The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) released their latest report in May which focused on the use of biotechnology in food production. The findings concluded that crops produced through biotechnology were a key solution to meeting the needs of the poor in developing countries where hunger remains a major issue. Although the report emphasizes the widescale nature of biotechnology, not simply the use of transgenic or GM crops, it still is likely to ruffle the feathers of countries in Europe, Africa and Australasia who have taken previously taken a stance against the introduction of GM crops and questioned the safety of such initiatives. This article summarises some of the key points of the FAO annual report, The State of World Food and Agriculture in 2004, looks at the pros and cons of biotechnology, the current usage of GM crops by countries, and the impact the report may have on the development and growth of biotechnology.

Since 1947, the FAO have published an annual state of world food and agricultural report which considers significant agricultural issues. For 2003 to 2004, the concern raised was whether agricultural biotechnology could meet the needs of the poor? With respect to the phrase biotechnology, the FAO considers two interpretations of the word. Defined in a broad sense by the Convention on Biological Diversity, and listed in the FAO statement on agriculture, biotechnology refers to,

"Any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use"

However in the FAO's statement on biotechnology, they also acknowledge it in a narrow sense, that is for, 'new DNA techniques, molecular biology and reproductive technological applications'. In this remit, the definition of biotechnology covers,

"a range of different technologies such as gene manipulation and gene transfer, DNA typing and cloning of plants and animals."

It is the second interpretation of biotechnology which has globally sparked much controversy, particularly with regard to the introduction of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

The FAO report examined whether the development of agricultural biotechnology could help address the needs of the poor and those lacking adequate food supplies. With an extra 2 billion people needing to be fed by 2030 and an environment under increasing pressure and fragility, the report examined what role agricultural biotechnology could play in meeting the future demands? For any region that introduced biotechnological methods, the report stressed the importance of identifying and ensuring sustainable development of both that environment and the community.

The FAO report argues that the introduction of appropriate biotechnological solutions to poor environments would:

• Increase yields of crops - including availability and overall annual production
• Lower the risk of crop failure through development of pest-resistant crops etc.
• Increase nutritional quality of foods through raising levels of vitamins, minerals and proteins in crops
• Reduce in need for adding toxic chemicals to agriculture and thus lessening environmental damage
• Increase revenue for farmers

They acknowledge in the report that scientific investigation from several top institutions into the safety of transgenic crops have concluded that such crops are safe to eat but the long term affects of GM crops are still unknown.

The report highlights that unlike the Green Revolution of the 1960s which was a public-driven initiative and successfully brought millions out of poverty, the use of biotechnology at present is a drive by the private sector to the benefit of large corporations. They thus question the direction of research and emphasis the need to utilize and develop technology which will be accessible to the small farmer in developing countries and focus on crops that are staples in poor countries such as potato, cassava, rice and wheat. As yet there has been little research and development globally by public organizations to tackle the improvement of staple crops of the world's poor. The report encourages the involvement by the public sector to ensure that poor farmers have access to new technology. The report suggests that the application of transgenic crops is the most easily applicable form of biotechnology which can be utilized by small farms with few resources.

In the few case studies available in the developing world, the report concludes that the introduction of transgenic crops has been successful leading to increased yields and revenues, and decreased volumes of toxic chemicals.

In terms of the environmental impact of transgenic crops, the report suggests that an individual assessment for each crop and case should be taken. They highlight that there is less scientific consensus on the affects of crops and thus there is greater need for careful evaluation before introducing crops into new areas.

With respect to the impact of the report, the backing of the FAO lends support to further development into the use of biotechnology and more widespread application of its technology. Already, perhaps coincidentally, the EU has lifted a six year ban on GM crops by allowing GM sweetcorn produced by Syngenta to be sold in all 25 countries in Europe. There had been much debate with France, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Denmark and Luxembourg all supported the ban in a vote last month. Italy, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK all voted to lift the ban whilst Spain, Germany and Belgium abstained from the vote. The EU says clear labelling and traceability ensures consumers have a choice to buy the corn. However, it still remains illegal to grow GM products in Europe.

Against GM crops?

Europe however remains one of the strongest opponents to the introduction of GM food. Their strict regulations against importing GM food has effectively closed its market to importers of such crops. If this policy continues, developing countries hoping to grow crops for consumption and exportation will be forced to find markets other than Europe. Two of the major reasons for Europe's decision on GM crops concern the questionable safety of food on a long term basis and also the long-term affect of GM crops on the environment. Although both legitimate concerns, the environmental argument faces difficulties when a recent report documented that an area the size of Wales of virgin forest had been cleared in the Amazon rainforest in order to provide Europe with non GM soya beans. They had rejected the GM soya from the US.
Source: Amazon rainforest takes new battering

Other arguments against the introduction of GM crops include,

• Reduction in the world's biodiversity, domination by engineered crops leading to vulnerability to disease through lack of diversity.
• Human health concerns due to the lack of independent testing for safety
• Possible dangers to wildlife
• GM crop reliance on one main pesticide and consequently pest adaptation & immunity. For example, GM cotton in Australia
• Effects of infiltration of pesticides, notably Bt toxin, on other wildlife
• The accidental but evolutionary crossing of GM plants with wild species to produce super weeds which are almost impossible to remove
• The domination & monopoly of multinational companies in food production
• The reliance on biotechnological multinational corporations for seeds and herbicides and hence their ability to control supply price and in turn food
• The transference of genetic material into animals and humans
• The potentially dangerous differences between genetic modification of crops and cross-fertilisation

GM crops in developing countries?

According to Per Pinstrup-Andersen from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), developing countries could greatly benefit from biotechnology providing it is used in accordance with biosafety guidelines. He asserts in his paper, Agricultural Biotechnology, Trade, And The Developing Countries , that,

"In view of the tremendous importance of productivity increases in agriculture in low-income developing countries for both the rural and the urban poor, it is hard to believe that any low-income developing country would refrain from utilizing appropriate modern biotechnology in agriculture within reasonable biosafety limits."

A paper from the Biotechnology Industry Organization argues that agricultural biotechnology is vital in helping developing countries achieve food security. In the article it asserts that there are optimistic signs for the effective introduction of biotechnology by developing countries. These include an increase in the strength of public sector research institutes in developing countries, scientists from developing countries forming partnerships with research institutions and international aid agencies, and the growth of links between developing countries and the US technology. In terms of recent developments and current biotechnology projects, the article lists the following as examples of biotechnology for developing countries:

• A new variety of African sweet potato that resists the feathery mottle virus is beginning to improve yields of this important staple crop in Africa.
• New varieties of corn, sorghum, sweet potato, and wheat that are being developed to provide more amino acids such as lysine, an important dietary protein.
• Cucurbit crops that resist viruses and increase yields of these important staples throughout Southeast Asia, India, and the South Pacific.
• "Pharma foods" that may help prevent or cure diseases such as cholera and diarrhea, leading causes of infant mortality in developing countries.
• New banana varieties resistant to Black Sigatoka that could reduce the need for chemical controls, improve production agronomics, and increase the quality of bananas.
• Foods with extended shelf lives that can reduce food losses caused by spoilage.
• Plants resistant to toxic metals that will increase the areas available for farming. Aluminum, for example, is a serious problem in acidic soils in South and Central America, Northern Africa, India, and China.
• Salt-tolerant plants that would allow crops to grow in salt-contaminated soils or be irrigated using salty or low-quality water.
• Insect-resistant cotton that provided better yields is improving the lives of farmers in China, South Africa, and elsewhere
  Source: Agricultural Biotechnology Can Help Developing Countries Gain Food Security

Existing types and geographical location of GM crops

According to reports by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a not-for-profit organization that delivers the benefits of new agricultural biotechnologies to the poor in developing countries, over 20 million hectares of transgenic crops were grown in developing countries, almost one third of the world's total. They also noted that GM crops were being introduced more readily than in developed countries leading to a growth rate between 2001 and 2002 of 19% compared to 9% for industrialized countries.

GM crops are principally grown in 6 countries; USA, (63% of total), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), China (4%), Brazil (4%), and South Africa (1%). Other developing countries which grew GM crops in 2003, included Uruguay and India who grew over 50,000 hectares, whilst the Philippines, Indonesia, Columbia, Honduras grew under 50,000 hectares. At present there are four major GM crops which constitute most GM crop production. These are GM soybean, cotton, canola and maize.

Summary

The FAO report argues that the introduction of biotechnology to the poor must focus on their existing staple crops rather than the present emphasis, which has been adopted by private, often large-scale operations. Biotechnology needs to be accessible to, and appropriate for the small, resource-poor farmer. If the goals of helping to eliminate hunger are to be met in the future, there will need to be a distinct change by public agencies and biotechnological companies to different crops and suitable methodology. The direction offered by the FAO at the UN is likely to encourage countries to look towards the use of biotechnology as well as promote further research and investment into the forms of biotechnology. The report offers guidelines and future direction for industry and the public sector. The long term impact of the report will be watched carefully.

Sources/Further Information

UN Food Agency comes out in favor of biotech crops, despite skepticism in some countries
Biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?
The State of Food and Agriculture 2004
Amazon rainforest takes new battering
ISAAA report 2003

Back to top