The benfits of growing such crops are many, and may be realised at most levels in society. Firstly, producers (farmers) benefits because input costs and management time are reduced. Insect protected crops do not require as many insecticide applications, and weed control with herbicide resistant crops is much easier to manage. Further, the increased efficiency of both insect and weed control, generally delivers higher yields.
Reduced insecticide applications also benefits the environment directly,since reduced volumes of environmentally unfriendly products are required to produce the same or higher yields. Indirectly, energy savings are made less pesticides need to be produced, and less fuel for transport and distribution of these chemicals are a consequence. In the USA, an estimated 600 000 gallons of fuel was saved in this way, due to the adoption of insect protected cotton by farmers. Further, great savings are also possible in the use of water, both in the pesticide production process, as well as directly, since less applications are made. In the same study in the USA, a saving of 94 million gallons of water was calculated (See insert). The point is that reducing the impact of farming on the environment brings benefits to the whole of society, not only the farmers.
In the developed world, there is an excess of food. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the developing world. The world population has increased from 2 to 6 billion in the last 60 years. It is expected to increase by another 2 billion odd in the next 20 years. 90% of this increase is expected to occur in the developing world, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Corn yields in the developed world average around 10-15 tons/hectare; in Africa the average yield is 1.4 tons/hectare. It is easy to see why there are 800 million malnourished people in the developing world. Most would agree that the demand for food in the developing world must be met in a sustainable way. Infrastructure to support the delivery of the wests surplus production to the developing world does not exist, and indeed, in times of famine, it is estimated that only about 10-20% of the food aid reaches its intended target. The answer is to equip farmers in the developing world to produce their own food in a sustainable way, at the point where it is required. Biotechnology is a part of this solution. Biotechnology can package the requirements for increased yield and quality of food in smart seeds , which produce crop plants capable of withstanding drought conditions and weed and insect attack, obviating the need for additional crop inputs, such as insecticides, which are often very costly.
Farmers in South Africa are in the enviable position of being able to utilise these technologies if they choose to. The GMO Act strictly regulates the approval and use of these crops and both commercial and small holder farmers have already realised the production benefits of these crops. North of the Limpopo, support for biotechnology is also increasing. Countries like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Burkino Faso and Egypt are fast putting legislation in place so that such technologies can be utilised by their farmers. What is even more encouraging, is the fact that biotechnology capacity is also being built, which will result in an African capacity to harness these technologies. A good example of this is the Kenyan sweet potato project, in which virus resistant sweet potatoes have been developed using local expertise and capacity. In South Africa, a recently proposed Biotechnology Policy also supports the building of scientific capacity in this field, and the government has earmarked R182 million to get this kick started.
Unfortunately, some markets (consumers) in Europe are reluctant to accept foods produced from these technologies, even though a recent EU Commission report found that GM products were as safe as, if not safer than conventional products. This finding was based on 15 years of study over 81 different projects which cost US$64 Million. Artificial trade barriers have developed as a result, the best known of which is probably the case of Namibian red meat. Namibia does not import South African grain, because this would threaten their European export market. The South African grain could contain GM products. It is immaterial that there are no traces of these products found in the meat itself.
In conclusion, the huge benefits across all levels of society, which can accrue from agricultural biotechnology, especially in the developing world, will probably lead to the general acceptance of these products and technologies in the medium term. In South Africa, the first commercialisation of a biotech crop was in 1998, and adoption has risen steadily since then. In spite of the trade barriers, both local and export markets do exist for these products. As populations increase, and the demand for food with it, so the demand for safe foods at lower costs will too.
No comments:
Post a Comment