We don't need GMOs to end hunger in Africa - FAO
By Kabanda Chulu
Fri 05 July 2013, 14:00 CAT
WE don't need genetically modified food to end hunger in Africa, says Food Agriculture Organisation (FAO) director general Jose Graziano da Silva.
And agriculture minister Robert Sichinga says Zambia is reluctant to support and contribute money to the proposed Africa Solidarity Trust Fund for food security since the country is still struggling to meet the 10 per cent budgetary allocation requirement and facing other challenges.
Answering questions from journalists at the end of the high-level meeting of African and international leaders themed 'Renewed partnership for unified approach to end hunger in Africa by 2025 within the CAADP framework' in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Graziano da Silva said there was need to promote the right to food.
"As we promote the right to food, we should not mix bio technology with genetically modified organisms because the two are different, bio tech is a new science that uses biological processes, organisms, or systems to manufacture products intended to improve the quality of human life. Its application can result in increasing yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming's impact on the environment," said Graziano da Silva. "So we don't need GMOs to end hunger in Africa, what we need is to empower small-scale farmers with technological tools that will make them effective. There are concerns with GMOs but it is a science that, probably, we will need in future."
On concerns that Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) has failed to make positive impact since inception in 2003 and that resolutions of the meeting would just be another piece of paper, African Union Commission Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said progress had been made by some countries.
"Our strategies require political commitment; we need policies that should take a multifaceted approach, which is addressing challenges in growing of crops, production, processing and markets, we also need to invest in people because economies requires skilled people, we also need to invest in infrastructure, for example, if women spend longer hours fetching water, this reduces their productivity," she said. "This meeting is not a decision making body but resolutions will not become a piece of paper but will be taken to Heads of States summit for adoption, actually most of the issues are being addressed because no nation can afford not to do anything about hunger. It is a threat to development. Progress has been made with CAADP, we have seen some countries attaining and even exceeding the 10 per cent budgetary allocation and six per cent growth but we are not satisfied since several goals have not been reached."
Last year, during a regional FAO meeting held in Brazzaville, Congo, a proposal was made that a trust fund for food security in Africa and other financing mechanisms be established as a catalytic fund to existing funds.
Giving an update on the fund, FAO deputy general Helena Semedo said FAO would head the steering committee that would involve the AU Commission to provide guidance.
"The fund will help improve productivity, promote climate resilience, and contribute to knowledge promotion and strengthening south-south cooperation. So far, a US$30 million donation was made by Equatorial Guinea, and pledges have been made by Angola, Gabon and Civil Society consortium and the private sector from Congo, DR and Cameroon," said Semedo. "Solidarity among African countries is needed and hunger will be eliminated through a unified approach but we know the fund will not be enough so countries should also look at domestic financing."
But Sichinga said clear guidelines on how the trust fund would be used have not been presented to delegates.
"We have just developed the national agriculture investment plan and it has shown a 50 per cent financing gap on intended projects, and many countries including Zambia are failing to meet CAADP requirement of 10 per cent agricultural budget so how are they going to contribute to this fund?" asked Sichinga. "The guidelines are not clear about this fund and I will have difficulties to convince my government to have additional funds for this trust when there are projects like roads and other infrastructure needed to boost agriculture. We are not rejecting the contributions but there is no concept paper to present to our governments so we need to discuss this further."
In response, Semedo said the fund would be an addition to existing funds.
"This is just a catalytic fund, it is up to AU and NEPAD to decide how to use the funds," she said.
Labels: FAO, GMOS, JOSE GRAZIANO DA SILVA
Read more...
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics and the Ideology of the Rich
Social Control In The 21st Century
By Colin Todhunter
Global Research, March 29, 2013
Whatever the publicly stated aims of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) sector, and however terrible its impact is on health, the environment and cotton farmers in India, there is a much more sinister side to this industry.
In order to govern and control a population, apart from the use of violence, people’s consent must be achieved via what Louis Althusser once called ideological state apparatuses: the education system, entertainment, religion, the political system and so on. Noam Chomsky’s book ‘The Manufacture of Consent’ discusses the important role of the media in this, and Antonio Gramsci wrote much about hegemony – the methods used by the dominant class to legitimize their position in the eyes of the ruled over – a kind of ‘consented coercion’ that disguises the true fist of power.
However, possibly the most basic and arguably effective form of social control is eugenics, a philosophy that includes reduced reproductive capacity of ‘less desired’ people.
There is a growing fear that eugenics is being used for the purpose of population control – to get rid of sections of the world population that are ‘surplus to requirements’. In the West, due to automation and the outsourcing of jobs, there is likely to be a large section of the population that will be permanently unemployed or underemployed. In places like China, Africa and India, promoting birth control has been high on the agenda for some decades.
Millionaire US media baron Ted Turner believes a global population of two billion would be ideal and billionaire Bill Gates has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the developing world. Based on the misguided premise that the world is getting overpopulated, fewer people means elites and the better off can reduce the competition for the resources they covert so much and maintain their current high levels of material consumption. Gates has also purchased shares in Monsanto valued at more than $23 million. His agenda is to help Monsanto get their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Africa on a grand scale.
Here’s where things get interesting. In 2001, Monsanto and Du Pont bought a small biotech company called Epicyte that had created a gene that basically makes the male sperm sterile and the female egg unreceptive. In the US, GM foods are already on the market and unlabeled. The GM sector has spent millions to ensure this remains the case. US citizens thus have no idea of what could be in their food. These foods where not independently tested for their impact on health.
Would you like to know whether you are eating stuff that (according to Professor Seralini of the University of Caen in France) damages health?
Would you like to know if what you are eating contains something that could make you sterile?
Bill Gates’ father has long been involved with Planned Parenthood:
“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that.”
The above quotation comes from a 2003 interview with Bill Gates.
Planned Parenthood was founded on the concept that most human beings are reckless breeders. Gates senior is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a guiding light behind the vision and direction of the Gates Foundation, which is heavily focused on promoting GMOs in Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
The Gates Foundation has given at least $264.5 million to AGRA. According to a report published by La Via Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) in 2010, 70 percent of AGRA’s grantees in Kenya work directly with Monsanto and nearly 80 percent of the Gates Foundation funding is devoted to biotechnology. The report also explains that the Gates Foundation has pledged $880 million to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a heavy promoter of GMOs.
Rather than embrace a move towards genuine food sovereignty and address the underlying political and economic issues that cause poverty, the Gates Foundation has chosen the promotion of corporate-controlled agriculture which has led to the disempowerment of farmers.
As the GM sector continues to hammer at India’s door, we have every right to be concerned, not only because of the much reported impact of seed monopolies and GMOs’ well-documented detrimental effects on health and the environment, but also because of concerns over just which genes may be in the foodstuffs that we eat and are unknown to us.
Researcher F William Engdahl states that genetic engineering cannot be understood without looking at the global spread of US power. Leading figures in the US financed ‘Green Revolution’ in the agriculture sector of developing countries in order to create new markets for petro-chemical fertilizers and petroleum products, as well as to expand dependency on energy products. Food has now become weaponised to secure global dominance.
The world’s problems are not being caused by overpopulation, but by greed and a system of ownership that ensures wealth flows from bottom to top. It’s not about stopping population growth in its tracks, but about changing a widespread global system and mindset that is based an over reliance on oil and unsustainable depletion of natural resources, with the US being the biggest culprit.
Millionaires like Ted Turner believe it should be a case of carry on consuming regardless, as long as the population is cut. This is the ideology of the rich who regard the rest of humanity as a problem to be ‘dealt with.’ He says there are “too many people using too much stuff.” He couldn’t be more wrong. For instance, developing nations account for more than 80 percent of world population, but consume only about one third of the world’s energy. US citizens constitute 5 percent of the world’s population but consume 24 percent of the world’s energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as two Japanese, six Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians and 370 Ethiopians (mindfully.org)
So, should we be weary of a hugely politically connected sector that has ownership of technology that allows for the genetic engineering of food and a gene that could be used (or already is) for forced sterilization? Of course we should. This is a sector whose stated objective is to control the world’s food chain and, by implication, the global population.
In today’s technologically-driven world, state-corporate concerns are using the full panoply of hi-tech means to control us. Some decades ago, theorist and social philosopher Herbert Marcuse summed up the problem facing modern society by saying that the capabilities— both intellectual and technological— of contemporary society are immeasurably greater than before, which means that the scope of society’s domination over the individual is also immeasurably greater than ever before. It appears none more so than where the GM sector is concerned.
Labels: EUGENICS, GENOCIDE, GMOS
Read more...
Monsanto's Latest Poison: The Dangers of Dicamba
by grtv
On the heels of California’s Proposition 37 and the national debate over genetically engineered (GE) food, pesticide companies are continuing to push to legalize new types of GE crops linked with powerful pesticides. Farmers like Indiana’s Troy Roush are objecting to such a shortsighted approach to agriculture.
There are currently 13 new GE crops pending USDA approval, the most threatening of which may be Monsanto’s Dicamba Soybean. (Other crops include Dow’s 2,4-D Corn and 2,4-D Soybean, and the non-browning “Arctic Apple.”)
Why the need for new seeds? The first GE seeds were introduced in 1996 and adopted widely. Instead of having to rotate crops, farmers could spray the herbicide RoundUp to kill weeds while the GE plants survived. Gradually the weeds adapted and herbicide-resistant weeds now affect an estimated 12 million acres of farmland (about half the size of Indiana), and that number is growing rapidly.
As more weeds become resistant, farmers spray more herbicides. Since their introduction, GE seeds have led to 527 million more pounds of herbicides to be sprayed than would have been used on conventional crops. These chemicals are harmful to human health, pollute natural resources, and devastate neighboring crops. Dicamba is particularly destructive. Indiana farmer Troy Roush observes, “Whatever it settles on, it kills.”
Unfortunately the US framework for regulating GE crops like Dicamba Soy is broken. As the USDA considers legalizing GE crops, it only asks whether or not the crop poses the risk to other plants, but not farmers.
Until a comprehensive process is put in place – one that recognizes the costs of GE crops to farmers and rural communities – USDA Secretary Vilsack should stop the unchecked flood of these seeds from entering the market.
Labels: GMOS, MONSANTO
Read more...
Seeds of Destruction: Hijacking of the World’s Food System
By Global Research
Global Research, September 22, 2012
Global Research July 23, 2012
Seeds of Destruction: Hijacking of the World's Food System
As F. William Engdahl wrote in “Death of the Birds and the Bees Across America“:
Birds and bees are something most of us take for granted as part of nature. The expression “teaching about the birds and the bees” to explain the process of human reproduction to young people is not an accidental expression. Bees and birds contribute to the essence of life on our planet. A study by the US Department of Agriculture estimated that “…perhaps one-third of our total diet is dependent, directly or indirectly, upon insect-pollinated plants.”[1]
The honey bee, Apis mellifera, is the most important pollinator of agricultural crops. Honey bees pollinate over 70 out of 100 crops that in turn provide 90% of the world’s food. They pollinate most fruits and vegetables — including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots.[2] But while managed honey bee populations have increased over the last 50 years, bee colony populations have decreased significantly in many European and North American nations. Simultaneously, crops that are dependent on insects for pollination have increased. The phenomenon has received the curious designation of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), implying it could be caused by any number of factors. Serious recent scientific studies however point to a major cause: use of new highly toxic systemic pesticides in agriculture since about 2004.
If governments in the EU, USA and other countries fail to impose a total ban on certain chemical insecticides, not only could bees become a thing of the past. The human species could face staggering new challenges merely to survive. The immediate threat comes from the widespread proliferation of commercial insecticides containing the highly-toxic chemical with the improbable name, neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids are a group of insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. They act on the central nervous system of insects. But also on bees and small song birds. Recent evidence suggests they could also affect human brain development in newborn.
Some five to six years back, reports began to circulate from around the world, especially out of the United States, and then increasingly from around the EU, especially in the UK, that entire bee colonies were disappearing. Since 2004 over a million beehives have died across the United States and beekeepers in 25 states report what is called Colony Collapse Disorder. In winter of 2009 an estimated one fifth of bee hives in the UK were lost, double the natural rate.[3] Government authorities claimed it was a mystery. Continue reading “Death of the Birds and the Bees Across America” by F. William Engdahl
Today more than ever, the world’s food resources are being hijacked by giant corporations that are turning farms into factories and replacing natural resources with genetically modified “food-like” substances.
F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher on the destruction of the planet’s food system and the profit-driven enterprises that are driving this devastating process.
To learn more, pick up your copy of “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation“, published by Global Research.
Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
by F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
Global Research Price: US $17.00
(List price: US $24.95)
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
State refutes GMO importation claim
September 6, 2012
By NKOLE CHITALA
Government says reports that the country is being fed by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) is mere speculation. Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Livestock Rodgers Mwewa says there is no proof that the country is allowing traders to import or farmers to grow such foods.
“People saying we are allowing GMO’s have no proof to that, there is so much speculation going on and we can not act on speculations, on things we have not seen,” he said. Mr Mwewa was speaking in an interview with Daily Mail in Mkushi.
He said Government is currently encouraging the public to buy from indigenous producers and traders as a way of supporting them.
Mr Mwewa said it is also Government’s policy not to encourage the importation of such foods as it is hazardous to people’s health and the environment.
He said supermarkets such as Shoprite Checkers are stocking non GMO foods.
Recently, there have been reports of major super markets in Zambia stocking genetically modified foodstuffs.
GMO’s are a broad group of plants, animals, and bacteria that are engineered for a wide variety of applications ranging from agricultural production to scientific research.
The types of potential hazards posed by GMO’s vary according to the type of organism being modified and its intended application.
Most of the concern surrounding GMO’s relatesto their potential for negative effects on the environment and human health.
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
Call for African govts to embrace organic agriculture
Saturday, 05 May 2012 19:07
Emilia Zindi
in LUSAKA, Zambia
African governments have been called upon to embrace organic agriculture instead of conventional farming as climate change continues to ruin livelihoods due to food shortages.
Organic agriculture is the farming method which is in harmony with nature for social justice and economic development in a sustainable environment where all elements of nature, whether living or non-living, co-exist without the fear of one endangering the existence of the other.
The call was made at the second African Organic Conference held in Lusaka under the theme “Mainstreaming Organic Agriculture in the African Development Agenda.”
Speaker after speaker emphasised the need for countries, especially those in Africa, to seriously consider diverting their attention from conventional agriculture to organic farming as climate change takes its toll.
First to address the more than 300 delegates was chief executive officer of Organic Producers and Processors’ Association of Zambia Mr Mushimbwe Chitalu, who said that it was clear from the creation of mankind that Africans understood well the practice of organic farming which they practised throughout as their way of life.
Mr Chitalu traced back traditional farming methods practised in Tanzania in an area known as Ukara Island.
He said in this area, which measured 80 square kilometres in extent, lived a population of 17 000 inhabitants with each household owning 2,5 hectares of land.
“This is ubuntu. It embodies a culture of precaution which today is reigning against the pride of the so-called civilised and educated who seem now to agree with us Africans that genetic modified materials could have serious social and environmental consequences that would be difficult to address,” he said.
Speaking at the same occasion, Zambian Minister of Agriculture and Livestock Mr Emmanuel Chenda said organic agriculture was one of the best practices in ensuring environmental sustainability as it sustains the fertility of soils, ecosystems and the health of people.
It relies on locally adapted improved ecological processes and cycles as well as natural biodiversity rather than the use of synthetic inputs and genetically modified materials.
He said the number of farmers practising organic farming in his country had tremendously increased from 300 to 60 000 while in Nigeria former head of state Mr Abdulsalami Abubakar had put in practice organic farming to encourage his people with 400 hectares of land under organic farming in his country.
The largest gains from organic agriculture arise from the savings on the damages to public health and the environment estimated at more than US$59,6 billion a year in the United States.
Another is the issue of food security as organic farming retains more nutrients, organic carbon and moisture in the soil, all of which make organic crops more able to withstand climatic stress.
The practice of organic agriculture on a large scale requires strong government commitment and support as well as policy changes that encourage a global shift.
Labels: GMOS, ORGANICS
Read more...
COMMENT - Other than the very uncool accompanying photograph,
SC637 is one of Seed Co's high yield varieties:
"In the 600 series, the new SC637 is a high yielder and can be grown in natural region II B, with a potential output of 12t/ha plus good tip cover producing a very white meal and good disease resistance. "
I am not in favour of these potentially genetically modified super yielding seeds. The best way to increase productivity, is to increase the land that is under permanent irrigation. Which doesn't only allow for only bigger yields, but multiple harvests from the same land, and secures a yield in times of drought. Drought is the biggest obstacle to food security in Zimbabwe, whether it was the 2000s or the 1990s.
Work on increasing yields, farmers told
Friday, 23 March 2012 00:00
Agriculture Reporter
Farmers should concentrate on increasing yields per unit area if Zimbabwe is to attain food security and retain its breadbasket status, Masho-naland West Governor and Resident Minister Faber Chidarikire said yesterday.
Officiating at a Seed Co field day at Kadoma Research Station, Governor Chidarikire said he was concerned that productivity on farms was dwindling. He said local seed houses were coming up with high yield varieties but productivity continued on a downward trend.
“For instance we have heard that the SC637, which is grown in some parts of this province and elsewhere has yielded 17,5 tonnes per hectare at ART Farm.
However, despite the potential yield inherent in these varieties, the majority of our farmers continue to produce less than a tonne per hectare.
“It is mandatory that we push our average yields to over two tonnes per hectare so that we deliver 3,4 million tonnes of maize into our granaries,” he said.
Governor Chidarikire urged farmers to continue learning new skills and boost productivity.
“I challenge farmers to put the seed technology being produced here to good use by ensuring that we produce to the maximum potential to make farming much more exciting and ensure food security, sustainability and improved cash income.”
Seed Co managing director, Mr Denias Zaranyika, said field days were important to both Seed Co and farmers because they offered a platform to share experiences.
He said this kind of interaction improved farming operations as well as giving pointers to Seed Co researchers and breeders.
Mr Zaranyika said Seed Co’s team of researchers was in the process of breeding an ultra-early maize hybrid than the currently available early maturing hybrids.
The field day was attended by farmers from Masvingo, Mashonaland West, students from agricultural colleges and Agritex officers.
Labels: AGRICULTURE, GMOS, SEEDCO
Read more...
Call for lifting of GMO ban on stockfeeds
Friday, 04 November 2011 00:00
THE ban on genetically modified stockfeeds is negatively impacting on the poultry and pig sectors, Mr Mario Beffa, chairman of the Livestock and Meat Advisory Council has said. Speaking at a workshop on the constraints affecting the two sectors in Harare on Tuesday, Mr Beffa said there was urgent need to lift the ban on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to boost the availability of stockfeeds.
"The relevant authorities need to make considerations on the GMO ban because it is making the availability of stockfeeds difficult since you know that our farmers are failing to meet the demand," said Mr Beffa.
According to reports by agricultural economists, Dr Jackqueline Mutambara and Dr Chrispen Sukume, GMO stockfeeds are cheaper than non-GMO and substituting the latter for the former would make the sectors viable.
"GMO soya and maize are cheaper than non-GMO soya and maize and substituting the latter for the former in pig diets will reduce the price of feeds currently constituting 85 percent of the total cost of production in pigs.
"This will reduce the cost of raising pigs and thus improve on the profits," Dr Mutambara said.
Representatives from the two sectors have since formed a task force that will engage the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Science and Technology to deliberate on the issue of the GMO ban on stockfeeds.
Apart from the GMO ban the sectors are also facing high import tariffs on production of raw materials and inputs and the excessive illegal poultry and pig imports.
"There should be a clampdown on illegal poultry imports because they are affecting us seriously," Lunar Chickens chief executive, Mr Edwin Mushangwe said.
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
Motion for Zim to embrace genetic engineering community ratified
Thursday, 27 October 2011 00:00
Herald Reporter
THE House of Assembly has ratified a motion to make Zimbabwe a member of the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Science and Technology Minister Heneri Dzinotyiwei steered the motion on Tuesday. In an interview after the sitting, Minister Dzinotyiwei said by being a member of the centre, Zimbabwe would be able to access high research facilities for no extra cost.
"It will mean that we can have a right to send scientists to undertake research using sophisticated facilities that are available at the centre," he said.
"There is no way Zimbabwe can manage to buy the facilities because they are very expensive."
Minister Dzinotyiwei said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were less than one percent of the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.
He said from a scientific point of view, there was nothing wrong with GMOs.
Minister Dzinotyiwei said adopting GMOs in Zimbabwe would be an opportunity to revive the agricultural sector and make the land reform programme a success.
Debating the Presidential speech earlier on, Zanu-PF legislator for Uzumba, Cde Simbaneuta Mudari-kwa, said there was need for Zimbabwe to embrace GMOs.
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
COMMENT - GMOs are not the answer, they are the problem. They are a clear and present danger to the health of people. They induce sterility in lab tests of hamsters, and they are a pandora's box of unknown and unknowable side effects, both to human health and nature. AND WE DO NOT NEED THEM. The farmer in question who is describes as 'a distressed farmer', probably only needs a few rainwater harvesting ditches, so he can store more water for his crops to grow. Access to water is the main hindrance to agriculture in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa today, not absence of genetically engineered crops. Expect more pro-GMO articles like this to appear, because MONSANTO's reach is far and wide, and facilitated by the US government and US embassies, as evidenced from Wikileaks (see
here).
GMOs have found their way on shelves of local supermarkets but local farmers are not allowed to grow them.
Saturday, 08 October 2011 23:16
By Faith Mhandu
Mr Muchabaiwa Tagarika (72) from Mwenezi District in Masvingo Province is a distressed farmer. Despite employing double efforts on his land each year, he has failed to attain a meaningful harvest.
Mr Tagarika’s nightmares are a combination of incessant droughts and poor soil ph caused by land over-use. The farmer has a passion for agriculture, the main food source for his family.
Being a family man, Mr Tagarika is conscious of the need to devise other means to improve the output on his land or join the list of several Zimbabweans in dire need of food aid this year.
Despite farmers working flat-out on their pieces of land to produce food for the country, Zimbabwe’s agricultural output has for the past decade dwindled because of harsh weather conditions.
The situation has seen lobby groups engaging in a robust debate on the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as a way to guarantee the country’s food security.
According to the 2011 Consolidated Appeal Process, more than 1,4 million Zimbabweans urgently needed food assistance since February this year.
The crisis was a result of a poor 2010-2011 agricultural season which was struck by a deadly mid-season drought between January and February.
The Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union (ZCFU) acting director, Mr Peter Gambara, said it was time for the country to start considering GMOs.
He said the shortage of food is not peculiar to Zimbabwe but is a global crisis.
“With the current food shortages not only in Zimbabwe, but across the globe, the Government should start to reconsider allowing GMO grains in the country,” said Mr Gambara.
He said despite the ban of grains by the Government, processed GMO products were being imported and dominated the market because of their affordable prices.
“Ban or no ban, GMOs are there in the country and are on the market, putting the local farmers at a disadvantage. The agronomic cost of production in our country is very high while on the market we are expected to sell at the same price,” Mr Gambara said.
There have been concerns from various stakeholders that GMO foods had long-term health effects.
But Mr Gambara said no scientific evidence had proved the harmful nature of GMOs, adding that locals were currently consuming GM foods in imported products like chicken, rice and cooking oil. Zimbabwe imports most of its food products from South Africa.
According to the United States National Academies of Sciences 2004 report, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been detected.
A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation of genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety as the non-GM foods.
“It was noted that second-generation foods with significant changes in constituents would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies,” stated the review.
A Biosafety Board member and National University of Science and Technology scientific researcher Professor Yogeshkumar Naik in 2006 said Zimbabwe had no need to fear GMO as according to his research they did not pose a health hazard.
However, 2009 Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that there was a small percentage of cellular-level changes detected in some specimens as a result of modified foods.
This, researchers said, gave more need for further investigation on the use and consumption of GM foods.
Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union director Mr Paul Zakariya said there was a need for public education before the country subscribes to the adoption of GMOs.
“We noted that most farmers do not know what GMOs were. A survey on our members showed us that most of them were misinformed. To be precise, the farmers do not have a clue on what GMO are,” said Mr Zakariya.
“We are concerned on who is going to help us in disseminating the information. Let us talk about this subject so that experts will not be the only ones with the knowledge.”
Government, however, has maintained a ban on the importation of GM seed maize and grain, citing environmental and health concerns.
Ironically, there are no restrictions on the importation of GM mealie-meal.
Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development Minister Joseph Made warns that GMOs had long-term negative effects on agricultural yields.
Advocates of genetically modified crops, however, say that resistance on the scientific products needs to change since traditional methods had failed to withstand
the weather patterns.
The Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries has also expressed concern over the continued ban of GMO raw materials in food manufacturing despite the country being among the top four countries in Africa to embark on research into GMOs.
-The Sunday Mail
Labels: GMOS, NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC HEALTH
Read more...
Irvine’s slaughtering 200 000 chickens per week, VP Mujuru told
Thursday, 06 October 2011 00:00
Herald Reporter
Irvine's Zimbabwe, one of the largest poultry rearing companies in the country, is slaughtering 200 000 chickens every week and producing 570 000 eggs daily.
This is a result of the US$5 million the firm invested in the business two years ago. All the chickens are for local consumption while some of the eggs are exported to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Irvine's Zimbabwe chief executive officer, Mr David Irvine, yesterday revealed this to Vice President Joice Mujuru during a tour of the company's plant. Mr Irvine said the company was also providing day-old chicks to rural areas.
"We are slaughtering about 200 000 chickens a week all for local consumption. We are also producing 570 000 eggs but we are exporting some to DRC. We are providing day-old chicks to rural areas and we are trying to teach them how to keep them commercially," he said.
VP Mujuru said the level of production at Irvine's Zimbabwe was impressive. She urged people to utilise land given to them under the land reform programme to cut on imports.
She said production in all sectors of the economy was the only solution to problems facing the country.
"What we are missing in this country is that we no longer have a middle class. We have got farms and we should be able to farm. This country is very strict on GMOs and GMOs should be prevented right from the farm.
ALSO READ
* Agricultural sector eyes growth: President
* Firms urged to start outgrower schemes
* Tips on poulty production
* 500 landless families invade Chiredzi farms
Our people should think of production, production of soya beans, maize and other crops should help to boost our industry," she said.
VP Mujuru said Government should support local businesspeople to improve the lives of people and also to boost the economy.
"What is impressive is that Mr Irvine came to my office two years ago talking about expansion and it is important that they have lived up to their word. This is what we want and Government should support our local entrepreneurs. I am really impressed by what I have seen here and we want to see more other Irvine's out there doing other things," she said.
Labels: GMOS, JOICE MUJURU, POULTRY
Read more...
COMMENT - 'Comrade' Chigwedere has been bought and paid for, and is selling out his own people and mankind. I wonder about these types of articles coming from The Herald. Have they been infiltrated? For the pressure on countries asserted by the transnational agribusinesses through the US State Department and US embassies, also see here:
(GLOBALRESEARCH)
Wikileaks reveal U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs(WIKILEAKS CABLES)
USG-SPONSORED BT EVENT RE-STARTS GMO DIALOGUE AND DEBATE IN ZAMBIAZim urged to use GMO seed
Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:30
Agriculture Editor
LOCAL farmers have been urged to go for genetically modified seed to increase yield per hectare as is the case with their regional counterparts. This call was made at the just-ended Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union 71st congress held in Harare last week.
The two-day congress,
held under the theme “Biotechnology, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture”, questioned the wisdom behind local farmers’ reluctance to use GMOs when the country had been importing these from neighbouring countries at low prices.
The congress heard that farmers the world over were now using genetically modified seed which had seen their yields increase per hectare compared to those still resisting the move.
Addressing farmers at the congress, Mashonaland East Governor and Resident Minister Cde Aeneas Chigwedere said the fear of the unknown had forced local farmers to continue incurring high costs of production as they shunned GMO seed.
Cde Chigwedere said there was a misplaced traditional belief that the use of genetically modified seed would harm people who consumed the products.
“We have heard stories that if one eats GMOs, one will develop horns or die. These beliefs should be dismissed as GMO seed has been used by our neighbours whose yield has increased from a mere two tonnes to 10 tonnes and above per hectare,’’ said Cde Chigwedere.
He said the idea was for farmers to cut production costs so that their produce would be affordable.
He said countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe’s major trading partner, started using GMO seed way back in 1999.
This had seen that country’s farmers increasing their food output per hectare, resulting in Zimbabwe importing the same food products at lower prices than the locally produced commodities.
Cde Chigwedere said local farmers had continued to incur high production costs as it was difficult to increase their yield per hectare.
He said there was also a need to finance farmers to increase production.
Labels: BIOTECHNOLOGY, GMOS, MONSANTO, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
COMMENT - A typical case of the US government acting as pushers for Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations. Zambia DOES NOT NEED GM FOOD OR SEEDS. In fact there are serious issues related to their safety, such as the observed effect of mass sterilisation among hamsters exposed to them. If it isn't for hamsters, it isn't fit for people. (See: G
enetically Modified Soy Linked To Sterility, Infant Mortality In Hamsters, by Jeffrey Smith, Huffington Post). It is clear that transnational (agri-) businesses are running US foreign policy. And they are endangering the health of the Zambian people, and mankind.
SUBJECT: USG-SPONSORED BT EVENT RE-STARTS GMO DIALOGUE AND DEBATE IN
ZAMBIA
REF: A) LUSAKA 208
LUSAKA 00000964 001.2 OF 002
SUMMARY
¶1. (SBU) A one day seminar on biotechnology (BT) in October funded with EEB BT outreach funds brought together Ministry of Agriculture officials, commodity traders and farmers, scientists and private sector representatives to hear presentations on the current state of BT, and how genetically modified organism (GMO) acceptance could
help Zambia's agricultural sector. The event, organized by the
Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa
(ACTESA), a
USG-supported agency of the Common Market for Eastern
and Southern Africa (COMESA), represented one of the first public
dialogues on the benefits of BT crops since
Zambia banned all GMOs
in 2003 and effectively
cut off debate on the issue in 2005. While opposition to BT in the Zambian government (GRZ) and the private sector remains an issue,
senior GRZ officials have expressed an interest in removing the ban (reftel), and
Embassy Lusaka is developing a medium-term strategy to move Zambia towards BT acceptance. End Summary.
SEMINAR HIGHLIGHTS
¶2. (U) COMESA Assistant Secretary General Stephen Karangizi opened
the seminar by noting COMESA's support for the introduction of GMOs
in its 19 member countries, including Zambia. He explained that BT
acceptance would increase agricultural output and could open
marginal land to agricultural production by utilizing crop strains
that thrive in more adverse conditions, helping countries become
more food secure. He assured skeptics in the audience that COMESA
understood the concerns of those opposed to BT, and said COMESA
would support systems that carefully evaluated new technology used
in countries' quests to improve agricultural productivity.
¶3. (U) Dr. Faith Nguthi, Senior Program Officer at the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) explained that BT crops, which improve productivity and income, protect bio-diversity, and reduce the need for fertilizer and other external inputs, helped alleviate poverty for 12.3 million small farmers around the world in 2008. She explained that, given the evidence in favor of introducing BT, the challenges for countries contemplating such a step include establishing responsible and efficient regulatory systems appropriate for developing countries and effectively communicating the benefits of BT to society. Dr. Nguthi offered ISAA support in BT information sharing, advocacy and scientific training.
¶4. (U) David Wafula, Programme for Biosafety Systems Coordinator in Kenya for the International Food Policy Research Institute, discussed BT commodity trade and regional market access issues. He argued that as countries in the region continued to introduce BT crops, including maize and cotton, countries like Zambia that continue to adhere to a strict ban on GMOs will lose out on regional trade and be hampered in their regionalintegration efforts. Wafula stressed that GMOs on the international market have passed risk assessments conducted by multiple national authorities, including stringent environmental and human health risk assessments.
¶5. (U) Tamala Kambikambi, a lecturer in Agronomy at the University
of Zambia, discussed social, cultural and ethical aspects of GMOs.
She noted that countries needed to strike a balance between
excessive anxiety and too little caution when discussing the
introduction of BT crops, and said that lack of public awareness
over the potential benefits of GMOs created an unnecessary barrier
to BT acceptance. She added that countries like Zambia currently
lack the capacity to monitor and regulate GMOs, which further
hinders their introduction. Kambikambi concluded that Zambia should
work with other African countries to promote home-grown BT research
through public/private partnerships and develop sound and rational
BT policies to regulate its introduction and development.
ZAMBIA AND BT - A SORDID HISTORY
¶6. (SBU) At EU urging (and under EU trade restriction threats), the GRZ adopted a non-GMO policy in the early 2000s. In 2002, at the height of a severe drought in Zambia, the GRZ rejected a humanitarian donation of GMO corn from the United States, citing lack of information on the technology. In the aftermath, then-President Levy Mwanawasa declared a total ban on GMOs in Zambia. The ban is still in force, but it is not backed up by legislation. In 2007, a private, humanitarian donation of rice was rejected at the border. As recently as February 2009, the GRZ rejected a consignment of maize from South Africa to cover a shortfall in Zambia's food reserves when 75 percent of the 100,000 metric tons was found to be a genetically modified varietal. Despite its economic hardships, Zambia continues to pay premiums for non-GMO food imports.
¶7. (U) During the seminar, Rodger Saidi Phiri, president of the National Association of Peasant and Small Scale Farmers, declared his continued opposition to GMOs. Phiri and his association members were vocal supporters of a ban during the 2002 anti-GMO debate. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives officials told Emboff that Phiri continues to command authority in the Ministry.
COMMENT
¶8. (SBU) While there remains opposition to BT introduction in Zambia within the GRZ and the private sector, GRZ officials at the highest levels have expressed aninterest in removing the ban. Rather than taking what they believe is the politically risky step of publicly supporting the introduction of GMOs outright, the GRZ has asked the Embassy to jumpstart the dialogue on BT acceptance (reftel). Some contend that Zambian consumers have long been exposed to GMOs through imported cooking oils and other imported processed or refined products. Embassy is developing a medium-term strategy to move Zambia towards BT acceptance. The seminar was a good first step, as it was one of the first public forums where BT was discussed in Zambia in years. COMESA expects to have a USAID-funded BT adviser in place in early 2010, and Embassy will continue to work
closely with COMESA on the issue.
KOPLOVSKY
Labels: BIOTECHNOLOGY, GMOS, MICHAEL KOPLOVSKY
Read more...
Caribbean: Monsanto in Haiti
Posted on Friday, July 15 @ 07:08:00 AST
Topic: Haiti
HaitiBy Beverly Bell
July 15, 2011 - pambazuka.org
Last week, thousands of farmers and supporters of Haitian peasant agriculture marched for hours under the hot Caribbean sun to call for more government support for locally grown seeds and agriculture.
The demonstration was organized by the Peasant Movement of Papay and other farmer associations, human rights and women’s groups, and the Haitian Platform for Alternative Development (PAPDA), the Haitian online agency AlterPresse reported from the march. The official theme of the peaceful demonstration was “Land Grabbing is Endangering Agricultural Sovereignty.”
Singing slogans like “Long Live Haitian Agriculture!” and “Long live local seeds!” the crowd – wearing straw hats and red T-shirts – wound its way on foot, donkeys, and bikes through this dusty provincial capital. The demonstration ended at a square named for farmer Charlemagne Péralte, who lead the “Caco” peasant revolt against the U.S. army occupation from 1916 until 1919, when U.S. Marines assassinated him.
Aid to Haiti
cc Wikimedia Last spring, Haiti’s minister of agriculture gave agribusiness giant Monsanto permission to ‘donate’ 505 tonnes of seeds to Haiti ‘to support the reconstruction effort’. A year later, Beverly Bell asks what has become of the seeds that Monsanto gave, and ‘how real was the fear of Haitian farmer organizations that the donation was a Trojan horse?’
One year ago, thousands of farmers covered the same march route to protest the import of a “gift” of seeds from Monsanto. The farmers burned some of the seeds, calling them a “death plan” for peasant agriculture.
Last spring, in violation of Haitian law, the Minister of Agriculture gave the agribusiness giant Monsanto permission to “donate” 505 tons of seeds to Haiti. The first shipment of 60 tons, reportedly of maize and vegetable seeds, arrived in May 2010. Some of the seeds were coated with a chemical (Thiram)[1] so toxic that the EPA forbids its sale to home gardeners in the U.S.. Monsanto announced its $4 million gift was “to support the reconstruction effort” in Haiti. What has become of the seeds that Monsanto gave? And how real was the fear of Haitian farmer organizations that the donation was a Trojan horse?
Haiti Grassroots Watch explored the impacts in a three-month investigation, “Seeding Reconstruction or Destruction?” and “Monsanto in Haiti.” Excerpts from the report follow.
CONNECTIONS:
In Haiti, a US Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded agricultural project accepted the Monsanto “gift.” USAID/WINNER (Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources) is a five-year, $126 million US taxpayer-funded agriculture and environment program. WINNER is run by giant beltway contractor Chemonics International, which in 2010 ranked #51 on the list of top 100 US government contractors in the world, earning over $476 million in contacts that year.
USAID/WINNER’s Chief of Party is Jean Robert Estimé, minister of Foreign Affairs under dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY:
In its post-earthquake strategy document, the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture called for massive seed distribution – covering 30 percent of farmers’ needs – for three seasons post-earthquake, and gave its warm approval of the Monsanto “gift.” This is even though allowing new varieties (the maize and most of the vegetable varieties) onto Haitian soil directly contravenes Haitian law and international conventions… which aim to protect the gene pool and the ecosystem in general.
The Ministry of Agriculture issued a list of “approved” seed varieties in March. None of the maize varieties on the list are hybrids.
Asked by Haiti Grassroots Watch about the fact that new varieties posed a threat to Haitian biodiversity, and that seeds and other plants and animals are being imported into Haiti without control, Ministry of Agriculture Director of National Seed Services Emmanuel Prophete admitted that the Ministry does not have the power to control the borders.
“We are supposed to have a quarantine system, and all seeds should be tested for germination and adaptation before they are distributed,” Prophete conceded in an interview earlier this year. “We don’t have the power to do that at this time.”
Asked about the introduction of the Monsanto hybrid seeds onto Haitian soil, Francesco Del Re of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) would not directly condemn the “gift” seeds. But, he noted, for its emergency seed distributions, the FAO-led “Agriculture Cluster” imported only the seeds on [the government approval] list, “for a very precise reasons, because the hybrids need to be renewed every year and do have to be bought by peasants every year.”
Asked if the FAO attempted to block the Ministry or the USAID/WINNER program from importing and distributed seeds, Del Re said: “We gave advice. That is what we did. Afterwards, naturally, we are not the national police, so we can’t verify everything, everywhere, but we did all we could do… I agree with the philosophy that we discussed with the Ministry and that we put into place with them. Afterwards, if other partners make other choices, that is their responsibility.”
DANGERS OF INTRODUCING UNTESTED SEEDS IN EMERGENCY CONTEXT:
In a May 13 news release, Monsanto announced: “Haitian farmers, who otherwise may not have had sufficient seeds to plant this season [Haiti Grassroots Watch emphasis] in their earthquake-ravaged country, are receiving help from a unique public and private partnership.”
Except… Haitian farmers did have enough seed to plant that season, according to several reports.
Monsanto’s “gift” announcement came a full two months after the Catholic Relief Service (CRS) – which has extensive experience in Haitian agriculture development work – released a “rapid seed assessment” report [PDF] for southern Haiti, one of the areas worst-hit by the earthquake. The assessment, circulated to humanitarian and development organizations working in Haiti, recommended against the importation and distribution of seeds. CRS wrote: “Direct seed distribution should not take place given that seed is available in the local market and farmers’ negative perceptions of external seed. This emergency is not the appropriate time to try to introduce improved varieties on anything more than a small scale for farmer evaluation. [our emphasis]”
A multi-agency seed security study shepherded by International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in the spring and summer of 2010 warned that “one should never introduce varieties in an emergency context which have not been tested in the given agro-ecological site and under farmers’ management conditions.”
Reached in January 2011, principal CIAT researcher Louise Sperling noted that most hybrids require extra water and better soils, and that most of Haiti was not appropriate for maize hybrids. While not opposed to the use of hybrids – when there is adequate training, irrigation, fertilizer, and when farmers can afford to replace them – she said she was concerned that “the hybrids being promoted have never been tested extensively on-farm” in Haiti.
And, she asked, “What if the technology fails? And, if [farmers] want to buy the seed again, where will it be available and at what price?”
DEPENDENCE:
At least some of the peasant farmer groups receiving Monsanto and other hybrid maize and other cereal seeds have little understanding of the implications of getting “hooked” on hybrid seeds. (Most Haitian farmers select seeds from their own harvests.) One of the USAID/WINNER trained extension agents told Haiti Grassroots Watch that in his region, farmers won’t need to save seeds anymore: “They don’t have to kill themselves like before. They can plant, harvest, sell or eat. They don’t have to save seeds anymore because they know they will get seeds from the [WINNER-subsidized] store.”
When it was pointed out that WINNER’s subsidies end when the project ends in four years, he had no logical response.
Director of National Seed Service Prophete told Haiti Grassroots Watch that when peasants get improved seed varieties, production rises, but “the system is based on a subsidy… You have to ask yourself about the sustainability because if the policy changes one day, where will peasants get seeds?... We’ll get to a point where, one day, we have a lot of seeds, and then suddenly, when all the NGOs are gone, we won’t have any.”
PROMOTING THE PRODUCT, REGARDLESS OF RISK:
According to its website, one of WINNER’s goals is to help famers “increase their productivity and to double their incomes in five years” through the use of better irrigation and techniques, and by using better seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs provided at only a tenth the of actual cost through “Farmer’s Stores” run by local farmers organizations.
One USAID/WINNER staffperson passed on an internal document to the journalists. “Preliminary Report on the seed donation of hybrid maize and vegetable seeds from MONSANTO” revealing USAID/WINNER’s intent. According to the document, “Despite a whole media campaign [by grassroots organizations and “political leaders”] against hybrids under the cover of GMO/Agent Orange/Round Up, the seeds were used almost everywhere, the true message got through, although not at the level hoped for [emphasis added].”
The report continues, “We are in the process of working as quickly as possible with farmers to increase as much as possible the use of hybrid seeds in the plain areas where it is possible to give them technical support.”
Even though most of the internally displaced people (66 percent) had returned to cities by mid-June, seed distributions continued throughout 2010 and into 2011. When CIAT researcher Sperling learned of this in March, 2011, she told Haiti Grassroots Watch, “Direct seed aid – when not needed, and given repetitively – does real harm. It undermines local systems, creates dependencies and stifles real commercial sector development.”
Sperling added that some humanitarian actors “seem to see delivering seed aid as easy and they welcome the overhead (money) – even if their actions may hurt poor farmers.”
DANGERS TO HUMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT:
At least some of the farmer groups interviewed don’t appear to understand the health and environmental risks involved with the fungicide- and herbicide-coated hybrids. Until Haiti Grassroots Watch intervened, some farmers were planning to grind up the toxic seed to use as chicken feed.
In one of our sites of investigation, the Farmers’ Store is actually a room in a community building that was unlocked and unstaffed on at least one Haiti Grassroots Watch visit. The building is located in a neighborhood full of families with children.
Inside the room, sacks of sorghum and maize seeds, bags of fertilizer and boxes of seeds are all jumbled into a huge pile. Some of the sacks are labeled, others are not. Several open bags from Monsanto/DeKalb in Brazil spill bright pink, chemically coated maize seeds onto the floor. Other maize seeds are in unlabeled white sacks which are punctured with holes… made by rats? Children? The farmers? That seed is covered with a white powder.
A half-empty bag of Pioneer seeds, also presumably hybrid, and presumably treated with fungicide and herbicide, sits open. Sunlight streams in through two windows, meaning that airborne Maxim XL, which coats the Monsanto/DeKalb seeds, and other airborne fungicides, pesticides and fertilizers could just as easily stream out. And into the lungs of nearby schoolchildren.
Syngenta, maker of Maxim XL, warns that skin and eye contact, and inhalation, are dangerous. “DO NOT use treated seed for animal or human consumption... DO NOT allow treated seed to contaminate grain or other seed intended for animal or human consumption. DO NOT feed treated seed, or otherwise expose, to wild or domestic birds,” one warning label reads.
Boxes of vegetable seed – presumably from Monsanto but not labeled as such – are jumbled about. Many of the seeds are treated with Thiram. In 2004, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that Thiram cannot be used in home gardens, on apples, or on playing fields. The 260-page report also detailed adverse health effects on humans, noting details like “the chronic toxicity profile for Thiram indicates that the liver, blood and urinary system are the target organs.” Thiram also has “effects” on foraging birds’ reproduction, and thus Thiram-coated seed should not be broadcast on the soil.
There are also bags of Mancozeb. The EPA also looked at Mancozeb recently (2005), saying the fungicide “poses some acute and chronic risks to birds and mammals” and that handlers need to wear full protective clothing, gloves and a “PF 5” respirator.
“Yes, all of this is dangerous. When you use Mancozeb, the farmer needs to wear a face mask, glasses and gloves,” the farmer agreed. “USAID doesn’t give them to us, but we buy them so they are available to the farmers.”
When Haiti Grassroots Watch asked the farmer where the gloves and masks were stored, he looked around under some of the seed sacks. “Well, maybe they ran out but we always buy them and have them here,” he said, hesitantly. “I don’t know exactly where they are.”
The farmer and the journalists thoroughly searched the room. There was no protective gear.
SECRECY:
USAID/WINNER keeps a lid on its activities and tightly controls access to its work. Several WINNER employees told Haiti Grassroots Watch that before starting contracts, all staff had an agreement with Chemonics which prohibits their speaking with the media.
Haiti Grassroots Watch repeatedly requested an interview with USAID/WINNER agronomists and officials to follow up on the seed “gift.” Requests were repeatedly denied. In addition, Communications Director Maxwell Marcelin broadcast an email – obtained by Haiti Grassroots Watch – warning: “… a journalist is trying to do a report, including the project USAID/WINNER… I ask you to be very vigilant and, if the case presents itself, do not respond to any question, no matter how simple it seems… It is important to advise us immediately of all incidents, or requests, in order to help us better respond.”
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* This article first appeared in Toward Freedom.
* Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the bookWalking on Fire: Haitian Women's Stories of Survival and Resistance. She coordinates Other Worlds, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.
NOTE:
[1] Email from Elizabeth Vancil to Emmanuel Prophete, Director of Seeds at the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, and others; released by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, date unavailable.
Reproduced from: pambazuka.org
Labels: GMOS, HAITI, MONSANTO
Read more...
Consumers need protection from contaminated food - ZACA
By Edwin Mbulo
Thu 14 July 2011, 09:40 CAT
WE need robust, well resourced institutions which should be able to protect consumers against contaminated food, says a consumer advocate.
Commenting on the just-ended world food standard body, the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting which resolved that governments are free to decide on whether and how to label foods derived from modern biotechnology, including foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), Zambia Consumer Association (ZACA) executive secretary Muyunda Ililonga said food issues need high standards.
“It’s one thing to develop standards and another to adhere to them. We need well-resourced institutions such as the Zambia Bureau of Standards. They need to be well equipped in human resource and finance to be able to function. We need robust institutions which should be able to protect consumers against contaminated food,” Ililonga said.
He said standards institutions in Zambia and other African countries faced a big problem when it came to resources despite being backed by good legislation.
Ililonga said ZACA has advocated mandatory labelling of food packages to show whether a product was genetically modified so as to give a choice to consumers.
“We support the position taken by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to safeguard consumers from bio-technology whose outcome may harm the health of the consumer,” he said.
Ililonga said there was a lot of concern on GMOs and certain additives which need to be addressed by the Zambian government.
According a press statement made available by Aphaluck Bhatiasevi, the World Health Organisation communications officer, a decision which will help inform consumers make choices regarding genetically-modified foodstuffs was taken at the 34th session of the Codex Commission held in Geneva from July 4 to July 9, with 184 member countries, the UN, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations in attendance.
“The meeting of world food standard body, Codex Alimentarius Commission World food standard body, the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission has stated that governments are free to decide on whether and how to label foods derived from modern biotechnology, including foods containing genetically-modified organisms,” stated Bhatiasevi. “The labelling should be done in conformity with the text approved by the Codex Commission, to avoid potential trade barrier.”
Labels: CONSUMERS, GMOS, ZACA
Read more...
Africa is not a place for GMOs - Maina
By Gift Chanda
Tue 12 July 2011, 18:50 CAT
AFRICA is not a place for GMOs, says African Biodiversity Network advocacy coordinator Anne Maina.
Commenting on calls by Zambian stakeholders for government to open debate on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the country following Kenya’s introduction of GM maize, Maina said genetically engineered foods were not a solution to the food shortages and climate change problems in Africa.
Maina said Africa already had the solutions to hunger and climate change problems the continent was facing.
“Everything that genetic engineering has claimed to offer can readily be achieved through safer methods such as non-GM breeding, intercropping and creative innovation,” Maina said in an emailed statement from Kenya.
“We do not believe that top-down technological solutions will solve the many challenges that Kenyan farmers face. This one-size-fits all solution cannot attend to our varied needs.”
She said public research institutions in Africa should shift focus back to farmers needs rather than supporting agribusiness, which seeks to colonise the food and seed chain.
Maina explained that farmers and consumers in Kenya had rejected GM crops because the patented seeds makes seed-saving illegal.
“We believe that the patenting of seed is deeply unethical and dangerous; it undermines farmers’ rights to save seeds and will make us wholly dependent on corporations in the future,” she said.
“80 per cent of Africa's small-scale farmers depend on seed saving, so patented crops present a threat to their food security and way of life especially now with the challenges of climate change.”
Maina said she did not believe that bio-technology would solve the many challenges that farmers in Africa face.
“…Instead, we call for collaboration between farmers, scientists and government to ensure that we produce healthy and plentiful food,” Maina said.
“We have clearly seen how farmers who grow a diversity of crops using organic farming techniques become much more food secure than on conventional or GM varieties, where expensive seeds and chemicals must be purchased each season.”
She said research on GMOs was already costing Africa huge sums of money which could go into supporting farmers revive and develop a huge diversity of locally-adapted, drought-tolerance, and pest-resistance crop varieties.
Maina further warned that multinational companies, which were desperate for new markets in Africa after their wholesale rejection in Europe, were the ones pushing for GM crops’ introduction in Africa.
“The push for GM crops in Kenya has not come from the farmers, it has come from the GM companies desperate for new markets in Africa after their wholesale rejection in Europe. Africa is not the place for GM crops,” said Maina.
The African Biodiversity Network is a charitable organisation that was formed in response to growing concern about threatened biodiversity and community livelihood in Africa – mainly due to the effects of industrial revolution.
It has partners in Benin, Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
Labels: AGRICULTURE, GMOS
Read more...
No need for GMOs: Mpande
Thursday, 12 May 2011 20:36
Agriculture Reporter
ZIMBABWE does not need to switch to genetic engineering technology to improve agricultural yields and boost food security, a research consultant, Mr Rodger Mpande said in Harare on Wednesday.
He said access to advanced technological means of production, and not genetic modification, holds the key to high yields.
Mr Mpande made the remarks while addressing delegates attending a Knowledge Brief convened by the Humanitarian Information Facilitation Centre (HIFC) in conjunction with the Zimbabwe Organic Producers and Promoters Association (ZOPPA).
He blamed the food crisis in Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa on adverse weather and poor technological advancement.
"It is false that genetically modified crops have higher yields than our own varieties. It is false for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is the first country in the world to develop a two-way maize hybrid - the SR52, which was not necessarily a genetically engineered product.
"We have a vibrant seed industry that is next to none. Now there is a new variety that can yield 13 tonnes per hectare if all the necessary conditions are created," he said.
Mr Mpande argued that if the average maize yield per hectare for most smallholder farmers is 0,6 tonnes, a deficit of 12,4tonnes from the new hybrid's full potential, then it was only necessary to empower the farmers on the proper production technologies and not change the genetics of the crops.
He said low levels of technology were responsible for poor production levels, for example, farmers just applying fertilizers to soils that have not been tested, which may not address the nutrient structure of the soil to improve yields.
Mr Mpande explained that two things happened in genetic modification - first, a gene is inserted into a plant, which allows the plant to stand any chemicals applied to it afterwards - something referred to as herbicide tolerance.
Next is the Bt toxin expression that involves inserting a gene to intoxicate a plant so that it can kill pests making it unnecessary to apply pesticides later.
"Genetic modification interferes with other production systems, for instance, the organic method and breeds resistance to herbicides, which creates super weeds that are a problem to farmers.
"It also ignores ecologically friendly methods of weed management and takes away the option of farmer saved seed relying heavily on patent laws that do not empower the farmer," added Mr Mpande.
Genetic modification, explained Mr Mpande, kills the natural potential of crops and sterilises other seeds in the process, which has earned it the nickname ‘terminator technology.'
He also bemoaned the absence of a solid Biosafety Framework on the farm level, border control and food safety regulation, a situation that is even made worse by the lack of a vibrant health monitoring system.
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
Wikileaks reveal U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs
Global Research, March 10, 2011
Natural News - 2010-12-10
by Mike Adams
Wikileaks continues to rock the political world by shedding light on conspiracies, corruption and cover-ups. The latest batch of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveals what can only be characterized as a U.S.-led conspiracy to force GMOs onto European countries by making those countries pay a steep price if they resist.
The cable reveals the words of
Craig Stapleton, the US ambassador to France, who was
pushing the commercial interests of the biotech industry by attempting to
force GMOs into France. In his own words (below), he expresses his
frustration with the idea that
France might pass environmental laws that would hamper the expansion of GMOs:
"Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice."
Got that so far? His own words: "Retaliation" as a way to "make [it] clear" that resisting GMOs will have a price.
Stapleton goes on to say something rather incredible:
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory..."
As you read these words again, remember that these are the words of the U.S. ambassador to France who is suggesting the US "calibrate a target retaliation list" in order to "cause some pain across the EU" that must be "sustainable over the long term."
The global GMO conspiracy is no longer a theory
Need we say anything more? This cable proves, once and for all, that there is a global GMO conspiracy where government operatives work in secret to push Monsanto's GMO agenda while punishing opponents of GMOs and adding them to a "target retaliation list."
This cable also proves that NaturalNews has been right all along about the GMO conspiracy, and that GMO opponents such as Jeffrey Smith are battling what can only be called an evil conspiracy to control the world's food supply. It also proves that when Alex Jones talks about the global conspiracy to control the world food supply, he's not just ranting. He's warning about the reality of the world in which we now live.
As Jeffery Smith said today in a Democracy Now interview:
"We’ve been saying for years that the United States government is joined at the hip with Monsanto and pushing GMOs as part of Monsanto’s agenda on the rest of the world. This lays bare the mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and cause some harm throughout the European Union." (Source: Democracy Now)
Military terms
Do you notice something about these words used by the US ambassador to France? "Calibrate a target retaliation list" sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? It's the kind of language you might find tossed around in a military bombing war exercise.
That's no coincidence: These government operatives quite literally consider themselves to be at war with the world, and they intend to conquer the world with their genetically modified poisons. They will do anything, it seems, to force-feed their deadly crops to the public.
Eight important realizations from these leaks
This Wikileaks cable brings up all sorts of issues that each might deserve a separate article, but here are the highlights of what comes to my mind on this issue:
Realization #1) Wikileaks is valuable for exposing the government lies in our world. Without Wikileaks, we never would have known about these cables which prove the existence of this GMO conspiracy.
Realization #2) US government diplomatic officials are working for the corporations! It's just as we've described here on NaturalNews numerous times -- Big Government is really just an extension of the most evil and most powerful corporations that now dominate our planet: The drug companies, the weapons manufacturers, the agricultural giants and so on. Here's what Jeffrey Smith had to say about governments conspiring with Monsanto:
"In 2009, we have a cable from the ambassador to Spain from the United States asking for intervention there, asking the government to help formulate a biotech strategy and support the government -- members of the government in Spain that want to promote GMOs, as well. And here, they specifically indicate that they sat with the director of Monsanto for the region and got briefed by him about the politics of the region and created strategies with him to promote the GMO agenda."
Realization #3) The US is willing to retaliate against European countries if they try to block GMOs. This brings up the question: Why is the US so desperate to push GMOs on Europe? Clearly there is another agenda behind all this (maybe we'll learn more in future Wikileaks releases).
Realization #4) No wonder the US government has declared war on Wikileaks because these dark secrets and "conspiracy notes" are never made public through any normal means. It takes a whistleblower to expose the true government corruption taking place in our world today.
Realization #5) The GMO conspiracy reaches to the highest levels of global control. This US ambassador Stapleton wasn't just a nobody. He was, in fact, the co-owner of the Texas Rangers with former President George W. Bush! His wife, by the way, is George Bush's cousin. This is a conspiracy involving the highest-ranking officials across multiple countries who are pushing a GMO agenda that's poisoning people across the planet.
Realization #6) Governments are literally trying to kill their own people. It is widely known in the inner circles of power that GMOs are deadly, but governments keep pushing them anyway. As Jeffrey Smith explains in his interview with Democracy Now:
"...the person who was in charge of FDA policy in 1992, Monsanto’s former attorney, Michael Taylor, he allowed GMOs on the market without any safety studies and without labeling, and the policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different. Seven years later, because of a lawsuit, 44,000 secret internal FDA memos revealed that that policy was a lie. Not only were the scientists at the FDA aware that GMOs were different, they had warned repeatedly that they might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But they were ignored, and their warnings were even denied, and the policy went forth allowing the deployment GMOs into the food supply with virtually no safety studies."
Realization #7) The GMO conspiracy is always reframed as "science". At one point in the leaked cables, Stapleton warns that in opposing GMOs, France would "roll back established science-based decision making." The GMO conspiracy, you have to remember, is always hidden behind the term "science" so that anyone who opposes GMOs can be characterized as being somehow against "scientific thinking."
All this gives science a bad name, of course, but I suppose that since the history of science is filled with arrogant scientists poisoning people in the name of science (mercury, vaccines, radiation, plastics, medications, etc.), we shouldn't be all that surprised to observe this.
Realization #8) Spain has been a key co-conspirator to push the U.S. GMO agenda. Much of the conspiring taking place in the EU has been spearheaded by Spain, whose officials met personally with the head of Monsanto to plot their push of GMOs into Europe.
All of a sudden the Blackwater story adds up
This all reminds me of a story published a few months back by The Nation in which Jeremy Scahill exposed a link between Monsanto and the military contractor known as Blackwater. His article claimed that Monsanto had hired Blackwater spies to "infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm." (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/16/disney-monsanto-discovered-blackwaters-hidden-clients/)
Monsanto vehemently denied the allegation. I looked hard at covering that story at the time but could not substantiate the accusations to my satisfaction. However, given the new information gleaned from these leaked diplomatic cables -- which blatantly state that the GMO conspirators plan to "calibrate a target retaliation list" -- all of a sudden the Blackwater story adds up.
This is the verbage of a military-style retaliation campaign, and that's exactly the business of Blackwater. Remember how Stapleton said the US needed to "cause some pain?" That's Blackwater's calling card!
Although these cables don't prove any connection between Monsanto and Blackwater, they do lend credence to the idea that such a link is not only possibly, but perhaps even probable. It clearly deserves additional investigation.
Regardless of whether the Blackwater / Monsanto link is ever proven, what's crystal clear from all this is that the global GMO conspiracy is very real and that GMO conspirators plot retaliatory actions against any nation that refuses to allow GMOs into their country.
The whole thing is then disguised as "science" so that anyone who opposes it can be branded as "non-scientific." This is the same sick way in which vaccines are pushed, too: They're called "scientific" even when they're based entirely on scientific fraud (as are GMOs).
How governments really operate
Above all, what these Wikileaks cables really reveal is that government conspiracies are, of course, not only real but that they are taking place right now. Diplomats and ambassadors are, in effect, government thugs who engage in the most unethical actions, full of threats and retaliation, in order to serve the financial interests of their corporate masters.
That's how the world really works, despite the Disney-like image portrayed by the mainstream media. Behind the scenes, the U.S. government is literally plotting with Monsanto to take over the world's food supply. That is not an exaggeration. It's not conjecture. It is a statement of fact based on the words of the government's own operatives (who obviously didn't know their words would ever be made public).
Through Wikileaks, we have been given a glimpse into the truth behind the Great Wall of government lies. And that truth, it turns out, is a lot uglier than most people could have imagined. (It's no surprise to me, because I've seen things that most regular people have never witnessed. But to a regular Joe Blow working his J.O.B. and watching the evening news, the hard-core truth about the world is a bit too much to handle...)
Personally, I can't wait to see what other dark secrets are buried in these Wikileaks cables. And it all makes me wish we had a Wikileaks for the FDA, too. Can you imagine all the dirty secrets that would come out of the FDA's offices if we could read their emails? We need an FDA leaker.
The other thought that comes to mind is how much I wouldn't want to be Julian Assange right now. His head is now the world's most powerful bullet magnet... especially when government rifles are anywhere nearby. If the U.S. government would conspire to create a "retaliation target list" of nations that are merely resisting GMOs, can you imagine what they will do if they ever get their hands on Assange?
Read the leaked cables right here:
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/02/08MADRID98.html
and
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html
(Note: These links may not be active for very long because the governments of the world are obviously trying to shut down all the websites that post this information. The truth, it seems, is just too dangerous to allow it to be openly published.)
How to turn all this around
Don't let all this get you down. You can take action to help turn this around!
Action Item #1) Don't buy GMO foods! Look for the non-GMO "Project Verified" label on foods.
Action Item #2) Urge lawmakers to oppose GMOs or require honest GMO labeling of foods.
Action Item #3) Help support the Institute for Responsible Technology and other non-profits working to oppose GMOs.
Action Item #4) Stay informed! Read NaturalNews and our Facebook GMO Dangers page (www.facebook.com/GMO.dangers) to stay up on this issue. The IRT (above) will keep you even more deeply informed on GMOs.
Action Item #5) Share what you know! Share videos, cartoons, articles and websites with your friends and family members who also care about protecting their health from GMOs.
Action Item #6) Don't trust the government! They are pushing a GMO conspiracy. They don't want you to have natural food, and the FDA is now being unleashed under the new food safety bill to destroy small farmers who tend to use non-GMO crops. Fight against government encroachment of our natural right to grow honest food. Support food freedom!
Global Research Articles by Mike Adams
Labels: FRANCE, GMOS, NEOLIBERALISM, USA
Read more...
Banning GMOs can benefit Zim
EDITOR — I am responding to the letter "Rethink ban on GMO chickens" The Herald (May 3, 2010). I do not agree with the writer’s opinion, as there are more benefits to Zimbabwe in banning imports than negatives.
The ban on GMO chickens will increase the market base of local producers, and as volumes of local products increase, prices will also decrease. The banning on GMO chickens is instrumental in empowering the indigenous Zimbabweans to take their place, having been displaced by foreigners.
Zimbabwe will benefit economically as revenue is generated from local markets and employment opportunities are created.
As an agro-based economy, the demand for stock feeds will increase and organisations like GMB, Agri-foods, National Foods, etc, will record high turnover.
Our country has seen a decrease in capacity utilisation due to the economic challenges and we need to give industry a chance to recover.
Instead of wasting scarce foreign currency on importing chickens, the money should be channelled towards worthy and life saving causes like buying medical drugs.
The Government has explicitly stated their goal to revive the economy through empowerment of Zimbabweans.
Importing products that we can produce ourselves will be suicidal and that has driven me to write this letter.
Empowered Zimbabwean.
Harare.
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
Banning GMOs can benefit Zim
EDITOR — I am responding to the letter "Rethink ban on GMO chickens" The Herald (May 3, 2010). I do not agree with the writer’s opinion, as there are more benefits to Zimbabwe in banning imports than negatives.
The ban on GMO chickens will increase the market base of local producers, and as volumes of local products increase, prices will also decrease. The banning on GMO chickens is instrumental in empowering the indigenous Zimbabweans to take their place, having been displaced by foreigners.
Zimbabwe will benefit economically as revenue is generated from local markets and employment opportunities are created.
As an agro-based economy, the demand for stock feeds will increase and organisations like GMB, Agri-foods, National Foods, etc, will record high turnover.
Our country has seen a decrease in capacity utilisation due to the economic challenges and we need to give industry a chance to recover.
Instead of wasting scarce foreign currency on importing chickens, the money should be channelled towards worthy and life saving causes like buying medical drugs.
The Government has explicitly stated their goal to revive the economy through empowerment of Zimbabweans.
Importing products that we can produce ourselves will be suicidal and that has driven me to write this letter.
Empowered Zimbabwean.
Harare.
Labels: GMOS
Read more...
