To GMO, Or Not To GMO?

In recent years, the climbing costs of labor, fuel, chemicals and fertilizers, combined with faltering market prices, have left Turkish growers feeling skittish about whether or not to roll the dice on cotton. As food continues to draw higher market value than cotton worldwide, Turkish growers are faced with the same dilemma their foreign counterparts must confront. The end result is much the same: a decrease in cotton acreage.

In the 2006/07 year, Turkish growers planted a full 159 thousand fewer hectares of cotton than they had in 2002/03. The domestic demand for cotton, however, remains steady.

Advertisement

“Cotton demand in Turkey is about 1.7 million tons. Only 50% of this demand is provided by domestic production,” says Aydin Kesen of the Izmir Mercantile Exchange. “However, based on the original data in previous years in Turkey, it is possible to say that there was 1.5 million tons capacity of cotton production.”

A major hurdle facing the cotton trading market has been the instability of the New Turkish Lira’s (YTL) value against major foreign currencies. Though the nation’s total foreign trade has increased by a remarkable 206% since a 2001 economic crisis, the state of flux of the YTL, which was left to float against foreign currencies, has added heavy pressures to the export sector and driven imports up at an even higher rate. In short, decrease in production coupled with a steady increase in demand has caused a trade deficit in the world’s seventh leading cotton producing nation.

Brand New Seed, Same Old Laws

Top Articles
Make a Pre-Planting Checklist

In the face of reduced acreage, the need for higher yields has never been more prevalent. The Turkish government’s reluctance to utilize genetically modified cotton, specifically Bt, in light of the industry’s dilemma has been puzzling, although consistent with the rest of the cotton producing nations of the EU.

Kesen asserts that biotech product farming is forbidden in Turkey, except in very limited research. Some industry leaders believe there is good reason to be cautious about Bt’s effect on the Turkish industry, as well as that of other developing nations.

“It might seem straightforward to arrive at an assessment of the impact of Bt, at least in terms of yields and costs. Unfortunately, there are several factors that make this a more difficult challenge than it appears,” says Robert Tripp of the Overseas Development Institute. He cites the multitude of outside variables that affect data collection. “So the results from any one year may not be representative.”

There are reports, according to Tripp, of genetically modified cotton driving production costs up in certain countries – such as India’s Bt growers who invested more in fertilizer, manure and field labor than growers who planted traditional seeds. He notes that these problems have, on the whole, been the exception and not the rule.

Tripp says that pesticide management practices in developing countries, aside from being largely inefficient, can cause serious threats to human health and ultimately be counterproductive, due to pesticide resistance and the elimination of natural enemies. While Bt cotton could be a partial solution to these problems, the need for grower education is evident.

“The use of Bt cotton could ameliorate this situation if it is seen not as a magic bullet but rather as a contribution to integrated pest management strategies,” Tripp notes. The genetically modified technology’s implementation should be made with respect not only to field-level performance, “but also on the extent to which farmers have access to the resources and conditions that allow them to understand and take control of the technology,” he adds. “This requires attention to mechanisms for information provision, the existence of transparent markets, and the provision of adequate regulatory frameworks.” These added provisions simply cannot be implemented as quickly as the seed can be shipped and planted.

Essentially Tripp warns that the technology will only be beneficial to farmers in developing countries if they are armed with the specific research information and training necessary to utilizing it. In Turkey, that research has been slow to materialize.

Turkey’s cotton production comes from four distinct regions along the country’s southern border, each requiring its own set of studies to determine if the genetically modified seeds are a viable option. Unfortunately, the testing required to gauge the variables, Tripp notes, takes time, which itself is a dwindling commodity for many of the region’s growers. Perhaps that’s why industry leaders such as Kesen are calling to expediate the process.

Creating a Brand

At the 66th Plenary Meeting of the International Cotton Advisory Committee held in Izmir, Turkey, in October of 2007, Kesen noted the affects of the ongoing Bt debate. Traceability was high on his list.

Roughly 60% of over 1.6 million tons of cotton imported into Turkey’s markets from 2005 to 2007 came from the United States. With 87% of American cotton being genetically modified, Kesen points out that it is almost certain that genetically modified cotton is being consumed in Turkey’s markets. The problem lies within the phrase “almost certain.”
Turkish importers get a literal mixed bag of cotton from around the world with no way of differentiating between what has been genetically modified and what is conventionally produced. While Turkey has little to no influence on how other nations label their exports, Kesen sees an advantage to labeling domestic cotton.

As globalization creates a more informed consumer – one who is knowledgeable on subjects such as biodiversity, climate change and environmental issues – Kesen believes there is a market demand for labeling. “Consumers, with either universal or individual worries, want to find out more about the products they are consuming and to have the right to know about what they are eating and what they are wearing,” Kesen says. “In my opinion, to label the cotton produced in Turkey as 100% GMO free, and also labeling the products of the Textile and Confections as 100% GMO free, will help Turkey to be a brand in this sector.”

While Kesen doesn’t endorse a ban on GMOs, his stance is relatively simple: the country should at least market its product in a way to set it apart from the influx of imported, genetically modified cotton. Many of Turkey’s industry leaders have since warmed to the labeling idea.

The Turkish government’s reluctance to use Bt has been puzzling, although consistent with the rest of the EU. Turkey weighs the pros and cons of Bt technology.

Add Sidebar (2 tables)

0