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

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

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