*This page was produced as part of an assignment for an undergraduate course at Davidson College*

GM Crops: A Farmer's Dream?

Home

Conferring Resistance

Disease

Pest/Herbicide

Stress

Ramifications

Increased Profit Margin

Land Use

Monoculture

Poor Farmers vs.  Rich Farmers

Cultural Backlash

Conclusions

Works Cited

 

Poor Farmers vs. Rich Farmers

About 95% of world farmers live in developing countries and participate in small-scale agriculture (Peterson et al., 2000).  GM crops are likely to have the most significant benefit in third world countries, and have the potential to have the potential to feed the growing world population (Atkinson et al., 2001; Atkinson, 1998; Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).  For example, yield gains for pest resistant cotton in the U.S. and China are less than 10%, and yield increases for herbicide resistant soybeans are insignificant.  On noncommercial fields, pest related losses are often higher than 50% (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).  Biotechnology has not been taken up so quickly in developing countries for several reasons.  To name a few, there are high costs to establish the technology, commercial restraints enforced by the governments, and a lacking market in the eyes of the developing corporations (Qaim et al., 2000). 

However, there have been field trials in the third world as well as projected cultivation systems for developing countries.  In field trials in India, Bt cotton reduced insecticide use by 70% and saved about $30 per hectare.  Over 4 years, yields increased by about 60%.  To obtain this gain without Bt, Indian farmers would need to increase their traditional pesticide use threefold (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).  In Bolivia, it has been suggested that pest resistant GM potatoes would greatly help reduce the devastating effects of crop loss to potato cyst nematodes.  While such a potato has not been engineered, the aim would be to decrease the acreage needed to grow the same amount of potatoes.  More nutritious crops could be grown on the freed land and aid in feeding the growing population (Atkinson et al., 2001; Atkinson, 1998).  Not much GM farming has taken place in South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, but these two areas (that have the world’s greatest population growths) are expected to see the largest yield increases with Bt technology (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).

Asian farmers in rice paddys. *Permission Pending from the International Fund for Agricultural   Development: <http://www.ifad.org/events/wssd/e/>.

There are many problems with introducing biotechnology to developing countries.  Foremost is the cost.  These technologies may help poor countries, but poor farmers cannot afford them.  Unless the technology is inexpensive, those who could benefit most from it will not have access to it (Pretty, 2001; Altieri, 2000).  Many think the public and private sectors should work together.  The public sector should invest in developing the technology so it can reach the poor on a large scale at an affordable rate (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).  The private sector should donate the technologies to developing countries, as company interests would not suffer since subsistence farmers are outside the commercial reign (Atkinson et al., 2001; Atkinson, 1998).

Biotechnology could actually increase the marginalization of poor farmers since third world countries lack the organization and resources to distribute the seeds to their farmers.  Plus, farmers will be dependent on purchasing GM seeds every year if they are developed with the terminator technology, as many are (Altieri, 2000).  Terminator seeds stop farmers from using their own seed supplies to breed new crops, and  can have negative effects if poor farmers don’t know the consequences of such seeds when purchased and try to reuse them the following season (Peterson et al., 2000; Conway, 2000). 

Another disadvantage is the probability of monoculture.  By planting a monoculture of GM crops, farmers are increasing the risk of famine since that particular species may be vulnerable to disease.  When one gene is enhanced, another is inevitably diminished (Altieri, 2000).  New transgenic seeds will replace those varieties used by third world farmers and cause “genetic erosion” (Altieri and Rosset, 1999).   Yield increases may have to be a result of improved farming practices in addition to GM technology (Altieri, 2000). 

Pesticide resistant crops can be detrimental to poor farmers.  When pests develop resistance to these crops, replacement insecticides may not be available and populations of beneficial insects have already been diminished.  Many farmers will want to adopt the Bt technology, but farmers may encounter a setback when the pests develop resistance to Bt (Gould and Cohen, 1999).  Since Bt can be bad for the soil, poor farmers would be at a loss because they cannot afford fertilizers to replenish their fields (Altieri, 2000). 

Poor, small-scale farmers in Africa make up 80% of the farming community and grow 90% of all basic food to meet family needs and to perhaps make a small profit.  The average plot is only 5 hectares and many types of crops are planted in one field.  These poor farmers, and poor farmers in the rest of the third world, will be slow to adopt new technologies unless they are presented in a way that convinces them biotechnology will improve their yields (Wambugu, 2000).  Each of the above disadvantages must be dealt with before GM crops can be successful in developing countries.

African women picking corn. *Permission Pending from the International Fund for Agricultural   Development: <http://www.ifad.org/events/wssd/e/>.

Some think biotechnology has reduced the ability of third world farmers to use the local surroundings to support themselves while farmers in rich countries have reaped the benefits of the new developments (Peterson et al., 2000).  These people believe the public sector funds allocated to evaluating technologies developed by the private sector could be better used in researching and implementing agroecological approaches that can increase yields in the developing world without utilizing unnatural technology (Altieri and Rosset, 1999).  But others disagree, arguing that biotechnology can benefit large and small scale farmers alike.  And while there are other ways to improve yields, they are not as productive or else they would be growing in popularity like GM technology (McGloughlin, 1999).


Questions or comments can be directed to  nihesson@davidson.edu

GMO Seminar Homepage

Biology Department Homepage

Page maintained by Matt Talbert, Nicole Hesson, and Sarah Parker

Last modified April 2004