Source – IPP Media (Tanzania)
By Gerald Kitbau
Date – 16 June 2014
Website – www.ippmedia.com
The global report on GM crops released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech applications (ISAAA) this year has revealed that last year in 2013, the world marked the 18th consecutive year of commercial cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
What does it mean to “genetically engineer” an organism?
When scientists genetically engineer a plant or animal, they remove a gene from one organism (or a specific variety of an organism) and transfer that gene to a different organism (or different variety) using recombinant DNA methods.
The new gene becomes integrated into every cell of the organism and is inherited by the organism’s offspring. In most cases, the new gene produces a new protein, which then provides the organism with some useful trait.
Unfortunate, Tanzania has not yet started producing GM crops due to strictly liability clause. The strictly liability clause requires among other things, any scientist, person, agent or institution carrying out any activity in relation to GMOs be liable to whatever effect that may occur from his/her research.
The global report said in just two decades, the volume of land on which biotech crops are grown has increased from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 — the first year of commercial planting — to about 175 million hectares in 2013.
According to the director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications ISAAA AfriCentre , Margaret Karembu, in 2013, more than 18 million farmers in 27 countries across the world made independent choices to grow biotech crops.
Yet, despite these figures showing a technology on the upward trajectory in terms of adoption, the anti-GMO lobby has continued to hold its position that farmers shouldn’t grow biotech crops due to a myriad of excuses.
Karembu who is also the Chair of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB) Kenya Chapter, programming committee says it is important to note such excuses are perpetuated through the most advanced and efficient use of information and communication technologies.
“Contrary to widely held opinion that GM technology will only benefit multi-nationals and is meant for large-scale farmers, the latest trends reveal otherwise,” She said.
How then can this contradiction be explained? Is it okay for one segment of society to access the best technology available for their communication (or is it mis-communication?) but unacceptable to avail similar opportunities and choices to farmers to make farming more efficient?
Could such a large number of farmers be fooled for nearly two decades with a technology that is not delivering? Would the governments of these countries growing or approving use of biotech crops be so indifferent and reckless as to allow and support application of the technology in their territories?
Karembu says the first problem with the whole debate against biotech crops is differentiating between perception and reality. A German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche once said: “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
While I don’t subscribe to Nietzsche’s philosophical theories, this one statement could hold true in this context, she says.
Contrary to widely held opinion that GM technology will only benefit multi-nationals and is meant for large-scale farmers, the latest trends reveal otherwise.
At least 90 per cent of the 18 million farmers who grew biotech crops in 2013 were small-scale resource-poor farmers in developing countries. One of the findings in the ISAAA report, for instance, shows that national benefits to Bt cotton farmers in Burkina Faso were estimated at US$26 million, representing 67 per cent of total benefits with only US$12 million accruing to the technology developers.
Other documented benefits of biotech crops go beyond agricultural improvement to climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability. GM technology has demonstrated the power to provide a better environment and breed crops resilient to harsh climatic conditions such as drought.
For instance, in 2012 biotech crops alone contributed to a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 26.7 billion kilograms, which is equivalent to taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year. By reducing the amount of chemical sprays by more than half for a crop such as biotech cotton, GM technology is probably the only agricultural technology that can boast of making this kind of contribution to environmental conservation.
The second problem is overcoming vested interest. A look into the source of funding for anti-GM activities reveals that although they are often portrayed as grassroots movements, many are part of a much larger coalition of social activists, environmental NGOs and social-investment organisations backed by a reservoir of funding from special interest foundations.
Almost all anti-GM activists back and in turn receive support from, organic or so called ‘socially responsible’ investment industries, she says
Competition from cheaper and safer biotech products is seen as a threat, thus the use of anti-biotechnology rhetoric and support for activist groups to validate their products and grow their markets.
The third problem is a strong desire by some interest groups to romanticise poverty and hunger. Ironically, poverty and food insecurity provide booming businesses and a form of ‘tourism’ for several anti-GM lobbyists who know nothing about farming, especially in Africa.
While lobbyists spend three quarters of their time globe-trotting and peddling unsubstantiated claims against biotech foods, farmers — especially women — are breaking their backs weeding with their hands and scouting for pests in a merciless scorching sun.
Blocking novel technologies may mean an end to dependency on others for food and diminishing control and access to the continent’s natural resources and ‘free tourism’ disguised in numerous ‘monitoring and farming inspection’ trips.
Continuing to deny farmers the choice of proven, safe and efficient agri-biotechnologies would be equated to ‘protecting poverty’ and obstructing them from optimising chances of enhancing their social welfare as well.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present health or environmental risks.
In addition, no negative effects on human health have been shown as a result of consuming foods by the general population in countries where they have been approved.
Extensive and independently reviewed health studies — including long-term animal studies — conducted over the past 20 years using the same biotech crops have found no negative results and confirm the safety of biotech foods.
“Blocking novel technologies may mean an end to dependency on others for food and diminishing control and access to the continent’s natural resources and ‘free tourism’ disguised in numerous ‘monitoring and farming inspection’ trips, and, with the most efficient jet,” She says.
The few researchers who have made claims on negative effects refuse to share their data and research protocols for review with regulators or independent academic authorities.
When they have shared the data, food safety, health and regulatory agencies have rejected the findings as flawed and misleading.
For example, a study published in 2012 that indicated negative safety effects of GM maize was found to have questionable study design. It was retracted last year.
A study by the African Development Bank and the International Food Policy Research Institute in 2012 concluded that under ideal conditions, the use of GM crops grown by smallholder farmers could improve gross margins by 114 per cent, reduce pesticide costs by 60 to 90 per cent, and improve yields by 18 to 29 per cent. This could make a significant contribution in lifting farming communities out of abject poverty, subsistence farming and improve their health.
Considering these overwhelming progress and opportunities, regardless of the widely spread fears about GM crops, one thing remains certain: That biotech crops have already demonstrated a crucial contribution in fighting food insecurity and environmental degradation.
Coincidentally, in 2015, as the world leaders will meet to re-assess the success and challenges of meeting the Millennium Development Goals, biotech crops will also be marking 20 years of sustained commercial cultivation.
Genetically modified crops will have just turned 20 and in a humanly way, can therefore be considered as young adults, ready to help the global community address these three nagging challenges of poverty, hunger and environmental sustainability.
The National coordinator for OFAB Tanzania chapter, Philbert Nyinondi, early farmers selected the best looking plants and seeds and saved them to plant for the next year. The selection for features such as faster growth, higher yields, pest and disease resistance, larger seeds, or sweeter fruits has dramatically changed domesticated plant species compared to their wild relatives.
Plant breeding came into being when man learned that crop plants could be artificially mated or cross pollinated to be able to improve the characters of the plant. Desirable characteristics from different parent plants could be combined in the offspring.
Conventional plant breeding has been the method used to develop new varieties of crops for hundreds of years. However, conventional plant breeding can no longer sustain the global demand with the increasing population, decline in agricultural resources such as land and water. First, breeding can only be done between two plants that can sexually mate with each other. This limits the new traits that can be added to those that already exist in that species.
Second, when plants are crossed, any traits are transferred along with the trait of interest including traits with undesirable effects on yield potential.
With conventional plant breeding, there is little or no guarantee of obtaining any particular gene combination from the millions of crosses generated.
Undesirable genes can be transferred along with desirable genes or while one desirable gene is gained, another is lost because the genes of both parents are mixed together and re-assorted more or less randomly in the offspring.
Crop improvement through conventional breeding is less efficient, time consuming and can prove to be expensive. These problems can be overcome through genetic engineering. According to Philbert Nyinondi, GM applications that can benefit Tanzania include the following.
Climate change mitigation
Given the importance of agriculture for gross domestic product (GDP), employment, and livelihoods in Tanzania, the impacts of climate change on agriculture are likely to reverberate throughout the economy of the country. The adverse impacts of climate change in agriculture sectors include reduced crop yield due to drought and floods, and reduced water availability. Shifting of the seasonal rainfall, one of the predicted outcomes of climate change, may bring too much rain when it is not required, is predicted to damage plants. In addition, dramatically rising temperature trends, responsible for increased evapo-transpiration in the soil, may keep crops from maturing due to lack of enough moisture in the soil, and thus produce a shortage of food. Using GM technology it is now possible to transfer gene for drought, flood, heat or salt tolerant from any organism and insert it in crop of interest to confer tolerance. Such GMOs will bring stability in agriculture due to their ability to deal with environmental changes.
Crop yield improvement
Yield of many crops in Tanzania (cereals, root crops, pulses) are generally low, well below world average. Improving yield of these crops using conventional breeding methods has proven to be largely unsuccessful and time consuming. Furthermore, conventional crops have failed to produce high yields to feed the increasing world population. It is now possible to use GM technology to transfer genes for high-yielding trait and insert them in low yielding varieties to increase their yields and by so doing improving productivity.
Development of disease resistant crops
Many crops in Tanzania yield extremely low because of inherent effect of diseases. For example, cassava productivity in Tanzania is seriously affected by cassava mosaic disease (CMD- Figure 1a) and cassava brown streak disease (CBSD- Figure 1b). Estimated losses of between 35 and 70 million USD/year caused by cassava brown streak disease in Tanzania in 2005. Frequently farmers abandon their fields. Breeding for disease resistance using conventional breeding started in 1932 in Tanzania with less success. However, it is now possible to use genetic engineering to insert gene for resistance to CMD and CBSD into susceptible local cassava cultivars cofer resistance to the two diseases and enhance cassava productivity.
Production of pest resistant crops
Pest attack accounts for huge crop losses in Tanzania. Cotton and maize pests for example can cause up to 50 per cent crop losses. As a result, yield of cotton and maize in Tanzania are extremely low despite of high yield potential of these crops. Breeding for pest resistance using conventional methods have proven to be not very effective. It is now possible to use GM technology to introduce genes in crops to stop the pests from destroying the crop. The use of Bt-gene for example can enhance resistance to major pests such as stem borer in maize, bollworm in cotton and Maruca-pod borer in cowpeas.
Development of herbicide tolerant crops
Using GM technology, it is now possible to introduce genes in crops that can protect them from herbicide damage. This reduces production cost, promotes use of conservation agriculture and conserves the environment through reduced tillage.
Application of GMO technology in Bioremediation
Bioremediation can be defined as any process that uses microorganisms or their enzymes to return the environment altered by contaminants to its original condition and convert agricultural and industrial waste into useful products such as biogas, biofertilisers and biopestcides…
Application of GMO in medicine to produce safer and cheaper vaccines and therapeutics
GMOs have emerged as one of the mainstays of biomedical research since the 1980s. For example, GM animal models of human genetic diseases enabled researchers to test novel therapies and to explore the roles of candidate risk factors and modifiers of disease outcome. GM microbes, plants, and animals also revolutionized the production of complex pharmaceuticals by enabling the generation of safer and cheaper vaccines and therapeutics. Pharmaceutical products range from recombinant hepatitis B vaccine produced by GM baker’s yeast to injectable insulin (for diabetics) produced in GM Escherichia coli bacteria and to factor VIII.
Development of biofortified and high-value crops
Scientists have used genetic engineering to insert gene for various nutritional traits in crop plant to enhance a particular nutrients. Examples include cassava with enhanced Pro vitamin A, Golden rice with elevated pro Vitamin A, banana with enhanced Iron and Zinc and soya bean and