ENOUGH TO MAKE EVERYONE FAT
Anuradha Mittal on GMOs and the Third
World
FoEI's Janice Wormworth interviewed
Anuradha Mittal of the US-based Institute
for Food and Development Policy during FoE
Europe’s "Sustainable Agriculture in the
New Millennium" conference in May.
What are the dangers in India, your
country, of genetically-modified foods?
I think that the biggest danger posed
by GMOs is the control of our food supply
system. Yes, there are a whole lot of
environmental risks, there are all kinds of
health concerns, but the biggest threat I
see is to the farmers. Farmers have been
the stewards of the land, the stewards of
the seeds. We suddenly find that their role
has been taken over by corporations.
Fewer and fewer corporations are going
to control how food is grown, how it is
produced and how it is distributed. And
this is not a simple problem. It is very
serious, because it involves the
sovereignty of nations. Communities and
countries that have been independent and
self-sufficient are going to be dependent
on corporations such as Monsanto.
Let's not forget that right now,
Monsanto forces farmers to sign contracts
saying that they will not grow seeds from
their harvest. There is a centuries-old
tradition whereby over one billion of the
world’s farmers depend upon growing seeds
saved from the harvest. And suddenly we’re
going to be dependent on these products
that we have to buy from Monsanto and
Novartis each year. So that is one very big
issue.
Another is the loss of biodiversity.
India, which used to have 50,000 thousand
varieties of rice, has a few dozen left
today. And as wild and native and
traditional varieties are eradicated, we
not only lose indigenous systems of
knowledge but we’re also becoming dependent
on a few varieties that are controlled by
transnational corporations.
So we are changing the nature of
agriculture. Agriculture, which was never a
commercial activity, which was about small
family farms, about small community
efforts, and about local self-sufficiency,
is being turned into something that is all
about the dollar value put to it, all about
commerce, all about trade. And that’s
really scary because when you think of
food, you realize what you could do to
countries like Cuba and Iraq, and what
embargoes are really about. It’s one strong
way to bring communities and countries down
on their knees.
You’re concerned that GM foods will
reduce biodiversity, yet the biotech
companies say they will increase it. What
do you think about these claims?
I think they are wrong. First of all,
GM crops are not like an oil spill that you
can put a boom around. When you have
genetic pollution, there’s no way you can
stop it. So even if you want to be an
organic farmer, cross pollination from
somebody around the corner who is growing
genetically engineered crops can invalidate
your organic certification. Second, what
was identified by Monsanto as weeds in a
village in the Indian state of West Bengal,
and therefore to be destroyed by chemicals,
was used by the community for fodder, for
medicinal purposes, and for food. Some of
these plants have very special medicinal
value, or they are used for food. For
example batua, a green leafy vegetable, is
a great source of Vitamin A but has been
treated as a weed by the Green
Revolution.
Do you think there could be anything
positive in biotech for the developing
world?
As far as agriculture is concerned, I
think that the burden of proof has to be
upon the industry and the people who
believe in the technology to justify the
rationale of genetically engineering our
food system. I’m still waiting for a
rationale that sounds reasonable and decent
enough for funds and research to be spent
on it.
Whether you look at public universities
or at countries like India, you will not
find funding for sustainable organic
agriculture. Or for conventional
agriculture as people used to practice for
centuries. As long as we do not see that
kind of support and funding for
alternatives, the burden of proof is on the
other side.
So if you ask me if there is anything
positive in GM agriculture, I do not see
anything. The reasons that have so far been
given -- for example to feed the hungry in
Third World countries -- well we know that
there is enough food to feed the hungry
people. Our research at the Institute for
Food and Development Policy shows that
there are 4.3 pounds of food per person per
day around the world, enough to make
everyone fat. The reason that we have
hunger lies in social and economic
inequities. This is the rationale that has
been presented by industries and
researchers promoting biotech, and this is
no decent rationale.
Do you think we should introduce GMOs
in 20 years if we can’t feed the world’s
population?
We do not have a problem of
insufficient production, and going by the
research that I have seen, we might not
have that problem in 20 years. Twenty years
ago we were told that there would not be
enough food to feed the world. We have
proven them wrong. We know that birth rates
are down compared to increasing food
production.
We have enough research to show that
sustainable agriculture on small farms
produces more food. Given that we know what
will increase food production and more
importantly, end hunger, it seems
ridiculous that we are still looking for
solutions. Our goal in the next few years
is to implement the policies that we have.
These are policies for social safety nets,
for land reform, for decent jobs that give
a living wage, and for more funding for
sustainable organic agriculture.
Let’s first implement all those, and if
it isn’t enough, let them prove that GMOs
are really going to solve the problem.
