Rome, Italy
October 16, 2008
Source:
SciDevNet
by Albert Weale
Debates around the potential benefits of GM crops for developing
countries must be reasoned and evidence-based, says Albert
Weale.
The World Bank recently estimated that a doubling of food prices
over the last three years could push 100 million people in
low-income countries deeper into poverty. And the future does
not look brighter. Food prices, although likely to fall from
their current peaks, are predicted to remain high over the next
decade.
As the world considers how to respond, the debate about
genetically modified (GM) crops has inevitably reared its ugly
head. 'Ugly' because the public exchange about this technology
has usually seen extreme viewpoints gaining the most airtime.
For example, in the United Kingdom, Prince Charles' spirited but
ill-informed attack on GM crops this summer led to a flurry of
opinionated responses. We could have been back in the polarised
debates of the earlier part of this decade.
Since 1999, my organisation, the UK-based Nuffield Council on
Bioethics, has twice examined the ethical issues raised by GM
crops. In a 2003 report, the Council specifically focused on
developing countries. Two of the conclusions are still
particularly relevant today.
Ethical obligation
First, the council concluded that there is an ethical obligation
to explore whether GM crops could reduce poverty, and improve
food security and profitable agriculture in developing
countries. In coming to this conclusion, the council considered
differing perceptions of risk. When people have enough food, as
in developed countries, consumers and producers will feel free
to avoid risk — even if that risk is theoretical rather than
real. But developing nations, struggling with widespread
poverty, poor health,limited pest control and poor agricultural
sustainability, have a different risk-benefit calculation.This
is perhaps why the acreage of GM crops has tripled in developing
countries over the past five years, compared to just doubling
worldwide.
Consumers in prosperous countries are being asked to suppress
their doubts about GM crops so that research relevant to the
developing world continues. In effect, they are being asked to
concede that any potential losses to them are outweighed by
potential gains to poor countries, where yields are declining
and conventional agriculture is increasingly unsustainable.
This does not belittle other factors needed for poverty
reduction and food security — such as stable political
environments, appropriate infrastructures, fair international
and national agricultural policies, and access to land and
water. GM crops are just one part of a large and complex
picture. But we will not know how important a part until we
explore their potential.
Case by case consideration
The Nuffield Council's second key conclusion was that the wide
range of GM crops and situations must be considered
individually. Those who oppose or support GM crops per se make
an unhelpful generalisation.
Each time, the gene or combination of genes being inserted, and
the nature of the target crop, must be assessed. It is also
important to compare a GM crop with local alternatives.
For example, Golden Rice — enhanced for b-carotene to help fight
vitamin A deficiency — is not needed where people have
sufficient vitamin A from leafy greens, or ready access to
vitamin supplements. But where this is not the case, the crop
may significantly improve nutrition.
Similarly, herbicide-resistant soybeans can reduce demands for
local labour. This may be devastating if a community relies on
wages from manual weeding. But it may help communities
struggling with a labour shortage due to high prevalence of
diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
The role of research
Scientific and other evidence must be central in the debate, and
over the past few years evidence about GM crops has grown.
For example, according to a recent news report in Science,
soon-to-be-published research will clarify the amount of Golden
Rice a child would need to eat each day to prevent vitamin A
deficiency. This kind of research is vital if governments and
farmers are to make informed decisions about GM crops. Indeed,
before new research is funded, national and regional bodies in
developing countries should be consulted about their priorities
for crops and desirable GM traits.
In the United Kingdom, the government has committed £150 million
(US$263 million) over the next five years to research aimed at
making agriculture more resilient to the pests and diseases
affecting poor farmers, and increasing smallholders'
agricultural productivity.
Research efforts are also growing in the developing world, with
South African scientists developing and working to commercialise
virus-resistant maize, and countries like Kenya and Nigeria
hosting projects to develop virus-resistant varieties of key
African crops (see 'Agri-biotech
in sub-Saharan Africa: Facts and figures').
Striking a balance
Many people worry about possible environmental risks from GM
crops, such as gene flow to other plants, and this is something
that scientific research must clarify. But alarm-raising without
evidence is as helpful as calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Similarly, demanding evidence of zero risk before allowing a new
technology is fundamentally at odds with any practical strategy
for investigating new technologies. Mobile phones or aeroplanes
might never have seen the light of day if such stringent demands
had been placed on them.
In the case of GM technology it is clearly crucial to ask what
the risks of adopting GM crops are. But it is also important to
ask what the risks of not doing so are. Realistic cost-benefit
analyses that consider local social and environmental conditions
and development goals are needed on a country-by-country basis.
Heated debate about the food crisis must not detract from an
evidence-based assessment of biotechnology's potential for
improving agricultural productivity in developing countries. The
benefits of GM crops must not be overstated. But neither can
poor arguments be allowed to obscure strong arguments for a good
cause.
Professor Albert Weale is chair of the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics and professor of government at the University of
Essex, United Kingdom. |
|