9-Misc: Christian Aid and the GM crops debate

[GENET <coordination@genet-info.org>]

-------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------

TITLE:  Christian Aid and the GM crops debate
SOURCE: Christian Aid, UK
        http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/412gmfood/index.htm
DATE:   15 Dec 2004

------------------- archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ -------------------


Christian Aid and the GM crops debate

Christian Aid is concerned about the possible effects of genetically
modified (GM) crops on developing countries and on the poor in those
countries - so many of whom depend on agriculture for their livelihoods
and an adequate and reliable food supply.

Our first contribution to the GM debate, Selling Suicide: Farming, False
Promises and Genetic Engineering in Developing Countries, (http://
www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/9905suic/suicide1.htm) published in May
1999, showed how a handful of GM corporations are gaining increasing
control over global food supply, and it also raised questions about the
safety of the technology itself.

Selling Suicide played a major role in getting the concerns of developing
countries and poor farmers about GM crops onto the public, media and
political agenda here in the UK. Selling Suicide proved controversial,
and there remains a range of often strongly held views about GM crops
both in the UK and across the world.

This ongoing controversy, and the unresolved issues which lie behind it,
justifies our continuing support to a call for a moratorium on commercial
applications of GM crops to allow time for the issues to be further
researched, discussed, agreed and implemented, not only at the national
level but globally, particularly in terms of how they affect developing
countries.1

Proponents of GM crops argue that they could prove highly beneficial to
poor farmers, and could help developing countries meet their future food
needs:
- Increased drought resistance could enable crops to be grown on
unirrigated and currently marginal lands, and reduce reliance on scarce
water supplies.
- Engineered pest resistance could reduce reliance on expensive and
environmentally damaging chemical pesticides, both in the growing and
storage of crops.
- Making it possible for certain plants to use atmospheric nitrogen to
help them grow into major food crops such as cereals could increase
yields and reduce or perhaps even remove the need for chemical fertilisers.

The possibilities appear to be endless.

However, it is not at all clear whether or not such benefits can or will
be delivered without accompanying and unacceptable costs, either in terms
of the technology itself or in terms of how it is controlled. Nor is it
clear what the balance of benefits and costs might be, or, most
importantly, for whom.

We are concerned that:
- Too much significance is placed on GM crops in terms of their ability
to end hunger in the developing world.
It has been claimed that GM crops are necessary for the future food
security of poor people in developing countries. Such claims are
misleading because they ignore the complexities of overcoming poverty and
food shortages in such countries. The solutions to hunger and food
insecurity lie mainly in overcoming social and economic barriers that
limit poor people's ability to buy or produce and sell food. A costly
technology such as GM crops, owned by powerful corporations, risks
increasing such barriers, leading to more inequality, poverty and food
insecurity.

- Too much control over the world's agriculture and food system is ending
up in the hands of a small number of purely commercial interests.
The development and marketing of GM technology, including patented seeds
tied to proprietary agrochemicals, is leading to a smaller and smaller
number of companies having more and more influence over food production
and the global food system. There is no mechanism at international level
to prevent this trend continuing and developing countries also lack the
power to stop it.

- Too little is known about the possible environmental, ecological,
health or nutritional effects of GM crops, particularly in developing
countries.
As in many areas of science and its application, there are differences of
opinion and indeed strong disagreements among those involved in GM crops.
However, in this case the disagreements are not just academic. The
widespread use of particular GM crops and foodstuffs may risk serious
damage to the environment - to both wild and agricultural biodiversity -
as modified genes are spread by cross-pollination, for example. They may
even pose a threat to human health. It is therefore essential that
adequate testing is carried out before GM crops are introduced.

- Alternatives to GM crops are receiving too few resources in terms of
agricultural research and support to farmers.
With public funding cut and private interests dominant, research has
become skewed towards GM crops and large-scale industrial agriculture.
Alternative approaches to agriculture which are cheaper and more
sustainable for small-scale and resource-poor farmers and which are
designed to address their circumstances and needs are ignored. Hunger and
malnutrition are unlikely to be adequately addressed unless local food
security and the needs of the poor are prioritised.

- Too much pressure is being applied and too little time and assistance
is being given to developing countries to help them properly debate and
decide for themselves whether to use GM crops.
The legally binding international Biosafety Protocol is now in force
allowing developing countries to decide whether or not to let in GM
crops. However, the US has not signed the protocol and is constantly
challenging the positions of other countries over both GM seeds and food.
Those in favour of GM crops often appear to dismiss the right of others
to choose whether or not to grow GM crops or eat GM food by ignoring
concerns that the widespread introduction of GM crops will effectively
close off other, non-GM options. It is clear that commercial and other
interests are in danger of overriding public concern, democratic
decision-making and local control.


GM food aid

In Zambia in 2002, the US and the World Food Programme (WFP) were accused
of attempting to blackmail the country by refusing to offer a non-GM
option. While we recognised in that immediate situation that the
humanitarian imperative to provide food to those in need must take
priority, we were also clear that this situation should not be allowed to
occur again.


Christian Aid's position on GM food aid, therefore, is that:
- all countries have the right to refuse imports of GMOs (foods, crops
and seeds), as per the provisions of the Biosafety Protocol to the UN
Convention on Biodiversity
- it is unacceptable for countries or international organisations,
especially the WFP, to try to pressure countries into accepting GM food
aid rather than respecting their legitimate concerns
- food aid donors should be prepared to pay for the milling of grains
which may contain GM material either before shipment or on arrival in
their destination to ensure that no grains are planted
- food aid must not be used to achieve the back door introduction of GMOs
into a country's agriculture, environment and food supply.


Christian Aid will continue to:
- dispute the simplistic claims that GM crops can solve the problems of hunger
-  oppose increasing corporate control of agriculture and the global food
supply
-  urge caution in the introduction of GM crops before their effects are
clearly understood
-  press for time for adequate debate and for democratic decision-making
and local control in developing countries
-  uphold the right of countries to choose to receive non-GM food aid
-  press for (and provide) more support to small farmers in developing
countries to grow food in sustainable ways appropriate to their
circumstances and needs.


Kevan Bundell, senior policy officer, Global Advocacy and Policy
Division, 9.12.04 (revision of 'GM crops - Christian Aid's concerns', 06.02)
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0206gm/gmcrops.htm

1The Five Year Freeze Campaign.
http://www.fiveyearfreeze.org/

Selling Suicide: Farming, False Promises and Genetic Engineering in
Developing Countries /05.99
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/9905suic/suicide1.htm




--


GENET
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering

Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
In den Steinäckern 13
D - 38116 Braunschweig
Germany

P: +49-531-5168746
F: +49-531-5168747
M: +49-162-1054755
E: coordination(*)genet-info.org
W: <http://www.genet-info.org>



-----------------------------
   GENET-news mailing list
-----------------------------