Posted 16th July 2001

FAO UN GMO No Go

A recent report from the FAO showing that world food production can support a growing population without GE crops, up to the study end date 2030.

"In a news release 24 July 2000 on its latest report on global food needs and provision the FAO commented: "Can the world produce enough food to meet global demands? The answer is yes, according to a new report from FAO's Global Perspectives Studies Unit....[which] forecasts trends in food, nutrition and agriculture over the next 30 years." Although including a brief discussion on their potential benefits and risks, significantly the quantitative analysis carried out by the FAO report did not include any contribution to global food output from GM crops due to ongoing uncertainties regarding agronomic performance, biosafety and consumer acceptance.

The positive prognosis of the FAO report is based on anticipated conventional crop trends." GE crops are specifically absent from inclusion in the FAO report but Monsanto's marker assisted breeding techniques are referred to (this is using GE lab research to help with breeding, but no GE content is in the actual crop) With MAB, they suggest that the FAO positiveness may even by underestimated: "the latest claims from Monsanto in respect of its MAB wheat breeding programme would indicate that even the overtly positive outcome from the FAO predictions for conventional crop production between now and 2030 will substantially underestimate actual future output levels."

Thus we should really be asking 'why the rush'? We have ample time to do the research necessary for long term safety studies, without the need to introduce GE crops. Here is more critique of the UNDP report, which is getting a lot of positive spin from the international media, who usually don't pick up on the qualifications and concerns that are also in the report.

UNDP go-ahead to GM foods dismays opponents Genetically-modified organisms may be controversial but they have got a cautious, yet decided, nod in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 2001, much to the dismay of GMO opponents.

The report acknowledges the need to address environmental and health risks but says these can, and should, be managed. Developing countries may reap great benefits from GM food, crops and other organisms, it says, making a specific plea for developing modern varieties of sorghum, cassava, maize and other staple foods of south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Transgenics, says the report, offer the hope of crops with higher yields, pest- and drought-resistant properties and superior nutritional characteristics, especially for farmers ``in ecological zones left behind by the green revolution'' - though the debate in developed countries may focus on potential allergic reactions, food safety issues and potential loss of biodiversity. In China, it says, GM rice offers 15 per cent higher yields without a need for increases in other farm inputs and modified cotton allows pesticide spraying to be reduced from 30 to three times. It does admit to risks.

Environmental risks in particular can be specific to individual ecosystems and need to be addressed case by case. It cites the example of European rabbits in Australia - six introduced there in the 1850s have multiplied to 100 million, destroying native flora and fauna and costing local industries $ 370 million a year. But an approach to risk assessment that looks only at potential harms would be flawed, says the report. All governments, it says, must devise new institutional and scientific policies to manage new technology's health, environmental and social risks. Transgenic crops, it suggests, have been lost in the controversy. The ``commercial lobby'' overstates the near-term gains to the poor, the opposing lobby overstates the risk of introducing them and downplays the risk of worsening nutrition in their absence.

Some use these fears to protect domestic markets. Language itself has become a political weapon - miracle seeds and golden rice versus traitor technologies, Frankenfoods and genetic pollution. The report calls for more research into the long-term impacts of GMOs and suggests labelling GM products so consumers are able to make a choice. There is a need, it says, for far greater public investment in research and development. Private sector alone can't do the job, it says, noting that ``for-profit'' research caters generally to high-income consumers rather than those in developing countries with little purchasing power. GMO opponents are upset. Food policy analyst Devinder Sharma and the Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity are shocked by what they term a u-turn from the 1999 report, saying the recommendations for Third World agriculture are fundamentally flawed. .