The Plant Breeder’s Bill, Genetically Modified Seeds and Us

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot

October 24, 2014

Some readers will declare me a Luddite long before this piece is done. So let me state that my intention here is not to oppose the GMO technology but to question how much control we would have once this Plant Breeder's Bill is in place.

According to Food Sovereignty of Ghana (FSG), “The Parliament of Ghana, is expected to resume for the Third Meeting of the Second Session of the Sixth Parliament on or around October 21, 2014. … “

At this session, the “Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs is expected to present a report on the Petitions on the Plant Breeder’s Bill to Parliament.”

FSG concern is the Bill will not help Ghanaians.

The New Internationalist blog shares FSG's concern, saying the Planter’s Bill contains “rules that would restrict farmers from an age-old practice” of freely saving and exchanging breeding seeds.

For centuries, farmers of the world, including those in Ghana, have used selective gathering and breeding to improve variety.  The GMO process is a continuation of the same; howbeit a more sophisticated one.

The GMO variety, a product of scientific quest, may benefit mankind.  Concerns against it, however, include the ethical, political and the economic.  The core concern for some of us is the ultimate ownership of the proprietary rights to the new product - the nation or a foreign genetic engineering company?

For this writer, the concern is a  visceral one:  Why the haste to implement the Plant Breeder’s Bill; who is pushing it and for what purpose?

It is not as if genetic engineering is new to Ghana.  However, our country is nowhere near the front line of this industry. It suffices, therefore, to say that the Plant Breeder's Bill is not seeking to shield local interest but rather to placate the giant multi-nationals and to protect their assets and interests already in place in the country.

The current concern about GMos must pertain to the policy of giving up control over some critical aspects of our resources of food production and supply. 

For, what would be the response  if some 50 years hence a genetic engineering company should claim the right to a new variety of seed essential for our economic viability, like cocoa for instance?

Yet, against this threat, there is this heightened interest in passing the bill, regardless of the conundrum it presents; boost harvest for crops that will rot in farms during the rainy seasons because we lack the system to transport them fast to market,  or increase exports to countries that are already suspicious of GMO products?

And then along the way we lose our rights to natural seeds found in our own country!

The proprietary rights of a genetic engineering enterprise is understood because of the cost involved to bring the product to market.  But does anybody recognize the cost involved in giving up our natural right to food resources found within our national bounds, even if these seeds are crappy ones? 

Even so, why must we put the harness for our food security in the hands of a private, overseas, for profit commercial enterprise?

The GMO technology, as known, alters the genetic make up of crops by inserting durable material from other species into them to give the crops new qualities for disease resistance and good yield.

In other words, if nature is found wanting in crop fecundity and disease protection, man through genetic engineering, steps in to give the plant under stress the needed ability to overcome its shortcomings in the form of new modified seeds for planting.

But assuming, we have a cocoa blight and a new seed is produced in a foreign laboratory to replace the seed under stress at home, who then would now own the new seed, meaning the intellectual property rights for the new blight resistant plant? 

Another interesting way to look at this brave new world of genetic engineering is what if a perfect seed is created in the labs today, who is to assure that a new virus could not be created to sabotage it?  Remember what happens in the computer world these days?  Herein must lie the crux of our dilemma!

As a Third World country, agriculture is key for our economy.  Keeping in mind that Ghana’s GDP for 2013 has 22% share from the agricultural sector alone, and cocoa being a huge contributor and the second leading foreign exchange earner in the mix, giving up rights to a plant this crucial is a big deal and an ordeal that cannot be described with comfortable thoughts.

Comparatively, the US has 1.2%  agricultural contribution to her overall GDP. The US can afford to be comfortable with the GMO industry. For us, a foreign hold on this sector must be considered as an attack on the jugular, thus our economic wellbeing.

Nevertheless, GMO varieties are found all over the world, including Ghana. It is estimated that up to 90% of all soybeans in the world’s food market stores are from this variety.

But according to Mother Earth News  “GM foods are not labeled in the United States" as such "because the biotech industry has convinced the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that GM crops are “not substantially different” from conventional varieties.”

Indeed, there is some truth in the FDA assertion. But FDA approval on GMO food alone must not be the last huddle for our concerns.

Apart from that of a jugular hold on our economy, there have been cases where GMO products approved by the FDA for animal feed have found their way into products for human consumption. There are cases of birth defects reported because of profuse use of some these GMO products.  It is also  alleged that GMOs have the tendency of making rival farm fields in proximity to them produce sterile plants.

Some advanced societies do not want GMOs, regardless of FDA assurances.  Many in Europe require labeling for all products with GMO content.  Some like Japan, Ireland and Egypt have banned it entirely.

GMO products, being human inventions, are likely to produce unintended consequences.  In the pharmaceutical world, defects have occurred in spite of good intentions and assurances.  Genetic engineered supplies in the human feed system would not be immune from mistakes or mischief.  Therefore, rigid scientific oversight on GMO products is required of nations that intend to use them.

Oversight is one area that must present the most headache because of blatant corruption within official ranks.  How proficient have we been in the oversight business? Be reminded of how efficient we have been in tracking and collecting fraudulent default judgment payments!

Unlike the advanced countries, we lack the institution that can guarantee successful oversight.  And even with their supervisory abilities guaranteed,  these advanced countries are still worried about losing control over their food security or seed stock.  Shouldn’t we be worried too?

GMOs are subject to patent laws that are universally respected.  Biotech companies that own these can prosecute misuse under “patent infringement” law because they own the stock.

Mother Earth News reports “Their ability to patent seeds rises from the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that Ananda Chakrabaty’s GM oil-eating bacteria could be patented even though it was a life form, and therefore could be protected under patent law.”

This landmark decision undergirds some fear:  the suspicion that the patent right is a potential  trap that can be sprung by owners at anytime in the future.  True or false, this notion presents a risk that does not sit well in the minds of some patriots in the concern for national food security.

A nation like Ghana, with huge dependency on agriculture and yet to acquire a patent right on a GMO seed of any worth, must not sit still for multi-nationals to gobble up rights to the many seeds found within her boundaries or allow the survival of these to be threatened by GMOs.

Why countries like Japan and Ireland must worry about GMOs and Ghana shouldn’t is the question the Plant Breeder's Bill must consider now. The same should also be enough reason for our usual fasting and loud prayers.

But before one word of prayer is spoken, let us be reminded of a common adage:  It is only the idiot who makes God nervous about His own creation. I hope progress does not require us to be idiots first . 

E. Ablorh-Odjidja,Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC,  October 24, 2014.

Permission to publish:  Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited.  If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.