[Farming] Anti-poverty group calls modified crops helpful

From The St Louis Post Dispatch

By Rachel Melcer

Genetically modified crops are not a panacea for world hunger and poverty, but they are making a significant - and growing - contribution, according to a report made public Wednesday by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

About 7.7 million subsistence farmers planted biotech crops last year, up from 7.5 million in 2004. Most are cotton growers in China, India, South Africa and the Philippines. Their incomes, typically $1 a day, have risen 25 percent to 30 percent with the use of biotech crops, which improve yield and reduce the need to apply costly weed- and insect-killers, said Clive James, chair of ISAAA's board and author of the report.

"It's not a silver bullet. It is a technology, like any other technology, with strengths and weaknesses," James said. ISAAA is a not-for-profit devoted to reducing poverty by boosting farm income and crop productivity. The group has been supported by foundations and companies, including Monsanto Co. and the Monsanto Fund.

To boost production, farmers need a combination of biotech traits, high-quality seeds and good conventional agronomic practices, James said. Biotech crops "are a contribution, not a solution, to the alleviation of poverty."

Yet, these crops are controversial. Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit group that opposes the technology, contends that they could harm the environment, reduce biodiversity and lead to "super weeds" that could resist the most widely used herbicide. In a report issued Tuesday, the group questioned the technology's benefits.

Biotech crops are genetically engineered with traits that appeal to growers, such as the ability to ward off certain pests and to withstand applications of glyphosate herbicide. Companies, led by Monsanto Co. of Creve Coeur, as well as public institutes are developing biotech seeds that will make crops easier to use for food processors and healthier for consumers.

Growth in the use of biotech crops in developing countries - including Brazil, one of the world's top agriculture economies - is outpacing acreage expansion in industrialized nations that have approved the technology, the report said.

In part, this is because the United States already has widely adopted biotech soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. More than 123 million U.S. acres were planted with these crops last year - 55 percent of the total 222 million acres planted with biotech crops in 21 nations. So, countries that are newer to the technology have more room for rapid expansion.

Most of the crops were developed and are sold by Monsanto. Last year, it was the sole purveyor of seeds that are "stacked" with more than one genetic trait, though DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred International division and Dow Agro Sciences LLC jointly launched a corn product with two traits for the 2006 planting season.

By stacking traits, companies can maximize profits and value on every acre, and farmers can see added benefits with the use of a single seed. About 20 percent of biotech acres in United States were planted with stacked traits, the report said.

Overall, global acreage of biotech crops grew by 11 percent in 2005 over the prior year. This was the smallest gain seen in a decade of planting, because of a decrease in overall cotton planting in China as well as drought and poor weather conditions in other parts of the world, James said.

The market value of biotech seeds, including fees levied for using the technology, was $5.25 billion in 2005 and should rise to $5.5 billion this year, the report said. Biotech crops, harvested and sold, fetched about $50 billion last year.

Friends of the Earth said biotech crops benefit big corporations - namely, Monsanto - rather than farmers or consumers. Its report said adoption of the technology is a sign of Monsanto's "objectionable" influence over policymakers in many countries and international bodies.

Chris Horner, a Monsanto spokesman, said that report contains old information that major scientific studies have refuted.

"The main thing is, farmers are using this and adopting it at the rate they are because of the benefits," he said. "We can't make farmers do anything."