PAKISTAN: NEW THREAT TO FOOD SECURITY

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PAKISTAN: New Threat to our food security as MNCs trying to control food supply

TAHIR HASNAIN

Tahir Hasnain is a veteran researcher, writer and development practitioner serving the non-government development sector from two decades. Currently he works with Shirkat Gah as Programme Manager, Environment & Livelihood. He can be contacted at – tahir@khi.sgah.org.pk

The right to food is a basic Human Right and the government has to protect right of its peoples to produce and consume food for themselves, rather than on the dictates of market and corporations. In spite of that, some multi-national corporations are currently attempting to achieve the ability to command what we eat. According to recent news appeared in Daily Dawn on 28th July 2013[1], "multi-national companies including Monsanto and Syngenta have approached the Ministry of Food Security for seeking licenses to raise genetically-modified food products in Pakistan. The Ministry of Climate Change had also established a committee to review the requests of these companies and it was yet to take a final decision regarding the establishment of their plants in Pakistan".

The issue in fact needs our serious attention seeing as some multi-national companies (MNCs) want to take over our biodiversity and the food crops. Being agent of neo colonialism, Monsanto (a $58 billion multinational corporation) is using genetically modified food crops as a tool to have absolute control over the food supply. Monsanto has patents on all their created GM seeds and therefore they essentially own that food crops. But this is very dangerous for a country like Pakistan. How can a multi-national company own food whose only interest is profit?

Genetic modification is generally advocated for potential benefits but there is concern about their potential impact on human health and environment. GM crops carry inbuilt toxic pesticide which may pose risks to humans, livestock, other birds/animals, and the environment. Monsanto uses GM seeds which are not properly tested and no long-term tests have been done. According to a news report [2], independent studies of GM foods have shown rats to get various cancers. This study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by the regulators.

So far, small farmers have very much been affected. In India, for instance, Monsanto promised millions of farmers of unheard harvests if they switch from traditional seeds to planting GM seeds[3]. People borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds but when their harvests failed, they were left with soaring debts. As a result, thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops. Additionally, Monsanto destroys farmer's lives by suing them if there is even a trace of GM crop growing found on their land; no matter if it had come from an adjacent GM farm.

The debate on GM food and corporate control over food supply is complex and has many dimensions. This article though does permit to go into a lengthy history or scientific details; let me answer some of the basic questions concerning GM foods asked by concerned friends and colleagues.

Why is GM such a dirty word? What about countries like USA where such crops are being grown?

Too many folks, genetic modification is unethical and it's an act against nature. Genetic modification (GM) means artificial fusion of genes of two different species, and if GM is allowed at liberty, it is feared that it will contaminate all our precious genetic resources leading to genetic pollution. Environmentalists and the biologists confirm that whenever we mess around with nature, it comes back with serious consequences to humans and the planet in general. Earlier, the green revolution technologies were also unnatural and have now proved to be economically and ecologically unsustainable. Countries like USA have a problem as it heavily depends on corporate farming. The corporate sector, for their expansion, control and bigger profits, is basically coming up with all these nasty technologies. Monsanto is a US based company and a leading producer of genetically engineered seeds. Their other GM products in pine line are rather more devastating. Many strong resistance movements are going on even within USA and worldwide. Other countries like India are following GM technologies due to many specific reasons but with strong resistance in their countries from the civil society.

How can GM food companies (like Monsanto) take over our food supply?

Worldwide concern is being raised that the ultimate monopoly of Monsanto would be control of the world's food supply. Monsanto has patents on most of the GM seeds and farmers are not allowed to save seeds for their next crop; farmers have to buy seeds every time. If they control seed, they actually control food. If this continues for some years, farmers will eventually be devoid of local seeds and will be totally depending on seeds from Monsanto. Now if Monsanto eventually demands high price of the seed or comes up with "terminator seeds", farmers would have no choice except buying Monsanto's seeds. This is how the Monsanto would ultimately have absolute control over the food supply of a country. And Monsanto, being such a gigantic corporation, very easily influences our policies, research institutions and the market system. It uses media and other market forces aggressively for the promotion of its products. The US Consulates also play hidden role in favor of their company.

What lessons can be learnt from India which allowed GM crops but have now put a moratorium on it?

For Pakistan, I think India is the best example to learn lessons because the technology has been challenged there from every aspect with concrete evidences. And despite substantial influence of Monsanto over the decision makers, the Indian Government has recently decided to hold it for a while. A number of papers and stories in this regard are available on-line and one can make a comprehensive policy brief for the Government of Pakistan against GM foods and Monsanto.

India is though more favorite seed market for Monsanto but Pakistan is also a poor populous country and is more vulnerable to bullying tactics of Monsanto. As a matter of fact, Monsanto has already penetrated into our research institutes and many dubious research trials and papers are being produced in favor of GM seeds of Monsanto. I have been part of the process of formulating "bio-safety guidelines for GMOs" during 1990s and we, on behalf of civil society networks, strongly objected the presence of representatives of Monsanto in the decision making process. A protest rally was also held in Islamabad.

In the backdrop of this, we need strong resistance through farmers, consumers, CSOs and the media to prevent our government from approving licenses to produce GM food in Pakistan. Government seems to be very vulnerable; partly because Monsanto presents Government Officials so many lucrative opportunities in the shape of projects and foreign trips, in addition to using Consulate pressures; and partly because of ignorance and presence of feudal lords in the Parliament who take care of their own interests rather than welfare of the masses.

Let's resist Monsanto, which is the most evil and unethical corporation in the world.

FDA, 'Natural' and GMO products

Will the FDA take a stance on “natural” claims for GMO products?

A California federal court judge hopes that the Food and Drug Administration is ready to take a stance on “natural” advertising claims for genetically modified organisms. He issued an order in July to refer the issue to the agency.

The order arose from a consumer class action filed by Elizabeth Cox against Gruma Corporation. Cox alleged that the company falsely advertised its tortilla chips, among other products, as “All Natural,” even though they contained corn grown from bioengineered, genetically modified seeds.

Gruma responded with a motion to dismiss based upon primary jurisdiction, a doctrine that allows a court to stay proceedings “pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency.” The doctrine normally applies to matters of first impression or in a case with a particularly complicated issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the defendant that the expertise of the FDA – to which Congress granted regulatory authority over food labeling – was required under the facts of the case.

The agency has separately issued nonbinding industry guidance on bioengineered foods and the use of “natural” labels. In January 2001, the FDA wrote that it was “not aware of any data or other information that would form a basis for concluding that the fact that a food or its ingredients was produced using bioengineering is a material fact that must be disclosed. . . . FDA is therefore reaffirming its decision to not require special labeling of all bioengineered foods.” Previously, in 1993, the agency interpreted the term “natural” on labels to mean “nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.”

However, Rogers wrote, the FDA “has not addressed, even informally, the question of whether foods containing GMO or bioengineered ingredients may be labeled ‘natural’ or ‘all natural,’ or whether GMO or bioengineered ingredients would be considered ‘artificial or synthetic.’ ”

“Under these circumstances, deference to the FDA’s regulatory authority is the appropriate course,” the court concluded. “Therefore. . . this Court refers to the FDA, for an administrative determination, the question of whether and under what circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using bioengineered seed may or may not be labeled ‘Natural’ or ‘All Natural’ or ‘100% Natural.’ ”

Judge Rogers stayed the action for six months from the date of the order, a time that could be extended. LEXOLOGY

CARE2: MONSANTO STOCK IN DANGER, INVESTOR WARNS

Monsanto Stock in Danger, Investor Warns

I was shocked to read a story in Canada’s highly conservative national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, a couple of days ago in which well-known investor and columnist Chris Umiastowski, P.Eng., MBA, warned of the risk in holding Monsanto stock.  It was refreshing to read the views of an investor who is not just concerned about the bottom line but also the potential health and environmental risks in such a conservative paper. I knew that this was a victory-of-sorts for all of us who share a concern over the increasingly genetically-modified nature of our food supply.

In his column, “Monsanto:  A food stock with a bad aftertaste,” he shares: “it’s just as important to know what stocks to avoid as it is to know which ones to invest in. Most growth trends don’t last forever and you don’t want to be stuck holding the bag when growth disappears or reverses.” Here is an investor who is recognizing the “battle raging between consumers and Monsanto” that could leave fallout for investors left holding the bag when consumers take back their right to know what is contained in the food they eat.

While labelling of GM-foods is not legally required in Canada or in the United States, consumer groups are gradually certifying an increasing number of foods as “GM-Free” as a way to take back a right that regulators are not recognizing that we deserve. Consumers are waging a peaceful revolution against Monsanto and other GM-food suppliers as well as the government agencies that turn a blind eye to the environmental and health ramifications of GM-foods and crops. As an aside:  European governments have been more progressive in recognizing the human right to know when our food supply has been tampered with and many countries there consider labeling of GM foods standard practice.

But back to the article I read:  This investor admits that he normally writes about technology stocks and trends, adding “you may not realize that what we feed ourselves and our families has a lot of biotechnology baked into it.” Corn, soy, canola, and many other crops are increasingly genetically-modified. Even tomatoes are turning into Frankenfoods at the hands of agribusiness (Check out my article 11 Reasons to Love Tomatoes, no genetically-engineering is not one of them).

Mr. Umiastowski adds that “the trend will be toward more ingredient labeling, not less. And, this poses a big danger to Monsanto.”  Equally important, he continues, “personally, I’d rather own a business that is not only growing at a solid clip, but feels good to hold in my portfolio.  For me, Monsanto doesn‘t cut it.”

Most of these thoughts may not sound like news to environmentalists and health-conscious readers of Care2.com, but having both a top national investor and a leading conservative paper publish these views is what makes this article stand out for me.

And since not enough people are really aware of the stocks held in their pension plans, mutual funds, and other investment portfolios, it’s a call to action to literally, put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. CARE2

GMO FOOD: EU Trade Deal

EU Trade Deal Talks Stumbling Because Of Irrational Paranoia About GMO Food

The U.S. and EU want to strike a trade deal. The two economies make up 45% of the world's GDP. The results could change the world. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIPS), as it is known, is expected to nibble at protectionist restrictions on trade.

But significant changes are at risk. Europe's devotion to unscientific GMO regulations pose a regrettable obstacle.

The problem Europeans have is this: the United States's health and safety regulations are more lenient. Europeans are, perhaps understandably, wary of U.S. requests to strip significant regulations. Some worry this could ultimately compromise the safety and health of European consumers.

But unsubstantiated information drives the regulation of genetically modified foods.

According to Reason Magazine, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that said "No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." International Council for Science, the World Health Organization, and the European Commission all released similar reports.

There are a countless instances where GMO opponents have distorted the facts. One French study found that feeding rats genetically-modified corn induced cancer. The scientific community rejected the study, pointing at manipulated data, the secretiveness of the study, and the lead author's crooked reputation (and well, several other factors).

Most evidence says that GMOs are perfectly safe. The "GMO Scare" relies on misinformation and questionable science. But their safety remains a feverishly controversial topic. The half-truths are circulated widely and people continue to hold an irrational fear of GMOs.

Europe currently restricts the import of genetically altered foods from the U.S., like "hormone-treated beef, pork produced from hormone-fed pigs, and genetically-modified corn and soybeans." Internally, it requires GMO labeling. François Hollande, president of France, says he refuses to budge on the issue. (But then again, France has a large agricultural sector it seeks to protect.)

Other European policymakers firmly oppose lifting barriers.

Some argue that the EU is more concerned about public health and safety. Corporate Europe, a publication dedicated to "exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU" has launched a campaign called Stop the Crop. In addition to questioning the safety of GM foods, Corporate Europe Observatory argues that this is a "unique opportunity for big business."

The Christian Science Monitor ascribes these dissimilar approaches to GMOs to cultural differences. Europeans think Americans are too anti-regulation and that americans support big business interests above the safety of citizens.

The talks are expected to take a while. Policymakers hope to strike a deal by fall of next year. Hopefully GMO-related concerns will not continue to beleaguer the process. Substantial, necessary changes are are at risk of melting away, or producing lackluster results, because of overblown, irresponsible disagreements.

Trade is awesome. Topple the barriers and let us reap the benefits.POLICYMIC

GMO Labels: The market is deciding on GMO labels

The Market is deciding on GMO labels

No one wants to take a risk with their food.

Nothing profound about that. But it helps explain any number of regulatory controversies, including whether to require labels on genetically modified foods.

The marketplace may be settling the issue right now. That’s fine with us as the question seems to be one of preference rather than science.

Consider two recent articles in the paper in balancing concerns about genetic engineering and its role in preserving foods that might otherwise disappear from our tables.

The first story celebrated the resurgence of the Bodega Red potato. This was one of Sonoma County’s first cash crops in the 1850s, but it was all but extinct by the late 20th century because of blight and poor farming practices.

As Staff Writer Diane Peterson explained, the comeback of the spud that gave Spud Point its name began with an anonymous donor who provided a half-dozen tiny tubers in response to a call several years ago by Slow Food Sonoma County North, a group that promotes alternatives to fast food.

The potatoes were sent to a U.S. Department of Agriculture research lab in Washington for genetic fingerprinting. Then the Bodega Red was regenerated minus the virus that threatened to wipe it out.

“Pure Potato in Washington state did a tissue culture,” Elissa Rubin-Mahon told Peterson. “They grow them in the petri dish, then they cut out anything that doesn’t belong.”

The second story involves Florida citrus, a billion dollar crop threatened by a disease that sours oranges and leaves them half green.

“In all of cultivated citrus, there is no evidence of immunity,” the plant pathologist heading a National Research Council task force on the disease told the New York Times.

For now, growers are combating the threat by spraying more pesticides, an approach that also has critics among consumers just as GMOs do.

In the long run, some growers believe, the only way to save Florida’s citrus industry is genetically engineering orange trees to resist the disease.

The question is, will consumers accept GMO orange juice? Or Bodega Red potatoes? Or any of hundreds of other products?

As a matter of health and safety, the Food and Drug Administration says there isn’t any evidence of different or greater risks associated with foods developed through bioengineering.

Still, some consumers want to avoid bioengineered foods. And there is a movement to require labels to include whether any food product or its ingredients have been genetically modified.

California voters rejected such a measure last year, but legislation is pending in several states and Congress to require labeling.

For now, however, the market is ahead of the regulators. Whole Foods announced in March that it would require labeling of any GMO products on its shelves, and Trader Joe’s said food sold under its label don’t have GMOs.

If GMO-free is what consumers want, more retailers will follow. It won’t take a new law. PRESSDEMOCRAT

'GMOs to promote industrialisation'

'GMOs to promote industrialisation'


State minister for industry and technology James Mutende is hopeful that the introduction of the genetically modified foods (GMOs) would promote industrialisation through value addition.

Mutende, who was officiating at the closure of the 1st National Bio-Safety Conference at Makerere University Food Technology Centre, observed that the delayed passing of the Bio-safety and Bio technology Bills does not favour Uganda’s industrialisation.

“Industrialisation is what is moving the world forward. We are talking about improving productivity so that we can produce a lot for commercial purposes. If you have a piece of land and you are producing maize without using genetically modified seeds, you could get 1,000kg of maize, while the one who uses bio technology, which are high yielding, would end up getting 10,000kg out of the same land,” he said.

He added that the use of bio-technology will enhance job creation because farmers will be able to use high yielding resistant crops and engage in commercial production.

“Once you produce more and make it available for industries for value addition, that’s job creation and more revenue,” he said.

Mutende advised the scientists to come out and show everyone what is behind bio technology to allay people’s fears about the technology.

“There are some negative aspects because some scientists are misguided and are campaigning against the bio safety and biotech Bill yet we need it to ensure increased production and at the same time guarantee safety for all of us,” he said.

Eng. Robert Sekitooleko, the vice-chairperson of the parliamentary committee on science and technology, said it will be unfortunate for Ugandans to consume unlabelled imported genetically modified foods yet Ugandan farmers have been denied a chance to grow them.

Mukono district farmers’ coordinator Silver Nganda called for the empowerment of farmers coordinators with knowledge on bio technology to disseminate it to fellow farmers. NEWVISION

CAN WE FEED THE WORLD?

Your burning questions about GM answered

by canwefeedtheworld

Ever wanted to know if GMOs are dangerous to human health or if GMOs pose a risk to the practice of harvesting and saving heirloom seeds? Well now you can have your questions answered. A new website, GMO Answers, has been recently launched. It is an initiative aiming to respond to questions about how food is grown and to make information about GMOs in food and agriculture easier to access and understand. It is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta and supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, and National Cotton Council. Standing at the forefront of the GM market, founders of the site acknowledge that they haven’t done the best job in communicating around their work. This website gives us a chance to grill them on the things we want to know about GM. That said, is this just a PR campaign for the seed corporations and farm lobbies of the US or a desperate attempt to gain ground against the advancing activists? We’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences of using the site.

http://canwefeedtheworld.wordpress.com/

This website is an arena for new and up-to-date information related to the book 'One Billion Hungry: Can we feed the world?', authored by Professor Sir Gordon Conway with Katy Wilson. Your comments and contributions are very welcome, and encouraged.