Box 3.

8 (continued)
Fact and fiction in the biotechnology debate in South Africa
FICTION

FACT

Terminator gene technology

which causes crops to
produce sterile seedswill
force small farmers to continue
buying seed from multinationals rather than planting seeds
that they produce themselves.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and one commercial

company have patented so-called terminator technology. But the technology has not yet been perfected. Nor
has it been used anywhereand thanks to public pressure, may never be.

GM foods are inherently allergenic or harmful.

There is no evidence that GM foods in general are any

different from normal foods in terms of toxicity or allergenic potential. Many of the genes used to modify plants
occur naturally in plants or in the viruses or micro-organisms that infect them or are associated with themso
humans have already been exposed to them. One exception, however, is transgenic Rowett potatoes, which are
believed to be toxic in some cases.

Note: Information is as of June 2002.

Source: Economic Commission for Africa from official sources.

Some of the concerns about the potential threat posed by GMOs to human health have
also been raised for animal healthconcerns much publicized in the North, particularly in
Europe. Since livestock and poultry consume large amounts of GM corn and soybeans,
some livestock producers have raised the prospect of antibiotic resistance. If GMOs lead
to a build-up of antibiotic resistance, commonly used antibiotics might become ineffective,
increasing the cost of maintaining animal health. Concerns have also been expressed about
the risk that antibiotic resistance could be passed on to people who consume livestock products. No evidence has emerged to show that consumption of GM feeds has affected animal health. But such feeds have not been around long enough to carry out effective feeding
trials, so it would be premature to conclude that the issue has been definitely resolved
(Abelson and Hines 1999).

Degrade the environment?

Probably the most controversial issues surrounding biotechnology relate to the long-term
impact on the environment. The key issues:

Whether GM crops lead to genetic uniformity and, as a result, vulnerability to new

matching strains of pathogens.
Whether herbicide-resistant crops reduce agro-biodiversity.
Whether cultivation of herbicide-resistant plants will result in super weeds because
Realizing the Promise of Green Biotechnology for the Poor

103

Probably the
most controversial
issues surrounding
biotechnology relate
to the long-term impact
on the environment

gene flow (exchange of genetic information between crops and its spread to weedy relatives growing nearby) is increased.
Whether Bt crop hybrids destroy non-target insects, as Bt corn was thought to do to
monarch butterflies (Losey, Rayor, and Carter 1999).

Only extensive, well-designed, and well-monitored field tests will provide conclusive
answers to these questions. But the evidence so far is that the risk of environmental degradation is minimal (McGloughlin 1999). More than 4,000 field tests of GM crops have been
performed at 18,000 sites throughout the United States over the past 15 years for efficacy,
performance, and suitability for release into the environment (USDA/ERS 1999b). These
and thousands of similar field tests performed in other countries have produced no conclusive evidence of danger to the environment.
Nor has biotechnology increased the vulnerability of germ plasm to homogeneous strains
of pathogens or led to genetic erosion. For example, more than 1,000 Roundup Ready varieties of soybean are cultivated in the United States alone (USDA/ERS 1999a, b). But more
impact assessment studies are needed to expand the empirical evidence, answer unanswered
questions, and put these risks and benefits of GM crops and foods into better perspective.

Reduce Africas comparative advantage in tropical crops?

With biotechnology, it will become possible to produce, in the laboratory or in temperate
zones, crops that have been grown exclusively in the tropics. This prospect gives rise to concerns that the resultant competitive edge could drive a number of tropical products off the
market. The common example is laboratory production of vanilla aroma, which could
threaten the livelihoods of tens of thousands of smallholders in Madagascar, Uganda, and
other African countries.
GM cacao seed varieties, which could raise yields and lower prices, could dislodge
smallholder production of cocoa, through plantation-scale farming in the newly industrialized economies of Asia. A comparable outcome might occur for vegetable oils. And such
countries as Mauritius, which depends on sugarcane for a significant share of its export
earnings, could find themselves hard-pressed if industrially manufactured low-calorie
sweetener or similar substances supplant sugarcane.

Encourage biopiracy?
One area of concern to Africa is the granting of intellectual property rights on biotechnological inventions. Until recently such rights were granted primarily for mechanical inventions. With the advent of biotechnologyparticularly the transfer of genes between
unrelated species of plants, animals, and micro-organismspatents have been applied for
and granted not only for the process to isolate and characterize genes but also for the genes
themselves. There is serious concern that this appropriation will block access to materials
for research in developing countries, by public sector institutions, and for downstream product development (Svastad 1999).
Gene patenting is likely to lead to concentrated ownership of crop seed production
capacity, often through what is called biopiracythe unauthorized or uncompensated
104

Harnessing Technologies for Sustainable Development

Table 3.4
National legislation and grass-roots initiatives on biodiversity and resource
sharing in selected African countries
Cameroon

Has broad provisions regulating access to genetic resources.

Issues dealt with in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (benefit

sharing, incentive measures, local involvement in resource
management) included in the forestry law and the 1996 Framework
Law on Environmental Management.

Ethiopia

Does not permit the export of any indigenous germ plasm for

Does not permit the import of GM products, nor GM

commercial development.
crops or experiments.

Has drafted legislation on community rights, farmers rights,

Gene patenting is likely

to lead to concentrated
ownership of crop seed
production capacity

and access to biological resources.

Kenya

Farmers groups and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) have led calls to control GM imports, reject the
patenting of life forms, and assert the importance of
collective ownership of genetic resources and associated
innovations.

Malawi

Namibia

Is drafting policy on access to genetic resources and

benefit sharing.
Has officially rejected GM imports, trials of GM crops,
and patenting of living materials. Returned South African
maize intended for animal feed because it had been
genetically modified.

South Africa

Conducted first GM field trial in 1990, allowed first

commercial release of GM varieties in 1997, and began
commercial planting of Bt cotton and maize in 1998.

NGOs have formed a coalition to monitor and challenge

these developments and inform the public. A flourishing
coalition of trade unions, political parties, NGOs,
consumer bodies, and farmers groups is demanding a
five-year freeze on the use and release of GM crops.

Uganda

Has rejected patents on living materials, under a policy

An NGO forum on biodiversity, with some regional

similar to Namibias.
representation, works to promote and protect biological
and cultural diversity.

There have been calls to tighten legislation on GMOs,

again backed strongly by farmers groups, and to assert
the importance of collective ownership of genetic resources
and associated innovations.
(Table continues on next page)

Realizing the Promise of Green Biotechnology for the Poor

105

Table 3.4 (continued)

National legislation and grass-roots initiatives on biodiversity and resource
sharing in selected African countries
Zimbabwe

Has no legislation yet on patents.

Scientific and consumer groups are calling for tighter

legislation on imports of GM seeds, plants, and food and
for a freeze on such imports until the benefits and risks
have been scientifically evaluated.

The Communal Areas Management Programme for

Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is investigating the threat
of patents on indigenous knowledge of medicinal herbs, with
the aim of creating a system to identify properties that
belong to Zimbabwe.

Source: Wynberg 2000.

gathering for commercial advantage of developing countries biological resources. Local

farmers, the main custodians of plant genetic resources, claim that they have not been compensated for the flow of genetic resources to industrial countries. They argue that the results
of their past, present, and future efforts to conserve and improve genetic resourcestraditional knowledge and landraces (collections of different varieties of the same crop species)
are equally entitled to protection. They claim farmers rights for their informal innovations.
The two conceptsintellectual property rights and farmers rightsare often in conflict. The challenge is to devise regulations that would turn biopiracy into bioprospectingto find the middle ground in which the financial and scientific resources of
biotechnology companies are exploited to the benefit not only of their shareholders but also
of the communities in which these companies are prospecting (Nuffield Foundation 1999;
Wynberg 2000). Several countries in Africa have taken initiatives to protect access to
genetic resources and manage biodiversity.
As GM crops are introduced into African countries, both benefits and costs are likely
to emerge (table 3.5). Given the importance of agriculture for the poor and the potential
of the biotechnology revolution to reduce poverty, it is clear that Africa cannot let this technology pass the continent by. But biotechnology may also pose risksof deepening poverty,
environmental degradation, and threats to human and animal health. So, countries have to
carefully understand the conditions under which biotechnology would be pro-poor and
develop strategies to increase its potential benefits for the poor.

Strategic interventions required to make

biotechnology pro-poor
No new technology is automatically disseminated widely, especially to poor social groups.
Making the promise of biotechnology a reality and ensuring that it has a significant effect
on rural poverty will require the strategic interventions discussed here. And it will depend
106

Harnessing Technologies for Sustainable Development

Table 3.5
A framework for weighing the adoption of biotechnology by African countries

Strengths

Weaknesses

Rich in biodiversity

Low investment in public sector agricultural

Growing scientific knowledge of

biotechnology
Local field ecosystems for product
development
Strong partnerships between national

research
Weak scientific expertise for tracking
and mapping global trends in
biotechnology
Weak regional capacity for participating

agricultural research centres and the

effectively in the international debate on

Consultative Group on International

protocols for biosafety, technology

Agricultural Research

transfer, licensing, and similar issues

Intellectual
property rights and
farmers rights are
often

Inadequate public participation in the

biotechnology debate

Potential benefits

Potential threats

Higher crop yields

New allergens

Higher incomes

Antibiotic resistance

Lower food aid dependency

New viruses

Less use of chemicals (pesticides,

New weeds

herbicides)
Less toxic herbicide runoff to surface
water and groundwater
Less exposure of farmers to chemicals
Lower farm input costs
Higher nutritional quality of foods
Reduced pre- and post-harvest losses

Effects of terminator genepreventing

reproduction of seed, increasing input costs
Monopoly on biotechnology research by a
few powerful private firms
Lack of scientific and financial support for
GM crop research from countries
prohibiting such technology

Longer storage life for foods

Trade ban on GM export products

Minimal exploitation of forests, grasslands,

Aggravation of the prosperity gap between

marginal lands, and swamplands for

food crops
Preservation of biodiversity
Broader range of crops suited for marginal
areas and consumed by poor people in

North and South

Exploitation of natural genetic resources
without appropriate compensation
Unresolved issues relating to intellectual
property rights and farmers rights

tropical and semi-tropical areas (sorghum,

cassava, pearl millet)

Source: Ongaro 2001.

Realizing the Promise of Green Biotechnology for the Poor

107

on the ability to put in place the institutions for generating, delivering, adopting, and diffusing biotechnology innovations favourable to poverty reduction (Chrispeels 2000). This
joined up thinking about biotechnology and economic development has been coined
biopolicy (Juma 2000b). Biopolicy goals appropriate for Africa are shown in figure 3.2
and discussed in detail in the following sections.
The future prosperity of rural Africa depends on political stability, a sound macroeconomic environment, and sustained growth in agricultural production. This requires attention by policy-makers to fostering the right institutional, infrastructural, and financial
investment for rural growth. It also requires reducing the incidence of poverty and malnutrition, both as a primary objective of policy and as a necessary instrument for maintaining
the stability needed for sustained growth.
A strategy to meet food production and development goals must include access to productive assets (such as land), modern inputs (such as improved crop varieties), and credit,
technical assistance, and improved farm management practices. And efforts to enhance
farmers access to modern inputs must recognize womens role in farming and marketing
and design programmes accordingly.
In the context of rapid urbanization, the importance of investments in rural infrastructure cannot be overstated. Even without rapid urbanization, such investments are
needed to support rural and agricultural development. Better rural infrastructure improves
access to export markets, modern production inputs, and consumer goods. It also reduces
marketing costs, promotes market exchange within and between countries, and increases
efficiency in production and marketing.
Although essential, rural infrastructure is not enough to ensure rapid increases in food
production in Africa. Yield-enhancing technology is the most promising avenue to sustainable agricultural production. Future growth in food production must come primarily
from higher yields per unit of land rather than from crop area expansion. Higher yields on
land with high production potential will reduce the pressure on fragile land and (with better definition and distribution of land ownership and user rights) reduce deforestation
and desertification.
Conventional plant breeding and GM crop biotechnology have already made great
progress in developing plants that are tolerant or resistant to pests and in controlling pests
biologically, reducing the need for chemical pesticides. Accelerated research could further
reduce the dependence on pesticides. Moreover, by increasing the iron or vitamin A content of food or making other nutritional improvements, biotechnology could address the
serious nutritional problems among the poor in Africa. And by raising productivity, it could
bring higher incomes for small farmers and lower food pricesimproving rural welfare.
Those higher incomes and lower food prices are essential for the poor.

108

Harnessing Technologies for Sustainable Development