where on-farm varieties were lost because of civil strife or
other socioeconomic conditions. Maize and sorghum germplasm
were reintroduced into Somalia agriculture after traditional
varieties were lost during the protracted conflicts
(Friis-Hansen and Kiambi, 1997).
Ethnoveterinary studies documented an elaborate classification
of cattle disease and remedies among East African
pastoralists. In Nigeria, one survey identified 92 herbs and
plants used in ethnoveterinary medicine. A similar case was
found in the Sahel: the Tuareg know the timing of the sheep
reproduction cycle and its relationship to the seasonal cycle,
giving them considerable control over stockbreeding. The
Tuareg selectively use penile sheaths on rams to ensure that
lambs are not born at the end of the dry season, when the
nutrition for ewes is poor.
3.4.4 Biosafety
Concerns and debates about GM crops center around four
major areas of concern: the threat to human, animal and
environmental health; food and feed safety; the socioeconomic
impact on small-scale farmers and developing country
communities; and ethical and religious concerns. Of the
11 developing countries growing genetically modified (GM)
crops only South Africa is in SSA (James, 2007). South Africa
grew 1.4 million ha in 2006—a 180% increase over
the 0.5 million ha planted in 2005. South Africa realized
US$164 million from commercializing GM crops (Runge
and Ryan, 2004).
- Environmental concerns center on the threat to biodiversity
from continuous monoculturing of GM crops,
the reduced need for landraces and the effect of modern
agronomy on natural biodiversity. There might be increased
fitness and weediness in plants not previously
weedy (Johnson, 2000). The long-term stability of the
transgene is not known. The effect on other organisms,
the abiotic effect of the transgene on other organisms in
the soil, air and water, and the long-term effects are not
clearly understood (Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000).
- Food and feed safety concerns relate to the toxicity
that might result from expression of the transgene or
the potential allergies it might cause (Metcalfe et al.,
1996; Nordlee et al., 1996). The transgene might affect
the nutritional content of the food or widespread use
of antibiotic resistant genes used as markers could lead
to increased resistance in clinical use (Hare and Chau,
2002).
- Economic concerns stem from worries that multinational
companies will gain control over the food chain
by patenting a technology, resulting in limited access
by both small-scale farmers and developing country scientists.
Furthermore, patenting the technology results
in altered farming practices where the farmers can no
longer save seed for replanting. There is concern that
globalization and unfair trade practices such as the production
of inexpensive good-quality commodities in industrialized
countries could lead to income inequalities
and threaten livelihoods in marginalized communities.
The dilemma for Africa is how to enhance existing local
and traditional AKST, including postharvest technologies
and market—roads that will improve SSA food
security, livelihoods and rural development—without
|
|
- exacerbating SSA’s deteriorating terms of trade. The
vast majority of food and feed crops Africans consume
are grown with almost no intergovernmental or donor
support from farmer-saved seed and farmer-developed
varieties. For this reason, the African Group at the
World Trade Organization (WTO) TRIPS Council have
supported maintaining patent exemptions on life forms
(article 27.3b) and have sought to protect the use of
traditional AKST at World Intellectual Property Organization
negotiations. Africa has also opposed attempts
to restrict farmers’ right to save and exchange seeds at
implementation negotiations of the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Agriculture and Food.
- Social concerns include a consumer’s right to choose
whether to use or avoid GM food, religious and ethical
concerns relating to dietary preference, the inability of
farmers to save and replant seed, and threats to organic
farming practices. The issue of labeling is an ongoing
debate that has long embroiled countries. Some developing
countries, including the SSA countries of Ghana,
Kenya, Senegal and Swaziland in particular, prefer labeling
GM foods (ICSTD, 2005). For informed decision
making, labeling will have to take into account
language, literacy level and public awareness.
Most of Africa’s crop exports that could be labeled as “possibly
GM” and potentially shunned from European markets,
in fact go to other African countries—80% of these
crops from Kenya, 85% from Tanzania, 95% from Zambia
and 99% from Uganda have destinations within the continent
(Paarlberg et al., 2006). Uganda’s exports to the EU
declined, from US$309 million in 1997 to US$185 million
in 2002, and the share directed to the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) increased (Uganda
Export Promotion Board, 2005). Therefore it is possible
that most crop production that might at this time include
GMOs could be traded within Africa itself. For as long as
that is true, then the concern will be market rejections of
GM products produced in Africa by Africans, rather than
rejection by Europeans, Asians and those in the Middle
East. Sub-regional agreements that promoted the trade of
GM crops between these countries might in the short term
preserve the ability of African GM producing countries to
export their goods to other countries on the same continent
(Paarlberg et al., 2006), but would neither be a guarantee
of consumer acceptance nor of long-term competitiveness
in possibly larger overseas markets that pay a premium for
non-GM goods. The rationale for sub-regional agreements
might not be convincing for countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia
and Uganda who already export their goods outside of
(non-Arab) Africa (Paarlberg et al., 2006). For example, by
2005 Uganda’s exports to Europe climbed to US$249 million,
a 44% increase over 2004 (Uganda Export Promotion
Board, 2005), and Europe remains the single largest destination
for Uganda’s exports.
Potential risks will need to be assessed and managed
safely, and in a manner that inspires public trust in the regulatory
systems (Persley, 2003). However, in most countries
the capacity to address risk assessment, risk management
and GMO testing is limited. This limitation could be ad- |