Anti-GM activists are holding back innovation in agricultural biotechnology that could cost the poorest nations up to $1.5 trillion through 2050, according to a new report.
The report, by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), said campaigns against GMOs originated primary in Europe had created 'significant obstacles.'
"While the policies and practices resulting from these campaigns impose considerable costs on the economies of origin, they disproportionately hurt those nations with the greatest need for more productive agriculture—particularly the developing nations of sub-Saharan Africa."
The report estimated that the current restrictive climate could cost low- and lower-middle-income nations up to $1.5 trillion in foregone economic benefits through 2050.
In short, anti-GMO activists have erected significant barriers to the development of the poorest nations on earth.
Over the past three decades, a number of campaign groups have pressed successfully for restrictions or bans on the growth or import of crops and foods improved through biotechnology. Most recently, in October 2015, 19 European countries announced bans on growing GM crops.
"These restrictions lower farmers’ productivity and raise food prices—not just in the countries where the campaigns originate, but in nations that avoid GMO crops so they can export to countries with policies banning or limiting GMOs," the report said.
"Experience and data show that crops improved through biotechnology provide significant benefits for farmers, and restrictions on biotech crops slow the growth of agricultural productivity.
"This is particularly acute in low-income nations where farmers have less ability to mechanize production and where biotech-improved seeds offer a low-priced way to boost yields and rural incomes. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, annual farm household income in 2012 was approximately $3,000."
Opponents of agricultural biotechnology initially argued that GMOs would benefit only industrialized nations, and would price farmers from developing nations out of the market.
These largely left-of-center opponents could thus oppose innovation without inviting the charge that they were hurting the very people they claimed to be concerned about.
