| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
“Public debate is essential”
Colonising Africa’s agriculture
GM cotton in a dead end street
“The farmers have the choice”
Not yet mature – it is too early to bet on GM crops
02/2006
|
|
“The farmers have the choice”
Genetic engineering is not a silver bullet. It cannot solve all problems farmers in developing countries typically face. But it can make life easier for them, argues Andrew Bennett of the biotech giant and seed producer Monsanto. In his view, it is nonsense to claim that Monsanto is trying to control the international seed market.
[ Interview with Andrew Bennett ]
Mr. Bennett, can GM crops contribute to food security and poverty alleviation?
It’s certainly not correct to say that genetically modified crops are the total answer to the question. That is definitely not the case. But they do reduce the risks that farmers face, like the weather, rainfall, insect pests, weed, and so on. GM crops can give the farmer more certainty in knowing what he will produce at the end of the season.
The most pressing problems small-scale farmers in poor countries typically face include lack of credit, lack of market access and bad infrastructure. How can technology make a difference?
Technology cannot make an institutional difference, and I think it would be unfair to expect technology to do something like that. Technology is not a silver bullet. But it can make a practical difference in the sense that a lot of the inputs farmers need can be packaged in the seed. When using conventional seeds, the farmer may see within a couple of weeks that he needs certain pesticides and that he has to return to town to buy them. At this point he may already have experienced a lot of crop damage. Besides, once a farmer realizes he has to spray pesticides he needs water. For smallholders who often don’t have easy access to water it can be very time-consuming to get the 300 to 400 litres needed for a spray. With our pest-resistant Bt crops farmers can significantly reduce the requirement for water. The more we can package into the seed, the lower the risks associated with producing a crop. Farmers certainly wouldn’t be purchasing these products if they weren’t reaping benefits out of it.
What are the most promising products for poor countries’ farmers that are presently in the pipeline of biotechnological research?
There is a lot of stuff, but it is difficult to speculate what eventually will get to the market. Besides already available products like insect-resistant maize and cotton, the most promising products are associated with drought-tolerance. Most of the farming in Africa is rain-fed without access to irrigation. Droughts are a major obstacle to food security. The drought-tolerant products that are in the pipeline will let plants cope with periods of very hot and dry weather. A plant equipped with this kind of technology will be able to shut down its system until it rains again. Then, it will grow and deliver a normal crop. In South Africa we have a very interesting indigenous plant, called the resurrection bush, which is a most amazing thing. You can pick up a small piece of it which looks like a dried, burnt-up twig and put it in a glass of water. Within about three hours it has leaves and has turned dark green. Many drought-tolerant traits certainly exist in nature already. Now, it’s a case of isolating them and seeing how to use them in crops.
Critics say that huge sums have been spent on GMO research – in spite of results having been meagre so far . . .
It is true that research on these kind of crops is very expensive. What is particularly expensive is the testing process after a specific trait has been identified as a potential commercial candidate. That kind of research can take several years and costs $ 20 to 30 million. However, the benefits to literally millions of farmers across the world once that product is commercialised are astonishing: there are currently some 8 million farmers in 18 countries planting 81 million hectares of GM crops.
Do you think that testing requirements in countries that have approved GM crops are too strict, or are they appropriate?
I think requirements in general are about right. They do seem very strict at times, and sometimes it appears that GM crops are subject to harsher scrutiny than conventional crops, which seems a little unfair. Convential breeding includes mixing a lot of genes, and testing to see the effects of this mixing does not really take place. On the other hand, when we add one gene to a particular crop plant, the testing is very rigorous. Nevertheless, I think this is appropriate because we need to know how these crops behave. Actually, as a company, we have no desire to commercialise a crop that might lead to a series of litigation. However, money could be saved if regulations were harmonised. If, for example, South Africa approved a particular GM crop, then neighbouring countries should be enabled to use that information for their regulatory process instead of duplicating the whole process.
In Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, the first green revolution had the unintended consequence of crowding out many small-scale farmers who weren’t able to use the new technologies.
Could this happen again with GMOs?
That’s a difficult question to answer. My experience with smallholder farmers who have access to GM crops is that the returns more than compensate for the higher seed price. So we actually have a win-win situation, with a commercial seed company and the farmers making money at the same time.
GM crops require professional extension services and close monitoring to avoid risks to the environment and to bring maximum results to farmers. In many poor countries such services cannot be taken for granted. Is it justifiable to promote GM crops under these conditions?
I believe so. I mean, if you’re hungry, you’re hungry. Lots of people in Africa face incredible hunger and starvation. If there is a chance to alleviate that hunger, then we as humanity, must do whatever that takes. In South Africa, for example, we monitor the insect-resistant cotton on a two-yearly basis. We take samples of pest populations and test them against known baseline resistance levels, to see if any deviations occur. So at least we get an early indication, for example, of whether resistance is developing or not. We have lot of field staff, and most countries have agricultural extension officers who can pick up very quickly in case of a product failure. But so far, I can say, on the millions of hectares planted with Bt crops worldwide there have been no cases of resistance developing. The product today is just as good as it was when it first came to the market. The same cannot be said of many pesticides.
Critics say, poor countries shouldn’t approve GM crops because this would cost them market access to Europe . . .
I think this is not really a valid argument, since Europe has approved the import of most of the GM crops that are on the market at the moment. Besides, there are only very few poor countries that actually export food anyway. To me, the first issue is to provide food security in your own country. The food export markets for developing countries are rather small compared with the internal requirement.
What about the argument that using GM crops makes farmers more and more dependent on the few big seed companies which hold the patents?
Sure, this argument can be made. However, one must remember that at the end of the day farmers have the choice to purchase whatever seeds and crops they wish. The second point is that Monsanto certainly does patent these technologies. There would be no incentive to develop new products if this wasn’t possible. If there wasn’t any chance to get a return on the development costs, we would not have these products at all. Thirdly, Monsanto has taken the step to license its products as widely as possible to as many different seed companies as possible. In South Africa we have licensed three different seed companies, and in the United States there are many more companies with licenses for our products. These companies don’t lose control over themselves, they still produce the kinds of seeds they wish to and they are able to offer the farmers the additional benefits of the new traits as well. Its absurd to say Monsanto dominates the market by controlling one or two big seed companies.
But Monsanto did acquire a lot seed companies around the world . . .
Sure, we are buying seed companies. To give you one example: In the United States, one of the biggest seed markets in the world, Monsanto has a market share of less than 20%. The rest is divided up among numerous other companies. Of course, we have an interest in this market in order to promote our biotech products. And that’s one of the reasons why we buy other seed companies. But to say that we actually own and control all seed companies in the world with the result that the farmers are dependent on us is absolutely nonsense. Globally, we do not even have a 10% market share for seeds.
So you would say that it is in the interest of
both farmers and industry to allow farmers the choice between different crop varieties, GM and conventional?
Absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, the farmers are the clients. They make the ultimate choice what kind of seed they want to plant. If the overwhelming majority of farmers say they want to plant conventional seed, then seed companies will produce and sell conventional seed. If on the other hand the market is in favour of GM seed then this indicates to seed companies that this is what they need to offer. We put the products on the shelf and the farmers make their choice. That choice is often governed by consumer preferences. Farmers will not purchase GM seed if there is no market for them.
There are numerous reports of failing GM crops, for example Bt cotton in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. For resource-poor farmers, it’s a risky business to try new technologies. Who should be liable in cases of failing GM crops?
That’s quite a loaded question. With regard to the example from Andhra Pradesh, the reason for the failure of the Bt cotton there had nothing to do with the GM crop. Rather the variety that was sold to the farmers was not suited to that particular area. Unfortunately, because of the high profile in the controversy associated with GM crops, the critics were very keen to say the failure was the GM’s fault. But it has been analyzed that the very same variety without the Bt gene would also have failed in that area.
We make certain claims about our products. For example, with regard to our insect-resistant maize in South Africa, we say we reduce the number of pesticide sprays that have to be applied to your crop. If a farmer in South Africa plants Bt maize, and he still has significant damage on his crop due to pest infestation, we will compensate the farmer for that loss. This has happened occasionally, and sometimes for reasons that we cannot clearly determine, but it’s very, very limited in my South African experience. On the other hand, it’s not really fair to say during a drought, when crops fail because of a simple lack of water: “Look, that GM crop doesn’t produce any maize.” In that case, GM is not the reason for the failure. I wish people were more critical towards false statements of this sort.
Questions by Tillmann Elliesen.
Andrew Bennett
is responsible for the marketing of biotechnology products at Monsanto South Africa in Johannesburg.
andrew.bennett@monsanto.com
|
