My country, Ghana, is no exception; but in the case of biotechnology, we seem to have a different approach altogether. This was exemplified at a recent press conference held by the Science and Technology Policy Research Institute (Stepri) to shed light on the goals, targets and activities of the Institute’s Biotechnology Development Programme (BDP).

There, Stepri’s senior scientific officer, George Essegbey, called for the country to explore and harness the positive sides of biotechnology in order to obtain the desired benefits, especially in the areas of agriculture and health. George Essegbey said that biotechnology, if developed and managed efficiently, can improve agricultural production, add value to natural products, diagnose and prevent diseases, conserve biodiversity, and preserve the environment.

Major advances in biotechnology have indeed opened up a wide range of application opportunities in the developing countries, especially in the health and agriculture sectors. However, some of these advances, such as genetically-modified (GM) foods and animal cloning are controversial everywhere. Some southern African countries have boycotted GM grains in the midst of hunger because of safety concerns. Biotechnology applications may be good or bad, safe or unsafe, depending on how they are used.

Biosafety: the African challenge

It is often argued that agricultural biotechnology holds great promise for Africa. Tissue culture and marker-assisted selection are already in widespread use across the continent while for most countries genetic transformation is still in the developing stages. The safe application of these technologies requires functioning biosafety systems throughout Africa. It is a point of consensus that improving food security and agriculture in Africa requires more than technology. Good governance, wise policies, infrastructure, and investment are other key requirements, and Africa faces particularly high hurdles in these areas.

Against this background, African countries have made impressive progress in biotechnology and biosafety. Such undertakings obviously require funding, national commitment, and political will. Agricultural and social systems in Africa differ considerably from those in the west; as a result, two clear differences between Africa and the west are encountered in both the approach to and emphasis placed on biosafety issues.

First, while hybrid seed adoption by smallholder farmers is now considerably high, some farmers still save seed from the previous harvest to plant in the next growing season. The right of farmers to save seed is probably one of the biggest issues in risk management, since seed-saving makes it almost impossible to specify and monitor the conditions of use. In some sectors, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are still being identified with the terminator technology (which has never been commercialised), leading some people to fear that these technologies could create a kind of dependency on large seed companies, driving farmers into a technological fix. While the potential role of the terminator technology in biosafety has been suggested, it cannot be recommended under these circumstances.

Second, many of the most important crops in Africa, such as banana and the root and tuber crops (cassava, sweet potato, potato), are not normally supplied through seed companies. Currently, there is some systematic distribution of tissue culture (virus eliminated) material in countries such as Zimbabwe and Kenya, but informal propagation will always occur. Such a scenario creates a challenge for the biosafety framework. Once a genetically-modified cultivar of sweet potato is released into the market, it will spread to other areas through this informal propagation.

GMOs were introduced into the world’s food supply in 1996 without any great fanfare or media attention. Crops like corn and cotton for instance, are being genetically engineered to contain built-in pesticides that are present in every cell of the plant. Other crops such as soybeans and canola are engineered with foreign genes to make them immune to powerful herbicides containing the chemical glyphosate.

The biotech industry claims that we need this technology to lower food costs, help feed the world’s poor and hungry, save the environment and lower pesticide and herbicide use. However, the true motives for genetically altering our food crops appears to be quite the contrary. There is a mountain of evidence coming forth that indicates there are severe flaws with this technology and the claims the biotech industry is making. Bacterial, viral and fungal genes are now routinely spliced into several of our most widely-used agricultural crops.

The risks of technology

Some scientists fear that this new technology may potentially be more destructive than nuclear weapons. Dr Mae-Wan Ho in Genetic Engineering – Dream or Nightmare? said about this technology: “The large-scale release of transgenic organisms is much worse than nuclear weapons or radioactive wastes, as genes can replicate indefinitely, spread and recombine.”

Dr John Fagan of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy echoes this conclusion: “We are living today in a very delicate time, one that is reminiscent of the birth of the nuclear era, when mankind stood at the threshold of a new technology. No one knew that nuclear power would fill our planet with highly toxic radioactive waste. We were so excited by the power of a new discovery that we leapt ahead blindly, and without caution. Today, the situation with genetic engineering is perhaps even more grave because this technology acts on the very blueprint of life itself.”

When GMOs were released into the environment the biotech industry told us that we had nothing to fear by eating these new genetically recombined foods. First they said the nutritional content was not changed therefore, no special labelling would be required. Then they said the DNA is easily digested and broken down in our gut and does not interfere with our bodies’ biochemistry makeup in any way whatsoever.

However, no long-term studies have been conducted on human beings to determine conclusively that biotech foods are 100% safe. Nobody knows for sure that our immune systems are not being harmed. We are consuming DNA and proteins from viruses, bacteria and funguses that have never been eaten in all the years we have existed on this planet.

These fears and uncertainties surrounding genetic engineering notwithstanding, a panel of biotech experts from six African countries – Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi and Ghana – says discussions confining biotechnology to genetic engineering, especially GMOs, are misleading.

In Africa biotechnology overwhelmingly involves tissue culture and related activities. However, the experts, who met in Nairobi in May 2002, added that extra efforts are needed to ensure that the continent acquires the skills and facilities needed to deal with all aspects of gene manipulation. It seems that most African countries want to toe a middle line in the biotechnology “crises”, without coming out with any clear policy regarding the introduction of this technology into their individual countries.

At the same time resistance to genetic engineering is rising. For example Ghana’s ex-minister for environment, science and technology Cletus Avoka assured the nation on 14 January 2000 that his ministry was doing everything possible to check the influx of GM foods on the market.

Avoka, who was answering a parliamentary question, said the GM food issue has generated a lot of controversy in developed countries and Ghana, a developing country, would not risk allowing its use. On the terminator seed technology, he said the government would not tolerate its use since it has the potential to harm crop management in the country. He said his ministry was participating in the development of a global biosafety protocol, which, among other things, would insulate the world’s biodiversity from possible adverse effects of GMOs.

There are further indications of resistance to genetic engineering as more governments are increasingly adopting mandatory labeling, rigorous testing, and restrictive measures over GE products, including banning GE products of questionable safety.

In Africa, a group of nations led by Ethiopia is developing draft legislation that would make it illegal to export GE foods or crops to their countries without prior country approval, according to an article in Nature magazine 5 August 2000. This prior consent law would force GE exporters to carry out human safety, environmental, and socioeconomic studies. This initiative has drawn opposition from biotechnology corporations and grain-exporting nations, led by the US, who consider so-called Biosafety Protocols a restraint of trade.

Now a concerted and well-coordinated effort is being made across Africa to gain entry for GMOs. In the face of tight regulations, organisations that promote biotechnology are looking for ways to co-opt the concept of biosafety for their own ends and are calling for “harmonising” of biosafety regulations across Africa and the South.

Reading between the lines, it is clear that they are really seeking a watering down of the rules. However, countries in the former for African Unity (now the African Union), are concerned that the Cartagena Protocolon Biosafety does not go far enough in protecting their biodiversity and agriculture interests, and have written the much stronger Africa Model Law on Biosafety .

Biotechnology and sustainability

Unlike in the European Union, there is no absolute rejection of GMOs in most African countries but rather an attempt to tread a fine path between this new powerful system and the status quo. This is understandable because of the myth of hunger being an epidemic in Africa. Most nations are careful not to throw away an opportunity to solve the hunger problem once and for all, but they would at the same time like to protect their environment and food safety. So they are proceeding carefully and ethically.

You hear a lot of scientists and policy makers making statements such as this: “For the benefit of humankind, we must end the squabbling over biotechnology and allow objectivity to prevail. Its ability to feed the hungry, heal the sick and make life better for billions of people is too great to lose to fear and confusion.”

But despite the tantalising picture of what biotechnology will do for the starving millions in Africa and other parts of the third world, there is growing awareness that genetic engineering is a central means by which global capitalism is consolidating its control over our food and health care. Biotechnology has helped drive unprecedented corporate concentration in both agribusiness and the pharmaceutical centres. Many of these corporate entities, particularly the agribusiness giants, think Africa lacks the technological expertise to meet her food requirements and so are doing everything possible to lure governments to adopt the GE technology as a panacea to end hunger as well as stimulating economic prosperity.

GE crops however promote monoculture. In Africa and other developing countries, farmers successfully control pests by encouraging biodiversity in their fields and encouraging beneficial insects and crops. The Food and Agriculture Organisation points out that more plant diversity has been lost to industrial agriculture than to any other cause. GE crops will increase that problem.

Scientists have shown that reductions in biodiversity have led to the evolution of aggressive pests and diseases which are more difficult to control than those from which they have been derived (RA Ennos, The influence of agriculture on genetic biodiversity, BCPC, 1997.)

Millions of farmers in developing countries rely on farm-saved seeds for their crops: but once they begin to buy GE seeds they will be dependent on future purchases. Monsanto prohibits seed-saving (Monsanto Roundup Ready – Gene Agreement for Roundup Ready Soybeans, 1996).

The fact that such a technology is largely in the hands of the private sector in the north can lead to biases in the type of research that is being done. It is only logical that a large company would tend to aim at large world-wide markets for their products. Such products might not necessarily be appropriate for small farmers in developing countries, who tend to work in highly variable and vulnerable ecosystems and need seeds that are location specific.

In that sense, biotechnology might undermine food security in Africa rather than secure it. Indeed if the biotech corporations want to feed the hungry they should instead encourage sustainable land reform that puts farmers back onto the land and push for wealth redistribution that allows the poor to buy food of their choice.