World Food Day: What Technology Can Truly Ensure Food Security?

by Posted on

Foodthink Says

16 October marks the 44th World Food Day, with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) designating this year’s global theme as: “Food Security for All, Building a Better Life, Creating a Brighter Future.”

Advocates and promoters of GM technology have long packaged it as the premier solution for guaranteeing food security. Yet *Seed Empire*, a new book chronicling Monsanto’s history by US environmental historians, effectively debunks the company’s GM myth with rigorous facts and data.

Centring on the book, several Chinese scholars and practitioners engaged in a discussion: how should the public understand GM technology? How do these agricultural and food-related technologies shape our dietary systems? What kind of innovation can truly safeguard food security? And as everyday consumers, what part can we play?

●This article is adapted from the live broadcast of *Species on the Table* on the Tencent News Science Channel on 9 August. Scan the QR code to watch the recording.

I. The Complexity of GM Technology Is Overlooked

Tianle (founding editor of Foodthink, organiser of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market) : As early as 2005, Monsanto had become the world’s largest seed seller. Their genetically modified seeds were sold across Vietnam, Brazil, India, and several other countries. Regarding Monsanto’s GM crops, I would like to cite two conclusions from the book *The Seed Empire*. First, it has not reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides. This is because shortly after their GM products hit the market, herbicide- and pesticide-resistant weeds and insects quickly emerged. Taking GM soybeans as an example, which now account for over 90% of the market: herbicide use, whether measured per unit area or in total volume, only fell for a few years after GM crops were introduced before rising sharply again, far surpassing the levels seen before herbicide-tolerant GM crops arrived. Meanwhile, the accompanying use of glyphosate has risen almost steadily.

● Trend in herbicide use for soybeans, 1992–2016: comparison of pounds of glyphosate per acre versus pounds of other herbicides per acre (top); pounds of glyphosate versus pounds of all other herbicides (bottom). Data compiled from Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. Data source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and US Geological Survey National Pesticide Synthesis Project, Annual Estimates of Agricultural Pesticide Use for Major Crops 1992–2017. Image source: *The Seed Empire*
Tianle: Secondly, it has not delivered increased yields. To begin with, GM technology was never intended to boost yields. Moreover, numerous scientists have compared yield data between the US, which extensively cultivates GM crops, and Europe, which does not. The findings reveal that over the past few decades, the yield growth trajectories have barely diverged. Put simply, Monsanto’s GM varieties confer no yield advantage.
Guan Qi (seed systems researcher, head of the Eastern Office of the Farmers’ Seed Network) : When Monsanto promotes its GM seeds, it emphasises yield, which is a results-driven approach. I believe the inherent complexity and unpredictability are largely overlooked. In biological breeding, gene–environment interactions are highly intricate. Whether developing GM or gene-edited crops, the process is exceptionally complex and difficult to control. Making selections within it demands a colossal amount of work, and failure rates are high, even if such setbacks remain hidden from public view. To illustrate the complexity of the GM debate, consider another example. On Mindanao in the Philippines, an open-pollinated maize variety has been widely grown for nearly fifteen years. Researchers later tested it and discovered it actually contained an inserted transgenic fragment, derived from a patented herbicide-tolerant GM variety. It appears farmers with breeding expertise crossbred this GM line with the existing open-pollinated variety. The resulting cross allowed farmers to save their own seed while also conferring herbicide tolerance. Consequently, this new hybrid gradually took hold across the region. Spreading organically from farmer to farmer without official agricultural extension, it functioned almost as a form of mutual aid. This variety reduced labour inputs and eliminated the need to purchase seed commercially.

What makes this case particularly compelling is that it challenges both proponents and opponents of GM technology alike. Proponents point to lax government oversight and the infringement of GM patents. Yet, because the exact origin of this hybrid cannot be pinpointed, no one faces legal repercussions. For critics of GM, it poses a pressing dilemma: what seeds do farmers truly require, and who ought to fulfil their practical needs? Could public breeding programmes, for instance, step into this role?

II. Will the wider public continue to benefit from future technological advances?

Tianle: Judging from the book, Monsanto cracks down ruthlessly on farmers it claims have “infringed” on its patents. In the past, we might have assumed that the general public has always been the beneficiaries of technological progress, and there are indeed countless examples to prove it. Yet over the past few years, we have begun to sense a growing tension between technology and everyday life. We see it in delivery algorithms squeezing riders, in autonomous robotaxis like Apollo Go displacing cab drivers, or in the food sector, where many complain that meals have lost their flavour. This decline is actually the byproduct of so-called technological progress, which increasingly prioritises efficiency over taste and quality. As technology’s capacity to reshape our lives grows ever stronger, how should we approach the friction it inevitably brings? Xu Zhun (Professor of Economics, Sun Yat-sen University): The utility of science and technology certainly cannot be taken for granted. It only becomes our friend—and a vital tool for improving our lives—under certain specific social conditions. Under others, it can just as easily turn into our adversary. Ultimately, the question hinges on analysing the underlying economic and social relationships.

Take the Green Revolution in 1960s India as an example. The government embraced the initiative, introducing high-yield crop varieties in the hope that technological means would boost agricultural output. At the time, many harboured great hopes for the Green Revolution, anticipating it would narrow the wealth gap and deliver broader social benefits. In reality, the opposite proved true. These high-yield varieties were more expensive than local traditional ones, and cultivating them demanded vast amounts of water and sophisticated irrigation infrastructure. Yet rural infrastructure in India was generally poor. Consequently, these high-yield crops did not lift the already impoverished farmers out of hardship; instead, they exacerbated poverty in certain regions.

Therefore, rather than offering blanket support or opposition to science and technology in the abstract, we should examine concretely what a given technology brings to people under current social conditions.

Turning to Monsanto again, the book reveals that many of the problems associated with its technology rarely even operate on a scientific level. Whether dealing with herbicides or pesticides, their researchers would simply observe in a trial that a product effectively killed weeds or pests. That finding would then be locked away as a trade secret, patented, and turned into a revenue-generating formula. Little interest was shown in understanding the underlying mechanisms or why it worked, and open scientific discourse was actively discouraged, meaning its actual contribution to science remained limited.

III. How can breeding technology better serve farmers?

Tianle: If seed companies like Monsanto monopolise the breeding and seed markets, bringing negative impacts on farmers and agriculture, how should breeding technology be developed to better benefit farmers? Guan Qi: There ought to be a mechanism to support farmers in acquiring appropriate knowledge of seed selection and breeding through collaboration with research institutions. For farmers, their needs are not necessarily complex, but rather quite diverse. The public often mistakenly assumes that farmers lack the knowledge or capacity to save seeds or even breed them. Yet, looking back at history, the industrialisation of hybrid breeding has only been around for a little over a century. Before that, farmers relied on their own accumulated techniques and knowledge to select and breed seeds.

So, could we now establish a support mechanism to enable them to regain these techniques and knowledge? The case from the Philippines shows that farmers not only have the potential to master these skills but, once they do, can select and breed varieties tailored to their own needs.

Establishing such a social support mechanism cannot rely solely on civil society organisations, as their funding and manpower are limited and they can only run local pilot projects. Ultimately, the solution will likely need to centre on the public breeding system. Our country once established a powerful agricultural research and extension system, but how to revitalise these systems and effectively gauge farmers’ needs today demands serious reflection.

Take the early days of Mexico’s Green Revolution, for instance. Even within the Rockefeller Foundation, there were divergent approaches to seed introduction. Project staff at the time largely fell into two disciplinary camps: those with a scientific research background, who wanted to directly transplant high-yielding US varieties into Mexico for distribution; and those with a social science background, who emphasised introducing varieties that local farmers actually needed. Consequently, they advocated for improving local landraces to better suit Mexico’s specific conditions.

These were essentially two different development pathways. Looking back, we find that the social science-backed approach ultimately lost out. There was a growing consensus against investing further time in improving local varieties, leading to the displacement of many Mexican maize landraces. Ultimately, it was Mexico’s large-scale farms that benefited, rather than the countless smallholder farmers.

Apart from the vertical process of transferring technology to the public or farmers, the breeding industry also operates through a horizontal dimension. When breeders undertake varietal improvement, a fundamental prerequisite is the preservation of seed resource diversity. To mitigate the uncertainty and complexity inherent in breeding, the most efficient approach is to conduct pre-breeding and screening using large-scale germplasm resources.

Today, competition among seed and agribusiness firms is intense, with market concentration rising steadily. Driven by this rivalry, laboratories and companies rarely share information; breeding materials are treated as commercial secrets, which frequently hinders collaboration between them.

Take Argentina’s GDM Seed Group, for example. As one of the world’s largest soybean biotech breeding companies, it operates 700 experimental stations across 15 countries. It houses an extensive germplasm collection and has conducted extensive selection and breeding, building a formidable competitive advantage. For developing nations and emerging enterprises, such resource-rich corporations exert immense pressure. In practice, many agricultural biotech firms simply purchase germplasm from them to conduct their own transgenic research and development.

But who actually preserves these germplasm resources? Farmers do. We operate under a principle often summarised as ‘keeping seeds with the people’. Why do we continuously encourage farmers to preserve and protect the seed resources they still hold? Only by conserving them first can we later undertake further evaluation of these landraces. This forms the groundwork for pre-breeding and for meeting diverse societal demands.

Therefore, involving farmers—and consumers alike—is crucial. As consumers, we can convey our preferences to breeders; for instance, expressing a desire for less sweet fruit. This gives breeders a channel to understand such feedback and adjust breeding objectives accordingly to meet societal needs.

● The seed bank of VERN, a grassroots organisation near Berlin, Germany, preserves over 2,000 varieties. Through their efforts, some of these heritage varieties have been commercialised and introduced to the mainstream market.

IV. Do Consumers Really Know What They Want to Eat?

Tianle: Professor Guan just mentioned involving consumers, but in the food sector, most of us consumers are actually very passive. Or rather, as consumers, our preferences are often shaped by the market itself. I also work at the Beijing Organic Farmers Market, so I’ve seen a small group of consumers actively seeking out alternative food networks, rather than passively waiting for markets or corporations to dictate their preferences and shopping habits. It’s a rather interesting trend. Professor Zhou, you’ve researched this area in recent years. Do you think there’s an opportunity for consumers to reshape their own food consumption networks? Zhou Mujun (Food and Agriculture Systems Researcher, Associate Professor of Sociology at Zhejiang University): From an optimistic standpoint, absolutely. When I was researching alternative food networks earlier, I met a farmer on the outskirts of Chengdu. He farms around 20 to 30 mu (roughly 1.5 hectares), and within the city he found about a hundred households willing to buy his produce and support his move towards a more ecological farming approach. He genuinely enjoys the work and loves delving into agricultural techniques. It means he doesn’t have to migrate for waged labour or be separated from his family. Compared to the average farmer, his income is higher, while the customers get better, more trustworthy produce. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. So, on a small scale at least, this model is entirely viable.

● Alternative food networks similar to the Beijing Organic Farmers Market operate nationwide, enabling consumers to buy directly from ecological smallholders. For more events like this, follow Foodthink’s WeChat Official Account for the “National Food & Agriculture Events Roundup”, published on each solar term.
Zhou Mujun: But looking at it on a broader scale, this is quite challenging. We often talk about consumer preferences, as if people spontaneously like or dislike certain things or flavours. But in reality, our tastes and preferences are largely shaped by external forces. We see that each generation experiences different environments, grows up eating different things, and consequently develops very different palates. The cherries I ate as a child were slightly tart and a bit watery, but I find them incredibly hard to come by now. The ones in supermarkets are all those varieties that are particularly large, dark, and extremely sweet. I sometimes wonder whether being particular about food flavours, or preferring healthy foods, might also be linked to a person’s socioeconomic status. If your standard of living is lower, you might not have the luxury to worry too much about these things. Abroad, we can certainly see clear class divisions in this regard; organic supermarkets tend to be located in more affluent neighbourhoods and charge higher prices. So my stance is somewhat ambivalent and uncertain. On one hand, I greatly admire consumers who take the initiative to build their own food networks; on the other, I’m sceptical about how much impact these alternative food networks can really have on the broader market structure.

Tian Le: Indeed, much Western research links taste to class and race. But I feel there might be a slight exception in China. Based on my own observations, it’s actually those with rural backgrounds or who come from the countryside who tend to be more attuned to food quality. Meanwhile, those born in the 80s and 90s who grew up in major cities are more easily conditioned by industrialised food, to the point where they struggle to appreciate more diverse foods and flavours. This is exactly why there’s that joke about “authentic Beijing delicacies being KFC and McDonald’s”. How can consumers get involved? I believe the right to know is the first step. Health awareness among urban middle-class consumers is growing. For instance, in April this year, Shanghai took the lead in introducing “nutritional grading” for beverages, requiring them to display A, B, C, or D nutrition labels. I think that’s a wonderful start.

Will consumers have more opportunities in the future to choose agricultural products and foods that are friendlier to both the environment and producers? It’s a question we all need to work together to answer.

● For further discussion on food security and technology, please see the video replays of this year’s “Empire of Seeds” sharing series, co-organised by Foodthink, Sanlian Bookstore, Yali Reading, and the Peasant Seed Network, or the written recaps of the series at the end of the article.

 *This article was first published on Tencent News in “Let’s Chat Science”

Click the linkto access more science coverage

Edited by: Tian Le

Published by Foodthink