December 2004, insights, Issue #52

Debating GM crops

The debate over genetically-modified (GM) crops is one of the most controversial and fiercely contested of recent times. While media coverage often focuses on disagreements between the United States and Europe, perhaps the main battleground today is the developing world. It is here that large markets are emerging, consumer resistance is less organised and claims that GM crops can help to alleviate hunger and food insecurity are tested.
More...

Click to enlarge

Other articles in this issue:

Diversity in international biosafety regulation

The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol provides countries with an opportunity to assess the risks associated with GM crops before importing them. Developing countries face particular challenges with this protocol, not least because their capacity to implement, monitor and enforce biosafety laws remains weak. In addition, they need to address the issues in the protocol that are left to national discretion and seek to balance their rights and obligations under the protocol with their commitments under the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

From risks to rights in southern Africa

Scientists and the biotechnology industry have been crucial in determining biotechnology policies and laws. They have emphasised the protection of individual interests - both human and corporate - through tight property laws, global trade rules and narrow regulatory regimes. Within this framework, the only 'acceptable' restriction on biotechnology development is safety. Regulation focuses on containing risks through science-based assessments. Little attention has been given to broader social, cultural or development concerns or, critically, to rights. A rights based approach is key to developing biotechnology policies.

Bt cotton: benefits for poor farmers?

Can GM crops benefit farmers in the developing world? Cotton genetically engineered to contain the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been celebrated as a successful example of GM crops in developing countries. Recent studies looked at experiences in three countries.

IPRs, biotechnology and development

Developing countries are being urged to introduce strong intellectual property rights (IPRs) to enable poor farmers to take advantage of genetically modified crops. IPRs can stimulate trade, investment, innovation and technology transfer for development. However, for many developing countries, the costs of IPR regimes outweigh the benefits and may undermine long-term development. IPRs do little to encourage private research into crops and traits important to food security and often impede public research that could address these needs.

Regulating biotechnology

In designing regulations for the use of biotechnology governments are expected to balance the risks and benefits of GM crops to the public and determine whether biotechnology addresses the development needs of their country. However, they are increasingly faced with global pressures regarding the scope, depth and enforcement of their biosafety regulations. There is a danger that in the push to accommodate trade concerns and the demands of GM crop exporters, countries are losing an important opportunity to define for themselves how biotechnology may assist their development.

GM crops and the politics of international trade

National experiences, whether in Africa, Asia or Latin America, must be considered in the wider context of international trade politics. This is highlighted by the ongoing World Trade Organisation dispute between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). This presents many risks and opportunities for developing countries.

Corporate dominance and agricultural biotechnology

GM crops have the potential to contribute to resolving food security and poverty issues in developing countries. However, the crops and traits developed so far have been targeted at the needs of large-scale commercial farmers, particularly in North America. Critics point out that the tendency of both private and public sectors to focus on GM distracts attention from research into alternative technologies that are more likely to benefit science institutes and farmers in developing countries.

The Chinese biotechnology experience

China's experience with biotechnology differs from that of many developing countries. The state has determined the terms and process of engagement with this new technology. Does the Chinese model suggest that alternative pro-poor biotechnology scenarios are possible?

Biotechnology for Kenya

Having 'missed out' on the Green Revolution, can biotechnology succeed in Africa where previous efforts have fallen short?

Sites for sore eyes

Further web resources.

PDF version

Download this issue in PDF format.

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.