Why did Tanzania simply put an end to its GMO cultivation trials?

Wthe Tanzanian government announced on Friday [November 23] Ending field trials of genetically modified crops in the country and calling for their destruction, the country's research community was appalled by a local newspaper reporting:

Members of the research community were shocked by the fact that the government had not only banned ongoing testing of GM seeds, but had also directed the Tanzanian Institute for Agricultural Research (Tari ) immediately destroy the evidence of the searches.

… Some researchers have used their social media groups to express their disappointment with development, saying their efforts would be in vain. "If the order comes from above, you have to be patient and wait for the official letter," wrote one of the researchers.

Another scientist said their work was aimed at bringing about a change in society, but that if the same company was not ready to accept the change, they could not do anything.

"Science is only about facts and figures and nothing else … The truth could not be changed into something else," he said.

What happened?

The Agricultural Research Institute of Tanzania (TARI) is a semi-autonomous government agency under the Ministry of Agriculture, responsible for leading, regulating and coordinating all agricultural research activities in the country. TARI conducted two field trials of GM crops in two locations. In Makutopora, in the Dodoma area, they were testing the first ever confined and approved field trial of genetically modified corn county, a stacked, energy-efficient variety with biotech features for insect resistance and drought resistance.

Researchers took a water-saving conventional corn production corn from the water-saving corn project for Africa – sold under the brand name Drought TEGO – and introduced the Bt insect resistance trait to produce the new TELA corn – which has been approved and distributed without charge to the South. African smallholder farmers in South Africa have been remarkably successful over the last two years. TARI requested the approval of the Makutopora trials in 2010, but was only allowed to proceed as of 2016 and the expiry period expires in 2022.

At the Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute in Dar es Salaam, researchers have tested cassava that is resistant to viruses and whiteflies. This program was in its infancy, while the corn trials were about to start compiling the results.

There have been many optimistic reports recently about the success of these trials and the quality of awareness among government officials and legislators. So, apparently out of nowhere, the newly appointed Agriculture Minister, Japheth Hasunga, announced that the TARI was not in line with the sharing of results with his ministry and that the trials had to be completed and that the crops and the seeds were destroyed.

Several commenters found that the move was too brutal a response to a bit of non-compliance. Did the new minister place a marker to reinforce his authority? A local commentator has pointed out that Hasunga had the full support of Tanzanian President John Magufuli.

The French anti-GM website inf'OGM provided more detailed information on Hasunga's logic:

This decision was taken following the publication by TARI of the results of these tests without having obtained the necessary authorization. TARI has widely communicated the success of these tests and organized various lobbying actions, including inviting the Parliamentary Committee for Food and Agriculture to visit its facilities. But the tests are not supposed to be open to the public. The ministry argues that by organizing these lobbying actions, TARI went beyond its mission. Hasunga also denounced the instrumentalisation by some activist researchers in favor of GMOs of small farmers as "poor and hungry" for propaganda purposes in favor of GMOs.

The WEMA program is also seeking to weaken the current framework, including asking for a change of responsibility for the damage caused by these crops. Currently, the standard applied is that of strict liability. The WEMA program would like to replace that with fault liability. Strict liability means that anyone who introduces GMOs into the environment is directly liable for any damage or harm while fault-based provisions imply that the fault or negligence of any person who introduces GMOs must be met. First, be proven.

[Underlying Google translation here]

This is a very strange reason. While it is true that TARI has exceeded its limits, this problem must be remedied in one way or another. However, it is odd that the rules governing testing aim to limit transparency and public confidence in the results. In addition, it is not a good excuse to stop the trials and destroy the evidence. Visits by NGOs and local government officials, even if prohibited, do not affect the conclusions of the trials or the safety and effectiveness of the crops. As has been said so well above, "science is about facts and figures and nothing else. The truth could not be changed into something else. It could make sense to punish the officials of the TARI in a sine way. It does not make sense to destroy their work on these apparent transgressions.

What is going on?

I contacted environmental writer Mark Lynas on Twitter to ask him what he was supposed to be, knowing that he had gone to attend the TARI corn trial and had contacts in the country thanks to its association with the Cornell Alliance for Science, which maintains an active network in Africa. His answer was short and sweet – or rather short and sour: "Evil by the antis".

Does anyone know if the sudden ban on #OGM crop trials in #Tanzania were they due to legitimate bureaucratic errors on the part of the TARI or a dive crisis in the government? https://t.co/nQVgly3VxU

– Marc Brazeau (@eatcookwrite) November 24, 2018

@mark_lynas any ideas or news of your relationships there?

– Marc Brazeau (@eatcookwrite) November 24, 2018

Mischief by the antis.

– Mark Lynas (@mark_lynas) November 25, 2018

Hungry for science

The influence of anti-GMO and anti-technologically progressive agriculture of Western environmental NGOs, especially European ones, is oversized throughout Africa.

In his book Starved for Science, published in 2009, Robert Paarlberg explains that the "attitudes of the rich countries" – a fetishization of the natural giving rise to a preference for organic and peasant agriculture and an opposition to the. industrial agriculture in particular, and biotechnology in particular – are transmitted to Africa through NGOs based in Europe and headquartered in African cities. The attitudes absorbed by the European University of Education of many African urban elites also come into play. Paarlberg sees this as a fundamentally neocolonial dynamic. According to a review of the book by Irish horticulturist Graham Strouts:

Paarlberg is scathing about some of the approaches taken by NGOs. The German organization Networking for Ecofarming in Africa has partners in 13 African countries to warn them of the dangers of "western agriculture" supplanting local knowledge, while promoting biodynamic agriculture in its workshops.

German trainers attending a NECOFA session in Kenya in 2005 took the time to introduce local participants to the importance of the light rhythms of planets and to teach them how to develop manure-based preparations including essential pieces of nettle. , chamomile and cow horn (NECOFA 2005). . This knowledge is neither of peasant origin nor of African origin. This is not even knowledge.

Pedaling pseudo-science to hungry people is apparent to charlatan therapists extolling homeopathy of AIDS or malaria. Paarlberg details the political process used by NGOs, aided and abetted by the UN and supported by complacent Western governments and corrupt city officials in Africa, to prevent the use of science to improve the lot of farmers.

To what extent does this contribute to the lifestyle choices of the rich in Western countries? Paarlberg sees it as neo-colonial in its effects: almost all certified organic products in Africa are special crops grown in the West, not food for the locals. "Advocates of organic farming of IFOAM nevertheless like to assert that organic farming in developing countries is not a luxury but a prerequisite for achieving food security. "

I would add that all this comes with the bitterness of being aggravated and multiplied by a sensitivity to the neo – colonial incursion and exploitation perfectly understandable given the fact that it is. tragic history of European colonialism in Africa. The anti-GM sentiment in Africa is often part of the paranoid and conspiratorial virulent trend we associate with Alex Jones's InfoWars in the United States.

This applies beyond the "debate" on GMOs. President Magufuli recently spoke against women practicing birth control. His opposition was not based solely on what he saw as a need for growth of the workforce. His comments had a distinct paranoid and anticolonial flavor.

Speaking at a public rally in Meatu, in the Simiyu region, President Magufuli told people not to listen to people who were providing birth control advice, some of which had come from 39 aliens, for his motives were sinister.

Meanwhile, Magufuli's policy is to deny education to pregnant schoolgirls. This is all the more painful as 70% of Tanzanians live on less than $ 2 a day, while little is as closely related to the development and improvement of the standard of living as women who take control of their lives. procreation, to a smaller family and to a better education of girls. For African farmers, there are fewer agronomic developments that go beyond drought tolerance and resistance to viruses and pest infestation.

Following the tragic announcement of the ban on GMO trials in Tanzania, we learn that neighboring Kenya has enacted a moratorium on food developed through synthetic biology.

What is at stake?

Just a month ago, local reports covered TELA corn test results, with yield gains of at least 8% and up to 53%.

"A medium drought-tolerant corn test and stem borers were planted on August 16 and 17, 2018, the test includes 16 maize species distributed as follows: 7 varieties are GM maize and 7 varieties are non-GM maize , and 2 types are certified maize in agriculture in the country.

In order to ensure that maize is attacked by pests, 20 maize stalk drillers were introduced twice (3 and 5 weeks after planting).

In addition, he added, another experiment involving maize infected and sprayed seven times to control pests, allowed to evaluate the number of insects created by insects on the 1st and 2nd October of this year (the seventh week after planting). Transgenic hybrids showed higher yields, from 8.3 to 58.0%, compared to their conventional counterparts.

In describing the importance of TELA corn, the CIMMYT blog explains:

Rod borers affect maize production on about 30 million hectares in developing countries, feeding aggressively on leaves, stems and ears and significantly reducing grain yield.

In eastern and southern Africa, two stem borers – Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus – are the most damaging pests. In South Africa, reported annual yield losses for maize range from 10 to 75 percent. Chilo partellus yield losses in maize and sorghum exceeded 50%.

Similarly, cassava mosaic cassava and brown cassava streak production losses are estimated to be as much as 50%.

White flies are estimated to affect the food security of more than 40 million African families in sub-Saharan Africa. Production losses in nine countries in Central and East Africa were estimated at 47 percent and annual losses at over US $ 1.25 billion.

The CIMMYT project on drought tolerant maize for Africa (DTMA) has increased yields of African maize producers by 20-30%, benefiting more than 30 million people since 2006. The application of this success would seem self-evident.

The seeds that the Tanzanian government has just ordered destruction do not represent a marginal improvement in herbicide-tolerant and Bt-treated staple crops in the United States and Canada, providing farmers with good options of new, more effective options for controlling pests and weeds. These seeds represent revolutionary changes for farmers who can afford seeds, but not tractors, or irrigation, or insecticides, their crops being plagued by insects, viruses, rare water. The joy with which this tragic news has been welcomed by the anti-GMO movement in Africa and abroad was macabre to watch.

Marc Brazeau is the main editor of GLP dedicated to agricultural biotechnology. He is also editor of the Food and Farm Discussion Lab. Follow him on Twitter @eatcookwrite