gmoafrica

I think the question should read like "Do you approve of the science behind genetically modified foods?" Many a times, I think we are unjustifiably criticizing genetically modified foods. We need to get to the root of this debate. And I think getting to the root of this debate means sticking to scientific facts rather than getting emotional about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Monsanto has, in the last couple of years, been gathering views from farmers and policy makers about potential applications of genetically modified organisms. Their voices can be found on the company's web site called Conversations About Plant Biotechnology. I am sure some of you will consider some of these people biased towards Monsanto, but it's always good to listen to them. I've already done so and I find it a bit hard that a scientist as prominent as Norman Borlaug can be herded to say and do things he doesn't believe in. Or an economist as popular as Jeffrey Sachs. or a scientist like Clive James. On my own blog, GMO Africa, I'm encouraging people to try to stick to scientific facts when debating the pros and cons of genetically modified foods. This is the only way we can tell who is telling the truth and who's misleading the world.

There has been a lot of discussion about the importance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Africa. Opponents argue that GMOs present no benefits to African farmers. Proponents say that the U.S., Canada, Argentina, India, China, and to a lesser extent South Africa have benefited from GMOs by commercializing genetically modified crops, and, therefore, Africa has no choice but to follow suit. Just last week, Kofi Annan joined the ranks of skeptics of genetically modified crops by affirming that the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which he heads wouldn't integrate these crops in its programs. Mr. Annan's position has received stiff opposition, especially from the scientific community. AGRA has since clarified that it's not totally opposed to GM crops. Is Africa doing itself harm by refusing to embrace gene technology to improve its agriculture?

Africa is inching closer to adopting biotechnology. A panel of African scientists and policy makers has drafted a White Paper on biotechnology, to be submitted to African heads of state summit, planned for January 2007. Among the key highlights of the report is regionalization of biotechnology investments. The panel envisages need-based biotech investments. This proposal has stirred controversy – which I believe is unwarranted - with some countries fearing that they will be starved of research funds. Supporters of the proposal argue that regionalization of biotech investments will accelerate the adoption of GMOs in Africa. I agree with them, and you can read my post on the issue at http://www.gmoafrica.org. Currently, Africa finds itself in a sorry situation where scientists are engaged in identical biotech research. This is wanton wastage of scarce research funds. Regionalizing biotech research will solve this problem, by proliferating centers of excellence in places where they are needed most. I would encourage every scientist of goodwill to support this draft report. Its ratification by African leaders will be an important step in solving Africa’s food problems. James Njoroge Wachai Gmo Africa Blog

Sometimes ago, I found myself embroiled in a debate over whether genetically modified (GM) crops can help smallholder farmers improve their standards of living. I pitched that GM crops hold promise to smallholder farmers just the same way they do to commercial farmers. My opponents shot back that GM seeds are so expensive that only the well-heeled farmers can afford them. The debate stretched on and on, and ended without a consensus. I still stand by my position that smallholder farmers, especially in developing countries, stand to gain immensely, from genetically modified crops. Take the new genetically modified maize, developed by Mexican researchers, that is capable of tackling Newcastle disease, a major killer of poultry in developing countries. According to Octavio Guerrero-Andrade of the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) in Guanajuto and his colleagues, chickens that ate this new genetically modified maize produced antibodies against the Newcastle disease virus. Poultry farmers from developing countries stand to gain immensely from this maize variety. There is no denying that vaccines for Newcastle disease exist, but the problem is they are not usually available in small quantities. This makes them unaffordable by single families or villages. Additionally, they require refrigeration to maintain viability. In most developing countries, rural areas are not connected to electricity. Thus, refrigeration is a dream. With the new genetically modified maize, farmers can conveniently manage Newcastle disease. James Wachai on the web http://www.gmoafrica.org

This is a pretty good question. I author the blog Gmo Africa, and I know what it takes to communicate science and technology issues to the public. It's very demanding because you have to read regulalry and intensely, just like scientists do. Not many journalists or communicators, are willing to engage in intensive reading. This is where the problem lies. With regard to genetic engineering, most journalists don't have an iota of idea of what it is all about. So, they write incompetently about genetic engineering, and in the process mislead and misinform the public.

The other day, I was listening to Norman Borlaug being interviewed in Penn Jillette’s radio show (http://podcast.penn.freefm.com/penn/25352.mp3) about his work in the field of agricultural biotechnology. Asked about his attitude towards anti-biotech activists, Dr. Borlaug, the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner, dismissed them as saber rattlers who have never produced a tonne of food. I unreservedly concur with Dr. Borlaug. Anti-biotech activists are nothing but noisemakers out to deny farmers, especially in poor countries, a chance to enjoy the benefits of modern agricultural biotechnology. Just recently, Michael Hansen, a researcher at the U.S.-based Consumer Policy Institute, a division of Consumer Union, was in South Africa on a campaign for the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) products. Consumer Union, since time immemorial, has been spearheading opposition against genetic modification. I can’t really understand Mr. Hansen’s motivation. He should leave Africa alone to make its own decision about genetically modified food. Genetically modified crops are yet to gain a foothold in Africa. Except South Africa, no other African country is currently cultivating genetically modified crops. Activists like Mr. Hansen should let Africa to at least start commercializing genetically modified crops. To Africa, the debate about labeling genetically modified food is premature. Mr. Hansen’s labeling campaign equals to putting the cart before the horse. Furthermore, Mr. Hansen and his sponsors have failed to persuade the U.S. government to require all GMOs products to be labeled. He would rather put his house in order before going to Africa. Of utmost concern to Africa at the moment is producing adequate food for its people. The U.S., Mr. Hansen’s home, grows GM crops in abundance, because they’re high yielding and require less or no pesticides. This is the same food that’s given to Africa in form of humanitarian assistance. Africa doesn’t want to be a perpetual beneficiary of food aid. It wants to produce its own genetically modified food. To read more about James’ criticism of Mr. Hansen, go to http://www.gmoafrica.org.

I have never understood why Africans still harbor xenophobic tendencies towards genetically modified foods. To most Africans, benefits of genetically modified foods is exaggerated and not worth any consideration. What they don’t know is that Americans and Europeans, who apparently they loathe, readily eat these foods. They make billions of dollars from trade involving them. The elites in Africa, unfortunately, have not done much to educate the lay people about the potential benefits of genetically food. So, blind opposition to genetically modified food continues, to the detriment of the masses. I am making this post because of some events that are currently unfolding in South Africa. There, Dr. Florence Wambugu, an icon of modern agricultural biotechnology, has received a grant of US$400 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop genetically modified sorghum. As a start, Dr. Wambugu would like to set up a state-of-the-art laboratory to research on GM sorghum, but the South African government has told her NO. To justify its actions, the government has expressed fears that genetically modified sorghum might contaminate indigenous sorghum varieties. This sounds funny to me. Fears of cross-contamination, first of all, are unfounded. Secondly, if they really do exist, such must not be used to deny Dr. Wambugu a license to set up her lab. The lab has nothing to do with cross-contamination. Indeed, Dr. Wambugu’s lab can be used to prove that genetically modified sorghum poses no threat to conventional varieties. Let’s also note that South Africa is an old hand on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Already, the country has a well-developed biosafety law, which has facilitated the commercialization of genetically modified cotton and corn. With genetically modified crops already being grown in South Africa, the last thing one should expect is unbearable pre-conditions for the introduction of genetically modified sorghum. James authors the blog Gmo Africa (http://www.gmoafrica.org).

By "politics aside," I meant the Iranians have refused to play politics with this issue. They have put politics aside to endorse genetically modified rice.

Iran, and to be specific, the Mullahs and Ayatollahs, calling the shots in Tehran want to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of nuclear energy. Iran’s ambition for a nuclear weapon has given it a bad name. But is every Iranian a devil? I don’t think so. I agree with the Bush Administration that ordinary Iranians are like you and me. They’re a part of the global society and have made enormous contribution in all spheres of life, including science and technology. Two weeks ago, just to cite an example, Iranian scientists released a report endorsing consumption of genetically modified rice. Considering that GM rice is a Western innovation, few people would have expected an Iranian scientist to endorse GM rice. GM rice is rich in Vitamin A, and has the potential to alleviate childhood blindness which is prevalent in developing countries. We should all applaud Iranian scientists for these findings. The most important lessons to learn here are, 1) not all Iranians are devils and 2) science is blind to political differences. To read more about the Iranian findings on GM rice, go to http://www.gmoafrica.org/2006/06/politics-aside-iran-endorses_25.html