Separating fact from fiction –GM crops in developing countries

Genetically modified crops have stimulated many debates in recent years and few subjects have divided opinions so greatly. Improvements in crop technology could benefit developing countries greatly, in terms of increased food production and income, but it is in these countries where opposition is strongest. With so many different opinions, how can people decide what information is reliable?

Potential benefits of geneticallymodified (GM) crops in developing countries include improved nutrient contentto staple foods (such as increased vitamin A levels in ‘Golden Rice’),increased yields and greater pest resistance. There have been some successstories; in China, the area planted with GM cotton was trebled in 2001, leadingto reduced input costs for farmers and increasing their profits. South Africahas also benefited from GM cotton, which now accounts for 55 to 60 percent ofall commercial cotton grown.

Despite these successes, many governments, farmers andnon-governmental organisations in developing countries are against GM crops.Predicting the long-term impacts of GM crops is impossible, and developingcountries are less likely to be able to deal with potential problems, such asescalating costs and environmental damage. A study by the InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, UK, found strong opposition amongstfarmers in central India to the use of GM crops. People from many differentbackgrounds have concerns about GM crops because:

• they could destroy farmer’s livelihoods byreducing employment and out-competing ‘natural’ products
• farmers will become reliant on seeds andchemicals from overseas companies
• GM plants will mix with natural plants, damagingthe environment
• increased chemical usein agriculture has caused health problems, and there are fears that GM cropswill do the same.

One major cause of opposition tothe wider use of GM crops is mistrust of scientists amongst many farmers,particularly scientists from western countries. Another problem is that much ofthe information about GM crops is dominated by western organisations. Peoplefrom developing countries have little opportunity to express their concerns andare consequently less trusting of information given to them. Disagreements overthe intellectual property rights of certain species have also caused resentmenttowards biotechnology companies.

Policy-making processes need tochange to provide people in developing countries with more reliable informationabout GM crops. The overall aim must be to create processes that allow for morecitizen participation in allocating funds for research, setting research anddevelopment priorities, validating new technologies, determining risks in theface of considerable uncertainties and forming policies for food and farming. Arange of innovations could help:

• More open decision-making processes withinresearch and development organisations and research funding agencies to allow awider representation of different social groups.
• Greater fairness and accountability in budgetallocation and decisions on research and development priorities in agriculturalresearch systems.
• Reorganised research processes to combine thestrengths of citizens (farmers, food workers, consumers) and scientists (socialand natural) in the search for locally adapted solutions and food systems.
• Mechanisms and rewards to encourage the spreadof participatory approaches within research and donor organisations. Withoutthis, it is unlikely that participatory approaches will become importantprofessional activities. 
• Ensuring that knowledge and genetic resources onwhich new technologies are based remain accessible to all – this should be abasic human right in democratic societies.
• Including all people’s interests and values whenforming food and farming policies by organising conferences, citizen juries, focusgroups and referendums on a regular basis. These will need to be linked toformal policy processes to allow citizens to influence policies and regulationsmore directly.