Editorial


02/2006		  

A call for pragmatism

Some development debates miss the point. One of them is the debate on genetic engineering for agriculture. In the eyes of its opponents, such “green” genetic engineering needs to be banned because it will only harm developing countries’ poor farmers. Its supporters, on the other hand, say there will be tremendous benefits, but they have little to back up that claim other than bold promises and dubious forecasts.

Many critics reject genetic engineering on principle – and they have good reasons for doing so. Yes, plant breeders have long manipulated the genetic make-up of plants by conventional crossbreeding. But with modern biotechnology, it is now possible to transfer genes across the borders between species – a quantum leap that may harbour untold risks. In addition, GM crops are a further step in the industrialisation of agriculture, strengthening professional plant breeders and the seed industry at the expense of farmer's freedom and innovative potential.

However, because they have embarked on fundamental opposition, environmental and development groups feel compelled to condemn any practical application of the technology. They often seem obsessively over-active – and sometimes simply unsound. In South Africa, expensive genetically modified seed is said to have ruined cotton farmers in KwaZulu Natal. In actual fact, the source of their debts has nothing to do whatsoever with GM. In Mexico, GM critics fear for the diversity of the country’s wild maize varieties. Yet those varieties were probably long ago “contaminated” by conventional hybrids, and there was no great outcry about that. Finally, when all other arguments fail, there is always the suggestion, often glibly put forward, that GM-friendly scientists and commentators have somehow been corrupted by the industry.

But the opposing camp is similarly skating on thin ice. For instance, the GM lobby group ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications) celebrates the “humanitarian contribution” that genetic engineering has made “to the alleviation of poverty, malnutrition and hunger” in the past ten years. That is humbug. For one thing, very few poor countries make use of genetic engineering at all. Brazil and Argentina alone account for nearly 80 % of the total area of land under GM crops in the developing world. And those to profit in these countries are not smallholders, but rather large-scale, commercial farmers with enormous soya plantations.

For another thing, genetic engineering has so far come up with few agricultural products specifically tailored to the needs of poor smallholders. Last year, 60 % of the land under GM crops worldwide was used to grow herbicide-tolerant soybeans – not exactly the best crop to combat hunger in Africa or Asia, where farmers are plagued by problems which biotechnology can do nothing to solve: lack of capital, lack of water, poor infrastructure and an unfair world market. West Africa’s cotton farmers do not need GM seed; they need fair trading conditions – and action to curb corruption in their countries.

For most farmers in developing countries, genetic engineering is simply irrelevant – and will continue to be so for a long time. But what if conditions really were to improve for African farmers? Might not insect-resistant Bt cotton prove useful then? To a committed GM opponent, that is unthinkable. But a pragmatic approach cannot rule out that possibility. We should consider under which conditions farmers might benefit from genetic engineering. GM contributions to poverty and hunger reduction will surely turn out smaller than the industry promises. But they may yet turn out bigger than critics are prepared to admit today.





Tillmann Elliesen
Managing editor at D+C Development and Cooperation / E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit. euz.editor@fsd.de