Biotechnology and its role in the Development of Agriculture
3/14/03
EDGE Paper
The current trends in agriculture throughout the world consistently seem to be driven by many factors. Population and income affect consumption, or demand, where technology, arable land, and climate affect supply. With all of these factors, one has to ask can we feed the world in the 21st century? Well yes, but at what price are we going to do this? At those prices can we provide access to the poor and conserve the environment? All of these questions plague agriculture policy-makers around the world in search of solving the world hunger problem. The two key issues involve the elimination of poverty and the “pile of grain.” The elimination of poverty creates jobs and raises the level of subsistence in poor areas. A global welfare program could be the answer but policy-makers struggle with this idea but there have been some successes. Indonesia found a more labor-intensive agriculture yielded more which improved the hunger status. The “pile of grain” is the amount of food globally we can continue to produce when we have a limited land base. The total amount of food yielded can be greatly affected by technological advances in agriculture. Technological change in agriculture is the total increase in production given a constant level of a given factor input. Although technical change has been slow to adapt in developing countries because of intellectual property rights, yields in poorer countries will increase due to technology if the methods are appropriate.
During the 1960’s, “according to the FAO, there were about 1 billion people in the developing countries who did not get enough to eat, equivalent to about 50 percent of the population,” (Conway 44). Developing countries are typically poorer than “developed countries” and struggle with many problems including poverty which means starvation. To solve this problem, the First Green Revolution began which was a spread of new farming techniques, inputs, and cereal varieties in developing countries to simply increase yields. The result was nearly a tripling of cereal yields and production with many technological advances in agriculture to improve the future status of food production. Traditional breeding techniques produced varieties of cereals that were shorter in stature. This “dwarfing” method allowed plants to absorb more fertilizer without becoming top-heavy and falling over. The plants also had an earlier maturation with resistance to most serious pests and diseases, and were highly nutritious with high protein content (Conway 52). There was a Second Green Revolution that primarily focused on the sustainability of the production increases and the well-being of the environment. Currently we have undergone a Third Green Revolution which involves biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.
The world’s poorest countries typically depend on many minor crops which are extremely important regionally but under-invested and researched by wealthier countries. Because of this negligence, new approaches to germplasm development and crop improvement are clearly needed. Examples of this new approach are seen through “GMOs” which refer to the living organisms into which foreign genes have been inserted. “Genes that yield desirable traits are transferred from one organisms to another” (Feldmann 55). Certain genes are identified and isolated and after inserted successfully, the plant will display the desired trait. The potential benefits of these transgenic crops are increased yields and reduced input use. Breeding techniques may vary with different crops. However, one goal of breeders is to develop a rice and maize that will reproduce asexually. This will enable the seed of a hybrid with the respective traits to be retained from one year to the next (Conway 144). When a cross is made between two different parents, the chromosomes no longer are the same and it may take many generations before they become so. By culturing the anthers, the male reproductive organs, breeders in China have been able to produce new varieties in only five years compared to twelve of the normal cycle (Conway 146).
Crop losses due to pests, insects, and diseases threaten the food security of most of the developing world. In order to combat pests, genetic engineering offers many ways to protect plants. A well-known example is Bt, a gene that “induces plants to produce a protein that is toxic to insect pests (Feldmann 56). Although this seems like a probable solution, many pests evolve resistance to these insecticides and become almost immune. The best approach is to mix plants with the Bt gene and without so the evolutionary process is lessened (Conway 153). Another aspect of biotechnology that could benefit developing countries is an improvement in the quality of food in the diet. In poorer countries, the diets consistently struggle with, “inadequate levels of energy, protein, and micronutrients” (Per-Pinstrup Andersen). Seeds with greater nutritional value are produced with increasing levels of vitamins, amino acids, and iron. Iron deficiency is the world's most widespread nutritional disorder and affects about 5 billion people in mostly developing countries and leads to anemia. Vitamin A deficiency also affect about 250 million children under five and leads to a weakening of the immune system followed by an attack of infectious diseases (McClafferty). Currently, many biotechnology agencies around the world continue to develop methods that improve these deficiencies. A Swiss research team has been concentrating its transgenic techniques to implement more vitamin A in rice. “The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has simultaneously been involved in a project using conventional breeding techniques to develop five micronutrient-dense staple food crops: rice, wheat, maize, beans, and cassava” (McClafferty). Overall, biotechnology can produce plants that are more tolerant to drought and salt stresses, toxic heavy metals, and pests and diseases (Flavell). Although it seems these techniques can benefit the world hunger situation, there are some risks and problems to the methods as well.
The controversy behind biotechnology has some validity due to the potential risks and problems. The health concerns developed when, “some genetically modified crops were found to contain antibiotic resistance genes left over as residue from the bioengineering process” (Feldman). Some cases of extreme allergic reactions to crops with crossbred seeds sparked concern as well. One of the largest fears with transgenic crops relates to the long-term effects on the environment. Many crops are planted with Bt- based sprays that could possibly result in insects developing an immunity to the pesticide. Some worry that many of the pesticides are killing insects other than targeted pests. In gene crossing, the introduction of new plants could create problems in the genetic makeup and affect plants down the line. Although opposition persists, bio-safety regulations demand inspection of biotechnology methods. “Crops engineered with resistance genes leave the laboratory with full information on the exact gene products produced, offering an earlier opportunity to identify potential problems” (Persley 117). Bio-safety will continue to serve as a vital tool in the development of biotechnology in the world today.
Research and development spending in developed and developing nations will undoubtedly introduce new technology that will affect food production in the coming decades. The scale and availability of this technology, however, will depend on the funding committed to research and development (R&D), on access to new technology around the world, and on countries’ acceptance of that technology. Technology comes through this investment in R&D and usually has certain characteristics. Some technology is embodied within an agricultural output where it serves many purposes for farmers. For example, a seed bred with increased resistance to acidic soils or the increased horsepower of a grain harvester would both be cases of embodied technical change. Induced innovation refers to the development and implementation of new technology in order to alleviate the constraints created by a relatively scarce factor on the production process. If there is a shortage of water, the concept of induced innovation suggests that water-saving technology should be developed and implemented. Appropriate technology means that agricultural technology should be adopted based on its suitability for a particular environment. In an area where labor is abundant and cheap in agriculture, an example of appropriate technology might be the use of a hand hoe instead of a large tractor. Investment in R&D must be appropriate for the country’s technology and natural resources. This is why research and development efforts vary largely by region and by sector.
Worldwide public investment almost doubled in twenty years (from $11.8 billion in 1976 to nearly $21.7 billion in 1995) and is projected to keep growing throughout the world in coming decades (Pardey). During the 1990’s, developed countries had an overall increase of only 0.2% in public spending on R&D, while Africa’s spending did not rise. Nonetheless, since the 1990’s, the developing world as a whole is spending more on public agricultural research than developed countries. This is explained by the fact that public investment in agricultural research tends to decline as the relative share of agriculture in the domestic economy declines.
When private investment is taken into account, however, developed countries are largely ahead of lower developed countries (LDCs), and the gap in research intensity continues to widen in terms of total spending. LDCs depend heavily on public investment (in 1995, 95% of spending on R&D was public) while developed economies keep more balanced proportions between the public and private sectors (Pardey). Private investment is projected to keep increasing and becoming more powerful in more developed countries (MDCs) as profitable markets develop. In LDC’s, there is little incentive for private funds to be invested in agricultural research, so these countries will continue to rely on government support. Private companies have more incentives to invest in developed countries where profits in agriculture and technology seem possible. “Currently, biotechnology research in the developing world is taking place in only a few countries such as Brazil, China, Egypt, India and South Africa. Most biotech research is done by a few private corporations that focus on the agricultural sectors of industrial countries, where they expect the highest rate of return on their investment” (Per-Pinstrup Andersen). Since the private sector, mostly in developed countries, has focused only on profitable crops, it has created many orphan crops, that are under-researched and unprofitable to pursue. Orphan crops are a more diverse set of minor crops like tef, finger millet, yam, roots and tubers that tend to be regionally important but not traded around the world and receive no attention by research networks (Falcon). Developing countries however rely on these crops more heavily than rice and wheat that are researched heavily by private corporations. “Special attention should be paid to orphan commodities by international development agencies in order to facilitate the application of modern technology to the problems peculiar to these crops, which are unlikely to be supported from other sources” (Persley 442). In the future, “as profitable markets develop over the long run, the private sector will no doubt play a much bigger role, but it is folly to think that private research will substantively replace public science in Southern countries anytime soon” (Pardey). Poorer countries rely on public investment but developed nations are fueled by private research. Private science involves more investment and research in capital-intensive forms of commercial agriculture like chemical and food processing concerns and crop and animal technologies. Developing countries rely on a more labor-intensive economy. As a result, private corporations will not invest in R&D in developing nations because agriculture relies on a strong labor force. For example, “Because hand weeding in the developing countries is an important source of rural employment, greater use of herbicides could reduce income-earning opportunities for the poor” (Conway 155). Not only would private corporations find little profits investing in developing nations’ agriculture, but also they would potentially hurt the economy.
The
problem posed by the dominance of private technology is that the accompanying
intellectual property rights set barriers to technology’s accessibility. The
cumulative nature of R&D entails that past discoveries and related research
are an integral part of contemporary agricultural innovations. Instead of forcing developing nations to
“catch-up”, knowledge should be transferred across borders. However, the large numbers of patents are
excluding developing countries from gaining access to the knowledge that big
corporations in North America and Western Europe control. In 1980, the Diamond v. Chakrabarty, ex
parte Hibberd ruling by the Supreme Court said that GMO’s could be
patented. In addition a federal law
permitted universities to patent federally funded research results (Gendel
223). “The barriers being erected by
the patenting of biological materials do not so much obstruct the traditional
uses of genetic resources as they impede the application of specific tools of
biotechnology to these resources” (Falcon).
The patents can only be valid in other countries if the patent holder
applies for protection in additional nations.
However, many developing countries lack patent laws that would enable
protection of plant varieties that results in the confining of many
biotechnological patents to developed countries. In addition, many
developing countries possess little knowledge of the scientific skills to
effectively access the rapidly advancing stock of complex modern
biotechnologies, whether they are protected by patents or not. Because developing nations do not have
access to the modern biotechnologies, they are destructing vast areas of land
and forests in order to be cleared for agriculture. “Unless the inhabitants of these areas are provided with viable
economic alternatives to the destructive uses of their biodiversity, much of
the world’s biological diversity could disappear” (PAHO 198). The solution to the problem may be complex
and unknown, but there are many remedies to improve the situation.
Since genetic
engineering is a highly competitive business, the focus of many
biotechnological companies has been on developed markets with potential large
sales and low risks. “In this situation
public-private partnerships are going to be essential if developing countries
are to benefit” (Conway 159). For
example, the Rockefeller Foundation is spending $5-$6 billion a year on rice
biotechnology in Asia in order to advance developing country laboratories. There are many mechanisms that could bring
biotechnology to the poor including technology grants, joint ventures,
alliances, and various kinds of direct research support (Fowler).
Although many developing regions could benefit from investment in R&D, some of the technology that could help developing countries remedy their food shortages is not socially accepted. The case in point is Europe’s staunch opposition to transgenic crops, even though biotechnology can help farmers in developing countries increase their yields with new crop varieties that are drought-tolerant, resistant to insects and weeds, and containing more nutritional value. Elsewhere, Europeans’ concern over GM foods has persuaded some famine-ridden countries to reject them. This action simply destroys the potential of biotechnology and its ability to improve certain poor economies. The WTO will decide if this boycott is permissible but the end result will not change. The ruling of the WTO will not stand because there is no enforcing party to overcome the domestic refusal of a decision. Should the WTO side with the environmental groups and ban the growth of genetically modified crops, the United States will ignore the decision because of their large sunk costs in transgenic technology. Consequently the European Union moratorium on GM foods will continue and developing countries will be hurt.
Technology should
be used in answer to the developing world’s grave food problems. However, patents limit access to the West’s
technology, and are not the only barrier to sharing of technology. The private sector has focused its
investment on profitable crops, leaving behind many orphan crops on which
developing countries rely more heavily than rice and wheat. European environmental groups have proved
convincing in the absence of the poor countries’ own understanding of the
effects of biotechnology. Fortunately,
a positive trend is starting to appear: governments, NGOs, and the private
sector are funding technology transfer initiatives in many developing countries
to try to benefit from the new gene technology. The appearance of public-private partnerships seems to represent
one of the most important avenues for improving germplasm flows into developing
countries. Although the boycott of GM
foods by the European Union continues, hopefully the liberalization of trade
policies throughout the world in the future will help this problem. “It
would be unethical to condemn future generations to hunger by refusing to
develop and apply a technology that can build on what our forefathers provided
and can help produce adequate food for a world with almost 2 billion more
people by 2020” (Flavel). We must
understand that no technology can be a sufficient condition for
sustainability. The poverty in many developing
countries is so prevalent that job creation and policy reforms are solutions
that require more than technology.
However, by sharing technology and prohibiting patenting, biotechnology
can dramatically increase food production at a cheaper rate providing
developing countries with a more efficient economy.