GM or hunger

‘...there is concern that biotechnology
encourages monoculture and only lends itself to a large-scale, industrial style of agriculture - which is uncommon in Africa…’

As Africa continues to struggle with civic wars, poverty and AIDS hunger remains the continent's most critical problem. Promoters of genetic engineering believe that genetically modified organisms are the answer that will eradicate starvation. The other side questions the safety and nutritious value of GM foods, as well as its bend toward dependency.
The proponents of GM foods argue that if Africa gives GM foods a chance - it will curtail hunger in every country on the continent - especially in countries where crops fail to grow because of drought, pest infestation or other natural causes.
According to Amadou Kanoute, Africa Regional Director for Consumers International, what a lot of people do not realize is that the genetic engineering industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar a year enterprise. The world leader in biotechnology crops - which posted $4.7 billion in 2002 revenues - calls St. Louis, Mo., home.
The Monsanto Company currently accounts for 90% of the world's GM crop supply, while also holding a top position in the key corn and soybean market in North and South America, as well as in Asia. The company posted first-quarter 2003 sales of $550 million in its seeds and genomics sector. All in all, Monsanto is to the biotechnology industry what Microsoft is to the computer industry - its Herculean prodigy.
The push for GM crops is not the perfect solution it is being advertised. For starters, there is concern that biotechnology encourages monoculture and only lends itself to a large-scale, industrial style of agriculture - which is uncommon in Africa. The introduction of genetic engineering might well destroy Africa’s model of production and consumption, which sustains more than 70% of the continent’s farmers.
Their production is split so that, as one-third of their seeds is sold, another is consumed and the last part is stored for the following season. GM crops, however, are not "designed" the same way. Once genetically engineered seeds are sown, they are only good for one cycle depending on where they are grown.
African farmers, then, would not be able to use the harvest to replant - because the seeds are "programmed" to become sterile following the first growth.
Countries that decide to buy GM crops this year will have no choice but to go back next year - and the next - to purchase another round of seeds. Instead of storing their own seed supplies for the following year - which they have done for centuries - Africa's farmers would rely on companies like Monsanto to provide the supplies for them.
This could create a circle of dependency that - even with the absence of patents now - might continue indefinitely. It is for this prime reason that GM organisms, in my view, are not the universal remedy Africa needs. Recent research has also shown that there are still many unknowns about GM foods - and like any other genuine debate - this one must take into account several pressing issues.
One of those important issues - especially with regard to Africa's agriculture - is how this technology will best sustain existing practices and policies used specifically by Africa's farmers. This debate also has to answer the question of how Africa will expect to counter-balance industry-sponsored research from a large contingent of U.S. multinational companies. Questions of human and environmental safety, labeling issues for consumer choice - and consumer participation in setting up national and international food standards - abound.
And amid all of this, it is important to look at the bigger picture. Nearly 200 million Africans currently suffer from chronic hunger. At the start of 2003, the situation was so desperate that some 25 million Africans required emergency food aid.
In addressing the problem of hunger in Africa, it is perhaps most crucial to realize that it has many causes. The most important, inter alia, includes the following: Access to and distribution of food, lack of good governance, Civil wars/ internal strife, Imbalance in land distribution, Natural disasters (such as drought, floods, land slides)
In light of this broad range of challenges, it becomes quite obvious that the introduction of GM crops cannot be viewed as providing "the" answer. Many observers also worry that genetic engineering promoters are seeking to eliminate any possible competition from non-GM crops. In particular, this affects traditional crops that are more tailored to a country’s capacity to control its own future - and more appropriate to its technological developments and know-how. In addition, recent experience shows that countries - once they implement sound agricultural policies - can succeed without GM crops.
In Africa there is little oversupply of food - and few people are aware of the potential risks of GM crops. Yet, if genetic engineering technology is introduced on the continent, it will create new markets for seeds, herbicides and pesticides. Multinational companies plan on using the new African Technology Transfer Foundation - funded by USAID, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Monsanto Company - to persuade
Africans to buy into the technology.
The industry says it will donate patent rights, seed varieties and laboratory know-how free of charge to African scientists. The founders claim their support is altruistic - while acknowledging that they hope to open new markets in Africa. Well, this didn’t convince many African governments.
The improvement of food security and agriculture in Africa calls for more than just biotechnology. Good governance, wise policies, infrastructure and investment are other key requirements. Africa faces particularly high hurdles in these areas.