corporate-driven agriculture does not
feed the poor
Half of the world's hungry are
smallholder farmers. In the case of Africa
, three-quarters of the poor live in rural
areas. The livelihoods of subsistence
farmers around the world are being
threatened by corporate-driven agriculture
policies, including the neoliberal model of
growing food for export, a second Green
Revolution and the promotion of
genetically-modified crops by biotech
companies
food for export, not for the
hungry
 |
Thanks to the neoliberal trade model,
much of the food produced in
developing countries is destined for
export markets. This is a driving
force behind the growth of hunger and
poverty in rural areas, as
large-scale export-oriented
agriculture creates far fewer jobs
than family farming, and expropriates
land so that communities can no
longer grow their own food.
Export-oriented agriculture also has
the ludicrous outcome in wealthy and
poor countries alike that food flown
in from across the world can be
cheaper than locally-grown,
environmentally friendly produce.
Furthermore, the monoculture crops
promoted by corporate-led agriculture
models destroy local genetic
diversity, which is essential for
both human nutritional needs and
environmental sustainability.
Expansion of largescale monocultures
like soy and oil palm into primary
forests also forms one of the main
causes of global biodiversity
loss.
|
unsustainable green
revolutions
A more recent threat is the push for a
second Green Revolution, which champions
agricultural technology as the way to
tackle hunger and poverty in rural areas.
The first Green Revolution, which played
out primarily in the 1960s and 70s in Latin
America and Asia , resulted in millions of
indebted, landless and impoverished farmers
due to an unhealthy dependence on chemical
inputs and commercial seeds pushed by its
corporate backers. The pesticides,
fertilizer and new technologies used in the
Green Revolution also increased
biodiversity loss and genetic erosion. This
in turn jeopardized food security for the
poor, who depend on direct access to
natural resources for up to90 percent of
their livelihood needs. In addition, the
health of farmers and their families was
endangered by the chemical pesticides that
accompany industrial agriculture.
Furthermore, despite claims by its
proponents that it would feed the poor, the
Green Revolution did not reduce hunger. In
South Asia , where food availability per
person increased by 9 percent, the number
of hungry people increased by the same
percent. The United Nations estimated that
in the early 1990s, 80 percent of all
malnourished children in the developing
world lived in countries with food
surpluses. In addition, a 1999 study by the
World Bank's International Food Policy
Research Institute found that in 63
countries with malnutrition, improvements
in social factors – health, environment,
women's education and status – accounted
for nearly three-quarters of the reduction
in malnutrition since 1970. The World Bank
further concluded in an 1986 study on world
hunger and poverty that a rapid increase in
food production would not necessarily
provide food security. Hunger is not
a problem of insufficient production but
one of political will. While we believe
that there is a need for policies and
strategies to support and improve the
livelihoods of smallholder farmers, we are
in favour of a new “revolution against
hunger and poverty” rather than another
ill-fated Green Revolution.
gmos will not feed the
world
|
One of the best examples of the
threats posed by the corporatedriven
agriculture agenda is the
introduction of geneticallymodified
(GM) crops around the world. Although
the biotech industry argues that GM
crops will alleviate hunger and
poverty in developing countries, the
reality of the introduction of these
crops in the last decade shows that
biotech companies are motivated by a
less noble goal.
Friends of the Earth International
believes that the use of GM
technology to address malnutrition
and the problems of resource-poor
farmers is simply part of a
corporate-led push to open new
markets
To date, there has been no
convincing evidence that GMO
technology is without risks, let
alone useful for eradicating hunger
and poverty. Firstly, over 99 percent
of commercial GM crop acreage
worldwide is confined to just four
countries, three of them highly
industrialized and exportoriented:
the United States , Canada ,
Argentina and China.
|
|
Secondly, over 99 percent of commercial GM
crop acreage is comprised of just four
crops used mainly for animal feed (soybeans
& corn), oil (canola) or fiber
(cotton), not for hungry or malnourished
people. Thirdly, over 99 percent of
commercial GM crops feature just two traits
– herbicide-resistance for weed control and
insect-resistance – designed for farmers in
the industrialized world who practice a
highly industrialized, exportoriented mode
of agriculture. Finally, one single
company, Monsanto, accounts for over 90
percent of the total area of the global
area cultivated with GM crops, which
clearly illuminates the corporate agenda
behind the global push for GMOs.
GM technology has a dismal record of
developing crops suitable for resource-poor
farmers. In India , hundreds of transgenic
cotton farmers have committed suicide in
recent years due to mounting debt and
failed crops. A joint project of the Kenyan
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and
Monsanto to develop a GM virus-resistant
sweet potato took 12 years and cost US$6
million, yet failed to develop a single
suitable variety. In contrast, conventional
breeding of sweet potatoes in Uganda
produced a well-liked virus-resistant
variety with yield gains of nearly 100
percent in a few years and with a very
small budget.
The experience of the contamination of
maize varieties in Mexico as a result of
the import of GM maize highlights the
dangers posed by the introduction of GM
crops. Mexican corn varieties have been
developed by indigenous and local farmer
communities over thousands of years, and
these varieties are a key reserve of
genetic material for plant breeding and the
basis for food security in the country.
Cases like this offer a strong argument for
promoting the existing alternatives to GM
crops as a way to address poverty and to
ensure environmental sustainability.
