GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS OFFER POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO ASIAN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS OFFER POTENTIAL BENEFITS

TO ASIAN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

By: Helen Cynthia Dewi Tuhumury

Genetically modified (transgenic) crops refer to crops that have been genetically modified using gene or genetic engineering technology. Crops’ characteristics such as yield or quality of crops, pests and disease resistance, drought resistance and so forth can be improved through genetic modification. For example, cottons are modified to produce an insect specific toxin called Bt toxin so that they have resistance to pest infestations.  Genetically modified (GM) crops have been grown worldwide since the introduction of the first GM crop, The Flvr Savr Tomato, to farmers in 1994 (Huesing and English 2004).

In 1996, GM crops were commercialized. Since then, there has been a stable increase in the number of countries choosing to cultivate GM crops from 6 in 1996, to 18 in 2003 and 25 in 2008 (James 2008). In addition, the area planted with GM crops has increased dramatically in recent years. According to James (2008), more than 120 million hectares of land are being planted with GM crops and this number has continued to grow strongly, reaching 125 million hectares compared to 67 million ha in 2003. The majority of GM crops are grown in developed countries and address the needs of commercial farmers. However, farmers in developing countries are increasingly beginning to adopt GM crops. Developing countries accounted for approximately 60% of globally engineered crop areas in 2008 (James 2008) compared to 30% in 2003 (James 2003). Moreover, two of the Asian developing countries, India and China, are within the top eight countries which grew more than 1 million hectares of GM crops in 2008 i.e.: 7.6 and 3.8 million hectares, respectively (James 2008).

Everything in life has its benefits and risks and GM crops are no exception. The debate on GM crops and its implications for humans has so far been vigorous and extremely high profile worldwide. On one side of the fiery discussion are people who support GM crops, who are convinced that GM crops signify a technology with enormous potential for providing enough food for people to deal with the problems of poverty and malnutrition without causing environmental damage (Barton and Berger 2001; Farooq and Azam 2002). On the other side are people who firmly believe that GM crops pose a threat to human health, biodiversity and environment (Jefferson 2006). Despite the on going debate on GM crops, particularly in developed countries, millions of large and small farmers in developing countries including Asian countries continue to increase their planting of GM crops because GM crops are believed to be able to reduce hunger, poverty and malnutrition in Asian developing countries since they offer significant economic advantages (Raney 2006), safer environment and health benefits to farmers compared with related conventional agriculture (FAO 2004). This essay thus analyses the benefits and the disadvantages of GM crops and argues that GM crops do not lead to negative environmental and health effects or poverty in Asian developing countries. Poverty in Asian developing countries is more likely caused by social and economic problems within the society, and that GM crops may offer significant economic benefits to farmers that may lead to reduction in poverty so that hunger and malnutrition could be eradicated.

Turning first to the alleged negative environmental effects of GM crops, it has been argued by opponents of GM crops that animals, people and environment could be damaged by GM crops (Jeferson 2006). However, agriculture of any type whether it is subsistence, organic or intensive agriculture affects the environment, so it is natural to expect that the use of new genetic techniques in agriculture will also affect the environment. One possible risk of GM crops is a direct non-target effect on beneficial organisms.  One example to illustrate this point is Bt cotton which has been modified to produce Bt toxin. If crops are modified to produce toxin, which made them resistant to pests, then there will be possibilities that the toxin can affect other organisms, too. According to Stotzky (in Wolfenbarger and Phifer 2000) GM crops with a Bt toxin may be harmful to non-target organisms that are beneficial for crops such as monarch-butterfly larvae (Losey, Raynor and Carter 1999 in Wolfenbarger and Phifer 2000). Despite the findings of the monarch butterflies study, this argument cannot be relied upon because the study was conducted only in the laboratory not in the field and it did not address an important part of risk assessment which was the rate that the larvae come across the toxin produced by Bt crops (Wolfenbarger and Phifer 2000). What is more, in the field, no significant adverse effects on non-target species have so far been observed (FAO 2004). Therefore, it may be unjustifiable to assert that GM crops are harmful to other organisms.

Still in terms of the environmental effects of GM crops, it has also been argued that there is a risk that wild plants which are not related to GM crops become contaminated through gene flow from the process of out-crossing. The great example of this is the transfer of herbicide resistant characteristics to produce super weeds which are also resistant to herbicide (Paarlberg 2000). However, many plants usually are not native to the areas in which they are grown. Locally, they may have no wild relatives to which genes could flow. Gene flow also occurs widely throughout nature. Moreover, if gene flow occurs, it is unlikely that the number of out-crossed plants would increase in the wild, because they would have characteristics that only are beneficial in that specific agricultural environment (FAO 2004). In addition, Robinson (1999) states that the negative environmental effects of gene flow are not certain, but by using modern technology through ‘engineering sterility’ into transgenic crops, genetic pollution could be limited.

Despite the concerns of the negative consequences of GM crops on the environment, they also have a potential environmental benefit. It has been stated that the use of GM crops which are resistant to pest and herbicide could lead to protection of the environment because the application of pesticide in agriculture is reduced (Paarlberg 2000; Wolfenbarger and Phifer 2000; James 2008). For instance, insect-resistant crops such as Bt cotton lead to a significant reduction in the application of insecticides compared to conventional crops. Reduction in the use of pesticides means that the environment receives fewer residues of these harmful substances. Indeed, in 2008, there was a decrease in use of insecticide by 39% and 60%, in India and China, subsequently, with good impacts on the environment and the health of the growers (James 2008).

As has been stated above, not only could GM crops pose a threat to the environment but also to human health. Healey (2004, p.21) states that there is a possibility that GM crops may produce extra proteins in plants cell which can cause new types of allergy and can also affect the wholesomeness of food. However, a report by FAO says that it is safe to eat food stuff made of GM crops which are recently available for human consumption such as corn, soybean and rape seed since the justifications on their safety have been made based on reliable testing methods as concluded by scientific evidence provided by WHO and ICSU (FAO 2004). In addition, no allergens and toxins were found in currently commercialized GM foods after they were tested for their presence and levels in GM foods (FAO 2004). 

Despite the concerns that GM crops are not safe for human health, obviously they can also offer some health benefits. GM crops could offer some direct and indirect health benefits to consumers, for instance by improving nutritional quality and reducing pesticide use, respectively. According to Timmer (2003) biotechnology of GM crops could offer the possibility to improve micronutrient availability such as iron and vitamin A through biofortification of staple food. For example, scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Zurich) and the International Rice Research Institute (Los Baños, The Philippines) have succeeded in transferring genes into rice to increase the quantities of vitamin A, iron, and other micronutrients. This work could eventually have profound impact for millions of people, for example 5 million children in Southeast Asia with deficiencies of vitamin A, a cause of blindness (Farooq and Azam 2002; Redona 2004). The indirect health benefits of GM crops is that pesticide use could be reduced through pest and herbicide resistant GM crops which are beneficial to human health since there may be fewer case of pesticide poisoning (James 2003).  Indeed, there was a decrease in the application of insecticide by 60% as Bt cotton was grown in China in 2008, and this has affected farmers’ health in a good way (James 2008).

Turning to the benefits of GM crops, we can see that GM crops have potential to reduce hunger, poverty, and malnutrition among people in developing countries in Asia. Theoretically, the lessening of starvation among humans and improved agricultural yield could be achieved through the growing of genetically modified crops (Robinson 1999). However, Pretty (1999) states that it is impossible that GM crops will contribute to the alleviation of hunger if they are used as the only way to solve this problem (Robinson 1999). When people live in hunger, it usually means that there is not enough food available for consumption. Actually, insufficient food production is not the cause of hunger throughout the world since there is an adequate amount of food to be consumed daily. Hunger is more likely due to poverty which makes poor people have difficulties in trying to purchase food and have less areas and capital to cultivate food crops (Altieri and Rosset 1999).  Moreover, it has been claimed by opponents of GM crops that the problem with providing food for poor people is that food is not properly distributed (Herera-Estrella and Alvares-Morales 2001). However, distribution is not the only way to address hunger, even in the area where there is food surplus, there is currently undernourishment due to serious poverty. Hence, the problem is not about food production or distribution but poverty.

In my opinion, reduction of poverty in developing countries is therefore needed to eliminate malnutrition and hunger. Not only could reduction in poverty eliminate hunger but also increase food production and purchasing power. The poverty and undernourishment crisis could be solved because GM crops are able to stimulate the increase in production of main consumed food crops which offers insect protection, resistance to drought, etc, to crops (Farooq and Azam 2002; Timmer 2003). Higher agricultural yield means higher income for farmers. In addition, GM crops can benefit farmers economically. For example, farmers in India who grow Bt cotton (GM cotton) can gain net earnings of 78% over farmers who grow cotton conventionally. This is due to better production of Bt cotton compared to ordinary cotton, which are 1898 and 1473 (kg/ha), respectively (James 2008). Not only can GM crops offer advantages to large farmers but also farmers who live in poverty, as proven by current economic evidence (Raney 2006). Indeed, small resourced and poor farmers experienced advantages from Bt cotton since there were increases in income of about US$ 220/hectare in China and US$ 250/hectare in India. Higher incomes contribute to better welfare upon their life (James 2008).

Despite the economic benefits received by farmers in developing countries, some opponents of GM crops state that actually farmers will not benefit from GM since multinational corporations who provide seeds for them only seek their own profit rather than try to increase farmers’ incomes (Chirspeels 2000). This condition actually creates farmers’ dependency on multinational corporations such as Monsanto. As a result, for example, the Indian farmers in the district of Warangal have committed suicide because the existence of GM crops exacerbates farmers’ dependency on the debt cycle for buying new seeds each growing season (Shiva in Stone 2002). Farmers are trapped in the debt cycle and are forced to buy seeds as sold by dealer at high price (Stone 2002).

However, it is doubtful if this case of Indian farmers’ suicide can be used as a valid example of the effect of gene modification technology in general. This is in line with what Stone (2002) states, that this case is not a perfect indicator for showing the negative impact of Bt cotton. He also states that the problems faced by farmers are not from the biotech corporation but the problems linked with agricultural sustainability and the effects of the GM will depend on the local situation. If the local situations vary, GM effects also vary (ibid). Also, the impacts of big companies in developing countries with their patented seeds actually do not harm small farmers because the real problems that farmers face are not from the technology but from other factors such as markets, agricultural sustainability and their management skills. In addition, to my mind, farmers will get the benefits from GM crops introduced by big companies. Even though they have to buy new seeds every season which require extra money, the growing of crops using those seeds will produce higher yield, and they tend to expend less money purchasing other agricultural inputs such as pesticides which will resulted in higher income.

In conclusion, it is my contention that the benefits of GM crops in some agricultural systems in Asian developing countries appear to outweigh their relative risks. Regarding the negative consequences of GM crops on environment and human health, there have been no provable reports of them causing any significant health or environmental harm. On the contrary, some important environmental and health benefits are rising. Farmers are using less pesticide. As a result, farm workers and the environment are protected from poison. In addition, GM crops have delivered large economic benefits to farmers in these areas whether large or even small-scale farmers. These economic benefits may cause a reduction in poverty; giving farmers their purchasing power so that hunger and malnutrition could be eliminated if they plant GM crops.

References:

Altieri, MA, Rosset, P 1999,’Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world’, AgBioForum, vol. 2, no. 3&4, pp. 155-162, viewed 18 August 2009, <http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a03-altieri.pdf>

Barton JH, Berger P 2001, ‘Patenting agriculture’, Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 174, no. 4, pp. 43-50, viewed 10 August 2009, retrieved from PROQUEST database.

Chrispeels, MJ 2000, ‘Biotechnology and the poor’, Plant Physiology, vol.124, pp.3-6, viewed  18 August 2009, <http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/124/1/3>

FAO 2004, The state of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004, Report, Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations, viewed 14 August 2009, <http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651>

Farooq, S, Azam F 2002, ‘Food security in the new millennium-II. The role of agriculture biotechnology’, Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 1363-1370, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://scialert.net/pdfs/pjbs/2002/1345-1351.pdf>

Healey, J 2004, Genetic Modification, The Spiney Press, NSW, Australia, p.44.

Herrera-Estrella L, Alvares-Morales A 2001, ‘Genetically modified crops: hope for developing countries?’, European Molecular Biology Organization Report, vol.2, no. 4, pp. 256-258, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://www.res-qualia.net/files//text_37.pdf>

Huesing, J, English, L 2004, ‘The impact of Bt crops on the developing world’, AgBioForum, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 84-95, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a16-huesing.pdf>

James C 2003,’ Global review of commercialized transgenic crops’, Current Science, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 303-309, viewed 10 August 2009,  <http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb102003/303.pdf>

James C, 2008, ‘Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008’, ISAAA Brief No 39, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca NY, viewed 15 August 2009, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/pdf/Brief%2039%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20English.pdf>

Jefferson V 2006, ‘The ethical dilemma of genetically modified food’, The Journal of Environmental Health, vol. 69, no.1, pp. 33-34, viewed 10 August 2009, retrieved from PROQUEST database

Paarlberg, R 2000, ‘Genetically modified crops in developing countries: Promise or peril?’, Environment, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 19-27, viewed 10 August 2009 <http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Developing/Paarlberg-GM-crops-Developing-2000.pdf>

Raney, T 2006, ‘Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries’, Current opinion in biotechnology, vol. 17, pp. 1-5, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://www.agbioworld.org/pdf/raney.pdf>

Redona, E  2004 ‘Rice biotechnology for developing countries in Asia’,  NABC Report 16 : Agricultural biotechnology : finding common international goals, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_16/talks/redona.pdf>

Robinson, J 1999, ‘Ethics and transgenic crops: a review’, Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 71-81, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol2/issue2/full/3/3.pdf>

Stone, GD 2002, ‘Biotechnology and suicide in India’, Anthropology news, vol. 43, no.5,  May 2002, viewed 18 August 2009, <http://grain.org/research_files/biotechandsuicide.pdf>

Timmer CP, 2003, ‘Biotechnology and food systems in developing countries’, The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 133, no. 11, pp. 3319-3332, viewed 10 August 2009, retrieved from PROQUEST database.

Wolfenbarger, LL, Phifer, PR 2000, ‘The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants’, Science, vol. 290, no. 5499,  pp. 2088-2093, viewed 10 August 2009, retrieved from PROQUEST database.