The G.M. Seed Debate

Golden Rice

Do the benefits offered by GM crops outweigh the associated issues of multinational seed monopolies and reduced biodiversity?

Genetically modified crops have been around for over 15 years and have met with variable success across the globe. Essentially, genetic modification involves inserting a section of DNA carrying a desirable gene from one species into the DNA of another. In crop plants, some of the beneficial features achieved using this method include insect, herbicide and pesticide resistance, higher yields, longer shelf life and improved flavour.

Some of these genetically modified crops have been hailed as the saviours of food security problems in developing countries. It remains to be seen, however, whether these benefits will be enough to justify the overwhelming profits and seed monopoly enjoyed by the multinational corporations who have developed and patented GM crops.

The Right to Patent GM Seeds

In the US the Plant Patent Act of 1930 initially allowed seed developers to take out patents on seeds they had developed by artificial selection. The Act now extends to the patenting of GM crops by large multinational companies, whose global influence has succeeded in implementing similar patent laws in other countries.

This commercial trend has seen the decline of smaller seed companies over the years, to the point that in 2011 Oxfam reported that the seed companies Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta and Bayer now control over half of all global seed sales. Indeed, according to Bob Phelps, head of the group, Gene Ethics, Monsanto alone now owns more than 90 per cent of all GM crop varieties and 26 per cent of conventional commercial seeds worldwide.

Monsanto’s patent system manifests itself as a ‘Stewardship Agreement’, in which farmers agree not to harvest, cultivate or sell the seeds from their GM crops. This effectively means they have to keep buying the GM seeds each season, at a substantially higher cost than that of normal seeds. In India, for instance, bollworm-resistant cotton seeds can cost up to 1000% more than conventional seeds, but have resulted in a comparatively low increase in productivity.

Terminator Seeds and Litigation

Whether or not seeds are saved is at any rate a moot point in the case of some GM crops. A section of DNA, known as the ‘terminator gene’, has been inserted into various plant species, causing seed sterility in any crops that become fertilized. Although this means farmers need to keep purchasing seeds each year, SCU Professor of Biology William Eisinger, points out that it at least prevents non-GM crops becoming contaminated with patented genes.

This in turn prevents unlawful seed saving and reduces the need for seed companies to litigate. According to Monsanto, they have never taken proceedings against individual farmers who have accidentally had GM genes incorporated into their crops. They will, however, litigate to protect their own research efforts and the rights of those farmers who have adhered to their stewardship agreement.

The drawn-out litigation between Monsanto and Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser illustrates both Monsanto’s determination to enforce this agreement and the misleading hyperbole that often surrounds GM issues. After three court cases it was in fact established that Mr Schmeiser was saving Roundup Ready canola seed that had initially found its way into his normal canola plants.

Although Mr Schmeiser maintains he was being sued merely for possessing plants containing the Roundup Ready gene, the evidence presented in court indicated he had saved the seed from the original adulterated plants and sown them during the following year into three fields covering an area of 1030 acres. None of this detail is mentioned in any of the militant anti-GM websites covering Mr Schmeiser’s cases.

Multinational Altrusim and GM Research

In some cases, multinational seed companies have in fact waived their right to collect seed royalties, in a genuine attempt to help developing countries. An example is Syngenta’s research work with Golden Rice, a GM crop developed in 2000 in Germany and Switzerland.

Unlike normal rice, Golden Rice is high in beta-carotene, a precursor molecule in the production of Vitamin A. Developed using DNA from maize and a common soil microorganism, this rice promises to solve the global problem of Vitamin A deficiency, estimated by the World Health Authority in 2009 to occur in around 190 million children and 19 million pregnant women.

Syngenta has donated the most successful lines of its Golden Rice trials to the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, along with all its research data and permission to use the seed for free. Other contributors to the board include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK government and the International Rice Research Institute.

The collaboration between Monsanto and the Governments of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa to develop drought tolerant maize, is another example of GM research aimed at reducing world hunger. Also funded by the Gates Foundation, seeds will again be made available to farmers free of royalty payments.

The Global Success of GM Crops

Virus resistant papaya and striga-resistant grain sorghum are further examples of GM crops that have been specifically developed to alleviate global food shortages through the production of higher yields. Bigger harvests are also the major reason genetically modified crops are showing promise in more developed countries. While the acreage of land under cultivation using GM crops has tripled in developing countries over the last five years, it has at least doubled worldwide.

According to The Economist magazine, GM crops are grown in over 25 countries, covering an area larger than the size of Peru. Moreover, three quarters of the land cultivated with soybeans is now planted with GM varieties. A similar scenario also applies to GM cotton, partly due to its success in India. In the US, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, GM corn and soybeans represent over eighty percent of the area of all corn and soybeans planted.

Despite their domination of the GM seed market, mutinationals are not the only organisations involved in these genetically engineered crop plants. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and governments in Asia, Africa and Brazil are also major funders of GM research and trials, while the British government has pledged its commitment to GM research as a means of reducing poverty in Africa and gaining acceptance for GM crops in the UK.

Such public participation in crop biotechnology may help to add credibility to GM produce, along with Monsanto’s assertion that genetically engineered seeds can in fact be obtained from over 200 different seed companies besides themselves. Incidentally, Monsanto also point out that the option to buy conventional seeds is still available to farmers who oppose genetically altered varieties.

Reasons for the Anti-GM Backlash

The successes of GM crops, however, are tempered with the substantial arguments against them posed by a wide range of stakeholders. Firstly, it has been pointed out that most of the successful crops in developing countries are the ones with engineered insecticide or herbicide resistance rather than those designed to improve nutrition. Indeed, large portions of these are crops that are destined to be animal fodder rather than human food.

A reason for this is that it in terms of safety, it has been easier to approve crops earmarked for animal feed than those intended for human food, as the regulations in this area are not as demanding. This is also a reason why bollworm-resistant (Bt) cotton, grown for its use as a fibre rather than for human consumption, has been one of the most commercially successful GM crops.

Many of the GM plants grown in developing countries are in fact sold as cash crops to overseas buyers and are therefore not used to address food shortages. According to ‘Friends of the Earth International’, Argentina retains only 2% of its GM produce within the country.

Environmental Concerns

This organization, moreover, suggests that the widespread sowing of herbicide- resistant plants such as Roundup-Ready soy and canola have encouraged the over-use of herbicides, while pesticide resistant GM crops in the US have contributed to an increase in insecticide use of 55 million kilograms since 1996.

Of further concern is the assertion by many ecologists that GM crops require more irrigation, fertilizers and intensive crop tillage than conventional crops. By expending large amounts of fossil fuels, these activities do not adhere to sustainable principles and contribute to global pollution.

An added concern is the effect GM plants may have on biodiversity. One problem is that their DNA may become inadvertently incorporated into related species in the wild, resulting in new varieties capable of successfully competing with the naturalised ones for resources.

A change in the local flora of a particular ecosystem may in turn affect the animal life that depends on it. In India, the development of bollworms resistant to Bt cotton has emerged as another environmental concern . In addition, it is also worrying that independent scientific researchers must gain permission from GM companies before they can publish their findings.

Although GM companies attempt to introduce their patented genes into a range of cultivars of a particular crop species, GMO Compass Magazine points out that a few cultivars may well become favoured among farmers, resulting in virtual monocultures in agricultural systems. Organisations such as Seed Savers have recognized the threat this poses to conventional seeds and have set up seed banks throughout the world in an attempt to preserve traditional cross-pollinated food plants.

GM Bans and Alternative Solutions

Many opponents of GM plants assert that the world food shortage would be more effectively addressed by engaging in sustainable, organic farming where local farmers are free to save seed and their crops are not threatened by GM contamination. Some countries accepting food aid, such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe, have in fact only accepted GM corn in its milled form in an attempt to reduce this contamination risk.

Other nations, such as Hungary, have banned GM seeds altogether and have destroyed acres of farmland containing Monsanto crops. Peru has imposed a ten- year ban on all GM foods, while France is moving to ban one of Monsanto’s GM corn varieties. The effects of GM crops may well become more obvious over time, and should help to determine whether more countries take a similar stance.

References

Association for India's Development, 2010, 'Save Seed Cleaners'

Friends of the Earth International, 2006, 'Who Benefits From Genetically Modified Crops?'

GMO Compass, 2006, 'Biodiversity'

Monsanto, 2011, 'Food, Inc. Movie and Seed Patents'

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34

Phelps, B., 2010, 'World According to Monsanto', Gene Ethics

Schulman, M., 'Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?, Santa Clara University

The Economist, 2012, 'Attack of the Really Quite Likeable Tomatoes'