(From The Pakistan Observer, Islamabad, June 27, 1999)

USDA PUSHING GENE FOODS ON THIRD WORLD

By Devinder Sharma

It certainly is a Brave New World in the offing. Ever since the United
States Food and Drug Administration approved the commercial sale of
gene-spliced eFlavr Savri tomatoes produced by the multinational Calgene
Inc. in May 1994, more and more biotechnology companies are getting
ready with designer crops. In fact, 60 food crops have already been
genetically engineered -- a set of techniques for moving genes from one
organism to another -- to make them emarket friendlyi, at least 20 of
which are now under commercial cultivation in North America.

As of May 1997, in the United States alone there had been about 5,000
field tests of genetically engineered plants, 100-200 field tests of
genetically engineered microorganisms, and two field tests of
genetically engineered fish. A number of crops are now being engineered
to produce pharmaceuticals, polymers, and industrial enzymes, and to
alter, oil, starch and protein contents. In India, permission has been
recently granted to the multinational seed company, Monsanto, to hold
field trials of
genetically-engineered cotton ?called bollgaurdoat 40 places in the
country. Permission has also been granted for field trials for such
transgenic mustard, rapeseed and vegetables like brinjal.

As if this is not enough, the US Department of Agriculture had made a
vain effort to enlist genetically-engineered crops as part of organic
agriculture. It was only when its policy document on the web received
over 2,00,000 hits against the decision that the USDA was forced to
withdraw its proposal that actually only provide a protective cover for
its multi-billion biotechnology industry. It is, however, another matter
that the biotech industry has already earned a special name for its
dubious claims on environment benefits: greenwashing. In the past, for
example, biotechnologyis promoters have promised that fertilisers will
become unnecessary as crops are engineered to fix their own nitrogen,
and that pesticides will become obsolete as crops are engineered to
resist insects and other pests. While the first promise failed to
materialise, we now have herbicide-tolerant plants which, in fact,
result in more usage of herbicides. These unrealistic claims have
spurred general caution about new biotech products.

That biotechnology will be used only where there are more profits has
been elaborated very often. Take the case of cassava. It serves as a
staple food for at least 300 million Africans. And yet, no biotechnology
company made any effort to improve the crop yield and production. It was
only after cassava was found to be a feed substitute for the growing pig
industry in the US that four food and biotechnology companies have begun
researching on cassava, amply indicating how animals take precedence
over humans when it comes to economics. Earlier too, research under a
joint FAO-International
Atomic Energy Agency project had shown significant results in
controlling the dreaded Tsetse fly that infests some 11 million sq kms
of sub-Saharan Africa, about 37 per cent of the continent. Known for
inducing sleeping sickness, the fly has killed more than 2,00,000 people
around Lake Victoria alone. It also attacks livestock, rendering oxen
inoperative.

A Sterile Insect Technique that uses radioactive and stable isotopes was
developed as part of an effective pest management programme. But despite
the encouraging results, no company showed any interest in producing and
distributing the sterilised insects. The underlying premise being that
no private biotechnology company is willing to take up any humanitarian
cause, whether in health or food sector, unless it comes with
substantial profit margins.

With a major shift from public to industrial funding, and with current
intellectual property protection strategies narrowing, the nature of
private research relating to biotechnology is without much regard for
its impact on food security. Moreover, in a hurry to market agricultural
biotechnology, farmers are not only the last to be considered but are
never consulted. Biotechnology is a science which has gone beyond the
control of the society or the farming community. Half a dozen executives
of a biotechnology company, sitting comfortably in the air-conditioned 
Board Rooms, take decisions that affect millions of farmers.

Reiterating that the management of safety standards to the social,
cultural and agronomic practices should be first ascertained, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is spearheading the
biotechnology revolution by force opening the developing countries to
accept the enovel productsi, appears more keen to ensure that developing
countries do not ereinvent the wheeli as these transgenic products had
already undergone a lot of testing in the west. More often than not,
these claims fall flat
sooner than they are made.

Monsanto, for instance, had marketed the first genetically engineered
tomato produced by Calgene in 1994, called iFlavr Savri, containing a
gene that delayed ripening, allowing for fresher tomatoes at
supermarkets.  Pitted against strong consumer resistance and faced with
stiff protests from green activists, iFlavr Saveri failed to excite the
food industry and the consumers. Aptly described as ean economic
disasteri by the Wall Street Journal, iFlavr Savri turned out to be an
embarrassment for the multinational biotechnology seed company. It was
subsequently withdrawn from the market in 1996. Let us not forget that
iFlavr Savri too was allowed to be commercialised after the USDA had
issued a ino objectioni certificate. And yet, the much-publicised and
controversial transgenic tomato had failed.

In 1996, cotton bollworms were found to have infested thousands of acres
planted with the new Bt-induced transgenic cotton in Georgia and Texas
in North America. Farmersi paid US $ 32 per acre as license fee to grow
the crop primarily for protection against bollworm and had to suffer
huge losses instead. The cotton failure triggered a slump in the stock
market with the shares of Delta and Pine Land, which distributed the
crop for Monsanto, briefly suspended on the New York Stock Exchange.
Incidentally, the
transgenic cotton that failed was approved by the USDA as well as the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Several of the transgenic cottons in the US are restricted in usage due
to fears of accidental release of the toxin gene into the environment.
And yet, these genetically-altered cotton and corn are being found to be
completely safe for the developing countries, including India. But with
public protests against these transgenic crops growing in Europe and
Australia, the United States government is now using its political
muscle to save the financial interests of its biotechnology companies.
It had recently threatened New Zealand with withdrawl of bilateral trade
agreement if it (New Zealand) went ahead with approving each
genetically-engineered crop case by case.

At the same time, USDA accepts that it has so far not conducted any
biological risk assessment. Nor does it have any plans to do so. While
it lays down well defined procedures for the introduction of transgenic
material, it is not at all willing to be held responsible for any
environmental and biological mishap. Since the USDA itself is not
conducting any research to produce transgenic plants, it has taken on
itself the initiative to push and protect the commercial interests of the American
multinational companies. And therein lies a grave danger. And,
therefore, allowing these biotechnology companies a free run in
developing countries in search of a desperate need for foreign
investment is only going to push the farm sector into the throes of an
unforeseen crisis.  

(Devinder Sharma is a Indian journalist, writer and a food and trade
policy analyst. Responses to this article should be emailed to
dsharma@isid.delhi.nic.in )