Apm

Agriculture,
environment
and biodiversity

Cascavel, April 1998

Genetically Modified Organisms: The Difficulty of and Need for Control by Farmers

Robert Brac de la Perriere

Since manipulation of the genome touches the secret of life, genetically modified organisms seem both "atrocious and unhoped for" in the words of the Algerian poet Kateb Yacine. A Manichean attitude does not serve the need for a clear understanding of the stakes. In agriculture, the term "GMO" refers to new varieties of plants, races of animals and strains of microorganisms produced by genetic engineering: an extremely powerful and still largely uncontrolled new technology whose long-term consequences are mostly unknown. Knowledge of this complex subject with its sophisticated scientific and legal aspects differs widely at this crucial time of emerging regulations. Indeed, society in general and farmers in particular are still far from fully consulted.

Economic and social stakes

The international debate focuses primarily on the economic stake, tied to important issues in many other areas, such as law, agricultural systems, environmental protection, food, fair trade, etc. Yet the most fundamental stake has to do with control over the pace at which genetic engineering makes it possible to break down barriers between species. The theory of evolution tells us that genes have been exchanged since the dawn of life on earth. A rare occurrence, genes have always been swapped without a precise aim. Genetic engineering permits routine modification aimed at specific objectives. The consequences for biological diversity not only concern agriculture but society as a whole. Production of genetically modified organisms affects the symbols and values of human society, which in turn challenges the values of technoscience in the service of our consumer society.

A growing GMO market

Long restricted to laboratories and pilot sites, GMOs became an agricultural reality within the space of a few short months. The first authorizations to market genetically modified plants date from 1995. Two years later, more than twelve million hectares of genetically modified varieties of cotton, soya, corn, tomatoes, potatoes and colza were farmed in six countries (United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, China and Australia). In 1998, the first crop of genetically modified plants will be harvested in Europe. Many people are looking forward to this important event. According to major agribusinesses, global sales of genetically modified plants will triple from 2000 to 2005, rising from $ 2 bn to $ 6 bn.

Patent on life

In the United States, agrochemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers were the first to protect plants produced by means of biotechnology by lobbying for the creation of more exclusive patents than the "traditional" protection available for plant species. Leading industrial groups (Novartis, Monsanto, Zeneca, AroEvo, DuPont, etc.) have engaged in a flurry of M&As in the last two years in order to build a portfolio of intellectual property rights enabling them to introduce new products and to control whole agribusiness sectors. This consolidation strategy helps boost their financial value: Monsanto, which spent $ 2.5 bn to buy several biotechnology firms, saw its stock price triple in two years, from $ 15 in 1995 to $ 45 in 1997.

More and more lawyers are involved in the GMO business. Mostly used to help maximize rights to biotechnological innovations, their services are also in demand by government officials and scientists to defend other aspects of the law, such as the principles of responsibility.

Currently, the rules on patents for living organisms are hotly debated by a wide array of organizations, ranging from medical associations, farmer's associations, consumer organizations, religious associations and NGOs to ecological parties, etc. Witnessed throughout the world (Switzerland, the European Union, India, Thailand, etc.), this controversy reflects popular opposition to regulations which seem fundamentally unfair and/or an insult to the dignity inherent in life.

The obligation for the signatories of the Marrakesh agreement on the World Trade Organization to implement a system of intellectual property rights for plant varieties is widely opposed in non-industrialized countries. The stakes are both economic and social. If all countries were to endorse the patent law on genetically modified plants, they might rapidly become a familiar sight. However, dissemination of GMOs could be slowed by implementation of a sui generis system which differs from patent law but recognizes the rights of rural communities. The most complete reflection on sui generis rights is contained in the proceedings of the international seminar entitled "Signposts to sui generis rights", organized by Biothai and Grain in December 1997.

Short-term profits for GMO farmers

Varieties containing a bacterial gene which is resistant to insects offer farmers a short-term economic interest since they reduce the need for pesticide or herbicide and so lower costs by 10 to 20%. If production methods, long-term environmental risks and consumer concerns are ignored, farmers who produce genetically modified soya or corn are more competitive on the market.

However, production methods, long-term environmental risks and consumer concerns must perforce be taken into account.

Farmers under close surveillance

The emergence of genetically modified plants limits the farmers' freedom of practices and independence of choice, since they are now working with patented products governed by very precise utilization conditions. For example, license contracts for the genetically modified variety of soya which is resistant to Round-Up stipulate that licensees may not cultivate other varieties using another herbicide than the one authorized by Monsanto nor exchange seeds with neighbors. Moreover, such farmers agree to let the firm inspect their crops for three years in a row.

Backlash on the environment

The short-term environmental impact of GMOs is generally factored in by the expert commissions set up to authorize genetically modified varieties. However, scientists have determined several longer-term risks. Certain risks are linked to the natural flow of genes between genetically modified crops and similar species of wild plants, likely to start producing herbicide-resistant weed. Other risks are due to growing resistance of insect populations in fields of genetically modified "Bt" crops. Highlighted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, this example shows that GMO crops will enter into durable competition with traditional agricultural practices. Some time ago, a gene which is toxic for insects (insects which are damaging for crops but sometimes also useful insects) was identified in Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a soil bacterium. This gene was transferred to several staple crops - corn, cotton and potatoes - and therefore spread over thousands of hectares. Insect populations have since become more resistant from one generation to the next, gradually ruining biological farmers working traditionally with natural Bt solutions.

Consumer distrust of genetically modified foods

Consumers are increasingly suspicious of the reliability of expert commissions, especially in Europe after the BCE scare. This lack of confidence has spread to genetically modified organisms, the miracle products of technoscience. For example, a herbicide introduced by genetic engineering in a crop may leave residual traces in the food chain with still largely unknown toxic consequences in the long term. Scientists and medical doctors are therefore calling for a stand-still agreement forbidding the use of GMOs in food (Ecoropa). Retail chains and agribusinesses pay close attention to end user response to their raw or processed products. Such food groups as Danone and Nestlé are already using products obtained from genetically modified plants. Others, such as Iceland, are positioning themselves against GMO products. The trend is toward healthier, more natural food, prompting certain distributors to develop traditional product lines which are without GMOs... but more expensive.

Research directed by manufacturers

Before they reach the market, GMOs are concocted in laboratories. The first tests with genetically modified plants were conducted in 1983. Since this time, thousands of tests have been conducted throughout the world. This means that many new genetically modified varieties will soon be out there in the fields. The tested characteristics focus mostly on tolerance to herbicides, insects or viruses, and on plants which produce modified oils, proteins or carbon hydrates for the agribusiness.

Focus on new industrial needs is nothing new in agriculture, but genetic engineering in the service of an agribusiness monopoly can make agriculture completely dependent. For example, in March 1998, a patent was registered by Delta & Land Co. from America and by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for a biotechnology which makes it possible to prevent germination of harvested seeds. This is a sort of biological lock, good for seed merchants but very worrisome for small farmers. As a result, RAFI has dubbed it the "Terminator Terminology".

Appropriation of raw materials

The emergence of GMOs is largely responsible for the increasingly uncompromising and isolated US stance vis-à-vis the Convention on Biodiversity - signed in Rio in 1992 and ratified in 1998 by more than 165 countries - which recommends "just and fair sharing of the advantages resulting from exploitation of genetic resources". The United States has not yet ratified this agreement due to the lobby of American biotechnology firms: research in genetics and molecular biology was sufficiently advanced in the late eighties to enable the industry to contemplate highly profitable and widespread systems for the use of genetically modified varieties, protected by patents on the genetic resources contained in GMOs. The non-industrialized world argued that this threatened the principle of free access to biological diversity. With the Convention, genetic resources have changed status: from the common heritage of mankind, they have become subject to the sovereignty of countries, which can subject access to certain conditions.

This has not prevented the subsequent registration of many genetic patents, developed from traditional crops. Such patents, which resemble piracy of the knowledge and practices of rural communities, are hotly disputed by NGOs and local or national farm associations in non-industrialized countries. A good example is the controversy between the National Association of Bolivian Quinoa Farmers and the University of Colorado, which has registered a patent on quinoa, a staple in the Andes. Another recent example, RAFI denounces Australian seed firms, supported by public research institutions, which have filed patents on several species developed from traditional varieties (chickpeas and lentils) grown in several countries (India, Brazil, etc.). These varieties are stored at the international ICARDA institute in Syria. The advisory group on international agricultural research, which runs a network of 16 international centers of which ICARDA is part, has responded by requesting a stand-still agreement on patent applications for the genetic resources contained in its gene bank.

GMO patents are gradually formalizing circulation of gene patents, not only between North and South but also between the research groups in Northern countries, rushing along in the race for intellectual property rights on the genome, the new space to be conquered. In this race, the public sector is dragging its fed and more and more dependent on investments by major agrochemical groups.

Framework

This brief overview of a few key factors in a very controversial issue cannot answer all questions raised by the emergence of GMOs in agriculture, let alone suggest a strategy. However, these items could be used to outline a framework for working groups on GMO control as part of the efforts to modernize farming.

In my opinion, such a program needs to focus on three objectives:

• Third, it is necessary to foster participation of the rural community in the general social debate on GMOs. This notably concerns:

Control of technoscience and definition of responsibility for risks. Independence and pluridisciplinarity of expert commissions empowered to grant GMO marketing approvals. The right to express a diversity of value systems compared with appropriation of living organisms by means of patents.