Show Promise for Developing World
Genetically modified crops could help small-scale farmers in developing
countries according to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in The use of
genetically modified crops in developing countries, a Discussion Paper published
today. The Nuffield Council is inviting comments on the draft paper which aims
to contribute to 'GM Nation?', the public debate organised by the government in
the UK during the next six weeks.
In 1999, the Nuffield Council recommended that there was a moral imperative for
making GM crops readily and economically available to people in developing
countries who want them. "We have reviewed the scientific developments
since our last report as well as recent trends in poverty and hunger in
developing countries. In the light of this evidence, we have no hesitation in
affirming - and expanding - our previous conclusions," said Dr Sandy
Thomas, Director of the Nuffield Council.
"We recognise that we are discussing only part of a much larger
picture," continued Dr Thomas. Food security and the reduction of poverty
in developing countries are extremely complex issues. "We do not claim that
GM crops will eliminate the need for economic, political or social change, or
that they will feed the world. However, we do believe that GM technology could
make a useful contribution, in appropriate circumstances, to improving
agriculture and the livelihood of poor farmers in developing countries."
The impact of European Union policy
The draft considers developments in regulation and trade and concludes that
European agricultural policy is likely to restrict severely the freedom of
choice of farmers in developing countries. Many developing countries do not have
the necessary infrastructure to meet strict EU requirements for labelling and
traceability of GM crops. Additionally, there is concern that even planting GM
crops only for domestic use might jeopardise an export market for non-GM crops.
"We believe EU regulators have not paid enough attention to the impact of
EU regulations on agriculture in developing countries and we recommend that the
UK government and non-governmental organisations [NGOs] should monitor this
closely," said Dr Thomas.
European scepticism may also deter people in developing countries from adopting
GM crops, particularly when the risks of GM crops are exaggerated. "The
current evidence from safety assessments of GM crops does not suggest any
significant risk to people who eat them, and we believe it is unhelpful to
suggest otherwise," said Professor Derek Burke, a member of the Working
Group.
Food Aid
Last year, two million people in Zambia were threatened with starvation.
However, the Zambian government refused food aid donations from the US because
the maize was genetically modified. The Nuffield Council discusses issues behind
this controversy and recommends that developing countries must be given a
genuine choice between GM and non-GM food aid. When developing countries prefer
to receive non-GM food aid, the World Food Programme and other food aid
organisations should purchase such grain, wherever possible.
Golden Rice:
Scientists claim that Golden Rice, modified to produce beta-carotene, could
help prevent vitamin A deficiency in Asia, but opponents question whether it
would actually achieve this aim. The Nuffield Council recommends that it is
essential to continue research to establish how effective the approach might be.
Golden Rice could make a valuable contribution where other sources of vitamin A
are not easily available, but it should be compared with alternative methods of
improving micronutrients in the diet, for example providing vitamin supplements
through public health programmes.
Case by case assessment
The possible costs, benefits and risks associated with particular GM crops
can only be assessed on a case by case basis. "It is important not to
generalise," said Professor Michael Lipton, a member of the Working Group.
"However GM crops do, in some cases, have considerable potential to
increase crop yields. There is an ethical obligation to explore these benefits
responsibly."
Small-scale farmers in China and South Africa are already benefiting from GM
cotton, modified to resist the cotton bollworm. Another example cited is
research to genetically modify bananas to resist the Black Sigatoka fungus.
Untreated, this fungus can reduce banana yields by as much as 70%. Currently,
farmers spend one quarter of the production costs on fungicides, and farm
workers may risk their health by applying the spray, up to 40 times per year. A
GM banana, resistant to the fungus, could eliminate these problems, reducing the
amount of fungicide required and, at the same time, increasing yields.
Genetic modification could also be used to address specific agricultural
problems, such as drought and salty soils, where other methods of plant breeding
have not proved successful. However, much GM research currently serves the
interests of large-scale farmers in developed countries. There is also concern
that only a few commercial companies control most of the seeds, chemicals and
research technology. The Nuffield Council recommends that additional resources
should be committed by governments and the EC to fund a major expansion of
GM-related research relevant to the needs of small-scale farmers in developing
countries.
The Council is inviting views on the draft version of the Discussion Paper, by 8
August 2003. "We look forward to hearing comments from members of the
public, stakeholders and experts. We would particularly welcome comments from
people in developing countries," concluded Dr Thomas.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (UK), June 10, 2003
Copies of the Discussion Paper can be downloaded here
from the Council's website:
Members of the Working Group: Dr Sandy Thomas [Chair], Professor Derek Burke CBE,
Professor Mike Gale FRS, Professor Michael Lipton,
Professor Albert Weale FBA
The 1999 Report, Genetically modified food: ethical and social issues, is
available here
iGreen comment
This is a very sensible report. We strongly support its
conclusions. However, there is one misleading item on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
press release and the Nuffield Council website.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics claims to be independent of government, but
is only partly so. It is funded by The Nuffield Foundation, The Wellcome
Trust and the Medical Research Council. The former two organisations
are indeed independent charities. The latter is funded through
taxation.
