Excellent write-up of the great debate
---
Fierce debate on food policy
EDP Saturday 21 April 2001
Bill Starling
"Freedom of speech is a precious thing", said Prof Tim O'Riordan of the EUA, at an open meeting held earlier this week. Under the title "Feeding or Fooling the World", speakers from various countries described their experiences of the role of GM crops in feeding the world's hungry.
An Indian food and policy analyst pointed out that, although there are around 250 million hungry people in that country, there is an annual food surplus of about 50 million tonnes. This year, the Indian government is asking farmers to grow less food, as there is nowhere to store it.
There is no shortage of production. The trouble is that many people cannot afford to buy food. On a global scale, food supply is more than adequate to provide sufficient calories per day to nourish the world's population.
What need is there for GM crops when people cannot get access to existing crops? India has a staggering 550 million farmers, with an average farm size of around three acres.
In contrast, the USA is not counting farmers in their current census. There are no longer enough to matter, though each one is managing a vastly greater land area.
It has been suggested that the developed world, largely the northern hemisphere, is trying to impose solutions to problems in developing countries, chiefly in the south, using inappropriate parameters.
Essentially biotechnology is being developed for large farms and then pushed onto small ones, like it or not.
Small farmers end up being driven from their farms into the cities, where they swell the ranks of thos who cannot afford to buy food. There are also many complex questions over intellectual property rights and patenting of plant material.
The speaker concluded by calling for more research but into biological rather than industrial agriculture. He saw it as an issue of control. An ever decreasing number of giant multinational companies was deciding what was good for this or that country.
We then heard direct from one of India's small farmers. Speaking through an interpreter, a leading member of a Development Society for poor people in Andhra Pradesh in southern India told of her experiences.
Changing to hi-tech hybrid varieties had necessitated over increasing use of chemicals, dependence on a cash economy and the need to go out and buy food for her family and livestock. Above all, she felt she had lost her independence and security.
With help from the Development Society, she has reintroduced traditional crops and now grows 85 varieties of cereals, pulses, oil seeds and fresh green vegetables.
Using balanced crop rotations, inter-cropping, predator attracting plants and other techniques familiar to organic farmers, she achieves adequate yields, maintains soil fertility and does not need pesticides. Her extended family and livestock are now fed from this one-hectare farm. They have a better diet and greater security.
A fierce independence shone through the language barrier. A sense or right, of ownership and knowledge of her land prevailed. It was a moving presentation which emphasised the difference in culture from our Western norms, which we overlook at our peril.
In contrast, we had a surprise final speaker, Percy Schmeiser from Canada. Over 50 years, he has developed a variety of canola (oilseed rape) that particularly suits his conditions.
He achieved notoriety recently by being taken to court by Monsanto, charged with illegally growing their patented Roundup Ready, herbicide resistant, canola. Canola is notoriously promiscuous and will cross-pollinate over several kilometers.
The judge ruled that plants containing the patented gene also belonged to Monsanto, no matter how the gene came to be there. This could remove a farmer's right to save their own seed, no matter what the variety.
Percy then read out an advertisement from Monsanto inviting farmers to "squeal" on their neighbours if they suspected they were growing an "illegal" crop. A free leather jacket was offered as an inducement.
He also read out a letter to another farmer. This stated that Monsanto had secretly tested that farmer's crop and found their patented gene. They would take no further action if the farmer:-
1. Paid them 115 dollars per acre for the crop.
2. Acknowledged Monsanto' s right to take crop samples for three years.
3. Agreed not to disclose the agreement.
4. Agreed that Monsanto had the right to disclose the terms of the settlement.
---
websites: http://www.percyschmeiser.com and monsanto.com.uk