|
|
|
Are GMOs being forced upon us?
Picture © Microsoft Corporation
|
One
of the raging debates on the continent of Africa has been over the adoption of
genetically modified organisms (GMO). There are those who see research on GM
crops as being forced down the people’s throats by Western corporate
organizations out for profits and in utter disregard for safety and regulatory
matters.
But
in a study released in Nairobi by the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) on July 12—one bound to raise heat—it was shown that
public institutions across Africa are conducting groundbreaking research to
produce genetically modified (GM) crops. The point of the study, which presents
findings on the development of GM crops by public research institutes in four
African countries—Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe—is that
non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) objections to GM crops as the
ill-doings of Western corporations to increase their profits do not apply to
much of the GM research in Africa.
This
has, however, been fiercely disputed by Barcelona-based Grain, an international
non-governmental organization which promotes the sustainable management and use
of agricultural biodiversity based on people’s control over genetic resources
and local knowledge. It has termed IFPRI’s position as another example of the
push to convince policy makers in developing countries to embrace an unproven
and potentially harmful technology.
According
to Grain coordinator, Henk Hobbelink, this will create dependence on foreign
laboratories and corporations rather than build the rich indigenous agricultural
knowledge and resources already available across Africa.
“Most
GM research in Africa is pushed and funded by agencies such as USAID, which
openly admits that pushing biotechnology and advocating legislation that allows
transgenic crops to enter Africa is an important objective of theirs,” he
said.
Africa
for GM?
In
his statement during the Nairobi press briefing, Joel I. Cohen, IFPRI senior
research fellow and an author of the study, said the study assesses the state of
biotech crop research, the types of genes being used, and the biosafety and
regulatory challenges facing Africa.
Current
biotech research, according to IFPRI, has great potentials to reduce the use of
pesticides, increase drought tolerance, and improve the nutritional value of
staple foods.
According
to Cohen these changes could benefit the environment, improve health, reduce the
cost of food, and increase the incomes of poor smallholder farmers throughout
Africa.
“Our
study reveals the burgeoning role of public biotech crop research in Africa,”
said Cohen, adding that, “Corporations are often seen as the only drivers of
GM foods. But the reality is that a few African countries, despite their limited
financial and technical resources, have vibrant public biotech research
programs. This research often targets improvements of indigenous plant varieties
relevant for local use by small-scale farmers.”
The
study documents public biotech research on 20 different crops in the four
countries, including maize, sweet potato, and cowpeas, and focuses on improving
resistance to diseases and pests which can devastate yields for farmers in
African countries.
Hobbelink
said USAID programs are part of a multi-pronged strategy to advance US interests
with GM crops. “Increasingly, the US government uses multilateral and
bilateral free trade agreements and high-level diplomatic pressure to push
countries towards the adoption of many key bits of corporate-friendly
regulations related to GM crops,” he said.
He
termed the IFPRI study as part of external pressure that has been effectively
complimented by lobbying and funding from national and regional USAID biotech
networks.
Regulatory
Mechanisms Lacking
|
|
|
Nearly
three quarters of the genetic materials used in the four countries researched in
the study come from local plants
Picture
© Microsoft Corporation
|
Ms
Idah Sithole-Niang, professor at the University of Zimbabwe and lead author of
the study, said it is unfortunate most African countries lack capacity and
funding to develop and comply with biosafety regulatory requirements and this
has denied farmers access to GM crops.
“Unfortunately,
most African countries lack the expertise, capacity, and funding to develop and
comply with biosafety regulatory requirements, and these deficiencies have
become more pronounced as they implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,”
said Sithole-Niang. “As a result, GM crops remain out of the hands of farmers
and their benefits go unrealized.”
Nearly
three quarters of the genetic materials used in the four countries researched in
the study come from local plants, which are more suited for local needs and
growing conditions. However, most of the public research is still in
laboratories, greenhouses, or confined field trials.
By
contrast, four commercial biotech crops developed by foreign companies are
available in South Africa. While previous reports have examined biotech crop
research in developing countries, this study is the first to draw the connection
between safety and regulatory requirements and specific crops and genetic
traits, showing the policy implications of public research.
“This
information will be critical to policymakers for improving biosafety regulations
and ensuring safety,” said IFPRI. “Most African countries, like many other
poor countries, often cannot advance GM crop research because their national
policies or regulatory systems are not prepared to deal with safety requirements
for approving general use,” Cohen explained.
Cohen
called on researchers in African countries to work together to share information
and expertise, and to promote dialogue with policymakers as to when, where, and
if restrictive biosafety policies are needed. As poor countries develop stronger
biosafety procedures, they will be increasingly able to manage potential risks
associated with GM crops.
“Where
is recourse for addressing dangers arising out of such experiments both to
human beings and the environment?”
Kenyan
environmental lawyer, Odhiambo MakOloo |
|
The
study recommends an increase in small-scale, confined field trials to test
crops, determine safety, and receive feedback from farmers. It also stresses the
need to provide decision-makers with science-based biosafety information, so as
to improve the clarity of regulatory policies and procedures.
“This
study provides critical information that could help bolster Africa’s public
biotech research and regulation efforts, and potentially improve the livelihoods
of poor farmers and consumers,” said Patricia Zambrano, IFPRI research analyst
and an author of the study.
The
Dangers of Research
Without
a legal framework, Kenya became the first African country after South Africa to
plant GM stem borer resistant maize in an open field in May. The director of
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Dr Romano Kiome, praised the move as a
show of using cutting edge science to address the needs of the people. If the
experiment is successful, the GM crop will be interbred with Kenyan maize lines
for production of varieties that can grow in local conditions and this is
expected to happen in the next three years.
But
a leading Nairobi-based environmental lawyer, Odhiambo MakOloo, says it is wrong
for research on GM crops to go on in Africa knowing very well most of these
countries have no legal or regulatory frameworks to take care of the side
effects of GMO products. His argument is that introducing GM crops in Africa
without legal frameworks could prove very dangerous to both human beings and the
environment. ‘Where is recourse for addressing dangers arising out of such
experiments both to human beings and the environment?” he asked.
According
to MakOloo there is a systematic push by the mega western corporations to
stampede Africa to embrace GM crops in utter disregard of the fact that there
are no legal and regulatory frameworks in place. The risk of contamination from
these test sites, MakOloo said, is always a risk, and these could enter into the
human food chain.
According
to Hobbelink, the US is the leading grower of GM crops with over 60 percent of
the global GM area. Argentina is next with a 20 percent share of GM crops.
Twelve other countries split the remaining sales among themselves. This, in his
thinking, makes GM very much US-oriented and based, being forced upon the world
by a handful of US corporations and universities with backing from the US
government.
“The
US government has been desperately trying to convince the world their
agricultural model is the best. We are saying sustainable management and use of
agricultural biodiversity based on people’s control over genetic resources and
local knowledge is the best,” he said. And so there is no let up in the debate
between those for and against GM crops.
**
Ochieng’ Ogodo is a Nairobi based journalist. He can be reached at
ogodo16@hotmail.com
|
