Golden rice and scientific consensus

http://foodfirst.org/golden-rice-and-scientific-consensus/

Carmelo Ruiz | 07.15.2016

“The GMO debate is over! The alarmist activists have lost and science has won!”

Well – that’s the impression one gets when reading journalist Joel Achenbach’s Washington Post article detailing the open letter that 107 Nobel laureates signed on to, which attacks the environmental group Greenpeace for its opposition to GMO crops (1).

The letter specifically defends GMO vitamin A-enhanced ‘golden rice’, which according to biotech supporters, is needed to alleviate the suffering of millions of Asians who suffer from vitamin A deficiency (2). Ultimately, the text suggests that Greenpeace is the one obstacle preventing the wonder rice from addressing the needs of the world’s poor and hungry.

******

Achenbach writes that the consensus among scientists is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) do not present new or novel risks, and refers to a US National Academy of Sciences report on the subject published in May (3). The Post article acknowledges that Greenpeace is not alone in its critical position on GMOs, but it does not mention who else is in the opposition, and defines the debate as one between “mainstream scientists and activists.”

However, not all scientists and experts are impressed with the letter. Far from it.

The spurning of Monsanto, tip of the iceberg?

http://foodfirst.org/the-spurning-of-monsanto-tip-of-the-iceberg/

By Carmelo Ruiz

The US-based agrochemical corporation, a world leader in the plant biotechnology and seed sectors, had pinned its hopes on buying Syngenta and was not counting on the Chinese government stepping in with a higher bid. It is no secret that Monsanto is having a hard time. At the end of 2015 it fired 2,600 employees and announced 1,000 more layoffs this year—16% of the company’s workforce. (2)

Since 2000, Monsanto has based its business model on an extremely simple product line, selling genetically modified (GM) seeds (mostly corn and soy) that have been engineered to tolerate their trademark Roundup herbicide. These seeds, known as Roundup Ready, sold along with the herbicide, became one of the biggest agribusiness success stories of all time. But this business model is fast becoming more of a liability than an asset. Quite predictably, weeds are developing resistance (3), and evidence of Roundup’s toxicity is becoming ever harder to discredit and deny.(4) Monsanto is trying to extricate itself from the Roundup Ready wreckage.

The 2013 World Food Prize: Monopolizing the War on Hunger?

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/war+on+hunger

By Eric Holt-Gimenez, Huffington Post, June 21, 2013
Read the original blog at the Huffington Post.

The biotech industry has awarded itself the World Food Prize. A career Monsanto executive, a Syngenta scientist and a private industrial scientist will share the $250,000 prize for "feeding a growing global population."

The trouble is, GMO seeds produce feed and fuel, not food. Over the last 20 years they've yet to feed any of the planet's poor or hungry. In any case, the world already produces enough food for 10 billion people, so simply increasing production clearly won't end hunger. The World Food Prize's love affair with biotechnology not only elides the structural causes of hunger; it ignores the documented successes of agroecological methods for building in farm-scale resiliency and ensuring productive, sustainable yields.

The World Food Prize has become a corporate celebration of self. In addition to Syngenta, Pioneer and Monsanto, the foundation's donor list includes Cargill, ADM, Walmart, Pepsi, Land O'Lakes, the American Soybean Association, the Iowa Soybean Association and the Iowa Farm Bureau. Biotech boosters Howard Buffet and Rockefeller foundations each gave a cool million bucks; the Monsanto-friendly State of Iowa gave $1.4 million.

Even The New York Times suggested that this award may be a PR attempt to counter the growing global backlash against GMOs. It is also an effort to fibrillate the industry's flat economic performance that has followed the heady days of the 2008-09 food crisis (in which they made record profits while a billion people were pushed into the ranks of the hungry). Apparently the way to revive lackluster seed monopolies is to guarantee them a monopoly on ending hunger. But giving the World Food Prize to the monopolies profiting from hunger is like awarding the Nobel Peace prize for going to war... wait, that's already been done. So it goes.

It is no wonder farm and food activists have established the Food Sovereignty Prize to celebrate organizations working to democratize--rather than monopolize--our food system. While the World Food Prize emphasizes increased production through proprietary technologies, the Food Sovereignty Prize rewards social and agroecological solutions coming from those sectors that are most negatively impacted by the corporate food regime.

Given by the US Food Sovereignty Alliance, this prize, first awarded in 2009, has been given to honorees that include the MST--Landless Workers Movement of Brazil (2011), Family Farm Defenders (2010): La Via Campesina (2009) and honorable mentions like the Movimiento Campesino a Campesino (Farmer to Farmer Movement), as well as urban organizations like the South Central Farmers of Los Angeles, the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network and the Toronto Food Policy Council.

Behind the thinning public veil of the World Food Prize lurk the corporate interests of the monopolies controlling the food system. It is time to recognize the people and organizations fighting to end the injustices that cause hunger in the first place.

Eric Holt-Gimenez at anti-Monsanto rally, 5/25/13

Charla de Eric Holt-Giménez en la protesta mundial contra Monsanto el sábado pasado. Tiene puesta la camisa que le regalaron en Puerto Rico! El hace referencia a nuestra nación a los 3 minutos de comenzado el video.

Of Myths and Men: Mark Lynas and the intoxicating power of technocracy

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/Myths+of+GMOs

February 4, 2013
By Eric Holt-Giménez, Ph D, Executive Director, Food First
Read the original on Huffington Post.

Why do certain people and ideas suddenly capture the limelight while others go unnoticed? Others seem never to go away... The recent ascent of environmental writer Mark Lynas to prominence in the debate on genetically modified crops (GMOs) is a lesson in the power of myths.

******

But the problem is not Mark Lynas.

Though he has been celebrated as a maverick environmentalist, in fact, his views on GMOs and mainstream science are compatible with the "Big Three" mainstream conservation giants: the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy. Just like the monopolies that control the seed and chemical industry and the governmental agencies that provide them with the revolving doors they use to ensure industry-friendly policies, these global conservationists carefully select the science that advances their political and economic interests and ignore the science that calls their position--and their power--into question. All of them espouse corporate ideologies that dress up their assumptions as facts. Mr. Lynas' high profile conversion sheds no new evidence on the issues. It does, however, reinforce the myth-making power of the global technocracy.

The Big Three, for example, cling dogmatically to a theory called "Island Biogeography" that relates species richness (biodiversity) to "islands" of suitable habitat. Based in part on Darwin's observations in the Galapagos and tested with powerful biocides on islands in the Caribbean, the theory posits that species-rich islands exist in a species-inert sea that biologists call a "matrix." Over time, the islands in the matrix that are larger and closest to the mainland will have greater species richness than those are smaller and farther away. In modern-day, big conservationism, this theory is applied to forest fragments ("islands") in the "matrix" of agricultural landscapes that are assumed to be as biologically inert as the surface of the ocean. This drives the Big Three to acquire large nature reserves (often linking them with corridors) in order to preserve biodiversity. It also drives them to strike Faustian bargains with industrial agriculture: Big agriculture will support the Big Three's strategy to buy up land for nature reserves. In return, the Big Three will endorse Big Agriculture's new GMO technologies.

******

The monopolies in the fuel, chemical and agri-foods industries must dominate global markets and continually expand their land-based operations in order to ensure a 3% compound return rate to their shareholders. If they don't, their stock will fall. Staying in the game requires monopoly control of the world's seeds, inputs, grain and processing. For this purpose, applications drawn from the sciences of molecular biology and genetics are used to engineer GMOs. Contrary to industrial myth, genetic engineering is not science; it is engineering, based on particular branches of science. While the science of molecular biology can be quite complex and rigorous, the genetic engineering of seeds is actually somewhat blundering and imprecise... one reason it is so expensive. Genetics is also quite complex. Its application to crop breeding has produced high-yielding hybrids that require massive applications of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The marriage of hybrids and GMOs results in a product that perfectly meets the needs of industry: a high-yielding seed that not only requires the chemical inputs these companies produce, it allows for the proprietary ownerships of the seed's genes, thus ensuring monopoly control over continental landscapes like the U.S. Midwest and the Brazilian Cerrado.

The myths linking Mark Lynas' environmentalism to GMOs have their origins in monopoly control, outdated conservation theory and hack engineering. 

Professor John Vandermeer challenges Lynas on GMOs

Posted January 8th, 2013  

Neoliberal environmentalist Mark Lynas recently gave a talk at the Oxford Farming Association in which he apologized for once militating against GMOs. Now, after having discovered "science" has decided we need GMOs to feed the world. (http://vimeo.com/56745320 )

Anyone against GMOs, he claims, is anti-science because "the debate is over" and the "scientific consensus" has won... This is an all to familiar argument from the industry, and leads us to suspect that Lynas may have been recruited by EuropaBio's "Pro-GM Ambassador Programme." EuropaBio is.the very rich and vocal lobby association of GM companies in Brussels, that prepared an international outreach programme in 2011 to give a new impulse to GM crops in Europehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/europabio-gm-ambassado...

Lynas' rant is bringing a response from actual scientists. Dr. John Vandermeer from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan comments on Mark Lynas' promising scientific conversion.

Guest blog by Professor John Vandermeer, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor:

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/GMO+uproar+in+EU

PANNA response to Lynas

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/GMO+seeds+not+the+answer

British Activist Spurs Conversation, Ignores Science on GE Crops

Posted January 16th, 2013  

January 9, 2013, PANNA at http://www.panna.org/

Oakland, CA – For more than a decade, Mark Lynas has been a staunch opponent of genetically engineered (GE) crops, but last week he announced he has changed his mind. Lynas’ position reversal has generated much attention, and has given a platform to the ongoing global conversation about the value of patented seeds, pesticides and the science behind the technology.

PAN Senior Scientist, Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, notes that GE crops have consistently failed to deliver on their promises to “feed the world,” and instead drive up the use of hazardous pesticides.

She issued the following statement:

“Lynas’ distortions regarding the vast body of science that informs today’s public policy debates around genetically engineered (GE) crops are disappointing. Lynas in no way speaks for the global community of scientists, health and development experts who have presented solid scientific evidence that GE crops have failed to provide the yield or nutritional benefits advertised by their manufacturers.* Instead, GE crops have driven a massive increase in herbicide use and an explosion of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” that now threaten biodiversity, public health, rural economies and farmers’ livelihoods.

Will this change? Unfortunately, the majority of ‘new generation’ GE crops developed by Dow and Monsanto —and currently in the USDA ‘pipeline’ awaiting agency approval — have been engineered to be used with older and more hazardous pesticides like 2,4-D and dicamba. These products have nothing to do with feeding the world, and everything to do with increasing pesticide sales.

The reality is that modern, state-of-the-art agricultural science, and farmers’ best practices, point us towards 21st century organic and ecological agriculture as among the most powerful approaches available to feed the world sustainably, particularly in the face of converging global climate, water and energy crises.”

* This critical assessment of GE crops’ disappointing results was the conclusion of more than 400 scientists and development experts from over 80 countries, who co-authored the World Bank and UN’s International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), the most comprehensive and rigorous assessment of agriculture ever to have taken place.

A lead author on the IAASTD, Ishii-Eiteman notes that after four years of assessing the evidence, this seminal report concluded that GE crops are unlikely to feed the world, but have in fact, tended to benefit transnational corporations far more than resource-limited family farmers.

NGOs demand re-assessment of GM maize questioned in recent French study

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/Brazilian+nonprofits+challenge+approval+of+GMO+maize+

November 4, 2012, Rio de Janeiro

Civil society organizations have issued an official letter to Brazil’s federal government questioning the commercial release of the genetically modified maize NK603. Their request for reassessment of the release has been sent to various ministers and representatives of bodies linked to the area with the aim of suspending use of this technology until independent research confirms its dietary and nutritional safety. Social movements, civil organizations, scientific bodies and rights-based NGOs were among the entities signing the document.

The National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio) approved the commercial release of the genetically modified maize NK603 in 2008, a glyphosate tolerant variety (Roundup Ready) owned by Monsanto, today grown throughout Brazil. The movements argue that, as is common practice with commercial releases of GMOs in Brazil, the research on which authorization was based involved short-term studies made by the applying company itself. Another five stacked varieties of GM maize include the NK603 event in their composition.

New scientific data on the adverse effects of NK603 was published in September by the renowned science journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Researchers from Caen University in France found evidence of metabolic alterations caused by the consumption of GM maize, whether or not combined with the use of the Roundup herbicide. The study is considered unique because of its inclusion of more than 100 parameters over a 2-year period using 200 laboratory rats. The results revealed a higher and more frequent mortality rate when both these products were consumed, as well as non-linear hormonal effects related to sex. Females developed numerous large mammary tumours, as well as hypophyseal and kidney problems. Most of the males died from chronic hepatorenal deficiencies.

The study’s authors proposed that the GMOs concerned should be very carefully evaluated by long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects. Brazil’s National Biosafety Law allows reassessment of technical decisions based on new scientific facts or knowledge relevant to biosafety. In addition the National Biosafety Council (CBNS), composed by 11 ministers, can also ban the use of particular products based on the national interest.

The civil society organizations producing the document emphasized the urgent need to reassess the commercial releases linked to NK603 maize and argued that, in the meantime, any authorizations based on these technical reports should be suspended. The objective is to ban the planting, use and sale of this kind of seed, given the risk posed by these crops to Brazil’s population. The NGOs argue that it is unacceptable for research with a bearing on the population’s health to be conducted only by the companies applying for commercial release of GMOs, whose interests merely reflect the profits accrued by these transnationals. They are therefore calling for studies by independent researchers unconnected to the economic interests of these companies. In their official letter they also demand that IBAMA and ANVISA, state agencies responsible for registration and control in the area, also make a formal request for the technical reports for NK603 maize to be reassessed and for the ministers on the CNBS to adopt a clear stance on the issue.

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/failure+of+GMOs

THE GMO EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

Posted October 19th, 2011 by admin

A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs - False Promises, Failed Technologies

October 2011
By Navdanya International in cooperation with numerous organizations around the world

People who point out the emptiness of the pretensions of powerful people and institutions are often compared to the child in Hans Christian Andersen's fable who says that the emperor has no .

The fable that GMOs are feeding the world has already led to large-scale destruction of biodiversity and farmers’ livelihoods. It is threatening the very basis of our freedom to know what we eat and to choose what we eat. Our biodiversity and our seed freedom are in peril. Our food freedom, food democracy and food sovereignty are at stake.

This report is a compilation of the many voices from around the globe speaking the truth about what is happening in their communities and countries and are exposing the illusion that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are, as Wendell Berry writes, “the latest answer-to-everything”.

Actions recommended in this report include:
--Campaign to disinvest from Monsanto
--Boycott GMOs - Eat organic
--Demand labeling of GMOs
--Put your money to support local ecological/organic food projects and invest in the future
--Campaign to get your village/town/region/country GMO-free
--Help save seeds

Read this critical report.

Enviro impacts of war on weeds

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/Roundup%2C+glyphosate%2C+herbicide

Environmental Impacts of Killing Weeds now resistant to Roundup

Posted July 13th, 2011

Herbicide tolerance and GM crops
Why the world should be ready to round up glyphosate

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides sold throughout the world, including the well-known formulation, Roundup. Glyphosate based herbicides are used widely for weed control because they are non-selective; glyphosate kills all vegetation.

Glyphosate has been promoted as ‘safe’. However, mounting scientific evidence questions the safety of glyphosate and its most well known formulation, Roundup. The evidence detailed in this report demonstrates that glyphosate-based products can have adverse impacts on human and animal health, and that a review of their safety for human and animal health is urgently needed.

The report's conclusion
The rapid evolution of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate is a result of farmers becoming over-reliant on one herbicide for weed control. This is particularly associated with GM RR (genetically modified Roundup Ready) crops. Now that resistance to glyphosate is widespread in weeds within GM RR soy, maize and cotton crops, farmers have to resort to using mixtures of herbicides.

Thus, the promise of reduced herbicide use and cheaper and easier weed controls has not been delivered. However, it is clear that GM RR crops have brought about an escalation in the pesticides ‘arms race’, with an increasing toxic burden on the environment involving significant uncertainty about the overall safety of glyphosate for people and biodiversity.

Read the entire report by Greenpeace.

Monsanto gets sued

On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed.

ORGANIC FARMERS AND SEED SELLERS SUE MONSANTO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM PATENTS ON GENETICALLY MOD

www.foodfirst.org

The Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First shapes how people think by analyzing the root causes of global hunger, poverty, and ecological degradation and developing solutions in partnership with movements working for social change.

Not Monsanto's Fault! Ever. by Eric Holt-Gimenez

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3315

By Eric Holt-Giménez, March 2, 2011

Monsanto has an interesting clause in its seed contract. The Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement has a waiver that shifts all liability from any incidental, direct, indirect consequences from its seeds from the company to the farmer.

Apparently, Monsanto is so sure that their seeds are problem-free that they refuse to take responsibility for them...

Want to plant Monsanto's GMO seeds? Here is your cross to bear:

GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

That means if your seed contaminates an organic field and the farmer sues you for ruining their certification, you can't blame Monsanto.

Sued because pathogens from your GMO grain increased the spontaneous abortion rates of someone else's livestock? Don't look to the seed seller for help.

(I guess that's what they mean in their Pledge Report when they said "Monsanto Company is helping smallholder farmers around the world become more productive and self-sufficient.")

Get sued and they might return you the price of the seed...

Why does Monsanto have these clauses in their agreement? Because they know that GMOs are promiscuous in the field, create insect resistance and super-weeds, and are linked to late-term, spontaneous abortions in cattle. (Just as they knew of the devastating effects of dioxin, Agent Orange and rBGH.)

But it doesn't stop there.

Sign on with Monsanto and your farm is theirs:

GROWER AGREES: To accept and continue the obligations of this Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement on any new land purchased or leased by Grower that has Seed planted on it by a previous owner or possessor of the land; and to notify in writing purchasers or lessees of land owned by Grower that has Seed planted on it that the Monsanto Technology is subject to this Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement and they must have or obtain their own Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement.

Well! Quite a statement from the company in the oligopoly club that claims it is going to save the world from hunger. They didn't mention that patent bondage was part of the deal...

What corn farmer in their right mind will sign an agreement like that? Probably most.

Monsanto's monopoly over industrial corn is almost complete and farmers have few easy options. The company wouldn't roll out this agreement if they didn't think they could force farmers to sign it. Because of the nature of our industrial farming system, farmers live indebted lives and make up less than 2% of the U.S. population so they don't have much room for maneuver or much political clout. Certainly not enough to stand up to Monsanto.

Why isn't anybody stopping Monsanto from spreading these seeds throughout the food chain and around the world? Why does the U.S. Department of Agriculture jump when the monopoly snaps its fingers? Why do molecular biologists and politicians climb on the bandwagon? And why aren't GMOs labeled in our food?

I found a fable that might help explain things: "The Emperor's New Seeds." Timeless.

Why the big fuss about Alfalfa?

Taken from the Food First blog. http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3277

Posted January 27th, 2011 by admin

According to Sam Fromartz, author of the 2006 book Organic, Inc. consequences that we may see in our food supply as this genetically modified livestock feed is introduced include:

1. Less organic forage crops. Why would any farmer plant organic alfalfa when he knows a farmer nearby is planting GM alfalfa? Not only will his costs be higher in terms of cultivating an organic crop, but the possibility now exists that the crop will not be organic once it’s harvested. So why bother?

2. Fewer organic dairy farmers. Organic dairy farmers plant alfalfa in fields where their cows graze, but they may also buy hay for winter. With fewer sources of organic forages, costs for organic dairy farmers will rise. What’s the smartest decision here: Reduce your risk by avoiding the organic market altogether. Or maybe buy your organic forage crops from China, as we’ve seen with soybeans.

3. Higher prices for organic consumers. If the supply of organic forages falls, the cost will rise. Organic dairy farmers will either be squeezed and go under or organic milk prices will rise. The impact: higher prices at the checkout counter for moms and dads buying organic milk for their kids. (Or maybe we’ll see more imports of organic milk powder from nations with stricter GM controls to keep the market going.)

4. Less investment in organic meat. Organic meat has been a fast growing sector of the market, but why would anyone invest in this business if you could be disqualified by contaminated feed? The rational business decision would be to ignore the U.S. and invest in organic operations outside the U.S. — Uruguay anyone?

5. Fewer conventional export opportunities. The contamination of rice fields by GM test plots in Louisiana led to multimillion dollar law suits. Why? Conventional rice farmers lost markets in countries that didn’t want to import GM rice. The same could be true of forages — that is, unless the U.S. is successful in getting the rest of the world to buy GM crops as the State Department is trying to do.

A Pandora's Box Moment? Synthetic Biology Breakthrough Tied to Search for Cheap Biofuels

Posted May 25th, 2010

By Annie Shattuck and Scott Lensing

The J. Craig Venter Institute and Synthetic Genomics Inc. announced the successful construction of the first self-replicating synthetic organism on May 21, 2010. What might this mean?

Using the essential building blocks of DNA to create sequences from scratch, synthetic biology moves far beyond the genetic shuffling and rearrangement that characterizes current genetic modification, and instead reaches into a wholly new realm of human environmental intervention. Last week’s breakthrough was the first time an organism took up and replicated the synthetic DNA. But for Venter, the project is less about scientific advancement than turning a profit. Venter's company, Synthetic Genomics, secured a deal with ExxonMobil to create a synthetic algae that theoretically will be able to absorb carbon dioxide from the air and convert it to biofuel.

According to researcher Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, who has spent the better part of a decade tracking developments in Synthetic biology "This is the quintessential Pandora’s box moment - like the splitting of the atom or the cloning of Dolly the sheep. We will all have to deal with the fall-out from this alarming experiment. Synthetic biology is a high-risk profit-driven field, building organisms out of parts that are still poorly understood. We know that lab-created life-forms can escape, become biological weapons, and that their use threatens existing natural biodiversity. Most worrying of all, Craig Venter is handing this powerful technology to the world’s most irresponsible and environmentally damaging industry by partnering with the likes of BP and Exxon to hasten the commercialization of synthetic life-forms."

While the Venter Institute promises numerous societal benefits from its scientific breakthrough,” critical questions still surround the inherently unknown environmental impact of this completely new practice. The development of a synthetic life form significantly heightens the usual concerns regarding genetically engineered crops, as the basic components of these genomes, let alone the genomes themselves, do not occur anywhere in nature.

With no precedent for the interaction between synthetic genomes and naturally evolved organisms, pushing these new, poorly-understood genomes from the lab into the environment could have profound effects on our food and agricultural systems. The concentration of this technology in a few corporate hands that have exclusive access to information on the genomes raises questions on transparency and oversight, and necessitates the role of government regulatory bodies in dictating the terms by which synthetic biology is used. Rigorous scientific testing and intense oversight by groups that are not financially invested in the “syn-bio” agenda remains an absolutely crucial step before the commercial release of this technology is even seriously considered.

Monsanto Faces Rising Grassroots Opposition in South Africa

By Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo (PhD)

Multinational seed and chemical companies looking to gain a new customer base in Africa are facing increasing resistance from both farmers and consumers. Nonetheless, they are making inroads by partnering with African institutions and governments that are eager to ‘modernize' their agricultural sectors. South Africa is of particular importance in this regard. The country has gone against the grain of general distrust of GMOs in Africa to become a gateway for the distribution of GM food aid; the commercialization and export of GM seeds; and experimentation with GM crops not approved elsewhere.[i]

But here too, they face mounting opposition. In July 2009, for instance, the South African government rejected the commercial release application for GM potatoes after the Executive Council, a government licensing body, concluded that the toxicology studies were "inadequate, scientifically poorly designed and fundamentally flawed." It was also reported that, in 2008/2009, 80% of Monsanto's GM maize in South Africa failed to produce a crop, leading critics to call for urgent investigation and a ban on all GM foods.

In 2002, the South African government, in partnership with U.S.-based biotech firm Monsanto, launched the so-called Massive Food Production Program (MFPP) in the country's Eastern Cape Province. The Eastern Cape is characterized by a dual economy in which the western half of the province (previously white South Africa under apartheid) is dominated by commercial agriculture while the eastern half consists of subsistence agriculture. After the advent of democracy in 1994, there was tremendous pressure to develop the rural economy here.

MFPP is a "flagship program" of the South African government designed to bring about agrarian transformation through a "green revolution."[ii]The program operates by granting subsidies (which are phased out over time) and credit to small farming communities to purchase fertilizers, pesticides and GM or hybrid seeds. Through MFPP, Monsanto has essentially been elevated to the status of a government "extension agency" responsible for educating and training farmers about GM seeds and technologies. Of course, as a private company, they are unlikely to share with farmers the potentially disastrous effects of planting their land with GM crops. Rather, they advise farmers to buy and use the recommended agrochemicals. They also instruct them to plant only GM maize, as a monoculture, instead of intercropping with beans or pumpkins as they have done for centuries to ensure their food security.

A white farmer interviewed by GRAIN, paid to mentor an MFPP community, acknowledged that the cost of the inputs was just too high for small farmers to afford on their own,without continuing to amass debt. He was quoted saying he was "tempted to tell farmers to just buy food with the money" as their losses would be less than growing the food themselves through MFPP.

South African farmers are becoming increasingly aware of the deception that GM seeds and technologies will bring development and pull them out of poverty, as their experiences have not born out these claims. In populations with low literacy levels, the farmers are given little or no information about the effects of planting GM seeds, until it is too late, that is. It is not surprising that western consumers who are largely literate and have access to information are wary of GM foods.

Tragically, even the government officials in charge of co-implementing the MFPP program are ignorant of GMOs. A number NGOs and Human Rights organization have taken on the responsibility of educating the farmers about the effects of planting GMOs.

The constitution of South Africa, hailed as one of the most progressive in the world, obligates the government to take steps to protect its citizens. As part of the Consumer Protection Act, the government is indeed drafting policies to regulate GMOs, but many NGOs say it is unclear who will implement and monitor these regulations.

What's more, the South African NGO Safeage reports that the U.S. seed company Pannar and the Swiss firm Syngenta are partnering with local businesses to introduce a program of their own called AfriCan, targeting the poor farmers inthe Eastern Cape who have yet to be reached. The project incorporates farmers into a contract-farming scheme linking them to credit, GM seeds and chemical inputs-much like MFPP. The pilot project, which hopes to be reproduced throughout Africa, was launched in March 2010 with 500 farmers (with .5 to 4 hectare plots) and will run for 18 months.[iii]

Despite claims that there have been no substantiated threats to human and animal health caused by GM crops, subsistence farmers who participated in the MFPP project testified to the contrary in a workshop held by the NGO Biowatch (SA). A farmer from the organization Siyazakha expressed her dismay of the quality of "mielies" (maize), a staple food, produced with"free" seeds from the project. She stated, "the mielies produced are making us sick; they break easily and are bad quality. When we give it to our chickens it affects them, we want to grow our own seed and protect them". Another small-scale farmer from Siyazakha, pointed out that using fertilizers destroys the soil after just a few years and food can no longer be grown on it. He stressed that they want use manure and produce crops using traditional farming methods.[iv]

The South African government has also followed the lead of the United States on consumer information, refusing to label food in the stores so that people can make informed choices about what they consume. During a recent debate with parliamentarians on the GMO issue, Michelle Pressend from Biowatch stated, "there is little transparency. We are in danger of multi-national concerns driving our food policy."

As they learn about the dangers of using GMOs, and share their negative experiences, poor farmers are organizing themselves to resist the assault on their seeds, farmland, farming traditions, health and autonomy. Via Campesina leads the campaign to educate farmers and to fight for farmers' rights. Despite the South African government's cooperation with Monsanto and other biotech companies, the agro-ecological agriculture movement is growing and farmers are rejecting GM seeds. Farmers are building their seed banks and alternative models are emerging and growing. Despite the government ignoring such initiatives, farmers are seeking out the information and using it to protect their rights and ensure their food sovereignty.

Dr. Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo is a Sociologist and activist working on development issues with a focus on gender, the environment and policies that affect the livelihoods of poor farmers. She was born in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, in the rural district of Dutywa. She holds a Ph.D in Sociology from UCLA and a MA degree in Development Studies from the Institute of Social Studies (ISS), the Hague, the Netherlands. Dr. Siqwana-Ndulo has participated in various policy task teams in South Africa and collaborated on research projects on socio-economic conditions in the Eastern Cape. She has served on numerous boards and committees including Biowatch SA, the Joint Centre for Political and Economic Studies, and the Trust for Community Outreach and Education (TCOE). She currently works as an independent consultant, activist and freelance writer on development and social justice issues.

---

[i] African Center for Biosafety "A Profile of Monsanto in South Africa" April 2005. Linkto PDF document: http://www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk/monsanto_southafrica.pdf

[ii] For an in-depth analysis of MFPP in South Africa see: GRAIN "Lessons from the Green Revolution in South Africa" Seedling, October 2008. http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=568

[iii] Personal communication with Safeage representative. See www.safeage.org

[iv] "Biowatch holds workshop in the Eastern Cape" The Biowatch Bulletin, May 2009. Link to PDF document: http://www.biowatch.org.za/pubs/newsletters/may2009.pdf

The Science of Wishful Thinking: ISAAA’s report on GM crops

Posted April 12th, 2010 by kerssen

by Tanya Kerssen

"The developing world embraces a controversial technology,"declared the title of a recent article in the Economist Magazine, referring to genetically modified (GM) crops. This is a rather shocking statement to attribute so matter-of-factly to the entire developing world. Surely, it must be supported by a rigorous and ethically sound set of research data... The article reports on the recently released report by ISAAA--the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Each year the group releases a report entitled "Global Status of Commercialized GM Crops," which details with exquisite color-coded charts and maps the expansion of GM crop adoption throughout the world. There's only one problem: the information is far from reliable.

While the Economist calls the group a "non-profit outfit that monitors the use of GM crops," ISAAA is actually an industry-funded advocacy group, whose mission is to promote the adoption of GM seed technologies in developing countries. Past and present funders of ISAAA include Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Cargill, Dow, DuPont, Bayer CropScience and CropLife International. Since the release of the new "Global Status" report on February 23, ISAAA statistics have been quoted in articles in the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Of the four, only USA Today notes that ISAAA is "financed by the biotech industry."

And while industry, governments and media continuously cite ISAAA's statistics, close scrutiny of past reports revealed highly exaggerated numbers based on dubious science. The magazine Science in Society, for example, reported the following discrepancies:[i]

• ISAAA's 1998 report claimed yield improvements of 12% for GM soy over conventional soy in the U.S. However, a review of the results of over 8,200 university-based controlled varietal trials in 1998 showed a 7% average yield reduction in the case of the GM soy.
• In 2003, ISAAA listed India as a "key GM crop cultivator" based on India's first GM crop, Bt cotton. According to India's agriculture ministry, however, in 2002-2003, "Bt cotton covered an area of only 38,038 hectares, representing only 0.51 per cent of the area under cotton in the period. In 2003-04, with good monsoon rains, the area under Bt cotton increased to 92,000 hectares. This area coverage is almost negligible compared to over 9 million hectares under cotton crop in the country. This points to the low acceptability of Bt cotton by farmers."
• Analyzing GM cotton farming in South Africa in 2004, Aaron deGrassi of the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex noted that ISAAA's GM plantings figures were 20 times higher than even those claimed by other biotech industry sources and more than 30 times greater than those from an academic survey conducted by the University of Reading, UK.

In its current report, ISAAA implies that GM crops in South Africa have been an unqualified success, with the total area planted to biotech crops growing from 1.8 million hectares in 2008 to 2.1 million hectares in 2009-- a 17% increase "mainly attributed to an increase in biotech maize area." The report neglects to mention the 80 percent crop failure of Monsanto's GM maize varieties in South Africa in 2008/2009. According to the African Center for Biosafety, a South African NGO, ISAAA's information on South Africa relies on data from FoodNCropBio, a private biotech consultancy firm that derives its numbers from confidential records of seed sales and estimates based on the "intention to plant." Since the government keeps no official records on the number of hectares grown to GM crops in the country--and since GM and non-GM grain is not stored separately--the figures are nearly impossible to verify.

Overall, ISAAA notes a global increase in GM crop area of 9 million hectares between 2008 to 2009--an increase of 7%. A close look at the numbers shows that the overwhelming majority of this gain occurred in just a handful of countries. With an increase of 5.6 million hectares since 2008, Brazil alone accounts for fully 62% of the total "global" increase. The top three producers of biotech crops--the U.S., Argentina and Brazil--account for 82% (7.4m hectares) of the growth in biotech crop area. One can hardly infer a global fervor for GM crops based primarily on these three countries.

The report also touts the adoption of biotech crops by "small and resource-poor farmers from developing countries," which according to ISAAA's figures reached 13 million farmers in 2009, most of which were Bt cotton farmers in China and India. Without knowing exactly how ISAAA defines "small and resource poor", if one compares this to the total number of smallholders in the developing world[ii]--1.5 billion in 2008 according to World Bank figures--it adds up to only 0.8%. In other words, over 99% of smallholders--who produce much of the developing world's food--do not plant GM seeds. Rather, they rely on diversified cropping systems and traditional plant breeding to produce grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder and animal products that ensure local food security. Such integrated farming systems also produce far more per unit area than do monocultures, since multiple cropping reduces losses due to pests and disease, and makes most efficient use of light, water and nutrients.

In a rather brilliant PR strategy, the seed and chemical industries have managed to parlay propaganda into science through seemingly "non-profit" organizations like ISAAA. Uncritical media coverage of the annual "Global Status" report provides free advertising for these corporations and perpetuates the myth of growing acceptance of GMOs.[iii]Perhaps most insidiously, measuring the "success" of GM crops based on numbers of hectares planted rests on the fallacy that farmers and consumers have made a free and informed choice to grow and consume GM products. In truth--as the battles over the labeling of GM food suggest--an informed and empowered citizenry is the biotech industry's worst nightmare.

---

[i] "The GM Bubble" Science in Society issue 22,summer 2004

[ii] The World Bank defines a smallholder farmer as operating a farm of 2 hectares or less

[iii] Even inthe U.S., the world's leading producer of GM crops, the "consensus" is rapidly fraying. See: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/US_Opposition_to_GMOs.php

LINK: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2879

Kenya Imports GMO Maize Despite Surplus of Local Grain

Posted March 24th, 2010 in http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2843

Kenya is in many ways ground zero in the fight over GM crops on the African continent. A press release from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition yesterday called out government officials for allowing the import of GMO maize, while the nation's farmers are producing a surplus and struggling with low prices at the farm gate. GM crops have not been approved for release in Kenya.

The Kenya Biodiversity Coalition (KBioC) is a coalition of farmer organizations, consumer rights groups, faith based groups, and community organizations. According to their release:

"It has come to our attention through our network friends -African Centre for Biosafety, (ACB) based in South Africa, that in January 2010, an international grain handling company in Kenya Louis Dreyfus Commodities (K) Ltd, got an export permit from South Africa to bring into Kenya a consignment of 40,000 MT of GMO maize varieties. This is an issue of public concern and a fresh case of deliberate violation of the Biosafety protocol by the Kenya Government as no approvals have been given for the environmental release of GMOs in Kenya.

When the government opened a window for importation of duty free maize late 2009, it was to address persistent food insecurity Currently, the nation is experiencing a bumper harvest of all cereals. Why did the government extend the window to import duty free maize when farmers in Kenya are struggling with lack of storage facilities and low prices of their recently harvested cereals?"

Industry, public and private donors have been working on GM crops in the country for nearly two decades, despite Kenya's adherence to the Cartagena Protocol. GM crops have never been legal for commercial plantings in Kenya.

Latest Blow to GM Crops - Insects in India resistant to Bt Cotton

Posted March 19th, 2010 on http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2838

Today Science Magazine reported widespread resistance to the Bt toxin in genetically modified cotton in India.

According to the abstract, "Monsanto has revealed that a common insect pest has developed resistance to its flagship genetically modified (GM) product in India. The agricultural biotechnology leader says it "detected unusual survival" of pink bollworms that fed on cotton containing the Cry1Ac gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which codes for a protein that's toxic to many insect pests. In a statement to Science, Monsanto claims that the finding from western India "is the first case of field-relevant resistance to Cry1Ac products, anywhere in the world."

Other independent researchers have disputed the claim that this is the first instance, with earlier reports cropping up in South Africa and the United States.

Regardless, the admission is a major blow for Monsanto and the GM industry. The Bt cotton varieties under fire are being sold as a technology that can help fight poverty and cut pesticide use. Neither claim so far has been substantiated.

The full article is available at www.sciencemag.org (Requires subscription)

The Science Simplified: How genetic material from GMO corn finds its way to our gut

Posted January 21st, 2010 by admin

By Krista Beckley

There have been several reports recently about genetic material from GMO corn making its way into soil, animals and insects. (The study these reports refer to appeared in the Journal of Chemical Ecology in July - Hart et. al 2009) The concept of how these genes enter into other organisms and food systems is often convoluted, and worth laying out again for readers who may have questions.

However the implications for the uptake of certain genes into the food system could have far reaching effects on human health well before scientists are aware of what is actually going on.

The process of how genes move from crops, for instance RoundupReadyⓇ corn, to the environment is not an effect of the use of GMOs, it is a process that occurs naturally in every ecosystem because of bacteria. Bacteria is present in everything in the food system from the soil to the plants themselves. Bacteria undergoes what is called transformation- DNA is taken up through cell-to-cell connections and is utilized by the bacteria in several ways. It is generally believed that this occurs in order to aid the bacteria such that new DNA can help it evolve, gain higher fitness, or for other novel functions. The DNA during transformation does recombine with the bacterial DNA, however, this does not necessarily mean that the DNA will be expressed or change any function of the cell.

The concern raised by this recent study is that bacteria which undergoes transformation is also present in the gut of animals and insects. This means that even though the odds are low that the DNA taken up by eating plant material with transgenic modification will effect our gut cells, the possibility for a change in function of these cells is always there. Although this is true with anything we ingest, the human population has evolved with the plants we eat and thus problems associated with transformation are rare and due to novel genomes of food stuffs.

Although studies have yet to be conducted in large scale human populations, animals can uptake foreign DNA into the blood stream and intestinal cells (Schubbert et. al. 1993) and mice fed transgenic Bt crops have shown structural changes in their intestines (Fares, et, al. (1999). These findings are in addition to the fact that transgenic feed can alter the level of nutrients actually available for the body to use (Malatesta (2009)- which could, for instance, decrease the strength of the body to fight infection and disease.

The reality is that given the amount of transgenic food we eat over our lifetimes, the odds that our gut bacteria will take up the part of the DNA that has been altered -which could negatively effect the function of our cells- increases significantly. The implications for these radical alterations to our cells due to transgenic crops are not well studied. However, it is well known that these constant assaults on our gut bacteria can lead to higher mutation rates of cells- which can lead to higher rates of disease and cancer.

Fares, Nagui H. and Adel K. El-Sayed (1999). Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on -Endotoxin-Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes. Natural Toxins Vol. 6 Iss. 6, 219-233.

Hart et. al.(2009) Detection of transgenic cp4 epsps genese in the soil food web. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 497-501.

Malatesta, M. (2009). Animal feeding trails for assessing GMO safety: answers and questions. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4, 068, 1-13.

Schubbert, R., Lettmann, C., Doerffler, W. (1994). Ingested foreign (phage M 13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice. Mol. Genet. 242, 495

SOURCE: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2763

Techno-fixes from the Green Revolution in Africa

Posted October 20th, 2009 by rjonasse

By Rick Jonasse

Biotechnology corporations and Green Revolution champions are currently promoting drought tolerant GMOs as a climate change ‘solution' for African agriculture. Monsanto recently secured $47 million from the Gates Foundation to fund Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA). This "gene revolution," however, is as much about breaking down regulatory barriers in Africa as it is about hunger. This initiative joins a long line of Green Revolution "techno-fixes" to agricultural problems, when genuine agrarian and global trade reforms are the only lasting solutions.

Rather than giving African smallholders the tools they need for self-determination and sustainable agriculture-smallholder land rights; local control over grazing, water, seed varieties, livestock breeds and fisheries-and rather than regulate the global markets and giant grain monopolies that have destroyed African food production over the last three decades; the Green Revolution's view of progress is to enact market-based land reforms to promote the most efficient users (and evict the rest), and give farmers inputs and microcredit to turn them into agribusiness capitalists. By ignoring the true needs of smallholders and injecting agrochemicals, western ‘expertise,' and GMO seeds into African soils the Green Revolution will only serve to fill the coffers of biotechnology corporations and agro-input dealers while the rural poor remain food insecure and Africa's agriculture is taken out of the hands of African farmers.

From the perspective of the biotechnology and agribusiness corporations, replacing local control and traditional plant breeding methods with expensive, imported high-tech ones is merely good business. A recent report (PDF 1.6 MBS) by the African Centre for Biosafety describes how biotechnology corporations' solution to climate change depends not on a humane collective response to the crisis, but on 1) The mass adoption of Genetically Modified seeds and industrial agricultural practices, 2) The surrender of Africa's food sovereignty to foreign corporations, and 3) African acceptance of biotechnology patents on their genetic inheritance.

African smallholder farmers are not asking for GM seeds and inputs, and many African countries have placed restrictions on them; but the biotechnology companies want to make GMOs a ‘fact of life' in Africa. The World Bank, USAID, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and The New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) have all come out in favor of cross-border "harmonization" of GMO regulatory statutes. Monsanto and Syngenta have entered into public-private-partnership agreements with agricultural research centers to orient research and policy towards GMOs. They have moved to elide the distinction between traditional crop breeding and biotechnology through Marker Assisted Selection, which looks a lot like traditional cross-breeding methods, but employs GM techniques and, more importantly, maintains GMOs Intellectual Property structure. Africans will not achieve food sovereignty if they are forced to buy transgenic seeds and chemical inputs from northern agribusiness corporations.

AFRICAN VOICES:
African civil society organizations at the World Social Forum in 2007 released a statement condemning biotechnology as a chemical-intensive, destructive form of agriculture that will not help the small farmers that produce the majority of food that Africans eat:

"This push for a so-called "green revolution" or "gene revolution" is being done once again under the guise of solving hunger in Africa. Chemical-intensive agriculture is, however, already known to be outmoded. We have seen how fertilisers have killed the soil, creating erosion, vulnerable plants and loss of water from the soil. We have seen how pesticides and herbicides have harmed our environment and made us sick. We know that hybrid and GM seed monocultures have pulled farmers into poverty by preventing them from saving seed, and preventing traditional methods of intercropping which provide food security. We vow to learn from our brothers and sisters in India, where this chemical and genetically modified system of agriculture has left them in so much debt and hunger that 150,000 farmers have committed suicide.

The push for a corporate-controlled chemical system of agriculture is parasitic on Africa's biodiversity, food sovereignty, seed and small-scale farmers. Farmers in Africa cannot afford these expensive agricultural inputs. But these new infrastructures seek to make farmers dependent on chemicals and hybrid seeds, and will open the door to GMOs and Terminator crops. Industrial breeding has in fact been driven by the industry's demand for new markets--not to meet the needs of farmers."

We need to listen to the collective voices of African Farmers' movements, that represent the millions of smallholder farmers that produce Africa's food, not the amplified and parroted voices of multi-billion dollar corporations.

SOURCE: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2598