Genetically modified crops have stimulated many debates in recent years and few subjects have divided opinions so greatly. Improvements in crop technology could benefit developing countries greatly, in terms of increased food production and income, but it is in these countries where opposition is strongest. With so many different opinions, how can people decide what information is reliable?

Potential benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries include improved nutrient content to staple foods (such as increased vitamin A levels in ‘Golden Rice’), increased yields and greater pest resistance. There have been some success stories; in China, the area planted with GM cotton was trebled in 2001, leading to reduced input costs for farmers and increasing their profits. South Africa has also benefited from GM cotton, which now accounts for 55 to 60 percent of all commercial cotton grown.

Despite these successes, many governments, farmers and non-governmental organisations in developing countries are against GM crops. Predicting the long-term impacts of GM crops is impossible, and developing countries are less likely to be able to deal with potential problems, such as escalating costs and environmental damage. A study by the International Institute for Environment and Development, UK, found strong opposition amongst farmers in central India to the use of GM crops. People from many different backgrounds have concerns about GM crops because:

• they could destroy farmer’s livelihoods by reducing employment and out-competing ‘natural’ products
• farmers will become reliant on seeds and chemicals from overseas companies
• GM plants will mix with natural plants, damaging the environment
• increased chemical use in agriculture has caused health problems, and there are fears that GM crops will do the same.

One major cause of opposition to the wider use of GM crops is mistrust of scientists amongst many farmers, particularly scientists from western countries. Another problem is that much of the information about GM crops is dominated by western organisations. People from developing countries have little opportunity to express their concerns and are consequently less trusting of information given to them. Disagreements over the intellectual property rights of certain species have also caused resentment towards biotechnology companies.

Policy-making processes need to change to provide people in developing countries with more reliable information about GM crops. The overall aim must be to create processes that allow for more citizen participation in allocating funds for research, setting research and development priorities, validating new technologies, determining risks in the face of considerable uncertainties and forming policies for food and farming. A range of innovations could help:

• More open decision-making processes within research and development organisations and research funding agencies to allow a wider representation of different social groups.
• Greater fairness and accountability in budget allocation and decisions on research and development priorities in agricultural research systems.
• Reorganised research processes to combine the strengths of citizens (farmers, food workers, consumers) and scientists (social and natural) in the search for locally adapted solutions and food systems.
• Mechanisms and rewards to encourage the spread of participatory approaches within research and donor organisations. Without this, it is unlikely that participatory approaches will become important professional activities. 
• Ensuring that knowledge and genetic resources on which new technologies are based remain accessible to all – this should be a basic human right in democratic societies.
• Including all people’s interests and values when forming food and farming policies by organising conferences, citizen juries, focus groups and referendums on a regular basis. These will need to be linked to formal policy processes to allow citizens to influence policies and regulations more directly.

Source(s):
‘Prajateerpu: a Citizens Jury / Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh’, IIED Publication, by M. Pimbert and T. Wakeford, 2002 Full document.
‘To reach the poor: Results from the ISNAR-IFPRI next harvest study on genetically modified crops, public research, and policy implications’, EPTD Discussion Paper No. 116,  by A. Atanassov, A. Bahieldin, J. Brink, M. Burachik, J. Cohen, V. Dhawan, R. Ebora, J. Falck-Zepeda, L. Herrera-Estrella, J. Komen, F. Chon Low, E. Omaliko, B. Odhiambo, H. Quemada, Y. Peng, M. Jose Sampaio, I. Sithole-Niang, A. Sittenfeld, M. Smale, R. Valyasevi, Y. Zafar, and P. Zambrano, 2004 Full document.
‘Biotechnology and Sustainable Development: Voices of the South and North’, Biotechnology in Agriculture Series, No. 26, CABI Publishing, I. Serageldin and G. J. Persley, 2003

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 11 April 2005

Further Information:
Dr Michel Pimbert
Principal Associate
International Institute for Environment and Development
3 Endsleigh Street
London
WC1H 0DD
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 207 388 2117
Fax: +44 (0) 207 388 2826
Contact the contributor: michel.pimbert@iied.org

International Institute for Environment and Development, UK

Other related links:
id21 insights - Debating GM crops

Debating GM crops

'Biotechnology politics in Delhi’s corridors of power'

International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology

Agricultural Biotechnology and Policy Processes in Developing Countries

Eldis - Biotechnology and governance

FAO - Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture