Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa PDF
Preview Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa
STARVED FOR SCIENCE HOW BIOTECHNOLOGY IS BEING K E PT OUT OF AFRICA Robert Paarlberg With a Foreword by Norman E. Borlaug and Jimmy Carter STARVED FOR SCIENCE [To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.] HarvardUniversityPress Cambridge,Massachusetts,andLondon,England RobertPaarlberg STARVEDFORSCIENCE HOWBIOTECHNOLOGY IS BEING KEPT OUT OF AFRICA [To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.] Copyright©2008bythePresidentandFellowsofHarvardCollege Allrightsreserved PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica FirstHarvardUniversityPresspaperbackedition,2009. Design:MariannePerlak pp.ii,iii:NorthernMozambique.BrianAtkinson/AcclaimImages. p.vi:GirlscarrybasinsofwateratvillageinsouthernNiger. p.vi:Reuters/FinbarrO’Reilly. Manyofthedesignationsusedbymanufacturersandsellerstodistinguishtheir productsareclaimedastrademarks.Wherethosedesignationsappearinthisbook andHarvardUniversityPresswasawareofatrademarkclaim,thenthedesigna- tionshavebeenprintedininitialcapitalletters. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Paarlberg,RobertL. Starvedforscience : howbiotechnologyisbeingkeptoutofAfrica / Robert Paarlberg;forewordbyNormanBorlaugandJimmyCarter. p. cm. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN-13:978-0-674-02973-6(cloth :alk.paper) ISBN-13:978-0-674-03347-4(pbk.) 1.Agriculturalbiotechnology—Africa. 2.Crops—Geneticengineering—Africa. 3.Agricultureandstate—Africa. I.Title. S494.5.B563P33 2008 630.96—dc22 2007045745 CONTENTS ForewordbyNormanE.BorlaugandJimmyCarter vii Preface xi Introduction WhyAreAfricansRejectingBiotechnology? 1 1 WhyRichCountriesDislikeAgriculturalGMOs 21 2 DowngradingAgriculturalScienceinRichCountries 47 3 WithdrawingSupportforAgriculturalScienceinAfrica 81 4 KeepingGeneticallyEngineeredCropsOutofAfrica 111 5 Drought-TolerantCrops—OnlyfortheRich? 149 Conclusion AnImperialismofRichTastes 179 References 197 Index 221 [To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.] FOREWORD NormanE.Borlaug JimmyCarter RobertPaarlbergisaleadingscholarontheroleofscienceandtechnol- ogyinsmallholderagriculturaldevelopmentinAfrica,andinparticu- lar,howgovernmentsandcivilsocietyhaverespondedtosuchinnova- tions.Inthisbookheshowshowarecentwithdrawalofdonorsupport for modern agricultural science in Africa, plus outright opposition to newfarmscienceonthepartofsomeglobalpressuregroups,iscontrib- utingdirectlytothecontinuedgrowthofpovertyandhungerinrural Africa. Wesharewithhimhisconcernaboutthelackofsupportforscience and technology in Africa. According to the 2008 World Development Report,whichthisyearfeaturesagriculture,Africahasonlyincreased itsagriculturalresearchinvestmentby20percentoverthepasttwenty years, compared to a threefold increase in Asia. Whereas science has beenusedtoboostfarmproductivityinAsia,raisingruralincomeatthe sametime,smallholderfarmersinAfricahaveremainedstarvedforsci- ence. Less than one-third of Africa’s cropland is planted to improved seedvarieties,comparedto82percentofcroplandinAsia,andaverage cerealyieldsinAfricaarelessthanone-thirdashighasinAsia. Intheearly1990s,Paarlbergwasamongthefirsttosoundthealarm aboutthedeadlockbetweenagriculturalistsandenvironmentalistsover whatconstitutes“sustainableagriculture”intheThirdWorld.Thisde- batehasconfused—ifnotparalyzed—manyintheinternationaldonor community who, afraid of antagonizing powerful environmental lob- bying groups, have turned away from supporting science-based agri- vii viii Foreword cultural modernization projects still needed in much of smallholder Asia,sub-SaharanAfrica,andLatinAmerica.Thisconfusionandparal- ysisisnowmostobviousinthecaseofagriculturalbiotechnology.The science of genetic engineering has significant potential to help rural Africa,particularlysinceitcannowspeedthedevelopmentofcropva- rietiesbetterabletotoleratestressfactorssuchasdrought.Yetthegov- ernments and nongovernmental advocacy groups of most prosperous countries,particularlyinEurope,areresistingtheintroductionofmod- ernagriculturalbiotechnologyintoAfrica. In 2000 a joint U.S.-European Union Biotechnology Consultative Forum was appointed by the presidents of the United States and the EuropeanUniontolookatthefullrangeofissuesthathavepolarized thinking about biotechnology, especially in food and agriculture, on each side of the Atlantic. Although significant differences of opinion existed—mainlyrelatedtotheregulatorystructureinvolvedwithcerti- fyingagri-biotechproducts—mostofthetwentyU.S.andEuropeanex- perts on the panel agreed that agricultural biotechnology holds great promise for dramatic and useful advances in the twenty-first century. Ineffect,itconfirmedtheviewsofthemostprestigiousnationalacade- miesofscienceinNorthAmericaandEurope(includingtheVatican), none of which found any new risks to human health or the environ- ment from any of the applications of crop biotechnology commercial- izedsofar,andallofwhomconfirmthepotentialofgeneticengineer- ingtoimprovethequantity,quality,andavailabilityoffoodsupplies. Evenso,thedebateaboutthesafetyandutilityofgeneticallymodi- fied(GM)cropscontinuestogrow,enoughtodiscouragegovernments in Africa from approving the technology for commercial use. This is a rich-worldargumentthatishurtingthepoor.Althoughtherehaveal- ways been those in society who resist change, the intensity of the at- tacks against GM crops from some quarters is unprecedented, and in certaincases,evensurprising,giventhepotentialenvironmentalbene- fitsthatsuchtechnologycanbringbyreducingtheuseofpesticides. Inthepastfiveyears,thepresidentsofseveralAfricancountriesfac- ing widespread drought, crop failure, and hunger have even banned the distribution of donated maize from the United States as food aid, havingbeentoldbyantibiotechnologygroupsthatthisfoodwas“poi- Foreword ix son”becauseitcontainedgeneticallymodifiedkernels.Basedonsuch misinformation,theyhavebeenwillingtoriskthousandsofadditional starvationdeathsratherthandistributethesamemaizethatregulators approveintheUnitedStatesandthatAmericanshavebeeneatingfor morethanadecadewithnodocumentedilleffect. Paarlbergshowsthatlow-income,food-deficitnationsarebeingad- visedbygovernmentsandpressuregroupsinprivilegednationstore- jectagriculturalbiotechnologymostlybecausethisisatechnologythe rich countries themselves do not happen to need. When it comes to new applications of medical science, which prosperous countries still needandvalue,geneticengineeringisnotseenasathreat,andisnot regulatedtodeath.Onlyintheareaofagriculture,wherenewscience isnolongerneededbytherich—becausetheircitizensarewellfedand their farmers already highly productive—are stifling regulations im- posed. These inconsistent views regarding the use of transgenic crop tech- nology in Europe and elsewhere might have been avoided had more people received a better education in biological science. This educa- tional gap, which has resulted in a growing and worrisome ignorance aboutchallengesandcomplexitiesofagriculturalsystems,needstobe addressedwithoutdelay. Privilegedsocietieshavetheluxuryofadoptingaverylow-riskposi- tionontheGMcropsissue,evenifthisactionlaterturnsouttobeun- necessary. But the vast majority of humankind does not have such a luxury,andcertainlynotthehungryvictimsofwars,naturaldisasters, andeconomiccrises. The policy debate about the suitability of biotech agricultural prod- uctsshouldfocuslessonrisk—sinceaftermorethanadecadeofcom- mercial experience with the technology, no new risks have yet been documented—andmoreonaccessforthepoor.Accesstobiotechseeds bypoorfarmersisadilemmathatwillrequireinterventionsbygovern- mentsandtheprivatesector.Seedcompaniescanhelpimproveaccess by offering preferential pricing for small quantities of biotech seeds to smallholder farmers. Beyond that, public-private partnerships are needed to share research and development costs for “pro-poor” bio- technology. Of course, there is nothing magic in an improved variety
The list of books you might like
