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?

]]> http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/kenyan-scientists-weigh-on-gmos.html/feed http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/indian-researcher-makes-a-case-for-biotechnology.html http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/indian-researcher-makes-a-case-for-biotechnology.html#comments Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:02:20 +0000 GMO Africa http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/indian-researcher-makes-a-case-for-biotechnology.html 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.

Four major players in the ethanol industry – Hawkeye, ICM, POET, and Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc. (GPRE) – yesterday launched an organization called Growth Energy to promote the use of ethanol in a sustainable way. GrowthEnergy also plans to take head on “Big Food” for blaming the ethanol industry for high food prices.

In a press statement issued at the launch of GrowthEnergy, the heads of the four companies argued there was no link between ethanol use and food prices. “Big Food and their Washington lobbyists have been trying to blame the rising cost of food on American ethanol producers and the cost of corn. Well, now that the price of corn has dropped more than fifty percent since the summer, we ask the Big Food industry to explain to the American people why food prices are still so high,” said Jeff Broin, CEO of POET.

Dave Vander Griend, CEO of ICM pointed out that the price of corn had gone down by almost 50 per cent over the last few months yet food prices had not followed suit. “Our current low-priced corn, high-priced food economic situation shows that the experts were right - biofuels production does not lead to increased food costs,” said Griend.

With the launch of GrowthEnergy, it seems the war of words between ethanol producers and the food industry is likely ratchet up. GrowthEnergy is vowing to wage an intensive grassroots campaign to fight disinformation that more ethanol use leads to high food prices. It has already prepared a policy brief (PDF) on the issue, to bolster its argument.

“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.

]]> http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/eu-challenges-france-on-gm-maize.html/feed http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/10/italys-health-minister-favors-gm-crops.html http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/10/italys-health-minister-favors-gm-crops.html#comments Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:21:35 +0000 GMO Africa http://www.gmoafrica.org/?p=702 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.

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).

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.

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!

Biotechnologies such as GM crops are necessary to double global food production by 2050, a major biotechnology conference has been told. Read more….