Mr. Annan is Wrong to Discredit GM Foods

I am dismayed by Kofi Annan’s recent remark on genetically modified foods. On a visit to Kenya last week, Mr. Annan, the immediate U.N. Secretary General and now the Chair of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), ruled out incorporating genetically modified foods, by his organization, in fighting food insecurity in Africa. Mr. Annan’s remark was misplaced. When you’re trying to look for a solution to such a serious issue as food insecurity in poor Africa, you put all options on the table. Mr. Annan has the right to be skeptical about GM food, but his personal biases must not drive policies of such a an important organization as AGRA. AGRA will achieve its goals if it refrains from politicizing the issue of GM foods.

By discrediting (Or is it trashing?) GM foods, Mr. Annan is effectively telling us that modern crop biotechnology has no place in Africa. It’s hard for me, and I am sure many others, to understand why Mr. Annan, a career diplomat and a widely-traveled and read man, would scold crop genetic engineering, knowing very well the positive impact it has had in countries such as the U.S., India, China, Argentina, Spain, Mexico and Brazil. In the U.S., for example, 59% of corn is genetically modified, according to the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). This is the food Mr. Annan, while at the U.N., used to send to Africa as aid. One is tempted to ask, “Does it mean that farmers from all these countries are wrong and Africa is right on GM crops?

By dismissing, offhand, crop biotechnology, Mr. Annan is alluding that he has a ready prescription for Africa’s food woes. If this is the case, then, why doesn’t he save the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, the two principal sponsors of AGRA, the hassles of spending millions of dollars to running it. Neither Mr. Annan nor AGRA know what ails Africa’s agriculture, hence the current efforts.

Mr. Annan, as the Chair of AGRA, would do Africa pride by being all-inclusive, open-minded and nonpartisan in finding solutions to Africa’s food problems. This, sadly, doesn’t seem to be the case. All indications are that Mr. Annan is approaching his work with a closed mind.

Mr. Annan insists he wants to work with African scientists to alleviate chronic food shortages in Africa. I am wondering what would happen if these scientists were to overwhelmingly approve GMOs as part of the solution to Africa’s food problems. Will Mr. Annan overrule them?

I advise Mr. Annan to be in a listening mode in his first 100 days in office. Let him talk to the New Partnership for African Development (Nepad), the development arm of the African Union (AU), which has, already, developed a blueprint for the renaissance of Africa’s agriculture. The blueprint acknowledges the role of modern agricultural biotechnology in Africa’s development.

Or Mr. Annan can choose to have tête-à-tête with Prof.Calestous Juma, a renowned scientist and a regular commentator on agricultural biotechnology issues. He should also consider talking to multinational seed companies. There’s a lot to learn from companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer. North-South collaboration is crucial in seeds improvement. Mr. Annan must not be ensnared by anti-biotech activists who see nothing good in crop biotechnology.

And if Mr. Annan doubts the advice of researchers, policy makers, and multinational seed companies, he can consider visiting South African farmers currently growing various varieties of GM crops.

Again, Mr. Annan must explore every possible option, including agricultural biotechnology, in ensuring food security for Africa.