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"