Food for Africa
Andrew Tayton and Dulcie Krige
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/readerblog/2010/02/25/food-for-africa-2/
Africa, as we all know only too well, is a continent with severe agricultural problems such as widespread poor soils and water deficits. In addition the problems of poverty make transport and marketing of food crops far more difficult than they are in the West. This has led seed companies to contend that the solution lies with genetic modification (GM), which transfers genes from one species to another, so in theory conferring benefits such as increased yields, but also, according to opponents, running the risk of causing health problems in humans and of environmental problems by breaking the barriers which separate species.
What is often overlooked in this very real dilemma is that thousands of years of careful seed selection by African farmers has given rise to local varieties with valuable attributes such as drought and disease resistance. When these local varieties are used responsibly by seed scientists who are genuinely committed to solving the problems of the continent rather than with a goal simply of patenting expensive seeds it becomes apparent that a marriage of indigenous knowledge and modern technology can produce varieties which result in increased yields and disease resistance without running the risks associated with GM.
Examples of this are becoming increasingly evident. For example Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) enables scientists to identify genes associated with characteristics such as increased yield and then to identify such genes in local varieties and to crossbreed to improve the crop. Even Jeff Cox, of leading GM seed producer Monsanto, has said that MAS can be used to build high output varieties through conventional plant breeding since there is a vast reservoir of genes within any one species. His Monsanto colleague Tom Crosbie has, perhaps surprisingly, noted that “ultimately [non-GM] biotech offers the greatest potential”.
This then is the crux of the issue, the confusion that has seen GM and biotechnology as being the same thing whereas in fact GM removes genes from one species and, using a far from exact technology, inserts these genes into other species. However biotechnology is the much broader science of the knowledge of the genome and this enables the understanding of the function of particular genes to be put to use in assisting conventional breeding techniques to produce results rapidly and consistently. There are also considerable benefits in that environmentalists who oppose GM crops are often supportive of MAS since there is no crossing of the species barrier and this means that the widespread international opposition to GM food crops is not likely to be evident in the commercialisation of MAS food crops.
Another non-GM biotechnology that has produced wonderful results is the “embryo rescue plant breeding technique” which has been used to produce Nerica rice which combines the high yield of Asian rice with the ability to withstand weeds of African rice and so produces a variety ideal for West African climatic conditions.
It seems to be true that GM stories receive far greater media attention than do the many successes which are not GM related such as the following articles which have merited very little media coverage: US food scientist develops non-GM process for allergen-free peanuts; non-GM approach to striga-resistant cowpeas in Africa; non-GM salt-resistant wheat is produced; Gates Foundation supports non-GM b-carotine rich sweet potato in Africa; non-GM virus-resistant cassava for East and Central Africa; non-GM technology reduces aflatoxins in maize in Nigeria; iron-fortified non-GM maize cuts anaemia rates in children; Austro-Indian non-GM research cuts 50% of cotton insecticides and adds 75% profitability; Dutch researcher bred non-GM fungi-resistant tomato; non-GM tomatoes made to drink less water; non-GM rice with bacterial leaf blight-resistance genes developed and US grape researcher breeds non-GM vines resistant to Pierce’s Disease.
These many examples of non-GM technologies have the potential to revolutionise agriculture more cheaply than does GM yet they have not had the regard paid to them that they deserve.
But even apart from these high-tech developments there are low-tech solutions to plant pests which have been developed for example in Kenya where the striga weed and stem borer, which can wipe out 80% of a maize field, is combated by planting, between the rows of crops, a row of Desmodium which gives off an odour that repels the stem-borer moths, and by planting Napier grass around the edges which attracts them. Moreover Desmodium is a legume which increases soil fertility and hence has helped get rid of the striga weed which thrives on poor soils.
Caution has begun to surround the genetic modification of food crops since three years of field trials of the GM sweet potato in Kenya recently showed that it was no more resistant to viruses than ordinary varieties and sometimes had a lower yield. Moreover, as New Scientist reported, conventional breeding in Uganda had been able to produce a high-yielding, virus resistant, variety both more rapidly and at a considerably lower cost.
Widespread international public antipathy to GM food crops may turn out to have given rise to a pause in the introduction of a technology which is highly beneficial to the seed companies, since it can be patented, but not of significant benefit to either farmers or the public. A pause which has given time for the development of more acceptable kinds of biotechnology, with fewer possible hazards, which will enable the problems of Africa’s agriculture to be solved and the continent to produce the food necessary for its population.
Andrew Taynton is an anti-GM campaigner and co-founder of the Safe Food Coalition working under the umbrella of the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering www.safeage.org
Dulcie Krige is a social scientist