Quechua farmers grow lettuce near their homes in Lamas, Peru, December 16, 2014. CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images
On Thursday, Peruvian newspaper el Comercio tore apart the government’s justifications for a total ban on GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which refers mainly to engineered crops. The 10-year ban was technically put in place in 2010, but without rules to fine violators, it was not enforced. Earlier this month, however, the government published a scale of fines for those caught growing, selling, and transporting GMOs, with the highest penalty reaching $1.22 million.
While Peru has experienced high economic growth over the past decade, it is still a developing country combating chronic malnutrition. Some 10 million Peruvians live in poverty, and nearly 20% of children under five suffer from under-nutrition, due in large part to a lack of vitamins and minerals from an unvaried, carbohydrate-based diet. In May 2014, after the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said that the use of GMOs to eradicate hunger in Latin America and the Caribbean should not be rejected, the Peruvian government countered by saying that such a policy may be appropriate for small food-importers like Haiti and Jamaica but would not be applicable for Peru.
The country’s claims that it can adequately feed itself are belied by the statistics cited above, as well as the government’s years-long delays in creating rules for the Law for the Promotion of Healthy Eating and the Consumer Protection Code. On the other hand, the el Comercio op-ed noted the advantages of GMOs, including plants that produce their own insecticide, crops resistant to droughts and plagues, vegetables with higher yields per acre and higher vitamin content, cows with milk of higher quality, and even seafood that grows faster. It argued that the ban could not be justified on health grounds, since there is no credible scientific backing the notion that GMOs are harmful. Even the largest investigation into the matter, a 10-year study financed by the E.U. (where anti-GMO sentiment is widespread) concluded that GMOs are not dangerous to health, and that they should be part of modern agriculture to assure food sustainability.
The government’s other main arguments are that the ban prevents harm to the country’s biodiversity and its economy. However, according to the Peruvian Association for the Development of Biotechnology, of the 17 “mega-diverse” countries in the world, 10 of them have GMOs, which haven’t caused any harm to biodiversity in a single case. Separate areas will be needed for cultivation, to avoid cross-pollination, but that is a manageable issue.
Between 1996 and 2012, GMO cultivation brought farmers in developing countries an additional $58 billion, while reducing the use of costly pesticides and fertilizers. A Peruvian PhD in Biotechnology, Marcel Gutierrez, calculated that the profitability of cultivating hard yellow corn would increase 2-3.2 fold with GMO strains, thus improving farmers’ opportunities and fostering growth with social inclusion. On the other hand, failure to harvest GMOs would also take a heavy toll. If the ban continues, Gutierrez warned that Peruvian cotton farmers will lose some $3.5 billion since they can no longer compete with cheaper GMO cotton produced in India.
But the biggest beneficiaries of a revocation of the GMO ban would be consumers, especially the poor, who could access more food products, of better quality, at lower prices. Legalizing GMOs does not mean they will automatically deluge the country and deprive any wary consumers of choice. In fact, a larger GMO presence may create an opportunity for pricier organic farming to thrive as a niche alternative.
