EXCERPT: Pakistan's natural resources have been depleted and soils and watercourses have been polluted by overuse of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides. If these issues aren't tackled, then the impact of biotechnology will be the same as of the Green Revolution ”” it will benefit a handful of Pakistanis.

But biotechnology goes even into other levels of questionable practices. For starters, the bulk of research and lobbying on biotechnology is being done by a handful of multinationals: Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemicals (remember Bhopal?), Advanta, Bayer AG, BASF, and Syngenta (formerly Novartis and AstraZeneca). ...all these giants were, at one time or another, involved in the creation of some of the most harmful products in our life on Earth: heroin, the atom bomb, napalm, agent orange, and other chemical weapons.
------

ECONOMY: A word of caution on the biotechnology 'miracle'
Miguel Loureiro [lecturer in development studies at the Lahore University of Management Sciences]
The Daily Times, 8 December 2004
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-12-2004_pg3_5

Europe isn't sure. It's recommending trials, more research and caution. Japanese consumer groups sent a petition with more than a million signatures to the Canadian minister of agriculture to ban genetically modified wheat in Canada, Japan's largest exporter. Even poorer nations aren't sure. Last year Zambia declined GM food aid, even in the midst of a food crisis


Thomas Malthus, an English political economist, wrote in 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr Godwin, M Condorcet, and Other Writers.

His main thesis was that since plants and animals always produce more offspring than can survive, so will humans if unchecked. So unless family size is regulated, poverty and famine would become global epidemics and eventually destroy humankind. He assumed that poverty and famine were natural outcomes and his solution was to regulate the size of the lower class, making sure they don't produce more children than they can support. What he didn't know at the time was that poverty and famines are due to human not natural causes. As examples we have the famous Irish famine in the XIX century and the several famines in British-occupied India, where at the time that a vast majority of the population was suffering from hunger, these countries were actually exporting food.

We've come to realise today that both poverty and famines have more to do with the lack of access to resources, proper democratic states, and freedom of press, than potato fungus or over-copulation by the natives. By no means am I trying to say that we don’t need proper family planning, or improvements in agricultural technology. In fact, proper family planning is a battle that needs to be won in Pakistan at a faster pace, but unfortunately the state never gave the more-than-enough support needed to these faujis. A country with enormous success in family planning recently has been Iran, so maybe we could learn something from our neighbours.

As for improvements in agricultural technology we had a few - who doesn’t remember the Green Revolution - but somehow their benefits didn't trickle-down to all Pakistanis. So while I would be inclined to look at "what went wrong with the Green Revolution" and first address those problems, many international agencies today briefly mention these, but immediately go for the politically-neutral technical quick-fix: biotechnology.

First of all, what did go wrong with the Green Revolution? The Green Revolution brought amazing changes to the world, with its improved high-yielding varieties, advances in plant and animal nutrition, plant and animal pest and disease control, soil and water conservation and use, mechanisation, as well as new technological gadgets to improve labour performance, harvesting and storage. Countries like India evolved from food-importers to food-exporters. The per capita food supply in poorer nations rose from 1,900 calories per day in the '60s to 2,500 in the '90s, even taking into consideration the doubling of population.

But these figures are averages. And what's the use of all these new technologies if you can’t afford them? And what if no one tells you how to use them? And what if you don’t own the land where you work? On the negative side - and the Green Revolution had quite a few - due to bad practices some of Pakistan's natural resources have been depleted and soils and watercourses have been polluted by overuse of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides. If these issues aren't tackled, then the impact of biotechnology will be the same as of the Green Revolution ”” it will benefit a handful of Pakistanis.

But biotechnology goes even into other levels of questionable practices. For starters, the bulk of research and lobbying on biotechnology is being done by a handful of multinationals: Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemicals (remember Bhopal?), Advanta, Bayer AG, BASF, and Singenta (formerly Novartis and AstraZeneca). Out of curiosity, all these giants were, at one time or another, involved in the creation of some of the most harmful products in our life on Earth: heroin, the atom bomb, napalm, agent orange, and other chemical weapons. Secondly, their research is still incomplete - we still don't know for sure how safe these products are and how they effect the environment. And sometimes the research borders on unethical behaviour.

To give you an example, would you eat a tomato that in its DNA had DNA from an Alaskan Flounder fish so that it can last longer in the fridge? And what about those new crop varieties that rather than being resistant to pests are resistant to a pesticide that kills everything else around (and which happens to be produced only by the same multinational that produces these varieties)? Are we 100 percent sure that these same pests won't modify themselves to become resistant to this pesticide (the famous 'super-bug')?

Europe isn't sure. So it's recommending trials, more research and caution. Japanese consumer groups sent a petition with more than a million signatures to the Canadian minister of agriculture to ban genetically modified (GM) wheat in Canada, Japan's largest exporter of wheat. Even poorer nations aren’t sure. Last year Zambia declined GM food aid, even in the midst of a food crisis. Recently Thailand’s government refused to lift a ban on GM crops.

There are two big active supporters of GM crops: the big multinationals and the US government (a few months ago Bush even stated that the main cause of famines in Africa was Europe's negative view of GM food). In Pakistan, after a few years of research, some research institutes feel that the time is right to introduce GM crops, starting with cotton. Are we really ready? The Ministry of Environment signed the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety in 2001, but it hasn’t ratified it yet, as it hasn't come up with national bio-safety guidelines. It's still going through the process of consulting stakeholders, ministries, provincial governments, and the public in general. And while some say it’s just pure incompetence, others say it's caution.

I say do it properly.

Miguel Loureiro is a lecturer in development studies at the Lahore University of Management Sciences