In a guest column in the Washington Post, December 27, 2017, Mitch Daniels, former president
of the Hudson Institute, senior vice-president of Eli-Lilly, governor of
Indiana, and currently President of Purdue University castigated those who, he
says, are against “modern agricultural technology” and “are worse than
anti-scientific. They’re immoral.” He also condemns the “deep pockets campaign”
that has “persuaded a high percentage of Americans and Europeans to avoid GMO
products.” These sizable populations, he suggests, have been duped by special
interests to buy non-GMO products or what he calls “organic” foods (the quotation
marks are his).
In the column Daniels proceeds to condemn the anti-GMO
movement as “self-interested” and embedded in rich societies which can afford
to “indulge” in “this kind of foolishness.” The bottom line, he argues, is that
there are billions of people to feed and only agricultural technology,
“miracles in plant production and animal husbandry,” can provide for the needs
of an exploding global population. In fact, he argues, agricultural technology,
since the dawn of the Green Revolution, has already impacted on the world, reducing
poverty and malnutrition.
If the guest column were framed as a debate among
scientists and political activists with different points of view it might have
made a contribution to the discussion that is going on in higher education,
even at his own university. Instead the column was a blanket indictment of
those with whom he disagrees without addressing the issues in dispute.
More important than the dismissive attack on those with
whom the author disagrees is the absence of any discussion of the economic,
political, and cultural ramifications of the new technologically-based
agriculture for the majority of the world’s farmers and food consumers.
For example, new agricultural technologies have been
forced upon millions of people whose ancestors built a variety of food systems
over thousands of years. Even in the twentieth century, food was still
primarily produced for local and domestic consumption. Since the end of feudalism
and slavery, systems of small farms have provided modest but acceptable levels
of food for local populations. Newer technologies, such as farm implements,
when affordable, increased productivity, and reduced labor. Over time agricultural
societies became integrated into colonial and neo-colonial systems of
production and distribution, systems that were based on the exploitation of the
agricultural population by national elites or foreign powers. In the modern era
of neoliberal globalization virtually the entire world is interconnected in one
massive global food system with disproportionate profits from agriculture
accruing to a small number of multinational corporations.
In addition, as the world became more connected,
global economic institutions (such as the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank, and the World Trade Organization) largely created by the United
States and its allies after World War II imposed trade and investment policies on
the world. These maximized the wealth and power of the wealthiest countries at
the expense of the poor countries. The Green Revolution, for example, initiated
a global system of food production for export. Local farmers had to produce
more for global markets and less for domestic consumption.
The globalization of agricultural production and
distribution has increased dramatically since the 1970s. With the massive
increase in the amount of debt that poor countries incurred in the 1970s due to
a spike in oil prices, international financial institutions imposed new rules
involving trade and investment in debtor countries. These led to the
consolidation of farmlands, the shift from small agricultural production for
local consumption to production of singular crops for sale worldwide, imports
of subsidized food commodities from the rich countries, and increased marketing
of GMO seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, in addition to machines. As a result,
the world food production system was radically transformed.
By the late twentieth century, agriculturally
exporting countries continued to produce commodities, not for home consumption,
but for sale on the world market. US consumers buy avocados grown in Honduras,
strawberries grown in Mexico, asparagus from Peru, and processed foods from
basic fruits and vegetables grown in Asia and Africa. To facilitate mass
production of export crops, small landowners become deeply indebted to purchase
the new seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to compete in the world food market.
Farmers are forced off the land and agricultural holdings become “factories in
the fields.” The former tillers of the soil who cannot compete become the
mobile workers who traverse the globe desperately looking for work.
Therefore, while the details and complications of this
narrative need to be investigated further by social scientists and experts on
geographical regions, the point here is that the problems of the global food
system and the provision of nourishing food for more people goes beyond single
applications of new technologies. In fact, many social scientists and other
policy analysts have argued that the problem of hunger is not a production
problem but a food distribution problem. Wealth and income inequality within
and between countries has been growing qualitatively for decades. GMOs and
other technological fixes cost too much money for the poor farmer and their
adoption forecloses cheaper ways to grow food (such as using naturally
reproduced seeds), Modest improvements in the reduction of absolute poverty on
a global basis has been limited to a few countries such as China, Vietnam, and
Cuba while malnourishment still figures prominently in many parts of the world,
even in areas where the Green Revolution has had its greatest impact.
In sum, the debate among scientists and concerned
citizens continues about GMOs and other technologies. These discussions must
include history, economics, culture, politics, and society if we are ever going
to reduce hunger, food deserts, malnutrition, and grotesque economic and
political inequalities in the world. Given these broader issues, which must be part of the analysis, arguments
that superficially dismiss critics of various agricultural technologies do a
disservice to the development of solutions to the problem of hunger.
