The Register fed into fallacies of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that endorses biotechnology for poor farmers in developing countries ("Breakthrough on Biotech," May 19).
As the report acknowledges, biotechnology efforts are focused on commercial production in the developed world. That is because biotechnology development seeks the greatest profit potentials. Is it reasonable to expect this high-cost technology to be developed for low-value crops of subsistence farmers? Is biotechnology the best approach for advancing agriculture in Third World countries?
Contrary to the view expressed in the report, there is considerable evidence that the Green Revolution primarily benefited large and moderate-sized farms and shifted agriculture toward monoculture and export production. This has displaced traditional subsistence crops and poor farmers, resulting in increased food dependency, soil degradation, loss of agrobiodiversity, aquifer depletion, salinization and increasing social inequality.
How can we expect expensive, high-tech silver bullets of the "gene revolution" to be any more effective in solving the problems of the world's poor farmers who cannot afford the necessary investment? The likely outcome would be that poor farmers would find themselves in a position of even greater disadvantage.
One of the myths in the report is that gene splicing in vitro is not inherently different from traditional plant breeding that we have engaged in for 10,000 years. Not true. Genetic engineering crosses species barriers not possible in traditional breeding by using aggressive gene-transfer vectors. One biochemist said, "Genetic engineering resembles more a viral infection than traditional breeding."
We now know that our original understanding of genetics, which led us to believe we could precisely re-engineer our food supply without unforeseen consequences, is flawed. The linear model of genetics - that each gene creates one enzyme which in turn corresponds to a specific biological trait - is far too simplistic. Yet this continues to serve as the working model for advocates of genetic engineering.
It is not possible to fully predict the behavior of a foreign gene inserted into an organism's DNA. That gene could produce unexpect- ed proteins and biological functions that could be of consequence to human and ecological health.
The report claims transgenic crops have proved safe so far. The problem with that statement is that little research has been done on the potential long-term health effects of transgenic crops
Is there a better way to help the world's poor farmers? There is growing evidence that Third World countries can make real gains in food self-sufficiency through low-cost, ecological technologies that maximize resources available locally to small family farmers.
A study at the University of Essex looked at 208 sustainable development projects in 52 countries, representing more than 9 million farmers on 70 million acres where low-cost sustainable farming practices were adopted. Within those projects, the study found increased farm productivity (a 73 percent average increase for 4.42 million farmers), more environmentally sound farming, greater food security for poor farm families and increased social stability.
Efforts to increase adoption of these kinds of low-cost, ecologically-based farming practices around the world would be a better investment of resources than high-cost biotechnology that could further tip economic forces against poor farmers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS THICKE of Fairfield is an organic dairy farmer and previously served as the National Program Leader for Soil Science for the USDA-Extension Service in Washington, D.C.Des Moines Register:
