Bangladesh agriculture is quite different from other countries, even from the neighbouring ones, mainly due to its small farm sizes, land-ownership pattern, and labour-intensive character. Introduction of such controversial technology will invite disaster in our agriculture and economy. The impact will be pervasive and beyond reversal.
-----

Editorial: The biotechnology trap
Nazrul Islam
The Daily Star (Bangladesh), November 1 2004
http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/11/01/d41101020534.htm

Finally our agricultural experts and decision-makers have swallowed the multinational companies' (MNCs) biotechnology-bait and decided to put our agricultural sector and farmers in great danger -- in other words, the government recently approved a proposal to introduce biotechnology in agriculture.

The outcry of the environmentalists and sensible scientists failed to persuade the decision-makers from stepping into their trap. However, there was possibly no way for the experts but to accept the bait, as newspaper reports say a big business power is behind the move to introduce biotechnology in our country.

Merchants, politicians, bureaucrats, and technocrats today are a formidable cohort in our country for deriving their immediate benefits. The interests of the country and countrymen, especially of the marginal ones, are insignificant to them. They want profit -- profit in exchange for anything.

After the nuclear technology, it is the biotechnology in agriculture, which generated so much debate. Despite desperate efforts and investing billion of dollars by the MNCs and other interested groups and governments, biotechnology did not get desired response from the users during the last two decades.

Only around 60 million hectares of land have so far been brought under transgenic crops mainly in America, Argentina, Brazil, and China. Europe is yet to open its doors to GM crops, and response from Africa and Asia is minimal. In contrast, hybrid seeds of the Green Revolution captured the entire world within a decade, although it was not above controversy.

Agricultural research has always been a task of government agencies owing to its high cost and universal public utility. Business enterprises have never shown interests in such endeavour. Then, why a business tycoon is so enthusiastic in introducing biotechnology in agriculture? This enthusiasm suggests that there is something fishy in the entire process. Let us try to find out the mystery.

The first victims of biotechnology will be our poor farmers, as they would lose the remaining possession on seed as a means of production. Seed is in the centre of biotechnology and the Green Revolution. In agriculture, seed was a universal property. The Green Revolution for the first time restricted the universality, as farmers cannot always grow hybrid seeds in their field.

Biotechnology would complete the remaining unfinished task. The Green Revolution was spearheaded by the international agricultural research centres like CIMMYT and IRRI and national agricultural research institutions were the main bodies for its implementation.

Governments have full control on the seed production although agro-chemical businesses by corporate firms function through programmes set up by them. On the contrary, biotechnology revolution is predominantly private in character. The government has no control over biotechnology seed, which is considered as just another consumer commodity.

Eminent environmentalist of India, Claude Alvares has said: "For the first time the human race has produced seed that cannot cope on its own, but needs to be placed within artificial environment for growth and output."

The commodised seed is ecologically incomplete and ruptured at two levels: (1) It does not reproduce itself: Seed is supposed to be a re-generative resource. Genetic resources are thus, through technological transformation, transformed from renewable into nonrenewable; and (2) It does not produce by itself: It needs the help of inputs to produce.

As the seed and chemical companies merge, the dependence on inputs will increase, not decrease. Although agricultural biotechnology refers to transfer of gene of an organism to another one by means of genetic engineering or gene splicing to create, improve, or modify plants, animals, and microorganisms, the main focus is not on fertiliser -- and pest-free crops, but pesticide and herbicide-resistant varieties.

As a result, biotechnology is expected to increase the dependence of framers on purchased inputs. It will even increase the use of chemicals instead of decreasing it. The pesticide producing MNCs are now engaged in producing seed through gene splicing. Producing pesticide and herbicide-resistant varieties is cheaper than producing new herbicide.

The estimated cost of developing a new crop variety is $2 million, whereas the cost of a new herbicide exceeds $40 million. Herbicide and pesticide resistance increases the cohesion of seed/chemicals and the MNCs' control over agriculture. A number of major agricultural chemical companies have already developed plants with resistance to their brand herbicides.

Soya beans have been made resistant to Ciba Geigy's Atrazine herbicides. Dupont's 'Gists' and Monsanto's 'Round-up' are similar types of herbicide. Another feature of biotechnology seed is that it can't be reproduced at farmers' level. Therefore, every time a farmer would have to purchase seed from a seed company. As the seed is made resistant to the particular brand of pesticide or herbicide of that company, he would also have to purchase chemicals from that particular company.

This integration of seed and chemical is in the core of biotechnology, which attracted the seed-chemical MNCs to invest in the research. They, thereby, created or will create a monopoly market and derive profit from selling both seeds and chemicals.

The introduction of Green Revolution and biotechnology has come from the idea to commercialise agriculture. Of late, our business people were showing keen interest in agro-business. Among business people the rule is that if an article, which originally costs a certain amount is further processed, an extra cost is added when the article is sold. But in Bangladesh-agriculture, it is not so straightforward.

Fertiliser, feed, equipment, and chemicals are purchased at prices fixed abroad, and there are no words what the actual cost per kilogram will be when these imported products are used. Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world with only 14 decimals of cultivated land per person. Average cultivated farm size is only 1.5 acres. Here commercialisation of agriculture means shifting of the land ownership from the marginal farmers to the business people. Marginal farmers cultivate land for their sustenance while business people will cultivate for profit. And for gaining profit they would definitely introduce mechanisation and over exploit resources (soil, water, fertiliser, etc).

Suppose such shifting will increase some growth in the agriculture sector. Even then, would it be wise to displace the farmers from their land? Then what would happen to the 45 million labour-force currently engaged in the agriculture sector? How would they be given employment? Would the industrial sector, which shares only 11 per cent of the total employed labour force, be able to generate employment for such a huge displaced population?

The MNCs said their genetically modified crops are not only high yielding but also disease- resistant. They claimed that biotechnology is the only way to increase agricultural production and thus meet future food needs. How far their claim is justified?

There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. Despite having enough food, people remain hungry in many countries. Moreover, most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits.

The integration of the seed and chemical industries appears destined to increase per acre expenditure for seed plus chemical. Recent experimental trials have shown that genetically engineered seeds do not increase the yield of crops. Evidence also showed that there are potential risks of eating such foods as the new proteins produced in such foods could act themselves as allergens or toxins, alter the metabolism of the food producing plant or animal.

Biotechnology crops violate the basic and widely accepted principle of "integrated pest management" (IPM), which is that dependence on any single pest management technology may trigger shifts in pest species or the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms. Ecological theory predicts that the large-scale landscape homogenisation with transgenic crops will incite the ecological problems already associated with monoculture agriculture. The use of herbicide-resistant crops undermines the possibilities of crop-diversification, thus reducing agro-bio-diversity.

There is a possibility for developing herbicide resistant varieties to become serious weeds in other crops. Massive use of biotechnology crops may affect non-target organisms and ecological processes. Evidence showed that biotechnology toxin can affect beneficial insects that feed on insect pests. There is also potential for vector recombination to generate new virulent strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants engineered for viral resistance with viral genes.

After an intense debate, India allowed commercial cultivation of Bt cotton, the transgenic cotton carrying a bacterial (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene in 2002. Bt cotton is aimed at substantially reducing pesticide cost. But this has not happened. Bt plants are engineered only to resist bollworm attack. Farmers complained of sucking pests such as aphids, jassids, and white mosquitoes. And even bollworm resistance has been generally poor.

The experience of Bt cotton during its first year of cultivation has been extremely uneven, with several reports of crop failures. Farmers have found the seed too expensive. Per hectare cost of seed was four times than that of non-Bt seeds. And the yields have been reported to be less than half those promised by the company, Monsanto-Mahyco.

After the debacle of Bt cotton, a shadow has been cast on expansion of transgenic seed in India. In April 2003, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the government of India rejected a Monsanto-Mahyco proposal for release of their Bt cotton hybrid in North India. It also stayed clearance of Bt mustard.

Being a giant in agriculture and having vast expertise in the field, India did not open up its agriculture for transgenic crops. Rather, a vehement opposition to introduce such crop is gaining momentum across India.

Bangladesh agriculture is quite different from other countries, even from the neighbouring ones, mainly due to its small farm sizes, land-ownership pattern, and labour-intensive character. Introduction of such controversial technology will invite disaster in our agriculture and economy. The impact will be pervasive and beyond reversal.

Nazrul Islam is a journalist and environmentalist.