Otokunor’s Lens: GMO’s; The Fears, Facts, Politics, Economics And The Future—Part II

Peter Boamah Otokunor

Continued from part I……..

HUMAN HEALTH AND GMO's

Opposition to GMOs claim that there is a potential that allergy-producing genes will be inserted into unrelated foodstuffs. Since GM foods are not labelled, a person could suffer a potentially fatal allergic reaction, e.g., an allergenic Brazil nut gene was transferred to a soybean variety, but the resultant modified crop was never released to the public.

Un approved GM products may inadvertently enter the human food supply as evidenced by the settlement earlier this month between Syngenta and the U.S. government over the accidental sale of unapproved GM (Bt10) corn seed to farmers. If the GMO regime of a country is not well regulated, there are possibilities that unscrupulous scientist may produce GM crops with proteins that may harmful to the human health. For example, It is alleged that traces of gluterin, a protein often used in cosmetics, perfumes and pomades have been found in some GM foods in some countries. So like any other scientific invention, lack of proper regulations can lead to negative implication of human health.

On the other hand, research has shown that Food from GMOs is digested in the body the same as food from non-GM crops. Hundreds of studies have and continue to demonstrate that GMOs do not present any health risk; they do not cause new allergies or cancers, infertility, Attention Deficit/HypersctivityDisorder or any other diseases. In the years that farmers have grown crops from GM seeds (since around 1994), there has not been a single documented instance of harm to human health resulting from genetic modifications, including new allergic reactions.

Biotech crops currently available on the market are the same from a compositional and nutritional standpoint as their non-GM counterparts, for example, GM corn is the same as non-GM corn. Tests have shown with confirmation by the US Food and Drug Administration review that GMOs are nutritionally the same as non-GM crops, including the same levels of key nutrients like amino acids, proteins, fibre, minerals and vitamins.

There are rather several potential benefits to human health and wellbeing. Genetic engineering could be used to remove genes associated with allergies, e.g., the blocking of the gene that produces the allergenic protein in peanuts.

The insertion of genes into crops such as rice and wheat can enhance their nutritional value, e.g., Golden Rice is modified to contain Vitamin A and pineapple have also been modified to contain lycopene, which helps prevent lung and prostate cancer.

Genetic modification could be used to produce healthier foods, e.g., by eliminating trans-fats or caffeine.

Genetic engineering could be used to develop pharmaceuticals and vaccines in plants called “pharma crops." This can decrease the risk of adverse reactions and enable faster vaccination of large populations. For example, Last year, the California Rice Commission advised the state Food and Agriculture Department to allow Ventria Bioscience of Sacramento to grow 50 hectares of GM rice near San Diego. Ventria planned to grow two types of rice modified with synthetic human genes-one to make human lactoferrin to treat anemia and the second to produce lysozyme to treat diarrhea (Dalton, Rex: "California Edges towards Farming Drug-producing Rice," Nature 428: 591, 2004)

But, the California Food and Agriculture Department denied Ventria's request after rice growers expressed concern that international customers would refuse their rice out of fear of contamination.

INB Biotechnologies (Philadelphia) is developing a nontoxic anthrax vaccine through the transgenic modification of petunias; which causes the plant to manufacture new proteins, which when eaten prompt the development of anti-anthrax antibodies. So, instead of "eat your peas," the imperative will be to "eat your petunias"

THE POLITICS OF GMOs

Opposition to GMOs and science in general across the world has hitherto been a matter of political interest,usually led by corporate, religious and political actors. Journalist Marc Gunther has highlighted the conspiratorial narrative about GMO technology favoured by some corporate supported anti-GMO activists. Marc Gunther has recounted the extent to which corporate and political sponsorship for anti-GMO activism has driven most of the campaigns across the world.

But come to think of it, the introduction of GMOs into any country has its own political and business implications. Those supplying fertilizers to government, suppliers of pesticides, weedicides and insecticides will be taken out of business.

Political actors who may be hunting for avenues to make some political capital, may take advantage of such issues and join the protest without necessarily pointing out cogent reasons for their opposition.

Some countries, as well as some counties and communities across the world have banned some specific GMO food crops. These bans were purely based on the fact that those crops were not well researched or were not approved by their regulatory agencies.For example, Luxembourg and Portugal banned Novartis Bt maize. Whiles, Greece and France bannedAgrEvo HR rapeseed.

Other religious nations have completely banned the commercialisation of GMO food crops too, but surprisingly, none of them did it because of some factual, scientific or practically experienced health reason.For example: Algeria and some Several protestant regional church organisations in Germany namely; Hannover, Hessen und Nassau, Sachsen, Protestanic Church of Westfalen, Protestanic Church in Berlin-Brandenburg, Church Province of Sachsenwho have banned GE crops from their land:

THE ECONOMICS OF GMO's

Farmers choose seeds based on what is best for their farms, market demand and local growing environments. Farmers select GMOs to reduce yield loss, postharvest losses, crop damage from weeds, diseases, and insects, as well as from extreme weather conditions, such as drought.

Genetically engineered pest and disease resistance could also reduce the need for pesticides and other chemicals, thereby decreasing the environmental load and farmer exposure to toxins. It may also reduce the cost of production and enhance farmers' profit margins.

The potential for longer shelf life of fruits and vegetables in GMOs, also has attendant positive effects on reducing postharvest losses through the decrease of wastage associated with transportation and storage.

Farmers choose to use GMOs to reduce the impact of agriculture on their environment and their costs by applying pesticides in more targeted ways, for example. Farmers have also used GMOs to save a crop such as pawpaw or papaya in Hawaii after it was threatened by a disease.

Corn seeds that require less nitrogen have been produced on the US market. Nitrogen fertilizer is one of the most expensive cost elements to any grain farmer, yet can same have negative environmental impacts.

Farmers around the world have chosen to use GMOs because of the benefits to their businesses and their local communities. Millions of farmers in 28 countries grew a record 170.3 million hectares (420 million acres) of GM crops in 2012 alone.

Improved productivity could result in more food from less land and decrease the over reliance on the cultivation of marginal land. This may also help in the forest, land and vegetation conservation efforts by countries and to a larger extent contribute global efforts against global warming.

THE GHANA CASE

As recent as last two years, the Crop Research Institute of the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) produced a new breed of maize called 'Etubi' in addition to the 'abelehe' maize, 'dobidi' breed among others. In the livestock sub sector the CSIR has been able to produce a new high performing cow breed called the 'Arikant' and two different types high performing broilers namely 'aribro' and 'bosbek'. The unlimited list of GM breeds of crops produced by the CSIR also includes the 'Gbewa' rice and 'obantanpa' maize.

All these breeds have been successfully cultivated across the country and has proven to be high yielding and wholesome for consumption.

Currently, almost all the public universities in Ghana have biotechnology departments, where researches are conducted into GMO's.

For example, at the College of Agriculture and Consumer Science in the University of Ghana, there is a biotechnology department and an institute established solely to train plant breeders. It is called the West African Institute of Crop Improvement (WACCI).

The Animal Science Department also has a new fully equipped biotechnology laboratory and are conducting various researches into gene separation, DNA cloning, DNA fingerprinting and so on. New crop breeds produced by some of these scientists are grown and most often find their way onto the markets.

It should however be noted, that genetic engineering can also be used for negative purposes if not strictly regulated by a legislative and a technical framework. Dangerous or harmful DNA strands can be extracted and inserted into commercial food crops and that may have health implication on consumers, if the regime is not regulated.

Every year scientist and breeders in the Colleges of Agriculture in Ghana, produce new breeds of crops and animals which are often produced for the market. Who is monitoring? Who is regulating? How do we protect the health interest of the consumer? Who is protecting the environment from harmful effects of these GMOs if any?

Even though it is yet to be reported, that any of the already commercial GMO's produced in Ghana are harmful to human health or having negative environmental impact, the regime has gone unregulated for a long time, thereby making it very dangerous and risky for the nation.

I believe we need to commend government for her intention to regulate the production of GMO's and other genetically modified foods by instituting a regulatory framework in the form of a Plant Breeders Bill, 2013.

The Plant Breeders bill laid in Parliament on the 28th day of May, 2013, which among other things seeks to provide for the grant and protection of plant breeder rights, also has regulatory elements that seek to protect the consumer from unwholesome inventions. New breeds will go through rigorous investigations before its registration, to ascertain its novelty and wholesomeness.

This bill has generated so much uproar in Ghana, from mainly some political actors including the CPP, who have since tried to court the support of unsuspecting farmers and consumers. Having read the Plant Breeders Bill - 2013 back to back, I have been left confused by the call and claim of the protesters.

The advent of GMO's have hitherto,been resisted especially from religious grouping and socio-political societies. But, it is important to at this point to examine the grounds for the resistance. Is it the moral implication for the production of GMO's? Or is it the medical implications of the GMO? Or perhaps, is it the religious implications of producing and using GMO's?

Protesters have claimed among other things, that the plant breeders bill seeks to introduce GMO into Ghana, but that is not true, because GMOs already exist on the Ghanaian market long before the preparation of the Plant Breeders bill. The plant breeders' bill rather seeks to provide some form of a regulatory framework for the plant breeding industry.

Perhaps, a little clarification from those engaged in the campaign against the passing of the plant breeders Act, will help refine the debate to enhance the efficient formulation of a policy to regulate plant breeding in Ghana.

The question then becomes, what technology is truly “appropriate” for agriculture? There is no simple answer to this question.

Instead of focusing on how a seed variety was developed, we need to frame discussions about agriculture in the context of environmental, economic, and social impacts; the three pillars of sustainability.

I suggest that, we ask what most enhances local food security and can provide safe, abundant, and nutritious food to consumers. We must ask if rural communities can thrive and if farmers can make a profit. We must be sure that consumers can afford food. And finally we must minimize environmental degradation. This includes conserving land and water, enhancing farm biodiversity and soil fertility, reducing erosion, and minimizing harmful inputs. The most appropriate technology for addressing a particular agricultural problem depends on the context.

THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE AND GMO's

There are key researches and new seed development being conducted by various researchers across the world, Ghana is no exception. Companies, academic researchers and government scientists are investing on new GMOs in key areas. These emerging developments across the world present expanded potential for GMOs.

Other regulatory agencies like the Food and Drugs Authority must be strengthened and equipped in the regulatory exercise of GM foods. That perhaps is what has not been sufficiently highlighted in the Plant Breeders Bill, but rightly so because the bill is purposed to protect the right of the breeder.

Inthe not too distant future, I would want to see another bill in parliament ongenetic engineering in both crops and livestock. A bill, that seeks to regulate the research, commercial production and marketing of GMO's.

It simple, we either admit the fact that GMO's are here with us and regulate its use or get consumed by it.

Prepared By:
Peter Boamah Otokunor
Economic Policy Analyst and a trained Agriculturist

[email protected]