Pros and cons of approving GM crops discussed at Tanzania workshop

by Finnigan Wa Simbeye



A legal officer at the Kenyan Vice- President's Office, Isakwisa Lameck said the country should tread slowly and carefully before allowing GMOs to be researched in the country prior to their being authorized for cultivation and consumption.

He said while Kenya and Uganda have allowed confined field trials for GE crops, Kampala does not have even a law to government such research work. "We should be allowed to take time before adopting the technology," Lameck said during a Agriculture Council of Tanzania stakeholders' workshop held in Dar es Salaam recently. Researchers are pressing for a review of the country's restrictive regulations.

"We should be allowed to do some research so that the government can make informed decisions. As we stand now, our researchers have to go to Kenya or Uganda to do their work on GMOs," argued Dr Roshan Abdallah from Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI).


Dr Abdallah pointed out that delays in reforming the country's rigid laws against GE crops is denying farmers an opportunity to adopt useful technology that can change poverty levels in rural areas as yields will be increased.

She noted that as climate change takes its toll of the country's weather pattern with frequent droughts, GE crops are a solution to ensure food security and poverty reduction.

"We shouldn't be left out while the whole world is adopting this technology," Dr Abdallah argued as officials at Commission for Science and Technology (Costech) express frustrations against the slow pace of reforms to accommodate GMOs.

In Africa, only South Africa and Egypt have allowed commercial cultivation and consumption of GE crops while Mali has adopted GE cotton only. Many African countries are skeptical of the technology which it's adversary warn has unknown environmental and health hazards.

Worldwide less than 16 countries led by the United States and Brazil allow cultivation and consumption of Frankenstein crops.


Presenting a paper on 'Increased Agricultural Productivity,'Prof Deogratius Rutatora said local farmers yield between 1.5 to 1.7 metric tons of maize per hectare because of poor quality of seeds used, low fertilizer use and low level of education among rural farmers.

Prof Rutatora said the country's agriculture sector is generally stunted in growth although efforts have been made over the past five decades to improve the situation with annual growth of 4.4 per cent last year from 3.3 per cent over two decades ago.

"Sometimes I wonder why are we continuing with subsistence farming," wondered the Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) don.


Agriculture's contribution to gross domestic product has decreased from over 44 per cent in 1980s to less than 30 per cent at present. Babati Rural lawmaker, Jitu Soni urged the government to speed up establishment of an agriculture bank this fiscal year, to bail out farmers from harsh lending conditions including hiked interest rates charged by banks.

"We have already endorsed the government's budget in parliament and look forward to establishment of the bank," Mr Soni noted.

Soni said rural farmers face a lot of problems including financing, lack of extension officers and poor infrastructure to access markets. President Jakaya Kikwete has pledged that his government will allocate 100bn/- annually to support the agrobank in the next five years.


Tanzania Daily News

Kenya: new rules for safe handling of GMOs

by Allan Odhiambo


The government has set tough procedures and punitive fines to ensure safe handling and movement of genetically modified (GM) crops, which it hopes will tackle perennial shortage of staple foods such as maize.

According to new regulations published by acting Higher Education, Science and Technology minister Hellen Sambili, any person intending to export, import or transit a product derived from genetically modified organisms must first obtain written approval from the National Biosafety Authority.

And even upon approval, such products would still be strictly monitored to ensure conformity with laid-out rules and regulations on areas such as packaging and declaration of the GM status.

Anyone who contravenes the set guidelines on the import, export and transit of GM products would face a fine of up to Sh20 million or a prison term not exceeding ten years, or both.

To ensure elaborate scrutiny, all applications for authority to handle GM products would be handled by an array of State agencies that deal with plant health regulation such as Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (Kephis).

The scrutiny of applications has also been accorded a lengthy grace period of up to five months in a bid to ensure comprehensiveness in the vetting task.

The new regulations said the Biosafety Authority shall within 14 days screen for completeness of applications and circulate to the relevant regulatory agencies for further information, comments or reasoned objections.

The Authority shall then communicate its final decision to the applicant within 150 days of receiving the application, but not earlier than 90 days of such receipt in order to allow for sufficient vetting.

It will cost an applicant Sh25,000 to table a request to import or export GM products.

The regulations indicated that GM products that shall have existed in the market for up to two decades without causing negative effects on human health as well as the environment would be exempted from regular approval cycles.

“Where a genetically modified organism has been released into the environment or placed on the market for twenty years with approval from authority,” the new regulations read, “and the authority establishes that monitoring data indicates no risk to human health and the environment, the genetically modified organism may continue to be released to the environment or placed on the market without further approval.”


“No GMO maize should be used as seeds under any circumstances. All flour produced from GMO maize must be clearly labeled as a product of GMO maize,” it said.


Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta has also zero-rated duty on maize imports for the rest of this year as part of efforts to guarantee cheaper supplies to consumers.

Business Daily Africa

South Africa's vineyards 'treat workers like slaves'

by Aislinn Laing

South Africa's vineyards play host to thousands of tourists each year and produce some of the world's finest vintages but vineyard workers are being forced to live in shipping containers and pig sties and operate without proper safety equipment, Human Rights Watch has claimed.

In a report entitled Ripe With Abuse, the group claims that strict work regulations within South African law are not being enforced and some of the staff on wine and fruit farms are treated little better than slaves.

They claim that many are working without access to clean drinking water or lavatory facilities, and are in some cases forced to cover their faces with sunglasses and caps when spraying crops because they are not given proper protective clothing.

Human Rights Watch also alleges that some farms are still using the outlawed, apartheid-era "Dop" system whereby staff are part-paid in wine or food baskets.

They are calling on UK consumers – who account for much of the demand for South African wine and fruit abroad – to insist on minimum ethical standards to be enforced by their supermarkets and off-licences, as well as for tougher regulation by the South African government.

In one case, HRW interviewed 40-year-old Isaac, who has been living with his wife and children in a pig sty without electricity or a lavatory for the past 10 years while working on a farm exporting products abroad.

"I want to set an example for my kids, but now the kids must go to the toilet in bushes where there are dangerous snakes," he said. "It makes me very unhappy because I can't guarantee the safety of my children."

Those living in poor conditions have in some cases contracted illnesses such as tuberculosis and asthma, but then struggle to get time off or medical help given their remote locations and low incomes.

Kaitlin Cordes interviewed around 260 of an estimated 121,000 workers on 60 of 6,000 wine and fruit farms in the Western Cape region that includes Cape Town, Franschhoek and Stellenbosch.

She said such staff made a vital contribution to the country's economy yet were often "invisible" themselves.

"People don't really think about those who are producing the food they eat or growing the grapes that go into the wine they're drinking but they might be shocked to hear about the conditions they sometimes live in," she said.

The group does not name the farms nor the wine labels they produce because they fear reprisals for the workers that spoke to their researchers.

But Ms Cordes said that British supermarkets and retailers were almost certainly buying from the offending farms – among them a Fairtrade certified producer.

"The UK is the largest importer of South African wine and the second largest importer of South African fruit," she said. "Some workers told me that their farms supply to British supermarket chains. Some UK retailers have said they are aware of the problems on South African farms and none of them said they could guarantee the conditions that those who supplied them worked under. We are not asking for a boycott but we encourage consumers to ask retailers where their wine is coming from. We think UK consumers showing they care will force a change in South Africa."

Charles Senekal, head of farming union Pro-Agri Forum, said HRW should name names so offenders could be dealt with. "Farmers must pay what they should pay and ensure they are looking after their workers," he said. "We want facts so we can take action against farmers infringing the rules."

Sainsbury's said that all of its suppliers were required to comply with its Code of Conduct for Ethical Trade.

Tesco said it had invested "significantly" in ensuring ethical conditions for workers on its suppliers' farms in South Africa in recent years.

"As the HRW report identifies, there continue to be challenges in the sector and we will continue to play a leading role in supporting local and international efforts to improve overall standards, as well the in-depth activities in our direct supply chain," a spokesman said.

A Waitrose spokesman said it had “absolute confidence” in its procedures for sourcing from South Africa.

Marks & Spencer said it goes “above in beyond" by supporting education and training programmes, all its farms in South Africa were regularly audited to ensure ethical practices were being followed.

The Telegraph

Report on South African wine sector farm conditions biased - industry body

Su Birch, CEO of Wines of South Africa (WOSA), has challenged the Human Rights Watch report entitled Ripe with Abuse: Human Rights Conditions in South Africa`s Fruit and Wine Industries. She said the 96-page report, purporting to accurately document conditions on farms, had used a questionable basis for the selection of many of the respondents interviewed in the study, while interviews with workers had not been independently verified and nor had employer reaction to allegations been sought. As a result, it was extremely difficult to respond to specific allegations highlighted by the study.

According to its authors, the report was based on interviews in 2010 and 2011 with "over 260 people, including 117 current or former farm workers and an additional 16 farm dwellers."

Birch said: "Readers of the report have no basis for understanding how representative the sample of respondents is. The study relies on anecdotal evidence that uses the cover of respondent protection to avoid substantiating the claims it makes.

Moreover, the media release, provocatively entitled South Africa: Farmworkers` Dismal, Dangerous Lives and distributed internationally, does not present a sufficiently comprehensive picture of conditions across the wine industry and as a result, is potentially misleading.

"Like the report itself, the release disingenuously plays down the significance of the wine industry`s substantial direct and indirect contribution to improving working conditions through organisations such as the Wine Industry Ethical Trade Association (WIETA), and Fairtrade.

It also makes scant mention of empowerment initiatives. With positive examples of the progress made in redressing past wrongs rendered virtually inaccessible to all but the most serious readers, the report negates the work of those who should be allowed to stand out as role models to their peers."

In contrast with the report`s virtual dismissal of the role of WIETA, she said the organization had continued to expand its involvement with producers. WIETA CEO Linda Lipparoni had confirmed that membership of the organisation this year, was up 29% on 2010 and had continued to strengthen since its inception in 2002.

"Many WIETA members are now writing WIETA compliance requirements into their supplier contracts," said Lipparoni. "There are over 80 farms being audited under the Wine Supply Chain Support Programme in 2011."

She added that WIETA`s approach to auditing was a developmental one. "WIETA has implemented a capacity building programme for small producers and suppliers. It involves comprehensive training and awareness workshops for both managers of small wineries and farms, and workers` rights awareness sessions for farm workers."

She confirmed that auditing for accreditation took place every three years which was in line with international best practice.

"In partnership with the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) in the UK, WIETA is also implementing a three-year training programme focusing on understanding and addressing discrimination and sexual harassment," added Lipparoni. "The project involves the participation of over 150 farms in the Western Cape in training managers, supervisors (including team leaders) and workers."

Birch said that as far as Fairtrade was concerned, South Africa had the highest number of Fairtrade-accredited wine producers worldwide.

Birch added that another example of the report`s questionable approach was the accusation levelled at farmers for not affording their workers protection when spraying for pests, without including any mention of the far-reaching Integrated Production of Wine (IPW) eco-sustainable principles that set very clear guidelines regarding the use of pesticides and the need for worker protection. Monitoring for IPW compliance included blood testing amongst workers to check for pesticide residues. "Compliance is regularly and independently monitored. Producers who flout the regulations not only run the risk of losing their IPW accreditation but also their ability to export."

Referring to the housing conditions highlighted in the report, she said: "While we are not disputing that there are transgressions and that these are taken very seriously by the wine industry, at no stage does the report contextualise the provision of housing for workers. Wine farmers are currently providing housing for over 200 000 workers which represents an investment of billions of rands.

As one of South Africa`s most progressive wine producers, Charles Back recently commented on his blog: `I seriously doubt whether there is any other industry that provides this magnitude of housing relative to the value of the industry itself. Just imagine what the effect on the bottom line would be if some of our listed companies had to start to provide housing for their workers!`"

She said the industry`s support for measures to address alcohol abuse amongst workers, as well as Foetal Acohol Syndrome (FAS) had been given glancing attention and was almost buried within the report. The Industry Association for the Responsible Alcohol Use (ARA) imposed levies on members, who were producers of wine as well as other beverages, to initiate widespread anti-alcohol abuse programmes, including in the Winelands and research into FAS. Amongst the particularly active producers in this regard were Distell and Wine Cellars SA (WCSA), with the latter representing over 60 large producers.

ARA director Adrian Botha said: "Success is partly dependant on breaking the cycle of poverty and providing value-based education."

Leading South African wine producer, Distell, whose portfolio accounts for a third of the country`s total still and sparkling wine production confirmed that Distell-owned and LUSAN-owned farms,( in which Distell has a 50% stake), were unionised. Heidi Bartis, the company`s communication manager said: "Annual negotiations take place between union members and the relevant unions and a substantive agreement is reached for a 12-month period.

Where applicable, housing is made available but is linked to employment. In some instances housing is made available rent-free, with water and electricity also provided at no cost. Free transport on some farms is offered to labourers to do their week-end shopping and to attend sports, school, religious and cultural events. Workers can subsidised medical funds, while a mobile clinic service provides additional health support to labourers and their families. Functional literacy programmes, specialised agricultural training and crèche facilities are also available to workers across some of the farms."

Birch stressed that the report had the potential to do great harm to the industry that was already battling in the face of a strong rand and a protracted global economic downturn, without the benefit of the government support that its global competitors enjoyed. "Ironically, it could also jeopardise the jobs of the very people it claims to be championing.

"In the interests of the continuity of the industry and its capacity to create employment and sustainably improved working conditions, the wine sector deserves to be monitored with fairness and not to be undermined by assertions based on what appears to be random anecdotal evidence.

"Let me make it very clear: we condemn out of hand any and all human rights abuses on wine farms. Our disappointment in the bias of the report is in no way an indication of our support for inhumane practices. It expresses our concern that trade and consumers all over the world could become alienated from South African wines. We call on Government to partner the wine industry in accelerating reform and in rooting out problems."

Statement issued by Su Birch, CEO, Wines of South Africa (WOSA), August 23 2011

How will South African wine workers' maltreatment report affect the industry?

by Lisa van Wyk

A damning Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on the experiences of workers in the South African fruit and wine industries reveals severe maltreatment and abuse of workers in the sector. These issues have been an open secret in the industry for many years, but have seldom been raised in mainstream discussions and reviews of the world of wine. Consumers seem to be largely unaware or apathetic about the social problems at the heart of the industry.

We spoke to Tim James, the Mail & Guardian's regular wine columnist, about the issues raised in the report, and the effect it will have on the industry and its consumers, if any.

Q: Are the issues that the HRW report spoke about be of concern to those on the "receiving end" of the industry -- restaurateurs, wine tasters and reviewers? Or is it something that most try not to get involved in?

A: Judging by what is written about these things (almost nothing -- agricultural workers are pretty invisible), there's extremely little interest in social issues. I don't know of any particular success or failure attached to either good practices or bad practices when they come to light.

Solms Delta, for example, has actually had a fair bit of coverage about its social efforts, but I'm not aware that it's made a whole lot of difference … maybe a little. But there are no "exposés" that lead to any sustained interest. There's general silence; no investigative journalism into the issues; no indication from restaurants or retailers that it matters in the least.

Q: And consumers? One would imagine that most wine drinkers do not think about this sort of thing.

A: There's little I can say about that: as a wine writer, rather than an expert on the market, I can only guess. What the local industry will be concerned with is the international, not local, market.

It is easy to identify the national origins of wine -- unlike footwear and clothes made in a China sweatshop, for example. So it's more vulnerable to moral boycotts -- and there are plenty of alternatives in a crowded market. The pre-1994 boycott was pretty successful in its impact. But unless there is a really big stink -- who knows? Things like Fair Trade have had some success and big buyers like Tesco have so-called criteria; but on the whole, as you're suggesting, most customers don't really care much -- unless it's very easy to change what you buy -- and it is easier and cheaper to switch to a different brand of wine than it is to get new running shoes. That's the worry.

Locally, I wouldn't imagine there'd be much outrage. After all, everything here is pretty much this sort of thing. The wine and fruit industries are no worse, I'm sure, than other agricultural industries -- probably better, in fact, because of the international exposure.

Q: How open have the estates been? Are there estates that advertise their ethical approach in the area of treatment of workers, as they sometimes do with environmental concerns?

A: Very little. Sometimes they mention Fair Trade accreditation. But very few have been bothered to even become members of Wieta (the Wine Industry Ethical Trade Association) -- and all that is required there for a successful audit, basically, is to obey the laws and regulations! Clearly they don't see any mileage in it. Certainly some wineries are better at these things than others, and it might be mentioned now and then. But again, the fact that it's not made a big thing of -- unlike the environmental stuff -- suggests that, surprise surprise, most people don't care.

Q: You have mentioned the need for transformation in the industry in your wine columns before.

A: Any "official" talk about transformation tends to be about ownership, land, etcetera -- the top end of things. Very little lip service is paid to the needs of labour. The need for transformation is, in my opinion, at the level of working and social conditions for the workforce -- housing, wages, social services, super-exploitation, etcetera. If one accepts the truths in this report and doesn't like the situation, it's an indication of the need for transformation. There are a great many bad things happening which need to stop. It's important to note that if I talk of transformation it's not specifically a racial category. It's a transformation of conditions that's needed, not a transformation of how well or badly things get allocated along racial lines. As far as I can see from my quick glance, this report is -- welcomingly -- not about race, but about the fundamental divisions in the industry.

Q: Why do you think these issues exist? Is it a case of most people in a "luxury" industry turning a blind eye to the issues? The wine industry is surely only one of many luxury industries that are guilty of practices that are ethically questionable.

A: Agriculture is a particularly difficult industry to unionise because of isolation, workers' dependence on bosses, etcetera. The report makes it clear that there is a woeful lack of investigation by the Department of Labour, an insufficient number of inspectors and no real attempt to ensure that laws and regulations are being observed.

Q: Can the issues raised by the report be excused in any way by the "culture" of the industry?

A: Well, bad wages, etcetera are part of the "culture" of all industries. Western Cape agriculture does have some unique features, such as the exposure to alcohol. Not enough has been done by the industry or society as a whole to transform the appalling situation of endemic alcoholism. Having workers living on farms -- hence the problem of evictions, as well as total dependency on the owners -- is another real part of history. Some farmers have honestly tried to grapple with this issue. There's a history of paternalism which is usually as far as it gets. But any cultural aspect that is bad is not an excuse, surely.

The industry is, to an extent, suffering from international low prices, strength of the rand, and so on. It'll probably claim it can't afford to improve wages. So what's new? I'm not sure there was much sign, when things were going better, that greater income was being channelled into improving farmworkers' conditions.

Q: What do you think the solution is? And what sort of impact do you think these changes would have on the industry? One imagines it might have an effect on prices. Is that too simplistic a view?

A: Personally, I think the answer is genuine socialism! Within current systems, the first need is to have enforcement of the law by the Department of Labour, if the industry itself is unwilling to do it. It's the same lack of government interest that governs all of agriculture.

Q: What sort of effect do you think the HRW report, and the media attention that is bound to follow it, will have on consumers?

A: Who knows? If it blows over quickly, not much. Again, it must be stressed that the wine industry will be concerned about an international boycott, not about local consumers who have little alternative. Of course there's an element of hypocrisy about it all -- agricultural workers, including wine workers, don't have much fun anywhere in the world.

Mail and Guardian

Kenya to attempt to prevent imported GM maize use as seed

by Gatonye Gathura

Kenyan millers licensed to import genetically modified maize must ensure the grain does not end up as seed.

Any lapse that could result in the seeds being planted will attract a fine of not less than Sh20 million or a jail term of 10 years, or both, a government agency said on July 5.

If this happens unintentionally, the importer will meet the costs of removing the seeds from circulation.

The acting head of the National Biosafety Authority, Dr Roy Mugiira, said the organisation would ensure such maize was only released as flour.

He hinted that one option being considered was to mill the maize at the point of landing. Initially, there were plans to sterilise GM seeds to stop them from germinating after harvest but this technology, called terminator, was never commercialised following widespread opposition.

The head of biotechnology at the Kenya Agricultural Research Centre, Dr Simon Gichuki, said the possible GM maize targeted by importers would be from South Africa and does not contain the terminator technology.

The maize being targeted by the millers has been engineered to develop resistance against weeds and insect pests. Another type of GM maize is being tested in Kenya for drought resistance but it is not yet ready for commercialisation.

If the current biosafety laws are to be followed strictly, then the earliest the first GM maize can land in the country legally is around October. According to the Biosafety Act, the regulatory authority will communicate its final decision of approval or rejection of an importing licence not earlier than three months after receiving the application.

Mugiira said no application has been considered as the authority has not yet published the import guidelines.

After allowing an importer to bring a genetically modified organism on the market, the law also allows any person to submit a written opposition within 30 days from the date the notice is posted.

An official at the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services said no genetically modified maize had been brought into the country yet.

The Nation

East Africa sets maize standards

by John Kasozi

The East Africa Grain Council has unveiled a standards guide for the maize sub-sector in the region. "Our grains have failed to penetrate the international market because of poor quality," Baker Beehamya, the council director, said.
"The guide is aimed at improving quality and productivity in the East African region. Its prepared as a support base for training farmers and staff of the large-scale maize growers and traders."

The East African Community maize quality standards guide was unveiled at a cereal stakeholders' workshop at Metropole Hotel in Kampala.

The guide contains key information for maize grain quality trainers. It is also the primary source of practical knowledge on good agricultural practices, maize farming and quality assurance for the region.

Okaasai Opolot, the commissioner for crop production and marketing in the agriculture ministry, said ensuring a high quality of maize was important as it is an essential food and cash crop in the region.

"The guide will ensure standards are met in the whole maize value-chain from planting materials, agronomic practices, harvesting, post-harvesting handling, packaging and transportation," he said. "Last season, all the five EAC countries had a bumper harvest, but because of the poor grain handling, they didn't gain much from it."

Opolot, however, added that there was need for improved infrastructure if grain standards were to be maintained. He noted that value addition should also be encouraged in the quest for better grain standards. "Value addition improves the shelf-life of the grain and promotes inter-state trade. Otherwise, we risk food insecurity," the commissioner explained.

Dr. Claude Mosha, the Tanzania Bureau of Standards chief standards officer, said food must be safe and of good quality to be marketable. "We have to look at the different grain quality requirements if we have to succeed in trade," he advised.

He said apart from maize being a staple food in the region, it is a food security crop. Mosha revealed that eating of mouldy maize causes throat cancer.

He said the EAC standard committee was planning to set a standards guide for cassava and potatoes. The regional grain council promotes approaches to trade that help farmers, traders, suppliers, processors and consumers transform their business life through the warehouse receipt system.

New Vision

South Africa bars Kenyan avocados

A trade row between Kenya and South Africa is simmering following the failure to resolve an administrative barrier that has seen Kenyan exports to the regional powerhouse shrink drastically over the last one year.

At issue is what Kenyan exporters consider a non administrative trade barrier that has blocked avocados from accessing the Sh150 million a year market. South Africa instituted the measure, saying the product posed a fruit fly threat to the country.

Since the ban was imposed in April last year, Kenya has lost 80 per cent of its fresh avocado exports going to South Africa. South Africa’s import inspection body raised the phytosanitary issues which Kenya exporters see as a form of protectionism.

Although the partial ban was attributed to a fruit fly threat, the chief executive of the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK), Dr Stephen Mbithi, said fruit flies affect avocados from all African countries and did not warrant such punitive action.

Avocado exports are big business for Kenya, accounting for Sh2.2 billion in direct exports annually. “Fuerte” is the leading export variety followed by “Hass.”

South Africa alone imports fresh avocados worth Kshs 150 million annually, which are mainly used in the foods and cosmetics industry 80 per cent of exports to South Africa represent Kshs 120 million in earnings which have been lost due to trade barriers.

Exports say that the South Africa government has been known to resort to non-tariff trade barriers as a way of protecting the industries from external competition

"They are trying to protect their industry by banning imports," said Dr.M.Mbithi.

However, the South African government may be legally using a provision in international trade laws that allows countries to institute trade barriers in certain circumstances. "

International laws allow countries to protect themselves from hazardous imports that threaten their crops and this is what the south Africans government has used," said Mr. Edward Maina of the Horticultural Crop Development Authority. South Africa is also a major producer of avocado with most of its exports going to Europe.

However the avocado industry in South Africa is said to be seasonal due to the pressure of very cold winters, leading to very low production. The production season for the country avocados is only between March and October.

Kenya on the other hand enjoys an equatorial climate and avocado trees in the country produce all year round. The main production areas are around Mt.Kenya and the North Rift.

The country's exporters are now working with the Agriculture and Trade ministries to resolve the issue.

Business Daily Africa

Local certification to ease Kenyan flower exports

by Kenneth Kwama

The Kenya Flower Council (KFC) is on course to be an accredited body to provide certification for flowers meant for export. The European Union (EU) accreditation will give it powers to inspect and certify locally produced flowers as fit for the international market as early as next year.

If successful, the agreement will eliminate the need for flowers to undergo further inspection in vast markets where they are exported like the EU countries and Japan. It will also help reduce a number of bottlenecks that have been slowing exports.

KFC’s Chief Executive Officer, Jane Ngige, says the status will enable the council to enforce an internationally required code of practice that encourages farmers to take care of the environment by rehabilitating wetlands and adopting new technologies like containerised growing, where water is re-used.

"We are building internal capacity for self-regulation and the process is proceeding well. We hope to be an accredited body to provide certification for flowers," says Ngige.

The move with potential to increase the volume of Kenya’s exports, is exhilarating, for local flower growers who are the leading exporters of cut flowers to Europe and Japan, providing about 36 and 19 per cent, respectively of stems sold in those regions.

It will also help mollify emerging markets like Japan, which of late has become one of the largest consumers of Kenyan flowers. According to Ngige, Japan is a lucrative destination, but is also full of challenges. "It is a difficult market because the authorities there want Kenya to fumigate its flowers before exporting. "

"We are also planning to train our own inspectors to help create confidence in our ability," says Ngige.

Kenya’s market share in Japan increased from 16 per cent in 2005 to 19 per cent by end of last year, earning the country Sh140 million. Last year, the country earned Sh32 billion from flower exports.

Flower growers will also be thrilled about the expected status because of its potential benefits considering the new ‘Open Skies Agreement’ between Kenya and the US that will allow for direct flights between the two countries. Currently, all flowers being exported to the US from Kenya have to pass through Europe before they are passed on to the final destination.

Direct flights between the two countries will reduce the cost of transporting flowers and also remove a bit of weight from the back of exporters currently weighed down by the carbon miles debate, among other changing standards.

The maiden flight operated by Delta Airlines will make its first journey to the US in December.

The Standard

French president Sarkozy suggests support for tougher EU produce import standards

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has expressed new concerns about the direction of European agricultural policy.

He has questioned moves to cut farm production at a time of increasing global shortages as well as Europe’s decision to impose tough standards on farmers without the same restrictions being enforced on those that ship produce into the EU.

His comments at the European Parliament re-ignite the ongoing war of words he has been having with under-fire European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. The former British government minister has been persistently accused for months of negotiating too much away in ongoing world trade talks, and leaving EU farmers exposed.

Sarkozy said European farmers would be worse off and threatened to veto Mr Mandelson’s planned deal. He asked the parliament: “Is it reasonable to ask the EU to reduce its agricultural production when the world has never needed food so much? I don’t think it is reasonable. It is not about French agriculture, it is about commonsense. Food security is everyone’s concern. It is reasonable to require of our farmers to abide by rules of security and traceability and still import meat from other countries who do not abide by those rules. This is the right time to talk about prices, subsidies and community preferences. I think we can reach agreement on concepts like food security and safety.”

Sarkozy also said Europe needed to debate its border controls and the amount of produce that can be shipped into the EU. He said it was only but fair and right that if Europe imposed controls on its food producers the same standards should apply to imports into the EU.

“That’s not a question of protectionism. It’s a question of fairness and justice and refusing to be naive.”

Mr Sarkozy’s remarks were welcomed by NFU Scotland president Jim McLaren who was encouraged at the commonsense language used by the French president. “Farmers in Scotland, like their EU and French counterparts, are only looking for a fair and reasonable system of control over the standards of the production systems operated by those who would bring imports into Europe.

“It cannot be right for Mr Mandelson to be negotiating away the access to EU agricultural markets with no regard for the different standards and consequentially the different costs of producing products in non-EU countries.

“Scottish farmers, like French farmers, only seek the illusive level playing field. It is this which will ultimately deliver sustainable and affordable food supplies to our own consumers in a world of increasing uncertainty over supplies from elsewhere.

“What a breath of fresh air to hear a European political leader speaking out for commonsense, fairness and justice in the world of agriculture.”

Press and Journal

Reducing EU-authorised pesticides likely to lead to increased pest-resistance

Leading European agricultural experts gathered in Ljubljana (Slovenia) on 22 April 2008 in order to present the Slovenian EU presidency with a declaration on potential risks of the proposed EU pesticide legislation. The scientists from seven countries fear that reducing the available range of pesticides could lower their efficiency as it is likely that it will increase resistance.

The scientist's concern is triggered by proposals announced by EU institutions to reform legislation on plant protection products. The European Parliament voted in favour of new legislation which would drastically reduce the number of authorised pesticides, in the coming
years.

In the "Declaration of Ljubljana", participating scientists express their fear that such a move would endanger the sustainability of European farming. They conclude that the increased risk of
developing resistance to the few remaining substances could make the cultivation of many crops, including grapes, wheat, barley, cotton, fresh fruit, potatoes and vegetables, in Europe problematic, and or uncompetitive.

The scientists' spokesperson, Dr Ian Denholm, Head, Plant and Invertebrate Ecology Division, Rothamsted Research, UK pointed out that, "In order to safeguard the production of food at affordable prices, it is essential to provide farmers with access to sufficient diversity of crop protection solutions. This is essential to prevent or delay the development of resistant pests, and to maintain the efficacy of remaining crop protection products."

European Union legislation has already resulted in a reduction of the available portfolio of pesticides by more than 55% over the last decade.

Pest populations have the potential to develop resistance to crop protection products, particularly if they are regularly treated with a single product type. Once pests have developed a resistance to a certain group of crop protection products, their effectiveness is either significantly reduced or lost altogether. In the past, new crop protection products have often solved the problem. However, it takes an average of ten years and an investment of about 200 million Euros to develop and register a new pesticide.

Regulatory targets are already so stringent that the industry is only able to launch about five new active ingredients per year in Europe. The scientists therefore expressed their concern that the innovative capacity of the crop protection industry will not be able to replace the products which are likely to be removed from the market by the proposed legislation, or those which will as a result, be lost to resistance. This would lead to lower crop yields and higher food prices.

From a resistance management point of view, the crop protection products portfolio in Europe has already been very seriously impaired by the ongoing EU re-registration process, under Directive 91/414/EEC. Of the 952 existing crop protection products that existed previously,
530 have already been eliminated - and a further significant reduction in compounds is to be expected.

The scientists who drafted and signed the "Declaration of Ljubljana" are calling for European politicians to acknowledge the need to retain sufficient product diversity in order to manage the
threat of resistance development. It appears that this biological requirement has so far been largely neglected by policy makers. The scientists are concerned that the proposed European legislation will force farmers to use a smaller number of substances more intensively. This would increase the likelihood of resistance developing to the remaining pesticides, thereby threatening agricultural productivity and income of European farmers.

Agricultural Institute of Slovenia

Launch of EU organic logo delayed beyond 2009

The launch of the European Commission's organic logo, scheduled for 2009, has been delayed following complaints it was too similar to a symbol used by German supermarket Aldi.
The news may signal problems for organic manufacturers, especially those who have started to prepare for the logo to come in at the previous anticipated start-date of next year.

The logo was first suggested by the EC in 2007, and was designed for mandatory use on products that are 95 per cent or more organic and free of genetically modified organisms (GMO).

However, Germany-based retailer Aldirecently contacted the commission to raise concerns over the similarities between the new green logo and its own symbol, said Michael Mann, EU spokesperson for Agriculture and Rural Development. The European council of ministers has now been asked to delay the launch until 2010, he added.

Mann remains confident that the delay will not have a negative effect on the food industry, as "voluntary labels are in place;" however, other players in the organic world are not so optimistic.

Richard Jacobs, chief executive of UK Organic Farmers & Growers (OR&G) said the logo had clearly been withdrawn in a confused fashion. The OR&G had told several processors to change their packaging, some of whom have already started to work on new print labels, he said.

"And the commission seemed to have not done its homework in this area," Jacobs said. "How did the commission miss the similarity to a logo from Aldi, one of the biggest food retailers in Europe? And why did Aldi wait so long to complain?"

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has also voiced its concern on its website, stating that the postponement will cause "serious problems", as many labels will now have to be changed again. "This is absolutely not acceptable for the market," said Francis Blake, president of the IFOAM EU Group.

Jacobs also stated that the OR&G has been disappointed with the logo from the start, as orginal plans were for it to feature the word 'bio,' more associated with washing powder than organic foods by English speakers.

What's more, products packaged in the EU will be able to carry this logo, meaning consumers will not be able to distinguish between organic food from within the bloc and products that come from further away, he added.

Nevertheless, despite concerns over the state of the European organic market, the sector continues to grow, according Eurostat. In 2005 around six million hectares were either farmed organically or were being converted to organic production, an increase of more than 2 per cent on 2004, the analysts said.

Over the same period, the number of organc operators grew by more than six per cent, Eurostat added.

Food Navigator

African farmers miss global meat boom

African farmers are missing out on a global boom in demand for meat products because of out-of-date international regulations.

New research suggests practical options to unlock the potential of the southern African livestock industry and help millions lift themselves out of poverty through trade.

These new “win-win” options for livestock standards and market access would allow farmers to export safe, high quality products to lucrative international markets without increasing the risk of spreading animal disease, such as foot-and mouth.

The African Union is among the top level bodies preparing to make crucial decisions about the livestock sector. But practical options that respond to dynamic change in the global meat industry, market access requirements and disease control have been lacking, until now.

Ahmadu Babagana, Director for Rural Economy and Agriculture, African Union Commission said of the new research: "If the global policy commitments to support Africa’s development are to become real, the international community must understand the potential of new product standards to increase market access for developing countries without increasing risks. This requires renewed commitments from governments and a review of international standard-setting policies.

"If this is done, huge potentials could open up for Africa, particularly southern Africa, attracting new markets and trading partners, private investment for new production technologies and the provision of ethically produced and sourced foods to niche markets. At the African Union, we see a rethink of policies towards livestock production, disease management and control and trade as central to such efforts."

Over the past 18 months, studies in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe have investigated the economic, social and political trade-offs of different scenarios for gaining market access and controlling livestock disease. The research recommends a range of options that can be mixed and matched to support the beef industry, instead of a one-size-fits-all solution for every country.

Options for market access include: trade with the European Union; direct exports to large retailers; export to emerging markets, particularly Asia; regional trade in southern Africa and domestic urban and rural markets. They can be combined with practical disease control options and a more integrated and coordinated approach at regional level.

For example, current European-led 'zero-tolerance' standards insist on disease-free regions, but are too costly and impractical for poor farmers to put in place. Instead, the new research advocates options based on the safety, quality and processing of meat products. Milk, butter, cheese and deboned beef can be traded safely if processing methods are effectively regulated instead of the country’s disease status.

Over-reliance on old colonial trading networks means rapidly growing new markets are being ignored. Demand for meat products is soaring, particularly in China where annual consumption of meat has risen from an average of 20kg/person to 50kg/person since 1985. While global meat and milk production set to double by 2050, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

But massive growth in industrialised production from Brazil and China (for meat) and India (for milk), coupled with Latin America’s superior regional co-ordination and market intelligence, is far outweighing anything Africa can offer: African countries contribute just two per cent of global trade in livestock products. Each year Africa imports US$2.2billion more livestock products than it exports, and this deficit is increasing.

This new research advocates a more joined-up approach, linking regional and governmental support to private sector initiatives. Africa has been poor at negotiating trade standards with international bodies such as the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), World Trade Organisation (WTO) and European Union. A proper place at the table is needed, and needed now.

Unless changes are urgently made, southern Africa risks missing out on the opportunity to benefit from the global 'livestock revolution' and farmers will lose the chance to trade their way out of poverty.

"A major policy rethink is needed. If the full benefits of the 'livestock revolution' are to be captured in southern Africa, new responses and capacities must be developed and inappropriate and out-dated policies must be abandoned," said research co-ordinator Professor Ian Scoones of the Institute of Development Studies, UK.

The Poultry Site

Mars chocolate company sets up 'best practices' farm centre for cocoa in Phillipines

A 10 to 15-hectare "best practices" farm center has been set up in Malagos, Davao City by the world’s largest chocolate maker Mars Inc. in an aim to raise Philippines’ cocoa value to $ 300 million.

Called center of excellence found at the Fuentespina family’s Malagos Garden, the Mars Cocoa development center (MCDC) aims to set up a foundation for teaching farmers the know-how in maximizing yield.

"While the Philippines currently produces 5,000 tons of cocoa, it has the potential to produce 100,000 tons by 2020, making it the second biggest farm export-earner, next to coconut. Mars’ unique expertise in ‘adaptive research’…makes it qualified to demonstrate cocoa sustainability," said Howard Shapiro, Mars global director of plant science and external research.

Best practices components that will be imparted to farmers through the MCDC are germplasm evaluation and breeding, farm rehabilitation methods (such as through side and chupon grafting), good agricultural practices, integrated pest management, cocoa quality management, and post-harvest practices (including drying and fertilization).

Peter van Grinsven, Mars sustainability cocoa supply manager, said cocoa price in the world market has been constantly increasing by three percent yearly as emerging economies like China and India have increased consumption for cocoa luxury goods.

On the other hand, supply has been constricting as production from good producers like Africa has been declining.

A contributor to increasing chocolate consumption is consumers’ recognition of the anti-oxidant content from flavanols in cocoa which makes it ideal for cardiovascular health.

Van Grinsven said the Philippines has a ready market in its Asian neighbors that have cocoa processing plants including Malaysia, Japan, and Indonesia which import a combined 220,000 metric tons of good quality fermented beans from west Africa, source of 70 percent of world’s cocoa.

The Philippines has competitive advantage over Africa in this trade considering its proximity to these countries that require less shipping cost.

A multi-sector supported program called the Sustainable Cocoa Development in the Philippines targets increased production through intercropping of cocoa with coconut on a total of 2.4 million hectares of presently monocropped land.

"With each cocoa tree yielding an average of 1.5 kilos at a farm gate price of $ 2.4 per kilo, a farmer tending one hectare of coconut inter-planted with 600 cocoa trees can earn an additional $ 2,160 a year or 400 percent more than from coconut alone. This answers the rural population’s need for a cash crop," said Shapiro.

One farmer is expected to maintain efficiently two to three hectares of cocoa land intercropped with coconut. Mixed cropping also offers more income stability to farmers compared to mono-cropping.

If at least 10 percent of mono-cropped coconut lands are planted with cocoa, farmers can produce more than 200,000 metric tons for cocoa export which can generate $ 300 million in export earnings.

A 2.4 hectare farm can support a family of six members which will in turn support 600,000 people with their increased income, according to Mars.

Manilla Bulletin

Which tomatoes should you buy: organic or conventional?

You're a concerned, ethical citizen. You care about the impact of your shopping on the environment and your health. So which tomatoes should you buy: organic or conventional?

Until now, most people have assumed that organic is the better choice, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the organic/ conventional distinction fails to draw the line between good and bad - agriculturally, environmentally and nutritionally.

This weekend, the former head of the Food Standards Agency, Lord Krebs, repeated his claim that organic food has no particular health benefits. An FSA spokesman backed him up, saying: "The weight of scientific evidence does not support claims that organic food is more nutritious or safer than conventionally produced food."

A report earlier this year for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also concluded that many organic foods grown in the UK are less energy efficient and more polluting than conventional equivalents.

So the organic tomatoes may have had more of an environmental impact and be no better for you than the conventional ones. Still, supporters of organics have something on their side more powerful than fact: the belief that "natural" is best.

But don't ask hard questions about what is natural and why it should be superior. For example, organic farmers can use the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis for pest control. But the idea that this is intrinsically safer than applying chemicals doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny. What matters is that what farmers use is safe, not whether it is naturally occurring. Arsenic is natural, but I wouldn't sprinkle that on tomatoes.

Another organically-approved pesticide has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's disease when injected into rats. I'm not suggesting this means it is unsafe, but why is it that the precautionary principle only seems to apply to synthetic pesticides?

At a time when the virtues of organic food are being questioned as never before, you might think its supporters would at least want to maintain a clear line about what organic means. Instead, they're trying to muddy the waters even more.

The UK's leading organic certification organisation, the Soil Association, wants to withhold the organic label from some air-freighted produce. Its intentions are noble: we need to reduce carbon emissions to fight climate change. But what has this got to do with organic production? My apple doesn't stop being organic because I take it on a plane to Kuala Lumpur.

The proposals don't even make sense when judged against the objective of reducing carbon in the atmosphere. The Soil Association intends to allow air-freighted produce to be certified as organic if it meets "ethical trading" standards. That would mean that an organic farmer in Ayrshire could produce more CO2 by growing his tomatoes in heated greenhouses than a farmer in Kenya, even allowing for the air freight's emissions, yet he would be allowed to call his produce organic and the Kenyan would not.

Intellectually, then, the very idea of "organic" is a mess. It makes health and environmental claims that cannot be backed up; it distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable pesticides and fertilisers on a crude test of how "natural" they are, rather than on how safe they might be; and it is now making the size of carbon footprint part of the criteria for organics, even though there is no precedent for this and the rules it is proposing make no sense.

So is there anything coherent keeping the organic movement together? Look at what it actually supports and opposes, and a clear vision does emerge: organics is really about resistance to modern technology. Old pesticides, heated greenhouses and trucks are fine, but new chemicals and airplanes are not. The rules about what counts as "organic" are rigged to support a world view in which it is a matter of faith that what is old and traditional is better. No wonder Prince Charles is such a fan.

Consumers are wising up to this, however. People are realising that organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses and sold in plastic containers are not necessarily better than conventional ones trucked in from the Mediterranean to be sold loose. We are all gradually learning to make purchasing decisions on the basis of a more sophisticated understanding of what good, ethical food and farming requires.

The illusion that organic is always the moral, healthy choice is starting to crumble. It's time we grew up and accepted that good, sustainable, ethical food is not guaranteed just because it carries an organic label.

The Herald UK

UK Soil Association's 'folie de grandeur' on food miles

by Dominic Lawson

Was Prince Charles' chum Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, expecting the Kenyan High Commissioner to fall to his knees in gratitude? It rather sounded like it yesterday morning, when the two of them met in a BBC radio studio.

They were there to discuss the Soil Association's proposals to discriminate against the "organic food" which is air freighted into this country, mostly from East Africa. "One option was to ban it altogether," declared Mr Holden, but instead he and his colleagues had decided that such food would only be banned if it was "not produced ethically" – whatever that means.

Of course, this is folie de grandeur on the part of the Soil Association. It cannot, fortunately, "ban" us from buying whatever food we wish to eat. All that Mr Holden really meant was that his organisation would withdraw its certification from foreign farmers whom it deemed to be "unethical." Needless to say, British organic farmers (like Mr Holden CBE) will be subject to no such extra conditions, over and above the standard requirement of not using pesticides or other man-made aids to enhance production.

In so far as this is not just old-style agricultural protectionism, it is all about the fashionable obsession with "food miles." The Soil Association, which evidently sees itself as some sort of global environmental organisation, has been agonising over the fact that the farmers of Africa are using aeroplanes – spawn of the devil! – to freight bona fide "organic" food into this country. Somehow it has convinced itself that this means that the food is not "organic," in the spiritual sense, and so must be "banned."

As the Kenyan High Commissioner, Joseph Muchemi, patiently tried to explain, the carbon emissions from his country's food producers are much less per vegetable than those of British "organic" farmers, even if you factor in the CO2 generated by flying the stuff halfway across the world. "Our farmers use manual labour, not tractors; we use compost rather than inorganic fertilisers," he said.

For some reason, Mr Holden did not want to address this powerful point; instead he asserted that there was really no case at all for "global trade in food," although he allowed that an exception could be made for "things like tea, coffee and bananas – things we can't produce ourselves."

This is the classic argument put by British landowners for the extortion of a monopoly rent from captive local consumers. The great Scottish economist Adam Smith delivered a withering retort to such selfish domestic agricultural interests over two centuries ago: "By means of glasses, hotbeds and hotwalls very good grapes can be raised in Scotland ... would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of Claret and Burgundy in Scotland?"

This sort of thinking lay behind the recent creation of the Icelandic banana industry: the Icelandic government banned banana imports, as a result of which local landowners began to produce them in gigantic greenhouses. They were fabulously expensive, of course, which was not such good news for families who wished to feed their children healthily at a reasonable cost.

Similarly, there are tiny hobby producers of tea and coffee in Great Britain. In Patrick Holden's perfect deglobalised world, we could do with these products what the Icelanders did with bananas. Obviously this would mean that tea and coffee could be enjoyed only by the rich in this country, and Third World producers would suffer a dramatic loss of revenue and employment. This might seem a preposterous example of "self-sufficiency." Yet if we were to allow a fetish with the carbon emissions from airfreight to dominate agricultural policy, then this is the sort of mutual impoverishment that could result.

Let us, for the sake of argument, accept that the Soil Association's members are not merely acting as a trade union for Prince Charles' Duchy Originals and assorted other quaintly expensive British food producers. Let us accept, therefore, that in implementing some sort of discriminatory policy against long-distance air-freighted food, they really do believe that they are trying to "limit the damage of climate change."

Surely it ought to have occurred to them that they will only be hurting the very people whom they affect to be concerned about? After all, it is Africa, not Great Britain, which would suffer from a significant increase in average temperatures – whether caused by man or nature.

As Clare Malamed of the charity Action Aid has pointed out, the "banning of organic green beans from Kenya or mange tout from Zambia" will make no measurable difference to the UK's carbon emissions: "however, there are many poor people in Africa who depend on that trade so, for them, banning organic air freight means less development of the economy and more poverty." Mr Holden complained yesterday that many of the African food exporters are "multinationals;" but even multinationals employ locals.

There is something else quite odd about the Soil Association's position. Its members assert that "organic food" is healthier for the consumer than food which is produced with the aid of pesticides. If they are right, then if low-cost African producers can land such "good" food in this country at a price which is competitive with non-organic local producers, this ought to encourage more people to buy organic, to the great benefit of the public's health.

In fact there has never been any reliable scientific evidence that so-called "organic" food is actually better for you than food produced with the aid of pesticides. Recently, the former head of the Food Standards Agency, Lord Krebs, wearily reiterated that there was no such evidence. Thus last year David Miliband spoke nothing less than the truth when, as Environment Secretary, he described "organic" food as a "lifestyle choice."

On the whole it is a "lifestyle choice" limited to middle-class mothers in the South-east of England who are neurotic enough to believe the insinuations of the Soil Association that little Henry and Caroline are more likely to get cancer if mummy doesn't buy organic (at twice the price).

Now another largely middle-class neurosis – we are all doomed unless everybody stops flying! – is being exploited to protect an archaic form of agriculture which could never feed this country, still less the world. It is, at best, an exercise in self-delusion. At worst, it is a way of using food as the instrument of a deliberate policy of racial discrimination.

The Independent

Is the UK Soil Association concerned about anything more than pocketbooks of its members?

by Tim Worstall

I've long referred to the Soil Association as the trade union for organic farmers. As with all trade unions, their purpose is to increase the incomes of their members at the expense of all those who are not their members.

There's nothing wrong with this, it's simply the working out of the freedom of association which we all enjoy as a natural human right. However, it is important to be clear headed about what they do.

Mrs Thairu, a Kikuyu peasant farmer in her late sixties, and the rest of the village some 15 miles outside the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, will lose their livelihood if the Soil Association takes away their right to put an organic label on their produce because of the “food miles”. Charles Kimani, who farms avocados in the village and was unemployed until the demand for organic food hit Kenya about ten years ago, said: “A ban on our export market will be death for us.”

These Kenyan farmers are using organic methods: however, there's one inconvenient point from the Soil Association view. They're cheaper than British organic produce and thus people consuming organic doesn't lead to the desired higher incomes for SA members as consumers eat the imports. And thus the as yet unsettled debate within the SA as to whether airfreighted food can indeed still be labelled as organic.

As I say, there's nothing wrong with free association: however, there's a little wrinkle here. The Soil Association is the body that decides whether goods can be described as organic or not.

And thus, if airfreighted food is to be denied such certification, we will have the domestic producers protecting themselves, through the law, against foreign competitors. To the benefit of British farmers, to the cost of British consumers, to the cost of the environment and most importantly, causing the penury of those foreign farmers.

Be interesting to see how the decision goes: is the SA really concerned about anything other than the pocketbooks of its members?

The Business Magazine

African farmers may lose livelihoods over food miles campaign

In floppy hat and leaking gumboots, Rahab Thairu makes an unlikely eco-villain as she strolls through thick mud and grass to her banana and avocado plantations.

She has never owned a car, she walks to work and often reads by candle or torchlight, but in the increasingly bizarre battle over who is to blame for climate change Mrs. Thairu and other poor African farmers are in danger of losing their entire livelihood because they export produce by air.

The emotionally charged debate, stoked by Western consumer organisations, runs counter to common sense, at least to farmers in the developing world. World Bank figures show that the average Briton emits 30 times more carbon than a Kenyan.

Mrs Thairu and the other 32 members of the tiny Wangige village farming cooperative use officially approved organic methods, involving compost heaps and dung. “We had never heard of organic farming until they came here and told us what it was called. For us, it is the way our fathers and grandfathers farmed. If they take it away from us now it will be terrible. The local buyers will offer us bad prices because they know we have nowhere else to go,” she said.

Mrs Thairu, in her late sixties, and the rest of the village some 15 miles outside the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, will lose their livelihood if the Soil Association takes away their right to put an organic label on their produce because of the “food miles”. Charles Kimani, who farms avocados in the village and was unemployed until the demand for organic food hit Kenya about ten years ago, said: “A ban on our export market will be death for us.”

The food miles lobby argues that air-freighting food emits more CO2 than any other method of transport. It says that to fly 1kg of green beans from Nairobi to London takes 4kg of carbon. But Cranfield University has calculated that growing roses in Kenya and flying them to Britain actually saves more carbon than if they were grown in a greenhouse in Britain or the Netherlands, with their high energy costs and need for heating.

The Times - UK

Fraudsters making quick buck off "organic" label in South Africa

Food fraudsters are making a quick buck on food passed off as “organic.”

Diana Callear, the managing director of Ecocert-Afrisco, an international organic-food certifying body, said there a number of fraudulent organic food producers in South Africa.

And due to a lack of legislation governing the industry, they can’t be stopped.

The legislation that prescribes the minimum requirements organic food producers must adhere to has still to be passed. This means producers can pass uncertified food off as organic, and claim “organic” status on their food labels, says Callear.

The law is in draft form and has been sent to the World Trade Organisation for approval, before the bill can be made into law in South Africa, she said. Until then, consumers will have to be wary of what they buy.

“Most of the big retailers, such as Woolworths and Pick n Pay, are careful. They make sure the products they buy are certified,” Callear said. “Corner shops are where it’s happening the most, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.”

Crispin Jackson, an organic fruit and vegetable farmer near Johannesburg, said many producers claimed organic status on food labels, because it meant they could charge more for their products. He said, “There must be a certification logo and number on the label. A statement saying ‘Certification Held at Source’ is meaningless.”

Callear suggests consumers ask in stores for “certified organic” food rather than just “organic” food.

One of the reasons behind the false claims is that certification is an expensive process.

“It’s difficult to get certification from a reputable certifier for less than R7000 a year,” Callear said.

Ernest Klokow, general manager of Organics SA, said the organisation cannot penalise producers for false claims until the legislation is passed. The best it can do is ask the producer to stop the false labelling, and threaten to publicise the fact they are not certified producers.

“When the law is in place we can take legal action,” Klokow said. “Local certifiers are using European standards, but there are still discrepancies,” he said.

The Times, SA

Europe reconsiders biofuels target

Europe's environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said it would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment.

Recent reports have warned of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production. The EU has promised new guidelines to ensure that its target is not damaging.

A couple of years ago biofuels looked like the perfect get-out-of-jail free card for car manufacturers under pressure to cut carbon emissions. Instead of just revolutionising car design they could reduce transport pollution overall if drivers used more fuel from plants which would have soaked up CO2 while they were growing.

The EU leapt at the idea - and set their biofuels targets. Since then reports have warned that some biofuels barely cut emissions at all - and others can lead to rainforest destruction, drive up food prices, or prompt rich firms to drive poor people off their land to convert it to fuel crops.

"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully," Dimas said. "We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels."

He said the EU would introduce a certification scheme for biofuels and promised a clampdown on biodiesel from palm oil which is leading to forest destruction in Indonesia.

Some analysts doubt that "sustainable" palm oil exists because any palm oil used for fuel simply swells the demand for the product oil on the global market which is mainly governed by food firms.

BBC