Genetically modified organisms will benefit the world's poorest people

Disagree

3 of 5

by Lawrence Doctors

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Genetically modified organisms are commercial objects. Companies expect an above average return from them. They will not market them to the poorest to cater to their needs; rather, they will try and muster the funds from their governments which, in the feeble position they usually find themselves in when confronted with the food corporations, will have little or no alternative but to dance to the music of those companies.

What are some of the commercial tactics of these companies? Clearly, they will patent those organisms, so that when the poor will try and use the products they buy in ways not foreseen by those companies, they will need to foot the bill. Ah, but the poor have no money, you say? Not an argument: free enterprise is no charity - they care for their shareholders, not for the poor.

They will design their products in ways that maximise their profits. Terminator genes are an exquisite example of this: seeds containing those can only be used to grow produce, not to provide for the seeds for future harvests. The poor will pay for each batch of seeds, for each harvest, so as to satisfy the needs of the shareholders of those companies. One failed harvest and the poor are in the hands of the bank - broke and often with little perspective other than begging or suicide.

Genetic modification of organisms is an expensive technology that can only be developed by well-funded companies. Seeds that could once be sold by those poor in exchange for some income, can now only be obtained from rich-world companies. A net outflow of capital, again. The dependency increases.

Geneticall y modified organisms will work in tandem with pesticides or fertilisers from the same company. More revenues for that company, more costs for the poor - more expenses for their governments. Where is the benefit for the poor? Truly, where is it? Let it be clear that the benefit is there for the corporations, which nobody will challenge. For the poor, dependency on the corporations that develop those organisms and their accessory items will increase. For their governments, corporate corruption will induce them to care not for their poor but for their wallets.

The funny thing is, companies will actually argue all of the above are benefits. They will talk about economic efficiency and shareholder value. They will praise the virtues of innovation through investment. But don't ask them; ask the poor.

Learn more about this author, Lawrence Doctors.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.