The real GMO issue is whether farmers are allowed to compete

Beyond the clash over corporate power lies a simpler truth: denying technology to South African farmers won’t fix food insecurity – it just makes them less competitive globally.

A recent Daily Maverick article by Ed Stoddard argued that GMOs and precision farming have contributed to lower food prices and improved affordability. A subsequent Opinionista by Mariam Mayet challenged that conclusion, arguing that the real issue is not lower prices for consumers, but corporate power and control over the food system.

Both articles raise important issues, but the question is not whether someone is pro-GMO or anti-GMO. The question is not whether one supports biotechnology or opposes it.

How do we build a food system that is productive, affordable, sustainable, inclusive and globally competitive, while ensuring that farmers remain economically viable?

Because without viable farmers there is no food security. To be viable, farmers must compete successfully on the global stage. Without competitiveness, there is no sustainable future for South African agriculture. Mayet is correct on one important point: hunger in South Africa cannot be solved by technology alone. Hunger is deeply linked to poverty, unemployment, inequality and economic exclusion. Any serious discussion about food security must acknowledge that reality.

But we should not confuse structural social challenges with the tools farmers use to produce food. Food insecurity is primarily an income and access problem. People go hungry because they cannot afford enough nutritious food. That is a profound societal challenge. Yet making agriculture less productive, less innovative and less competitive will not solve poverty. It will simply make food more expensive, food security more fragile, and farmers less able to compete. That is why we must keep everybody focused on the real issue – do farmers have access to safe, effective tools that help them remain profitable, produce food sustainably and compete globally?

The GMO debate often suffers from a fundamental confusion. There are two separate questions. The first is whether concentration, inequality and market power exist in food systems. The second is whether farmers should have access to technologies that improve productivity and competitiveness.

Those questions are related, but they are not the same. One can be concerned about corporate concentration while still recognising the value of innovation. One can support stronger competition policy while also supporting access to technology. One can advocate for fairer markets without expecting farmers to compete with fewer tools than their international competitors.

Technology becomes the target because it is easier to attack than the underlying structural problems.

A competition problem requires a competition solution. Market concentration should be addressed through competition law, market oversight and appropriate policy interventions. Technology should be evaluated through robust, science-based regulatory processes focused on safety, efficiency and stewardship.