IFPRI Report

Commentary: Using Modern Science to Assure Food Security

Modern science offers humankind a powerful instrument to assure food security for all. Through enhanced knowledge and better technologies for food and agriculture, modern science has contributed to astonishing advances in feeding the world in recent decades. Food availability per person has increased by almost 20 percent since the early 1960s. There are 150 million fewer hungry people today than 25 years ago, and an additional 1.5 billion people in developing countries are being fed. The application of modern science through agricultural research has transformed food production in industrialized and, to a lesser extent, developing countries.

Nevertheless, hunger remains persistent at the threshold of the twenty-first century. Eight hundred million people live in uncertainty about when or how they will get their next full meal, and 185 million preschool children suffer from seriously compromised mental and physical development because of malnutrition. This situation is unconscionable, especially when resources are available to meet the needs of each and every person in the world. Every man, woman, and child has the right to access to sufficient food to lead a healthy and productive life, whether that right is enshrined in official documents or not. If we are to produce enough food to meet increasing and changing food needs, to make more efficient use of land already under cultivation, to better manage our natural resources, and to improve the capacity of hungry people to grow or purchase needed food, we must put all of the tools of modern science to work.

Agricultural biotechnology is one of the most promising developments in modern science. Used in collaboration with traditional or conventional breeding methods, it can raise crop yields or productivity, increase resistance to pests and diseases, develop tolerance to adverse weather conditions, improve the nutritional value of some foods, and enhance the durability of products during harvesting or shipping. Yet little agricultural biotechnology research is taking place in or for developing countries. Most such research is occurring in private firms in industrialized countries, focuses on the plants and animals produced in temperate climates, and aims to meet the needs of farmers and consumers in industrialized countries. Low-income developing countries are constrained in their pursuit of agricultural biotechnology research by limited public- and private-sector funding and by shortages of trained personnel. They can address these constraints, however, by providing incentives to the private sector to engage in such research, by collaborating with international research programs, and by seeking private- and public-sector partners in industrialized countries. It is essential that agricultural biotechnology research that is relevant to the needs of farmers in developing countries and to conditions in those countries is undertaken, and that the benefits of that research are transmitted to small-scale farmers and consumers in those countries at affordable prices. Otherwise, developing countries will not only fail to share in the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, but will be seriously hurt as synthetic alternatives to their products are developed in industrialized countries, as is already happening with cocoa and vanilla.

There is, however, a much more basic constraint to the use of agricultural biotechnology in and for developing countries--the attitude toward risk among the nonpoor in both industrialized and developing countries. Among people whose children are not starving, considerable resistance to agricultural biotechnology has arisen on the grounds that it poses significant new ecological risks and that it has unacceptable social and economic consequences. Although no ecological calamities have yet occurred, some people fear that transgenic crops will develop troublesome new weeds or threaten crop genetic diversity. Of course, any new products that pose such risks should be carefully evaluated before they are released for commercial development. But we should not forget that by raising productivity and food production, agricultural biotechnology will reduce the need to cultivate new lands and could therefore actually help conserve biodiversity and protect fragile ecosystems. Developing countries should be encouraged to adopt regulations that provide a reasonable measure of biosafety without crippling the transfer of new products into the field.

As for the social and economic consequences of biotechnology, some are concerned that large-scale and higher-income farmers will be favored because they will have earlier access to and derive greater benefits from agricultural biotechnology. These concerns are remarkably similar to those raised about the Green Revolution. Whatever the shortcomings, real or alleged, of the Green Revolution, it did avert widespread starvation and helped many millions of people to escape hunger once and for all. With more pro-poor institutions and policies, many more poor people could benefit. Similarly, agricultural biotechnology can contribute to feeding many more people in a sustainable way. The new technologies, through appropriate policies, can be made accessible to small-scale farmers. Instead of rejecting the solutions offered by science, we should change policies to assure that the solutions benefit the poor.

The global community must keep its sights set on the goal of assuring food security for all. Condemning biotechnology for its potential risks without considering the alternative risks of prolonging the human misery caused by hunger, malnutrition, and child death is unwise and unethical. In a world where the consequence of inaction is death for thousands of children, we cannot afford to be philosophical and elitist about any part of a possible solution, including agricultural biotechnology. Modern science by itself will not assure food for all, but without it the goal of food security for all cannot be achieved.

Per Pinstrup-Andersen
Rajul Pandya-Lorch