| |
Contributions from
the Column
Facts and trends
Rich countries should pay
for environmental damage
Accountability in the health sector
AIDS: Brazil to ignore patents
It’s the price that counts
New government for Somalia
AIDS: Indian generic drugs back on WHO list
German opposition calls for interest-oriented development policy
The miserly rich
01/2005
|
|
[ Genetically-modified plants ]
It’s the price that counts
Without doubt there is a need for a genetically-modified, drought-resistant cassava in many poor countries. But the demand is not from affluent farmers. “That’s why we’re not investing in research.” Manfred Kern of Bayer Crop Science makes no bones of the fact that his company – like its competitors – is primarily in the green genetic engineering market to make money. Agricultural economist Matin Qaim of the University of Hohenheim accepts this as legitimate aim, but finds it nonetheless regrettable.
Qaim is convinced that genetically-modified crops could greatly benefit small-scale farmers in the developing countries. At a Deutsche Welthungerhilfe/German Agro Action conference in Bonn in December he used some research results to illustrate this fact. These show that insect-resistant cotton needs considerably less pesticide than conventional varieties. Smaller losses mean higher yields – up to 34 percent in India, up to at least nine percent in Mexico. And the higher yields mean more income for the farmers – despite the higher cost of the genetically-modified seed.
Qaim appealed for more public research on green gene technology. On the one hand this would allow to develop those products which are useful, but for which private research is not worthwhile. On the other hand, it would increase the benefit for the farmers. The higher the price of seeds, the lower the farmers’ income. According to Qaim, of the profits earned by planting insect-resistant cotton in India, two thirds go to the farmers and one third to the seed producer. On the other hand, in China where there is no patent protection, more than 90 per cent of the profits go to the farmers. Strong competition between producers results in lower prices for seeds.
In Argentina the opposite is the case. Monsanto’s monopoly means that the US multinational is in a position to dictate its own price, taking more than three quarters of the extra profit from gene-modified cotton. Despite this, Qaim doesn’t talk about exploitation. No farmer is forced to switch to gene-modified cotton. In Argentina only five percent of farmers have opted for the expensive insect-resistant variety, while in China more than half have done so.
Sceptics in Bonn criticised Qaim’s approach for placing too much focus on the economic aspects. For Michael Krawinkel of the University of Giessen, a cost-benefit analysis must also consider the effects of green gene technology on the environment and health. Ricarda Steinbrecher from the Association of German Scientists (Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler) pointed to undesirable socio-economic effects. For instance, cultivating herbicide-resistant crops in poor countries could threaten jobs, because weeds are often still controlled by hand. (ell)
|
