I read Hon. Matia Kasaija’s comment titled “Why Biosafety law is vital” in the New Vision of Tuesday May 2013
with keen interest. Whereas I agree with tittle of his comment, the contents are
diversionary and adversarial to the future of Uganda’s agricultural/food system
and strategic economic objectives as articulated in Uganda’s Vision 2040. This
is because; the National Biotechnology and Biosafety bill 2012 that the Minister
recently tabled in parliament seeks to spread Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs) in Uganda. From the basis of discourse I have been following, millions
of Ugandans, and especially small holder farmers, instead expected the Hon.
Minister to present a bill aimed at detecting, stopping and destroying GMOs. Myriad
evidence that shows GMOs will harm economic livelihoods of many small holder
farmers, downgrade health of millions of citizens, increase hazards to
environment, compromise indigenous, cultural and traditions of our society and cripple
strategic economic interests of Uganda is all over the place – I will delve deeply
into this in future.
But, importantly, all GMO crusaders, now including Minister Matia
Kasaija ignore the core economic questions – such as; Where will Uganda sell
its GMO products? Will transformation from an Organic into a GMO economy give
Uganda a competitive advantage? Available numbers illuminate a different
pathway from what GMO proponents propose. For example, datasets from the
International Trade Center (ITC), a United Nations outfit –show that untapped
Organics market for agricultural products in Europe is currently $60 billion,
Japan $11 billion and US $41 billion. So why would Uganda want to run away from
this market, instead of strategizing to harness it, especially so, now that the
world wants GMO products banned or labeled?
In niche’ markets that Uganda should be targeting like, New Zealand, no
GMO foods are grown in the country. In Germany, there is a ban on the
cultivation or sale of GMO maize. In Ireland, all GM crops were banned for
cultivation in 2009, and there is a voluntary labeling system for foods
containing GM foods to be identified as such. In Austria, Hungary, Greece,
Bulgaria and Luxembourg; there are bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs. In
France: Monsanto's MON810 GM corn had been approved but its cultivation
was forbidden in 2008. In Madeira,-this small autonomous Portugese Island
requested a country-wide ban on genetically modified crops last year and was
permitted to do so by the European Union. In Switzerland, the country banned
all GMO crops, animals, and plants on its fields and farms in a public
referendum in 2005. In India; the government placed a last-minute ban on GM
eggplant just before it was scheduled to begin being planted in 2010. If these
niche destinations for Uganda’s agro products like coffee, tea, cotton,
flowers, tobacco etcetera, outlawed GMOs – why should we even think about
making Uganda a GMO economy?
In spite of adjuncts of Climate change, Uganda is still feeding itself
at a time when its arable land utilization is below 50%. Indeed over 80% of
farmers are defacto conservation and organic farmers. If our conservation
practices are accentuated through a reformed budget architecture that puts more
money in agriculture – we can feed the region and world without engaging in any
form of genetic manipulation. Indeed,
the 500billion that Hon. Matia Kasaija mentioned as income fetched by banana
farmers annually is not from GMO bananas – but rather from organically grown
bananas across the country. Now the use of banana ‘bacterial wilt catastrophe’
as an excuse/ploy to spread GMOs is collapsing – because farmers have
discovered that sanitary measures have huge potential to contain the wilt as
was done in Ethiopia in 1973. The answer to banana bacterial wilt is therefore
not GMOs.
In his comment, the Hon. Minister defined modern biotechnology as “recombinant
DNA technology, or genetic engineering/ modification (GMO) as the use of
biotechnology tools to transfer useful genetic characteristics into plants,
animals, or micro-organisms” – This definition means negative implications for some
traditions and cultures. For example, it could mean transfer of genes from a
pig to millet or rice etcetera. What will this mean for those whose religion
consider eating pork sacrilegious? It may also mean that genes of fish can be transferred
to rice, beans etc. I have interacted with many people who don’t eat fish and
many cultures that consider eating of fish a taboo (omuziiro). What will passing of a bill that seeks to spread GMOs as
defined by the Hon. Minister mean for them? I think it is hugely important not to
hide intentions of this bill under terms like regulation, bio-safety and
spurious blackmail against those that point out GMO dangers. The objectives of
this bill are by and large – to spread GMOs in Uganda.
Instead of promoting this bill in current shape, I urge the Hon. Minister
to use his positive energy and influence to enact policies supporting small
holder family farmers, who form the basis of our economy and our country. Vital
issues for small holder family farmers are improved access to value addition,
knowledge and tools, credit, inputs and markets. Despite these obstacles
organic family farming is growing at 38% per year in Uganda. Therefore, the
implementation of supportive policies could liberate an enormous growth
potential for the sector, providing better income opportunities for low-income small
holder farmers and conserving biodiversity. Indeed, our dear Members of
Parliament (MPs) should vote the bill if and only its objective is to stop
entry of GMOs in Uganda – finding and destroying GMOs where they already exist
in Uganda.
Morrison Rwakakamba
Chief Executive Officer
Agency for Transformation
