GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS AND ORGANISMS AND THE PROBLEM OF HUNGER
We talk of genetic modification, genetic engineering or transgenic plants when there is a combination of genes from different organisms (recombinant DNA). The current debate in Kenya on importation of genetically modified maize to curb the problem of hunger is not without foundation.
Benefits from biological experiments has an advantage of increased production, formation of new vegetal species for the benefit of all and especially for the most in need. Since God the creator has mandated man to take care and govern the created, we can not but ask Him to direct the application of scientific research to produce new food supplies in order to combat the tragedy of hunger of the poor people in our country and other places in the world. Power of man to govern over the created and over nature proves his divine origin and thus he becomes a steward of God by developing and modifying nature in an honest, responsible manner and in solidarity with the present and future generations.
Most of us agree that fighting hunger is one of the common grounds of understanding among the world religions and other institutions. However, none of these can effectively address this problem alone without cooperation.
Breeding methods whether natural like cross pollination or manipulated ones like genetic engineering lead to a selection of crops with higher yields and higher nutritional values, thanks to DNA techniques. As population expands, new technology develops to improve food security in a manner that sees decreased labour intensiveness, decreased maturation, decreased pesticide use and increased production and income among others. While this can improve crop properties such as improved health of the plant itself, it is not automatic that there is such improved health or risk elimination to human beings who consume them.
Plant biotechnology has great potentiality to improve productivity, but can have setbacks in the developing countries due to purchasing costs, poor infrastructure and lack of capacity building. The so called developed countries have a duty (in the name of solidarity) to help the developing countries to attain sustainability of these technologies on their own soil.
As we talk of importing GMF (genetically modified foods) like maize, one wonders why we cannot be assisted to produce the same in our country by making available the seeds or by improving the already existing traditional methods. What is the point of helping somebody only to make him or her a beggar and perpetual dependant while there is a possibility to make him/her self reliant and independent.
Just to give an example of malaria which existed in some European countries some years back, and has since then been eliminated. Why should the poor African countries not be assisted to eliminate the mosquitoes transmitting the parasite. Is it genuine to continue producing mosquito nets, malaria drugs, researching for vaccines instead of revealing the secrets behind its eradication if this can work in Africa? The World Food Summit needs to revisit the strategies of food security by empowering local communities to manage for instance the seeds and water banks. If this technology is to serve man, the seeds produced in the laboratory should be made to reproduce even after harvest.
There could be economic motives behind intentionally making the seeds sterile to reproduction to ensure that farmers have to buy them every new season.
While the developed countries have solved the problem of fundamental right to food, our country (not poor as such in terms of resources) still lacks this stability. While some members of parliament want to deny the government revenue from taxes, the poor is struggling to get a meal, leave a lone a balanced diet which may only be attained after a whole week and in un even pattern. The government of Kenya should be the first to solve this problem by having equal distribution of recourses and wealth. And now that we have the new constitution, it is the government’s duty to educate people on their rights and corresponding duties, while the civil servants should be the first to respect the law.
The so called “Golden Rice” is an example of GE (genetically engineered) product which can make an important contribution to fight against serious eye diseases, respiratory and intestinal problems mostly affecting children and women. This rice is inserted with genes and bacterium to modify the grain with sufficient vitamin A potentials and irons. If this rice is approved, then nutrition is improved and mortality rates of the affected groups can be lowered. Apparently there has been a delay to its approval due to the regulation of such products not just for safety, but for other bureaucratic reasons too. The resistance to approve GE products has also to do with the war between GMO and products not modified genetically (organic products). Those producing and selling the organic ones fear loosing market since with high productivity of the GMO the prices go down. The rising cost and campaigns for the advantages of the organic products are justified for the labour/cost of production, originality and nutritional values especially the traditional and indigenous ones. Nevertheless, not all the products portrayed as such in the market are truly organic.
The rejection of GMO is not only in Kenya, but in other places too. In Europe there are restrictions to the importation of GMO not more so for the risks, but for absence of direct benefits to the continent unlike in Africa. In Africa there are more farmers even though the productivity is low while in Europe there are few farmers, but with high productivity. Resisting GMO in Africa is more costly since the effects due malnutrition, hunger and poverty are worse. Over regulation for a long period of time is disadvantageous to the poor and hungry. Those responsible for pre-market safety review for food products should use a reasonable amount of time to assure consumers before deploying the products for consumption. Although regulation is important, some modifications caused by combination of genes are unpredictable. The long term effects may also not be available at the moment. There is however a need to take a lot of precaution when it comes to the use of such products like maize by human beings. High risks must be avoided, zero risk may be almost impossible. However, no damage should be done to human values like health or life due to the unnecessary delays.
Although GMOs are feared for the potential harm to human health, damage to environment, negative impact on traditional farming practices, excessive corporate dominance and lack of free expression of preferences by farmers to employ the technology; it is nevertheless a threat to some politicians and the power elite. In developing countries despite chronic food shortage and poverty the above mentioned are concerned about protecting their export markets of organic products which supply them with money in stable countries, thus protecting their wealth and power. The debate on GMO therefore needs a wider view than we may imagine.
It could be useful to consider the new possibilities that are opening up through proper use of traditional as well as innovative farming techniques, always assuming that these have been judged, after sufficient testing, to be appropriate, safe for human health, respectful of environment and attentive to the needs of the most deprived peoples.
Fr Pascal Mwambi Mwakio
Holds a Masters for Bioethics
Rome, Italy.
No comments:
Post a Comment