Developing countries are facing continuously rising food demand due to growth in population. However, many face low crop yields related to several factors, like droughts, extreme humidity, pests, cost of fertilizers, and transport. Add to that political instability, war and HIV/AIDS which have adversely impacted agriculture.267 Most commentators agree that food production will have to increase,
and that the increase will have to come from existing farmland.268
264 Edward Alan, ‘US Retaliation against Egypt hits Trade Plans’, Financial Times, 29 June 2003,
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ft.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=stor
265 First Written Submission of the United States, para.64. 266 First Written Submission of the United States, paras. 64-66.
267 Ernestine Meijer and Richard Stewert, ‘The GM Cold War: How Developing Countries Can Go
from Being Dominos to Being Players’, 13(3) RECIEL 2004, p. 247.
133 Advocates of GM crops believe that they can be of particular benefit in improving agricultural production in the developing world. The US, in particular, continues to be vocal proponent, noting that:
Agricultural biotechnology promotes economic development, and has delivered on its promise to feed a hungry world, increase product yields, reduce pesticide use, improve nutrition and disease prevention, enhance food security, and increase incomes of farmers- most of whom are in the developing world.269
Claiming that genetically modified crops can feed the whole world is disingenuous because food security is a complex issue.270 Some recognize that food security is
less about food availability, than a lack of access to food.271 Even if GMOs leads to
increased crop yields, the problem is not that there is not enough food on the planet but how wealth is distributed; the argument is that people go hungry because they cannot afford food or the land to grow it.272 Pretty contends that ‘in most cases,
people are hungry because they are poor.’ They don’t have the money to buy the food they need. Poor farmers cannot afford expensive modern technologies that could theoretically increase their yields. ‘What they need are readily available and cheap means to improve their farm productivity.’273
Another factor contributing to poverty is agricultural subsidies worth about US$300 billion in developed countries to protect their farmers and agribusinesses. These
269 ‘US Trade Representative Susan Schwab and US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Announce
Favourable Ruling in WTO case on Agricultural Biotechnology’ USTR, 29 September 2006,
http://www.ustr.gov. Accessed 10 October 2006. She also added that agricultural biotechnology is continuation on the long tradition of agricultural innovation that has provided the basis for rising prosperity for the past millennium.
270 Food security is beyond the scope of this study.
271 Council for Responsible Genetics, ‘Coalition of the Willing’ (n 110).
272 ‘African Groups Condemn Bush Administration’s WTO Challenge of European GMO Policies;
GMOs Not Answer to African Hunger’, Public Citizen (18 June 2003),
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1464.Accessed 18 August 2009. See also ‘US Complaint. In Whose Interest?’ Public Citizen,
http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/agriculture/gmo/articles.cfm?ID=11052. Accessed 18 August 2009. They do not View GMOs as answer to African hunger but as ‘in fact really about trying to overcome the growing public antipathy to GMOs worldwide and the related disappointment for U.S. industries who gambled on this technology.
273 See Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 257. In average, the world produces
enough food to feed everyone with nutritious and adequate diet 354kf per person per year) yet there about 790 million people in serious food insecurity.
134 subsidies, found in the US, the EU, and Japan amongst others, negatively affect developing countries, and contribute to keeping the poor mired in poverty.274
GMOs of interest and relevance to the needs of developing countries, such as crops that can survive in dry or could climates, crops with improved nutritional quality, crops that produce higher yields, or crops with increasing salt or acid soil tolerance (environmental stress), are still being refined in laboratories.275 ‘Commercially
available GM crops are largely dominated by herbicide or insecticide tolerant crops. These varieties can be useful for big farmer in developing countries, but they are not likely to improve the situation of smaller farmers.’276
Many factors affect a country’s position on agricultural biotechnology (GMOs), such as policy awareness of the country, the level of risk they are willing to accept, their capacity to carry out risk assessment and implement adequate legislation, their perception of the benefits they could gain, their dependence on agriculture exports, their reliance on food aid, and the investment they have already made in the sector.277 There is not one solution to fit all; the term developing country, covers
many countries in different continents and different climates, with different needs, and a variety of local conditions and problems.
According to figures from ISAAA, of the 29 countries planting biotech crops in 2011, 19 were developing and 10 were industrial. The five lead developing
countries in biotech crops are India, China, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa, which collectively represent 40% of the global population.The major GM crop approved for commercial release in developing countries is Bt cotton, which is grown commercially in China, India, and Indonesia and is the fastest expanding GM crop.278
274 Council for Responsible Genetics, ‘Coalition of the Willing’ (n 110). 275 See Clive James, (n 56).
276 ‘US vs EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food’ Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (DECEMBER 2005), p.8-9,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/Bio tech_USEU1205.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2009.
277 Simonetta Zarrilli, National and Multilateral Legal Frameworks, (n 162) p. 2.
135 Many NGOs, scientists, and academics remain sceptical of the benefits, highlighting a wide range of potential risks. Some maintain that ‘[m]ost benefits are noble in nature and cause, yet these benefits are only the could bes of the future.’ Therefore, since most of these benefits are just, ‘sweeping predictions seem quite idealistic considering the relative novelty of agricultural genetic engineering.’ Most developing countries lack capacity to assess and manage potential risks of GMOs.279
Another fear relates to poor farmers depending on big corporations for seeds rather being self-sufficient. Seed saving is an ongoing practice in developing countries. However, since IPRs of GMOs are held by private corporations, GM farmers are not allowed to save seeds from their harvests for replanting in subsequent years; rather, they must buy new seed annually.280 This results in adverse consequences,
and those poor farmers most susceptible to hunger would unable to afford to use GM seeds, even if they were proved to be safe.281
Finally, there are also unknown health effects for the poor who consume GMOs. Corn and other grains comprise 70 percent of the average African’s caloric intake as opposed to just 3 to 4 percent of the average American’s caloric intake, exposing them to greater risk as regards the potential negative health impacts.282