European activists are campaigning to block the introduction of GM crops into their farmland and dinner tables. Demonstrations, some are violent, have been staged in London, Paris, Prague, Barcelona, Helsinki, Milan, among other cities. To give biotechnology in agriculture a fair chance and to protect the millions of investments multi-national companies have made in this new industry, it is only wise that governments and companies adequately address the concerns of the public. 

Opposition to GM food appears to have the potential of developing into a  “contagion” among developed societies.  Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, for example has issued a report on how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be categorized, a move seen as a first step to mandatory labeling. 

Europe is a latecomer to GM crops.  To date, the European Union has approved only 12 genetically modified organisms compared to 50 approved in the US. In fact public opposition has brought the approval of GM varieties to halt in the last 15 months. 

The opposition headed by environmental activists, medical doctors and consumer groups, championed by Britain’s Organic Farmer Prince Charles in Britain seem to be most visible and effective. In the spring of 1999, the United Kingdom passed a law requiring restaurants to list all genetically altered ingredients used in the preparation of their dishes. 

The consumer backlash threatens to undermine both this new technology and the credibility of the agencies that regulate it. Opponents charged that GM crops are unsafe, unnecessary, and bad for the environment.  Unless a major shift in public opinion on the US side of the Atlantic, that radically changes the heart of regulators, in spite of our limited and infantile knowledge of the effects of GM crops on humans and the environment, the trend towards GM crops looks inevitable.

Proponents celebrates the power of this new technology --increasing yield and lowering cost --the power that finally puts the farmer-producer in charge of the production process.  They also trumpet biotech as the answer to feeding the world’s billions of hungry people, which the United Nations estimates at some 856 million, that is one in every six among us go to bed hungry every night, mostly concentrated in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa. 

Genetically modified seeds that are resistant to pest also eliminate the use of pesticides, putting an end to the ever-aggravating pollution challenges created by chemical-based farming. With the revelation of GM crops possible harm on the environment as revealed by the laboratory experiment of caterpillars of the Monarch Butterfly, opponents fret that GM enthusiasts may have been hasty and that they have gone too far. 

If indeed real damages and risks exist, can they be reverse without upsetting the balance of the ecology system?  Could the current waves of paranoid, triggered off by food scare beginning with BSE or Mad Cow disease in Europe, and recently the dioxin scare, jeopardize a potentially valuable technology that may be immensely useful to humans? 

While the developed world consumers worried about health and the envrionment, what about developing countries? Don’t their consumers and farmers have the same concerns? What are the implications for global trade, domestic market, and the development of agriculture for Asia?

America: One giant laboratory

Americans appear to have a more open attitude to science and technology, with farmers converting to GM crops more readily than their counterparts in Europe. In 1990, there were no GM crops in commercial cultivation in the Western world, by the end of 1999, Clive James, Director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application discloses that estimated 40 m hectares (100 m acres) will be covered with them. 

America is clearly the leader in this area; farmers have converted 55% of the country’s soya-beans, 50% of its cotton and 40% of its maize to the GM variety since 1996. Today BT varieties of maize from Monsanto and Novartis and Pioneer will account for estimated 20-m acres of the total 80-m US maize crop this year. In US agriculture, between 25 and 45 percent of major crops are genetically modified.

Another study revealed that altogether in 1998, about 70 m acres worldwide was sown with modified crops –mainly herbicide-resistant Soya and BT maize in the US, Canada and Argentina. 

Western-owned seed companies are spreading their wings all over the world, making investment in smaller Asian seed companies as well as collecting species of grains, fruits and other valuable plant varieties from their native homes for research and development. 

Other converts to GM crops are Argentina, Australia, Canada, China and Mexico. About 70 percent of canola (rapeseed) grown in Canada are genetically modified. Since 1986, Chinese biotechnicians have released 13 categories of altered crops, ranging from disease resistant rice to cold-resistant beets, for field tests. 

By 2015, about 40% of China’s major crops will be genetically altered, says Chen Zhangliang, the Vice President of Beijing University and director of the National laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering.  China, with 23% of the world’s population, and about 7% of its arable land, seems to be a natural champion of GM crops in order to enable its farmland to feed the growing millions.

Biotechnology in agriculture

 What has biotechnology done to our food?
 Scientists are finding ways to engineer food that taste better, can be stored longer, grow more readily and are less likely to trigger allergies. Biotechnology has also elevated agriculture from a rural industry to a knowledge intensive science driven activity, lead by scientist and supported by millions of research funding, ironically pioneer by chemical fertilizers companies trying to reinvent their job of crop protection, outside in -- that is from spraying chemicals to making the plant resistant to pest genetically.   A new gene, whether it is pest resistant, or desirable properties like taste and appearance, is inserted into the genetic code of the target seed. Unlike natural hybridization, such genes maybe sometimes taken from a different plant or animal family to create a new crop. Indeed, a whole new species—is created in nearly half of the time compared to conventional breeding. 

 To those in agriculture, GM crops do look like an environmental boon. Set against current practices, growing GM crops represents a more sustainable way of farming. Fields made virtually sterile by drenching season-long rain of chemicals and thinning topsoil, where plants fed on fertilizers and protected by insecticides now found relief.  They lower cost for the farmer, reduce burden of environmental pollution caused by chemical based intensive farming, as the argument goes.

So why such strong consumer aversion?

Unlike biotechnology in medicine, where better drugs and clearer diagnoses improve peoples’ lives. What is obvious now is GM crop brings tremendous benefits to the producers while benefits to consumers in the developed world are less apparent. When the death of those caterpillars, after being fed pollens of GM maize, was revealed by researches from Cornell University in New York, the fear of unknown danger of GM crops to humans and wildlife intensified.

Are we too hasty?

Proponents of GM crops were quick to point out that the caterpillar experiment was not done in the field, and therefore the result not conclusive. Are consumer and activists groups hypersensitive?

Activists reasoned that the fear is real. The loss of biodiversity --pesticide resistance genes may spread from plants that should be saved to weeds that have to be killed, in built resistance of bugs that some GM crops will have may poison insects, such as in the case of the Monarch butterfly, and allow other, nastier bugs to develop a natural resistance and thrive. 

People are also worried about the consequences of genetically altering plants and animals, implying human control of evolution, catastrophic crop failures due to homogenous weaknesses of an entire crop, widespread famine, super-resistant weeds and insects, and the patenting and control of seeds that have been free for thousands of years. 

Although there is no scientific evidence to back their opposition, many assert their strong charge that GM crops could cause damage to the human immune system, increased toxin entering the human body through GM food and caused changes to the size of their livers, hearts, and brains. Underlying these waves of protest and opposition are strong biases against big businesses and distrust of government regulators.

Support for Biotechnology

Producer companies worked hard to counter these fears and charges. Judging by the negative sentiments spreading, it looks like they need to work harder.

Supporters assert that we know more about GMO behaviors than we know of conventional engineered food. Man has been cultivating the land for close to 10,000 years and many of the plants we now used for food are no longer originals. Centuries of hybridization and plant breeding have through selective breeding changed them. 

Evolutionary biologist David Dilcher of the University of Florida and the Florida Museum of Natural History thinks that this is just another step in the evolution of man’s relationship with plants. 

Joseph Zak of the American Soybean Association adds, ”it is just another step in the history of agriculture technology.” He thinks that this is no different from the tractor replaced the horse, fertilizers came into the picture when we moved into plant breeding to make a better product. 

Naturalists have never agreed with the industrialized way of farming. They contend that this is the very reason for opposing GMO. First it was industrial technology; machines and fertilizers that have virtually destroyed the natural ecological system of the world. Now they feared that biotechnology could turn out to be an even more disastrous monster, similar to man’s once mistaken hope with nuclear power.

Supporters also charged that the research findings revealing danger of GM food has been flawed. It must also be pointed out that no study on the long-term impact of GM crops have been carried out. There is a broad scientific consensus in America that the present generation of GM foods is safe. However, in Europe, food frights from mad cow and cancer causing dioxin in Belgian food have sorely undermined the confidence in scientific pronouncements and regulatory authorities alike.

The concern on pollution of the environment, said supporters are unfounded. The engineered traits – such as resistance to certain brands of herbicide or types of insects and virus – actually do ecological good by reducing chemical use and improving yields so that less land needs to go under the plough. 

What about the regulatory system for GM food – the procedure for vetting GM foods?  How we approve the sale of GM food on the shelves or for planting in the fields, some observers pointed out, is a mismatch of national and supranational authorities that ends up blurring the line between scientific concerns and political interest. 

Richard Lewontin, the Harvard geneticist said, ” You can always intervene and change something in it, but there’s no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don’t get one rude shock after another. “ 

Give Consumers a choice

Robert May, the British Government’s chief scientist, in sorting out the current debate, said, “people want black and white, but really there are only shades of grey. What kind of regulatory system should we have, what kind of safety regime is sufficiently accurate?” 

Before a definitive conclusion and consensus can be developed, it seems natural that a viable solution is of course, give the consumers a choice and let the market decide. 

Labeling seems logical. “Until GM imports are banned they must be labeled. Any GM imports must be segregated throughout the whole food production process from seed to consumer.” Said the Green Party of England. This in practice is impractical, said the producers. Labeling will be costly and even punitive, as GM crops are not confined to fresh produce, but also processed food. 

In the US, more than 60% of processed foods contain ingredients made from soya-beans, maize or soya derivatives such as soya oil.  Reports from the UK indicate that over 7,000 common food products, from baby foods, chocolates, frozen deserts, bread and margarine, to sausages, meat products and meat substitute, may contain genetically altered soya bean derivatives, yet none are labeled as such. 

Soya and maize, both of which largely originate from the US, are used very widely. In the case of soya bean it is increasingly difficult to find the non modified form. Even Sweden’s farmers maybe forced to give up their struggle to remain original, Swedish animal feed suppliers have indicated they may soon be forced to give up their ban on genetically modified fodder, even though the country is one of the few in the world whose farm industry has taken a stand against GM animal feeds. 

Reason is hardly surprising. The industry is struggling to secure supplies of non-GM Soya beans meal for use in dairy and meat production as the amount under cultivation dwindles. Sweden imports around 350,000 tones a year of non-GM soya meal, mainly from Brazil. But next year (2000) Brazil is likely to start growing GM soya crops.

In the meantime, some food companies are finding a new niche in being “GM-free.” Yielding to consumer pressure, already many food companies have stopped the use of GM food, 24 to 30 top food company said they had eliminated or are removing GM ingredients from their products. 

Protecting the Consumer

Consumer protection laws in Malaysia and other parts of Asia lag far behind technological and trade developments in the world, as well as social and economic developments at home. One thing that can be expected is the ban on GM food in Europe can only mean more dumping into developing countries. 

A Malaysian health ministry officer said that much of the soya bean in Malaysia comes from countries like China and Canada, and the bulk of the corn consumed is from the US –all three countries have millions of hectares devoted to GM crops.

In India where the hungry numbered some 200 million, biotech represents hope. Also crop failure due to pesticides are frequent, with untold damages, both financial and emotional, inflicted on the poor rural farmers. 

The tragedy of the cotton-growing regions of India’s southern state of Andhra Pradesh where an attack by bollworms in 1997, which resisted repeated application of expensive pesticides destroyed the cotton fields, prompted some 200 debt burdened farmers to commit suicide. This tragedy is still fresh in people’s minds, and has powerful influence on peoples’ attitude towards GM crops, making them more willing to take risks in order to escape from their sufferings.
 

The way forward

Many of these present fears arose from inadequate studies on GM crops. Inadequate government regulations, distrust of the system, the erosion of confidence after some very scary incidents of food contamination add to the intensity of the opposition towards GM crops. 

Resentment towards big business’s smart outwitting the regulatory system is another factor. A Leubuscher from Brooklyn, New York pointed out in his letter to the Financial Times on February 26 1999, “The US Food and Drug Administration does, indeed, require extensive testing of products prior to approval. The FDA did not however approve GM Soya and maize.” 

More research in the field conducted in a transparent manner is the least the world expects from the champions of GM crops. Supporters on the other hand, want fruitful laboratory for scientists to try out GM crops, urging the world not to “deny good sense and wise science.” Full information on genetic made up, tests and regulation executed openly and responsibly, and above all, ensuring that the benefits of genetic engineering are not seen to go only to companies are reasonable propositions. 

One may also suggest that the proponents find a way to respect rural life and farming traditions. The spectacle of Monsanto, one of the largest GM seed company suing farmers for illegally growing its seed, such as the case of the 68 year old farmer in Canada for growing canola (rapeseed) without its consent is not very pretty. 

The old farmer claims that the wind blew Monsanto seed into his fields, which was planted with conventional crop, and that he was not even aware that his neighbor’s field was planted with Monsanto’s seeds. 

British Scientist charged that people and groups belonging to the “genetic—industrial complex” are using mafia-like tactics to promote and protect their cause. “So powerful is the complex, that enemies are dealt with by use of legal suits and hotlines for tip-off. In some causes, critics are paid huge sums to keep quiet. Many who questioned the technology are eventually hired by the companies,” they alleged.

Caution is called for. More research, more careful and managed introduction of GM seeds seems wise.  Carefully documentation and preservation of the original genetic made up of native seeds in a database makes an important part of a nation’s heritage.

Multinational, especially American companies will get very rich in the process, if and when the world accepts GM crops.  10 of them own 60 percent of the patents on BT crops. The world expects them to take their responsibility seriously, making the experiments transparent, and sharing complete information with the public. 

Finally, what is safe and what is desirable should be encouraged, otherwise the human race could denied itself an opportunity to progress. Bishop John Liver, a bishop in the Protestant Church of England, said, “ I believe that genetic modification is breaking new ground. It is crossing an ethical frontier. It can be done, but not everything that can be done should be done. I personally judge that, although genetic modification is in a sense unnatural, discontinuous with previous scientific and agricultural practice, it may nevertheless be ethically acceptable providing it is introduced with great caution.” 

In the developing countries, genetically modified crops have implications of competitiveness for agricultural export countries and impact on the ecology for domestic farmland. 

Biotechnology engineers and scientists are travelling the globe collecting valuable plant species with desirable genetic qualities. Some fear that without proper supervision and policy guidelines, valuable native plant heritage can be collected by foreign scientists and one day become the intellectual property of multi national life science companies.  Thus, their governments, as custodian of the peoples’ interest, must exercise vigilant oversight on the development of plant biotechnology .

Agriculture and the ecology in Asia like elsewhere where GM crops are grown, can change very rapidly if no surveillance is undertaken. Many farmers in Asia are already planting with seeds imported from giant seed companies that operate around the world. 

Sweet corn, a popular  snack with Malaysians are grown with imported seeds that contain the terminator gene. Organic farmers in Malaysia told me they can not guarantee that the seeds they used are GM free. 

Since there is much uncertainty to the consequences of GM crops, it is only wise that Asian countries to review its public policy framework provide for regulating this new development and perhaps postpone their introduction. 

Pressured to overcome hunger and poverty, developing countries do not have the luxury of attending to scientific consequences of GM crops, and some politicians may dismiss the concern as one belonging to righteous environmental activists. Understandably, they may even welcome GM crops as lower cost of production and higher yields are exactly the kind of answers they have waited to alleviate the suffering of their millions.

The competitiveness of GM crops, lower cost and better yield is going to exert strong pressure on domestic agriculture, especially if they are also competing in markets in developing countries. 

For agriculture producer-exporters, say the Palm Oil industry in Malaysia. In order to protect consumers, home markets cannot be closed to protect smaller farmers. If they do, this will inevitably start a trade war with their competitor, such as the powerful Soya bean producing countries. 

Opening up domestic markets would mean their farmers losing out to the competition even at home. As for exports, non-GM crops will lose out in price competitiveness, which could imply they losing market share to substitute GM produce. 

Malaysia, the world’s No 1 producer of palm oil with production of 8.3 million tones in 1998, and worth some US$5 billion, accounted for some 65% of the nation’s total export revenue in 1998 may just be facing this dilemmas. 

Malaysia is a major exporter of products like Palm Oil and rubber that have extensive biotechnological applications. This could later be used as a form of trade barrier when the biosafety protocol comes into force. 

The hesitation of the government to make an official stand has to do with its fear that its exports of palm oil and other commodities may be subject to scrutiny. Nevertheless, since Malaysia is still a net importer of food the government owes it to consumers to label transgenic seeds, grains and processed food, to inform them of the risks involved. 

Malaysian palm oil’s major markets are India, China and the European Union; it would be wise for Malaysia to be cautious in its application of biotechnology. Science and technology must not mesmerize us, as they do not necessarily bring positive outcomes to humankind. 

There is no need to jump onto the GM bandwagon. Malaysia can learn from Brazil, for example which has created a niche for selling non-transgenic foods. 

For GM free Malaysia palm oil, opportunities abound in the developed markets, which is currently riding a wave of preference for organic and natural produce. GM free organically produce natural produce also sells for higher value in these markets.

For Malaysia to focus on selling Palm Oil to consumers in the developed world, Malaysia producers must undergo a radical paradigm shift. Discerning consumers, especially those in developed markets care more about issues such as human rights, workers welfare, environmental standards and safety application of chemicals and fertilizers. 

The persistent labor issue at the palm oil estates is one of the many issues producers must tackle before the image of palm oil can be improved.  In addition to that, producers must focus on sharp marketing campaign, to develop the market share for palm oil vis-à-vis other vegetable oils, and to project a progressive image for Malaysian palm oil in developed markets.

The battle between science and nature; with wide implications for all those who depend on nature for survival, will rage on. While the jury is still out there for GM crops, it might do good to Malaysian palm oil producers to rethink their long term competitiveness and their niche in the world vegetable oil market. 

With lots of sunshine, abundant rain, and a small population, Malaysia can afford to go the “organic route” for palm oil production. Producers only need to be persuaded and divert resources to develop the knowledge, skill and muster the will to the make the change.

Feedback Welcomed!

The Malaysian Economy: A Perspective on Competitiveness Part I: Arresting the Decline in Competitiveness Part II: Is the Priority Growth or Restructuring? China Rising NOW, not in the future Hello! Look What's Happening Today Make English Ours Towards a Pragmatic Language Policy Bringing English to the Fore Learning English can reinforce Nationalism: PM The future of Taiwan and the Mainland: What kind of union? Soil Restoration and Sustainable Farming Public Complaints Bureau, PM's Dept Syabas, Nanyang Siang Pau! Globalization makes all Sleepless in Seattle Malaysian Direct Election on the Net The Costly Difference between Metric and English Instilling a Sense of Responsibility - The Will to Discipline Why should My Religion be Anybody's Business? Anybody's Child wants to be a Rescue Worker or Peacekeeper? Are Consumers Winning the War on Genetically Modified Crops? Pahlawan Thoughts MORE HERE!

Search for ANY  Book or Author!