Earthlife Africa submission to the Food Security Hearings :
11-12 March 2003
Genetic Engineering and the Implications for Food Security
Executive Summary
Genetic engineering is a modern form of biotechnology that involves the transfer of genetic information (in the form of DNA sequences) across species barriers and which would not occur under normal conditions. The transgenic DNA is unstable, may give rise to unpredictable and random effects and is prone to horizontal transfer to unrelated or wild species. This has serious implications for sustainable agriculture and food security.
This submission aims to demonstrate that the way in which biotechnology companies are applying genetic engineering threatens food security in developing countries and could increase poverty and hunger.
There is enough food to feed the world According to the United Nations Food Programme there is "more than enough food production in the world for those that can afford to pay for it". The problem is one of poverty and unequal distribution.
Genetic engineering does not address poverty related issues and therefore cannot offer solutions to this problem.
There is growing evidence to show that genetically engineered seeds do not increase crop yield.
The application of genetic engineering ignores the fact that in most developing countries, small scale farmers are the primary producers of staple foods, accounting for a large percentage of national production. When small-scale farmers demonstrate lagging productivity, it is not because they need a "genetically engineered pesticide resistant seed" but because they face macro-economic policies that are increasingly unfavourable to food production.
Trade liberalisation and export oriented production not only undermines local production through cheap and heavily subsidised imports, it also re-orientates food production away from meeting local food needs to cash crops for export.
Agriculture in rural areas is therefore complex and diverse. Any strategy that aims to address productivity and poverty will need to understand the complexities of rural agriculture and will understand that a technological approach ignores the critical factors necessary to ensure food security, such as access to land, infrastructure, agricultural resources, rural development and addressing international trade policies.
Health and Environmental Hazards There is increasing concern over the potential health and environmental hazards posed by genetically engineered seeds, and their large-scale release without adequate testing and regulatory control.
Lack of genetic diversity increases vulnerability to pests and disease. In the case of genetically engineered crops, crop diversity is threatened by a number of factors including:
- monopoly control of seeds which results in fewer types of seeds being available
- gene transfer to domestic relatives and wild plants. Such hybrids can become "superweeds".
Corporate Control of the Food Chain The agrochemical companies are consolidating themselves into gene giants. The development of genetically engineered crops that are herbicide and pesticide resistant has been motivated by the need of the seed and chemical companies to gain a greater share of the herbicide / insecticide market.
For centuries farmers have followed a tradition of saving, adapting and exchanging seed. This has promoted biodiversity and food security. If a farmer loses the ability to save seed he/she cannot continue to select plants best adapted to local conditions and needs. Seeds evolve with communities. If farmers lose control over their seeds, they lose control over their farming system and become dependent on outside sources of seed and agricultural inputs.
The proliferation of patents over genetically modified seeds threatens this practice. Patents give monopoly rights for the commercial exploitation of genetically engineered seed. The expense of purchasing seed is likely to make poor farmers poorer.
In order to protect their patents, corporations are continuing to develop "terminator technologies" that engineer seeds that are sterile, despite world opposition from farmers and civil society.
Argentina has adopted GE crops more enthusiastically than any country other than the United States. It is now the second largest producer of GE soy, exporting most of it as animal feed. During the same period, food insecurity has greatly increased and half the population, 18 out of 37 million, now live on the edge of starvation or are unable to meet their basic needs, according to official statistics. One of the great promises made by the GE industry is that GE crops will help to feed the world but experience in Argentina points to exactly the opposite conclusion
The increasing control over genetically engineered crops and food by a few large companies takes place within the context of a global trade regime that only allows access to indigenous knowledge through intellectual property rights and patenting.
The TRIPS (Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement of the WTO, permits private intellectual property rights over biodiversity (ie the privatisation of biodiversity which in turn serves the interest of the biotechnology companies). This opens the door for the patenting of other life forms and increasing the threat to farm saved seeds.
South Africa must ensure that revision of the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO is in keeping with African needs and priorities. African groupings in the Convention on Biological Diversity and WTO have repeatedly rejected the patenting of life forms and have lobbied the WTO to allow member states the right to maintain systems of their own choice to ensure national food security, livelihoods, healthcare, and the development of sustainable agriculture.
The threat of patenting on food security is the theft of centuries old knowledge and selective breeding from those who developed it. Patents and genetic engineering mutually reinforce each other. Patents provide an instrument to control markets and maximize profits. Without patents there would be little reason for GE in food and farming.
Why organic agriculture in Africa?
Organic farming systems are the traditional farming systems of Africa as small farmers are too poor to afford expensive inputs. What is necessary in Africa is financial input into the distribution systems (transport and markets), basic infrastructure (such as fencing and irrigation), extension officers, and credit systems. Also important is to prevent the undermining of African small farmers by the dumping of subsidized US and EU crops.
Earthlife Africa calls for:
- opposition to "patents on life or living organisms"
- protection of the rights of resource-poor farmers /and facilitation of the voice of these farmers
- a ban on the introduction of "Terminator or Genetic Use Restriction Technology", the controversial genetic engineering that deliberately sterilises crops and could jeopardize small farmers ability to use their own seed.
- a ban on the release of GMOs into the environment until sufficient research has been undertaken in accordance with the precautionary principle
- the corporations who develop the GE technology to assume full responsibility for the impact of the general release and spread of genetically engineered organisms
- sustainable agricultural projects to be set up and more research into non-corporate sustainable agriculture to be encouraged and independent enquiries into the future of agriculture and food security to be initiated
- opposition to the current WTO framework that moves us away from a path of sustainable development
- strengthening the role of the precautionary principle embodied in the Rio Declaration and ensuring that biosafety legislation takes precedence over WTO/ NEPAD / AGOA / NAFTA and other trade based rules and agreements.
Genetic Engineering and the Implications for Food Security
Earthlife Africa eThekwini submission to the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture : Food Security Hearings : 11-12 March 2003
What is Genetic Engineering?
Genetic engineering (also referred to as genetic modification, genetically modified organisms or transgenics) is a modern form of biotechnology that involves the transfer of genetic information (in the form of DNA sequences) across species barriers and which would not occur under normal conditions. Genetic engineering introduces new genes into crops, livestock and microorganisms. The foreign genes are randomly inserted into the genome (total genetic material of a cell). The transgenic DNA is unstable, may give rise to unpredictable and random effects and is prone to horizontal transfer to unrelated or wild species.
The use of genetic engineering in agriculture is growing rapidly. The most common genetically engineered varieties are those that tolerate a proprietary brand of herbicide and those that contain insecticide genes (Bt gene). ie they are either herbicide or pesticide resistant.
This submission aims to demonstrate that the way in which biotechnology companies are applying genetic engineering threatens food security in developing countries and could increase poverty and hunger.
There is enough food to feed the world The FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) State of Food Insecurity Report (1999) reports that about 800 million people in the developing world and a further 43 million in the developed world suffer from chronic food insecurity. Chronic food insecurity is defined as " an estimate of the number of people whose food intake does not provide enough calories to meet their basic energy requirements, i.e. the undernourished".
Proponents of biotechnology claim that genetically engineered seed and crops will solve the world’s food needs and will contribute towards food security and reducing poverty.
This claim rests on the assumptions
- that hunger is due to a gap between food production and human population growth and that we need to grow more food;
- that genetic engineering will increase agricultural production and meet future food needs (Altieri, M and Rosset, P).
According to the United Nations Food Programme there is "more than enough food production in the world for those that can afford to pay for it". The problem is one of poverty and unequal distribution. The following facts further demonstrate this:
Global food production per person has outstripped population growth by 16% over the past 35 years and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) predicts it will continue to do so for at least the next 30 years,
- Hunger persists in countries even where food is being exported. For instance, in Sub-Saharan Africa, home to 213 million malnourished people, exports are growing more rapidly than imports;
- Nearly 80% of malnourished children in the South live in countries that have food surpluses;
- Hunger persists even in the richest countries in the world where there are food surpluses: 36 million hungry people live in the US.
The above clearly demonstrates that hunger is largely poverty rather than production related. Genetic engineering does not address poverty related issues and therefore cannot offer solutions to this problem.
There is growing evidence to show that genetically engineered seeds do not increase crop yield:
- Studies have shown that there is no significant difference in yield between engineered versus non engineered crops.
- Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels than similar conventional bred varieties (USDA, Economic Research Service Study in Altieri M A, undated).
- GM crops are designed to be grown as industrial monocrops. Total productivity of mixed-crop land has been shown repeatedly to outstrip monocrops in total useful output. This mixed cropping not only helps the farmer, but it benefits dietary diversity and human health, soil maintenance, the environment, crop and biological diversity, and local economies,.
The application of genetic engineering ignores the fact that in most developing countries, small scale farmers are the primary producers of staple foods, accounting for a large percentage of national production. When small-scale farmers demonstrate lagging productivity, it is not because they need a "genetically engineered pesticide resistant seed" but because they face macro-economic policies that are increasingly unfavourable to food production and which has driven them to the "depths of economic crisis due to their inability to compete with cheap subsidised imports" (Leisa, 2001).
Trade liberalisation and export oriented production not only undermines local production through cheap and heavily subsidised imports, it also re-orientates food production away from meeting local food needs to cash crops for export. This in turn leads to increased use of agro-chemicals, increased monocropping and accelerated loss of biodiversity upon which resource poor farmers are dependant (Greenberg, S, 2001).
Agriculture in rural areas is therefore complex and diverse. Any strategy that aims to address productivity and poverty will need to understand the complexities of rural agriculture and will understand that a technological approach ignores the critical factors necessary to ensure food security, such as access to land, infrastructure, agricultural resources, rural development and addressing international trade policies.
Health and Environmental Hazards There is increasing concern over the potential health and environmental hazards posed by genetically engineered seeds, and their large-scale release without adequate testing and regulatory control.
- Scientific evidence points to the potential risk that the new protein (inserted into the DNA as part of the genetic engineering process) could cause the food producing plant to produce allergens or toxins or even reduce its nutritional value
- Recombination can occur (ie transgenic is unstable) in certain conditions leading to new viral strains and hosts
- The use of Bt (insecticide) can lead to soil contamination and affect non-target or beneficial insects. Soil bacteria are able to take up DNA from their environment so there is a risk of genes transferring to soil bacteria and other organisms with unpredictable consequences (May 1999, Selling Suicide, p26)
- As pests rapidly adapt and develop pesticide resistance to an insecticide in a plant, this will violate the widely accepted principles of "integrated pest management" which reduces pest exposure to pesticides and retards resistance evolution (Rossett, page 8 in Leisa, December 2001).
Lack of genetic diversity increases vulnerability to pests and disease. Crop diversity is threatened by the displacement of local varieties (for example, through monocropping) and by hybridisation. In the case of genetically engineered crops, crop diversity is threatened by a number of factors including:
- Monopoly control of seeds which results in fewer types of seeds being available, creating uniformity in seed breeding and narrowing the world’s genetic base, increasing the likelihood of crop disasters and the ability to withstand environmental changes and;
- gene transfer to domestic relatives and wild varieties (in other words, a genetically engineered crop can hybridise with a wild variety and the offspring may be viable or even more successful than the wild variety). Such hybrids can become "superweeds". These are more resilient, invasive and harder to control and may be tolerant to a number of "proprietary" chemicals. The ecological damage is impossible to mitigate as the example of Mexico illustrates.
Genetically engineered varieties of maize are not grown in Mexico but are imported from the USA for feed and industrial use. Recently, it was found that traditional maize fields were contaminated by GE varieties. While most pollen falls within 500 meters of the crop field, transport of pollen over longer distances is possible through bee or wind dispersal. Mexico is the home of maize and contains genetically diverse varieties – genetic pollution may cost the world the strengths of genetic diversity.
The questions we should be asking are: Who benefits from Genetic Engineering and what is the alternative to Genetic Engineering ?
Corporate Control of the Food Chain The growth in GE crops worldwide has grown 20-fold in the past four years with the 6th fastest expansion taking place in South Africa. Already over 350 000 hectares in South Africa have been planted with GE crops. Ironically, South Africa’s first two commercial releases (pesticide resistance cotton and pest resistant maize for animal feed) had nothing to do with feeding people. More recently, GE white maize has been released for human consumption raising further environmental and health concerns.
The agrochemical companies are consolidating themselves into gene giants. Monsanto, Aventis, Syngenta and Du Pont now dominate the agrochemical, seed and pharmaceutical markets raising increasing concerns worldwide with the corporate control of the food chain. With the recent take over of Carnia and Sensako, Monsanto also dominates the South African market for GE seed.
The development of genetically engineered crops that are herbicide and pesticide resistant has been motivated by the need of the seed and chemical companies to gain a greater share of the herbicide / insecticide market. Crops such as Monsanto’s herbicide-resistant "Roundup Ready Soyabean", tolerant to Monsanto’s herbicide - Roundup, and "bt" (bacillus thuringiensis) crops, engineered to produce their own pesticide, are both examples of the industry’s attempt to increase GE seed supply and the market share of a proprietary product.
For centuries farmers have followed a tradition of saving, adapting and exchanging seed. This has promoted biodiversity and food security. Over 1.4 billion people depend on farm saved seeds as their primary seed source (McCrea, I and Dr Mayer, S, 1999). If a farmer loses the ability to save seed he/she cannot continue to select plants best adapted to local conditions and needs. Seeds evolve with communities. If farmers lose control over their seeds, they lose control over their farming system and become dependent on outside sources of seed and agricultural inputs.
The proliferation of patents over genetically modified seeds threatens this practice as evidenced by the decision of Monsanto vs Schmeiser. Patents give monopoly rights for the commercial exploitation of genetically engineered seed. Farmers who use this seed need to pay royalties for its re-use or need to go back to the company to buy new seeds. Saving these seeds constitutes "patent infringement" and "seed piracy". Farmers then become dependent on these corporations for their seed and their rights to save seed are undermined. The expense of purchasing seed is
likely to make poor farmers poorer.
In Andhra Pradesh, India, the higher costs of patented seeds (due to patent fees and agricultural inputs) further impoverished poor farmers with tragic consequences where 400 cotton farmers committed suicide. The commercialization of seeds tied farmers to corporate control and created chemical dependency. This "bioserfdom" threatens national food security.
In order to protect their patents, corporations are continuing to develop "terminator technologies" that engineer seeds that are sterile, despite world opposition from farmers and civil society.
In yet another example, Greenpeace has released a case study "Record Harvest – Record Hunger", showing that genetically engineered (GE) crops have increased poverty and failed to address hunger in Argentina.
"Since their introduction in 1996, Argentina has adopted GE crops more enthusiastically than any country other than the United States. It is now the second largest producer of GE soy, exporting most of it as animal feed. The land used for soy cultivation has nearly doubled, which subsequently has increased the soy harvest to the record level of nearly 30 million metric tonnes.
During the same period, food insecurity has greatly increased and half the population, 18 out of 37 million, now live on the edge of starvation or are unable to meet their basic needs, according to official statistics.
One of the great promises made by the GE industry is that GE crops will help to feed the world but experience in Argentina points to exactly the opposite conclusion. By surrendering to food dictators such as Monsanto and Syngenta, who seek to dominate the world’s food production from fields to fork, Argentina has put its food security at risk.
Experience in Argentina shows that GE crop cultivation has led to a massive expansion of land used for soy cultivation and to a record concentration of land ownership into the hands of a few. Small and medium size farms disappeared in record numbers at the end of the 90’s, and large numbers of people were displaced from rural livelihoods.
There are of course many causes for the current Argentinian crisis, but GE crops are not the solution. They have locked the country into a trade model that favours export oriented agriculture at any cost and undermines the food security of ordinary people. "
The increasing control over genetically engineered crops and food by a few large companies takes place within the context of a global trade regime that only allows access to indigenous knowledge through intellectual property rights and patenting.
The TRIPS (Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement of the WTO, permits private intellectual property rights over biodiversity (ie the privatisation of biodiversity which in turn serves the interest of the biotechnology companies). This opens the door for the patenting of other life forms and increasing the threat to farm saved seeds.
South Africa must ensure that revision of the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO is in keeping with African needs and priorities. African groupings in the Convention on Biological Diversity and WTO have repeatedly rejected the patenting of life forms and have lobbied the WTO to allow member states the right to maintain systems of their own choice to ensure national food security, livelihoods, healthcare, and the development of sustainable agriculture.
The threat of patenting on food security is the theft of centuries old knowledge and selective breeding from those who developed it. Patents and genetic engineering mutually reinforce each other. Patents provide an instrument to control markets and maximize profits. Without patents there would be little reason for GE in food and farming.
Zambia has been reluctant to accept US food-aid in the form of GE maize for fear of the health effects of consuming GE maize, and the fear of contamination of local varieties, including the loss of export markets in Europe where safety concerns have led to consumer rejection of GE crops and seeds.
The US insistence that its GE food is accepted raises questions about its motives and whether the US is using food aid as a means to export its subsidised agricultural surpluses at the expense of food security and sovereignty of the recipient country.
Organic agriculture as an alternative to GE: Why organic agriculture in Africa? Organic farming systems are the traditional farming systems of Africa as small farmers are too poor to afford expensive inputs. Organic farming systems have proven, both in Africa and elsewhere, that they can prevent crop loss to pests without any synthetic pesticides. In Kenya, East Africa, the "push-pull" method of pest control system introduced in maize fields, demonstrates the success of a natural pest control method which achieves better yields. Napier grass growing next to maize "pulls" the moths from the maize and they are ("pushed" by the legume desmodium planted between the maize. (Leisa, 2001 p10-14). Small farmers are able to maintain high yields, comparable to conventional agriculture, without any of the associated external costs to society. Furthermore, organic and agroecological farming methods continually increase soil fertility and prevent loss of topsoil to erosion, while conventional methods have the opposite effect. What is necessary in Africa is financial input into the distribution systems (transport and markets), basic infrastructure (such as fencing and irrigation), extension officers, and credit systems. Also important is to prevent the undermining of African small farmers by the dumping of subsidized US and EU crops.
Conclusions
By now it is evident that GE is destroying the diversity, local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that farmers have developed for thousands of years and undermining farmers capacity to feed themselves.
Despite growing opposition worldwide, and in Africa, by farmers and consumers, South Africa is embracing genetic engineering in agriculture and allowing the biotechnology industry to gain a foothold in the South African and African markets.
Earthlife Africa calls for:
- a ban on the introduction of "Terminator or Genetic Use Restriction Technology", the controversial genetic engineering that deliberately sterilises crops and could jeopardise small farmers ability to use their own seed.
- strict liability resulting from trans-boundary movements
- opposition to "patents on life or living organisms"
- protection of the rights of resource-poor farmers /and facilitation of the voice of these farmers
- a ban on the release of GMOs into the environment until sufficient research has been undertaken in accordance with the precautionary principle
- the corporations who develop the GE technology to assume full responsibility for the impact of the general release and spread of genetically engineered organisms
- sustainable agricultural projects to be set up and more research into non-corporate sustainable agriculture to be encouraged and independent enquiries into the future of agriculture and food security to be initiated
- Opposition to the current WTO framework that moves us away from a path of sustainable development.
- strengthening the role of the precautionary principle embodied in the Rio Declaration and ensuring that biosafety legislation takes precedence over WTO/ NEPAD / AGOA / NAFTA and other trade based rules and agreements
REFERENCES
Altieri M A and Rosset, P "Ten reasons why GE technology cannot ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce Third World poverty" Third World Resurgence, The Real Miracle Sustainable Agriculture. Issue No 118-119, pp 15-19
Christian Aid, May 1999, Selling Suicide, Farming False Promises and Genetic Engineering in developing Countries
Greenberg, S, December 2001 Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development Preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Briefing Document 7 Sustainable Agriculture, Environmental Monitoring Group
Greenpeace, September 2001, Recipes against Hunger, Success Stories for the Future of Agriculture.
GroundWork and Biowatch South Africa, 2002, The Seeds of Neocolonialism : Genetic Engineering in Food and Farming, No 4
McCrea, I and Dr Mayer, S, 1999, AstraZenca and its Genetic Research: Feeding the World of Fuelling Public Hunger, ActionAid
Nielsen, F, December 2001, "The push--pull System a viable alternative to Bt maize" LEISA, Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, Volume 17 No. 4 pp 17-18
Rossett, P, December 2001, "Genetically Engineered crops : Will they feed the hungry and reduce poverty ? " LEISA, Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, Volume 17 No. 4 pp 6-8
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. Report of the Secretary General E/CN.17/2000/7/Add.1 United Nations. Economic and Social Council. Commission on Sustainable Development. Eighth Session 24 April to 5 May 2000.
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) : State of Food Insecurity Report: 1999:
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Report: Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Global Perspectives Studies Unit.
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: Briefing for Land, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Issues I n World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) For SARD Leadership Team January 27, 2002