Garabato 1

In the article "The case for GMO's in Uganda" by Michael J Ssali, Michael takes the
role as a pro GMO advocate. "According to some press reports an estimated 50 people died
in the dry period. The rains had failed and all the crops planted by the farmers in the region
had dried up. Elsewhere in western Uganda a river had burst its banks due to heavy rains
and the flooding had displaced thousands of people and caused untold damage, including
washing away a hospital and a few schools. Extreme weather incidents such as these in
Uganda, manifested in the form of severe droughts and floods, have become more frequent
in recent years, resulting in reduced national agricultural production." (Ssali 1) Michael later
clarifies that this is important because the crops they have in Uganda are not able to survive
the extreme weather, and if they did survive the weather there wouldnt be nearly enough to
crops left over to survive on. Not only do the crops have to survive the weather, but they
also must survive an infestation of pests that either eat the crops or spread diseases on
them. Michael believes that supplying GMO's to Ugandan farmers can not only increase
the production rates of crops, but it can also make them impervious to pests. "Uganda has
often been described as having "lush green forests, abundant rainfall and a surfeit of other
sources of water" but, unknown to most people, despite its unique agro climatic conditions
the country is very prone to crop and animal diseases and its agriculture is facing
devastating challenges." (Ssali 2) This passage by Michael Ssali is a direct response to
another article related to Uganda and GMO's called "Does Uganda really need GMO's?" by
Tom Oniro. Tom starts off with talking about the lush green forests of Uganda and this sets
the pace for the anti GMO article.
In the article "Does Uganda really need GMO's?" by Tom Oniro, Oniro is anti GMO
because he thinks that it is unnecessary and harmful to implement GMOs to the standard
Ugandan diet. "I am talking as an African woman; we still have our [traditional] seeds here.

Garabato 2

Must we lose them in the name of GMO's [Genetically Modified Organisms]?' yelled an
unidentified woman at an anti GMO gathering in Kampala, Uganda's capital. "We are not
ready to beg. African woman don't beg and we've large extended families [to feed]," she
fumed. "I grew up a very healthy woman. I am a very fertile woman. Would I have produced
twins if I ate GMO's? Are GMO's not a time bomb for Africa, and Uganda in particular?' the
woman asked." (Oniro1) Oniro used this quote from a woman he interviewed because he
believes that this is the same point of view that everyone in Uganda shares. The problem
with this is that many people do share this view.. if they are rich. Between Ssali's and
Oniro's article there is a clear difference between who in Uganda they are surveying. In
other words there is a rich demographic and a poverty-stricken demographic. The rich
Ugandans are opposed to GMO's because they grew up fine and they believe that it is
unnatural and non-traditional to eat a genetically modified crop. This is from the standpoint
of a Ugandan that goes to the market to buy their food rather than growing it themselves.
The majority of the poverty-stricken people in Uganda gets food from their own farms and
perceive GMOs differently. "Bio fortified sweet potatoes and beans have been easily
accepted by the poor since they taste like the sweet potatoes and beans that have been
their main diet for generations." (Ssali 2) The poverty-stricken people of Uganda are more
open minded because of their social status. While Oniro's perception of the Ugandan
population as a whole is a bit off, he does raise some key points. "GMO's will become a
real security threat because our farmers will become dependent on multinational seed
companies as traditional healthy foods vanish In its current form, the bill is aligned to the
interests of multinational companies and not the interests of Ugandan farmers and the wider
public." (Oniro 2) Oniro is now looking at the situation from a market point of view. The
people want protection but the companies want to be able to sell their product to the public.

Garabato 3

This creates conflict because in situations like this big corporations have much more power
than the public. So far both articles have strong points but very different views.
When it comes to regulations to GMOs many people have different views on the
subject. For example in Peter Singers article A clear case for Golden Rice Singer comes
off as pro GMO but around the end of the article he talks about his opinion about
regulations towards GMOs. Although cross-pollination between GM crops and wild plants
can occur, so far no new superweeds have emerged. We should be pleased about that
and perhaps the regulations that were introduced in response to the concerns expressed by
environmental organizations played a role in that outcome. Peter Singers view on the
matter is that because of all the fear and concerns and heavy regulations, we have been
successful at producing presumably safe GMOs. Throughout the article a the ends justify
the means feel emerges. Regulations to protect the environment and the health of
consumers should be maintained. Caution is reasonable. What needs to be rethought,
however, is blanket opposition to the very idea of GMOs. With any innovation, risks need to
be weighed against possible benets. Where the benets are minor, even a small risk may
not be justied; where those benets are great, a more signicant risk may well be worth
taking. Regulations should, for instance, be sensitive to the difference between releasing a
GM crop that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (making it easier for farmers to control
weeds) and releasing GM crops that can resist drought and are suitable for drought-prone
regions of low-income countries. Similarly, a GM crop that has the potential to prevent
blindness in a half-million children would be worth growing even if it does involve some
risks. The irony is that glyphosate-resistant crops are grown commercially on millions of
hectares of land, whereas golden rice (which has not been shown to pose any risk at all to
human health or the environment) still cannot be released. (Singer 2) I personally think this
is the most logical way to look at it because even if there is some small chance of a risk that

Garabato 4

hasn't already been debunked by intense research, the benefits more than likely outweigh
the risks. Although not all people have the same point of view on regulations. With respect
to Golden Rice the costs of opposition to GMO-crops in India alone have been calculated at
$200m per year for the past decade.64 Globally in 2010 vitamin A deciency killed more
children than either HIV/Aids, or TB or malaria5 some-where around 2 million preventable
deaths in that one year alone. That is 6000 preventable deaths, mostly of young children,
every single day. Although Golden Rice is a startling example of the costs of delays in
GMO-crop development, many other differently useful crop traits which can benet the
environment and human health are also dangerously delayed. This is a passage from
Adrian Dubocks article The politics of Golden Rice Basically he thinks that regulations
cost too much and delay future research. It is a strong point to be made because
regulations do delay the research and the release of GMOs and at the same time people
are dying. In this case its thousands of children a day because they don't have access to
vitamin A rich rice. Yet again different views between authors but very strong key points are
made by both.

I think that GMOs in Uganda are a good idea. Why? Unlike Tom Oniro I am thinking
about Ugandas whole population. Oniro just looked at the rich demographics point of view
and since most of the rich people grew up more fortunate than the poverty-stricken people it
wasn't a problem of surviving but more of a problem about tradition and unnaturalness. I
see why some people want to stick to traditions but sometimes you have to move with the
times in order to better the population as a whole. On the other side of the spectrum
Michael Ssali analyzed the poverty-stricken and the responses were different. The less
fortunate are more willing to change because they need it for their survival. On top of that
the GMOs tastes the same as the original but has more nutritional value than their organic

Garabato 5

counterpart. For this reason, farmers are more than ok with the idea of GMOs. When it
comes to what the people want and what's best for the population I think Ssali has a better
grasp than Oniro but Oniro does bring up a few very important points. I think its totally true
that farmers could potentially get screwed over because if they do switch over to GM crops
then they will become completely dependent on big corporations. This makes the farmers
more vulnerable. Even though Oniro is anti GMO and Ssali is pro GMO I think that they both
bring up ideas that are credible and correct.
Peter Singers view on regulations is that because of the heavy regulations we have
created safe GMOs and without the regulations the industries may start creating massive
amounts of GMOs in order to make a profit rather than to benefit the greater good of the
consumers. I can clearly see why people can agree with his point of view because it
supports regulations and safety. Whereas people like Dubock think that regulations are
completely irrelevant because all they are is a nuisance that delay intensive research for
better GMOs. Now I personally agree with regulations but in the case of golden rice I think
that the regulations delaying future research and preventing the release of golden are
nothing but a nuisance. Because of this regulation research and time was wasted because
people were scared. At the same time 6000 children a day were dying because of a vitamin
A deficiency that could be fixed with the help of Golden Rice. Since I fall in the middle of the
GMO opinion spectrum its hard to say what author I most agree with because they all bring
up very important points that cant be over looked. As long as its safe and for the greater
good then I think people with this Blanket opposition towards GMOs in Uganda should
reconsider their opinion and realize that GM crops can greatly benefit the population.