Crop Biotechnology News

Nairobi -- Where does Kenya really stand on the controversial issue of biotechnology?

Agriculture Minister Chris Obure recently voiced his opposition to biotechnology, noting that although this is a superior method of producing food, it may not be the solution to food insecurity and malnutrition in developing countries.

The minister was also reported as saying that although the technology was geared towards feeding the ever-increasing human population, heavy commercialisation and the profit motive by the multinationals championing biotechnology were detrimental to agricultural development in Kenya and other developing countries.

Genetically modified seeds, he said, cannot be grown and used later for planting. Yet farmers are being lured with the promise of high yields and improved incomes to buy and plant these seeds, he said.

The minister agreed with a cross-section of traditionalists, agriculturalists, environmentalists and nutritionists who warn that the use of biotechnology could, in the long run, be counter-productive and hamper agricultural production in developing countries.

It was surprising, therefore, that the minister beat a hasty retreat the following day, heaping praise on biotechnological advances, and apparently re-stating Government policy on the matter.

``The Government has not changed its policy. In fact, we are carrying research on biotechnology and its use. Research on genetically-modified foods by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute in collaboration with multinationals companies, is going on,`` he said.

The implications of the commercialisation of genetically-modified seeds, according to Paul Lane, director of the British Institute in Eastern Africa, means that small-scale farmers or communities will be perpetually hooked to the terminator technology products. As a result, agricultural production will fall.

But, possibly, the greatest concern is the safety of biotechnology products. Opponents fear that the transgenic plants and livestock or the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as they are commonly known, may not be safe for consumers or the environment.

However, the director and president of the Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), Ms Claire M. Fraser, believes the fear is misplaced.

``This is a topic rife with misunderstanding - some of which is a cynical misuse of public perception - but most of which is due to the abominable failure of the scientific community to explain to the general public exactly what biotechnology is. Scientists have done a lousy job of communicating the methodologies, and the risk/benefit ratio of this new field.

``This has come back to haunt us now, unfortunately at a time when increasing populations and stubborn diseases most demand innovative and speedy solutions, some of which are offered by biotechnology.``

Dr Fraser was delivering the third Annual Peter Doherty Distinguished Lecture on the subject, Genomic sciences: impacts on medicine and agriculture, at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) headquarters, Nairobi.

Some people have characterised this controversy as pitting rich against poor, ethicists against pragmatists, and environmentalists against short-sighted opportunists.

But according to Dr Fraser, this is a battle between the scientifically informed versus the uninformed; between those who understand the long ancestral lines of biotechnology, and those who believe that we are leaping blindly across an unknown genetic fault line. The public is recoiling against science fiction, not science itself, she says.

``Does anyone really believe that mankind expanded from a population of 10 million people in the hunting age to six billion people today without attempting to manipulate its environment?`` she asks.

But Prof Simiyu Wandiba of the University of Nairobi believes the concerns are genuine. Even in the United States where the public and the scientific community is well-informed, he says, they have raised concerns about the safety of biotechnology products and their implications on general agricultural production. Which is why, he says, the developing world should approach biotechnology with utmost caution.

Dr Fraser argues that from the very beginnings of agriculture, farmers improved plants and bred animals through hybridisation, seeking better food quality and higher yields.

``This is a form of biotechnology which can be fairly defined as any process in which man deliberately modifies animal and plant species for his own betterment - deliberately, because species are always randomly cross-hybridising and reinventing themselves.``

Early methods of gene transfer involved cross-breeding of species to achieve desirable traits. These species were grown and observed, and then ``back-crossed`` to reduce the number of undesirable traits unintentionally transferred during the first transaction.

And this is exactly the point. New techniques in biotechnology do not in way veer away from the aspirations of earlier efforts. Our ability to excise and transfer specific gene traits only expedites the process, she says.

However, the justification for biotechnology should not be based on its incredible achievements - the phenomenal increases in crop yields, the lowered use of pesticides and insecticides which are so harmful to our environment, and the increased nutritional value of transgenic crops.

According to Dr Fraser, the only criterion that should guide us on genetically-modified organisms is the safety of its products.

But how can the safety be determined?

The American Society for Microbiology says it neatly: ``Oversight and regulation should be based on the risk associated with products of biotechnology and not on the processes used to create or produce these products.``

Dr Fraser compares this to the manufacture of automobiles. ``The mere fact that an automobile is manufactured using robotics or other techniques is in itself irrelevant; what matters is its safety. Does it meet commonly-accepted standards? Just by its presence on the showroom floor, the public assumes and trusts that it does. The same must be true of genetically-improved crops and livestock.``

She says the importance of oversight and regulation in any kind of food production system and distribution cannot be overestimated. ``Our health depends upon it, but public confidence depends on it in equal measure. Without that confidence, all the promise of this incredible new technology may be thrown into the sea.``

The threat is real. At the moment, European Union member states have imposed a moratorium on imports of biotech corn varieties, even though they have been approved by European scientific authorities as safe. Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are poised to impose mandatory biotech food labelling systems.

However, Dr Fraser believes some of these are thinly disguised forms of market protectionism that have been boosted, unfortunately, by a public panic. This is ironic, she says. The international community has done a credible job of monitoring the safety of biotech foods.

She argues that there is nothing on earth that is totally risk-free. Penicillin is not risk-free, nor are vaccines against measles, polio, or tuberculosis. ``Our job as scientists and administrators is to minimise these risks and weigh them against potential benefits. For the sake of the consumer we can only hope these risks will be assessed in the name of science and not by fear-mongering or political gamesmanship.``