9-Misc: African biotech organizations support GE food aid

[GENET <coordination@genet-info.org>]

-------------------------------- GENET-news -------------------------------

TITLE:  AFRICAN BIOTECH ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO LOSS OF LIFE AS GM FOOD
        AID DEBATE RAGES
SOURCE: distributed by Africa Harcest, Kenya
DATE:   16 Jul 2004

------------------- archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ -------------------


AFRICAN BIOTECH ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO LOSS OF LIFE AS GM FOOD AID
DEBATE RAGES

JOHANNESBURG - Four of the leading African biotech organizations
yesterday issued a statement in which they expressed strong support for
Genetically Modified (GM) food because "as agricultural and science-based
organizations, we are against any position that leads to loss of life".

In a statement was signed by the respective heads of the four
organizations: Prof. Norah Olembo, Executive Director Africa Biotech
Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), Mr. Joseph Wekundah, Executive Director, the
Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA), Prof. Jocelyn Webster, AfricaBio and
Dr. Florence Wambugu, Chief Executive Officer, Africa Harvest. The four
said they were compelled to issue the statement "to clarify some of the
contentious issues related to the African food crisis and the urgent need
for GM food aid".

They quoted the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) as stating that
25 African countries were facing food emergencies. Kenya's President Mwai
Kibaki, had declared the famine in the country a national disaster, in
Angola, 1.9 million people were in dire need of food assistance and in
the Sudan, over 1 million people are at an imminent risk of life and
livelihood.

The four organizations said they agreed to the principle that African
countries have a right to choose between GM and non GM food, "however, as
Africans, we know that this right to choose is often an academic
discourse in the face of hunger. We also believe in the sovereignty of
our nations but believe that human life is more precious than any nation".

The statement said that although Africa's agricultural revival requires
technology, "technology alone will not do, hence our support for good
governance, better funding for agriculture, micro-finance for small scale
farmers, human and infrastructural capacity building".

The biotech organizations said the argument that donors should give money
whenever there is a food crisis is flawed. They said the US - the world's
largest food donor - gave food while "Japan, Norway and the European
Union opt to provide most of their aid in cash, because unlike the US,
they do not produce in excess, the food required by the recipient countries".

The statement also said that the assumption that non-GM food could be
sourced locally or regionally was wrong. "If this food was available in
the needy countries, even in small quantities, it would be very, very
expensive. The reality is that the countries facing famine have no food
at all". The gave the example where Angola's imported 217,000 tons of
food last year, but after the countries refusal of GM food, the WFP was
only able to source 17,250 tons of non-GM food, "a drop in the ocean with
an environment of great need".

The four organizations called on African and political leaders "to
provide string leadership and direction" with regard to GM food aid. They
said the need for food assistance should be viewed as temporary "and
through pan-Africa organizations such as the New partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD) and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
(FARA), long-term strategies for food security be put in place".

Important Information:

- In a continent where 28.5 million people are living with HIV, food aid
is a matter of life and death;
- Unfortunately, hunger captures global headlines at the height of
political and natural disasters. 92% of hunger-related deaths occur away
from the dramatic food emergencies
- Of the Top 10 threats to public health, under-nutrition is #1
- Over 7 million African farmers have died from AIDS, putting tremendous
pressure on agricultural production
- Top Food aid Donors (2003): USA (60%), the EU (11%) and other (29%)
- Top Food Recipients (2003): Iraq (1.3 million tons), Ethiopia (1.2
million tons), the Korea (975,000 tons), Bangladesh (353,000),
Afghanistan (388,000 tons) and Angola (217,000 tons)

For more information, please contact:

Daniel Kamanga
Communications Director
Africa Harvest
Tel: +27 82 787 4799
Fax: +27 11 605 2188
Email: dkamanga@ahbfi.org

*****************************************

STATEMENT ON THE AFRICAN FOOD CRISIS AND THE CASE FOR GM FOOD AID

Introduction

At the time of issuing this media statement, at least 25 African
countries are facing food emergencies. Unfortunately, at this time of
need, there are those who have done everything to convince African
countries to reject food aid that may contain Genetically Modified (or
GM) food. Already, Angola (where 1.9 million people are in dire need of
food assistance) and the Sudan (where over 1 million people are "at an
imminent risk of life and livelihood") have rejected GM food aid on the
advice of anti-GM activists. As African agricultural and science-based
organizations, we are against any position that leads to loss of life. In
this regard, we are concerned by the casual manner in which the anti-GM
activists perceive the African food crisis, especially when viewed
against the backdrop of other challenges such as the HIV AIDS pandemic.
It is for this reason that we find it imperative to issue this statement
to clarify some of the contentious issues related to the African food
crisis and the urgent need for GM food aid.

The African food crisis

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), at least 25
countries in Africa face food emergencies. As we were preparing this
statement, President Mwai Kibaki, was declaring the famine in Kenya a
national disaster. In a continent where 28.5 million people are living
with HIV, food aid is a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, hunger
only captures global headlines at the height of crises caused by politics
and natural disasters. In fact, only 8% of deaths from hunger occur in
these types of dramatic food emergencies. In Africa, the current food
crisis is not new. Last year, Africa's hunger captured global headlines
after Zambia refused GM food aid; between then and now, thousand of
people have died from hunger. Hunger will claim more lives than AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria combined!

Of the 10 greatest threats to public health, under-nutrition is still No.
1. And the situation is serious - very serious - in Africa. FAO
calculates that Africa has lost over 7 million farmers to AIDS. In a
continent where eight out of 10 farmers are women and the world's worst
food security problem, any food assistance should be welcome.
Unfortunately, the anti-GM activists' position is that African
governments should have the right to choose between GM and non-GM food.
This is a position that we, the signatories of this statement, in
principle, agree with. However, as Africans, we know that this "right to
choose" is often an academic discourse in the face of hunger. We also
believe in the sovereignty of our nations, but believe that human life is
more precious than any nation.

We therefore call on African governments, especially those whose people
face the risk of life and livelihood, to carefully weight their decisions
when it comes to GM food aid. Ultimately, we believe that the vision of
the New partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), to rejuvenate
Africa's agricultural sector, in partnership with the Forum for
Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), provide the long-term solutions
to the food problems on the continent. We are also convinced that without
technology - including biotechnology - Africa's agricultural revival will
not happen. However, we are aware that technology alone will not do,
hence our support for good governance, better funding for agriculture,
micro-finance for small scale farmers, human and infrastructural capacity
building, among other urgent needs.

The politics of GM food aid

From a global perspective, the USA, the EU, Japan and the UK have been
the principal food donors. Last year, the top recipients of food
assistance were Iraq (1.3m tonnes), Ethiopia (1.2 m), the Democratic
Republic of Korea (975,000), Bangladesh (353,000), Afghanistan (388,000)
and Angola (217,000).

Last year, the USA shipped 60% of the world's cereal food, followed by
the EU (11%) and other countries combined (29%). Over the last 50 years,
whenever Africa faced a food crisis, help traditionally come from these
donors, and in particular, the USA. With the growth of the biotech sector
- especially in the USA - the country has become the world's most
significant GM food producer. Consequently, what the US gives (in times
of need), what it has excess of, that is, GM food.

The argument by anti-GM activists that the US should give cash is flawed.
The reason why donors such as Japan, Norway and the EU opt to provide
most of their aid in cash is because, unlike the US, they do not produce
in excess the food required by the recipient countries. Equally, the
argument that non-GM food can be sourced regionally or locally (depending
on cash assistance from donors) is wrong; if this food was available in
the needy countries, even in small quantities, it would be very, very
expensive. The reality is that the countries facing famine have no food
at all.

Where possible, the WFP has sourced non-GM food. For example, in the case
of Angola, a recent food donation of 17,250 tons of food has recently
been substituted for maize owing to the government's ban on distribution
of unmilled GM cereals. However, when compared to last years food aid
shipments (of 217,000 tons), the non-GM food donation confirms that WFP's
assistance is a drop in the ocean within an environment of great need.

GM food: Healthy or toxic?

While all is said and done, the anti-GM activists' argument is that
Africa should reject GM food aid because GM foods are not proven to be
safe for human consumption. This is untrue, but before exposing the
untruths, let us explains what GM food is:

GM food is produced from any crop that has been genetically altered
during its production, using modern techniques of gene technology.
Modifications usually involve changing one gene of the 30,000 to 50,000
odd genes that make up an organism. For example, GM maize has been
genetically engineered to protect it from insects and pests by adding a
gene which comes from soil, called Bacillus thuringiensis (hence the
reference, Bt maize).

Although anti-GM activists say GM food has not been proven safe, so far
there is NOT a single report of any GM food causing adverse effect in
humans or animals. Stringent food safety and health requirements are
placed on industry to ensure that crops and animal products passed
through the gene technology are safe to eat. And while many common foods
such as wheat, cow's milk, eggs and soyabeans cause allergies in some
people, allergenic proteins can be removed (or "silenced") in GM
varieties. When it comes to toxity, GM foods causing toxic effects are
expected to be no greater than conventional or regular foods.

The WHO says that "GM foods currently available on the international
market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks
for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown
as a result of consumption of such foods by the general population in the
countries where they have been approved".

Conclusions & Recommendations

1. Conclusions

a) While we agree that every African country has the right to choose or
accept GM food, we believe that the right to life supercedes the
sovereignty of a country;

b) While we agree that non-GM alternatives exist, we find no compelling
reason for African countries to insist on non-GM alternatives when GM
food is proven to be safe. The increase costs and delays in sourcing
alternative food must be viewed against the urgent need to get food to
the most need;

c) We applaud the work of the WFP and FAO in providing science-based
clarity to the issues of GM food and for the continuous support to the
African people in time of need;

d) We applaud the clarity provided by Heads of States from the Southern
African Development Community (SADC), especially on the decision to
accept GM grain as long as it is milled;

e) We applaud the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, for coming out
in support of the GM technology and call on increased political support
to this technology, given its ability to be catalytic in Africa's
agricultural and economic revival.

2. Recommendations

a) We recommend that Africa views GM food aid as temporary and, through
pan-African organizations such as the African Union, NEPAD, FARA and
others, implements the long-term agricultural strategies for food security;

b) We recommend that African countries identify the expertise in
agricultural biotechnology and biosafety in their countries and build on
this, from both a human and infrastructural perspective. This way,
African can define its biotechnology agenda. Our collective view is that
the immediate challenge is feeding those in greatest need through food
that is easily available;

c) We recommend that African political and scientific leaders to provide
strong leadership and direction, especially at this time in the debate.
Prof. Norah Olembo - Executive Director, African Biotech Stakeholders
Foundation (ABSF) http://www.absfafrica.org

Prof. Jocelyn Webster - Executive Director, AfricaBio http://www.africabio.com

Dr. Florence Wambugu - Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Africa Harvest
http://www.ahbfi.org

Mr. Joseph Wekundah, Biotechnology Trust Africa http://www.biotechafrica.or.ke


Further Research and References:
http://genetech.csiro.au/foodsafe_faqs.htm
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/gmplants/
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/gmplants/
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/events/discussion_meetings/reps/gm_feb03.doc
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/biotech/meetings/exec_summary_nov_2003.pdf
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/StatementDetails.cfm?
statementid=165
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/04/africa/irin_darfur.htm
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/04/africa/irin_drc.htm
http://www.africanhunger.org/uploads/articles/
0559f217cbdacbf546f08e0b8da88c51.pdf
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=17071
http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2004/open_letter/




--


GENET
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering

Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
Kleine Wiese 6
D - 38116 Braunschweig
Germany

P: +49-531-5168746
F: +49-531-5168747
M: +49-162-1054755
E: coordination(*)genet-info.org
W: <http://www.genet-info.org>



-----------------------------
   GENET-news mailing list
-----------------------------