Kenyan Ban On GM Crops To Be Lifted

Genetically modified organism (GMO) crops and products soon will be allowed in Kenya, where a ban on the technology has been in place since 2012.

While Kenya has made significant progress on GMOs in terms of enacting watertight regulations and controlled research on crops such as Bt maize, Bt cotton, cassava, sorghum, and sweet potato, the ban has meant the country cannot progress to the commercialization stage.

For the East African nation the move toward lifting the ban is timely and well informed. It comes hot on the heels of widespread studies that have validated the safety of GM crops and repudiated the Seralini paper, the controversial study by Gilles-Eric Seralini that alleges GMOs cause cancer and which Kenya used in justifying the ban.

For Kenya, lifting the ban would mean the country is only the fourth nation in Africa to allow commercialization of GM crop, following South Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria.

South Africa allows for food crops in the form of biotech maize, soybeans, and cotton, while Sudan allows biotech cotton. Nigeria has become the latest country to allow GM crops, with open cultivation of cotton and cowpea.

Full article...

South Africa Says Monsant's 'Drought Tolerant' GM Maize Seed No Better Than Conventional Seed

South Africa's Agriculture Minister, Thoko Didiza, has upheld a decision to reject agriculture chemical company Monsanto's application for the commercial cultivation of its triple stacked ‘drought-tolerant’ maize seed.

The maize is genetically modified (GM) to be tolerant to drought as well as resistant to certain insects.

Didiza made a final decision on an appeal lodged by Monsanto SA against the decision taken by the executive council regarding the general release application of a GM maize event, MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603.

Its refusal was based on the fact "that kernel count per row and kernel count per ear showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 maize event and conventional maize in water limited conditions.

"The yield benefits associated with the MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 maize event were inconsistent and in some trials the MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 maize event had lower yields than the conventional maize.

"The insect resistance data presented was insufficient since it was only collected from one trial site for two planting seasons," her department said in a statement issued October 04 m2019 .

Monsanto lodged an appeal in November against the refusal of its general release application by the executive council.

The appeal board upheld the decision to refuse the application and recommended more sites and seasons were needed to demonstrate efficacy of the drought tolerance gene.

On August 28, Didiza made the final decision, upholding the appeal board's decision "and as such the refusal of a general release application for the MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 maize event is sustained".

The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) welcomed the "landmark decision", after more than a decade of "battling Monsanto’s bogus drought tolerant maize project".

The decision, it said, was a "triumphant win" for the ACB and other civil society organisations on the continent that had "tirelessly resisted the introduction of these GM varieties in SA, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

"The Minister's decision was made following the abject failure of the GM varieties to increase yield under drought conditions during repeated field trials in SA.

Full article...

Ethiopia Is Embracing GMOs Slowly, Quietly

Global conglomerates of farm inputs, seeds, fertilizer, GMO crops providers, are coming to Ethiopia. Are they bringing a miraculous solution to the country’s food security problem, as they claim or delayed toxicity, as detractors argue?

Twenty-five large French companies and entities in the agricultural field will be making an exploratory visit to Ethiopia from 15 September to 19 September 2019, according to the Ethiopian Embassy in France.

Most of them are from an international agricultural co-operative called Limagrain Group, a group of radical rural campaigners claiming to be in favour of open-field [GM] experiments. Established as a cooperative, the French group is active in the field of vegetable seeds and field crops (corn, wheat, etc.) via the Vilmorin listed company, of which it controls 72.5% of the capital.

The company has been providing the corn and soybean seeds that it develops in similar climates in Latin America and Asia to West African countries such as Cameroon, Mali and Senegal. More than 330,000 tons of grain are processed each year in seven production plants across Europe, according to Limagrain.

In 2014, Limagrain invested up to US$60 million for a 28% stake in SeedCo, one of Africa’s largest home-grown seed companies, despite opposition from certain corners. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), a Pan African platform comprising networks and farmer organizations described Limagrain’s move as an attempt to devour the continent’s seed company through acquisition and neo-colonial occupation by the French to benefit from SeedCo’s involvement in input subsidy schemes in Africa.

The Ethiopian officials consider the arrival of multinational companies in the agricultural and other sectors as a welcome move in a bid to help the country become self-sufficient and potentially exporters of food.

However, critics say some fundamental issues, such as the effects of the imported seeds, fertilizers and genetically modified crops, and the ecological, economic impacts of introducing new plants into the environment are being glossed over for the sake of presenting it all in a positive light.

“Whoever controls the seed market controls the food supply and the people. Technology can be good if properly utilized, but the issue of power concentration in few hands is worrying”, says Teshome Hunduma, who is currently doing research on seed system development from Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Farmers cannot save and reuse hybrid seeds as the yield decreases when recycled. They have to buy every year and this creates dependency.

Limagrain describes its products, not as GMO but rather seed selection and varietal cross-breeding to offer more productive varieties. Explaining the nature and virtue of those grain and seeds, Frédéric Savin, Limagrin’s Africa director says “It is a hybrid variety. It offers substantial progress. Compared with the local variety, the result is nearly double.” Teshome agrees with Mr. Savin on the high yield that farmers get from hybrid seeds. The problem is that “farmers cannot save and reuse hybrid seeds as the yield decreases when recycled. They have to buy every year and this creates dependency. Which means it is risky when the company fails to supply seeds due to various reasons and decide on the price of these seeds. Farmers prefer open-pollinated varieties for the purpose of saving and reuse,” explains Teshome.

Even in its own turf, the company has been facing resistance and opposition from a broad range of farm, consumer, environmental and health organizations. In January 2018, Limagrain’s two plots of wheat had been destroyed in Seine-et-Marne, France by mowers who accused of the company running “hidden GMOs.” The company lamented that its one year of field trials was lost, costing it around one million euros.

Limagrain is not completely new to Ethiopia. It has already been collaborating with an intermediary, an Israeli-based NGO (some say a lobbyist), Fair Planet to provide seeds to Ethiopian farmers for the past three years.

On its website, Fair Planet says it works to “increase food security and provide new economic opportunities for smallholder farmers in developing countries, through access to high-quality seed varieties.” To secure those seeds, Fair Planet partners with the global agribusiness conglomerates. Other than Limagrain, these include Switzerland’s Syngenta, Netherland’s Enza Zaden and East-West Seed, Germany’s Bayer-Monsanto. Whether big multinational companies selling seeds to small farmers are the solution remain a question among certain professionals.

Stating that the subsistence farming method in Ethiopia is inefficient and marked by significantly lower yields, Fair Planet claims that farmers working with it can increase productivity more than five times and increase income up to eight times. However, AFSA objects to this characterization. “The vast bulk of food produced on the continent comes from homegrown farmers’ seeds (some studies put the figure at 80%). If these seeds are so “backward,” what moves farmers to keep preserving and planting them?” it asks in one of its newsletters.

BASF, another German chemical group and the world’s third-largest crop chemicals supplier, has also been active in the Ethiopian vegetable seed business since August 2018. Abnet Belachew, country manager to Ethiopia with BASF trade office said that the group works to complete the agricultural solutions concentrated around biological and chemical deliverables, soil fertility enhancement and pest and diseases protections. In addition to products that help deter infestations of fall armyworm in maize, BASF has been supplying diverse pesticides for crop protection, he said.

Yet BASF’s genetically modified products have not been always welcomed in Europe. Three of the first genetically modified potatoes were forbidden from being sold in Europe in January 2013, forcing the company to withdraw its applications for marketing authorization in the European Union.

Ethiopia has long been resisting genetically modified organisms and food options that are often adulterated by pesticides, despite intensive lobbying, often by the purveyors of GMO seeds, multi-national giants. However, all indications are it is now succumbing to the promises of GMOs, gradually and discretely.

Corteva Agriscience, the agriculture division of the American brand DowDuPont, opened its office in Addis Ababa in mid-April, 2019. The company says it is focused on bringing farmers “best-in-class seeds and crop protection solutions”, to maximize the farmer’s yields and improve their profitability in these markets, as it was stated at the launching ceremony.

However, what was not mentioned was how lawmakers in several states of the USA were trying to ban one of its products, a pesticide called chlorpyrifos that said to kill insects on contact by attacking their nervous systems. “Several studies have linked prenatal exposure of chlorpyrifos to lower birth weights, lower IQs, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other developmental issues in children,” Ana B. Ibarra wrote on Governing website.

The entrance of those companies in the Ethiopian agriculture sector would have major ramifications, specialists say. Teshome Hunduma told Ethiopia Observer the discussions related to GMOs have always been a sustainability question i.e. whether they are environmentally safe, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable or not.

He says there is also an issue of power balance between multinational companies that have control over the technology through intellectual property rights such as patents and weak governments in the Global South like Ethiopia and their subsistence farmers.

In Ethiopia, one person particularly was key in trying to keep genetically modified crops at bay through adamant and active opposition: Dr. Tewolde B. Gebre Egziabher. The man who served as Ethiopia’s General Manager for Environmental Protection Authority for more than two decades actively took part in international negotiations for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to safeguard biodiversity and defend traditional rights of farmers and communities to their crop diversity. The CBD was finalized in 1992.

Tewolde led the African and Like-Minded Group in negotiations for what was called Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety finally agreed in Montreal, Canada in 2000. In Ethiopia, he initiated and worked to enact a biosafety proclamation in 2009 based on precautionary principles as a foundation for GMO regulation system to avoid potential social, economic and environmental risks.

However, in 2014, Ethiopia approved the commercial cultivation of genetically modified insect-resistant BT cotton and field research on GM maize. “The amendment of the law was not because Ethiopia was keen on biotechnology research or because it had the capacity to ensure the use of GMOs that may have adverse effects on biological diversity and subsistence farmers,” Teshome says. Rather the government has made the amendment to allow GM pest-resistant plant cotton variety, which produces an insecticide to kill bollworm namely BT cotton to meet the growing textile industry in Ethiopia, Teshome said.

However, Teshome explained, the Ethiopian government has not used an independent study that examines the experience of other countries on the benefits and risks of BT cotton when it amended its biosafety law. “We know that BT cotton failed in Burkina Faso due to loss of its insect-resistant traits and yield potential over time,” he added.

In recent years, government officials began working to develop a legislative mechanism, while practising GMO variety testing. Whether the genetically modified plants should be treated like their conventional equivalents or should a precautionary approach should be taken has to be decided.

For Teshome, even the regulatory system is not up to the standard in Ethiopia and the institutional arrangement is inconvenient as mandates are shared between the Ministry of Agriculture, and Environment, Forest and Climate Change Commission (currently under the Prime Minister’s office). Ethiopia needs to get its institutional arrangement right and address the public concern around the technology, he concluded.

Ethiopian Observer

Namibia's 2019 Maize Harvest A 'Catastrophe'

In the absence of the much needed late rains in March, maize producers in Namibia will only be able to supply less than 30 percent (some 30 000 tonnes) of local demand. This will be some 25 000 tonnes less than last year when the country harvested 57 000 tonnes and supplied 47 percent of domestic demand.
The CEO of Namib Mills and Namib Poultry, Ian Collard, says Namibia requires roughly 120 000 tonnes of white maze for human consumption and some 50 000 tonnes of yellow maize for animal fodder.

... Namibia will have to import some 180 000 tonnes of maize this season. The most lucrative of these products is white maize, and the local marketing scheme ensures local millers must first use all local white maize before the deficit can be imported.
Due to the government’s agreement with producers and manufacturers the harvest increased from some 5 000 tonnes in the 1990s to more than 10 times that in 2018, but this season everything has been undone.

Collard says yields are lower in Namibia due to rainfall, soil quality, farm practices as well as the fact that only non-genetically modified organism (GMO) seed is allowed to be planted in the country.

Full article...

Nigeria: Gene Modified Crops Debate Rages

... many African countries are reluctant to approve the use of GMOs.



Nigeria officially signed the Biosafety Bill into law in 2015, making it eligible to join the league of nations that are already using genetic engineering (GE), also called genetic modification (GM), to boost food production. Since then, there has been a protracted debate over the application of genetically modified crops into the food system in Nigeria. These protracted debates over their use and possible dangers have birthed two groups- Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO.

Despite the clear link between agricultural productivity and technology, there are, however, uncertainties and confusion in government responses to a wide range of agricultural, health, social, economic and environmental issues associated with the application and regulation of modern biotechnology in agricultural practice.


[..there is..] growing opposition by a coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) against the introduction of GMOs in the country.

Director of Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Mr. Nnimo Bassey, argued that use of gene drive organisms has the potential of wiping off whole species of organisms. He argued that doors will be open for all sorts of synthetic organisms to be released or experimented on in Nigeria.

President of the Nigeria Institute of Food, Science and Technology (NIFST), Dahiru Adamu, said,

“genetically modified seeds would make it impossible for our local seedlings to be productive for farmers and the nation. Once we allow genetically modified seeds to come into Nigeria to be planted by our farmers, which may mark the end of Nigeria. This is because by the time these seedlings are planted, one, two to five years, it will compare with our local seedlings and will not allow them to germinate. This will lead us to buying seeds from them and therefore, hold us to ransom, and become the determinant factor whether the country gets food or not and in turn become a big problem for the country.” .

...the Managing Director of Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), a leading health, legal and environmental organisation, Prof. Philip C. Njemanze, said, “In an environment like Nigeria where corruption prevails, the biotechnology companies could bribe officials to look the other way on crucial information on the health hazards of GMO crops.”

Njemanze said, “The rising rate of cancers, infertility, mental diseases, and autistic spectrum disorders in children in Nigeria is related to the increasing use of Monsanto Roundup pesticide – Glysophate. The pesticide when used kills weeds but spares GMO crops.”

However, pro-GMO civil society groups led by the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Consortium (NBBC) has said the development of the Pod-Borer Resistant Cowpea (PBR-Cowpea), a GMO product is a confirmation of our expertise in Nigeria to be able to provide a home grown solution to our pest and diseases problems in agriculture.

President of NBBC Celestine Aguoru argued that the modification of beans, just one crop, has brought so many benefits to the country. He said: “The benefits include reduction in the use of dangerous chemicals, protection of Nigeria’s position as the largest producer of beans.

“Reduction in the spending of Nigeria’s foreign exchange in the purchase of over 500,000 tons of beans annually from other countries. Farmers can now heave a sigh of relief from chemicals which they have to spray about 10 times for each beans season and that Nigeria is going to save a lot of foreign exchange used in the importation of chemicals,” said Aguoru.

He further said: “We are also using this platform to call on the federal government to ignore the call by the non-scientific activists to ban the GM beans because it is safe and poses no proven harm to human or animals. We urge the Federal Government to increase budgetary allocations to universities and research institutes to enable them undertake research that meets national aspirations as we have seen in this case of PBR Cowpea.

Full article...










https://www.blueprint.ng/much-ado-about-genetically-modified-food/

Round one million of pro- GMO vs. anti-GMO battle: Colin Todhunter vs. Tony Trewavas

Pro-GMO versus anti-GMO is an epic fight that is featured in many articles on this website. One group says gene-modified crops are the salvation for Africa (and the world's) agricultural and food security issues, the other group says GMOs are causing the sky to fall. Naturally, both sides have what they consider to be absolutely iron-clad 'evidence' to back up their view. Each side heatedly accuses the other of either being too dumb and/or naive to see things properly (i.e. 'my way') or believes the other side to be evil tools of the devil.

There are no new pro or anti-GM arguments in GMOs: Where Does Science Begin and Lobbying End?, nor in the article to which it is a response, Genetic Engineering. Where does Science End and Lobbying begin? A Response to a Prominent pro-GMO scientist, which in turn is a response to,  “So You Want to Help Africa Mr Paterson? Then Stop Promoting Ideology and Falsehoods to Push GMOs.”

The antagonists are feverishly passionate in making their pro or anti arguments, but all those arguments are the standard ones that followers of the battle have been presented with over the years.

African Agriculture

Virus-resistant gene-modified cassava developed

A Swiss team has developed a strain of cassava resistant to cassava mosaic disease and cassava brown streak virus.

The gene-modification technology involved to accomplish is being shared with laboratories in several African countries. It is hoped that this 'localization' of the techniques will help to overcome some of the resistance that many African countries have shown to gene modification.

It is not yet clear when the GM cassava will be available for cultivation.

full article...Scidev.net

The campaign against GMOs, biotechnology is based on misinformation and fear

Everybody seems to come to the debate with their minds already made up one way or the other, but the discussion for or against GMOs is as heated and passionate as it ever was.

Alex Berezow gives his reasons and examples of why he feels "the world must embrace GMOs."

Among his points:

* gene modification of rice to produce more beta-carotene (vitamin A precursor) will save the eyesight of many people around the world each year

* banana bacterial wilt has defied solution, threatening many livelihoods. Incorporating pepper genes has shown such promise at making bananas resistant to wilt that the Ugandan government has waived its opposition to GMOs for field trials to take place

* genetic modification saved Hawaii's papaya industry from the papaya ringspot virus


* Anti-biotechnology groups mislead the public about GMOs by downplaying the known benefits while overhyping small, theoretical risks

The arguments are as old and standard as those of the opponents of GMOs, but this is obviously a discussion that is not going away.


African Agriculture

As Kenya officially accepts GM technology, anti-GM activists shift focus to mandatory labeling

Kenya made big headlines in mid 2011 when the the government made it legal to import gene-modified maize. Many were surprised by the development but shouldn't have been. It was the culmination of several years of behind the scenes work at several levels to bring Kenya into the GM fold. In the next few years it is expected that the local cultivation of a number of GM crops, euphemistically said to be undergoing 'trials' for the last few years, will also be legalized.

This is a done deal from which there is no going back, but that doesn't mean that all Kenyans are happy about it. The legalization of GM maize imports was a stunning repudiation of the arguments of anti-GM activists. Having lost the battle to keep GM food and cultivation out, they have now moved their tactics to trying to push for mandatory labeling of GM food, the idea being that consumers can make an informed choice about what they consume. It is questionable whether any significant proportion of consumers in most countries worry about reading the ingredients-list on food they buy, but the anti-GM people can't be seen to have totally surrendered the fight. Besides, full disclosure of the contents of food sold to the public sounds like a perfectly reasonable enough demand, although the GM foods lobby in countries like the U.S. has been fiercely against such measures.     

An official of the African Biodiversity Network (ABN) has recently poked holes in the argument that the great East African drought and subsequent maize crisis in Kenya is what partly spurred the legalization of previously banned imports of GM maize.

Ann Maina asks why GM maize imports were allowed when Kenyan farmers in the country's maize surplus areas were not able to find markets for their crop during the national shortage of 2011. She also says the price of the imported GM maize was much higher than that of then locally available non-GM maize.

Maina's implication is that the the decision to allow imports of GM maize into Kenya had nothing to do with maize security concerns.

 In maize-dependent countries, the importation of this staple crop is often a fraught, controversial exercise often plagued with accusations of a long line of politically connected middle-men all wanting a piece of the action. In many countries, the longer the importation chain, the more opportunities for the many levels of middle-men to profit (and profiteer) from the process.

Maina also points out what she says are other irregularities about the GM maize importation decision and the process.

Writes Maina, 'In the US now, there is a big push to label GM foods and Kenya is also in the process of doing so. It is fundamental that we ensure our population have a right to choose the kind of food they want to eat. It is thus important that Kenya be not used as a dumping ground or human testing ground for GM varieties that have been rejected elsewhere.'

All these arguments are coming rather late in Kenya. For better or for worse, the local and international political and commercial forces allied together to put Kenya firmly in the GM camp have arguably won a victory that the anti-GM activists can do very little about now. It will be interesting to see if the calls for GM food labeling in Kenya make much headway, and if so, if they will make much difference to consumers.

African Agriculture 

South Africa to require labeling of GM foods

In the African countries where GM foods are a discussion topic at all, it is usually whether it is 'good' or 'bad' to allow their importation/use/cultivation. In South Africa, GM crops have been a fact of life for years.

South African anti-GM activists accept that the toothpaste cannot be put back in its tube. The African Centre for Biosafety has therefore been fighting a long battle for at least consumers to be informed which products have gene-modified ingredients, so that those who are so inclined can make an informed choice to avoid them.

The South African government has now published suggested changes to make it a requirement for any processed foods with more than 5% GM ingredients to state on the label, 'contains genetically modified ingredients or components.'

To require labeling or not to has been as globally controversial as almost everything else about GM foods. Proponents advocate labeling on the basis of consumers' right to know, while some warn that the enforcement of regulations is an issue because of the cost and complexity involved.  

In a country where GM-containing foods are already widely consumed, knowingly or unknowingly, it remains to be seen if labeling will have any effect on buyer behaviour.

African Agriculture

Zimbabwe farmers' group calls for acceptance of gene-modified seed

The Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union has called on the government to drop its long-held opposition to GM seed and cultivation in order ' to increase agricultural output.'

Despite the government's opposition, many maize and soya bean products imported from neighbouring South Africa are on ZImbabwe's store shelves. A significant proportion of those crops grown in South Africa are of the GM variety. It is argued that this effectively obviates much of the government's reasons for keeping the GM ban in force.

How much the adoption of GM seed on its own improve yields will remain as heatedly contentious in Zimbabwe as anywhere else. Zimbabwe's farming problems involve much more complicated factors than the differences between hybrid seed (widely used) and GM seed.

For several years Zimbabwe has experienced deficits of the main staple crop, maize. Yet neighbouring countries Malawi and Zambia, which also officially frown on GM seed and use exclusively hybrid (or farmer-saved) seed have both experienced maize bumper harvests in recent years. Apart from the merits or demerits of GM crops for Zimbabwe, the focus on that one variable as 'the solution' to Zimbabwe's farming woes may be to merely miss the focus on where the real reasons for the country's relatively poor agricultural performance lie.

But the mere call by a senior official of an important farmers' representative group is significant. Until recently
there had been little discussion about GM crops, and the views of opponents in government and in 'civil society' had predominated. That has begun to change quite rapidly in the last year or two.

Amongst the reasons for the government's (or at least the agriculture minister's) continued opposition to GM crops is the standard 'burden of proof-of-their-being-unharmful-to-human-health argument. This is largely neutralized by the fact that any harmful effects to the population are already setting in if large parts of the population are already consuming many products with imported GM maize or soya beans.

The other argument is to protect Zimbabwe's fairly advanced hybrid seed multiplication industry. The country's annual hybrid seed requirement is put at 50,000 tonnes. The seed companies report they currently have stocks in excess of that by 20,000.

But there is no evidence that the seed companies necessarily appreciate their 'protection' from GM seeds by the government. In fact, one head of the (currently hybrid) seed industry has publicly said that they are ready and eager to go into the production of GM seed if and when regulatory approval is given. They do not see hybrid and GM seed production as being mutually exclusive

All these are signs that sooner or later GM crops-farming is coming to Zimbabwe.

African Agriculture

Mozambique to grow GM cotton with help from China

Mozambique and China are expected in November to conclude negotiations on introducing genetically-modified cotton into the African country, according to Mozambican daily newspaper Correio da Manhã.

At that time a delegation of technicians from the Mozambique Cotton Institute (IAM) and the Mozambican Institute of Agricultural Research (IIAM) is due to travel to China to conclude negotiations, which will be followed by the first tests, initially in the district of Morrumbala, in Zambézia province.

According to the IAM, genetically-modified varieties of cotton are being tested in 57 countries, involving over 14 million farmers and test fields cover an estimated area of 134 million hectares.

The IAM’s projections show that in 2013 Mozambique is expected to earn US$47.5 million from cotton exports, which this year are expected to total an estimated US$43.2 million.

Club of Mozambique

French study says GM foods cause Frankenstein rats

Many people react to studies about the claimed harm or benefits of gene-modified crops according to whether they are for or against the technology. Besides, ten different people being presented with the same basic data can interpret it in ten different ways.

So this French study about how GM foods cause organ cancer in rats will probably not sway GM believers/non-believers from one side to the other. But the UK Daily Mail carries the story with some  fascinating pictures of misshapen rats.

'Frankenfoods' argument is weak, ineffective basis for questioning gene modification's suitability for Africa

Chido Makunike

Amongst the repertoire of arguments that anti-GM food opponents use is that there is ‘proof,’ or at least the risk that people who eat them will/may become two-headed monsters.

No matter how genuinely held this worry is, this is an argument that simply sidetracks the discussion from the many more solid, more provable bases for asking tough questions about whether it is wise for Africa to take the no-return path of adopting GM farming.

For every argument that opponents provide to prove/suggest the harmful effects of GM crops on human health, proponents can provide a just-as-hard-to-disprove counter argument. There are ‘conclusive scientific arguments’ that can be used to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed conclusions. People generally choose which ones to believe and cite based on their pre-conceived ideas about GM technology, not any sort of basis that can be agreed on by all sides as being anywhere near to being considered objective.

The reference to GM foods as being ‘Frankenfoods’ is catchy but not particularly helpful to a rational discussion (if that is even still possible) of the pros and cons of GM technology. Besides, for example, South African maize is now almost all GM now, with possibly significant amounts of it quietly ‘leaking’ into many of the neighboring countries that are officially opposed to GM crops. Whatever problems South Africa has, there are not yet reports of two-headed monsters there that can be attributed to consuming ‘Frankenmaize.’

So no matter how passionate GM opponents are about this issue, they may be actually weakening their position by basing it on a point on which the empirical evidence available to the average person suggests is just not true.

Of course, there could be subtle, more long-term harmful effects building up, but anti-GM activists are not in a strong position to use this level of ‘caution’ to make their point. This may be a point better suited to opposition to GM in richer countries, rather than countries where the main issue is the immediate, provable health danger of food insecurity!

Real, today, more clearly Africa-appropriate questions about GM crops in Africa include:

* What protection do farmers have in the real-world, increasingly frequent scenario where producers do everything right, but have a disastrous farming season because of failed, vastly reduced or ‘mistimed’ rain? Farmers lose their much higher expenditure on GM seed and required accompanying inputs, and yet don’t have the currently available fallback option to save seed to try again the following season. Amongst farmers in any country this would be a big setback, but for poor farmers in a developing countries, this can spell long-term disaster.

* If the promised higher yields with GM seeds prove to be a reality rather than a mirage, will those higher yields really cover the higher costs? 20% higher yields are not much good if they are at the cost of 25% higher inputs and other production costs. In the currently experimental, subsidized early state of luring African countries to accept GM crops, this is a question that is usually dodged, and that would anyway be hard to get definitive answers to yet. In any case, production costs will vary from place to place,and from season to season. But one thing that will no longer be changeable is that many of the current coping strategies for lean times will no longer be applicable when GM seeds are the basis of production.

If when the answer comes and it is negative (about cost-recovery.profit-making with GM seeds vs conventional hybrid or own-saved seed), the affected farmers will not have the option to simply go back to their own-saved seed. The hard (impossible?) reversibility is one reason why GM cropping is far more potentially disastrous in an African setting of poor, mostly small holder farmers than in countries with industrial, often directly or indirectly government-supported industrial farmers.

* Promoters of GM make a big deal about how seeds will be ‘gifted’ to African farmers by subsidized prices and less onerous license protection efforts than applied in richer countries. This shows they recognize that the pricing of their product will be a problem for African farmers, who already struggle to afford non-GM hybrid seed and other inputs.

The history of agricultural subsidies in Africa is that they are almost never ‘permanent.’ What happens when the ‘subsidies’ that are being promised now to win over opponents are lifted and farmers must bear the full costs of the GM seeds and related inputs on their own?

The answers to this from India and elsewhere are mixed, but there is enough clear evidence that this is a real, potentially big problem that cannot be simply swept aside. Bt cotton may have increased India’s cotton yields, but it is just as true that it has left farmer/human/environmental devastation in its wake. That is not an opinion, it is simply the mixed reality of GM technology in poor countries.

A cotton farmer in Burkina Faso may not care whether his GM cotton will mutate into a Franken tee-shirt that eats its wearer. But whether he will be able to continue to afford the seed, fertilizer and other chemicals to sustain his cultivation of GM cotton will hold his interest and is more likely to influence his pro or anti-stance.

Likewise, a mother struggling to feed her children in a country whose government opposes GM farming will not care whether the maize that is availed to her is of the Frankenfood or the normal variety.

Transposing pro or anti-GM arguments from Western countries onto the situation in Africa simply shows how far removed the arguers are from practical local realities, whether because of distance or because they are passionate activists, but whose livelihoods don’t actually depend on farming.

There are genuine reasons to be fairly questioning of the advisability for Africa of taking up GM crops, of whether the promised benefits will more than make up for the very real potential pitfalls. But unfortunately, those genuine, most relevant reasons for skepticism are not the ones that are put forward. This works to the disadvantage of almost everybody with a stake in how the pro versus anti-GM turns out, which is really everybody.

African Agriculture

If the price of cotton fell by more than 50% since you planted, would you bother to harvest your crop?

Farming is a business, various ‘experts’ constantly tell farmers, as if they didn’t already know.

Other ‘experts’ preach the religion of the free market to governments, warning them to resist the temptation to interfere in the pricing or marketing of crops.

Here’s a current, real world example of how it is neither easy nor straightforward for governments to leave small scale farmers completely to the whims of the market.

Global cotton prices have slumped this year. Farmers in an area of Zambia who took up cultivation of the ‘white gold’ cash crop are in deep trouble because this year’s selling price is as low as half of last year’s. This is obviously a calamity for them.

The economics of the crop are so bad this year that the cotton farmers in Bbondo ward are reported to be leaving their ripe crop un-harvested in the fields, with some considering burning it.

As ZANIS (news agency) reports, ‘The farmers have decided to suffer double loss by not harvesting the crop only to sell at a give-away price.’

They are being urged to at least harvest the crop for storage, possibly for a time of better prices. That sounds like perfectly logical advice, but it assumes that the farmer can afford to hire labor to harvest and store the crop. This assumption is probably invalid where the bottom has fallen out of the cotton market. An already indebted farmer (seed, pesticides, fertilizer) who has no prospect of recovering his costs and paying his debts, let alone making a profit, must ponder if it makes sense for him to sink deeper into debt to harvest a crop that is a write-off for him anyway, no matter what he does now. And even if he wanted, the usual sources of credit (inputs vendors, family or local loan sharks, etc) are probably largely closed off anyway in a situation where everybody knows how low cotton prices are.

Some of these farmers abandoned maize to grow cotton. Zambia’s maize bumper harvests of recent years have been great for the country’s food security, but surplus means the price for farmers aren’t so great. Although the maize price is controlled by government to try to strike a balance between affordable prices for consumers and a motivating price for farmers, this is not an airtight system.

When the market is flooded, the producer price drops, especially in remote areas where the power of government edicts is often only theoretical. The government may announce a minimum price, but whether they will come to your remote village to buy your maize at that price is something else altogether. You may have to sell to private sector middle-men, whose offered price will be much lower than the government price in a time of surplus.

So these farmers have lost in a number of disastrous ways. They encounter not just huge losses on their cotton, but many of them possibly ruin, or at least years-long hardship from an investment that went very sour. Even if they would like to salvage their crop by harvesting and storing it, they may not be able to afford the added labor costs/losses of doing so. It is a sign of how bad the situation is when a farmer who has tended his or her crop in harsh conditions for months contemplates cutting his losses by abandoning it!

For those farmers who abandoned maize cultivation to devote all their resources to cotton, the situation is even more grave. They put all their eggs in one basket so cannot count on at least some income from maize proceeds. If they had counted on the ‘extra’ income from cotton for purchasing their maize needs, they don’t have that money and they don’t have any household maize stocks to fall back on.

Well, that’s how business is. Sometimes you win big, other times you lose big. ‘Farming is a business,’ tough luck, better luck next time, end of story.

But it cannot be the end of the story for the government concerned. It must be seen to be doing what it can to soften the blow for the farmers.

A councillor in Bbondo ward ‘has called on government to intervene in the pricing process and consider the plight of cotton farmers by adjusting the cotton price upwards.’

The free market/IMF-type response to this is that governments shouldn’t interfere in the workings of the market by fixing or shoring up prices. (At least in poor countries-rich countries are allowed to suspend the religion of free markets when it suits them-subsidies, price various supports, etc.)

The government may not be able to save the situation for these farmers, but neither can it be seen to have completely abandon them simply because that is the free market gospel according to the IMF and others.

The farmers have learned some very expensive lessons which they will no doubt be incorporating into how they do things in future, but they are also in deep trouble now, not tomorrow.

At least the farmers hadn’t planted GM cotton, whose itnputs costs are far higher, and whose seed cannot be saved in case you don’t have the money to buy new seed the following season, as is likely the case for the cotton farmers of Bbondo ward. But with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) on the loose and with a presence in Zambia, it may be just a matter of time before the famous/infamous ‘Bt cotton’ is introduced. It will be recalled that the higher (often borrowed) costs of growing GM cotton have caused many farmer suicides in India when things didn’t go according to plan.

When the selling price of your crop drops as much as it has done with cotton this year, the ‘old fashioned,’ scorned, ‘low-yielding’ non-GM seed currently in use may be remembered with much fondness for a bad year still giving them the possibility to battle on the following year. Ts he armchair agriculturalists in various salaried isalaists ethose who say it is

African Agriculture

Gates Foundation and Monsanto: when a non-profit gets in bed with the enemy

For opponents of GM crops in particular and of Monsanto’s business methods in general, whatever good work the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing in the areas of health and agriculture around the world is neutralized by its shareholding in the famous/infamous/notorious giant seed company.

 The Gates Foundation weakly argues that its philanthropic and business arms are quite separate and do not influence each other. The many anti-GM crops people who are unconvinced by this find it much more logical to see the foundation, through its Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), as part of the early work for Monsanto, a company with a generally poor image, to get a foothold in and eventually dominate the seed market in Africa, with consequences the opponents believe will be dire for African farmers.

The Monsanto-Gates Foundation link is not yet a big talking point even in the African countries where AGRA has a prominent presence. In pitifully, willfully, irresponsibly donor-dependent Africa, AGRA is just another exciting ‘donor project.’ Donor projects bring in some much-needed, hard-to-come-by money and jobs, so are therefore not to be scrutinized too closely or questioned.

'Shhhh, don't publicly express doubt about their projects; the donors might get upset and leave in a huff with their money.'

But in the home country of the Gates Foundation and Monsanto, bands of activists loudly interrogate what they consider to be an unholy alliance, as implied by the provocative heading of an article by Paul Haeder, ‘When a non-profit gets in bed with the enemy.’

He writes, ‘More than 40 people, as part of a global day of action against Monsanto, recently marched to and around the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “campus” to deliver a letter asking the Foundation to divest from Monsanto (the Foundation has more than $23 million in Monsanto stock as part of a very odd mix of companies in their portfolio).’

Taking no prisoners, Haeder continues, ‘Trying to eradicate developing countries’ diseases, forcing genetically modified farming into Africa…are just a few of the Gates Foundation’s larger goals…’

Haeder doesn’t hide his feelings about AGRA’s godfather!

He asks, ‘What’s all the protesting about?’

And he answers, ‘According to Dena Hoff, a diversified family farmer… “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust’s purchase of Monsanto shares indicates that the Gates Foundation’s interest in promoting the company’s seed is less about philanthropy than about profit-making. The Foundation is helping to open new markets for Monsanto, which is already the largest seed company in the world.”

To those few who may not be aware of it, Haeder helpfully points out that ‘Monsanto, who created the dioxin-leeching defoliant Agents Orange and Blue, is one of the main drivers of genetically modified foods.’

He then goes into greater detail about several now well-known criticisms of GM crops, focusing attention on what Haeder and many others see as the basic incongruity of the Gates Foundation being between the bed sheets with Monsanto.

After these two entities have finished consummating their tryst, what kind of agricultural offspring is their romp going to produce in Africa?

Even as an increasing number of Africa’s weak governments fall in line with the GM crops gospel (sugar coated with donor aid, a drug African governments are now helplessly hooked on), many more people in Africa are pondering just the sort of questions that Haeder poses.

Paul Haeder's article is long and detailed, and provides plenty of food for thought about just what the Gates Foundation, its AGRA and their friends, partners and collaborators are bringing to Africa.

African Agriculture

The un-asked background questions as Tanzanian farmers give drought-tolerant maize a try

Maize varieties being developed by the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) are being tested in an arid area of Tanzania where farmers had increasingly abandoned ‘ordinary’ maize because of the low rain and low yields.

A May 14 Reuters AlertNet report says the results have been very encouraging, with initially skeptical farmers now enthusiastically talking about their greatly improved maize yields.

“I was not sure these seeds would be any good, but it’s amazing - they require little water and they grow fast,” said farmer Balisidya Jacob.

Marijani Mrisho said “It was very dry but the researchers told us to sow them,” he said. “I did not have to do any irrigation yet the seedlings looked good. I have filled up 30 bags of maize this season on my small farm. If I used normal seeds I could hardly get five bags. That’s why most farmers here shunned the crop initially,” he said.

Not only are the yields said to be much better than those for conventional seed (up tp50% higher, according to a WEMA researcher quoted in the report), maturity is said to be achieved in an average 75 days versus the normal 90 days.

It sounds good, although it uncomfortably also reads like a WEMA-sponsored visit by the reporter, with no tough questions being asked or featuring in the report.

Interestingly, there is no mention that WEMA project is based on gene-modification. That matters not necessarily as a judgment of gene-modification, but because it is so controversial as an answer to Africa’s crop yield challenges. Not mentioning that relevant detail almost seems as if the reporter, the publication or WEMA deliberately want to hide or downplay this aspect of the project, instead of tackling it head on.

Great about the claimed high yields even in very low rainfall conditions. What about the cost of the new seed varieties versus perceived affordability by the farmers?

This is not dealt with directly, but we are told ‘The researchers say villagers will eventually pay a subsidized rate of 200 Tanzanian shillings (about $0.13) per kilo.’

That’s nice, but how long will this subsidy last? Who is doing the subdizing? The mention of a subsidy implied that the WEMA promoters think/know that farmers would not be willing/able to pay the full unsubsidized prices for their new maize varieties. If so, what are the implications of this when the subsidy funds run out?

Finally, the article mentions that poor maize yields had made many of the farmers shift from growing their preferred maize staple to less-preferred but more drought-appropriate grains like millet and sorghum. That seems like a smart move, and does not put the farmers at the risk of depending on WEMA, outside seeds and subsidies that may not always be available in the future.

Question: Are the interests of the WEMA people for there to be an outlet for their seeds going up against the locally developed, locally-relevant adaptation strategies of the farmers? Are the farmers being inappropriately enslaved to a crop that they should fundamentally be moving away from growing and relying on as their main food staple?

WEMA has no incentive to encourage the asking of these important questions, but their absence represents  gaping holes in an otherwise interesting article.

African Agriculture

FAO official urges GM crops-wary Zambia to accept them

Zambia has consistently expressed its official opposition to GM crops, but as elsewhere in Africa, the pressure to adopt them is relentless.

FAO climate change expert Louis Bockel mainly used southern Africa's increasingly unpredictable weather patterns to argue for why it was now particularly important for countries like Zambia to take a new look at GM technology.

A few weeks before Bockel's April call, an official of Zambia's recently-elected ruling party reiterated the country's continuing misgivings about gene-modified crops.

''Farmers will have to develop new crop varieties or hybrids as a way to adapt. With climate change, you need to diversify into more resilient crops, plants that would be more water-efficient or drought-tolerant,'' the Times of Zambia reported Bockel as saying. ''During such times, you can not afford to ignore technology… you forget the myths.''

African Agriculture

Is the GM cotton touted for Burkina Faso and West Africa really the new 'white gold?'

Cotton is Burkina Faso's most important export crop. As in many other African countries, cotton cultivation and the industry in general have for many years been severely challenged by various factors, including: increasingly unpredictable climate; declining soil fertility; expensive and hard to access inputs like fertilizer; and  low competitiveness versus mechanized, subdized farmers in the US, Brazil and elsewhere.

As a result of all these factors and more, cotton farming is a declining sector in many African countries. But for Burkina Faso and a handful of its West African neighbors, giving up this sector is not as easy as in more agriculturally and economically diversified countries.

As part of efforts to shore up the many challenges of its cotton sector, Burkina Faso adopted GM cotton about 10 years ago. GM cotton has been controversial in India for all sorts of reasons, not all of which apply to Burkina Faso, but the latter country's adoption and use of GM cotton has been a fairly quiet affair. In the African context, GM cotton is far less controversial than the idea of gene technology applied to an iconic food crop like maize, as South Africa has long done and Kenya has recently accepted to start doing.

As with all things to do with GM crops, the benefits of GM cotton for Burkina Faso depend on who you ask. But GM cotton there is firmly established, reportedly accounting for as much as 50% of the total
planted area.

Peter Dörrie critiques comments made by Jean-Paul Sawadogo, the head of the national textile association of Burkina Faso, Sofitex. Sawadogo touts the advantages of GM cotton and expresses the hope that the share of it in in Burkina 'will rise to 60% during the next season and ideally 90% in the future.'

Unlike a lot of the criticisms of gene modification made by many activists, Dörrie's is calm and not overtly ideological. This is relevant and important because it makes his points relatively easy to pay attention to and digest on their merits. There is no obvious sense of his promoting (or necessarily opposing) one or another 'agenda.' He simply raises questions and makes points that come across as being entirely reasonable and fact/logic-based.

Writes Dörrie, ''I see several problems with this anticipated reliance on GM cotton. Firstly, it subjects the cotton farmers (not to speak of the national economy of Burkina Faso) to the whims of a company. Monsanto is not exactly known for its do-gooding attitude and as the “creator” of Bt cotton with the political power of the USA behind it, relying on them as a “partner” is a risky gamble.''

Arguably this point is hard to dispute, regardless of whether one is pro or anti GM. In a business sense, let alone from the perspective of national policy, it seems a strategy fraught with danger for a country to tie the fortunes of its almost sole cash crop to the whims of a far off foreign company that at polite best can be described as aggressive in protecting its commercial interests. Even if Monsanto had a benign reputation, how does it make good sense for Burkina Faso to willy nilly become so dependent on that company to provide the seed for the one crop that drives whatever economy Burkina Faso has? Is this not to virtually  invite future abuse by that foreign commercial entity?

Dörrie also questions what will happen if and when Monsanto raises the price of GM cotton seeds, which he points out 'have to be bought each year from a licensed reseller,' beyond what they can afford. The glib answer to this question has often been that increased production/yields will make the farmers able to afford the GM seed each year, but that has not at all been the consistent expeience of Indian GM cotton farmers. Poor rains (an increasingly likely prospect in Bukina Faso's sub-region) or lack of one or another input can easily wipe out  a small scale cotton farmer, who is often at the edge of disaster even in the best of times.

Dorrie points out that ''the benefits (of GM over conventional cotton) are not as clear as Mr. Sawadogo makes them seem. The evidence on long-time productivity enhancement through the use of GM
cotton is inconclusive, with different studies contradicting each other.'' He goes on to add, ''It is telling that Sawadogo qualifies his productivity claim with the need to use the right fertilizing regime.''

That last point is also important because how to make fertilizer consistently, affordably accessible to small scale African farmers is a huge question that no one has been able to answer, including all the peddlers of the various 'green revolution' gospels that are currently crawling all over Africa.

Dorrie's article is one of the better, more measured critiques of the possible implications of a poor country seeking to turn over almost all source material/seed of its main/sole cash crop to one commercial entity, and one with the reputatin of Monsanto at that.

African Agriculture

Antipathy to GM crops still strong in Zambia, but is resistance ultimately futile?

Zambia has one of the strongest records of official opposition to GM crops in Africa. An official of the recently elected-into-power ruling party has re-iterated the country's opposition to GM technology and foods, but will Zambia be able to resist the seemingly increasing momentum of the GM tide?

Happily, Zambia has for several years enjoyed surpluses of its staple crop, maize. But during a period of a severe maize deficit several years ago, the country highlighted the strong feelings against GM crops in many African countries by refusing GM maize food aid donations from the US.

On March 30 2012, Wynter Kabimba, Secretary General of the ruling Patriotic Front said Zambia  'would not allow the iintroduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) because they pose a danger to food security and the environment.' He was quoted as asking rhetorically, 'Why would anyone want to introduce a technology that puts a whole population’s health at risk?'

Obviously his contentions are the subject of fierce and passionate international debate, but Kabimba's comments reflect the belief of many, perhaps most, in Zambia and many other countries.

But opinions are shifting rapidly, as shown by Kenya's recent decision to allow the importation of GM maize, and its trials and approvals of the commercial cultivation of other GM crops,a trend that is likely to grow in Africa. Who knows, while the ruling party.government says one thing, that doesn't mean that GM trials aren't quietly going on in the country!

African countries that are dependent on aid, or otherwise subject to the strong influence of a 'donor' nation like the US that also sees the aggressive promotion of GM technology as part of its strategic global interests are particularly susceptible to flip-flopping on this controversial issue. Wikileaks revealed that diplomacy, aid, arm-twisting and other 'inducements' are all part of the arsenal of promoting GM crops and reducing resistance to them in target countries.

Despite both countries' previously strong opposition to GM technology, the debate and politics of accepting/rejecting it is inevitably different between them. Zambia is a nearly universally fertile country with a mostly agriculture-friendly climate, plenty of water and large land mass with a low density for its population of 15 million. Kenya's much bigger population of 40 million is on a land mass not substantially bigger than Zambia's, but much of it is increasingly subject to erratic rain and drought. Zambia probably has far greater prospects of being maize sufficient fairly consistently than Kenya does, even if farming of most of the staple maize,as of most of everything else, is rain-fed in both countries.

From this angle one can argue that Kenya's controversial acceptance of GM technology to try to help meet its food needs is understandable, as is Zambia's continuing confident dismissal of the technology.

Still, as seen elsewhere, there are powerful forces working tirelessly to wear down the resistance to GM crops and technology! What a ruling party official says today does not necessarily tell us anything about what might be official policy five or ten years down the line.

African Agriculture