Thanks to Robert Vint for two excellent pieces from the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR).

EXTRACT: Christine Allen, CIIR executive director, said, 'It is incredibly worrying that an organisation with such authority as FAO is espousing an argument that is, in essence, legitimising the agenda of transnational corporations. Our partners tell us that the introduction of GM crops in these countries will endanger small farmers' livelihoods, undermine poor people's ability to feed themselves and increase the pressures on already damaged and vulnerable environments.' (item 1)

1.CIIR refutes claims that GM crops could reduce world hunger
2.Philippines: resistance to GM takes root
-------

1.CIIR refutes claims that GM crops could reduce world hunger
Catholic Institute for International Relations
29 6 2004
http://www.ciir.org/ciir.asp?section=news&page=story&ID=1093

CIIR has co-signed a letter criticising a recent report from the Food and Agricultural Association of the UN (FAO) for promoting genetic engineering of seeds as the answer to world hunger and poverty.

The letter, signed by 670 organisations and more than 800 individuals around the world, was circulated on the Internet before being presented to FAO's director general Jacques Diouf on 16 June.

The letter expresses outrage and dismay that a FAO report, 'Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?' is being used as a 'public relations exercise to support the biotechnology industry' and says: 'Hunger in the world is growing again despite the fact that global per capita food production has been higher than ever before.'

In response to the letter, Mr Diouf defended FAO's pro-biotechnology stance, saying that although he 'always maintained' that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are 'not needed to achieve the World Food Summit objective' of halving hunger by 2015, they would be needed to cope with a projected world population increase from six to nine billion by 2050, requiring 60 per cent more food.

Christine Allen, CIIR executive director, said: 'It is incredibly worrying that an organisation with such authority as FAO is espousing an argument that is, in essence, legitimising the agenda of transnational corporations. Our partners tell us that the introduction of GM crops in these countries will endanger small farmers' livelihoods, undermine poor people's ability to feed themselves and increase the pressures on already damaged and vulnerable environments.'

She added: 'Food insecurity cannot be solved by technological fixes. If we are to help poor farmers in developing countries, we need to take a close look at the real causes behind poverty, such as social and economic inequalities. Undoubtedly, technology has an important role to play but it needs to be economically, culturally and environmentally appropriate. Without political solutions, no food crisis can ever be solved by technology alone. It will merely exacerbate the divisions between the rich and poor - whether they be industrialists or small scale farmers.'

CIIR believes the gene revolution is based on costly, elite, industry-dominated research using patented technologies. Only one company, Monsanto, owns the GM seed technology sown over 90 per cent of the total world area dedicated to GM farming. Five companies make up nearly all of the transgenic seed market and FAO should not support this unprecedented dependence of farmers on agribusiness.

Ms Allen said: 'Most farmers in developing countries struggle to afford even the most basic inputs and cannot always afford to buy seeds each growing season. Their food security is dependent on selecting, saving and sharing seeds from year to year - an age-old practice that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.
------

2.Philippines: resistance to GM takes root
Catholic Institute for International Relations
21 6 2004
http://www.ciir.org/ciir.asp?section=news&page=story&ID=1091

Although the controversy around genetically modified (GM) food is no longer as prominent in the headlines these days, the battle between pro-GM and anti-GM continues to rage behind closed doors. In the Philippines, like many other places in the world, the conflict centres on the use of seed by small peasant farmers.

Forty-six per cent of Filipinos live in rural areas, and many of these are small farmers with between half and one hectare of land. They generally grow just enough to feed themselves and their families – yet increasingly the large transnational biotechnology corporations are targeting them with new GM seed.

Rice, for instance, does not normally contain Vitamin A or its precursor, beta-carotene. But a group of European scientists have spent the last decade trying to change this. According to a document researched and published by a group of Asian non-governmental organisations (NGOs), 'Grains of Delusion: golden rice seen from the ground', two scientists from Germany and Switzerland have managed to insert two genes from a daffodil and one from a bacterium into Taipei 309, a variety of rice, to engineer a 'beta-carotene pathway' and genetically modify the rice.

They named it 'golden rice' and signed a deal with pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, 'which agreed to waive technological fees to enable the development of the rice for "humanitarian" purposes,' according to the NGO report. Biotech firm Monsanto, at the centre of worldwide controversy in the late 1990s around its aggressive promotion of GM, 'jumped on the bandwagon by announcing royalty-free licences for any of its technologies used to further the development of rice'.

According to the biotech lobby, GM crops such as golden rice will solve problems of famine and malnutrition. Backed by powerful international institutions, such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), they vigorously try to convince governments such as in the Philippines of the advantages of GM. For instance, GM could provide a cheap and effective solution to Vitamin A deficiency in poor, rice-eating countries where Vitamin supplements are not readily available.

The Filipino government is allowing the commercialisation of GM. Already 20,000 hectares of cultivation are planned.

Yet resistance among farmers and NGOs is growing, according to Elizabeth Cruzada, the national coordinator for MASIPAG, a Filipino NGO that works with small farmers and that was part of the group that wrote the report on golden rice. This year’s MASIPAG general assembly, for instance, will include a mock trial of Monsanto, seen as a key player in the GM battle in the Philippines.

MASIPAG was created in 1985 by a group of NGO workers – including CIIR Asia regional manager Rolando Modina before he joined CIIR – who were deeply concerned by the plight of small farmers. Productivity was dropping and farmers were increasingly concerned about their future. So MASIPAG was set up to help farmers improve their farming techniques. It brought together NGOs, farmers and scientists in a 'tripartite arrangement', says Mr Modina today.

As explained in a book on MASIPAG published in 2003 by CIIR, 'Regaining the Land: lessons from small farmers in the Philippines', MASIPAG's work is based on farmer-to-farmer training, recognising that the real farming experts are the farmers themselves, not the NGOs or scientists.

MASIPAG runs trial farms were farmers can test out different varieties of rice to see which would be the most appropriate for their environment: they test out the rice’s resistance to insects, its response to the soil, and other factors. They also receive training on how to manage their land the most effectively without the use of chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides. The more advanced farmers become rice breeders to develop more productive varieties of rice.

Although the rice they grow is not necessarily more productive than the rice grown by other farmers, the impact on their livelihoods is immense. Ms Cruzada says: 'There's a visible difference when you compare MASIPAG farmers to conventional chemical farmers. They don't have to pay for the expensive chemicals, so they’re not in debt, while the others sometimes have to sell their land to pay their debts back.'

Their land is also healthier and, a non-negligible factor, they regain a sense of dignity and confidence in their farming techniques, Ms Cruzada adds. According to an external evaluation carried out in 1999 and published in 2000, MASIPAG has worked with 30,000 farmers.

MASIPAG is also concerned by the consequences of GM on health. Last July, an indigenous Filipino community known as the B'laan was hit by a major outbreak of sickness in which around 100 people became seriously ill. MASIPAG took blood samples from the sick, which were then tested by the Gene Ecology Institute of Norway, a partner of MASIPAG.

The results were deeply worrying. The blood samples had high levels of anti-bodies linked to the modified genes in the GM corn. This was a first worldwide and contradicted the constant assurances of the GM lobby that there was no proven health risk from GM.

Now MASIPAG is trying to set up a Gene Ecology Institute in the Philippines to study in more detail the impact of GM on people’s health and the environment.

The main problem centres on the government's attitude towards basic products such as rice, the staple food in the Philippines. Ms Cruzada says: 'For the government, food security means having enough food regardless of where it comes from.' Indeed, the Philippines is a net importer of rice.

She adds: 'Rice is a political commodity. People here will riot if they don’t have enough rice. The government is giving away our food sovereignty without even being aware of its implications. For the government, only the economy counts.'

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive