Contradictions of the ‘New Green Revolution’: A View from South America's Southern Cone

Abstract

This paper is an examination of the social, economic, and environmental problems created by the search for and application of biotechnological solutions to global hunger that are also protected by a system of globally harmonized intellectual property rights. These contradictions are illustrated by the example of South America's Southern Cone region (Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay) where the ‘New Green Revolution’ has since 1996 been vigorously introduced, led by genetically modified (GM) soybeans. It is argued that the ‘New Green Revolution’ is not a solution either to the problem of agro-ecological sustainability or to that of hunger and malnutrition.

Este artículo examina los problemas sociales, económicos y del medio ambiente, creados en busca de soluciones biotecnológicas para el hambre global, soluciones que también son protegidas por el sistema global armónico de derechos de propiedad intelectual. Estas contradicciones quedan claramente ilustradas utilizando el ejemplo de la región del Cono Sur en Suramérica (Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay) donde la “Nueva Revolución Verde” ha sido fuertemente introducida desde 1996, liderada por la utilización de soya genéticamente modificada (GM). Se argumenta que la “La nueva revolución verde” no es la solución para el problema de la sustentabilidad agro-ecológica ni para el hambre y la desnutrición.

Keywords:

• intellectual property rights
• biotechnology
• genetically modified organisms
• sustainable agriculture
• Latin America

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank two reviewers of this journal who have made valuable recommendations for improvements. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author.

Notes

The Uruguay Round was a particularly auspicious moment for global capitalism inasmuch as it established a strengthened regulatory superstructure to advance the hegemony of capital on a global basis. This regulatory superstructure included the replacement of the GATT with the World Trade Organization (WTO) along with its supporting agreements regulating intellectual property (the TRIPS) and agriculture (the Agreement on Agriculture, AoA). The AoA was attractive to many less developed countries that could benefit from increased access to developed countries for their agricultural exports. The TRIPS agreement itself was largely promoted by the transnational corporations of the developed world with those based in the United States assuming a leading role. The US in fact engaged in so-called ‘linkage bargaining’ wherein absent a successful negotiation of the TRIPS, the entire agreement would fail. The US also employed the threat of bilateral trade sanctions against recalcitrant WTO participants. For details on the political economy of the TRIPS agreement, see Richards (2004).

Lappé and Bailey's claim is based on studies of test plots conducted by the University of Arkansas in that state in 1996.

‘Total hectares’ used in Table 1 is the total dedicated to the 11 most important crops for the region rather than the total under cultivation to all crops. All values indicate the share of total land area measured in hectares dedicated to the most extensively planted crops. Thus, for example, for Paraguay in 1990 the value .62 indicates that 62% of Paraguayan land allocated to annual crop production was dedicated to only two crops.

The average annual rate of unemployment in the capital city between 1997 and 2007 was 9.4% (ECLAC, 2007).

Roundup is Monsanto's brand name for glyphosate, the herbicide frequently used to control weeds that invade soybean fields.

Monsanto's frustrations with respect to Roundup Ready soybeans have not dissuaded the company from marketing other GM crops that enjoy no greater levels of IP protection in Argentina. These seeds include insect protection and herbicide resistant corn and cotton. These crops do not provide the same high yields from saved seed as soybeans and do not represent the same threat to the company's profits.

Benbrook (2005, p. 11) reports that a major Argentine soybean grower at a December 2002 conference expressed a preference for glyphosate-resistant soybeans over conventional varieties despite the fact that the latter provided consistently greater yields per acre. His reasoning was that RR beans reduced his labor costs and simplified weed management.

An even more recently published study by Christoffoleti et al. (2008) reports that crop losses reached 40% in the northwest province of Salta due to an infestation of a glyphosate resistant biotype of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). M. Vila-Aiub et al. (2008) also note the phenomenon of glyphosate-resistant weeds in Argentina and Brazil, which they attribute to the heavy use of the herbicide attending the increase in cultivation of resistant soybeans.

Brazil surpassed the United States in adding new cultivation to transgenic crops with an additional 3.5 million hectares in 2007 (Lawrence, 2008).

For more detail, consult the Weed Science website at http://www.weedscience.org.

FAO defines the food deficit as the difference between the minimum dietary energy and the dietary intake of the undernourished population. A value for this ratio of less than 200 implies a low intensity of food deprivation, while a value greater than 300 indicates a high intensity of food deprivation. For Brazil the value stood at 240 in 2004.