Genetic engineering is not combatting hunger

From the campaign rhetoric of those against the initiative we hear that genetic engineering is helping to feed the world by increasing harvests, reducing the use of herbicides and pesticides, and raising the incomes of small farmers in the South. These arguments overlook a series of facts.

Costly seeds

Genetic engineering encourages large-scale monocropping, and this is squeezing out small farmers. Genetically modified crops are profitable only on large-scale, mechanised basis, for the seeds are several times more expensive than those of traditional crops. When Argentina introduced genetically modified soya in the early 1990s, tens of thousands of small farming families, already highly indebted to agricultural corporations, were forced to sell off their land. That land was then combined into massive plantations where large landowners planted gigantic soya fields. Now in quest of work, the former landowners migrated to the cities only to find themselves trapped in slum areas.

GM crops plunge many small farming families into financial straits. The patents on the seeds prohibit farmers from keeping any of the harvest for sowing the next year's crop, or require them to pay exorbitant fees do so. Farmers take out loans to buy the required pesticides and herbicides, and if the harvest fails to produce the promised yield they are caught in the debt trap.

Environmental problems

The argument that genetic technology reduces the use of pesticides and herbicides is misleading. As for transgenic crops, the use of chemicals against pests and weeds is less in the initial phase only. It increases sharply thereafter as shown by studies completed in the USA and Argentina where transgenic soybean and corn crops have been allowed for years now. Besides, monocropping leeches the soil in such a way that greater quantities of artificial fertiliser must be applied. Nor must the consequences of cross-fertilisation be underestimated. In Mexico local corn varieties that are perfectly adjusted to local conditions (pests, diseases, climate) are already contaminated. All told, genetic engineering is compounding rather than solving the problem of hunger.

Other reasons for hunger

Hunger is not being caused by the lack of food. The growth of per capita world food production has outstripped population growth in the past 40 years. Hunger has other causes. The hungry have too little land to be self-sufficient or too little income to buy food. The solution to these problems must be political, not technological.

In many developing countries – Zambia for example – governments are attempting to withstand pressure from multinational agricultural concerns and from the USA to introduce genetically modified crops quickly. They want more time to learn about the technology and decide freely about introducing it. In other words, they want a moratorium on genetic technology in agriculture. For them, a moratorium on genetic technology in Swiss agriculture as called for under the initiative is a meaningful mark of support. This is why Alliance Sud recommends a vote in favour of the GMO-free initiative.

Contact: Michèle Laubscher, Alliance Sud

See also:
A Sustained Failure of Bt Cotton:
The Story of Monsanto in Andhra Pradesh, India (pdf 27 kb)