Thematic Section

Food Security: Empty promises of technologicalsolutions

ANURADHA MITTAL ABSTRACT Anuradha Mittal questions if nano-technology is going toprovide the next revolution in food and agriculture industry. Thispowerful new technology is being rushed on to the market bycorporations before even basic safety concerns can be addressed.However, she points out there are many downsides in relation tohealth and environmental threats that are not taking into accountby the world’s largest food and beverage corporations pushingnano-technology based solutions

KEYWORDS biotech; GMOs; nano-technology; genetic engineering;food sovereignty; hunger; development

Introduction

In October 2002, the Zambian government turned down the offer from the US Agencyfor International Development (USAID) of genetically modified food aid, after theZambian president sent a delegation to South Africa, Europe, and the US to assess therisks associated with the crops, by the Zambian president, concluded that GM foodposed too great a risk to be accepted.

The pro-GM lobbydid not take well to this.‘Better Dead than GM Fed?’was the derisiveresponse of The Economist. Tony Hall, US ambassador to the United Nations food agen-cies, claiming that Africa was on the verge of a catastrophe with its food crisis worsen-ing, he accused ‘well fed’ European experts and lobbyists of being selfish, ignorantLuddites for their opposition to US food aid.‘All of it has passed US food safety and envir-onmental impact testing ^ the most rigorous in the world. For this reason, US biotechand non-biotech foods are mixed together.We do not, and see no need to separate them’,he claimed (Hickey and Mittal, 2003:1).

Ambassador Hall’s statement involves a degree of official amnesia. Consider forexample, the statement made by Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communicationsat Monsanto. ‘Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food ... .Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job’(http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res¼ F2091EF93F590C768EDDA90994D0494D81, accessed 17 July 2006)). Or consider the StarLink corn controversythat rocked the US’food supply system in September 2000. Made byAventis Crop Scienceand onlyapproved for animal feed due to concerns that it might cause allergic reactions

Development, 2006, 49(4), (33–38)r 2006 Society for International Development 1011-6370/06www.sidint.org/development

Development (2006) 49(4), 33–38. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100295

in humans, the StarLink biotech corn slipped intothe US food supply, sparking a nationwide recallof more than 300 kinds of corn-based products.In December 2002, traces of unapproved StarLinkcorn were found in a US shipment bound forTokyo’s markets. In November 2002, traces of corngenetically engineered (GE) to produce an ediblevaccine to protect piglets from diarrhoea werefound in the autumn soy harvest in November2002 ^ mixed with beans that would soon beprocessed into dozens of groceries, from ice creamto salad dressing.

Conveying a false sense of need,urgency, and safety

In the developing world, where food security is amuch more pressing concern, genetically enhancedcrops have been seen as a way to increase yields fromthe existing arable land. GM crops can help subsis-tence farmers provide more and better foods for theirfamilies or, in the case of revenue crops such as cot-ton, get more value from their land by increasingyield. Also, crops could be enhanced through bio-technology to contain more nutrients and help mini-mize the effects of malnutrition. Most importantly,GM crops can help provide these benefits in a sustain-able way, so that increasing populations can be fedwithout placing additional pressure on natural habi-tats by destroying them for farming uses. (FrequentlyAsked Questions About Agricultural Biotechnology,http://www.syngenta.com/en/about_syngenta/biotech_faq.aspx, accessed14 July 2006).

The domestic failure of regulatory agencies in theUS to safeguard the interests of the consumers,sustainable food producers, and the environment,has not prevented the industry from conducting aconcerted international pro-GM campaign, creat-ing a false sense of need and urgency. The keyarguments used in this pro-industry publicityblitz are‘poor washing’ ^ we must accept GE foodsif we are to feed the poor in theThirdWorld ^ and‘green washing’ ^ biotech will create a world freeof pesticides and increase yields.

Poorwashing: Technological solutions tohunger?

Biotech companies claim that GE food willhelp feed the hungry in the world. Widespreadand persistent hunger is a fundamental contradic-

tion in today’s world whenproductionand produc-tivity in agriculture have grown faster thandemand (Mousseau and Mittal, 2005). GE cropswill not reverse hunger in theThirdWorld becausethe problem is not overall scarcity but unequal ac-cess. The fact that almost 78 per cent of countriesthat report child malnutrition are food-exportingcountries gives rise to the paradox of plenty. Ac-cording to the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), the food is there.

World agriculture produces17 per cent more caloriesper person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a70 per cent population increase.Work in FAO showsthat world agriculture can produce enough to feedhumanity in the future without putting excessivepressure on prices or the environment. The existenceof 780 million chronically hungry people in the de-veloping world today shows that there is somethingfundamentally wrong in the distribution of food andthe resources with which to access it (FAO,2002:9).

A striking example of the promise of a techno-logical solution to hunger is Golden Rice. (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/18-3Mittal.html, accessed 1 July 2006.) Six years ago, whenopposition to GE food began to pick up steamaround the world, the biotech industry mounteda $50 million-a-year public relations campaign toextol the virtues of biotechnology, especially de-velopments like Golden Rice, for their potential toimprove world health and eradicate hunger. Syn-genta’s new version of GE rice supposedly has atenfold higher content of beta-carotene, whichcould fight Vitamin A deficiencies that causeblindness among children and adults in develop-ing countries. Aggressivelyadvertised as a miraclegrain to end suffering for millions around theworld, Golden Rice was promised by corporatepublic relations to be put in food bowls acrossAsia.

Six years later, with millions of dollars spentand false hopes raised, this technological promiseby the biotech industry has only distractedattention and funding from what could be real,sustainable solutions to malnutrition. Worldhealth officials have concluded that poverty, not alack of modern technology, is the fundamentalcause of malnourishment.Theyalso point out thatnutritional deficits can be easily and cheaply

Development 49(4): Thematic Section

34

corrected with a more varied diet. Green leafyvegetables, oranges, and red palm oil all are highin beta-carotene.

Six years ago, developers of this grain had beenvague on how much Golden Rice a person wouldhave to eat to get enough beta-carotene for therecommended daily vitamin A requirement. Thedata shows that in order for those most vulnerableto this form of blindness, infants, to get enoughvitamin A from breast milk, their mothers wouldhave to consume several pounds of cooked riceper day. Anadult male would need to eat a smaller,but equally unlikely, amount of cooked golden riceto meet his daily vitamin A requirement.The new-er iterations of Golden Rice further reduce thenumber of pounds of rice a person would need toeat to meet their vitamin A requirement, but stilldo nothing about a more basic problem. The bodycan only convert beta-carotene into vitamin A ifthe diet includes adequate amounts of fat andproteins. The malnourished people whom GoldenRice is supposed to help, however, are bydefinitionalso lacking fat and protein in their diets (Green-peace Briefing Packet, 2005).

Any lingering illusion of altruism on the part ofbiotechnology companies dims when the subjectof patents is raised. As with any product of scienti-fic research with a large market potential, themethods and techniques used in the process areheavily patented; the production of Golden Ricerequires 70 of them. Licensing rights stemmingfrom this proprietary information can mean hugeprofits. So, when Syngenta, which owns many ofthe patents on the rice, claims that1month of mar-keting delay would cause 50,000 children to goblind, it is not acting out of corporate big-hearted-ness or concern for these children. It is just doingwhat big business does best: looking out for thebottom line.

Greenwashing: Increasing yields withoutpesticides and increasing costs

In March 2006, India and US entered an agree-ment on farm research and education. Known asthe India^US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultur-al Education, Research, Services and CommercialLinkages, the agreement is about the US and India

conducting joint research in transgenic crops,animals, and fisheries. Andy Mukherjee,a columnist for Bloomberg.Com enthusiasticallyannounced,

If the nuclear deal promises relief for India’s power-starved industrial sector, the agricultural agreementhas the potential to transform the nation’s poverty-ridden countryside. The economics are simply un-beatableyCotton production has been transformedsince Monsanto was allowed to sell its GM cottonseeds to farmers in 2002. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid¼10000039&sid¼ a5Y1sbpn3vTA&refer¼ columnist_mukherjee, accessed 2 April2006)

Indeed, Bt cotton has transformed both the cottonproduction and lives of farmers in India. Whilethe Indian government is busy opening its vastnetwork of public sector agricultural research in-stitutes to US private companies, the first 9 daysof March 2006 were marked with 25 farmers tak-ing their own life in Maharashtra’s cotton growingdistrict of Vidarbha. By 14 April 2006, an esti-mated 443 farmers in the region had committedsuicide to escape indebtedness since the start ofthe agriculture season on 2 June 2005.

What is driving this rash of suicides?

Last December, IndiaTogether reported on the sui-cide of Ramesh Rathod inthevillage of Bondgavhan,Vidarbha. (http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/mar/agr-counting.htm, 6 accessed April 2006)He had purchased Bollgard brand MECH162 vari-ety from companies with commercial licence fromMahyco/Monsanto for Rs 1800 ($36) per 450 g,compared with Rs 450 ($9) that farmers pay fornon-Bt seeds.

Ramesh’s hopes were dashed when his Bt cottoncrops had a severe pest attack and the leaves ofhis cotton plants turned red before drying up.After having spent a lot of money on inputs andthe yield destroyed irreparably, he was in no posi-tion to pay back the loans he had taken out. Leftbehind to pay back the debt and shoulder the re-sponsibility of a family including a young son anda daughter, Ramesh’s grieving widow, Dharmibai,used Endosulphane and Tracer ^ two costly pesti-cides ^ against the bollworm pest, but the three

Mittal: Food and Technology

35

acres of land did not even yield three quintals ofcotton.

In April AFP reported the suicide of 34-year oldIndian cotton farmer Chandrakant Gurenule. Hetoo had bought the genetically modified cottonseeds for his 15-acre (six-hectare) farm, only towatch his crops fail for two successive years.Whenthere was no hope left, despite him selling off thepair of bullocks he used to plough the fields, andpawning his wife’s wedding jewellery, he dousedhimself in kerosene and lit a match on 1 April2006.

It is estimated that more than 4100 farmerscommitted suicide in the western state ofMaharashtra in 2004. Increasing cost of produc-tion along with sliding global prices and dumpingof cheap subsidized cotton from outside thecountryhas been compounded by failure of Bt seeds.Devastated by bollworm pest, Bt crops have beenattacked by ‘Lalya’or ‘reddening’as well, a diseaseunseen before which affected Bt more than thenon-Bt cotton crop, resulting in 60 per cent offarmers in Maharashtra failing to recover costsfrom their first GM harvest. Some studies showthat farmers are spending Rs 6813 ($136.26) peracre compared to Rs 580 ($11.6) on non-Bt cottonsince GE cotton requires more supplemental in-secticide sprays. It is this failure of the Bt cottonthat resulted in the Genetic Engineering ApprovalCommittee (GEAC) of India banning Mech 12,Mech 184, and Mech 162 varieties in AndhraPradeshwhileMech12wasbannedall over SouthernIndia. (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname¼20060501&fname¼ Farmers+%28F%29&sid¼3&pn¼1, accessed10 April 2006)

Nano-technology: Another revolution inthe countryside

From soil to supper, nanotechnology will not onlychange how every step of the food chain operates butit will also change who is involved. At stake is theworld’s $3 trillion food retail market, agricultural ex-port markets valued at $544 billion, the livelihoodsof some 2.6 billion farming people and the well-beingof the rest of us who depend upon farmers for our dai-ly bread. Nanotech has profound implications forfarmers (and fisher people and pastoralists) and forfood sovereignty worldwide. Agriculture may also be

the proving ground for technologies that can beadapted for surveillance, social control and biowar-fare. (http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid¼485, accessed 20 July 2006)

Nano-technology, involving the manipulation ofmatter at the scale of atoms and molecules, wheresize is measured in billionths of metres, is beingtouted as the next revolution in the food and agri-culture industry. Most of the world’s largest foodand beverage corporations ^ including Unilever,NestleŁ , and Kraft ^ are conducting research anddevelopment on nano-scale technologies to engi-neer, process, package, and deliver food and nutri-ents. Major agribusiness firms, such as Syngenta,BASF, Bayer, and Monsanto are reformulatingtheir pesticides at the nano-scale to make themmore biologically active and to win new monopolypatents. It is estimated that over the next two dec-ades, the impacts of nano-scale convergence onfarmers and food will exceed that of farm mechan-ization or of the Green Revolution (ETC Group,2004).

Just like the biotech industry, the nano-tech in-dustry promises to feed the world and eradicatepoverty. Similar to the GM crops, this powerfulnew technology is being rushed on to the marketby corporations before even basic safety concernscan be addressed. Despite the fact that health andenvironmental threats can occur from the pro-duction, use and disposal of nano-particles, ahandful of food and nutrition products containinginvisible and un-labelled nano-scale additives areon supermarket shelves and a number of pesti-cides containing nano-scale materials have beenreleased in the environment and are commer-cially available.

It is known that ultrafine (nano) particles in airpollution can be up to 50 times more damaging tolung tissue than fine particles of the same chemi-cals. Scientists believe that ultrafine particles aremore toxic due to both their small size and theirability to carry loads of toxic metals and hydrocar-bons into the lungs, exacerbating breathingproblems and asthma. Nano-particles can also da-mage the body’s natural defenses or, conversely,cause increased responses to common allergens.They can also lead to the formation of freeradicals, highly reactive elements that can

Development 49(4): Thematic Section

36

damage or destroy cells and cause inflammation,heart and lung disease. In a summer 2002 study,fifteen per cent of rats exposed to nano-tubes inthe lungs unexpectedly died immediately, and a2004 study showed damage to the brain in fishexposed to nano-particles. In the absence oflong-term studies, little is known about the envir-onmental persistence or impact of engineerednano-particles and it is difficult to predict whichof these new materials may bioaccumulate andpersist (Margulis, 2005).

It is the small farmers and agricultural workersin the developing world, however, who would bemost adversely affected by nano-technology. ETCGroup notes that

Poor farmers are seldom in a position to respondquickly to abrupt economic changes. Particularly atrisk are farm communities and countries in the glo-bal South that depend on primary export commod-ities such as rubber and cotton ^ products that couldbe displaced by new nanotech materials (ETC Group,2004).

However, the federal agencies do not seem eager toslow the industry. A Food and Drug Administra-tion presentation states that ‘to date there havebeen no issues with current products as a resultof size’ and alarmingly claims that ‘existingpharmtox tests are probably adequate for mostnano-products’ (http://www.fda.gov/nanotech-nology/OhioNano.ppt#1, accessed 17 July 2006).The Environmental Protection Agency is juststarting a process to consider the risks of engi-neered nano-particles under its outdated chemi-cal regulations (the 1976 Toxic SubstancesControl Act), and setting up a‘voluntary pilot pro-gram’ for assessing currently or imminently mar-keted nano-materials (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/npptac/nanowgoverviewdraft050921finalv2.pdf,accessed 18 July 2006). In the meanwhile the USPatent and Trademark Office has established anew classification for nano-technology patents.ETC Researcher, Kathy JoWetter notes

‘It’s ironic that a companycanwin a monopoly patentbecause their nano-scale product is recognized asnovel, but food and safety regulators have yet to ac-knowledge the novelty of the nano-scale’ (http://www.voyle.net/Nano%20Debate/Debate2004-0022.htm, accessed12 July 2006).

The insurance industry’s concerns are, however,important. Both Allianze Insurance and Swiss REhave developed briefings that point to the hazardsand lack of regulations and call for minimizingexposures and note that some nano-technologiesmay be excluded from coverage (http://www.allianz.com/Az_Cnt/az/_any/cma/contents/796000/saObj_796424_allianz_study_Nanotechnology_engl.pdf, accessed15 July 2006). The Royal Society, theleading organization of scientists in the UK, haswarned that new nano-materials should be testedas new materials, that environmental uses ofnano-particles should be prohibited and that anynano-particles escaping from factories shouldbe treated as hazardous. The Royal Society alsorecommends that any products containingnano-materials be labelled for consumers.

The turning tide

Given the environmental and health risks andconcerns around the impact of such technologieson small farmers and developing countries, thereis a need for a wide debate and true public partici-pation from all sectors, including farmers, civil so-ciety organizations, and social movements.

Developments in technology without transpar-ency and safeguards, and with the rush to marketnew products that may cause serious economic,health and environmental problems, will generatea public backlash. The industry can choose todismiss concerns around safety, environmentalrisks, intellectual property rights and corporateethics. However, it cannot ignore the possibilitythat its customers, including farmers andconsumers, may not be as willing to dismiss theseconcerns.

Civil society organizations such as ETC Grouphave demanded that all food, feed, and beverageproducts incorporating manufactured nano-par-ticles be removed from the shelves and new onesbe prohibited from commercialization until com-panies and regulators have shown that they havetaken nano-scale property changes into account.Similarly, nano-scale formulations of agriculturalproducts such as pesticides and fertilizers shouldbe prohibited from environmental release untila regulatory regime specifically designed to

Mittal: Food and Technology

37

examine these nano-scale products finds themsafe (ETC Group, 2004).

Innovest Strategic Value Advisors (a financialservices leader in analyzing the economic impactof environmental and social issues), in a reportcommissioned by Greenpeace, warned share-holders that Monsanto, the world’s leader indeveloping and marketing GE seeds, is facingsubstantial market risks that could threaten fu-ture earnings of the company due to genetic con-tamination, sustained market rejection both inthe US and abroad, competition and product fail-ures (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/monsanto-investors-face-catast,accessed 20 July 2006).

Concerned over the adverse impact of Bt cottoncultivation in India, farmers burnt huge stacks ofthe harvested produce in Maharashtra on 11 May2006. Krishan Bir Chaudhary, Executive chair-man of Bharat Krishak Samaj, the largest farmersorganization in India, said, ‘We had to take thisstep to bring to the knowledge of the governmentand biotech companies that farmers will no longerbear the injustice caused due to failure of Btcotton’. In March 2005, more than 3000 tribalwomen participated in seed satyagraha, or non-violent resistance, in Orissa, India. Around thebonfire of hybrid and genetically modified seeds

of cotton and other crops, they shouted slogansdamning the GM seeds and the high-yieldingcrops that have pushed them into poverty, indebt-edness and hunger. Their demand to make Orissaan organic state followed 200 villages in the tribalbelt of the area that have already declared them-selves ‘organic villages’ and are cultivating indi-genous seeds on more than17,000 acres.

The opposition in the developing world ismatched bygrowing resistance intheUS. Mendocino,Marin, Trinity, Santa Cruz counties in Californiaand Brooklin in Maine have declared theirmunicipality a Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO) Free Zone. Recently, the Sierra Club, thelargest grassroots environmental organization inthe US, together with the Sierra Club of Canada,sent a letter to the World Bank challenging itsinvolvement, together with the Global Envi-ronmental Facility, in biotech ‘harmonization’programs in Africa and Latin America.

It is time for corporations to accept thatfood and agriculture are sacred for farmers andcommunities worldwide. In spite of all theirefforts, as long as corporations attempt to gagthe voices of the poor, indigenous people, thepeasants, civil society, they cannot claim to offerus an agricultural system that is just, sustainable,or honourable.

References

ETC Group (2004) Down on the Farm:The Impact of Nano-ScaleTechnologies on Food and Agriculture, Ottawa: Etc Group.Greenpeace Briefing Packet (2005) AllThat Glitters is Not Gold:The False Hope of Golden Rice, Greenpeace.FAO (2002) Reducing Poverty and Hunger: The Critical role of Financing for Food, Agriculture and Development’, Rome:

FAO.Hickey, Ellen and Anuradha Mittal (eds.) (2003) Voices From the South: The ThirdWorld debunks corporate myths ongenetically engineered crops, Oakland: Food First Books.

Margulis, Charles (2005) ‘Nanotechnology: New promises, new problems, Center for Environmental Health briefingpaper.

Mousseau, Frederic and Anuradha Mittal (2005) Inequity in International Agricultural Trade: The marginalization ofdeveloping countries and their small farmers’, Oakland,The Oakland Institute.

The Economist (2002) ‘GM Crops in Africa’,19 September.

Development 49(4): Thematic Section

38