The on-going discourse regarding the potential of a Genetically Modified Crop (GMC) applied science program to solve world hunger and feed hungry mouths in Ghana is an interesting one. In the Ghanaian case, it looks like a few scientists, among them a Professor Walter Alhassan want to quickly start field trials and possibly commence commercial production of GMCs in Ghana. Apparently, Mali, Togo, Malawi, Kenya, and Zimbabwe are ahead of the curve. The implication here is that without swift action, “…with the current low levels of agricultural productivity, there (is) the likelihood that Africa would not meet the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of poor and hungry by 2015…” How GMC can do that for Ghana and Africa is beyond us! What Professor Alhassan does not inform us is that the US registered Not-for Profit organization that organizes the annual ritual of pushing GMC to developing countries, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), is not a foundation, neither does it lack self-interest. Many critical and objective observes tell us that ISAAA is a front for global multinational food production entities with profit as their bottom line, with a penchant for pushing their program on weak countries with none-to-mediocre institutional controls and regulatory systems.

In the discourse one Ph.D candidate, Mr. Benjamin Bey, from University of South Carolina’s Environmental Health Sciences program, (note that it is not agricultural science), came out swinging at one Mr. Adu-Gyamfi. Mr. Bey is telling us Mr. Adu-Gyamfi and others are speculative fear-mongers with pathetic arguments because the later dared tell the government to take it easy.

Now, if Mr. Obama has just this week told Americans and the world that the US food inspection system is "a hazard to public health," what, my dear reader, would you characterize the Ghanaian (African) food inspection systems? Do we want Professor Alhassan and the ISAAA pushing GMCs on Ghanaians and Africans when there are other tried and tested, sustainable, and economical ways to produce food to feed hungry mouths in Ghana? And what would you say if we told you that in a comprehensive assessment of world agriculture production by the United Nations in 2008, the agency concluded that GMCs have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger in the world?

We think that a GMC program with a so-called “Biosafety” law cannot allow Ghana to “catch up with the global world and improve agriculture and food security” in Ghana, or anywhere in Africa, no matter what Professor Alhassan or Kenya’s Florence Wambugu of the failed GM potato project tell us. Our take is, there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation from the GMC proponents even though low-cost organic and agro-ecological methods are being used to produce food, alleviate hunger, and reduce poverty in countries with leaders who use their heads. Countries like Japan and Brazil are not rushing into production of GMCs for dinner tables. Rather, they are instituting strong regimens to protect their food supply chains. In Brazil, for instance, much of the current effort is in production of non-food items, such as corn for ethanol. How then could one use that GMC to feed the poor?

We will note that the ISAAA is quite a contraption. They and their affiliates love to show us pictures of poor farmers inspecting GMCs. But on the other side of the Atlantic, Brazilian rural farmers and residents are fighting back against their sponsoring multi-national companies (Syngenta of Switzerland and Monsanto of the US, etc.). The farmers have in the past destroyed plant nurseries and crops containing genetically modified crops because they perceive threats to their wellbeing and safety, and environmental damage, ultimately. Why, for instance, must a poor farmer in a developing country be satisfied with a crop that does not produce seeds for the next season, but instead, she/he must purchase seeds from a conglomerate, year after year? Unlike Mr. Bey, we cannot/won’t argue that a GMC program is “an important subject of national proportion.” As we said previously, we don’t know which corner of Ghana Mr. Bey comes from or claim as his turf. A GMC program is NOT “an important subject of national proportion.” It can’t be that important for today’s Ghana, if we have even an elementary clue about Ghana’s national development priorities and associated social, institutional, and human capacities at bottom. We will rather argue that threats to food safety and public health by GMCs are important considerations that any wise leader ought to mull over very carefully, proactively, given the infantile and anemic regulatory organizations, and joke of food labeling in Ghana’s market places.

The world is very complex indeed!

The Essential Ghanaian Questions (EGQs): “…Why are composting, re-cycling, irrigation, improvements in food preservation techniques, improving soil fertility, construction of silos, improvement of road/transportation networks, easier access to credit, land reform, investments in areas other than Accra, secondary education (in agro-ecology), provision of extension services, and even respect and equal status for the Ghanaian woman, etc., why are all these not solutions for this complex national developmental quandary? Why can’t these solutions be “The” answer that allows Ghanaians to adequately feed Ghanaians (and even allow extra food to be exported some 2-5 production steps beyond Ghanaian farm…)?”

The world is indeed complex – Let’s bring in multi-disciplinary teams to solve human problems!

Can GMC advocates tell us if they believe that Ghanaian farmers are getting fair prices for the goods they produce today, and how that will change when they start growing GMCs, with added production costs?

Mr. Bey argues that “Change always precedes development and no development ever occurred without changing the status quo.” We will say that change as motion is a fact of life. Newtonian evolution tells us so! But we will caution that not all change is good or for that matter useful, or sustainable. Besides, our notion of a complex world tells us there are always winners and losers when we use power of the people to ram private programs through.

Perhaps the biggest Bey Achilles heel has to do with the statement, “…the (Ghanaian) regulatory agencies should be armed to the teeth in ensuring that the stringent regulations that govern the release of GMCs onto the market are strictly adhered to…” Haba! Ghana has a problem registering automobiles and properly platting developing areas. So we must ask Mr. Bey what “stringent regulations”? We must ask Mr. Bey how that is possible in Ghana given current market conditions, given the national development stage where the vast majority of the people cannot read, and hiding information comes second nature to public agencies?

ITEM: Has Mr. Bey read the “corporate objectives” of Ghana’s EPA, lately? Does the statement, “Guide development to prevent, reduce, and as far as possible, eliminate pollution and actions that lower the quality of life,” constitute reasonable “objectives” to his Ph.D-candidate’s mind? What about the statement, “Ensure that the implementation of environmental policy and planning are integrated and consistent with the country’s desire for effective, long-term maintenance of environmental quality?” Do these “objectives” from Ghana’s leading “regulatory” agency engender confidence in him, or are they super-undefined goals whose realization, if even possible, can never help us measure the performance of that agency come high noon, even 100 years from today?

No sir, Mr. Bey! “Genetic engineering is NOT “nature’s own design,” nor has it “been with us since the existence of Homo habilis and through the period of Neanderthals.” Not! Do not allow us to confuse Newtonian evolution with “Genetic Engineering.” The two are different animals, actually. Genetic-engineering IS a conscious, active endeavor by latter-day home sapiens in a few “privileged” places. As applied to food production, Genetic engineering/GMC is not necessarily concerned with feeding people.

We will surmise here. We do not think that Ghanaians need Wambugu clones to carry water for multi-national corporations just so we can feed from the leftovers at their corporate profit tables. No, GMC has little potential to improve the livelihoods of the average farmer. But it is the average Ghanaian producer and their household who ought to be at the center of Ghanaian agricultural policy.

ISAAA-sponsored single-sided reports and conferences without objective or contrary positions are not Ghana-centered, or useful. Of course this is not to say that the Wambugu-Alhassan-Bey-ISAAA crowd cannot indulge in basic scientific activities. We are only saying that in the case of GMCs, they should not try to utilize a pole vault when the Ghanaian/African ground is least ready for their return to earth. We would like to suggest they try hopping with their feet, first, by answering the EGQs above?

© Prof Lungu, Okinawa, Japan, 15 Mar 09. (www.GhanaHero.com)