African Journal of Biotechnology
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 2 (11), pp. 394-416, October 2003 ISSN 1684-5315 © 2003 Academic Journals
Special Anniversary Review
Harmonizing the agricultural biotechnology debate for the benefit of
African farmers
Segenet Kelemu1*,
George Mahuku1, Martin Fregene1, Douglas Pachico1,
Nancy Johnson1, Lee Calvert1, Idupulapati Rao1,
Robin Buruchara2, Tilahun Amede3, Paul Kimani4,
Roger Kirkby2, Susan Kaaria2, Kwasi Ampofo5 1Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. 2CIAT,
c/o Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Kampala, Uganda. 3African
Highland Initiative (AHI), c/o CIAT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 4Department
of Crop Science, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences,
University of Nairobi, Kenya. 5Agricultural
Technology Development and Transfer Project, ISAR/CIAT/USAID, Kigali,
Rwanda. *Corresponding
author. Phone: (57-2) 4450-139. Fax: (57-2) 4450-073. E-mail: s.kelemu@cgiar.org. Accepted 24 October 2003 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The intense debate over agricultural biotechnology is at once fascinating, confusing and disappointing. It is complicated by issues of ethical, moral, socio-economic, political, philosophical and scientific import. Its vocal champions exaggerate their claims of biotechnology as saviour of the poor and hungry, while, equally loudly, its opponents declare it as the doomsday devil of agriculture. Sandwiched between these two camps is the rest of the public, either absorbed or indifferent. Biotechnology issues specific to the African public must include crop and animal productivity, food security, alleviation of poverty and gender equity, and must exclude political considerations. Food and its availability are basic human rights issues—for people without food, everything else is insignificant. Although we should discuss and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the agricultural biotechnology debate into food aid for Africa where millions are faced with life-or-death situations is irresponsible. Agricultural biotechnology promises the impoverished African a means to improve food security and reduce pressures on the environment, provided the perceived risks associated with the technology are addressed. This paper attempts to harmonize the debate, and to examine the potential benefits and risks that agricultural biotechnology brings to African farmers.
Key words: Agriculture, biotechnology, biotechnology debate, biotechnology and Africa, biotechnology issues, food security, poverty alleviation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
On average, about 73 million people—about three times Uganda’s current population—will be added to the world’s population every year between 2000 and 2020.That is, the world’s population will increase by 25% from 6000 million in 1995 to about 7500 million by 2020. About 97.5% of this increase is expected to occur in today’s developing world (Pardey and Wright, 2002), where three of every four people—900 million in all—live in rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihoods.
Agriculture is the single most important sector in the economies of most low-income countries, accounting for one-fourth to one-half of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the bulk of export earnings. About 75% of Africans depend solely on income from agriculture and agribusiness, which, in turn, constitutes 40% of the GDP of African nations (Machuka, 2003). Productive agriculture, with concomitant increases in incomes, is needed to raise food-purchasing power and to reduce poverty. Poor people’s links to the land are critical for sustainable development. The front line of any successful assault on poverty and environmental degradation must therefore have a focus on agriculture and rural development.
Africa’s current population is projected to rise to 1700 million by 2050 (Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch, 1999). Demand for imported food—mostly cereals and legumes—will increase from 50 to 70 million tons per year. If the current economic situation of Africa does not improve, food-deficit nations are unlikely to have the resources to purchase such a huge volume of food on a commercial basis. Several countries are already regular recipients of food aid. Even if food aid continues, it often misses the rural poor. To prevent future human catastrophes, African countries will have to develop and implement strategies for increasing agricultural productivity.
Agricultural productivity can be increased sustainably in numerous ways, such as using inorganic and organic fertilizers; improving disease, pest and weed control; practising soil and water conservation; and using improved plant varieties developed either traditionally or through biotechnology.
Biotechnology can be defined broadly to include technologies ranging from microbial fermentations to genomics (Persley and Doyle, 1999). Farmers and homemakers have been using some form of biotechnology for as long as they have been growing crops, baking breads, making cheese and preparing alcoholic drinks. These techniques, however, are not part of the biotechnology debate, which is fuelled instead by recent developments. Modern biotechnology has undergone, and is undergoing, a remarkable evolution, with numerous key discoveries being made, many of which have been subject of high-profile recognitions such as Nobel Prizes (Table 1).
Table 1. Key milestones in the development of biotechnology.
The following Nobel
Prizes were awarded in connection with advances in biotechnology: 11923, Physiology or Medicine,
to F. G. Banting and J. J. R. Macleod (both of the University of
Toronto, Canada) for the discovery of insulin. 21945, Physiology or Medicine,
to A. Fleming (University of London, UK), and E. B. Chain and H. W.
Florey (both of Oxford University, UK) for their discovery of
penicillin and its capacity to cure various infectious diseases. 31962, Physiology or Medicine,
to F. H. C. Crick (Institute of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK), J.
D. Watson (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA), and M. H. F. Wilkins
(University of London, UK) for their discoveries in the molecular
structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information
transfer in living organisms. 41968, Physiology or Medicine,
to R. W. Holley (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY), H. G. Khorana
(University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI), and M. W. Nirenberg (National
Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD) for their interpretation of the
genetic code and its role in protein synthesis. 51978, Physiology or Medicine,
to H. O. Smith and D. Nathans (both of the School of Medicine at the
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD), and W. Arber (Biozentrum der
Universität Basel, Switzerland) for their discovery of restriction
enzymes and their application to molecular genetics. 61980, Chemistry, to P. Berg
(Stanford University, Stanford, CA) for his work on the biochemistry
of nucleic acids and recombinant DNA; and to W. Gilbert (Biological
Laboratories, Cambridge, MA) and F. Sanger (MRC Laboratory of
Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK) for their work on nucleic acid
sequencing. The 1958 Nobel Prize in Chemistry had also been awarded to
F. Sanger for his work on protein structure, specifically that of
insulin. 71993, Chemistry, to K. B.
Mullis (La Jolla, CA) for his invention of the polymerase chain
reaction; and to M. Smith (University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada) for his contributions to the understanding of oligonucleotide-based,
site-directed mutagenesis.
Agricultural biotechnology encompasses a variety of laboratory methods. These include cell, tissue and embryo culture; clonal propagation of disease-free plants; identification of chromosome regions (quantitative trait loci, or QTLs) that carry important multigenic traits; gene identification and isolation; genetic engineering for traits such as pest and disease resistance, better adaptation to environmental stresses, greater nutritive value and reduced postharvest losses; and genetically engineered male sterility to facilitate hybrid seed production. Properly integrated into traditional farming systems, biotechnology applications could make a difference in improving food security in developing countries.
For many years, plant breeders have used conventional plant breeding methods to genetically modify plants, and to help speed natural selection and evolution by combining genes for resistance to biotic (diseases and pests) and abiotic (low soil fertility, drought and salinity) stress factors, crop yield, quality, seed colour and many other traits of agronomic importance.
Conventional methods of genetic modification differ from modern recombinant DNA technology in that the latter is faster and more precise in introducing specific genes of interest, which themselves can originate practically from any organism. A resulting new plant with a gene from another organism can subsequently serve as a parent to cross with another related plant in a conventional breeding technology. Recombinant DNA and conventional breeding technologies can therefore go hand in hand to solve some of the world’s crop production constraints. A major advantage of agricultural biotechnology is that it often generates strategies for genetic improvement that can be applied to many different crops, animals and beneficial organisms.
Previous reviews on biotechnology in Africa have highlighted its status (Johanson and Ives, 2001); constraints to consider when implementing strategies (Brink et al., 1998); examples of initial applications and potential for development (Ndiritu, 1999; Woodward et al., 1999); and important issues for African policy makers to consider when developing an agricultural biotechnology strategy for the continent (Ives and Wambugu, 2001). This review attempts to harmonize the agricultural biotechnology debate and to examine the potential benefits and risks that agricultural biotechnology brings to African farmers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As a continent, Africa has vast natural resources, ranging from precious metals and stones to plant genetic diversity. Over generations, Africa has contributed greatly to the world’s agriculture, including important crops such as coffee (origin Ethiopia), barley (Ethiopia), tropical forage grasses of the Brachiaria genus (eastern and central Africa), teff [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] (Ethiopia) and Madagascar periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don. Other significant contributions include:
· Supplying unique sources of resistance to diseases and pests of crops of African origin. · The alkaloids vinblastine and vincristine, which derive from the Madagascar periwinkle and form the basis of two anticancer drugs (Velban® and Oncovin®, respectively). Used to treat breast cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma, these drugs earn pharmaceutical companies an estimated income of more than US$100 million a year. · Teff, an ancient crop that traces back to about 3359 BC (Mengesha, 1965), not only provides more than two thirds of the Ethiopian diet, but recently, has also found its place as a health food product in USA. It has very high contents of iron, calcium, phosphorus, copper, aluminium, barium and thiamine (Mamo and Parsons, 1987; Mengesha, 1965).
Despite natural genetic wealth, many parts of Africa are crippled by poverty and chronic food shortages exacerbated by natural and man-made disasters. About 70% of the continent’s population lives in rural areas and depends largely on agriculture (UNECA, 2002). Most are small farmers with few or no resources and using very few agricultural inputs if any. Many grow low-yielding landrace varieties on nutrient depleted soils. Diseases, pests and weeds cause heavy yield losses. As a result, crop and livestock yields are far lower than they could be. For example, average cereal yields in Africa are half of those in the rest of the developing world (FAO 2001b; Ongaro, 1999), indicating the potential for improvement using existing conventional methods like plant breeding, soil-fertility management, and disease, pest, weed and other constraint management. Deforestation for agricultural expansion, firewood and building materials has further contributed to environmental degradation.
A major challenge for Africa is to feed its growing population. During the last two decades of the 20th century, the per capita food production in Africa declined (Machuka, 2003), because of dropping agricultural productivity and rapid population growth, which, in Kenya’s case, was almost 4%—one of the highest—during the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Decline in agricultural productivity was associated with several biophysical and socio-economic factors, including an inability to replenish declining soil fertility; use of poor quality seeds; drought; inability to control heavy yield losses to pests, diseases and weeds; limited access and participation in local, regional and international markets; lack of, or ineffectual, implementation of supportive policies to boost agricultural production; poor infrastructure; and, particularly today, immense healthcare problems.
HIV/AIDS is ravaging the continent, altering its demography, reducing farmer productivity, leaving children as orphans, and overwhelming the already desperate healthcare systems. According to the World Health Organization, Africa suffers the world’s highest rates of death from HIV/AIDS (81%), malaria (90%), and tuberculosis (about 23%) (WHO, 2001). Considering that about 70% of Africans depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, such death rates have a direct and negative impact on agriculture and food security.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) grimly projects that, by 2020, the agricultural labour force will have dropped anywhere between 12% and 26% in the 10 most-affected African nations: Botswana, Central African Republic, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Republic of South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe (FAO, 2001a). Vital indigenous knowledge on agriculture may also be evaporating as the rates of premature deaths increase with the continent’s several epidemics. The loss of labour not only directly affects agricultural production and food security, but it also alters cropping systems as farmers switch to alternative crops that demand less labour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Agricultural Biotechnology Debate: Issues And Their Implications For Africa | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Inconsistencies
The potential role of agricultural and medical biotechnology in improving the livelihoods of the poor as well as the rich has been and is being debated vigorously. A burgeoning gap exists between the fast-advancing modern tools of biotechnology and the general public’s understanding of these tools and the processes involving them. Unfortunately, both opponents and proponents of biotechnology have made the debate seem either black and white, missing the whole range of colours in between. The public debate, as reported by the press, is usually presented by highly vocal extremists with passionate views. Labels such as ‘Frankenstein food’ (referring to genetically modified crops) have been coined to scare the public. Others have dismissed probable disadvantages, expressing exaggerated and overly optimistic views of the potential of agricultural biotechnology to the point of insisting that biotechnology holds the key to eradicating hunger. But it is not that simple. We must steer a responsible path between the two extremes, examining the prospective benefits of agricultural biotechnology while recognizing its latent pitfalls. For African farmers, we must somehow harmonize the biotechnology debate and see how agricultural biotechnology can maximize potential benefits for them.
The current agricultural biotechnology debate is skewed towards concerns that do not necessarily include alleviation of hunger and poverty and increasing productivity—the major and daily concerns of African nations. We do not wish to imply that environmental, moral or ethical concerns are not of interest to Africans, nor suggest that agricultural biotechnology will, single-handedly, solve Africa’s problems by making Africans self-sufficient in food. Instead, we need to recognize that, because they depend heavily on agriculture, many African countries stand to benefit from technologies that can increase crop productivity, enhance nutritional quality, improve soil fertility and minimize forest destruction. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) concludes that agricultural biotechnology should be but one part of a comprehensive and sustainable strategy to solve Africa’s poverty problems (UNECA, 2002).
Regarding agricultural biotechnology, Europe has perhaps the most concerned public. The fourth Eurobarometer Survey revealed interesting insights into the public’s psyche. For example, it differentiates between different applications of biotechnology and does not summarily dismiss biotechnology as a whole. That is, while it opposes genetically modified (GM) foods, the public strongly supports biotechnology applications for medicine and the environment (Gaskell et al., 2000). With GM crops, Europeans are more concerned about perceived food safety rather than potential environmental impacts. In general, for biotechnologies with perceived high benefits, these benefits overrule the perceived risks associated with them, whereas those perceived as having few or modest benefits receive no support, even if they have few or no risks. In other words, the public is willing to take risks if they perceive substantial benefits. The European public has no shortage of food and, understandably, sees no reason for modifying the current method of food production in a way that suggests ‘meddling with nature’.
In November 2002, Europe introduced a law to label as ‘genetically modified’ food that has more than 0.9% of detectable GM ingredients. In addition, ‘accidental contamination’ of up to 0.5% is permitted without labelling, even for GM ingredients that have not yet been approved in Europe. GM crops for animal feed and animal feed containing GM-derived ingredients are required to be labelled as such, but meat and dairy products from animals feeding on GM crops do not have to be labelled. The debate over this law has already started, and the European Parliament is expected to approve the law during 2003.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have elicited little or no controversy include those used worldwide in healthcare products (e.g. insulin, hepatitis vaccine, medication for cardiovascular diseases and gene therapy) and industry (e.g. bioremediation, food additives and food processing). For example, the cloning and expression of sequences encoding the human growth hormone is considered a medical breakthrough. The hormone was initially available as minute extractions from human cadavers. The production of the hormone, using recombinant DNA technology, is an excellent example for which no other preferred or equivalent source exists and, thus, no controversy on the methodology used to produce the product. The same applies to various vaccines. Perhaps the general public has no sympathy or appetite for debates involving healthcare products?
In Africa, chronic food shortages, famines and malnutrition determine choices between life and death. Are these issues not as important as pharmaceutical drugs? Food is a basic need, and access to food is a basic human rights issue. If one does not have food, everything else becomes insignificant, as a Chinese proverb vividly puts it: ‘A person who has food has many problems; a person who has no food has only one’.
Discussing and debating environmental or ethical issues is hard with destitute people who have lost their dignity and their hope for life because they have nothing to eat. If we want to address biotechnology issues relevant to Africa, we must include crop and animal productivity, food security, alleviation of poverty and gender equity, and exclude political considerations. While we should debate and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the GMO debate into food aid in Africa when millions are faced with life-and-death situations is irresponsible. When people are reduced to eating grass, is it ethical to prevent them from consuming GM foods that are nevertheless being consumed by millions of people around the world? Who really would prefer to die rather than eat GM foods? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||