Why differences in GMO perception between MDCs and LDCs

directly affect African LDCs.

Lorie Alyssa Williams

Global Connections

Instructor: Gregory Falls

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

problems within their respective ecosystems. (Arjun Karki 2009)

 This global food crisis is a consistent reminder of the socioeconomic differences between

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

discussion of neo-colonial perceptions of Africa persist in transnational agricultural trade practices. GM

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

and determine how they stand on GMOs in a general sense.

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

were used sparingly as it was unavoidable within the context of a debate.

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

more background information on how GMOs are created and received.

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

environmental sustainability over feeding people in impoverished circumstances. Bioengineered Crops as

tools for international development: Opportunities and Strategic considerations lays out how there are

improvements to be made in bringing sustainable agricultural practices to all countries.

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

process.Similarly, a 2012 study of biotechnologies arriving in developing Latin American countries is

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

that come with adopting GMOs.

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

to traditional foods (DSouza, 2005).

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

to feed its own people (Farm Press, 2014).

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

people more nutritious food.

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

Foundation) has helped innovative public-private partnerships deliver appropriate agricultural

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

to political leaders(Thomson, 2015).

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

its politicians will accept GMO seeds or food itself.

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

countries. (Valdivia, 2014).

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

that are directly affected by such decisions.

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

countrys people will be able to eat more nutritious food.

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

trade partners to incorporate more technologies into the region.