In a letter sent to United Nations-FAO Director General Jacques Diouf, Taghi Farvar, chairman of the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, said: "Our organization is very skeptical of any technological quick fix solution to the problem of hunger, which we maintain, is primarily a problem of rights relating to control over means of agricultural production, food distribution systems, purchasing power among many others than a problem of lack of technology."
According to Farvar, the FAO report entitled "Agricultural biotechnology meeting the needs of the poor" is an exercise in contradiction. Rather than recommending the role of smallholder farmers in the management of their industry, it promotes genetic engineering of seeds further skewing research funding towards biotechnology and away from ecologically sound methods developed by farmers themselves.
The promises of agricultural biotechnology in the report must be assessed on the merit of whether or not they meet the needs and demands coming from food producers. Direct citizen engagement and negotiations on the content, purpose and potential risks of scientific innovations and other groups who are usually marginalized in any debate on "scientific" issues. In the light of FAO having established a mechanism for dialogue and cooperation with such groups through the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty which organized the 2002 NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty, it is puzzling why they excluded their call for GMO-free agricultural development from its SOFA report.
Genetic engineering must be weighed against an assessment of whether there are viable alternative solutions to the problem it attempts to solve. Many of the production problems which GM technologies are aiming to solve can be tackled in other ways by farmers — with much less risks and expense — using agroecological approaches that emphasize the multiple functions of agriculture. Traditional methods such as selective breeding and other farmer-based approaches have withstood the test of time and public acceptance in a variety of agroecosystems, regions and cultural needs.
The crucial question is: "Why should the world opt for a risky and expensive technology that is likely to remain out of reach of most of the world’s marginal farmers and whose long term impacts are at best uncertain and at worst horrifying which is geared towards food processing consumer, niche markets and uniformity when there are already viable available alternatives?"
Hunger in the world is growing again despite the fact that global per capita food production has been higher than ever before. Issues on access and distribution are far more important than technology. If there is something to be learned from the failures of Green Revolution it is that technological "advances" in crop genetic for seeds that respond to external inputs go hand in hand with increased socio-economic polarization, rural and urban impoverishment and greater food insecurity.
The tragedy of the Green Revolution lies precisely in its narrow technological focus that ignored the far more important social and structural underpinnings of hunger. The technology strengthened the very structure that promotes hunger. A new "gene revolution" will only exacerbate the worst errors of the Green Revolution.
History demonstrates that structural changes in access to land, food and political power — combined with robust ecological technologies via farmer led research — reduce hunger and poverty. The gene revolution based on astronomically costly, elite, industry dominated research using patented technologies will take us to the opposite direction. The same resources, if directed to farmer-led, participatory research networks would generate far more equitable, productive and ecologically sound technologies.
Although the 200-plus page document struggles to appear neutral, it is highly biased, and ignores available evidence of adverse ecological economic and health impacts of genetically engineered crops. An example is the report bluntly stating that transgenic crops have delivered economic benefits to farmer and helped reduce the use of pesticides.
Although the FAO report mentions that genetic engineering is dominated by corporations, it overlooks the fact that only one company — Monsanto — owns the GM seed technology sown over 90 percent of the total world area planted to transgenics. Only five companies control the transgenic seed market . This represents an unprecedented dependence of farmers on global agribusiness that FAO should view with alarm and for which FAO should propose alternatives.
This assertion is based on field data from highly selective studies of Bt corn. Contradictory research is ignored. The data used in India is based exclusively on field trials conducted by Monsanto in 2001. The report ignores data collected from farmers’ field trials by several state governments and other independent researchers during the 2002 season (the year Bt corn was released). These show that Bt corn failed. The small inconclusive studies of Bt corn in Mexico, Argentina and South Africa are used to bolster for transgenic cotton varieties.
Genetic contamination is polluting the very heart of the world’s centers of crop diversity. And yet FAO brushes aside this tragedy with hardly a comment. For the very cultures that created agriculture this is an aggression against their life, against the crops they nurtured and against their food security. For several decades FAO has been leading an international debate to address the issue of genetic erosion. With the coming of genetic engineering the threat of erosion has increased. As the normative inter-governmental institution for genetic resources FAO should be developing policies to prevent genetic erosion and take action to address the negative global implications.
According to the CEESP, hunger is not caused by lack of food (these days, more food is produced per person than at any other time in history), but by social and political factors.
(Antonio M. Claparols is president of Ecological Society of the Philippines and IUCN regional councilor)