Biotechnology and development - an overview
Undying promise: agricultural biotechnology’s pro-poor narrative, ten years on
GM crops: is it a pro-poor technology?
Authors:
D. Glover (ed)
Publisher:
STEPS Centre, Institute of Development Studies, 2009
Many people and organisations have sought to promote genetically modified (GM) 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. 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. The author argues that these assumptions have led to simplifying the complex agronomic and livelihood contexts into which GM crops have been inserted. This has in turn has undermined the usefulness and relevance of the information that has been presented to both farmers and policy makers.
Why has the simplistic narrative of GM crops as a uniformly ‘pro-poor’ technology persisted? The paper discusses that part of the reason is because a large number of econometric studies have claimed to demonstrate that GM crops are a technological and economic success in the developing world. The author asserts that the methodological and presentational flaws in these studies, have created a distorted picture of both the performance and the impacts of GM crops in smallholder farming contexts. This has warped public debate and impeded the development of sound, evidence-based policy.
The paper uses the Bt Cotton case studies as a way of reviewing the impact of GM crop technology on smallholder farmers in the developing world. Although Bt cotton technology provides useful tools in the crop-pest management system, there are still significant question-marks over the medium- and long-term effectiveness of Bt technology as a method of pest control. This is because of the risk of the emergence of pest-resistance to the Bt toxin and the probability that controlling one family of pests will create an ecological niche for other pests to multiply.
In conclusion, the publication notes that the narrative of GM crops as a ‘pro-poor technology’ has a very simple structure. It downplays the complex and difficult socio-economic, political, institutional and even technical causes of hunger and poverty. Promises of future benefits have driven scientific and commercial investments in biotechnology for many years, but in the process, technical risks and social concerns have not been factored in adequately.
