Uganda coffee target for 2015 to be achieved despite challenges

by William Davison

Uganda, Africa’s biggest coffee exporter, is maintaining its target to boost production to 4.5 million bags by 2015 even as it faces challenges from rising temperatures and coffee-wilt disease, an industry body said.

The East African nation plans to begin planting seven strains of Robusta-variety trees that are resistant to coffee wilt, while climate change will partly be combated by irrigation programs, said Edmund Kananura Kyerere, quality and regulatory manager at the Uganda Coffee Development Authority.

“We are still targeting increased production,” Kyerere said. “The target is still 4.5 million bags.”

Uganda exported 3.14 million 60-kilogram (132-pound) bags of coffee in 2011, ranking the country as the world’s ninth- biggest shipper of the beans, according to data on the International Coffee Organization’s website. Robusta beans, which are used in espressos and instant drinks, account for about 85 percent of the nation’s annual production, according to the authority.

Output in Uganda has declined from 4.4 million bags in 1996-97 partly because of damage caused by coffee-wilt disease. The fungus that predominantly affects the Robusta variety of coffee was first detected in Uganda in 1993 and destroyed about 150 million trees, according to the UCDA.

Uganda hopes to plant 200 million trees resistant to the disease “within 10 years,” Kyerere said.

The authority is campaigning to change the “negative image” of coffee among Ugandans, he said. The annual increase in domestic consumption may double to 4 percent next year.

Bloomberg

Kenya's biosafety chief fired over GM food import procedures

by Gatonye Gathura

Dr Roy Mugiira, chief executive of Kenya's National Biosafety Authority was sacked on August 18 over the illegal importation of corn-soy blended relief food.

The authority’s chairperson, Prof Miriam Kinyua said Dr Mugiira had in March written to the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service advising them to allow the World Food Programme to import emergency food from the US without being tested.

Normally imports from the US and South Africa, some of the world’s major producers of genetically modified maize and soya, arouse suspicion requiring that they be tested and the importers declare their genetic status.

The regulatory authorities say this was never done while the importers claim they have always followed the law to the letter.

According to inyua, the authorisation for the plant inspectorate to issue import permits should not have been done by the chief executive, but by the board. “We found this to be a breach of regulations and hence we have dismissed the officer.”

Mugiira declined to comment, saying “the issue is being handled by relevant authorities.”

The plant inspectorate Coast regional representative James Wahome said they had since cancelled 61 import permits issued to the World Food Programme.

The UN food relief agency has denied any wrong doing. Mrs Rose Ogola, its public information officer in Kenya said the organisation had never tried to bring any genetically modified food illegally.

It is also suspected that huge amounts of contaminated relief food from the US have been let in.

Anxiety has been heightened at the biosafety authority by a recent demand from Cabinet and parliament’s agriculture committee for a comprehensive report on the status of genetically modified organisms in Kenya.

Committee chairman John Mututho’s claim that they had taken maize samples from several consignments at the Mombasa port for testing abroad sent the biosafety authority officials looking into their closets and coming out with “incriminating evidence.”

The Nation

Nigeria enacts biosafety law

The Nigerian Senate enacted the Biosafety Bill into law on June 1, 2011, after several years of stakeholders' discussion and debate.

The Bill went through the Senate after going through three readings. It was concurred without amendments to the draft Bill passed by the House of Representatives on July 20, 2010. The law now awaits Presidential assent upon which implementing regulations will be developed to pave way for its operationalization.

The passing of the bill is a major step towards the safe and responsible use of biotech crops in the country. Currently, Nigerian scientists and partners are conducting field trials on genetically modified cowpea and cassava, both important major staple food crops in Nigeria and the sub-Saharan Africa at large.

ISAAA

Race on to introduce GM maize in Africa over climate change concerns

by Gayathri Viadyanthan

In Kiboko, Kenya, a barbed wire fence separates a field of hybrid corn from the surrounding lands. Inside the fence, food safety regulators are learning to grow the crop with little water. In recent years, droughts have hit the region between June and September, reducing yields.

But two new varieties of corn, also known as maize, are coming to sub-Saharan Africa. One of them is conventionally bred; the other, better-yielding variety is genetically modified. Both are drought-tolerant and the seeds are royalty-free. Together with other agricultural interventions, they have the potential to feed some of the 300 million people for whom the plant is a staple.

There is now a great rush in parts of the continent to get biosafety regulations in place before the transgenic corn arrives on commercial markets in 2017.
Sylvester Oikeh, based in Kenya, is an agricultural scientist and the project manager for the drought-tolerant maize initiative (called Water Efficient Maize for Africa, or WEMA), run by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation.

He described the promise of the Kenyan fields in a phone interview.

"Maize happens to be one crop in Africa that is consumed by more than half of the population, and it is badly affected by drought," he said. "With climate change, the problem will become worsened."

The initiative has big names behind it. The Gates Foundation and Warren Buffett fund it. Monsanto developed the crop for North American farmers using a gene from the lowly Bacillus subtilis bacterium, which is found in dirt.

For a region such as northeastern Uganda, which has seen its twice-in-a-decade drought cycles arrive once in two years, yield matters a lot. Corn is grown in rain-fed regions that already feel the ill effects of climate change on their agricultural output, according to Oikeh.

"The food crisis of 2008 was a harbinger of things to come," said Nina Fedoroff, the science and technology adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The impact of climate change is just beginning to be factored in."

With a burgeoning population, water scarcity, rising numbers of meat-eaters in the developing world, and greater competition for land, agricultural productivity needs to increase dramatically. The first green revolution of the 1970s was an easy accomplishment in comparison to this one, according to Fedoroff.

Climate change will deliver a triple curse on agriculture, forcing crops to deal with rising temperatures, droughts and the rising salinity of water in parts of the world. The numbers speak for themselves. By the end of the century, the average global temperature will be 3.5 degree Celsius above normal.

The optimal temperature for photosynthesis is 20 to 25 degrees Celsius. By 2080, the average temperature in Uganda, for example, will rise to 29 degree Celsius (an increase of 4.3 degrees above the current average), according to a report by U.K. Department for International Development and LTS International. The rise in temperature will be accompanied by erratic rainfall and increasing drought, the likes of which have already been seen in the country, according to the report.

"A third of the world's population already lives in dry lands," said Fedoroff. "The shape of the future is pretty daunting."

Other experts agree. Charles Godfray, a professor at the Department of Zoology at Oxford University who recently co-authored a paper in the journal Science about the challenges of feeding 9 billion people, said that the impact of climate change on agriculture will be negative. Although warming will open up lands in cooler regions for cultivation, it will not compensate for the loss of water and land in areas near the tropics, he said.

"The current system of agriculture is not sustainable," he said. "Water is arterial. We will run out of water in parts of the world."

There are many ways to get greater productivity. The rise of precision farming, conventional breeding techniques aided by biotechnology, improved irrigation and genetically modified crops are all important in helping the world cope with its food challenges, said Godfray.

In 2008, constrictions in the food supply chain led to a spike in global prices and riots around the world. The situation will only get worse. Drastic improvements in agriculture are necessary to cope with increased demand in a complex world. South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa will be worst hit.

In Africa, improving infrastructure, better fertilizer use, improved irrigation and other constraints can be relieved to increase yield. But the continent is drought-prone, with millions of farmers relying on rainfall for their crops grown in small land holdings. Corn is most widely grown, with almost 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa using it as the main source of food. And it is grown in rain-fed regions prone to crop failures.

In Africa, improving infrastructure, better fertilizer use, improved irrigation and other constraints can be relieved to increase yield. But the continent is drought-prone, with millions of farmers relying on rainfall for their crops grown in small land holdings. Corn is most widely grown, with almost 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa using it as the main source of food. And it is grown in rain-fed regions prone to crop failures.

New York Times

Regulation of GM crops lags behind their global spread

by Gayathri Vaidyanathan

In Burkina Faso, a school for the future regulators of Africa's genetically modified (GM) crops is opening up next month.


The school, called the African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE), has been set up by the African Union and is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The operators are careful to point out that this is an "Africa-based, Africa-owned and Africa-led" initiative, an important point, for there are few debates in agriculture there that raise more political heat than issues of food sovereignty and genetically modified crops.

"We acknowledge that sovereignty is in the hands of Africans," said Lawrence Kent, deputy director of the Agricultural Development Initiative at the Gates Foundation. "For research to move forward, the African governments must move forward with biosafety capacity building."

In the transgenic crop fight, the foot soldiers on either side have been dug in for years. But despite the doubts about the necessity of GM, farmers have been voting with their seeds. The acreage where transgenic crops are planted has been increasing. Developing nations and small farming operations are the newest adopters of GM crops. By 2015, the European Commission predicts that there will be 120 commercial crops worldwide, up from the 30 currently grown.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), which monitors the planting of GM crops worldwide, the use of biotechnology increased by 7 percent over the past year. About 90 percent of the 14 million farmers who use GM are "resource-poor farmers," said Clive James, chairman of ISAAA.

Meanwhile, most scientists are calling for sweeping changes to agriculture to prepare for sustainable development and ensure the security of food supplies in the face of climate change and other challenges. The changes, they say, will invariably include transgenic crops.

Much of the new research is happening in developing nations, especially China. And public-sector scientists in these nations are now wondering how to get their crops to the dinner table, past a stringent and too-expensive regulatory process.

Sam Timpo of ABNE says over the phone from Egypt it is necessary to develop regulations in the next few years. There is some haste, for another Gates-funded initiative is in the pipeline -- a royalty-free transgenic corn that, in theory, should withstand the droughts of sub-Saharan Africa. But in most African nations, there is no government biosafety agency to approve, monitor and track GM crops.

Biosafety regulations of countries are usually modeled after the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement that promotes a "precautionary approach." It says that GM crops can be adopted if they are of minimal risk to the environment and human health. It lays out a clear set of guidelines to test for that risk.

But guidelines alone don't suffice. "As many as 100 developing countries lack the technical and management capacity needed to review tests and monitor compliance," wrote Jose Falck-Zepeda, a research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, in a recent policy brief.

Since the first green revolution, investment in agricultural science from the public sector has been lagging in most parts of the world. The private players -- Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer CropScience and others -- dominated most of the research, creating fears about a monopoly over seed supply.


The exception is China, which has the world's largest pool of agricultural scientists. With a stable of more than 100 crops waiting for approval, it is the most serious contender with private enterprises for engineering crops.

"They have pretty big capacity of biotech Ph.D.s, probably one of the biggest in the world, if not the biggest, in plant biology," said Guillaume Gruere, a research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. "More than a hundred crops have been tested both in the lab and in the greenhouse. Most of those crops haven't gone further, but they could one day just get it out if they want to."

China's needs are big. It has to feed a population that will steadily grow, and it takes its food security challenges seriously, according to Falck-Zepeda.


The country also doesn't have to contend with some of the public perception issues that plague other nations. In November, the government approved insect-resistant rice and insect-resistant corn for final field trials, which should hit the commercial markets in two years. Given the nature of rice as a staple, this is an important milestone in the commercialization of a food crop.


"They have the money and understand that biotechnology is power," said Robert Zeigler, director-general of the International Rice Research Institute, based in the Philippines, which was instrumental in helping Asia increase its rice yields during the first "green revolution."

China is investing heavily in pushing crops through its regulatory system. Late last year, the government invested about $900 million in market biotechnology and teaching researchers how to transfer their nascent crops into the marketplace, according to Falck-Zepeda.

"They know that their internal market is so big and you have so many people internally in China that'll be customers," he said. "They have economies of scale."

And China is initiating "South-South" technology transfers of its seeds. Its non-transgenic hybrid rice seeds are being aggressively marketed in India, Bangladesh and Africa. Its transgenic cotton (a Chinese-developed variety) is available in India.

"Chinese transgenic material is coming," said Swapan Kumar Dutta, crop science director at the government-run Indian Council of Agricultural Research, referring to Chinese Bt cotton. "The Chinese know their business. They are doing it very purposefully."

Once China's recently approved transgenic seed hits the market, there are few regulations that could keep it from seeping into international markets. Given that developing nations usually have a better grasp of each others' needs, this would be a good development, according to policymakers. Farmers typically tend to purchase seeds that deliver the greatest profit, according to Dutta. And although the transfer of seeds involves the Cartagena Protocol, most nations do not have as strict an interpretation of risk as does the European Union.

In Argentina, soybean farmers simply borrowed some biotech seeds from neighboring fields in Brazil before the country decided to adopt the GM seeds. In India, Bt cotton was a reality in the illegal seed market long before the government approved Monsanto seeds, according to Gruere.


The African Union and international aid organizations are working to fill in gaps in regulation because a regulated seed market would be safer than an illegal market, based on seeds smuggled in from abroad.

"The danger is when people adopt GM crops in a free-for-all atmosphere," said Francis Nang'ayo, regulatory affairs manager for the drought-tolerant corn initiative called Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA).

A significant number of traits have already been developed by public-sector agencies in other parts of the world, as well. But the costs necessary for getting regulatory approval, which can run into millions of dollars, cannot be met by most of these agencies. Most GM crops die in the lab.

This is true in the United States, as well, where public-sector research into plant science has been slow. Getting through the regulatory system can cost as much as $150 million for a single plant, according to Denise Dewar, executive director for plant biology at the industry-sponsored group CropLife International.

"The regulatory system is so expensive and time-consuming that the only organizations that can afford it are big biotech companies," said Nina Fedoroff, science and technology adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since private companies choose to develop crops that make money, transgenic crops that are necessary for food security get left out, she said.


Currently, four crops (soybeans, corn, cotton and canola) and two traits (insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) that are most profitable are being developed by these companies. Other traits or crops that may be useful to the poorer world are largely ignored, since companies' primary responsibility is to the shareholder, according to Falck-Zepeda.

The drought-tolerant corn donated by Monsanto to sub-Saharan Africa seems to be an exception to this rule. "We see it as a moral imperative and think it is beholden upon us to share it," said Vanessa Cook, the project leader from Monsanto.

Monsanto could have other motivations for donating the drought-tolerant corn. The adoption of the crop could improve the standard of living over time and improve farmers' perceptions of other biotech seeds that may arrive for sale. It would be a long-term investment.

"It's no loss to them; they gain public relations," said Falck-Zepeda. "Eventually, they may be able to buy seed from Monsanto."

And having a socially advantageous and necessary crop such as drought-tolerant corn could hasten the establishment of biosafety systems.

"If you have a great crop that is ready, maybe it'll push things to go forward and have a bill on biosafety," said Gruere. "If the regulation is not ready, they won't approve anything and [the technology] will just stay in the lab and that's it."


New York Times

India suspends first GM food crop on safety grounds

India has halted the cultivation of what would have been its first genetically modified (GM) vegetable crop because of safety concerns.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said more studies were needed to ensure genetically modified aubergines were safe for consumption.

The GM vegetable has undergone field trials since 2008 and received approval from government scientists in 2009. But there has been a heated public row over the cultivation of the GM crop.

"Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious approach," Mr Ramesh said. He said the moratorium on growing BT brinjal - as the variety of aubergine is known in India - would remain in place until tests were carried out "to the satisfaction of everyone".

It appears Mr Ramesh has put any cultivation of GM vegetables in India on hold indefinitely.

India allowed the use of genetically modified seeds for cotton in 2002.

BBC

Scientists, donors blast Ethiopia's biosafety law as extreme, anti-biotechnology

by Peter Heinlein

Scientists and farmers are urging Ethiopia to reconsider a new biodiversity law they say restricts agricultural research and could hamper delivery of urgently needed food aid. The law has prompted foreign donors to cut off funding to Ethiopian scientific research institutions.

Ethiopia's government held a two day forum in early February to hear objections to a Biodiversity Proclamation approved by parliament last July, on the final day before summer recess. The law's stated objective is to protect biodiversity, as well as human health and animals, from 'the adverse effects of modified organisms.'

But critics say the proclamation chokes off research into improving crop production in a country suffering chronic food shortages. Tilaye Feyisa, assistant professor of plant biotechnology at Addis Ababa University says anyone involved in studying genetic engineering is subject to strict government regulation.

"It is an excellent proclamation to prevent research in plant genetic engineering," said Tilaye Feyisa. "If you break this proclamation, even unintentionally, you can be put in prison for one to three years."

Tilaye says funding for research on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has dried up since the law went into effect.

"The money we get is from outside sources," said Tilaye. "We write proposals, when the country is against GMOs, having this proclamation, we don't get any money for research from foreign donors. It is killing scientific research."

Tilahun Zewelde is a former plant scientist at the Ethiopian Research Organization. He now work at Uganda's Agriculture Biotechnology Support Program. Speaking at this week's meeting, he charged Ethiopia's law was written by environmental extremists and adopted without review by a parliament that had no idea of its consequences.

"We can't even teach students life science and biotechnology," said Tilahun Zewelde. "It was drafted by very biased people. They believe biotechnology is bad, genetic engineering is bad and multinationals are going to take over everything, control the seed business. And the actual technology users were not involved in the drafting process. So it's one sided, not good for the country."

Biotechnology experts from other African nations came to the forum to express concerns about the Biosafety Proclamation. Togolese scientist Jacob Mignouna is Technical Director of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation. He says the law rejects conclusive evidence about the safety of genetically modified organisms in common use.

"There's no need to reinvent the wheel," said Jacob Mignouna. "The world has moved on. This technology has been proven. This is the message our colleagues from Ethiopia should understand.We must look carefully and see how we can move forward to embrace new technology while at the same time protecting biodiversity."

But Minister of State for Agricultural Development Abera Deresa says Ethiopia is not convinced by available evidence that GMOs are safe. The Agriculture Ministry was a sponsor of the forum, but Abera says the government has a duty to protect the public until the scientific community does more to prove GMOs pose no threat to health or to Ethiopia's biodiversity.

"Among scientists there is a division," said Abera Deresa. "A certain number of scientists who are not for GMO, a certain number of scientists who are for GMO. So we have to assess why this is happening." He says the government is reviewing the Biosafety Proclamation, and may ask parliament to make changes.

Meanwhile, aid donors say the law could restrict shipments of food intended for more than five million Ethiopians facing malnutrition.

The United States provides nearly 80 per cent of Ethiopia's food assistance. Among the U.S. supplies currently on the way is roughly 30,000 metric tons of corn-soy blend and vegetable oil, which are typically produced from bioengineered corn and soy. The Ethiopian government has issued a waiver to allow the products to come in to the country, but the waiver is due to expire at the end of February.

VOA

Michigan university receives grant to promote biosafety in Africa

by Meredith Skrzypczak

Millions of dollars could empower African agricultural officials to make decisions on biosafety issues to help farmers, thanks to a partial grant received by Michigan State University.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $10.4 million grant last week to MSU and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, or NEPAD, to be used during a five-year period. The money will be used to provide the African officials, called regulators, with up-to-date training and information to promote biosafety. By providing regulators with science and technology information, they will be able to make their own decisions in biosafety.

The grant, which is part of $120 million in total grants to promote long-term food security, also will combat hunger and poverty in the African region, Bill Gates said in a press release. “Helping the poorest small-holder farmers grow more crops and get them to market is the world’s single most powerful lever for reducing hunger and poverty,” he said.

Karim Maredia, a professor of international agriculture in the Department of Entomology, is the lead coordinator for the partnership between NEPAD and MSU. NEPAD offices are located in South Africa and representatives were unable to be reached. “What MSU will provide is … technical support, training, capacity building and most importantly … we will connect the biosafety and biotechnology resources from all over the world to the center in Africa,” he said.

The African Biosafety Network of Expertise, which will be located in West Africa, will provide information to regulators with a Web portal, workshops, seminars, internships and other courses. It was established with a grant from the same foundation in February 2008. Using the resources at the center, Africans can consider the debate on the safety of genetically modified organisms, said Jeffrey Riedinger, the dean of International Studies and Programs. “There’s an international debate about whether genetically modified organisms are safe for humans,” he said. “In effect what Africans have been saying (is), ‘We would like to be in a position to make our own decisions.’”

The updates in science and technology promoted at the center will help the regulators, who in some cases act like the Food and Drug Administration, in determining what types of biotechnology will be used in the country, Maredia said.

“Part of having the expertise to have their own genetic research is that … different countries in Africa may choose to do research where there isn’t an existing market or research,” Riedinger said.

The partnership between MSU and NEPAD will address issues and concerns of farmers and the people who consume the food, said Stephanie Motschenbacher, the director of communications for International Studies and Programs. “(The grant will) address those issues and concerns … with the people who actually consume the food,” she said.

The State News

South African government rejects commercial release of GM potato

In a damning and ground breaking ruling, South Africa’s GM body, the Executive Council (EC), has rejected attempts by the Agriculture Research Council (ARC) to bring GM potatoes to the South African market. The EC cited no less than 11 biosafety and socio economic and agronomic concerns for rejecting ARC’s commercial release application. These support the objections raised by the ACB that GM potatoes pose unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and the farming community.

The ARC has touted the GM potato, engineered to resist tuber moths, as a new agricultural technology that will benefit smallholder and commercial farmers. Its five year field trial programme has chewed up considerable public funds as well as having been bankrolled by USAID and Michigan state university.

According to Haidee Swanby of the ACB, “the precautionary decision taken by the EC concluded that ARC’s toxicology studies were inadequate, scientifically poorly designed and fundamentally flawed. It was unconvinced that the GM potato would benefit small holder farmers, who are faced with more fundamental production problems such as access to water and seed, and found that the Potato Tuber Moth is a low priority for most farmers.”

“We are elated with this decision because it confirms our contention that the GM potato was not developed in answer to pressing problems faced by South African farmers , but rather as a solution developed in search of a problem” said Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB.

According to Swanby, “Potatos South Africa, representing commercial and small holder potato farmers opposed ARC’s application. Fruit and Veg City, Simba and McDonald’s also expressed their opposition to GM potatoes. Consumers in South Africa have also overwhelmingly expressed their opposition.”

Supermarket Online

University of Nairobi scientists endorse GM technology

by Gatonye Gathura

Scientists at the University of Nairobi on November 22 said it is safe to accept the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the country. They also asked Parliament to quickly pass the highly controversial Biosafety Bill 2008, saying the technology will enhance food production and that they are ready to take responsibility for their advice.

At a conference after a two-day meeting on biotechnology at the university, scientists from the College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences said although there are genuine concerns over the technology, genetically modified organisms are safe enough for adoption so long as there is sound legislation in place.

“Just like a motor car is undoubtedly good technology, if it’s not used properly it can be harmful,” said Dr John Nderitu, the faculty dean. He added that much of the opposition is not based on any sound science. The researchers presented their statement along with other senior members of the faculty, all of them researchers in one aspect or the other of biotechnology.

Their stand is bound to attract swift rejoinders from the civil society, which is opposed to the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the country. “We have adequate human capacity in this country to offer tested evidence to policy makers as well as carry out the necessary research,” said Dr Nderitu.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is working with the faculty to put up a state of the art biotechnology laboratory at the university to enable their research.

Daily Nation

GM crop trials pick up pace in Egypt

by Erin Cunningham

Tucked away among a surplus of announcements on a US government website, the press release publicizing the approval of Egypt’s first genetically modified (GM) crop earlier this year was a decidedly hushed affair. Some in the local scientific and agricultural communities refuse to discuss it; the Egyptian government, one source says, has yet to even legally authorize it.

The controversial introduction of Egypt’s first GM seed for commercial cultivation came in April by way of chemical and seed multinational Monsanto, a US-based company owning 90% of the world’s genetically altered seeds. In a joint venture with the Egyptian company Fine Seeds International, Monsanto patented bt-corn seeds — a hybrid of local Egyptian maize and a Monsanto-owned variety (MON 810) — were distributed to farmers for trials in at least 10 governorates this summer. According to sources, a number of other Egyptian-bred GM crops are also waiting to be approved.

The benefits both the new seed — designed to resist corn crops’ most fatal pest, the European corn borer — and other genetically engineered crops will bring to Egypt are great, GM advocates and companies like Monsanto claim.

For a nation grappling with the effects of a global food crisis, little in the way of arable land and a rapidly growing population, harvesting larger amounts of food on the same agricultural area is undoubtedly an attractive prospect. Higher yields, even higher profits, less insecticide and a more pliant food supply are some of the gains promised to Egypt by the cultivation of GM seeds.

But with global environmental and scientific debates over GM crops raging, and Egypt’s biosafety regulations in disarray, many are skeptical about what benefits will really be reaped from genetic engineering. Farmers, while excited about the prospect of reducing costs, are wary about being the first to sow the controversy-laden seeds.

In debates over scientific research and the perceived influence of US policy, many Egyptian GM scientists are angered about the role Monsanto has been allowed to take in developing the country’s crops. Others, citing Egypt’s already volatile food supply, are worried any surplus of crops will be diverted toward more profitable use, rather than feed a population expected to double by 2050.

...while genetic engineering allows crops to fend off pests and other crop killers without the use of chemical pesticides — and is therefore seemingly more likely to produce stable harvests and higher yields — opponents of GM deride bioengineering as harmful to both the environment and consumers, as well as a threat to the independence of local farmers.

“Two of the biggest myths are that small farmers and poor people want to use GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and that they actually help them,” says Geert Ritsema, GM Campaigner for global environmental group Greenpeace International. “When GMO seeds are sold to farmers, they are told they are miracle seeds. But because seed prices are high and the yield more or less the same, farmers lose money and they end up in debt.”

Companies like Monsanto, Ritsema and other anti-GM activists say, require farmers to purchase their patented seeds, which normally cost substantially more than conventional seeds, for every harvest. This goes against some of the most fundamental elements of traditional farming systems. As a result, farmers are put into a cycle of debt with the multinationals, despite the fact that they may be saving money on pesticides and other high cost and polluting fertilizers. There is also no solid evidence, Ritsema says, that GM crops offer higher yields.

Environmental and health issues surrounding GM have cropped up around the globe as well. Farmers, activists, and scientists alike volley between the conflicting results of a number of scientific studies: While some tout GM’s minimal risks, others claim it harms both consumers and ecosystems as a result of soil depletion, allergies and pollen transfer, when pollen from a GM crop contaminates a conventional harvest.

Bt-corn itself, the crop currently being harvested by select Egyptian farmers, is now prohibited in at least five European countries due to continued concerns over its environmental and health risks. At press time, the EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, had recommended to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) an EU-wide ban on bt-corn seeds.

The majority of Egypt’s land is arid desert, and although what little agricultural area it does have is surprisingly fertile, farming land is dangerously scarce. While 150,000 acres are being established for agricultural production each year, some 60,000 are being lost annually to growing urbanization. And with the population expected to reach 160 million in less than 50 years, the amount of land lost will undoubtedly also rise.

Because GM crops are designed to resist some of agriculture’s greatest threats, and can therefore be harvested in new areas where they previously would have failed, some local scientists are adamant bioengineering should be an integral part of Egypt’s solution to its compounded problems of population growth and land scarcity.

“Crops that are tolerant to drought or to salinity can be planted in areas where they haven’t been planted before,” says Dina El-Khishin, head of Genomics, Proteomics and Bioinformatics at the Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Center (AGERI). “[Their growth] will depend on the rainfall of the area, but if you can get something out of this barren land [with GM crops], it’s an achievement.” As an example, she cites the ability to plant wheat in Rafah, a place where conventional wheat normally would not grow, with even less irrigation requirements.

While corn can only be cultivated in a specific climate and cannot be harvested on the wide swaths of desert being converted to fertile farmland across Egypt, many are enthusiastic about bt-corn for its potential to reduce Egypt’s massive corn imports, which currently stand at 4.8 million tons, or about 50% of the country’s needs. According to Osama El-Tayeb, member of the National Biosafety Committee (NBC) and Egypt’s representative at the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Monsanto’s bt-corn seed proved to be 50% more productive than conventional seeds currently available on the market.

But the high cost of biotech seeds — significantly more expensive than conventional or even natural hybrid seeds — may not necessarily make up for the heavy costs of imports, or translate into larger profits or a stronger food supply. As El-Khishin admits, “the cost of their development is definitely not cheap.”

Even natural hybrid corn varieties that are available on the Egyptian market cost up to 15 times more than conventional seeds, says El-Tayeb. “Hybrid seeds that are neither genetically modified nor regulated are available on the market and cost something like LE 30 per kilo,” he says. “Regular seeds sell for LE 2 per kilo, so that’s 15 times as much. A farmer planting the hybrid breed may get higher yield, but it’s not likely to offset the 15-fold difference in the cost of the seeds. With the introduction of MON 810, the [corn] imports may only be offset by 5-15% at most.”

According to the US-based Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), because of costly “technology fees” imposed by giant biotech companies like Monsanto, bt-corn does “not come close to keeping pace in returning value to the [US] farmer.”

A five-year study conducted by the IATP in the US showed corn farmers planting bt varieties ultimately paid $659 million (LE 3.5 billion) more than would have been the case if they planted conventional varieties. Despite the fact that bt-corn increased production by some 276 million bushels, farmers’ profits were hampered by the substantial cost of GM seeds and depended largely on a number of fluctuating factors, including pest infestations, market acceptance of the crop and international corn prices. Because MON 810 is still in the trial stage, it is not yet clear for what price the seed will be sold on the Egyptian market.

Even so, not all farmers are ready to take the risk. Ibrahim El-Arabi, an Egyptian farmer who cultivates land 15 kilometers outside of Tanta, says he will not be one of the first to grow bt-corn on his farm when the Monsanto seed becomes available for mass use. “I won’t take the chances, I need to see it first,” El-Arabi says. “I grow corn for cattle feed, and I’ve read that if it is genetically modified corn, it will affect the animals that eat it.”

And the argument against GM’s ability to produce a more resilient and available food supply hinges on just that: the majority of the world’s genetically engineered seeds are cultivated mainly for animal feed, but also ethanol-based biofuels, both in high demand and ultimately more profitable for farmers. Transgenic crops have yet to be grown on a massive scale with the aim of tackling either poverty or hunger.

In Egypt, where corn supplies are low and cornmeal is also needed to produce subsidized, or baladi, bread, most of the approximately 6 million tons being produced annually is used solely for animal feed. Just a little over 1.5 million tons goes toward food consumption, while a mere 500,000 tons is delivered to the Ministry of Supply for the production of bread — a form of sustenance over 50 million Egyptians depend on every day.

It is likely, local agronomists say, MON 810 will be commercially cultivated for animal feed rather than for the ultimate goal of stabilizing Egypt’s already temperamental food market.

On top of its socioeconomic implications, MON 810 is causing a storm of controversy over Egypt’s biosafety laws. While the country is formally a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety — an international treaty governing the research and development of genetically modified products — it does not yet officially have biosafety legislation of its own. As a result, none of the GM crops developed by purely Egyptian agricultural institutes, including potatoes, squash and tomatoes, among others, have been approved for cultivation.

“[The National Law for the Handling of Genetic Products] has not yet been presented to the Cabinet,” says El-Tayeb. “It’s at the Ministry of [State for] Environmental Affairs in its final form.” The current biosafety framework is therefore governed by a series of decrees, both from the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation and the Ministry of Health.

But because there is no enforcement mechanism for the Cartagena Protocol — which automatically assumes national law status in Egypt — and because there is confusion about the proper way to register a seed, El-Tayeb says Monsanto was able to certify MON 810 without submitting a comprehensive biosafety dossier or proper assessment of its trials to the relevant authorities.

“[Monsanto] has not followed the procedures outlined in the protocol, regardless of whether or not there is a national law,” says El-Tayeb of the MON 810 registration. “Nobody in the government has been formally notified that a GM crop has been approved for cultivation in Egypt.”

According to El-Tayeb, Monsanto originally applied to register its bt-corn seed in 2005, and was instructed by the Seed Registration Committee to apply the prerequisites of the Cartagena Protocol through the Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, something that did not take place.

“It was expected that some schedule for the [MON 810] trials would take place [] And only after that it would go to the Seed Registration Committee,” says El-Tayeb. “Apparently it went straight to [the committee]; there are many question marks. If this is what has taken place, it could be interpreted as a state of non-compliance with an international treaty to which Egypt is a party.”

The ability of Monsanto to circumvent the law has angered some of Egypt’s scientists already working on the development of GM crops, as well as caused concern over the ability of the government to properly regulate Monsanto’s work.

While Egypt maintains a number of capable genetic research institutions, El-Khishin says, Monsanto, under the auspices of the US Foreign Agricultural Service, was allowed to take control of the process and patent an Egyptian variety ahead of the country’s own transgenic crops.

Monsanto has come under a spate of criticism across the globe in recent years, for everything from false advertising and suing indigenous farmers to bribing Indonesian officials and refusing to release its own GM studies. But until Egypt’s biosafety law is passed, a precedent may have been set for the way GM research is conducted in the country, with cash-laden multinationals dominating the industry.

“I would like to see this [research] done by Egyptians,” says El-Khishin. “We have the technology and we have our own GM crops. We don’t need to rely on foreign companies.” bt

Business Today Egypt

Kenyan agriculture minister takes on anti-biotechnology crusaders

Double-speak on bio-safety issues by some developed nations is blurring the vision for Kenya and other regional states in tackling escalating hunger and poverty levels.

Agriculture minister William Ruto said on August 13 that though African economies were mainly agro-based, their respective leadership had shied away from adopting new technologies such the genetically modified foods (GMOs) to uplift struggling production systems, because of misinformation.

“We see some people coming to our continent to an preach anti-biotechnology message while back at home their food is produced through the technology. This leaves many in a dilemma while suffering continues,” he told participants at a regional workshop in Nairobi, on development of a bio-safety communication strategy for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).

He claimed that most of the issues fronted by anti-biosafety crusaders lacked merit and urged African nations to consider biotechnology as a possible strategy of tackling low productivity.

“I believe the best way to remove poverty and food insecurity is to adopt the adequate technology. If there is no proof of harm from GMOs we should adopt them because they have a scientific backing,” said the minister.

Ruto said Kenya was already making strides towards embracing biotechnology in food production with the proposed legislation to handle bio-safety issues set to be re-introduced in Parliament in two months time.

“I’m confident that the legislation will deliver its goals because there is the necessary backing of science...we need to make farming profitable and food sufficient,” he said.

The Bio-safety Bill 2008 seeks to bring Kenya’s regulatory framework in line with the Caetagena Protocol on Bio-safety which has both signed and ratified. Its main objective is to ensure protection in safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs that may have adverse effects on the environment and establish a transparent review process.

The minister argued that such double-speak was also affecting African agriculture in the market front with developed nations issuing conflicting signals on key areas such as subsidies.

“We had the WTO talks collapse recently on grounds of double-speak on issues of subsidies. The developed nations preach against the subsidies but hand their producers such preferential treatment leaving our markets and products hard hit by competition,” he said.

The latest attempts to find a mid point for global trade under the WTO framework collapsed in Geneva late July amidst a fall out between the US and emerging Asian economies such as Indonesia, China and India over farming pacts. Among the key issues fronted at the talks by the African group was the removal of subsidies to cotton growers in the United States among other agricultural commodities.

The African bloc also demanded for redress on market access for non-agricultural products (Nama) arguing that there was need to resolve non-reciprocal preferences both in terms of product coverage and the implementation period. They also requested that products identified as vulnerable to preference erosion be excluded from sectorial initiatives.

Ruto however said they would not be cowed into rejecting new technology such as GMOs as long as there was scientific evidence against them.

“You cannot have a population in need of food yet choose to ignore biotechnology that would guarantee high productivity. The cost of GMO maize is about one-and-a half times cheaper than convectional maize,” he said.

Agriculture secretary Wilson Songa said lack of a proper communication strategies on bio-safety was largely to blame for the huge resistance among sections of the public. “What has lacked is the right information. We must involve all groups, we made mistakes in the past and we must not repeat them,” he told participants at the forum.

He said most nations including Uganda had already put in place legislation on bio-safety, hence the need to a regional approach to avoid disjointed trade arrangements. “The argument here is that once GMOs are produced in one unit it would spread to other markets and we must move with time so that there is uniformity,” he said.

In a new strategy, nations under the Comesa bloc envisage to have a unified approach on the dissemination of information on biotechnology to boost its uptake in the region.

Business Daily Africa

Biowatch South Africa vs. Monsanto legal battle garners international attention

As a group of seed savers, farmers, CSOs and NGOs, representing 40 organisations from 18 countries, from Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America, gathered in Debre Zeit, Ethiopia for the meeting: "From Seed Security to Seed Sovereignty," between 5 and 12 November 2007, we want to express our concern about the injustice Biowatch South Africa has to face.

Biowatch South Africa asked the SA government for access to information on GMOs after they realized it was introduced in South Africa in a secretive and nontransparent manner. This was their Constitutional Right. The government refused to give them any information and they were compelled to go to court.

Monsanto, a multinational company known for its abuse of human rights and environmental rights across the world, and one of the biggest GMO companies, opposed Biowatch's right to information. The court awarded Biowatch the right to some of the information it requested, but ordered Biowatch to pay Monsanto's legal cost.

. We concur that Biowatch South Africa acted on behalf of the people of South Africa, and we believe their right to information should be upheld.

. We also consider that the GMO companies use South Africa as the gateway for GMOs to the rest of Africa and therefore feel that Biowatch South Africa acted on behalf of the whole of Africa.

. For this reason we are outraged at the court's judgement that Biowatch should pay Monsanto's legal cost.

. We reject this disregard of the basic human right to information, to a safe environment, to safe food, and the right to assert these human rights in the courts without facing astronomical legal bills.

. We are deeply concerned that this infringement of the right of ordinary people to know what they eat and what grows in their fields, will not only impact on South Africa, but also affect the whole of Africa. It will embolden the multinationals to impose and push their invasive technologies on Africa, but it will also have a chilling effect on ordinary people trying to defend their rights.

. We appeal to the people of South Africa and the rest of Africa to support Biowatch in this challenging time.

. Finally, we appeal to the South African courts to reconsider this poor judgement, and relieve Biowatch from paying Monsanto's legal costs.

World Bank funds francophone West Africa biosafety protocol

Eight West African countries have received $9.3 million from the World Bank's West Africa Regional Biosafety Project. The money is to assist the French-speaking countries to establish and implement a shared biosafety regulatory framework.

The countries are Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo. The biosafety framework will enable them to meet their obligations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).

"This is a key milestone that will have a dramatic impact for over 10 million households in the region who rely on farming for their livelihoods. The programme will contribute to the region's development while protecting biological diversity and human health. The money will also help countries meet recognised international standards for assessing risk associated with genetically modified organisms," said Global Environment Facility CEO and chairperson, Monique Barbut.

"We are delighted that the project has been endorsed. A harmonised regional biosafety framework will not only benefit individual countries to comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity but also build critical biosafety capacity across the entire WAEMU region," said Soumaila Cisse, president of the WAEMU Commission that is implementing the project.

The Programme's three components are: • Evaluating existing tools and guidelines used in WAEMU member states for risk assessment and management, and consolidating them to develop regional common approaches that meet recognised international standards in risk assessment of GMOs/LMOs. A national reference laboratory, with a mandate for regional support, will be established in Burkina Faso.• Strengthening institutional capacity for preparing regional laws and regulations on biosafety, and creating an institutional framework to accompany the dissemination and implementation of the regional biosafety framework in WAEMU countries• Providing support to WAEMU countries that have ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB); strengthening capacities of stakeholders such as producer organisations about national and regional regulations and their implications for the environment and socio-economic development, and raising public awareness about the importance of biosafety at the country and regional levels.

allafrica.com

West African states to establish regional pesticide, seed, biosafety regulations

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Ministers of Food and Agriculture recently approved the establishment of a regional committee to oversee the implementation of regulations regarding the production, importation and application of pesticides in West Africa.

... a committee of experts from member states that have ratified the common regulation on pesticides and external experts, was one of the decisions of the one-day meeting of the ministers in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso that discussed ways of boosting agricultural productivity in the region.

ECOWAS said its operations would be centrally coordinated but operate from two zones - the Sahelian and humid zones - that will cater for the agricultural divide of West Africa.

".... the committee will facilitate trade in pesticides among Member States through the enforcement of regionally agreed principles, facilitate farmers` access to quality pesticides in a timely and convenient manner, ensure their judicious use, contribute to the creation of an environment conducive for private sector investment in the pesticides industry and promote private/public partnership," a statement from ECOWAS said.

It said the ministers also agreed on the ECOWAS supplementary act for the harmonisation of rules for pesticides registration in the region as well as the regulation on the harmonisation of rules governing the quality control, certification and marketing of seeds and planting materials.

The Minsters said the comprehensive regulation would ensure access to quality seed to West African farmers; facilitate local production of quality seeds as well as intra-regional trading.
"A liberalised market for seeds suitable for the region will also help contribute to improved food security and the capacity of regional farmers to compete in the global environment."

The ministers also adopted a five-year action plan for the development of biotechnology and biosafety in the region to enable regional agriculture to benefit from new agricultural technologies.

AngolaPress

Africa must create its own biotechnology agenda

Building public support for genetically modified crops in sub-Saharan Africa means developing a homegrown solution to the region’s own needs.

This week representatives from African countries will gather in Johannesburg, South Africa, for Agricultural Science Week. Many will be asking how their governments can respond to the pressure from large parts of their agricultural communities to commercialise genetically modified (GM) crops on one side, and the large sectors of their voting publics against GM on the other.

At one level, the decision seems straightforward. Scientific achievements in GM plant breeding over the past two decades have produced a range of new crops that can increase farmers’ productivity while reducing their production costs — for example, by substantially lessening the needs for fertilisers and insecticides.

But at the same time, GM technology has not been around long enough for all its side effects to be understood. For critics of the technology, the worrying possibilities of what might happen were the technology to get out of control — however remote — is sufficient reason to halt development until more is known.

Put in these terms, the political challenge is familiar. A new technology needs an effective regulatory regime that allows its potential to be harnessed safely, while potential side effects are closely monitored. Indeed, implementing such biosafety regimes is now a priority across Africa.

But if the challenge is familiar, why has it taken so long to put solutions into place? Partly this is because scientific uncertainty remains over what the side effects are likely to be. But, more importantly, a groundswell of opposition from vocal critics has exploited this uncertainty to place governments on the defensive, reluctant to move forward for fear of alienating voters.

Such opposition needs to be taken seriously. One response is to demonstrate that governments are adequately informed about the potential risks of GM technologies before making decisions on biosafety regulations. Here the scientific community — both individual scientists and institutions such as scientific academies — can help.

Governments must also ensure that their electorates are sufficiently informed about both the potential benefits and risks of GM technologies. Information campaigns — in which journalists have a role to play through sound reporting — will not necessarily endorse GM crops. They will, however, increase the chances that political decisions come out of scientifically-based arguments, rather than unfounded speculation.

Yet as European governments have discovered, neither a pledge to evidence-based decision making, nor the organisation of campaigns promoting public understanding of biotechnology are sufficient. Both ignore the extent to which many critics have a political agenda — namely a desire to oppose not so much GM technology itself but the multinational corporations promoting it.

To this, there is no straightforward reply. The critics legitimately argue that corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta control many key GM technologies. Such corporations’ primary loyalty is to their shareholders, not their customers.

But a large proportion of work on GM crops also comes from the public sector, through international agricultural research centres, for example. Still, this has done little to soothe the public perception — which some politicians have been quick to seize on — that commercialising GM crops in a country opens up its farmers to exploitation by foreign interests.

There is only one appropriate long-term response to this argument. African countries — like others in the developing world — must develop the scientific and technological capacity to ensure that biotechnology meets their own needs, on their own terms.

This means building programmes that address the potential of GM technology to enhance the ‘orphan crops’ often neglected by foreign corporations. Such crops, including cassava, pigeon pea and sorghum are already under development, but more support is needed, particularly in the regulatory arena.

Political leaders must acknowledge that biotechnology can become a homegrown industry in Africa — and they must be willing to commit the necessary resources. This should include fewer incentives for foreign companies to set up shop, and greater investment in scientific infrastructure and capacity building efforts including support for universities and regional research networks.

A step in this direction was taken in January when African Union leaders endorsed a 20-year ‘Freedom to Innovate’ biotechnology plan. But endorsing a plan is one thing, putting it into effect is another. Until that happens, genetic modification will continue to be seen as a Northern technology meeting predominantly Northern interests — and opposition will continue to flourish.

SciDev.Net

Second reading of Kenya Biosafety Bill rekindles passionate pro, con views

Kenya's controversial Biosafety Bill 2007 went through its Second Reading in Parliament on October 11.

First published in 2005, the Bill provides for the safe entry of GMOs into the country. It calls for the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority and sets out the latter’s powers and responsibilities in regulating research, importation and commercialisation of GMOs.

Once enacted, it is expected to ensure the safe handling, use and transfer of these products.

But there are polarised views on the Bill.

Championing one side of the debate has been the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, an organisation composed of 43 NGOs, farmer associations, consumer and community groups. Though the group has said it supports an effective and powerful biosafety law to regulate GMOs, it has decried the “intentional scheme” to weaken the Bill so that the importation and commercialisation of GMOs can be “hassle-free.”

The coalition also takes issue with the very process of preparing the Bil,l saying it did not incorporate the views of farmers and ordinary Kenyans, but rather took a “boardroom approach.” In a recent advertisement in the Daily Nation, the group said the Bill leaves no room for Kenyans to debate whether or not they ought to accept GMOs.

The group also says the Bill does not ask importers of GMOs to label them appropriately, neither does it deal with the safety of pharmaceutical products or food aid entering the country. Members say it is too lenient on those who might release a GMO that harms public health or the environment. They are urging the government to withdraw it from Parliament.

An equally vocal pro-GM lobby also published a whole page advertisement countering what the opponents of the Bill say.

Operating under the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), the lobby, led by Norah Olembo and Florence Wambugu, both leading scientists in related fields, deny that genetic engineering is morally wrong. They say GMOs are a reality today, and that it is safer for Kenya to be prepared for their entry by passing the Biosafety Bill.

Other groups have taken a middle-ground position, arguing that what matters is for the government to promote the interest and safety of the public.

“This is because many GM crops are designed to produce one or more toxins which make it possible for the relevant plants to kill off destructive pests on their own,” said a researcher at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari) who declined to be named. The researcher added that consuming crops with such toxins over a long time could cause allergies. The toxins may have medium and long-term effects on other living organisms, particularly useful insects in the environment. He argued that such concerns are not far-fetched because the world has only been cultivating and consuming GM products for slightly over a decade.

But many other scientists believe that Kenyans should not entertain blanket condemnation of genetic engineering. They say it has enabled humanity to develop artificially produced insulin, a much-needed hormone for diabetics to break down sugar in their bodies.

Although both sides of the debate have stated that food insecurity is the biggest challenge facing Africa, the pro-GM lobby has argued that technology – particularly manipulation of plant and animal genes – might be the panacea for food insecurity.

In its website, KARI says it is currently undertaking GM-seed research to combat the problems that hamper profitable agriculture in Kenya – disease, pest, droughts and poor seeds. KARI’s research, which has centred on GM-maize, sorghum, cotton and sweet potatoes, is jointly undertaken with international research institutions and biotech companies from the US and elsewhere. The aim, KARI says, is to produce seeds that are resistant to pests, weeds such as striga and to droughts; and others that are fortified with alien proteins.

Those opposed to ‘designer’ farming have asked scientists to address the fear of a likelihood that cultivating GM-crops might lead to decimation of such useful insects as bees and butterflies. “We risk a possibility of poor farmers being at the mercy of Western companies selling expensive inputs, if we start growing GM crops,” said Ngonyo.

Mr. Ngonyo wonders why key financiers have given a wide berth to organic farming in Africa, yet international markets are desperately in need of organic products.

Sunday Nation-Kenya

GM potato authorization application in EU raises the usual controversy

Europe's environment chief faces a showdown this month with his colleagues in the EU's executive Commission over biotech foods and crops, officials say.

The root cause is a potato.

Since July, the biotech industry has been waiting for the Commission to authorise an application by German chemicals group BASF for a genetically modified (GMO) potato for use in industry, rather than as food.

The application for a potato engineered to yield high amounts of starch has triggered controversy far exceeding the usual European consumer wariness over GMO foods.

If, or rather when, it is approved by the Commission, the EU's executive arm, it will be the first GMO product to be passed since 1998 that is designed to be grown in Europe's fields. It is not intended for human consumption but rather for use in industries such as paper-making.

BASF, which would like to start commercial cultivation next year, has made a separate EU application for the same potato under a different legal process to use its pulp, known commercially as Amflora, as animal feed.

EU farm ministers discussed the BASF application in mid-July but failed to reach agreement. As a result, the decision over the potato has landed on the Commission's plate. And that, unless new data, doubts or scientific opinions emerge, is almost certain to mean eventual approval.

Officials said the Amflora application would probably be discussed at a full meeting of the 27-member Commission in mid-October, a debate that is likely to be heated.
The biotech industry, which insists that its products are as safe as non-GMO equivalents, has long vented its frustration over what it sees as the EU's delay in approving GMOs, saying it loses time and money in not being allowed access to EU markets.

That frustration has been expressed in legal challenges, which have also encouraged the Commission to re-examine its internal policy on biotech crops and foods. The most famous example was when Argentina, Canada and the United States filed against the EU executive at the World Trade Organisation over the EU's de facto moratorium on new GMO authorisations, which ran for some six years and ended in 2004.

The WTO found that the EU's effective blockade on new GMO imports constituted "undue delay" and violated trade rules.

More recently, in May, Pioneer Hi-Bred International - a subsidiary of DuPont Co - filed a lawsuit against the Commission over its alleged delay in submitting the company's application for EU approval of its modified 1507 maize product.

Engineering News

NGO groups oppose biotech-based green revolution, advocate low-input agriculture

by Chido Makunike

Genetically modified crops are increasingly being tested in several African countries. This being a relatively new technology, most of these countries have not had legal frameworks to lay out the parameters under which research and adoption (or rejection) of GM crops can be conducted, and to put in place biosafety measures. The governments and legislatures of some countries are now taking steps to put in place the necessary regulatory frameworks for biotechnology in general, and for GM crops in particular.

Kenya's Biosafety Bill has been discussed by proponents and foes of genetic modification with much acrimony since 2005. After many delays, renewed attempts to bring it before Parliament for debate are being made, reviving old controversial issues, and bringing up new ones.

A group of NGO representatives opposed to a biotechnology-based 'green revolution' met in Kitale, Kenya in August and mapped out a position on the Kenyan Biosafety Bill. The debate over the Bill in Kenya is likely to influence the course of events in several other countries in East Africa and beyond, and is therefore being watched closely. The workshop and symposium were organised by Manor House Agriculture Center, PELUM (Participatory Ecological Land Use Management) and Ecology Action "to deliberate the problems of food security in Africa." Delegates were mainly from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.

The meeting's resolution wastes no time in spelling out its opposition to GM crops. It says it is aware that "some multinational companies and Kenyan scientists are touting GM crops as the panacea to hunger in Africa while ignoring inexpensive and less dangerous options to promote sustainable agriculture." It says the "pushing" of GM crops is being done without regard to the danger they pose to the livelihoods of farmers, including their right to seed security, among other concerns. The statement goes on to say the profit-driven companies who hold the patents to GM crops will effectively have a stranglehold on small scale African farmers.

Giving an indication of how impassioned the feelings against GM technology are in some circles, the NGOs express worry that Africa was being used as "a dumping ground for contaminated food rejected elsewhere." They do not view their differences with advocates of GMOs as merely being over contrasting methodologies to achieve the common aim of African food self-sufficiency. Instead, the NGO grouping suspects its pro-GM foes of being motivated by a much more sinister agenda: "this may be (a) deliberate attempt to destroy local food production and marketing systems," they charge.

After laying their anti-GM cards firmly on the table in their resolution's preamble, they turn their more specific attention to the Kenyan Biosafety Bill. The NGOs make it clear they are not opposed to the idea of a biosafety law per se. On the contrary, they welcome it, but see it as primarily a regulatory measure in the sense of controlling genetic engineering technology, whereas GM advocates hope for a facilitating type of regulatory law.

The NGOs' problem with the Bill is that it is "not comprehensive and inclusive enough," believing it to have too many loopholes "designed to facilitate introduction of GMO through the back door, without due consultation with the Kenyan people." Allusion is made to a media poll the group says showed that 81% of Kenyans were opposed to the introduction of GMOs.

The depth of feeling over the issue is illustrated by how the statement makes it clear the group does not believe the Bill's alleged lack of comprehensiveness is due to oversight, or to merely wish to make it flexible enough to accommodate varied interests. Their statement suggests they believe the underlying motivations of the Bill are to make the entry of GM crops easier, and that the ultimate aim of that is quite deliberately malicious.

The NGOs also mention that the Bill seems to concentrate on regulation of genetic modification to the exclusion of "non controversial" biotechnologies, such as tissue culture. They recommend that it be taken "back to the people" for wider public consultation, particularly with a view to putting stronger measures against genetic engineering, including tougher, more clearly spelled out punishments in cases of GMO-caused liability. They also urge mandatory labeling of GM foods in order to make it easier for consumers to make informed purchasing choices.

Having strongly spelled out their opposition to genetic engineering, the group then lays out its vision of what it calls "a truly African green revolution." The wording seems to be a subtle reminder of the oft-repeated charge that the "biotech African green revolution" is mainly driven by Western corporates seeking to expand and exploit captive African markets for their products.

The NGOs' "true green revolution" would consist of various low-input methodologies going under the general heading of sustainable agriculture. They urge policies more favourable to small scale farmers, and farming development that is more respectful of accumulated indigenous knowledge.

Whatever one thinks of the veracity or otherwise of the group's claims, their strongly-worded statement does make it crystal clear how wide and deep are the differences between proponents and foes of a green revolution approach to getting Africa to feed itself.

African Agriculture

Farmers' group protests Kenyan biosafety bill

The debate on agricultural biotechnology in Kenya boiled over again last week when peasant farmers and GMO critics staged a demo against GMO proponents who see it as a panacea to low yields.

Farmers in Kenya's breadbasket district of Kitale, Western Kenya, held a demonstration protesting against the Biosafety Bill 2007 that is awaiting Parliamentary debate, saying it should be shelved till after the general elections scheduled for December. During the peaceful demonstration which involved representatives from Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, Ethiopia and Madagascar, demonstrators said, "The Biosafety Bill is aimed at introducing genetically modified organisms through the back door."

They said the GM foods aid was being forced on African countries as a dumping alternative because it had already been rejected in the West. The farmers expressed fear that in the event the Bill was introduced in the House for the second reading, most of the MPs would be out campaigning for the December polls, hence may not have adequate time to satisfactorily handle the weighty sat stake.

They said the Bill excludes more pertinent bio-safety issues such as pharmaceutical drugs obtained from crops and animals. The demonstrators said the government should strengthen the Biosafety Bill by putting in place effectively measures regarding GMOs, their products and other related biotechnology products.

Henry Waswa, a demonstrator, said sustainability could be maintained if it empowered small scale farmers and local communities as well as increasing their knowledge-base capacity.

Scientists are pushing for the Bill. "Biotech solutions lead to higher yields and improved crop resistance to pests and diseases, enhancing food security," says Dr. Simon Gichuki, head of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institutes's (KARI) biotechnology centre. "It will give an internationally recognised Bio-safety framework within which to tap the enormous benefits of biotechnology, " he said.

Kenya is one of the eight demonstration countries implementing their National Biosafety Frameworks (NBF) under a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) fund. Commercial use of the products that have already been developed will be made possible by the new law.

The government approved a biotechnology and Biosafety policy last September through the Cabinet.

Kenya has in recent years applied an interim system for the use and handling of biotechnology products. To date, five approvals for research and development and six others for confined field-testing have been granted under the auspices of KARI.

Most investments in biotechnology in Kenya have been in the field of agriculture.

The rapid development and diffusion of biotechnology, especially in genetic engineering, is happening at a time when the African continent is faced with daunting challenges including declining agricultural productivity and increasing poverty, leading to greater food insecurity and malnutrition. It has been asserted that several maize and cotton GMOs available now have the potential to increase productivity by lowering crop protection costs through lower chemical use in the environment.

Conversely, concerns have been raised about the potential risks to the environment and human health from GMOs.

Kenya’s Minister for Agriculture, Kipruto Arap Kirwa, acknowledges that attempts to introduce and implement agricultural biotechnologies have received varied reactions in country. He argues that Kenya should weigh both potential benefits and risks by putting in place frameworks that address controversial concerns raised regarding the adoption of GMOs.

African Science News