Introduction
As the world entered the 21st century, humanity faced issues that were deemed of utmost importance since thy concerned future survival of the race. Overpopulation and availability of food formed the greatest percentage of the issues in the millennium goals. Food systems particularly what humans have to eat and produce need to be addressed specifically because they could stem into crises (food insecurity) if not attended to in time.
A very crucial measure suggested was the introduction of biotechnology in the production of food especially for the developing nations, which faced the greatest problems of food shortage due to poverty, unfavourable climatic conditions and poor farming methods. Many nations embraced the idea while other brought up counterarguments concerning genetically modified foodstuffs. Brazil is one of the nations in which the technology has been experimented and is finding increasing use to produce food. There a lot of opposition from concerned groups. With this in mind, it’s very important that an analysis of the benefits and demerits of the foods be analysed.
Defining GMO’s
GMO is an acronym that denotes genetically Modifies Organisms. This means that the crops or animals that are produced by this technology have had genes or transgenes from other species totally not related through processes of genetic engineering (Singh et al, 2006, p 597). Over the few years this technology has been in play, different methods have been employed to produce genetically modified crops and animals. These products have been able to attain approval for use in nations like the US, Canada and Argentina among other nations (Capalbo et al, 2006, p 103).
Current situation with GMO’s in Brazil
In the recent years, Brazil has shown tremendous results in genetic engineering and genomics research. Success in this research area was brought about by different factors. It started from “the enactment of the new Law of Bio-safety (Law 2401) by the Brazilian Congress and its sanction by the President of the Republic in March 2005” that “overcame a major obstruction to the conduction of activities related to modern biotechnology in Brazil.” (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.3). It was followed by huge support from both public and private sectors in terms of investment to foster research and improve conduction of agricultural activities. These together with significant natural advantages of the country have made Brazil one of the current major players on the world’s agricultural field. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.3)
Two main areas of research Brazil concentrates on are genomic studies and transgenic research. Both studies are primarily conducted under the governmental institutions but the whole R&D network comprises many other players including universities, multinational corporations, local firms and others. Despite noticeable success in research, Brazil’s production of GMOs accounts only to 4% of the world production. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.5) Furthermore, RR soybean was the only transgenic crop produced in the country, although Brazil is also a major player in maize and cotton.
The RR soybean production is forecasted to increase in the next years as in 2004 the area sown with transgenic soybeans already accounted to 1/3 of the area with conventional soybeans (Singh et al 2006, p. 607). Very importantly to highlight is that “the recent approval and sanction of a Law of Bio safety, No 11.105, March of 2005, has created great expectations in several sectors involved in activities related to the field of biotechnology: public research institutions, universities, domestic and foreign private companies and risk capital investment funds.” (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.5)
It is interesting how Brazil was able to reach a consensus considering the great difference that existed between different stakeholders and problems concerning regulation (Capalbo et al, 2006, p.105). As Monsanto asked for authorization from the government to commercialise the resistant soybean in 1998, there were series of opposing conflicts from regulation organizations, activists and farmers concerning the safety of the products and biodiversity problems that could emerge once the crops are released into the environment (Fontes, 2003, p. 44). It’s very evident that the GM soya was a very big opportunity for Brazil and therefore the economy of the nation. At the same time, there was extreme pressure by Multinationals on the government. The courts in Brazil still opposed the request by Monsanto.
Regulation of the genetically modified products was very critical and the Biosafety law was invented to regulate the release of genetically engineered materials into the environment. This law (Oda & Soares, 2000, p.189) controls activities of biotechnology. Consequently, there was introduction of a biosafety committee that was mandated with the responsibility of making sure that the biotechnology activities were safe for the environment. They were to make final judgement and decisions concerning the effects of GM products. This power became conflicting with other bodies like the environment ministry departments (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 191).
For the departments of the nations opposing the use of biotechnology to produce food, this was considered as weakening the ministry of environment. This conflict was a huddle in the implementation of the Biosafety law (Bajaj, 2001, p. 45). As a result, Monsanto obtained cleanse to market GM soya. A lot of opposition erupted once again and injunction was issued regarding GM soya in Brazil. However, farmers secretly imported the same from Argentina reaching threshold that the government was forced to allow its use but with some considerate restrictions (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 194).
Key Characteristics of the Innovation System and Key Players
Major research institutions principally because of their technological and organizational competence that permit them to develop favourable atmosphere for cross-interactions between innovation agents guide the innovation system of genetically modified crops in Brazil. Both private and state-owned institutes conduct agricultural biotechnology research. The key institutes are EMBRAPA (Brazilian Corporation for Farming and Livestock Research) and IAC (Campinas Agronomic Institutes). “EMBRAPA is the major centre for tropical agriculture and livestock technology in the world.” (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.9)
It manages different research programmes as well as “leading Brazilian Science &Technology and Research & Development institution in formalizing and implementing technology transfer instruments, contracting of cooperation agreements, legalization of technology licenses, as well as issues related to intellectual property.” (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.12) (For more information about EMBRAPA, its activities and research projects please see Appendix A). Because of its activities that are of crucial importance for the inter-relations between companies and institutes EMBRAPA takes a key position in the innovation system.
EMBRAPA was established in 1973 to aid research and developments in agricultural production and disseminating technologies obtained from their research. This organisation has been very significant in Brazil and has seen the increase in crop yields particularly soya (Bajaj, 2001, p 48). This research has 40 units in operation and its success is attributed to consistency, which assures the country of minimal strategic capacity to tackle bigger challenges. Other institutions include Agronomic institute of Campinas, ministry of Science and technological developments; national council of science; universities and private firms (Evenson et al, 2002, p. 123).
The Impact of GMO’s in Brazil
The impact that eh GMO’s have had in Brazil is very important since it could be the only tangible evidence of what GMO’s are capable of. From previous researches in Brazil and the US, it’s evident that the increase in yield from the soybeans was not significant enough to show statistical difference between the traditional beans and the GM beans (Fontes 2003, p. 44). The savings from the use of GM was not big enough to offset the cost of ensuring that the products are biosafety compliant.
There was also increased use of herbicides and that farmers liked soya because it was easy to cultivate and manage. Studies show that farmers in Brazil got disappointed since their high expectations were not met and are still contemplating on the economic feasibility of the project (Fontes, 2003, p. 44). The major negative outcome was reduction of seed acquisition, which is a very crucial aspect of maintaining plant health (Traxler, 2000).
Regulation of GM Technology
The Biosafety technical commission was created to control Biotechnology exploitation. The commission is compassed of experts in the GM sector, government administrators and other private sector representatives.
It’s important to note that small farmers and environmentalists and civil activists are not part of the commission (Jepson, 2002, p. 906). The commission is charged with responsibility of supervising and regulating the experimentation, use, storage, dumping, registration and transporting the genetically modified materials. This is particularly for the food GM products, which must also be investigated by the food safety regulating body. There were problems of backcrossing as many multinationals developed their own seed in parent countries only for them to go and try them out in Brazil (Bajaj, 2001, p. 48). The government is now firm on its policy that allows regulated biotechnology research and prohibits commercial production of GMO’s.
Brazil’s Policy Concerning GM crops
The special thing about the case of GM food production in Brazil is that the government is responsible for setting the main target to combine the national scientific competitiveness and the farming proficiency over the powerful multinational firms like Novartis and Monsanto (Andow, 2006, p. 78). The government instituted legal provisions through which national biotechnology institutions and local firms from Brazil can carry out GM experiments. The public and private firms in Brazil have potential to race against existing GM technologies and offer their own products.
Seed companies in Brazil and EMBRAPA still needed more time to be able to develop their own seed, which would be as viable as those from multinational would so that the market is not dominated and controlled by larger multinationals (Hilbeck et al, 2006, p. 23). Additionally, the government put in places controls that would see soya farmers leverage transnational firms into cooperative accords that transfer the technology to the local companies, farmers and researchers (Jepson, 2002, p. 917). Brazil is really struggling to be self-governing from multinationals and promote national scientific accomplishments.
Insufficient about GMO’s
Due to the limited research advances in Brazil, the confusion of inadequate knowledge about GMO is noticeable. This is evident among farmers, employees of the firms and other institutions as well. Due to this, the members of the biosafety commission have to be educated about the principles that Brazil upholds in its biosafety structure and the scientific information, which supports these restrictions (Jepson 2002, p 907; Evenson et al, 2002, p. 123). Increased interactions will ensure that they are able to attain a very strong background which is exactly needed for carrying out risk assessments and risk management. Despite these efforts, still farmers from remote regions lack adequate information to explicitly exploit the potential benefits of genetically modified foodstuffs (Andow 2006, p. 78).
Challenges against GMO’s
Several non-governmental organisations have come up strongly to question the safety of the regulatory policies that govern the experimentation of the GM products (Hall et al, 2007, p. 46). The scientific authority of the bio safety commission is questionable with its exclusive jurisdiction concerning the issues of food safety and environment. The issuance of licence to Monsanto to produce RR soy has been criticized of being inefficient since the company did not even issue an environmental impact statement (Hall et al, 2007, p. 46). However, in its own defence, Monsanto claimed that its product were similar to the conventional soya.
The Brazilian constitution requires that there have to be a statement released before any organisation is allowed to release potentially harmful substance to the environment (Brainard, 2009, P.76). Then commission did not maintain the legal right by ignoring that crucial statement.
Due to the continued conflicts over the regulation of the GMO production in Brazil, its use presents an uncertain future in the country as the civil society remain strongly opposed to the experimentations (Brainard, 2009, P.76). So far regulating the GM technology has proved to be very difficult due to the differing interests of majority stakeholders in the industry. In order to be able to overcome these problems, it’s essential to establish a platform on which regulatory organisations and administration will work and interact without more disagreements (Hilbeck et al, 2006, p. 23).
Some Key Concepts
Technology Trajectories
Technology Trajectories are the descriptions of which the paths advances in technology are taking. The advancement of the GMO technology has at some point been controversies with people raising concerns like who is benefitting from the technology and what conditions, who decided their use and who will be accountable when harm emerges. The public seem to be confused whether to or not to support the technology (Capalbo, et al 2006, p 103).
Technology trajectories in the GMO use is becoming very tricky affair. However since this has been regarded as an economic oriented technology, this technology then in itself becomes the key force behind achieving economic development. From here, a multidimensional approach is assessed to see the paths.
The following paths are very critical in this case; social, economic, environmental and technological. Regardless of the trajectories, there are some conclusions that can still be drawn. For instance, technology use indicates positive impact on the economy since it can establish productivity and wealth creation (Capalbo et al, 2006, p 103). Again, technology use signifies negative impact like vanishing of economic sectors, increased investments in new ventures, excluding existing channels in business and difficulties in generating employment and distribution of wealth.
Technological lock-in
GMO’s have been assessed to be potential causes of technological lock in. This major forces cause systematic obstructions to the diffusion and acceptance of the effective and sustainable technologies. Essentially, it’s important to understand that in this civilized world, it’s very crucial that greater environmental quality is achieved without restraining the productive activities need efforts to encourage innovation clean and green technology (Brainard, 2009, P 76).
The major concern now is; what is restricting this diffusion? Currently there are debates in Brazil about the cost transition to enable investing in these new technologies. Two approaches can be used to give explanations to these. They are the engineering investigation and aggregate economic models. Both dimensions can successful based on the simplicity of the assumptions concerning the dynamic substitution of energy and technology change process. Technology lock in is made possible by the fact that there are no standards or the ones available are very inferior as far as environment sustainability is concerned (Brainard, 2009, P 76).
Path Dependency
The acceptance of GMOs technology in Brazil and its spread to other parts is influenced by the social, cultural and economic set up that they develop in. In this regard, its evident that the successful innovation and diffusion of technology will rely so much on the paths that they take- what is called the path-dependency. When there are increased returns to take up, that is positive response implying that there is more technology being adopted or is likely to be adopted; lock in of incumbent technologies can result. There are different factors that can drive technology to take a certain path of advancement (Brainard, 2009, P 76). For instance, when technology indicated very large set up or fixed cost due to indivisibility, then the unit production expenses turn down as they are applied to increased production volume.
Social Shaping of Technology
Core to the idea of Social Shaping of Technology is the perception that there exist many choices that may at times not be essentially cognisant ones but are intrinsic in both design course and trajectory of innovativeness. If there is no emergence of technology from the unfolding or a prearranged logic or a solitary determinant, then innovation is diverse and likened to a garden of forking paths. Different directions can result in different technology results (Brainard, 2009, P 76).
Importantly is the fact that these technologies can have useful outcomes on the society and specific social groups. Of great concern, here is how compatible GM technology and science is with social commitment. There should be so much compatibility especially in the context of the requirements of the third world countries like Brazil. They have to support the social contracts that exist between the society and technology.
The Role of Regulation
The Major Problem that cane together with the introduction of the GM crops was the question of safety of those foods. The environmental consequences was not to much of a threat since the seeds of these crops seem not to be viable in subsequent generations hence is not likely to be persistent. Considering the possible dangers and safety uncertainty it’s very important for the sake of future survival that the use of and production of GMO’s be regulated and monitored. However, of all the legal and social concerns in any administration, regulation of business has been very controversial topic (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 191). Brazil has very strict measures in place to ensure that GMO production complies with the regulation set by the government.
The biosafety commission present stringent scrutiny of any multinational before it can be licensed to start experimenting in GMO’s. The role of regulatory bodies is to ensure that the consumers can get safety products for consumption and that their health is not compromised because of their need for food. This also ensures advancement of good technology that is sustainable. Regulation also ensures that the technologies comply with government polices regarding environment and business in general (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 191).
Market Failure
There some reports that GMO’s have not been self-sustainable and hence could not survive the work market against organic crops. The question of safety also scared consumers and the product was not so popular. Bearing in mind that the word was attaining free market at the time GMO’s were being introduced, it was evident that it would be very difficult to achieve economically effective as well as socially unbiased solutions to the problems.
Some GM products were removed from the market. To some point, even the production was cut right from the beginning due to the perception that the crops would damage the status of the increasing organic farmers since there would be no means of preventing cross-contamination. Once this occurred, then there would be not organic farmers (Evenson, et al 2002, p. 123). The GMO’s are likely to lead to emergence of superior weeds and pests due to resistance and would hence require chemicals that are more powerful.
Open Innovation
When free and unrestricted experimentation of the GMO’s, there is very high probability that new technology will develop and this will automatically have an impact on the way farming will be done. Since new technologies like nanotechnology, deal with plants at an integral part handling the molecular aspect, then a completely new range of crops can be developed (Evenson et al, 2002, p. 123). The capacity of the research and development will attain new heights and produce new products al together
Conclusion
The use of GMO seems to offer the third world countries like Brazil a solution to food insecurity. As a result, they are finding increased acceptance and increased use in the country. The people the can use any means to make sure that they get the food for survival rather that turn down the use of GMO and suffer with hunger and malnutrition due to problems of lack of sufficient food supply. Considering that food insecurity problems could only be solved by investing in genetically modified food products, it’s very important to find a lasting solution tom the problems or rather the conflict in the GM experimentation projects in Brazil.
Since most of the differencing parties argue from perspectives that are equipped with insufficient information, it would be in order for the government in conjunction with other developed governments to consider creating an international group of experts at the innovative knowledge of GM from all over the world to be chief consultants. These end up developing energetic and progressive guiding principles that would stress on exchange of knowledge and skills between researchers and policy makers. The GMO technology increasingly being used because of the reason that those nations which begun using it earlier on do not have problems of food supply but rather deal with issues of obesity and other problems that come with unhealthy eating.
Reference List
Andow D.A (2006). Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Volume 2: Methodologies for Assessing BT Cotton in Brazil Volume 2 of Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms. CABI.
Bajaj Y. P. S., (2001). Transgenic crops. Springer.
Brainard L., (2009). Brazil as an economic superpower: understanding Brazil’s Changing role in the global. Brookings Institution Press.
Capalbo D.M., Hilbeck A. & Andow D (2006). Brazil and development of the International Biosafety Experimenting Guidelines for Transgenic Plants. Journal Of Interbate Pathology. Vol 83: 103 – 107 science direct.
Evenson R.E., santaniello V & Zilberman D., (2002). Economic and social issues in Agricultural biotechnology. CABI Publishing Series EMBRAPA. Nota Informativa: Pesquisa Biotecnológica na Embrapa. Web.
Fontes E.G (2003). Land and Regulation Concerns concerning Transgenic Plants in Brazil: EMBRATA Recursos Genetics e Biotecnolgia CP Brasilia.
Hall J., Matos S & Langford C.H (2007). Social Exclusion and Transgenic Technology; The Case of Brazilian Agriculture. Journal of Business Ethics Vol 78: 46 – 64.
Hilbeck A., Andow D.A & Fontres., (2006). Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Volume 2: Methodologies for Assessing BT Cotton in Brazil. CABI.
Jepson W.E (2002). Global and Brazilian Biosafety: The Politics of Scale over Biotechnology. Political Geography. Vol 22: 906 – 927.
Oda L.M & Soares B.E (2000). Genetically Modified Foods: economic Aspects and Public Acceptance in Brazil. Titbtech. Vol 18: 189 – 191.
Silveria F.J & Borges, I.C (2005). An Overview of the Current State of Agricultural Biotechnology in Brazil, University of Campinas, Institute of Economics.
Singh O.V Ghai S., Paul D & Jain R.K (2006). Genetically Modified Crops: Success safety Assessment and Public Concern. Appl Microbial Biotrechnol: vol 70; 597 – 608. Springer-verlag.
Traxler G., (2000). Assessing the benefits of Plant Biotechnology in Latin America. Conferência apresentada no BID.