Posted on January, 28, 2019 at 09:00 am
ONE question that has taken long for it to be resolved and even now there are just signs rather than concrete measures except in a few countries, is when African countries shall adopt crop technology in a generalised manner.
To answer that question is it important to phrase it in like manner as Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin in 1902, in his tactical and strategic political tract, on 'who are the friends and enemies of the revolution,' that is, identifying foes of crop technology.
The key adversary isn't government as in more than one instance it came close to grasping the point but non-governmental activist groups, the global anti-GM NGOs.
The big problem is why NGOs have had such clout on African governments when it comes to adopting crop technology, obtain seeds cured of cops being harvested by fall armyworms instead of peasants as the seeds retain a high sugar content.
Such a situation can scarcely be corrected by hybrids as they are similar in that aspect of content, as design by nature favors sugar as it is likeable for insects and all sorts of pests, so its seed will be spread far and wide, unlike a rather tasteless variety, at least for those pests.
Similarly, why is the United States the country with the most direct and unfettered use of crop technology, while Europe has long dithered?
The latter issue links up with the previous issue, in the sense that while the US is in large measure a continent of NGOs, they singularly have no influence on crop technology legislation, in which case the power of NGOs does not result from their numbers but the sort of population (and politicians) they address.
The fact that anti-GM NGOs have literally no presence in the US political system but combating GM foods outside the US is based on the fact that US agriculture is comprehensively commercial, so populist appeals to the soil, native varieties do not work there. In that case NGOs are powerful or persuasive in Africa due to traditionalism, tribal agriculture.
When one talks of biodiversity, in global terms there is supposed number of major variants identifiable with continents or major countries, but in Africa the tribal landscape is a world in itself, a tribal planet where its seeds, plants, foods, their tastes and modes of preparation exist from time immemorial.
And since GM seeds must be purchased each year, a minor element of cost is added to what is basically a resistance against the hold or domination of a few seed companies in the world agro-produce market, an issue which makes sense to rural political leaders facing resistance to purchasing seeds, etc. The argument is sketchy but it has a wide audience.
This resistance has taken a new turn in East Africa where countries were broadly preparing for adoption of biotech cotton as local variants have poor quality levels and test to cost higher on account of inputs, etc.
Voices are now being raised that BT cotton is no aid to the textile sector but a trapdoor for unsafe food which was a lumpsum, to say the least.
Higher yield cotton and lint is the key to global changes in the garments industry for the whole of the past century, and industries in Rwanda and Kenya are geared to taking up BT cotton, a step that had already been communicated to sellers in the region. It also appeared to be tied to rising trade tensions.
This slant of the issue, which might not deter Kenya and Rwanda from adopting BT cotton but have a pivotal role in checking against taking that same course in Tanzania especially, is an illustration of the fact that NGOs prey on non-business agro-sector affinities.
It is another version of the 'alienation of commodities,' where they now lose their commodity character and become symbols of a national culture, or rather the variety of cultures that make up a nation.
NGO popularisers talk about unsafe GMO food while DNA change isn't chemical input but modification of growth and make up potential, and ignore pesticides or other poisons making food unsafe.
That is why it is a plausible proposition that crop technology shall follow in the wake of agriculture in Africa taking a fully fledged commercial character, such that tribal communities and their 'rich' varieties of foods in grains, fruits or vegetables will not cloud the picture about crop technology.
Secondly, activist anti-GM NGOs prey substantially on an anti-colonial 'them' and 'us' mentality, where the idea of purchasing a 300/- kilogram of seeds from a US company is abhorrent, a frame of mind targeting a rural constituency politician open to attack, not a calculating farmer.
When Africa has calculating farmers using bank credit to produce cheap grains for regional and foreign markets, not food for a whole country untainted with GM seeds, biotechnology shall work.
Source: IPP Media