|
|
Happy Holidays
We wish you a Happy Christmas and Prosperous 2007
|
 |
|
Africa: Policy on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods
The Cartagena protocol on biosafety, a supplement to the convention on biological diversity, has strong support in Africa, with a majority of the countries as signatories. In addition, several countries have, in the past, rejected aid (especially unmilled grains) in food imports with concerns for national biosafety. South Africa is so far the only country that is seeing wide-spread use of genetically modified crops.
See the Graphic (Map of Africa showing various countries with their positions on GM policy) at http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/africa_policy_on_genetically_modified_organisms_gmo_and_genetically_engineered_ge_foods |
|
The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food Diplomacy, Trade and Law
Genetically modified food is at the heart of a new global conflict over how to govern risky technologies in an era of globalization. A transatlantic trade dispute and North-South tensions have complicated the task of creating a global regime for genetic engineering in agriculture. This timely, comprehensive and provocative collection brings together experts from the fields of international relations, environmental studies, trade and international law to examine the sources of international friction and to explore the prospects for international co-operation.
'This is an outstanding collection of essays that makes a major contribution to both scholarship and to understanding public policy. I can think of no other volume that presents such as comprehensive, integrated analysis of the complex scientific, political , economic and legal dimensions of GMO policies. It is essential reading.' - David Vogel, George Quist Professor of Business Ethics and Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, US
'This masterful collection explores every angle of this quintessentially global controversy... It is essential reading for teachers and students of global politics along with anyone wishing to improve their understanding of the complex global politics surrounding GM food.' - Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne, Australia
Robert Falkner is Lecturer in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
- New Book by Robert Falkner, Hardback, Nov. 2006, ISBN 0230001254, 280 Pages
http://www.palgrave.com/products/Catalogue.aspx?is=0230001254
|
|
ISAAA BANANA PROJECT WINS AWARD
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) AfriCenter Tissue Culture Banana Project was voted the best project during the 10th Kenya Agricultural Research Institute’s (KARI) Biennial Science Conference, which ended in Nairobi last week.
The project, which started in December 2002, beat over 200 projects for the first prize. The evaluation was done by a team of experts commissioned by KARI prior to the conference, whose theme was “Responding to challenges and opportunities through the development and dissemination of innovative agricultural technologies, knowledge and approaches”.
The project aims to establish a self-sustaining system of production, distribution and utilization of farmer-preferred varieties of (TC) banana packaged with suitable micro credit component, and to strengthen its distribution network, orchard management and post harvest utilization.
In 2002 it was voted third best project during the 7th KARI Scientific Biennial Conference. It also won the First Place Medal in the Global Development Network (GDN) Awards for Science and Technology for Development, an initiative of the World Bank and the Government of Japan in 2000.
For more information contact Kasim Were at k.were@cgiar.org or d.otunge@cgiar.org. |
|
PROGRESS IN SOUTH AFRICAN BIOTECH REVIEWED
In a review published in the journal Trends in Biotechnology, researchers at the University of Pretoria wrote that the investments of the South African government to develop its biotechnology sector are now paying off. There are several biotechnological innovations now available commercially.
However, to further encourage the growth of the sector, the review by Thomas Cloete and colleagues cites that South African researchers should develop their entrepreneurial drive. This is needed to increase the small, medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) in the country and help provide employment opportunities to many.
One reason why South African university researchers just publish their results instead of patenting and commercializing their product is the high cost of registering foreign patents. The review said that the South African government can help by simplifying access to research funding and increase support for public research and development efforts.
The abstract, with link to the full article for subscribers, is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.10.009.
|
|
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF NIGERIA UNVEILED
Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has approved the launch of the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria, which would coordinate agricultural research in the country, provide effective linkage with production in agriculture, and promote food security. “I believe the Research Council can do a lot to bridge the gap between research and food production, and we will hold them responsible for this. They have to be practical and realistic and establish the appropriate connections necessary for success”, he stated.
Read the press release at http://www.nigeria.gov.ng/aso%20rock%20
news_agriculturalresearchcounciltakesoff.aspx. |
|
Biotech Cotton Won't Ease Hunger But May Ease Poverty
Mwea, Kenya - The fenced-in field is a checkerboard of cotton. Healthy and scraggly patches alternate in the red volcanic soil of the field-test site here, 50 miles northeast of Nairobi near the base of Mount Kenya. This pleases Monsanto Africa spokesman Kinyua Mbijjewe very much. That's because the scraggly patches, infested with bollworms, grew from conventional seeds; the tall, healthy plants were genetically modified.
Mbijjewe says farmers, a shrewd bunch, will be concerned less with the biotech controversy and more with the bottom line. "They don't see any horns or tails on the crops. They see normal plants like they're used to - except they don't have damage," he said. "These trials are the best advertisement there is."
While the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Creve Coeur is trying to give biotech cassava away, Monsanto wants to make as much money as it can from biotech cotton. Kenya is likely to become the third African nation to commercialize a biotech crop.
Biotech cotton won't solve hunger. But Mbijjewe contends that it will raise millions of African farmers out of poverty - especially if U.S. and European cotton subsidies decline and world prices rise. Mbijjewe, a tall, confident man, has driven to Mwea in his sleek, leather-seated Toyota Land Cruiser, whizzing past carts led by donkeys. For seven years, he has been Monsanto's point person in Africa - a lobbyist to a handful of governments and a lightning rod for anti-biotech criticism.
On the way to the field-test site, Mbijjewe picks up Charles Waturu, an entomologist with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, which is applying for regulatory approval on behalf of Monsanto. The field test, which began at the end of 2005, is surrounded by a 6-foot fence topped with barbed wire. A full-time guard stands at the gate - a deterrent more for monkeys than saboteurs, said Waturu.
Waturu steps on a sponge, soaked in disinfectant to destroy pollen, and crosses a buffer zone to reach the cotton patches. The conventional, untreated cotton plants are covered with bollworms, cotton's primary pest. These plants average fewer than 10 bolls, the nuggets of cotton harvested and sent to gins. The genetically modified cotton plants average three times as many bolls, Waturu said.
Biotech cotton relies on a gene that triggers the plant to make a protein that kills insects when they eat any part of the plant. The protein is nontoxic to humans and is the same as one produced by a soil microbe, Bacillus thuringiensis - a natural pesticide used for decades. The cotton is thus called Bt cotton, after the microbe. Farmers recoup the extra costs of the Bt seeds by using less pesticide.
Opposition to Bt cotton is still high among many activist groups. But worldwide, biotech cotton accounts for almost a third of all cotton planted. Some of the fastest growth in adoption of Bt cotton has come in the developing world, where 97 percent of the world's 20 million cotton growers live.
For example, several years ago, biotech was planted on just a few test sites in India but has since exploded. Last year, it covered more than 3 million acres, or one-seventh of the cotton planted by India, the world's third-biggest producer (after China and the U.S.).
Mbijjewe has high hopes for Africa, where more than 10 million farmers rely on cotton for their livelihoods. Bt cotton is bought and grown commercially only in South Africa. After three years of field trials, Burkina Faso, in the heart of the West African cotton belt, is probably next. Waturu says more widespread field tests in Kenya probably will be approved this month. |
|
Bt maize: No risk to woodlice
Woodlice are more likely to be found underneath damp stones in the garden than on farmland. These decomposers are not widely found in maize fields, but do occur in large numbers at the edges of piles of maize litter. Nevertheless, woodlice are regarded as model decomposers and have also been the subject of a few studies looking at possible effects of Bt maize.
Most studies on the effects of Bt maize on non‑target organisms have focussed on earthworms, springtails and microbes from the decomposer group. But woodlice also play an important role as decomposers in soil ecology. Their main task is the primary decomposition of dead plant material, which then becomes food for other decomposers such as mites, springtails and microbes.
A study published in August 2006 looked at the effect of Bt maize on two species of woodlouse, Trachelipus rathkii and Armadillidium nasatum (pill woodlouse). These two species of woodlouse make particularly suitable test organisms for the USA, since they are widely found in the maize-growing regions there.
In this laboratory study, leaf material from two Bt11 maize varieties, two Mon810 maize varieties and the corresponding isogenic lines were fed to the woodlice and their survival and growth was measured over an eight-week period. Both the plants and the woodlice were also examined for changes in nutrient content.
In 2000 and 2002, studies were conducted at the University of Bern with another species of woodlouse Porcellio scaber, also using Bt maize varieties that produce the Bt toxin Cry1Ab (Bt11 and Bt 176), as well as several conventional maize varieties. No Bt effect was observed, but there was a significant varietal effect, which the authors of the study attributed to variations in nutritional quality of the different varieties.
Mortality: In the current study no effects on mortality were observed for the two woodlouse species T. rathkii and A. nasatum. However, increased mortality was found in T. rathkii in additional tests using pure Bt toxin at the highest dosage. According to the authors, this could be an indication of chronic toxicity, which would have to be studied in more detail. But they also point out that this dosage is significantly higher than that which could arise in the field.
Weight increase and growth: No effect on weight increase or growth was observed for A. nasatum.
For T. rathkii the weight increase with all maize variants – irrespective of whether they were with or without Bt - was generally significantly lower than for the controls, where the woodlice were fed on guinea pig food that contains around 10 times more protein than the maize fodder provided.
No statistically significant difference between the Bt and corresponding isogenic lines was found. More significant differences were found between the different varieties. However, since a (statistically insignificant) tendency for more rapid weight increase and more rapid growth was observed for T. rathkii with the isogenic lines, further studies were conducted using pure Bt toxin. No Bt effect was demonstrated, but an effect on mortality was observed at the highest dosage (see above).
Moulting: No effect on moulting was found in the two woodlouse species T. rathkii and A. nasatum.
Einfluss der Nahrungsqualität von Mais auf Zersetzer
Effect of the nutritional quality of maize on decomposersIn this study too, significant varietal effects were found, but no significant Bt effects. The nutritional composition of the plants was therefore also examined. Different varieties have different nutritional qualities. For example, some Bt varieties are of higher nutritional quality whilst others are less suitable as a food source. In addition, individual species react differently to the food provided, as the differences in the two woodlouse species A. nasatum and T. rathkii show.
Significantly less protein was found in all maize variants compared with the control feed. Some Bt maize lines have a higher percentage protein content than their isogenic parent lines. However the protein content had no effect on the growth or weight increase of A. nasatum. With Trachelipus rathkii on the other hand, a marked positive correlation was observed between the protein content of the feed and weight increase and growth. The total protein content in the woodlice themselves, however, proved to be largely unrelated to the feed variants.
The authors conclude that differences in the nutritional composition between Bt lines and isogenic lines can lead to differences in the effects on non-target organisms that are not attributable to the Bt toxin itself. However, they stress that in addition to a control with the isogenic line, further varietal pairs and in particular an optimum food source should also be used as a control in order to be certain whether an observed effect is actually a Bt effect. Read More
|
|
Can A Biotech Cassava Ease Hunger In Africa?
Nakitoma, Uganda - The sleepy main street of Nakitoma, with its pancake seller and bicycle repairman, is little different from that of other provincial towns - just a flash of weathered, empty storefronts on the pocked road.
Barefoot children chase cars, calling out, "Bye-bye, Museveni!" For if someone is driving a car around here, he must be someone important, such as Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. It is a forgettable place, except for one thing: It is the epicenter of a pandemic whose shock waves still are ravaging Africa.
It was here, 18 years ago, that a virus swept into fields of cassava. Cassava is a food staple and a source of income for hundreds of millions of Africans. The potato-like plant sustains African farmers when their less hardy crops fail. The virus has spread into at least nine countries and has cut cassava yields in half.
Christopher Mukiibi's cassava patch is still sickly. Sitting outside in a yellow foam chair by a pile of rotting mangoes, Mukiibi, 75, eats a breakfast of corn porridge and boiled cassava. An oily smoke rises from the ruins of his crumbling kitchen hearth. "It's the main crop that has sustained my family," he says through a translator. His palsied hands tremble. He asks for food and sugar. "I need assistance."
That assistance might come from the basement of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Creve Coeur, where a little cassava plant grows in a puddle of hormones, its leaves pressed and straining against a plastic petri dish. Scientists genetically engineered the plant in 1999 to resist the virus. Since then, they have been trying to give the technology away.
But African nations, caught between the United States and Europe in a smoldering fight over biotechnology, have yet to allow field tests on their soil. The Danforth Center scientists acknowledge that a virus-resistant cassava won't solve African hunger on its own. Hunger is a complex issue, and poverty, war, substandard health care, poor roads and exploding populations all play roles.
But international aid workers are watching the Danforth Center as it attempts to bring the first nonprofit biotech product to Africa. First and foremost, the cassava project is a scientific experiment. The Danforth Center is coaxing governments to accept a technology that is still a work in progress.
The project also will test the role biotechnology has to play in stemming hunger by boosting crop yields. Biotech has yet to make much of an impact on Africa's poorest, who, some agricultural scientists say, could benefit more from investment in roads and fertilizer.
Finally, the cassava project is an experiment in the viability of nonprofit biotechnology. The 5-year-old Danforth Center is one of just a few public-sector biotech centers that freely licenses technology for humanitarian purposes. The center tackles crops ignored by the private sector because they are grown in poor countries where there isn't a market for biotech.
Last year, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation selected four of these "orphaned" crops - rice, banana, sorghum and cassava - for grants that would support development of genetically engineered nutritional enhancements. Some of the money went to the Danforth Center.
Getting the genetically engineered cassava into the ground in Africa is the job of Lawrence Kent, a Danforth Center nonscientist whose job depends on this science being put to use. Bolstered by the new donor money, Kent went last summer to Uganda, Malawi and Kenya to make his pitch to officials. "There hasn't been a public-sector success story for developing countries, and we'd all like to create one," he says. "There is pressure on us to succeed."
A pandemic emerges
The teenage boy in the Minnie Mouse T-shirt takes a chunk of cassava, skins it with his fingernail and bites into its raw, white flesh, a reward after a long day of hoeing. The woman who hired him also will pay him a little more than $1. She decided to uproot her tiny forest of cassava and pile the roots on a truck bound for Kampala, Uganda's capital. There, the 220-pound sacks of cassava will be sold fresh for just more than $20 - about $5 more than the woman could get in her local market.
Boiled like a potato, ground into a flour or eaten raw, cassava is a low-maintenance crop that can be found almost everywhere in Africa. It grows in poor soils and requires little water and little attention. Harvests are flexible: Roots can be left in the ground for two or three years and eaten in times of trouble. Pound for pound, cassava produces more starch per acre than any other staple food crop.
But the plant has a flaw: mosaic virus. First discovered in 1894, the virus produces a yellow mosaic pattern as it withers the leaves. Without that photosynthetic area, rootwads are puny. A plant that might ideally produce 10 big "potatoes" instead offers up just a few small ones or none at all. Routinely, mosaic infections cause farmers to lose a fifth of their crops, says James Legg, an entomologist in Tanzania who has studied cassava mosaic disease for years.
But in Uganda in the late 1980s, the virus mutated into something harsher. The new mosaic virus reduced cassava to barren stalks with useless roots. Farmers abandoned entire fields. The virus has raced across the countryside, spread by the bite of the tiny and ubiquitous whitefly. It also has spread when farmers sowed new cassava fields using the diseased stalks from infected plants.
Legg completed a survey this year that conservatively estimates a 47 percent overall loss to cassava farmers in the pandemic area, which includes at least nine nations, perhaps 11. He worries about the pandemic, which like a storm front is moving 50 miles a year toward Nigeria, the biggest cassava producer in the world. "This is huge," he says. "Farmers can't make any money from their crops. They have to eat everything they have."
Legg's loss estimate doesn't reflect the farmers who have given up on cassava and turned instead to crops such as corn, which is far more susceptible to drought. While Legg documents the losses from cassava mosaic disease, Kent, the Danforth Center's director of international programs, fantasizes about what African farmers could gain with a resistant plant.
If losses are almost half, then a resistant plant could double production. All that extra cassava could be sold, Kent says, and pay for things such as milk, medicine, newspapers, school fees and batteries. "For a poor family, that's a huge difference in the quality of life," he says.
Pursuing permission
Kent rises with the roosters on a cool, cloudy morning in Kampala. Outside the gated hotel walls, bicycles, scooters and matatus - minivans that serve as Africa's unregulated bus service - begin to honk and squeal as they compete for road space. Electricity returns to a country that suffers power cuts every night.
Kent's plane was delayed from Kenya. He didn't check into his hotel until after 1 a.m. The mosquito netting was torn, and the air conditioner didn't work. He slept poorly. He takes a bath and shaves and pops an anti-malaria pill. He prepares his papers for his first meeting, an important one, with the director of Uganda's agricultural research organization. He looks weary on this, the eighth day of a whirlwind 10-day trip. "Is it Monday?" he asks no one in particular.
Another day, another African city, another slew of official meetings. Kent wants to get the resistant cassava into the hands of farmers, but he first has to bend the ears of government officials who are debating whether to accept biotech.
Kent is no stranger to working in Africa. A former Peace Corps volunteer, he speaks French and Arabic, and he has visited two-thirds of the continent's nations. He also is no stranger to its hardships. Twenty years ago, in the Peace Corps in Mauritania, he taught poor farmers how to grow rice. Electricity, running water and bathrooms didn't exist. Two children in his host family died within his first two months.
At the Danforth Center, Kent says, he can work for bigger changes. He has traded the warmth of village experiences for the stiff handshakes of officialdom. Now, he wears suits. "The goats in the street, or the kids making cars out of cans of condensed milk, or donkeys on the highway, or matatus with 100 people hanging off of them - those things don't catch my attention anymore," he says.
A driver in a sport utility vehicle shows up at 7:30 a.m. to pick up Kent. He enters the madness of morning rush hour. Kent has been making trips such as this since he joined the Danforth Center in 2002. Nigeria was very interested in the biotech cassava at first. The Danforth Center flew Nigeria's national biosafety committee to St. Louis. But the committee postponed approval meetings.
In 2004, Malawi nearly approved a field trial, but it was held up indefinitely by one official. Kenya is the furthest along. In 2004 it allowed a limited test in which resistant cassava plants were tested in a closed greenhouse. But in the two years since, the national biosafety committee, through postponement after postponement, has avoided approving a field test. "We spend a lot of time ramming our heads into the same walls over and over again," Kent says.
Africa remains uncertain about the future of biotechnology. Only South Africa allows biotech crops to be grown and sold. And only a few nations - Algeria, Benin and Zambia - ban biotech. The rest seem on the fence, eager for the debate to play out before they commit.
Delays are common in Africa for many things, not just biotech. In a place where good roads and fixed bus schedules are practically nonexistent, waiting is just a part of everyday life. Waiting also is a part of science. Back in 1986, Danforth Center President Roger Beachy, then at Washington University, invented the method that scientists are using to engineer the cassava. He found that inserting bits of viral DNA into a tobacco plant gives it resistance to that virus, almost like a vaccine.
A few years later, Claude Fauquet, a Danforth Center plant scientist who was also at Washington University at the time, read about the technique and began applying it to his specialty, cassava. So biotech cassava has been a work in progress for almost two decades - and Fauquet still is refining the technology.
Last spring, he discovered that offspring from the cassava developed in 1999 had suddenly lost their resistance to the mosaic virus. The current cassava was engineered more cleanly, Fauquet says, and should retain its resistance. He feels lucky to have caught the problem. If field tests had gone ahead with the old cassava, many would have declared the technology a failure.
Legg, the cassava expert, says that biotech cassava will be useful one day, but in the meantime, traditional breeders already have had some success creating a resistant cassava. "There is the sense that the hype outweighs the potential value of (biotech cassava)," he says.
In Serere, Uganda, an agricultural researcher showed off fields of healthy cassava that had been crossbred with related species for resistance to the mosaic disease. Near the research station, farmers still grow the old, susceptible cassava.
Scientists at the Danforth Center say the new breeds aren't culturally acceptable, so farmers don't use them. "It doesn't taste right. It doesn't cook right," Kent says. Some farmers complain about the consistency of the porridge made from this cassava; others complain about the taste. The Danforth Center plans to produce customized, resistant versions of the preferred cassava varieties, region by region. "Neither of us has a quick solution," Kent says.
Beachy initially thought the virus resistance technique would have been used on crops within five years of its discovery. "It takes longer than just delivering a pill or putting up a school or digging a well. Critics say, 'Why aren't you doing this faster?" Beachy says.
Waiting ? and waiting
There are few nonprofit or public-sector precedents to guide the Danforth Center. No nonprofit biotech product has yet helped the developing world. In 1992, Monsanto donated training and money to a Kenyan scientist to make a virus-resistant sweet potato. A decade later, after millions of dollars in funding, field tests showed the modified variety no less vulnerable to disease than conventional sweet potatoes.
Another public-sector example, a biotech papaya, was a success story - but only in the United States. In 1992, the ringspot virus entered the main papaya-growing region of Hawaii. In six years, it had cut fruit production in half. In that time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture genetically engineered a virus-resistant version, showed good field-test results, obtained intellectual-property licenses and gave seeds to farmers.
Now, more than half of the papaya grown in Hawaii is genetically engineered. USDA scientist Dennis Gonsalves says biotech saved the papaya industry. The technology could be used in the developing world. Scientists have engineered resistant papayas for Jamaica, Venezuela, Brazil and Thailand. Field tests have been done. But none of the nations have allowed farmers to begin growing them. "So you just wait," Gonsalves says.
Public-sector scientists say they also are hamstrung by meager funding. Monsanto says that it costs up to $100 million to bring a biotech product to market. Public-sector biotech centers don't have that much money; the Danforth Center's endowment isn't even that big.
But last year, the center was part of a consortium that won a $7.5 million grant from the Gates Foundation. The consortium not only is targeting the cassava virus resistance, but also is trying to add vitamins, minerals and proteins to the plant while subtracting compounds that make some varieties of cassava poisonous and that make it spoil.
This year, Monsanto gave the center $7.5 million more for cassava work. Fauquet counts more than $30 million now available for cassava research worldwide. "We have never had this for cassava before," he says. The money has allowed Fauquet to turn his laboratory into a halfway house - something between an academic institution and a business.
Before, he had two people working on the project. Now, he has 18. Before, he could evaluate 200 cassava plants at once. Now, 1,500. He needs twice as much greenhouse space, and, with cassava overflowing in the center, he is renting space in Earth City.
The research is slogging, unsexy work, but for Fauquet, there is urgency. As he waits for his little cassava plants to grow, African populations are exploding. There were 216 million hungry Africans in 2004, more than twice as many as in 1971. "We cannot afford to neglect this crop," he says.
And the mosaic disease marches on, laying fields to waste.
|
|
Kenya Inches Close to Food Sustainability
Kenya has begun a countdown to commercializing genetically modified maize (corn). Scientists at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) and Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) have already developed a new maize seed, resistant to the stem borer. Stem borer destroys 400,000 tonnes of Maize in Kenya, alone. In Sub-Saharan Africa, chronic cases of stem borer infestation account for 10-70 per cent of yield losses. This has had devastating effects on Africa's efforts to feed its ever soaring population. Maize is the primary staple food and an occasional cash crop in many parts of Africa.
The first case of stem borer was discovered in Malawi in 1932. Since then, a raft of methods, pointedly, biological control, habitat management and use of natural pesticides, have been used to deal with the stem borer menace. Unfortunately, very little has been achieved. Bounty yields, a common occurrence in countries such as US, Canada, Argentina, India and China, which have embraced biotechnology, have not been forthcoming. For instance, Niger, one of the poorest countries in Africa is currently facing acute food shortage due to crop failure and drought. About 3.6 million people are on the verge of death due to hunger. Horrifying is news that 800,000 children are chronically malnourished.
Niger is a semi-desert country where lack of rain can result to massive crop failures. This situation and others in Africa can be avoided. Dishing emergency food aid, as is happening at the moment, will help in the short run. But long-term measures need to be explored.
The development of seeds with tolerance to drought and low soil fertility through modern biotechnology could benefit Niger and other countries in similar situations. Maize varieties with improved nutritional content will be a boon to malnourished children who strand the African continent.
It is worth noting that the development of maize seed resistant to pests such as stem borer not only heralds a new chapter in Kenya but Africa as a whole. Other African countries should now borrow a leaf from these two countries. They should swim by the waves rest they continue to be perpetual beneficiaries of relief food. Kenyan scientists have demonstrated determination to seek homegrown solutions to Africa's food problems.
It would be interesting to hear the views of critics of modern biotechnology about this latest development.In the past, they have accused rich countries of foisting novel technologies such as biotechnology on "hapless" Africa, in total disregard of their environmental impact or health complications associated with consumption of genetically modified food.
The jury is now out. To quote Dr Stephen Mugo, a plant breeder with CIMMYT, "The converted seeds have been studied, multiplied and tested in laboratories and greenhouse conditions."
--
James Wachai is a communication specialist who uses his expertise to increase public understanding of science and technology, specifically biotechnology. Read more http://www.gmoafrica.org.
|
|
Africa in the Middle of U.S.-European Biotech Trade War
- Eric Hand, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 12 2006 http://www.stltoday.com/
The story is the stuff of legend. Drought leads to famine across southern Africa. The U.S. ships aid across the Atlantic: millions of tons of corn, some of it genetically modified.
European environmental groups warn about the dire effects of allowing the corn in. The Zambian president calls the corn "poison." Food is locked in warehouses while people go hungry.
Four years ago, these events were a prism through which both sides of the biotech debate saw their worldview refracted. Supporters said: Here is the human cost of European irrationality and the missed opportunities of biotech. Skeptics said: Here is a deliberate provocation by the U.S., which could buy grain in Africa but instead works to secure a foothold to market its own biotech products.
The biotech conflict between Europe and the U.S. is a trade war that's being fought by proxy in Africa in a way that recalls an African proverb: When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled. "It's not about science, really. It's about trade," says Wisdom Changadaya, a pro-biotech scientist in
Malawi, which today mills donated biotech corn into flour to prevent it from being planted as seed. "These big nations are fighting. We happen to lose." Scientists at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Creve Coeur say the suspicions aroused by the trade war have hampered their efforts to field-test a biotech cassava, one of the most important food crops in Africa. Seven years ago, they genetically engineered the cassava to resist a virus that is ravaging the crop. The nonprofit biotech center wants to give the plant away.
But Lawrence Kent, the center's director of international programs, has been unable to get field tests approved. While the cassava virus continues to advance on farmers' fields, the biotech debate continues in government offices. Several African nations have banned biotech, several have embraced it, while many remain on the fence. Last summer, Kent went to Kenya, Uganda and Malawi to push yet again for the technology that could double cassava yields in the virus-affected areas.
"You want to do something with your life before you die," he says. "When I don't see (results) coming, I feel sad and lost. I need someone to sometimes say, 'Keep going. Keep going.'"
A 'Trojan horse'
Zachary Makanya wishes Kent and other biotech pushers would stop. He is the country coordinator for an anti-biotech nongovernmental organization near Nairobi that coordinates the efforts of groups throughout Africa. Makanya levels a barrage of criticisms against biotech, but they are political and economic criticisms, not scientific.
He says U.S. food aid is a "Trojan horse" that would put African markets in jeopardy. Crops like corn pollinate via the wind. When genetically modified corn arrives in a new location, genes can flow and mix with existing corn crops. In the eyes of European regulators, African corn exports therefore would be tainted. "By bringing (genetically modified food) into Africa we are actually killing our only market -- for organics," he says.
--are staple cereals for which Africa is a net importer. "Africa is not going to be a (corn) exporter to Europe," he says. "They're dreaming they will be an Iowa."
But even the presence of biotechnology in a country in Africa has caused some European importers to ask for expensive genetic testing or segregation of crops. "It's a big problem," Hall says. "It scares the daylights out of African traders." In Malawi, for example, tobacco growers worry about biotech tobacco seeds slipping into the country, for fear its organic European export market would be threatened.
The politics of biotech have influenced trade decisions in other parts of the world. China has grown biotech cotton for a decade. But it does not grow biotech soybeans, even though it imports some for feed. That's because it can export homegrown, nonbiotech soybeans at a premium to Japan and Korea.
In the U.S., Monsanto withdrew a planned commercial release of biotech wheat partly because of industry concerns that Canadian growers would resist growing the biotech wheat and would capture export markets to Europe, which was likely to balk at taking U.S.-grown biotech wheat.
Europe's de facto freeze on biotech imports, though it ended in 2003, has raised African suspicions, Makanya says. "Europe has more knowledge, education. So why are they refusing (genetically modified foods)? That is the question everybody is asking," he says.
Precaution and risk
The U.S.-European divide on biotech has much to do with competing cultural approaches to food and risk. Europeans are intimate with their food. They want to know where their wine and cheese hail from. Food safety scandals such as a mad-cow disease outbreak in Britain left consumers shaky. Some risk experts say the scandals spurred European fears of biotech.
The "precautionary principle" now forms the official basis for European Union environmental policy. One definition of the principle is: Lack of knowledge or certainty about a risk means that steps should be taken to limit that risk. The precautionary principle led Norway to ban Kellogg's Corn Flakes because of the uncertain risk of added vitamins and minerals, while Denmark banned cranberry drinks because of the uncertain risk of extra vitamin C. The bans were later overturned.
In contrast, the U.S. tends to celebrate risk-taking. The burden of regulation is on government agencies to show evidence that a company's product is risky before steps are taken to stop the company. The U.S. is the No. 1 grower of biotech crops, representing 55 percent of the global biotech area planted last year.
The World Trade Organization ruled this year that the European Union was wrong to ban biotech imports between 1999 and 2003. Since then, a few European nations, including Germany and France, have allowed small test plots to go forward, though it is unclear whether consumers will accept biotech products. Activists last summer continued to burn biotech test fields in France.
Africa is caught in the middle. In the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union pitted African nations against one another and supported like-minded regimes. A similarly checkered map has now emerged with biotech. For example, South Africa grows genetically engineered crops, while Zambia and Benin have banned biotech. Most countries remain undecided.
The debate is occurring in the ministerial hallways of African capitals. In the dry, red fields of southeastern Uganda, biotech still is a mystery. In Kadimukoli, a loose federation of shade and shacks down a dirt track teeming with pink-frocked schoolchildren, a handful of farmers didn't have an opinion about biotech. They didn't have an opinion because they didn't know what genetically modified crops are. They just knew that their cassava was sick.
One of the farmers, Jane Wattaba, says it has been hard to support her 10 surviving children since her husband, a member of Parliament, was murdered in the early 1980s. Her small cassava grinder is broken, the repair money sacrificed to pay school fees for her children.
Over a lunch of boiled cassava, she says that farmers have weathered the damage caused by the cassava virus by obtaining varieties that show better resistance - one is called "Red Cross" after the aid organization that brought it to Kadimukoli. She says she would like to test a cassava called "St. Louis."
Deadlines to meet
When Kent returned from Africa last summer, he was more optimistic that this could happen. In Kenya, field tests of conventional cassava plants have begun. These plants will be compared to biotech cassava in future field tests that Kent said could happen next year. He said Ugandan officials were so enthusiastic that they approached him. Malawi was a bit more skeptical but still interested in the cassava project, he says.
Even if Kent gets permission for field tests, biotech cassava is still years away from farmers' fields. And deadlines must be met. "Donors put pressure on us. You have to deliver," Kent says.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Monsanto Fund have given the Danforth Center millions of dollars to genetically modify the cassava so that it is virus-resistant, fortified with vitamins and minerals and lacking in cyanide-producing chemicals. The grants are for five years and specify more than 100 mileposts in the coming years, from rounding up intellectual property rights to performing human trials of the zinc and iron fortification.
Kent says a significant milestone will occur early next year, when field tests for the first genetically modified cassava -- for the reduction of cyanide-producing chemicals - begin in Puerto Rico. Danforth Center scientists won't be able to test their virus-resistant cassava in Puerto Rico because the disease doesn't exist there. But Kent hopes that a test of genetically modified cassava on U.S. soil will allay African officials' fears that they are guinea pigs.
Flirtatious governments have disappointed him before, but he doesn't indulge in cynicism. Kent credits his local priest with giving him some newfound perspective. Before he left for Africa, the priest gave him a poem from Archbishop Oscar Romero, an activist Salvadoran priest assassinated in 1980.
The poem begins: "It helps now and then to step back and take the long view / The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts It is even beyond our vision
"We plant the seeds that one day will grow / We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise
"It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way."
|
|
FAO E-Mail Conference: Water Scarcity and Agricultural Biotechnologies
- FAO-BiotechNews, Dec. 12, 2006, http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp
The FAO Biotechnology Forum is devoting its next e-mail conference to the role that biotechnologies can play in helping developing countries cope with water scarcity. Organised in collaboration with FAO's Water Resources, Development and Management Service, the conference will cover issues such as the use of biotechnologies to increase the efficiency of water use in agriculture and the use of micro-organisms in wastewater treatment.
To discuss and exchange experiences on this subject, we invite you to join the conference. This will be the 14th conference hosted by the Forum since it was launched in 2000. The conference, as usual, is open to everyone, is free and will be moderated. It begins on 5 March and finishes on 30 March 2007.
All e-mail messages posted during the conference will also be placed on the Forum website (http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp). To join the Forum (and also register for the conference), send an e-mail to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org leaving the subject blank and entering the following text on two lines: subscribe BIOTECH-L
subscribe biotech-room2
Those who are already Forum members should leave out the first line of the above message, to register for the conference. For more information, contact biotech-mod2@fao.org |
|
Africa cannot ignore food biotechnology
ACHIEVING adequate food with nutritional requirements for all people is one of the prime challenges facing most developing countries, particularly in the sub-Saharan region.
In Africa, for example, governments have made it almost like an annual habit to ask for food aid claiming that crops had failed due to unfavourable weather conditions and inadequate rainfall.
This is the excuse that countries, including Kenya, where agriculture is the lifeline of over 80 percent of rural folks and also provides 70 percent employment, continue to give.
Research shows that farming constraints such as inappropriate technologies for small holder farmers, high cost of farm inputs, farm fragmentations, etc that Kenya continue to give as an excuse to justify itsr begging spree are a thing of the past.
According to Prof. Onesmus ole Moi Yoi of the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology Africa, such constraints have been eliminated in other parts of the world through use of science and technology.
Prof. ole Moi Yoi argues that food insecurity and malnutrition can be made a thing of the past if the Government can adopt a policy that would help rural-based farmers to boost their farm production.
He says, “Food security is achieved, if adequate food (quality, quantity, safety, sociocultural acceptability) is available and accessible for and satisfactorily utilised by all individuals at all times to live a healthy and happy life.”
Prof. ole Moi Yoi says following success of green revolution in the 1980s that helped to triple food production (availability) in Latin America and Asia, but which African countries largely ignored, the continent can now ill-afford to ignore biotechnology. He says it was a misnomer that Africa was bypassed by the green revolution adding that it would be unwise for the same to happen with the GM technology, which is not only promising to offer solutions to hunger and environment problems, but also contain malnutrition.
Prof. ole Moi Yoi regrets that Kenya and other countries still rely on rain fed, the use of irrigation, fertiliser, hybrid seeds which is too expensive for the poor nation to feed its population. But Dr. Phelix Majiwa of A New Bridge to Sustainable Agricultural Development of Africa says, sub-Saharan Africa is the only region where per capita food production has actually declined over the past two decades compared to other regions. Dr. Majiwa says that between 1980 and 1995, yields of staple crops, for example, fell by an average of 8 percent compared to an increase of 27 percent in Asia and 12 in Latin America, which are also classified as developing countries.
Dr. Majiwa says that other than just hunger, sub-Saharan Africa is still faced with acute malnutrition, which affects over 200 million of the population. He says nearly two-thirds of Africa’s poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their survival. Low and often declining farm-level productivity is a major cause of persistently low income and hunger. Malnutrition is common in sub-Saharan Africa with about 40-50 percent of the region’s population rstill malnourished each year and the region is worse off nutritionally today than it was 30 years back Already the Kenya government has reiterated its support for the genetically modified crops. As far as Dr. Wilson Songa is concerned the technology is outstanding.
He says that the importance of the GM technology in crop production would not only grow faster but also meet the nutritious needs of most poor communities in Kenya. Dr. Songa agrees that, “The convectional farming methods alone may not provide solutions to all our problems given the increased demands for agricultural productivity”.Indeed, agricultural science and improved technologies have over the past 50 years made a huge impact on poverty in the developing world mainly in Asia and Latin America but Africa is yet to realise anywhere near the full potential that agricultural science has to offer. The harsh realities imposed by poverty and food insecurity throughout sub-Saharan Africa forces countries now to think twice this time round whether to adopt the use of biotechnology or risk being left behind as it happened when the Green Revolution came.
Some experts say that Africa stands to miss the benefit of biotechnology if it is keeps on listening to what other countries are saying about the use of technology. Dr. Romano Kiome, Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, refutes such allegations and assures that Kenya has the scientific capacity, human resources and the physical capacities to deliver GM technology to the highest quality standards required.
Dr. Kiome says that Kenya has already adopted the use of tissue culture, marker aided selector to produce bananas, some species of trees and is yet to start using genetically modified technology to produce cereals such as maize which is the region’s staple foodn.
He says maize is one of the most important sources of calories for the poor in Africa, second only to cassava. It is a significant part of the diet of millions of smallholder subsistence farmers, who grow it primarily in mixed cropping systems.
Small to medium scale farmers who cultivate 10 hectares or less grow 95 percent of the maize produced in Africa.
Diseases and insect pests, particularly several different species of stem borers, cause significant yields losses in all African eco-regions where crop is grown He agrees that losses vary from 15 to 40 percent but in some areas it is total failure. A combination of traditional plant breeding and novel gene technology is being used to produce maize varieties that are resistant to stem borers.
Perhaps if the losses caused by pests, diseases, weeds, cost of insecticide, soil erosion, exhaustion etc can be minimised with the use of biotechnology, African countries, Kenya in particular, would not be begging for food for its citizen every year.
BY ZACHARY OCHUODHO
Kenya Times
Nairobi, Kenya
|
|
ENGINEERING WILT-RESISTANT BANANAS FOR AFRICA
Millions of farmers in East Africa are dependent on banana for their livelihood. Unfortunately, bananas in the region are susceptible to the banana xanthomonas wilt (BXW) disease, which attacks all banana varieties resulting in absolute crop loss. Measures for managing BXW are already in place, but only a small percentage of the farmers are aware of these practices. Thus scientists from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) are spearheading the development of wilt-resistant bananas to counter the spread of the disease. IITA will be working with Uganda's National Agricultural Research Organization, the Kenya-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation, and Academia Sinica in Taiwan in this project.
One approach being explored is to transform farmer-preferred banana cultivars by introducing a resistance gene from sweet pepper. Priority has been given to the major farmer-preferred banana varieties, including Kayinja. The improved varieties will be tested rigorously for efficacy against BXW and for environmental and food safety in compliance with regulations of each of the countries where such bananas could be grown and consumed.
Read the complete news article at http://www.iita.org/cms/details/news_details.aspx?articleid=580&zoneid=81. |
|
Uganda: GMOs Are Key to Commercial Agriculture
By Mutebi Kityo
New Vision
December 5, 2006
THERE are many products and processes of biotechnology such as brewing of beer, in-vitro (or in test tube) fertilisation, plant tissue culture, among others, that have been developed and applied for many years to the benefit of mankind without much controversy.
However Genetic Modification Technology has caused controversy despite the fact that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which are products of products of biotechnology, have been commercialised in more than 40 countries with significant benefits..
In Uganda, no GMO crop has been commercialised but the potential is enormous. Scientists are already doing a good job at the National Agricultural Research Laboratories Institute (NARLI) at Kawanda.
Uganda can not afford to miss out on the biotechnology revolution as a means of improvement of crop productivity, curtailing the spread of crop diseases such as Black Sigatoka and bananas and coffee wilt diseases. For instance, work on addressing the Black Sigatoka and banana wilt has already started at NARLI.
Biotechnology is also important in the production of human medicines and vaccines. For instance, insulin that is used for treatment of diabetes is a product of genetic modification.
Before this method was discovered, insulin was derived from pig and bovine liver and many patient were allergic to this impure product. In addition, not sufficient quantities could be derived from animals to cater for increasing number of diabetics. Today large quantities of insulin are produced using biotechnology. This saves millions of lives annually.
In Africa, more than 40,000 people die every day from hunger-related causes, millions of tonnes of good soils are eroded by water and wind every day, and man has put a lot of pressure on the environment in search for food, water, shelter and fuel.
Any scientific discovery geared towards addressing any of these challenges ought to be embraced. However, for this to happen, we need to have an explicit policy in place.
Kenya for instance has already done confined field trials of a number of genetically engineered crops including cotton, maize, cassava and sweet potatoes. Given that our boarders are porous, we need a policy under whose framework we shall enact a biosafety law that will help us handle challenges of commercialisation of biotechnology.
|
|
NEW MAIZE VARIETIES FOR KENYAN FARMERS
To improve the livelihood of African farmers, scientists based at Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and working within the Maize Breeders Network (MBNET) have been developing new maize varieties for commercialization. During a recently convened National Performance Trial Committee meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, ten improved maize varieties bred by KARI were recommended for pre-release or full release. The varieties produce higher yields than those currently grown by farmers, are also tolerant to drought and resistant to maize streak virus disease, stem borer damage, and leaf blight and gray leaf spot.
Read the news article at http://www.africancrops.net/news/dec06/ininda.htm |
|
STRIGA-RESISTANT MAIZE FOR COMMERCIAL RELEASE IN KENYA
Following extensive tests and farm trials, Striga-resistant maize, known in Kenya as Ua Kayongo, is now made available to small-scale farmers. The Partnership to Control Striga in Kenya has organized an event in Kisumu City, Kenya on 13-15 December 2006 to facilitate the commercial release of Ua Kayongo maize. The Partnership is led by Agricultural Technology Foundation, BASF, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and Forum for Organic Resource Management and Agricultural Technologies (FORMAT) in collaboration with a network of non-government organizations, seed companies, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and farmer associations in Kenya.
The new herbicide-resistant maize hybrid and seed coated herbicide technology is based upon inherited resistance of maize to a systemic herbicide (imazapyr), a mechanism widely recognized as imazapyr-resistance (I-R). When I-R maize seed is coated with the herbicide, Striga attempting to parasitize the resulting plant are destroyed. Imazapyr is marketed to Kenyan seed companies producing I-R Ua Kayongo maize (mixed vernacular for Striga killer) under the trade name Strigaway.
Readers can access the full article at http://africancrops.net/news/dec06/index.htm. Inquiries can be directed to Canon Savala (FORMAT), email: format@wananchi.com, Nancy Muchiri (AATF), email: n.muchiri@aatf-africa.org and Fred Kanampiu (CIMMYT), email: f.kanampiu@cgiar.org. |
|
A Video on Benefits of Modern Biotechnology
The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has developed a video on benefits of modern biotechnology. The video explores the various applications of biotechnology, from vaccine development to the production of genetically modified crops. The most interesting aspect of this video is its featuring of individuals recount how modern biotechnology has changed their lives, for the better. The video is available at http://www.bio.org/news/video/greatnewfrontier.asx |
|
UN agencies come together to support NEPAD
This press release reports that several United Nations (UN) agencies have teamed up with the New Partnership for African Development (Nepad) to fight poverty in Africa. Nepad has been very keen in seeking solutions to Africa's poverty, and has identified science and technology as one of the most effective tools to achieve its goals. Recently, Nepad has released a position paper that urges African leaders to integrate modern biotechnology into their national development plans.
Economic Commission for Africa
November 20, 2006
UN agencies met in Addis Ababa last week to formulate ways of working jointly in a bid to support the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
The meeting also included representatives of the African Union Commission and the NEPAD Secretariat. They agreed to coordinate action for Africa's development, in accordance with a “cluster system” grouping specialized agencies together.
“This meeting is a bold attempt to resuscitate the UN cluster system, and to give direction to the joint work of the agencies with regard to NEPAD,” said Abdoulie Janneh, UN Under Secretary General and ECA Executive Secretary.
The cluster system means that development programming for Africa can be better streamlined in accordance with AU priorities.
“This meeting will give the system more focus, and has also emphasized to the UN system the need to optimize our work in Africa, aligning it with NEPAD and AU priorities,” said Janneh, who chaired the meeting.
There are now nine clusters in total, including governance , agriculture , food security , infrastructure development , and science and technology . In this way production and the international market to health and nuc lear energy , full advantage can be taken of the competencies of each UN agency.
As a convener of the different agencies working in support of NEPAD , ECA will host the UN/Nepad secretariat of the regional consultation mechanism . It will also act as an agent for crosscutting issues, and monitor programme alignment duplication so as to streamline resources for development.
The AU expressed appreciation with efforts to boost the resources for Africa's development. “As each partner defines their role in an organized manner, our self-confidence and belief in ourselves increases,” said Elizabeth Tankeu, AU Trade and Industry Commissioner.
In addition to the AU and NEPAD, at least 20 UN agencies and departments attended the meeting. |
|
A RESEARCH NETWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE COCOA PRODUCTION IN AFRICA
Cocoa farming is central to West Africa: Ghana and the Ivory Coast alone provide nearly 60% of the total world production, and a large proportion of the rural population depends on this crop for their living (6 million people in Ghana alone). However, cocoa farming in the region is facing a difficult time, as soil nutrients are depleted from older plantations due to shortages of fertilizers, and as the pressure of plant pests and parasites increase. These difficulties are pushing farmers to turn to forests in search of more productive land, a practice that will have serious economic, environmental and social implications
How can the sustainable production and exportation of this important crop be promoted? To this aim, CIRAD, a French agricultural research centre working for international development, has established an African Research Network, which falls under the auspices of the Cocoa Producers Alliance (COPAL) and the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD). The network comprises 35 researchers from 32 research and development organizations in the leading five cocoa-producing countries in Africa: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria and Cameroon.
Read the full news at http://www.cirad.fr/en/actualite/communique.php?id=589 |
|
ABNETA Feature Alert
ABNETA is alert with any developments in modern Biotech World. Send us information for inclusion in our database and also in our monthly newsletter to [webmaster@abneta.org] .
Back TOP
|
|