In Italy, and in
other European Union countries, agriculture has functions which are more than
the simple production of food or raw materials. Agriculture has a role of
fundamental importance for the protection and maintenance of the territory, for
landscape conservation and protection (hedges, dry-stone walls, olives, citrus
fruit, special rows of trees, etc.), for the protection of flora and fauna, for
the preservation of biodiversity, for the creation of areas for recreation, for
the preservation of the traditional culture of rural territory, and for the
mitigation of the negative consequences on the environment, caused by other
production and consumption activities.
Let’s suppose for a moment that our country
could do without agriculture for food production: could it also do without
agriculture for territory protection? The answer is certainly in the negative,
since the presence of agriculture in a territory managed like ours is
synonymous with “safety and protection of the environment”. Our society must
therefore adopt agrarian policies capable of protecting the farmer’s income, in
order to guarantee him those indispensable rewards that will make him remain on
the land.
Unfortunately, the existing transgenic
organisms will not guarantee a higher income for the producer, because in
agriculture, as is well known, a cut in production costs corresponds, in the
long run, to a fall in products’ sale prices, thus annulling the profits (it
should be pointed out that a price fall would also imply a real income loss for
the producer: non-agricultural products
would cost more in terms of agricultural products).
The producer’s reduced income is also a
consequence of the fact that GMO (= Genetically Modified Organisms)
substantially neutralise the production factors directly introduced by the
entrepreneur. At the same time, GMO require a major input of external factors
of industrial origin, that must be acquired on the market.
The increase in producer’s income could
come from a differentiation of products towards those with an added value (food
with more proteins, more vitamins, fewer calories, parthenocarpy, etc.).
However, these earning opportunities can come about only if the market is
“free”. If production is carried out “on
contract” – which is more likely - the
profit increase would favour almost exclusively the patent holder of the
transgenic plant.
From a first appraisal, it can be asserted that existing transgenic
crops are the first step towards a complete automation of the process of
production (precision farming, almost impossible to realise on Italian
territory) and towards a standardisation of food production. Production will be
controlled by satellites, will not need the farmer and will determine an
increase in the return on capital to the detriment of returns destined to the
remuneration of other productive factors. It is in this context, among other
things, that the premises are created for a shift in control of rural
territory, from the farmer (no longer able to obtain an income from his own
production factors) to individuals that have nothing to do with agricultural
activity, who with their own capital or with capital of third parties will be
able to take over not only cultivation but also farm property.
For a “sustainable development” of our
agriculture, the laws regarding the patenting of transgenic products will then
have to be revised. It is not acceptable that he who inserted a gene in a plant
therefore acquires the right for the “de
facto monopoly” on that plant, thus preventing its free cultivation. This
assertion is supported by the consideration
that, the moment when the
transgenic plant is considered equal to the “non-transgenic” and the farmers
start growing it, even those farmers who initially did not intend to cultivate
it will be forced to do so. This is due to the fact that they will have to
operate in a market where the price of that product will be in proportion to
the (lower) production costs of the transgenic plant. Therefore, if growers
want to remain competitive in the market, they will have to change their
production to transgenic. In this way a de
facto monopoly for the market of the seeds of that plant could be created.
In
this context we may place the misgivings expressed by some about the
relation between “agriculture and the lords of the genes”, or rather between
the farmers and the “owners” of the genetic material from which that same
product originates. How can this patent be exploited? Are there any limits to
the economic exploitation of the invention, or is everything permitted to the
patent holder?
Undoubtedly, these questions need definite
answers about the possible consequences on the agricultural sector of the
patent’s exploitation. We might even think of a situation in which the farmer
does not buy the seed himself, but he receives it from the same company that
owns the patent and will also own the final product. Production will be carried
out by the grower on the basis of an “agreement” prescribing pesticides to be
used, agricultural operations to carry out and everything else necessary for the final product . For
his work, the farmer will receive a lump-sum remuneration embracing his labour
and the use of special equipment. In such a situation, the grower is
relieved of most of the business risks, but at the same
time he becomes a supplier of labour and capital, to the advantage of the
integrating company, which remains the owner of the seed and the final product.
Obviously, in a market economy, the grower’s remuneration for a production on
commission would be subject to the law of supply and demand. So what will
happen when the company that owns the seed finds a grower able to provide the
same services at a lower cost, or when it finds another country with more
favourable production costs? Obviously, other conditions being equal and
operating on a global scale, it will move its production to where it costs
less.
In a not too distant future, our products
will have to face competition with products from countries with much lower
production costs, from countries where the use of certain chemicals (either
fertilisers or pesticides) is not regulated, from countries where child labour,
far from being eliminated, is enforced and exploited, from countries not able
to guarantee the genetic material from which the product is derived. This list
could go on. That is why in the next few years the problems related to national
agriculture may, very probably, stem from market globalisation and from the
subsequent setting up of a huge world-wide market of food products, where the
absolute rule will be producing more (it doesn’t matter how) at the lowest
possible cost.
Nevertheless, in this context some
questions must be asked: are low costs and market globalisation compatible with
the quality of production which we all wish for? Do they assure an income for agricultural
producers from areas that are at a “disadvantage” as far as production factors’
costs are concerned? Are they compatible with the sustainable development of
the territory? Can they preserve the cultural, economic, social and
professional identity of a territory?
These questions must have definite answers
in order to verify if, over a long period,
the transgenic organisms and the subsequent process of market globalisation
represent an opportunity for our country agriculture or rather a dangerous path
that could bring harmful effects on the well-being of our society.
