GM foods in their political and scientific context Erik
Millstone February 2013 Slide 2 My briefing asked: 1)how did we
arrive at the current top-down approach to agricultural science and
technology? And 2)Why have technological solutions become
increasingly dominant over the decades? Slide 3 3) Why have
technologies with evident adverse effects on public and
environmental health, animal welfare and been allowed to dominate
northern food production? and 4) Are we [in danger of] imposing
this failed system on the rest of the world without any meaningful
consultation? Slide 4 Outline answers: Industrialisation in eg the
UK and continental Europe required rapid increases in food
availability from a diminished domestic agricultural workforce,
when reliance on imports was problematic, both economically and
militarily. Slide 5 In the USA, the influx of European immigrants
mostly settled in cities and worked in manufacturing, so in 1862
Congress passed the Homestead Act (65 acres for a home and 5 years
labour and $10) and the Land Grant Act, creating colleges to
develop agricultural science and technology, and to diffuse new
innovations. Slide 6 In the colonies, agricultural policy focussed
on feeding the colonialists and exporting cash crops mother
countries, eg UK, France, Spain, Portugal & the Netherlands. In
all those contexts, governments invested public funds in promoting
agricultural science and technology for yield increasing and cost
reducing innovations; they were remarkably successful in the
short-run. Slide 7 But those technology-push policies, in
combination with market liberalisation, contributed to exacerbate
price volatility and intermittent disruptive rural impoverishment.
But wars change policies. During both World Wars, and since 1945,
governments of industrialised countries have intervened to
stabilise domestic food prices, maintain domestic farm incomes, and
exploit overseas suppliers. Slide 8 One dominant tactic has been to
subsidise R&D for domestic productivity enhancing and cost
reducing technologies, and similar tactics for exported cash crops
in UDCs. Eg ARC, AFRC, BBSRC, MAFF & DEFRA. They define(d)
problems in terms of scarcity and production. They neglected
R&D for UDCs domestic self-reliance/self-sufficiency. Slide 9
Those policies have been beneficial for, and so endorsed by, plant
and animal breeders and ag. supply companies, agrichemical corps.,
agricultural machinery suppliers and the oil companies. As well as
the large food processors and retailers. But they have done nothing
to reduce domestic poverty or hunger in UDCs. Slide 10 Those
policies and innovations have had numerous adverse effects on
public and environmental health, as well as contributing to poverty
in developing countries. Eg we will import your raw coffee beans,
but not instant coffee. Slide 11 In liberalised markets, the costs
of those adverse effects have been (as economists say)
externalised, ie they do not directly affect the prices earned by
producers or paid by consumers, so those problems have often been
ignored or discounted. The rural poor, the flora and fauna are not
powerful constituencies. They need the support of others, eg
PINGOs, to help influence policies, even if only marginally. Slide
12 The second set of questions are: 3. Why have technologies with
very clear negative effects for health, the environment, animal
welfare and the economy been allowed to dominate northern food
production? and 4. Are we in danger of imposing this failed system
on the rest of the world without any meaningful consultation? Slide
13 The illusion that problems in the global food system are mainly
supply side problems is deeply engrained in incumbent institutions
and authorities. The myth persists despite the fact that there is
more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, and over the
past 200 years aggregate food supplies have consistently grown more
rapidly than total population. Malthusianism has been mistaken and
refuted, but it fails to die. It is a zombie ideology. Slide 14
Solving problems of hunger in the UDCs is routinely mis-represented
as problems of scarcity, to which only increased production can
provide solutions. Cf The Green Revolution and now eg WEMA &
DTMA. Although recently instead of just talking about intensifying
production, the phrase sustainable intensification has emerged;
though it too misunderstand the demand- side issues: poverty and
landlessness. Slide 15 An alternative demand-side view implies that
there is a need for eg land redistribution in UDCs, but that is
politics, which is controversial and contested, so the incumbent
powers prefer technological solutions. They do not threaten
incumbent institutions, even if they may be ineffective or counter-
productive. Slide 16 The industrialised countries have been
imposing (or trying to impose) high technological solutions on to
the UDCs via, eg The World Bank, the CGIAR, the G8/G20. The same
trajectories are now supported by eg the BMGF. Those approaches are
however contested by eg the UN CFS, farmers groups such as Via
Campesina, the Food Sovereignty Movement, the UN Special Rapporteur
on the Right to Food and PINGOs in both the South and the North.
Slide 17 The attempt to persuade UDCs to accept and adopt GM foods
has recently run into considerable problems in eg China, India and
Kenya. Even though China and India had accepted varieties of GM
cotton, they are far more cautious about GM foods. Slide 18 In
China, there has been very heavy public investment in GM crop
technology, alongside a deep distrust of eg the USA, the EU and
Monsanto. Much of the initial investment went on cotton and
tobacco. Subsequently more focus on soya, rice, wheat, maize,
potato, cabbage and tomato. But there are high levels of resistance
from domestic critics, esp. after melamine in milk etc. The Chinese
government is peering over the precipice, hesitantly and anxiously
Slide 19 In India, more than 380 varieties of GM cotton are being
cultivated, and while productivity has risen, impacts in incomes
have been uneven (cf Matthew Effect). When it came to GM foods, the
first to be approved was an aubergine, aka Bt brinjal, produced by
an India-US industrial collaboration. In 2008 Mahyco applied for
consent for the commercial release of Bt Brinjal. Slide 20
Initially the Indian government agreed, on advice from GEAC. But
that provoked a massive debate about the possible risks to public
and environmental health, and to the livelihoods of poor farmers,
as well as about the limits of the GEAC review. In Oct 2009 the
Minister for Environment and Forests revoked the proposed consent,
and demanded more information and far more careful testing. Mayhco
asked: how much more? But the Indian government has not yet
answered. Slide 21 More recently, in India, an expert panel
advising the Supreme Court, recommended a 10-year moratorium of GM
foods. Little clarity, but much rhetoric, can be expected this side
of the 2014 Indian General Election. Slide 22 Kenyan agriculture
policies have been dominated by a supply-side productionist
paradigm, and a focus on feeding the towns and cities, with blame
for chronic rural hunger being ascribed to climate change and a
lack of modernisation. The Kenyan government consistently appeared
enthusiastic about GM crops, and adopted legislation to regulate GM
crops, despite widespread opposition from local PINGOs. Slide 23 On
21 st Nov. 2012, the Kenyan Ministry of Public Health ordered
public health officials to remove all genetically modified (GM)
foods on the market and to enforce a ban on GM imports. The
minister recommended an immediate ban on GM imports and products in
Kenya citing the work by Seralini et al in September 2012 that
linked cancer in rats to the consumption of GM foods. The Kenyan
Medical Research Institute, supported the ban and President Kibaki
accepted the recommendation. Few decisions will be made before the
March general election. Slide 24 A cabinet meeting chaired by
Kenya's president, Mwai Kibaki[8 November 2012]directed the public
health minister to ban GMO imports until the country is able to
certify that they have no negative impact on people's health. In a
statement to the press, the cabinet said there was a "lack of
sufficient information on the public health impact of such foods".
(emphasis added: http://www.scidev.net/en/sub-suharan-
africa/news/scientists-torn-over-kenya-s-recent-
gm-food-ban-1.htmlhttp://www.scidev.net/en/sub-suharan-
africa/news/scientists-torn-over-kenya-s-recent- gm-food-ban-1.html
Slide 25 In short, there is a lot of pressure on the UDCs to accept
and adopt GM crops, but there is also a lot of resistance, and a
great deal of official hesitation.
