A joke that is going
around refers to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as “nothing going on.”
My
experience over a 15-year period of studying, interacting with and experiencing
NGO activities in my country, Uganda, has proven the joke to be spot-on, apart
from those genuinely fighting or advocating for the protection of human and
child rights. The NGOs that have emerged to fight against the transformation of
agriculture are really up to the nasty mission of stagnating agricultural
development in Africa , and developing
countries in general.
Why?
Because a focus on these NGOs and their anti-GMO activities has proven that
they are hell-bent on selfishly opposing application of advanced scientific
techniques or better methods of breeding crops/plants — particularly modern
biotechnology or genetic engineering (GE) aimed at introducing
drought-tolerant, disease- and pest-resistant and biofortified crops to our
countries. They base their opposition to GM/GE-crop technology/foods on
unfounded allegations that they’re unnatural, ungodly and inorganic. Yet it is
our experienced and highly-trained breeders who call for and apply this
technology as a tool where conventional breeding has failed over decades of
trials to solve the problems.
If
I may ask: are the challenges the breeders advance real or imagined? If they
are real, should they be solved? If yes, who should solve them, scientists or
NGO activists? And when these challenges are solved via genetic engineering
(GE), does the product honestly become synthetic, unnatural or inorganic? The
GE process is conducted by a scientist (a natural being) and the genes used or
introduced into a plant are naturally extracted from the cells/DNA of a
natural/living source [plant]. So why should the final product [GM/GE
plant/crop] be considered unnatural, inorganic or ungodly? Isn’t GM/GE just
another form of humans keeping ahead of diseases, pests and climate-induced
adverse effects, such as flood, frost and-drought?
NGO-activism
against the application of biotechnology in agriculture and the environment is
misplaced, misrepresented, misdirected, a waste of time and uncalled for. The
underlying motive of NGO activists agitating against the protection of crops
from destruction or devastation by pests, diseases and droughts is to protect
their sources of funding. Agriculture and environmentally-based NGOs want
calamities such as hunger and starvation to happen so that they use it to
continuously fundraise. They present frightening reports of crop losses and
food shortages with pictures mainly of starving children and mothers that evoke
emotions majorly in the West, where wealthy and kind people raise funds for the
NGO coffers. So when GE enables scientists to protect crops from pests,
diseases and drought, they “deny” NGOs the calamities presented to
philanthropists for donations, relief food, medicine, equipment and other supplies.
That’s
why today this activism is more pronounced in Africa
[the least developed world], than anywhere else on the globe. There’s a grand
plan to stagnate agriculture mainly in sub-Saharan Africa
so that it doesn’t transform or improve beyond peasantry and subsistence-levels
of agro-development. But when NGO activists discourage development of crops
with resilience to drought and capacity to naturally repel/kill pests like
stem/stalk borers and bollworms in maize and cotton — two vital food and cash crops,
respectively, widely grown on large-scale — it raises the question, what
functional alternative do they present? None!
Because
the NGOs provide no alternative, science must pro-actively, unwaveringly and
solidly move forward. For instance, the genetically modified Bt maize and Bt
cotton enables farmers to reduce the spray of pesticides by close to 40
percent. In Uganda ,
both technologies have been successfully developed by the National Agricultural
Research Organization (NARO), under the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)
and cotton project research that has been going on since 2008/2010. The
drought-tolerant WEMA maize has also been introduced with genes that confer
pest-resistance and is now called TELA. So we now have GM/GE maize with dual
capacity to resist stem/stalk borers and protect the crop from the hot
seasons/droughts that Uganda
annually suffered even prior to the onset of global warming. Why do NGOs fight
tooth and nail to ensure these technologies do not reach farmers?
My
experience as a journalist/communication specialist, science advocate and
small-scale farmer shows that whenever scientists talk of introducing
drought-tolerant (DT) maize seed, activists wave the irrigation card as a
better option. “No, let’s have irrigation for our farmers. It’s better, widely
available and safer!” they scream. When scientists keep quiet about GM/GE [DT]
seeds, NGOs also keep mum about irrigation. There’s no single NGO or activist
that has made irrigation a very big agenda issue in Uganda across the years. It is only
used to disorganize and block calls for DT seed in agriculture. Fairly and
squarely, even medical experts and organizations like the UN’s WHO and FAO, the
FDA of USA and European Food Safety Agency (have all stated that GM/GE-foods
are as safe as their non-GM/conventionally-bred counterparts.
Then
why do NGO activists continue to resist DT-seed? Is it due to safety concerns?
No. It is economics. When GM/GE-seed is able to reach farmers quickly and
effectively, local NGOs that also engage in soliciting for distribution of seed
or food on behalf of the UN WFP, Red Cross or other big international NGOs lose
out. When there are no crop- failures caused by pests, diseases and drought due
to resilience from GM/GE-crop technologies, NGOs miss out on relief food
purchases and transportation and distribution-deals. Since in most cases
conventionally-bred seed is what is procured from regional markets, NGOs fear
being edged out of such business by more superior GM/GE-seed (especially maize
and soya) given out freely by big GM-crop growers like USA , Canada
and Brazil .
NGOs and traders in non-GM/GE-seed fear this new competition. So they go ugly!
As
far as exports of foodstuffs are concerned, some NGOs or their business
affiliates like National Organic Movement of Uganda (NOGAMU), have captured
niche markets, especially in Europe where
their funders for anti-GMOs activism are based, and fleece consumers with what
they cunningly label “organic.” This shrewd and misleading branding has helped
NGOs and the organic industry create unnecessarily expensive foods in global
markets, reaping profits from unsuspecting consumers. In Uganda and many
other countries, these products are not as rigorously regulated as GM/GE food
and are often derived from conventionally-bred crops. They are passed off as
organic, with the connotation that they’re cleaner, better and more nutritious.
They are billed as more worthy because nobody has maliciously labeled them
harmful, as has been done with GM/GE foods.
Truth
be told: organic and GMO are not opposites. In Africa ,
a farmer can grow GM/GE-crops organically. How? When scientists provide farmers
with organic/natural GM/GE seed or plantlets/seedlings, and farmers grow the
GM/GE seed or plantlets/seedlings with non-industrial/non-synthetic fertilizers
and without spraying synthetic pesticides, why should these crops become
“inorganic/unnatural” when they’re harvested. These are absolute lies spread by
activists and those who deal in expensive “organic” food. Organic is strictly a
farming method,
while
genetic engineering is strictly a breeding process/method/tool. In North
America and Europe , the NGOs in cohorts with
the hugely-profitable organic foods industry dealers, have successfully
confused the two and regulators and scientists have succumbed to the
categorization of crops bred via genetic engineering as being “inorganic or
nonorganic.”
Lastly,
it is perplexing that when it comes to medical research, we never see the
activists raise a finger against introduction of better vaccines or medicines,
if what has been traditionally used doesn’t solve any given ailment or disease
outbreak(s). Neither do we see these know-it-all and
greater-lovers-of-the-nation-activists challenge engineers, computer scientists
or architects on the new technologies they innovate, develop or introduce in
our environment. Their targets are always in agriculture and environment!
In
the early 2000s, some NGOs vigorously campaigned against the introduction of a
national DDT spray program against mosquitoes to stem the very high number of
malaria deaths in Uganda
— ranked one of the highest mortality rates in the world. A study published
last year by the American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene showed
that malaria is still the major cause of death in Uganda with approximately 70,000 to
100,000 Ugandans dying each year from the disease, according to the State-owned The New Vision .
I
recently asked friends why activists resisted DDT spray against mosquitoes,
which have no useful purpose. One person privy to the environmentalists’
arguments told me if mosquitoes are killed, other creatures such as frogs,
preying insects and lizards would run out of food. I laughed and asked, are
mosquitoes the only food such reptiles rely on? The answer is a certain and
clear NO! Then what is the reason for protecting them? And what is the
connection between mosquitoes, DDT and malaria on one hand, with agriculture or
farmers, on the other hand? Because at the center of the 70,000-100,000
Ugandans dying annually from malaria are farmers, with their children and
pregnant wives the main victims. Malaria figures in Uganda are alarming, with 2017
Ministry of Health statistics showing the disease still claims 200 people every
day — enough to fill 14 taxi vans that seat 14 passengers each. Between 20 and
23 percent of those dying from malaria are children under the age of five. That
is about 40 children in this cohort dying every day, according to The Independent Magazine. These deaths mainly occur in
villages, where the majority of the rural dwellers are farmers.
Malaria
not only kills, but weakens its infected victims, rendering them unable to
perform their energy-intensive farming activities. Therefore, in my humble
opinion it’s satanic, to say the least, for anyone to fight efforts to control
or eradicate malaria. Of course, it is a form of
technology-resistance/denial/blockage via deception — acts NGOs are best at.
DDT is a scientific and technological innovation, like biotechnology, and
there’s a hidden agenda by NGOs who falsely claim it is carcinogenic and contaminates
organic crops — the same allegations they make against GM foods.
The
GM/GE revolution offers an opportunity to kill harmful stem/stalk-borers,
cotton-bollworms, fall armyworms (FAWs), and even soil-based weevils and
nematodes, just to mention a few insects. Like mosquitoes, they have to be
eradicated or they eradicate man—first by decimating our sources of food and
energy (crops), then leading to shortages and starvation as their ultimate
effects.
This
is my humble analysis of the anti-technology European-sponsored NGOs and
activists on the rise across the continent. Only time that will exonerate me. Africa , please wake up before it is too late!
No comments:
Post a Comment