Devinder Sharma made this presentation at the "Transgenic Plants and Food Security: Approaches to a Sustainable World Food System Ten Years After The Rio Summit" conference in Berlin on July 28-29. The conference is being organised by the Protestant Academy of Research along with several civil society groups. Mr Sharma spoke at a special session before the conference on July 28 on "Food Security by Hightech" along with Ms Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and principal author of the controversial Human Development Report 2001. ---------------------------------- BIOTECHNOLOGY WILL BYPASS THE HUNGRY By Devinder Sharma To those who are hungry, God is bread" -- Mahatma Gandhi, 1946 India's former Prime Minister, the late Mr Morarji Desai, strictly followed an unwritten principle. He would not inaugurate any conference, whether national or international, which did not focus on rural development. It so happened that it was during his tenure that the aircraft industry had planned a conference in New Delhi. For the aircraft industry, the inauguration of the international conference by anyone other than the Prime Minister was not palatable and for obvious reasons. Knowing well that the Prime Minister would not make an exception, the aircraft industry came out with an imaginative title for the conference: "Aerodynamics and rural development"! The global community - market forces and its supporters - too are following Morarji Desai's prescription. Agricultural biotechnology advances are being desperately promoted in the name of eradicating hunger and poverty. The misguided belief that the biotechnological silver bullet can "solve" hunger, malnutrition and real poverty has prompted the industry and the development community, political masters and the policy makers, agricultural scientists and the economists to chant the mantra of "harnessing technology to address specific problems facing poor people" And in the bargain, what is being very conveniently overlooked is the fact that what the world's 800 million hungry need is just food, which is abundantly available. Take a look at the biotech industry's 'concern' for the poor and the hungry. It was in March-April 2001 that hundreds of people in the United States, mostly agricultural scientists, signed an AgBioWorld Foundation petition appealing to the seed multinational giant, Aventis CropScience to donate some 3,000 tonnes of genetically-engineered experimental rice to the needy rather than destroy it. More than feeding the hungry, the appeal was a public relations exercise to demonstrate the concern of the biotechnology proponents towards feeding the world's poor. The appeal did not, however, motivate the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to listen to the "humanitarian intentions". The genetically modified rice was eventually destroyed. Aventis CropScience company had expressed concern about the hungry in the world, stating that it is "working hard to ensure that US farmers can grow abundant, nutritious crops and we hope that by contributing to that abundance all mankind will prosper". And AgBioWorld Foundation, at the same time conveyed its "disapproval of those who, in the past, have used situations similar to this one to block approved food aid to victims of cyclones, floods and other disasters in order to further their own political (namely, anti-biotechnology) agendas." Eradicating global hunger is certainly a pious intention. For a mere 3,000 tonnes of genetically modified rice, the human health risks of which have still not been ascertained, the US agri-biotech industry as well as its 'shouting brigade' had made so much of hue and cry. But when told that India has a surplus of 60 million tonnes of foodgrains, and that too non-genetically modified, and has a staggering population of 320 million people who go to bed hungry every night, the AgBio World Foundation and those who signed the appeal, were not interested. Suddenly, all their concern for feeding the hungry evaporated, "the humanitarian intentions" vanished into thin air. All over the world, molecular biologists are screaming over the need to push in biotechnology to increase food production, to feed the 800 million hungry who sleep empty stomach. Politicians and policy makers are quick to join the chorus, not realising that hundreds of million of the hungry in India or for that matter in South Asia are staring with dry eyes at the overflowing food granaries. And if the South Asian governments, aided and ably supported by the agricultural scientists and the agri-biotech companies, were to launch a frontal attack to ensure that food reaches those who need it desperately, half the world's hunger can be drastically reduced if not completely eliminated now. Not only biotechnologists, political masters too excel in expressing their concern for the hungry. The Indian Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, for instance, had said in his inaugural address to a national consultation on "Towards a Hunger Free India" in the last week of April 2001, in New Delhi: "Democracy and hunger cannot go together. A hungry stomach questions and censures the system's failure to meet what is a basic biological need of every human being. There can be no place for hunger and poverty in a modern world in which science and technology have created conditions for abundance and equitable development." Laudable words indeed. And if you are wondering whether the international community is in any way genuinely concerned at the plight of the hungry, hold your breadth. At the time of the first World Food Summit (WFS) at Rome in 1996, Heads of State of all countries of the world had 'reaffirmed the right of have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.' They considered it unacceptable that more than 800 million people throughout the world did not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs. These leaders committed themselves to halving that number by the year 2015. In other words, they had postponed the monumental task to feed to world to the year 2040. The WFS vowed to feed half the world's 800 million hungry by the year 2015, meaning thereby that it would need another 20 years to provide food to the remaining 400 million hungry. And by the time the year 2015 dawns, the number of hungry would have multiplied to 1.2 billion. So in all plausible terms, the heads of State had actually expressed their helplessness in tackling hunger and malnutrition. Once again, the Heads of State had met at Rome for the 'WFS plus Five' meet in June this year, to take stock of the efforts made to reduce hunger since they met five years ago. And once again, they renewed the pledge in the name of 'humanity' to eradicate hunger from the face of the Earth. While the WFS fyl failed in all practical terms, the United States succeeded in pushing its own commercial interests. The US secretary of agriculture, Ann Veneman, had made no secret of her intentions when she said: "Biotechnology has tremendous potential to develop products that can be more suited to areas of the world where there is persistent hunger," adding, "there is no food safety issue whatsoever." It was primarily for this reason that the US had all along wanted strong language in the final declaration in favour of genetically modified food as the key to solving hunger and malnutrition. No wonder, the US announced a US $ 100 million programme to develop genetically modified crops and products tailored specifically for the needs of the developing countries. Now before you ponder over the real motive behind this benevolence, what emerges crystal clear is that having attained the unique status as the world's only super power, the focus is now to emerge as the world's only food basket. In reality, while hunger will continue to be robustly sustainable, it is the hungry and acutely malnourished who will perish waiting for a morsel of food. Every day, some 24,000 people die from hunger, starvation and related diseases. And by the year 2015, by which the FAO aims at reducing the number of hungry by half, more than 122 million people would succumb from mankind's greatest shame - hunger and too at times of plenty. The United States is not alone. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is the latest to join the biotechnology bandwagon. In its annual Human Development Report 2001, entitled "Making New Technologies Work for Human Development", yet another biotechnology industry-sponsored study that categorically mentions on the one hand that "technology is created in response to market pressures - not the needs of poor people, who have little purchasing power," and yet, goes on unabashedly to eulogies the virtues of an untested technology in the laboratories of the North, which are being pushed onto the gullible resource-poor communities of the South and that too in the name of eradicating hunger and poverty. The report states that emerging centres of excellence throughout the developing world are already providing hard evidence of the potential for harnessing cutting-edge science and technology (as biotechnology is fondly called) to tackle centuries-old problems of human poverty. But what the report does not mention is the fact that the biggest challenge facing the global community is increasing hunger and poverty in the developing countries, which need to be tackled by a social and political commitment rather than a market-driven technological agenda. To say "if the developing community turns its back on the explosion of technological innovation in food, medicine and information, it risks marginalising itself..." is in reality a desperate effort to ensure that the American economic interests are not sacrificed at the altar of development. Such is the growing desperation at the growing isolation of the United States in the global food market because of its "transgenic' food that all kinds of permutations and combinations, including increased food aid to Africa's school-going children, are being attempted. The deft manipulation of the prestigious UNDP's Human Development Report (HDR) to push forth the American farm interests, however, will cast an ominous shadow over the credibility of the future UN programmes for human development. In agriculture, plant breeding promises to generate higher yields and resistance to drought, pests and diseases. Biotechnology is being promoted as the only or the best 'tool of choice' for marginal ecological zones - left behind by the green revolution but home to more than half the world's poorest people, dependent on agriculture and livestock. It is true that green revolution left behind the small and marginal farmers living in some of the world's most inhospitable areas. But the way the tools of the cutting-edge technology are being applied and are being blindly promoted, biotechnology will certainly bypass the world's hungry and marginalised. A third of the world's hungry and marginalised live in India. And as I said earlier, if India alone were to launch a frontal attack on poverty eradication and feeding its 320 million hungry, much of the world's hunger problem would be resolved. Never before in contemporary history has the mankind been witness to such a glaring and shameful 'paradox of plenty'. In India alone, in 2002, more than 60 million tonnes of foodgrains are stacked, bulk of it in the open, while some 320 million go to bed hungry every night. In neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan too, food silos are bursting. And yet, these three countries are home to nearly half the world's population of hungry and the marginalised. While none of these countries has shown the political courage to use the mountains of foodgrain surplus to address the age-old problem of hunger, the international scientific and development community too is equally guilty by turning a blind eye to the biggest human folly of the 21st century. After all, science and technology is aimed at removing hunger. The green revolution was aimed at addressing the problem of hunger, and did a remarkable job within its limitation. And now, when we have stockpiles of food surpluses, the global community appears reluctant to make the food available to the marginalised communities who cannot afford to buy the rotting stocks. The FAO, and for that matter UNDP which works for reducing hunger, too has shied away from this Herculean task. The reality of hunger and malnutrition is too harsh to be even properly understood. Hunger cannot be removed by producing transgenic crops with genes for Vitamin A. Hunger cannot be addressed by providing mobile phones to the rural communities. Nor can it be eradicated by providing the poor and hungry with an 'informed choice' of novel foods. Somehow, biotechnologists prefer to turn a blind eye to the ground realities, missing the realities from the commercial interests of the biotechnology industries. In their over-enthusiasm to promote an expensive technology at the cost of the poor, they have forgotten that biotechnology has the potential to further the great divide between the haves and have-nots. No policy directive can help in bridging this monumental gap. The twin engines of economic growth - the technological revolution and globalisation - will only widen the existing gap. Biotechnology will, in reality, push more people in the hunger trap. With public attention and resources being diverted from the ground realities, hunger will only grow in the years to come. It does not, however, mean that this writer is against technology. The wheels of technological development are essential for every society but have to be used in a way that helps promote human development. Technology cannot be blindly promoted in an obvious effort to bolster the industry's interests. Ignoring food security in the name of ensuring 'profit security' for the private companies, can further marginalise the gains, if any. And herein lies a grave danger. While the political leadership and the development community is postponing till the year 2015 the task to halve the number of the world's hungry, the scientific community too has found an easy escape route. At almost all the genetic engineering laboratories, whether in the North or in the South, the focus of research is on crops which will produce edible vaccines, address the problems of malnutrition or 'hidden hunger' by incorporating genes for Vit A, iron, and other micro-nutrients. But what is not being realised is that if the global scientific and development community were to aim at eradicating hunger at the first place, there would be no 'hidden hunger'. And this reminds me of what exactly another former Indian Prime Minister, the late Mrs Indira Gandhi, used to do when it came to addressing problems. If the ethnic crisis confronting the northeast Indian State of Assam becomes unmanageable and goes out of her hands, she would create another problem in northwestern Punjab. In simple words, the national attention gets diverted to the fresh crisis confronting Punjab, and the country would forget Assam. And when terrorism in Punjab goes out control, create another problem in down south, in Tamil Nadu. And slowly, people would forget about Punjab. For political leaders, Mrs Gandhi's proven mantra does provide an easy escape route. And this is exactly what they did when the Heads of State of gathered at the World Food Summit Plus Five in Rome in June 2002. Scientists, development agencies and the policy makers (and now of course the United Nations) too seem to have derived their futuristic vision from the political astuteness of Mrs Indira Gandhi. After all, the only way to divert the attention of international community from the more pressing and immediate problems of abject hunger and poverty is to either postpone the priorities for removal of hunger (and that too by only a half) to the year 2015 as the FAO has done or is to talk of the virtues and potentials of biotechnology for eradicating 'hidden hunger' and malnutrition in the next two decades. Who will take on the biggest challenge of all times - the elimination of hunger - which forms the root cause of real poverty and the lopsided human development is an issue no one is willing to stick his neck out for. The monumental task to feed the hungry - and that too at a time when food grains are rotting - is eventually being left to the market forces. The underlying message is very clear: the poor and hungry will have to live on hope. ---------------- INFLUENCING JUDICIARY In India, a visiting American delegation of 10 judges and scientists met the Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice A.S. Anand to impress upon him-and to the judicial fraternity-the benefits of biotechnology. Reports in The Hindu quoted Dr. Franklin M. Zweig, president of Einstein Institute for Science, Health and the Courts in the United States, who was a speaker in favour of genetic engineering at the 88th session of the Indian Science Congress in New Delhi in January 2001. Asked pointedly, Dr. Zweig denied that the two-hour meeting was to "influence" the judiciary, but said it was to "educate" the judge(s) about the basic principles of public information for Use of courts and court systems. The delegation, the report said, invited the Chief Justice to the U.S. and offered to hold "workshops" in America for the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court to educate them about transgenics, and safety protocols in biotechnology research. The delegation, which also comprised some Indian-born U.S. scientists, explained its intention to work out agreements between nations to set "ethical guidelines" on genetic engineering. Similar attempts had been made by the working groups of the Einstein Institute in the Philippines, South Africa, Israel, Italy, the UK, Netherlands, and Canada. Source: The Hindu, Jan 5, 2001 --------------------------------- THE DEMON SEED The battleground for biological warfare has now shifted. It is now the turn of developing country farmers to face the fury and onslaught of genetically engineered seeds. Exercising complete monopoly control through patent rights, the multinational seed industry is now poised to unleash its latest weapon. The USDA together with one of the biggest cotton seed companies, Delta and Pine Land Inc., patented a jointly developed technique that enables seed companies to switch on-and-off a plant's reproductive processes. This means that farmers could get a good crop in the first year of sowing. But if they try to save the harvested seed for replanting, the crop would be sterile. In other words, farmers will be left with no choice but to buy seed afresh for every sowing. Still more worrying is that the genetic engineering technique can be easily manipulated to reduce crop harvest in any given year. Depending on the commercial interests of the seed company and its food exporting allies, crop production can be programmed thereby threatening the food security of the country. With the USDA licensing its part of the patent to Delta and Pine Land, the company has already announced its intention of applying this technology-aptly named 'Terminator'-to staple food crops like wheat, rice, and sorghum by the year 2004, primarily targeting markets in the developing countries. When we consider countries like India, where only ten per cent of the 110 million farmers buy seed every year, 'Terminator' will rake in a massive windfall for the seed companies. Crops that are difficult to hybridise, mainly self-pollinated crops like wheat and rice, generally ignored by the seed companies because of the low-profit potential, will now receive utmost attention. The USDA accepts the downside for farmers as they may be forced to pay more for seed stocks every year. What is however of paramount concern for the USDA is an adequate protection of its emerging multi-billion dollar biotechnology seed industry. Delta and Pine Land has, on the other hand, already successfully incorporated 'terminator' gene into tobacco. Although Monsanto, which tried to buy Delta and Pine Land, has repeatedly said that the fears over 'terminator' are misplaced since the patent is only for a concept, the fact is that the patent was applied for in 80 countries-indicative of its hideous designs. More recently, it has been found out that as many as 132 research trials in the U.S. and Europe contain the terminator gene! ------------------- GOLDEN BLUFF Ostensibly, in a desperate effort to repair its damaged credibility, the GE industry is all set to unleash its "secret weapon", and that too on millions of unsuspecting destitute smallholders in the developing world. But what is not being understood is that like all other "secret weapons", the 'golden rice' too is an ecological and health hazard. Nor is it the answer to the nutritional needs of the small producers and the poverty-stricken masses in the South. It can provide at best a maximum of 15 to 20 per cent of the Vit A needs of a consumer. The remaining intake will have to be met from other nutritional sources. In India, for instance, rice is consumed invariably with a combination of pulses, which provide the essential proteins and vitamins that the human body requires. So is it in other developing countries. Syngenta's Dr Adrian Dubock recently claimed that "the levels of expression of pro-vitamin A that the inventors were aiming at, and have achieved, are sufficient to provide the minimum level of pro-vitamin A to prevent the development of irreversible blindness affecting 500,000 children annually, and to significantly alleviate Vit A deficiency affecting 124,000,000 children in 26 countries." He also stated that each month 'golden rice' entrance to the market is delayed will result in 50,000 children going blind. However, a simple calculation based on recommended daily allowance (RDA) figures show an adult would have to eat at least 12 times the normal intake of 300 gms of rice to get the daily recommended amount of pro-vitamin A from 'golden rice'. Micro-nutrient deficiency in human food is nothing new. But societies over the centuries have evolved and perfected dietary systems that adequately takes care of the nutrient balance that the human body needs. What is perplexing is as to who decided that Vit A is the most essential micro-nutrient that is required to be incorporated in rice? And why not Vit B complex? After all, several hundred million people in India alone suffer from malnutrition (as compared to only half a million people worldwide who get blinded from vitamin A deficiency). In India alone, some 12 million people suffer from Vit A deficiency, but the number of people who are dificit in Vit B complex is several times more. In India, under an Indo-Swiss collaboration, 'golden rice' technology is to be made available to the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Indian Department of Biotechnology. The project, funded to the tune of U.S. $ 2.6 million over seven years aims to engineer the pro-vitamin A genes into local varieties of rice. ICAR's tryst with "golden rice" is in reality a blind experimentation and a desperate attempt to regain its lost pride in agricultural research. Suffering from a credibility crisis in the absence of any significant breakthrough after the initial phase of 'green revolution', ICAR's aim is to distract attention from more pressing problems confronting the rural society. A majority of the acutely malnourished people, that the proponents of 'golden rice' claim to be targeting, are the ones who cannot afford to buy rice from the market. If these poor people cannot afford to buy normal rice, how will they buy the 'golden rice' is a question that has been very conveniently overlooked. If these hungry millions were able to meet their daily requirement of rice, there would be no malnutrition at the first place. The problem, therefore, cannot be addressed by providing nutritional supplements through genetically modified rice but by bringing in suitable policy changes that forces the governments to ensure food for all. The Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss government and the European Union are in reality supporting a faulty technology, which may eventually do more harm than good. If you can't help the poor in the South, please do not add onto their miseries.:
