions such as drought, and to improve the nutritional qualities of such crops (Kruft, 2001).

GM seeds and crops belong to a rapidly expanding market. By 2003, the global area of GM crops increased by almost 40 percent from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 67.7 million hectares. These crops were grown by 7 million farmers in 18 countries, with developing countries (principally India) accounting for 30 percent. In 2003, 6 countries (U.S., Argentina, Canada, Brazil, China, and South Africa) grew 99 percent of the global transgenic crop area with soybean, maize, and cotton being the top 3 GM plants (James, 2003).

The adoption of GM crops has been approached by farmers worldwide at different paces. It has been received with open arms in some areas, while others have approached it with more caution bearing in mind the controversies that continually surround GM crops.

The advan and dis been not clearly deis hypsed as the advent.

In Africa, there are contrasting differences in reaction/uptake: Zambia and Zimbabwe (2002 rejected international GMO aid) versus south- Africa(>50% arable land planted with Monsanto Round-up Ready

New varieties required regular water and purchased inputs (pesticides and fertilizers etc.)

Various reasons to the slow

What may be causing friction is the fact that incorporating biotechnology into agriculture goes way beyond laboratory manipulations of the genetic composition of by scientists to ‘improve’ quality, but it reshapes the entire system of production and consumption that addresses the most fundamental of human needs – food and economic sustenance. (Jasanoff, 2005) disputes are linked to wider conflicts of cultural significance of food, consequences of trade liberalisation, globalisation of food systems and link of agriculture to development (McAfee, 2008).

Biotech and the links to Green Revolution

Similarly legitimised by neo-Malthusian debate, but in some areas crucially different

Solving a problem created by the green revolution: loss of biodiversity in diets and promotion of monocultures – single large scale cropping systems that ignore other high yielding dietary supplements.

Today there are a wider range of actors influencing and contesting policy (see monoculture page 6)

Green versus Industry Lobby

But then what actually causes food insecurity? poverty or food shortages?

The debate on the causes of food insecurity in today’s world has generated a wide array of opinions and views and has spun a plethora of solutions of which genetically modified crops lead the pack.

Enter stone and classification into industry and green:

For the industry lobbyist, a simple basis has been proposed to the complex problem of food insecurity: increasing population by means of playing the Malthus card. With a projected population of 8.9 billion by 2050, the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America will account for up to 99% of growth because of the twofold effects of continued high birth rates and young populations. Africa's population could reach up to 2 billion by 2050, at which time it will represent more than 20% of the world’s population (UN, 2004). Currently, there are an estimated 850 million people that are chronically malnourished, and food production that not only meets the current requirements of developing nations, but can also grow at a rate that matches the forecasted population increase will be required to ensure that the demands of the future population are met.

With ever increasing populations and declining yield in food production rates due to factors such as over utilised soil, increasing yield outputs by incorporating biotechnology into agriculture is seen as the principal and the preferred solution.

This mantra serves the basis for promoting the agenda of supporters of biotechnology and GM crops.

Contrary to the industry lobbyists, the counter argument to the food security debates is provided by the green lobbyists, and is based on a vastly different opinion. Green lobbyists argue that poverty is the underlying cause for hunger and starvation, and as such criticise the principle of biotechnology and GM crops. Sen (1981) points out that food shortage have no direct relationship with famine and starvation, but that hunger occurs because people lack the access to obtaining adequate supplies of food necessary for their wellbeing and growth. The introduction of GM crops to such sensitive and complicated circumstances is believed to increase poverty and worsen the situation within such a region (Shiva, 2000; Van der Ploeg, 1993; and McMichael, 2004).

Ploeg 223, Shiva – monocultures and inability to afford other species,

Move to biotech moving south via the Malthus card

Africa: Can it be pro-poor Fit with Biotechnology? Mainly subsistence farmers – would GM be the only solution – something about not large scale industrialised model and monoculture and thus threatening biodiversity (see Shiva and golden rice)

Currently, Africa does not produce enough food to support its ever growing population and such, is heavily reliant on food aid and grain importation. Also, the introduction of GM crops within the continent has been received with mixed acceptance. Farming in Africa is mainly subsistence farming, with land owners cultivating plots of less than 2 hectares per family. Closely associated with this fact, is that farming is a generational occupation and people have developed close attachment to the land cultivated by their ancestors. With over 33million subsistence farmers, food production in Africa is barely enough to feed the ever growing population with an estimated 24 thousand people dying from hunger daily (REF).

Declining food production associated with poor soil productivity, issues with distribution (Brush, ;) global production will have to double by 2025 (Taylor, and Cayford, 2004)

With increasing number of deaths and catastrophic food crises, a moral framework has been constructed around GM crops to help the dying

Packaged Technology/ Patents, Royalties and Licences

The GM debate would be incomplete without an analysis of the controversial patent and international trade policies that govern the distribution of GM seeds. The initiative to patenting naturally occurring products began with the Indian engineer Chakrabarty, who was denied patent rights on his "invention" of a genetically modified crude oil eating bacteria on the basis that living things could not be subject to patenting laws. The subsequent repealing of the decision by the United states (U.S.) supreme court, and the pronouncement that patent rights could be applied to living organisms paved way for increased large scale investments by profit oriented agricultural and chemical companies (Taylor, and Cayford, 2004; Lee, 2010).

The creation and enforcement of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995 further elevated the applicability of these intellectual property rights (IPRs) granted in the U.S. and other developed countries on a global scale. The role of TRIPs was to ensure that IPRs were complied with at national levels thereby, safeguarding the rights of patent owners in the viable market of genome sales (Lee, 2010). The TRIPs agreement successfully exported the "western ideas of ownership and authority" which came with its set of regulations and control strategies.

One of the greatest controversies with IPRs and GM crops is the limits on farmers’ privileges to share and save seeds. Usually included in the terms of contract as a "no saved seed" provision, this condition violates the rights of farmers to continue with the age-old farming tradition of seed saving and sharing; and thus threatening food security and sovereignty.

It is recognised that local farmers play an important role in maintaining plant biodiversity by experimenting with, and exchanging seeds with other local farmers freely (Van der Ploeg, 1993; McAfee, 2007); and by such actions confirm the relationship between biodiversity of plants and cultural diversity that exists at the local level

"Seed is for the farmer, not merely the source of future plants and food; it is the storage place of culture and history... Seed is the first link in the food chain and the ultimate symbol of food security (Shiva, 2000b)".

It is important, though, to recognise the perspective from which

. If this right is removed from the farmers, their control of

This contravenes the

(Brush and Harvard)

The politics of intellectual property: patenting vs. food sovereignty:

Food sovereignty advocates support farmers’ rights to save, exchange, and breed seeds and crop varieties and denounce private intellectual property claims on plant and animal varieties…..

They hold that food is first a source of nutrition and only secondarily an item of commerce, and argue that healthy agrarian communities, backed by national policies to support domestic food production, are better guarantors of food security than a globalized agro-food system in which most countries depend on food imports.

They argue that decentralised, diverse, and locally adapted farming systems are or can be made more environmentally sustainable than a globalized agro-food system"

Protecting domestic agriculture

McMichael: Research discloses that of a total of 132 genetic patents on crops that have origins in the global south but are now grown worldwide – 68 for maize genes, 17 for potato, 25 for soybean, and 22 for wheat indicating an increasing disturbing trend of corporate patenting of staple foods. i.e. establishing corporate monopolies of staple food

intellectual property rights to plants often involve germplasm collected in the less developed south, which was freely provided.- bio-piracy (Brush, 2001)

and enforce the proposition that seek to transform agriculture to a single integrated capitalist enterprise (McAfee, 2007)

the biotech debate would be less complicated if the TNC that dominate the market hold 99% of patent licenses did not also control the other markets that agriculture depend upon such as conventional seeds and pesticides.

How access to GM crops is negatively affected by US patents: Because current industrial biotech is oriented towards the needs of large scale monocultures, the rules have to be changed to allow for incentives for sharing access to patents that benefit subsistence farmers

Who benefits ultimately: farmers or industry: limited rights

Costs of research and increased PPP’s: An alternative borne out of disparaging views on biotech is the need to encourage increased public participation in the development of novel technology targeting food security. (see chataway for how and advantages, example will be African cassava tubers not seeds….

Brush on why public participation is low

Funding would be provided by?? – capitalist who can satisfy their ‘altruistic craving’

The Culture in Agriculture

An interesting, even if overlooked aspect of the argument lie in the ability of genetically modified crops to alter ‘local cultural practices’. Cultural practices generally refer to the expression of shared values and beliefs of a particular ethnic or other cultural group. These refer to the traditional patterns of behaviours and interactions developed within specific ethnic cultures and learned through a process of socialisation.  Cultural practices are forms of indigenous knowledge which although instituted in the past have evolved by adaptive processes, and are capable of change. It is this change whether (un)desired that causes disharmony amongst farmers, anthropologists, and proponents of biotechnology and genetically modified crops.

In this framing, agricultural practices refer to the skills, knowledge and ‘ways of working’ that defines a certain agricultural crop, the region that it is grown, and the people that grow these crops. Agriculture is the link between nature and culture playing a vital role in the survival of man which cannot be overemphasised; as such its development has been determined by, and adapted to suit different cultures and technologies. These localised practices can cover diverse areas such as soil tilling and preservation, seed saving and sharing techniques, crop preservation, and pest control. Also, systems and skills necessary for a successful planting season, and the commemoration of such a season with festivals and rituals are an integral component of local practices.

More Than a Seed

The essence of a culture is not its artefacts, tools, or other tangible cultural elements but how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them. It is the values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of human societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artefacts, and behaviours in the same or in similar ways.

These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group.

It is well known that individual and group perception of, and attitudes to food vary depending on the region of the world. Apart from providing nutritional value, food often has other connotations specific to each ethnic group. It may involve a form of personal relationship with a certain crop, societal and historical inferences, and in some cases may have religious importance (McAfee, 2007). As such, technological modification of crop and food production may evoke a negative and deeply personal response among growers and consumers, especially if these processes are offered on a platform of never ending controversies.

These will be discussed under:

vs. Colonialism and power

To some, the introduction of GM crops is seen as some sort of intrusion on local beliefs and a form of modern colonialism. Adopting the cultivation of GM crops will involve discarding the old and in with the new. Local farming practices and knowledge, essentially cultural heritage passed on through generations will officially have to be put aside to make way for superior imported technology. The intervention of biotechnology and GM crops underscored by the rights of farmers to limited seed use is known to create a case for dependency to the detriment of local knowledge. Also, the involvement of biotechnology in agriculture is believed to have failed on the tenets of development practice by not strengthening resilience, encouraging diversity, and suiting the practices of local cultures (Keeney and Murphy, 2010).

It can be argued that the introduction of ‘new improved varieties’ starts the process of several chains of dependency patterns to which local farmers are bound (Shiva, 2000; Van der Ploeg, 1993). First of all, when existing knowledge systems are discarded, it creates a requirement to seek technical assistance on farming techniques that are necessary for the successful growth of these GM crops. Also, new agreements (contracts with financiers) have to be entered into, and new artefacts (such as herbicides, fertilizers, and irrigation equipment) that promote the monoculture business of GM crops have to be purchased, mostly on credit. The fact that the top 5 gene giants who control almost 100 percent of the transgenic seed market (AstraZeneca, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, and Aventis), account for 60 percent of global pesticide sales further enforces this cycle of dependency, and inadvertently turns the farmer into an ‘industrial employee’ while eroding savings and assets (Stone, 2002; McMichael, 2004; and McAfee, 2007).

Also, because farmers that grow GM crops operate a monoculture type of farming, they are exposed to the harsh realities of fluctuating international market prices. Because these farmers grow only one type of crop, they are first of all unable to obtain a balanced diet from their crops, and as such have to exchange or purchase other nutritional supplements to their diet from other farmers or at the local market. This can be a particularly precarious situation if for any reason crops fail or the prices do not fetch as much as expected either due to low exchange prices or exorbitant royalties paid to companies that hold patent rights. Farmer suicides in India example

Cultural heritage Value perception of plants (Potato - Andes; Maize - Mexico):

For the indigenous people of the Andean highlands in Peru, Venezuela, and Ecuador, potatoes represent more than a food crop. This staple crop is believed to have its origins in Peru where potato cultivation dates back to at least 8,000 years ago, when the tubers were first domesticated by farmers who lived on the high plains and mountain slopes of the south-central Andes, as well as at various Peruvian coastal sites. There are currently over 4,000 varieties of native potatoes in the Andes which have been selectively grown over the centuries for their taste, texture, shape, colour, and adaptation to the harsh conditions that prevail in the Andes. To these local people, potatoes are a way of life and are deeply ingrained into cultural heritage: potato gods and goddesses, incorporation into songs, dances, ceremonies, pottery, artwork, and are usually exchanged as gifts between communities (IPC, 2012). On a global scale, potatoes are Peru’s gift to the world, and are very essential in terms of food security. With annual production exceeding 300 million metric tonnes, the potato is the world’s fourth most important crop, after rice, wheat, and maize (Ref.)

It is recognised that farming is essentially a skill that requires permanent interaction between mental and manual labour, requiring continuous interpretation and evaluation of the on-going process of production so as to allow any form of required intervention. It involves mainly a dynamic knowledge system known as art de la localité, which is organised and practised in a manner different from standard scientific knowledge (Van der Ploeg, 1993).

For potato farmers in the Andean mountains, their knowledge of the hundreds of potato cultivars, and the simultaneous cultivation of a substantial range (usually between thirty and forty) on farmland with which they have developed a reciprocal relationship with is a valid example of art de la localité. This heterogeneous multi-cultivation pattern facilitates a form of continuous experimentation in matching plant genes and genotypes to the physical characteristics of cultivated land. It also supports the maintenance of the numerous existing varieties, and conscious production of new ones over a period of time.

Most important of these skills relate to those required in the selection of potato seeds to be planted in the forthcoming season; which involves a much more complex method than simply selecting the best cultivar’s from the stock of the current season. This process incorporates goal orientated decisions taken to guarantee that the most suitable cultivars, which are defined by a set of revolving criteria such as yield and price are cultivated on the best plots of available farm land to support growth.

It has been acknowledged that the adoption of biotechnology and genetically modified varieties will no doubt have unwanted impact on the biodiversity of potatoes.

and studies have shown a decreasing number in the available genotypes (Brush et al, 1992). Read and conclude/ link to knowledge loss.

Changing practises – ‘globalisation of food’ / contamination:

Just like potatoes originated from the Andes, the origins of maize have been traced to the southern part of Mexico where it was domesticated some 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. Recently, concerns have been raised about the contamination of maize landraces by transgenic genes (Wisniewski et al., 2002; McAfee, 2007). Although a moratorium had been placed on planting GM maize by the government in 1998, this contamination was believed to be as a result of importation of GM maize from the neighbouring U.S. (McAfee, 2007). Importation from the U.S. under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created a twofold problem in Mexico: the contamination of local varieties as stated above, and the creation of additional trade barriers for indigenous growers who were not adequately equipped to compete with the lower process of the imported transgenic maize. By 2002, even though challenged by a combination of declining government subsidies and increasing imports, most farmers continued to grow maize, and subsidised costs with the proceeds from other crops (McAfee, 2007). Reasons ascribed for this behaviour that defied logical farming behaviour was the desire to retain a sense of security by continuing with their traditional methods of growing diverse varieties of maize thus, reflecting the cultural and spiritual significance of maize.

The rapid adaptation of GM crops worldwide has inadvertently led to ‘introgression’ that is, the genetic contamination of traditional varieties due to cross pollination, illegal smuggling of seeds, and improper use of GM seeds (Wisniewski et al., 2002; Kropiwnicka, 2005; and McAfee, 2007). For example, in the Mexican situation above, imported transgenic maize meant for inclusion in animal feed was planted. Another cause of unease amongst non-supporters of biotechnology is the possibility of GM crops to develop resistance to pesticides and herbicides due to the inherent advantage that transgenic genes confer on GM plants. These effects are difficult to predict and validate due to the dynamic nature of plant and insect evolution (Wisniewski et al., 2002). Although no concrete evidence exists that transgenic genes may threaten biodiversity of landraces, the possibility that GM crops may outgrow and outcompete indigenous varieties provides a contentious point against GM crops given the important role that plant biodiversity and these indigenous varieties have in ensuring food security and preserving cultural heritage of peoples worldwide.

The question remains on how to preserve these indigenous varieties and landraces in the face of global mass takeover by their GM counterparts.

Intentional ‘mixing’ of plant genes also raises concerns about the incorporating Genetic features of Asian rice into African rice will mean no ‘local indigenous rice’. Sierra Leone-Rice diversity is a key component of food security not monocultures ;

Agricultural deskilling

India & Cotton

Sierra Leone & Rice

Critique

More like how each point affects cultural practices: more than a seed

Conclusion:

There is no single solution to the problem of hunger in Africa and other developing nations;

Need to address the issue of poverty first: see McMichael page 151

Dogmatic and scientific stance – for or against won’t help no one; more evidence approach supporting biodiversity, supported by high-quality research and tailored to particular circumstances (Ian Scoones)

The best way that technology benefits without ultimately affecting cultural practices will involve:

Current capitalist led and profit oriented approach rather than based on the needs and requirements of developing countries could have negative implications – conduct research as above to address each countries environmental and food requirement status, while incorporating the developmental needs of local farmers

Incorporate local practices – is it possible: see golden rice ‘yellow’ India science and citizens page 184

Instead of trying to adapt local cultures to suit biotech, let biotech seek to use IK in developing GM crops …..could it be where anthropology comes in via stone

International laws and local adaptation guidelines need to be developed to ensure the continuous preservation of plant varieties and biodiversity