By Andrew Tayton and Dulcie Krige
Africa, as we all know only too well, is a continent with severe agricultural problems such as widespread poor soils and water deficits. In addition the problems of poverty make transport and marketing of food crops far more difficult than they are in the West. This has led seed companies to contend that the solution lies with genetic modification (GM), which transfers genes from one species to another, so in theory conferring benefits such as increased yields, but also, according to opponents, running the risk of causing health problems in humans and of environmental problems by breaking the barriers which separate species.
What is often overlooked in this very real dilemma is that thousands of years of careful seed selection by African farmers has given rise to local varieties with valuable attributes such as drought and disease resistance. When these local varieties are used responsibly by seed scientists who are genuinely committed to solving the problems of the continent rather than with a goal simply of patenting expensive seeds it becomes apparent that a marriage of indigenous knowledge and modern technology can produce varieties which result in increased yields and disease resistance without running the risks associated with GM.
Examples of this are becoming increasingly evident. For example Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) enables scientists to identify genes associated with characteristics such as increased yield and then to identify such genes in local varieties and to crossbreed to improve the crop. Even Jeff Cox, of leading GM seed producer Monsanto, has said that MAS can be used to build high output varieties through conventional plant breeding since there is a vast reservoir of genes within any one species. His Monsanto colleague Tom Crosbie has, perhaps surprisingly, noted that “ultimately [non-GM] biotech offers the greatest potential”.
This then is the crux of the issue, the confusion that has seen GM and biotechnology as being the same thing whereas in fact GM removes genes from one species and, using a far from exact technology, inserts these genes into other species. However biotechnology is the much broader science of the knowledge of the genome and this enables the understanding of the function of particular genes to be put to use in assisting conventional breeding techniques to produce results rapidly and consistently. There are also considerable benefits in that environmentalists who oppose GM crops are often supportive of MAS since there is no crossing of the species barrier and this means that the widespread international opposition to GM food crops is not likely to be evident in the commercialisation of MAS food crops.
Another non-GM biotechnology that has produced wonderful results is the “embryo rescue plant breeding technique” which has been used to produce Nerica rice which combines the high yield of Asian rice with the ability to withstand weeds of African rice and so produces a variety ideal for West African climatic conditions.
It seems to be true that GM stories receive far greater media attention than do the many successes which are not GM related such as the following articles which have merited very little media coverage: US food scientist develops non-GM process for allergen-free peanuts; non-GM approach to striga-resistant cowpeas in Africa; non-GM salt-resistant wheat is produced; Gates Foundation supports non-GM b-carotine rich sweet potato in Africa; non-GM virus-resistant cassava for East and Central Africa; non-GM technology reduces aflatoxins in maize in Nigeria; iron-fortified non-GM maize cuts anaemia rates in children; Austro-Indian non-GM research cuts 50% of cotton insecticides and adds 75% profitability; Dutch researcher bred non-GM fungi-resistant tomato; non-GM tomatoes made to drink less water; non-GM rice with bacterial leaf blight-resistance genes developed and US grape researcher breeds non-GM vines resistant to Pierce’s Disease.
These many examples of non-GM technologies have the potential to revolutionise agriculture more cheaply than does GM yet they have not had the regard paid to them that they deserve.
But even apart from these high-tech developments there are low-tech solutions to plant pests which have been developed for example in Kenya where the striga weed and stem borer, which can wipe out 80% of a maize field, is combated by planting, between the rows of crops, a row of Desmodium which gives off an odour that repels the stem-borer moths, and by planting Napier grass around the edges which attracts them. Moreover Desmodium is a legume which increases soil fertility and hence has helped get rid of the striga weed which thrives on poor soils.
Caution has begun to surround the genetic modification of food crops since three years of field trials of the GM sweet potato in Kenya recently showed that it was no more resistant to viruses than ordinary varieties and sometimes had a lower yield. Moreover, as New Scientist reported, conventional breeding in Uganda had been able to produce a high-yielding, virus resistant, variety both more rapidly and at a considerably lower cost.
Widespread international public antipathy to GM food crops may turn out to have given rise to a pause in the introduction of a technology which is highly beneficial to the seed companies, since it can be patented, but not of significant benefit to either farmers or the public. A pause which has given time for the development of more acceptable kinds of biotechnology, with fewer possible hazards, which will enable the problems of Africa’s agriculture to be solved and the continent to produce the food necessary for its population.
Andrew Taynton is an anti-GM campaigner and co-founder of the Safe Food Coalition working under the umbrella of the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering www.safeage.org
Dulcie Krige is a social scientist
And while Ireland, Japan, Egypt, Europe, and many other countries ban GM crops, our government has given permission to trial GM sorghum here. Our farmers recently had a catastrophic failure of GM-maize crops (from Monsanto-seed – a chemical company before they got into agri-biz & GMO’s)and still we plant GM-crops.
GMO’s have not helped to feed the poor, they have proven to catastrophically damage bio-diversity and new, independent (ie – non-Monsanto-funded) are increasingly detailing health dangers of GMO’s.
The time for caution is past and it’s time to get rid of GMO’s that only feed the coffers of rich chemical companies.
What a wonderful day – two amazing articles that warm my heart! May I also post extracts on EarthLife Africa’s Facebook group acknowledging the source?
The problem with African food production is not the quality of seed, yes it may help a bit, but lack of land tenure and cheap subsidized imports from the US and elsewhere.
In countries where land-tenure is been sorted out (e.g. Uganda) making it worth people really investing in infrastructure, production has gone up considerably.
Then corruption is the other biggie – try get a tractor or a pump imported into Zambia or the DRC…
All of this is true but one of the worst causes of famine is the destruction of producing farms. Politicians say that it is all about land but its not, its all about food. Destroying farms for stupid racial reasons. Here is a partial list of this foolishness. Mugabe, Kaunda, BEE in South Africa, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria etc etc.
Zambia used to be a bread basket, Zimbabwe used to be a bread basked, South Africa is fast becoming a basket case as farmers continue to be murdered. Freedom does not come with an empty stomach.
While this is well-intentioned, the problem with this and other similar posts is that it assumes that African agricultural problems are predominantly those of yield and technique, which can be resolved through technology.
In fact, I suspect, African agricultural problems are often those of climate, soil quality, land availability, social stability and lack of capital and state support.
Such problems are not to be solved with wonder techniques.
Does the collapse of the “breadbasket” of southern Africa (Zim) have anything to do with the introduction of GM?
Do we have famine in Northern Africa because of drought or because of constant wars?
It is good to read such a sensible article on the subject of GM food. It states the facts without exaggeration. Africa deserves a solution to its problems, not an addition. It is about time the world came to its senses on the time- and money-wasting technology of GM food.
While these readers are mainly interested and like to form opinions, there really is little we can do to help. Why don’t you consider taking this information to the organisations who determine their strategies and their funding according to this sort of knowledge? I’d love to know how many people and bankers you have already approached with the debate…
@Brad
I am not so sure private land tenure is a magic solution, see: “The perils of land tenure reform: the case of Kenya, H.W.O. Okoth-Ogendo
Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya:
http://fimbo.org/attachments/059_The%20perils%20of%20land%20tenure%20reform-%20the%20case%20of%20Kenya.pdf
Hi Benzol
Give Mugabe’s government their due, they have not fall for the hype and spin about GM crops, even if they have done everything else wrong.
Unfortunately US farmers did and now see the result -”GM crops facing meltdown in USA” http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php
Dr Rami Kfir : Journal of African Zoology 107:543-553, prior to the introduction of GM crops, confirmed the high winter mortality rate of larvae of the stalkborer which he attributed partially to Bt which he had significantly isolated, among other pathogens, on the cadavers of diapause stalkborer in the stalks of maize. No resistance to natural Bt has developed over thousands of years.
It took only four years for the first resistant African Stalk borer to appear in a number of localities. The first reported cases cases arrived at the Agricultural Research Centre ARC in Potchefstroom during the 1998/1999 growing season. There are two flights of moths each growing season, each moth producing some 1500 eggs, it is not surprising that during the 2004/2005 growing season an alarming number of reports of severe damage to GM maize crops flooded in to the ARC.
It was not only restricted to Monsanto’s GM maize but to all brands of GM maize.
The fact that the stalkborer has a propensity for developing a resistance to the ever present edible Cry Toxin in Bt maize and the stalkborer’s virile reproductive capacity, has effectively neutralised commercial Bt sprays with severe economic implications to agriculture.
The biggest and probably the most unexpected ecological malfunction was that the natural control reported by Dr Ramy Kfir in the preferred hosts, indigenous grasses, has been compromised beyond repair.
See full report of Farmers Legal Action Group http://www.flag-sa.org/betablog/
Your politically correct scientific research has overlooked the obvious and immediate dangers to food security in the region:
i. mismanaged resources
ii. abuse of donor funding
iii. landgrabs Mugabe style
iv. subsistance farmers being given “aquired” land with no expertise or knowledge of how to farm commercially.
@MLH
Thank you for your comment. Taking this message to decision makers is an ongoing task. What you have to keep in mind is NGO’s do not have the vast resources the multi-nationals have who take their GM crops to the same decision makers as a quick fix to Africa’s problems.
To all who claim the political factors are more important:
In terms of actual current food production, yes you are correct. Political and land issues are the main causes of low food production in Africa. However, if you ignore the GM issue and focus on the political, by the time (if ever) you have reached an acceptable stage politically, what use would your political solution be if Monsanto et al are allowed free rein and we end up with crops that are potentially disastrous for the ecosystem?
So yes, work out your political solution, but in the meantime don’t demean those who campaign for conditions in which your political solution will be meaningful.
@Leon van Greunen
Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Even in countries that do not experience the four problems you mention there is opposition to and problems with GM crops:
GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use (referenced document):
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCIPU.php
‘Network of Concerned Farmers’ – Australia
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com
Canadian family farmers are calling for a moratorium on GM crops, see http://www.nfu.ca/gmfood-ban.htm
“GM Crops Failed” – Institute of Science in Society
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php
I could provide another ten or twenty references.
Monsanto should be banned in Africa as they have been elsewhere. What they are doing borders on the criminal. Where farmers used to save the seed of crops they understood they now buy “miracle seed”, at a premium, that no-one really understand. Our farmers do not have the expertise to stop GM seed infesting natural veldt or even hybridising local seed to create perhaps worthless plants. Low tech solutions are the only ones that will work on a low tech continent until education improve and agricultural scientists become more commonplace in Africa.