GMO Africa

GMOs and organics can alleviate food crises

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei, a prolific blogger who I adore for her articulation of science issues, has posted an article about a new book on how crop genetic engineering - combined with organic farming - can enhance global food sustainability.

The book titled, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetic, and the Future, is written by two renowned experts in agriculture: Pamela Ronald of University of California - Davis and R. A. Adamchak. (By the way, Pamela Donald has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table which I wrote about two weeks ago.)

Their book argues that the world stands to gain a lot from judicious incorporation of crop genetic engineering and organic farming. I’m very excited by this statement and I totally agree with them.

“We are not suggesting that organic farming and genetic engineering alone will provide all the changes needed in agriculture,” the two researchers say in the book.

What a powerful statement! Since I started authoring this blog three years ago, I’ve been arguing that every option must be explored to ensure each one of us has enough food to eat.

I underscored this point three weeks ago when I participated in a BBC World Have Your Say program on how to handle the current food crisis. In the program, I said there’s no silver bullet to solving the current food crisis. I criticized people who want to demonize agricultural biotechnology and corporations that make genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as Monsanto and DuPont. I said their argument miss the point because it negates the need for industrializing our agriculture. Additionally, they don’t usually base their such argument on any provable science.

On the same breath I stated that if organic agriculture will prevent a family in Africa from going to bed hungry, let it be it. It’d would be wrong, I said, to ridicule people who feel organic farming will solve their problems. Entitled they’re to their views: their freedom to choose what to eat ought to be respected.

The trouble is, the very same people I defended want those of us who don’t agree with them to throw crop genetic engineering under the bus and embrace, enmasse, organic food. This can’t and won’t happen. It’s pure fantasy. We need both approaches to deal with food shortages.

Genetically modified crops have their supporters. If you look at statistics, there is quite a good number of people – and the number is increasing – cultivating genetically modified crops (Read my earlier post on this issue.)

There are, I am sure, farmers who are gravitating towards organic farming. They should be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, proponents of organic farming want the world to believe that there is nothing good that can come out of crop genetic engineering. That’s why they’ve been waging a relentless campaign to make food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) look bad. Isn’t it the time for these folks to tone down their rhetoric and allow people choose what they want to eat and plant?

Organic foods have their own flip sides. A recent article in the New York Times, for instance, detailed how these foods have become out of reach for ordinary people because of their high prices. We need to be open-minded when debating the future of food. Let’s not engage in indoctrination where we tell the public this or that agricultural technology will be the only solution to today’s food crisis. To ensure future food sustainability, every option must be put on the table.

Try modern technologies to deal with food crisis

Category: GMO Africa Blog

The United Nations (UN), today, acknowledged that food shortages threaten the lives of millions of people, especially in the developing world.

Through its Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the UN called for concerted efforts to find a permanent solution to chronic food shortages that have hit the developing world most.

But first, Moon will next week assemble representatives of key UN agencies to explore immediate steps that can be taken to address the problem.

The UN’s move is more than welcome. The world needs to deal with the problem of food shortages once and for all. It’s unacceptable for some populations to go without food while others spend sleepless nights looking for ways of dealing with obesity.

In our quest to deal with food crisis, we must place every on the table. Salient in our quest for a lasting solution to the food crisis will be to use every available technology. The New York Times, this week published a very interesting article on how crop genetic engineering can play a pivotal role in enhancing global food sustainability.

In his address, secretary general Moon mentioned that drought is one of the factors that have contributed to the current food crisis. Lately, scientists, through genetic engineering, have developed genetically modified crops that can grow in drought areas. Countries that don’t receive adequate rainfall can take advantage of such crops.

And the UN has a very big role to play in ensuring this succeeds. First, it must wage massive education campaigns in developing countries on the need for using new technologies in farming. Secondly, rather than spending billions of dollars every year airlifting food aid to poor countries, the UN should consider helping poor farmers acquire improved seeds. By doing so, the UN will be reducing poor countries’ dependence on food aid.

UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Blogger Karl J. Mogel of The Inoculated writes that Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table. Pam’s blog celebrates crop genetic engineering, from a scientist point of view.

Nobody’s excited by Pam’s blog than me. On this blog, on several occasions, I’ve exhorted scientists to take charge of the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Read this post on this subject that I made in December 2006.) Thumbs up Pam for taking the gauntlet.

Since the commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1995, scientists haven’t been forceful enough to educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. Many - except people like Norman Borlaug, Roger Beachy, Sir David King, Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Clive James, Dr. Luciana De Ciero, Dr. Ruth Oniang’o - have opted to maintain a studious silence as the science behind crop genetic engineering is distorted right and left by people who couldn’t conduct a simple high school lab experiment. These are the people who have been ruling the airwaves and the internet with unsubstantiated decibel rhetoric against GMOs.

Scientists are to blame for this state of affairs. Had they, in the early beginning, demanded every charge against GMOs be scientifically substantiated, the current poisonous debate about GM crops would not be there. And it’s not too late. Pam, through her Tomorrow Table blog, has set the pace: others should follow.

The world wants scientists to take lead in this debate. It’s them who should be saying whether or not GM crops offer any hope to farmers not some shenanigans whose sole motive is to create confusion and despondency in farmers and policy makers.

Journalist counsels Africa on GMOs

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Journalist Kerry Howley of the Reason magazine has written a very riveting and informative article on how fear is being used to deny Africa cutting-edge technologies. Howley writes how activists descend on Africa every time new technologies emerge. They, using apocalyptic theories, misadvise and mislead Africans into not embracing these technologies.

Africans are usually warned of cataclysmic consequences if they adopt new technologies. Usually, they’re told the West wants to use them as guinea pigs, or to enslave them. Most play along, thanks to high illiteracy levels and unavailability and/or access to alternative sources of information. Always the consequences are grave: the rest of the world prospers, while Africa wallows in poverty. Essentially, Africa merely gawks as other countries industrialize.

Howley beautifully illustrates this point using the swirling debate about genetically modified (GM) foods. She writes how African countries have shunned GM foods on the advice of consumer advocacy groups such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. These groups happen to have a big presence in Africa

Except South Africa, no other African country is currently growing genetically modified (GM) crops. We’ve read reports of countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe turning away food from the World Food Program (WFP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USaid) on suspicions they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) Many African countries have passed laws to completely bar GM crops.

In her article, Howley laments that Zambia and Zimbabwe’s turning away of GM food “…brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state.” She regrets that “…cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed.”

Howley is perfectly right in asserting that Africa reviews its position on GM foods. She’s  not alone. Robert Paarlberg, a political scientist at Wellesley University, in his new book, Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa, argues that Africa’s development is predicated upon its readiness and willingness to embrace new technologies.

I can’t but agree with Howley and Paarlberg. An open-door policy to new technologies, especially in the field of agriculture, is what Africa needs. When activists intimidate Africa, through fear, into not exploring potential benefits of GM foods, the continent suffers. They stymie a rational debate about whether GM foods have any relevance to Africa.

Africa ought to be allowed to freely debate GMOs. Other countries are moving fast to integrate biotechnology into agriculture. The latest report on the state of agricultural biotechnology in the world by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), for instance, shows more and more farmers are growing GM crops. It’s hard to believe that the more than 21 countries that are currently growing these crops are wrong and only Africa is right that they’re bad. Let Africa take an objective assessment of the potential, or lack of it, of agricultural biotechnology. This won’t happen under a cloud of fear.

Influential UK magazine roots for GM foods

Category: GMO Africa Blog

The influential UK magazine, Country Life, this week editorialized on the controversial issue of genetically modified (GM) foods. The editorial’s author, Mark Hedges, strongly vouched for GM foods, a stance which earned him barbs and ridicule from anti-biotech groups like the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (FoE).

In this editorial entitled, Time to Love GM Foods, Hedges, among other things, decried the unorthodox means anti-GM foods campaigners employ to blackmail GM crops field trials. Greenpeace, he wrote, ought to be condemned loudly for destroying genetically modified crops test sites. (Last week, on this blog, in a post entitled, Stop This Violence Against Science, I, also, railed at those who use violence to frustrate scientists’ work, especially on GM crops trials.)

Hedges, rightly, reminded critics that the world’s population is fast growing, increasing the demand for more food. And because land for cultivation is quickly dwindling, Hedges warned against the ongoing campaign by the Green lobby to demonize agricultural biotechnology. Rather, Hedges advised, everything must be done to ensure the technology behind GM crops – crop genetic engineering - reaches the most vulnerable, especially in the developing world. Hedges regretted that the “… the refusal of a rich and well-fed country such as Britain to exploit its agriculture to the full could soon be regarded as immoral.”

And to those questioning the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Hedges reminded them that “Genetic modification is a means of speeding up the process of selective breeding that’s been practised for millennia.”

Perhaps, the most important point that Hedges raises is the hypocrisy of the Green lobby, which has been waging a relentless campaign against global warming, while refusing to support GM crops, which some experts believe have the potential to curb greenhouse emissions.

Hedges has every justifiable reason to rail at the anti-GM foods lobby groups. Most, if not all, are misguided in their criticism of GM crops. They’re mostly driven by phobia and hatred towards multinational biotech corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Bayer. Criticism of GM foods, I have always argued, should be directed at scientists and not corporations. Biotech corporations merely implement scientists’ work.

And I must emphasize that the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth of this world have every right to point out flaws that might be inherent in genetic engineering, or any other agricultural technology, but such criticism must always be informed by science.

Stop this violence against science

Category: GMO Africa Blog

I, and I’m sure most of you, detest the use of force to protest the use of new technologies. We’re all familiar with protestors storming coal plants; or staging protests against the building of nuclear plants, like it happened in Austria in 2001; or blocking airport runways to prevent “greenhouse gas-emitting” jets that activists charge with exacerbating global warming.

In the U.S., the term “eco-terrorism” is all too familiar. It was coined by law enforcement agencies to describe shadowy militant groups that occasionally raid and raze down homes that they charge have been built in environmentally unfriendly manner.

Lately, protests have turned to genetically modified (GM) crops. Protestors have invaded GM crops trial fields, destroying everything that they encounter. Their argument: GM crops pose health risks to humans and the environment.

Last week, for instance, in Brazil, protestors stormed and destroyed a nursery in which researchers were conducting trials of genetically modified maize.

In 2004, the BBC.com reported that hundreds of activists, led by a radical French farmer, Jose Bove, destroyed a GM maize crop plantation, ostensibly to “protect consumers against harmful foods.”

It’s quite worrying that violent acts directed at new scientific innovations, such as nuclear energy and crop genetic engineering, are on the upward rise? Science’s driven by empiricism, and the only way to challenge it is to invoke a scientifically plausible argument, not violence. Violence has no place in science. Scientists know this, but activists – most of whom happen to be non-scientists - who happen to be the fomenters of violence directed at science don’t seem to appreciate this fact. They take comfort in destroying what’s taken many years and great effort to build.

We all agree that any scientific innovation is greeted with pessimism and/or optimism. Take the case of GM crops. There are those who claim that they’re tools for multinational biotech companies such as Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont to colonize global food industry. Others argue, without scientific justification, that GM crops pose dangers to human health and the environment.

Then, there are others who think that GM crops are good for the society. In this category lies people like Clive James, the chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA); Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his efforts in increasing food supply in the world; Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at the Columbia School; and Dr. Ruth Oniang’o, a Professor of Food Science and Nutrition at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology in Kenya.

There’s nothing wrong with holding divergent, and sometimes opposing, views on GM crops, or any other technology. What ought to be condemned is the practice of engaging in violent acts by those opposed to new technologies.

Researcher wants biosafety laws in Africa

Category: GMO Africa Blog

Professor Walter Alhassan, a renowned agricultural biotechnologist from Ghana, recently raised a very salient issue regarding agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Alhassan moaned the unwillingness by African governments to enact laws to regulate safe acquisition of agricultural biotechnology. Alhassan regretted that the absence of biosafety laws in many African countries remains the greatest impediment to serious research on genetically modified crops in the continent.

I can’t but totally concur with Prof. Alhassan, and I would encourage other scientists, especially from Africa to stand by him. Unlike pro-biotech lobby groups and multinational biotechnology companies, they’ve the requisite credibility to force their respective governments to act. They’re the right people to explain, unabashedly, what biosafety laws entail. I say this because there’s this conventional belief in most African countries that the sole mission of biosafety laws should be to keep off genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from their territories. Sample this April 2007 statement from Zambia’s Chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee, who said a biosafety law was needed to ensure “…Zambia remains a GMO free country.”

On this blog, just like Prof. Alhassan has said, I once emphasized that the first step to Africa benefiting from new technologies, including modern agricultural biotechnology, is to enact laws to regulate their acquisition. When computers emerged, African countries tried as much as they could to pass Information Technology (IT) laws to ensure their use for government and private businesses. The vigor with which African countries have enacted IT laws to ensure their safe use must, now, be applied to agricultural biotechnology. You can’t adjudge a technology - the way African governments are trying to do - as bad or good, before experiencing it. Europe, whose opposition to GMOs Africa seems to ape, is already conducting field trials of GM crops. Africa countries, except South Africa, are nowhere closer to here. They’re still dialoguing about whether biosafety laws have relevance to them. Isn’t this the time for Africa to heed Prof. Alhassan’s advice and pass biosafety laws, to allow farmers explore potential benefits agricultural biotechnology.

ISAAA reports a surge in biotech crops cultivation

Category: GMO Africa Blog

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has released a report that shows a surge in  cultivation of biotech crops. Contrary to many anti-biotech critics, the surge seems to portend biotech crops striking a nerve with farmers. 

What’s perhaps more interesting is the fact that developing countries continue to perform as well as developed countries in growing biotech crops. This disambiguates a widely held argument that biotech crops are a preserve of developed countries. On this blog, in August 2006, I argued that smallholder farmers benefit from biotech crops as much as large-scale farmers. 

Despite this, sadly, Africa continues to lag behind in the adoption of biotech crops. To the continent, crop genetic engineering remains an enigma. Politics has, unfairly, been infused into this debate.  As the rest of the world angles itself to share the spoils of modern agricultural biotechnology, African countries, with the exception of South Africa, are still haggling on whether or not to admit biotech crops to their farms.

The 2007 ISAAA’s latest report, perhaps, sends an unambiguous message that there’s something striking in modern crop genetic engineering that Africa, and other parts of the developing world, can’t afford to ignore. Africa ought to know that a lot of debate swirling around biotech crops, principally, is meant to mislead and confuse. There are groups ought to hijack landmark scientific innovations, especially in the field of agricultural biotechnology, for their own selfish ends. Let’s all take a lesson from the ISAAA report, whose other highlights include: 

• §  Biotech crops cultivation grew by 12%, which translates to 12.3 hectares.

• §  There are currently about 114.3 million hectares of land under biotech crops.

• §  The number of countries growing biotech crops increased to 23 from 21 in 2006. The new entrants are Chile and Poland.

• §  From 1996, when the first biotech crop was commercialized, to 2007, the accumulated hectarage of these crops stands at 690 million hectares.     

No more teary onion, thanks to genetic engineering

Category: GMO Africa Blog

The blog, Rael the Prophet, reports on an article in the UK Telegraph about a research on a genetically engineered tear-free onion being collaboratively conducted by researchers from Japan and the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research. We’re all aware how teary an onion can be if mishandled when chopping. To men and women who spend considerable amounts of time cooking, this, definitely is news worth celebrating.

In addition to ridding onion of the gene that causes teary effects on our eyes, these researchers promise that this new variety will be sweeter and healthier.

What an exciting research? Indeed, it has generated quite a buzz. The journal Onion World, in its December edition, has featured this work, which is being piloted by Dr. Colin Eady. The popular environmental blog Environmental Grafita gleefully proclaims, GM onions means no more tears, with sarcasm:

Anti-GMO activists may soon be tearing up after a New Zealand company announced the development of a genetically modified tear free onion.

I can’t also wait to see their [anti-biotech activists] reactions. Instead of inserting a foreign gene into the onion, which has been the practice in crop genetic engineering, researchers in this project will be working to suppress the gene that makes onions teary.

The key is not to introduce a foreign gene but to silence one using a phenomenon called RNA interference. By stopping sulphur compounds from being converted to the tearing agent and redirecting them into compounds responsible for flavour and health, the process could even improve the onion.

So, which direction will the debate on safety of this new onion variety take? We’re always told there’s no guarantee of safety of genes inserted into crops such as corn, cotton, or soya. Will the anti-biotech groups now claim removing a gene from a crop, and onion onion for that matter, will compromise human health and the environment? Let’s wait for the debate to start.

France must tread carefully on GM crops

Category: GMO Africa Blog

France on Friday slapped a ban on the cultivation of a maize variety genetically modified to resist European corn borer. President Nicholas Sarkozy, when challenged to justify the decision, said his government had invoked the “safeguard precaution” clause contained in the European law on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The maize in contention is MON 810 developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, which currently is being grown in countries such as Spain and Germany.

I like the hubris this invocation of “safeguard precaution” has raised. Sarkozy admittedly termed his decision “political,” which has irked many farmers, scientists and even the President of France’s National Assembly, Bernard Accoyer, who insisted, in article in the journa Du Dimanche, that the “… decisions to ban GMOs should be based on “irrefutable” evidence.”

France’s largest farm union, Federation National Des Syndicats D’Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA), accused the government of politicizing the GMOs issue . “Unless there is any new scientific evidence, they (the French government) already know the response because it was given to the Germans,” Said FNSEA’s President, Jean-Michel Lemetayer. Germany has recently lifted an earlier ban on commercial cultivation of MON 810 after it was verified that it poses no threat to human health and the environment.

The U.S.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), in a press statement, termed the French ban on biotech crops unnecessary. “BIO is disappointed that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has chosen to impose a ban on the sale and commercial plantings of MON 810, a biotech corn variety, in France without any scientific basis,” Said Jim Greenwood, BIO’s Chief Executive Officer.

It seems, from these reactions, France has no option but to reverse its decision. On this blog, I have repeatedly argued that there’s no place for politics in the debate about GMOs. Every decision on whether to allow or reject a variety of genetically modified crop must be anchored in science. In the case of MON 810, for instance, much has been said about it. Some have claimed that the toxins that make it unsusceptible to destruction to the European corn borer can potentially cause allergy on human beings. This has already been disapproved by researchers. Researchers Taylor S.L. and Hefle S.L., for instance, in their paper entitled, “Will genetically modified foods be allergenic?” allay fears of allergencity from GM foods.

France must work in the interest of science. It can’t afford to make “roadside” declarations against GM crops. Unlike many countries, especially in the developing world, France is endowed with rich scientific infrastructure that can enable it to make informed decisions about the safety, or lack of it, of genetically modified crops.