Chews Wise

GMOs Ruled Out in Africa Hunger Fight

In a significant announcement, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, backed by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, has ruled out the use of genetically modified crops to fight hunger and poverty on the continent, according to the group's chairman Kofi Annan, in a report in the Kenyan Business Daily.

"We in the alliance will not incorporate GMOs in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds known to them,” he (Annan) said. Mr Annan said poor pricing of commodities, and not type of seeds, keeps African growers away from their farmlands despite spiralling food insecurity and poverty on the continent.

“We need to get the right seeds into their hands by strengthening research partnerships with local universities and other institutions,” he said. Mr Annan said insufficient infrastructure such as roads, poor storage facilities and  weak market structures were to blame for Africa’s continued dependence on food aid.

High-yield seeds were at the center of the former Green Revolution in Asia. While many have viewed GM crops as the latest step in high-yield agriculture and a way to fight hunger in the Third World, many others have criticized that approach and African countries have resisted for numerous reasons: the risk of GMO contamination, trade impediments to GM crops, the issues of patenting seed and the high costs of large-scale intensive agriculture. Although AGRA has not ruled out GMOs, the group says on its web site:

The Alliance is not at this time funding the development of new varieties through the use of genetic engineering. We have chosen to focus on conventional breeding techniques—which can be quite technologically sophisticated—for two main reasons:

1. We know that conventional methods of plant breeding can produce significant benefits in the near term at relatively low cost. Until now, however, conventional plant breeding has not received sufficient attention or investment in Africa, leaving untapped the inherent genetic potential available in African crops. With improved seeds produced through conventional breeding methods, plant scientists and farmers could readily raise average cereal yields from one tonne to two tonnes per hectare—making a major contribution toward ending hunger and poverty in Africa.
2. Conventional crop breeding fits within the regulatory frameworks now in place in most African countries, enabling relatively rapid dissemination to farmers of the new varieties they desire.

In a speech last month in Cape Town, when Annan was appointed to the post, the former UN secretary-general laid out the broad goals for the initiative.

We aim to make a concrete difference in our lifetimes. With respect to seeds, the Alliance is already in the fields, working with African farmers and African agricultural scientists to breed new varieties of maize, cassava, rice, beans, sorghum and other major crops that will offer better resistance to disease and pests. Our goal is to produce 100 new crop varieties in five years. And to ensure farmers have access to these seeds, we will also move to create a wider network of local seed distributors and agro-dealers to better serve remote rural areas.

In addition, the group has goals with regards to maintaining and improving soil health, irrigation, and marketing infrastructure.

Agra was established last year with an initial $150 million grant from the Gates and Rockefeller foundations. It seeks to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families get out of poverty and hunger through sustainable growth in farm productivity and incomes. According to the Kenyan report, Annan said food production in Africa could be doubled in the next decade with improved seeds and increased access to inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides.

Boom Underway in GE Corn

By Lisa M. Hamilton

The numbers are in, and as predicted back during spring's corn-planting frenzy, it seems that the ethanol boom has been a boon for genetically engineered corn.

Photo: Nature.com

On July 5th the USDA's Economic Research Service released the 2007 stats on the adoption of genetically engineered varieties in corn, cotton and soybeans. Of all the corn planted this year in the US, 73 percent was GE--that's compared to only 25 percent of the crop in 2000. Of course, adoption has been increasing steadily over the past seven years, averaging increases of 6 percent each year, but this year the graph spiked upward by 12 percent over 2006's crop. And that's the average. In the Plains, the numbers were even higher: South Dakota led the country with 93 percent of its crop in genetically modified varieties, followed by North Dakota with 88 percent and Kansas with 82 percent. 

Because of the ethanol boom, farmers planted 19 percent more corn than last year. The GE portion--at 73 percent of the entire crop--amounts to 67,817,000 acres, or slightly less than the combined land mass of Illinois and Iowa. Within that space are approximately 2 trillion genetically engineered corn plants.

Numbers of this magnitude are hard to grasp. What's not hard to see, however, is the profit--and power--this grants to those behind ag biotech. By this I mean not corn farmers, many of whom are now struggling through drought, but rather Monsanto and like corporations--the true beneficiaries of agricultural biotechnology, which sell seed and chemicals. In its third quarter earnings report, Monsanto reported record sales of $2.8 billion, 23 percent higher than a year ago, reflecting the boom in GE seeds and herbicides. Earnings jumped 71 percent.

"Strong customer demand for ... branded corn seed products contributed to a sixth consecutive year of market share gains in the U.S. corn seed market," the company said. "The increase could be as large as 4 or 5 percentage points, pending final returns, which would be the largest historical one-year gain for Monsanto brands in the corn seed market."

Monsanto's board just approved $610 million to expand its U.S. corn production facilities over the next three years - which means that this year's record corn crop is likely to be eclipsed in the near future.

GMOs Lose in Recent Court Rulings

In two recent court decisions, genetically modified crops suffered defeat.

On Monday,the European Patent Office revoked Monsanto's patent for genetically engineered soybeans, ending a 13-year battle. The ETC Group, which bought the law suit, said:

The patent was vigorously and formally opposed by Monsanto itself until the company purchased the original patent assignee (Agracetus) in 1996. The technology related to the now-revoked patent has been used, along with other patents in the company’s portfolio, to corner 90% of the world’s GM soybean market.

In a second decision last week, a federal court in San Francisco ruled that the USDA's approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa was illegal. The judge ordered the USDA to ban any further planting of the seed until it carried out an Environmental Impact Statement.

The court's fear was that the alfalfa would spread to non-GMO fields (just as occurred in the past year with GMO rice). The locations of all the GMO alfalfa fields must now be disclosed so that growers of organic and conventional alfalfa “can test their own crops to determine if there has been contamination,” according to the Center for Food Safety, which brought the suit.

GM Crops Advance - Without Debate

By Stephanie Paige Ogburn

Genetically modified crops are taking root at a rate that may surprise those who don’t closely follow the acreage numbers.

Roughly 252 million acres, or 6.2 percent of the world’s total cropland, are planted with GM crops, according to 2006 figures. The growth is largely occurring in developing countries, which currently boast about 40 percent of total GM acreage.

Brazil, China, and India, leaders in many development statistics, are also the three major developing nations implementing GM crops. From 2005 to 2006, India’s GM crop acreage, mostly in cotton, increased 192 percent. But even Iran’s gotten in the game, introducing Bt rice, on somewhere between 25,000-50,000 acres. (The rice contains the genetic material of the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, an insecticide.)

Ethanol and Biotech: Into the Future

By Lisa M. Hamilton

Ethanol’s future seems to go hand-in-hand with biotech, as evidenced by reports including a recent article by AP’s Paul Elias. But within all the news, there’s a worthwhile distinction to be made about what’s being genetically engineered.

One strain of research aims to make corn more compatible with fuel production. For instance Syngenta has genetically modified corn plants to include the alpha amylase enzyme, which performs the first step in the process of turning kernels into fuel. With this corn, ethanol plants would require one less additive, and therefore one less cost.

Of course this corn carries the issues that come with genetically modifying crops used for food. But it could also extend corn’s life as an ethanol source by making it more efficient—something that will matter a lot to corn farmers as better, non-corn sources like switchgrass rapidly displace corn as the preferred feedstock over the next decade. 

Other research focuses on bio-engineering the non-feedstock components of the ethanol process, to make them, in part, less expensive. Elias reports that with much of the research, “The idea is to genetically engineer microscopic bugs such as bacteria and fungus to spit out enzymes that will break down just about every imaginable crop into ethanol.”

This “inside” approach to genetic engineering, so called because it deals with components used inside the ethanol-producing plant, could dramatically change the ethanol-farm economy. When enzymes and other additives for the processing of cellulosic ethanol become affordable, corn will fall out of sight as a feedstock—and corn farmers know it. Whether the inside approach is safer in terms of unintended consequences to the food system and beyond?  That remains to be seen.

Ethanol Fuels Boom in GM Corn

Chews Wise welcomes Lisa M. Hamilton, a California-based writer who is working on a book about American farmers.

By Lisa M. Hamilton

The current generation of corn-based ethanol involves familiar players, particularly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready and Bt corn, which are genetically modified. It remains to be seen what effect this year’s planting boom has had on the adoption of biotech varieties (the USDA’s Economic Research Service will release the numbers in July), but I haven’t found a person yet who doesn’t foresee an increase.

Possible early evidence is found in Monsanto’s Q2 report, released on April 4, which showed record profits attributed to “the strong demand that we've seen for our higher-yielding corn seeds and our higher-margin, triple-trait corn technology.” Indeed, their sales of corn seed and traits (patented GMO traits such as Roundup Ready-ness) increased 46% over the second quarter last year. As the report states, “Monsanto technology trait acres were up across the board, with triple-trait corn technology expected to be grown on an estimated 16 million acres, or up more than 160 percent when compared with the 6 million acres the technology was planted on in 2006.”

As an extension agent at University of Wisconsin explained, one reason could be that many of those extra 12 million acres will be planted “corn on corn” instead of being rotated with soybeans. “Putting pressure on the rotation like that means more pest pressure,” he said, “and transgenic corn will be a better tool for farmers to deal with that.”

An increase in GMO adoption could also stem from the fact that selling corn for ethanol releases any export-related pressure for the crop to be GMO-free. It could also simply be that in an economy of $4/bushel corn, the extra expense of transgenics is worth it. 

For some, however, the growth might be a matter of what seed was available. Last fall, foreseeing an ethanol-induced planting boom, seed companies sent their hottest seedstocks (likely the majority of them with GMO traits) to South America to grow out even more seed for this season. Even so, this spring seed dealers across the Midwest literally sold out of corn, meaning in many cases farmers bought—and plan to plant—whatever they could get their hands on.

Are GM Crops Behind the Bee Collapse?

The collapse of bee populations has been in the news lately, but a recent thread has suggested that this may be the result of genetically modified crops. Der Spiegel in Germany reports (March 22): "No one knows what is causing the bees to perish, but some experts believe that the large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could be a factor."

How so? GM crops have been created by inserting the gene of a bacterial insecticide - Bt - so that they resist certain pests. But the pollen also contains Bt and bees pick it up. One study found a relationship between the Bt toxin and bee deaths. Der Spiegel says:

The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.

According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."

Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.

Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money."

How Transparency Works

By Samuel Fromartz

I just read three pieces that show the power of transparency in the food system.

First was the op-ed in the Times I missed yesterday on the conditions of sows in the pork industry (should we call it the pig industry?). Nicolette Hahn Niman points out that Smithfield Farm recently decided to stop using gestation cages which "virtually immobilize pigs during their pregnancies in metal stalls so narrow they are unable to turn around."

Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America’s hog farms.

Of the 60 million pigs in the United States, over 95 percent are continuously confined in metal buildings, including the almost five million sows in crates. In such setups, feed is automatically delivered to animals who are forced to urinate and defecate where they eat and sleep. Their waste festers in large pits a few feet below their hooves. Intense ammonia and hydrogen sulfide fumes from these pits fill pigs’ lungs and sensitive nostrils. No straw is provided to the animals because that would gum up the works (as it would if you tossed straw into your toilet).

You get the picture. I saw another email on how this sort of knowledge is affecting producers - in this case, in the dairy industry. The source was Dairy Line, a trade publisher for milk producers.

They are concerned that "well-funded activists" are raising questions about rBST, the synthetic growth hormone that pumps up milk production (and reduces the productive lifespan of cows). They blame the activists, but the fact is, consumers are voting for rBST-free milk with their wallets the more they hear about the issue.

Eat GM Rice, But Don't Grow It

You can eat unapproved genetically modified rice, but don't try to grow it.

So says the USDA, according to a story from Dow Jones reporter Bill Tomson published Monday (subscription required).

The USDA banned planting of Clearfield CL131 rice that was apparently contaminated by an unapproved strain of genetically modified rice. The ban applies to seeds produced in 2005-2007.

Now the USDA is moving toward a food safety assessment for the unapproved rice. "We're still coordinating with the (Food and Drug Administration) to get some sort of determination ... on safety," USDA Under Secretary Bruce Knight said.

In the meantime, there's no prohibition on allowing grain from those seeds into the food supply.

Thomas Sim, a director at USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Services, told Dow Jones any material "not intended for seed" and "in the channels to be milled" will not be affected by the ban. The rice produced last year from Clearfield CL131 seeds is not distinguishable at the mills.

GMO Seed Sales Halted

A federal judge Monday threw out the USDA's approval of genetically engineered alfalfa and issued a temporary injunction to halt sales of the seed.

The unprecedented ruling follows a hearing last week in the case brought by the Center for Food Safety against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for approving GE alfalfa without conducting the required Environmental Impact Statement.

While Monsanto and its allies claimed that delaying the sale or planting of their GE seed would harm farmers, the judge found otherwise. “Disappointment in the delay to their switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa is not an interest which outweighs the potential environmental harm…” posed by the GE crop, he wrote.

The LA Times reports:

The seeds ... are now in their second season of use. Such genetically engineered seeds are grown in 200,000 of the nation's 23 million acres of alfalfa, widely grown for hay and animal grazing.

The seeds were re-engineered so that alfalfa plants can resist the ill effects of another Monsanto product, a widely used herbicide known by the trade name of Roundup. As a result, some farmers say, they can get greater crop yield and better quality alfalfa.

California is the nation's No. 1 alfalfa producer with about 1 million acres under cultivation. The state's 2004 harvest was worth $853 million.

The ban will remain in effect until the judge considers lifting it or making it permanent. Monsanto is banking on increasing the acreage by convincing federal Judge Charles R. Breyer at an April hearing that farmers can use so-called Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds without contaminating neighboring fields.