thanks to wytze for this

"Farming in the North has ceased to become an alternative for us. It destroys the soil and contaminates the ground water, which is ultimately our drinking water. We can use artificial fertilisers, but only if they improve the soil quality rather than destroying it. All the methods need to pass a test: they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt natural cycles and processes. Bio-farming is no longer a luxury for us. It is our only remaining hope."

---

The interview below is published in a Greenpeace brochure called 208 recipes against hunger.

Dr Egziabher is from Ethipia and was spokesperson for Africa at the negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol.

Q. Are you happy about the agricultural giants' offer to fight world hunger with new plants developed through genetic engineering?

A. Not at all. It's naive to imagine that plants and their highly efficient genepools, which have evolved over millions of years, can  be improved by replacing or adding a new gene. The interaction  between genes and proteins is far too complex. Which is why so  many genetic experiments go wrong.

Q. But you don't take their offer seriously?

A. No they're missing the point. Famine in developing countries is mainly the result of unfair distribution. Today, the world is producing more food than ever, but there are still more people starving than ever before as well. Producing even more food doesn't automatically mean that the poor will benefit. They simply haven't  got the money to buy it. And genetic engineering isn't going to  change that.

Q. Couldn't the genetic engineering industry produce plants that  are better adapted to dry or salty soils?

A. There's a lot of propaganda about this, but there's absolutely no  proof that these plants are more prolific. The big companies  actually have very different goals: they want to supply farmers with  strains that are immune to specific pesticides, in order to make  them dependant on these pesticides. The Life Sciences Industry  also has a second goal: to take control of the developing countries'  existing seeds and gene pool. The strategy is always the same:  they supply free seeds until farmers have used up their own  resources or the resources are no longer usable, and then they  start charging fees.

Q. That's a serious accusation

A. It coincides with the experiences we've had with pesticides and  artificial fertilisers. And it's the very same agro-chemical companies  that are pushing genetic engineering today. Controlling seeds and  charging the poor farmers for this service is not going to solve the  problem of famine.  

Q. If the farmers' harvests improve, they can afford to pay the fees?

A. Some 30 different parties own patents for the notorious "golden  rice". None of them charge fees at present. But once they have the  farmers under their thumbs, they'll get their money. Agricultural  companies are using patents to make us dependant on their  seeds. There could hardly be a more effective form of colonialism.  The genetic engineering industry will effectively be able to hold us  hostage. That isn't the way to bring about world peace. Rather, it  will spark an unprecedented rebellion with waves of refugees  heading for the most affluent countries.

Q Why does the UN development program UNDP support genetic  engineering?

A. Because its work is dependent on money from the industry. The  report definitely discredits the UNDP. I often wonder whether it is  really still on the developing countries' side.

Q How can the world's affluent countries help?

A. By supporting developing countries' endeavours to improve their  infrastructures. We need decent roads for transporting the food  produced here to the markets. We need to preserve food, and be in  a position to process it. And we need warehouses where we can  keep surplus food from good harvests in store for harder times.

Q. None of this is inconsistent with using genetic engineering in  agriculture though?

A. We should only start contemplating this new technology when  we've solved the other problems. We don't need any new plants for  food either; nature provides all nutrients we require. These nutrients  simply need to be distributed evenly. Genetic engineering doesn't  present solutions; it presents risks. The tropics are home to an  incredible array of species, and a valuable and irreplacable gene  pool. If genetically manipulated species were to be released, they  could contaminate this gene pool, and many strains or species  would die out. And that would be irreversable.

Q. Do you believe that sustainable farming can produce enough  food to eliminate famine completely?

A. Yes, I really do. Jules Pretty's study provides a lot of examples  to support this view. Farming in the North has ceased to become  an alternative for us. It destroys the soil and contaminates the  ground water, which is ultimately our drinking water. We can use  artificial fertilisers, but only if they improve the soil quality rather  than destroying it. All the methods need to pass a test: they  shouldn't be allowed to disrupt natural cycles and processes. Bio- farming is no longer a luxury for us. It is our only remaining hope.

Interview: Micahel Friedrich