The real GMO issue is whether farmers are allowed to compete

In South Africa, the conversation surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and precision farming often gets mired in debate over corporate influence. However, the crux of the matter lies elsewhere. Ed Stoddard asserts that GMOs and advanced farming techniques have led to reduced food prices and improved affordability, while Mariam Mayet questions if the real issue is corporate dominance over the food system.

Both perspectives offer vital insights, yet the central question at hand should not revolve around one's stance on GMOs or biotechnology. Rather, it must center on how to create a food system that is productive, affordable, sustainable, inclusive, and globally competitive, all while ensuring farmers' economic viability. After all, without thriving farmers, there can be no food security.

Mayet is right in one aspect: addressing hunger in South Africa cannot be accomplished solely through technology. Hunger is intricately tied to poverty, unemployment, inequality, and economic exclusion. Consequently, any comprehensive dialogue about food security must recognize this reality.

However, it is crucial not to conflate broader social issues with the tools farmers employ to cultivate their crops. Food insecurity primarily stems from income constraints and limited access to nutritious food, which are profound societal challenges. Yet, making agriculture less productive, innovative, and competitive will not alleviate poverty; it will merely escalate food costs, jeopardize food security, and diminish farmers' ability to compete on a global scale.

Hence, we must maintain focus on the true issue: do farmers have access to safe, effective tools that enable them to remain profitable, produce food sustainably, and compete globally? The GMO discourse frequently becomes muddled by a fundamental distinction between two questions: the first concerns concentration, inequality, and market power in food systems, and the second pertains to whether farmers should possess access to technologies that enhance productivity and competitiveness. Though these issues intersect, they are distinct.

One can harbor concerns about corporate concentration while acknowledging the value of innovation. Similarly, one can advocate for stronger competition policy while supporting access to technology. One can promote fairer markets without expecting farmers to compete with fewer resources than their international counterparts. Technology becomes the focal point because it is simpler to target than the underlying structural problems.

The root of the problem lies in market concentration, which necessitates a competition solution. Addressing market concentration requires competition law, market oversight, and appropriate policy interventions. Conversely, technology should undergo rigorous, science-based regulatory processes centered on safety, efficiency, and stewardship. Confusing these issues leads to poor policy decisions and subpar outcomes.

Moreover, it is essential to remember the practical realities faced by farmers. They operate in an environment characterized by rising input costs, unpredictable weather patterns, pest and disease threats, shrinking margins, and mounting regulatory burdens. Each season, they face the peril that an inadequate harvest could erase years of hard-earned progress. Access to technology is not a mere convenience; it is often the deciding factor between remaining a farmer and abandoning agriculture.

We cannot expect South African farmers to compete on the global stage without granting them access to the same range of innovations available to producers in other nations. This becomes even more pertinent considering the challenging competitive landscape in which South African farmers operate. Limited institutional support sets them apart from their counterparts in developed economies, who benefit from extensive subsidies, superior infrastructure, lower logistics costs, more efficient regulatory systems, and more supportive policies.

The recent wheat tariff decision by South Africa's Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition's International Trade Administration Commission underscores a harsh truth: when faced with competitive disadvantages, farmers cannot rely on policymakers to protect them, even against unfairly subsidized competition. They will not be shielded from international competitors who have access to technologies South African farmers are barred from utilizing.

They must fend for themselves. Enhancing productivity and accessing innovation are among the few tools available to offset disadvantages they neither created nor can control. After all, no one ever becomes more competitive by being denied better tools.

In an era of escalating global competition, access to technology is not a luxury; it is a matter of survival. When anti-technology activists claim victory, who ultimately bears the cost? The African Centre for Biodiversity recently celebrated a Supreme Court of Appeal decision that set aside an approval ruling and referred the matter back for proper review.

While this outcome is significant, it essentially means that South African farmers are denied access to drought-tolerant genetic technology, which has been approved in numerous other countries.