The silence regarding these practices in Africa and the Third World has been largely attributed to ignorance and lack of adequate information in as far as the presence of the crops and foods products in Africa and the impacts and consequences of their adoption by the region’s populace.
The main target of these companies in Africa and the Third World has been the genetically superior traditional crops grown and consumed by the majority of the regions’ dwellers. Luminary scholars such as Kenya’s Professor Mary Abukutsa-Onyango, have expressed their objections to the manipulation of the gene pool of these crops for the purposes of patenting and engineering.
Professor Abukutsa-Onyango, the holder of a PhD from the University of London, is herself a globally respected researcher in traditional African crops and has over the years been working tirelessly to see that the preservation of these crops’ gene pool is properly handled for a more sustainable current and future food security within the region. In a tête-à-tête with the writer, she confirmed that the future food security prospects of Africa and the Third World lie in their cultivation and preservation of their traditional food crops and not in the mass and unregulated adoption of temperate food crops, most of which are generally genetically and nutritionally inferior and cannot therefore grow and produce well in the developing world.
Even as genetically modified foods find their way into Africa and the rest of the developing world, many salient issues dealing with the bioethical, medical as well as socio-economic aspects of the introduction of the crops have been wantonly ignored and still remain unaddressed to date. These compounded by the fact that most of these multinational companies fighting for the promotion of GM foods in the Third World are economically powerful and influential, only leaves the African plight appearing helpless and dragged to the dogs of socio-economic exploitation.
Fact is, genetically modified foods are engineered such that they possess what is known as the chain termination sequence. Pioneered by a British Biochemist, Fredrick Sanger, the process (also called the Sanger or the dideoxy process) manipulates the plants’ genetic structure such that it cannot produce a viable offspring. This means that after the first harvest, a farmer has to go back to the seed vendor and buy a fresh supply of seeds from the patent holding company for planting since the first produce can only be consumed and not be successfully re-grown. This therefore creates a complete dependence on the companies for the continuous supply of seeds.
Similarly, the application of the chain tracer DNA technology ensures that the farmer has to go to the same companies for the supply of chemical hormones for use in triggering such crop growth stages as fruiting, seeding among others. This would also perpetuate the dependence of the African and Third World farmers on the monopolizing companies. The loss of self-sustainability in food production in these countries would thus be of catastrophic consequences. Many of the already economically subjugated African and Third World countries will therefore be fully economically overrun and enslaved to the whims of other biotechnologically superior ones. By genetically engineering crops mostly produced in Africa and the developing world and therefore easing their production in the laboratory without the need for farm cultivations, the survival of the African farmers is threatened as they will definitely lose the international markets for their products effectively making them and their countries poorer.
This method of genetically altering the cellular DNA structures in plants and animals is generally known as the Recombinant DNA technology and employs the use of the DNA polymerase enzyme. Simply and briefly, it involves the addition of what are known as deoxy-nucleotides and dideoxy-nucleotides to a primered DNA template. The polymerase enzyme therefore acts as a catalyst for the joining of the deoxy-nucleotides to the relevant amino acid bases. The joining between dideoxy-nucleotides to amino acid bases will stop the particular DNA strand from being elongated. Since the genes used usually come from two distinct organisms, the resulting plant or animal is then referred to as a transgenic, that is, containing genes from two different sources.
There have been justified outcries from several quarters in the globe with each voicing their concerns as well as support for this technology. However, the fact that the life’s genetic structure can be scientifically reprogrammed by genetic engineering brings to note many crucial issues and points both in Africa and globally. Several deaths from the consumption of genetically modified foods have been recorded worldwide. Many skeptics have even related the recent Kenyan deaths apparently after the consumption of maize, to genetically modified maize and not the parsing of aflatoxins. This still opens a Pandora’s box of accusations and counter-accusations. Tests have also confirmed the presence of allergens in the bodies of persons after the consumption of genetically modified foods. The presence of carcinogenic (cancer causing) compounds such as gluphosates in chemicals like herbicides and pesticides also puts the user at a great risk of contracting cancerous ailments. These compounds are known to act by causing genetic mutations in the body thus leading to uncontrolled multiplication of cells resulting into cancer.
Fears too have been expressed to the effect that the genetic engineering process done on microbes such as viruses, fungi and bacteria could lead to the production of more virulent forms of the pathogens, which may cause devastating health and environmental effects due to lack of moderation and control procedures. The possible vertical or horizontal transfer of pathogenicity and virulence brought about by genetically modified DNA between microbes and even to animals and humans also further begs the question as to the safety of the genetically manipulated organisms. This can fuel the spread of deadly diseases thereby endangering the life of man and animals. The process has also been linked to the formation of reactive forms of viruses, which have the capacity to reactivate dormant viruses and also lead to the formation of new forms of viruses that are fast multiplying and more lethal.
Similarly, the artificialness or the ‘unnaturalness’ of the genetically modified foods has been identified as possible cause of reduction in the human and animal body resistances to unfavourable climatic conditions and disease attacks. Many of the engineered crops have been found to have unusually high anti-nutrient contents. This poses a health risk to consumers especially when consumed in high quantities. The monopolisation aspirations of the multinational biotechnology companies to own entire markets more or so in Africa has been pointed to as a conduit for perpetuating economic slavery by the companies in the continent. This is explained by the patenting of their seeds as well as other products generally vital in the practice of agriculture in the majority of impoverished African economies.
The companies’ concept of promoting the cultivation of only a single crop also portends a problem for African farmers many of who are subsistence-oriented and have to intercrop their farms as a strategy for their economic survival. Monoculture, as the cultivation of a single crop is known, would therefore increase food insecurity and thus poverty especially in the case of a single crop’s poor performance. This indeed is a recipe for mass impoverishment in a continent already ravaged by the adoption of irrelevant and externally imposed policies. The implications on weed control has also been pointed at as genetically modified crops’ cultivation has been known to create super-weeds, which are highly resistant herbicides thereby increasing the cost of weed management and thus the final cost of crop production. The transfer of genes from crops to weeds by pollination also brings to focus the further production of herbicide resistant weeds.
Gene transfer can also lead to the change in the status of pests making them highly resistant to pesticides and or turning them into harmful pests where before they were beneficial insects. At the same time, the effects of genetic manipulation can decimate the population of an insect pest thereby leaving its prey’s population to skyrocket. The prey would then go on a spree of crop destruction due to the absence of a predator. This for a poor African and Third World farmer is in fact economic crucifixion.
Genetically Modified microbes such as bacteria have also been known to lower soil fertility levels by taking up essential plant nutrients and acting antagonistically on other vital soil microbes thereby killing them through the production of poisonous secretions. These secretions have also been known to negatively alter the soil PH and kill plants. The equatorial forests of the developing world are also under threat from the genetic manipulation of tree genes to create those that secrete poisonous antagonistic materials to other competing plants and animals (pests) within their surroundings. This not only threatens the general forest bio ecosystems, but also endangers several rare animal and plant species whose livelihood is basically forest plants’ derived. The continuous practice of these lead to mass genetic pollution of the environment as there is a haphazard application of genetic technology without proper control.
Supporters of genetically modified foods have however given their reasons that other than promoting quality, the technology will improve the food security by alleviating hunger and poverty in the developing world and in particular Africa. These however have not yet been proven and in as much they may appear noble from the face of it, should not warrant the unregulated and the mass entrance of the said genetically modified foods into Africa and the developing world as is currently happening. The fact that there is never any packaging indication or labelling of the foods and their ingredients further complicates the scenario as many tend to consume them without really knowing that they have. For example, the manipulation of animal genes into plants’ genetic structure is confusing. Indeed, this projects an array of religious, ethical and cultural implications in as far the regulation of the food industry in Africa and the rest of the developing world is concerned.
Other reasons advanced by the proponents of GM foods are that genetic engineering will lead to enhanced food taste and quality, improved pest and disease resistance, improved yields and health, reduced crop maturation time and better waste products management. While the bioengineering of genes to help in tackling various problems facing humanity such as the currently incurable and debilitating diseases appears noble, there is need for a clear and elaborate vetting system with respect to the proliferation of genetically engineered crops into Africa. This would take to task those companies bent on taking Africa and the Third World for an economic ride and prevent several unethical and trialistic vendetta from being carried out on the generally poor and mostly uninformed people and in the process ensure that only the tried and successfully tested aspects of the bioengineering are implemented for their betterment and socio-economic improvement.
Only then will the expected gains be of substance to the region’s population. Otherwise, the blind adoption of this mostly trial-based technology in Africa and the developing world will be an economic disaster in the making. It will be a permanent and perpetual sale of economic sovereignty and loss of the vitally sought for food security and in effect the complete collapse of any proper development prospects in these developing parts of the globe.
« return.