In the early 1960s, most nations were self-sufficient in food; now only a few are. In the period 1950-1984, the introduction of high-yield crops and energy intensive agriculture ushered in the Green Revolution, leading to increased crop production. World grain output expanded by a factor of 2.6 in this period. Except for parts of Africa, production exceeded population growth throughout the world.

Per capita grain production has now slowed down and appears to be declining. Rising growth of population, and a linearly increasing food production have persisted over the recent 40 years. Such circumstances have been of concern since Malthus first called attention, in 1798, to the consequences of their continuation; decreasing per capita food and great human suffering.

It was in the mid-seventies that a major effort to turn food into a corporate business was launched by the US policy-makers after multinationals discovered that hunger, misery and starvation were as much a potential market for food companies to make huge profits as human desire to own a beautiful car, refrigerator or a television set.

In 1974, the UN General Assembly convened its first "political" conference on hunger - as the World Food Conference came to be known. The U.S. delegation to the important gathering was led by Henry Kissinger and Hubert Humphrey which gave additional significance. They were frank enough to tell the moot that the real solution to world hunger lay in agribusiness. "Industry would grow the food and get it to market for everyone," they said. As they delivered their speeches, the corridors of the Rome conference centre were crowded by American and European business lobbyists peddling tractors, spreading fertilizers, and pumping pesticides to "feed the hungry".

This was a turning point for the Food and Agriculture Organization whose future role was to be influenced by the food giants. The corporate sector's Industry Cooperative Programme (ICP) made available its employees to the FAO. A.H. Boerma, FAO's retiring Director-General in 1974, was horrified by the corporate influence. Although he himself had a long association with Royal Dutch Shell, and had been the Dutch agriculture minister, he had a strong sense of the role of intergovernmental organizations and public service.

It took until 1978 for the FAO's new Director-General, Eduard Saouma to expel the ICP. During its time at the FAO, however, the small secretariat had considerable influence over all FAO policies and programmes - especially those related to agricultural equipment and inputs. But the ICP's expulsion from Rome was by no means the end of the ICP. Within months, the same staff came into a new garb - Industry Council for Development (ICD).

During the seventies and early eighties, the UN General Assembly and UNCTAD both struggled hard to gain some control over the influence of transnational corporations. But they failed. By the close of the eighties, corporate influence over the UN was at its peak. Recent revelations from the global tobacco industry describing how it infiltrated the UN and the FAO give a glimpse of the power which the companies began to wield over the un bodies.

It is in the backdrop of this corporate influence that on May 17 this year the FAO released a report, "Agricultural Biotechnology, Meeting the needs of the poor?" It paints a positive picture of genetically modified (GM)crops and recommends that more resources be put towards the development of GM technologies for the developing countries.

The main feature of the report is its analysis of farmers' experiences with Bt cotton around the world, which the FAO uses to claim "that resource-poor smallholders in developing countries can gain significant benefits from the adoption of transgenic crops in terms of higher and more stable effective yields, lower pesticide costs and reduced health risks from chemical pesticide exposure."

But the FAO report ignores what is actually happening on the ground. Two new studies on Bt cotton in India and West Africa conducted by the Andhra Pradesh (AP) coalition in defence of diversity, have provided evidence of Bt cotton's failure in the fields and of the FAO's failure to defend the interests of small farmers.

The report by the AP Coalition, entitled "Did Bt cotton fail AP again in 2003-2004?" surveyed 164 small Bt cotton farmers from three districts of Andhra Pradesh during the 2003-2004 season. It found that while Bt cotton marginally reduced pesticide use and increased yields, the overall profits for farmers growing Bt cotton were 9 per cent lower. This directly contradicts the data of a study carried out by a marketing agency on behalf of Monsanto, which claims that farmer profits increased by 92 per cent, and it points to how unreliable industry data can be.

Meanwhile, the FAO has , in a statement, said that while there is little controversy about many aspects of biotechnology and its application, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have become the target of a very intensive and, at times, emotionally charged debate. "The FAO recognizes that genetic engineering has the potential to help increase production and productivity in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. It could lead to higher yields on marginal lands in countries that today cannot grow enough food to feed their people.

There are already examples where genetic engineering is helping to reduce the transmission of human and animal diseases through new vaccines. Rice has been genetically engineered to contain pro-vitamin A (beta carotene) and iron, which could improve the health of many low-income communities."

However, the FAO says it is aware of the concern about the potential risks posed by certain aspects of biotechnology. These risks fall into two basic categories: the effects on human and animal health and the environmental consequences. Caution must be exercised in order to reduce the risks of transferring toxins from one life form to another, of creating new toxins or of transferring allergenic compounds from one species to another, which could result in unexpected allergic reactions.

The FAO , the statement says, supports a science-based evaluation system that would objectively determine the benefits and risks of each individual GMO. This calls for a cautious case-by-case approach to address legitimate concerns for the biosafety of each product or process prior to its release. Current investment in biotechnological research, the statement says, tends to be concentrated in the private sector and oriented towards agriculture in higher-income countries where there is purchasing power for its products.

The crux of the FAO statement is that In view of the potential contribution of biotechnologies for increasing food supply and overcoming food insecurity and vulnerability, it considers that efforts should be made to ensure that developing countries, in general, and resource-poor farmers, in particular, benefit more from biotechnological research, while continuing to have access to a diversity of sources of genetic material. The FAO proposes that this need be addressed through increased public funding and dialogue between the public and private sectors.

Meanwhile, more than 650 civil society organizations and 800 individuals from more than 80 countries have signed an open letter strongly condemning the FAO's bias against the poor, the environment and against food production in general. Amongst the signatories are many peasant and indigenous people's organizations, social movements and scientists, as well as NGOs.

The letter says that FAO's 200-plus page document attempts to appear neutral, but in reality it is highly biased and ignores available evidence of the adverse impact of genetically engineered crops.

Although the FAO report does mention that genetic engineering is dominated by corporations, it overlooks the fact that only one company - Monsanto - controls over 90 per cent of the total world area sown to transgenic seeds. Not surprisingly, the report has been received enthusiastically by the industry and other groups that push this technology with the claim that it will solve world hunger.

With this report, the FAO now appears to support 'Terminator' technology - the production of sterile seeds that stop farmers from saving and re-using seeds from previous harvests. This is a radical departure from its position adopted only four years ago.

"We believe that the FAO has broken its commitment to civil society and peasants' organizations to consult on issues of common concern because the report turns the FAO away from food sovereignty and the real needs of the world's farmers, and is a stab in the back to the farmers and the rural poor the FAO is meant to support." The open letter was delivered at the headquarters of the organization in Rome. The civil society organizations intend to reconsider their relationship with the FAO in the future.

The fact remains that contrary to what the FAO proposes, genetically engineered crops do not help fight hunger in the world. History demonstrates that structural changes in access to land, food, and political power - combined with robust, ecological technologies via farmer-led research - reduce hunger and poverty. But the 'gene revolution' promises to take us in the opposite direction. Genetic contamination is polluting the very heart of the world's centres of crop diversity. But the FAO brushes aside this tragedy with hardly a comment. Yet, for the very cultures that created agriculture this can be described as an aggression against their life, against the crops they created and nurture, and against their food sovereignty.