South African Council of Churches opposes import of GM wheat/Monsanto admits seeing developing countries as "prime targets"/Mexico caves in the US

Wally Green, biotechnology regulatory manager for Monsanto South Africa "admitted that Monsanto views developing countries as prime targets." (item 2)

1.South African Council of Churches opposes import of GM wheat
2.Africa prime target for Monsanto
3.Mexico caves in to US on labelling
4.World treaty may become new focus for GMO debate
---

1.Decision to import GM wheat criticised
Daily Dispatch (South Africa)
2004-02-19
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2004/02/19/SouthAfrica/gimport.html

PRETORIA - The South African Council of Churches (SACC) and 38 other civil society organisations said yesterday they were opposed to the government's decision to allow the importation of genetically modified (GM) wheat into the country.

Noting the lack of conclusive studies on the impact of GM crops on human and environmental health, the protest group sent a letter to the Registrar of Genetically Modified Organisms stating: "We do not believe South Africa should be the first country to take the risk to allow GM wheat (seeds or seeds for milling) if the social, environmental and economic impact is of such concern to the rest of the world."

It raised concerns that South Africa would become the dumping ground for GM crops and a gateway for their distribution to other parts of the continent.

The SACC urged the government to declare a moratorium on the import and growing of GM wheat pending more thorough study and debate.

The signatories called for an urgent national summit on GM organisms with countries such as Zambia, India and Canada to assess the long-term impact of GM organisms on seed stock, land fertility, biodiversity, food security and health.

"The government should, at the very least, follow the precautionary principle... and not fast-track a technology that is still inadequately tested," they warned.
---

2.Easy pickings - GMOs in Africa
Mail & Guardian (South Africa): 2004-02-05
http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=30640
Ufrieda Ho

Sub-Saharan Africa is a potentially rosy market for GM seed companies. (Photo: Nadine Hutton)

More red flags are going up over genetically modified (GM) foods flooding the African market without the necessary collective bio-safety precautions or technological capacity being in place.

A few weeks ago ("GM giants pin hopes on Africa") environmentalists raised concerns that GM seed giant Monsanto was trying to penetrate the continent by using South Africa as the springboard. GM supporters continue to dispute this, but just days after publication Monsanto placed a notice in a South Afri-can newspaper announcing its application for a commodity clearance permit for GM wheat with the director of genetic resources at the Department of Agriculture.

South Africa is a net importer of wheat and had to import 1,2-million tonnes of the grain last year. Sub-Saharan Africa imports about 10-million tonnes a year, making the continent a potentially rosy market for the likes of Monsanto.

Environmental lawyer and founder of the African Centre for Bio-Safety Mariam Mayet said: "This is an obvious pre-emptive bid by Monsanto to create a much-needed market for its GM wheat, because none exist anywhere in the world. It's a hugely disingenuous move by Monsanto and belies the fact that Monsanto is struggling to obtain commercial approval for GM wheat in the United States and Canada."

In contrast to the frosty reception in the US, Canada and Europe, South Africa - with its elastic laws and pitted consumer awareness - is easy pickings for transnational seed companies, say the anti-GM environmentalists.

"It has always been the anti-GM environmentalists' contention that the Genetically Modified Organisms [GMO] Act functions not like a biosafety regime, but as a means to enable GM companies to speedily release their GMOs into our environment and for the unrestricted trade in GMOs to take place," Mayet said.

She said that under the GMO Act the GM wheat will be assessed for human consumption and animal feed. This will eventually allow importers of wheat to import wheat grain that may contain kernels of Roundup Ready Wheat (Monsanto's GM brand).

The permit will allow for a once-off import of the GM wheat, but all subsequent importers can ride on this permit to clear their imports.

Mayet said this is in direct conflict with guidelines set out by the internationally recognised Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which South Africa is a signatory.

Mayet slammed the government for failing to follow a transparent approval process. "The only thing that is transparent is the ad that the companies place. After we place our objections with the Department of Agriculture we are not given any information on the process or who sits on the committees. Civil society has also not been invited to have our experts on their committees."

The government continues to maintain that the GMO Act and the approval processes are thorough enough to ensure that the safety of humans, animals and the environment is given due consideration. There is no clarity as to when Monsanto's clearance permit will be approved.

Wally Green, biotechnology regulatory manager for Monsanto South Africa, said the application for the permit is purely an act of pre-planning and does not mean an imminent introduction of GM wheat in South Africa.

Currently there is no country in the world where GM wheat has been given the nod for commercialisation.

"We are applying for the permit on behalf of importers because we have the technical information that the regulatory bodies in South Africa require to make the assessment," said Green.

He said they only expect the intensive assessments and trials for commercialism in Canada and the US to be completed by around 2007.

Monsanto has applied for similar GM wheat clearance permits in Australia and Mexico and, according to Green, 14 other countries are also on the list. He admitted that Monsanto views developing countries as prime targets. "We think the technology has many benefits for developing countries because the high-technology is in the seed."
---

3. Mexico to drop genetic labelling
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1543333-6098-0,00.html
Business Day - 2004-02-13

MEXICO CITY Mexico has become the first importer country to agree to adopt US-backed standards for labelling genetically modified grains, a move activists said this week was a violation of Mexican law and a threat to native maize varieties.

The pact appeared to mark a victory for the US position in favour of loosening or dropping label requirements, and suggested that Mexico had not only been won over entirely on the issue, but had also agreed to help the US lobby for such rules in world forums.

In October last year, Mexico signed a tripartite agreement with the US and Canada another big grain exporter and user of biotech crops which allows into Mexico maize shipments with as much as 5% of genetically modified organisms with a label that says only that the shipments "may contain" genetically modified organisms.

Several African states facing food shortages have refused modified maize as food aid, sparking criticism.

By contrast, the latest proposal from the European Union would set a maximum of 0,3% to 0,7% of genetically modified content for foods.

"Many countries around the world have rejected this type of (labelling) agreement," said Alejandro Calvillo, of Greenpeace Mexico.  "Why has Mexico, the country where corn originated, accepted it?" he asked.
---

4.World treaty may become new focus for GMO debate
REUTERS
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KLR183430.htm
19 Feb 2004 01:29:57 GMT

"While a main U.S. concern is to resume shipping GM grain to Europe, this trade could be squeezed by the rules of the U.N. Cartagena Protocol, which aims for transparency in GMO trade.

Signatory countries now number more than 80 and will meet this month in Malaysia to discuss how to implement the protocol, their first meeting since it came into force in September.

The protocol obliges exporters to provide more information about GM products like maize and soybeans before any shipment to recipient countries, to help them decide whether to accept it.

Under its provisions, a nation may reject GMO imports or donations -- even without scientific proof -- if it fears they pose a danger to traditional crops, undermine local cultures or cut the value of biodiversity to indigenous communities.

U.S. officials say they want to see proper implementation of the protocol by its signatories, in line with WTO rules. If not, this would harm trade and could be challenged.

"We are certainly very concerned that there could be disruption of trade if the implementation of the protocol isn't done properly," a U.S. government official said.

"If there is some way that the parties implement the protocol that is inconsistent with the provisions of the WTO, then we would certainly want to have that addressed at the WTO."

Although many African nations are prone to food shortages, countries like Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique have voiced concerns about accepting GM maize donations -- saying GMOs have not been fully tested for environmental or health effects.

CAN U.S. EXPORTERS COMPLY?

The United States, where most GMOs originate, has not signed the Cartagena agreement and looks unlikely to do so in the short term, insisting GMOs are no different from natural organisms.

Along with major GMO exporters Canada, Australia and Argentina, the United States says GM crops are safe, can increase yields and resist destructive pests.

But the EU takes a diametrically opposed view and has introduced tough rules on traceability and labeling of GMOs in foods and animal feed that go beyond the Cartagena requirements.
---

"Ahead of the planned policy statement to parliament, there was merit in preparing the ground with key MPs, particularly those with an interest in science or food security in developing countries." http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1151184,00.html Edited extracts of the minutes of a cabinet sub-committee discussion on GM crops in Britain involving the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, on February 11  

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive