Are there no enough reasons for Africans to embrace biotech in their quest for food security, and fight hunger and starvation? Recent Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report says at least twenty five African countries are grappling with food emergencies. Food scarcity is threatening to consume about 1.9 million human lives in Angola, and hunger has joined the league of killers in Sudan. In Zambia, 2.5 million people are battling with starvation, and millions are groaning in the painful hold of hunger in Zimbabwe.
At present, pests are giving a massive support to hunger in its bid to destroy a considerable portion of humanity. Locusts have invaded the continent ravaging Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and other African countries. Massive crop damage has occurred in the locust-invaded countries. Damage to pasture, cereals and vegetables has been recorded in Mauritania, Northern and Central Senegal, Mali and Niger. Experts say 2.3 million hectares are at risk from the destructive pest in Senegal. In its latest bulletin, Mauritania locust fighting body (CLAA) says locusts are eating up to 40 percent of crops and pastures in affected areas.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic is depleting the population of farmers in the continent. Millions of those who engage in agricultural activities have had their energy drained by the deadly virus. Millions of farmers have also lost their lives to the pandmic leaving hunger more empowered. Several other threats to agriculture exist in Africa.
With the worrisome ravage of hunger and starvation, occasioned by food shortages, which stem from drought, pests, HIV/AIDS and other agents of destruction, should Africans not opt for a technology that will ensure food security and end the reigns of hunger? A sad fact is that millions are hungry and, as a result, are at the risk of loosing their lives. How to save these hungry people should be the concern of everyone.
Science and technology seem to have offered a way out of the painful hold of hunger through biotechnology. However, opposition is strident and threatening its acceptance and use. Professing love for humanity and concern for the environment, environmental groups and their allies across the world argue that biotech foods are not safe for human consumption. Millions of dollars are being spent on the campaigns against biotechnology. Between 1996 and 2001 the protest against biotech consumed $500 million. A new campaign is expected to span five years and gulp $170 million.
To obtain bite for their opposition, the European countries placed a ban on the importation of genetically engineered foods and bullied African leaders into rejecting them as aid assistance. President Mwanawasa of Zambia once rejected 26,000 tons of corn, saying it was not safe for human consumption. Campaigns against biotech are heavily funded.
Not quite long ago, in South Africa, field trials of genetically engineered potatoes were opposed by lobby groups. Biowatch and the Africa Centre for Biosafety are demanding from the South African government a disclosure of details of all genetically modified crops being grown in the country. They argue that genetic modified foods pose risks to humans.
But supporters of biotech say they are safe for consumption, and that the fear over their safety is baseless. Scientific studies have proved that biotech pose no danger to human health. Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who was 'once against biotech' is now of the view that genetic modified crops could benefit the environment, human health and nutrition. According to him, the war against biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case of misguided environmentalism."
Many renowned organizations have all affirmed the safety of genetic modified foods. The EU Environment Minister, Margot Wallastroem once described the ban on genetic modified crops as "illegal and unjustified." French Academies ascribed opposition to biotech foods to the spread of "erroneous information." Thousands of Scientists have certified biotech foods safe for consumption.
Given the amount of money and efforts being expended on opposition to biotechnology, is it safe to say that the lobby groups are friends of humanity rather than supporters of hunger and starvation? Can we also say that the huge amount of money being spent on biotech research does not stem from a sincere concern for humanity?
The fact that there has been enough scientific evidence on the safety of biotech never assuaged those who opposed genetic modified foods. But one fact remains: do the anti-biotech groups either truly love humanity, or blinded by junk science to gloss-over the benefits of biotechnology; or they are only playing politics with the precious lives of millions of hungry people?
Playing politics with human lives in whatever form is criminal. With the endorsement of genetic modified foods by several scientists and reputable global organizations, one can say the anti-biotechnology activists hate humanity. Millions of lives are daily struggling with hunger in Africa. If they really love humanity, they ought not to vigorously campaign against the technology designed to save million of lives.
The protest industry has never offered options on how to end hunger and starvation prevalent in several communities in Africa. Public sector investment in biotech research is put at $300m every year. About $3 billion is said to be spent on biotech each year by ten top companies that drive this research. Obviously, denying the poor to benefit from the huge investment in this research is wicked and highly condemnable.