Ayyala 1

Ram Ayyala
Terrah Jones
December 7, 2017
Discussion 1G
The Chronic Famine

In 2002, Africa was in a state of emergency. The nations of Africa were facing a famine.

A famine not caused by a lack of food, but caused by the lack of distribution of food. Something

needed to be done, so the leaders of the world came together. The US offered a large shipment of

GM corn to the African Nations as a means of a short term solution. On the other hand, the EU

offered monetary aid as a means of preventing the spread of GMO’s. However, the problem with

the EU’s solution was that it required one thing: time. The nations of Africa did not have time.

By the end of 2002, a little under 15 million people would die of starvation (Patel,

Delwiche,2002). While the money would be useful, it would not fix the problem at hand. The

nations of Africa needed to feed their citizens first. Then, they can worry about rebuilding their

infrastructure. From the viewpoint of the director of the United Nations World Food Program, it

was evident that the African nations needed to accept the US aid package as these nations were

starving. The US aid package was a short term solution that would buy the African nations the

time they needed to get back on their feet. The GMO debate resulted in the African nations

reaching a compromise in which they accepted both the US and EU aid package as long as the

GM seeds were sent to South Africa to be milled. However, even with this compromise, nothing

has really changed in Africa. 60% of Africa’s citizens are farmers and still not highly productive

in terms of yields. Modern day research has shown that GM crops increases yields and profits,

proving that the nations of Africa should take the US aid package, and furthermore, adopt a

policy that is tolerant of GM crops and promotes their use.

 Ayyala 2

In order to understand why Africa should adopt GM crops, we first must understand why

there is a debate over whether GMO’s are safe or not. The debate stems from the two different

regulatory approaches of the US and the EU. All of Europe’s laws that concern the development

of new technology, including the development of new farming techniques and production of GM

crops, are controlled by the idea of the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle says

that if there exists a hypothetical risk with the adoption of a new policy or technology, it is best

to stay away from that policy or technology. However, while this principle is noble in thought as

it is meant to prevent new risks to human health and the environment, it deters the innovation of

new technologies that could greatly help and improve society. This is evident with the specific

laws that Europe has adopted for regulating genetically engineered food and crops. With no

evidence of risk, but solely on grounds of “uncertainty”, European countries can decline to

approve a new technology or in this case, ban all GMO’s and refuse to trade with any countries

growing GMO’s.

On the other hand, the US’s regulatory approach is one of promoting development of new

technology. Rather than reject a new technology based on hypotheticals, the US has set of

standardized test. In the case of GM crops and foods, tests for known risks such as toxicity,

allergenicity, and digestivity. This approach allows new methods to be implemented while

preventing any new risks to human health and the environment. Using this approach, the US has

allowed farmers to implement new technologies which increases their yields and has had no new

documented risks so far. However, the European approach has prevented the planting of GM

crops in nearly every country in Europe, much to the frustration of most European farmers who

also want to have the same productivity gains as those of US farmers (Paalberg, 2010).
 Ayyala 3

In terms of productivity gains, GM crops do in fact increase crop yields. While there has

not been too much research into the topic itself, the research that is available all points to this

fact. One specific study done by the Economic Research Service or ERS found a statistically

significant relationship between increased crop yields and herbicide/pesticide tolerant seeds. This

study also found a statistically significant relationship when farmers used herbicide tolerant

cotton and Bt cotton (Fernandez-Cornejo, Wechsler, Mitchell, 2014). Another study done by

Iowa State University showed that Bt-crops out yielded non-Bt crops. They used 377 fields and

found that the GM seeds yielded 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field while non-Bt corn only

yielded 147.7 per field (Zegeye, 2014). Another major benefit of using GM crops lies in the

decrease in the use of herbicides and pesticides. The ERS study found a significant decrease in

pesticide and herbicide usage as the usage of GM seeds increased. Finally, the last major benefit

of adopting GM crops is the increase in profits. The ERS found that there is a statistically

significant correlation between the use of GM seeds and an increase in the profits for the

farmers. For example, they found that GM soybean crops yielded a net value of $208.42 per

planted acre. However, non GM soybean crops only yielded $191.56 per planted acre. Similar

studies in Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina saw higher profit from the herbicide

resistant soybeans than from the traditional soybeans. These type of yield increases could

seriously help African farmers who are struggling to grow crops with traditional methods, and

further proves why African nations should use GM crops.

However, while all of these benefits make GM crops very enticing to adopt, it must be

noted that there are some concerns regarding the use of GM crops. These concerns have more to

do with contractual and economic risks rather than scientific risks such as the limited rights to

retain and reuse seeds, binding arbitrations between seed companies and private growers, and
 Ayyala 4

limited liability of seed companies. In terms of the limited rights to retain and reuse seeds, the

grower’s rights to the purchased seed from the seed company are restricted. Most of the contracts

prohibit the grower’s from saving or reusing a seed from GM crops, otherwise known as the “no

saved seed” provision. This provision forces growers to buy GM seeds annually. More often than

not, the “no saved seed” provision leads to copious amounts of lawsuits and patent infringement,

leaving the farmers defenseless. The binding arbitrations between seed companies and private

growers essentially give the farmers no recourse or means to file lawsuits against the seed

companies in the case that something goes wrong. Instead, seed companies require that all

conflicts arising from the performance of the seeds must be settled by arbitration, effectively

precluding farmers from filing a lawsuit. In the same vein, GM seed companies have no liability

whatsoever when it comes to damages caused by the GM seed; making it impossible for farmers

to recover from these damages (Kruft, 2001). These types of risks should not exist in this type of

business as GM crops are a necessary tool to this world in order to feed the ever-growing

population. The greed of these seed companies is ruining the potential of this technology. There

needs to be new regulations and laws implemented that limit the power of the seed companies

and give the power back to the farmers.

With the two regulatory approaches in mind and the risks and benefits of GMO’s, it is

evident as to why there is a debate between the US and the EU over the safety of GM crops.

However, looking closely into the European practices, it makes sense as to why they do not need

GMO’s in their countries. From a scientific viewpoint, even research facilities in Europe have

said that GM plants and derived products have not shown any new risks on human health or the

environment. This opinion was specifically shown in a 2001 study funded by the Research

Directorate General of the EU which featured 81 projects, over 400 laboratories, and 15 years of
 Ayyala 5

research (Economidis, Cichocka, Hogel,2010). By 2007, a study done for the science journal,

Advanced Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology looked over 10 years of research published in

other scientific journals and concluded that with the data provided so far, there is no scientific

evidence that proves that the cultivation of GM crops causes harm to the environment (Sanvido,

Romeis,Bigler, 2007). So the problem doesn’t lie in the scientific risks as these risks do not exist.

The problem is that there are no real benefits for the Europeans to use GM crops and foods. In

the 1990’s, the first generation of GM crops provided benefits to most farmers. But these farmers

only benefitted if they were growing cotton, maize, and soybean. Only a small percentage of

farmers in Europe grow these crops, meaning there was no need for Europe to use GM crops.

Since there were no benefits for the Europeans, they fully welcomed the precautionary principle

laws. This is clearly shown in the difference in how Europe regulates GMO’s in medicine versus

in agriculture. In the case of medicine, Europe has no hesitation in permitting the sale of

commercial drugs created using genetic engineering. By 2006, European Medical Agencies had

approved 87 recombinant drugs created using genetically engineered bacteria. However, these

drugs did not come without risks as many increased risks of heart disease, malignancy and

gastric illness. However, European regulators still permitted the sales of these drugs because the

general public would benefit from these drugs regardless of the consequences. Less than 1% of

Europeans would benefit from GMO crops, but 100% of Europeans were susceptible to the risks

of the GMO drugs. It is evident from this point that the regulatory approach of “precautionary

principle” is very specific to GMO crops.

Now, if we take this situation and compare it to the crisis in Africa, it becomes clear that

Europe is not trying to help Africa but really just blackmail them for their own political gains. If

we look at the population of Africa, 60% or more of Africans are farmers, meaning their income
 Ayyala 6

and subsistence comes directly from farming. GM crops like Bt corn that resist insects, reduce

the use of pesticides, and have traits like drought resistance would provide immense benefits for

the people of Africa. The key difference between the situation in Africa versus Europe is that in

Europe, despite not using GM crops, the farmers are still highly productive. In Africa, using

traditional methods of farming has left them with low productivity. On top of all of this, there is

a growing population in Africa and man-made climate change is causing an increase in drought

risks. The only reason why these GMO’s have not made it to Africa is because of foreign

interference, mainly from Europe as Africa mainly trades with Europe and their cultural ties are

much closer to that of Europe than the that of the US. Throughout history, Africa has relied

heavily on foreign assistance, which is why when it comes to tough topics like GMO’s, they look

to what their trade partners are doing as their trade partners i.e. Europe also happen to share

similar cultural practices. As a result, they tend to blindly follow the “precautionary principle”

without realizing that their situation is very different from Europe’s. European farmers are highly

productive and consumers are well fed. Africa’s farmers and consumers are neither productive

nor well fed. (Paalberg, 2010).

Africa has to make its own choice on the topic of GM crops and food, and they are free to

make that choice regardless of Europe’s policies. The benefits of GMO’s are evident and further

proved with recent studies. All of the nations of Africa need to come to a consensus on what to

do for their own country. While they survived the famine of 2002, they are still struggling to

grow crops and provide food for all of the citizens. GMO’s are an easy solution to their problem.

As long as the economic and contractual risks are prevented, there is really no reason for Africa

not to adopt a policy tolerant to GM crops as it will increase their crop yields, increase their

profits, and provide an easy way for their citizens to be fed. The nations of Africa need to stop
 Ayyala 7

blindly following what other countries want them to do and do what is best for their people:

adopt the GM crop technology and feed their people.

Works Cited

Economidis, I. E., Cichocka, D., & Hogel, J. (2010). A Decade of Eu-Funded Gmo Research:

(2001-2010) (pp. 1-264). Luxemburg: Publ. Office.

 Ayyala 8

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, S., & Mitchell, L. (2014, February). Genetically Engineered

Crops in the United States. Retrieved

from https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45179/43667_err162_summary.pdf?v=416

90

Kruft, D... (2001). Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers (Unpublished

master's thesis). The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. 150 S.

College Street.

Paarlberg, R. (2010). GMO foods and crops: Africa’s choice. New Biotechnology, 7(5), 609-613.

Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410005145

Patel, R., & Delwiche, A. (2002). THE PROFITS OF FAMINE: SOUTHERN AFRICA'S

LONG DECADE OF HUNGER. Food First Backgrounder, 8(4). Retrieved

from https://sarpn.org/documents/d0000131/SOUTHERN_AFRICA'S_LONG_DECADE

_OF_HUNG ER.pdf

Sanvido, O., Romeis, J. and Bigler, F. (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops:

ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Advances in Biochemical

Engineering/Biotechnology 107, 235–278

Zegeye, A. (2014). A Review on Concerns and Benefits of Genetically Modified

Organisms. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 1(6), 94-100.

Retrieved from http://www.ijarbs.com/pdfcopy/sept2014/ijarbs16.pdf

Ayyala 9