Genetically Modified Foods: A Growing Market and Cultural Divide

For most people, the word “biotech” conjures up images of companies like Genentech developing the next great diabetes, HIV or cancer treatment. For some, however “biotech” may be considered either a socially conscious business opportunity that can help eradicate famine or the scourge of “frankenfood”.  The long-running debate over genetically modified (“GM”) foods has been rekindled after the recent food riots in Mozambique and discontent about rising prices for staples in other areas of Africa.  Participants in the battle over GM foods and crop production include commercial producers including Monsanto, Mahyco, and Syngenta, environmental groups such as Greenpeace, scientists and advocates like the ISAAA.

Although GM foods are not uncommon and the genetic sequences for crops such as corn and rice have been decoded over the past ten years, there is still substantial resistance to adoption in areas where food supplies are most likely to be at risk. Governments and environmentalists are concerned not only about the potential impact on future crop growth, but the economic implications and business models behind GM seeds.  Additionally, governments in developing regions have suffered an inability to fully develop the legislative and financial infrastructures needed to test and commercialize GM crops. According to Dr. Simon Gichuki, head of biotechnology research at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, "What we do not have are regulations to take the technology from confinement to farmers' fields, commercialize it." Dr. Gichuki added, “There is government funding but it is not enough," and went on to point out that most biotechnology activities across the world are private sector led and are motivated by profits.

One way that GM seed producers have sought to protect their intellectual property and maximize profits is by developing seeds with sterile offspring, or whose offspring lack the same genetic traits as their predecessors. Supporters say they these “terminator seeds” or “suicide seeds” stop farmers using seeds they haven't paid for and that their genes cannot spread to conventional crops, unlike other GM seeds. But critics say that terminator seeds will make poor farmers dependent on big companies for seeds. Anti-GM activists further complain about selling practices used by GM seed producers, claiming that programs such as AfriCan, an alliance between Syngenta and U.S. based company Pannar, incorporates farmers into a contract-farming scheme linking them to credit, GM seeds and chemical inputs, leaving them with unaffordable debts.

Despite the beliefs of many anti-GM activists the gap between GM seed producers and farmers in developing countries is primarily cultural, and both must overcome this divide if they are to leverage scientific advances to solve the food crisis and create business opportunities in emerging economies. Professor Seyoum Gelaye, a native of Ethiopia points out that, “GM seeds require heavy input of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and complete modification of our cultural practices.” Seed providers do need to find ways to integrate new farming practices into diverse cultures in order to maximize the chances of successful harvests and profitability for their smaller rural clients. This means that strong local alliances with community leaders are just as important, if not more so, than relationships with national governments. Careful change management that fits within the local culture is needed as much as product education. GM seed providers are starting to recognize this, but the process of change will take time.

The controversy over GM seed planting and intellectual property rights will continue for years to come and barring an unforeseen disaster, the use of new seed strains that are resistant to drought, salt, pesticides and bugs will continue to expand, particularly since China is now likely to enter the fray. Governments are still figuring out how to best regulate GM seed usage, but in the face of global food shortages, resistance will eventually wear away. What is needed now is to better integrate old cultures with new science, continue to develop more repeatable testing processes and improved metrics, and to remove the emotion from the discussion.