Below we reproduce one of the final sections of the new report by Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies, at the University of Sussex, UK, on whether GM crops are addressing the real causes of poverty and hunger in Africa.
The full report can be downloaded as a pdf from here: http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/00010161.html
The main part of the report is a careful empirical analysis of the actual results of the use of GM crops in Africa, from looking at flagship projects: Monsanto's GM cotton in the Makhitini Flats in South Africa, the Syngenta Foundation's GM maize project in Kenya, and another Kenyan project with GM sweet potatoes involving Monsanto and USAID.
deGrassi notes the gap between the hyperbole and the empirica evidence, "There has been a great deal of excitement over these new engineered crops despite their low suitability. The maximum gains from genetic modification are small, much lower than with either conventional breeding or agroecology-based techniques."
In fact, the report notes, such showcase projects have little to do with the suitability or effectiveness of GM crops for African farmers but appear rather to be part of a PR strategy by the biotech industry to reduce regulatory and public resistance to its products worldwide.
In support of this, deGrassi analyses how biotechnology firms have eagerly used ostensibly philanthropic African projects for public relations purposes.
Here's a telling, and carefuly referenced, excerpt from the report on the PR use of South African GM cotton farmers. It's followed by the full section on this topic, 'Trade Wars and Media Campaigns'.
PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY!
...
EXCERPT:
"...[South African GM (Bt) cotton farmer] Buthelezi was by Zoellick's side when the Trade Secretary formally announced a US WTO case against EU restrictions on GM imports. A month later, the Administrator of USAID, Andrew Natsios, described Buthelezi before a Congressional panel on plant biotechnology in Africa.
However, Buthelezi's experience may be unique. The Council for Biotechnology Information calls him a 'small farmer', and others describe his life as "hand-to-mouth existence." Administrator Natsios called described him as a "small farmer & struggling just at the subsistence level." However, independent reporters have revealed that, with two wives and more than 66 acres, he is one of the largest farmers in Makhathini and chairs the area's farmers' federation encompassing 48 farmers' associations.385
For Monsanto, Buthelezi and his stories are part of the firm's declared strategy of "gaining global acceptance of biotechnology."386 Just before President Bush's May 2003 speech claiming that Europe's import restrictions exacerbate African hunger, Monsanto flew four black South African GM crop farmers to London, where they spoke at a private conference hosted by the Commonwealth Business Council, before heading on to Denmark and Germany. Like Buthelezi, these representative farmers read statements carefully scripted by Monsanto and own dozens of acres of land. Several actually spend most of their time working at their day jobs as school administrators. Others pro-biotech campaigners have caught on: CropGen, for instance, celebrates another South African farmer, Mbongeni Nxumalo.387
These South African farmerswhom representatives of Monsanto and other businesses call basically representative farmers and representatives of the African smallholding community are plucked from South Africa, wined and dined, and given scripted statements about the benefits of GM.388 In an area where most farmers cultivate just a few hectares, and only half the population can read, Monsantos representative farmers are school administrators and agricultural college graduates, owning dozens of hectares of land.389 Monsanto has been criticized for using these farmers as a part of a deliberate attempt to distort public debate on biotechnology.390 Critics have coined the nickname Bt Buthelezi, to illustrate this farmers unconditional support to Bt cotton: during a trip to Monsantos headquarters in St. Louis, Buthelezi was quoted as saying, I wouldnt care if it were from the devil himself. 391 "
---
Trade Wars and Media Campaigns
(taken from Aaron deGrassi's report Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence)
To crack open lucrative markets worldwide, biotechnology corporations are seeking public legitimacy for genetically engineered crops by turning their PR machines upon small farmers in Africa. Industry-funded groups are increasingly using Africans to misinform publics in both industrialized and developing nations.
Monsanto and the handful of other corporations who dominate the international trade in agricultural inputs had staked their future on transforming themselves from inputs and pharmaceuticals to the life-sciences.
In Europes lucrative markets, however, the biotech industry has been rebuked by a moratorium on genetically modified organisms.373 If the ban was lifted, US agribusinesses could reap $300 million a year on corn exports alone; total biotech exports could figure in the billions.374 Monsanto, whose stock fell almost 50% during 2002, joined farm lobby groups in pressuring the Bush Administration to take action in the World Trade Organization (WTO) against Europe. They hope the case will establish a precedent prohibiting GM-restrictions throughout the world.375 Because relations between the US and EU are already tenseover Iraq and US farm subsidies and steel tariffsthe biotech industry has turned to a more subtle public relations drive to gain European acceptance of GM.
They have begun using the poverty card, suggesting that Europes resistance impedes the global use of a technology that could be of great benefit to farmers and consumers around the world. 376
In the US Congress, the interests of American exporters are clearer: We have been told to expect good news on behalf of American agriculture, said a spokesman for the Speaker of the House of Representatives.377 The Director of Public Policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation described, We rely on export markets for one-third of our crops; this [ban] is a nightmare. 378
Biotechnology companies had earlier come under scrutiny in several high-publicity episodes. First, Novartis (now Syngenta) signed a controversial deal with the University of California at Berkeley, giving the company influence over the course of academic research and rights to patent resulting innovations in exchange for a $25 million grant. Second, Starlink GM corn, which had not been approved for human consumption, wound up in many granaries and food products. Later, experiments seemed to show that GM corn had negative impacts upon secondary insects, such as the Monarch butterfly. Then research revealed that GM corn had found its way in to farmersfields in Mexicothe place of origin and center of diversity for maizedespite prohibitions on the crop. After this story made it to the cover of the influential weekly magazine Time, scientists suggested that it was just a matter of time before seed banks preserving genetic diversity became contaminated with GM corn. Recently, the US has been condemned for providing exclusively GM food aid, when countries facing food shortages have specified they would rather prefer the unmodified supplies widely available in the US, in Africa and throughout the world.379
Under threat in an industry that depends on a positive popular image, minimal and friendly regulations, and generous public financing, biotechnology corporations joined together to devote $50 million dollars to a publicity campaign.380 Corporations have bussed in pro-GM protestors, invented fictitious front people to level slander, and turned towards Africa has proof that genetic modification is essential to end world hunger.381
Finding African 'Representatives'
To bolster its claims about the benefits of biotech crops, Monsanto has funded T.J. Buthelezi, a clean-shaven, middle-aged black farmer from Makhathini, to act as an African representative. He has told of his positive experiences with Bt cotton (in terms suspiciously similar to Monsanto press releases) at conferences and events around the world.382 In October 2001, Buthelezi met US Congress members and attended a Summit by the US Corporate Council on Africa. Several months later, Monsanto paid for him to have lunch with US Trade Secretary Robert Zoellick at the companys office near Pretoria.383 In August of last year, Buthelezi and Monsanto organized pro-biotech booths, interviews and rallies at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Buthelezis name and face now commonly appear on the internet and briefings for policy makers.384 In May 2003, Buthelezi was by Zoellicks side when the Trade Secretary formally announced a US WTO case against EU restrictions on GM imports. A month later, the Administrator of USAID, Andrew Natsios, described Buthelezi before a Congressional panel on plant biotechnology in Africa.
However, Buthelezis experience may be unique. The Council for Biotechnology Information calls him a small farmer, and others describe his life as hand-to-mouth existence. Administrator Natsios called described him as a small farmer & struggling just at the subsistence level. However, independent reporters have revealed that, with two wives and more than 66 acres, he is one of the largest farmers in Makhathini and chairs the areas farmersfederation encompassing 48 farmers associations.385
For Monsanto, Buthelezi and his stories are part of the firms declared strategy of gaining global acceptance of biotechnology. 386 Just before President Bushs May 2003 speech claiming that Europes import restrictions exacerbate African hunger, Monsanto flew four black South African GM crop farmers to London, where they spoke at a private conference hosted by the Commonwealth Business Council, before heading on to Denmark and Germany. Like Buthelezi, these representative farmers read statements carefully scripted by Monsanto and own dozens of acres of land. Several actually spend most of their time working at their day jobs as school administrators. Others pro-biotech campaigners have caught on: CropGen, for instance, celebrates another South African farmer, Mbongeni Nxumalo.387
These South African farmerswhom representatives of Monsanto and other businesses call basically representative farmers and representatives of the African smallholding community are plucked from South Africa, wined and dined, and given scripted statements about the benefits of GM.388 In an area where most farmers cultivate just a few hectares, and only half the population can read, Monsantos representative farmers are school administrators and agricultural college graduates, owning dozens of hectares of land.389 Monsanto has been criticized for using these farmers as a part of a deliberate attempt to distort public debate on biotechnology.390 Critics have coined the nickname Bt Buthelezi, to illustrate this farmers unconditional support to Bt cotton: during a trip to Monsantos headquarters in St. Louis, Buthelezi was quoted as saying, I wouldnt care if it were from the devil himself. 391
For several years, Monsanto has attempted to cement the adoption of GMOs in Africa. In 1998, the company bought out Cargills seed operations in Africa.392 A year later, Monsanto attempted to purchase a majority share in Zimbabwes main cotton company in order to produce GM cotton seeds for Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Egypt.393 After being turned down in Zimbabwe, Monsanto unsuccessfully tried Zambia and Tanzania. It has since worked its way in to Kenya and Uganda and is attempting to introduce transgenic cotton there during the next growing season.394 Monsanto has pursed similar strategies with biotech maize in Uganda and South Africa.395
But Monsantos activities in Africa make better public relations than actual business. The impoverished continent accounts for only small percent of Monsantos sales (company representatives would not say how small). But Africa is fruitful for the firms lobbying. In addition to establishing a newsletter and website for African biotechnology issues, Monsanto has recently paid journalists to visit Makhathini to admire the virtues of Bt cotton. 396 It has also tried to convince Zimbabweans now considering Bt cotton through videos, field trips, and presentations.397 Adds in magazines tout the experience, and at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Monsanto organized the presence of Makhathini farmers at the conference for pro-biotech rallies and dinner outings.398
Florence Wambugu, the Kenyan sweet potato scientists, has become an influential advocate for the biotechnology industry. After her work with Monsanto and KARI, she headed ISAAAs Africa office, before establishing her own A Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International. Wambugu recognizes however, that it [the modified sweet potato] has no commercial value to Monsanto, except as PR. 399
ISAAA has created a Knowledge Center in Kenya with the primary purpose to facilitate a knowledge-based, better informed public debate. 400 The group has also spun off a number of innocuously named pro-biotech NGOs, such as the African Biotechnology StakeholdersForum and African Biotechnology Trust.401 Pro-biotech Western aid agencies have joined with theses organizations to quietly conduct one-sided conferences at up-scale venues around the continent, such as Kenyas Windsor Golf and Country Club, aimed to swing high-level officials in favor of GM.402
But critics charge these forums are facades for large corporations.403 The NGOs consist of a website and a few staff, they charge. They also point out that ISAAA is funded by Agro-Evo, Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer, Syngenta, in addition to a dozen Western governmental aid agencies. The Board of Directors likewise has contained top biotech company executives, such as Wally Beversdorf, head of R&D at Novartis (now Syngenta). ISAAA, however, has no representatives from African farmer organizations.404
Theres a lot of propaganda, said Tewolde Egziabher, head of Ethiopias Environmental Protection Authority in an interview with Greenpeace, but theres absolutely no proof that these [transgenic] plants are more prolific. 405 In 2000, Egzhiaber issued a joint letter by groups in Africa criticizing the misleading simplification of a British documentary, which, he argued, used the image of the poor and the hungry from our countries in order to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us. 406
After publicity of Iraq War subsided, the Bush administration renewed its campaign against regulations on GM. President Bush argued that EUs policies are harming poor African countries. The US Senate simultaneously passed a bill prohibiting financial aid for combating HIV/AIDS to those countries that decline GM food aid.407 Consequently, the Bush Administration has been accused of using the name of the poor ( poor-washing ), particularly Africans, in order to put a positive spin on its efforts to increase American exports.408
The Consequences
The result of these high-profile media campaigns is that actual empirical analysis of GM crops in Africa suffers. The link between EU regulations and African hunger was quickly criticized as far-fetched and misleading.409 There is little empirical evidence to support the claim that EU measures have caused many African nations to avoid investing in biotechnologies, for fear their products will be shut out of European markets. 410 African countries export neither maize nor sweet potatoes to Europe. The only potentially affected crop would be GM cotton, but South Africa does not export cotton to the EU; in fact, it imports cotton because it cannot meet domestic demand.411 Countries have not adopted biotechnologies not because of EU restrictions, but rather for other reasons, such as lack of suitable technologies, and lack of regulatory laws and capacity. Consequently, no sub-Saharan African nation joined the USs challenge to Europes ban, and even Egypt withdrew from the complaint.412 In contrast, 20 African countries have filed petitions against the United States own cotton subsidies.413
Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is C.S. Prakash, the influential biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade Representative. Prakash has repeatedly cited sweet potatoes as a positive example of the benefits of GM for African countries, but has confessed to having no knowledge of the results of scientific trials in Kenya.414
Also demonstrating the lack of empirical analysis, a major report on biotechnology by the UN Economic Commission for Africa drew its conclusions based primarily on hypothetical benefits and risks.415 During writing, the report was reviewed by numerous institutions in the United States, such as the World Bank and Harvard University, but not by a single organization in Africa, let alone representatives of poor farmers.416
Academics have not generally been as illuminating as one would hope. On the one hand, applied researchers involved with biotechnology do not have access to outside critical information, or fear it may jeopardize future funding or research. On the other hand, the whims of academia mean that non-project scholars focus on developing new theories and summarizing othersdebates, rather than detailed, empirical evaluations. One consequence is the aforementioned overemphasis on novel risks in lieu of the more standard measures utilized in this report.417
---
"Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence", can be downloaded as a pdf from here: http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/00010161.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.