What Part Will Biotech Companies Play In The Future Of The Developing World?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in February 2001. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

I believe that Gm products are one of the biggest breakthroughs in mankinds history and will gladly oppose anyone who says otherwise. They have the potential to solve a lot of problems in the world. This is one reason that they should be developed.

Tom
Liverpool, UK
winstanley@Ukonline.co.uk

I agree with you. There are poor people out there who need food and this is the best way. Thanks for what you are doing.

John Smith
London, UK

True in a sense but there have to be other considerations. Market segmentation is a nice idea but it seems that again everyone is falling into the "west is best" trap. Something that both modernizationists and world systems theorists assume is that we can impose our traditions, values and methods on any country and expect them to be grateful. I am not denying any moral duty of the first world, simply questioning what that moral duty actually is. Take Africa for example. There is a set of nations arbitrarily divided up by the europeans so we could all have a chunk of coastline. We cut across naturally occurring ethnic divides and imposed a more superficial society on what was always one centred upon family. Perhaps instead of looking simply to change the social and political infrastructure to resemble our own we ought to take into account the fact that maybe the strong fundamental base they have would be better suited by a completely different style of g! overnment. Effectively, there is a continuing trend to try to cram hundreds of years of our own history into one or two generations for the third world. Whilst this offers no solution, I think it pertinent to step back and try to look at the situation objectively. Also, though I agree that market segmentation may be a good idea, there seems to me no reason why, once the more profitable crops have been exploited, the less profitable ones will receive some attention, at a decreased R & D cost too if you believe the synteny argument.

John Smith
johnsmith99@yahoo.com

I believe given the large yearly turn over for biotech companies such as monsanto, they should at a reasonably cheap price, sell information that is patented, to countries of the developing world. This will enable developing countries to become more technologically advanced, increase their gross domestic product, and enable them to feed the multitudes of starving people within their nations. Technical assistance in the use of this technology may also be required. Biotech companies also have a moral ethical responsibility to produce food products that appeal to the third world, not just products that are aimed specifically at developed nations. In general it must not be forgotten that biotech companies have a responsibility to test their products to assure people of all nations of their safety.

chris van buggenum
Australia
:ccv02@uow.edu.au

It seems to me that there are three main types of concern with GM foods. Firstly the issue of food safety, the issue that has been plastered over the popular press in an attempt to scare, bewilder and misinform the public - GM companies are not the only groups with ulterior motives. It seems also that this issue is actually the least contentious of the three. It is an inherent shortcoming in our scientific method that it is impossible to prove that something is not dangerous and never will be but society always takes risks and if it didn't it would never advance. All of the classic arguments are valid here - the house of commons report, the ineptitude of the GM potato on rats experimenter, the fact that we have been interfering with the genetic makeup of our food for centuries without really understanding it a little bit, the emergence of the precautionary principle etc make food safety unlikely to be a problem.

The second concern would have to be the environmental concern. This does seem a little more contentious. The main issue seems to be transgene escape and the truth is, we dont really know what exactly will happen. We do need regulations and these should be enforced but illegal halting of GM trials will help no-one. Though there is a potential threat to the environment, unpopular technologies like terminator genes etc may help avoid these dangers. Allowing the science to develop further is surely the way forward here.

Thirdly the socioeconomic issues. The idea of power hungry multinationals creating an Oligopoly via aggressive employment of intellectual property rights is indeed a scary prospect - having our food supply governed by a select few, power corrupts etc. One way to ensure this does happen is to continue the public pressure over here in the UK, thus ensuring that the biotech industry, already heavily US dominated becomes even more, and maybe irreversibly so.

Infrastructure in the third world as well as the fact that the food mountains are not as big as people like to believe, combined with the explosive rate of population growth in the third world mean that there is not enough potential in current methods - least of all organics to support that population. GM foods are inevitable & organics constitute a niche market for the upper middle class. As with mobile phones, the momentum inherent in the technology seems likely to carry it through the period of unacceptance allowing us to become dependent on it come the next century, despite overwhelming resistance on the part of many NGO's such as Greenpeace. It is important to question the motives of these NGO's if you are going to take the "only motive is profit" tack (which as already mentioned is inevitable in both freemarket or stakeholder capitalism)- who funds these NGO's via donations etc, they generate funding in ways every bit as manipulative as the multinationals. One thing that must happen in the future is the creation of some sort of regulatory body for all of the NGO's that purport to be the ultimate altruists.

John Smith
J_Smith_99@hotmail.com

I have read the comments by everyone on this message board and am very impressed by the intelligent points made by both sides and the fact that we have the opportunity to do so. I live in Manchester, the home of the industrial revolution. I know the history of technological advancement of this kind and have seen how general health and wellbeing are often actually diminshed by technological advancement. Life expectancy fell and hardship increased as income rose. There was only true benifit from new technology when legeslators had the good hearted sense to regulate it and ban unsafe and unsound practices. Monsanto cannot therefore complain if it suffers from regulation and other methods of controll by good hearted leaders to protect the wellbeing of thier electorate.

I also don't understand the negativity of being romantic about nature, as I don't understand the positivity of greed. If through others greed we get food on the table, why not then, through others kindness?

Nick Scott
Manchester, UK
Scottidowg@aol.com

I think the fuss created about GM crops is not that they are inherrantly dangerous. The religous arguement would not apply to those who are athiest or who believe that people that would starve otherwise unless GMO's could feed them. I think the fuss created comes from people's experience of what companies do. They have seen that companies, some more than others operate only to serve thier own monetary benifit. Organisations such as Monsanto helping starving people would only result if thier was a financial reward for doing so.

That is why they are deaf to claims that there is a moral argument for GMO's coming from companies. If this moral arguement was coming from a philanthropic, environmentally concious organisation whose remit was to alleviate suffering and damage they would listen. As it is coming from a self serving organisation with a bad record on similar global community related issues it is treated as fecicous and cynical. If alleviating suffering is the aim of developing these crops then monsanto should reorganise it's structure to benifit humanity rather than just its shareholders. If making money above all is its mission then one should not be surprised that there is a fuss and suspicion.

Nick Scott
Manchester, UK
Scottidowg@aol.com

I feel that rigid, uncompromising and ignorant activists tend to hinder open discussion of a delicate subject. Considering the violent outburst of certain activists and their unwillingness to rationally understand emerging transgenic varieties before making aggravating statements to the media tranforms genetics into a rat race for controlling public opinion. Whichever side is better able to manipulate the general public into beleiving their side is the victor. Technology and future human well being are the only sufferers.

Shirish
Cornell, U. S. A.
srb25@cornell.edu

In the past, environmentalists used to say that there wasn't enough food. Now, they say that there is too much. Instead of large-scale farming, we need to return to smaller-scale farming, they say. Of course, on a practical level, this would be disastrous - for people, for nature and for farmers. Firstly, there isn't any evidence that organic food is safer than transgenic crops. Secondly, there isn't any concrete evidence that a return to small-scale farming would help the environment. In fact, as agricultural yields have increased, the amount of land in production has reduced.

Finally, a return to small-scale agriculture would be a disaster for farmers. They would be beholden to government subsidies because, apart from the smallest minority, organic food is still only a niche market. Simply not many people are prepared to food that looks unattractive and rots quickly. Organic food has a future, but it shouldn't be seen as an alternative to further advances in production techniques.

RCV Nash
Solihull, UK
rcv_nash@hotmail.com

Contributors to this discussion are perfectly entitled to their opinions. However, contrary to a lot of what has been expressed, there simply isn't much evidence to suggest that GM technology does do any serious harm - to the environment or to man. The one study that was cited as evidence that GM foods could damage human health - Dr Pusztai's study of the impact of GM potatoes on rats - was disproved. On the contrary, there is lots of practical evidence to suggest that GM food could have an immensely beneficial impact on the Third World.

Using genetic modification, scientists can modify crops such as corn, cotton and potatoes to protect them against insect damage. They can produce herbicide tolerant crops such as soybeans, cotton, corn and rice. They can also produce disease-resistant crops and delayed-ripening fruit and vegetables. In particular, by genetically modifying rice - the staple food in many parts of the Third World - scientists can potentially save millions of lives.

It appears to me, then, that the campaign against GM foods is not really mtoivated by rational considerations, such as science, but by sentiment. For many opponents of GM food, the specific details of genetic science are much less important than a moral crusade against big corporations. It's quite clear that GM technology has a lot of potential and so, confronted with a lack of evidence to support their dire warnings, opponents of this technology alter the angle of their attack.

As a proponent of GM technology, it would be interesting to hear the alternative of the opponents of this technology. As a former political science student, denouncing the large corporations is heady language. However, if the alternative is a return to small-scale farming then it is no alternative whatsover. Small-scale farming, as the nineteenth-century economist Ricard Jones observed, was more susceptible to exploitation, not less. More importantly, what practical advantages would this offer the Third World? Even in an advanced country like the UK it would only benefit the richest minority. Organic farming, for example, could only sustain a small proportion of this island.

RCV Nash
Solihull, UK
rcv_nash@hotmail.com

I simply don't believe that you are going to make the lives of those in the developing world any easier by 'giving' them your bug resistant etc plants. You have already engineered plants so that they don't provide seeds meaning that framers have to spend money with you every year.

You best conventional crops are not widely available in the 'third world'so why are we expected to believe that your genetically engineered products will be. And why do you make framers enter into such oppressive contcarts with you when they agree to use your seeds. I genuinely believe that money is the only thing that motivates big business and I can't believe for one minute that 'you'care about anyhitng other than profit. Monsanto played this whole GM debate appallingly badly and it's back-fired. You have to take responsibility for the potential dangers these types of crops and foods present to our world environment and stop treating us like silly children getting worked up over nothing.

Sarah Topalian
London, UK
sarahtopalian@hotmail.com

From most of the comments on this site, it's clear that negative attitudes towards GM technology have sharpened. Where I live - in the UK - negative attitudes will become more pronounced as the media and political class debate the lessons to be learnt from the Foot and Mouth crisis. It's unfortunate that, as I write, modern and innovative farming techniques are being blamed. The fact that Britain has only had one outbreak of this disease since 1967 indicates that farming needs to be more, not less, innovative. I wonder if the contributors to this site realise that the only parts of the world where this terrible disease is endemic are the countries of the Third World where agriculture is extensive, not intensive, and virtually organic.

A common thread of criticism to be found in many contributions to this topic is that GM food is unsafe and organic food is somehow safer. In fact, according to the House of Commons committe on agriculture, there is no scientific evidence to prove 'that any of the many claims made for organic farming [as against GM food] are always and invariably true'. The natural toxins produced by parsnips, for example, cause blisters on the skin of farm workers. Yet educated people still seem more scared of eating traces of a few, strictly regulated, man-made chemicals than they are of eating ones that nature created directly.

It is odd that as the world becomes more edcuated and less hungry, the resistance to modern technology grows. The old Byzantine proverb that a man with a full stomach has many problems but that he with an empty stomach has only one, has more than a grain of genetically modified truth to it. Opposition to GM technology is overwhelmingly to be found amongst the educated middle classes. But those who they purport to speak for - Third World farmers - support new and innovative technologies like these. They understand that if GM food production is curtailed, future food supplies will be insuficient. For less developed countries, the clamour for organic farming is irrelevant. Land is so starved and crop yields are so low that ther is simply not enough organic matter to put back into the soil. Using new farming methods is the only option available to them.

I think that opponents of GM technology hold the beliefs they do more because of the romantic associations of nature, than any real desire to protect the Third World. In short, they're playing out their own anxieties in someone else's backyard. This is unfair and selfish. Why should we benefit from the side-effects of innovative technology - cheaper, safer food - and the Third World not? Don't let the Third World develop, give them a bucket and a handfield of grain seems to be their solution.

RCV Nash
Solihull, UK
rcv_nash@hotmail.com

Dan Brett remarks that GM technology hasn't done anything to increase the nutritional intake of Third World populations. This is simply not true.

In many parts of the Third World, rice is the staple diet. Yet, because the soil is so poor, it is often lacking in vitamin A, which helps fight off blindness. As a result, premmature blindness is a common condition in many Third World countries. But by genetically modifying rice, scientists can boost the content of vitamin A and help stave off blindness in the Third World. This is but one example where GM food can benefit the Third World.

RCV Nash
Solihull, UK
rcv_nash@hotmail.com

Unfortunately, Correnne Harrison, profit and greed are inescapable in a capitalist society. It's easy to criticise profit and greed, but are these motives really so bad? As Adam Smith realised, it is often through regard to their own self-interest that man's advancement has been realised. 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner', wrote Smith in his 'Wealth of Nations', 'but from their regard to their own self-interest'. As Correnne might also be aware, this is a point that Karl Marx also developed in his theory of commodity fetishism.

Correnne also criticises the 'propoganda' of Monsanto and other supporters of GM technology. But it's no worse than the propoganda of the opponents of GM technology. Britain's most outspoken opponent of GM technology Lord Melchett is one example. He thinks GM trials should be outlawed and UK farming should become organic. Yet, as I think I've written before, there is no evidence that organic food is safer than that produced via genetic modification. The respected House of Commons cross-party agriculture committee revealed that there was no scientific evidence to prove 'that any of the many claims made for organic farming are always and invariably true'. By contrast, what we can say for certain is that food is cheaper, safer and more readily available because of innovative technologies like GM food.

I think Richard Wilkinson has his finger on the pulse. He seems to be saying that the unpopularity of GM food is more a result of a lack of information than anything else. To this, I would add that campaigners strongly opposed to GM food have played upon a general public anxiety about new technologies to create a platform for their own views. To this I would also add the lack of leadership by our political class, who often seem ready to follow public opinion rather than inform it.

Dr Mae-Wan Ho's latest book is an example. She believes that genetic engineering could lead to food poisoning, citing the Trytophan disaster that killed 37 people. Yet this was the consequence of chemical treatment.

RCV Nash
Solihull, UK
rcv_nash@hotmail.com

The wars of the next 50 years will be fought over food security and water The propoganda put out by monsanto and other firms like cargill astounds me. That these companies driven by profit and greed, would even propose to speak about aiding the developing world is laughable. There is so much overwhelming evidence as to the destructive consequences to be endured as a result of the extension of transnational control over something as fundamental as food. It can not be and is not sustainable to put the vast majority of the worlds resources in the hands of a small group of elite company executives. I feel shame and sorry for the misguided policies of our governments as they allow this power shift to take place. I can only imagine what torture it must be to live with the knowledge that you are destroying the creation and diversity with which we have been blessed. I offer you my sympathies.

Corinne Harrison
Dalhousie University, Canada
corinneharrison@hotmail.com

Richard Wilkinson seems to suggest that all that's needed is for people to understand the 'science' and how it is good for them. The reason people like me think this is an arrogant position is because agriculture is something more than simply growing food. For much of the world, it's a way of life and a source of income. GM crops pose serious questions in this area - questions which Monsanto, aventis el al do not address by simply stating - 'we're only in it to feed people'.

Dan Brett
London, England
dan@danielbrett.co.uk

Thanks for the chance to comment. I had the rather pleasant experience of working in the UK and Europe for a little over two years, and noted with disdain that many people were sadly misinformed about the value of GM. To me it was a matter of being properly informed. One chap told me he "didn't want his children breathing pollen from "Frankenstein" (i.e., GM) rapeseed when the wind blows". Sheesh, it was a shocking revelation I wasn't prepared to hear! As a former agriculture researcher, I see GM as a tool to increase productivity with potential to increase disease and pest resistance, increase drought tolerance, increase yields, increase nutritional value, and other such positive aspects, and needs to be brought into prominance pronto! Especially as regards to third world countries where the benefits way, way outweigh the risks (or perceived risks).

On the other hand, I have also seen us arrogant scientists with a "they wouldn't understand anyway" attitude to! ward the public. To me, both sides need to come together to decide a rational way forward. Scientists may shun the word "public relations", but it is vital the public understand the benefits against the risks. Benefits seem substantial and sustainable, risks seem small. It is my observation that UK has the greatest need in this regard (i.e., informing and educating the public), as well as the greatest potential contribution. Good luck to us.

Richard Wilkinson
USA
richard.wilkinson@perbio.com

I think its important that we, in the western world, should work together to find solutions to the agricultural demands in the undeveloped countries. The way forward with the GM food issue, at the moment, is very complicated and seems to be preoccupying agricultural/conservational/moral debate throughout most of the world. Although it may be deemed hypocritical when developed nations are trying to impose international sanctions on the undeveloped world (stopping them from carrying out operations which are environentally damaging when our history dictates that we have done all these mistakes in the past), we have an opportunity to show them a way forward based on the mistakes we have already made. Do we chose the GM route or not?

Unfortuantelly, I'm not a bio-chemist and never will be, so my knowledge of the issue is limited. The one thing I am sure of is that coming from the UK I know only to well that the words of polititians are not worth the parliamentary white paper they are written on after the BSC crisis in the country. Who do we listen to? Who can we trust? I dont know, maybe someone with a greater brain capacity than me will tell me.

E. Jones
Wales
ejj8@aber.ac.uk

Innovation and ideas have always met with resistance from the people who have little knowledge of the subject hence, it becomes moral duty of an inventor to clear these doubts, so that we can have better future.

Sanjay
India
sanjay@iitkgp.ernet.in

Sustainability in farming means several things. It means sustaining the quality of the natural environment. It means sustaining the quality of human life. And it means sustaining incomes for farmers. In my opinion, the natural environment is not likely to benefit from continued use of round-up (produced by Monsanto) - which is what GM crops such as soya entail. Round-up is an all-round herbicide that kills off "weeds" that give habitats to insects - the lowest part of the food chain. Soya was vulnerable to round-up until it was genetically modified. The developing world has seen it as a valuable cash crop and so will inevitably use soya crops resistant to round-up as a means to increasing yield. However, this is unlikely to feed people in the developing world as it is grown for export on large farms and not for domestic consumption. Therefore, for the developing world which represents two thirds of the world's population, there is little sustainable benefit out of GM crops.

Also, higher yields can spell disaster for farmers. The boost in coffee production on large plantations in Vietnam, India and Brazil over the last two years has destroyed agricultural economies dominated by marginal farmers in El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, etc. They are literally starving because the glut in the world coffee market has dropped prices below farmers' cost prices. The only way governments can deal with these gluts is by stock-piling (which is impractical for perishable goods) or by destroying crops. Thus high yields in cash crops - which is what Monsanto specialises in - will merely impoverish poor farmers without increasing the nutritional intake of the population of the developing world.

Dan Brett
London, England
dan@danielbrett.co.uk