[hepr-vn] GM crops and the Gene Giants: Bad news for farmers

[Vern Weitzel]

http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/gm-crops-and-the-gene-giants-bad-news-for-farmers.html

GM crops and the Gene Giants: Bad news for farmers
Kathy Jo Wetter and Hope Shand
15 April 2009 | EN | 中文

BASF subjects rice plants to environmental stresses like salty soils or drought
BASF
Unproven and patented GM fixes will not help farmers in the South adapt to 
climate change, say Kathy Jo Wetter and Hope Shand.

The global North's super-sized carbon footprint has already trampled the South's 
farmers, most recently in the form of energy crop plantations, which have been 
directly responsible for deforestation and farmer evictions in some developing 
countries, includingIndonesia and Tanzania.

Now the world's largest seed and agrochemical corporations are stockpiling 
hundreds of monopoly patents on genes in crops genetically engineered to 
withstand the environmental stresses associated with climate change, such as 
drought, heat, cold, floods and saline soils.

In 2008 the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration reported that 
the largest of these companies, including BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto and 
Syngenta, had already filed 532 patent documentson so-called 'climate ready' 
genes at patent offices around the world.

Beyond Europe and the United States, patent offices in major food-producing 
countries — including Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa — are 
also being swamped. Since last year's count, the 'Gene Giants' have filed at 
least 65 more patent documents related to the ability of plants to tolerate 
environmental stresses, as opposed to biological stresses such as pests or 
weeds. Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, and BASF, the world's largest 
chemical firm, have forged a colossal US$1.5 billion partnership to develop such 
crops, suggesting that the number of patent filings to date is just the beginning.

Bad news

But the huge number of patent filings does not mean that these companies have 
found the key to unlocking how plants withstand environmental stresses — though 
they may be knocking on the right door. We do not yet know how these plants will 
perform in the field. What is clear is that their appearance in the marketplace 
will increase the concentration of corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit 
independent research, and, most alarmingly, undermine the rights of farmers to 
save and exchange seeds.

There is a further danger that, as the climate crisis deepens, governments may 
strong-arm farmers into planting prescribed biotech seeds with traits deemed 
essential for adaptation. This is already happening in the United States — the 
government's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation gives a discount to farmers 
planting Monsanto's biotech maize seed because, according to data submitted by 
Monsanto, there is reduced risk of low yields compared to other varieties. It is 
common for US policies to serve as templates for developing countries, so we 
shouldn't be surprised to see other governments following suit.

Biotech companies insist they don't want to hamper farmers in developing 
countries who are struggling to eke out a living, nor do they want to take food 
out of the mouths of hungry people. They point to projects like the Water 
Efficient Maize for Africa collaboration as evidence. This brings together 
Monsanto and BASF among others with US$47 million in funding from charitable 
foundations to develop drought-resistant maize which they will give, 
royalty-free, to farmers in Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

While such projects provide good publicity for the companies involved, suspicion 
is warranted. At the same time that companies appear to be engaging in 
no-strings-attached philanthropy, industry groups such as CropLife International 
are campaigning hard for governments in the South to enact tougher intellectual 
property laws to ensure that farmers pay royalties on proprietary seeds.

Kenya, for example, recently adopted the 'Anti-Counterfeit Act', which applies 
to "any intellectual property right subsisting in Kenya or elsewhere in respect 
of protected goods". Uganda and Tanzania are following Kenya's lead to draft 
their own anti-counterfeiting legislation. Kenya's law explicitly criminalises 
violators of plant breeders' rights. Even more recently, Kenya passed a 
biosafety law to allow production of GM crops. The influx of costly, proprietary 
seeds in the marketplace and stricter intellectual property laws are no help to 
farmers racing to adapt crops to changing climatic conditions.

Beyond biotech

Biotech proselytisers have been preaching that only genetic engineering can 
beget crops that will survive climate change. On the contrary, the genetic 
diversity of plants and animals and the diverse knowledge and practices of 
farming communities are the most important resources for adapting local 
agriculture to a changing climate.

Farmer-led strategies for adapting to climate change — such as efforts to 
diversify crops and bring them to the marketplace — must be recognised, 
strengthened and protected by society as a whole and by governments in 
particular. Farming communities must be directly involved in setting priorities 
and strategies for adaptation. Where appropriate, scientists can work with 
farmers to improve conservation technologies, strengthen local breeding 
strategies, and assist in identifying and accessing seeds held in banks.

This may involve strengthening and expanding farmer-to-farmer networks for 
exchanging and enhancing crops through organisations such as La Via Campesina. 
It may also involve facilitating access to new sources of genetic material for 
farmers to experiment with breeding, and implementing Farmers' Rights under the 
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Kathy Jo Wetter is a programme manager at ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, 
Technology and Concentration) and Hope Shand is its research director.