Economist warns of 'tragic consequences' in southern Africa
Thomas DeGregori, economics professor at the University of
Houston, is the author of "Bountiful Harvest: Technology, Food Safety and
the Environment," which is scheduled for publication by the Cato Institute
in October.
He was interviewed by Food Chemical News senior editor Stephen
Clapp.
Q. Does the situation in southern Africa, where countries are
reluctant to accept bioengineered corn for their starving populations, confirm
your worst fears about the opposition to food biotechnology?
A. I have even worse fears, but it's hard to imagine a situation
where people are starving and quality food is being turned down. I don't blame
the Africans. I blame the NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], who have caused
so much confusion. For some time, the smaller, poorer countries have lacked a
scientific establishment that could sort out the various claims. They are
hearing things from all sides, and fear has triumphed over solid science.
There are quality African scientists speaking out, but they are
not getting media attention. Jennifer Thompson in Capetown, South Africa and
Florence Wambugu in Kenya are world-class scientists, but they have not been
able to garner the attention of the media when it comes to the situation we're
seeing in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique. The consequences are tragic.
The Africans have two fears. The first is that the food itself
might be harmful. Yet Zululand in the Republic of South Africa is now
harvesting GMO maize, whereas the previous maize variety was being wiped out by
disease.
Second, the major exporters fear that biotech maize distributed as
food aid will be commingled with conventional maize, and they won't be able to
send their crops to the European Union.
Europe is totally demagogic on this issue. "Consumers' right
to know" is a convenient form of protectionism. There is a huge amount of
hypocrisy regarding biotech foods. Europe demands traceability and labeling for
biotech soybeans from the United States and Argentina. Yet they are importing
soybeans from Brazil, where 60 to 70% of soybeans are GMO because of smuggling
of seeds from Argentina that are used for planting.
This backdoor protectionism in Europe will cost lives in southern
Africa, and the Europeans ought to be called to account. The EU should either
stand up to the Green demagogues and exempt African imports or stand ready to
replace every kernel of transgenic corn that is deemed unacceptable and to do
so immediately. Even better, maybe Greenpeace should be asked to make up the
shortfall.
Q. What is the biotech opponents' response?
A. The NGOs won't let up in their arguments. Now they're saying
the donor nations should give the African countries money so they can buy
non-biotech food on the world market. Should U.S. taxpayers give money to these
countries so they can buy our competitors' products? The U.S. has gone more
than the extra mile in offering to have its biotech maize milled where it is
possible to do so. This means that the kernels can't be replanted. We can't
certify U.S. maize as GM-free because too much of it is commingled with
conventional varieties.
The NGOs are spreading lies, and they know it. Now their lies are
coming home to roost. They are paralyzing action to feed people around the
world through "golden rice" fortified with vitamin A and other crop
improvements.
How many people have Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth ever fed?
These organizations do nothing except engage in PR full time and raise money to
do more PR. Aid organizations and scientists don't have the time to engage in
these battles. "I have to do the science, not PR," one scientist told
me.
Developing countries are struggling to overcome the paralysis over
biotechnology. Meanwhile, the NGOs are arrogant and convinced of the
righteousness of their cause. Their blind faith is not susceptible to change
through evidence. No scientist of any note will join them in their
anti-biotechnology crusade.
Q. What would you do to counter the opposition?
A. We need to get the media to avoid using the language of the
critics crops "contaminated" with GM material? The African
countries should put pressure on the European Union to follow the [World Trade
Organization] rules on science-based regulations so they do not have to worry
about importing transgenic foodstuffs.
We need to expose the fact that these battles are not without
cost. The precautionary principle can cost lives in southern Africa.
Protectionism and chemophobia cost lives. The situation in southern Africa is
the most dramatic illustration to date. We need to call media attention to the
cost of this vast misinformation campaign.
This article first appeared in Food Chemical News, Aug. 26, Page
9. Copyright (c) CRC Press LLC, reprinted by permission, all rights reserved.
For more information, go to www.foodchemicalnews.com"