by Jagath Gunewardana
The making of different types of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has brought forth a number of issues to the forefront. The most often discussed are the real and perceived benefits and the safety issues. The employment of any new product or process is intended to serve a purpose, which could be either beneficial or baleful. One thing is certain. No one in particular the private sector would make something at a great cost merely to dazzle or surprise others. This is especially true in case of GMO’s and technologies because they are wielded by private corporate interests, whose prime motive is to see an increase in profits. Thus, it is a waste of time discussing the so-called technological marvels, but is more important to look at underlying motives.

There are some who tend to think that GM-crops are the only solution to the anticipated food crisis. They say, "We have no choice but to quickly adopt the plantation of these crops to get higher yields, to beat the threat posed by pests and diseases, adverse environmental conditions and to get better quality yields." This argument implies (and some even do say) that currently grown GM-crops have one or more of these positive traits. Therefore, it is very important to look at what crops have been genetically modified, the characteristics that have been put into these by these modifications, the places where they are grown and what benefits that can be obtained if we grow them in Sri Lanka. A very good source of information for this analysis is the "Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic (GM) Crops, conducted by Dr. Clive James, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). These annual updates gives lots of relevant facts. The latest update (briefing no 24 of 10/01/2002) provide the figures for 2001.

These latest figures show a marked increase in the total land area under GM-crops, which is 52.6 million hectares worldwide. It is an increase of 8.4 million hectares or 9% from the 44.2 million hectares in 2000. In comparison, the area under GM-crops in 1999 was 39.9 and the increase in 2000 was 11% or a difference of 4.3 million hectares. This shows that the rate of adoption has almost doubled in 2001. The number of farmers who grow these is 5.5 million in 2001, an increase of 57% or two million farmers within the year.

The number of countries that grew GM-crops in 2001 stood at 13, a decrease of one from 2000. In 1999, the number was again 13, which at a glance may give the impression that one country joined and one withdrew within these two years. But, the list of countries that entered and withdrew shows more variations. The increase between 1999 to 2000 was due to two countries entering (Bulgaria and Uruguay) while Ukraine which had less than a million hectares under GM-crops withdrew. Two more countries had withdrawn in 2001 (France and Portugal) while one (Indonesia) has joined.

The analysis of the list shows that the majority of the countries were in America and Europe - five each. The remaining three are Australia, Indonesia and South Africa. Of these, seven countries each had less than a hundred thousand hectares under GM crops. Of the remaining six, Australia and South Africa had only 0.21 and 0.27 million hectares respectively under GM crops. Therefore, only four countries (USA, Argentine, Canada and China) accounted for 99% of the area. The dominant growers were USA and Argentine, who accounted for about 90%. These figures show that GM crops are still grown mainly in two highly developed countries.

An analysis of the global increase reveals more interesting facts. The increase in 2001 from the previous year is 8.4 million hectares. The increase was mainly due to the area going up in USA by 5.4 million hectares, which amounted to 66% of the global increase. The increase in Argentine was 1.8 million hectares or 25% of the global total. These two countries accounted for 91% of the global increase. Hence, it is not more countries accepting GM-crops but a consolidation of GM-crops in two countries that accounted for the increase.

What is more important from the point of Sri Lanka is to analyse the different GM-crops and their newly acquired traits. It is seen that the some four crops (soya, maize, cotton and canola) have been dominant as in previous years. These are highly profitable commercial crops and, except for maize, are not essential food crops. It is also significant to note that the area under GM-maize had remained static while the increase is mainly due to Soya, which had shown an increase of 10%, while the increase in area under cotton has increased only by 4%. The area under GM-Canola had remained static as in GM-maize. Thus, the increase in the total land area under GM-crops was due only to these two, none of which is an essential food item.

A crop is genetically-modified to express a certain desired characteristic or trait. It is these traits that make it useful and profitable. The ISAAA review of 2001 shows again that the GM-crops of the world has been dominated by only two traits, as it has happened during the past. These are Herbicide Resistance (HR) or Herbicide Tolerance and the production of insecticides. The Herbicide Resistant trait had dominated the GM-crops with 85% or 44.8 million hectares planted with crops that show this trait.

The insect resistant trait accounted for 23% or 12 million hectares. The apparent discrepancy between these figures is due to 8% area being covered with crops that have both these traits. The area of land is 4.2 million hectares.

It is seen that, just like in the previous years, the entire GM-Soya crop has only the Herbicide Resistant trait. These Soya varieties accounted for 63% of the GM-crops, while maize, which had both insect resistant and HR traits, (alone and together) covered 19% of the total. Of this, insect resistance was dominant. The GM-Cotton crop, accounting for both traits covered 13%. The Canola consisted entirely of HR varieties accounted for only 5%. The other six GM crops occupied less than 5% of the transgenic crop area. It is vital to note that rice, which feeds more than half of the world’s population, has no GM-varieties mentioned in the report. Indonesia, one of the major rice producers in the world, has entered the group of GM-crop growing countries by allowing the planting of insect-resistant Cotton (known as Bt-cotton).

The Herbicide Resistant crops are designed to withstand a heavy dosage of an indiscriminate herbicide. This allows the spraying of herbicides to kill all weeds while not harming the crop. It may help financially rich farmers save effort in using several selective weed killing herbicides. At the same time, the use of HR-crops will not reduce the use of agro-chemicals. It may, in fact, tend to increase the use. This is because the farmer can use several applications in the growing season and there is no need to worry about plants being harmed, hence it is possible to use higher doses. The adoption of such crops will never help the Sri Lankan farmers, neither financially, nor ecologically. The other is that none of the currently available HR-crops are our essential food crops and there is no need to adopt them. The other aspect of the HR crops is that they have one of the two genes that have been employed to give resistance to one of the two indiscriminately-killing (or broad-spectrum) herbicide. These herbicides are glyphosate (known by the trade name Round up) and glufosinate (known as Liberty and Basta in trade).

The insect-resistant crops have a gene that produces a toxin inside the tissues of the plant, which makes them poisonous to insects that feed on the tissues. It is seen that all the currently available insect resistant crops have a gene from a single species of bacterium known as bacillus Thurengiensis. There are different strains of these bacteria and each one has a slightly different version of the toxic proteins. These toxic proteins are collectively known as endotoxins and the genes responsible for the production of these are called Bt genes. Crops that have been genetically modified to include one of these genes are commonly known as Bt-crops. Different endotoxins are effective against different insects and it can be used to have different crops to withstand different pests.

Unlike in the case of herbicide resistant crops, these Bt-crops are often shown as helpful in reducing the use of toxic pesticides. It is true, but there is increasing doubt whether this could be as effective as some claim it to be. One reason is that the widespread use of Bt-crops has increased resistance among insects to these endotoxins.

It has been assessed that the effectiveness of Bt-crops may not last for more than another ten years. This warning has been interpreted by companies to mean that the profits from Bt-crops would not last long. Thus, rather than showing restraint, they have accelerated the sale of Bt-crops in order to reap the maximum benefits when the possibilities exist.

The figures of the GM-crops planted last year reinforces the message that we, in eco-groups, have always advocating. That is, we cannot rely on the currently available GM-crops, made by companies, to find solutions to our problems. These crops are developed to fulfil corporate interests and not to solve food-security problems of poor nations.

The adoption of them would certainly fulfil corporate aspirations, but not those of ours and would even cause further problems for our farmers, economy, agriculture and food security. Instead, what we should do is to see whether it is possible to develop new crops that meet our present and future needs. The possibility of making use of GM-technologies is only one option and is not the only option as suggested by some.