October 9, 2004

THE production and development of technology is not an isolated scientific activity; rather it is embedded in and influenced by the social, economic and political environment. This holds true for modern biotechnology — such as genetic engineering, a technology that manipulates living organisms to produce novel genetically modified crops, food, livestock, drugs, vaccines, etc.

Modern biotechnology has been hailed as a panacea for global problems such as world hunger, health, and environmental degradation. However, one needs to examine the socio-economic and political context in which the technology has been developed. We need to ask questions such as: What was the purpose of developing the technology? Who controls it? How much does it cost? What is the trend of GMOs being developed and for whose benefit?

Since modern biotechnology is mostly developed by multinational companies (although some public research institutions have also been involved), and the products are aimed at maximizing corporate profits, the socio-economic implications for the public, particularly in developing countries, may not always be beneficial.

At present, most GMOs are grown or developed in industrialized countries, and developing countries will import them either for growing, food, feed or processing, in another decade or so. As such, there is not yet enough evidence to determine whether GMOs would be beneficial in solving problems of developing countries. However, past experiences such as the Green Revolution can be used as a gauge to analyze the socio-economic impacts of GMOs.

Threat to food security: Given that many developing countries have yet to develop their own GMOs, a policy to use GMOs would mean dependence for food production upon multinational companies and international research agencies. This would undermine any food security policies and practices that may be in place in many developing countries.

In addition, few of the genetically modified crops or foods currently being studied or developed are those that the poor can afford. The high costs of genetically modified crops are also likely to squeeze many small and medium-sized farmers out of business. Consequently, more people will be unable to grow food or pay for the food they need.

As an analogy, the Green Revolution indeed increased food production, but food security was not attained, and more people are starving today despite world cereal yields consistently outstripping population growth since 1980. This is because hunger is not caused by inadequate levels of production, but by lack of access to land, money and other resources. Introduction of new technologies without solving the underlying structural problems will only exacerbate hunger and food security issues.

Threat to livelihood: Some companies have already produced or are now in the process of producing substitutes for tropical plants or substances normally derived from tropical plants such as vanilla, chocolate, vegetable oil and sugar. The livelihood of about 10 million sugar farmers throughout the South is being threatened by genetically engineered sugars and sweeteners being grown and processed in the North.

Debt trap and political tension: New technologies are often accompanied by new credit packages. The Green Revolution, for instance, could be implemented only with a credit package to buy high yielding varieties of seeds, chemical inputs and mechanical services. A large number of small farmers who took loans when the Green Revolution was introduced could not repay the loan and had to forfeit their land. Their lands were usually bought or confiscated by richer farmers, thus causing social tensions. At the state level, the Green Revolution also compelled governments to take loans for construction of irrigation channels, dams, and extension services that encourage (sometimes coerce) farmers to accept the new technologies.

The introduction of GMOs and modern biotechnology would probably repeat such situations. Even if genetically modified seeds were given free, the price of inputs would be beyond the means of small and medium farmers. Most seeds are protected by intellectual property rights regimes, thus even the state will incur costs (usually borne by loans) in buying the more expensive seeds.

At the national level, the issue of GMO export-import is already creating tensions in relationships between countries, particularly between developing and industrialized countries. This is evident during the negotiations on the biosafety protocol under the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) over the last few years. When the behavior of certain GMOs becomes unpredictably hazardous and accidentally cross borders into another country, it may cause tension between the two countries.

Ethical issues and the right to choose: GMOs pose a number of ethical aspects to the public, which can cause social disruption. The insertion of human genes into genetically modified crops, livestock or food may be unacceptable to many people.

The insertion of the genes of certain animals may also be unacceptable to certain religions. Finally, there is the matter of the right to choose. With GMOs being produced in secrecy and labelling regulations not always in place, the public’s right of choice is not being adequately respected. GMOs do have different traits and are produced in different manners.

Just as consumers in the North have the right to reject goods not produced in an environmentally sustainable way, consumers and farmers all over the world have the right to reject GMOs on whatever grounds. The rights of citizens in the South to healthy food and environment have always been violated. There have been cases of imported fruits with unacceptable levels of pesticides residue being dumped in the South, imported drugs whose expiry dates have long passed, obsolete technology for production (which produces pollution) being forced upon governments in the name of technology transfer, etc.

Indonesia, for instance, may already have genetically modified soya and corn since some of its imports are from the US. The use of GMOs without proper caution and information will add on the list of consumer rights violations, which may lead to massive protests (as is already happening in the North).

In cases of emergencies (such as in natural or social disasters) which often happen in developing countries, it is often said that the choice is to provide victims with genetically modified foods or to let them starve.

This goes against the principles of humanity; if people are suffering, it does not mean that they should not have the choice to choose or the right to have information on the food aid they are receiving. Unfortunately, governments often are forced to accept food aid without information about the foodstuff.

The above socio-economic issues of GMOs have been somewhat recognized in the only international legal regime to regulate the movement of GMOs, which is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (to the UN CBD).

Article 26 of the protocol states that “The parties, in reaching a decision on import under this protocol or under its domestic measures implementing the protocol, may take into account, consistent with their international obligations, socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities”.

Although the words ‘may take into account’ provide ambiguous meaning, it guarantees a state to use this clause to reject GMOs that may have adverse socio-economic impacts on the communities.

Countries can begin to assess such aspects of GMOs and then take the necessary steps to prevent the possible adverse impacts. The biosafety protocol deals mainly with transboundary movement of GMOs, but countries can also have regulations to deal with various other aspects of GMOs.

Analysis of the socio-economic impacts of GMOs can be considered as a tool for precautionary approach in the socio-ecological field, i.e. a GMO might be deemed safe from the ecological and health aspect, but might have adverse impacts on local and indigenous communities.

Many parties, including scientists and government officials (mostly from the ministry of agriculture) in developing countries are worried about this precautionary principle. They say that precautionary approach might hinder the advancement of knowledge of modern biotechnology at the national level and thus developing countries will lag behind in the development of this technology. They also say that precautionary approach will hamper transfer of technology. Both assumptions can be proven wrong.

Firstly, the precautionary principle enhances the search for scientific knowledge by initiating a scientific risk assessment and thus collecting data and providing scientific evaluations on ecological, health and socio-economic risks of GMOs.

This principle can ensure effective health and environment protection, the implementation of the Precautionary Principle in the Biosafety Protocol will have all direct effects on the quality of science and progress of knowledge. Thus, the application of Precautionary Principle will in fact stimulate scientific accuracy and progress in risk assessment.

Secondly, technology transfer to the South is not happening anyway, despite promises made by northern governments during the Earth Summit. This is due to many reasons, one of which is that multinational companies control most of modern biotechnology.

They only transfer either the products for direct use or field trials. In Indonesia for instance, some companies provide scholarships to government scientists to study genetically engineered crops that are produced by those companies, as this is more beneficial to the companies.

In addition, protection of Intellectual Property Rights has hampered transfer of technology whereby knowledge advancement is restricted due to restriction in the use of the technology.

As stated, the Cartagena Protocol recognizes the need for precautionary approach, and the basis for this is Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. This is interpreted as: where there is no scientific certainty after a risk assessment of a certain GMO is carried out, a party can take the necessary steps to stop or restrict the import of that GMO.

In many cases, developing countries face difficulties in proving that a certain GMO may not be safe because proponents would demand a solid proof of something going wrong. However, in the case of GMOs, which are living beings that can mutate and reproduce over time, solid proof can be obtained only after a disaster occurs. By then, it would be too late and these living beings cannot be called back. The precautionary approach is precisely aimed at preventing such a condition from occurring.

Developing countries, who do not yet have regulations on biosafety of GMOs in place, can take advantage of the Cartegena Protocol to start their own laws on biosafety. On the socio-economic considerations and precautionary approach, developing countries can take the following steps:

1. Conduct analysis of socio-economic implications of GMOs at various levels of the society and at the national level (export earnings) and exchange information on the results effectively among the countries

2. Based on the analysis, decide on the mechanism in which to comply with article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol

3. Develop their own precautionary approach and regulations on GMOs, through cooperation in developing knowledge and capacity on modern biotechnology at the national and regional levels, using the Cartagena protocol as a first step.

M. Khalid Mansoor is Lecturer at the Department of Veterinary Microbiology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)