Robert Voorhees

CAS 138T
April 2014

Genetically Modified Foods and World Hunger
A Case for Transgenic Crops in Western Africa

For most Americans, the notion of global hunger and malnourishment is an
intangible concept. With easy access to food and water, most simply cannot grasp
the vastness of this problem in other countries. But recent research estimates that
as many as 870 million people around the world are undernourished, and
approximately 852 million of these people live in less developed countries (2013
World Hunger). In many areas, such as Southeast Asia, the number of people
struggling with malnourishment has dropped in recent years, but unfortunately,
hunger has continued to rise in other regions. The entire continent of Africa, for
example, saw a rise from 175 to 239 million people affected by hunger from 1990 to
2012 (2013 World Hunger).
African countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, and Mali have been plagued with a
multitude of issues that have exacerbated this lack of nutritional food.
Predominantly the problem stems from a departure from the traditional farming
practice of fallowing. Fallowing is the process of farming a land for only one or two
years, then letting that tract of land sit for several years while moving on to other
areas of farmland (Ayieko). This practice of giving land time in-between harvests
was effective at restoring nutrients to the soil, but in recent years, continuing that
process has been nearly impossible. With the steep population rise in these African
countries, farmers have been forced to farm the same tracts of land for multiple
years in a row. Consequently, the soil in these areas has become worse, with less
organic matter and a decreased ability to hold water, and as a result, African
farmland has suffered massive erosion and deforestation (Ayieko). These effects
have caused not only lower yields during crop harvesting, but also decreased
nutrition levels in these harvests. In response to the shortage of nutritious crops, the
governments of several African countries have turned to partnerships with
companies that focus on genetically modified organisms. These partnerships, which
would facilitate the distribution of genetically modified organisms to subsistence
farmers, are a crucial step in the fight against global hunger.
Genetically modified organisms, sometimes referred to as transgenic
organisms, are plants or animals that have been altered genetically through
deliberate engineering to add or emphasize a specific trait (Brief History). The
ability to transfer genetic information between two organisms was first discovered
in 1973 by two scientists, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer, although initially, the
process was only used on bacterium and viruses in order to produce more effective
pharmaceuticals (Brief History). However, beginning in 1980 scientists began
genetically engineering crops, and by 1994 these crops were approved by the Food
and Drug Administration for human consumption (Karimi). Today, as much as 80%
of the processed foods in more developed countries, like America, are products of
genetic modification (GMO Facts).
Genetically modified foods have become somewhat commonplace in
America, but only recently have engineers been tweaking crops to combat the issues
African subsistence farmers are facing. The biggest advancement this work has
achieved is the ability to modify crops to contain higher levels of necessary
nutrients. Predominantly, this has been seen in sweet potatoes, one of the most
consumed crops in Africa. Scientists have successfully modified African sweet
potatoes to contain a higher caloric content and higher levels of vitamin A, adding
essential nutrition to previously lacking diets. Ultimately, this endeavor has paid off,
as the Vitamin A intake has nearly doubled in Uganda and Mozambique since the
implementation of these crops (Anderson). Similarly, the popular crop cassava has
been engineered to produce yields with higher iron and protein levels in Nigeria and
Kenya (Anderson). Advancements like these have unique potential to improve diets
in these western African countries, where access to food is low and the crops that
are available are extremely low in nutrition.
But a higher level of nutrients is not the only success transgenic crops have
had in these African nations. Another exciting advancement is the ability of these
crops to withstand both pests and viruses, problems that subsistence farmers are
all-too familiar with. The feather mottle virus in Kenya, for example, can destroy
up to 80% of a sweet potato harvest if the crop becomes infected, and traditional
herbicides and pesticides simply have not been working in recent years. Genetic
experimentation, however, has developed a sweet potato that is resistant to this
virus (Developing Countries). This new strain has been implemented in Kenya and
has slowly helped rebuild farmland that has suffered losses due to the mottle virus,
completely without the use of any pesticides. Higher yields during harvests have
also been seen in areas that have adopted transgenic crops. Modifications have been
made to deal with lack of water and poorer soil conditions, resulting in countries
like South Africa seeing harvest yields anywhere from 20-80% higher than harvests
on farms that have not used genetically modified crops (Developing Countries).
One final, almost unintentional, benefit that has also been seen is the raising
of average incomes of subsistence farmers growing these genetically modified crops
(Developing Countries). This primarily stems from the decreased costs and higher
yields of farming with transgenic crops. The seeds used to grow genetically modified
crops typically cost no more than ordinary seeds, and because they require far less
maintenance such as pesticides or herbicides, the overall input cost for subsistence
farmers has substantially decreased. Combining this low cost with the higher
yielding harvests that were mentioned before, we see that farmers in Africa have
continued to increase their profits (Developing Countries). In most cases these
monetary profits have been used to buy more seed and land, allowing successful
transgenic-based farms to expand.
With all of these benefits in mind, the best course action would be to
implement these genetically modified crops into farms in struggling African
countries. This could come about in any number of ways, but government
partnerships with seed corporations appear to be the best way forward. In
particular, the precedent set by South Africa presents itself as a decent model for
other African nations to follow.
Transgenic crops have been prevalent in South Africa since the late 1980s;
making it the first African country to fully embrace genetically modified foods. In
1989, the government began funding research and experimentation with transgenic
crops, and through the early 1990s, field trials were performed. This research,
funded by the South African government, was performed by Delta and Pine Land, a
seed company from the United States, and initially examined insect-resistant cotton
and maize (Gouse). After progress was made with certain staple crops in late 1990s,
the South African government began allowing the sale of successful transgenic seeds
through these seed corporations, and then facilitated the distribution to subsistence
farmers in their country (Gouse). The cost of these seeds was typically no more than
ordinary seeds, but pricing did vary by region. It is important to note, though, that
no farmers were forced to adopt these new crops; transgenic foods were only made
available, and farmers were given the option to participate. A process of cooperation
between governments and corporations, similar to that in South Africa, would be
incredibly effective in other African nations that have not yet embraced genetically
modified crops.
Like any other industry, the experimentation with transgenic crops and their
subsequent use require regulation. Responsibility regarding both research and
proper cultivation of these crops is an important facet of a transgenic organism
policy. Again, other African countries could benefit from adopting standards similar
to South Africa. In 1997 their government passed the Genetically Modified
Organisms Act which encompasses all aspects of transgenic agriculture, including
experimentation, production, sale, and exportation (Overview). This legislation was
put in place to limit any and all risks that genetically modified organisms may place
on not only human and animal health, but also on the environment. Put simply, this
bill requires and enforces permits in all areas of GMO activity to ensure the safe
production and use of transgenic crops, as well as limits the power that seed
corporations have (Overview). The South African government has been successful in
regulating this industry, and other countries embracing GMOs could effectively
adopt this model.
But despite all of the benefits that genetically modified organisms have
produced and the relative ease of implementing these crops in African farms,
organic advocacy groups and the governments of some western African countries
have prevented farmers from accessing these crops. Their argument against the use
of transgenic crops relies largely on two main points: that genetically modified
organisms will be completely ineffective at combating world hunger, and that the
use of transgenic crops creates and fosters a dependence upon corporations. It is
important to note that these arguments revolve solely around the use of transgenic
crops in less developed nations, not for their use in America; the arguments are
completely dissimilar.
The primary argument against the use of transgenic crops in less developed
countries is that genetically modified crops will not help in battling global hunger.
This ideology is based largely on the idea that world hunger is not due to a lack of
food globally, but due to a lack of access to food (GMO Facts). This is perhaps the
most powerful argument against the use of genetically modified crops, primarily
because this statement is true. It is a fact that America and Europe produce plenty of
food, enough to feed many starving people around the world. But unfortunately, the
lack of modern development in Africa is preventing access to these global supplies,
leading to a shortage of food in these less developed nations. So while, yes, world
food production rates are high enough to feed the malnourished, it is impossible to
get this food into the hands of these people. What is important, then, is to take what
little food they do have access to and improve it, while ongoing efforts are made to
develop these nations. This can only be achieved through the genetic modification of
crops.
The second, lesser argument that critics of transgenic crops make is that the
use of these crops creates and then builds a dependence of already disadvantaged
farmers on corporations. As these seed corporations are possiby the biggest players
in transgenic agriculture, this is a legitimate concern. The key to preventing this
corporation control lies in regulation. As the policies of South Africa have shown,
transgenic crops can be implemented without companies like Monsanto
monopolizing the industry. The permit system that South Africa has put in place
regulates how much control these corporations have and how much power they
have over the seed market (Overview). As long as an emphasis is placed on
cooperation through these government and company partnerships, corporate
influence is limited, enforced through regulatory policies.
As has been made evident, world hunger is a massive problem plaguing much
of the undeveloped world. Though some nations have seen decreases in the number
of malnourished recently, many countries of western Africa have, unfortunately,
been faced with a growing populations and a decrease in available food, resulting in
more hunger each and every year. But recently, genetically modified crops, with
their ability to grow in adverse circumstances, have been proven to be an effective
source of nutrition. Cooperation between the governments of these African
countries and corporations producing these crops could potentially limit
malnourishment on the continent. Though they are not the ultimate solution to
global hunger, transgenic crops are certainly a step in the right direction while
ongoing efforts are made to develop these countries, and therefore, should be
implemented in western Africa.

Words Count: 1916


















Works Cited
"2013 World Hunger and Poverty Statistics." Hunger Notes. World Hunger Education
Services, 27 July 2013. Web. Apr. 2014.
Anderson, Catherine. "The GM Food Potential." FDI Global Food and Water. Future
Directions International, 15 July 2011. Web. Apr. 2014.
Ayieko, Francis. "Africa at Large: Bad Farming Practices Blamed for Infertile Soils."
Afrika. Norwegian Council for Africa, 7 Feb. 2008. Web. Apr. 2014.
"A Brief History of Genetic Modification." GM Education. Genetic Modification
Education, n.d. Web. Apr. 2014.
"Developing Countries and GM Crops." John Innes Center. Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council, 2012. Web. Apr. 2014.
"GMO Facts." Non-GMO. The Non-GMO Project, 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
Gouse, Marnus. "Aspects of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops in South
Africa." Belfer Center. Rockefeller Foundation, May-June 2005. Web. Apr. 2014.
Karimi, Shireen. "GMO Timeline: A History of Genetically Modified Foods." GMO
Inside. Green America, 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
"Overview of South African Regulation." Biosafety SA. Biosafety South Africa, n.d.
Web. Apr. 2014.