Biotechnology is ill but media can heal!

By Aloyce Menda


In industrialized world, modern biotechnology is reckoned as a hero but in developing countries it is more or less liken to a sick man. The current debates over biotechnology are part of a long social confession over new products. History shows that several technologies and products faced the challenges of skepticism, vilification and outright rejection in the initial stages before they are famed. Even the adored innovations such as medical radiology and plastic surgery counteracted some degrees of persecution associated with slander, innuendo and misinformation.

The media is liable for promoting most of the controversies over new technologies worldwide. Journalists and the media benefit more from reporting controversial issues and as far as modern biotechnology is concerned, the antagonistic news sources are many, widely diverged and smart.

In developing countries, debates on biotechnology adoption and importation of genetically modified (GM) foods attract a wide range of stakeholders. They comprise statesmen, policy makers, lawyers, scientists, farmers and traders. In addition to extensive speculations about the negative impact of GM foods on the environment and human health, there are wild claims that associate GM foods with maladies such as brain cancer, infertility and impotence as well as behavioral changes. In some developing countries such rumors circulate up to higher state hierarch.

The media are used to spread the stories and the tactics applied by the critics of GM foods in the debates are often very sophisticated. The advocates for biotechnology have often failed to respond timely and aptly to criticisms against GM foods due to devotion on professional ethics. The challenge amid them is how to digest the complex scientific information associated with biotechnology and spread it to the horrified general public that does not readily understand the technical details of biotechnology products.

While the advocates for biotechnology have often tried to emphasize on the need for scientific accuracy, critics apply rhetoric methods, which are designed to invoke public fear and cast doubts on the motives of the biotechnology industry. Sometimes the critics liken biotechnology “dangers” with chemical pollution or nuclear explosions and use sickening terms such as “Frankenstein foods” and “genetic pollution” to override scientific facts and horrify masses.

Even statesmen like President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia have snubbed GM foods openly without scientific testimony. During the time of food crisis in Zambia (2001-03), President Mwanawasa rejected GM grains from the United States as food aid to his famine stricken citizens. He alleged that the GM foods could harm the Zambian young and future generations.

In a rejoinder, the US Government said in an official statement released later that it doesn’t see the rationale of developing countries rejecting the foods that citizens of the US eat. “After 10 years of experience in this country (US), there is every reason to conclude that bioengineering foods are as safe as food produced through traditional breeding techniques. Both the US General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have issued reports agreeing with this assessment” says part of the statement.

The Deputy Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Lester M. Crawford released the statement in September 2003 amid hot debates on GM foods worldwide. He said FDA has found no evidence to indicate that either ordinary plant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or the DNA inserted into plants using bioengineering presents food safety problems. Even the small amounts of the newly expressed proteins are not likely to dramatically change the safety profile of the plant, elaborates Crawford in his statement. If safety concerns should arise, however, they would most likely fall into one of three broad categories: allergens, toxins or anti-nutrients, he outlines. “FDA has extensive experience in evaluating the safety of such substances in food,” emphasizes Crawford.

Defining the substances, Crawford mention allergens as new proteins introduced into a food plant during genetic engineering processes and which cause allergic reactions. Anti-nutrients are harmful substances such as phytic acid that could reduce essential dietary minerals such as phosphorus, while toxins are simply toxicant substances resulting from new proteins entry. The two are deliberately introduced into a crop as molecules during genetic modification, but negative effects could be detected by FDA and corrected by the innovators, according to Crawford.

Critics to biotechnology believe there are more harmful effects that emanates from GM foods than those outlined by FDA. Some of these critics are food and agricultural scientists in the US and other industrialized nations. Posing as environmentalists, these critics endorse organic farming products as suitable for sustainable development, safer to human health and the global environment. They believe that environment protection and poverty reduction is more important than production of excessive food since there is more than enough food produced in the world to feed everyone.

Biotechnology advocates on the other hand believe that adequate food supplies cannot be distributed equitably due to complex global political, economic and cultural factors. They argue that the sad lesson of history and the large number of hungry people have proved that the world needs equitable production rather than equitable distribution of food. Food aid could be politicized, according to advocates, and become a way for rich over-producing nations to eliminate the surpluses produced by their heavily subsidized farmers. Above that food aid could rob local farmers of markets and boost poverty amid the hungry recipients, they argue.

Amid this controversies are the journalists swinging like pendulum between the advocates and the critics of biotechnology. Controversial media reports on biotechnology trickle down to confuse agricultural experts in developing countries and subsequently the most aggrieved are the marginalized small-scale farmers who lack knowledge to choose the right option.

The native farmers in the eastern Africa countries can illustrate a vivid paradigm. Although biotechnology application in this region is still at infant stage, confusion is mounting over national policy formulation in the agricultural sectors of each country. The Tanzanian Government for instance, has persistently emphasized application of modern technologies in agriculture since 1960s but has failed to elevate the ailing farming and livestock sectors, which faces a multitude of problems.

The 2001 Human Development Report (HDR) of the UNDP [ http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/ ], which insisted on the use of modern technologies to fight poverty stimulated hot debates on biotechnology application in Tanzania. The debates were centered on the UNDP caution that new technologies should be applied with great care, and that the environmental risks accompanied by new technologies are often specific to individual ecosystems and need to be assessed case by case.

Today key experts in the Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, the Commission for Science and Technology ( COSTECH http://www.costech.or.tz/ ) and the National Environment Management Council ( NEMC http://www.tanzania.go.tz/environment.html ) accept biotechnology but cautions about its application. One of the experts is the director of environment, Eric K. Mugurusi, who believes that modern biotechnology can be applied in Tanzania with minimum adverse effects. He however insists on the need of appropriate policy to guide safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms that results from modern biotechnology. He says modern biotechnology differs from tradit

Posted By: ALOYCE MENDA