In an interview with the British newspaper the Telegraph last week,
Prince Charles reignited the controversial debate on the environmental
safety of GM crops.
Known for his strange use of hyperbole, the Prince of Wales was emphatic
that genetically modified crops were an experiment with nature gone
seriously wrong and that the world risked environmental disaster as a
result.
His statement predictably elicited consternation in many places but it
was the umbrage it caused particularly to the pro-GM lobby including the
British Environment minister Phil Woolas, that has lead many to reflect
more critically on the interview and what the reaction it evoked
revealed.
Trapped in debilitating poverty, Africa has traditionally been a
breeding ground for various experiments.
In a provocative article published in an issue of the Bidoun, Kenyan
writer Binyavanga Wainaina metaphorically captures the continent's
vulnerability thus: "A windup radio. A magic laptop. These pure products
are meant to solve everything.
They almost always fail, but they satisfy the giver...; a product built
to serve the needs of the needy assumes the needy have measured
themselves as the product has measured them... I am sure the One Laptop
per Child initiative will bring glory to its architects. The IMF will
smile. Mr Negroponte will win a prize or two or ten."
False magnanimity
Wainana's piece is not a mischievous jab at Western inventions, rather
it is a powerful counter-discourse to the narrative of magnanimity so
easily sold to the continent by corporations from the West who routinely
deny legitimacy to opposing view points.
There are many unknowns on GM crops both positive and negative and the
Prince's absolutist views may or may not be unqualified. Yet examined in
its entirety, Prince Charles raised some useful points for debate.
Indeed, it was Woolas' criticism that sounded more like the views of a
Monsanto company salesman.
Rather than counter the Prince's position through argument, Woolas
quickly dismissed Prince Charles' attitude as "entirely Luddite" and
then in typical condescending attitude, invoked the potential benefits
of GM crops to the Third World.
The criticism was an easy sell to those who fail to scratch beneath the
surface as was the case with another pro-GM politician Phil Willis who
accused the Prince of scientific ignorance and argued that the failure
to develop GM crops would "condemn millions of people to starvation in
areas like sub-Saharan Africa".
Yet Prince Charles did not question the science, rather he raised
concerns over its application. Indeed, often times, there's a moral
component to science that eventually makes it socially acceptable.
Science does not necessarily exist in a moral vacuum.
The debate on the GM crops is much more complicated than is usually
acknowledged in public debates where sentiment very often clouds reason.
It is important to note that because of the law of the unknowns, many
countries in the West, apart from the US are only growing GM crops in
closely controlled environments.
For instance, GM crops are not commercially cultivated in the UK and a
recent report by the BBC indicates that there is only one on trial
involving potatoes in Cambridgeshire.
If, as Woolas argues, the GM crops are unequivocally safe for the
environment, in light of the current credit crunch and rising food
prices in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, why is commercial cultivation
in the UK not being encouraged?
It this a technology only useful for starving populations in Africa?
Part of Prince Charles' interview which I believe should have been the
focus of far greater attention and analysis was his argument that there
should be increased concern not so much on food production but on food
security.
It is a legitimate argument widely shared by vocal but perhaps far less
influential groups like Friends of the Earth whose campaign director
Mike Childs reiterated the organisation's position in an interview with
the Telegraph that GM crops will not necessarily solve the food crisis
in the Third World and expressed fears that "an industrialised farming
system will continue to fail people and the environment around the
world".
Farming methods
Several independent reports argue that the adoption of GM crops should
be contingent upon assessments of their possible effects in the long
term. What are their potential impact on the environment and ecosystems
in the long term?
Secondly, will increased crop yields necessarily resolve Africa's
underlying problems such as poor farming practices? Isn't it better to
educate the continent's populations on better farming practices? Indeed,
one only needs to look to the Far East where several countries have
attained food sufficiency without resorting to GM crops.
Finally, there's urgent need to reflect on the possible corporatisation
of the food industry in Africa and what the consequences might be.
Africa cannot afford to mortgage its food security to businesses such as
Monsanto. A continent's food security cannot be left to a coterie of
multinational corporations. Africa has options; the obvious one is not
sell out to the supposed magnanimity of the GM lobby because it is
anything but that.
Dr Ogola teaches at the University of Central Lancashire.
GOOgola@uclan.ac.uk