Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Global Connections
15 December 2015
Abstract
Although many agricultural movements have spread with the intentions of bettering yields of
farmers worldwide, often small farmers are ignored in the process. LDCs are capable of adapting new
biotechnologies in order to keep up with those of MDCs, yet the main crops that have been tested on are
suited to fit big commercial interests rather than interests that would be beneficial to the food security and
nutrition on a local scale. On an international level, theres been a lengthy GMO debate covering the
marketing concerns and health risks that affect policy in the likes of EU countries and America. Other key
players, such as China and India, have been supportive of GMO research within their countries. China
among other European countries have also funded African farmers in order to increase imports-some anti-
GMO countries have done so by demanding crops free of chemicals or GM strands, leaving African
farmers wary of GMOs. On the other hand, private institutions have invested in Africa with a mixed
reaction among native governments and local farmers. With a focus on improving the habits of
subsistence farmers, foreign investors have seen positive results that suggest that GMOs are a viable way
for African farmers to safely increase yields without becoming monopolized by large corporations.
Introduction
While it may be hard to realize for those living among an abundance of food, the global food
crisis is a recurring issue that leaves thousands of people without the basic essentials needed to survive.
Factors such as the lack of productive investments in local agricultural systems, global warming and trade
imbalances have caused for an imbalance of food in the world that leaves a billion people hungry. On top
of leaving those in poverty extremely malnourished, it also leads to reductions in biodiversity and
LDCs(less developed countries) and MDCs (more developed countries). With emerging biotechnologies
trying to generate a solution to this global issue, the trade and cultivation of genetically modified foods
has been proposed as one possible solution. While those who live in MDCs may argue for or against
GMOs, they do so under different circumstances than those that live in LDCs. In this sense, theres a stark
gap of understanding on both sides of the debate. In Africa in particular, theres a broader debate as the
foods have the potential to provide African LDCs with needed sources of nutrition and economic
opportunities, however many MDCs are concerned with the impact on its citizens health and focus on the
economic needs of large farmers over those of small farmers that in turn directly affects the sustainability
of these LDCs.This paper will address the GMO debate through analyzing the point of views of African
LDCs and those of the countries it interacts with. While there have been many proposed efforts regarding
the movement of GMOs to and from these countries, this papers focus avoids elaborating on
hypotheticals to rather explain the thought processes on both sides of the GMO dispute.
Limitations
Global trade is an extensive subject to research considering that both MDCs and LDCs are major
components of the process. To reflect this, the opinions of several countries were included. However, not
every LDC has enough opinion pieces that specifically address the GMO debate. Despite this limitation,
the author has decided to include information about general agricultural processes to determine whether
or not certain LDCs have the motivation or the capabilities that warrant use of GM foods. To essentially
fill in the blanks where data regarding use of GMOs wasnt given, factors such as the LDCs capabilities
of handling new biotechnologies, agricultural practices, trade needs, and environmental issues were
considered to give an objective stance on the subject. Even with these precautions, research wasnt done
in an effort to inspect each individual LDC specifically, rather to look at similarities between the countries
As the GMO debate has become a very heated, controversial topic, there has been the limitation
of finding few sources that dont have a bias either pro-GMO or anti-GMO. In response to this, an
accumulation of different sources were used to see the trends between varied viewpoints. Biased sources
Although the author has had little experience in researching this topic, external factors such as
household and education may have persuaded them to have a focus that isnt entirely neutral. Even
though efforts were made to stay neutral, sources that included large sections of information were
preferred over those that were more opinion-oriented: in this case the majority of pro-GMO articles have
Literature Review
Through writing this paper, the author has used a variety of qualitative and quantitative sources to
analyze both the opinions behind the debate and the facts that back or deny such claims. Although not
every article specifically touches upon GMOs, there are a few that are used accompanying others for
further context. Green Revolution and Intellectual Property-Overview of the TRIPS Agreement are two
sources that serve to give a background on concepts that were touched upon briefly in other articles.
Although these sources arent directly attached to GMO policy or the systems within African LDCs, the
effects of these occurrences have altered how GM policy is treated today. Chinas GMO stockpile, while
focusing specifically on a country that aims to be self-sufficient, includes information that describes the
common processes of testing GMOs which is key background knowledge for the paper. It explains how
the policies of another country, in this case China, may be able to affect the policy of another country.
MDCs are a major component in the development of LDCs, whether money or seeds are given to
farmers for cultivation. The economic interests of MDCs and LDCs vary because of their different stages
in development, which is described in detail through Is there a linkage between sustainable development
and market access of LDCs. A primary difference between MDCs and LDCs is their values on
tools for international development: Opportunities and Strategic considerations lays out how there are
The perceptions of GMOs on a global scale are an essential piece of the GMO debate, so sources
reflect the political views of several countries. Articles such as the Genetically modified (GM) foods and
ethical eating and Feeding a growing world points to need for ag chemicals, GMOs discuss the anti-
GMO stance of Europe and MDCs, focusing on the environmental and health concerns in a general sense.
More specifically, Despite health risks, many argue GMOs could help solve food security, African
farmers question biotech revolution and How genetic engineering can help small farmers in developing
countries discuss international trade policies and how theyre perceived by African farmers. In a general
sense, GMOS in Africa have been controversial, as African voices are sometimes spoken over by those in
other countries. LYNAS: GMO: African voices must be heard and Is GM food the future for Africa? both
discuss how African voices are silenced and additionally grouped together even though theres variation
in points of view of GMOs throughout each country. The dynamics of exploring future market potential
of genetically modified foods and Biotech called global currency shares how MDCs perceive the growth
of the GMO market, the latter describing the EU and Australias stances in depth.
While there are sources that emphasize how this is treated on a large, political scale, there are also
opinion pieces that are used in an effort to show how individuals have analyzed the situation within the
LDCs affected by large-scale policies. The 2014 case study undergone by Corinee Valdivia, Danda, M
Kengo Danda, Dekha Sheikh, Harvey S James et al titled Using translational research to enhance
farmers voice: A case study of the potential introduction of GM cassava in kenyas coast described the
implementation of GM cassava in Kenya with select farmers, highlighting their worries throughout the
used to show the impact on LDCs economies, titled The international diffusion of biotechnology: The
arrival of developing countries.The limits of regulatory convergence: Globalization and GMO politics in
the south describes the perspective of three developing countries in response to the regulatory challenges
Research
Out of the estimated 845 million hungry people in the world, 80% are small farmers (Sharife,
2009). This is partially because LDC food sustainability issues stem from a reliance on subsistence
farming that has proved to be unreliable and misused. Movements that aim to increase crop yields for
farmers in LDCs have sprung up to much praise, yet the majority of them focus on the needs of large,
commercial farmers over those of small farmers. For example, the widespread Green Revolution was a
movement in the 1960s and 1970s (Encylopedia, 2016), that succeeded in converting cropland to high-
yield seeds which needed to be purchased each season and required intensive fertilizer and pesticide use
(Eric, 2007). After this movement spread worldwide, modern agricultural technologies like irrigation and
heavy doses of chemical fertilizer were introduced to developing countries (Encyclopedia, 2016).
Successes of the Green Revolution were dependent on the government, infrastructure, and economy of
the respective host countries. Although a large portion of scholars have stated that the Green Revolution
had simply bypassed the area, this distorts the situation. The movement did reach Africa, but it failed to
make a substantial impact that could assist the African countries impoverished farmers. To put this in
numbers, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, which brought together all the
key Green Revolution research institutions, had invested 40-45% of its $350 million-a-year budget in
Africa over a span of twenty years and were still met with failure (Eric 2007).
Although Green Revolution solutions were initially composed of agrichemicals and corporate-
controlled hybrids, it has since expanded to include GMOs in concert with aggressive herbicides (Sharife,
2009). Biotechnologies that cultivate GM foods have been increasingly prevalent as a result of the
worlds farmers seeking to double food production to meet the worlds food and nutrition requirements.
New biotechnological advances have historically originated in large cities and to be adopted first by
metropolitan areas (which is made understandable considering the increased speed of information
diffusion in large cities). Emerging countries have also had a hand in innovating new technologies by
establishing both a set of institutions (organizations, policy incentives, regulations) and human capital
which allows them to absorb existing science and technology as they develop new projects (Niosi, 2012).
By the numbers, agricultural biotechnologys value is growing at a compound annual rate of 11.4% and
is projected to reach $24.8 billion in 2017 (Smith, 2012). As insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits
having been primarily incorporated into soya, maize, cotton, and canola, these crops play a major role in
increasing agricultural productivity and sustainability around the globe. Multinational life science
companies typically lead their GM crop research by focusing on the development and commercialization
of bioengineered crops that have high commercial value and extensive international markets. As a result,
crops of extreme importance to subsistence or resource-poor farmers have been overlooked as well as
regional crops that benefit its people nutritionally and economically. These include crops such as plantain
and bananas; root and tuber crops such as cassava, sweet potato, and yam; millets such as pearl millet and
foxtail millet; legumes such as cowpeas, groundnut, and tree crops. Indigenous crops such as tef, quinoa,
and many types of vegetables are critical for food security and nutrition on a regional or local basis
(Potter, 2008).
Throughout the world, the GMO debate stems in part from health and potential marketing
concerns. Gianessi, a consultant for the CropLife Foundation in Washington has said, The anti-GMO,
anti-pesticide movement is basically a marketing effort by various well-financed groups and organizations
that are skilled in public relations, fund-raising, and lobbying, in order to urge for ag communicators to
educate the public about the positives of GM technologies (Delta Farm Press, 2014). Consumer
uncertainty and lack of knowledge about GM technologies have brought about the debate surrounding
food labeling foods as either genetically modified or organic within American and European markets.
Markets for and against GMOs are able to market their foods in an effort to educate consumers on how
their foods are superior without giving pure statistical facts. Yet the reality is that consumers in these
markets rarely eat GM crops in raw forms. For instance, soybeans, corn and canola oil are processed into
oil and meal constituents, which are then converted into an estimated 70% of processed foods that appear
on consumers grocery shelves. This often results in non tractability of GM components and therefore
marketers and food processors arent readily able to identify where the technology is and how it compares
The anti-GMO movement survives by stating GMOs are environmentally unsafe and unhealthy
for consumers. Countries have either adhered to this movement or have allowed GMOs to be traded and
developed within it through their trade policies. The first regulatory framework dealing with the
environmental and health risks of GMOs came in the 1970s, where the US emphasized scientific and
industry self-regulation in biotechnology. US markets have allowed for a large number of GM crops to be
tested, planted, and introduced to the market. In the late 1980s, most European countries adopted a similar
light-touch approach to regulation (Falkner, 2009). This was in effect until the strengthening of the EUs
environmental competencies and the rising concerns over biotechnological safety in a number of member
states, the EU adopted a more precautionary approach in dealing with GMO risks (Sharife, 2009). This
began to require all GM products to adhere to mandatory labelling and traceability with a tolerance level
of under one percent, making it hard for all member countries to develop or buy any of these products
(DSouza, 2005). When comparing the EUs sound science-based risk assessments of GMOs to the
USs process-based approach, theres a clear distinction where Americans lean towards a pro-GMO stance
while Europeans lean against an anti-GMO stance. Seeing the two most powerful players in international
biotechnology promoting two rival regulatory standards has altered GMO politics as a global cleavage,
altering how other countries trade with the respective countries. (Falkner, 2009).
Yet the US and the EU arent the sole policymakers or developers of GMO technologies.
Countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and China have given support to the use of GMOs in agricultural
production. Others, such as Chile, India, and Mexico have been less supportive. Patent laws are key
factors in the decision to adopt biotechnology. In cases where national patent laws dont protect
genetically modified plants, animals, or bacteria, or if drugs for human health are not patentable, then few
companies domestic or foreign would be interested in investing in developing those products such as
biotechnologies (Niosi, 2012). The TRIPS agreement, which came into effect in 1995, is a comprehensive
multilateral agreement on intellectual property that covers copyrights and related rights; trademarks;
geographical indications including appellations of origin; industrial designs; and patents including the
protection of new varieties of plants (WTO 2016). After the implementation of TRIPS, the number of
patents for biotechnological inventions granted by the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark
Office) has increased faster than in Latin America as a whole. In the last decade, more than half of these
patents were granted to Chinese and Indian institutions, indicating that the research and technological
development took place within these countries rather than in the US or other industrialized countries
(Niosi, 2012). India primarily has adopted GMOs in producing cotton, China has used GMOs in an effort
While Indias success in growing cotton has been used by pro-GMO activists to prove the
benefits of supporting GMOs, Chinas GMO policies are critical for the global market in the sense that
they have given sums of money to other countries in order to support the cultivation of GMO foods (Farm
Press 2014). Although surveys have shown that the Chinese public finds GMOs concerning
(understandable given the context of Chinas past health scandals), research on GMOs has continued in
the country. Rapid industrialization within China has caused for a decrease in arable land as the
population of China continues to grow. With the increasing need to produce commercially beneficial
products, corn, wheat and soybeans again are the main crops studied (Talbot, 2014). Considering Chinas
hold of Africa economically, this will directly affect the continent if the Chinese government decides to
approve of GMOs in an effort to feed its people, no matter how wary the public is of such technology.
In wanting to feed its people, China and other European countries have funded African farmers
in an effort to import more crops to its people. A lot of this funding comes with many strings attached;
countries with anti-GMO stances demand that all crops are to be developed free of chemicals or GM
strands. Gianessi, a consultant for the CropLife Foundation described a particular situation in Malawi
regarding Norwegian aid, saying, Theyre using their money to drive anti-GMO/anti-herbicide research.
For the last 30 years, scientists at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture have received
funding by USAID, by the Norwegians, and others, and that money has been conditional on not receiving
herbicides. (Farm Press, 2014). The policies of external countries has directly affected African farmers in
this sense, directing their political views onto African farmers that see foreign aid as a crucial step in
becoming more sustainable. Countries that are wary of GMOs in fear of potential health risks are
preventing African farmers from developing crops that could help the countrys economy and give its
On the other hand, private institutions have seen the value in investing in Africa in a way that
suits their pro-GMO agendas. The Nairobi-based nonprofit group AATF (African Agricultural Technology
technologies to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa along the entire value chain. The organization
has entered into agreements with technology providers, usually multinational seed companies, to allow
royalty-free use of the relevant technology. Burkina Fasos National Biosecurity Agency has taken an
unconventional route in trying to better cotton yields. The government co-owns GM varieties of cotton
with Monsanto in which the price of the seed and the distribution of the value added by improved
production were determined by mutual agreement. And interestingly enough, the impetus for adopting the
biotechnologies needed for bt cotton came from farmers that stressed the advantage of growing GM crops
Even though countries such as Burkina Faso and Ghana have had success in utilizing GM crops,
there are still African countries that are opposed to these biotechnologies because of fears of big seed
companies such as Monsanto taking advantage of them. When the crops introduced are large cash crops
like corn, soy, or wheat, their main benefit would be to export it to other countries. When Europe, a
continent that is largely anti-GMO, is a trade partner of an African country, then African politicians of that
respective are hesitant to accept GMOs. While there is a gap in how MDCs and LDCs view the issue of
GMOs, theres also different layers of acceptance of GMOs within Africa. In each country, the amount of
subsistence farming as well as its current economic status are key factors in determining whether or not
In terms of subsistence farming, there have been multiple studies of foreign investments allowing
farmers to have higher yields as a direct result of using GM seeds. A study to see the risks and
unintended consequences of introducing virus-resistant cassava crops in Kenyas Coastal region was
undergone in an effort to communicate with farmers about their situations case by case. In this case,
cassava was an extremely important factor as it plays an important food security role in the livelihoods of
these people. While undergoing the case study, the needs of each smallholder farmer were responded to in
ways that reflected their unique situations in an effort to enhance the farmers voices. Through the study,
it was discovered that farmers dont have adequate communication networks in which to interact with
each other. It was also found that farmers tended to intercrop the cassava crop with other crops and that
they invest little in inputs in labor, growing it as a subsistence crop. This proves to show how GMOs
arent a universal problem-solver for farmers whilst issues such as the lack of adequate farmer
organizations, lack of information about GMOs, and the common mentality in Africa where women bear
the brunt of farm labor all have a hand in hindering the development of new crop varieties in these
While African farmers lack these farmer organizations in which to communicate their specific
needs to one another, other countries have spoken over African farmers in direct correlation to GM crop
usage. On June 7, 2016, a large majority of European lawmakers backed a resolution urging the G8
member states not to support GMO crops in Africa. The European Parliament opposes the New Alliance
for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa (NAFSN) which aims to lift 50 million sub-Saharan Africans
out of poverty by 2022 through promoting agricultural modernisation and investment. Green Party
politicians have had in a hand in this, as theyre the group that has convinced the parliamentarians that
African farmers are incapable of accessing new technologies such as GMO seeds without being exploited
by big multinational companies. Although the NAFSNs agenda is backed by 10 African governments,
this European Parliamentary vote spoke on the behalf of the African continent. Even when members of
Parliament in African countries wrote privately to European counterparts, their views were largely
ignored (Lynas, 2016). Although African farmers could go to other countries in order to develop GM crop
strands, this movement within European NGOs has been a roadblock that continuously points out the
flaws in how countries seek to monopolize their opinions over those of African politicians and farmers
Conclusion
Simply saying that GMOs can solve the food sustainability problems facing many African LDCs would
be ignorant of their current economic landscape. In order to see more biotechnologies being developed,
the American and European republics need to be informed of the scientific research and historical
successes that have proven the effectiveness of GMOs. With lessened restraints on GMO products in the
EU, then African politicians will be less reluctant to accept GM food aid and GM seeds. On a more
regional scale, subsistence farmers will have a larger incentive to plant GM seeds than ever before and the
Potential GM food solutions havent been researched to their maximum potential partially
because the debate of potential health effects and mislabeling of products stopping America and the EU
from greatly investing into them. If African farmers and consumers were to have a voice in the context of
international policy, other countries themselves couldnt dictate what GM crops will be developed. NGOs
should make an effort to focus on the needs of farmers rather than strictly analyzing the marketability of
cash crops as helping the local African economies allow for the global economy to strengthen and for