Feeding The Hungry

Growers for Biotechnology Changes Name, Broadens Focus

2005-11-09T02:50:00.000-08:00

Growers for Wheat Biotechnology Inc. has currently changed its name to Growers for Biotechnology Inc. The leaders say this change reflects a broader mission of having a grower voice to support the research, development, and market acceptance of biotech crops. There are three main objectives for Growers for Biotechnology Inc. First is to spread factual information dealing with the benefits of biotechnology in crops and to prove to the public that biotechnology in agriculture is safe, abundant and an environmentally sound food production system. Second is to advocate the advancement of research and development of biotechnology applications in agriculture. Third is to insure that the important decisions regarding the adoption of biotechnology applications are based on sound science and realistic business principles.

“The biotech success stories in many of the crops we already grow will ultimately help pave the way for biotech development and market acceptance for other crops in our rotation, including wheat……. This technology offers so much opportunity in several if not all crops grown in the region, and we support the producer option to access the technology wherever possible,” says Al Skogen, chairman of the company.

This year marks the 10th harvest of biotech crops, and 1 billion acres of commercial biotech crop production across the world, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Until now, soybeans were 56 percent of all biotech crops produced, followed by cotton at 28 percent. But now, many more products such as sugarbeets, sweet corn, and potatoes have been commercially approved.

Also, the profits for the farmers have been increasing. According to the UK-based PG Economics Limited estimate, farmers have gained $27 billion in incremental net income from biotech crops since they were first introduced. The farmers are benefitting greatly because they do not have to acquire toxic pesticides for their crops. Farmers say that this saves a lot of money and that this is safer for the crops.

Monsanto: The Microsoft of Biotechnology Corn Seed?

2005-11-08T18:12:00.000-08:00

On August 2, 2004, Swiss biotech giant Syngeata filed a lawsuit against Monsanto of having a monopoly on the biotechnology corn seed in America. The lawsuit was followed by another lawsuit from Monsanto seeking damages and termination of the Roundup Ready license that Monsanto granted to Ciba-Geigy Corp, which was one of Syngeata’s predecessors. Syngeata claims that Monsanto was "engaged in a pattern of illegal and improper activities to maintain its monopoly in key corn traits in the US, including Monsanto's attempts to prohibit Syngeata from competing with GA21, an established and proven glyphosate-tolerant corn trait.” If proven true, Monsanto could be discredited as a biotechnology firm and lose its well-established lead over other biotech firms trying to create genetically-modified crops. To counter Sygeata’s claims, Monsanto is trying to discredit Sygeata by expanding their original breach-of-contract lawsuit from May 10th, 2004.

The conflict between these two giants over an extremely profitable market displays how big the market can be for certain genetically-modified crops. The profit of hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars can shift between these two giants if either of these court cases are resolved and show a clear winner.

The Fight for (or Against) the Farming of GM Foods in California

2005-11-08T13:03:00.000-08:00

The counties that encompass California's vineyards and most productive farms are currently the battle field on which the right to implement biotechnological methods in growing food is being sought or denied. The main county in which the debate presently rages is Sonoma County, a region notorious for its vineyards. Thus far three other counties have approved bans on GM crops and three have revoked them. Though the subject has been considered a pressing matter in other states, notably Hawaii and Vermont, only California has actually had counties effectively ban GM crops. Since California is widely regarded as being at the crux of change, farmers nationwide are particularly concerned with the issue.

The major fear amongst farmers who are opposed to the use of GM foods is the potential loss of the right to chose which type of plants of they want to grow. The fear of having to keep up with GM crops by having to simurlarly adopt GM foods is a major concern but even more pressing is the notion that bees and other natural means could potentially cross fertilize the variety of plants, GM and otherwise. What this theory stipulates is causing farmers to look at the introduciton of GM crops into the local environment as the harbor of a pandemic ecosystem crash. Said local, small time farmer of non-GM crops Shelley Arrowsmith, “The bees have no boundaries. They can go wherever they want.”

These farmers' concerns are countered by about as many other farmers' concerns. Many of these farmers argue that GM foods are much cleaner than normal crops, that they don't require as many pesticides. Said Art Lafranchi, who farms 45 acres of genetically modified feed corn on his 255-acre Sonoma County dairy farm, “We’re using less chemicals, we’re using chemicals that have far less impact, and it costs less and it does a much better job. “What they (supporters of a ban) want flies in the face of what environmentalists want — having an environment that’s less toxic to us.”

Whatever the outcome of Sonoma County's ballot fight, where the combined budget of both sides int eh campaign has reached a record $850,000, it will certainly set a precendant that the rest of the nation will likely follow.

New Business Investments reinvigorated Biotech Sector

2005-11-08T12:32:00.000-08:00

William Blair and Co. An important global business firm, has recently initiated coverage of four leading Biotechnology Companies and commenced its coverage of another. The Companies are Amgen Incorporated, the Genzyme Corporation, Gilead Sciences Incorporated, MedImmune Incorporated, and Genentech, Incorporated. Amgen is typically regarded as the largest Biotechnology Company in the world, has the most exciting late-stage product pipeline in the industry, with many drugs in Phase III of their development and testing and an even greater variety already in existence.

The biotechnology Industry has validated itself over the past five years with many successful breakthrough drugs, thus establishing itself for long-term growth. Said Analyst John Sonnier, in a comprehensive report on the broader biotechnology universe, "We expect innovation to continue to fuel growth of the sector's product pipeline, which should in turn drive top-line growth, profitability expansion, and increased shareholder value," he added. "We also believe that the biotechnology pipeline should become increasingly appealing to the pharmaceutical industry, which seems strained for organic growth in many instances."

Genzyme, which covers orthopedics, renal disease, transplant/immunology, was positively assessed by Sonnier, saying Genzyme ""has a global and diversified platform that should position the company to achieve its long-term earnings growth goal of 20%." MedImmune, whose focus is infectious disease and cancer has an even stronger array of products ready to be released. "In total, we count 4 marketed drugs and 12 clinical candidates, 4 of which are in Phase II or higher. We expect the late-stage product candidates to drive a significant level of visibility over the coming year, and expect the progression of the company's mid- and early-stage initiatives to gain increased visibility during the same period," said Sonnier.

Newly Discovered Gene Can Protect Crops From Freezing

2005-11-07T17:32:00.000-08:00

Researchers in California managed to extract a gene from the mustard plant, or Arabidopsis, that helps other genes in the plant withstand low temperatures. Although the researchers have not been able to implant the gene into other plants such as fruits and vegetables, the extracted gene can have a major impact on the growing of crops because the tolerance to sudden temperature drops allows crops to survive weather phenomena that would normally kill crops in a freeze. Transporting crops would also be affected because the crops could be stored in cold temperatures to prevent the spoiling of fruit. Scientists from Mendel Biotechnology say that they will first test the gene on canola and soy crops. The importance of the success of the project is spurred by the loss fifty percent of the crops of orange growers, or at least half a billion dollars, in California during December of 1998.

If the tests are successful and Mendel Biotechnology can implant the gene into other crops, farmers can rejoice in the assurance that their crops will no longer be wiped out by an early freeze. The gene can be used in any country that is affected by sudden temperature drops and can hopefully be used for all crops grown in the United States, such as the Midwest which is also affected by sudden temperature drops. Farmers can expect to be able to use the new technology in the next four years if the tests are successful.

Research and Markets Announces Biotechnology The Strongest Sector In Pharmaceuticals

2005-11-05T07:49:00.000-08:00

Since the introduction of the first biotech drug, human insulin, back in 1982, the Biotechnology sector of the Pharmaceutical drug industry has grown by leaps and bounds with marked periods of inactivity. However a recent study and survey of the field speculates that this period of "boom and bust" growth may be at an end, primarily because the industry is reaching maturity, that is, becoming a more stable industry as the data is amassed, the result of twenty years of research and mistakes.

In the last five years, the Biotechnology Sector has grown at an increasingly rapid rate; global revenues has risen from $22.7bn to $44.3bn. This is presently the largest growth for a sector in the whole of the pharmaceutical market and it shows in the number of drugs presently being developed which are biotechnology, approximately 27% of all new medicines, although biotech is still significantly small relative to the drug market on the base of new sales, making up only 8% of the global market. Speculation on the future of biotechnology is hopeful with one out of every two pharmaceutical executives questioned in this recent survey professing a belief that biotechnologically developed drugs will show an annual growth of over 10% for the next five to ten years.

Despite the what the statistics above might demonstrate there are still nay-sayers of the industry, however these claims are based mostly on job growth and stock market standings. The NASDAQ Biotech Index dropped 40% last year.

Job growth has been slow with only 17,000 jobs added in 2001 and then 3,600 in 2002. "This is the worst employment situation in 15 to 20 years in the biotech industry," says David Jensen, a biotech and pharmaceutical career-development consultant. For more information on jobs in the Biotechnology sector of teh Pharmaceutical Indutry, click here

Biotech Giant Monsanto Ends European Cereal Line

2005-11-03T18:57:00.000-08:00

The Biotech giant Monsanto, which pioneered GM crops in the United States, decided to end its seed cereal business in Europe because of a lack of growth in the hybrid wheat seed market. The closing of the European branch happened after the release of the British report on how GM crops affect the environment and wildlife. The closing may also result in up to eighty jobs lost in their main research program in Cambridge. Other branches around Europe, such as in France and Germany, will be affected by job loss as well. Anti-GM campaigners celebrate the move because of the controversy about Monsanto trying to create GM cereals. Monsanto Northern Europe manager Jeff Cox denies the rumor and reports that revenues were declining from cereal seed and that Monsanto decided to cut the project. The British report, called Farm Scale Evaluations, reported that although GM herbicide-tolerant beet and spring rape is worse for wildlife than conventional crops, GM corn was much better for many wildlife than conventional crops.
The actual report shows that certain GM crops do not have negative effects on the environment and are sometimes better than conventional crops. The report is used by both proponents and opponents of agricultural biotechnology because the report offers evidence for both sides. While the report does not resolve any conflicts, the report is the first of its kind to offer such detail and large-scale testing on the effects of GM crops. Also researchers say that the differences found were not because of the way the crops were modified but how different herbicides were applied to the crops.

Can Genetically Modified Chickens End the Avian Flu?

2005-11-03T11:26:00.000-08:00

The avian flu has become a serious issue that has become the highlight of newspapers. It started as mild cases in parts of Asia such as Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand, but it has rapidly spread to Europe. In Vietnam, there are 55 recorded deaths- the greatest number of people in any country who have died from this virus (H5N1 strain of avian influenza). Many poultry farms have started slaughtering millions of chickens, but this virus continues to spread. Will this be the next pandemic? Can this crisis be ended through genetically modified chickens?

British scientists at Cambridge University started to develop genetically engineered chickens that can protect themselves from the H5N1 virus. This technique offers protection also from the H7 virus that was responsible for the outbreak of avian flu in Dutch poultry in 2003. These scientists believe that if the whole population of birds were replaced by transgenic birds, it would be extremely hard for the virus to spread to other birds and humans. The researchers have already found a technique to protect chicken cells from the flu, by inserting small pieces of genetic material. There are great signs of progress in their research, however, it may take a long time to finalize the experiments and receive regulatory approval. By the time these genetically modified chickens go through several stages of testing and are approved, it will be too late for these chickens to have an impact on the present outbreak of the H5N1 virus. However, these genetically modified chickens may stop different outbreaks of avian flu in the future. Professor Tiley, one of the researchers at Cambridge University states that, “Once we have regulatory approval, we believe it will only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace the entire world population. Developing flu-resistant chickens has clear benefits for human health and animal welfare, as we wouldn’t have to slaughter chickens around the world.”

The research team has two different approaches to creating genetically resistant chickens. The first approach involves inserting a copy of a gene that makes an antiviral protein called Mx, which helps their ability to fight off H5N1 and other strains. The second approach is inserting fragments of the genetic signaling chemical RNA to stop the spread of the flu virus.

Concerns about Genetically Engineered Foods

2005-10-27T20:04:00.000-07:00

On September 26, 2000, Kraft Foods pulled millions of taco shells off the market because they used genetically engineered corn created by Aventis CropScience. The corn used contained a gene that makes the corn toxic to the corn bore pest. Although the corn was approved for animal feed only, Kraft Foods mistakenly used the corn for the production of taco shells. The incident raised some concerns regarding genetically modified foods entering into the commercial market. U.S senator Barbara Boxer reported that, "we simply don't have a system to catch the illegal use of genetically engineered ingredients." She also stated during a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing that a system that requires mandatory safety tests to make sure genetically modified products are safe when used correctly.

The risks of using genetically modified products are that humans may be allergic to such products because of their modifications. Kraft Foods pulled their products off the market because of such a concern. Although Aventis did not authorize the corn for human consumption and was testing to see whether the corn was safe for humans, Kraft Foods and Taco Bell have used the corn as an ingredient for their taco shells.

The incident also emphasizes another major risk: the lack of federal oversight. Although the EPA have tested and approved a large selection of bioengineered ingredients contained in most processed foods, federal oversight of genetically modified foods is still "full of holes." Because of the risks of genetically modified foods, there needs to be more federal oversight of the testing, producing, and selling of these bioengineered foods.

GM Food Foes Turn to Film

2005-10-27T17:21:00.000-07:00

GM Food Foes turn to film to voice their opposition. A new film, “The Future of Food,” by Doborah Koons Garcia and the food-safety organization GMO Free Mendocino is the first film to target GM foods. GMO Free Mendocino is the first group ever to use film to persuade audiences to oppose GM foods. “The Future of Food” uses detailed interviews with farmers and experts in the agricultural industry to argue that genetically modified foods pose harm to food safety. The film also states that these new biotechnological techniques undermine the traditional farming techniques that were refined over thousands of years. The film explores issues dealing with the lax food-safety enforcement laws and the effects of these flaws. The film delves into the health implications, government policies and push towards globalization. The film is not popularized yet but it is currently touring festivals and other events, including an upcoming screening in San Francisco. Garcia states "My goal was to make a film that gave the average person a clear
understanding of how genetic engineering works, from the cellular level to the global level, I'm hoping this film can be a combination of Silent Spring and The Battle of Algiers. Once you see it you'll feel compelled to act, even if that means just changing the kind of food you
eat." The film will undoubtedly be influential if it is anything like Rachael Carson’s “Silent Spring,” which dealt with the effects of insecticides and pesticides on songbird populations throughout the United States. Even if the facts in Carson’s book might have been exaggerated, twisted and false according to The Fly in the Ointment: 70 fascinating commentaries, Carson’s argument is convincing to many.

FAO's Sixtieth Birthday Party Present: Massive Collective of Complaints from Asia

2005-10-23T18:42:00.000-07:00

This week 17 Asian Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) have petitioned to global authorities in an effort to ban the efforts of a few small companies tthat are responsible for the introduction of GM rice into the market. The efforts of these NGOs, which mainly represent the third world nations of Asia, insist that these efforts are substantially detrimental to the workers of the world as "Rice is the world's most important staple food crop," said Varoonvarn Svangsopakul of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

The argument in this case is that GM food, like rice, is mostly the result of efforts of companies to get rich and these efforts do not reflect a global conscience which is benevolent or considerate. Continued Mr. Svangsopakul, "GE rice is not a solution to world hunger. It poses unacceptable risks to health and the environment, as well as people's livelihoods."

This campaign has included the ‘GE-Free Rice Declaration’ which was given to the UNFAO headquarters in Bangkok. It was delivered by representatives from ten of the world's primary rice growing countries. This counter-measure is acted in response to an aggresive assault from a variety of biotech corporizations which seek to dominate the market in Asia, according to the Greenpeace web article which concerns this matter. The main complaints are "concerned about negative impacts on farmers, on the environment, health and the agricultural sustainability" of the farmers which the companies are typically seen as not being genuinely concerned with. (Quoted from the Greenpeace website.)

This new wave of protest coincides with World Food Day 2005, which falls on the 16th of October. World Food Day is the FAO's celebration of the date of its own inception, which oocured 16 October 1945. While the FAO's website makes no mention of the massive hoard of complaints that was placed on its doorstep it does speak in corny and preachy tones of the wonders of Agriculture and a Middle Textbook-esque history of Agriculture. It would seem no immediate action is being taken.

GM Foodstuffs in the World Market

2005-10-21T10:06:00.000-07:00

As the Earth becomes increasingly "over" populated and resources more scarce, the implementation of biotechnology in the aid to feed has become more widespread in the minds of the concerned. Though Africa is commonly identified as being the primary target of GM food services, many amongst the intelligentsia hope to make the sell to the first world as well, but the bargaining has been difficult. One cause for this is that first world nations, namely Japan and Europe, which are driven by the free market, tend towards distrust of government and large collectives, in the cases of health standards for example, and have been generally resigned to not allowing themselves be subject to new waves of scientific progress. However a new market has been discovered.

In a poll recently conducted in China's largest metropolis, Beijing, it was discovered that the Chinese are 79% in favour of using GM modified foods. This is compared with 78% in the US, 63% in Japan, and 36% in Britain. Possible causes for this are to be found in the state-run media which has been plugging GM food for some time, but more likely in the basic fact that the average Chinese person makes about $2000 (US$) a year, and tofu and noodles, oriental mainstays of diet, at 60% off is a saving that the rather limited Chinese person, with only a middle school education, will likely be benefited by.

Since China is rapidly progressing into a formidable super power once more, decisions made by the Chinese in the interest of progress will become more influential as they are seen as defining contenders for the definition of the next World Empire. It is likely that in the wake of a successful move to mostly GM foods by the Chinese that the world will see more nations moving towards GM foods at the cost of affecting the environment but gaining increased revenue form a drop in the cost of food. Furthermore it stands to reason that as more money starts going towards GM foods, the technology and research involved will become more involved and possible disaster scenarios will be averted.

Click here for more information regarding the aforementioned study.

Genetically Modified Cats for Sale

2005-10-21T09:09:00.000-07:00

Biotechnology can aid those suffering from allergies; but is science going too far? In November of 2004, CNN published an article on a California biotechnology company, Allerca. Allerca is now taking orders for hypoallergenic kittens which will be available in 2007 and customers are paying close to $250 for a deposit. This company states that this genetically modified feline is the first in a planned series of lifestyle pets.

Allerca hopes to attract animal lovers who suffer from cat allergens. Many cat lovers take medications to cope with the symptoms of cat allergies; however, with these hypoallergenic cats, cat lovers may soon be able to enjoy their pets without any distractions.

Cat allergen is also believed to cause asthma, other respiratory diseases such as bronchitis. Cat allergies are caused by a potent protein secreted by the cat's skin and salivary glands and are extremely small to get rid of completely. Allerca uses a “gene silencing technology” to stop the production of these potent proteins. The first breed of these hypoallergenic kittens would be the British Shorthairs and they will cost around $3,500 each. Simon Brodie, the president of Allerca, does not think there would be particular problems with the Food Drug Administration nor the United States Department of Agriculture. The hypoallergenic kittens will be spayed and neutered so that they will not be able to reproduce. Brodie states that "As long as people don't start eating cats and they don't enter the food chain,” there will be no problem.

The hypoallergenic kittens were not the first animals to be genetically modified. The first animals were fish. In 2004, the GloFish, a fluorescent red zebrafish, was the first transgenic animal sold to U.S. customers. The normally black-and-silver zebra fish were inserted with genes from sea anemones or jellyfish to turn them red or green, and glow under black or ultraviolet lights. These fish are genetically modified to glow when it is light and even when it is dark. At first, the GloFish raised a number of issues including their own survival. However, laboratory studies have shown that the GloFish’s reproductive cycle and temperature tolerance did not vary from the wild zebrafish. The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved of the GloFish. The FDA statement states: Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes, they pose no threat to the food supply. There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish.

At first, some states, such as California refused to accept the product. California banned the sale of GloFish because they thought that "Creating a novelty pet is a frivolous use of this technology. No matter how low the risk is, there needs to be a public benefit that is higher than this.” Many also agrued that selling genetically modified pets are more of an issue of value than of science and that it is just wrong to genetically modify an animal to serve as a pet for people. However, after some consumers argued against the state’s decision, the state changed its decision and allowed the possession and sale of GloFish starting July of 2004.

A New Twist on Agricultural Biotechnology: No More Allergies?

2005-10-20T18:25:00.000-07:00

On June, 18, 2003, Australian researchers managed to create a hypoallergenic type of grass. The researchers genetically modified ryegrass and managed to remove two of most common allergies found in it. Because hay fever is so common, researchers are hoping that creating a hypoallergenic grass would not only benefit a much wider portion than just those who are suffering from famine but also shift public opinion in favor of GM crops. The ryegrass that was modified is also a turfgrass that is about 70 percent of all grass seeds sold in the Europe. Unfortunately, the main type of grass used in the United States is ragweed. Also allergy expert Tim O’Meare states that, “If someone is allergic to ryegrass, he will react to almost all temperate grasses.” GM experts also report that they will create safeguards to minimize the chances that the grass and its pollen will escape from the testing site, which will be used to see whether the grass could pollinate other grasses and how far the pollen can travel. The hypoallergenic grass may be on the market in 2008.

This creation may be able to push the public opinion towards agricultural biotechnology because it proves that biotechnology is not just about food, but also about the environment and how it affects human beings. Biotechnology can help humanity not just by solving world hunger but also by helping humanity cope with allergies or other things that affect humans.

Will the Hungry Eventually Accept Genetically Modified Foods?

2005-10-14T03:43:00.000-07:00

In an article from the Christian Science Manor, it featured Josephine Musopelo and her starving family and neighbors in Lusaka, Zambia. Josephine’s husband just left for a journey to the nation’s capital to seek aid from the government. Josephine and her family are surviving only on dried fruit meal and any kind of food they could obtain; she states that “if we eat this pitiful stuff (fruit meal), we will eat anything.” Does that mean Genetically Modified Foods as well?
This is for the nation’s leaders to decide. There are shipments of foods, some containing genetically modified foods, donated from the United States to Zambia; however, these shipments are not being distributed to the people because they contain GM products. Countries such as Zambia debate on whether these GM products and the GM technologies can be accepted so readily without being tested. The United States offered to donate half the food that the people of Zambia need and a third of the food the region needs. Although none of the six African countries have officially declared that they will not accept these GM foods from the United States, Zimbabwe rejected a shipment last week. The president of

Zambia

has also declared that the country, even in this drought, cannot accept shipments until the food is proven safe to consume.
It is partly understandable for these Zambian leaders to reject the GM foods from the

United States

. Some farmers feel that these GM foods will interfere with their crops and their sales in European countries that are against GM foods. Rob Tripp, a researcher at the Overseas Development Institute states that “there's a real fear that they could get cut out of these markets in places like the EU (European Union), which are creating increasingly strict GM regulations."
Lovemore Simwanda, who is leading the investigations into GM food for the Zambian National Farmers Union, worries the drought and food shortage is forcing the country to make a decision on GM too hastily and without proper information.
Americans do not understand why these African countries are rejecting the GM foods during this food shortage when it is not even proven that GM foods have negative effects. Americans have eaten GM foods for over five years and nothing bad had ever happened as a consequence.

EU Defends Their Position on GM Ban

2005-10-13T14:30:00.000-07:00

During a biotechnology conference on June 23, 2003, Bush stated that the EU's ban on GM crops is contributing to famine in Africa. However, European Commission spokesman Reijo Kemppinen replied that, "The fact is that we in Europe have chosen to do some things differently from the United States. As regards (GM crops), we simply believe that it is better to be safe than sorry." Although his statement brought renewed criticism from Bush, the EU has the grounds to defend its position. At a Brussels news briefing on June 24, 2003, commission spokesman Gerassimos Thomas said, "The suggestions made by the United States are simply not true. ... It is false that we are anti-biotechnology or anti-developing countries." The 15-nation EU gives about seven times more development aid than the United States. European critics have stated that Bush's comments were more about promoting biotechnology than ending world hunger. Friends of the Earth spokeswoman Clare Oxborrow was quoted saying that no one truly knows what effect GM crops will have on the environment. Patrick Holden, a member of the Soil Association, stated that not even experts at GM know if biotechnology will be able to increase food production any more that existing agricultural science. Despite statements from US corn farmers who believe that the EU ban on GM is costing them $300 million and prevents access to African markets, the EU states that they are not turning African nations away from GM. Also, critics believe that there has been too little testing and that possible health risks such as allergic reactions and resistance to antibiotics are still unknown.

With millions still starving to death in Africa, the US continues to try and send GM crops to Africa by filing a formal complaint to the World Trade Organization to try and lift the ban on GM crops. Whether the US succeeds, there is still the fact that the EU sends seven times more aid than the United States. Perhaps the United States should focus more on sending more aid than trying to force through a ban on GM crops that may or may not ease the famine in Africa.

Failure Feed: Is the Folly of the US in Feeding Africa Capitalist Motives?

2005-10-11T09:58:00.000-07:00

George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" comes in many forms, from the privatization of social security to the massive tax cuts which have allowed the middle class to save a few hundred dollars while losing public services. But it also comes in the form of the US aid to Africa.

For instance note the criticism the US has tossed at the EU for its moratorium against the approval of genetically modified crops, filing complaints via the World Trade Organization. The claim held by the US that Europe has attempted to turn African Nations against US aid by making the region Anti-Biotechnology. Bush has firmly stated his support of the methods of production currently in use in the US, saying to biotech industry leaders, "We must help troubled nations to avert famine by sharing with them the most advanced methods of crop production."

That biotechnology should be used to best feed the 777 million people in the developing world, 194 million of which are in Africa, is not a point that most people who lack the ideology that drives extreme environmentalists beyond their concern for human life and into abstracts, would readily deny. However the issue needs to be examined on the basis of African lifestyles, not US production means and separately, US profits.

Though the president is right that Africans need the information that America has with regard to biotechnology, they have neither the means nor the will to grow things the way Americans do. American farms are massive, mechanized institutions with running water and relatively few workers. African farms on the other hand are mostly entirely driven by human labor and readily subject to the tentative presence of water in a land where decent irrigation systems are not the most common. When the US sent its first batch of genetically modified crops to Africa, the soybean and corn seeds were received with a like warm reception.

The difference here lay in the management of farms. This first batch that arrived to Africa was made to be more resistant pests, but at an increased cost. However this kind of improvement is not remotely beneficial to Africans who cannot read very well and who are often given any random pesticide with which to treat their crops and with GM crops, this is a no-no. Pesticide use is very specific and if the wrong pesticide is implemented, then an entire crop stands to be lost. Furthermore the small farm, largely human labor based style of African farms does not balance out the cost of the increased price.

The response to other such efforts of aid from the US has been met with even more criticism. Zambia had been most vocal in its rejection of American food aid donations in 2002, despite a full-court press from the US. All the while, African leaders are still insistent on the aid fro the US. Even the most scientifically illiterate are voicing their pleas for the correct biotech aid, as can be read here, a plea from Rev. Michael Oluwatuyi. The Reverend speaks in simple truths and asks simple questions. What is needed is more people will look at the bottom line, to remember that this is about economies that do not exist before people can live. This need tends to override the will to make a profit. What the US might like to consider is first giving crops to Africa, but this would seem a highly unlikely scenario, despite the compassion, what drives African Aid is good old fashioned conservative economics.

Can We Balance Out the Benefits and the Risks of Biotechnology?

2005-10-07T09:43:00.000-07:00

The Convention of Biological Diversity states that biotechnology is "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" In a broad sense, this definition applies to simple, everyday techniques and methods used in agriculture. But in a narrower perspective, this definition applies to gene manipulation, DNA cloning and animal and plant cloning.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Kingdom (FAO) held a Biotechnology Conference in Japan in 2000. After the conference, the FAO issued a statement on Biotechnology. This statement includes the potential benefits and risks that come with the use of biotechnology in food production. On a larger scale, biotechnology in plant and animal production can potentially end hunger in third world countries and save many lives. Bioengineering has been used to create some beneficial vaccines for animal and human related diseases thus far. Additionally, biotechnology has been used to clean oil spills in ecosystems. There are potential benefits of using biotechnology; however, the risks undermine the benefits. According to the FAO, there are many concerns when dealing with biotechnology. There are ethical concerns in the debate on whether biotechnology goes against Mother Nature. There are risks to humans, animals and the environment. Harmful toxins can potentially be passed from one species to another. Also, outcrossing may occur, which can lead to a certain species developing resistances to diseases. The FAO is continuing to monitor the positive and negative effects of biotechnology to see whether biotechnology is truly a worthwhile method.

Article About the Issues Concerning Biotechnology for Agriculuture in Developing Countries

2005-10-06T17:25:00.000-07:00

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) printed an article in 1999 concerning the various applications, issues, and concerns of developing countries about biotechnology in agriculture. The Committee on Agriculture (COAG) believed that developing nations need to ensure that biotechnology must benefit everyone, especially those in poor, rural sectors. COAG believes that "it should be used only to solve specific problems where it has comparative advantage" because of funding for biotechnology is relatively expensive to conventional research. COAG also fears that research for biotechnology will be privatized and that only wealthy farmers will benefit from biotechnology.

COAG stresses that biosafety, food safety, and the environment must all be taken account for developing countries because genetically-enhanced plants could cause weeds to become resistant to agrochemicals. COAG also fears "companies may use developing countries as 'test sites' for their products." FAO believes that developing countries will need assistance in settting up regulatory bodies for all aspects of biotechnology.

COAG points out the dangers of biotechnology, but also points out the solutions to those problems. Because agriculture needs to feed approximately 8 billion by 2020, biotechnology in agriculture could help increase crop yields and allow developing countries to feed their own.

Huge Conference on the Effects and Use of Biotechnology in Austrailia

2005-10-05T15:25:00.000-07:00

The third Horizons in Livestock Sciences Conference is presently being held in Queensland's Gold Coast in Austrailia. The Conference is host to numerous international speakers on the subject of livestock production systems. The theme for the event is "Redesigning Animal Agriculture", with the intention of exploring "how future livestock production systems will meet the growing diversity of global food demands".

Though the official website offers little in the way of biotechnologically related information, this web article from checkbiotech.org covers in some detail what role biotechnology is being given in this meeting of significant magnitude.

Though Professor Louise Fresco, the Assistant Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Agriculture Department, is mostly excited by the "enormous opportunities for modern technology", she also maintains some reservations. Namely, that while biotechnology might allow for a massive increase in yields it could also be responsible for severe and permanent damage to crop diversity. She stresses:

"Science has a moral mandate to guide modern technology to minimise negative impacts while maximising potential benefits," and later added, ""So far there is little global evidence that GMO crops may cross with wild relatives and induce long-term ecological changes. However, the absence of evidence is not proof of the contrary and monitoring will be needed."