Vilsack targeted for his Pro-GMOs stand

One day after President-Elect Barak Obama picked Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, as Agriculture Secretary, anti-biotechnology activists are out in full force trying to paint him as an apologist for the biotech industry. Tara Lohan in an article on Alternet.org declares Obama is sending to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “…a pro-GMOs, pro-Biofuels Ag Secretary.”

 

Way back on November 12, when word went out that Obama planned to nominate Vilsack, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) listed, on its website, six reasons why he’s inappropriate for the position.

 

Writing on the Nation, John Nichol quotes OCA as accusing Vilsack of having “…a glowing reputation as being a shill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.”

 

It’s interesting how anti-biotech groups malign anybody who’s supportive of crop genetic engineering, in total disregard of the nature of such support. Take the case of OCA. It’s quarrel with Vilsack stems from his support for Iowa farmers wanting to grow genetically modified foods. How can anybody expect him not to do that? He’s a Governor of a farm belt state, where life=farming and farming=life. Vilsack’s support for biotechnology has not been a blind one; it has been in the interest of farmers in his state. Well, for his efforts to help Iowa farmers to modernize their farming, he has won accolades from the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Farmers in Iowa will tell you he deserves it. Here is Iowa Corn Growers Association praise Vilsack’s appointment: In a press statement, the association said Vilsack had “…established an outstanding record here in Iowa as a capable, pragmatic leader who understood the importance of agriculture.” These are farmers speaking, not shills for Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta or any other biotech corporation doing business in Iowa.

 

As Vilsack prepares to move to USDA, he should brace himself for sharper criticism for his stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Governor Vilsack must not fear to stand for what’s right. He should stand his ground, especially when individuals or organizations attempt to contradict science. He shouldn’t lock out organizations such as OCA, the Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other entities opposed from agricultural biotechnology from the debate about genetically modified foods. But he must insist they stick to science to justify their opposition to GMOs. The same standards should apply to scientists and corporations advocating for genetically modified foods. They, too, have a duty to make a strong case for GMOs. They ought to educate the public about GMOs. It’s their baby, and they must tend to it.

Sphere: Related Content

Kenyan scientists weigh on GMOs

Scientists from one of Kenya’s premier university have endorsed crop genetic engineering. After a two-day workshop last week, University of Nairobi researchers dismissed fears that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) posed dangers to human health and the environment.

The scientists said although some caution was needed about GMOs, they had been found to be safe. They called on Kenya and other African countries to quickly enact biosafety laws that would allow their introduction.

Dr. John Nderitu, the Dean of College of Agriculture and Veterinary Services at the University of Nairobi likened GMOs to automobiles which he said if used badly could bring negative outcomes to the society. He said as long as there were biosafety laws to regulate GMOs, he saw nothing wrong in them.

The Kenyan scientists’ call could not have come at a better time. Debate on potential benefits of genetically modified foods, or lack of them, has been raging in Africa. Some anti-technology nongovernmental organizations, mostly based in developed countries, have literary camped in Africa to persuade governments there not to admit GMOs into their countries. This could be the reason why many African countries, except South Africa, continue to shun them. Countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe have even passed laws to prohibit GMOs from their territories, which raises the question of whether they’d not like their scientists to study the potential of GMOs to agriculture. What’s these countries vision for innovative research if they can’t encourage their scientists to study GMOs?

Sphere: Related Content

Indian researcher makes a case for biotechnology

The journal Nature has published an article about how developing countries can make the best from biotech. Indira Nath, the article’s author, argues biotechnology can revolutionize food production and healthcare in developing countries only if these countries bolstered their scientific capacity.

 

Nath regrets intellectual property rights coupled with inhibit scientists from developing countries from accessing critical technologies. Further, the ongoing opposition to genetically modified foods in both developed and developing countries continues to stymie food production in the former countries.

 

To address this situation, Nath calls on governments in developing countries to intensify efforts in training researchers. They should also provide them with necessary technologies to do their work.

 

Nath joins a long list of scientists from developing countries calling on their governments to be more proactive promoting science and technology for sustainable development. Dr. Calestous Juma, a Kenyan scientist currently teaching at Harvard, has been another vocal supporter of biotechnology. Writing in Japan Times in July this year, Dr. Juma called on G-8 countries to encourage biotech cooperation in Africa. He cautioned that over-emphasis on biosafety was hindering many African countries from adopting biotechnology.

 

Nath and Dr. Juma make very strong cases for biotechnology. They are worth listening to.

Sphere: Related Content

EU challenges France on GM Maize

The European Union (EU) is again challenging France’s decision to ban a genetically modified (GM) maize developed by the U.S.-based biotech giant Monsanto. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is angry that France has refused to allow the cultivation of MON 810, the only GM crop being grown in the European Union.

“No specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause,” EFSA said in an opinion article on its web site.

These are weighty words, coming especially from such a nonpartisan organization as EFSA. They’re words directed not only at France but other European countries weighing on the issue of genetically modified crops.

The issue of the safety of GM foods has been discussed since the introduction of the first genetically modified crop in 1996. Reputable organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. National Academies of Science have issued numerous reports on the safety of GM foods. In June 2005, for instance, WHO released a report entitled Modern Food Biotechnology, Human Health and Development, which reaffirmed the safety of GM foods. The U.S. National Academies of Science, itself, has on numerous occasions cautioned against condemning GM crops on the basis of non-scientific evidence.

France and other countries opposed to crop genetic engineering will do their citizens proud if they allow science to guide every decision of GM crops. Blanket condemnation of GM crops doesn’t serve the interests of farmers. It only denies them an opportunity to boost food production.

Sphere: Related Content

Italy’s health minister favors GM crops

Italy’s health minister Maurizio Sacconi would like her country to lift the ban on genetically modified crops (GM) in his country.

Sacconi told an international food forum recently that Italy needed to apply the European principle of co-existence of different production technologies. The principle lays out clear guidelines on how organic and GM crops should be grown together.

Sacconi’s stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is, to say the least, a courageous one. Anti-GMOs sentiments run high in Europe and for a person of Sacconi’s caliber to state her pro-GMOs position publicly is not a mean thing.

Secondly, Sacconi’s position on GM crops is an informed one. It’s not from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Remember Sacconi is in charge of the ministry of health in Silvio Berlusconi’s government. He must be privy to the latest data on the safety of genetically modified foods. It’s not surprising that in making a case for GMOs, he mentioned that “… all scientific research should be rigorously tested.”

The European Union (EU), despite its opposition to GM crops, ought to be listening to the likes of Sacconi. Sacconi is one of voices of reason and common sense in Europe on the issue of genetically modified foods.

Sphere: Related Content

South Africa approves biotech sorghum

South Africa has made another step forward in the field of crop biotechnology. After a rancorous debate over whether genetically engineered sorghum should be grown in greenhouses, the South African government has given its nod to the project.

The decision was a huge blow to anti-GMOs activists in South Africa, led by the South African GMO Executive Council, which had waged a relentless campaign against the new sorghum variety.

Called “Super Sorghum”, it’s nutritionally enhanced with more amino acids. The Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR), which had been spearheading the approval, lauded the government’s decision saying it was testimony South Africa had robust biosafety laws.

“We respect the fact that decision-makers have an obligation towards safety and that rigorous investigations are part of the process. Work on the project will now continue in our level 3 biosafety greenhouse,” said CSIR Biosciences Executive Director, Dr Gatsha Mazithulela, soon after the government announced the approval decision.

The “Super Sorghum” has received worldwide support, including from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has already committed about $17 million to the project. The project is being spearheaded by Florence Wambugu, a renowned Kenyan agricultural biotechnologist, who also heads the Africa Harvest Biotech International Foundation (AHBIF).

 

 

 

Sphere: Related Content

Maize yields in Europe declining?

I speak and comprehend a little French. There’s this video that features Klaus Ammann saying corn yields in Europe have gone down. David Tribe of GMO Pundit has picked up the issue on his blog.

Let me mention something small about David. He is a characteristically mercurial scientist. I must admit I’ve not come across a scientist as interested in science communication as David.

On this blog, I’ve repeatedly called on scientists not to allow rookies to distort their work. David seems to have heeded my call. He writes prolifically about agricultural biotechnology. He doesn’t fear to be branded “a shill of this and that  multinational biotechnology corporations.” These are some of intimidatory accusations anti-technology activists use to try to silence folks like David.

In 2006 I urged scientists to come out and defend the science behind crop genetic engineering. Then, I noted that the voices of few scientists who were willing to stand up to opponents of crop genetic engineering were being drowned by these self-styled activists, who’ve very scant knowledge of agricultural biotechnology. In fact most of them have social science backgrounds. They’re only good in making blue look white, without ever stepping into a paint shop.

David is among the few scientists who have said “enough is enough” to propaganda that has come to define the debate genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

David’s strategy has been to lay facts out there for all to see and decide for themselves. This is what I’ve always advocated: that the debate about genetically modified foods should be anchored in science.

On Klaus’ remark that corn yields in Europe are going down, David has culled out graphs showing the continuing increase of corn yields in the U.S. The U.S. happens to be the leading grower of genetically modified corn. Connect the dots for yourself.

Europe is fervently opposed to GMOs. Could this be the reason why corn yields are unimpressive there? This is the point David is trying to make. And he could be right.

Sphere: Related Content

African scientist honored for her work in agriculture

An African scientist has been honored for her work in promoting sustainable agriculture in Africa. Prof. Florence Wambugu, who heads the Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation, last week scooped the 2008 YARA prize for the African Green Revolution.

Prof. Wambugu was recognized for promoting the use of tissue culture in banana farming in mainly Kenya. The technology has dramatically improved the standards of living of millions of small-scale farmers in the country and other African countries.

Prof. Wambugu is an exceptional, brilliant and selfless woman. After receiving her education in the U.S. and UK, she declined lucrative jobs there to go back to Africa to help it improve its agriculture. This is uncommon to most Africans who go to Western countries to study. Most, if not all, opt to take up well-paying jobs. The fact that Prof. Wambugu decided to forego such opportunities say a lot about her character and her commitment to see Africa becomes self-sufficient in food production.

Prof. Wambugu has also been at the forefront of the campaign to popularize modern agricultural biotechnology. This has not been a simple task. She has fought with anti-tech organizations, such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the two anti-biotechnology activist organizations at the forefront of the campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

To reinforce here support for modern agricultural biotechnology, Prof. Wambugu, soon after receiving the YARA prize, told the SciDev.net web site that the Green Revolution currently being championed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will have to “…embrace cutting-edge biotechnology.”

This call must be taken very seriously. Prof. Wambugu is not just another activist advocating for agricultural biotechnology. She understands the stuff she’s talking about. Farmers and governments in Africa better listen to her!

Sphere: Related Content

Prince of Wales under fire for his anti-GMOs stance

The Prince of Wales is in hot soup for claiming genetically modified crops have set the word on course for “the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, last week, Prince Charles sensationally accused “gigantic corporations” of meddling with nature and urged them to spare the world the cataclysmic repercussions that might arise from genetic modification of crops.

Prince Charles’ rantings against GM crops, however, have come under harsh criticism from government officials, politicians, the media and scientists for their ludicrous tinge.

British Environment Minister Phil Woolas has challenged Prince Charles to provide evidence to the effect that genetically modified crops are a disaster. Woolas, in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, affirmed that the government had a “moral responsibility” to investigate whether GM crops could help alleviate hunger in the developing world.” And the minister warned the Prince of Wales not to politicize the issue of GM crops.

Alison Smith, Professor of Plant Biochemistry at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, accused Prince Charles of “inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.”

“He (Prince) seems to be ranting about GM crops, urbanisation, globalisation and even hybrid plants. He is inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.”

The Times, in an editorial, said Prince Charles’ views on genetically modified crops were “ill-informed, alarmist and anti-science.” “…his apocalyptic predictions of the effect of genetically modified crops do not enhance public debate, but degrade it,” noted the hard-hitting editorial.

British Labor MP, Des Turner, fumed that it’s “…entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject this (GM crops) out of hand.”

Liberal Democratic Phil Willis, who’s also the chairman of the all-party Commons science committee, echoed the same sentiment and warned: “Prince Charles lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.”

Prince Charles did have supporters. Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association did issue an oblique statement supporting the Prince of Wales’ views that “GM crops would not help solve the food crisis.”

This is a self-denial statement. I’ve always argued, on this blog and elsewhere, that criticism of crop genetic engineering is warranted as long it’s constructive and scientifically grounded. When somebody, for instance, claims that GM crops would not help solve the food crisis, one is left to wonder what happened to the truth. Just the same way I condemn this, I’ll also take issue with anybody who might claim that organic farming cannot help in solving the food crisis. They’ve a role to play, just like GM crops have an important contribution to make in enhancing global food security.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has just released a report that shows GM crops cultivation recorded a 12 per cent growth from 2006-2007. The number of countries growing GM crops also increased to 23. These are hard facts that cannot easily wished away.

Realistically speaking, therefore, one can safely say that these crops are making significant contribution to global food security. This is an undeniable fact that those who support and oppose GM crops must acknowledge.

For the Prince of Wales and anti-technology organizations to deny that agricultural biotechnology is making significant contribution to global food security is wrong. Acknowledging facts as they’re, perhaps, is the best way to handle the debate about cons and pros of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Sphere: Related Content

Extra-judicial protests on GMOs decried

An article appearing elsewhere on this blog, and which has been adapted from the Australian-based ABC News, reports that Gene Ethics, a nongovernmental organization opposed to crop genetic engineering, has mapped farmers growing genetically modified canola.

The map lists their names and location of their farms. The Victorian Farmers Federation has issued a press statement condemning the tactic as amounting to bullying.

“This is a disgraceful and unsubstantiated witch hunt and shows how few ethics, Gene Ethics really have,” Says VFF President, Simon Ramsay.

This incident reminds me of an article I read two weeks ago featuring Howard Atkinson complaining that research institutions in Britain are spending more money guarding field trials of genetically modified crops than in research proper.

Mr. Atkinson said a field trial of genetically modified potato cost Leeds University 25,000 pounds. And additional six-figure bill went to security. What a waste!

The Australian and the Leeds incidents have one thing in common: anti-technology activists are fast resorting to extra-judicial measures to thwart crop genetic engineering.

Rudimentary tactics being practiced by these groups are unacceptable in today’s world. People might have concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but I don’t think resorting to violence or blackmail is the most sensible thing to do. Let the world engage in a civil debate about GMOs.

GMOs are products of natural science. Natural science demands that every claim be scientifically substantiated. When anti-technology activists make claims against GMOs, they should ground such in science. And they don’t have to do it themselves. Since they’re good in mobilization, they can line up scientists to do it. They can even sponsor research: They’ve huge budgets to do so. This is the most civil way of engaging in the debate about GMOs, not engaging in hooliganism, which trivializes the whole debate.

Food security is an important issue that must be discussed soberly. On this blog, I’ve repeatedly stated that everything must be on the table when it comes to ensuring global food security. If organic farming can help reduce hunger and malnutrition, so be it. If GMOs can do the same, so be it. We shouldn’t have a bunch of activists dictating to farmers the kind of farming to practice.

Sphere: Related Content