Biotechnology, Blessing and Curse for Poor Countries Like Brazil

Brazil and other developing countries pondering whether or how much to use genetically modified agricultural crops must balance many different concerns.

They range from battling domestic starvation and malnutrition and ensuring health and safety, to preserving the environment, fulfilling multilateral trade obligations and protecting and enhancing trade opportunities, a recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study says.


The study, entitled International Trade in GMOs and GM Products:  National and Multilateral Legal Frameworks reports that genetically modified crops pose especially difficult choices for the world’s poorer nations.


Worldwide agricultural area given over to genetically modified crops has grown 47-fold since 1996, but the use of such crops by developing nations has been limited. 


The United States accounted for 59% of the 81 million hectares employed for GM agriculture in 2004. 


Only 16 other countries grew genetically modified crops, led by Argentina (20% of total area), Canada and Brazil (6% each), China (5%), Paraguay (2%), and India and South Africa (1% each).


Agro-biotechnology, or farming based on genetically modified organisms (GMOs ), may allow higher yields, improve profits for farmers, ease domestic food shortages and facilitate the production of new quality products. 


But at the same time, it involves technology that might be inadequate for the needs of developing countries and that could disrupt traditional agricultural practices, limit access to seeds, pose unpredictable environmental and health problems, have a negative impact on biodiversity and raise ethical or religious concerns.


An additional worry is that international trade flows may be jeopardized, the report states.  While economically advanced nations set policy on GMOs based largely on domestic concerns and attitudes, developing countries often depend heavily on agricultural exports and may feel constrained to bend domestic priorities in order to meet the demands and expectations of their main trading partners.


To preserve their export opportunities – especially with European markets, where consumers have expressed scepticism about bioengineered products – some developing nations are inclined to preserve their “GM-free” status, UNCTAD observes. 


This implies not only that they do not export GMOs but that they neither use them for domestic consumption nor import them. 


In this way, they can avoid a possibly negative reaction among consumers, especially in Europe, to exports that can be even remotely linked to genetic modification. 


Firms in some importing countries thus appear to be replacing genetically modifiable products with products that have no such risk, and shifting more of their trading business to countries known to be “GM-free”.


Mainly because of possible trade losses, a number of African countries – including Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe – have imposed import bans on genetically-modified products, although in some cases these bans allow exceptions for food aid, provided that the cereals concerned have already been milled.


The report also points to legal complications:  While countries are free to decide how to deal domestically with the issue of genetically modified crops, domestic regulations have to comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization. 


At the same time, agro-biotechnology is a field where multilateral rules have been agreed upon in a separate legal instrument, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.  The interaction between this specific instrument and the WTO rules adds challenges to an already complex scenario.


UNCTAD – United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
www.unctad.org


i-Newswire

Tags:

  • Show Comments (1)

  • Guest

    charlotte
    this site was very interesting and very useful for my school home work thank you

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

comment *

  • name *

  • email *

  • website *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Ads

You May Also Like

Does Brasília Matter? A Close Look at Rhetoric and Reality in Washington

The revelation that the U.S. National Security Agency has been reading the text messages ...

Illiteracy Falls in Brazil, But It’s Still the Lot of 10.5%

Despite the progress that has occurred in education in recent years, illiteracy persisted among ...

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a thorn on Washington's side

Let’s Talk About US’s Mounting Irrelevance in Brazil and LatAm

President Bush has been witnessing the advent of a new bloc of left-leaning and ...

Brazil Outraged by Suggestion that New Air Accident Is Matter of Time

The head of an international air traffic controllers organization who said that it was ...

Brazil’s Labor Leaders Lose Their First Tug-of-War with President Rousseff

It was a major legislative victory for Dilma Rousseff, new Brazilian president. Brazil’s Lower ...

Brazilian Scotton Back to NASCAR

  by: Brazilian racecar driver Roger Scotton has signed an agreement with two major ...

OECD Sees Brazil Growing 4.5% in 2010 and 2011

The Brazilian economy will experience a robust growth in 2010 and 2011, in the ...

After Two Goals, “Fat” Ronaldo Is Again the Toast of Brazil

Ronaldo scored his 13th World Cup goal Thursday and surpassed Pelé as Brazil’s all-time ...

Enduring Scandal Drags Brazilian Stocks Down

Latin American markets were mostly weaker today, as Brazil posted a more meaningful decline ...

Brazil’s Surplus Reaches US$ 40 Billion, 33% More Than Last Year

Brazilian exports totaled US$ 2.543 billion last week, while imports tallied US$ 1.618 billion, ...