|
|
 
|
Genetically modified food and the poor (Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- NY Times editorial, 10/13/03: Brazil has wisely decided to end a three-year ban and allow
its soybean farmers to plant genetically modified crops
that require less pesticide. But the decision has been
controversial. Few global issues provoke a more emotional
debate than that of genetically engineered crops, which
contain transplanted genes from other species to make them
easier to grow or more nutritious or flavorful. The
evidence suggests that such foods are safe (Americans have
been eating them for six years) and could reduce world
hunger.
But genetically modified crops have not overcome widespread
resistance mostly because the industry is tightly
controlled by five conglomerates. The companies must
realize that relaxing their grip on the technology is in
their long-term interests.
One of the problems is that the companies have done nearly
all the research on the crops' safety on their own or
financed it elsewhere. If they want to build consumer
confidence, they should embrace independent tests of the
products' safety and impact.
While safety concerns have been the focus of debate, the
real problem is that genetic engineering is hurting the
poor. It makes cotton cheaper to grow for highly subsidized
American producers, further undercutting the price of
cotton and forcing West African producers out of business.
Poor countries should fight back by adopting the
technology themselves. Unfortunately, so far most of them
have failed to approve it. African farmers work tiny plots
without the benefit of fertilizers, irrigation or
pesticides. The risks they face from genetic modification
are remote - but unlike Europeans, the average African
would benefit hugely from crops engineered to resist bugs
or need little water.
The other reason Africans do not grow such products is that
the major companies like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta have
no financial interest in developing them for African crops
- and tightly control the technology.
There are two methods of transferring genes, for example.
Both were developed by universities, but industry giants
now hold the licenses. The companies permit others to do
research with the technologies but want control over any
product commercialized as a result. Several poor nations
are trying to develop improved versions of local crops, but
these efforts have been crippled by the biotech companies'
control over the technology.
The world shouldn't ban genetically modified food. It
should develop a cassava root resistant to the mealy bug
and drought-proof corn. Antiglobalization activists are
right that corporate greed is the problem. But they are
wrong that genetically modified crops should be banned. The
real crime of genetic modification is not its risks but
that it is squandering its promise, widening the gap
between rich and poor.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/opinion/13MON4.html?ex=1067094665&ei=1&en=e75e8186976835e2 | |
