Situation Report: Genetically Modified Foods in the African Context: Behind the Smokescreen of the Current Debate, Jenny Clover

SITUATION REPORT: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS IN THE AFRICAN CONTEXT: BEHIND THE SMOKESCREEN OF THE CURRENT DEBATE

Jenny Clover, 19 October 2002

Executive summary

The biotechnology debate is highly polarized – on the one hand proponents talk of the potential productive gains from GM crops, on the other hand critics point to significant food and feed safety risks, environmental hazards and economic and social concerns. The current food crisis in Southern Africa and the recent debates around GM maize as food aid have served to highlight two important issues. First the urgency of the GM foods issue has elicited varied responses from the region indicating that these countries have been caught unprepared for the debate, lacking clear guidelines on the pros and cons of the importation of food commodities that may be genetically modified. Second, the climatic conditions that acted as a trigger to the current crisis, and the GM issue have succeeded in disguising and obscuring the real debate, which must centre upon the complex nature of food security and the critical need to revise conventional approaches and develop cohesive and common policies and programmes of action. Central to the debate is understanding and accepting that GM technology will not and can not in and of itself “feed the world” because hunger and food security are extremely complex issues whose causes and solutions are not merely about production and distribution, but encompass a wide range of inter-related economic, social and political factors, as well as technical issues.

To maximize the potential opportunities and reduce the threats there is an urgent need to engage in real and substantial debate – and GM must define its own role in Africa.

Genetically Modified Foods in the African context: Behind the smokescreen of the current debate.

The current food crisis in Southern Africa is now of such a magnitude as to demand urgent humanitarian assistance. A regional famine superimposed on an already severe HIV/AIDS pandemic will lead to deeper impoverishment in Southern Africa, compounding the incidence of premature death among vulnerable groups, especially women and children, from diseases aggravated by poverty. The needs of those millions of people on the edge of survival are immediate -- food aid, and non-food interventions in agriculture, health, nutrition, water and sanitation, and education are essential. One of the problems has been that this has been a crisis emerging in slow motion, the extent of which has become apparent only gradually. Partly as a consequence of this the international response has been slow, hampered in addition by donor fatigue, the unwillingness of rich nations to accept the scope of the crisis, and skepticism about the probity and performance of the governments of countries receiving food aid. Support from the international community was initially slow, but continues to trickle in. By October 2002, the World Food Programme (WFP) had received pledges for some 37% of its anticipated needs to March 2003. But what has caused consternation and raised the ire of much of the international community is that despite the threat of an massive humanitarian catastrophe, donations of Genetically Modified (GM) maize as food aid have resulted in hotly contested debates in recipient countries about whether this is acceptable. Many commentators question whether Southern African countries can afford to take a stance on GM maize when their people are dying. After all, they argue, people who are dying of starvation are hardly likely to be too concerned about long-term health risks from consuming this food.

Zimbabwe was the first country to raise the alarm in June when it refused 10,000 tonnes of GM maize from the USA. Harare`s rejection of GM maize – both imported and in the form of food aid was based on the objection that if it arrived in the form of whole kernels, its seed could spread GM strains, thereby contaminating the country’s indigenous crop. The government has subsequently revised its position and agreed to accept GM maize, subject to it being milled beforehand or immediately upon arrival in the country. Mozambique too has expressed concerns, warning the World Food Programme (WFP) that GM maize should be securely packaged to avoid spillage in transit. Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland government officials have subsequently confirmed that they, too, are willing to accept GM maize from the USA, but also only in milled form. In August, the Zambian government, which had previously been silent on the issue, stated it would not import GM foods at all saying they would rather that people starve than consume grain that is not considered to be safe for human consumption. Zambia stands alone now in its outright rejection of GM maize, despite the prospect of people dying from hunger in a country in which 2,9 million people are at risk. All these countries have cited safety reasons -- human health and environmental damage -- as well as trade-related issues, as justification for their rejection of GM maize.

The international community by and large has responded somewhat unreasonably to the rejection of unmilled GM maize. President Mugabe has been accused of “petulant political game playing”, whereas in fact there is widespread internal consensus on the issue, with the opposition MDC and the Commercial Farmer’s Union standing together with the government. Zimbabwean concerns have focused on the safety issues; others see international political and economic agendas at play. Their common concern is that if Zimbabwe’s hybrid maize is altered, it would lose its certification – and with it a critical niche market that is developing -- losing out on its exports to the EU (which prohibits GM foods) as well the favoured status of its maize, which currently fetches a premium price in countries such as China and Japan. Others accuse the USA of having economic motives to gain irreversible access to Africa’s GM market.

The biotechnology debate is highly polarized – on the one hand proponents talk of the potential productive gains from GM crops, on the other hand critics point to significant food and feed safety risks, environmental hazards and economic and social concerns. The six giant US-based agro-chemical corporations that produce the GM seed claim that the new technologies are environmentally friendly and will lead to health benefits, an end to world hunger, and reduced use of pesticides. Supporters see GM technology as a powerful tool that can help address food production problems that plague developing countries in Africa, and that it is one of the keys to combating malnutrition around the world and generating economic growth. In developing countries poor soil, extreme weather conditions, as well as pests and diseases that attack animals and crops all contribute to inadequate food production. Critics blame GM food for allergic reactions, decreased effectiveness of antibiotics, sick livestock, and depletion of nutritional elements. Economic and social concerns, described as “technology-transcending risks” as they are not a consequence of any particular technology per se, pertain to the fostering of socially and ecologically sustainable agriculture in the face of multinational control, globalization, unfair trade, and the concentration of intellectual property rights in the hands of the rich countries.

The current food crisis in Southern Africa and the recent debates around GM maize as food aid have served to highlight two important issues. First the urgency of the GM foods issue has elicited varied responses from the region indicating that these countries have been caught unprepared for the debate, lacking clear guidelines on the pros and cons of the importation of food commodities that may be genetically modified. Only South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe have enacted legislation on GM foods. Furthermore the absence of a harmonized regional position on GMOs within SADC has revealed the strategic and policy weaknesses within the organisation as a regional leader in meeting the challenges of food security. At their meeting held in July, the SADC Ministers of Agriculture and Natural Resources resolved to establish a harmonized regional position on GM foods. No common ground was found at the Annual Summit held in October, however, and it was not possible to adopt a “regional legal position” although recognition was given to the legitimacy of concerns, particularly as they related to the environment, food safety and ethical issues. Approved guidelines on the handling of GM maize were put forward, recommending that it be milled before distribution, and that each country launch an awareness campaign to ensure that the grain is not planted. An Advisory Committee that would develop guidelines that seek to safeguard member states against potential risks that may emanate from GMOs is now being established. This is a most welcome development, particularly if it is done in a manner that contributes to raising public awareness and communication.

Second, the climatic conditions that acted as a trigger to the current crisis, and the GM issue have succeeded in disguising and obscuring the real debate, which must centre upon the complex nature of food security and the critical need to revise conventional approaches and develop cohesive and common policies and programmes of action. A mere increase in production, will not address the problem. Neither the biotechnology debate nor the food security debate can be separated into discrete scientific/technical and political aspects, for the two are interwoven. Central to the debate is understanding and accepting that GM technology will not and can not in and of itself “feed the world” because hunger and food security are extremely complex issues whose causes and solutions are not merely about production and distribution, but encompass a wide range of inter-related economic, social and political factors (such as governance, structures of national economies and land rights), as well as technical issues.

In order to make sense of the emerging debate, it is useful to separate out three issues that need to be explored:

The short-term tactical issue.

By way of introduction, I will discuss briefly the principles of GM technology. Genetically modification of crops allows the insertion of alien genes into a plant, bypassing natural reproductive barriers between species. The gene may come from a different kind of plant, from an animal, a virus or a bacterium. The technology is being used to make plants more resistant to disease, insects and chemicals.

By 2000 about 100 million acres worldwide were under genetically modified crops, chiefly soya and maize; 72% of all land planted with GM crops worldwide was in the United States, while Argentina had 17%, and Canada 10%. Maize, which provides about one-third of the mean calorie intake in Sub-Saharan Africa, provides less than 5% of calorie intake in the USA where most of the output so far has gone for animal feed. Only a small proportion is for direct human consumption, though people are consuming these foods indirectly through animal products. It is worth noting that developing countries account for 64% of the world’s maize area, and 43% of global maize production.

Concerns about food safety issues of GM food products refers to: the safety levels of Genetically Modified Organisms in food products which need to be determined, taking into consideration the dietary patterns of the people concerned, the long-term effects of GMO food products on consumers and the possible ways through which consumers may be fully informed of the GMO status of respective food products made available to them.

The long-term strategic issue of food security.

Most agree that in situations of crisis, food aid must be the first priority, but this deflects away from the equally important long-term issue of rebuilding the capacity of populations to feed themselves. SADC’s recommendation on the milling of GM maize is intended to respond to these longer-term economic, social and environmental challenges, at the same time as tackling the immediate crisis.

One of the most contentious debates regarding biotechnology, and especially GM crops, concerns their potential impact on food security and hunger in developing countries. Combating the problem of food shortages – food production and access -- is a strategic issue, certainly broader than just evaluating the technicalities of GM. In the last 50 years, the production of foodstuffs worldwide has tripled, but in Africa, one of the most richly endowed regions of the world, 340 million people live in extreme poverty. This is bad economics, ethical considerations apart. The total number of hungry people as a proportion of the population they represent has grown -- some 40% of the current population in sub-Saharan Africa is malnourished -- and malnutrition is intensifying. Half of the world’s Low-Income Food Deficit Countries are now in Africa. With nearly 200 million people – 28% of the population – chronically hungry, strategies for sustainable agriculture and rural development are critical to Africa. Increased productivity is essential if food production is to rise to meet the needs of a global population that is to grow by 60% before it stabilizes. The challenge of the future is to produce enough food to meet the needs of the world population, while preserving the natural resource base for future generations.

What makes Southern Africa’s situation so topical is that while adverse climatic conditions – prolonged rains and flooding along with drought – have played a role, this is a complex emergency in which there are a number of interconnected causes. Whatever the initial cause, many disasters result only because of unsustainable interactions between people and their environment. This is the case now in Southern Africa where social, economic and political situations have acted to increase the vulnerability of communities. These are the matters that should be of greatest concern to food security in the region.

In the context of the GM debate, it is the non-safety or “technology-transcending” issues: the environmental, economic and social concerns that are the long-term strategic issues.

Environmental concerns: The environmental risks arising out of the uncertainty of modification of gene structures and possible impacts on bio-diversity of both fauna and flora are considerable and diverse. A key concern is that GM plants may “overpower” indigenous plants and there would then be no indigenous biodiversity as once GM crops are introduced into the environment, the process is irreversible. There is the danger that the widespread adoption of GM crops would mean the spread of monocropping and further loss of plant genetic diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems – the very basis of food security. Africa should not be used as a testing ground for technologies and products that have been developed elsewhere.

Economic and trade concerns: Globalisation and the role of multinationals are central to much of the anti-GM campaign particularly in respect of the inequality of accrued benefits and the control by developed countries of these products. Control of biotechnology is largely in the hands of five huge multi-national corporations (Monsanto in the US controlling 88% of the GM seed market) in the agricultural, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors. They are currently poised to move from a handful of products on the market today to a full menu in a few years time. The question often asked is “Are the companies involved in GM technology really as motivated by the desire to raise the yields of basic food crops as they claim to be?” Most of the crops being developed and marketed by the biotechnology industry have little to do with enhancing food security for the poor in developing countries, but are rather developed for large-scale, commercial, agriculture in the industrialized world. The threat to food security lies in the fact that ownership of seed and the food production process is vested in the multi-nationals -- very few farmers in developing countries can afford the new technologies themselves and must rely on others for their development.

Consideration of the various international protocols on GMOs and how trade in products (especially beef) may be impacted on, as well as the possible contamination of gene pools in the country and the impact on intellectual property rights are central to the debate. The presence of GM crops has impacted on commodity trade (which is regulated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) on a worldwide scale). In 1998, the European Union banned the use and importation of GM crops, and required that packaged foods with GM corn and soy be labeled. No new GMO varieties have been approved in the EU since 1998, when seven countries insisted that fresh legislation on approvals, labeling and trace ability had to be in place before they would continue with the process. The current moratorium on approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in place in the European Union is likely to last another two years. The US is threatening to challenge the labeling and trace ability proposals in the WTO because it considers them a non-scientific barrier to trade. There is a widespread belief that the heated, and often acrimonious, global debate over biotechnology is in reality grounded in the trade wars between the US and EU. In the process Africa and the rest of the developing world are the losers. The EU’s existing food safety rules, which are tighter than the standards set by the Codex Alimentarius (Codex), are already hampering the export of food from Africa. According to a World Bank study, this can cost African countries some $700m per annum.

Managing GM technology: A needs driven response.

While accepting that GM technology does present long term security risks into which we have too little insight, it is also true that in the longer-term, when faced with feeding a projected 9 billion or 10 billion people before the global population stabilizes, it makes sense to take advantage of what GM technology has to offer, deriving the benefits but managing the risks effectively.

Anti-GM lobby groups frequently ignore the need for African countries to accept responsibility for being better informed and more involved so as to ensure solutions that respond to Africa’s realities. Inadequate communication between scientists, industry, government, and the public is one of the underlying causes of present conflicting views and concerns. But the issue goes beyond this, as the recent spat between Southern African countries and donor agencies, particularly US based, has highlighted. Treated as a pawn in the whole affair and not considered an equal party to the biotechnology debate, Africa typically has been sidelined in the biotechnology debate to date. In short US and European dominated agendas are assumed to be equally relevant to Africa. Instead of being a partner in the debate Africa has been relegated to the role of the subject of the debate -- in boardrooms, universities and international forums. This experience is one to which Africans have become well accustomed over many decades and in many fields of technology. These experiences have led African countries to take a cautious approach to the importation of technological solutions. Deep mistrust of the intentions, motivations and competence of those who promote technological “solutions” to Africa’s problems prevails in some quarters. Too frequently the benefits of these solutions are restricted to those who sell them, with Africans having to live with long-term negative consequences. The biotechnology debates around GM foods have so far failed to recognize these concerns and the well-founded logic underpinning them.

In addition to addressing these issues, there are responses that SADC should take forward.

Southern Africa needs to develop a database covering global legislation, policy practices, trade constraints and opportunities relevant to the export products that stand to be affected. There is a need to develop a collective approach to international trade circumstances and opportunities in a manner that encourages collective responsibility. Appropriate bio-safety regulations (which must be as simple as possible, manageable and enforceable) need to be put in place and harmonized. Members cannot afford to initiate divergent legislation, and thereafter try to achieve harmonization.

The recently drafted Biosafety Protocol (drafted by the member governments of the Convention on Biological Diversity), which sets out principles for the trade in GMOs, is an excellent framework. It allows countries to refuse imports of GM seeds and crops if they feel there are potential risks. It can also be seen as a direct challenge to WTO rules that put free trade ahead of peoples’ needs. Nevertheless, Africa’s capacity to manage and monitor the issues has to be strengthened.

Public, non-profit research must be undertaken regarding GM foods and their applications and consequences. Communities need to be involved in such research and field-testing in order to determine which GM crops may have relevance for their needs. However there is a danger that the field-testing of GMOs is being undertaken in countries that still have little or no policy on GMO releases. GMOs need proper control and appropriate testing; there cannot be a blanket endorsement without blanket risk.

It is vital to negotiate with multinational companies wishing to access local germplasm that they contribute to improved technology for use in orphan crops important for local food security. It is important to conserve traditional crop varieties currently in danger of being lost so that the valuable genes they contain can be preserved. Public seed varieties (those that have no Intellectual Property Right restrictions), which are non-commercial, must be developed to maintain the identity of crops with special traits. Farmers and grain silo operators must establish practices to minimize the occurrence of cross-pollination.

In their policy development governments will have to determine appropriate protocols regarding the implementation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations and be conscious of what impact these decisions will have on sustainable development and social upliftment.

Africa needs to investigate all available technologies to find the optimum local solutions for improving household, national and regional food security. Some 75% of farming in Africa is subsistence in nature, and in this environment the driving forces underpinning food security are not intrinsically commercial. A paradigm in which the important variables are those of risk aversion, crop diversity, and reliance on indigenous crops requires a fundamentally different approach to food security. The context in which GM technology is being developed does not readily understand or address the problems faced by food-insecure and vulnerable groups. Dependency on seed suppliers is likely to be created as GM seeds can only be used (a factor which has huge economic consequences), and benefits appear to be low to non-existent for poor farmers or poor consumers. Biotechnology informed by a solution-oriented approach as opposed to a needs-oriented approach will inevitably increase the vulnerability and risk that poor people will have to bear.

Conclusion

Biotechnology presents both opportunity and threat to Africa and her peoples, but it will not be the answer so long as it is imposed from the outside. GM foods and their consequences for Africa present new challenges that require new responses and leadership. The desperate plight of millions of Africans requires that the debate be engaged in now and across the barriers that have relegated the GM “debate” to not much more than public posturing between simplistic notions of GM foods being a good thing or a bad thing. To maximize the potential opportunities and reduce the threats there is an urgent need to engage in real and substantial debate – and GM must define its own role in Africa.

More important is to appreciate why GM technology will not, and cannot of itself “feed the hungry”. It may well be one of the possible solutions that could be used, but it is not central to the debate on food security. In the face of growing structural deficiencies prevalent in the region there is increasing recognition of the long-term nature of revising approaches to tackling food security.

More than 830 million people in the world suffer from chronic malnutrition; 30 to 60 million suffer from severe hunger. This is not the result of insufficient production – more than enough food is available and the planet is quite capable of producing more food. GM crops are not relevant to the main reason why people go hungry. Rather, it is in recognizing the dynamic nature of vulnerability that it becomes possible to develop frameworks that are broad based, integrated, and therefore appropriate and enduring.

Competent and enduring responses include issues such as community access to land and land tenure, preservation of agricultural diversity, access to credit and agricultural inputs, seed sourcing and access (commercially or locally), and ecologically based land management. It is precisely because the discourse has so far tended to focus on notions of yield, that technocratic matters have taken precedence over matters concerning the political economy. Lessons can be learnt from the Green Revolution – it succeeded in improving yields, but led to serious environmental problems. Ignoring traditional crops and the staples of poor farmers led to the growing concentration on ownership on land and resources in the hands of the rich. Africa needs to redesign agricultural approaches, not rely on “techno fix” approaches to modern agriculture such as GM technology. Movement away from the maize monoculture and back to more appropriate, drought-resistant indigenous crops such as millet and sorghum should be promoted.

There are close links between hunger and food security on the one hand, and a large number of issues of global relevance on the other. The adverse impact of structural adjustment and liberalization policies on food security and agriculture, trade barriers, the overall downward trend of Official Development Assistance, agricultural subsidies, and debt burdens in Africa are just some of the issues which highlight the need for international cooperation and solidarity as an instrument for addressing food insecurity.

The balancing of the immediate food aid issues with long term and strategic considerations requires a multi-faceted approach covering the economic, social and environmental factors. For the outcome to be beneficial to Africa requires that her leaders, thinkers and communities be foremost in the decisions that are taken. For coherent and sustainable positions to be adopted requires regional and shared decision-making.

Jenny Clover
Researcher, African Security Analysis Programme