GMO corn: A landmark success in agricultural technology which greatly enhanced productivity.
        One key issue that has not been lost, whatever your viewpoint on biotechnology and GMOs, is that a thriving, competitive agricultural sector is beneficial to the Thai economy, Thai farmers, and Thai consumers. It could be argued that Thailand's agricultural reputation and productivity, built over the last 40 years, has been founded upon implementing appropriate agricultural technologies. In the context of agricultural productivity, GMOs must be evaluated in the same light as those technologies that have preceded them into farmers' fields.

        Proponents of GM crops argue that the introduction of approved GM seeds will provide yet further choice for farmers, making the country more competitive in the regional/global markets, and address poverty and malnutrition. Opponents reject these views, and often advocate farming systems that make use of few (if any) man-made inputs.

        At its simplest, there are two streams to the debate. On the one side there are those promoting the technology as a means of becoming more productive, whilst the other side would prefer to return to traditional systems of cultivation, minus modern inputs. Historical developments in agriculture in Thailand may provide some insight.

        Let's turn the clock back to 1964. Like most industries today, Thai cultivation, minus modern inputs. Historical developments in agriculture in Thailand may provide some insight.

Healthy GM soybean.
        Let's turn the clock back to 1964. Like most industries today, Thai agriculture was completely different 40 years ago. Back then, there were many more farmers, 75 percent of the workforce was engaged in agriculture, generations of families were born into a life on the farm, often helping out from a very early age. For the most part, farmers did not have access to improved plant varieties, except the seeds imported by a few dealers from China, or other parts of North Asia. Certainly there were no pesticides or fertilisers; most farmers could not afford to buy them in any case.

        For most, farming was pure "subsistence agriculture," feeding one's family first, then selling whatever extra the farmer could produce. Farming was exceptionally hard work, involved most of the immediate, if not extended, family and did not pay that well. In fact, there is not much to romanticise about the "good old days" as far as agriculture is concerned. Poor soil, seeds that never germinated, and crops wiped out by floods or drought or insects and diseases were commonplace. Despite all the hard work, even skilled farmers found that yields were so low and variable that food supply was distinctly seasonal and often in short supply. A range of healthy nutritious fruit and vegetables was a luxury. For those farmers' children who were able to survive poverty and malnutrition, there was little chance for them to go to school because they were too busy helping their parents in the fields transplanting, ploughing, weeding, or harvesting.

        The reality is that the period of widespread subsistence agriculture, or farming minus appropriate technologies, was not a happy or productive time for those who were imprisoned by it. Every day was a fight for life, a fight that still goes on in many parts of Asia. For most Thai people, the fight is over; progress has seen to that.

No turning back
        The progress that has allowed millions to move into commercial agriculture, whilst allowing new generations to enjoy formal education and the resulting human resource development, is multifaceted improvements in agricultural technology. Arguably the two most important elements of these improvements were the introduction of improved plant varieties specifically made for Thai conditions, and the effective use of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers.

        These technologies have brought considerable economic, social, & environmental benefits to Thailand over the last 40 years. Once farmers discovered the improvements possible using quality seed, pesticides and fertilisers, there was quite literally no turning back. One or two entrepreneurs importing seeds turned into dozens of private seed companies developing new plants for the tropical lowlands. Government plant breeding programmes flourished as productivity increased. National development plans were able to move confidently towards an industrial-based economy. Best of all, farming and farming communities became more productive. Children were able to go to school and grandparents were able to retire.

        One landmark development was the introduction of hybrid corn varieties for tropical cultivation. In the 70s, the cultivation of corn on a commercial scale assisted the impressive growth of Thailand's animal feed industry. One of the major constraints was that even though the traditional varieties of corn being widely cultivated in Thailand were productive, they were susceptible to drought, and also to fungal infection. On average, yields (production per unit area) were in the range of 180-200 kg per rai. Both public and, more prominently, private sector breeding programmes sought to address these problems through the introduction of improved characteristics in a "hybrid" corn variety (a corn plant bred from parents that differ in genetically inherited characteristics). The resulting hybrid was nothing short of a spectacular improvement over the traditional variety. With drought tolerance, resistance to fungal diseases and increased "hybrid vigour", yields of 400 kg per rai were commonly produced (today, yields average 550 kg per rai). Variability in production was reduced, and increases in yield had profound effects on corn growers and indeed also the feed, pig, and poultry industries. Pesticides played a vital role in controlling other pests and diseases, ensuring that the new hybrid could exploit its genetic superiority. Uptake by farmers of the new seed was impressive; once they had seen the new variety in the field they were not afraid to purchase new seeds for each planting. Thus the hybrid varieties were the overwhelming choice of farmers despite the fact that it meant a change in the traditional practice of saving seeds.

        A similar success story was seen when the Ministry of Agriculture introduced characteristics from high yielding varieties of short stem rice from the Philippines into local fragrant varieties of rice. Not only did the new rice varieties maintain the grain quality, aroma, and cooking quality of the fragrant Thai varieties, they displayed improved yield and resistance to rice hopper insects. Integration of the new variety with improved irrigation systems realized yields up to 6 tonnes per hectare (t/ha) in central regions during the dry season. In northern areas, where poor soil and weather often hamper rice production, yields of 4.5 t/ha were seen for the first time. The economic impact of such increases in productivity have been important to Thailand in competing in the world rice market.

        In addition to the economic benefits realised by new agricultural technologies, there have been clear social benefits for Thailand, as technology became a cornerstone of Thailand's agricultural policy. Through improved productivity in the agricultural sector, the burden on farm labour has reduced. The economy was able to move towards "light industrial development", utilising labour resources no longer required on the farm. Farmers laid down their tools to take newly created jobs in the textiles and service industries. There were new choices. The socio-economic fabric of the village would never be the same again, as people born into farm families now had more lifestyle options.

Technological crossroads
        Today, Thailand stands at a crossroads in its agriculture policy. The so-called "Green Revolution" of the 60s and 70s has left an indelible impression on agricultural methods and productivity. Refinements over the years have assisted Thai farmers further and progress has been impressive. However, despite the subsequent advances in plant breeding, development of advanced chemical pesticides and fertilisers, growth in agriculture has hit something of a plateau. Production in some major crops is in decline.

        With a growing population, reduced farmer workforce, and a shrinking agricultural production base, production of major crops in the last 10 years has increased only marginally, yet prices on world markets have declined. Though Thailand annually produces in excess of 27 million tonnes of rice per year, it does so at a yield of just 2.7 tonnes per hectare (source: FAO). Despite Thailand's proud tradition of rice cultivation (50 percent of farm land is planted to rice), current productivity puts the Kingdom very much below that of our neighbours. The situation is no different for other crops. These are warning signs that revisions to agricultural systems, the very fundamentals underpinning core production, are overdue.

        Concerned ministries have recognised the problematic trends and have sought answers. Seed supply for major crops has been a major problem. Government agencies, that by legislation, are in sole control of rice seed supply to Thai farmers are only able to meet 8-10 percent of the farmers' seed demands.

        "Conventional" production methods, safely producing the vast majority of food we eat utilising modern pesticides and fertilisers have been widely criticized for all manner of reasons, from health to environment to food safety. Alternative methods have been explored by universities, research stations, and in the private sector. Results have been mixed and few if any new methods have reached the farmers' fields.

        There are those that propose that the answers to Thailand's declining agricultural productivity lie in the rejection of most agricultural technologies (with the exception of seed) and the use and promotion of organic farming. Calls have been made for the highlands in the North, together with Tungkularonghi in the Northeast to be made into an "organic agro-industrial domain". Thailand's Department of Export Promotion, along with the Food and Drug Administration, established a five-year project in 1999 to set up a "World Class Standard for Organic and Chemical-free food".

        Organic agriculture has found favour with many who have been enticed by the apparent opportunities for Thai exporters in countries like Germany, where estimates of retail sales of organic produce topped 3 billion euros in 2001 (International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements - IFOAM). The organic market is currently centred in the USA, Japan and EU, with national markets such as the UK estimated to be registering double-digit annual growth in organic produce sales. Organic produce currently totals approximately 2 percent of total food sales in Europe, with most being sold as meat and dairy products.

        In Thailand there are a number of highly professional growers who have invested significant amounts in protected cultivation systems that look to benefit from the high value niche of organic markets overseas. These professional companies use evaporative cooling and retractable shade systems to keep greenhouse conditions close to 25 degrees Celsius during the day. Most have also invested significantly in screens that can keep insects as small as thrips out of the greenhouse. Movement of air across the plant canopy decreases the likelihood of fungal diseases. However, investment in such installations can approach US$ 1 million, and operating costs are high. Just like any cutting edge business in any sector, such companies should be applauded for their vision and expertise for being leaders in their field. However, fulfilling the demands of a growing nation, meeting its economic goals, and reliving poverty and malnutrition are not part of the mission of these high value agricultural enterprises. They are far removed from the mainstream farmer, who must rely on conventional cost-effective methods, whilst having to grow in the open field which is very stressful to his crop. Organic agriculture has its place, but even its staunchest proponents recognise its limited role in the larger scheme of meeting a developing nation's growth targets and goals.

        With agricultural exports valued in the region of US$ 7.5 billion annually, the government has rightly explored all avenues to extend production and productivity, and power a new "Green Revolution." Policy makers have sought to consolidate the impressive economic gains made in agriculture, and make further moves to strengthen the foundations of this growth through sustained seed breeding & production, education and training on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), augmenting Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), and exploring the possibilities offered to Thai agriculture through biotechnology and GMOs.

        Whilst many have criticized the government for its earlier intentions to allow GMOs field trials, given the technical factors that have contributed to the growth of Thailand's agricultural sector, and the contribution of the sector to Thailand's economy overall, it would have been incredibly remiss for the Thai government not to consider biotechnology and GMOs as a means of regaining lost agricultural competitiveness.

        Thailand is rightly regarded as a agriculture powerhouse in the South East Asia. Many countries will look to Thailand as a swing nation in GMO adoption. Other nations will be rightly concerned if the "Kitchen of the World" adds another technological utensil to its cupboard.

        If the scientific and regulatory procedures of Thailand permit, the choice of planting enhanced biotechnology crops may, as hybrid corn and improved rice varieties before, allow farmers to determine their own destiny and contribute towards Thailand's social and economic growth. The ultimate success of GMOs will not be determined in supermarkets in the EU, or the corridors of power in Brussels or Bangkok. Farmers in Thailand will either embrace or reject GMOs based upon their performance in the field. They will compare and contrast them with hybrids and traditional varieties, and even grow them organically.

        Farmers' productivity and competitiveness is the key, why not let their 45 million voices decide?

—————————
Andrew D. Roberts, PhD is chairman of the Food & Agribusiness Committee, American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand.
From : Bankok Post