Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?
Bioengineered Food Crops Have Real Potential as a Tool in the War on Hunger,
but So Far That Potential Remains Largely Untapped
Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO, May 17, 2004)
By introducing high-yielding plant varieties, agro-chemicals and new
irrigation techniques into agriculture systems around the world, the Green
Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s boosted crop yields and helped lift millions
of people out of hunger and poverty.
But today, many small-scale farmers remain trapped in subsistence agriculture,
while each day over 842 million people go without enough to eat, according to FAO's latest estimates. Billions suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, an
insidious form of malnutrition caused by an inadequate diet. And over the next
30 years an additional 2 billion people will need food-- yet the natural
resource base on which agriculture depends is growing increasingly fragile.
Can the "Gene Revolution"-- the use of biotechnology in agriculture--
contribute to meeting these challenges?

Using biotechnology, scientists can alter the genetic makeup
of plants to make them produce more nutrients and vitamins.
A Global Debate
Science can be an ogre or an angel, depending on how one looks
at it. The Green Revolution, for example, is not without its detractors, who
argue that it promoted overuse of water, pesticides and chemical fertilizers,
making poor farmers dependent on these inputs, and in some cases seriously
damaging the environment in the process.
Today, the rising profile of biotechnology in agricultural
production has sparked a similar global debate.
Some types of biotechnology have been around for millennia,
and probably began when our ancestors used microorganisms to make bread, wine
and cheese. The current era of modern biotechnology was made possible by the use
of molecular techniques to "cut and paste" genes from one cell to another.
It is precisely this emerging science of genetic engineering
that lies at the heart of today's biotech polemic.
Supporters hail genetic engineering as essential for addressing food
insecurity and malnutrition in developing countries. Opponents counter that it
will wreak environmental havoc, increase poverty and hunger, and lead to a
corporate takeover of traditional agriculture and the global food supply.
A newly released FAO report,
The State of World Food and
Agriculture 2004 (SOFA 2004), considers these contrasting views of
biotechnology.
Pros and Cons
On the one hand, there are compelling arguments for altering the genetic
makeup of food crops, notes the report.
Doing so, it may be possible to increase the availability and variety of food
by improving agricultural productivity and reducing seasonal variations in food
supplies. Pest-resistant and stress-tolerant crops can be developed to reduce
the risk of crop failure due to drought and disease. More nutrients and vitamins
may be bred into plants, combating the nutrient deficiencies that affect so many
of the world's poor. Crops could be made to grow on poor soil in marginal lands,
increasing overall food production.
Biotechnology also offers the possibility of reducing the use of toxic
agricultural pesticides, and may also improve the efficiency of fertilizer and
other soil amendments.
On the other hand, cautions FAO, the scientific assessment of the
environmental and health impacts of genetic engineering of crop plants is still
at an early stage and should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, the organization emphasizes the need to ensure that the prospective
benefits of biotechnology in agriculture are shared by all people, rather than a
select few. Indeed, while SOFA 2004 notes that poor farmers and consumers in
developing countries can benefit greatly from biotechnology, it adds that so far
only a few are actually doing so, and that as the biotech sector develops "there
is clear evidence that the problems of the poor are being neglected."
Issues of Equity
Unlike the Green Revolution, which came about through an international
program of public-sector agricultural research specifically aimed at creating
and transferring technologies to the developing world as free public goods, the
'Gene Revolution' is primarily being driven by the private sector, which focuses
on developing commercial products for large markets.
"This raises serious questions about the type of research that is being
performed and the likelihood that the poor will benefit," observes FAO in
SOFA 2004.
The report notes that while public- and private-sector biotech research and
development are being carried out on more than 40 crops worldwide, there are few
major public- or private-sector biotech programs addressing the problems of
small farmers in poor countries.
"Neither the private nor the public sector has invested significantly in new
genetic technologies for the so-called 'orphan crops' such as cowpea, millet,
sorghum and teff that are critical for the food supply and livelihoods of the
world's poorest people," explains FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf in the
introduction to the report.
Even the major food crops of the poor-- wheat, rice, white maize, potato and
cassava-- are also being neglected, according to SOFA 2004. At the same time,
biotech plants with traits of interest to the poor, including drought and
salinity tolerance, disease resistance, or enhanced nutrition, are receiving
little attention. \
Important Questions Remain
Clearly, agricultural biotechnology has real potential as a new tool in the
war on hunger.
As The State of Food and Agriculture 2004 points out, however, many
pressing questions have yet to be answered.
How can more farmers in more countries gain access to the technologies that
are emerging from the Gene Revolution? Which biotech research priorities could
most directly benefit the poor, and who will develop innovations for the
majority of developing countries that are too small in terms of market potential
to attract large private-sector investments and too weak in scientific capacity
to develop their own innovations? How can we facilitate the development and
international movement of safe transgenic organisms and promote the sharing of
intellectual property for the public good?
Another major issue: how to ensure that countries-- especially financially
strapped ones in the developing world-- have adequate environmental- and
human-health risk assessment regimes in place that let them assess new
biotechnologies, both before they are introduced and after they begin to be used
in the field.
In The State of Food and Agriculture 2004, FAO takes up these and
other issues and suggests some lines of action that individual countries and the
international community could take in order to make biotechnology a more potent
tool in the war on hunger.
|