---------------------------------------------    
THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy    
and related agricultural issues.   
--------------------------------------------- 

* A luxury poor nations can't afford, What may in affluent Europe 
   be a delay in adopting biotech would be tragic if allowed to 
   happen in the third World.

By David Walker, agricultural economist

NORWICH, England-- The delay in the commercialization of genetically 
modified crops in affluent Western Europe may be acceptable in the context of 
the peace of mind it brings to consumers even though it lacks any kind of 
scientific basis.  This implicit waste, however, is not an indulgence appropriate 
for those faced with poverty.

The condition of absolute poverty has historically been defined as income
insufficient to purchase food, clothing and shelter of adequate quantity and
quality--the bare bones ingredients of minimal comfort.

While the standards of adequacy of quantity and quantity rise with the
affluence of an economy and other more or less necessary elements have been
added, in much of the world beyond North America and Western Europe the
three basic needs still set the threshold.

Much of the developed world passed into the comfort of relative affluence as
much as 100 years ago and their social welfare programs also provide for
those with limited opportunity to earn.

Indeed, anyone living 100 years ago in what is now the developed world would
almost certainly have doubted anybody could spend as much as we do today
without being wasteful. That's an indulgence few of us could deny.

The reality is that the marketplace has been very effective in providing
things that we feel we need. And we are by and large accepting of our
neighbors' right to spend as they see fit, provided it does not impinge
unduly on our existence.

In today's complex society, of course, the actions of individuals can effect
the well-being of many, so society has accordingly given the responsibility
of protecting the many to the state.

Two issues relevant to biotechnology in general, and genetically modified
crops in particular, are food safety and the environment. If there are risks
of adverse consequences, state-imposed controls may be justified, subject to
cost considerations.

In the case of genetically modified crops, governments have chosen to limit
or defer their use, not because of any specific risk, but simply because
they are new and unknown in the context of their impact.

Britain and most of Europe are now firmly in the grip of this 21st century
Luddism. A couple of years ago opinion polls indicated that most people in
Britain were concerned about potential risks of modified food.

While governments are elected to represent the interest of their electorate
rather than reflect directly their opinion, it takes a courageous leader to
ignore public opinion, even if he has science on his side.

Under such circumstances, a science-based policy supported by a three-year
research program to demonstrate the science is as much as could have been
expected. And in the court of public opinion the three years as a cooling-off 
period may be as important as the science itself.

But where poverty exists, the expense of deferring the use of a technology
that will bring real and immediate benefits is no tradeoff for peace of
mind from an unidentified risk.

Indeed, even where risks have been proven, the choice to use a technology
may still be a reasonable one. While DDT has been banned in the developed
world for almost 30 years for proven environmental reasons, no caring person
would deny its use where human life is threatened by a malarial swamp.

The situation with genetically modified crops is, of course, far less
extreme. There is no evidence of a threat to the environment from these
crops, and any saving of life is likely to be indirect through the
improvement of the quantity, quality and cost of food. But as less-affluent
economies naturally place a higher value on these benefits, they can be
expected to be more accepting of the technology.

For the Third World, the most compelling characteristic of this
biotechnology is its shrink-wrapped nature.

As with a cell phone, once the box is opened and if relatively simple
instructions are read and followed, almost anybody can use what is complex
technology and benefits almost immediately.

The rapid adoption of genetically modified crops in North America over the
last five years was possible only because adoption did not require
investment by or training of the farmer user. This ease of use is critical
in the developing world. Typically, subsistence farmers do not have the
financial resources to invest or the time to devote to elaborate training.

Surely conventional technology implicit in such popular development staples
such as irrigation, mechanization and market infrastructure have a role to
play. But they do not provide the kind of almost-instant impetus to
well-being genetically modified crops can offer.

Attempting to impose developed world values on the developing world is not
only misplaced but immoral. While we may be able to afford the peace of mind
of avoiding any risk, we must recognize this luxury has little value where
pestilence with resulting malnutrition and starvation is an immediate
reality.

Increasingly the success of those opposed to genetically modified crops in 
creating doubt appears misguided. Their success in Western Europe may be 
viewed simply as wasted opportunity.  But if they succeed in deferring the 
adoption of the technology in the developing world, it would be a tragedy.


    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm  
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London  
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director 
of  the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also maintains a Web site 
at http://www.openi.co.uk/. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, 
whose  ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/. 
  
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send 
submissions to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, BridgeNews, 3 World 
Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. 
You may also call (212) 372-7510, fax (212)  372-2707 or send e-mail to 
opinion@bridge.com. 
  
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo 
Service.