| |
Contributions from
the Column
Studies and reports
Public research on GMOs
CSR in the sports footwear industry
Management shake-up at the UN
Tsunami: Debt moratorium makes sense
03/2005 |
|
[ Genetically modified organisms ]
Public research on trial
The debate on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture usually revolves around the products of large multinational corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta. Critics argue that the development of GMO only serves to boost their profits without benefiting farmers, least of all the many small-scale farmers in poor countries. However, there are some publicly funded research institutes, which engage in genetical engineering in developing countries. According to a recent study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), these institutes do focus on the needs of poor peasants. The results were published in Nature Biotechnology in January. The paper confirms the view of agro-economists who say that green genetic engineering has great potential and at the same time call for more public research aimed at the needs of small-scale farmers. However, the critics of genetic engineering remain unconvinced.
IFPRI analysed research carried out in 15 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The institutes that were investigated made a total of 201 genetic changes to 45 agricultural crops, mainly rice, potato and maize. In most cases, the idea was to increase resistance against viruses and insects. More than half of these products were developed in Asia, one quarter in Africa and somewhat fewer in Latin America.
According to IFPRI, 41 of the 45 modified products concerned plants which are not covered by patents and which local farmers have been using for a long time. “Unlike private materials, these genetic resources are usually unencumbered by varietal or intellectual property claims. The use and management of this local material becomes, therefore, all the more important”, the study by the Washington-based institute states. It also notes that the best results were in the development of plants with viral and pest resistance as well as herbicide tolerance. The products have matured to such a stage that they are said to be basically ready for general release.
Nonetheless, only very few new plant varieties actually make it onto the farms. Most remain in the research greenhouse, some get to field trials, where they are tested for years. In the end, most do not become generally available. Only seven of the total of 201 modifications IFPRI investigated have been officially certified for sale. According to IFPRI, this was not due to flaws of the GMOs, but to the research institutes’ lack of resources and capacities. Investors are said to often neglect the costs of complex approval procedures that occur after the – already considerable – expenses for research and development.
Furthermore, public research institutes in developing countries often do not know about the required tests. This problem is aggravated by the fact that many countries do not even have regulated certification procedures. The study points out a paradox: the plants of the public researchers are much more useful than those of the large corporations, because they meet local needs, but this very fact also makes certification much more complicated. There simply is no experience on how to deal with these genetically-modified crops, whereas multinationals have already been marketing their products for a long time.
IFPRI also notes typical marketing problems. Almost half of the research institutes questioned admitted that their countries do not have the appropriate mechanisms for distributing newly developed seeds among farmers. IFPRI concludes that public research on green genetics has great potential for developing countries, whereas its practical impact remains limited because farmers have little opportunity to use the products.
IFPRI believes that researchers in developing countries must cooperate more closely (for instance by exchanging test data) if they are to achieve greater impact – not only in development but also in certification. The authors make no secret of the fact that they think that the obstacles for official approval are often too high. “The combined effect is delayed impact and uncertainty of the technologies, both of which are used by biotechnology’s detractors nationally and internationally.”
GMO critics, however, deny that the IFPRI paper is any cause for a re-think. Rudolf Buntzel-Cano, an agriculture expert with the Berlin-based Joint Conference on Church and Development (GKKE), even sees his scepticism confirmed: “The paper is the best evidence for the fact that publicly funded genetic engineering, so far, has also not done much more than make big promises.” For Buntzel-Cano, the fact that so few plants make it from the laboratory to the fields demonstrates the central problem with the technology. “It is too complex, too expensive and much too far removed from the day to day problems and needs of the small-scale farmer. Modifying organisms genetically – whether done with public or private funds – does not help the poor at all.”
In Buntzel-Cano’s view, the IFPRI authors argue as if the 15 countries investigated were merely a random sample. “But there are not many more developing countries in which research into genetic engineering is being seriously carried out. These countries are the leaders, and even their results are not great.” With regard to plant characteristics, which could really be useful for developing countries (such as drought or salt tolerance), public research has not achieved any usable results either – and IFPRI openly admits as much. Buntzel-Cano therefore does not think much of putting more funds into public genetics research in the hope that it might fulfil the potential it claims to have. The gulf between promises and the return to be expected is simply too big, Buntzel-Cano argues, and the money could be used more sensibly.
Ulrike Brendel of Greenpeace shares his view. To give an example, she refers to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and its attempt to produce a virus-resistant sweet potato variety, a programme also mentioned in the IFPRI study. As The Nation, a Nairobi newspaper, reported, KARI discontinued the experiments in late 2003 because of a lack of success. Brendel doubts that the products of public research are completely free of patent claims by private corporations, as the IFPRI study suggests, because patents can be obtained not only for genetic resources and manipulated plants, but also for the production methods.
From the perspective of Devinder Sharma, an Indian agricultural expert, the recent study proves once more that IFPRI “has all along promoted the commercial interests of the food companies”. Whereas the Institute had previously advocated more food supplies to Africa, it was promoting genetic engineering now. “IFPRI is no longer a public research institute. It is in reality what I call an Industrial Food Policy Research Institute.”
Tillmann Elliesen
Further Information:
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/articles/2005/naturebiotech.pdf
http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/eptdp116.htm
|
