Genetically modified GMO crops make me uneasy – thoughts when preparing for G7 sustainability conference in Berlin

I am preparing for a G7 Conference in Berlin on sustainability and social standards in global supply chains and have spent much time on reading about both environment and labour dimensions.

Working conditions is of course a familiar subject while other sustainability issues formed a major part of my report to the German cooperation and development ministry BMZ on Fairtrade cotton. As I will be in Berlin on behalf of the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS, both will be important to follow.

One particular subject keeps coming up, genetically modified food and other agricultural products. I have approached this with an open mind, trying to close out the more extreme GMO views, for and against.

What strikes me particularly is that so many of those who defend the agribusiness interests don’t even hide their contempt for environmentalists and other concerned people. This has surely fed my already suspicious mind – are these scientists and others afraid of getting into an intellectually honest discussion?

I am not opposed to genetic modification science as such and I accept that much good has come out of it. What makes me concerned is that so much of this research and development is purely business driven, by large multinational companies.

As I said about genetically modified Bt cotton in my Fairtrade textile report, we may see these innovations being applied already before we know what longer term effects they will have on people and environment. There seems to be a belief that when new problems arise they can be addressed by modifications to the modified seeds.

When the Bacillus Thuringiensis pesticide produced by the genetically modified Bt cotton is not strong enough to kill the bugs that have developed a resistance, pesticide use goes up again and new generation GMO seeds are developed that are more effective. I am not comfortable about this approach, and not confident that responsibility for the environment and for human health will always prevail against economic short term interests.

This is an area where mistakes cannot be made. When the card has been played it remains on the table. Just that here the stakes are much higher than in any poker game.

Why then does something like 80 per cent of world cotton come from GMO farming?

Undeniably, yields increase considerably and pesticide use goes down in the years after having moved to these cotton varieties. Any future risks seem to be far away, if the farmer even knows about them. In the poorer countries of the world, where cotton is often one of the most important crops, there are obvious reasons that short term benefits prevail. Active marketing of GMO seeds contributes to these choices, marketing where risks are surely not often mentioned.

The lack of alternative seeds is a huge problem in many parts of the world. Even if a farmer would like to stay with other cotton varieties, this is often impossible. Also a cross contamination is a real risk, especially in environments where farms are small and education levels not very high. To apply the rather demanding buffer zones in these circumstances is not really realistic.

As the GMO seeds are produced by private companies, they are also their intellectual property. The producer multinationals like Monsanto are of course actively protecting their interests and either selling the seeds for every growing season, or requiring royalties.

This would not be a real problem in the developed world where most farmers already for long have bought seeds rather than collected them when harvesting. In poorer parts of the world the situation is different. There, millions of small farmers have been pulled into a ‘modern’ monetary economy in a situation where neither financial nor social support networks often exist. We have heard of many family tragedies when a harvest season has gone badly wrong.

Maybe we will still see something similar to the pharmaceutical industry, which has had to accept that cheaper generic drugs are produced and marketed in poorer countries?

Would I eat GMO food? Yes I would, even if I avoid it whenever possible. Would I serve GMO food to my children if they were still young? No, I would not.

Patents on agribusiness GMO stop poor developing country farmers from saving their seeds for the next planting season

Monsanto and other agribusiness multinationals seek patents and get intellectual property rights for genetically modified seeds which they develop. Farmers are not allowed to save them from their harvests and reuse them for the next season.

What this means for the farming industry in the United States, Australia and other developed economies I will not comment on. Obviously, patent protection of some kinds would be needed. But the effect on developing countries and the poor smallholders that struggle with basic survival, often in or at the edge of the informal sector, is a real issue.

Today, 80 per cent of world cotton production uses GMO seeds. It becomes increasingly difficult to find alternatives, and public seed banks and other activities fade into the background. The only thing left is to buy new seeds every year, from these global agribusiness giants.

As the agribusiness multinationals have pushed for this increase in GMO farming, they should also take the responsibility and accept that farmers in developing regions can continue with their traditional way of saving seeds and using them again.

When I wrote my report on cotton production and Fairtrade to the German government, I could see how small farmers in developing countries were forced into a ‘modern’ economy through this increase in GMO production and frequently got into situations that they could not control.

Yes, yields increased at least in the beginning as GMO cotton was more bug resistant, but in the longer perspective this advantage seems to shrink considerably. What is left is the dependence on the multinational seed producers and their agents, and the need to come up with seed money every year, even after a failed growing season. Dependence on loan sharks, loss of land and family tragedies could be results of this, in a situation where formal financing services are limited and safety networks rare.

I started to look into this again when I read reports about farmers rising against attempts to force through this intellectual property legislation in Ghana. I did notice that already in 2009, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food Olivier de Schutter – whom I served with on the GSCP Advisory Board in the very beginning – submitted a very critical report on the subject. Time to pick it up again.

One can ask why seeds cannot be treated as medicine, allowing developing countries to produce generic versions also based on patented brands. At least, the farmers should have the right to harvest, save and use their seeds for the next planting season.

Another thing is then how we look at genetic modification in farming as such. I will surely touch on these subjects soon again.