Hungry (or not) for GMOs
Feeling hungry? Do you have food in your house or flat? If so, now would be a good time to revisit the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Debate has raged back and forth on this contentious scientific advance, with some of the recent skirmishes centering on the possibility that GMOs could prevent famine in Africa and India and on how international politics have influenced GMO legislation around the world. On the ground, there has been a slow acceptance of GMO crops in some parts of Africa, while other areas in Africa and India are enacting legislation to prevent their cultivation.
Some African countries have followed the lead of the European Union and enacted bans on GMOs. These countries include South Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Kenya. These countries have the same concerns about GMOs as European countries. They have voiced concerns over inadequate research about the human and environmental impacts of these plants, cross-pollination contamination that leads to foreign genes being incorporated in unmodified plants, and the emergence of super-pests that are immune to conventional pesticides.
Not all countries agree that GMO bans are beneficial. Voices in developing nations are speaking out, calling for bans to be lifted. The Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe claims that the current ban hurts their competitiveness. Tafadzwa Musarara, the organization's spokesman, said that the current policy puts local producers at a disadvantage because of cheap foreign imports. The country is expected to fall short of the estimated 1.8 million metric tons that it requires for self-sufficiency, and is rapidly importing grain from South Africa that sells for $20 less per ton. The most extreme case of a country suffering adverse consequences because of a GMO ban came from Zambia in 2002. Its president refused offers of American grain to avert a looming famine. He labeled this humanitarian gift "poison". The crisis was only averted at the last minute when European countries that could certify that their grain was GMO free stepped forward.
The GMO debate in each country is not entirely about protecting citizens. Many observers point to international trade and politics aspects of the debate. Dr Sylvester Oikeh, director of a drought resistant maize project, suggested recently that anti-GMO sentiment from Europe stems from the food security in that region. This puts some countries in a perilous position. They want to expand production, but fear there will not be a market for their goods. Egypt and Tanzania have both moved ahead with using GMOs, but are concerned about the threat of export restrictions to Europe.
The debate over GMOs has most recently been thrashed out in India. This emerging economic powerhouse also has to feed to world's second largest population. The Indian government had announced plans to introduce a strain of GM aubergines known as Bt Brinjal. However, it was forced to back off these plans in the face of intense public pressure over the safety of this crop. The discourse grew so heated that protests broke out and the union environment minister M Jairam Ramesh told one angry protestor "You require mental help."
Some of the tension in India has not come from the GMOs themselves, but the way they were introduced to the public. There is concern that international companies were behind the push to adopt more GMO crops, with Monsanto being called out as a major factor. In July 2009 an Indian government minister was revealed to be using unsubstantiated industry data to prove the safety of GMOs. The India government has currently backed off its public push for GMOs, but there is still concern that it might introduce legislation that would make their adoption easier in the future.
The GMO debate will not be solved quickly. But, a few important lessons can be learned from these experiences that will help us though the process. First, it is important that the food security of all countries is assured. Without a doubt, this should be the underlying objective of any food policy. Second, governments and people need to work together to accept or reject these new crops. When farmers' livelihoods are threatened or the government acts without the support of the people it is not good for national stability and government decision-making transparency. Third, the GMO debate may not see an eventual resolution until a great deal more scientific studies are done. That will require patience and a willingness to compromise by all parties on local, national, international levels. Maybe the most important thing however is that for those of us in the developed world that will go to bed with a full stomach, remember that someone is hungry tonight.
