Much of the debate over genetically modified organisms today is focused on
their application in developing countries around the world. In modern nations
the issue has been decided, with Western countries accepting them while the
European Union and much of Asia is very skeptical. Now, these two opposing sides
are turning their attention to the application of GMOs worldwide. Proponents
of GMOs claim that the benefits that have been realized from the new crop varieties
are the answer to malnutrition and starvation in developing countries. The anti-GMO
camp claims that biotechnology companies are simply looking to force their products
on a new market, and that the real solutions to feeding these nations are subsistence
farming and education. In reality there is no one answer to the problem of world
hunger; a multi-faceted approach must be taken to truly solve this problem.
The potential for GMOs to provide food for the world’s starving people
is promising. Today there are an estimated 13 million people starving in southern
Africa, and the need for grain is enormous (Neuffer). GM corn and other grain
have been offered as aid in order to provide immediate relief to those who are
starving, but there has been a lot of opposition. Both government officials
and non-government organizations (NGOs) have called for the rejection of GM
aid because of its potential hazards to the community. They contend that GMOs
have not been tested rigorously enough to conclude that they are safe for human
consumption, that the GM corn could mix with native varieties and create super-weeds
that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides, and that eventually the corn
could contaminate their nations’ export crops that are sold to GM free
consumers. In lieu of total rejection of the GM aid, Zambia and Zimbabwe have
opted to mill the imported grain to ensure that none of it will end up being
used as seed. This form of aid is good for short-term relief; however, it does
not address the long-term problem of providing a sustainable food supply.
To this end, biotechnology companies and other researchers advocate using the
new varieties of GMOs available to increase crop yield in starving nations.
For nearly twenty years, GM crops such as bt corn and Round-up Ready corn have
been planted in the United States with positive results. Bt corn, with its built
in pesticide, reduces farmers’ need to spray crops periodically with harmful
chemicals, while Round-up Ready corn is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate.
These two varieties of corn, and other GM crops, cause less pollution because
they require less chemical treatment, while at the same time producing higher
yields per acre. If used in countries like Zimbabwe, these crops could provide
the extra food needed to feed the millions of starving people.
There are even more options than just pesticide and herbicide resistant GM
crops available. In Peru, where the staple crop is the potato, varieties have
been developed that are resistant to the late blight fungus. Since 1997 late
blight has been wreaking havoc on potato crops throughout the country, leading
to malnutrition and death. At the Centro Internacional de la Papa over 40 different
late blight-resistant potato strains have been developed and are now being introduced
to local farmers (Kandall). This program has had a lot of success teaching locals
about what causes late blight disease and several different varieties have been
incorporated into their fields. As an added benefit to using the new GM varieties,
the need for pesticides has been reduced. “Nobody talked about the huge
mortality rate that pesticide spraying was causing among those poor farmers,”
said Rebecca Nelson, a CIP researcher (Kandall). The use of specifically targeted
GM crops has thus provided a viable answer to the famine in Peru, and shows
that an integrated program of education and GM crop use can solve hunger problems.
Other programs around the world have hoped for this kind of success, but opposition
has halted the process. The golden rice experiment, headed by the International
Rice Research Institute, has developed rice that produces its own source of
vitamin A, commonly deficient in malnourished people. Vitamin A deficiency causes
blindness in half a million children worldwide, and debilitates another 100
million (MacPherson). The golden rice variety, Taipei 309, proposes a solution
for this epidemic in countries where rice is the staple grain. However, the
rice will probably never reach those who need it because the IRRI cannot get
permission for open-air testing. In the Philippines, where the rice was developed,
opposition to GMOs is strong. Some people just fear the general implications
of GMOs, while other groups argue that golden rice is just one more biotechnology
product preying on starving people.
For a real solution to vitamin A deficiency the entire problem of malnutrition
must be addressed. At the root of the problem is an unbalanced diet that does
not include enough protein or vegetables (Grains of delusion). As a result of
the Green Revolution many developing countries were led toward monoculture farming
with an emphasis on high yields. However, the high cost of pesticide and fertilizer
use, and their diminishing effectiveness, led to impoverishment and a lack of
biodiversity. What golden rice is attempting to do is provide a supplement of
one deficient element to a fundamentally unsound diet. A more effective solution
would be to somehow return to the well-rounded farming practices that predominated
before the Green Revolution. However, with all the pollution that has accumulated
this is unlikely. The old farming practices incorporated rice, fish, ducks,
and trees in an organically coherent model (Grains of delusion). With the introduction
of chemicals this way of life crumbled and left people with just their rice
crops.
Further arguments against golden rice include doubts that the vitamin A produce
in the rice will survive cooking, and if so whether it will be provided in enough
quantity to make a difference. For vitamin A to be taken up by the body iron
must be present, and in malnourished individuals iron deficiency is fairly common
as well. Thus, the entire strategy behind golden rice may be undermined because
the whole issue of malnutrition has not been addressed. Clearly, a program that
could provide a more balanced diet in addition to the fortified rice would be
a more effective solution.
Here is where the other side the GMOs debate comes in to play. With the mechanization
and commercialization of farming, subsistence farming has fallen by the wayside.
Movements have been started to reteach the basics of farming to rural communities
so that they do not have to rely on outside sources for food. The advantages
of this style of agriculture is that individual families and communities can
become self-sufficient and also have the possibility to make a little extra
income by selling their surpluses. Subsistence farming is designed for the specificities
of subclimates, and therefore productivity is maximized. Native food that is
well adapted to the conditions of the environment can obviously provide more
for communities that would otherwise rely on imported food sources.
In Tanzania, the Global Service Corps has started a grassroots program to teach
small-scale biointensive farming methods to rural communities. Modern agricultural
practices using fertilizers and pesticides have led to soil erosion, pollution,
and overall increase in farming costs. The biointensive method being taught
uses organic compost, hand-dug garden beds, and small amounts of water; so far
it has yielded two to six times as much food as mechanized agriculture (Pulsifer
2002). In addition to increased yield, the farmers using this new style enjoy
more free time that was formerly spent making the long trips to get grain, and
more available family income from small profits made from surplus crops.
This transition to subsistence farming has potential for application in any
number of developing countries. However, it does not address the large-scale
hunger caused by the world’s rapidly growing population. The Green Revolution
attempted to bring higher yields to the world with out necessitating a large
increase in land use. With a return to subsistence farming in developing countries,
where population growth is the highest, there will be less and less food being
produced per capita. Once again these developing countries will come to rely
on imported food unless a new strategy is adopted.
Today many developing countries do require imported grain in order to meet
the nutritional demands of the people, but ultimately this is a drain on the
economy, holding developing countries back from making any true progress. If
domestic production could be increased, countries could retain capital within
their economy. This would require more than just subsistence farming. Projections
show that when the population does increase the places that will see the most
growth will be cities in developing countries (de Greef 2000). Therefore, not
only will there be a growing gap between need and production, but also the people
who in the most need will not have access to land. By incorporating the use
of GMOs into farming countries could produce the additional food that will be
needed to feed the growing population.
With the growing applications of GM technology to many different species, specifically
targeted varieties could be developed in the same way used by the Centro Internacional
de la Papa of Peru. Native varieties that have been genetically modified would
have the necessary adaptations for the local ecosystem and the added advantage
of increased yield. Both the rural and urban populations would benefit from
a program like this, and a sustainable economy would result for the country
that could bring it into modern stages of development.
It has long been known that feeding the world’s population is more than
simply a matter of production. Countries like the United States have the surpluses
available to feed millions of starving people. However, politics and the logistics
of getting surpluses in the hands of the needed are complicated and most aid
never reaches its destination. By developing programs for incorporating GM technology
with native crops and practices, the need for imported food aid can be reduced
and ideally eliminated.
Despite the bad reputation that GMOs have with some governments, several cases
have shown that once people are educated about the technology behind the crops,
and trials have demonstrated their advantages, people are more willing to use
GM varieties. This was the case in India where a seed developer and trader introduced
Monsanto bt cotton to farmers without the farmers’ (or the government’s)
knowledge. The new variety produced a high yield in the face of a drought and
attracted attention from the government. When it was discovered that the seeds
were genetically modified the government threatened to burn all the seeds, but
farmers fought for their right to use the seeds. The government conceded their
right, but meanwhile legal battles continue (Bate). In Peru, there was initially
apprehension when the CIP started promoting GM potato varieties, but when farmers
got to test several different potatoes on their own plots they saw what they
were missing. Suddenly the mysterious nature of GM technology was revealed,
and the benefits realized (Kandall).
If GMOs are still scary, new research has also shown that many traits conferred
to plants through genetic modification can also be obtained through traditional
breeding. Salt tolerant tomatoes have been developed using traditional breeding
that show the same, and sometimes higher, salt tolerance as GM varieties. For
countries that are skeptical of GMOs, this may offer a new avenue for reaching
the goal of increased crop yields. The impediments that are holding countries
back from the advantages of GM crops could be avoided, bringing the world one
step closer to solving hunger and malnutrition.
No matter which process is used, the ends are the same. Therefore, countries
can choose which path they want to take in order to develop the crop varieties
that suit their needs. Options allow countries to develop their own stance on
the use of GMOs, without the pressure of big biotechnology companies and NGOs
fighting over their loyalty.
What must be remembered when making decisions regarding the future of agriculture
in these developing countries is that you cannot wholly turn your back on technology,
nor can you abandon traditional crops and practices. A compromise must be found
somewhere that allows for increased crop yields, diverse crops and diets, and
a reduction of pesticide and fertilizer use. Models like that in Peru have shown
that this is feasible.