I thought you may be interested in some of the information and
debates that we have had on the AFRIK-IPM Discussion List to add to
your discussions in regard to GMO's in Africa. Below is
one article and the other will be attached in a separate e-mail
Regards,
Andrea Rother
Moderator, Pesticides-L
Dept. of Community Health
University of Cape Town
South Africa
e-mail: andrea@anat.uct.ac.za
***********************************************
Date sent: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:02:39 -0400
Send reply to: Afrik-IPM Discussion List <AFRIK-IPM@LISTSERV.VT.EDU>
From: J-P Amirault <amirault@VT.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: Why Africa Needs Biotech?
To: AFRIK-IPM@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
---------- Original Text ----------
>>Nature 400, 15 - 16 (1999) 1 July 1999
>>
>>Why Africa needs agricultural biotech
>>
>>FLORENCE WAMBUGU
>>
>>There is urgent need for the development and use of agricultural
>>biotechnology in Africa to help to counter famine, environmental
>>degradation and poverty. Africa must enthusiastically join the
>>biotechnology revolution.
>>
>>The public debate on transgenic crops in Europe is centred on fear and
>>mistrust, quite possibly resulting from the experience over 'mad cow
>>disease'. A recent report1 from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to
>>address European Union concerns on genetically modified (GM) crops
>>concluded that there is no evidence that transgenic foods are unsafe. The
>>report, by a group led by Patrick Wall, the authority's chief executive,
>>says that concern in Europe is based on ethical, socioeconomic and
>>anti-multinational issues; lack of knowledge or misinformation;
>>environmentalism; food labelling; and consideration of the needs of
>>developing countries.
>>
>>Many of these concerns have nothing to do with food safety. Transgenic
>>foods are eaten daily in the United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico and
>>elsewhere with no reported undue effects2-4. Nevertheless, the experts'
>>advice does not seem to influence public opinion in Europe, probably
>>because of a strong anti-biotechnology lobby that actively promotes
>>misinformation and fear, and also because in some cases people have had
>>good reason to distrust 'expert' pronouncements.
>>
>>One example of Europeans' concern for the Third World is 'terminator
>>technology' -- plants engineered to be sterile. But this technology is only
>>a concept and is not being further developed. No products are planned for
>>Africa or elsewhere. Critics of biotechnology have used the fear of this
>>technology to promote serious anti-multinational attitudes -- for example,
>>crops in trials have been burnt in some parts of the world.
>>
>>Another concern promoted by critics of food biotechnology is that of toxins
>>or allergies. An example is the case of the unpublished study by Arpad
>>Pusztai, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, who
>>suggested that rats fed with GM potatoes expressing a snowdrop lectin were
>>slowly being poisoned. After an independent scientific review, these
>>results were found to be misleading and to have been misinterpreted5. But
>>the anti-biotechnology lobby is still using them strongly to advance its
>>case in Europe, even though transgenic foods are rigorously tested for
>>possible toxins and allergens before commercialization.
>>
>>Surely there are parallels to be drawn with an antibiotic such as
>>penicillin, which has continued to be used for many years despite many
>>people being allergic to it because the benefits clearly outweigh the
>>risks. Why is the same reasoning not applied to transgenic foods, where
>>risks at even this low level are not proven? The anti-biotech lobby also
>>cites as controversial the recombinant DNA processes used to develop
>>transgenic foods. But the same processes are used to develop numerous
>>pharmaceuticals for humans and animals, and many other industrial products.
>>The public seems prepared to accept the application of GM techniques to new
>>pharmaceutical products but not to food production. Why should there be
>>different standards for crops and pharmaceuticals, particularly in Africa
>>where the need for food is crucial for survival?
>>
>>African perspective The critics of biotechnology claim that Africa has no
>>chance to benefit from biotechnology, and that Africa will only be a
>>dumping ground or will be exploited by multinationals6,7. On the contrary,
>>small-scale farmers in Africa have benefited by using hybrid seeds from
>>local and multinational companies, and transgenic seeds in effect are
>>simply an added-value improvement to these hybrids. Local farmers are
>>benefiting from tissue-culture technologies for banana, sugar cane,
>>pyrethrum, cassava and other crops. There is every reason to believe they
>>will also benefit from the crop-protection transgenic technologies in the
>>pipeline for banana, such as sigatoka, the disease-resistant transgenic
>>variety now ready for field trials. Virus- and pest-resistant transgenic
>>sugar-cane technologies are being developed in countries such as Mauritius,
>>South Africa and Egypt.
>>
>>The African continent, more than any other, urgently needs agricultural
>>biotechnology, including transgenic crops, to improve food production.
>>African countries need to think and operate as stakeholders, rather than
>>accepting the 'victim mentality' created in Europe. Africa has the local
>>germplasm, some of it well-characterized and clean, being held in gene
>>banks in trust by centres run by the Consultative Group of International
>>Agricultural Research. It also has the indigenous knowledge, local field
>>ecosystems for product development, capacities and infrastructure required
>>by foreign multinational companies.
>>
>>The needs of Africa and Europe are different. Europe has surplus food and
>>has never experienced hunger, mass starvation and death on the regular
>>scale we sadly witness in Africa. The priority of Africa is to feed her
>>people with safe foods and to sustain agricultural production and the
>>environment.
>>
>>Africa missed the green revolution, which helped Asia and Latin America
>>achieve self-sufficiency in food production. Africa cannot afford to be
>>excluded or to miss another major global 'technological revolution'. It
>>must join the biotechnology endeavour. Transgenic food production increased
>>from 4 million to 70 million acres worldwide from 1996 to 1998 with
>>measurable economic gains and with sustainable agricultural production2. It
>>would be a much higher risk for Africa to ignore agricultural
>>biotechnology. Africa's crop production per unit area of land is the lowest
>>in the world. For example the production of sweet potato, a staple crop, is
>>6 tonnes per hectare compared to the global average of 14 tonnes per
>>hectare. China produces on average 18 tonnes per hectare, three times the
>>African average. There is the potential to double African production if
>>viral diseases are controlled using transgenic technology.
>>
>>The African continent imports at least 25 per cent of its grain. The use of
>>biotechnology to increase local grain production is far preferable to this
>>dependence on other countries, particularly as the population growth rate
>>exceeds food production. The inability to produce adequate food forces
>>Africa to rely on food aid from industrialized nations when mass starvation
>>occurs. Although biotechnology is not the only answer to this problem,
>>Africa should certainly benefit in many ways from its use, for example in
>>improved seed quality and resistance to pests and diseases.
>>
>>The average maize yield in Africa is about 1.7 tonnes per hectare compared
>>to a global average of 4 tonnes per hectare. Some bio-technology
>>applications can be used to reduce this gap, for example in the case of the
>>maize streak virus (MSV), which causes losses of 100 per cent of the crop
>>in many parts of the continent. A biotechnology-transfer project is under
>>way to develop MSV-resistant varieties. The project is brokered by the
>>International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications
>>(ISAAA), and involves the collaboration of the Kenya Agricultural Research
>>Institute (KARI), the University of Cape Town, the International Centre for
>>Insect Physiology and Ecology in Kenya, and the John Innes Centre in the
>>United Kingdom. Funding is coming from the US Rockefeller Foundation, and
>>Novartis in Europe has donated some technology to KARI.
>>
>>Researchers at KARI are studying the mechanism of MSV resistance and trying
>>to map the genes responsible. Advanced biotechnology skills, including the
>>use of advanced agroinoculation techniques and molecular markers, is at the
>>core of this effort. A priority in Kenya is also to produce high-yielding,
>>drought-tolerant crop varieties to boost food production in the 71 per cent
>>of the country that is arid or semi-arid.
>>
>>Africa needs biotechnology to solve its environmental problems, and there
>>is unlimited public demand for agricultural biotechnology products and
>>services. In Kenya, the demand for tree seedlings reaches 14 million per
>>year, whereas the country can only supply 3 million, a clear indication of
>>the need for tissue-culture and cloning techniques to curb deforestation
>>and boost reforestation using indigenous species threatened with
>>extinction. These technologies are being successfully used in South Africa,
>>and ISAAA has facilitated a project for application in Kenya. There are
>>issues of intellectual property rights and patents that require hard work
>>to develop or acquire, and advanced agricultural biotechnology skills will
>>be needed. There may also be a need to work out collaboration agreements
>>with the private sector or with companies that already have patents.
>>
>>Biotechnology in Africa is needs-based. After working at KARI for nearly a
>>decade to help improve sweet-potato production using traditional breeding
>>and agronomy methods, I made no progress. An opportunity to work in the
>>private biotechnology sector abroad resulted in the development of a
>>transgenic variety that is resistant to sweet-potato feathery mottle virus,
>>which can reduce yields by 20-80 per cent. Control of this disease will
>>improve household food security for millions. This project involved
>>collaboration between KARI, a project called Agricultural Biotechology for
>>Sustainable Productivity, funded by the US Agency for International
>>Development, and Monsanto. The work by Kenyan scientists focuses on local
>>varieties, and there will be a smooth and sustainable transfer of the
>>technology, which will be shared with neighbouring countries. Kenyan
>>scientists have been trained in gene technology techniques. ISAAA has been
>>asked to help with the transfer and licensing agreement. Similar projects
>>are under way for bananas, sugar cane and tropical fruits.
>>
>>Remaining problems Needless to say, Africa has many problems -- a shortage
>>of skilled people (especially in biotechnology), poor funding of research,
>>lack of appropriate policies and civil strife. Nevertheless, countries such
>>as South Africa, Egypt, Zimbabwe and Kenya are taking practical steps to
>>ensure that they can use biotechnology for sustainable development.
>>
>>African countries need to avoid exploitation and to participate as
>>stakeholders in the transgenic biotechnology business. They need the right
>>policies and agencies, such as operational biosafety regulatory agencies,
>>breeders' rights and an effective local public and private sector, to
>>interface with multinational companies that already have the technologies.
>>Consumers need to be informed of the pros and cons of various agricultural
>>biotechnology packages, the dangers of using unsuitable foreign germplasm,
>>and how to avoid the loss of local germplasm and to maintain local
>>diversity. Other checks and balances are required to avoid patenting local
>>germplasm and innovations by multinationals; to ensure policies on
>>intellectual property rights and to avoid unfair competition; to prevent
>>the monopoly buying of local seed companies; and to prevent the
>>exploitation of local consumers and companies by foreign multinationals.
>>Field trials need to be done locally, in Africa, to establish environmental
>>safety under tropical conditions.
>>
>>The main goal is to find a balanced formula for how local institutions can
>>participate in transgenic product development and share the benefits, risks
>>and profits of the technology, as they own the local germplasm needed by
>>the multinationals for sustainable commercialization. New varieties must
>>not simply replace local ones. The removal of genes that were in the public
>>domain into the private sector raises concern in Africa.
>>
>>All these issues mean that Africa must strengthen its capacity to deal with
>>various aspects of biotechnology, including issues of biosafety, creating
>>and sustaining gene banks, and encouraging the emergence of a local
>>biotechnology private sector. The great potential of biotechnology to
>>increase agriculture in Africa lies in its 'packaged technology in the
>>seed', which ensures technology benefits without changing local cultural
>>practices. In the past, many foreign donors funded high-input projects,
>>which have failed to be sustainable because they have failed to address
>>social and economic issues such as changes in cultural practice. The
>>criticism of agribiotech products in Europe is based on socioeconomic
>>issues and not food safety issues, and no evidence so far justifies the
>>opinion of some in Europe that Africa should be excluded from transgenic
>>crops. Africans can speak for themselves.
>>
>>The ISAAA receives about 60% of its funding from philanthropic foundations
>>such as Rockefeller, McKnight and Hitachi; 30% from bilateral agencies such
>>as Danida (Denmark), BMZ (Germany) and USAID; and 10% from biotech
>>companies such as Novartis, Agrevo, Pioneer and Monsanto. The views
>>expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of
>>ISAAA.
>>
>>Florence Wambugu is director of the International Service for the
>>Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA AfriCenter), Regional
>>African Office, PO Box 25171, Nairobi, Kenya. e-mail: f.wambugu@cgiar.org
>>
>>
>>References
>>
>> 1. www.fsai.ie
>> 2. James, C. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic
>> Crops ISAAA Brief No. 8 (ISAAA, 1998).
>> 3. Food and Agriculture Organization Biotechnology and Food
>> Safety Food and Nutrition Paper No. 61 (FAO, Rome, 1996).
>> 4. Genetically Engineered Food Production Gathers Pace CSIRO
>> Media Release 99/117 (CSIRO, Guelph, Canada, 1999).
>> 5. Loder, N. Nature 399, 188 (1999).
>> 6. Christian Aid and other groups in GM-FREE: Keeping your Life
>> and Environment Free of Genetically Modified Food Vol. 1,
>> No. 2 (KHI, Skelmersdale, June/July 1999).
>> 7. Nuffield Council on Bioethics Genetically Modified Crops,
>> www.nuffield.org/bioethics/publication/modifiedcrops/index.html
>>
>>************************************************
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail