.

Source: Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, United Kingdom

Undying Promise: Agricultural Biotechnology’s Pro-poor Narrative, Ten Years on - Bt cotton

Many people and organisations have sought to promote genetically modified (GM, transgenic) crops as a ‘pro-poor’ technology. However, developing-country farmers’ experiences with GM crops have been mixed. Some farmers have certainly benefi ted, but others have not. Predictably, the performance and impacts of transgenic crops depend critically on a range of technical, socio-economic and institutional factors. By themselves, genetically modifi ed seeds are not enough to guarantee a good harvest or to create a sustainable and productive farm livelihood.

In spite of this emerging picture of complex and differentiated impacts, the simplistic narrative of GM crops as a uniformly ‘pro-poor’ technology has proved to be extraordinarily resilient. Why has it persisted? Part of the reason is that a substantial number of econometric studies have claimed to demonstrate that GM crops are a technological and economic success in the developing world. But methodological and presentational fl aws in those studies have created a distorted picture of both the performance and the impacts of GM crops in smallholder farming contexts. This has seriously distorted public debate and impeded the development of sound, evidence-based policy.

This paper examines the hidden assumptions that have shaped both the pro-poor claims on behalf of GM crops and the methods that have been used to evaluate them. Those assumptions have involved the radical simplifi cation of the complex agronomic and livelihood contexts into which GM crops have been inserted. They have thus undermined the usefulness and relevance of the information which has been presented to both farmers and policy makers.

Table of contents

Introduction
A flawed narrative from the start
Bt cotton in China
Bt cotton in India
Bt cotton in South Africa
The resilience of the ‘pro-poor GM crops’ narrative
Positions and polarisation
Learning from the Bt cotton impact studies
Conclusion
References

Summary

Many people and organisations have sought to promote genetically modified (GM, transgenic) crops as a ‘pro-poor’ technology. However, developing-country farmers’ experiences with GM crops have been mixed. Some farmers have certainly benefited, but others have not. Predictably, the performance and impacts of transgenic crops depend critically on a range of technical, socio-economic and institutional factors. By themselves, genetically modified seeds are not enough to guarantee a good harvest or to create a sustainable and productive farm livelihood.

In spite of this emerging picture of complex and differentiated impacts, the simplistic narrative of GM crops as a uniformly ‘pro-poor’ technology has proved to be extraordinarily resilient. Why has it persisted? Part of the reason is that a substantial number of econometric studies have claimed to demonstrate that GM crops are a
technological and economic success in the developing world. But methodological and presentational flaws in those studies have created a distorted picture of both the performance and the impacts of GM crops in smallholder farming contexts. This has seriously distorted public debate and impeded the development of sound, evidence-based policy. This paper examines the hidden assumptions that have shaped both the pro-poor claims on behalf of GM crops and the methods that have been used to evaluate them. Those assumptions have involved the radical simplification of the complex agronomic and livelihood contexts into which GM crops
have been inserted. They have thus undermined the usefulness and relevance of the information which has been presented to both farmers and policy makers.

Download this publication free of charge

The news item on this page is copyright by the organization where it originated - Fair use notice

Other news from this source