Before we adopt GM cotton, first sort out the mess in the industry

Among the countries targeted for the adoption and cultivation of Bt-Cotton are Burkina Faso, Mali, South Sudan, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda and Ethiopia. South Africa and Burkina Faso are already growing the Bt-Cotton. PHOTO | TEA Graphic 

By JOHN MBARIA

In Summary

• As African countries prepare for the cultivation of GM-cotton, they appear to have not only overlooked issues raised by researchers and the anti-GMO lobbyists but also ignored lessons from countries such as India, Burkina Faso and South Africa.

African farmers must be most sought after in the quest for genetically modified cotton. An ongoing campaign, coming after the renewal of the preferential trade agreement under the African Growth Opportunity Act, is harping on improving productivity and profitability of cotton in the continent by reducing dependence on pesticides.

However, critics worry that major issues affecting the cotton industry may be brushed aside.

Kenya has pledged to start cultivating the crop while in Malawi, a subsidiary of the US biotech giant, Monsanto Corporation, submitted Bt-cotton material for approvals in May.

Ethiopia is reportedly reforming its biosafety laws to create easy access to the genetically engineered cotton and other products. By changing the law, Ethiopia is looking for an opportunity to raise cotton production through the cultivation of Bt-Cotton.

“Currently, there is shortage of cotton production in Ethiopia, which imports cotton from Tanzania and China every year,” Dr Endale Gebre, director of biotechnology research at the Ethiopian Institution of Agricultural Research, said, adding that “applying biotechnology in cotton production would minimise cost and save foreign currency.”

But as African countries prepare for the cultivation of GM-cotton, they appear to have not only overlooked issues raised by researchers and the anti-GMO lobbyists but also ignored lessons from countries such as India, Burkina Faso and South Africa.

READ: How govts, biotech firms push for adoption of GM cotton

For example, in Kenya, the Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research and Analysis (Kippra) had observed in a 2006 study that the sector requires home-grown solutions to be sustained since the external factors that support the production of Bt-cottton may be short-lived.

On their part, farmers groups and the civil society have asked African countries to consider the link between cotton production and the difficult experiences African people have gone through in history.

For example, Michael Farrelly, the programme co-ordinator of the Tanzania Organic Agriculture said the push is reminiscent of slavery in the cotton fields of the southern states of the US, where millions of Africans were bought and sold.

“Now 250 years later, the Missouri-based Monsanto Corporation, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified cotton seeds, has targeted Africa as the final frontier in its drive for world market domination.”

Mr Farrelly counselled caution because of risks such as increased input costs, huge pest and disease problems, and major loss of biodiversity and farmers seed sovereignty. “The lessons of history — from slavery to biotechnology — need to be well understood before this risk-prone and highly controversial technology is unleashed on millions of unsuspecting East African farmers,” he said.

Monsanto hails the technology

But in its website, Monsanto hails the technology saying that by cultivating the GM-cotton, African farmers stand a better chance of eradicating losses caused by over-use of pesticides since the variety has in-built mechanism to get rid of the bollworm — a nuisance pest that attacks cotton.

The company also says that adoption of Bt-cotton would help increase farm productivity and economic fortunes of farmers:
“Biotechnology-derived crops have contributed to a substantial reduction in pesticide volumes used in production agriculture and have provided economic and social benefits to growers in both developed and developing countries by reducing time and production costs, and increasing yields.”