 |
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.
|
