Articles on GM and Third World

Third World rejects GM (Sunday Independent (London) Feb 28, 1999)
USDA Pushing Gene Foods On Third World (From The Pakistan Observer, Islamabad, June 27, 1999)
GM Third World Warning (BBC News Sun May 9 1999)
Philipino Rice Farmers Protest IRRI's 40th Birthday
Genetically Engineered Rice Good for PR, Not the Poor Say Southeast Asian Farmers' Groups
Scientists: suspend GMOs for five years! (The East African)

Third World rejects GM
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Correspondent
(Sunday Independent (London) Feb 28, 1999)

The world's hungriest nations have resolved to oppose genetically modified foods. A senior Ethiopian government official last night told the Independent on Sunday they were "absolutely united" in resisting US plans to "decide what we eat". Dr Tewolde Gebre Egziabher was speaking after last week's talks collapsed in Cartagena, Colombia, following the United States' accusation that the developing countries were endangering free trade. An international treaty to regulate trade in GM produce had been discussed by 132 nations.

The revolt will strike a chord in the West, with many associating the 1980 Ethiopia famines - which sparked Live Aid - with severe food shortages. Some biotechnology firms have consistently argued that GM crops' increased resistance to parasites and disease makes them suitable for the Third World. Dr Egziabher, the senior Third World negotiator at the talks, said Third World resistance to the imposition of GM crops was increasing. Last week the government of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil, the country's second largest soya-producing region, said it would ban the planting of GM beans produced by the US giant, Monsanto. And India's Supreme Court stopped trials of GM cotton. The Third World's tough stance undermines the biotech companies' justification for GM crops - that they will help end world hunger; Dr Egziabher said that instead they could worsen the plight of the hungry.

The developing countries insisted the US and other food exporters ship GM foods separately from normal ones, and seek their "prior informed consent" before exporting. But the US and five other exporting countries - including Canada, Australia and Argentina - fear Third World countries would boycott GM produce.

USDA PUSHING GENE FOODS ON THIRD WORLD
By Devinder Sharma
(From The Pakistan Observer, Islamabad, June 27, 1999)

It certainly is a Brave New World in the offing. Ever since the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the commercial sale of gene-spliced 'Flavr Savr' tomatoes produced by the multinational Calgene Inc. in May 1994, more and more biotechnology companies are getting ready with designer crops. In fact, 60 food crops have already been genetically engineered -- a set of techniques for moving genes from one organism to another -- to make them 'market friendly', at least 20 of which are now under commercial cultivation in North America.

As of May 1997, in the United States alone there had been about 5,000 field tests of genetically engineered plants, 100-200 field tests of genetically engineered microorganisms, and two field tests of genetically engineered fish. A number of crops are now being engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, polymers, and industrial enzymes, and to alter, oil, starch and protein contents. In India, permission has been recently granted to the multinational seed company, Monsanto, to hold field trials of genetically-engineered cotton called bollguard at 40 places in the country. Permission has also been granted for field trials for such transgenic mustard, rapeseed and vegetables like brinjal. As if this is not enough, the US Department of Agriculture had made a vain effort to enlist genetically-engineered crops as part of organic agriculture.

It was only when its policy document on the web received over 200,000 hits against the decision that the USDA was forced to withdraw its proposal that actually only provide a protective cover for its multi-billion biotechnology industry. It is, however, another matter that the biotech industry has already earned a special name for its dubious claims on environment benefits: greenwashing. In the past, for example, biotechnology is promoters have promised that fertilisers will become unnecessary as crops are engineered to fix their own nitrogen, and that pesticides will become obsolete as crops are engineered to resist insects and other pests. While the first promise failed to materialise, we now have herbicide-tolerant plants which, in fact, result in more usage of herbicides. These unrealistic claims have spurred general caution about new biotech products.

That biotechnology will be used only where there are more profits has been elaborated very often. Take the case of cassava. It serves as a staple food for at least 300 million Africans. And yet, no biotechnology company made any effort to improve the crop yield and production. It was only after cassava was found to be a feed substitute for the growing pig industry in the US that four food and biotechnology companies have begun researching on cassava, amply indicating how animals take precedence over humans when it comes to economics.

Earlier too, research under a joint FAO-International Atomic Energy Agency project had shown significant results in controlling the dreaded Tsetse fly that infests some 11 million sq. kms of sub-Saharan Africa, about 37 per cent of the continent. Known for inducing sleeping sickness, the fly has killed more than 200,000 people around Lake Victoria alone. It also attacks livestock, rendering oxen inoperative. A Sterile Insect Technique that uses radioactive and stable isotopes was developed as part of an effective pest management programme. But despite the encouraging results, no company showed any interest in producing and distributing the sterilised insects. The underlying premise being that no private biotechnology company is willing to take up any humanitarian cause, whether in health or food sector, unless it comes with substantial profit margins.

With a major shift from public to industrial funding, and with current intellectual property protection strategies narrowing, the nature of private research relating to biotechnology is without much regard for its impact on food security. Moreover, in a hurry to market agricultural biotechnology, farmers are not only the last to be considered but are never consulted. Biotechnology is a science that has gone beyond the control of the society or the farming community. Half a dozen executives of a biotechnology company, sitting comfortably in the air-conditioned BoardRooms, take decisions that affect millions of farmers.

Reiterating that the management of safety standards to the social, cultural and agronomic practices should be first ascertained, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is spearheading the biotechnology revolution by force opening the developing countries to accept the 'novel products', appears more keen to ensure that developing countries do not 'reinvent the wheel' as these transgenic products had already undergone a lot of testing in the west.

More often than not, these claims fall flat sooner than they are made. Monsanto, for instance, had marketed the first genetically engineered tomato produced by Calgene in 1994, called Flavr Savr, containing a gene that delayed ripening, allowing for fresher tomatoes at supermarkets. Pitted against strong consumer resistance and faced with stiff protests from green activists, Flavr Savr failed to excite the food industry and the consumers. Aptly described as an economic disaster by the Wall Street Journal, Flavr Savr turned out to be an embarrassment for the multinational biotechnology seed company. It was subsequently withdrawn from the market in 1996. Let us not forget that 'Flavr Savr' too was allowed to be commercialised after the USDA had issued a no objection certificate. And yet, the much-publicised and controversial transgenic tomato had failed.

In 1996, cotton bollworms were found to have infested thousands of acres planted with the new Bt-induced transgenic cotton in Georgia and Texas in North America. Farmers paid US $ 32 per acre as license fee to grow the crop primarily for protection against bollworm and had to suffer huge losses instead. The cotton failure triggered a slump in the stock market with the shares of Delta and Pine Land, which distributed the crop for Monsanto, briefly suspended on the New York Stock Exchange. Incidentally, the transgenic cotton that failed was approved by the USDA as well as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Several of the transgenic cottons in the US are restricted in usage due to fears of accidental release of the toxin gene into the environment. And yet, these genetically-altered cotton and corn are being found to be completely safe for the developing countries, including India.

But with public protests against these transgenic crops growing in Europe and Australia, the United States government is now using its political muscle to save the financial interests of its biotechnology companies. It had recently threatened New Zealand with withdrawal of bilateral trade agreement if it (New Zealand) went ahead with approving each genetically-engineered crop case by case. At the same time, USDA accepts that it has so far not conducted any biological risk assessment. Nor does it have any plans to do so. While it lays down well-defined procedures for the introduction of transgenic material, it is not at all willing to be held responsible for any environmental and biological mishap.

Since the USDA itself is not conducting any research to produce transgenic plants, it has taken on itself the initiative to push and protect the commercial interests of the American multinational companies. And therein lies a grave danger. And, therefore, allowing these biotechnology companies a free run in developing countries in search of a desperate need for foreign investment is only going to push the farm sector into the throes of an unforeseen crisis.

(Devinder Sharma is an Indian journalist, writer and a food and trade policy analyst.
Responses to this article should be emailed to dsharma@isid.delhi.nic.in )

GM Third World warning
GM crops: A Third World saviour or a threat to farmers?
(BBC News Sun May 9 1999)

By Environment Correspondent Alex Kirby
Christian Aid has challenged claims by producers of genetically-modified GM food that they can ease Third World hunger. Instead, the UK development charity warns that biotechnology companies' efforts to sell GM seeds to Third World farmers may also rob Western consumers of their freedom to choose or refuse GM foods.
In a report called Selling Suicide: Farming, False Promises and Genetic Modification in the Developing World, Christian Aid says GM crops will not help to feed the hungry. "The false promise of genetic modification is that it will benefit small farmers. The reality is that high-tech farming may make them more vulnerable," it says.

Rising costs
The charity says the increased levels of debt incurred by Indian farmers from using expensive hybrid strains of cotton have already driven hundreds of them to suicide. "Christian Aid-supported organisations there fear that GM crops could lead to worse problems as rising costs of seeds and inputs may drive farmers further into debt." The report says one of the most worrying characteristics of GM seeds is what is known as the "terminator technology", by which seeds produce crops that are themselves infertile.

Market regulation
This means that farmers cannot collect seeds for the following year's crop, although at the moment 80% of crops planted in the developing world are from saved seeds. The authors say the basic purpose of the terminator technology is to maximise seed company royalties. The technology has been rejected by India.
"But campaigners fear that regulation is inadequate to prevent its infiltration of the market. They say that seed-saving is so fundamental to Indian rural society that any threat to the practice is a threat to the society itself."

Issue of control
The report, based on investigations in India, Ethiopia and Brazil, says there are several concerns over GM crops:
· They threaten to damage the livelihoods and the lives of millions of small farmers.
· They will put too much control over the world's food into a few hands, since 10 companies control 85% of the global agro-chemical market.
· They could end UK consumer choice over GM foods.
Some UK supermarkets refuse to use GM foods, while most are careful to label them so shoppers can refuse them.
The report says one third of UK soya, used in almost all processed foods, comes from Brazil, the world's second largest soya producer. At the moment Brazil is free of GM crops. But "a concerted drive by all the major biotech companies" may soon change that.

Food shortage
The GM companies themselves argue that their technology is the only realistic solution to the shortfall in food supplies that will "inevitably" arise from world population growth. They argue that "traditional" plant breeding techniques cannot possibly provide the increase in yields that will be necessary to feed everyone. With up to 40% of the world's food production lost to weed growth, pests and diseases, and with increasing desertification and urbanisation diminishing the amount of available agricultural land, the companies believe the demand for their technology will become irresistible.
Tony Coombes, from the biotech company Monsanto, accused Christian Aid of getting the facts wrong. He says the terminator technology does not, as yet, even exist. Although Monsanto has patents on it, he says such technology is at least five years away from possible commercialisation. "Nobody is forcing farmers to do anything," he adds. "If they want to carry on saving their seeds and using them in future seasons, then that is fine."
Professor Don Grierson, who has developed GM tomatoes at Nottingham University, says Christian Aid has failed to find out about some of the benefits of the new technology, "such as insect and virus resistance, improved nutrition and reduced post-harvest spoilage. "There is no spraying involved, the seeds inherit the change and this technology can be given to people in developing countries," he says.

Philipino Farmers Protest IRRI's 40th Birthday
(Press Release Los Baños, Philippines 4 April 2000)

Hundreds of Filipino rice farmers protested against the Philippine-based International Rice Reseach Institute (IRRI), home of the 'Green Revolution', which is celebrating its 40th anniversary today.

"IRRI out!" and "No to GMO" calls reverberated as hundreds of protesters trooped to the President's Palace, where the celebration was moved allegedly due to picketing protesters in front of IRRI's headquarters in Los Baños, some 65 kms southeast of Manila.

Protesters said aside from promoting the US agenda on counterinsurgency and corporate domination of domestic agricultural production, IRRI's much-flaunted Green Revolution "caused massive loss of biological diversity in rice paddies throughout Asia".

Founded in 1959 under an agreement forged by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations with the Philippine government, IRRI's lease for operations in this Southeast Asian country expires in 2003.

The Manila protesters also slammed President Estrada's official support for hybrid rice being developed by IRRI, through the administration's program Agrikulturang MakaMASA. Though the yields of hybrid rice are supposed to be high, theseeds are costly and cannot be saved for the next season, increasing the farmers' dependency on seed companies and preventing them from breeding their own strains of rice.

Lorenzo Leongson, Secretary General of the Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luson said peasant groups in Central Luzon are continuing the campaign against genetic engineering as they learned of planned field tests of blight-resistant rice strains in the Philippine Rice Research Institute in Muņoz, Nueva Ecija.

Outside the Palace gate, farmers and civil society including representatives from Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, and Japan joined Filipino protesters who marched through the streets after holding a vigil in front of IRRI's headquarter in Los Baņos which authorities said "compelled IRRI into moving the celebration to Malacaņang Palace."

Shamsul Haq of the Nayakrishi New Agriculture Movement of Bangladesh said that today 3,000 Bangladeshis are marching in the streets of Dacca and other cities in Bangladesh to support the Philippine movement to close down IRRI.

Like the Philippines, Bangladesh has lost almost all of its traditional rice varieties.

The protest action was jointly organized by the Peasant Movement of the Philippines (KMP), Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development (Masipag) and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Philippines.

-------------------
MASIPAG/Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development
3346 Aguila St., Rhoda Subd.
Los Baņos, Laguna
Philippines
Tel./Fax (63-49) 536-5549
masipag@mozcom.com

Genetically Engineered Rice Good for PR, Not the Poor Say Southeast Asian Farmers' Groups

JOINT STATEMENT TO THE PRESS 2 June 2000 BIOTHAI, KMP and MASIPAG in cooperation with VIA CAMPESINA and GRAIN

Genetically Engineered Rice Good for PR, Not the Poor Say Southeast Asian Farmers' Groups

Peasant movements, NGOs and independent farmer-scientist networks from Southeast Asia today voice their opposition to the introduction of genetically engineered rice in the region. International farmers' movement Via Campesina, along with three national organisations from Southeast Asia -- BIOTHAI (Thai Network on Biodiversity and Community Rights), KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines), and MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Philippines) -- and in cooperation with research NGO GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International),1 wish to collectively register their deep concern about the increasing corporate control over rice research, seed systems and the basis of the food supply in Southeast Asia.

Genetically engineered (GE) rice -- such as the now-famous Vitamin A rice2 or 'Golden Rice' -- is being heavily promoted as a solution to hunger and malnutrition. Yet these promotional campaigns are clouding the real issues of poverty and control over resources, and serving to fast-track acceptance of genetically engineered crops in developing countries. "The main reason why we are against GE rice," says BIOTHAI, "is the issue of control. Small farmers in the Third World can't achieve security when transnational corporations control these technologies and give away GE seeds like others give out food aid. It doesn't work, it doesn't help the farmers."

As Day-cha Siripat of the Alternative Agriculture Network in Thailand has said: "The poor, they don't need vitamin A rice. They need vitamin 'L', that's vitamin Land. And they need vitamin 'M', that's vitamin Money. Malnutrition is a problem of poverty, not technology."

The groups greeted with distrust the announcement of 16 May by the developers of Vitamin A rice about a deal struck with agricultural biotech giant Zeneca to license and distribute the crop. The deal says the inventors of Vitamin A rice will give poor farmers in developing countries free access to the genetically engineered grain, while allowing the life sciences company to sell it commercially in the developed world. Zeneca itself admits that the two-tier system will be hard to police. The KMP, a member of Via Campesina, says: "Why should Zeneca have the right to patent for its own profit the results of publicly funded research? And why should anyone believe that this is for the poor when Zeneca has made it clear that their motive is to make money from the technology in the North?"

The developers of the rice bill the deal as a "win-win" scenario for the private and the public sector, for rich corporations and poor farmers alike. But the agendas of these two groups fundamentally conflict. "All that has been proved through the agreement is that genetic engineering in agriculture will always be dominated by large corporations with the capacity and resources to profit from the technology'" says MASIPAG. "Meanwhile the farmers in our countries get written in as a public relations sideshow."

Some of the concerns the groups highlight include:

• Patents on rice and market control: The groups are against any form of intellectual property on life forms for many reasons. Zeneca now holds the exclusive commercial rights to the Vitamin A gene patent which covers not just rice but all future crops engineered with the gene. The degree to which intellectual property rights on life forms is invading agricultural research is demonstrated by the fact that the developers of Vitamin A rice waded through 70 patents to achieve their goal.
• Farmer-led solutions to malnutrition: Vitamin A rice is a techno-fix to the problems of the poor decided upon and developed, without consultation, by scientists and experts from the North. For many groups in Asia, this rice is disconnected from the causes of malnutrition at ground level. Farmers' own experiences of diversification show that there are many ways to address vitamin A deficiency in Asia without isolating the problem from socio-political realities. For example, encouraging the reintroduction of locally grown varieties of vegetables rich in micronutrients including vitamin A has been successful in Bangladesh and Thailand.
• Public-Private Rip Off: What is most incredible with the Vitamin A deal is that in the name of 'helping the poor', Zeneca has acquired exclusive commercial control over a technology that was developed through public funding the EU and the Swiss government both bankrolled this project with the Rockefeller Foundation. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines,sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) through the World Bank, has been asked to develop the Vitamin A rice technology for Asia. Just six days before the Zeneca deal, the US Senate approved a special grant of $5 million for IRRI to do so. Why is this money being used to push expensive genetic engineering solutions, rather than supporting sustainable alternatives to deal with malnutrition in developing countries?
• Introducing GE Rice to the Phillipines: Further to the issue of private interests (including the GE agenda) dominating public agricultural research, numerous farmers groups, scientists, and NGOs are heavily critical of the whole role of the CGIAR and its international agricultural research centres. Via Campesina is on record for being "very strongly against CGIAR policies to promote genetic engineering and patents on life". IRRI appears to be acting as a facility to transfer biotechnology from the industrialised to developing countries, rather than serving the needs of poor farmers. This is highlighted in the briefing 'BB Rice: IRRI's first transgenic field test'3 co-produced by these groups as part of an Asia-wide project.

The briefing exposes IRRI's first GE field test in the Philippines - for rice resistant to bacterial blight, dubbed BB rice. MASIPAG points out that bacterial blight is "not a large-scale problem in the Philippines". The Rockefeller Foundation -- a major source of funding for rice biotech research and training -- has itself scored bacterial blight as a low priority since it considers conventional breeding approaches to be effective. If there is no real need for genetically engineered resistance to bacterial blight in rice, why is IRRI embarking on this field test? The field test is primarily an exercise in public relations: to establish a precedent in terms of public acceptance of transgenic rice in general. One feature of the BB rice is that aside from its antibiotic selectable marker genes, it poses less controversial health and safety risks than other GE rices. But the risks associated with GE rice go well beyond environmental safety and human health. IRRI and national agricultural r research systems in Asia are increasing their linkages with private industry in the North, who control the technology through exclusive monopolies and vast resources. The Philippine Rice Research Institute, IRRI's partner in the BB rice field experiment, is conducting the test for the US biotech company ILTAB. Who then controls rice research?

There has been little discussion or consultation about the pros and cons of genetic engineering for farmers in Asia. The inescapable conclusion would appear to be that farmers' needs are not the reason for the field tests. The agenda here is to push biotechnology, controlled by the North, as part of a much larger economic paradigm. The resulting increase in corporate control of rice will profoundly affect small farmers throughout the region. The present moment is a critical one for farmers, and the public, to reassert control over the direction of agricultural research and development to serve and be accountable to the real needs of the people.

NOTES
1. BIOTHAI Thailand, biothai@wnet.net.th Tel: (66-2) 952 73 71
GRAIN grain@bcn.servicom.es Tel: (44-207) 793 16 51
KMP Philippines masipag@mozcom.com, Tel: (63-49) 536 55 40
VIA CAMPESINA mailto:viacam@gbm.hnTel: (504) 235 99 15

2. Rice genetically engineered to introduce Vitamin A into the diet,
which developers say will help prevent blindness in developing countries.

3. 'BB Rice: IRRI's First Transgenic Field Test' researched by Devlin
Kuyek for a joint project on current trends in agricultural research and
development affecting small farmers in Asia with: Biothai (Thailand),
GRAIN, KMP (Philippines), MASIPAG (Philippines), PAN Indonesia, Philippine
Greens and UBINIG (Bangladesh), and Drs Romeo Quijano (UP Manila, College
of Medicine, Philippines) and Oscar B. Zamora (UP Los Banos, College of
Agriculture, Philippines).

The briefing is hosted online at: http://www.grain.org/publications/reports/bbrice.htm
GRAIN, Girona 25, pral., 08010 Barcelona Spain, Tel: (34-93) 301 13 81, Fax: (34-93) 301 16 27
Email: grain@bcn.servicom.es URL: http://www.grain.org/

Suspend GMOs for five years

(The East African)

COMTEX Newswire

Nairobi (The East African, June 2, 2000) - Several countries, among them Kenya, Uganda, Brazil, South Africa, and India, are making major human and financial investments in biotechnology to improve food security and reduce poverty. But the question remains whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or living modified organisms (LMOs) - the products of biotechnology - are indispensable for feeding the world, protecting the environment and reducing poverty in developing countries, as biotechnology engineering companies claim.

A growing body of scientists, farmers, NGOs, institutions, and governments opposed to the technology are convinced that it is designed to have the opposite effect. They argue that the introduction of GMOs in developing countries will exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can provide food security and health. In a letter to delegates at the fifth Conference of Parties (COP5) on the Convention on Biological Diversity at Gigiri, Nairobi, some 310 scientists from
both the developed and developing countries demanded a moratorium on the use of GMOs and LMOs. They said they were concerned about the dangers these products posed for biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health.

"We call for the immediate suspension of the release of genetically modified crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least five years, for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned, and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all."

They argued that genetically modified crops intensify corporate monopoly on food. In order to protect their patents, corporations continue to develop genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) like terminator and trait-specific technologies. Terminator technology makes seeds sterile in the second generation, preventing farmers from saving and replanting seed, as is common in developing countries. Under the genetic technologies, farmers are dependent on the genetically modified seed, which is protected under the intellectual property rights. Trait-specific GURTs make it possible to switch on and off specific characteristics of a plant, such as resistance to diseases. The result is that farmers are obliged to apply particular chemicals to ensure that their crops thrive.
The scientists said this not only increased farmer dependency on chemicals and genetic engineering companies, it was likely to drive many to destitution. The consortium of more than 25 NGOs at the COP5 has expressed concern that almost all the major companies that controlled agricultural engineering technology markets - such as AstraZeneca and Novartis Monsanto of the US
and Advanta Seeds of the UK - have patents on the terminator technology. Despite promises last year that they would abandon the technology, 50 new GURTs patents have been issued. The scientists want the patents banned on grounds that they threaten
food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity,  compromise health care, impede medical and scientific research and work against the welfare of animals. Products resulting from GMOs could be hazardous. The genetically modified bovine growth hormone, injected into cows to increase milk yields, not only
causes excessive suffering and illness for the animals, but also increases IGF- 1 in milk, a substance linked to breast and prostate cancer in humans. Secret memoranda of the US Food and Drug Administration revealed that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic engineering is a new departure and introduces new risks. According to the documents, the first GM crop to
be commercialised - the Flar Savr tomato - did not pass the required toxicological tests. In response to concerns on the potential risk of biotechnology and the absence of control systems in developing countries, the legally binding Cartagena Protocol on  Biosafety is now in place to protect the environment from the potential risk caused by LMOs. Some 63 governments, including Kenya, have signed it. Under the protocol, strict informed agreement procedures will apply to seeds, live fish, and other LMOs introduced into the environment.

By Wandera Ojanji, Special Correspondent

Copyright 2000 The East African. Distributed via Africa News Online.

http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000602.html

BACK What is GM ? || BACK GM and the Third World

Genetic Food Alert 4 Bertram House, Ticklemore St, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5EJ Tel: 01803 868523 info@geneticfoodalert.org.uk