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 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. 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.
Read Full Article on The Gazette
[paywall]
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. 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. 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. 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.
[/paywall]
