Genetically modified crops in Africa

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 5

crops open the possibility of addressing biotic and abiotic constraints to food, feed, and fiber production. GE crops may, for example, enhance pro- ductivity, improve pest and weed control, and increase tolerance to drought and salinity. These crops may also improve public health through reductions in pesticide applications and through enhanced nutrition, such as vitamin A–enhanced rice that is currently being evaluated in a number of develop- ing countries. Yet different stakeholders have contrasting positions toward these technologies.

Stakeholder Criticisms of GE Crops

Some stakeholders often cite the fact that existing GE crops were largely devel- oped by the private sector for use in industrialized countries in an intensive and commercially focused agriculture. The consequence of this approach, in their view, is that existing GE crops are inappropriate for traditional agricul- ture as practiced in Africa and other developing countries. They believe that this approach empowers private firms to exercise monopoly power and thus price the technology at a higher level than in a competitive market (Moschini and Lapan 1997; Falck-Zepeda, Traxler, and Nelson 2000). Private sector–led agricultural R&D is a different pathway than that taken by previous agricul- tural innovation processes, which have been driven mostly by the public sec- tor. The private sector–led R&D investments and continued control over GE crops is seen by some commentators as one more example of corporate control of agriculture and its activities. Other issues have been raised, such as the “contamination” of traditional

varieties due to pollen flow, uncontrolled gene dispersion, impacts on trade, disruption of traditional communities and livelihoods, dependency on pri- vate sector, production risk increasing due to the rise of monocultures, and the decline of smallholder crop diversification.2 These concerns may or may not be unique to GE crops. They may also belong to a larger set of general con- cerns over the role of science and technology in contributing to poverty alle- viation and development. Furthermore, it is not always clear whether these

2 For a summary of the biological and environmental issues, see Conner, Glare, and Nap (2003). For a broader discussion that also includes social issues, see Uzogara (2000) and Stone (2002). In some cases and under a relatively complex set of conditions, the introduction of modern varieties—including GE crops—can introduce the potential for private firms exercising monop- oly power over resource-poor households and farmers in developing countries. This outcome is valid but dependent on a set of conditions that determine its likelihood. In particular, it is a pos- sible scenario where market conditions are such that they force farmers in developing countries to become members of captive markets with little or no choice for a diversity of crop varieties or other production alternatives. Therefore conventional or traditional varieties preserved by farm- ers could disappear over time (Munro 2003; Knezevic 2007).

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15 | Page 16 | Page 17 | Page 18 | Page 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23 | Page 24 | Page 25 | Page 26 | Page 27 | Page 28 | Page 29 | Page 30 | Page 31 | Page 32 | Page 33 | Page 34 | Page 35 | Page 36 | Page 37 | Page 38 | Page 39 | Page 40 | Page 41 | Page 42 | Page 43 | Page 44 | Page 45 | Page 46 | Page 47 | Page 48 | Page 49 | Page 50 | Page 51 | Page 52 | Page 53 | Page 54 | Page 55 | Page 56 | Page 57 | Page 58 | Page 59 | Page 60 | Page 61 | Page 62 | Page 63 | Page 64 | Page 65 | Page 66 | Page 67 | Page 68 | Page 69 | Page 70 | Page 71 | Page 72 | Page 73 | Page 74 | Page 75 | Page 76 | Page 77 | Page 78 | Page 79 | Page 80 | Page 81 | Page 82 | Page 83 | Page 84 | Page 85 | Page 86 | Page 87 | Page 88 | Page 89 | Page 90 | Page 91 | Page 92 | Page 93 | Page 94 | Page 95 | Page 96 | Page 97 | Page 98 | Page 99 | Page 100 | Page 101 | Page 102 | Page 103 | Page 104 | Page 105 | Page 106 | Page 107 | Page 108 | Page 109 | Page 110 | Page 111 | Page 112 | Page 113 | Page 114 | Page 115 | Page 116 | Page 117 | Page 118 | Page 119 | Page 120 | Page 121 | Page 122 | Page 123 | Page 124 | Page 125 | Page 126 | Page 127 | Page 128 | Page 129 | Page 130 | Page 131 | Page 132 | Page 133 | Page 134 | Page 135 | Page 136 | Page 137 | Page 138 | Page 139 | Page 140 | Page 141 | Page 142 | Page 143 | Page 144 | Page 145 | Page 146 | Page 147 | Page 148 | Page 149 | Page 150 | Page 151 | Page 152 | Page 153 | Page 154 | Page 155 | Page 156 | Page 157 | Page 158 | Page 159 | Page 160 | Page 161 | Page 162 | Page 163 | Page 164 | Page 165 | Page 166 | Page 167 | Page 168 | Page 169 | Page 170 | Page 171 | Page 172 | Page 173 | Page 174 | Page 175 | Page 176 | Page 177 | Page 178 | Page 179 | Page 180 | Page 181 | Page 182 | Page 183 | Page 184 | Page 185 | Page 186 | Page 187 | Page 188 | Page 189 | Page 190 | Page 191 | Page 192 | Page 193 | Page 194 | Page 195 | Page 196 | Page 197 | Page 198 | Page 199 | Page 200 | Page 201 | Page 202 | Page 203 | Page 204 | Page 205 | Page 206 | Page 207 | Page 208 | Page 209 | Page 210 | Page 211 | Page 212 | Page 213 | Page 214 | Page 215 | Page 216 | Page 217 | Page 218 | Page 219 | Page 220 | Page 221 | Page 222 | Page 223 | Page 224 | Page 225 | Page 226 | Page 227 | Page 228 | Page 229 | Page 230 | Page 231 | Page 232 | Page 233 | Page 234 | Page 235 | Page 236 | Page 237 | Page 238 | Page 239 | Page 240 | Page 241 | Page 242 | Page 243 | Page 244 | Page 245 | Page 246 | Page 247 | Page 248 | Page 249 | Page 250 | Page 251 | Page 252 | Page 253 | Page 254 | Page 255 | Page 256 | Page 257 | Page 258 | Page 259 | Page 260 | Page 261 | Page 262 | Page 263 | Page 264 | Page 265 | Page 266