ENVIRONMENT/TRADE: No Simple Answer in Debate on Transgenic Products

By Marcela Valente Reprint | | Print |

Marcela Valente

BUENOS AIRES, Feb 18 2000 (IPS) - The unknown impact of biotechnology on agriculture has highlighted the difficulty of choosing sides in the debate currently raging among the world’s governments, farmers, industrialists, scientists, environmentalists and consumers.

Nevertheless, representatives of all of these sectors reached an agreement in late January in Montreal, Canada, on a Biosafety Protocol to regulate the handling, transport and marketing of live genetically-modified organisms.

The fact that 130 countries gathered to discuss biosafety standards for transgenic organisms indicates that their spread is a potential cause for concern, and that such organisms’ long-term impact on the environment and human health is still largely unknown.

The Protocol is to be signed in Nairobi in May, after which each country will begin to ratify the treaty, a process that will take at least two years. At least 50 countries must ratify the document before it can go into effect.

Although dozens of crops have been genetically manipulated to resist weed-killers and pests, one is undeniably the star of the debate: glyphosate-resistant soybeans.

When growing conventional soy, farmers must repeatedly seek expert advice on which herbicide to use and in what quantity, as new weeds continue to crop up.

That process has been greatly simplified by genetic manipulation.

After genetically-modified soy beans – which contain the genes of a bacteria, a virus and another plant – are sown, a single product, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, can kill any weed that threatens the crop. Since the seeds are resistant to glyphosate, the soya plant does not die.

If the weeds reappear, glyphosate is sprayed once again, without farmers having to seek expert advice.

The multinational corporation Monsanto, which developed the transgenic soya seeds, is the same company that produces the weedicide “Round-Up,” the commercial brand name of glyphosate.

But a paradox arises when environmentalists oppose transgenic soya, because it requires fewer chemical inputs, thus cutting costs and supposedly “benefiting” the environment.

The industry claims the new technology has the potential to eliminate hunger in the world, and argues that the developing South needs genetically modified crops.

But Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in Africa, rejects transgenic crops.

Ethiopian representative Tewolde was named the Montreal spokesperson for the “group of like-minded nations.” That bloc links 74 developing countries which want tight controls on the application of the new technology to agriculture due to the potential risks to the environment and human health.

The group’s main rival was the Miami Group, comprised of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, the United States and Uruguay, which backs the technology and alleges that critics of transgenic crops are trying to favour countries – from the European Union, for example – that subsidise farmers.

In Argentina, a agricultural exporting country, farmers have staked their bets on transgenic crops, and there is now little chance of retreating unscathed if the technology is proven dangerous.

Consumer defence groups are demanding that transgenic products be clearly labelled as such, and some food companies are opting for conventional crops to satisfy demand for non-transgenic foodstuffs.

Consumers fear that they are eating food based on crops that contain bacteria, viruses or genes of other plants or animals that could indirectly give rise to allergies or resistance to antibiotics.

Both Elsa Kelly, the head of Argentina’s official delegation to Montreal, and Greenpeace Argentina’s Emiliano Ezcurra agree that Argentina now finds itself in a vulnerable position in the market.

Argentina, one of the world’s three biggest soya producers after Brazil and the United States, uses the largest proportion of transgenic seeds. In fact, according to Kelly, 50 percent of Argentine exports are transgenic products.

“Farmers massively adopted the new seeds because they allow them to cut costs by up to 20 percent,” she said.

While the United States, which defends the technology, has reserved 45 percent of the land planted with soya for conventional strains, and Brazil remains nearly free of transgenic crops, 80 percent of the soya grown in Argentina is genetically modified.

Ezcurra pointed out that Argentina’s competitors offer both varieties of soya. “What will we do if conclusive data appears on the risks of these seeds to human health?” asked the environmentalist, who concluded that Argentina’s “feet and hands are tied.”

Scientists are divided on the risks of biotechnology applied to agriculture. For some, the controls to which each genetically modified strain is submitted before approval are sufficient, while for others it is still early to rule out long-term effects on the environment or health.

The Greenpeace expert clarified that it was not a question of attacking biotechnology itself, but rather some of its applications. “We are not against advances in nuclear medicine, but in the existence of atomic plants,” he explained.

Referring to the optimists who believe Argentina is on the cutting edge due to the massive use of transgenic crops, Ezcurra pointed out that when nuclear technology was developed, the euphoria was widespread, but many countries are now having a hard time ridding themselves of their nuclear plants.

And with respect to the new technology’s potential to eliminate hunger, the environmentalist cited the “green revolution”, when the use of pesticides and fertilisers developed by the same companies producing today’s transgenic seeds became widespread, and which also promised to put an end to hunger.

The head of the Argentine delegation to Montreal, Elsa Kelly, told IPS that “we can listen to Greenpeace’s opinion, but its vision is sectorial and our responsibility is to look after the public interest.

“We are not opposed to controls on handling and transport, and we believe consumers and the importing country have the right to be informed. But when more information is available, I am sure the market will calm down,” she added.

“The fear of some consumers is fed by countries that would like to set up barriers to Argentine products, but in the long-term, the benefits of biotechnology will win out over the ideas and fears of its critics,” she maintained.

Consumer defence groups also warn of the growing concentration of the market: Du Pont, Monsanto, Novartis and Limagrain and six other companies have cornered 91 percent of the global market for transgenic seeds.

Farmers generally buy the genetically-modified soya seeds once, and although they are not supposed to do so, obtain two or three harvests. But if they attempt to sell the seeds, they could go to jail.

The Biosafety Protocol approved the “precautionary principle” and Argentina guaranteed that it would make all information available to its clients.

“Now if, once all of the information is provided, in an unjustified or non-scientifically founded manner, the potential client refuses to buy, then the deal will be subject to the rules governing international trade in agricultural products,” warned Kelly.