Out of chaos come international biosafety rules, signed but still to be ratified
John Vidal When Professor Howard Atkinson and colleagues at Leeds University genetically modified a potato to be pest- resistant without the use of chemicals, it was decided to test it in Bolivia, one of the world’s poorest and most malnourished countries and the place where the potato originated. The Bolivian government gave permission, and if the trial proves successful Atkinson will not benefit financially.
The grassroots reaction surprised Atkinson. Instead of the experiment, part-funded by Britain’s Department for International Development, being welcomed as an attempt to counter a dietary problem, activists went to the village near the proposed trial site and, he said, “provided them [the locals] with misinformation”. The trial has now been delayed for more than a year. The local groups feared that any genetic contamination could never be put right and argued that Bolivia should not risk its most important resource, its biodiversity.
Hundreds of such skirmishes are being fought worldwide. While activists try to destroy the credibility of genetically modified (GM) crop trials in Britain by trashing sites, scientists, lawyers, politicians, consumer and environment groups, corporations, ethicists, the popular press, international bureaucrats, academics, farmers, food companies, consumers and traders are involved in a global battle over a technology which has been on the market for only five years. Twelve countries grow GM crops commercially, four more than last year. More than 40-million hectares are grown worldwide. In the United States, where 72% of the crops are grown, more than 30 crops and hundreds of varieties are now sold. Across the world, thousands of varieties are being tested. Within a few years most of the world could be awash with GM food. In Europe it is another story. Applications to start commercial growing of the crops are caught in the regulatory system, where there has been a moratorium – which the European commission is now to scrap, to the fury of anti-GM groups.
The industry has invested heavily in the technology and is only beginning to see the returns. The global market is worth about $3-billion (about R21-billion) and should be worth $25- billion by 2010. But the shift in public perception has also cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost markets. The stakes are equally high for the activists, who see GM food as a social, ethical and ecological cause. Their greatest success is still in Europe, where powerful pressure groups say demand for the food has all but dried up, consumer resistance is as strong as ever, farmers are confused and wary of testing the crops, and big food companies are getting the message. As in Britain, many supermarket chains and food processors are committed to GM- free food, at least in their own brands. Scientists developing the second generation of GM crops hope that by building in health benefits such as added vitamins or low fat oils they will persuade consumers. Much hinges on what happens in the US. Sweetcorn and sugar beet growers scaled down GM plantings, but soya and cotton are reported to be well up. Polls indicate that support for the crops among US consumers and food and drink companies has slipped. Seven major GM companies, fearing that the home market could implode, as in Europe, are spending $50- million to “build public support for GM”. Their campaign seeks to distance these foods from environmental or safety issues and link them to the benefits of GM developments in medicine.
“In the past,” said David Rowe of DowAgro Sciences, a subsidiary of the GM company Dow Chemicals, “agribusiness
has spent only trivial amounts on marketing, compared with the billions spent on developing the technology. The greatest challenge is not in the technology, but the marketing.”
In Japan, the leading importer of GM products, a petition of more than 23-million names asking US farmers not to plant GM crops chivvied the government into introducing strict labelling.
US embassies and trade missions promote the technology.
International scientific bodies, world agriculture bodies and the United Nations system are moving strongly behind its potential, with caveats about safety and regulation. The World Bank is looking at ways it could assist the development of agricultural genetic engineering in the Third World.
“The bank has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to develop agriculture, including biotech, in countries such as Kenya, Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Mexico, and has asserted that feeding the world is ‘inconceivable’ without genetic engineering,” said Luke Harding, a British activist and author.
Biotech is also becoming an “aid” component. Western governments, with multilateral donors such as the European Union, are beginning to allocate public money to its development in poor countries. “Intellectually the debate is becoming polarised, with positions hardening,” said a South American analyst. “You have powerful northern groups linking with southern
organisations pumping out their propaganda, and a frenzied defence of the technology from governments, corporations and scientists. It is becoming a global faultline.”
Opponents argue that the revolution is happening too fast to assess its effects properly and that the strict science and safety approach adopted by proponents is too narrow. In rich countries most debate has been about food safety and pollution; in developing countries the concerns are often about socio-economic issues, such as who owns the technology, the potential dependency of farmers and debt. Many countries fear going down the route of full-scale GM planting while there is so much uncertainty. Thailand turned down the opportunity to grow GM rice for fear it would be unable to export it. Greece and Brazil say the way forward may be to designate entire regions as GM- free. Tasmania is proposing to use its quarantine laws to ban the foods. Meanwhile, the trend for the large GM companies to buy up conventional seed companies in developing countries is continuing. The industry is accused of taking advantage of places where there is little or no regulatory control. The companies say they work within existing laws and in some cases help draft biosafety legislation. In Colombia protesters say that GM trials of cotton, rice, potatoes and tomatoes are taking place without full biosafety laws, and that people have been eating, without their knowledge, imported GM foods. Olga Berlova, of the Socio-Ecological Union in Moscow, said: “In Russia we know from UN organisations that GM soybeans are growing, yet even Russian officials are unable to get information from companies. The corporations are paying Russian institutes directly to do the trials and bypassing the regulatory system.” In China, where GM cotton and tobacco are grown, a new law will require labelling of GM seeds, the country’s first restriction of the crops. Brazil broadly opposes GM crops, mainly for pragmatic reasons, having benefited from selling conventional soya to Europe. The state of Rio Grande do Sul has declared itself GM-free, but the policy is not popular with all farmers, especially those short of feed grain for their livestock after drought.
The GM company Monsanto has faced long delays in introducing its crops in many countries after opposition in the courts and communities. It has now been allowed to undertake large- scale field trials of its cotton in India, but is caught up in a legal battle in Brazil. Tony Coombes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, said the growing proportion of neutral and positive news about GM developments bore out what had been happening in the world recently. Acreage was “flat to up”, compared with last year, which saw a 44% increase on 1998. “With Brazilian ministers listening hard to farmers’ demands, China racing to make sure it can feed its population, academics in developing countries asking to be free to make up their own minds, global GM now seems to be taking two steps forward for every one step back. “Confusion in the debate seems to originate from failure to distinguish what is fact, hypothesis, speculation, opinion and fear of the unknown. There now seems global acceptance that the science isn’t perfect, but it is better than the alternative, which is guesswork and stargazing.”
Opponents do not see it that way. Greenpeace France said this week: “We are in the middle of a huge fight. It is difficult to predict what will happen.” Out of the chaos, international rules are emerging. This year the first treaty regulating the trade in GM products was signed. The biosafety protocol should, if ratified, allow nations to bar imports of the crops and other GM organisms based on social, environmental, health and social risks. But it could take years to translate into national laws.