Monsanto's failed SA GM Maize pushed into rest of Africa

http://www.acbio.org.za/index.php/media/64-media-releases/448-monsantos-failed-sa-gm-maize-pushed-into-rest-of-africa

Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:36

Today the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) released a new report ‘Africa bullied to grow defective Bt Maize: the failure of Monsanto’s MON810 maize in South Africa’i, showing how Monsanto’s GM maize, which utterly failed in SA, is now being foisted on the rest of the continent, through ‘sleight of hand’. Independent scientists have shown that Monsanto’s GM maize variety, MON810 – which has been growing in SA for 15 years – has completely failed due to the development of massive insect resistance, leading to the GM maize being withdrawn from the SA market. Monsanto has compensated farmers who were forced to spray their crops with pesticides to control the pests, calling into serious question the very rationale for GM crops. According to the Director of the ACB, Mariam Mayet, ‘Monsanto got the science completely wrong on this one. Independent biosafety scientists have discovered that the inheritance of resistance in African stem borers is a dominant, not recessive, trait as erroneously assumed. Hence the insect resistance management strategies that Monsanto developed, and accepted by our regulators, based on these erroneous assumptions, were utterly ineffective.’ Undeterred, Monsanto is now pushing its flop GM maize onto the rest of the continent. According to the ACB report, Monsanto has now donated its MON810 GM technology ‘royalty-free’ to a Gates Foundation/Monsanto funded ‘philanthropic’ project, Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA). WEMA is being rolled out in Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The defective GM maize is set to be approved for commercial growing by 2015. WEMA was first touted for a good number of years, with much fanfare, as a charitable project intent on bringing drought tolerant maize varieties to resource poor African small farmers. However, with a sleight of hand and stony silence, WEMA has included MON810 into the mix. Field trials with MON810 are already running in Kenya and Uganda. In response to the project, the Mozambican government is now changing its biosafety laws to allow for the cultivation of GM crops while WEMA is pressurising the Tanzanian government to change the country’s biosafety law that will hold Monsanto strictly liable for damages that may arise. According to researcher with the ACB, Haidee Swanby, ‘WEMA is a convenient vehicle for Monsanto to gain regulatory approval for its controversial technology in African countries. However, “royalty-free” seed simply means that resource strapped commercial farmers will get the seed at the same price as hybrid seed, which means that these seeds will be prohibitively expensive. The patents on the gene sequences still reside with Monsanto, and farmers will have to pay premium prices for the GM seeds.’ The ACB report also highlights that Monsanto’s MON810 GM trait has been genetically engineered into a local Egyptian maize variety called Ajeeb. ‘Ajeeb Yieldgard’ has now been patented by Monsanto and ‘approved’ for commercial growing through circumvention of the Egyptian biosafety law. Significantly, the report highlights that the Egyptian government has published peer reviewed independent and publically funded biosafety studies on MON810 showing serious risks to human and animal health. Said Swanby, ‘The scariest revelation is that GM producers and regulatory authorities are making it all up as they go along, while the massive biotech PR machinery spreads the myth that these crops are connected to feeding the poor in Africa.’ Download the full report.

South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets

Press Release: South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets

Johannesburg 14th May 2010.

In the last four months, South Africa has dumped almost 300,000 metric tons of genetically modified (GM) maize onto Kenya, Mozambique and Swaziland. According to a paper released by the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) titled "A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makers", these are the first documented cases of commodity exports of GMOs from South Africa to the rest of the African continent, and set a worrying precedent. Even Kenya, which is of vital strategic importance to the biotech industry in Africa, and where the vast majority of the GM maize ended up, severely lacks the capacity to ensure the safe handling and monitoring of such a huge volume.

According to Mariam Mayet, ACB, Director "As much as 80% of the grain trade in East Africa is informal and undocumented; the arrival of 280,000 tons of GM maize into Kenya presents the potential for genetic contamination on an unimaginable scale."

These shipments have come at a time when South Africa has experienced its second largest maize harvest on record, at over 13 million tons. The latest available figures from the United Nations indicate that improved maize production in Kenya and Mozambique will result in increased food security in the two countries in the coming year. In both cases, analysts have stated that any remaining shortages can be plugged by inter-regional trade and government policies, without the need to impose GMOs on countries that have no infrastructure to safely handle them.

None of the three countries have functional biosafety legislation in place, let alone monitoring capacities.

Swaziland has already refused entry to two shipments of GM maize this year, but records on the Department of Agriculture's website indicate that the South African response was to merely re-issue the permits to agribusines, showing a flagrant disregard to its neighbour's right to say no.

According to Mayet, her organisation condemns in the strongest possible terms the underhand tactics and dubious motives behind these GMO shipments, and demands that the South African GMO authorities conduct their affairs in a fully transparent manner that respects our neighbours in keeping with the original intentions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Contact: Mariam Mayet, Director at 083 269 4309 or 011 646 0699

Download the report

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

WATCHDOG REJECTS INDUSTRY’S HYPE OF GM SUCCESS IN SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA RELEASE FROM THE AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY

8 March 2010.

On the 9th March 2010 and at a press conference in Johannesburg South Africa, the industry-sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) will announce the “phenomenal success” of GM crops in South African based on a single minded obsession with numbers: that South African farmers are growing 1.8 million ha of GM maize, soya and cotton.

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has in its briefing paper titled ‘From South Africa: ISAAA’s 2009 report is fundamentally flawed’ presented a more sobering picture, which includes crop failures in South Africa, the incapacity of South African biosafety regulators to ensure environmental and food safety, the spectacular rejection by the South African regulators of a commercial release application for GM potato and small-scale farmers’ abandonment of GM cotton.

The ACB also questions the veracity of the ISAAA’s figures, which the ACB argues are based on speculation. According to Haidee Swanby of the ACB, “ISAAA has obtained its figures from FoodNCropBio, a private consultancy firm in South Africa, who has in turn compiled its figures by extrapolating from seed orders and the ‘intention to plant’ obtained from seed companies.”

The briefing points out that only 2.7% of global agricultural land is in fact planted to GM crops, with the majority being grown in the United States, Brazil and Argentina. Together, these three countries account for 79.6% of the GM crops grown globally in 2009. It also argues that only small “gains” were made in India, Canada, Argentina and South Africa; while China, Paraguay and Europe all recorded a drop in GM crop plantings and Australia remained static.

According to Mariam Mayet, director of the ACB, “In reality, the numbers of hectares planted to GM are of less importance than questions about food security and sovereignty, equity and justice, and the livelihood of small scale farmers - real issues that industry obfuscates with its single minded fixation on percentages, hectares and industry profits.”

The ACB calls for a shift in global agricultural policy towards ecological farming practices and small-scale and local production for local consumption. “The promotion of genetically modified crops, which are resource hungry, capital intensive and protected by intellectual property rights, is the exact opposite approach to what is needed to solve global ecological and food crisis and should be rejected” said Swanby.

The briefing can be downloaded from the ACB’s website at www.biosfetyafrica.org.za

Contact

Haidee Swanby: 082 459 8548

Mariam Mayet: 083 269 4309

Monitoring Environmental Impact of GMOs in South Africa

The ACB has recently lodged an objection to Syngenta's application for the commercial release of its GM maize GA21, and we have also today lodged an application with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) for a full environmental impact assessment for this GM maize to be conducted. To date, despite more than ten years of commercial growing of GMOs, the South African government still has to call for an EIA for any GMO release. We have in the past made several representations to the SA government for EIAs to be conducted but these have to date, been unsuccessful.

Download the report

SOUTH AFRICA: VICTORY FOR BIOWATCH IN LANDMARK LEGAL CASE

Johannesburg, 3 June 2009

Constitutional Court Justice Albie Sachs today handed down judgment in the Biowatch case. Calling the case “a matter of great interest to the legal profession, the general public, and bodies concerned with public interest litigation”, Justice Sachs set aside the costs order awarded against Biowatch in favour of Monsanto and further awarded legal costs in the High Court hearings in favour of Biowatch and against the state. The bench of eleven judges was unanimous in its decision.

Biowatch is a small South African non-governmental organisation campaigning in the public interest for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, biosafety and farmers’ rights. For many years it has been opposing the rapid spread of genetically modified (GM) crops in South African agriculture. It argues that there are health and environmental risks resulting from this technology, and that it diminishes food security and food sovereignty.

The judgement in the Constitutional Court was the culmination of a nine-year legal battle. In 2000, the state had consistently refused to provide Biowatch with requested official information about the planting of GM crops in South Africa. Biowatch was forced to take legal action to exercise its constitutional right to this information. In the High Court Biowatch won the right to 8 out of 11 categories of requested information. The acting judge, however, felt that Monsanto – a giant multinational pushing GM crops onto the South African market – had been forced to join the case and that Biowatch should therefore pay its legal costs. This anomaly seemed to fly in the face of justice, but even so, Biowatch lost its appeal in the same court to set aside this costs order. Biowatch was also refused leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein. Exercising the costs order would have weakened if not destroyed Biowatch as an organisation, something which Monsanto seemed bent on doing.

The Constitutional Court was able to hear the appeal, as the case involved constitutional rights. Justice Sachs stated that the High Court had “misdirected itself in the whole matter of costs” through failing to consider the constitutional implications. This enabled the Constitutional Court to pronounce on costs matters in the High Court in cases of constitutional import. Normally High Court judges assume full discretion in the matter of costs awards. Justice Sachs said that the High Court’s decision was “demonstrably inappropriate on the facts, and unduly chilling to constitutional litigation in its consequences.”

The case has important implications for South African justice. It means that organisations acting in the public interest will be able to litigate to gain their rights without necessarily expecting the “chilling effect” of costs orders against them. This bodes well for public confidence in the South African legal system.

The case clarifies for the legal profession that constitutional rights need to be taken into account when costs orders are made. The Biowatch case is already being discussed widely in legal circles.

“This verdict is a victory for Biowatch but also sets an important precedent for all those promoting the public interest”, said Rose Williams, Biowatch’s director. “Biowatch activities can now continue without the threat of Monsanto putting an end to them. We wish to thank the many hundreds of individuals and organisations who have supported us during the course of the case, as well as the Legal Resources Centre for representing us so ably.”

Please see the Biowatch website for further background at www.biowatch.org.za

For further information on the case, telephone Biowatch director Rose Williams on +27 82 4355812

Rose Williams
Acting Director
Biowatch
Cell: +27 82 435 5812
Fax: + 27 31 765 2115
email: rose@biowatch.org.za
website:www.biowatch.org.za

Please sign petition: Monsanto's failed GM crops in South Africa

Action Alerts

This campaign has been initiated by The African Centre for Biosafety.

Click here to sign onhttp://www.activist.co.za/campaigns/2009/investigategm.php

May 2009

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION INTO GM CROP FAILURE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT MONITORING PANEL,

Three varieties of Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce crops during the 2008/9 growing season, leaving up to 200 000 hectares of fields barren of cobs and crop losses across several provinces in South Africa. According the GRAIN SA, the varieties are: MON 810, NK 603 and MON 810 x NK 603. These seeds were sold to commercial maize farmers and provided to resource poor farmers in South Africa.

Monsanto has compensated commercial farmers who lost their yield, and barred these farmers from speaking to the media or public. Monsanto has claimed that a mistake was made in the breeding process. No further details regarding this mistake or how it might have similarly affected all three varieties has been forthcoming from Monsanto. Why the veil of secrecy on Monsanto’s part and the gagging of affected commercial crop producers?

The South African biosafety regulatory authority, which approved the commercial release of these three maize varieties, has not seen fit to make any statement regarding the crop failure to the consuming public. Should we assume that the regulatory authority has uncritically accepted the Monsanto explanation? South Africa is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and is therefore obliged to implement an effective precautionary approach to monitor and regulate GMOs. What confidence can we, the consuming public, have that our regulatory authority is effectively fulfilling this role in an independent and transparent fashion?

Concerned scientists have long since warned that commercialisation of GM plants is premature given the attendant uncertainties and imprecision of genetic crop modification. The impact of these “mistakes” in producing these GM maize crops was smoothed out this time by compensation from Monsanto to affected commercial farmers. How might other mistakes impact on farmers and consumers and who will pay the price? What steps has Monsanto taken to protect the interests and reimburse the loss of affected resource poor farmers? These and other questions remain unanswered.

WE, THE CONCERNED PUBLIC, CALL ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO MAKE PUBLIC WHAT IT KNOWS ABOUT THE CROP FAILURES AND TO SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL OF INDEPENDENT EXPERTS TO INVESTIGATE THESE CROP FAILURES AND ACT AS A MONITORING BODY FOR ALL GMOS RELEASED INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT.

SOURCE: http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/node/18

South Africa will label GMO's

PRESS RELEASE from SAFeAGE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONSUMER RIGHTS RECOGNISED: GM FOODS WILL BE LABELLED IN SOUTH AFRICA



Wednesday 17 September 2008

Cape Town: History was made yesterday when the Department of Trade and Industry handed down a ruling for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

The decision came after a clause to this effect, which had been removed from the draft Consumer Protection Bill last year, was reinstated.National Co-ordinator of SAFeAGE, a consumer GMO watchdog that has been lobbying for two years to have this clause reinstated said, "The GMO Act does not protect consumers, it is rather a permitting system that welcomes untested, unlabelled and irresponsible genetic modification to run rife in our country. Consumers will finally have the right to choose once this Bill is implemented".

Parliament's Trade and Industry committee also withdrew a clause from the original Bill that rendered GMOs exempt from liability for damage caused by them. "Why should food that has been spliced with virus, anti-biotic resistant and herbicide genes be exempt from liability,"questioned Treherne."These foods should be subject to more stringent labelling, not exemption."

The Department of Trade and Industry's labelling laws have not gone unopposed. Both the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health have opposed mandatory labelling saying it would send out a confusing signal to consumers. However, spokesperson for the Safe Food Coalition, Andrew Taynton said that "the Department of Trade and Industry should be congratulated for this bold move. Current GM labelling laws in South Africa are so flawed that they do not label any of the GM foods currently on the market."

Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) commented that "government has embarked upon the first step towards regulating agribusiness involved with GMOs. Not only have consumers been given a choice to reject GM foods, now, GM food can also be tracked from farm to fork in order to hold Monsanto and others liable when we discover that something has gone wrong."

Treherne was however concerned that the Department of Agriculture would still be responsible for determining the thresholds and technical requirements of these new regulations, saying, "We hope this does not undermine the excellent work done by Parliament and the Department of
Trade and Industry on the Consumer Protection Bill.


ENDS

For more information contact:

Charmaine Treherne, National Coordinator, SAFeAGE

Phone 021-4478445or072-450-8229

Email safeage@mweb.co.za

www.safeage.org

African heritage crops threatened by South African GMO decision

For Immediate Release: African Centre for Biosafety and GRAIN

Friday, 12 September 2008

Johannesburg - An Appeal Board established by the Minister of Land Affairs and Agriculture has overturned a landmark decision by a South African GMO authority on 15 June 2006, to refuse the experimentation of sorghum, a prized African heritage crop. The Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR), has now been given the go-ahead to proceed with the development of 'Super Sorghum' in a containment level three facility. The research is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's African Biofortified Sorghum (ABS) project. The Gates Foundation is also heavily funding the 'New Green Revolution for Africa', aimed at industrialising African agriculture.

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), which objected to the initial application by the CSIR, has condemned the decision, stating that experimentation with GM sorghum will inevitably result in the contamination of Africa's prized sorghum heritage. Haidee Swanby of the African Centre for Biosafety, comments: 'Sorghum is a key staple crop for over 500 million people on the continent. The risks posed by GM sorghum to wild and weedy relatives cannot be tolerated at all and the granting of this permit is tantamount to a licence to taint Africa's heritage.'

The ACB points out that the ABS project is being developed for commercial release and the CSIR will be seeking permission for field trials soon. The original objection of the GMO authority of 15 June 2006 was based on concerns regarding contamination of Africa's biodiversity. Containment in a level three facility will not negate these concerns for field trails, and the risks to African varieties remain.

Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, programme officer for GRAIN Africa, an organisation that promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity, concludes, 'It is not for the South African government to decide, on behalf of the rest of Africa, that they may approve an industrial project which will result in the inevitable contamination of Africa's astounding genetic diversity in sorghum. This crop has been developed and cared for by farmers for over 5 000 years.'

-- ENDS --

For more information contact:

Haidee Swanby, African Centre for Biosafety, Researcher and Outreach Officer
+27 (0) 82 459 8548
haidee@polka.co.za
www.biosafetyafrica.net

Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, GRAIN Africa, Programme Officer
+27 (0) 82 413 0502
elfrieda@grain.org
www.grain.org

African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) is a non-profit organisation, working to protect Africa's biodiversity, traditional knowledge, food production systems, culture and diversity, from the threats posed by genetic engineering, biopiracy, agrofuels and generally, industrial agriculture.

GRAIN is an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge.

Nano South Africa

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-02-15.htm

Nano South Africa by Gregor Wolbring February 15, 2008

In this column I will outline the state of Nano South Africa. South Africa plays a crucial role in the introduction of new and emerging sciences and technologies in the sub-Sahara, and developments there influence how new and emerging sciences and technologies are perceived in sub-Sahara Africa and in Africa in general.

I have just returned from a visit there. A lot has changed since I talked about nanotechnology for the first time in 2002. There are also new developments in synethic biology, which I will deal with in a Synbio 4.0 column to be published later this year.

The World Nano-Economic Congress (WNEC) South Africa 2007 took place recently, presented by the Department of Science and Technology of the Republic of South Africa, and Cientifica, a leading nanotechnology consultant group. WNEC South Africa is the eighth international event in the series since it first began in Washington, D.C., in 2003.