What Botswana needs is not more polarisation but thoughtful deliberation – a commitment to evidence-based decision-making that puts the well-being of its people first. Special Correspondent DOUGLAS RASBASH discusses the matter in the wake of an SA court decision that suspended use of GMOs
On 24 October, the Supreme Court of South Africa took a bold step by suspending use of genetically modified crops, citing concerns over Monsanto’s failure to fully apply the precautionary principle. The decision to pause GMOs and reconsider their safety reflects a cautious but necessary approach to protecting human health and the environment.
However, calls for an outright ban on GMOs across Africa, based on unsubstantiated claims of carcinogenicity, miss the mark and risk worsening the continent’s existing food security crises. For Botswana, navigating this heated debate with caution and clarity is not just a choice – it is a matter of survival.
The GMO Dilemma: Fear or Fact?
The controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) often invokes emotional responses that amplify fears and blur scientific facts. Opponents argue that GMOs are inherently harmful, with some going as far as to claim that genetically modified crops are “proven” to be carcinogenic. Yet, these claims are largely based on a selective reading of scientific literature, drawing from studies that lack consensus or are of dubious quality. The reality – backed by numerous reputable global institutions such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and the American Medical Association – is that genetically modified crops have not been conclusively linked to cancer.
Rigorous regulation
What the South African court case highlights is not the inherent danger of GMOs themselves but the importance of rigorous regulation, transparency, and public accountability in their deployment. The ruling underscores the need to ensure that companies like Monsanto – now Bayer – adhere to the precautionary principle, which mandates that any potential risks to human health or the environment must be minimised and closely scrutinised.
However, an outright ban on GMOs across Africa would be a reactionary move that undermines the broader benefits that these crops can offer, especially in regions grappling with hunger, malnutrition and climate change.
Biotechnology’s contribution
In the last few decades, biotechnology has transformed agriculture by significantly boosting crop yields and promoting sustainability. For instance, between 1996 and 2020, insect-resistant (IR) technology contributed to yield increases of 17.7% for maize and 14.5% for cotton. South American farmers growing IR soybeans have seen a 9.3% increase in yields since 2013. Beyond traditional crops like cotton and maize, IR technology has also been successfully applied to cowpea, eggplant and sugarcane.
Over 25 years of widespread use, GM crops have added 330 million tonnes of soybeans, 595 million tonnes of maize, 37 million tonnes of cotton lint, 15.8 million tonnes of canola, and 1.9 million tonnes of sugar beets to global production. Importantly, this productivity gain means farmers can produce more without using additional land. For example, in 2020, achieving the same production without GM crops would have required an additional 23.4 million hectares of land – an area equivalent to the combined agricultural regions of the Philippines and Vietnam.
Substantial returns
Biotechnology’s environmental benefits are also considerable. GM crops have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, primarily by facilitating conservation tillage practices, which enhance soil carbon retention. Without GM crops in 2020, an estimated additional 23.6 billion kilograms of CO2 would have been released, equating to putting an extra 15.6 million cars on the roads. Moreover, from 1996 to 2020, biotechnology reduced pesticide use by 748.6 million kilograms, or 7.2% globally, leading to a 17.3% decrease in the environmental impact of crop protection.
Economically, GM crops have delivered substantial returns. In developing countries, farmers earned an extra $5.22 for every dollar invested in GM seeds, compared to $3 in developed countries. The net global farm income benefit amounted to $261.3 billion between 1996 and 2020, equating to an average income gain of $112 per hectare. In 2020 alone, the net farm-level economic gain was just under $18.8 billion.
Food Security and Climate Resilience
Botswana and its neighbouring SADC countries are at a crossroads. The region faces multiple pressures: erratic weather patterns, prolonged droughts, land degradation and water scarcity – all exacerbated by climate change. These challenges have taken a heavy toll on agricultural productivity, putting food security at risk. In this context, GMOs are not a silver bullet but they do offer significant potential advantages if managed responsibly.
For Botswana, genetically modified crops like drought-resistant maize or pest-resistant cotton could play a crucial role in boosting yields and reducing reliance on chemical pesticides, which contribute to environmental degradation. In a country with limited arable land and severe droughts, the capacity to cultivate crops that are resilient to harsh conditions can be a game-changer. Yet, embracing these innovations requires careful planning and robust oversight to ensure that safety standards are met and environmental impacts are minimised.
A Nuanced Approach to Biotechnology
What Botswana needs is not a knee-jerk rejection of GMOs but a balanced and evidence-based approach that prioritises both food security and public health. This approach should encompass the following key principles:
- Rigorous Safety Assessment: It is essential that any GMO introduced in Botswana undergoes thorough safety assessments by independent, well-equipped scientific bodies. This includes evaluating long-term health impacts, potential allergenicity and environmental consequences. Regulatory authorities must be vigilant and hold product developers accountable to the highest safety standards.
- Local Research and Capacity Building: Rather than relying solely on external studies or adopting policies shaped by foreign companies, Botswana should invest in local research institutions to study GMOs’ impact on its unique environment and population. Building local capacity for biotechnology research can empower the nation to make informed decisions based on context-specific evidence.
- Public Awareness and Transparency: Misunderstanding and misinformation around GMOs are pervasive. Public outreach programmes that engage stakeholders – including farmers, consumers, and policymakers – are crucial to fostering informed discussions. Transparency about the risks, benefits and regulatory processes can help build public trust and counteract fear-based narratives.
- Support for Smallholder Farmers: It is vital to ensure that any shift towards GMOs does not come at the expense of smallholder farmers who form the backbone of Botswana’s agriculture. Policies should include measures that protect traditional farming practices, preserve biodiversity and provide financial support or technical training to farmers transitioning to GMO crops.
Striking a Balance
A blanket ban on GMOs, based on unfounded fears, would not serve Botswana’s best interests. The nation’s priority should be to carefully weigh the benefits and risks of genetically modified crops within the context of its food security challenges and environmental constraints. By embracing a more sophisticated, multi-layered approach to biotechnology, Botswana can explore the potential of GMOs while remaining vigilant about their impact.
In conclusion, Botswana’s response to the GMO debate must be rooted in scientific rigour, pragmatic policy and public accountability. While the suspension of GMOs in South Africa serves as a reminder to prioritise safety, it is not an indictment of genetic modification itself. For a country facing increasing food insecurity and climate variability, dismissing GMOs outright could close the door to innovations who might help secure a more resilient and self-sufficient future. What Botswana needs is not more polarisation but thoughtful deliberation – a commitment to evidence-based decision-making that puts the well-being of its people first.
Further reading on this vital topic can be found on the following:
- Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2022). Genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2020: Environmental impacts associated with pesticide use change. GM Crops & Food, 13(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2118497
- Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2022). Genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2020: Impacts on carbon emissions. GM Crops & Food, 13(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2118495
- Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2022). Farm income and production impacts from the use of genetically modified (GM) crop technology 1996-2020. GM Crops & Food, 13(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2105626
You can find additional information and download the full report on GM crops from the PG Economics website. For a broader overview, you can visit the ISAAA’s Brief 55 page.