Talking points on environment, food prices, natural agriculture and trade

GM Foods: From Simon Jenkins in the Guardian:

It is clear that modification, which is as old as botany, has side-effects. But increased food productivity is so patently a good thing that to ban GM from European imports, and thus from Africa, is beyond perverse. Increased Indian and Chinese consumption is sucking the world dry of grain at just the time when the GM ban is denying the developing world the swiftest path to higher productivity - and at a time when supply is curbed by biofuel substitution.

These various green policies have established a lethal pincer movement on world food production. As the Oxford economist Paul Collier points out in his book The Bottom Billion, Africa has been subjected by European governments to one form of "befuddled romanticism" after another, from campaigns against GM foods and low-wage produce to "save the peasant" farm reform. Africa, says Collier, has less commercial agriculture than it did at the end of the age of empire, half a century ago.

While antagonism to science merely impedes progress, antagonism to economics is regressive. American subsidies to ethanol fuel are not just causing "tortilla riots" but costing American taxpayers a staggering $5.5bn a year. Biofuel tankers are circling the globe, burning gasoline and chasing subsidies. They have joined carbon emissions certificates among the world's greatest trading scams.

Link between biofuels and higher food prices, from the World Bank:

Increased bio-fuel production has contributed to the rise in food prices. Concerns over oil prices, energy security and climate change have prompted governments to take a more proactive stance towards encouraging production and use of bio-fuels. This has led to increased demand for bio-fuel raw materials, such as wheat, soy, maize and palm oil, and increased competition for cropland. Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for bio-fuels production in the U.S., while existing stocks were depleted by an increase in global consumption for other uses. Other developments, such as droughts in Australia and poor crops in the E.U. and Ukraine in 2006 and 2007, were largely offset by good crops and increased exports in other countries and would not, on their own, have had a significant impact on prices. Only a relatively small share of the increase in food production prices (around 15%) is due directly to higher energy and fertilizer costs.

More on biofuels and food prices, via Center for Global Development:

The evidence is increasingly compelling that the current generation of biofuels is contributing to global hunger and worsening, not helping to address, climate change. They are also only economical as long as oil prices stay high. Investing in research and development of a new generation of biofuels that could be grown on marginal lands not useful for food or forests is a worthwhile endeavor. But in the midst of the current crisis, and given the new evidence on the perverse effects on the environment, continuing to subsidize and promote the use of food crops for fuel is simply unconscionable.

Decreasing poverty in rural areas, from the International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, a 1500-page report claiming that agriculture progress has been highly uneven and stressed the importance of "natural" agriculture programs like crop rotation and local fertilizers.

Important options for enhancing rural livelihoods include increasing access by small-scale farmers to land and economic resources and to remunerative local urban and export markets; and increasing local value added and value captured by small-scale farmers and rural laborers. A powerful tool for meeting development and sustainability goals resides in empowering farmers to innovatively manage soils, water, biological resources, pests, disease vectors, genetic diversity, and conserve natural resources in a culturally appropriate manner. Combining farmers’ and
external knowledge would require new partnerships among farmers, scientists and other stakeholders.

Repsonses to the report, via Guardian:

Responding to the report, a group of eight international environment and consumer groups, including Third World Network, Practical Action, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, said in a statement: "This is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. Small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis and meet the needs of communities."

Lim Li Chung, of Third World Network in Malaysia, said: "It clearly shows that small-scale farmers and the environment lose under trade liberalisation. Developing countries must exercise their right to stop the flood of cheap subsidised products from the north."

Guilhem Calvo, an adviser with the ecological and earth sciences division of Unesco, one of the report's sponsors, said at a news conference in Paris: "We must develop agriculture that is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and use of organic fertilisers."

As the Doha Trade Round remains blocked and food prices have skyrocketed around the world, countries should try to work out bilateral trade deals, says former World Trade Organization head Supachai Panitchpakdi told the Wall Street Journal.

"You see governments going country to country negotiating” trade deals involving key commodies like rice, wheat and milk, said Mr. Supachai, who is now secretary general for the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development. “That is something that is necessary.”

Will GM foods keep a hungry continent better fed?

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

World Agriculture output rose 25 percent between 1972 and 1982. But in Africa, it declined some 14 percent. Since then, the continent has been running to keep up with the rest of the world in terms of agriculture production. Its population keeps growing, putting strain on the environment. This is underlined by the fact that 16 of the 18 most undernourished countries hail from Africa. The major question we must ask: In these times of rising food prices, how will Africa provide affordable, healthy food for its people?

This story begins with a current event: Benin has decided to renew for five years its moratorium on marketing, import and use of genetically modified foods, Africquenligne reported.

The short article goes to state that Benin, like many other African countries, lacks the scientific skills and equipment to properly detect, monitor and control GMOs once they find their way into the country.

It has been said that on the whole Africans are very skeptical regarding genetically modified crops of any sort. Africans claim that GM products will harm the continent’s bounty of biodiversity. Governments also understand that a majority of the continent lives in rural areas and relies on the environment for their livelihoods, which most often involves growing crops on the small scale.

If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say the major complaints against GM foods is they have not been thoroughly tested – worries abound that Africa will become a testing ground – which will put the continent’s poorest at severe economic risk if these crops fail; (or, if they work too well, increasing yields will drive food prices down. African farmers only have to look at the U.S. and Europe to see cheap food and disenfranchised farmers.); also, GM seeds provides an upper hand to large international agri-conglomerates who will be able to profit from the work of African farmers. Finally, people could be put at risk for potential health risks from eating GM foods.

Here is a 2007 status report on GMO crops in Africa from the African Centre for Biosafety, from South Africa that I think provides a good window into the various debates regarding GMO.

The GM push in Africa has recorded several significant setbacks and failures, with Florence Wambugu’s GM sweet potato in Kenya and the Gates Foundation’s GM sorghum in South Africa being the most prominent. The rejection by South Africa’s GMO regulatory authority of the GM sorghum project is extremely significant, as this sets the boundaries that even pro-GM South Africa cannot cross: namely, that genetic engineering of a crop where Africa is the centre of origin will not be tolerated. Importantly, this rejection represents a huge set back for crucial components of the ‘New Green Revolution in Africa’ push, which is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation.

Indeed, 2007, has not been a good year for GE in South Africa. The first ever GM cassava field trials also faced the thumbs down from the South African regulatory authorities; a major retailer in South Africa, concerned about the possibility of GM potatoes still in field trials in South Africa having entered the food chain, publicly announced their decision not to stock GM potatoes until its safety had been proven. The South African sugar industry also strongly indicated their extreme reluctance to throw their weight behind GM sugarcane. The South African regulatory authorities also rejected out of hand, Syngenta’s application for commodity import of its GM maize for ethanol on food safety grounds.

Some Background
In 2006, more than 40 African countries received some form of food aid, which equaled about 5 million tons. At least three-quarters of the world’s food aid originates in the United States, where certain GM products can mix freely with others; a lack of labeling system has allowed these products to enter other food systems. Complaints by Zambia and Sudan (among others) lead to some changes in international food aid. The European Union, which favors donating money for food over sending food itself, stipulated in 2003 that its funds could not purchase GM foods.

In West Africa, a broad-based coalition against GMOs has been formed. At least 40 African countries are parties to the international environmental agreement regulating moving GMOs across borders. However, few countries have functioning systems to regulate GMOs, although several have imposed heavy restrictions on them.

Today, nine countries report field trials in various GMOs: Burkina Faso; Egypt; Kenya; Morocco; Senegal; Tanzania; Zambia, and Zimbabwe. A somewhat larger list of countries have the capacity to undergo tests.

In West Africa, Burkina Faso and Nigeria are probably the most pro-GMO countries. Burkina Faso, Africa’s biggest cotton producer, has allowed testing of genetically modified strands of cotton.

I’ll call it what I like
A side issue – in this specific post, but an important theme nonetheless – is the idea of “biofuels,” which has been renamed by some NGOs as “agrofuels” which, they say, is a better term to express what is really happening: Agribusiness producing fuel from plants as another commodity in a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy.”

Whatever it is called, a variety of African crops have been earmarked for this new fuel tests: maize, soybeans, groundnuts, cassava, sugarcane, pumpkin seeds, and Jatropha.

The South African government attempted to propose to replace 4.5 percent of liquid-road-transport fuels with agrofuels by blending ethanol and biodiesel with conventional petroleum. Civil society organizations heavily criticized the draft strategy, claiming it would provide a chance to introduce different varieties of GM maize and soybeans into the country, which they claim already has a lax regulation system. As the report pointed out above, South Africa’s regulators denied an application by the firm Syngenta to import its genetically modified maize to be converted solely into ethanol.

Will this revolution be skipped?
The first Green Revolution of the 1970s largely failed in Africa, says GlobalChange at the University of Michigan, because its climate does not tolerate the projects preference for crops of high yield, needing bountiful amounts of irrigation and fertilizers. Thus, the world’s higher crop yields between 1972 and 1982 were completely lost in Africa.

The second Green Revolution, brought to you by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, is currently taking place and will concentrate on Africa’s small farmers who often cultivate without any machinery, fertilizer and irrigation. These farmers often live far from food markets, making selling their surplus expensive and wasteful. The underlying problem, says the Rockefeller Foundation, is that African farmers don’t grow high-yield crops.

They’d like to correct that with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa that will provide African farmers with better seed varieties, which will help grow larger harvests; better fertilizer use, including training in soil and water management techniques, and developing a better delivery system to get new fertilizers far from city centers; finally, creating better developed storage systems, transportation facilities and markets to sell the products. Finally, where possible, install better irrigation systems.

Here’s just a few harsh words GRAIN saves for this plan, which they claim is ill-suited for small scale farming.

Whether it is the new Green Revolution or the old, the first losers are farmers, especially small farmers. [Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa] sets out to replace the seeds that African farmers have carefully developed for their farms and cultures, with varieties suited to industrial monocultures. Such seeds will pave the way for the industrialisation of African food crops, opening the door to large agribusiness to come in and dominate.

West Africa, here we come
Continuing with the African Centre for Biosafety’s report, we can see the many international agencies attempting to persuade and enable West African governments to create more GMO-friendly legislation. The US Dept. of Agriculture currently trains scientists in biotechnology and a USAID program helps countries enhance bio policy and research. Another USAID-funded program provides support for expanding agriculture biotechnology, including genetic modification.

The report also has harsh words for the World Bank, which is attempting to get approval of a biosafety policy through the West African Economic and Monetary Union, WAEMU, although the proposal was only written in English, hardly any help for the French-speaking group. Some groups, such as GRAIN, have also claimed that the World Bank has attempted to undermine public debate on these programs.

ECOWAS, which is a grouping of all West African states, has also held meetings, sponsored by USAID, “in order to ease the way for GE industries in West Africa,” according to the report. Civil society groups across the region have stepped up pressure on ECOWAS to slow down the acceptance of GMO.

USAID’s Regional Biosafety Project, which counts Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal and Togo as members – has been put in place to harmonize biosafety laws across the region. It also, the report asserts, acts as a method to establish Bt cotton into the region, one the few cash crops for these countries. The authors claim that Bt cotton in West Africa will distract attention from illegal U.S. cotton subsidies and provide a foot in the door for U.S. corporations into this lucrative commodity.

Countries
While Benin has extended its moratorium on GM foods, it continues to receive food aid from the United States, a probable source of GM foods.

• Burkina Faso is currently testing bio cotton, but there are no dates when it will (if ever) be released to consumers. Scientists are also currently researching various GM plants, including those with drought tolerance, insect and virus resistant cowpeas. Burkina also accepts U.S.-based food aid, including cornmeal, which has a high likelihood of being GM;
  
• Cote d’Ivoire does not currently have any trials on GM foods, but is of food aid. Same for Gambia and Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Togo;
• Ghana has a little GM testing going on today, but the clouds are gathering. The similar cowpea project as Burkina is going on in Ghana; cases have been made by Ghanaian scientists to test a tomato resistant to yellow leaf curl; also, proposals have been completed for eggplant, cabbage and cassava. The Statesman newspaper in Accra reported that international community began workshops and trainings to sensitize the population regarding genetically modified foods, code words for arm-twisting sessions;
  
• Guinea-Conakry has sent government agents to trainings regarding GMO foods. However, there is currently no R & D going on in the country. It is a recipient of food aid;
  
• Mali currently tests GM cotton, but the government halted plans to allow other tests. It is a recipient of food aid;
  
• Nigeria is currently focusing on research in palm oil and has announced plans to begin testing on maize, cassava and sweet potatoes. Universities have been testing cowpeas and cassava, which came under criticism by a consumer rights group. Also, tests have taken place in yam and banana;
  
• Niger is participating in the cowpeas tests and is a large beneficiary of food aid. Ditto for Senegal, which did test cotton, but scrapped it because the seeds failed.

Red in the face: Ghana again threatens boycott of Burkina Faso’s tomatoes over GMO claims

After members of the Ghana Tomato Traders Association once again alleged that some Burkinabé farmers are illegally exporting GMO-enhanced tomatoes into the country, the Ghana’s government has threatened to ban the its northern neighbor from delivering any more of the bright red vegetables, Ghanaian Broadcasting Corporation reported.

Burkina Faso’s tomatoes enter the Ghanaian market between four and five months a year, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, whose research shows that Ghanaians prefer Burkina tomatoes to local varieties.

“The threat to ban the importation was issued at a sitting of the Judicial Committee of the Ghana Traditional Council, Commodity Online reported. “There could be a looming tomatoes crisis if a threat to ban the importation of tomatoes was effected.”

Like Ghana, farmers and scientists in Burkina Faso experiment with various forms of biotechnology and GMO crops. However, Ghana does not experiment on tomatoes, while Burkina Faso does.

Here is what FAO claims are Burkina Faso’s experiments on tomatoes:

Abbreviation for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. An immunoassay, i.e. an antibody-based technique for the diagnosis of the presence and quantity of specific molecules in a mixed sample. It combines the specificity of an immunoglobulin with the detectability of an enzyme-generated coloured product. In one form, the primary antibody (specific to the test protein) is adsorbed onto a solid substrate, and a known amount of the sample is added; all the antigen in the sample is bound by the antibody. A second antibody (conjugated with an enzyme) specific for a second site on the test protein is added; and the enzyme generates a colour change in the presence of a substrate reagent.

Ghana’s “experts” speculate Burkina Faso imports GM tomatoes

Ghanaian agriculture experts speculate that imported tomatoes from Burkina Faso are genetically modified, says Accra’s Statesman.

They claimed that since farmers in Burkina Faso had continuously engaged in the production of genetically modified cotton and succeeded in accumulating wealth, they suspect the success of mass tomato production in the West African country could be as a result of the application of the GM seedlings.

At a news conference held in Accra on Tuesday by the peasant Farmers Association of Ghana experts informed that the country has for the past years been importing large tones of tomatoes from Burkina Faso and the trend has resulted in a decline in tomato production in the country.

The removal of subsidies on farm activities in Ghana and the commitment of the Burkinabe government's activities towards farm subsidization have created the large gap between the two countries.

John Dziwornu, National coordinator of Ghana national association of farmers and fishermen in an interaction with the statesman after the news conference said neither the Food and Drugs Board nor the newly established Bio safety committee of the Ghana Atomic Energy commission had the needed apparatus to determine whether a product contained genetically modified food. In that regard Ghanaians could be at risk of food contamination and promote obesity.

It sounds like these "experts" were no other than members of Ghanaian farming associations who offered little proof to their claims.

In 2003, Burkina Faso became the first third African country (after South Africa and Egypt) to test genetically modified cotton, Agence France Press reported in May. Burkina Faso is Africa’s largest cotton producer, and Sofitex, which controls roughly 85 percent of the country's cotton market, says it will not be ready to produce genetically modified cotton until 2009.

From my viewpoint, I’ll say that opposition to GM crops remains strong in Burkina Faso and many hurdles remain before farmers grow these crops.

I’ll also say that this announcement sounds like the first blast in an upcoming trade dispute between the two countries. If so, a quarrel of this sort would harm both nations.

According to the World Trade Organization, agriculture products make up the majority of Burkina Faso’s exports. While a good portion of this is cotton, Burkina Faso does have a large tomato industry and tomato trucks are often seen traveling towards Ghana. Ghana receives 60 percent of all Burkina Faso’s exports, far outpacing the European Union, the second largest destination with 15 percent.

By receiving 12 percent of Ghana’s exports, Burkina Faso is the third most popular destination for Ghanaian goods. One can often find tomato paste containers from Ghana in the local markets.