After over a decade of hype on biotechnology, the expected benefits are yet to be seen. A Friends of the Earth (FOeI) International document pointed out that the "success" of genetically modified crops is overstated, and is mostly due to misrepresentation of benefits.

Biotechnology has been touted as the "magic bullet" that could solve world hunger. It is also supposed to increase agricultural productivity, produce drought and disease-resistant crops, and lead to the reduction of use of insecticides and herbicides.

Inflated data

An Inter Press Service (IPS) article by Stephen Leahy (1) argues that data has been inflated by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). For example, it has reported that "Genetic engineering (GE) technology has increased the outcomes of 7.7 million poor farmers.. (And) while they spend 70 dollars per hectare on GE technology, the saving on insecticides and labour nets them 60 dollars per hectare."

Only ISAAA has the global figures, and it is now being questioned by non-governmental organisations (NGO). "No one has any idea where they are getting their numbers from," said David MacDonald of the Canada-based Polaris Institute. "Where there is solid independent government data.the ISAAA numbers are inflated by 5-10%."

MacDonald, in Leahy's article, was also quoted as saying that the ISAAA report did not cite any sources or references, and that NGOs have not succeeded in getting independent confirmation of their data. Nevertheless, the biotech industry-supported lobby group stands by its report. Insisted ISAAA founder and chair Clive James, "We don't identify sources because our database is proprietary."

Unfulfilled promises

Despite the hype, concrete examples abound that biotechnology is not living up to expectations. According to its supporters, biotechnology would improve the quality of sweet potatoes, cassava, and other food crops.

However, after billions of dollars spent on research, only four crops-cotton, maize, soy, and canola-account for 95% of the GE acreage. The GE virus-resistant sweet potato planted in Kenya in 2004 was originally developed to resist an American strain of the virus and became a complete failure in Kenya.

Although it was touted as a way to improve farming and reduce hunger in Africa, "neither consumers nor the environment has benefited from the 'genetic revolution' in agriculture," the FOI International said. "GM crops actually increase farmers' dependence on chemical pesticides and herbicides."  

Yields are not directly affected, MacDonald also said, and neither are there additional nutritional benefits nor improvements to the soil.

High risks involved

According to AWID, an inernational women's network, there has been little research done on the effect of GMOs on the environment and humans, and it is possible that unknown allergens could be introduced into the environment. A document by the Third World Network (TWN) (2) contained warnings from 25 prominent scientists that viruses introduced in genetic engineering could "mutate and induce cancer; and foods could become metabolically dangerous or toxic."

The introduction of genetically modified crops could also endanger biodiversity when GM genes integrate with other plants.

The TWN document said that GMOs could mutate and multiply in large numbers with unpredictable consequences. These GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.

Moreover, as nearly all women are involved in planting, weeding, harvesting and processing of crops, women are the most vulnerable to the increased use of pesticides and herbicides, said AWID.

If the promised increase in yield does not materialise, it is also women who will need to find other means to feed their families. AWID said that "as these technologies shift women's agricultural work, their livelihoods and roles are threatened.(they are) affected by the increased use of technologies-in terms of their health and safety, their rights to food and work." (3)

Back to the basics

Agricultural biotechnologies are becoming more common with the support of the U.S. government and the World Trade Organisation. Nevertheless, Emad Mekay of the IPS says that environmental groups are hopeful (4). The expansion of the GM crops in the U.S. has been slowing down, and many consumers are turning to organic or traditional crops.

"The U.S. administration and agro-chemical companies.(are trying) to force-feed markets with GMOs," said Daniel Mittler, of Greenpeace International. But clearly, people are not biting.

_________________________________________

(1) Leahy, S. (2006, January 18). Biotech "revolution" may be losing steam. Retrieved March 8, 2006 from
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=31815

(2) Third World Network. (n.d.). UN accused of industry bias on biotech. Retrieved March 8, 2006 from
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/bias-ch.htm.

(3) Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID). 2004, September. Fact sheet #2: Gender equality and new technologies. Retrieved March 8, 2006 from
http://www.awid.org/publications/primers/agr_bio_en.pdf.

(4) Mekay, E. (2006, February 8). WTO biotech ruling reveals special interests, say critics. Retrieved March 8, 2006 from
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=32094.