By Tom Drake
The issues of genetic modification, biopiracy and biodiversity were raised in Hugo’s excellent article on a new wave of ‘philanthro-capitalism’ in Africa, as promoted by the Gates foundation. For me, the issue here is not really one of genetic modification, but of monocultures and of patenting other’s natural resources. The term ‘genetic modification’ tends to put the Franken-Fear into people, with connotations of unnatural tampering to create monster food. However traditional farming methods have been controlling the genetics of crop families for centuries by breeding in desired attributes. Over a few generations this can have startling effects as seen in the Belgian Blue or ‘Supercow’. Although there may be little practical difference between the two the public has less stomach for food that has its origins in a lab.
Biopiracy is the practice of patenting therapeutic uses of plants or a particular compound found in a plant, even though local people already know that plant and its uses. There continue to be examples of pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies engaging in this and although international law is on the side of the local Africans the legal battle costs money, which the companies have and the local people invariably don’t.
The main risk here is of aggressive agro-industrialisation producing huge monocultures of crops with little genetic diversity. This will undermine the existing (although not necessarily ‘natural’) biodiversity in the seed population, as well as creating massive exposure to disease adaptation. Mass expansion of single crop farming destroys eco-systems and damages the land. This has been seen before with the demand for palm oil driving heavy rainforest deforestation and subsequently leaving the ground infertile.
GM crops confer a clear advantage when farming in potentially difficult areas but have a negative impact of biodiversity. Take them or leave them, biodiversity is still potentially under threat by the manner of this ‘green revolution’ as non-GM monocultures will have an equally devastating affect.
I’m sure intensive farming can be executed while minimising these problems but in a situation where the power of the investors is high and regulation is low the push for profit may well overshadow such concerns. In addition, what will happen to the ownership of these industries? If established as intended, it is hard to imagine anything other than the means of food production for the world’s poorest continuing to be owned by the world’s richest. It seems to me that without a mechanism to return ownership of the industries established to African people, philanthro-capitalism is a hairs breadth from being economic colonialism.
