Int. J. Biotechnology, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2/3, 2000
145
Agricultural biotechnology: risks and opportunities
for developing country food security
Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Marc J. Cohen
International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20006, USA
Fax: +1-202-467-4439
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.ifpri.org/
Abstract: Agricultural biotechnology presents opportunities for reducing
poverty, food insecurity, child malnutrition, and natural resource degradation.
Small farmers in developing countries are faced with many problems and
constraints which biotechnology may assist. About 1.2 billion people, or one of
every five humans, live in a state of absolute poverty, on the equivalent of
US$1 a day or less. Modern biotechnology is not a silver bullet for achieving
food security, but, used in conjunction with traditional knowledge and
conventional agricultural research methods, it may be a powerful tool. Policies
must expand and guide research and technology development to solve problems
of importance to poor people. Research should focus on crops relevant to small
farmers and poor consumers in developing countries, such as bananas, cassava,
yams, sweet potatoes, rice, maize, wheat, and millet, along with livestock.
Labelling may also be needed to identify content for cultural and religious
reasons or simply because consumers want to know about the contents of their
food and the processes used to produce it. It is also urgent that global biosafety
standards and local regulatory capacity be strengthened within developing
countries.
Keywords: Agricultural biotechnology; poverty; food insecurity; food security;
crops; developing countries; labelling; food safety; biosafety standards;
transgenic breeding; conventional breeding.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Pinstrup-Andersen, P. and
Cohen, M.J. (2000) ‘Agricultural biotechnology: risks and opportunities for
developing country food security’, Int. J. Biotechnology, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2/3,
pp.145–163.
Biographical notes: Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Marc J. Cohen are Director
General and Special Assistant to the Director General, respectively, of the
International Food Policy Research Institute. IFPRI is part of a global
agricultural research network, the consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
1
Introduction
The current debate about the potential utility of modern biotechnology for food and
agriculture and the associated potential risks and opportunities is focused on the initial
applications of such biotechnology in industrialized country agriculture. The potential
contributions of biotechnology to poverty alleviation and enhanced food security and
Copyright © 2000 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
146
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
nutrition in developing countries has received little attention beyond blanket statements
of support or opposition. Such statements often ignore the differences between the
conditions of farmers and consumers in the industrialized world and those of poor
farmers and consumers in the developing world. This article attempts to provide input
into a more focused debate on the role of modern agricultural biotechnology in
developing countries, a debate that should be led by developing countries themselves.
2
Current food insecurity problems
Small farmers in developing countries are faced with many problems and constraints.
Pre- and post-harvest crop losses due to pests and droughts result in low and fluctuating
yields, incomes, and food availability. Low soil fertility and lack of access to reasonably
priced plant nutrients, along with acid, salinated, and waterlogged soils and other abiotic
factors also contribute to low yields, production risks, and degradation of natural
resources. Too often, poor farmers must clear forest or farm ever more marginal land in
order to cultivate crops. Many rural poor people live in resource poor areas. Inadequate
infrastructure and poorly functioning markets, together with lack of access to credit and
technical assistance, add to the impediments.
About 1.2 billion people, or one of every five humans, live in a state of absolute
poverty, on the equivalent of US$1 a day or less [1]. Around 800 million people in the
developing world are food insecure (Figure 1) [2]. Of particular concern are the 167
million preschool children who suffer from energy-protein malnutrition (Figure 2) [3].
Also, a very large segment of humanity suffers from deficiencies of micronutrients such
as iron and vitamin A. Two billion people (one in every three) are anaemic, usually as a
result of inadequate iron in their diets (Figure 3), and half a million children go blind
each year because of vitamin-A deficiency [3,4]. Food insecurity and malnutrition result
in needless child deaths, serious public health problems, and lost human potential in the
developing countries.
Figure 1
Number and proportion of undernourished by region, 1995–97
y
300
g
(millions)
!
(percent)
percent
35
30
250
25
200
!
20
150
15
!
100
!
!
50
10
5
0
0
Sub-Saharan Africa
East and Sout heast Asia
Near East and North Africa
Source: [2]
Latin America and the Caribbean
Sout h Asia
Agricultural biotechnology
Figure 2
200
147
Number of malnourished children, 1995 and 2020
Millions
160
South ASia
Southeast Asia
West Asia and North Africa
150
Sub-Saharan Africa
East Asia
Latin America
135
100
50
0
1995
2020
Source: IFPRI IMPACT simulations, July 1999
Figure 3
Prevalence of anaemia in preschool children and pregnant women by region, 1999
Source: [3]
148
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
Around 70% of poor and food-insecure people reside in rural areas and depend directly or
indirectly on agriculture for their livelihoods [5]. Whether in rural or urban areas, poor
people spend as much as 50–70% of their incomes on food [6]. Low productivity in
agriculture is a major cause of poverty, food insecurity, and poor nutrition in low-income
developing countries, resulting in low incomes for farmers and farm workers, little
demand for goods and services produced by poor non-agricultural rural households, and
urban unemployment and underemployment [7].
Productivity gains are also essential to assure that food supplies remain adequate as
world population increases by 25% to 7.5 billion in 2020. Over 97% of the projected
growth will take place in the developing countries (Table 1) [8].
Table 1
World population, 1995 and 2020
Population level
Region
Population increase,
1995–2020
2020a
1995
(millions)
Share of
increase
(millions)
(percent)
(percent)
Latin America and
the Caribbean
480
665
185
38.5
10.1
Africa
697
1,187
490
70.3
26.7
Asia, excluding Japan
3,311
4,421
1,110
33.5
60.5
China
1,221
1,454
233
19.1
12.7
India
934
1,272
338
36.2
18.4
Developed countries
1,172
1,217
45
3.8
2.5
Developing countries
4,495
6,285
1,790
39.8
97.5
World
5,666
7,502
1,836
32.4
100.0
a
Medium-variant population projections
Source: [8]
3
Public investment in agricultural development
In low-income developing countries, agriculture is the driving force for broad-based
economic growth and poverty alleviation. A healthy agricultural economy also offers
farmers incentives for sound management of natural resources. Accelerated public
investments are needed to facilitate agricultural and rural growth through:
1
Environmentally friendly, yield increasing crop varieties, including drought- and
salt-tolerant and pest-resistant varieties, and improved livestock;
Agricultural biotechnology
149
2
Access to appropriate inputs and credit;
3
Extension services and technical assistance;
4
Improved rural infrastructure and effective markets;
5
Attention to the needs of women farmers, who grow much of the locally produced
food in many developing countries; and
6
Primary education and health care, clean water, safe sanitation, and good nutrition
for all.
These investments must be supported by good governance and an enabling policy
environment. Also, agricultural and rural development efforts must engage poor people
as active participants, not passive recipients.
This means reversing current trends. Public investment in agriculture is on the decline
in developing countries, which on average devote 7.5% of government spending to
agriculture (and just 7% in Sub-Saharan Africa) [9]. Aid donors cut assistance to
agriculture and rural development by nearly 50% in real terms over 1986–1996. Donors’
rather inflexible emphasis of the past 20 years on less government and a smaller public
sector has contributed to public disinvestment in agriculture [9–11].
Public investment in agricultural research that can improve the productivity of small
farmers in developing countries is especially important. It must join all appropriate
scientific tools with better utilization of the insights of traditional indigenous knowledge.
The private sector is unlikely to devote substantial resources to this area because it cannot
expect sufficient returns to cover costs. Even minor increases in aid to agricultural
research for developing countries can significantly boost food supplies, while relatively
small cuts can have very serious negative effects. Globally, average annual returns to
investment in agricultural research and development range from 45 to 79% [12,13]. Yet,
low-income developing countries invest less than 0.5% of the value of farm production in
agricultural research, compared to 2% in higher-income countries (Figure 4) [14].
Figure 4
Agricultural research expenditures as percent of agricultural GDP, 1981-85
Source: [14]
150
4
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
The role of agricultural biotechnology in achieving food security
Although tissue culture and other biotechnological work is underway in several
developing countries, very little transgenic seed material has been grown in the
developing world, and a few countries – Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, and
South Africa – account for almost all of the current research. Hence, ex post assessment
of its risks and benefits, and of its relevance for the problems outlined above, is virtually
impossible. However, a great deal is known about the social and economic risks and
benefits associated with conventional Mendelian plantbreeding. Therefore, we begin our
analysis with identification of similarities and differences between conventional breeding
and modern biotechnology to help assess ex ante the likely risks and benefits of the latter.
4.1 Comparing conventional breeding and modern biotechnology
Within-species vs. transgenic breeding. There are four major relevant differences
between conventional plantbreeding and modern biotechnology. First, and most
obviously, much current work in agricultural biotechnology involves the transfer of a
single or a few genes between species and even from micro-organisms and animals to
plants. While all plantbreeding arguably involves ‘genetic modification,’ conventional
breeding crosses different varieties within a single species. There is considerable debate
about whether gene transfers across traditional species boundaries entail significant risks
to human health and the environment. There is, however, no evidence that there are any
social and economic risks inherent in the technology.
A shift to private sector research. Second, it is the public sector that has traditionally
taken the lead in conventional crop research, especially in the developing countries. As a
direct consequence, improved seed was usually freely available for multiplication and
distribution. In other instances, the improved material was subjected to breeders’ rights,
which may permit an initial charge, but even in these instances, intellectual property
rights did not extend beyond the initial release. Having acquired the seed, farmers could
reuse it without further payment, although reuse of hybrid seed would drastically reduce
the yield advantage. Such practices are in keeping with the principle of ‘farmers’ rights’
that is included in the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
Negotiations are currently underway to incorporate this agreement into the Convention
on Biological Diversity as a legally binding protocol [15,16].
In contrast, the bulk of modern agricultural biotechnology research is undertaken by
private sector firms, which protect intellectual property rights through patents that extend
beyond the first release. Thus, farmers cannot legally plant or sell for planting the crop
produced with the patented seed without the permission of the patent holder. Patent
holders are currently seeking to enforce their intellectual property rights through legal
agreements and technologies that will deactivate specific genes.
The use of legal instruments is widespread for industrialized country agriculture, but
does not at present appear viable for poor developing countries. Monitoring and
enforcing contracts that prohibit large numbers of small farmers to use the crops they
produce as seed would be expensive and difficult.
The so-called terminator gene is the first patented component of the technological
approach to intellectual property protection. Seeds containing this gene produce plants
with sterile seeds. This technology is not appropriate for small farmers in developing
countries because existing infrastructure and production processes may not be able to
Agricultural biotechnology
151
keep fertile and infertile seeds apart. Small farmers could face severe consequences if
they inadvertently planted infertile seeds.
Rise of proprietary research processes and technologies. A third and related
distinction between conventional crop breeding and modern biotechnology relates to the
patenting of processes as well as products. Conventional breeding technology lies in the
public domain, and has frequently been employed by public institutions. The processes
used in modern agricultural biotechnology are increasingly subjected to intellectual
property protections, along with the products that result.
This means that public sector research institutions may not be able to gain access to
basic but proprietary knowledge and processes needed in research, e.g. research on the
so-called orphaned crops, such as cassava and millet. These are critical staples in the diets
of many poor people, but they do not offer promising economic returns to private sector
research and development efforts, so efforts to develop disease-resistant cassava or
drought-tolerant millet, whether through genetic modification or conventional breeding,
must come from the public sector. Some firms have agreed to transfer proprietary
technologies, without charging royalties, to developing countries where there are few
potential commercial prospects. For example, Monsanto has entered into agreements with
Kenyan and Mexican government agricultural research institutes on developing virusresistant sweet potatoes and potatoes, respectively. In the Mexican case, the transfer
involved a donation of genes and know-how, brokered by the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. But, so far, such arrangements are few and
generally involve the philanthropic arms of the private firms [17,18].
Enlightened adaptation vs. direct transfer. A final difference involves the adaptation
of developed country agricultural research to developing country conditions.
Conventional breeding efforts that focused on solving specific problems in developing
countries (such as high yielding rice) adapted technology first applied in the developed
countries. Most current applications of modern biotechnology focus on developedcountry agriculture.
Industrial country research institutions had begun working on development of higher
yielding crop varieties in the late 19th century. Much of this work occurred at public
institutions or as a result of public-private partnerships. The results from this research
could not simply be transferred to poorer developing countries, where the need was for
improved varieties of locally consumed staples. Rather, there was further adaptation to
the agroecological conditions of tropical and semi-tropical areas as well as a focus on
locally consumed crops, such as rice, root and tuber crops, and tropical fruits and
vegetables as well as different strains of maize and wheat from those grown in temperate
zones.
The public sector role in this adaptation process was, if anything, even more
prominent than in the developed world, with international agricultural research centres
and national agricultural research systems (particularly in Asia and Latin America)
playing the lead roles. Financial support came from donors of official development
assistance and large private foundations, such as Ford, Rockefeller, and Kellogg.
In contrast, modern agricultural biotechnology is still in an early phase, and the focus
is overwhelmingly on production on developed country farms and for developed country
markets. In 1999, 82% of the land planted to genetically modified (GM) crops was in the
USA and Canada, with the USA alone accounting for 72% of the area. Argentina, China,
Australia and South Africa cultivated the remaining 18%, and the countries other than
152
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
China include a substantial number of large-scale, capital-intensive farms that produce
primarily for industrialized country markets (Figure 5). Among the crops produced in
these three developing countries are insect-resistant cotton and maize, herbicide resistant
soybeans, and tomatoes with a long shelf life. Globally, herbicide-resistant soybeans and
GM maize account for 82% of all plantings (Table 2). Both the area planted to GM crops
and the value of the harvests grew dramatically between 1995 and 1999: from less than a
million hectares to 39.9 million, and from US$75 million to an estimated US$2.2 billion
(Figures 6 and 7) [19,20].
Figure 5
Area of transgenic crops, 1999 (million of hectares)
United States 28.7
72%
Argentina 6.7
17%
Canada 4.0
10%
Others 0.5
1%
Source: [21]
Table 2
Traits in commercial transgenic crops, 1999
Million hectares
Share of the
transgenic area
(percent)
Herbicide-tolerant soybean
21.6
54
GM Maize (herbicide-tolerant, Bt, or both)
11.1
28
Herbicide-tolerant canola
3.5
9
GM Cotton
3.7
9
Total
39.9
100
Crop
Source: [21]
Agricultural biotechnology
Figure 6
153
Global area of transgenic crops, 1995-99 (excluding China)
Source: [21]
Figure 7
2,500
Value of transgenic crops, 1995 and 1999
Millions of U.S. dollars
2,200
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
75
0
1995
Source: [21]
1999 Estimated
154
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
Not only has the private sector played the dominant role in research, but consolidation
has proceeded rapidly in the agricultural biotechnology industry, with more than 25
major acquisitions and alliances worth $15 billion between 1996 and 1998. This parallels
consolidation elsewhere in the food and agricultural industry, e.g. the 1999 merger of
Cargill and Continental Grain, the two largest grain trading companies in the world. So
far, neither public programs nor public-private partnerships are the norm in agricultural
biotechnology research, although there are significant examples of both.
To date, little private sector agricultural biotechnology research has focused on
developing country food crops other than maize. Moreover, little adaptation of the
research to developing country crops and conditions has occurred through the
‘enlightened’ (i.e., not for profit, public goods oriented) public and philanthropic
channels prominent in conventional breeding efforts in the developing countries. Except
for limited work on rice, maize, and cassava, mostly done by the international agricultural
research centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), little biotechnology research currently focuses on the productivity and
nutrition of poor people. The Rockefeller Foundation’s agriculture program is one of the
few examples; in 1998, it provided about $7.4 million for biotechnology research relevant
to developing countries, mainly through international agricultural research centres and
national agricultural research systems in developing countries, with a major emphasis on
rice. This sum pales by comparison with Monsanto’s 1998 research and development
budget of $1.3 billion, much of which funded agricultural biotechnology research
[22,23].
As with conventional breeding, the challenge is to move from the scientific
foundation established by developed country-oriented research efforts to research focused
on the needs of poor farmers and consumers in developing countries. Direct transfers of
the fruits of agricultural biotechnology research to the developing world are not
appropriate. This is particularly the case for currently available technology. For example,
poor farmers in developing countries may not be able to afford herbicides. More
appropriate research for the developing world might focus on biotechnology and
conventional breeding to develop alternative forms of weed resistance. For example, the
West African Rice Development Association (WARDA), an international agricultural
research centre based in Côte d’Ivoire, used a combination of conventional breeding and
tissue culture to cross African and Asian rice varieties. This resulted in a hardy, leafy rice
that denies weeds sunlight. In addition to improved yields, this reduces the time women
must spend weeding, allowing them to devote more attention to the childcare practices
that are essential for good nutrition [24].
Insect resistant crops could have great potential value for poor farmers. So far,
however, the development of crops containing genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
bacterium, which produces a natural insecticide, has focused on the crops and cropping
environments of North America. Currently available Bt crops require extremely
knowledge-intensive cultivation. For example, licences for use of Bt maize in the United
States require farmers to plant a ‘refuge’ of non-Bt maize to prevent rapid development
of resistance to Bt in the targeted pests. These crops might well be transferable to largerscale operations in some developing countries such as Argentina. There is considerable
debate about associated risks of the development of resistance in pests, harm to beneficial
insects, and cross-pollination of wild and weedy relatives. But the evidence on these
issues so far is inconclusive.
Agricultural biotechnology
155
Research on crops and problems of relevance to small farmers in developing
countries, including biotechnology research, will require expanded enlightened
adaptation, engaging public and philanthropic institutions, including international
agricultural research centres. Additional public resources must be allocated to such
efforts. In addition, the public sector can expand private sector research for poor people
by converting some of the social benefits to private gains, e.g. by offering to buy
exclusive rights to newly developed technology and make it available either for free or
for a nominal charge to small farmers. The private research agency would bear the risks,
as it does when developing technology for the market. This arrangement is similar to that
recently proposed by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Sachs for developing a
malaria vaccine for use in Africa [25]. There is no reason to believe that the rates of
return to agricultural biotechnology research would be less than those for conventional
research.
Without more enlightened adaptation, continued expansion of GM crop production in
the developed countries may well have a negative impact on small farmers in developing
countries, as imported GM grain and feed crops undercut local production. Some
developing-country consumers would benefit, but those consumers who also farm could
experience net losses. Also, the development of GM substitutes for developing-country
export crops, such as cocoa (which in many developing countries is produced by small
farmers) could have a devastating impact on developing-country farmers’ livelihoods.
Lessons from conventional breeding. Experience with conventional crop research
offers some guideposts for assessing the likely risks and benefits of agricultural
biotechnology for developing countries. Risks and benefits may be inherent in a given
technology, or they may transcend the technology. The policy environment into which a
technology is introduced is critical. For example, IFPRI research has found that in Tamil
Nadu state in India, the adoption of high-yielding grain varieties meant not only increased
yields and cheaper, more abundant food for consumers, but income gains for small- and
larger-scale farmers alike, as well as for non-farm poor rural households. Increased rural
incomes contributed to nutrition gains [26]. Because the Tamil Nadu state government
has pursued active poverty alleviation strategies, including extensive social safety net
programs and investment in agriculture, rural development, nutrition, and education, and
a fair measure of equity in access to resources such as land and credit, the benefits were
widely shared. Where increased inequality followed the adoption of modern crop
varieties, this was not because of factors inherent in the technology, but rather a result of
policies that did not promote equitable access to resources and development of human
capital. And even in these areas, rural landless labourers usually found new job
opportunities as a consequence of increased agricultural productivity, particularly where
appropriate physical infrastructure and markets developed.
On the other hand, successful adoption of these crop varieties depended on access to
water, fertilizer, and pesticides. Thus, inequality between well endowed and resource
poor areas increased because of the properties of the technology itself. Likewise,
excessive or improper use of chemical inputs led to adverse environmental impacts in
some instances. To some extent, this problem was offset by characteristics that were also
inherent in the technology: by allowing yield gains without expanding cultivated area, the
technology kept cultivators from clearing forests and marginal lands.
Applications of agricultural biotechnology to developing countries could address
some of these very issues if research focuses on how to reduce the need for inputs and
156
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
increase the efficiency of input use. This could lead to the development of crops that
utilize water more efficiently, fix nitrogen from the air, extract phosphate from the soil
more effectively, and resist pests without the use of synthetic pesticides. Successful
efforts in this direction would reduce dependence on access to inputs, making the
technology more readily available to poor farmers.
It is possible that the introduction of agricultural biotechnology into developing
countries can contribute to increased productivity, lower unit costs and prices for food,
preservation of forests and fragile land, poverty reduction, and improved nutrition. This
depends on whether the research is relevant to poor people, on the economic and social
policy environment, and on the nature of the intellectual property rights arrangements
governing the technology.
4.2 Weighing risks and benefits of biotechnology in developing countries
The experience of the industrialized countries. In the industrialized countries, it is
generally assumed that the economic benefits of GM crops accrue primarily to the life
science companies that develop the new varieties and hold the patents, along with the
seed companies that distribute them (increasingly, these firms are often integrated as a
consequence of mergers and acquisitions). While farmers stand to gain from reduced pest
management costs and greater efficiency of pesticide use (in the case of herbicide tolerant
crops), the potential yield gains may mean reduced prices. The assumption is that
consumers’ gains through reduced prices will be rather modest. There are social and
environmental benefits to reduced pesticide use, though these could be offset by
environmental and health problems that might occur [27–29].
As GM crops have only been commercially available for about five growing seasons,
the jury is still out on the economic benefits, especially given consumer resistance in
some industrialized countries. However, some recent studies of these crops in the United
States suggest that the reality may be more complex than the conventional wisdom
indicates. One study found that in 1997, agribusiness gained 44% of the benefits from the
US Bt cotton crop, while farmers earned almost as much, 42%. Consumers in the United
States and abroad reaped a 13% share. For herbicide-tolerant soybeans, the gains
favoured consumers even more (21%), while farmers gained fully half. Agribusiness’s
share was only 31% (Figure 8) [30]. Another soybean study confirms the global
consumer gains and those of agribusiness, but suggests that yield gain’s price depressing
effects may wipe out any benefits farmers could hope to achieve [31]. A study of Bt
maize in Indiana found that the price premium placed on Bt seed is so high that the gains
from efficiency and reduced pesticide use may not justify the costs, unless farmers face a
relatively high probability of European corn-borer infestation and their yields are higher
than average [32]. This literature suggests that, even under monopoly or oligopoly
ownership of the technology, farmers and consumers may gain from these crops, and the
benefits to consumers may be rather larger than generally assumed.
Consumers’ own risk/benefit calculation is likely to vary according to how they earn
their income and how much of their income they spend on food. Consumers outnumber
farmers by a factor of more than 20 in the European Union, and Europeans spend only a
tiny fraction of their incomes on food. In the United States, farms account for less than
2% of all households, and the average consumer spends less than 12% of income on food
[33–35]. In the developed countries, consumers can afford to pay more for food, increase
subsidies to agriculture, and give up opportunities for better-tasting and better-looking
Agricultural biotechnology
157
food. In contrast, in developing countries, poor consumers depend heavily on agriculture
for their livelihoods and spend the bulk of their income on food. Thus, productivity gains
and lower unit costs and prices are critical for them.
Figure 8
Distribution of economic surplus generated by the use of round up ready soybean seed
in the US, 1997 (Total net economic surplus, US$360 million)
U.S. consumers
8.0%
Seed companies
9.0%
Other consumers
13.0%
All farmers
48.0%
U.S. (50%)
Others (-2%)
Monsanto
22.0%
Source:
[30]
Modern biotechnology is not a silver bullet for achieving food security, but, used in
conjunction with traditional knowledge and conventional agricultural research methods, it
may be a powerful tool in the fight against poverty that should be made available to poor
farmers and consumers. It has the potential to help enhance agricultural productivity in
developing countries in a way that further reduces poverty, improves food security and
nutrition, and promotes sustainable use of natural resources. Solutions to the problems
facing small farmers in developing countries will benefit both farmers and consumers.
Strong opposition to GM food in the European Union has resulted in severe
restrictions on modern agricultural biotechnology, including a three-year moratorium on
approval of commercial use of new GM agricultural products. The opposition is driven in
part by perceived lack of consumer benefits, uncertainty about possible negative health
and environmental effects, widespread perception that a few large corporations will be
the primary beneficiaries, and ethical concerns.
The potential benefits in developing countries. There are many potential benefits for
poor people in developing countries. Biotechnology may help achieve the productivity
gains needed to feed a growing global population, introduce resistance to pests and
diseases without costly purchased inputs, heighten crops’ tolerance to adverse weather
and soil conditions, improve the nutritional value of some foods, and enhance the
durability of products during harvesting or shipping. Bioengineered products may reduce
reliance on pesticides, thereby reducing farmers’ crop protection costs and benefiting
158
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
both the environment and public health. Biotechnology research could aid the
development of drought-tolerant maize and insect-resistant cassava, to the benefit of
small farmers and poor consumers. The development of cereal plants capable of
capturing nitrogen from the air could contribute greatly to plant nutrition, helping small
farmers who often cannot afford fertilizers. Biotechnology may offer cost-effective
solutions to micronutrient malnutrition, such as vitamin A- and iron-rich crops. By
raising productivity in food production, agricultural biotechnology could help further
reduce the need to cultivate new lands and help conserve biodiversity and protect fragile
ecosystems.
Policies must expand and guide research and technology development to solve
problems of importance to poor people. Research should focus on crops relevant to small
farmers and poor consumers in developing countries, such as bananas, cassava, yams,
sweet potatoes, rice, maize, wheat, and millet, along with livestock.
Food safety and biosafety. GM foods are not intrinsically good or bad for human
health. Their health effects depend on their specific content. GM foods with a higher-iron
content are likely to benefit iron deficient consumers. But the transfer of genes from one
species to another may also transfer characteristics that cause allergic reactions. Thus,
GM foods need to be tested for allergy transfers before they are commercialized. Such
testing avoided the commercialization of soybeans containing a Brazil nut gene. GM
foods with possible allergy risks should be fully labelled.
Labelling may also be needed to identify content for cultural and religious reasons or
simply because consumers want to know about the contents of their food and the
processes used to produce it, so that they can make informed choices. While the public
sector must design and enforce standards as well as labelling required to protect public
health, other labelling might best be left to the private sector in accordance with
consumer demands for knowledge.
Failure to remove antibiotic-resistant marker genes used in research before a GM
food is commercialized presents a potential although unproven health risk. Recent
legislation in the European Union requires that these genes be removed before a GM food
is deemed safe.
Risks and opportunities associated with GM foods should be integrated into the
general food safety regulations of a country. In addition, effective national biosafety
regulations should be in place before modern biotechnology is introduced. Aid donors
need to help developing countries build the capacity to monitor compliance and enforce
these kinds of regulations. In addition, there needs to be minimal global standards in
place. The development of a public global regulatory capacity has lagged far behind the
pace of economic globalization [20].
The ecological risks policymakers need to assess include the spread of traits such as
herbicide resistance from genetically modified plants to unmodified plants (including
weeds), the build-up of resistance in insect populations, and the potential threat to
biodiversity posed by widespread monoculture of bioengineered crops. These risks are
particularly significant in the centres of origin and diversity of major food crops.
Applications of technology that can switch specific genetic characteristics off and on
offer great promise for the development of a seed that will avoid the spread of new traits
through cross-pollination. The seed would contain the desired traits, such as pest
resistance or drought tolerance, but these would be activated through chemical treatment.
Otherwise, the seed would maintain its normal characteristics. Thus, if a farmer planted
an improved seed, the offspring would not be sterile; rather they would revert to normal
Agricultural biotechnology
159
seeds, without the improved traits. The farmer would have the choice of planting the seed
and doing no more, or activating the improved traits by applying the chemical. Contrary
to the ‘terminator’ gene, this approach complies with the principle of doing no harm.
Both food safety and biosafety regulations should reflect international agreements and
a given society’s acceptable risk levels, including the risks associated with not using
biotechnology to achieve desired goals. Poor people should be included directly in the
debate and decision-making about technological change, the risks of that change, and the
consequences of no or alternative kinds of change.
Thorough testing is necessary to ensure the safety of new crop varieties developed
through biotechnology. Questions about environmental safety and health risks must be
addressed head-on. Testing of genetically modified crops needs to increase in developing
countries; at present, about 90% of the testing occurs in developed countries. Destruction
of test plots by anti-GM activists should cease. Open debate about the issues involved is
essential, but physical attacks on research and testing efforts contribute little to the free
exchange of ideas or the formulation of policies that will advance food security.
Socioeconomic risks. Unless developing countries have policies in place to assure that
small farmers have access to extension services, productive resources (such as land,
water, and credit), markets, and infrastructure, there is considerable risk that the
introduction of agricultural biotechnology could lead to increased inequality of income
and wealth, because larger farmers may capture most of the benefits through early
adoption of the technology, expanded production, and reduced unit costs [36].
An ex ante assessment of Monsanto’s transfer of transgenic virus resistance
technology for potatoes to Mexico examined some of the issues relating to social and
economic benefits. It found that all classes of potato growers would likely benefit.
Because small farmers have higher yield losses from viruses than larger producers, their
yield gains and per-unit cost reductions are likely to exceed those of large farmers. Thus,
this assessment found the technology to be biased toward small, rather than large farmers.
This bias is reinforced by Monsanto’s unwillingness to licence the potato leaf roll virus
resistance technology for use with the potato variety that accounts for 69% of large
farmers’ plantings, because this variety is also grown in industrialized countries. Mexican
seed distributors would be unlikely to charge a premium for the transgenic seed, which
Monsanto transferred without charging royalties, given the competitive nature of the
industry in Mexico. The study also found that a targeted government intervention to make
transgenic red potatoes available to small and medium sized farmers, comparable to the
government seed distribution program for maize and bean seeds (Alianza para el
Campo), would allow small farmers to capture 45% of the economic benefits from the
cultivation of transgenic potatoes. Consumers would benefit from lower prices as a result
of higher production. However, as Mexico reduces potato import barriers, the consumer
gains are likely to decline [18].
Growing concentration among companies engaged in agricultural biotechnology
research may lead to reduced competition, monopoly or oligopoly profits, exploitation of
small farmers and consumers, and extraction of special favours from governments.
Effective antitrust legislation and enforcement institutions are needed, particularly in
small developing countries where one or only a few seed companies operate. As with
biosafety, there is an urgent need for global standards regarding industrial concentration.
Developing countries will need to enact and enforce intellectual property rights
legislation in order to benefit from biotechnology. This legislation must harmonize
160
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
protection of farmers’ rights to access to germplasm and plant breeders’ rights to benefit
from their innovations.
Trade-related risks. The outcome of new global agricultural trade negotiations, could
also bear upon developing countries’ social and economic risks related to biotechnology.
If the European Union’s ‘precautionary principle’ is accepted as the basis for new
agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary standards and technical barriers to trade, then
the EU could discriminate against any potential exporters of GM food or feed without
having any scientific evidence of harm. At present, because it is private consumers and
retailers that are rejecting GM foods in Europe, the discrimination is not government
trade policy and does not violate World Trade Organization rules.
Regardless, low-income developing countries that wish to use an agricultural exportled growth strategy will be faced with the choice between adopting modern
biotechnology in agriculture or maintaining the possibility of a GM-free food export to
the EU. They could choose to differentiate and label GM foods and non-GM foods, and
to the extent that they can manage such a differentiated system, they would be able to
capture the benefits from modern agricultural biotechnology for domestic consumption
while maintaining an export market for GM-free foods. Developing countries may also
decide to label GM foods and GM-free foods in the domestic market to provide the
choice to domestic consumers. In view of the tremendous importance of productivity
increases in agriculture in low-income developing countries for poor people in both urban
and rural areas, it is hard to believe that any low-income developing country would
refrain from utilizing appropriate modern biotechnology in agriculture once reasonable
biosafety limits have been established.
A large share of the food imported by developing countries originates in the United
States and these importing countries must take a position on not only biosafety and food
safety, but also whether they wish to insist on product differentiation and labelling in the
case of imported food.
Moreover, if public opposition in developed countries leads to moratoria or outright
bans on agricultural biotechnology research, developing countries could not expect to
receive any scientific or financial support for their own research in this area. In practical
terms, this would likely preclude most such research in the developing world, except for
research in a few large countries such as China, India, and Brazil.
Ethical issues. A major ethical concern is that genetic engineering and ‘life patents’
accelerate the reduction of plants, animals, and micro-organisms to mere commercial
commodities, bereft of any sacred character. This is far from a trivial consideration.
However, all agricultural activities constitute human intervention into natural systems
and processes. Continued human survival depends on precisely such interventions, and is
likewise a critical ethical concern. Condemning biotechnology for its potential risks
without considering the alternative risks of prolonging the human misery caused by
hunger, malnutrition, and child death is as unwise and unethical as blindly pursuing this
technology without the necessary biosafety.
5
Conclusion
Expanded enlightened adaptive research on agricultural biotechnology can contribute to
food security in developing countries, provided that it focuses on the needs of poor
farmers and consumers in those countries, identified in consultation with poor people
Agricultural biotechnology
161
themselves. Public sector research, particularly through international agricultural research
centres and national agricultural research systems, is essential for assuring that molecular
biology-based science serves the needs of poor people. Yet at present, public
international agricultural research centres are devoting less than 10% of their research
budgets to biotechnology. And the possibilities for cooperation between the public and
private sectors, such as publicly funded private sector research, have barely been tapped.
It is also urgent that global biosafety standards and local regulatory capacity within
developing countries be strengthened within developing countries.
Agricultural biotechnology must be viewed as one element in a comprehensive
sustainable poverty alleviation strategy focused on broad-based agricultural growth, not a
technological quick fix for world hunger. There is considerable potential for
biotechnology to contribute to improved yields and reduced risks for poor farmers, as
well as more plentiful, affordable, and nutritious food for poor consumers. It is not, as
some critics have charged, ‘a solution looking for a problem.’ The problems are genuine
and momentous.
The biggest risk of modern biotechnology for developing countries is that
technological development will bypass poor people. A form of what Ismail Serageldin,
the Chairman of the CGIAR, calls ‘scientific apartheid’ may well develop, in which
cutting edge science becomes oriented exclusively toward industrial countries and largescale farming [17]. In such a case, or if agricultural biotechnology research is prohibited
in the developed countries, opportunities for reducing poverty, food insecurity, child
malnutrition, and natural resource degradation will be missed, and the productivity gap
between developing and developed country agriculture will widen.
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
World Bank. (1999) Data posted at http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/data/trends/
income.htm. Accessed 15 October.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1999) The State of Food
Insecurity in the World 1999 Rome: FAO.
United Nations Administrative Committee on Coordination/Subcommittee on Nutrition
(ACC/SCN) and IFPRI. (1999) Fourth Report on the World Nutrition Situation, Draft 1. July.
Geneva: ACC/SCN and Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).
United Nations ACC/SCN. (1997) Third Report on the World Nutrition Situation, Geneva:
ACC/SCN.
McCalla, A.F. and Ayres W.S. (1997) Rural Development: From Vision to Action,
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Deaton, A. (1997) The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconomic Approach to
Development Policy, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press for The World
Bank.
Delgado, C.L., Hopkins, J., Kelly, V. with Hazell, P., McKenna, A.A., Gruhn, P., Hojjati, B.,
Sil, J. and Courbois, C. (1998) ‘Agricultural growth linkages in sub-saharan Africa’, Research
Report No. 107. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
United Nations Population Division. (1998) World Population Prospects: The 1998 Revision,
electronic version.
FAO. (1996) ‘Investment in agriculture: evolution and prospects’, World Food Summit
Technical Background Document Number 10. Rome: FAO.
162
P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M.J. Cohen
10 FAO. (1998) State of Food and Agriculture 1998, Rome: FAO.
11 Michel, J.H. (1999) Development Cooperation 1998, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
12 Alston, J.M., Marra M.C., Pardey P.G., and Wyatt, T.J. (1998) ‘Research returns redux: a
meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D’, Environment and Production Technology
Division Discussion Paper No. 38. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
13 Rosegrant, M.W., Agcaoili-Sombilla, M. and Perez, N.D. (1995) ‘Global food projections to
2020: implications for investment’, 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment
Discussion Paper No. 5. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
14 Pardey, P. and Alston, J.M. (1996) ‘Revamping agricultural R&D’, 2020 Brief No. 24,
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
15 Wright, B.D. (1996) ‘Crop genetic resource policy: towards a research agenda’, Environment
and Production Technology Division Discussion Paper No. 19. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
16 FAO. (1999) Http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ AGRICULT/cgrfa/ default.htm.
Accessed October 18.
17 Serageldin, I. (1999) ‘Biotechnology and food security in the 21st century’, Science 285. 16
July, pp.387–389.
18 Qaim, M. (1999) ‘Potential benefits of agricultural biotechnology: an example from the
Mexican potato sector’, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, Autumn/Winter,
pp.390–408.
19 James, C. and Krattiger, A. (1999) ‘The Role of the Private Sector.’ Biotechnology for
Developing-Country Agriculture: Problems and Opportunities, 2020 Vision Focus 2, Brief 4
of 10. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
20 Juma, C. and Gupta, A. (1999) ‘Safe use of biotechnology’, Biotechnology for DevelopingCountry Agriculture: Problems and Opportunities, 2020 Vision Focus 2, Brief 6 of 10.
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
21 James, C. (1999) ‘Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 1999’, ISAAA Brief
No. 12 . Ithaca, NY, USA: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications.
22 Monsanto Company. (1999) 1998 Annual Report, posted at
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/investor/report/98/financialsection/in-come.html.
Accessed October 18.
23 Rockefeller Foundation. (1999) 1998 Annual Report, Posted at http:// www.rockfound.org.
Accessed 18 October.
24 West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) (1999) The Spark that Lit a Flame:
Participatory Varietal Selection, Bouaké, Côte D’Ivoire: WARDA.
25 Anonymous. (1999) ‘Sachs on development: helping the world’s poorest.’ The Economist. 14
August, pp.17–20.
26 Hazell, P.B.R. and Ramasamy C. (Eds.) (1991) The Green Revolution Reconsidered,
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press for IFPRI.
27 Anonymous. (1999) ‘Separate place for transgenic products in shop’, Dutch Agrarian Journal.
8 September, Posted to [email protected] listserver.
28 Knutson, R. (1999) ‘Look at Bt benefits with an open mind’, Des Moines Register. 14
September.
29 Verzola, R.S. (1999) ‘The genetic engineering debate’, 14 November. Posted to
[email protected] listserver.
30 Falck-Zepeda, J.B., Traxler, G., and Nelson, R.G. (1999) ‘Rent creation and distribution from
biotechnology innovations: the case of Bt cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans’ Paper
presented at the Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, NE-165
Conference, Washington, D.C., 24–25 June.
Agricultural biotechnology
31
163
Moschini, G., Lapan, H., and Sobolevsky, A. (1999) ‘Roundup ready soybeans and welfare
effects in the soybean complex’, Iowa State University Department of Economics Staff Paper
No. 324. September.
32 Hyde, J., Martin, M.A., Preckel, P.V. and Edwards, C.R. (1999) ‘The economics of Bt corn:
valuing protection from the European corn borer’, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 21,
No. 2, Autumn/Winter, pp.442–454.
33 US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999) ‘Consumer expenditures in 1998’, posted at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nws.htm. Accessed 18 November.
34 US Census Bureau. (1998) ‘1998 March current population survey’, posted at
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/99ppla.txt. Accessed 18 November, 1999.
35 US National Agricultural Statistics Service. (1998) ‘1997 census of agriculture’, posted at
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census. Accessed 18 November, 1999.
36 Leisinger, K.M. (1999) ‘Disentangling risk issues’, Biotechnology for Developing-Country
Agriculture: Problems and Opportunities, 2020 Vision Focus 2, Brief 5 of 10. Washington,
D.C.: IFPRI.