THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Genetic Modification of African Traditional Crops
Traditional crops are the common heritage of African farmers and often the last defense against hunger in poor communities. A new report by the African Centre for Biodiversity reveals that research and development is currently underway on the genetic modification (GM) of African traditional crops such as cassava, sorghum, sweet potato, pigeon pea, cowpea, banana and rice, under the guise of philanthropy by several multi-national companies (MNCs) including Monsanto, Dupont and Pioneer Hi-bred. The countries targeted are Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Malawi.
Most of the on-going trials are focused on drought and salt tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, resistance to tropical pests and diseases, and biofortification. The report highlights the dearth of literature on biosafety and the socio-economic aspects relevant especially to the biofortification of indigenous crops through GM, which it says is both striking and worrying. Instead, there is a great deal of hype on the so-called ‘breakthroughs’ in GM, without mentioning past failures with GM crops in the continent.
The report points out that the GM projects are diverting both financial and human resources, policies and practices, away from implementing the real solutions, which can be found within traditional farming and foods. Furthermore, GM crops are highly likely to increase the costs of production for farmers and lead them into indebtedness and dependency. It is also highly likely that GM varieties, including traditional crops, will be subject to plant breeders’ rights, and that GM certified seed will be sold to farmers by local seed companies who will expect a profit or royalty payments from farmers.
The report calls for a shift to agroecology which can provide enough food for all in a sustainable manner by building on ecological farming and traditional home gardens that are rich in biodiversity and which can better address nutritional deficiencies than GM food. This paradigm must be rooted in asserting the food sovereignty of smallholder farmers in Africa by giving them the choice and empowering them to access and produce their own healthy and varied food.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Website: https://biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
http://acbio.org.za/africa-to-lose-heritage-crops-to-multinationals-donating-gm-technology/
Africa to lose heritage crops to multinationals ‘donating’ GM technology…
April 3, 2016
Media Release
The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), in a new report titled, “For your own good!” The chicanery behind GM non-commercial ‘orphan crops’ and rice for Africa shows that the GM industry is expanding its grasp to African traditional crops such as cassava, sorghum, sweet potato, pigeon pea, cowpea, banana as well as rice under the guise of philanthropy.
The report reveals that a great deal of research and development is currently underway into the genetic modification (GM) of these crops, with most of the on-going trials being focused on drought and salt tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, resistance to tropical pests and diseases and nutritional enhancement (biofortification). The key countries that have been targeted include, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Malawi.
The genesis of GM research in these crops can be found in royalty-free donations of various patented GM traits, by several multi-national companies (MNCs) including Monsanto, Dupont and Pioneer Hi-bred, to experimental programmes undertaken by African scientists employed by government ministries.
According to Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB, “This indicates that the GM industry, under the veil of technology donations and public financing, is effectively managing to make further inroads into imposing GM on the African continent. By focusing the research on traits meant to ‘benefit’ farmers and malnourished populations, through inter alia, biofortification, the industry is intent on giving a humanitarian face to the real involvement, vested interests and expanding influence of these MNCs in African agriculture”.
The main players involved include the African Agriculture Technology Foundation (AATF)—which is on the receiving end of many of the technological property rights donations—the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program (ABSP) and the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and USAID fund the latter organisations.
USA-based research institutions such as the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (DDPSC) (for cassava) and universities (notably the Michigan State University and the Kansas State University) play a major role in this ‘philanthropic’ research.
The report further points to a dearth of literature that critically addresses biosafety and the socio economic aspects relevant especially to the biofortification of indigenous crops through GM, which it says is both striking and worrying. The present focus on biofortification through GM is especially remarkable given the need to move from an over-emphasis on food fortification strategies, including biofortification, toward a permanent solution, i.e. diet diversification through locally available foods, which was recognised as early as 1992 by the UN International Conference on Nutrition.
Crucially, according to the ACB report, as is the case with the highly controversial Golden Rice research and development project (which has devoured an unconscionable quantity of available resources) these GM projects are diverting both financial and human resources, policies and practices, away from implementing the real solutions which can be found within the diversity of natural foods and farming. The report recalls also, spectacular failure of the Monsanto’s GM sweet potato research in Kenya in 2003.
Zakiyya Ismail, Consumer Campaigner with the ACB points out that “the real solutions to address vitamin and mineral deficiencies can be found in ecological farming systems, and traditional kitchen and home gardens, which can better contribute to healthy and diverse diets and empower people to access and produce their own healthy and varied food.“
Smallholder farmers in Africa must be given the right to choose their means of production and survival. GM based technology is costly. Even if gene sequences and constructs are donated, the accompanying requisite GM inputs will be expensive for farmers. GM crops are highly likely to increase the costs of production for farmers and lead them into indebtedness and dependency. It is also highly likely that GM varieties will be subject to plant breeders’ rights, and that GM certified seed will be sold to farmers by local seed companies who will expect a profit or royalty payments from farmers. This scenario becomes even more shocking when applied to traditional crops, which are the common heritage of African farmers and often the last defense against hunger in poor communities.
According to Mayet, “There is no such thing as a free lunch for African farmers. And to add insult to injury, these farmers will be precluded from reusing any farm-saved propagating material. In this way, they will be expected to give away their age old farmers’ rights to freely reuse, exchange and sell seed and propagating materials in their farming and seed systems.”
"FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!" THE CHICANERY BEHIND GM NON-COMMERCIAL ‘ORPHAN CROPS’ AND RICE FOR AFRICA
African Centre for Biodiversity
http://acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/GM-Orphan-Crops-Report.pdf
Executive Summary
Agricultural GE investments have for the most part focussed on internationally traded staple crops (maize, rice, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rapeseed). There has been only marginal investment from the public and private sectors in non-commercial crops because these cover smaller areas and have more limited markets (i.e. they are essentially subsistence related) (Naylor et al., 2004). This investment climate has changed significantly over the past decade and several national and international players are now actively involved in the genetic engineering of non-commercial crops such as cassava, cowpea, pigeon pea, sorghum and sweet potato, as well as rice and bananas. These GE crops are reductionist solutions proposed by the biotech machinery for a myriad of agronomic and nutritional diversity challenges. They are intent on prying open Africa’s food and farming systems to GM based agriculture, by giving the highly contested and failed technology a humanitarian face.
To date, seven African countries—Egypt, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda—have conducted or are still conducting field trials on the following broad range of non-commercial crops: cassava, pigeon pea, sorghum, sweet potato and rice (the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA), 2014). (If we included cowpea then Malawi could be added to this list of countries.)
Research is currently underway on millet but this crop has not been the object of reported trials in any of the countries under research.
For each country, the crops being researched are as follows:
• Burkina Faso (rice and sorghum);
• Egypt (rice and sorghum);
• Ghana (cassava, sweet potato, rice);
• Kenya (cassava, pigeon pea, sweet potato, sorghum, [millet was not verified]);
• Nigeria (cassava, rice, sorghum);
• Uganda (cassava, rice, sweet potato).
In all countries research is currently at the stage of either Green House Containment (GHC) or Confined Field Trials (CFTs). Prospects for commercialisation are highly dependent on the outcome of these trials, how biosafety regulations evolve (as in the case of Uganda) and whether existing moratoriums will be lifted (as in the case of Egypt which, in 2012, halted the commercialisation of GM crops). There is very limited information on the anticipated environmental releases of these crops once CFTs have been completed, let alone about the potential commercialisation of these crops.
The genesis of GE research in these crops can be found in royalty-free donations of various patented GE traits, by MNCs to experimental programmes undertaken by African scientists employed by government ministries. These donations are intended to give a humanitarian face to the real involvement, vested interests and expanding influence of these MNCs in Africa.
These technology donations for ‘philanthropic’ reasons include, for instance, the Cry1Ab (Bt) gene and the antibiotic gene marker nptll, developed by Monsanto and donated to the Cowpea Project, ostensibly on a ‘humanitarian basis’ (ACB, 2015a). Further charitable technology donations include those made by the DuPont Business Foundation, which is the principal technology donor of the African Biofortified Sorghum (ABS) project; Pioneer Hi-Bred, which is involved in R&D on GM sorghum in Kenya and Burkina Faso; and Arcadia Biosciences which gave the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) a cost-free license granting access to Arcadia’s Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE), Water Efficiency and Salt Tolerance technologies, to develop NEWEST rice.
Complementing these property rights donations, GM research into these crops is primarily funded by foundations (Naylor et al., 2004). The main players in this respect include the AATF—which is on the receiving end of many of the technological property right donations—the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program (ABSP) and the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS). The latter two organisations are funded, essentially, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) (Schnurr & Gore, 2015). USA-based research institutions such as the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (DDPSC) (for cassava) and universities (notably the Michigan State University and the Kansas State University) play a major role in this ‘philanthropic’ research.
GM research on non-commercial crops in Africa is thus typically driven by three-pronged partnerships. These include MNCs, which ‘benevolently’ donate technology to large not-for-profit platforms, such as the AATF, to drive this research, which is then locally anchored in national research institutes. Not-for-profit US-based research firms, such as DDPSC, and universities are also part of these partnerships, often spearheading the technological research.
This system is backed by a complex web of support structures (such as the PBS and the African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE) that engage in strong advocacy campaigns to ensure the development of biosafety legislation, which is a pre-requisite for the commercialisation of any GM crop.
Organisations involved in supporting research on GM non-commercial crops are shrewdly creating large amounts of propaganda that celebrate the ‘breakthroughs’ achieved in this field. Annual reports produced by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA) are replete with glossy illustrations that portray the successful promotion of GE technology throughout the world, how new GE events are supposedly benefitting small farmers with spectacular yield increases, and how these are being embraced in an uncontested manner (James, 2014). These and similar claims are vigorously disputed by opponents of genetic engineering, particularly as this relates to small-scale farming in Africa (ACB, 2015b).
Most of the on-going trials are focused on drought and salt tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and resistance to tropical pests and diseases. An important dimension of this GE research pertains to nutritional enhancement (biofortification). The dearth of literature that critically addresses biosafety and the socio economic aspects relevant to the biofortification of indigenous crops through GE, to improve nutrition for poor people and nutrient deficient populations, is both striking and worrying. The present strong focus on biofortification through GE is especially remarkable, given the need to move from an over-emphasis on food fortification strategies, including biofortification, toward a permanent solution, i.e. diet diversification through locally available foods, which was recognised as early as 1992 by the UN International Conference on Nutrition. In this regard, agroecology and, in particular, home gardens have been singled out as the most successful strategies to combat micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries (Lopez Villar, 2015). There are also viable alternatives that address the biotic and abiotic (i.e. the living and non-living components, respectively, of an ecosystem) stresses and challenges, which confront some of these crops.
The time is long overdue for Africa to shift to developing and implementing key strategies for food and dietary diversification at the community and household levels. As already stated, it was 24 years ago that the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) supported this approach, including the promotion of underexploited traditional foods and home gardens and the raising of small livestock; improved preservation processes and storage facilities for fruits and vegetables, to reduce waste, postharvest losses and effects on seasonality; the strengthening of small-scale agro-processing and food industries; and nutrition and education to encourage the consumption of a healthy and nutritious diet (FAO, 1997; Lopez Villar, 2015). Africa must shift its agriculture paradigm to agroecology, which can provide enough food for all in a sustainable manner (De Schutter, 2010; 2014), by building on traditional agriculture, which is extremely rich in biodiversity and the diversity of ecosystems.
Conclusion
This scoping study on the current status of GM research in Africa for a few non-commercial crops—cassava, sorghum, sweet potato, pigeon pea and millet, as well as for rice—shows that the GM industry appears to be expanding its grasp over traditional subsistence crops which had, until recently, been disregarded. This indicates that the GM industry, under the veil of technology donations and public financing, is effectively managing to make further inroads into promoting GM on the African continent. By focusing the research on traits meant to ‘benefit’ farmers and malnourished populations, through biofortification, the industry is bent on winning the hearts and minds of Africans regarding genetically modified crops.
The hype around the current wave of GM research into non- commercial crops in Africa is purposefully ahistorical and deceitful. It does not mention past failures involving the demise of Wambugu’s/Monsanto’s GM sweet potato research in Kenya (DeGrassi, 2003; GMWatch, 2015), or the quiet recognition by the Danforth Research Centre in 2006 that the GM cassava it had developed had lost resistance to African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) (ACB and GRAIN, 2006). The recent case of Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton, due to the Bt cotton crop’s declining quality, is instructive for Africa. Burkina Faso’s cotton companies have committed to phasing out Bt cotton and returning to the exclusive use of conventional cotton, by the 2017/18 seasons. The sector is seeking compensation from Monsanto for the losses incurred and this is also extremely telling (Dowd-Uribe and Schnurr, 2016).
Crucially, as is the case with the Golden Rice research and development project (which has devoured an unconscionable quantity of available resources) these GM projects are diverting both financial and human resources, policies and practices, away from implementing the real solutions which can be found within the diversity of natural foods and farming. This is also where real cures can be found to address vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Typically, poor people and those living in environments that may be degraded, or who have little by way of access to public health systems, sanitation and proper education, and who may be socially marginalised, are also suffering from various nutritional deficiencies including zinc, vitamin C and D, folate, riboflavin, selenium and calcium. GM crops will not address these multiple nutritional challenges.
Further, on going R&D into these GM crops is obstructing sustainable solutions to the multiple challenges faced by Africans regarding nutrition. These include ecological farming and traditional kitchen and home gardens, both of which can better contribute to healthy and diverse diets and empower people to access and produce their own healthy and varied food. These are sustainable solutions and they will move us closer to achieving our demand for food sovereignty, which, in turn, will increase access to healthy and varied diets to address a range of vitamin and nutrient deficiencies.
Smallholder farmers in Africa must be given the right to choose their means of production and survival. We do not believe that these GM projects are enabling small-scale farmers in this way. Rather, it appears as if decisions as to what is best for smallholder farmers and consumers in Africa have been made in the North, which is a tragic throwback to our colonial past. These decisions encompass more exploitation of hunger and malnutrition and more promotion of the interests of the rich and powerful. GM based technology is costly. Even if gene sequences and constructs are donated, the accompanying requisite GM inputs will be expensive for farmers. GM crops are highly likely to increase the costs of production for farmers and lead them into indebtedness and dependency. It is also highly plant breeders’ rights, and that certified seed will be sold to farmers by local seed companies who will expect a profit or royalty payments from farmers. There is no such thing as a free lunch for poor farmers. And to add insult to injury, these farmers will be precluded from saving any farm-saved propagating material.
In this way, they will be expected to give away their age old farmers’ rights to freely reuse, exchange and sell seed and propagating materials in their farming and seed systems.
These GM crops threaten the genetic diversity that exists among traditional plant varieties and which can be found under the control of smallholder farmers. The trajectory of these
GM crops is taking the future of farming in Africa away from the control of farmers and directing it to those who will benefit from the huge profits to be made from GM seed (including vegetatively propagated material) and other related chemical inputs.