The biotech/GM crops debate – Who wins?
The introduction of biotech in agriculture/genetically modified (GM) crops has sparked a loud global debate. The debate is about the safety, among others, of the technology and its impact on humans.
Advertisement
One of the basic concerns of those against biotech and GM crops is that, it is not good for humans. That of the pro is that it will help solve the problem of global food shortages.
As to which of the positions is true, the debate, sometimes very heated, rages unabated with each of the opposing sides holding on strongly to their position on biotech/GM crops.
According to International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAA), 2013 was the 18th successful commercialisation of biotech crops. Biotech crops were first commercialised in 1996. Hectarage of biotech crops increased every single year between 1996 and 2013 with 12 years of double-digit growth rates, reflecting the confidence and trust of millions of risk-averse farmers around the world in both developing and developed countries.
The ISAA also noted that biotech crops hectarage increased by more than 100-fold from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to over 175 million hectares in 2013 whiles the number of countries growing it and stacked traits also went up. Of the 27 countries which planted biotech crops in 2013, 19 were developing and eight were industrialised countries. Stacked traits occupied 47.1 per cent.
For the number of farmers growing biotech crops, in 2013, a record 18 million farmers, up 0.7 million from 2012, grew biotech crops – remarkably more than 90 per cent, or over 16.5 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries.
In Africa, it is reported that the continent continued to make progress with South Africa benefiting from biotech crops for more than a decade.
Both Burkina Faso and Sudan are also on record to have increased the Bt cotton hectarage by an impressive 50 per cent and 300 per cent respectively in 2013.
Seven other countries: Cameroun, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda, are said to have conducted field trials, the penultimate step prior to approval for commercialisation.
In its situational analysis of the global scenario on hunger and poverty, Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International stated that globally, 1.4 billion people are extremely poor with most being undernourished and unable to meet their daily energy requirements.
Many more are said to suffer from specific micronutrient deficiencies; three billion are said to be at risk of zinc deficiency, two billion are anaemic, two billion are iodine deficient and 200 million are deficient in vitamin A.
Both calorie and micronutrient deficiencies are responsible for the severe problems including mortality and susceptibility to infectious diseases, as well as impaired physical and cognitive development. The associated human suffering is tremendous and the economic cost is obviously huge.
On global food demand and supply, the report was emphatic that successes in crop breeding, coupled with one more irrigation and use of agrochemicals, have tripled cereal yields over the last 50 years in many parts of the world, especially Asia and Latin America, resulting in a Green Revolution. These productivity gains have outpaced population growth and helped to prevent widespread famines that had been predicted earlier.
In spite of this, however, it is reported that food demand will rise further in the future, mainly due to population and incomes growth and an increasing demand for meat and other animal products.
The Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) has projected that global food demand will increase at least by 70 to 100 per cent by 2050, adding that as the use of biofuels soars, food production will compete for scarce natural resources, such as arable land and water.
It is a fact on the ground that while arable land is still being expanded in some areas of the world, especially in Africa, soil degradation and urbanisation contribute to agricultural area losses elsewhere.
Beyond these regional shifts, total arable land can hardly be expanded further without causing serious environmental problems.
These arguments about the need for biotech/GM crops sound cogent and reasonable although the opposers are still not convinced.
Their stance may be understood because in all these, the scientists have not been able to convince the people beyond reasonable doubt that biotech/GM crops are not as harmful as it is being claimed.
In many of the debates conducted, it is clear that a large majority of those against the new technology are not scientists and, therefore, lack the scientific prowess to disproof the arguments in favour.
Advertisement
They, however, depend on common sense to argue their positions, thereby putting the proponents in a tight corner most of the times.
For instance, it is known that farmers are able to replant seeds of crops they harvest from their farms but with the GM, they will not be able to do so. In the end, they believe that once some companies have the right to release those seeds to the market, they will be forced to buy at prices beyond their reach.
They find that manipulative and, therefore, unacceptable and must not be condoned.
They also hold the view that if it is about fighting pests to increase yield, there are plants that could be used to solve that challenge. In the end, everything would be natural and not artificial.
Advertisement
They could also be right in saying that at the beginning of every new scientific process, there are strong arguments to back it but after many years, the same scientists come to disprove their earlier discovery, particularly when there are issues. To that extent, the opposers are of the view that biotech and GM crops may have the same problem in the near future and the same story or excuses would be told.
Passionate debate
According to Professor Walter Alhassan, a former director of the Centre for Scientific and Industrial research (CSIR) in Ghana, there is no need for any entrenched positions on the matter if the way forward is to be achieved.
Speaking at the launch of the book on biotech which is a compilation of articles on the experiences of biotech from African scientists in Accra, he said the debate on biotech and GM must be very dispassionate and devoid of the rancour that often characterised such debates.
To him, until such is done, the various arguments for or against will not be clear.
Advertisement
Way forward
The fact still remains that the world’s population will balloon and food production cannot meet the demand if drastic measures are not taken to ensure food sufficiency.
To do so, it is obvious the technology needs to be applied as one of the innovative means.
However, it is equally imperative for the scientists behind that innovation to ensure that they educate the masses regularly on their findings to enable them to be abreast of the events. Nothing should be hidden to create ambiguities.
For the opposing side, it will be necessary to argue based on facts to disprove the work of the scientists and not take entrenched positions.
Normally, what happens during the debates is that the opposers tend to make a lot of noise to prevent the scientists from making their point. This does not help because in the end, the majority of the people to whom information should be given on the way forward lose out.
From the way things stand, the scientists will have their way because they will have the backing of their governments and the opposers will have their say because their voices won’t go any far.
Writer’s email: cb.okine@yahoo.com