gm crops – going against the grain - actionaid uk · gm crops – going against the grain....

Editor Alex WijeratnaAuthor Liz OrtonConsultant Sarah Sexton, The Corner House

May 2003

GM crops – going against the grain

Executive summary p 3

Introduction p 7

1 Can GM help feed the poor and eradicate poverty? p 15

2 Does GM technology meet the needs of poor farmers? p 19

3 Do GM crops threaten basic rights? p 23

4 Do GM crops threaten biodiversity? p 27

5 Do GM crops enhance informed choice and participation for poor people? p 35

Conclusion and recommendations p 43

References p 44

www.actionaid.org GM crops - going against the grain

2 fighting poverty together

Contents



Many governments, companies andinstitutions are promoting genetically modified(GM) crops as a response. It is claimed GMtechnologies will increase food production,reduce environmental degradation, providemore nutritious foods and promotesustainable agriculture. But can GM cropsreally alleviate world hunger?

ActionAid believes that food security can onlybe achieved by addressing poverty, matchingtechnologies to local needs, promoting basicrights, protecting biodiversity, and supportinginformed choice and participation for poorpeople. This report – which is based onevidence from Asia, Africa and Latin America– concludes that GM crops are unlikely tocontribute to any of these objectives. Theexpansion of GM is more likely to benefit richcorporations than poor people.

Key statistics

• GM crops covered 58 million hectaresworldwide in 2002 – an area two and a halftimes the size of the UK.

• Only 1% of GM research is aimed at cropsused by poor farmers in poor countries.

• It can cost up to $300 million to develop aGM crop and the process can take up to 12 years.

• A small range of GM crops that mightaddress poorer farmers’ needs are beingresearched but they stand only a one in250 chance of making it into farmers’ fields.

• The four corporations that control most ofthe GM seed market had a combinedturnover from agrochemicals and seeds of$21.6 billion in 2001.

• 91% of all GM crops grown worldwide in2001 were from Monsanto seeds.

Can GM crops help eradicate poverty?

It is not the interests of poor farmers but theprofits of the agrochemical industry that havebeen the driving force behind the emergenceof GM agriculture. Four multinationalcorporations – Monsanto, Syngenta, BayerCropScience and DuPont – now control mostof the GM seed market. Some 91% of all GMcrops grown worldwide in 2001 were fromMonsanto seeds. By linking their chemicals toseeds via GM technologies, thesecorporations have been able to extendmarkets for their herbicides and pesticides.

GM crops are unlikely to help eradicatepoverty because yields seem to be no morethan non-GM crops and sometimes needmore chemicals. Yields from GM soybeans areno higher than those from high-yieldconventional varieties. In one study,Monsanto’s GM soya had 6% lower yields thannon-GM soya and 11% less than high-yieldingnon-GM soya.

Insecticide use on GM cotton has fallen insome locations, but these gains may be short-lived as insects develop resistance to theinsecticide that the cotton expresses. In time,farmers may need to invest in more, not fewer,chemicals. This also applies to chemical useon herbicide-resistant GM crops, which has

Executive summary

Nearly 800 million people go hungry every day because they cannot grow or buy enough food. One in seven children born in thecountries where hunger is most common die before they are fiveyears old.



gone up rather than down as farmers usechemicals more frequently and/or in greateramounts. Herbicide use per hectare inArgentina has more than doubled on GMfields compared to conventional varieties.

GM crops are ineffective in tackling theunderlying political and economic causes offood insecurity: poverty and inequality. Thenew GM technologies do not address theessential constraints facing poor farmersincluding lack of access to land, water, energy,affordable credit, agricultural training, localmarkets, decent roads, grain stores andinfrastructure. In fact, GM could be disastrousfor small-scale farmers as the costs are muchhigher and they risk falling into debt.

Do GM crops meet the needs of poor farmers?

GM varieties do not meet the needs of poorfarmers who rely on affordable, readily-available supplies of seeds for a range ofcrops to meet diverse environmental,consumption and production needs. Poorcommunities need investment in low-cost,low-input farmer-friendly technologies,building on farmers’ knowledge. GM seeds, by contrast, are targeted at large-scalecommercial farmers growing cash crops inmonocultures. GM crops could underminefood security by wasting the scarce resourcesof poorer farmers and developing countries.

Most research and development in GMagriculture is conducted by the private sector.Less than 1% of all GM research is directed atpoor farmers.

GM research in Africa, for instance, focuseson export crops such as cut flowers, fruit,vegetables, cotton and tobacco, which aregrown in large-scale commercial plantationsin Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe. InKenya, only one out of 136 intellectualproperty applications for plants were for afood crop; more than half were for roses.

Do GM crops threaten basic rights?

Farmers in developing countries have evolvedcomplex, cheap and effective systems to save,exchange and use seeds from one harvest tothe next. Patented GM seeds threaten toerode these rights and practices, to displaceor contaminate seed supplies, and to increasefarmers’ dependence on private monopolisedagricultural resources.

Up to 1.4 billion people, including up to 90%of farmers in Africa, many of them women,depend on saved seed. Yet the proliferation ofintellectual property regimes that come withGM seeds threaten centuries-old practices ofsaving and exchanging seeds.

GM seeds must usually be bought eachseason. Before they can obtain and use theseeds, farmers have to sign a contract withthe company obliging them to pay a royalty ortechnology fee, to agree not to save or replantseeds from the harvest, to use only companychemicals on them and to give thecorporation access to their property to verifycompliance.

Having to buy external supplies of seeds andpesticides leaves farmers more economicallyand agriculturally dependent on corporations.The technology fee makes such seedsprohibitive for the poorest farmers who lackaccess to credit. The contracts are complexand easily misunderstood by farmers,especially those who are illiterate.

The biotech industry continues to develop aset of GM crop technologies – Genetic UseRestriction Technologies (GURTs), which havebeen dubbed ‘terminator technologies’ – thatproduce sterile seeds: if saved and plantedfrom one year to the next, they would have noyields at all.

Do GM crops threaten biodiversity?

GM crops threaten to reduce the agriculturaland crop diversity that are the basis of poorfarmer livelihoods and developing countryfood sovereignty. Three-quarters of the

Executive summary



original varieties of agricultural crops havebeen lost from farmers’ fields since 1900 asindustrial and export-led agriculture hasencouraged the widespread monoculturecultivation of a few crop varieties for a moreuniform global market. GM crops threaten toerode biodiversity still further.

In addition, GM crops pose known threats toother plants and insects. They can cross-pollinate with non-GM plants, endangeringdiverse original varieties, particularly indeveloping countries. They are likely to requirebigger and more frequent doses of pesticideas weeds and insects develop resistance tochemicals. They may threaten beneficialinsects and thus disrupt natural pestmanagement systems. GM crops engineeredto produce pharmaceutical drugs could easilyend up in local food supplies.

Biosafety regulations could address some ofthese problems and threats to biodiversity, butmany countries do not have them, or thecapacity to develop them. In Zambia, just oneperson, who has no previous experience ofdeveloping national policy or prior knowledgeof the issues, is responsible for draftingnational biosafety policy.

Nor is regulation enough where nationalcapacity to evaluate and monitor risks is weak.In Brazil, a ban on the commercial cultivationof GM crops did not stop GM soya seedsbeing smuggled in from Argentina and plantedacross huge areas. In Pakistan, ActionAid hasinvestigated the impact of illegally-planted GMcotton. Hundreds of farmers who bought theso-called ‘miracle’ seed on the black market inthe hope it would increase their harvests lostaround 70% of their crops.

Do GM crops enhance informed choiceand participation for poor people?

Developing country governments are underhuge pressure to accept GM crops, putscarce public resources into GM research andopen their doors to biotech corporationsbefore their people have been properlyinformed, consulted and agreed to accept, orreject, GM. Poorer farmers and communitiesare being sidelined in debates and decisionsabout GM technology.

In South Africa, for example, GM crops havebeen planted without prior public consultationor involvement in decision-making and withoutenvironmental studies on their impact.

Even if GM research takes place in the publicsector it may not address the needs of poorfarmers because most genes and processesare now patented by corporations. Inpartnerships between public researchorganisations and corporations, control anddecision-making tends to remain firmly in thehands of corporations who acknowledge thattheir goal is to create new markets andimprove their public image.

If poorer people were more involved in settingagricultural research agendas, they wouldprobably opt not for GM crops, but for otheragricultural solutions.

Executive summary



Conclusion

The widespread adoption of GM crops seemslikely to exacerbate the underlying causes offood insecurity, leading to more hungrypeople, not fewer. To have a lasting impact onpoverty, ActionAid believes policy makersmust address the real constraints facing poorcommunities – lack of access to land, credit,resources and markets – instead of focusingon risky technologies that have no trackrecord in addressing hunger.

Recommendations

• Donors and governments should addressthe wider causes of food insecurity –land, credit, agricultural training andinfrastructure – before putting resourcesinto GM crops.

• They should introduce a moratorium on thefurther commercialisation of GM crops untilmore research has been carried out intothe socio-economic, environmental andbiodiversity impacts of GM crops,particularly in developing countries.

• Poorer farmers and communities should beenabled to participate more in national GMdebates and policy-making.

• Genetic resources for food and agricultureshould be exempt from intellectual propertyrequirements.

• Farmers’ rights to save and exchange seedsshould be recognised under the intellectualproperty rules of the World TradeOrganisation (WTO) and should beprotected in developing country intellectualproperty rights legislation.

• Governments should introduce competitionrules to prevent private sector monopoliesand effective institutions to enforce them.

• The potential impact of GM crops on foodsecurity, poor farmers and biodiversityshould guide the development andimplementation of national biosafetyframeworks.

• Funding for public sector agriculturalresearch should be increased and shouldspecialise in support for sustainable,farmer-led agriculture.

Executive summary

Genetically modified agriculture

The US, Canada, Argentina and China grew99% of the world’s GM crops in 2002. SouthAfrica and Australia accounted for most of theremaining 1%, while a further 12 countriesgrew under 50,000 hectares (see Table 1). Some54,000 farmers in India and 2,700 farmers inIndonesia grew GM cotton, while farmers inColombia and Honduras carried out field testsfor the first time in 2002. In total an estimated5.5 million farmers around the world are nowgrowing GM crops on a commercial scale.2 Yetthe rate at which GM crops are being adoptedglobally has begun to slow. The 11.5% growthrate between 2001-2002 was significantly less

than in previous years, reflecting concernamong consumers and farmers about GM.

Over 11,500 field trials for GM crops had takenplace in 39 countries by 2000, just under 20%of them in developing countries.3 Field trials ofGM cotton, for example, have taken place inThailand, India, Indonesia, Bolivia, Colombia,Argentina, Mexico, Kenya, Zambia and SouthAfrica.4 In Africa, genetic engineering researchis taking place in Cameroon, Kenya, Egypt,Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe oncrops as diverse as cowpea, sweet potato,squash, papaya, tomatoes and bananas.5

Research or field-testing of GM crops is takingplace in most countries across Latin America

Introduction

Cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops has expanded rapidlysince they were first grown commercially in the US in 1996. Theycovered 58 million hectares in 2002, equivalent to two and a halftimes the land area of the UK.1 Although cultivation is concentrated injust four countries – the US, Canada, Argentina and China – GMcrops are now being grown in and targeted at more countries in thedeveloping world. Proponents claim that GM crops will help feed theworld’s poor people, reduce environmental degradation and promotesustainable agriculture. We assess these claims against the coreprinciples that guide ActionAid’s campaign work on food and tradeissues in 13 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.



Table 1 Area and type of GM crops grown in developing countries, 2002

Area (millions of hectares) % of developing country total Type of GM crop

Argentina 13.5 85.0 Herbicide tolerant* (HT) soybean, HT maize

China 2.1 13.0 Bt* cotton

South Africa 0.3 1.9 Bt maize, HT cotton, HT soybean

India < 0.1 < 1.0 Bt cotton

Uruguay < 0.1 < 1.0 HT soybean

Mexico < 0.1 < 1.0 Bt cotton, HT soybean

Indonesia < 0.1 < 1.0 Bt cotton

Colombia < 0.1 < 1.0 Bt cotton

Honduras < 0.1 < 1.0 Bt corn

Total 15.9 100.0

From James C, ISAAA 2002 *see page 9



and Asia.6 But most least developed countriesdo not have the capacity or investment tocarry out research into GM crops nor toregulate their import or cultivation.

GM crops are concentrated not just bycountry but also by crop. The main GM cropsnow being grown commercially – maize(corn), cotton, canola (oilseed rape) and soya– account for 99% of all GM crops planted in2002. With the exception of cotton, thesecrops are used primarily for animal feed. Soyaand the vegetable oils derived from canolaare used in processed foods.7

The global market value for GM seeds in 2002was estimated to be $4.25 billion, comparedto $3.8 billion in 2001 when GM seedsrepresented 13% of the global commercialseed market.8

The pesticide industry was the driving forcebehind the emergence of GM agriculture. Fourmultinational corporations – Syngenta, BayerCropScience, Monsanto and DuPont – nowcontrol most of the GM seed market. Theyhad a combined turnover from seeds andagrochemicals of $21.6 billion in 2001.9 Thesechemical corporations have bought up seedand biotechnology companies around theworld and now have a controlling stake in theworld’s key agricultural resources. They triedto position GM technology as an essential toolto combat hunger and food insecurity in thedeveloping world. Many developing countrygovernments, tempted by industry claims toboost productivity and address hunger, arekeen or are being encouraged to try them.

Introduction

Biotechnology: a rough guide

Farmers have been involved in plantbreeding for as long as they have beenengaged in agriculture. Farmers haveselectively bred wild plants to create endlessnew varieties of species best suited to theirneeds and to local growing conditions.

Plant breeding techniques have becomeincreasingly complex, however, and nowinvolve advanced biological and geneticmanipulation. Since the discovery of thestructure of DNA, huge leaps have beenmade in understanding cells, molecules andproteins. Genetic engineering – also knownas genetic modification (GM), orrecombinant DNA technology – gives rise togenetically modified organisms (GMOs) andinvolves the transfer of genetic material inthe laboratory from one organism toanother. Genetic engineering is just onebranch of modern biotechnology and can beapplied to animals, fish, trees and plants.Other techniques include plant genomics,cloning and proteomics. Modernbiotechnology is subject to unprecedentedcorporate competition, and is leading to theemergence of industrial production systemsbased on living cells and cell components.

Proponents of GM crops argue that geneticengineering is simply an extension ofprevious plant breeding techniques.Monsanto states:

“Today millions of farmersthroughout Africa have foundgreat value in using hybrid seeds,and biotechnology seeds simplyoffer improvements in thesehybrids.”10

But GM differs in at least two key respectsfrom previous plant breeding techniques.First, it enables genes from one species tobe inserted into a completely unrelatedspecies, whereas traditional plant breedinginvolves only the same or closely relatedspecies. Scientists, for example, havecreated a GM tomato that does not getdamaged by frost by inserting into it an anti-freeze gene from the flounder fish. Second,gene technology can produce new varietiesmore quickly than conventional breedingwhich is reliant on trial and error.



Some 99% of GM crops grown commerciallyhave been engineered to exhibit just twocharacteristics or traits – herbicide tolerance(HT) and insect resistance (Bt) (see Table 2).Herbicide tolerance accounted for 75% of GMcrops grown commercially in 2002, themajority of which (62%) was soybean. Insectresistance accounted for 17% of these GMcrops, of which GM maize was the mostcommon (13%). Eight per cent of crops nowgrown commercially have been geneticallyengineered to exhibit both herbicide andinsecticidal traits.11

• Herbicide tolerance. Crops – mainly soya,canola, cotton and maize – have beenengineered to tolerate certain herbicides.i Intheory farmers can apply herbicides to theirfields to kill weeds and not damage the cropitself. The potential benefits claimed for HTcrops are that less herbicide needs to beapplied; the herbicides applied are lessenvironmentally damaging; weed controlbecomes easier and better and thus cropgrowing needs less labour and givesincreased yields; and that soil erosion andwater loss is reduced because less tilling ofthe ground or mechanical weed control are needed.13

• Insect resistance. Crops – mainly maize andcotton – have been engineered with a genefrom the soil bacterium, Bacillusthuringiensis (Bt). This gives the plantsthemselves insecticidal properties. Theyexpress a toxin which kills certain targetpests such as the corn borer and cotton

bollworm. The potential benefits are thatless insecticide needs to be applied; yieldsare higher because of less pest damage;and fungal damage to the crops is less.ii

These crops have been designed for use intemperate climates and stable conditions andmay behave differently in tropical andchanging conditions. Most rural poor peoplelive in the tropics. An estimated 850 millionpeople live on land threatened bydesertification; a further 500 million reside onterrain too steep to cultivate. Because of theseand other limitations, two billion people areneglected by modern agricultural science.14

Will GM agricultural technologies be anydifferent?

GM research

A small amount of research is now beingdirected at crops that might appear to have a greater potential to address the needs of poor farmers in developing countries(see Table 3). These include:

• crops to withstand extreme environmentalconditions such as drought or flooding, or togrow in soils with high levels of acid, salt orheavy metals

• staple food crops such as rice or wheat thatgrow faster than non-GM versions withoutthe need for extra nutrients, light or water

• crops that are resistant to a host ofdeveloping country viruses, pests andbacteria: viral-resistant cassava, rice andsweet potato; nematode-resistant bananasand fungal resistant potatoes are all beingresearched

• crops with improved post-harvestcharacteristics such as slower ripeningduring harvesting or shipping

• crops with an enhanced nutritional content– so-called ‘functional foods’: the most well-known is Golden Rice which is geneticallyengineered to increase a higher-than-usualvitamin A uptake.

Introduction

Table 2 GM crops by trait

Crop Million hectares % of total worldwide transgenic

crops

HT soybean 36.5 62

Bt maize 7.7 13

HT canola 3 5

HT maize 2.5 4

Bt cotton 2.4 4

HT cotton 2.2 4

Bt/HT cotton 2.2 4

Bt/HT maize 2.2 4

Source: James C. 200212

i The two most common types have been genetically engineered to resist either glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium.

ii Reduced fungal damage (pre- and post-harvest) is the result of fewer insects that can bring diseased organisms into the crop.

These applications of GM technology appearto offer hope to the world’s poor and hungrypeople. Yet it is doubtful whether any of themwill make it into the fields of farmers in thedeveloping world. The science of GM is young and complex and for each gene or traitexplored in the discovery stage, the odds areonly about 1 in 250 that it will make it tomarket.16 The commercial strategy of thebiotech corporations is to increase the kindsof Bt and HT crops – GM wheat is next on thehorizon – and to extend cultivation of these

crops and these traits to developingcountries.17 GM crops for the poor are not acommercial priority. For any of these pipelinecrops to reach and benefit poor farmers,substantial improvements in the GMtechnology and the science behind it arerequired, along with the implementation of awide range of public policies governing landreform and security and access to credit andbiosafety, to name but a few. None of theseseem to be on the immediate horizon.



IntroductionTable 3 GM crops under research

Crop modification Description Aims

Commercialisation

Insect resistance

Virus resistance

Field studies

Fungal resistance

Virus resistance

Bacteria resistance

Ripening control

Factory plants

Greenhouse studies

Pest resistance

Research laboratory studies

Abiotic stress

Nutrition enhanced

Production enhanced

Factory plants

Adapted from AEBC. Looking ahead: an AEBC horizon scan. 2002. UK Government 15

• Bt cotton resistant to cotton bollworms, pinkbollworms and tobacco budworms

• Papaya resistant to ringspot virus

• Bananas resistant to black sigatoka

• Cassava with increased resistance to Africancassava mosaic diseases

• Sweet potato resistant to feathery mottle virus

• Rice resistant to bacterial blight disease

• Banana, pineapple, strawberries, tomatoes

• Rice producing hepatitis A antibodies foruse in vaccines

• Potatoes resistant to nematodes

• Tobacco to grow in waterlogged conditions

• Crops resistant to aluminium toxicity, such as ricein Mexico

• Rice resistant to salt (China)

• Crops resistant to drought

• Rice rich in vitamin A

• Plants with increased levels of iron and folic acid

• Canola oil rich in vitamin A

• Sweet potatoes and rice with enhanced protein

• Vegetables that keep their vitamins when cooked

• Sugar cane with increased sucrose productionand improved juice colour

• Banana containing hepatitis vaccine

• Reduced insecticide use, better pest control,protected yields

• Increased yield

• Crop protection and production, reduced use of fungicide

• Crop protection

• Crop protection

• Benefits to producers

• Extended market life

• Cost savings

• Reduced pesticide use

• Increased yield

• Trials at relatively early stage

• Improved nutrition content

• Possible future development

• Improved nutrition, thought to be atleast eight years from development

• Better appearance and higher yield



Corporate concentration

The agricultural biotech industry is dominatedby a handful of transnational corporations(TNCs). In the 1990s, the chemical pesticideindustry bought up biotechnology, plantbreeding and seed interests across thedeveloped and developing world. Between1997-99 pesticide corporations bought $18billion worth of seed corporations.18 Monsantoalone bought 60% of the Brazilian maize seedmarket between 1997-99.19 After a decade ofconsolidation, the pesticide industry has achemical, seed and technology empire thatgives them access to farmers and marketsaround the world – and that gives farmers farless choice about their seed supplier and thustheir seeds. By linking their chemicals toseeds via GM technologies, corporations havebeen able to protect and extend their marketsfor their herbicides and pesticides, many ofthe patents on which were due to expire.

• Six corporations based in the US andEurope controlled 98% of the market forGM crops and 70% of the world’s pesticidemarket in 2000.21

• Six corporations own 54% of US plantbiotech patents.22

• Ten corporations supply 33% of the globalseed market compared to thousands ofcompanies 20 years ago.23

• 91% of all GM crops grown worldwide in2001 were from Monsanto seeds.24

• In Africa just three corporations – Syngenta,Monsanto and DuPont – now dominate theformal sector seed markets.

• In South Africa Monsanto has completecontrol of the national market for GM seed,60% of the hybrid maize market and 90% ofthe wheat market.25

Commercial control of agricultural marketsextends beyond agricultural inputs to thewhole supply chain, from production throughto trade, processing and retailing. The biotechgiants have linked up with transnational graintraders and food processors such as Cargilland Archer Daniels Midland. For some cropsthere is no point of sale from field to fork –one corporation owns or controls the wholefood process.26 This control vastly increasesthe power of agribusiness corporations tomanipulate agricultural prices and markets. It narrows choices for farmers and consumersand leaves them vulnerable to control by TNCs.

GM research is highly protected byintellectual property rights (IPRs). GM crops,genes and GM processes and products arenow considered ‘inventions’ in many countriesand thus can be patented (see Table 5). The topsix biotech corporations have 2,129 patents inthe US, equivalent to 54% of all GM plantpatents that have been granted in thatcountry.27 It can cost from $50 to $300 millionto develop a GM crop from the laboratory tothe market, a process that can take up to 12years.28 Most research and development(R&D) in GM agriculture is conducted by theprivate, for-profit sector. Six corporationsaccount for almost 65% of the world’s totalagricultural biotech R&D,29 spending over $1billion on GM crop R&D in 1998.30 But theirinvestment is well protected by the patentsystem and by quasi-monopoly control overseeds and markets. Gross profits from the GMseed market were $673 million in 2001.31

As the GM seed market grows, sales ofconventional non-GM varieties are declining.32

Introduction

Table 4 Leading crop protection and biotechnology companiesin 2001

Company Agrochemical Seeds/biotech Totalsales sales($ million) ($ million)

Syngenta 5385 938 6323

Bayer Aventis 6086 192 6278

Monsanto 3505 1707 5212

DuPont 1922 1920 3842

BASF 3114 0 3114

Dow 2627 215 2842

Total 22,639 4,972 27,611

Source: AgriFutura. The newsletter of Phillips McDougall AgriService No 29.20

The commercialisation of agriculturalresearch, protected by patents, has far-reaching implications for the world’s poorfarmers. GM crops are planted almost

exclusively by large commercial growers inrich and middle income countries: less than1% of all R&D is estimated to be directed atresource-poor farmers.34

ActionAid’s Food Rights campaign operates in13 countries and aims to safeguard poorpeople's rights and access to safe andnutritious food by addressing food securityand key issues in international trade policies.

The campaign is based on five goals andprinciples, and this report assesses whetherGM crops could help to achieve them:

• eradicating poverty

• matching technologies to local needs

• promoting basic rights

• protecting biodiversity

• enhancing informed choice and participation.



Introduction

Table 5 US patents and approved GM crops per trait

Crop trait Proportion of Proportion US patents (%) approved

crops (%)

Pest resistance 11.4 21.4

Ripening 10.0 8.9

Starch content 10.0 0

Sterility 10.0 8.9

Fungus resistance 8.2 0.0

Fat content/type 8.2 3.6

Bacteria-virus resistance 7.1 8.9

Herbicide resistance 7.1 48.2

Nutrition 6.4 0

Taste 6.1 0

Plant growth 5.0 0

Environmental stress 4.6 0

Flowering 3.2 0

Antibiotic resistance 2.5 0

Source: Harhoff D, Regibeau P & Rockett K. 2001. 33



Introduction

ActionAid Brazil is a member of the Brazil GMO Free campaign with six farmers’and consumers’ groups, including Greenpeace Brazil. ActionAidBrazil has investigated illegally-planted GM soya in southernBrazil, organised two ‘citizens’ juries’ (see page 37) on GM to dateand is holding another in Rio de Janeiro in 2003.

ActionAid Pakistan is making a TV documentary on illegally-grown Bt cotton in Sindprovince and is lobbying their government on biosafety issues.ActionAid Pakistan mobilised a coalition in 2002 to serve a HighCourt writ to block the distribution of 6,000 tonnes of GMsoybean oil imported from the US as food aid.

ActionAid UK is a founder of the Five Year Freeze campaign – a coalition of 120groups calling for a moratorium on the commercialisation of GM.ActionAid UK lobbied the UK government to set up theIntellectual Property Rights Commission – a high-levelinvestigation into the impact of patents on plants and crops.

ActionAid Uganda has organised MP workshops on GM and works through thenational Food Rights Alliance (56 local groups) to raiseawareness of GM issues at the grassroots. The Alliance isinvestigating suspected GM maize trials in west Uganda.

ActionAid Mozambique has set up a civil society coalition calling for a moratorium on GMand advises that all US GM food aid is milled before beingdistributed locally.

ActionAid Food Rights campaign work on GM

1 Can GM help feed the poorand eradicate poverty?

Can GM crops help improve livelihoods and food security? Even ifGM crops increase agricultural production, for which evidence so faris doubtful, they still fail to address the social and economicinequalities causing food insecurity, and are unlikely to make anypositive contribution to alleviating poverty.



The biotech industry claims that GM cropsuse fewer chemicals and increase yields, andso can help improve the livelihoods of poorpeople through increased and cheaper foodproduction. Yet there is widespread consensusamong farmers that most GM crops have notincreased yields. Studies in the US andCanada have found that yields from GMsoybeans are no higher than conventionalhigh-yield varieties. In one study, RoundupReady soya – GM soya engineered to beresistant to Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup –yielded 6% less than non-GM soya and 11%less than high yielding non-GM soya.35 Otherstudies have indicated that yields of GMcotton and GM maize did not change in mostlocations compared to non-GM varieties.36

There have been reported increases in yieldsof Bt cotton in the US, Australia,37 SouthAfrica38 and India,39 (though the India study iswidely contested). But even where yields haveincreased, these have not always beenenough to offset the higher costs of GMseeds. For example, in a study of Bt corn from1996 to 2002, farmers in the US lost incomeoverall, even though GM corn yields werebetter than conventional varieties.40 41

Fewer chemicals?

Studies on changes in chemical use betweenGM and non-GM crops reveal a mixed picture.Insecticide use on Bt cotton has fallen insome locations. However, there is evidencefrom China and South Africa that these gainsmay be short-lived as insect resistance to theBt toxin that the cotton expresses may beginto develop or as outbreaks of secondary pestsemerge. 42 43 44 With Bt maize, there have been

reductions in chemical use in some locationsbut increases in others. Even where gainshave been achieved, they are lower than thoseachieved under integrated pest management(IPM) systems, which rely on low-input,sustainable methods to reduce crop damage.The evidence for herbicide resistant crops,meanwhile, is that herbicide use has gone uprather than down – dramatically in somecases – as farmers have to use chemicalsmore frequently and/or in greater amounts.For example, herbicide use per hectare inArgentina has more than doubled on GMfields compared to conventional varieties.45

For many resource-poor farmers, reducingchemical use is not a priority, as they cannotafford to farm with chemical inputs in the first place.

Such evidence hardly seems a strong basisfrom which to recommend GM crops to poor,vulnerable farmers in developing countries.Studies of smallholders growing GM cotton inIndia and South Africa indicate that yield andpesticide performance is mixed and thatwhere yields are low farmers are vulnerable todebt and further impoverishment.46 For small-scale farmers in developing countries suchproblems could mean loss of land andlivelihood. Current evidence suggests thatpoor farmers should exercise caution – onsocial and economic grounds as well asagronomic and science grounds – beforerisking their livelihoods by embracing GMcrops.

Tackling hunger?

There are currently 799 million people indeveloping countries who lack the means to



1 Can GM help feed the poor and eradicate poverty?

grow or buy sufficient food for their needs.47

GM crops are frequently promoted byindustry, Western governments and scientistsas a means to increase food production andprovide food for a growing world population.They promise a greener future of lesschemicals and higher yields, giving rise tohealthier, cheaper and greater amounts offood. Underlying these claims is an attractivelysimple, but misleading, view of the world’sfood crisis that depicts the problem of hungeras being not enough food for too manypeople and the solution as increasing foodproduction through GM technology.

Yet hunger is not caused by a shortage offood. There is more than enough food in theworld to meet current global needs both nowand several decades into the future.49 Theunderlying causes of food insecurity arepolitical and economic: poverty, inequality,and poor access to land and food. Manypeople are too poor to buy the food that isavailable, cannot get access to it because it isbadly distributed, or lack the land or otherresources to grow food themselves. Thebiggest constraints for poor farmers is notlack of technology but more essential inputsand necessities: land; resources (such aswater and energy); affordable credit; rural

Corporate public relations

The biotech industry works hard to promoteits products. The US Council forBiotechnology Information, an industry-funded publicity consortium, has an annualbudget of $250 million. Because ofsubstantial criticism, the GM industry hastoned down its earlier public relationsmessages in which it portrayed GM crops asa magic bullet to feed the world. It now usesmore sophisticated rhetoric, suggesting thatGM is just one of several strategies that canhelp to feed hungry people. It acknowledgesthat there is enough food to feed everyonein the world – but then projects current ratesof human population growth way into thefuture to claim that in 10, 20, 30 or 40 yearstime, there will be an absolute scarcity offood. Overall, the industry’s bottom line claim– that GM food is essential if the world’speople are not to go hungry – has notchanged. DuPont, for instance, states:

“ With more people, we need toprovide more resources.Biotechnology alone cannot solvethis problem, but it does promisethe potential of solutions toglobal food security andenvironmental protection. ” 48

Monsanto states “new technologies arerequired to increase food production tocope with the population increase while atthe same time sustain the environment andprovide more nutritious foods”. 50 The PRsounds compelling, but GM crops donothing to address issues of access,distribution, inequity and entitlements. Evenif GM crops do result in increased yieldsthat could keep pace with populationgrowth, people would still go hungry aslong as the fundamental causes of hungerand food insecurity go unchallenged.

Food insecurity will not be tackled simplyby improvements in food distribution andrural infrastructure. Yields and productivityneed to rise if food needs are to be met –especially if they are to be met locally.Millions of poor farmers are stuck in apoverty trap in which they cannot afford toinvest in their land or develop sustainableproduction systems. Africa needs specialattention – it is the only part of the worldwhere food security has been getting worsein recent decades. Per capita foodproduction on the continent has fallen byabout 20% since the mid-1960s.51 About70% of Africans live in rural areas and anestimated 50 million families derive theirlivelihood from farming.52

extension services; access to local markets;decent roads; grain stores and infrastructure.53

The concern of the UN’s Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO) and others working in thefield is that as long as GM crops are targetedat commercial, large-scale farmers indeveloping countries, inequality will increase assmall-scale farmers become furthermarginalised in production and trade. Becauseprivate sector biotechnology favours thebreeding of varieties that are simplified anduniform, and because the little research that ithas done on developing country crops has sofar focused on high-cash-yielding export crops,the adoption of GM crops has the potential toexacerbate inequalities between large andsmall farms. For example, GM coffee beansthat all ripen at the same time would allowlarge-scale producers to cut their costs byreplacing manual labour with machines, butwould force small-scale coffee producers, whotend to have more labour than capital, out ofthe market.54 Evidence from Argentina showsthat small-scale soybean producers have beenedged out of the market, as they are unable tocompete with large farms that are better ableto capitalise on the time-saving advantages ofherbicide tolerant seeds.55

Green Revolution

The claim that GM crops will alleviate povertyand hunger assumes that a simple genetic fixcan tackle and solve complex problems. Butthere is good reason to be cautious about atechnology-led solution to poverty. Technologyis not neutral; it reflects the “dominant socialand economic forces at work”.57 The GreenRevolution – launched in the 1960s by Westerndonor agencies to address hunger in poorcountries – serves as a warning that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ technology is unlikely to benefitmillions of the world’s poor farmers. The GreenRevolution introduced a few uniform hybridcrop varieties, which were grown in largemonocultures and relied on high chemicalinputs and extensive irrigation. It increasedyields – mainly of hybrid rice and wheat grownby commercial growers in Asia and LatinAmerica – but gains were eventually offset byresulting soil erosion and the evolution of newdiseases and pests, which required ever-increasing amounts of chemicals. In Africa, theGreen Revolution failed to deliver the promisedbenefits as the technologies were unsuited tolocal conditions, ineffective, expensive andunpopular with poor communities.




What is food security? Millions of people, including six millionchildren under the age of five, die each yearas a result of hunger. One in seven childrenborn in the countries where hunger is mostcommon will die before they are five yearsold. Most of these deaths are caused notfrom starvation per se but from a persistentlack of food and essential nutrients.56

According to the FAO, food security meansthat all people at all times have physical,social and economic access to sufficient,safe and nutritious food that meets their

dietary needs and food preferences for ahealthy life.58 Civil society organisations(CSOs) maintain in addition that the right toadequate food requires food to be culturallyacceptable, free from adverse substancesand accessible in sustainable ways. CSOssuch as Via Campesina, a global peasants’network, call for a broader concept of foodsovereignty that encompasses the right ofcommunities, peoples and countries todetermine their own agriculture and foodpolicies and to protect and regulate theirdomestic agriculture in order to meet theirfood security needs.



GM crops are promoted as a means to break,or slow down, the chemical treadmill thatcharacterises the Green Revolution becausethey supposedly need fewer chemicalapplications. Yet the ‘Doubly GreenRevolution’ threatens to repeat the samemistakes. Its alliance of high-cost science andTNC monopoly control threaten to takeagriculture yet further down the road ofunsustainable, commercialised agriculture,

which encourages monocropping and farmersto become more dependent on privatised,patented resources. Monsanto has geneticallyengineered a potato that expresses a toxinagainst the Colorado beetle pest. One critic’sobservation of this GM potato is pertinent toall GM crops: “Monsanto has constructed theproblem as the potato beetle, not as potatomonoculture.”63


Vitamin A golden rice

Golden Rice is genetically modified with adaffodil gene to produce beta-carotene, asubstance that the human body converts tovitamin A. Although Golden Rice is yearsaway from being available to any farmer(and the technology has yet to betransferred into Asian rice varieties), it hasbeen hyped by biotech promoters as a curefor vitamin A deficiency (VAD), a conditionthat kills one million children annually and isresponsible for 14 million cases of eye-damage in pre-school children in developingcountries. The rice was developed in thepublic sector by Swiss and Germanscientists, but complex licensingarrangements led to a deal with AstraZeneca(now Syngenta). Syngenta offered thetechnology free of charge to subsistencefarmers earning less than $10,000 a year,59

and promoted the rice as evidence of howGM crops might benefit developingcountries.

But Golden Rice may not be the ‘silverbullet’ solution to VAD. Indeed it could be abig distraction from the problem. People do

not have VAD because rice contains too littlevitamin A, but because they are poor andtheir diet has been reduced to little morethan rice. A technical solution which putsvitamin A into rice but fails to addresspoverty and poor diets is unlikely to makeany durable contribution to people’s well-being.60 Indeed, a child would need to eatabout seven kilograms a day of cookedGolden Rice to obtain the required amountof vitamin A.61

The FAO encourages a mixed approach totackling VAD – health education,supplements to bolster poor diets and localcommunity-based efforts to improve therange of food people eat. Projects in Asiahave encouraged people to grow andconsume crops rich in vitamin A such asbeans, pumpkins, ivy gourd and leafy greenvegetables. The Medical Research Council ofSouth Africa supports village-based home-garden programmes in KwaZulu-Natal,promoting the cultivation of carrots,pumpkins and spinach and teachingvillagers, especially women, the importanceof including them in their diet.62



GM crop substitution – devastating rural livelihoods?

There are also some GM crops on the horizonthat have the potential to devastate rurallivelihoods. GM technology could eventuallyenable corporations or farmers in richcountries to grow some crops, either in thefield or in laboratories, which are currentlygrown in developing countries. Such cropsubstitution would deprive export-producingcountries of valuable income andemployment. Canola, for example, has beengenetically engineered to produce oils thatcould replace coconut and palm oils grown inthe developing world.64 This could devastatecoconut oil production in India – where 10million families rely directly and indirectly oncoconut farming for their livelihoods – and oilpalm producers in Malaysia and Ghana. Othertropical crops that are vulnerable to GMsubstitution include vanilla and cocoa.ActionAid discovered in 1999 that Mars UKhad two patents on cocoa flavour genes fromWest African cocoa beans and that DuPonthad a patent for a gene that can produce asubstitute for cocoa butter.65

While crops in the GM pipeline andbiotech industry PR might suggest thatGM offers hope for millions of farmersstruggling to survive from marginal land,GM technologies should be treated withcaution. Current evidence finds cropperformance is mixed, pesticide use hasincreased for some crops, and there is asignificant potential that the technologycould increase inequalities betweencommercial and small-scale farmers. Tohave a lasting impact on poverty,agricultural policies must address moreessential constraints facing poorfarmers: lack of access to land, credit,resources and markets.


2 Does GM technology meetthe needs of poor farmers?

Resource-poor farmers rely on affordable, readily available seedsupplies that enable them to grow a range of crops that can meetdiverse environmental, production and consumption needs. GMseeds, by contrast, are targeted at large-scale commercial farmersgrowing cash crops in monocultures.



GM proponents point to growth rates for GMcrops of more than 10% a year as evidencefor their growing importance in food provisionglobally. But there is cause for concern behindthese statistics. Biotech corporations invest ina relatively small number of internationallytraded food and fibre crops that have thegreatest commercial potential. These aremaize, rice, wheat, cotton, soybeans andcanola. The US still accounts for 66% of thetotal GM crop area, while transgenic soybeansaccount for 62% of all GM crops grown.66 Theproportion of transgenic crops grown indeveloping countries has increasedconsistently year on year and now accountsfor 27% of global GM acreage.67 However, themajority of these were grown in Argentina,which is the second largest GM grower in theworld and which has a large commercialfarming sector. One of the few studies of GMcrops in Argentina indicated that the averagesize farm in a sample of 59 was almost 500hectares.68

The needs of subsistence farmers are almostcompletely neglected in the product portfolioof the major biotech corporations. Poorfarmers cannot afford to pay for these newtechnologies at levels that would make itattractive for suppliers to enter the market.Crops grown by poor farmers – such as tef,millet, yam, cassava, cowpea and quinoa,indigenous vegetables, roots and tubers – areneglected. As they are not widely producedand are not traded to any significant extent ininternational markets, they receive little

private research investment. Nevertheless,these crops are valued culturally, adapted toharsh environments, nutritious, and arediverse in terms of their genetic andagroclimatic niches.

Emphasis on export crops

Even though poor farmers may not be themost lucrative customers, some developingcountries are still of significant interest to thebiotech corporations. The TNCs haveinvestments, subsidiaries or joint venturesacross Asia, Africa and Latin America. Buyingor forming alliances with local companiesgives them direct access to markets andsupply lines to farmers. However theirinvestment is restricted to crops in those fewcountries that have a commercial potential.GM R&D in Africa focuses on export sectorcrops such as cut flowers, fruits, vegetables,cotton and tobacco, the growing of which isdominated by large-scale commercialmonocultures in Kenya, South Africa andZimbabwe.69 In Kenya, only one out of 136intellectual property applications for plantsfiled and tested (GM and non-GM) was for afood crop while more than half were forroses.70 In the Philippines, the overriding goal of GM research is to improve thecompetitiveness of crops traded in globalmarkets; hence the emphasis on tried andtested export winners such as mango,pineapple and banana.71



Poor farmers and Bt cotton

Transgenic cotton is being growncommercially by smallholder farmers in China,South Africa and India. In each country, thedomestic biotech industry has adaptedMonsanto’s Bt cotton to local varieties.

South Africa is the first country in the world inwhich small-scale farmers have planted GMcrops on a widespread scale. Thousands ofsmall-scale farmers in the Makhathinifloodplains in Kwa-Zulu Natal are growing Btcotton adapted by the South African companyDelta Pineland, using a gene owned byMonsanto. This is Monsanto’s flagship project,which it uses to promote GM for small-scalefarmers and to open up markets in othercotton growing countries such as Uganda.There are about 4,000 small-scale growers inMakhathini, and an estimated 95% hadadopted GM cotton by 2001.72 About 60%have plots of between 10 and 20 hectares. ASouth African company, Vunisa Cotton,supplies seed, fertiliser, pesticide, credit andinformation to the farmers and buys theircotton after harvest. Credit is also provided tofarmers by the Land Bank of South Africa.

The Bt cotton seeds are twice the price ofconventional cotton varieties – the additionalGM technology fee accounts for half the price.Yet the number of small-scale farmersgrowing the GM cotton has increased steadilysince 1998. The prospect of Bt cotton seemsattractive because the spraying of insecticidesis expensive, labour intensive and riskspolluting local water sources. In response to asurvey about the advantages of Bt cotton,44% of farmers cited savings on the costs ofinsecticides, 24% increases in yield and 10%labour savings.73 One farmer says his yieldincreased by 27%, he reduced insecticide useby 80% and increased his income by US$150per hectare.74 A report for Monsantoconcluded that the Makhathini flats “provide amodel for smallholder cotton farmers in Africaand across the world”.75

Yet local CSOs argue that the project’ssuccess relies heavily on external assistance,which gives easy access to markets andcredit, and it is unlikely to be replicable inmarket conditions.

Biowatch, a South African campaign group,identified these pitfalls in the project:

• The poorest farmers found it hard to getcredit and could not afford to finance theextra seed costs themselves.76

• There was widespread misunderstandingabout the seed contracts. Many farmerssigned them in the belief that theypromised seed replacements in the eventof crop failures.77

• There was poor understanding of thetechnology itself; farmers thought it meantan end to insecticide spraying and watchingout for pests altogether.

• Farmers were not aware of the need toplant ‘refuges’ (strips of land adjacent to theGM fields planted with non-GM cotton as astrategy to slow the build-up of insectresistance to the Bt toxin) and there havebeen reported outbreaks of secondaryinsect damage to crops.78

These problems could be addressed over timebut groups such as Biowatch and GRAIN, aglobal biodiversity network, level morefundamental criticism at the whole model.Poor farmers are more vulnerable to price andyield fluctuations and thus could easily fallinto debt. According to GRAIN, “Bt cotton mayprovide a small amount of relief to smallfarmers in the near term, but it threatens tomake matters worse in the end”.79 GMtechnology does not address the main needsof poor farmers in post-apartheid SouthAfrica, which are land reform, improvedaccess to and control of resources, and theestablishment of more equitable andsustainable farming systems.

2 Does GM technology meet the needs of poor farmers?



Biotech corporations are not geared up todeliver pro-poor technologies, even if they diddecide to make it their business. Theirresearch and marketing programmes tend tobe highly centralised and their resulting

products highly uniform and standardised.Small farmers need seeds for conditions thatare complex, risky and changeable.Communities in Swaziland, for example, use200 plant species to deal with a range of


iv The transgenic sweet potato involves a viral coat protein and combines biotechnologies patented by the International Potato Centre, a CGIAR research centre in Peru (seepage 39); the Scripps Institute, a private not-for-profit research institute in the US; and Monsanto.

GM sweet potato

One of the few crops of interest to poorfarmers that has been geneticallyengineered is the sweet potato. Monsantoand the Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI), a public body, began a jointproject in 1991, with funding from the USAgency for International Development(USAID), to develop a virus-resistant GMsweet potato. Sweet potato is an importantcrop for rural poor people in Africa: it isgrown for food, income and animal feed in arange of agroecological conditions. Butyields have declined over time due to pests,and Kenya’s average sweet potato yield isnow less than half the world’s average.80 Inspite of this, the crop has received littleattention from public or private agriculturalresearchers.

The transgenic sweet potato developed byMonsanto and KARI is resistant to sweetpotato feathery mottle virus (SPFMV), one oftwo viruses causing sweet potato viraldisease. Laboratory and field trials of theGM crop indicate yield improvements of18%, with negligible increased costs.81 Thevarious institutions that have IPRs over thetechnologies involved are not asking KARIfor royalty payments, effectively letting ithave the technologies and resultingproducts for free, and Monsanto has coveredan estimated 70% of R&D costs.iv As thepotato has yet to receive Kenyan regulatoryapproval, it is too early to say what impact itwill have on farmer livelihoods.

While this project appears to be motivatedby wishes to help the poor, critics such as

the US-based think tank Food First andGRAIN, argue that the GM sweet potato is infact science-led; that Monsanto had alreadydeveloped the technology in its home townof St Louis in the US and in Mexico and wassimply looking for an application.82 Theproject focus on a single virus does notaddress the main reasons why production ofthe sweet potato is low in Kenya, whichincludes a host of agroecological,production and marketing constraints.83

Moreover, SPFMV is more of a problem forimported exotic varieties of sweet potatothan it is for local varieties preferred by thepoorest farmers and it is only one of morethan 14 known viruses that affect sweetpotato. The transgenic sweet potato may notsuccumb to SPFMV, but the whole projectcalls into question the use of scarceresources – financial, personnel andequipment – to combat a virus that is not apriority problem for poor Kenyan farmers.The project tied up 19 scientists andinvolved the support of six institutions, whichcould have been employed more effectivelyon supporting alternative, sustainabletechnologies.84 According to Food First, thetransgenic sweet potato “exemplifies howthe excitement over certain geneticengineering procedures can divert researchfrom focusing on the needs of farmers”.85

There are further risks, as with all GM crops,associated with the potential of geneflowand disease resistance (see page 29) that couldbe avoided through low-cost alternatives.86

The GM sweet potato appears to be littlemore than a part of a long-term strategy to open up regional markets in Africa to GM crops.87



stresses including poor soil fertility, pests anddiseases, and erratic rainfall.88 Small farmsneed investment that support and enhancetheir comparative advantages. Small farmstend to produce yields two to three timeshigher per hectare than large commercialestates ,89 they generally employ more peopleper hectare, and the income generated ismore likely to be spent on local products thatprovide employment for landless and land-poor people.90

Adapting existing technologies to localconditions requires on-farm trials managed byfarmers. The complexities of doing so havebeen one of the major constraints intraditional crop development and present amajor challenge in ensuring that GM seed isappropriate for local needs. Monsanto claimsthat its technology is “not size specific”, andthat GM crops “benefit farmers on any scale –whether farming one, fifty or five hundredacres.”91 However, even if GM technologyaddressed local environmental conditions, theconstraints and risks facing small farmerssuch as lack of credit and falling into debt aresignificantly higher than those facing largergrowers.

The private for-profit sector is notresponsive to the needs of resource-poorfarmers. The GM sweet potatodemonstrates that genetic solutions donot address the range of agriculturalproblems faced by poor farmers. Theyrisk wasting scarce resources that couldbe better spent on low-cost, farmer-friendly technologies, which couldimprove food security by building onexisting knowledge and low-input farming systems.


Farmers in developing countries have evolved complex and effectivesystems for using, saving and exchanging seeds from one harvest tothe next as part of their livelihood strategies. Patented GM seedsthreaten to erode these ancient rights and practices and to displaceor contaminate seed supplies with GM seeds.



GM crops threaten farmers’ rights tosave seeds

GM seeds are heavily protected by IPRs,especially patents. These property rights areenforced by restrictive contracts that farmersmust sign before they can obtain and use theseeds. The contracts oblige farmers to pay thecorporation a royalty or technology fee, toagree not to save or replant seeds from theharvest, to use only proprietary chemicals onthem and to give the corporation access totheir property to verify compliance.

The length to which corporations are preparedto go to defend their IPRs over GM seeds isdemonstrated in the US and Canada.Monsanto has filed at least 475 law suitsagainst farmers and has hired privatedetectives to identify seed-saving farmers.92 Inone well-known case, Percy Schmeiser, a non-GM farmer in Canada, was accused byMonsanto of growing its Roundup Readyv

canola without a licence. Schmeiser claimedthat he had never planted the seeds andsuspects that his canola crop wascontaminated by the GM variety by cross-pollination from neighbouring farms.Monsanto sued for the value of his entirecrop; Schmeiser was fined $25,000 and ranup costs of $600,000.

In developing countries, the proliferation ofIPRs over GM seeds threatens the centuries-old practice of saving and exchanging seeds.Up to 1.4 billion people in developing

countries depend on saved seed as theirprimary seed source and up to 90% offarmers rely on this system in Africa.93 In manycultures, seed storage and selection arewomen’s responsibilities.

Local knowledge and cultural traditionssurrounding seed use are complex anddiverse. Farmers constantly select and breedseeds to ensure that they respond tochanging growing conditions. Farmers in theAndes cultivate up to 30 varieties of potato in one field to exploit differences in the micro-environment such as soil type or altitude andto maximise different properties such asdisease resistance or storage properties.94

Seed sources are diverse and seed-swappingis common: farmers rely on neighbours,relatives, extension services, local marketsand farm supply stores. Resource-poorfarmers sometimes experiment with new seedvarieties because, although they are rarelysuitable for marginal production systems,through cross-breeding they can help enrichthe genetic base of their varieties.95

GM seeds must be bought each season orfarmers must pay royalties if they save themfrom one harvest to the next. These practicesthreaten to overturn the basis of manyfarmers’ seed habits: sharing and free access.The implications are far-reaching. Corporatecontrol over GM seeds inhibits farm-to-farmexchange, hitherto the basis of all cropdevelopment. It increasingly takes thedecisions about which crop varieties to

3 Do GM crops threaten basic rights?

v Roundup Ready is the proprietary name of Monsanto’s GM seeds which are tolerant to its glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.



develop and grow out of the hands of farmers– very often women – and places them in thehands of industry. Farmers could lose accessto locally-adapted varieties as they becomedisplaced or contaminated by GM seeds. Thishas implications for biodiversity and for farmerchoice as GMOs are likely to accumulatequickly in seed stocks and could openlypollinate with local varieties.

Having to buy external supplies of seeds andpesticides leaves farmers economically andagriculturally dependent on corporations andvulnerable to disruptions in supply. Priceincreases in the technology fee – even if theycan be recouped through yield increasesand/or cost savings – will be prohibitive forthe poorest farmers who lack access to credit.The technology fee inflates the cost of seedconsiderably; in South Africa GM cotton istwice the price of non-GM cotton seeds; inIndia Monsanto’s GM cotton seeds are threetimes the price of conventional varieties, eventhough the corporation does not have apatent in the country.96 The contracts arecomplex and easily misunderstood by farmers,especially illiterate ones.

Whether the system of strict farm-levelcontract enforcement, which has fast takenhold in the US and Canada, will emerge indeveloping countries depends partly on theGM crops introduced, the intellectual propertyregimes adopted at a national level, and thedegree of corporate influence. The cost ofmonitoring and enforcing millions of contractswould make such a system difficult to operatein the context of poor smallholder farmers. Yetcorporate tactics in the US and Canada showthat once a few farmers have beensuccessfully sued, the contracts are enforcedmore by fear than by the courts.

GURTsBesides relying on IPRs and legal contractswith farmers, TNCs are also developingadditional kinds of GM technologies to retaintheir control over seeds – Genetic UseRestriction Technologies (GURTs). Two typesof GURTs are being developed.

V-GURTs, dubbed ‘terminator technology’ bycritics such as the ETC Group, a Canadianadvocacy group, result in geneticallyengineered crops that produce sterile seeds.If farmers saved and planted seed from oneseason to the next from a terminator crop,they would probably get no harvest at all inthe second year. Supporters claim that thiscould be a fail-safe way of stopping GMOsfrom spreading to wild relatives (see page 29).But the technology is widely opposed asexploitative because it forces farmers to buynew seed each season without necessarilyadding value to the crop. The FAO has calledterminator seeds “generally unethical”.97

Syngenta and Monsanto, which have bothpatented terminator technologies, promisednot to commercialise the seeds afterpublic outcry.

T-GURTs, dubbed ‘traitor technology’, requirechemical triggers to switch on or off traits inthe plant. The crop’s basic functions –germination, flowering, fruit ripening, sproutingand immune deficiency – depend on externalchemicals. This technology promises richrewards for corporations because they canengineer crops to respond only to theirparticular brand of agrochemical. Farmers,however, will be faced with greaterdependency on corporations, resulting in lesschoice and less seed security.





The expansion ofintellectual property rightsStrong rules on IPRs are being globalised viathe World Trade Organisation (WTO). TheTrade Related Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPs) agreement requires all WTO membercountries – currently 146 – to adopt minimumstandards of intellectual property protectionfor plant varieties, either in the form of patentsor through what is known as a sui generisvi

system (such as a Plant Variety Protection orPVP system) or a combination of both.vii TheTRIPs agreement:

• creates minimum standards of intellectualprotection that all WTO members mustrecognise in seven areas

• requires states to make availableinstitutional procedures for rights holders toenforce their IPRs

• provides a procedure for regulatingdisputes between states concerning theirobligations under the agreement.98

Patents on life forms such as genes and GMplant varieties are controversial – the US,Japan, EU, Canada and Australia currentlygrant them – and many believe that genes,plants and agricultural resources moregenerally should be exempt from IPRs.

Patents and PVP both provide exclusivemonopoly rights over an invention or creationfor commercial purposes for a set period oftime. A patent is a right granted to an inventorto prevent others from making, using orselling the patented invention for 17-20 yearswithout the inventor’s permission. The patentholder can also charge others for use of thepatented product. The criteria for a patent arethat the invention must be novel, inventiveand have a commercial use. PVPs give patent-like rights to plant breeders. The criteria areslightly different from those for patents:

novelty, distinctness, uniformity and stability.99

Such criteria favour plant varieties bred by theformal sector as farmers’ varieties tend to begenetically heterogeneous, and less stable.

The application of IPRs to agriculture is arecent phenomenon. Living organisms used tobe excluded from IPRs because biologicalmaterial was considered to be part of natureand could not therefore be invented, althoughit could be discovered. In 1962 theInternational Union for the Protection of NewVarieties of Plants (UPOV) allowed plantbreeders to collect royalties on seeds theyhad bred through conventional plant breedingtechniques. Patents on plant varieties wereintroduced more recently and have quicklybecome a powerful tool to enhance corporatecontrol over the food chain.

The 1991 version of the UPOV regime restrictsthe rights of plant breeders to re-use varietiesfor further breeding and the rights of farmersto sow and re-use seeds.100 By giving suchextensive rights to plant breeders, UPOV notonly threatens farmers’ rights; it alsodiscounts the contribution farmers have madeto developing plant varieties over generationsand allows TNCs to monopolise local seedindustries.101

Many developing countries do not have plantvariety protection or patent laws. But TRIPsrequires them to introduce such legislation. InAfrica, Zimbabwe and South Africa were theonly countries with PVP legislation prior to the1995 introduction of TRIPs.102 Developingcountries are being pressured by the EU, theUS and TNCs to adopt the 1991 UPOV systemof PVP or to introduce patents on plants. Boththese systems are inappropriate fordeveloping countries where farmers ratherthan corporations constitute the majority ofplant breeders. Instead, such countries shouldbe allowed to develop their own sui generissystems, as permitted under TRIPs, that bestsuit their agricultural systems and the needsof their breeders and farmers.103

vi ‘Sui generis’ is Latin meaning ‘of its own kind’. It means that a country could draw up its own version of an intellectual property system. vii WTO member countries can disallow patents on plants and animals, but must provide patent protection for microorganisms. TRIPs does not mention whether or not genes

should be patentable, leaving it to national legislation to interpret what constitutes an invention in relation to genetic material.



Sixty patents for GURTs technology wereidentified by 2000,104 and more continue to beuncovered in 2003.105 GURTs effectivelytransfer power from farmers to corporations.In the absence of strong national andinternational competition laws, GURTs arelikely to increase the monopoly powers ofcorporations.viii The FAO warns that if theseGM seeds enter local economies throughtrade or food aid, fertile and infertile seedscould easily mix.106 Farmers may findthemselves unwittingly sowing sterile seeds orcould have no option but to grow infertileseeds or seeds needing chemicals if nothingelse was available.

Patents on GM crops violate farmers’traditional rights and practices to saveand exchange seeds, and increasefarmers’ dependence on privatised andmonopolised agricultural resources.ActionAid believes that developingcountries should exempt plants and foodfrom patents and should implement suigeneris IPR systems that protect farmers’rights as breeders, cultivators andconservers of genetic seed diversity.


viii GURTs provide further incentive for seed and agrochemical corporations to merge in order to combine their patented technologies and products.

4 Do GM crops threaten biodiversity?

Agricultural and crop diversity are the basis of poor farmer livelihoodsand are fundamental to food security. GM crops threaten to damageand reduce this biodiversity and to displace farmers’ varieties thathave evolved over centuries to meet a range of production,environmental and consumption needs. GM crops poseenvironmental risks and make the need for developing countrygovernment biosafety regulation and monitoring all the more urgent.



Agricultural biodiversity encompasses a widerange of genetic resources: plants and crops;livestock; soil organisms; insects and ‘wild’resources. It includes diversity within species,between species and within ecosystems.107

For thousands of years, farming communitieshave relied upon and sustained such plantand animal biodiversity as part of theirlivelihood strategies. They have nurtured andbred food crops and have conserved andimproved the genetic resources that form thebasis of today’s food and agriculture.

Most poor farmers produce a wide range offood, fodder, fuel, medicine and buildingmaterial from their crops. Their approachtends to be about minimising risk rather thanmaximising production. Crop diversity is animportant survival strategy for poor farmers.They often cultivate large numbers of differentplant species in the same field – known asmulticropping – that are of considerablegenetic diversity, as well as making substantialuse of wild plants. These practices helpfarmers meet their livelihood needs as well assustain local ecosystems.108 An importantelement in the traditional management ofcrop diversity in developing countries is theuse of landraces or farmers’ varieties. Theseare crop varieties that are “conspicuouslydiverse in their genetic composition”109 and are selected over time for a range of

characteristics including taste, yield, storage,resistance to environmental stress andmaturity time. Since farmers firstdomesticated rice 8,000 years ago, forexample, they have developed over 100,000different varieties.110 These varieties have beenshown to help spread risk more effectivelythan varieties produced by formal plantbreeding institutions.111

But crop biodiversity in many places hasseriously declined in recent decades. The FAO estimates that three-quarters of theoriginal varieties of agricultural crops havebeen lost from farmers’ fields since 1900.112

The underlying causes include:

• The rapid expansion of industrial, GreenRevolution and export-led agriculture thatencourages the cultivatation of relativelyfew crop varieties in monocultures. This hasled to genetic erosion as local varieties arereplaced by high yielding varieties (HYVs).In the Philippines, for example, HYVsdisplaced more than 300 traditional ricevarieties that were the principal source offood for generations. In Senegal atraditional cereal known as fonio – which ishighly nutritious and robust in difficultgrowing conditions – is threatened withextinction because it has been replaced bycommercial crops.



• The globalisation of the food system and ofmarketing, and the extension of patents andIPRs to living organisms have led to thewidespread cultivation of fewer varieties fora more uniform, less diverse and morecompetitive global market.113

There is growing evidence of the risks ofreduced crop diversity for resource-poorfarmers. It can increase their vulnerability toclimatic and environmental stresses, raise therisk of crop failure, increase vulnerability toinsect pests and diseases, and undermine thestability, sustainability and productivity ofestablished agricultural systems.114 The highuse of chemicals associated with monocultureagriculture has further contributed to a loss ofbiodiversity in the form of natural pestenemies and beneficial insects as well astarget pests. It has led to a decline in soilnutrients and organisms and contributed tothe erosion of natural habitats, flora andfauna.

Industry-driven GM technologies continue thetrend started by the Green Revolution, takingfarmers further down the path of high input,monocrop agriculture in which diverse localvarieties that help farmers manage risks arereplaced with a few GM varieties.

Environmental impact of GM crops

GM crops also pose several known threats toother plants, insects and the environmentmore generally. Some of these risks stemfrom weeds and insects developing resistanceto the chemicals applied to or expressed bythe GM crops. Others occur when GM cropscross-pollinate with non-GM plants, aphenomenon known as geneflow or geneticcontamination. These problems have far-reaching implications in poor agriculturalregions if GM crops are commercialised there.

Bt crops

One major concern about Bt crops is that the target insect pests – the cornborer or thecotton bollworm, for instance – will developresistance to the Bt toxin expressed by theGM plant in the same way that insectsdevelop resistance to chemical pesticides.This leads to a pesticides treadmill in whichfarmers need to apply more frequent andlarger doses of pesticides to kill off insects,until the chemical no longer has any effect onthem at all. There are now more than 500species of insect that are resistant topesticides.115 Far from reducing chemicalapplications, as proponents claim, GM cropsthreaten to continue and entrench thechemical problems set in train by GreenRevolution agriculture.

Although resistance to Bt crops is a majorconcern, it has not yet emerged as a problemon the ground. But the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency estimates that insectsdevelop resistance to a chemical within threeto five years of being constantly sprayed.116

Insect resistance has serious implications notjust for farmers growing Bt crops but also forfarmers who spray Bt as a natural insecticideon non-GM crops. For small farmers the lossof this insect control mechanism, could leadto crop failures and economic vulnerability.117

Integrated pest management techniques –which rely on planting different plants next toeach other to manage pest-predatorrelationships rather than with chemical inputs– are proven to be a far more effective tool to manage pests.118

To slow the emergence of Bt resistance ininsects, farmers should plant refuges of non-GM crops adjacent to the GM field. Bt cottonfarmers in the US are required to plant either20% of their cotton land with a conventionalcotton variety on which they use conventionalpest control or to plant about 4% with aconventional variety and use no pest controlat all.119 These refuges are meant to helpmaintain populations of susceptible non-resistant insects to breed with Bt-resistantinsects, with the aim of preventing theresistant insects from becoming dominant. It




is doubtful whether refuges will be effective in the long run and whether they would help smallholders, especially those withlimited land.

Herbicide resistance

Problems of weeds developing resistance toherbicides have been observed withherbicide-tolerant crops as well. In the USthere is evidence of weeds becomingresistant to herbicide glyphosate in areaswhere GM glyphosate-resistant soya isextensively grown.120 These weeds requireheavier applications of herbicides to get rid ofthem. In 2002, farm advisers in the USreported the appearance of herbicide-resistant horseweed that required 6 to 13times more herbicide to achieve the samelevels of control as normal horseweed.121

Already more than 400 herbicide-resistantweed types have been identified.122 In Canada,oilseed rape plants have been found to beresistant to up to three herbidicides after justfour years of GM crop planting as a result ofgene transfer between different herbicide-tolerant varieties.123

GM crops also threaten non-plant biodiversityand non-target organisms. For example,lacewings – which are considered a beneficialinsect – are more likely to die when they feedon the larvae of cornborers that have fed onBt maize.124 Effects on non-target speciescould pose problems for pest management insmallholder farming systems that rely on arich complex of predators and parasites tolimit insect damage to crops. In China, Btcotton is killing the natural parasitic enemiesof the cotton bollworm and increasing thenumbers of other pests. The study also foundthat biodiversity in Bt cotton fields in Chinawas lower than in non-Bt cotton fields andthat there were more pests.125

GeneflowGeneflow occurs when genes move from aGM crop to wild relatives, non-GM crops orother organisms, a problem that has alreadybeen identified in the US and Canada. Thelikelihood and impact of geneflow depends onlocal circumstances and the type of crop.Geneflow has been a particular problem withcanola. Studies in Canada have shown thatpollen from canola can pollinate plants as faras 800 metres away.ix 126 The problem ofgeneflow could theoretically be prevented byensuring that GM crops are planted at acertain distance away from non-GM crops,but what should this distance be?

There is concern about the evolution of‘superweeds’ resulting from gene transferbetween GM crops and wild relatives. Wildsunflowers that acquired insect-resistantgenes from GM sunflowers became hardierand produced up to 50% more seed.127

Although superweeds might be less of adirect threat in Africa as few poor farmers useherbicides, there is a risk of geneflow fromlarger commercial farms to smaller farms.Sorghum, for example, easily hybridises with aweedy relative, Johnson grass, and sugar beet,carrot, ryegrass and white clover all have ahigh probability of geneflow.128 129 The US stateof Florida has banned the growing of Btcotton because of concerns about geneflowto a wild cotton relative.130

Protecting centres of genetic origin and diversity

The problem of geneflow poses a direct threatto biodiversity in countries that are centres ofgenetic origin for particular crops. These areplaces that have the greatest genetic diversityof a particular crop and where typically thecrop has been cultivated for the longestperiod. Besides the recognised centres ofplant genetic diversity (see Table 6), southernMexico is linked to maize, papaya and uplandcotton, and India to oriental cotton, rice and mango.131


ix Though just 0.07% of plants were pollinated at this distance, there was a long plateau of 50 to 400 metres in which contamination was 0.2%, close to the limit of 0.25%contamination for elite seed.



Table 6 Vavilov centres of plant genetic diversityx

Location Crop type

Ethiopia barley, coffee, sorghum

Asia Minor barley, lentils, oats, wheat

Central Asia apple, chickpeas, lentils

Indo-Burma eggplant, rice, yam

Indo-Malaya banana, coconut, sugar cane

China sorghum, millet, soybean

Central America bean, corn, tomato

Peru-Ecuador-Bolivia bean, potato, squash

Southern Chile potato

Brazil-Paraguay peanut

West Africa millet, sorghum

Mediterranean oats, olives, wheat

North America sunflower

Northern Europe oats, rye

Source: Thrupp L. 1997. 132

Fears of GM contamination within a centre ofplant genetic origin were realised in 2002when DNA from GM maize contaminated non-GM varieties in Mexico.xi Mexico is the world’sprimary centre of maize genetic diversity – itis the region where maize originated andwhere the greatest diversity is found. Thesevarieties are vital to world food security asthey are the raw material used by farmers andbreeders around the world to improve thequality and productivity of maize.133 When apest destroyed 15% of US maize productionin 1970, scientists were able to breed a new(non-GM) pest-resistant variety only afteraccessing traditional varieties of maize fromMexico.134 Mexico is also home to theInternational Maize and Wheat ImprovementCentre (CIMMYT), the world’s major genebankof maize varieties. So far there is no evidenceof GM contamination within the genebank, butthe threat is real.

The Mexican government banned GM crops in1998 to protect this genebank. The source ofthe contamination is thought to be US GMmaize imported for use as flour in tortillas, butplanted as seed by farmers. The Mexicangovernment could not discover the origin of

the GM seed because Monsanto, Syngentaand Aventis – the three corporations that havecommercialised GM maize – refused todisclose the necessary information.Contamination of local seed varieties by GMcrops threatens the integrity of local varietiesupon which millions of farmers still depend fortheir livelihoods. The long-term impact of thiscontamination is unknown but it could narrowchoices for today’s farmers and futurebreeders of maize varieties, compromise localfood security strategies based on diversestrains and pose a threat to current pest andweed management strategies, a threat forwhich local farmers are unprepared.

Geneflow – and the associated problems ofregulating and containing GMOs – is achallenge for biosafety regulators indeveloping countries. The practice of savingand exchanging seeds is likely to exacerbatethe risk of geneflow as releases of GMOsquickly become established in the local seedsupplies.xii 135 Farmers could soon findthemselves unknowingly planting GM crops,leaving them vulnerable to allegations ofpatent infringement and leaving seed diversityjeopardised.

BiopharmingA further challenge stems from an emergingarea of biotechnology that involves modifyingplants to produce substances that can bemade into industrial compounds orpharmaceutical medicines such as growthhormones, blood clotters, blood thinners,antibodies, HIV vaccines and contraceptives.136

Most biopharming research has taken place incorn, but soybean, tobacco and rice are alsoused. Biopharming by corporations such asMonsanto, Dow, Epicypte and Prodigene isstill at the R&D stage. There have been 300field trials in unidentified locations across theUS. Biopharming agents acting for biotechfirms are seeking new regions to trial crops


x These centres of plant genetic diversity were identified by Russian botanist Nikolai Vavilov in 1949 as major areas of high concentrations of crop diversity. These categoriesare now widely used in understanding crop origins.

xi Although the methodology in the study has been queried – the report was originally published in the reputed science journal Nature and then retracted by the publishersbut not the authors – further research, including a study by the Mexican government, confirmed the presence of GM geneflow.

xii The persistence of GM strains in the environment will depend on the advantage conferred by natural and artificial selection.



and are using the internet to appeal tofarmers in developing countries to participatein field trials.137 One website,www.molecularfarming.com, started its‘worldwide molecular farming database’ inFebruary 2002, and has potential growers for‘pharm’ crops in Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan,Nigeria and South Africa, and ‘a contact’ for147,000 acres in Guinea.138

Genetic material from pharma plants couldcontaminate non-GM crops and end up in thefood chain. For example, tobacco has beenengineered with a gene by means of a virusvector so that the plant produces a drug,trichosanthin, which is used to induceabortion. The virus is also known to infecttomatoes, peppers and other tobaccorelatives.139 Fears that contamination fromthese biopharm crops could have seriouseffects on human health has led to the USfood industry opposing biopharming.Biopharmaceutical genes could persist in theenvironment or accumulate in livingorganisms, threatening wildlife and non-targetorganisms.140 In the US the regulatoryapproach has been to minimise rather thanprevent contamination, and it has paidinsufficient regard to environmental andhuman impacts. In developing countries,where there are currently no regulations orliability for biopharming and where seeds areharder to control because of seed-savingpractices, the environmental and human risksare greatly amplified.

Biosafety regulations

Developing countries are making decisionsnow about whether to grow or import GMcrops, and about the kind of system theyshould establish to govern GMOs. Countriesmust establish national biosafety frameworksto govern the import of GMOs. They mustestablish the infrastructure to assess impacts

and to evaluate and regulate crop trials andreleases of GM plants into the environmentand food chain.141

At the international level, biosafety issuesconcerned with the import and export ofGMOsxiii – are governed by the CartagenaBiosafety Protocol. This was agreed in 2000 aspart of the UN Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Although the Protocol has yet tocome into force,xiv it provides guidelines forgovernment decision-making on whether ornot to accept GMOs into a country. It is basedon the principle of Advance InformedAgreement. The Protocol allows governmentsto take social and economic concerns intoconsideration when deliberating whether toallow the growing or import of GM seeds, butonly if these concerns impact on biodiversity.It incorporates the precautionary principlexv –an important feature of many environmentagreements – and allows governments torestrict or ban the import of GMOs on thegrounds of uncertainty, without the onus ofproviding scientific proof that a GMO has aparticular adverse effect.

The Biosafety Protocol requires each countryto implement national biosafety legislation.Countries need to develop the knowledge,skills and capacity to establish, implement andmonitor biosafety systems, including riskassessment and regulation. Establishing suchprovisions involves political and scientificjudgements about what constitutes ‘risk’ or‘adverse effect’ and how much weight isplaced on such effects when makingdecisions. Risk management decisions mustbe open to revision as new evidence ofimpacts becomes available. Risk assessmentalso requires decisions about timeframes – inthe US most studies have focused on short-term impacts.


xiii Only GM seeds, and not GM commodities for human or animal consumption, are covered by the Advanced Informed Agreement. xiv The Protocol has been ratified by 43 countries so far. It needs 50 countries to come into force.xv The most common definition of the precautionary principle derives from the Wingspread statement in 1998: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or

the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."



Lack of biosafety regulation is often cited as aconstraint to biotechnology taking off indeveloping countries. Many developingcountries, however, have adopted a cautiousapproach to biosafety, reflecting a broadrange of concerns about GMOs. Manygovernments are unsure about how toposition themselves in relation to the marketfor GM – industry claims about higher yieldsare enticing but many, especially exporters,are mindful of the tight regulations governingthe import of GM foods in Europe and Japan,which could limit their exports.

But most least developed countries do nothave regulations in place to import or test GMproducts.142 In Zambia, for example, just oneperson, who has no previous experience of

developing national policy or prior knowledgeof the issues, is responsible for draftingnational biotechnology and biosafety policy.143

A regulatory framework is merely the firststep, however. Many countries have aregulatory framework but their capacity toevaluate and monitor the risks is weak. InBrazil a ban on GM crops has not beenenough to stop GM soya being smuggledacross the border from Argentina and plantedacross huge areas. Bt cotton has been grownwithout permission in Zimbabwe and withoutapproval in Zambia,144 and 20,000 hectares ofillegal Bt cotton were destroyed in India in2002. Reports indicate that GM crops arebeing grown in Malawi and Swaziland withoutany kind of approval or regulation.145


Zambia and food aidThe depth of concern about the potentialimpact of GMOs was brought into focus in2002 when Zambia refused 18,000 tonnes ofdonated GM corn from the US even though2.5 million people in the country werethreatened by hunger. Zambia’s rejectionprovoked a stormy international debate.Although provided for human consumption,farmers often save a portion of food aid asseed for planting. The Zambian governmentwas concerned that GMOs could enter thefood chain, pose health and environmentalrisks and jeopardise its GM-free exports toEurope.xvi The US argued that GM crops weresafe and refused to label or segregate it.Although non-GM food aid was available atthe time one US official accused theZambian government of ‘crimes againsthumanity’. Zambia, which has yet toformulate national biosafety regulations,defended its right to reject the offer.ActionAid defended Zambia and argued thatthe US should stop insisting on donating US-

grown crops as food aid – a practice knownas ‘tied-aid’ – and instead give money to theUN World Food Programme (WFP) to buyfood available in regional markets in Africa.146

As well as highlighting important issues ofnational sovereignty, the row confirmed thegulf between the US and Europe on GMcrops. Some 35 countries now have currentor prospective legislation that imposelabelling or import rules on foods with GMingredients.147 Europe has refused to licenseany new GM crops for use in the EU since1998, pending regulations aimed at ensuringthat consumers can avoid GM foods if theywish. In response, the US has turned theissue into a trade war by taking the EU to theWTO dispute panel for infringing WTO rules.

Zambia is not the only country worried aboutmarkets for GM produce. The Chinesegovernment tightened the rules on GMimports in 2003 and stopped givingcommercial approvals to grow GM crops.Although biosafety concerns were a factor,some claim the decision was prompted byfears of being shut out of export markets.148

xvi USAID and WFP were criticised for not obtaining the prior informed consent of countries recieving food aid containing GMO. In the weeks that followed,revelations surfaced that WFP had been delivering GM food and emergency aid for the previous seven years without telling the countries concerned.



Weak biosafety legislation and the lack ofpublic information leaves poor farmersvulnerable to sales talk of miracle seeds.Hundreds of poor farmers were enticed toplant Bt cotton illegally in two provinces ofPakistan, according to research by ActionAidPakistan.149 About 4,200 acres of Bt cottonwas grown in 2002 in four districts of theHyderabad division of Sindh province andhundreds of acres have been detected in thePunjab. Pakistan has no biosafety regulationsin place and many farmers have found thattheir crop failed miserably. “It’s a desperatesituation,” says Aftab Alam, ActionAid PakistanFood Rights campaign coordinator. “Hundredsof poor farmers took a gamble with these so-called miracle GM cotton seeds and now 70%have lost their crop. They’re in debt and theycould lose their livelihoods.” ActionAidPakistan and South Asia Partnerships Pakistaninterviewed 38 poor farmers in the Punjabwho were initially unaware that the crops weregenetically modified and led to believe thatthe wonder seeds would do well with fewerapplications of chemicals.

Since the Biosafety Protocol was agreed therehave been modest steps to help poorgovernments build their capacity andimplement biosafety frameworks. The maininitiative is a joint Project on the Developmentof Biosafety Frameworks run by the UnitedNations Environment Programme and theGlobal Environment Facility. Funded with $38million, the project assists 112 countries toprepare biosafety frameworks and improvetechnical capacity.150 However, most of thework remains on paper and there has beenlittle progress in actually building technical,scientific and infrastructure capacity. Theconstraints are substantial – the project hasinsufficient funds, and human resources inpoor countries are in short supply. Thebiosafety agenda is donor-led and it placespressure on developing countries toimplement legislation more quickly than theycan manage.


“ I cultivated Bt cotton on half anacre, but right after sowing it wasattacked by CLCV [a fungal virus]and the entire field was destroyed.I had to support the marriage ofmy sister but I could not due to thisfallout. The marriage has been putoff until next year. I will never againcultivate Bt cotton.”Khalid from Chechanwatni, Sahiwal district,Pakistan.

“ I got a loan to the tune ofR150,000 from a local bank andcultivated Bt cotton on five acres ofmy land. I had another 15 acrescultivation of other crops. Just aftertwo months I had to plough the Btcotton plot because the crop hadbecome completely destroyed. Itcost me R50,000 to cultivate Btcotton. Not only the amount wentin vain but I also lost the incomewhich I could earn had I cultivatedthe ordinary cotton on that plot. Ihad to suffer a total loss ofR95,000.”Javed Iqbal from Chechanwatni, Sahiwaldistrict, Pakistan.



The unregulated movement of GM crops– in the form of illegal planting andgeneflow from imports, GM food aid andbiopharming – violates developingcountry rights to food sovereignty. Giventhe known risks to crop biodiversity, theenvironment and human health posed byGM crops, developing countries need tobe given substantial financial andtechnical aid to build capacity for robustbiosafety regulation and monitoring. Theyalso need to be given the freedom toreject GM crops or to impose amoratorium on commercialisation if they wish.


ActionAid is concerned that developing country governments mayrush into accepting GM crops, put scarce public resources into GMresearch and open their doors to private biotechnology corporationsbefore poor people have been properly informed, consulted andagreed to accept – or reject – GM crops. ActionAid believes that poorfarmers should be involved in setting priorities and making decisionson agricultural policy and setting agricultural research agendas.



There is a democratic deficit in decision-making on GM policies, and a lack of activeparticipation and informed choice in manypoor countries. The Biosafety Protocol obligesgovernments to promote and facilitate publiceducation, awareness and participation indecision-making regarding GMOs.151 There areplenty of participatory tools and approachesthat have been used effectively in other policydomains, which are currently under-used inbiosafety processes.152

Poor farmers and communities – who are wellplaced to understand the risks and potentialbenefits of GM crops – are sidelined indebates and decisions about GM technology.In some developing countries, such as SouthAfrica, GM material has been planted withoutprior public consultation. Given the legitimatepublic concerns about GM crops, suchactions polarise debate and stifle constructivedialogue. The formulation of GM policiesshould be an open and participatory processin which civil society can contribute and playa determining role.

“The participation of civil society in GMdebates is non-existent in Mozambique,” saysRogerio Ossemane, advocacy officer for theNational Peasants’ Union of Mozambique,UNAC. “There is very little knowledge and wejust heard that the government was draftingup its policies on GMOs through a nationalseminar that we attended which ActionAidorganised. This is very late to be involved.

Introducing GMOs is an irreversible step. Youcan never go back. We have a large diversityof crops in Mozambique that help to reducethe vulnerability of rural people. We’re totallyagainst GMOs and see many dangers withthem.”

In South Africa, which has allowed fivecommercial releases of GM crops and hasmore than 200 field trials underway, there hasbeen minimal civil society involvement indecision-making for approving trials andcommercial releases.153 There have been noenvironmental studies on the impact of trialsor commercial plantings. The development ofa national Biotechnology Strategy offeredextremely limited opportunities for publicinterest groups to input, while members of anexpert advisory panel included many peoplewith direct or indirect industry interests.154 Thetop international corporations in South Africa,along with South African para-statal researchinstitutions, have come together underAfricaBio, an umbrella grouping that isreportedly setting the country’s research andbiosafety agenda and building its capacity toevaluate GMOs. The person responsible fordrafting South Africa’s GMO Act left to workwith Monsanto’s public relations department.155

5 Do GM crops enhance informed choiceand participation for poor people?



National research decisions must be moretransparent and accountable to civil society,especially poor communities. Experiencesuggests that the challenges to constructivepublic participation in biosafety legislation setout below are significant:

• Scientific knowledge must be madeaccessible and useful to non-scientists.

• Controversy over safety and ethicalimplications has led to polarised debates.

• Commercial confidentiality leads to secrecywhich can breed suspicion and distrust ofthe regulatory system.

• Civil society concerns often extend tosocial and economic impacts as well asethical and moral issues. Processes andregulations that seem unresponsive to such concerns are likely to lack publiccredibility.159

5 Do GM crops enhance informed choice and participation for poor people?

Indian biosafety lacksaccountabilityIn India public trust in government GMpolicy has more or less broken down overthe last few years, and thecommercialisation of Bt cotton has beenmired in controversy. After three years oftrials, conducted by joint venture Mahyco-Monsanto, the government’s GeneticEngineering Approval Committee (GEAC)gave the go-ahead in March 2002 forcommercial planting of three Bt cottonvarieties. The full results of the trials werenot made public. CSOs complained that thegovernment rushed through the approvaland the trials were insufficient to testbiosafety and agronomic viability. The firstcommercial growing season ended inDecember 2002 amid reports of poorperformance and infestation by bollworm,the insect that the Bt seeds are engineeredto kill. A GEAC team made an assessment ata number of sites after which the Minister ofEnvironment and Forests announced to theIndian parliament that the performance wassatisfactory. This contrasts with evidencecollected by CSOs who recorded yieldlosses, quality problems and, in some cases, increased use of insecticideseven among the same farmers that theGEAC team visited.156

Groups such as the Indian-based GeneCampaign challenged the GEAC. Theymaintain that the GEAC selected farms usedas demonstration plots by Mayhco-Monsanto, conducted the assessmentbefore the season had ended and before thefull impact of the Bt cotton was evident, andused a sample of less than 1% of farms. Theexpert team charged with assessing theperformance of the Bt cotton included thosewho had approved Bt cotton in the firstplace. The assessment criteria ignoredenvironmental risks, the quality of thecotton, market rates and labour intensity.157

CSOs argue that the Indian regulatorysystem is unaccountable and thegovernment’s approach to publicconsultation is tokenistic.158 Decisions weretaken behind closed doors away from publicscrutiny. The Research Foundation forScience, Technology and Education (RFSTE)has taken the Department of Biotechnologyto the Supreme Court for improper use ofregulations and lack of consultation amongthe appropriate government departments.



ActionAid has supported citizens’ juries inIndia, Pakistan and Brazil to ensure that thevoices of the poorest people are heard inpublic debate, and that they exercise theirright to influence national policy-making onGM crops.xvii

ActionAid India organised a farmers’ jury inKarnataka, India, in 2000 to facilitate poorpeople’s participation in decisions aboutwhether and under what circumstances toallow commercial planting of GM. The 13-person jury found, by a majority of 9 to 4 (withone invalid ballot), that it would not sow GMseeds. Some felt that such technologiesshould not be introduced under anyconditions, however, other members of thejury put forward recommendations to makeGM more acceptable. These included:ensuring no damage to microbes andbeneficial insects; pre-commercial trials of 5-10 years to test yield claims and assesssafety; environmental and other impact testsin field conditions; involving farmers to ensurethe technology is easy to adapt; protectingother crops; restricting GM technologies tonon-food crops; retaining farmers’ rights tosave, breed and exchange seed; andcorporate guarantees to protect farmerlivelihoods.160 The jury reached widerconclusions on: the importance of self-reliance for farmers; the value of conservingcrop diversity; the need to include farmers asexperts in research in agriculture and rurallivelihoods; and establishing community seedbanks to protect traditional varieties.

The role of the public sector inagricultural research

ActionAid believes poverty is tackledeffectively by strategies that enhance choicefor poor people and involve them in settingpriorities. Yet as seed technologies and otherfarm inputs are increasingly privatised,ActionAid fears that lack of private sectorregulation means agricultural research

agendas will become less accountable topoor communities. Many point to the publicsector to fill the gaps left by the private sector.But the public sector can be slow to respondto the needs of poor people.

The public sector used to take the lead incrop research in developed as well as indeveloping countries. Public sector researchwas underpinned by the free exchange ofgenetic materials, and breeding technologieswere in the public domain. Even when theprivate sector became involved in plantbreeding – for instance, when commercialhybrids offered reasonable economic returns– it still relied on free access to public sectorgene banks. None of the Green Revolutionhybrid crop varieties were covered by IPRs.

This system reflected the fact that plantbreeding is an incremental process that relieson free access to plant material. Today’sbreeders build on knowledge derived fromearlier breeding and today’s varieties includeknowledge that dates backs generations.Public sector breeding programmesrecognised this and, in exchange for freeaccess, provided improved varieties as ‘globalpublic goods’.

Recently, however, agricultural budgets indeveloping countries have come underpressure from structural adjustmentprogrammes and loan conditions requiringpublic sector cut backs. By 1995, total globalspending on agricultural R&D was $33 billion,of which one third was from private sources.161

Developed countries accounted for 94% ofthis private spending. Within TNCs, anincreasing proportion of agricultural R&Dspending is being allocated to GM research –as much as 40% of total agricultural TNC R&Dspending in 2000.162


xvii Citizens’ juries were developed during the 1980s in Germany and the US. Comprising between about 12 and 25 people, the juries are a democratic means of societal inputinto the policy process. In Karnataka, India, the farmers’ jury was guided by a panel of diverse stakeholders and carried out by independent local facilitators.



Yet the public sector remains an importantsource of agricultural research. In 1995, it stillaccounted for two-thirds of total agriculturalR&D spending globally, and as much as 94.5%of research in developing countries.163

Developing countries have begun to allocatesome of their national research budgets toGM technology, though investment remainssmall, on average between 5–10% of totalagricultural budgets. A rough estimatesuggests that total investment is $100 to $150million per year – about half the annualbudget of the industry PR group, the USCouncil for Biotechnology Information.164 InKenya, for example, it stands at 2.5%.165

Foreign aid donors, such as USAID and theRockefeller Foundation, account for anincreasing proportion of R&D funds for GM inpoor countries, providing as much as $50

million per year in 2000.170 In Kenya, 65% ofbiotech expenditure came from externaldonors between 1989 and 1996.

GM advocates justify the use of scarceresources on agricultural biotech research byarguing that the public sector fills the gaps inprivate sector research by providing GMtechnologies for poor people. The evidence forthis, however, is mixed. The public sector doesnot always prioritise food security for poorpeople. An FAO sample of 15 developingcountries with a committed interest inbiotechnology suggests that public sectorresearch may be more responsive to theneeds of poor people than the private sector,but that there is still little research on theirpriority staple food security crops.

• The top 10 researched crops in the FAO sample countries are: rice (21% of all projects); potatoes (11%); maize (11%),papaya (8%); soybean (7%); sugar cane(5%); cotton (5%); tomato (3%); bananaand plantain (3%); and alfalfa (2%). A widerange of other crops together comprise24% of projects identified.171

• Virus and insect resistance are the mostcommonly-engineered traits, accounting for31% and 29% of the projects respectively.Improving product quality accounted for 9%of projects. Research targeting fungalresistance, herbicide tolerance, andagronomic properties accounted for 7%, 6%and 6% of the projects respectively. Othertraits account for the remaining 12%.

But very little research has progressedbeyond field trials and most is still atlaboratory stage. Moreover, though developingcountry-led research could offer sometechnologies applicable to poor farmersettings, it remains a small percentage of totalglobal research.

One of the reasons that public sectorresearch fails to meet the needs of poorfarmers is that research agendas areincreasingly being decided in institutionalsettings rather than in the fields. A review of


Government GMThe biggest developing country investorby far in GM crops is China. It invested$112 million of government money intobiotech research in 1999 – a figureprojected to increase to $500 million.166 Itclaims to have developed 141 GM plants,65 of which it has approved for release.167

Brazil, India, South Africa and Mexico alsohave strong biotech capacities to developnew crops for their own needs.168 Anumber of Asian countries, includingJapan, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesiaand Thailand, are increasing theircommitment to GM crop research. Thereare also a number of developing countrieswith a strong tradition of plant breedingthat are adapting existing technologiesand products from the private sector tolocal conditions. However, many leastdeveloped countries still lack any kind ofcapacity in genetic engineering. Onlythree national level research laboratoriesin sub-Saharan Africa, outside SouthAfrica, are engaged in GM research.169



the Consultative Group for InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) (see below) foundthat its genetic engineers made little effort toinvolve resource poor farmers in needsassessments or priority-setting and thatbiotechnologists rarely communicated withworkers in the field.172 In contrast to what isneeded, the CGIAR says it aims to centraliseits operations even further to take advantageof GM technologies.173 Institutions such as theCGIAR and the Rockefeller Foundation, whichnow promote GM crop research, are the sameones that tried and failed to bring the GreenRevolution to Africa.

One obstacle to improving the responsivenessof public sector GM research to the needs ofpoor farmers is the proliferation of patents. Inadapting existing GM technology, developingcountries are heavily reliant on access toexisting products, genes or processes, mostof which are patented. Access to patentedentities can be negotiated through

agreements but require legal expertise,experience of managing complex IPRs, humanand financial resources. Developing countriesreport difficulties in managing IPRs and areoften at a disadvantage compared tocorporations. As more of the basic biotechtools are patented, and as countries becomecompliant with TRIPs, IPRs will be anincreasing barrier to public sector researchersin developing countries that wish to benefitfrom new research.

Technologies can be subject to multipleownership across many different countriesand institutions, requiring costly and time-consuming negotiations. Golden Rice, forexample, is reportedly based on 70 patentsoriginally held by 31 organisations.174 Brazil’snational agricultural research organisation,EMBRAPA, had to negotiate licenceagreements with nine corporations before itcould release a virus-resistant GM papaya topoor farmers.175


CGIAR: meeting theneeds of poor farmers?

At an international level, the publicly-fundedCGIAR – made up of 16 internationalresearch centres – has played a key role inmanaging seed resources. It has 11genebanks and 600,000 seed samples thatare freely accessible around the world forplant breeders and corporations to adaptand research. These centres managegenebanks of the world’s most importantfood crops to conserve genetic diversity and to maintain genetic material from whichimproved crop varieties can be developed.This ex-situ conservation is an importantcomplement to in-situ or on-farm conservation in which farmers’ skills, as

well as the overall ecosystem are critical inmaintaining genetic diversity.

CGIAR is beginning to go down the GM path– spending about $25 million of its $340million budget in 2000 on GM crops.176 Thisis welcomed by some as a potential sourceof pro-poor GM technologies. But althoughCGIAR’s remit is to improve food securityand reduce poverty, it often fails to meet the needs of poor farmers.177 It has beencriticised by farmers’ groups as a top-down,centralised institution that fails to consultfarmers or include them in setting researchpriorities.178 CGIAR is at a crossroads andmany believe that, in forming alliances withcorporations and adopting patentingpolicies, it is turning away from the needs ofpoor farmers.



Public private partnerships – the way forward?

Because of cutbacks in funding, the publicsector is often forced to rely on donors,corporate donations or some form of publicprivate partnership (PPP) in order to accessresources and knowledge. For example, thepublicly funded International Rice GenomeSequencing Project, which decoded the ricegenome, did so using raw data placed in thepublic domain by Monsanto. Corporationspromote gene donations as evidence of theircommitment to poverty alleviation and foodsecurity. Monsanto, for example, states thatsharing the rice genome data is part of its“commitment to sharing knowledge andtechnology with public institutions to advancescience and understanding, improveagriculture and the environment, improvesubsistence crops, and help smallholderfarmers in developing countries.” 179 This maybe true. Yet these donations are also part of acorporate strategy to create an enablingenvironment for market acceptance of GMtechnologies and to deflect criticism from GMopponents. Monsanto’s donation of ricegenome data, for example, is underwrittenwith restrictions that prevent publicinstitutions using the information forcommercial ends and ensure that thecorporation will benefit from any resultingbiotech products.180

A new corporate initiative, the AfricanAgricultural Technology Foundation, based inNairobi, Kenya, established by the RockefellerFoundation and supported by Monsanto,DuPont, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences,aims to provide free access to a range ofpatented technologies, including GM, to helptackle Africa’s food crisis. The corporationssay they are involved for ‘noble’ reasons, yetacknowledge that they hope to create newmarkets in Africa and improve their publicimage.181

One problem with the corporate donationmodel of a PPP is that control remains firmlyin corporate hands. Moreover, local resources

and priorities can get diverted away fromcheaper, more appropriate and sustainabletechnologies.

PPPs are endorsed as a way forward and theirnumbers are growing in the area ofagricultural research. Examples include:

• research in Kenya and Zimbabwe with the support of the Syngenta Foundationand the International Maize and WheatImprovement Centre (CIMMYT) to develop Bt maize

• research by the Agricultural GeneticEngineering Institute in Egypt supported byPioneer Hi-Bred to develop Bt strains andadapt them to maize

• research in Mexico with the support ofMonsanto and the Rockefeller Foundationto development virus-resistant GM potatoesfor poor farmers.

These partnerships appear to offer advantagesto both sides. Developing country scientistsgain access to new technologies including:genes and traits; scientific know-how to adaptthe technologies; free access to patentedtechnology; training and capacity building. Theprivate sector gets access to: highly-valuedknowledge of pathways for local marketaccess; applied breeding skills andinfrastructure; understanding of the seeddelivery and extension systems; access tolocal genetic resources.182 But there is littleevidence that such partnerships are meetingthe priorities and needs of resource-poorfarmers. This is because PPPs are not oftentargeted at the relevant or most appropriatecrops or traits, or because they are notbacked up with much-needed social andeconomic measures to address other poorfarmer constraints at the same time. Inaddition, they can end up diverting much-needed resources away from poor farmers,furthering the trend towards patent-protectedresearch and leaving developing countriesmore vulnerable to external policy pressures.




• Public sector institutes are increasinglypatenting their work in order to facilitatesuch partnerships. Some CGIAR centres,such as CIMMYT in Mexico and theInternational Crops Research Institute forthe Semi Arid Tropics in India, have re-formulated their policy on IPRs anddeclared their intention to take out patentson their research for the first time.183 Thissignals a significant shift away from publicsector benefit sharing and a step closertowards a system in which more of theworld’s agricultural knowledge andresources are privately controlled. Patentrestrictions are likely to choke the freeexchange of seeds and technology thatnourished the public system in the firstplace.

• The reliance on industry and donors for GMresearch can give these players undueinfluence over the development of nationalagricultural research policy. It is claimedthat following the Kenyan sweet potatoresearch (see page 21), donors and projectscientists came to occupy prominentpositions in policy-making and advisorycircles.184

• Private investors can apply pressure onhost governments to make changes innational policies. They often complain abouta lack of coordination, time-consuming GMapproval systems and excessive caution indeveloping countries.185 TNCs want stricterIPR protection for their products andbiosafety guidelines that speed upapprovals and facilitate their rapidcommercialisation. There has beenpressure, for example, on the Indiangovernment to set up a one-stop approvalprocess for GM crops.186

• TNCs have disproportionate power insetting research agendas, which can meanthat public research goals become basedon commercial rather than food security

goals. Interests in promoting a facilitatingenvironment for GM are often undisguised.USAID, for example, aims to “integrate GMfood into local systems” and “spreadagricultural technology through the regionsof Africa”.187

ActionAid believes PPPs have not, so far,demonstrated their worth in terms ofmeasurable benefits to poor communities.Private sector investment and PPPs need tooperate within strong rules and regulations toensure that control and benefits are moreequitably distributed. These need to beaccompanied by measures to increase theaccountability of public sector research topoor people by increasing their participation in priority-setting and decision-making.

There are many sustainable andaffordable alternatives to GM crops for farmers

Does it make sense to invest limited andshrinking public resources in agriculturalbiotechnology? Poor farmers are usually opento change and innovation, yet returns on high-input, expensive, external technologies haveproved limited for marginal areas and poorerpeople. Farmers want cheap, accessible andmanagable technologies to help them meettheir food needs.

Sustainable agriculture, based on renewableand locally-available inputs and building onfarmer knowledge and biodiversity, has helpedmillions of farmers improve crop performance.In this model, farmers are at the centre ofplant breeding, rather than passive recipientsof new seeds. Scientists work alongsidefarmers to strengthen and support theirbreeding strategies and involve them ingenetic conservation, crop improvement,marketing and distribution of seeds. Moreover,genuine sustainable agriculture aims toaddress the larger socio-economic andpolitical issues that constrain agriculturaldevelopment and food security.




Successful projects around the world havedemonstrated that many availabletechnologies and strategies help farmersmeet their food security needs whilstrespecting their rights, building on theirknowledge and protecting biodiversity.

There is a growing farmers’ movement thatadvocates agroecological approaches basedon indigenous farmers’ skills and knowledge,and low-input technologies to maintaingenetic diversity and increase production. Itintegrates a range of processes such asnutrient cycling, nitrogen fixing, soilregeneration and the use of natural enemiesof pests in food production, and minimises theuse of non-renewable inputs. In the largeststudy of its kind, a database of 208agroecological initiatives in 52 developingcountries – involving 8.9 million farmers –found that improvements in agriculturalproduction and food security were achievedthrough sustainable and regenerativetechnologies.188 For rain-fed crops, productionimproved by 50% to 100% while farmerscultivating potato, sweet potato and cassavasaw yields rise as much as 150%. Importantly,the biggest gains in output occurred in thepoorest farming sector. Some examples in the study included:

• 200,000 farmers in Brazil used greenmanure/cover crops and doubled theirmaize and wheat yields

• 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Hondurasused the mucuna legume as a cover for soilconservation and tripled their maize yieldson hillsides

• 100,000 small-scale organic coffeeproducers in Mexico increased theirproduction by 50%

• 100,000 small-scale rice farmers insoutheast Asia involved in integrated pestmanagement farmers’ schools substantiallyincreased their yields and eliminatedpesticides

• 200,000 farmers in Kenya used legume-based agroforestry and organic inputs anddoubled their maize yields.189

Success is enhanced when farmersparticipate fully in the planning and whenappropriate technology is adapted by farmers’experimentation.190

Field farmer schools, a form of community-based, non-formal education in which farmersmeet in the field to learn about the riceecosystem are promoted by the FAO. Theyhave been attended by one million farmers inIndonesia, 400,000 in Vietnam and 170,000 inthe Philippines. This approach has empoweredfarmers to become better managers of theircrops and has improved production whilstsubstantially reducing off-farm inputs.191

ActionAid supports poor farming communitiesin all its programmes, from community seedand grain banks to permaculture projects andorganic farming. Spectacular productionincreases have been achieved in a remoteregion of west Nepal through the grassroots-based Jajarkok Permaculture Programme, aninitiative supported by ActionAid Nepal.Hundreds of poor farmers in the hilly regionsof Jajarkot and Surkhet were trained insustainable permaculture principles andtransformed areas that used to suffer foodshortages into ones that now produce anabundance of honey, fruit, cereals, rice andleafy greens. Yields of wheat and maize havejumped by up to 347% since 1995, and thecommunities have diversified into cottageindustries, including bee keeping, cotton andhemp handlooms, leather processing,candlemaking, agroforestry and kitchengardening. “Empowering the poor and mostmarginalised at the grassroots is the best wayto achieve local food security,” says YamunaGhale, ActionAid Nepal’s Food Rightscampaign coordinator.




Poverty

• Donors and governments should address thewider socio-economic causes of foodinsecurity – land, credit, rural training andinfrastructure – before putting resources intoGM crops.

GM crops

• They should introduce a moratorium on thefurther commercialisation of GM crops untilmore research has been carried out into thesocio-economic, agronomic, environmentaland biodiversity impacts of GM crops,particularly in developing countries.

• Poorer farmers and communities should beenabled to participate more in national GMdebates and policymaking.

Intellectual property

• Genetic resources for food and agricultureshould be exempt from intellectual propertyrequirements.

• Farmers’ rights to save and exchange seedsshould be recognised under the WTO’sintellectual property rules and protected indeveloping country intellectual propertyrights legislation.

Corporate concentration

• Governments should introduce competitionrules to prevent private sector monopoliesand effective institutions to enforce them.

Biosafety

• The potential impact of GM crops on foodsecurity, poor farmers and biodiversity shouldguide the development and implementationof national biosafety frameworks.

Public sector research

• Funding for public sector agricultural researchshould be increased and should specialise insupport for sustainable, farmer-ledagriculture.

Conclusion and recommendations:The widespread adoption of GM crops seems likely to exacerbate theunderlying causes of food insecurity, leading to more hungry people,not fewer. To have a lasting impact on poverty, ActionAid believespolicy makers must address the real constraints facing poorcommunities – lack of access to land, credit, resources and markets– instead of focusing on risky technologies that have no track recordin addressing hunger.



1 James C. Global status of commercialisedtransgenic crops: 2002. ISAAA Briefs No 27. 2002.

2 James C. Op cit. 3 Pardey PG & Nienke MB. Slow magic: agricultural

R&D a century after Mendel. International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2001.

4 Mayer S. Genetically modified cotton: implicationsfor small-scale farmers. Pesticide Action NetworkUK. 2002.

5 Kuyek D. Genetically modified crops in Africa:implications for small farmers. GRAIN. 2002.

6 FAO. Biotechnology in food and agriculture:conference 8. November 13th to December 11th,2002. www.fao.org/biotech/C8doc.htm

7 Warwick H & Meziani G. Seeds of doubt: NorthAmerican farmers’ experiences of GM crops. SoilAssociation. 2002.

8 James C. Op cit. 9 AgriFutura. The newsletter of Phillips McDougall –

Agriservice. No 29. March 2002.http://www.avcare.org.au/documents/AgriFuturaJanuary2002.pdf

10 http://www.monsantoafrica.com/reports/fieldpromise/page3.html

11 James C. Op cit.12 ibid. 13 GM crops – trait information. Genewatch 2002.

www.genewatch.org/genesrch/traits/traits 14 Altieri M. The case against agricultural

biotechnology: why transgenic crops areincompatible with sustained agriculture in the thirdworld? 2002. www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/case-against-biotech-altieri22aug02.htm

15 Looking ahead: an AEBC horizon scan. 2002.http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/reports/horizon_scanning_report.htm

16 Graff GD & Newcomb J. Agricultural biotechnologyat the crossroads. Bio-era Bio Economic ResearchAssociates. 2003.

17 Genetic technologies. A review of developments in2002. Briefing No 22. GeneWatch UK. 2003.

18 Kuyek D. Op cit. 19 Wilkinson J & Castelli P. The internationalisation of

brazil’s seed industry: biotechnology, patents andbiodiversity. ActionAid Brasil. 2000.

20 AgriFutura. Op cit.21 Crops and robbers: how patents jeopardise global

food security. ActionAid. 2001.22 Public sector intellectual property resource for

agriculture (PSIPRA) database on plant biotechpatents cited in Graff GD and Newcomb J. Op cit.

23 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. A new greenrevolution for Africa: myths of agriculture,technology and development. Forthcoming, FoodFirst Books.

24 Ag biotech countdown: vital statistics and GMcrops update. ETC Group. June 2002.

25 The seeds of neo-colonialism: genetic engineeringand farming. GroundWork and Biowatch SouthAfrica. 2002.

26 Murphy S. Managing the invisible hand: markets,farmers and international trade. Institute forAgriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). 2002.

27 PSIPRA in Graff GD & Newcomb J. Op cit.28 Graff GD & Newcomb J. Op cit. 29 Ibid.30 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Accessing modern science:

policy and institutional options for agriculturalbiotechnology in developing countries. AKISDiscussion Paper. World Bank. 2000.

31 Graff, DG & Newcomb J. Op cit.

32 AgriFutura. Op cit. 33 Harhoff D, Regibeau P & Rockett K. Genetically

modified food: evaluating the economic risks.2001. Economic Policy, 33, 263-299www.economic-policy.org/pdfs/076.pdf

34 Pingali PL & Traxler G. Changing focus ofagricultural research: will the poor benefit frombiotechnology and privatisation trends? FoodPolicy, 27. 2002.

35 Warwick H & Meziani G. Op cit. 36 Pretty J. The rapid emergence of genetic

modification in world agriculture: contested risksand benefits. Environmental Conservation. Vol 28(3). 2001.

37 Mayer S.Op cit. 38 Ismael Y, Bennett R & Morse S. Farm-level impact

of Bt cotton in South Africa. Biotechnology andDevelopment Monitor. No 48. December 2001.

39 Qaim M & Zilberman D. Yield effects of geneticallymodified crops in developing countries. Science. 7February 2003. Vol 299. pp 900-902.

40 Dr Charles Benbrook. The Bt premium price: whatdoes it buy? The impact of extra Bt corn seedcosts on farmer earnings and corporate finances.IATP. 2002.

41 Dr Charles Benbrook. When does it pay to plant Btcorn? Farm level impacts of Bt corn 1996-2001.IATP. 2001.

42 Mayer S. Op cit.43 Xue D. A summary of research on the

environmental impacts of Bt cotton in China.Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences. 2002.

44 Wynberg R & Pschorn-Strauss E. Bt cotton andsmall-scale farmers in Makhathini – a story of debt,dependency and dicey economics. GroundWorkand Biowatch South Africa. 2002.

45 Qaim M & Traxler G. Roundup Ready soybeans inArgentina: farm level, environmental and welfareeffect. Paper presented at 6th ICABR conferenceon Agricultural biotechnologies. Ravello, Italy. July2002.

46 Wynberg R & Pschorn-Strauss E. Op cit.47 Food insecurity: when people must live with

hunger and fear starvation. The state of foodinsecurity in the world. FAO. 2002.

48 www.dupont.com/biotech/difference/global.html 49 Bruinsma J (ed). World agriculture: towards

2015/2030 an FAO perspective. EarthscanPublications London. 2003.

50 www.monsantoafrica.com/monsantoafrica/default.html

51 Pretty, J. Op cit.52 DeVries J, & Toenniessen G. Securing the harvest:

biotechnology, breeding and seed systems forAfrican crops. The Rockefeller Foundation. CABIPublishing. 2001.

53 Kuyek D. Op cit.54 Madeley J. Robbing coffee’s cradle – GM coffee

and its threat to poor farmers. ActionAid. 2001.55 Sue Branford. Why Argentina can’t feed itself –

how GM soya is destroying livelihoods and theenvironment in Argentina. The Ecologist. Vol 32No 8. 2002.

56 Food security: when people must live with hungerand fear starvation. FAO. Op cit.

57 Jefferson RA. Transcending transgenics – are there babies in the bathwater, or is that a dorsal fin? InPardey P. (ed), The future of food: biotechnologymarkets and policies in an international setting.IFPRI. 2001.

58 Cited in Tansey G. Food security, biotechnologyand intellectual property: unpacking some issuesaround TRIPs. A discussion paper. Quaker UnitedNations Office. 2002.

59 Grains of delusion: golden rice seen from theground. GRAIN. 2001.

60 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit.61 Vitamin A: natural sources versus ‘golden rice’.

Greenpeace. February 2001.62 FAO. Op cit.63 Koppenburg & Burrows (1996) cited in

Pretty J. Op cit.64 Nair GK. Transgenic rapeseed oil may stifle

coconut oil. The Hindu Business Line. 25 January2003. www.blonnet.com/2003/01/25/stories/2003012500221100.htm

65 Crops and robbers – biopiracy and the patentingof staple food crops. ActionAid. 1999.

66 James C. Op cit. 67 Ibid.68 Qaim M & Traxler G. Op cit.69 Kuyek D. Intellectual property rights in African

agriculture: implications for small farmers. GRAIN.2002.

70 Ibid.71 Newell P. Biotechnology and the politics of

regulation. IDS Working Paper 146. Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS). 2002.

72 Ismael Y, Bennett R & Morse S. Op cit. 73 Ibid. 74 Kuyek D. Genetically modified crops in Africa:

implications for small farmers. GRAIN. 2002.75 Bennett A. The impact of Bt cotton on smallholder

production in the Makhathini flats, South Africa.www.monsantoafrica.com/reports/bt_report/BtCotton report

76 Ismael Y, Bennett R & Morse S. Op cit.77 Wynberg R & Pschorn-Strauss E. Op cit.78 ibid.79 Kuyek D. Op cit. 80 Odame H, Kameri-Mbote P & Wafula D. Innovation

and policy process: case of transgenic sweetpotato in Kenya. Economic and Political Weekly, VolXXXVII, No 27. July 2002.

81 Ibid. 82 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit.83 Odame H et al. Op cit. 84 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit.85 Ibid.86 Kuyek D. Genetically modified crops in Africa:

implications for small farmers. GRAIN. 2002.87 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit. 88 Kuyek D. Intellectual property rights in African

agriculture: implications for small farmers. GRAIN.2002.

89 FAO. Op cit.90 Ibid.91 www.monsantoafrica.com/report/

fieldpromise/page392 Shand H. Intellectual property enhances corporate

monopoly and bioserfdom. Fatal harvest: thetragedy of industrial agriculture. Island Press. 2002.

93 Kuyek D. Intellectual property rights in Africanagriculture: implications for small farmers. GRAIN.2002.

94 Creating biodiversity: What is agriculturalbiodiversity and why is it important? GRAIN. www.http://www.grain.org/themes/dsp_theme.cfm?theme_id=104.

95 Eaton D, van Tongeren F, Louwaars N, Visser B VanDer Meer I. Economic and policy aspects ofterminator technology. Biotechnology andDevelopment Monitor 2002 No 49 p19-22.



96 Bt cotton: caught on the wrong foot. AgBioIndia19th December 2002. www.agbioindia.org/archive_m.asp?id=150&mo=12&yr=2002

97 Report of the independent panel of eminentexperts on ethics in food and agriculture. FirstSeminar. FAO. 2001.

98 Tansey G. Op cit. 99 Kuyek D. Op cit.100 Ibid.101 Madeley J. Corporate control of the food chain:

the GM link. Consumers International. 2003.102 Kuyek D. Op cit.103 Integrating intellectual property rights and

development policy. Commission on IntellectualProperty Rights. UK. 2002.

104 Syngenta: switching off farmers’ rights? ActionAid,Genewatch UK, Berne Declaration and SwedishSociety for Nature Conservation. 2000.

105 Terminator technology – five years later. ETCGroup Communique. May 2003.

106 The potential impacts of genetic use restrictiontechnologies (GURTs) on agricultural biodiversityand agricultural production systems. Commissionon Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.FAO. 2001.

107 Thrupp L. Agrobiodiversity loss: conflicts andeffects in linking biodiversity and agriculture:challenges and opportunities for sustainable foodsecurity. The World Resources Institute. 1997.

108 Cromwell E, Cooper D & Mulvany P. Agriculture,biodiversity and livelihoods: issues and entrypoints for development agencies. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development. 2001.

109 Altieri M. Agroecology: Creating the synergisms forsustainable agriculture. UNDP Guidebook Series.New York 1995. Citing Francis, C.A.(ed.). MultipleCropping Systems. New York: 1986.

110 GRAIN. Intellectual property rights: ultimate controlof agricultural R&D in Asia. 2001.

111 Cromwell et al. Op cit.112 Crop varieties threatened by pressure on seed

banks. International Herald Tribune. 26 August2002.

113 Agricultural biodiversity: sustainable use for foodsecurity: UKABC www.ukabc.org/ukabc3

114 Thrupp L. Op cit.115 Pretty J. Op Cit.116 GroundWork and Biowatch South Africa. Op cit.117 Mayer S. Op cit.118 Aaron de Grass & Rosset P. Op cit.119 Marra MC, Pardey PG & Alston JM. The payoffs to

agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of theevidence. IFPRI. 2002.

120 Warwick H & Meziani C. Op cit. 121 Ibid.122 Pretty J. Op cit.123 Gene stacking in herbicide tolerant oilseed rape:

lessons from the North American experience.English Nature Research Reports – No 443.English Nature. 2002.

124 Advisory Committee on Releases to theEnvironment. Advice for the Secretary of State. 22July 1998. Significance of new research on effectof toxin on lacewings. Annex A. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice02

125 Xue D. Op cit. 126 Coghlan A. Keep your distance. New Scientist. Vol

172 Issue 2318 – 24 November 2001.127 Genetic technologies. a review of developments in

2002. Genewatch UK. Briefing No 22. February2003.

128 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit.129 Pretty J. Op cit. 130 Mayer S. Op cit. 131 The costs and benefits of GM crops. Developing

country background working paper: potential UKimpact on developing countries. Strategy Unit. UKGovernment. 2003.

132 Thrupp, L. Linking biodiversity and agriculture:agrobiodiversity as a basis for production andsurvival. World Resources Institute. 1997.

133 Genetic pollution in Mexico’s centre of maizediversity. Food First. Vol 8, No 2. Spring 2000.

134 The world as a testing ground: risks of geneticengineering in agriculture. HIVOS and Friends ofthe Earth International. 2002.

135 Assessing risks and benefits: Bt maize in Kenya.Mwangi PN & Ely A. Biotechnology andDevelopment Monitor. No 48. 2001.

136 Freese B. Manufacturing drugs and chemicals incrops: biopharming poses new threats toconsumers, farmers, food companies and theenvironment. Genetically Engineered Food Alert.2002.

137 Poor farmers warned against internet transgeniccrop deals. Nature. Vol 421. 20 February 2003.

138 Alert: brokering biopharming on the web. TheEdmonds Institute. February 2003.

139 Freese B. Op cit.140 Ibid.141 Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social

issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1999. 142 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit.143 Lewanika M. Establishing acceptance: biosafety

regulations in Zambia. Biotechnology andDevelopment Monitor No. 47. 2001.


145 Ibid. 146 US aid and GM food. Greenpeace UK. 2002.147 Warwick H & Meziani C. Op cit.148 Guterl F. The fear of food. Newsweek. 27 January

2003. 149 ActionAid Pakistan. Unpublished report. 2003.150 Paarlberg, RL. Governing the crop revolution:

policy choices for developing countries. IFPRI.2000.

151 Public participation and the Cartagena protocol onbiosafety. a review for DFID and GEF. The MainReport. IDS. 2003.

152 Ibid. 153 GroundWork and Biowatch South Africa. Op cit. 154 Ibid.155 Ibid.156 Government lies to the nation on Bt cotton

performance. News Release 13th JanuaryGreenpeace India. 2003.

157 Greenpeace Environment Trust memorandumaddressed to Indian minister of environment andforests. Re: misrepresentation of farmers’experiences in your statement to parliament onperformance of Bt cotton. January 2003.

158 Public participation and the Cartagena protocol onbiosafety. a review for DFID and GEF. Part II: TheCase Studies. IDS. 2003.

159 Ibid. 160 ActionAid citizens’ jury initiative: Indian farmers

judge GM crops. Report for ActionAid by Dr TomWakeford, Brunel University and National Centrefor Biological Sciences, India. ActionAid 2000.

161 Pardey PG & Nienke MB. Op cit.

162 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit.163 Pardey PG & Nienke MB. Op cit.164 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit.165 Odame H et al. Op cit. 166 China: hard to swallow. Business China,

Economist Intelligence Unit. 3 February 2003.www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Feb/msg00011.

167 China leads GM revolution. Nature 25 January2002.

168 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit.169 DeVries J & Toenniessen G. Op cit.170 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit.171 Luijben M & Cohen JI. Developing countries forge

ahead in crop biotechnology for the poor. NextHarvest: Conference Report. International Servicefor National Agricultural Research. 2002.

172 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit.173 Ibid. 174 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit.175 Alteiri M. From [email protected]. November

2002.176 Byerlee D & Fischer K. Op cit. 177 Aaron de Grassi & Rosset P. Op cit.178 Unity statement. The people’s street conference.

Manila. 2002. 179 International rice genome project completed six

years ahead of schedule; Monsanto’s data helpedaccelerate research. Monsanto congratulatesinternational partners for scientific breakthrough inrice. Monsanto news release. 18 December 2002.www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/02/12-18-02.

180 GRAIN. Intellectual property rights: ultimate controlof agricultural R&D in Asia. 2001.

181 Gillis J. To feed hungry Africans, firms plant seedsof science. Washington Post. 11 March 2003. PageA01.

182 Escaler M. Public private partnerships in modernbiotechnology. www.scidev.net/dossiers/gmcrops/gmpolicy_escaler

183 Nottenbury C, Pardey PG & Wright B. Addressingfreedom to operate questions for internationalagricultural R&D in Pardey (ed) Op cit.


185 Newell P. Op cit.186 Scoones, I. Science, policy and regulation:

challenges for agricultural biotechnology indeveloping countries. IDS. 2002.

187 USAID announces international biotechcollaboration says program will help poorcountries reduce hunger. 12 June2002.www.fas.usda.gov/icd/summit/2002/statearchive/USAIDbiotech

188 Pretty J & Hine R. Reducing food poverty withsustainable agriculture: a summary of newevidence. University of Essex. 2001.

189 Ibid.190 Madeley J. Food for all. the need for a new

agriculture. Zed Books. 2002. 191 Cromwell E et al. Op cit.



ActionAid is a uniquepartnership of people who are fighting for a better world - a worldwithout poverty.

ActionAidHamlyn HouseMacdonald RoadLondon N19 5PG United Kingdom

Telephone++44 (0)20 7561 7561

Facsimile++44 (0)20 7272 0899

[email protected]

Websitewww.actionaid.org

ActionAid AllianceBrussels Office10 rue de la Science1000 Brussels Belgium

Telephone++32 (0)2 503.24.22

Facsimile++32 (0)2 502.62.03

Websitewww.actionaidalliance.org

International Head OfficeLondon

North American OfficeWashington

Asia Regional OfficeBangkok

Africa Regional OfficeHarare

Latin America Regional OfficeGuatemala

FounderCecil Jackson Cole

ChairmanKen Burnett

Chief ExecutiveSalil Shetty

ActionAid is a registeredcharity (Number 274467)and a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales(number 1295174)

ActionAid is a member of the ActionAid Alliance, a network of non-governmental development organisations workingtogether to promote structural changes to eradicate injustice and poverty in the world. ActionAid Alliance membersare ActionAid (UK), ActionAid Hellas (Greece), ActionAid Ireland (Ireland), Aide et Action (France), Ayuda en Acción(Spain) and Azione Aiuto (Italy). ActionAid Alliance's members have the regular and active support of more than600,000 European Union citizens, and its programmes reach over 9 million people in almost 40 countries in Africa,Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

gm crops – going against the grain - actionaid uk · gm crops – going against the grain....

Documents