JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – US agencies, funders such as the Gates
Foundation, and agribusiness giant Monsanto are trying to force
unwilling African nations to accept expensive and insufficiently tested
Genetically Modified (GM) foods and crops, according to a new report
released today. [1]
“The US, the world’s top producer of GM crops, is seeking new markets
for American GM crops in Africa. The US administration’s strategy
consists of assisting African nations to produce biosafety laws that
promote agribusiness interests instead of protecting Africans from the
potential threats of GM crops,” said Haidee Swanby from the African
Centre for Biosafety, which authored the report commissioned by Friends
of the Earth International.
The new report also exposes how agribusiness giant Monsanto
influences biosafety legislation in African countries, gains regulatory
approval for its product, and clears the path for products such as GM
maize (corn).
Only four African countries -South Africa, Egypt, Burkina Faso and
Sudan- have released GM crops commercially but the issue of genetically
modified maize is deeply controversial, given that maize is the staple
food of millions of Africans.
Unlike Europe and other regions where strong biosafety laws have been
in place for years, most African countries still lack such laws. Only
seven African countries currently have functional biosafety frameworks
in place.
“African governments must protect their citizens and our rights must
be respected. We deserve the same level of biosafety protection that
European citizens enjoy,” said Mariann Bassey Orovwuje from Friends of
the Earth Nigeria.
Globally, markets for GM crops have been severely curbed by biosafety
laws and regulations in the past decade, and GM foods and crops have
been rejected outright by consumers in many countries, especially in
Europe.
“South African farmers have more than 16 years’ experience
cultivating GM maize, soya and cotton, but the promise that GM crops
would address food security has not been fulfilled. Indeed, South
Africa’s food security is reportedly declining with almost half the
nation currently categorised as food insecure even though South Africa
exports maize,” said Haidee Swanby from the African Centre for
Biosafety.
“The South African experience confirms that GM crops can only bring
financial benefits for a small number of well-resourced farmers. The
vast majority of African farmers are small farmers who cannot afford to
adopt expensive crops which need polluting inputs such as synthetic
fertilisers and chemicals to perform effectively,” she added.
From February 24-27, 2015, Friends of the Earth delegates [attended]
the International Forum for Agroecology at the Nyéléni Center in
Sélingué, Mali [2]
The organisations attending the forum, which represent millions of
small scale food producers, believe that genetically modified crops are
part of the problem, not the solution, to the hunger, climate, and
biodiversity crises we are facing globally. They also believe that
agroecology and food sovereignty are the key to address these crises.
[3]
In March 2011 the UN Special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier
De Schutter, released a report, “Agro-ecology and the right to food”,
which demonstrates that agroecology, if sufficiently supported, can
double food production in entire regions within 10 years while
mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.
The report challenged technological, industrial farming methods
including patented seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and genetically
modified crops. [4]
Agro-ecological production models, small scale food producers free to
plant and exchange seeds, and strong local markets have been recognized
as the best way to feed people and protect the planet. [5]
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Notes
[2] The forum is hosted by Coordination Nationale des Organisations
Paysannes du Mali (CNOP); International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), La
Via Campesina (LVC), More and Better (MaB), Movimiento Agroecológico de
América Latina y el Caribe (MAELA), Réseau des organisations paysannes
et de producteurs de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (ROPPA) , World Forum of Fish
Harvesters and Fishworkers (WFF), World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP),
and World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP).
[3] According to the final declaration of the Forum for Food
Sovereignty, held in 2007 in Sélingué, Mali, “Food sovereignty is the
right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced
through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to
define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who
produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and
policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.”
[5] In April 2008 a study by 400 multi-disciplinary scientists and
several international organisations known as the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD) concluded that agro-ecology, local trade and
supporting small farmers is the best way forward to combat hunger and
poverty. For more information about the assessment see
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since genetically modified organisms may have adverse effects on
human and environmental health, a global agreement known as the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which came into force in September
2003, was developed to ensure “adequate safe use, handling and transfer”
of GM organisms.
Regulatory frameworks are necessary for the commercialisation of GM
crops but, depending on how the framework is crafted, they can either
promote the introduction of GM organisms with minimal safety assessment
(the approach promoted by the US administration and lobby), or promote
rigorous safety assessment and the protection of the environment, health
and socioeconomic wellbeing.
The US administration long lobbied against an effective, global
Biosafety Protocol and, once the Protocol entered into force, started
lobbying African governments and institutions (among others) to accept
GM organisms with minimal safety assessment.
For instance, the US government agency USAID assists Regional
Economic Communities in Africa to develop policies aimed not at ensuring
biosafety, but at limiting regulation, which they consider to be a
barrier to regional trade in GM food and crops.
Yet the Biosafety Protocol makes clear that products from new
technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and allow
developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits.
The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, a Pan-African civil
society network, recently condemned USAID-funded guidelines developed by
the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) in no
uncertain terms, stating that the “COMESA policy aggressively promotes
the wholesale proliferation of GM organisms on the African continent by
way of commercial plantings, commodity imports and food aid and flouts
international biosafety law.”
USAID provided funds to set up COMESA’s Regional Approach to
Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa
(RABESA) project, which was tasked with developing a mechanism for
regulating biosafety in the COMESA region.
There is still the time for Africans to demand that their governments
implement policies to uplift and protect the millions of small-scale
food producers that currently feed the continent.
The African Union has developed and recently endorsed a Model Law on
Biosafety which could contribute to more rigorous biosafety regimes
across Africa.
www.globalresearch.ca
