15-5
Example 2: Native grains or hybrids—which are more appropriate?
In farming and nutrition, as in other areas, development programs
sometimes introduce new technologies that do not meet the needs
of the poor as well as the old ways (see Chapter 7 and Hesperian’s
A Community Guide to Environmental Health). People need to
carefully evaluate any new methods that agricultural extension
workers or other outsiders try to introduce. As with medicines,
possible benefits must be weighed against possible harm.
Consider hybrid grains. Hybrids are varieties produced by crossing two closely
related types, in order to increase the amount of harvest. Under the best conditions,
they often give a higher yield (more harvest per hectare). But they sometimes
require costly fertilizers and insecticides—which may upset the natural balance of
plants and animals in the area.
An even bigger problem is that a new kind of plant disease could suddenly
appear and in one season destroy all the hybrid grain planted in the entire
region. The result could be economic ruin and widespread starvation. The crops
can be destroyed easily because hybrids lack the natural variation needed to resist
disease. Native grains, on the other hand, have enough variation so that only a part
of the crop is likely to be ruined by such an epidemic.
Nevertheless, banks, agriculture experts, and governments in some parts of
the world have given a great deal of support to the growing and marketing of
hybrid grains and even worse, Genetically Modified grains (GMOs). As a result,
some native grains are in danger of being lost or weakened through crossbreeding
with hybrids or GMOs. This could lead to disaster in the future because when an
epidemic destroys a hybrid crop, the native grain—if it still exists—must provide the
reserve from which a more disease-resistant hybrid can be developed.
In the case of maize (corn) grown in Mexico, this danger is near. There the
government pays a higher price for hybrid ‘white maize’, and it is now grown on
almost all the large irrigated landholdings. Today, the main reserve of the traditional
criollo maize lies in the small independent plantings of poor farmers. Although this
yellow maize has been the main food in the native people’s diet for hundreds of
years, many small farmers are now switching to the white hybrids, tempted by the
promise of a greater yield and a higher market price.
But the disadvantages and risks of growing the hybrids and GMOs are felt
especially by the poor farmer. The white maize and GMOs require expensive
fertilizers and often insecticides for good harvests. They are less resistant to
disease. And they mature more slowly than the native grain—so if the rainy season
is short, the crop fails. All this does not matter much to the large landholder with
irrigated fields. But it is of great importance to the small farmer.
The nutritional difference is also a concern. Criollo maize is higher in protein
and vitamin A than the new varieties. For families that can afford to eat meat and
cheese, this difference is not very important. But for poor families, that often lack
even beans, the additional protein in criollo maize can make the difference between
health and malnutrition.