|
PUTTING GM TECHNOLOGY
IN CONTEXT
As
the global debate over the use of genetically modified crops grinds
on, it seems increasingly clear that much of the argument is about
context. Anti-biotech campaigners in food-secure, developed countries
see no reason to take the risks involved in biotechnology in order
to make food more abundant. For the billion or so chronically hungry
individuals of developing countries, the issue is far from clear-cut.
Consider a
visit I recently made to a family farm in Nampula Province of Mozambique.
I had come to look at a localised epidemic of cassava brown streak
disease - which makes the plant's leaves turn yellow and splotchy,
and destroys its edible roots - and was traveling with several agricultural
scientists from a nearby research station.
We were surveying
the cassava crop, trying to assess the extent of the disease, and
its effects on crop harvests. At the same time, we were trying to
gauge whether we could offer farmers something that was both useful
in their fields and resistant to the disease. Whereas another viral
disease of the crop, cassava mosaic disease, has been extensively
studied by breeders, pathologists, and molecular biologists, cassava
brown streak is much less well understood.
We finished
the day in front of a thatched hut, talking with four or five women
farmers. A quick look around was all one needed to realise the quiet
drama being lived there. Three of the children in that home were
obviously malnourished, with distended bellies, red hair, and the
slow-motion movements that are common to the chronically underfed.
The youngest child of perhaps two years lay on a rotted mat spread
on the bare ground, trying to sleep. Around him the women cheerfully
responded to our questions as we tried to piece together a better
understanding of how they grow their crops, which varieties they
prefer, and why.
Most of the
cassava plants around the house had been attacked by brown streak
disease. No one knew why there had been this sudden outbreak, but
local agriculturalists understood what it meant: a very real possibility
of famine. The sandy soils of that remote part of Africa cannot
produce maize or other crops reliably - they are too susceptible
to drought and too devoid of nutrients.
Take away the
cassava, and these farmers have nothing to fall back on: no alternative
employment, no social security check, no community food pantry.
In that part of Africa, as in many rural areas of the developing
world, life is governed by the annual harvest. When harvests fail,
people die.
At my feet,
I could see that the few maize plants growing around the house were
being attacked by Striga, a parasitic weed found throughout Africa
that can reduce harvests to nothing. I thought about the biotech
research that the Rockefeller Foundation had funded to find a solution
to Striga. The cowpea crop growing at the base of the maize plants
was infested with pod borers. I thought about the team of researchers
we had recently funded to transform cowpea with an insect-resistant
Bt gene (a naturally-occurring gene that has already been engineered
into maize and cotton, significantly raising yields in many developing
countries). Then I thought about what those products could mean
to these farmers.
We said our
goodbyes and thanked the women for their time and for sharing their
knowledge with us. It was valuable knowledge, the kind you can often
only get from women farmers, who seem to fully understand the intricacies
of the crop varieties they grow.
The fact is
that, conventional plant breeding has failed to develop Striga-resistant
maize or insect-resistant cowpeas. Conventional breeding is similarly
ill-equipped to develop drought-tolerant maize and rice, insect-resistant
maize, or weevil-resistant banana.
Last year,
in the United States alone, the production of eight biotech crop
varieties reduced farmers' costs by $1.2 billion and reduced pesticide
use by over 100 million kilograms. Yet the people who are in greatest
need of such benefits are not US farmers, but those who depend for
their immediate survival on their own harvest.
In Africa alone,
194 million people are chronically undernourished, 40 million children
are severely underweight, 50 million people suffer from vitamin
A deficiency, and 65 per cent of women of childbearing age are anaemic.
For that farming community in Nampula, and millions like them around
the developing world, biotechnology could literally change everything.
We don't yet
know the genetics of resistance to brown streak disease in cassava.
Researchers in the region aren't even sure which varieties are good
sources of resistance. Once that's known, conventional breeding
methods might take five years to transfer a resistance trait from
breeding lines to cassava varieties that will grow well in Nampula.
But I'd bet
that somewhere in the world, perhaps somewhere in Africa, there
is a group of biotech researchers who could do it in just two years
by transferring a resistance gene directly into the local varieties
used by the women I met. Why the rush? I'm thinking about that youngest
child, and wondering if we can act before he reaches those critical,
developmental years.
The anti-biotech
campaigners will have none of it. "Throw this science away,"
they say, "it's dangerous and it's controlled by big business".
But faced with the plight of those families in Nampula, how can
we throw it away? Likewise, how can such promising technical solutions
remain locked up by the big biotech companies? Surely, there are
ways around these barriers.
To make responsible
decisions regarding the use of biotechnology, we have to consider
the contexts. For the comfortable and well off, struggling with
our waistlines, rationalising our fears might require putting ourselves
in someone else's sandals. But we owe it to the poor farmers of
this world to make use of biotechnology to develop the best crops
that they can grow.
We, the well-nourished
people of the world, can probably get by without pushing the biotech
envelope. But so far, no one has found an insect-resistant cowpea
or a Striga-resistant maize plant. And the cassava brown streak
problem in Mozambique rages on. If solutions to these problems are
to be found, we will need to use biotechnology. And if we don't
make use of this opportunity to do it, we further compromise the
lives of some of the most vulnerable people on earth.
(c) SciDev.Net
2002
Note: This
item was posted on the SciDev.Net website 14th October 2002 www.scidev.net
Joseph
D. DeVries
Associate Director of Food Security
Rockefeller Foundation
Nairobi, KENYA
Email: info@rockfound.or.ke
|