Special Web-only Feature

While social activists are up in arms over the United States' scant involvement in Africa's hunger crisis, President Bush has recently been voicing concern about Africa's food security in a fierce campaign for international acceptance of genetically engineered (GE) food production. Bush and representatives from biotech companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dupont, claim that genetic engineering will enhance the reliability and quality of the world's food supply, provide economic benefits to farmers, and improve environmental conditions. Bush claims that the near 200 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa who are currently undernourished will continue to be hungry if they reject GE technology; he even accused European agricultural policies of contributing to starvation in Africa by turning Africans against biotechnology. "For the sake of a continent threatened by famine," Bush implored, "I urge the European governments to end their opposition to biotechnology."1

However, delegates from African nations have been pushing away Bush's helping hand. Most leaders from developing countries have major trepidations about GE foods. Responding to Monsanto's 1998 campaign "Let the Harvest Begin," African delegates to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released a statement, "Let Nature's Harvest Continue" asserting that GE crops are not the solution to food insecurity.2 Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia in particular have been outspoken on the issue.

Apprehension Surrounds GE Crops
There are several reasons for the developing world's apprehension about GE crops. Farmers recognize that genetic engineering is not the only possible approach for increased food production and are more inclined to rely on techniques that have proven fruitful in the past without the unknown consequences of genetic modification. Given that GE technology was designed for large commercial farms in industrialized countries, it is unsuited for small-scale agriculture which prevails in Sub-Saharan Africa.3 South Africa is one exception that has a large commercial farming sector and is the only country that did not join the coalition of African FAO delegates who released the statement against GE agriculture.4

African smallholders can adopt more reliable farming techniques like intercropping, the practice of growing more than one crop in the same field. Intercropping leads to an increase in productivity per unit of land when compared to pure stand yields. Pest management benefits can also be realized through intercropping due to increased diversity. Integrating crops and livestock provides an opportunity to intensify agricultural activity without causing environmental damage. Crop residues feed the animals and the animals' manure fertilizes the soil. The improved soil structure can help combat soil erosion and help water permeation.

Hunger Not Due to Food Scarcity
Aside from the available alternatives to GE for increased food production, representatives from developing nations argue that hunger is not necessarily due to food scarcity. Bush's claim that refusing GE crops will perpetuate starvation makes this assumption. Hunger is caused by poverty (too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available or without sufficient land to grow it.). A variety of other factors affect access to food, including war and political turmoil, poor distribution, faulty land tenure systems, post-harvest loss, and lack of availability of resources (including land and proper irrigation), credit, transport and markets.

Land tenure systems in Sub-Saharan Africa's smallholder farming areas are so insecure that politicians and bureaucrats exercise considerable power over land issues. The land is often still seen as state property which allows political interference in land management and legal interpretation of rights over the land.5 When land ownership is poorly defined or threatened, farmers will make decisions that lead to immediate gains but jeopardize the long-term economic gains and environmental sustainability of the land.6 Without proper tenure, farmers cannot obtain the credit they need to properly invest in their land.

Extending Credit to Small Farmers
Extending micro-credit to smallholders gives farmers the purchasing power with which to buy inputs necessary for sustainable farming. The Program of Direct Payments to the Countryside (PROCAMPO) has provided micro-credit to smallholder farmers in Mexico. The program covers an average of 14 million hectares of farmland every year and reaches nearly 3 million producers.7 Overall, every peso of PROCAMPO payments has generated two pesos of farmers' income.8 Such credit programs available to smallholder farmers in Africa can lead to greater long-term profits from agricultural production.

Investment in handling and storage systems to reduce post-harvest loss can increase incomes and total food availability without increasing production. Improvement of post-harvest management requires the attention and shared responsibility of the farmers, the market traders, exporters, and government regulatory agencies. Investment in transportation is equally critical so that farmers have access to both domestic and international markets.

Bad terms of trade also undermine agricultural productivity. African farmers who produce export crops are disadvantaged by inequitable international markets and trading arrangements. The immense subsidies provided to farmers in wealthy countries like the US is a specifically debilitating factor for African agriculture as exports get driven out of the international market when rich countries' subsidies depress world market prices.

GE Technology No Panacea
Given the facts, Africans recognize that GE technology is no panacea for hunger. The issues that do exacerbate hunger need to be addressed. Still, argue Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont, BASF, and Monsanto (which controlled 98 percent of the world GE crop market in 2000), GE crops will benefit farmers economically.9 Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence against this claim; the introduction of GE crops may actually perpetuate poverty.

Monsanto's genetically modified Bt cotton is now used by a number of smallholder cotton farmers in South Africa. There are indications that the new technology is impoverishing smallholders by contributing to over-production. Smallholder's cotton prices have fallen by 40 percent and over 60,000 farmers in the cotton sector have lost their jobs. Flood-related cotton crop failures have left small farmers who adopted the expensive Bt cotton with debts of $1.2 million.10 With many similar disaster stories, farmers remain unconvinced of the positive financial outcome of GE crops.

The economic benefits of GE crops that fail to reach the farmers show up in the pockets of the biotech companies that hold patents on the seeds. The biotech industry uses patents to gain monopolies over seed markets. African farmers who grow GE crops would become entirely dependent on the companies that hold the patents. Smallholder African farmers typically save their seeds for planting during the next growing season. However, because the biotech companies exercise their intellectual property rights over the genetic makeup of the seeds, farmers are obliged to purchase new seeds every season.

Farmers' Property Rights Threatened
There have even been instances where patents on GE crops have threatened the property rights of farmers. Although seeds or pollen blown onto a farmer's land is normally considered part of their property, a Canadian court ruled in a 2001 lawsuit that this was not the case with patented GE plants.11 Exercising patent rights can cause an already undercapitalized sector to fall further into debt and become wholly dependent on the corporations who manufacture the seeds.

Not only can GE technology lead to farmers into a financial ruin, it can also cause serious and unforeseen environmental damage. Gene flow from GE crops to weedy relatives, and overuse of herbicide resistant crops may each create unmanageable weed problems. Overuse of herbicide resistant crops may lead to a "need" for stronger, additional toxins. Insects as well may become resistance to plants engineered with pest-protection. GE, as part of the industrial monoculture agricultural model, adds to the risk of losing valuable traits in wild relative crops. Monoculture crops due to their genetic uniformity, can easily be devastated by disease. Genetic variety is essential for sustainable agriculture. Opponents have strong ethical reservations about GE production. Some faith-based communities assert that technological modification of living organisms interferes with the sacredness of life and creation GE creates unforeseen consequences by transforming the fundamental physical nature of an organism. GE also has great potential for disrupting the delicate balance of ecosystems through the introduction of new genetic material and viruses. Religious debate continues over whether certain GE foods, such as soy products that have been injected with swine DNA, are fit for consumption by Jews and Muslims.

Profits Bypass Starving Africans
Unfortunately, Bush's campaign to bring GE to Africa has little to do with improving Africa's social welfare. Instead, the United States' concern with starving Africans is linked to the colossal profits of major agrochemical corporations that have unstintingly supported the Bush administration. Monsanto, for instance, has donated large sums of money during the 2000 elections directly to Bush's presidential campaign;12 Bush's Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman was on the board of Calgene, another biotechnology company that was purchased by Monsanto in 1997.13 Monsanto's lawyer, Clarence Thomas, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. It was Thomas who made the deciding vote giving the election to Bush Jr.

African countries do need to continue to explore tools to achieve food security. Unfortunately, the biotech products that US corporations are promoting today are unlikely to fill the bellies of Africa's famished. Before turning to increased food production methods the international community should address the root causes of hunger, like access to markets through improved roads and infrastructure, the supply of credit and micro-finance loans, and agricultural subsidies that undermine the ability of developing nations to achieve truly sustainable agriculture.

By Jessica Brown, ICCR Intern

1 Bragdon, Susan H. "US-Europe Brawl on Genetically Modified Food Uses Africa as a Pawn." The Oregonian. July 24, 2003. <www.oregonlive.com>
2 Hickey, Ellen and Anuradha Mittal, Eds. "Voices from the South: The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths about Genetically Engineered Crops." Food First and Pesticide Action Network. June 2003.
3 European Union. "The Case of Africa and GM Crops: The European View." EU Newsweb. Accessed August 5, 2003. <www.eurunion.org/newsweb/commentary/GMOcommentary.htm>
4 Hickey, Ellen and Anuradha Mittal, Eds.
5 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO). "Irrigation Technology Transfer in Support of Food Security." FAO 1997. <www.fao.org/docrep/W7314E/w7314e0a.htm>
6 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO). "The State of Food Insecurity in the World: 2002." FAO 2002. <www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7352e/y7352e00.htm#TopOfPage>
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 International Forum on Globalization. "Fast Facts on the Corporate Consolidation of Industrial Agriculture." <www.ifg.org/pdf/indust_ag-fas=_facts_consol.pdf >
10 DeGrassi, Aaron. "Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence." Third World Network. June 2003.
11 Salleh, Anna. "GM Patents Threaten Farmers' Rights, Says Lawyer." ABC Science Online. August 8, 2001. <www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s342557.htm>
12 Cohen, Robert. "Monsanto and G.W. Bush Administration: Who Will Own the Store?" Organic Consumers Association. January 21, 2001. <www.purefood.org/Monsanto/MonBushAdmin.cfm>
13 Bigwood, Jeremy. "Toxic Drift - Monsanto and the Drug War in Colombia." Safe 2 Use. June 21, 2001. <www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-06-21.htm>
14 Cohen, Robert