MALNUTRITION: How to engage with farmers over GM crops

Obidimma Ezezika and Justin Mabeya : 22 February 2012
 Flickr/CIMMYT
Biotech researchers should explain that developing insect-resistant crops can take years


Farmers are more likely to use GM crops if they are involved in crop development in the right way, say Obidimma Ezezika and Justin Mabeya.
The rapid uptake of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries poses a dilemma for agri-biotech programmes: when and how should researchers engage farmers in the process of developing crops?
If farmers are engaged too early, they are likely to develop high expectations that the projects may not be able to meet. Engaging them too late may lead to low adoption of the technology.
To better understand when and how to involve farmers, we interviewed agricultural experts from five countries in Sub-Saharan Africa — from individual farmers to farmers' associations, seed companies, scientists and non-governmental organisations.

Realistic expectations
Reaching out to farmers early in the process of developing GM crops is crucial, and can help avoid the perception of the technology being 'dumped on them'. But this should be done gradually. Ideally, engagement should peak about a year before the technology is available, when farmers are selecting planting materials for the following season.
This helps to ensure that farmers' expectations can be met. For example, the enthusiasm of farmers and seed companies involved in the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa project in Kenya was dampened by the delayed delivery of maize products.
Managers of agri-biotech programmes should be clear about a project's limitations, such as the technical and regulatory hurdles that can lead to delays or failure to deliver a product.
And they should explain the difference between research and the end product, and that developing biotech crops could take ten years or more — as was the case for the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa project.
Communication is important. Messages about new GM crops should be optimistic but realistic about their potential to address a problem, such as insect resistance, herbicide tolerance or drought tolerance.

Seeing is believing
Campaigns informing farmers about crop development projects can encourage them to participate, giving them an opportunity to assess the potential benefits. If farmers are part of the decision-making, it is easier to keep them involved and manage their expectations.
Using improved conventionally bred crops that have already been accepted by the farmers makes engagement easier, and can be a stepping stone to introducing GM crops.
Trials on farms, rather than in restricted environments, can help farmers appreciate the time it takes to develop technologies and so temper their expectations. When used alongside confined field trials, farm trials are also likely to give farmers confidence in the biotech crops — after all, 'seeing is believing'.
Adoption rates tend to be higher when farmers actively participate in technology development. In South Africa, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture established the Farmer Support Program in 1995 [1] to help farmers access and adopt technologies developed by the Agricultural Research Council. As part of the programme, farmers were invited to participate through training and on-farm demonstration trials.
The development of quncho, [2] a new variety of tef (Ethiopia's main cereal), by the Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centre in Ethiopia, shows the benefits of this approach. By involving farmers through participatory variety selection, breeding and on-farm trials, the area planted rose from 150 hectares in 2006 to 2,938 hectares in 2009, and yields doubled to 2.2 tonnes per hectare.

Targeting farmers
Religious and cultural concerns, over how new technologies might affect traditional seed systems, for example, can make it difficult for farmers to adopt GM crops. Understanding these concerns and addressing them through continuous dialogue can help farmers accept the technology.
One way to encourage adoption is to engage with a few progressive farmers (rather than many small-scale farmers), who will then liaise with the rest of the farming community. Progressive farmers are those who have good crop yields, for example, are consulted for advice by other farmers, or are leaders of farmers' associations.
This strategy of targeting farmers to act as liaisons has been used successfully in several programmes in Africa. [1,3,4] To be effective, it requires clear communication about the project.
Collaborating with other local organisations — such as seed companies or cooperative societies — to leverage their connections and experience can also help with creating awareness and sharing information.
Working with seed companies at an early stage in breeding and developing crop varieties can help to ensure that farmers benefit. And collaborating with the government is essential.
Farmers are integral to the development of biotech crops. It is important to engage with them from the beginning of the process, and to recognise the value of their knowledge and advice. But researchers should be careful to avoid making promises and raising expectations that may not be met.
Obidimma C. Ezezika is a program leader at the Sandra Rotman Center, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Justin Mabeya is a research consultant at the Sandra Rotman Center, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

References
[1] Kimaro, W. H., Mukandiwa, L. and Mario, E. Z. J. (eds) Towards improving agricultural extension service delivery in the SADC region [2.44MB]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Sharing among Extension Players in the SADC Region, 26–28 July 2010, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (2010).
[2] Assefa, K. et al. Quncho: The first popular tef variety in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9, 25–34 (2011).
[3] Amudavi, D. M. et al. Assessment of technical efficiency of farmer teachers in the uptake and dissemination of push-pull technologies in western Kenya. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE), 24– 27 May 2009, International San Juan Resort, Puerto Rico (2009).
[4] Glendenning, C. J., Babu, S. and Asenso-Okyere, K. Review of agricultural extension in India: Are farmers' information needs being met? [1.72MB] International Food Policy Research Institute (2010).
http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/gm-crops/opinions/how-to-engage-with-farmers-over-gm-crops-1.html

POVERTY: FOOD: How to fix a "broken" supply system

JOHANNESBURG, 1 June 2011 (IRIN)

 Photo: Flickr:
Food for thought – grain prices could double in the next two decades

The current droughts in Europe and floods in the USA threaten yet another rise in cereal prices in the next few weeks, and serve as a reminder of the changing dynamics of the global food supply system.
Aid agency Oxfam in its new report, Growing a Better Future, says the global food system is “ broken” and warns that we have entered “a new age of crisis where depletion of the earth’s natural resources and increasingly severe climate change impacts will create millions more hungry people.”
It builds on projections by US-based think-tank International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) to predict that food prices of staple grains will more than double in the next two decades.
Using economic modelling based on alternative future scenarios for agricultural supply and demand that take into account the potential impact of climate change, IFPRI has been projecting crop yields, food prices, and child malnutrition up to 2050 and beyond.
“Climate change, high and volatile food and energy prices, population and income growth, changing diets, and increased urbanization will put intense pressure on land and water and challenge global food security as never before,” said Mark Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology division at IFPRI.
“If agricultural production and policymaking continues down its present course, there could be severe consequences for many poor people in developing countries.”
In another 40 years traditional suppliers of certain cereals will change and so will food preferences in Asia as economic prosperity will wean people off a grain-rich to a more diversified diet.
“For Asian countries, we expect rice consumption to continue to decline - as it has been in Vietnam - from 168kg per capita in 2000 to 119kg per capita in 2050,” said Rosegrant.
Asian countries could end up exporting bigger quantities of rice mostly to African countries. The demand for staples will grow in least developed countries, but demand for maize and other coarse grains to produce biofuels will grow substantially in developed countries as well, the projections show.
But growing demand and limited potential to increase supply will force Asian economies, including India and China, to become net importers of grains and meat if there are no changes in the pressures on the food supply and policies, according to Rosegrant.
The USA, Canada and Russia will be able to sustain their production and remain big exporters. Australia’s performance depends on weather conditions which have affected yields dramatically in recent years. Brazil and Argentina will become increasingly important exporters. But food prices could go up 70 percent by 2050, he says.
Global prices are already high with a lot of uncertainties even over the next few months. "During the last food price crisis in 2007-2008, many of the major suppliers of staple grains were affected by environmental factors - as we have now," cautioned Abdolreza Abbassian, secretary of the Intergovernmental Group on Grains at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The last crisis pushed up the number of hungry by almost a billion.
So how do you repair the “broken” food system? Three experts give us their five top policy fixes:
Christopher Barrett, a food aid expert, who teaches development economics at Cornell University in the USA:
More money for research: Substantial expansion of investment in agricultural research capacity, especially in low- and middle-income countries. “The food price crises of recent years are the bitter harvest of a generation’s underinvestment in agricultural research to ensure that productivity growth keeps pace with demand growth.”
Investment in renewable energy: Spend more to power irrigation in Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America. Provide low-cost liquid fuels to reduce transport costs and food marketing margins in more remote rural areas: and reduce diversion of prime agricultural lands into fuel crop production. “The energy crisis is linked to the food crisis and will become more closely coupled in the years ahead.”
Reduce bureaucratic red tape and investment restrictions: This will improve the flow of money in agricultural marketing systems that could reduce large post-harvest food losses. “The world produces ample food; it just cannot distribute and store it well so as to meet needs equitably and efficiently.”
Diffusion of genetically modified crop varieties: Help low and middle-income countries enact appropriate bio-safety standards to expand the use of genetically modified (GM) varieties that have proved effective in reducing losses to pests, increasing yields, and/or reducing agro-chemicals use.
Reform US food aid and improve coordination among donors: This will eliminate restrictions that add costs and impose delays which undermine the efficacy of the world’s emergency food assistance system.

Mark Rosegrant, IFPRI:
Increase investments in agricultural research to improve crop and livestock productivity; promoting GM crop varieties which have proven effective and are considered safe.
Greater spending on agricultural infrastructure, especially rural roads and irrigation.
Improve access to diversified, nutritious food and safe drinking water with good service delivery and safety nets.
Spending on girls’ education, which has a direct bearing on food security.
Promote the manufacture of ethanol - biofuel from sugarcane rather than from staple grains. “This will not only reduce pressure on grain to be used as feed for biofuel but provide a cheaper and greener alternative to fossil fuel.”

Gonzalo Fanjul, Oxfam’s senior strategic adviser:
Manage the food system better by regulating volatile commodity markets and making them more transparent; bolster regional and national food reserves; and put an end to biofuel policies which reward companies which divert food into fuel.
Invest in small-scale producers and protect their rights to land and other natural resources. Five hundred million small-scale farms in developing countries already support one third of humanity and offer the greatest potential to sustainably boost global yields.
Recognize the crucial role women play in feeding the world by ensuring women are in positions of leadership in institutions where agricultural, food security and climate change decisions are made.
Deliver a global deal that will ensure the world avoids the worst impacts of climate change, and helps poor producers adapt to changes already in the system.
Introduce national and international rules that will stop investors and corporations undertaking irresponsible large-scale land investments which undermine vulnerable people’s access to resources and food security.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=92862

POVERTY: Peru relaxes GM rules … for now

Zoraida Portillo : 9 May 2011
 Flickr/iied.org
Peru is home to a high biodiversity of crops such as potatoes

After nine years of discussions, Peru's government has passed an agricultural biosafety regulation intended to promote biotechnological research and help the country's researchers catch up with other Latin American nations.
The Biosafety Rules for the Agriculture or Forestry Sectors will regulate the research, production and trade of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), activities that were not previously allowed apart from the import of GMOs for food and limited permission to study GM potatoes.
But the regulation, signed into legislation by the president, Alan Garcia, last month (15 April), has had a cool reception from both public and private sectors, including some scientists. Critics fear the law will open the floodgates to GMOs, jeopardising the country's biodiversity — Peru is home to many unique wild relatives of staple crops such as potatoes and maize.
The Peruvian Society of Environmental Rights has said farmers do not need GM crops to be productive and has called for the country to heed the precautionary principle of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which Peru signed in 2004.
But Jorge Alcantara, head of genetic resources and biotechnology at the National Institute of Agrarian Research (INIA), has denied that the regulation opens the door to indiscriminate GM crop production. "On the contrary, it will regulate all activities related to the use of GMOs under strict scientific control measures," he told SciDev.Net.
Under the law, INIA will be responsible for the security of biotechnological activities in the agricultural sector and for developing GM research. Critics have said that this makes INIA "judge and the jury" for any decisions regarding GMOs.
To ease concerns, INIA has started mapping areas containing wild varieties of maize, cotton and potatoes to minimise the risks of cross-fertilisation between GM and non-GM crops in any future field trials.
If there is an application for planting GM crops close to these native varieties, "it would be very difficult to approve a release," Alcantara said.
He added that the Cayetano Heredia and San Martín de Porres universities, the International Potato Center and INIA will be the first to benefit from the law as it will allow them to conduct research.
Phytogeneticist Maria Scurrah, president of Mountain Research Initiative, Lima, told SciDev.Net the benefit of the regulation is that it will allow research with real GM cultivars, not just computer simulations.
She added there should be more investigation into both the potential benefits and the risks of GM technology for Peru, and "regulation is a good way to start doing that".
Marcel Gutierrez-Correa, director of the Laboratory of Mycology and Biotechnology at the National Agrarian University La Molina, said the regulation makes it easier to obtain research funding for crops and areas that big corporations are not interested in, such as developing GM papaya resistant to ringspot virus.
But there are moves to restrict the new law. Next week Peru's Congress is scheduled to discuss another bill that would set a 15-year moratorium on the entry of any GMOs into the country, apart from those for research purposes and drugs containing GMOs that are not available in other forms.
The environment minister, Antonio Brack Egg, who heads the movement, told SciDev.Net that a moratorium is needed "to scientifically analyse the potential impacts, and to have infrastructure and institutional capacity to face an eventual presence of GMOs in the country".
But the agriculture minister, Rafael Quevedo, said that, if the moratorium is approved, Peru will suffer trading reprisals and jeopardise free-trade treaties, without any scientific evidence of risk for either human health or the environment.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/peru-relaxes-gm-rules-for-now.html

MALNUTRITION: GM maize contaminates non-GM crops in Uruguay

Daniela Hirschfeld : 5 May 2011
 Flickr/nchenga
Pollen from GM maize may fertilise non-GM plants

Contamination of traditional maize crops planted near genetically modified (GM) maize fields may be common in Uruguay, where the cultivation of GM maize has been permitted since 2003, scientists have said.
A study published in Environmental Biosafety Research (25 March) has found GM seedlings in three traditional maize fields. It is said to be the first report of cross-fertilisation between GM and non-GM maize in South America.
Studies on the unplanned presence of GM maize and the contamination of non-GM crops in Latin America have led to some controversial cases, such as a retracted 2001 Nature study from Mexico and a 2007 Peruvian study that led to a libel case against one of the scientists who challenged the findings and a subsequent campaign for freedom of speech for scientists.
And Monsanto's GM maize trial in Mexico has recently re-ignited the debate in the country that boasts the most diverse maize genetic resources.
But, unlike Mexico and Peru, Uruguay permits the cultivation of GM maize. The varieties MON810 and Bt11 were approved for commercial planting in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Governmental regulations specify that GM and non-GM crop fields should be more than 250 metres apart to avoid cross-fertilisation and ensure their "regulated coexistence", and that 10 per cent of the field should be non-GM to provide a refuge area for biodiversity.
In the latest research, scientists from Uruguay's University of the Republic analysed five pairs of commercial maize fields where farmers planted GM maize at about the same time as a nearby non-GM crop.
Studying commercial fields is better than using experimental plots, which may not correspond to the real-life situation, the scientists argue.
In three cases they detected foreign genes from GM maize, the 'transgenes', in seedlings produced by seeds taken from the non-GM crops. The transgenes were presumably blown over in pollen from the GM fields.
The highest percentage of transgenic seedlings was 0.83 per cent in a field 100 metres from the GM maize field.
In one case, the cross-fertilisation occurred despite a Eucalyptus tree barrier (12 metres high, 30 metres wide) separating the fields, and another case involved cross-fertilisation between fields more than 250 metres apart.
Cross-fertilisation may therefore be "a common situation in Uruguay", the authors said, adding that the area planted with GM maize in the country is increasing.
"These results also show that the current regulation in Uruguay is insufficient and that the actual 'coexistence policy' is not well known among farmers," Pablo Galeano, the study's lead author, told SciDev.Net. "I think that to talk about 'regulated coexistence' without the necessary tools to make it viable is nothing more than rhetoric."
But Galeano cautioned that the findings may not necessarily apply to other crops or other countries.
"Cross-fertilisation depends on topography, size and orientation of fields, type of maize, wind direction during the flowering time, temperature and humidity, so it is hardly possible to generalise our results to other crops, areas or countries," he said.
Daniel Bayce, manager of Uruguay's National Seed Institute, told SciDev.Net that the findings were not representative because cross-fertilisation was detected mostly where the fields were too close, and even then "the frequency of GM contamination was very low".
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-maize-contaminates-non-gm-crops-in-uruguay-1.html

POVERTY: Nigerian biosafety bill may fail, say scientists

Emeka Johnkingsley : 27 April 2011
 Flickr/World Bank Photo Collection
Farmers have not been listened to, say campaigners against the biosafety bill

[ABUJA] Supporters of genetically modified (GM) crop technology fear that their four-year effort to get a biosafety bill enacted in Nigeria may have been in vain if the country's upper house fails to pass it before its tenure ends next month (29 May).
The 2007 bill, passed by the country's lower chamber last July, is with the Senate. It is one of more than 400 bills introduced to the National Assembly between 2007 and 2010 that were highlighted by the Nigerian Bar Association last December as needing passage before 29 May.
Stakeholders are concerned that, since Nigeria — which is in the midst of elections — has a poor culture of continuity between governments, they may have to start again, delaying plans to move from confined trials of biotechnology products to commercialisation.
National biosafety bills provide a framework to ensure that the development, and use, of GM organisms and products do not negatively affect plant, animal and human health; agricultural systems; or the environment.
With these standards in place, multinational biotechnology companies could do business in Nigeria, said Bamidele Solomon, director-general of the National Biotechnology Development Agency, a promoter of the bill.
"Research and development grants and opportunities, which in the past had been inaccessible because of a lack of enabling facilities, would be easily available," he said.
Mohammed Ishiyaku, a researcher at the Institute of Agricultural Research involved in a cowpea biotechnology project, said that if the bill failed to pass it would demoralise many scientists.
His project uses GM cowpeas to fight insect damage and, it is hoped, increase farmers' yields by 40 per cent.
"All of us are enthusiastically looking forward to this bill," he told SciDev.Net. "We will then be able to conclude the steps required before the cowpea can proceed to farmers."
Daniel Aba, a sorghum breeder at Ahmadu Bello University is trying to develop a variety that contains vitamin A, iron and zinc. "If the biosafety bill is not in place, it means that the research will remain within research centres," he said.
Ibrahim Abubakar, president of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria, said: "We cannot make any significant progress without the enabling law, especially now that there is some pessimism about the use of biotechnology."
But Environmental Rights Action (ERA), a Nigerian advocacy group, said the urgency to pass the bill may stem from other motives.
"Nigerians are yet to understand and adequately contribute to the bill," an ERA spokesperson said. "We suggest it is stopped in its tracks.
"The eagerness to get the bill passed is coming from biotech industry allies in this country.
"ERA is not against biotechnology as a whole but against a system unequivocal in its conviction to foist alien and unverified technologies on our farmers, and the nation as a whole, without checks."
He said the public hearing on the bill, organised by the Joint Committee on Science and Technology and Agriculture of the House of Representatives in 2009, allocated little time for protesters to voice their opinions — compared with the time offered to proponents.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/nigerian-biosafety-bill-may-fail-say-scientists.html

POVERTY: The GM debate is about more than biosafety

28 April 2011 David Dickson (Director, SciDev.Net)

 Flickr/IRRI: Poor farmers must have a say in decisions about GM technology

Biosafety is important, but so is ensuring that GM crops benefit the rural poor and that decisions are based on sound science.
Next month (May), after almost a decade of intense debate, Kenya is expected to become the third country in Sub-Saharan Africa — after South Africa and Burkina Faso — to approve the commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) crops.
Other countries are not far behind. By 2015, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda and could all be growing GM crops such as maize, rice, wheat, sorghum and cotton, according to a report published by the industry-sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
This marks a potential victory for evidence-based policy. Despite claims to the contrary, there are no documented health or environmental problems linked to GM crops.
No one denies that there are potential risks associated with planting GM crops, such as the unknown consequences of implanted genes spreading to native varieties, a concern raised in Mexico after a field trial of GM maize was authorised. But this is a reason to ensure that GM crops are closely monitored and regulated, not banned.
Biosafety laws need to be in place before farmers can grow GM crops, and this is where Nigeria's progress towards adopting the technology has faltered.
Yet by focusing on biosafety, the political debate on GM crops may overlook the broader — and more significant — issue of how such crops will be used in practice. This includes the extent to which they will meet the needs of poor farmers, who are responsible for a large proportion of Africa's agricultural output.
The big challenge ahead for those engaged in the GM debate in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa is not how to promote (or block) the technology, or even demonstrate its safety, although this is clearly important.
Rather, it is to find ways to ensure that GM crops benefit the rural poor, not just the shareholders of multinational corporations who are increasingly looking at African agriculture as a profitable investment.

A question of priorities
The cost of GM seeds is one reason for concern. This is one way that agricultural corporations are keen to generate a profit on their substantial investment in both laboratory research and field trials, just as pharmaceutical companies do through drug prices.
And by using intellectual property laws, corporations can take ownership of genetic material, undermining the staple practice of farmers using (and sharing) their own seed from one year to the next.
Then there is the danger of biodiversity loss — with its impacts on insect and bird varieties — if farmers focus excessively on increasing production of the most profitable crops.
None of these problems are created by GM technology. It is quite possible to imagine GM seeds being distributed at marginal costs (like generic medicines) and being grown and distributed by farmers free of concerns over patent infringement.
Similarly, GM crops can be used to counter biodiversity loss. By introducing viral resistance genes into cassava, for example, scientists aim to increase the range of crops available by helping to preserve farmers' preferred cassava varieties, which are currently being devastated by viral diseases across East and Southern Africa.
Whether GM crops benefit all farmers therefore depends on how the technology is used. National agricultural policies need to take into account the interests and priorities of poor farmers, and give rural communities sufficient leverage over decision-making to ensure that GM crops meet locally defined needs.

Sound science
Even though these are political and economic considerations, not biosafety issues, they can determine the content of regulations in individual countries. These will differ according to national needs and priorities, but they share two essential requirements.
The first is that all regulations, and the debates that occur around them, must be based on sound scientific grounds. Those who make exaggerated and simplistic claims for which there is no evidence — that GM crops are sufficient to eliminate hunger in the world, for example, or that they are a poison that contaminates the environment — are serving no one's interests but their own.
The second requirement is greater transparency. The more that multinational corporations seek to hide their involvement in lobbying for biosafety regulations, the greater the risk of criticism when their involvement becomes known.
For example, when WikiLeaks revealed the involvement of the US Embassy in Nairobi in helping to secure initial approval of Kenya's biosafety legislation two years ago, there was a backlash from environmental NGOs.
Science journalism has a key role to play in ensuring that both these needs are met. It can query the scientific basis of claims both in favour and against GM crops. It can also make the regulatory process more transparent and ensure that it withstands public scrutiny by monitoring and reporting on special-interest groups.
No one expects GM crops to be the magic key to eliminating hunger in Africa. But neither, if they are properly regulated, need they produce the environmental Armageddon that opponents predict.
The real challenge is how best to achieve the benefits, including those it offers to small farmers, while identifying and minimising the potential risks — and maintaining public trust along the way. Sound science, full transparency, and a media committed to both are three steps in this direction.
http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-gm-debate-is-about-more-than-biosafety-1.html

MALNUTRITION: Mexican trial of GM maize stirs debate

Cecilia Rosen : 18 April 2011


 Mexico is home to thousands of maize varieties : Flickr/CIMMYT

[MEXICO CITY] Mexico has authorised a field trial of genetically modified (GM) maize that could lead to commercialisation of the crop, sparking debate about the effects on the country's unique maize biodiversity.
Although Mexico already commercially grows some GM crops, such as cotton, GM maize is controversial because the country is home to thousands of the world's maize varieties that originated there.
The multinational corporation Monsanto will test a variety of maize resistant to the herbicide glyphosate on less than a hectare of land in north Mexico before it can commercialise the GM crop. Unlike experimental trials, such pilot projects do not require containment measures to prevent the spread of the GM crop.
Mexico's agriculture ministry said the project, approved last month (8 March), will occur "under the strictest biosecurity measures to guarantee the prevention of involuntary dispersion of the GM maize's pollen".
But Elena Álvarez-Buylla, head of the Union of Scientists Committed to Society (UCCS), said: "This opens up the door to contamination of native species in the most important centre of origin [of maize] in the entire world."
The UCCS stated last month (25 March) that the coexistence of GM and non-GM varieties in fields — which may happen if commercial approval is given — could contaminate the unique non-GM varieties.
"There are alternative technologies to address the non-GM maize shortage and loss of crops due to climate events. GM [crops] are not more resistant to droughts and plagues, and they threaten our food sovereignty," its statement says, referring to multinational companies owning GM technologies.
Transgenic crops were banned in Mexico until 2005, but the government has since granted 67 permits for GM maize to be grown experimentally on over 70 hectares. This would be the first trial that could lead to commercialisation if it is successful.
At the third Mexican Congress of Ecology this month (3–7 April) in Veracruz, scientists were cautious about growing GM maize.
Andrew Stephenson, an ecology professor at Pennsylvania University, United States, said the indirect effects of mixing GM and non-GM varieties are largely unknown, especially under Mexico's complex environmental conditions.
And Mauricio Quesada of the National Autonomous University's Centre for Ecosystems Research said Mexico should prioritise research on the natural diversity of local crops instead of "jumping" into GM.
But Luis Herrera-Estrella, chief of the National Laboratory of Genomics for Biodiversity at the Research and Advanced Studies Center of the National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico, said the country's legal biosafety framework should be trusted.
Mexican trial of GM maize stirs debate

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3604033512937490051

MALNUTRITION: Gates' Foundation Backs GM

20 Apr 11 - John Kariuki John Kariuki is vice-president of Slow Food International and currently works in his homeland of Kenya on Slow Food’s projects for biodiversity and food sovereignty.


Efforts to expand the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Asia and Africa were given a major boost last week with the announcement of a significant investment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has pledged $US18.6 million. The grant will fund projects aiming to develop modified varieties of rice and cassava, intending to produce greater quantities of one or more nutrients to tackle malnutrition.
Since its beginnings 30 years ago, GM technology has claimed to be able to feed the world and eradicate malnutrition. However in this time, we have only seen the number of hungry and malnourished grow, along with new problems and ramifications of a technology that we do not yet fully understand. While we can transplant a gene from one species to another for its desired characteristics, we cannot yet know how to predict or contain its results.
In Kenya and many other African countries, more and more people are turning to the traditional knowledge of communities as the key to solving problems of nutrition, and see the spread of GM crops as a new sickness of the land. Traditionally, communities have reduced their vulnerability to the effects of climate change and crop failure by relying on biodiversity in food supply. A dry season might destroy maize one year so instead we survive on cassava. With GM crops, which require large surface areas for planting and an intensive monoculture system, we don't have this safety blanket. Diversity in food choices also ensures that diets are varied enough to contain the required macro and micronutrients for good health, reducing the incidence of malnutrition.
As part of the funding, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will support the BioCassava Plus project in Nigeria and Kenya to manipulate an increased production of beta-carotene, iron and protein in cassava which is an important crop in many parts of the world. Several communities in Kenya depend on cassava as a staple food as it survives in adverse conditions. The introduction of BioCassava will interfere with and wipe out farmers’ extensive and tireless efforts to preserve and exchange traditional varieties of cassava that are well adapted to particular local agro-climatic conditions.
Furthermore, by influencing farmers to grow the same variety, the introduction and proliferation of GM crops also pose a problem of freedom, reducing producers’ autonomy by creating economic dependence on seed suppliers. In most cases, GM crops also require high external inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers, which, as well as generating their own threats to human health and the environment, are often out of the financial reach of poor small-scale farmers. This creates a cycle that further impoverishes the farmers and turns them into slaves who are no longer in control of their own destiny, having to turn to the shops at every planting season.
The funding will also have a massive impact on farming autonomy and sustainability in Asia, where it will support the Philippine Rice Research Institute and the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute to engineer GM strains of “golden rice” to provide high levels of beta-carotene to decrease vitamin A deficiency in the local population.
To solve the problems of our times, we need to support and build on indigenous food systems, not stamp on them and wipe them out. The answers lie in the traditional agricultural knowledge that is held in the hearts, minds and hands of our small-scale farmers.
http://www.slowfood.com/international/food-for-thought/focus/94034/gates-backs-gm/q=89337D?-session=query_session:42F942010a41b1B38FhYj1F718DC

Olivia Kumwenda Mar 31, 2011
(Additional reporting by Beatrice Gachenge in Nairobi and Elias Biryabarema in Kampala, Editing by Ed Stoddard and Jane Baird)

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - An increasing number of African countries are likely to start growing genetically modified crops, with Kenya leading the way, after the continent for years has lagged in global adoption of the technology.
Africa is under increasing pressure to grow more food as its population increases. Although genetically modified (GM) crops might help boost output, some African countries have banned GM, fearing it could be harmful to humans and animals, hamper exports and hurt small farmers.
South Africa was the continent's sole cultivator of GM maize, cotton and soybeans until 2008, when Egypt began growing GM maize, and Burkina Faso started growing GM cotton.
Now Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mali, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ghana are conducting research and field trials of GM crops including maize, rice, wheat, sorghum and cotton, which could prove to be the first step toward adoption.
"There is increasing support to test biotech in several African countries," said Diran Makinde, director of the African Biosafety Network of Expertise.
Other countries are keenly watching to see whether Kenya adopts the technology, said Felix Mmboyi, deputy director of Africa Biotechnology. In East Africa's biggest economy, GM imports have been a controversial issue.
Kenya now is looking to conduct open trials of GM crops this year after enacting biosafety regulations, the main hurdle that had been holding them back. Industry officials expect the draft regulations to be published in May.
"Kenya will be open to cultivate GM crops. I can assure you Kenya will be the fourth country to allow GMO," Mmboyi said.
Ephraim Mukisira, a director at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, said: "We should rely on biotechnology to prevent further losses in yields and performance of crops. We need to expedite scientific methods that reduce time needed to develop new crop varieties."

RED TAPE
Beyond the usual debates about GM effects on health and the environment, there have also been concerns the presence of GM crops might reduce export opportunities -- a key reason that Zambia banned them years ago.
Potential legal pitfalls pose another concern.
Makinde said 23 countries in Africa have biosafety laws but with 'strict liability' clauses, which make someone liable for any mishaps, without the need to prove any fault on their part.
"No private sector will invest in a country where they can be sued for the slightest or even imaginary damage. This is a no-go area for the biotech crop developer," said Makinde.
The high costs of GM are another hurdle for Africa's small farmers, who account for 70 percent of the region's population and 60 percent of its agricultural output. GM can add to the difficulties of poor farmers in competing with commercial farms.
"Subjecting (small-scale farmers) to GMs would mean that they will lose control over their seeds and that they have to constantly depend on suppliers for seeds every season. How will they afford this?" asked Josephine Akia, policy and advocacy officer at the National Organic Agricultural Movement of Uganda.
In South Africa, the GM maize area was recorded at 1.878 million hectares in 2009 -- the latest year for which figures are available -- with small-scale farmers cultivating only 19,000 hectares of the total.
"You can't market GM technology as being a way out of poverty for small-scale farmers ... if you do that you are being dishonest," said Mariam Mayet, director of the African Center for Biosafety.

UNTAPPED MARKET
Nevertheless, GM crops have expanded so rapidly in other areas that African countries are not likely to fend them off much longer.
A report issued by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that an 87-fold increase in crop area was recorded globally between 1996 and 2010, making biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.
The continent's untapped market has caught the attention of big U.S. firms DuPont and Monsanto, which are pushing to sell GM seeds on the continent.
Growing foreign investment in African agriculture is likely to bring a greater interest in GM crops as well.
"Investors' appetite is increasing for investing in African agriculture. The combination of fertile land and the demand for soft commodities in Africa makes it a good case," said Bernd Schanzenbaecher, a partner in EBG Capital, an asset management and advisory boutique.
Meanwhile, countries such as Malawi, Mauritius, South Africa and Zimbabwe have enacted biosafety laws, removing what had been a major hindrance to GM adoption. Most other African governments are also drafting guidelines and regulations.
"Of course we must be alert and responsible in the development of GM crops ... but if we are really serious about food security in Africa, emotional propaganda about these issues will never get us there," South Africa's deputy agriculture minister, Pieter Mulder, said earlier this month.
Researchers say that with food prices expected to be high in 2011, African countries need to work hard to ensure there are enough calories on the continent.
"Biotech is not going to fix all the problems, but it has the potential to make a difference," said Johannesburg scientist Sandy Evans, speaking for biotechnology group AfricaBio.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-africa-gmo-idUSTRE72U2QA20110331

MALNUTRITION: Researchers boost protein content of GM cassava

Zoraida Portillo : 21 February 2011
 Cassava's nutrient content could be increased by traditional breeding or GM methods: Flickr/Donald Danforth Plant Science Center

[LIMA] The transformation of cassava from a starchy staple lacking in protein to a cheap supply of protein for food, feed and industry, may have come a step closer now that scientists have boosted the crop's protein content.
Cassava is a staple food in many developing countries but has little protein and micronutrients. But although cassava is rich in energy, only 2–3 per cent of its tubers (the edible roots) are made up of protein, giving it one of the lowest protein-to-energy ratios of any staple. Cereals, for example contain 7–14 per cent of protein.
But new research shows that cassava can be genetically modified to contain zeolin protein — increasing its protein levels to 12.5 per cent. The findings were published in PLoS ONE last month (25 January) by a team of US and Puerto Rican scientists.
According to the authors, a two-year-old child that gets half of their energy from cassava could increase their protein intake from 35 per cent of their daily requirement to more than 100 per cent by switching to the GM crop.
"This illustrates that genetic modification of cassava could be a potentially important component of delivering enhanced nutrition to at-risk populations in the tropics," the paper says.
The research is part of ongoing efforts to improve cassava's nutritional quality.
"The goal is to stack several traits such as vitamin A, protein, iron and zinc," Claude Fauquet, lead author and the director of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center's International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology, United States, told SciDev.Net. "For now we have stacked vitamin A and protein and it is possible to get yellow roots with 40 parts per million carotene [about 11 times the normal level in cassava roots] and ten per cent dry weight protein," he said, adding that the plants are being assessed in the field.
But Nagib Nassar, a professor emeritus and well-known cassava breeder, said that the crop suffered from the same problem as all GM crops in that it has "a new genetic structure — not natural — that has not passed through natural selection, so we don't know how this genotype adapts to the environment".
He added that the paper had not provided information about the productivity or palatability of the new cassava strain.
Rodomiro Ortiz, an advisor leading international institutes on crop breeding, said transgenic biofortification was just one of many options for improving cassava, and added that wild and indigenous cassava varieties "are an important source of genes" to improve cassava's micronutrient levels.
Both Ortiz and Nassar referred to the success of a variety of cassava root obtained by conventional breeding and released in Brazil, which tastes good and contains more than 50 times the amount of beta carotene than common varieties.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/researchers-boost-protein-content-of-gm-cassava-1.html

MALNUTRITION: GM crops continue spread, passing 'billion hectares'

22 February 2011
 By Richard Black: Environment correspondent, BBC News


Most European societies remain opposed to GM agriculture, despite advances elsewhere

The area of the world's farmland used for growing genetically modified crops increased by about 10% last year.
GM use grew fastest in Brazil but fell in the EU, says the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
Virtually all GM strains used were engineered for just two traits, disease resistance and herbicide tolerance.
ISAAA is an organisation partly funded by industry that promotes biotechnology as a path to sustainability.
It calculates that more than a billion hectares have been cultivated with GM crops since their introduction in 1996 - the figure derived by adding together the areas cultivated with these varieties in all of the intervening years.
ISAAA estimates that more than 15 million farmers are involved in GM agriculture.
"We can recount a momentous year of progress in biotech crop adoption," said Clive James, the organisation's chairman and founder.
"During 2010, the accumulated commercial biotech plantation exceeded one billion hectares - that's an area larger than the US or China.
"And biotech crops registered double-digit growth over 2009, bringing the total global plantings to 148 million hectares. Biotech crops are here to stay."
However, critics point out that this is still just 10% of the world's arable land area as defined by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
About half of the global GM total is accounted for by the US - although overall, the developing world is adopting the technology faster than industrialised countries.
If current trends continue, developing countries will be growing more than half of the global total within a few years.

Potatoes are among the GM crops starting to become more widespread

During 2010, Pakistan and Burma took their initial steps into the GM world by growing cotton modified to be resistant to insect pests.
The EU, however, continues to buck the global trend, registering a slight fall in the land area under GM cultivation.
Germany and Sweden both supported small areas of a new potato variety grown not for food, but to produce high-quality starch for industrial use.
Greenpeace, meanwhile, has presented a petition bearing more than a million signatures to the European Commission, demanding that the executive stop approving new GM varieties.
Recently, the EU introduced the "European citizen's initiative", which allows more than a million citizens jointly to ask for a change in the law.
"Today's European data shows that GM crops are failing in the field and on the market; farmers and consumers are not falling for biotech industry propaganda," said Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer.
"GM crops are not more productive and are less resistant to extreme climate conditions than normal crops. They do however present a serious risk for our environment."

Golden future
One of the principal criticisms of the biotech industry down the years is that companies have not commercialised crops that produce direct benefits to the public, such as those with improved nutritional content, or that allow farmers in poor countries to grow crops in land that is currently too hot, too dry or too salty.
Virtually all of the crops grown in 2010 were either engineered to be resistant to insect pests - typically, through insertion of a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene that produces a toxin - or tolerant to proprietary herbicides.
A significant and growing proportion - about 20% - carried both traits, reflecting the trend for companies to market varieties containing a number of introduced genes "stacked" on top of each other.
Up to eight genes are stacked in a single variety.
Another criticism is that just four crops - soya bean, cotton, maize and canola (a relative of rape) - dominate the market, with little attention paid to other important foods of the developing world poor, such as rice, millet or sorghum.
Dr James suggested this situation was about to change, with crops due to come into commercial use over the next five years, including many with enhanced nutrition, notably "Golden Rice" enhanced in Vitamin A.
"Golden rice is expected to be available in 2013 in the Philippines and thereafter in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam," he said.
"Also [we will soon see] potatoes modified to resist late blight - the disease that caused the Irish potato famine - as well as sugar cane, bananas, eggplant, tomato, cassava. sweet potato, pulses and groundnuts."
He claimed that the introduction of Golden Rice could save the lives of thousands of people afflicted with Vitamin A deficiency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12541465

MALNUTRITION: GM crops to be allowed into Britain

 Jamie Doward The Observer, Sunday 6 February 2011
GM crops to be allowed into Britain under controversial EU plansUK to back imports of animal feed with traces of GM crops in move to benefit US exporters
 Photograph: Martin Argles for the Observer

The decision to allow feed containing traces of GM crops into the UK is likely to alarm environmentalists who have long resisted such imports.

Genetically modified crops will be allowed to enter the UK food chain without the need for regulatory clearance for the first time under controversial plans expected to be approved this week.
The Observer understands that the UK intends to back EU plans permitting the importing of animal feed containing traces of unauthorised GM crops in a move that has alarmed environmental groups.
Importing animal feed containing GM feed must at present be authorised by European regulators. But a vote on Tuesday in favour of the scheme put forward by the EU's standing committee on the food chain and animal health would overturn the EU's "zero tolerance" policy towards the import of unauthorised GM crops.
The move would mark a significant victory for the GM lobby, which has pushed for a relaxation of the blanket ban for years.Environmental groups claim the GM industry wants to use the presence of unauthorised organisms in animal feed as part of a wider strategy to promote its technology.
"The GM industry is pushing this proposal so it can wedge its foot firmly in the door and open up the British and European markets to food no one wants to eat," said Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, which campaigns against GM food. "Its long-term aim is to contaminate the food chain to such an extent that GM-free food will disappear."
Relaxing the EU's zero-tolerance position would greatly benefit US feed exporters. The push for Europe to drop its zero-tolerance policy began in 2009 after EU authorities found traces of GM maize in soy shipments from the US and refused to allow its entry. Such recalls are expensive and those affected are unlikely to receive compensation.
GM supporters warn that the current zero-tolerance policy could result in a dramatic shortage of feed for livestock. But critics dismiss the claims as scaremongering and say there is no evidence to back up them up.
"This is a solution without a problem, and the price could be very high indeed when unknown genetically modified organisms are let loose in the food chain," said Eve Mitchell, food policy adviser at Food and Water Europe, a campaign group.
"Rather than ignoring EU food safety laws to help the US soy industry cut costs, we should simply buy the stuff from countries that segregate their GM properly. If it hasn't been tested, why eat it?"
Many of the GM crops, notably soy and maize, that have been found in animal feed imported into Europe are resistant to multiple herbicides. Critics blame these new GM crops for the recent rise of "super weeds" across vast tracts of the US farm belt.
Friends of the Earth Europe said it had obtained expert legal advice questioning the legality of the EU's plan. But European regulators believe that allowing the import of animal feed containing no more than 0.1% of GM traces does not jeopardise food security.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/06/genetically-modified-crops-uk

MALNUTRITION: U.S. Approves Genetically Modified Alfalfa (Monsanto and Forage Genetics)

ANDREW POLLACK: Published: January 27, 2011
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on Thursday that he would authorize the unrestricted commercial cultivation of genetically modified alfalfa, setting aside a controversial compromise that had generated stiff opposition.

Chris Wattie/Reuters: Alfalfa is grown mostly to make hay fed to dairy cows and horses.


Tom Vilsack said his agency would make sure that nonengineered alfalfa seed stayed available.
In making the decision, Mr. Vilsack pulled back from a novel proposal that would have restricted the growing of genetically engineered alfalfa to protect organic farmers from so-called biotech contamination. That proposal drew criticism at a recent Congressional hearing and in public forums where Mr. Vilsack outlined the option.
Mr. Vilsack said Thursday that his department would take other measures, like conducting research and promoting dialogue, to make sure that pure, nonengineered alfalfa seed would remain available.
“We want to expand and preserve choice for farmers,” he told reporters. “We think the decision reached today is a reflection of our commitment to choice and trust.”
Mr. Vilsack in recent months has been calling for coexistence among growers of genetically engineered crops, organic farmers and nonorganic farmers growing crops that have not been genetically altered.
Organic farmers can lose sales if genetic engineering is detected in their crops, which occurs through cross-pollination from a nearby field or through intermingling of seeds. And exports of nonorganic but nonengineered crops to certain countries can be jeopardized if genetically engineered material is detected in significant amounts.
The genetically modified crop — developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics, an alfalfa seed company that is owned by the Land O’Lakes farming and dairy cooperative — contains a gene that makes the plant resistant to the herbicide Roundup. That allows farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds without hurting the crop.
Alfalfa is grown mostly to make hay fed to dairy cows and horses. More than 20 million acres are grown in the United States; it is the nation’s fourth-largest crop by acreage, behind corn, soybeans and wheat, with a value of about $8 billion. About 1 percent of alfalfa is organic.
In deciding whether to approve the genetically engineered alfalfa, the Agriculture Department was considering restricting areas where the crop could be planted. That, Mr. Vilsack argued, would help prevent litigation, like the lawsuits that have already delayed the approval of genetically altered alfalfa and sugar beets.
“The rapid adoption of G.E. crops has clashed with the rapid expansion of demand for organic and other non-G.E. products,” Mr. Vilsack wrote in a letter issued by his department in December. “This clash led to litigation and uncertainty. Such litigation will potentially lead to the courts’ deciding who gets to farm their way and who will be prevented from doing so.”
But the proposal ran into considerable opposition in Congress and from some farm groups and biotechnology companies.
They argued that since the department’s environmental impact statement had concluded that growing the alfalfa would be safe, the government was obligated to allow it to be grown without restrictions.
Introducing restrictions based on economic consequences of pollen drift “politicizes the regulatory process and goes beyond your statutory authority,” Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, who is the new chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, wrote to Mr. Vilsack on Jan. 19, before holding a hearing on the proposals the next day. The letter was also written by Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat Roberts of Kansas.
At the news conference on Thursday, Mr. Vilsack at one point said that the department did have the authority to restrict planting. But at another point, he said of the decision to allow unrestricted planting: “We are working within the statutory and regulatory system we have available to us.”
Organic farmers and food companies said they were not pleased with the decision on Thursday. “It was disappointing, but as you know, there is a tremendous amount of pressure here,” said George Siemon, chief executive of Organic Valley, the nation’s largest organic dairy cooperative. He said federal oversight was needed to keep organic crops free of genetically engineered material.
Critics of planting restrictions said they were concerned that the approach used in alfalfa would eventually be extended to other crops, causing restrictions on the growing of corn, soybeans and cotton, the vast majority of which are already genetically engineered.
“It’s like a Pandora’s box,” said Keith Menchey, manager of science and environmental issues for the National Cotton Council of America.
Critics also said that restricting the growing of alfalfa would undermine Washington’s efforts to persuade other countries to accept genetically modified crops.
The Agriculture Department first approved the commercial planting of the genetically engineered alfalfa in 2005. But some environmental groups and alfalfa seed producers sued.
In 2007, a federal judge rescinded the approval, saying the department had not adequately assessed the environmental impacts of the biotech crop, including the possible effect on organic and conventional farmers. The judge ordered the department to do a full environmental impact statement and banned further planting of the engineered seeds. The Supreme Court in 2010 overturned the ban on planting, but did not reinstate the approval of the crop, so no new seeds could be planted.
The final environmental impact statement, 2,300 pages long, was released last month. It said that the department would decide between two options: allowing unrestricted commercial growing or partly restricted growing.
The partial restriction would have prohibited growing the biotech alfalfa on about 20 percent of current alfalfa acreage nationwide, and about 50 percent in Western states, where most alfalfa seed is produced, according to Forage Genetics.
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, the advocacy group that organized the lawsuit against the Agriculture Department, said his group would soon ask the judge in the case to rule that the environmental impact statement was still inadequate.
“It’s clear that Vilsack caved to pressure from the biotech industry and Monsanto,” he said. “We’ll be back in court seeking to vacate this approval, as we have done in the past.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/business/28alfalfa.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1296213251-HJ7AxAyCMLgnhvbHIi9Jpw

MALNUTRITION: Genetically modified crops are the key to human survival, says UK's chief scientistSir John Beddington

Robin McKie The Observer, Sunday 23 January 2011



A child walks inside a looted supermarket in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Photograph: Oswaldo Rivas/Reuters


Moves to block cultivation of genetically modified crops in the developing world can no longer be tolerated on ethical or moral grounds, the government's chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, has warned. He said the world faced "a perfect storm" of issues that could lead to widespread food shortages and public unrest over the next few decades. His warning comes in the wake of food riots in north Africa and rising global concern about mounting food prices.
"A number of very important factors are about to change our world," said Beddington, an expert in population biology. "Its population is rising by six million every month and will reach a total of around 9,000 million by 2050. At the same time, it is estimated that by 2030 more than 60% of the population will be living in cities and will no longer be involved in growing crops or raising domestic animals. And on top of that the world's population is getting more prosperous and able to pay for more food."
Beddington said these factors indicated that the world was going to need 40% more food, 30% more water and 50% more energy by the middle of the century – at a time when climate change was starting to have serious environmental impacts on the planet, flooding coastal plains, spreading deserts and raising temperatures. "We could cut down tropical rain forests and plant crops on the savannahs to grow more food, but that would leave us even more vulnerable to the impact of global warming and climate change. We needed these regions to help absorb carbon dioxide emissions, after all."
Beddington said humanity had to face the fact that every means to improve food production should now be employed, including widespread use of new biotechnological techniques in farming. He stressed that no harm should be inflicted on humans or the environment. His remarks were made in advance of publication tomorrow of a major report, "The Future of Food and Farming".
His office's report is a specific attempt to highlight moves that could halt devastation of the planet. Crucially, the report will be presented tomorrow not just to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), but also to the Department for International Development, which directs UK foreign aid. Beddington said he would present details of his office's report in Washington next month. He also hoped it would be debated at other events, including the G8 and G20 summits.
He emphasised the role of modern biotechnological techniques, including GM crops, in the future of global food production. "There will be no silver bullet, but it is very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM. Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example. GM crops should be able to deal with that."
Such remarks will enrage many environmental groups, who believe it is wrong for the west to impose a technology it has developed on the third world. But Beddington was adamant about the benefits of GM crop technology. "Around 30% of food is lost before it can be harvested because it is eaten by pests that we never learnt how to control. We cannot afford that kind of loss to continue. GM should be able to solve that problem by creating pest-resistant strains, for example. Of course, we will have to make sure these crops are properly tested; that they work; that they don't harm people; and that they don't harm the environment."
GM crops alone would not be sufficient to hold off widespread starvation, he added. No single approach would guarantee food security for humanity for the rest of the century. A widespread approach, including the development of proper sustainability, protecting fish stocks and changes to patterns of consumption, was also critical, he said. "This report was set up to find out if we can feed nine billion people sustainably, healthily and equitably. We can, but it will take many different approaches to crack the problem."
Timing was crucial. "In 2008 food prices rocketed to their highest level for decades. People said it was just a one-off, but last year what happened? Wheat prices saw their fastest ever increase. The era of declining food prices is over and we have to face that," he added.
Almost a billion people now suffer serious food shortages and face starvation. "It is unimaginable that in the next 10 to 20 years that there will not be a worsening of that problem unless we take action now, and we have to include the widest possible range of solutions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/23/gm-foods-world-population-crisis