GM Food for Africa! It Does Not Take a Genius to Know That What Animals, Including Pests and Insects, Reject or Do Not Want to Eat Is Not Good for Human Consumption. (Guest Column)

By Agyeman-Duah, S. K. | New African, October 2002 | Go to article overview

GM Food for Africa! It Does Not Take a Genius to Know That What Animals, Including Pests and Insects, Reject or Do Not Want to Eat Is Not Good for Human Consumption. (Guest Column)


Agyeman-Duah, S. K., New African


It is shocking to earn from Rob Rose's article, "GM Food for Africa: Solution or Hazard?" (NA, July/August) that many African countries have already embraced the GM idea with enthusiasm, It is unbelievable that Monsanto has even now got an African director, Kinyua M'M-bijjewe, who is actively promoting the GM idea in Africa.

He is quoted as saying: "Crops that can protect themselves from harsh weather and pests can revolutionise African agriculture ... Over 23% of maize, a staple food for Africa, is destroyed each year by insects called stem borers. By adding a protein gene into the maize seed, the stem borers are repulsed and a huge saving is possible." Well, it does not take a genius to know that what animals, including pests and insects, reject (ie, cannot eat or do not want to eat) cannot be, and is not, good for human consumption.

It is against this background that the recent decision by Zimbabwe and Zambia to reject GM maize donated by the American government for famine relief must be applauded. In the same vein, they must also be condemned for giving in, later, to American pressure and accepting the same GM maize in ground form. What is the difference?

In early September, the World Food Programme announced that Zambia [after much cajoling, I should hasten to add] had given in to the distribution of GM maize to feed about 130,000 Angolan and congolese refugees in the country, but not the estimated 2.5 million Zambians affected by drought on the grounds that it is "poison". Incredible! So, the Angolan and congolese refugees are not human! Or are they?

No one has the right to feed people, not even famine-stricken people, with food that pests and insects reject or do not want to eat. America grows non-GM maize, and America can donate non-GM maize to the famine-stricken countries of Southern Africa if it genuinely wants to help them.

May I ask why multinational companies do not research into, or promote, natural methods of food production, ie, organic farming? The answer obviously is profit.

Organic farming is the natural system of enriching the land without chemical fertilisers, pesticides, weed killers, etc. This is done by using manure, mulching and land or soil management -- ie, letting the land lie fallow or rest for a period of time to avoid overgrazing or over-cultivation.

Food produced by organic methods has no ill effects on humans or animals, but provides untainted nourishment to the body. And nobody can control the method of organic farming. It cannot be kept or hidden in a far away building or in secret rooms. And it is not difficult to learn. It does not require any specialist machines or tools, It is openly practised by working with nature through natural laws.

So no organisation or person can make any profit from it. That is why the multinational companies are not interested in organic farming.

I can say that it was the introduction of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, etc, to Africa from the West, and the destruction of the forests and grasslands through uncontrolled logging of timber without intensive reforestation, that have caused the food shortages and diseases in Africa.

African countries are now saddled with debts, which as they stand now, can never be repaid to Western countries and their agents -- the IMF and World Bank.

For example, after World War II, America granted huge loans under the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany and other European countries. The interest on those loans was around 3%. But how much interest do the Western countries and the IMF and World Bank charge for lending to Africa? From 25% to 44%.

If Africa paid only 3% interest as the Marshall Plan afforded the European countries, Africa would have long paid off its debts and become self-sufficient to develop its nations.

With the combination of the debt burden, the high interest repayments, uncontrolled depletion of the forests, and overgrazing resulting in droughts and destructive floods, there is bound to be famine and diseases in Africa. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

GM Food for Africa! It Does Not Take a Genius to Know That What Animals, Including Pests and Insects, Reject or Do Not Want to Eat Is Not Good for Human Consumption. (Guest Column)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.