Amid all the fuss over genetically modified food, environmentalists and consumer activists have overlooked a vital challenge for the developing world: food security. As the South's population grows, it will need more food, a more varied and nutritious diet, and better access to the North's markets. Rich countries must do their part by slashing trade barriers to developing countries' goods -- especially in agriculture -- and spreading the biotechnology revolution to the poorest farmers who need it most. But the debacle in Seattle showed how difficult this quest will be.
C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota.
Benjamin Senauer, Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota, is currently on leave at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). This article was supported by a Ford Foundation grant to IFPRI.
FOOD SECURITY AND TRADE
The debacle of the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle last year underscored how much can go wrong with world trade -- and how insecure the future of trade liberalization has become. America's overreaching unilateralism offended delegations from around the world and undercut the multilateral premise of the gathering. Seattle's timing and location were equally disastrous, in contrast to the carefully planned (and relatively secluded) launch of the Uruguay Round, which began in 1986 in Punta del Este. And the industrial nations, led by the United States, did not even address one of the most vital issues: how developing countries can use technology and freer trade to better feed their populations. This need for "food security" touches on almost all the hot-button issues surrounding trade -- especially agricultural trade liberalization and genetically modified (GM) food -- yet the American media barely noted it.
What does food security entail? First, it involves improving a developing nation's access to cheaper food from comparatively advantaged exporting countries. It is generally more efficient and cheaper than self-sufficiency, in which a nation tries to produce all crops that its population needs, regardless of the cost or the country's natural endowments. Food security also requires that richer countries lower their tariffs on all goods from developing countries so that emerging markets can earn cash to import the food they need. Finally, the drive for food security should tap the potential of GM technology for developing countries to both enhance nutrition and boost agricultural output.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Not for the first time, agricultural trade has become a live and contentious issue in Atlantic relations. Questions of access and protection have been subjects of constant concern to American farmers and traders since the establishment of Europe's Common Agricultural Policy 25 years ago. Now, though, under the pressures of surplus stocks of grain and falling farm incomes, there is a new area of contention--competitive subsidies designed to win or ensure shares in an erratic world market. Months of negotiation have failed to resolve the issue and neither the European Community nor the United States has shown any sign of being ready to sacrifice what both define as legitimate economic interests.
New technologies often provoke strong resistance -- even when, as with genetically modified crops, their benefits vastly outweigh their potential harms. The fact is that transgenic food has no proven downside. Nevertheless, scare-mongering consumer groups in Europe have led a global backlash against this new technology. The battle has thus far pitted rich American farmers against rich European consumers. But the real losers are the poor farmers and underfed citizens of the tropics, who desperately need all the help that gene science can deliver.
European Monetary Union may be an economic undertaking, but it is as much about politics and the prospects for European integration as about pfennigs and francs.
