A Harvard professor is worried that genetically modified foods as the fix for Africa is bad thinking that could do more harm than good.
Speaking at a European Food Safety Authority conference during the Milan Expo, Professor of Science and Technology Sheila Jasanoff argued that GMOs as a solution obscure the complexity of issues that African countries face, according to Vice.
Recommended Stories
“In general, the voices that highlight complexity—in ecologies, in farming practices, in regional dietary preferences and food needs—are getting less attention than they deserve, in Africa and the West,” she wrote to Vice.
Introducing GMO crops, for instance, could alter local diets and communities as they shift away from traditional foods. While those shifts could be beneficial, ultimate effects aren’t always clear. Public policy is a blunt instrument that can cause ripple effects and unintended consequences. For complex issues that vary across countries and regions, nuance is difficult.
For those that desire a deeper discussion about GMO crops that avoids conspiracy in favor of level-headed arguments, safety isn’t the biggest issue. The concern focuses on “broader environmental and social impacts” such as biodiversity, the opportunity costs of siphoning funding toward GMO research, and pesticides.
Instead of a multi-pronged approach to agriculture and malnourishment in Africa, Jasanoff argues that policymakers and charitable organizations assume problems and solutions are simpler than they are in reality.
Indeed, that simplification is a reflection of deeper problems in the West with foreign aid and development work to improve living standards. For all the money and attention on the issue, foreign aid doesn’t work that well. Some academics have argued that those large developmental programs aren’t trying what would be most promising: direct cash transfers to the poor.
Direct cash transfers give the recipients agency to confront the problems of poverty they face. Research continues to measure the effects, but the approach rebels against a certain paternalism in other development work. It assumes that individuals know their basic needs better than someone else.
Such is the argument against the dominance of GMOs to fight hunger. Scientific consensus has favored GMO use. For it to be the only method of fixing African problems, however, imposes a paternalism that doesn’t respond to local, individual knowledge and needs.
