» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


WEEKLY WATCH number 114 (10/3/2005)

from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all:

A majority of the European Union's Member States sent a powerful signal today to the Commission that they are getting their policy wrong on GMOs. (EUROPE)

But what wouldn't the biotech industry do in order to get its products approved by governments? We've seen in recent weeks how Monsanto resorted to systematic bribery in Indonesia. Now come reports from India of government-industry fraud. It's alleged that data was tampered with to boost GM cotton yield figures and defraud farmers of compensation. (ASIA)

It's also hard to imagine how the Indian government can possibly justify its crazy expansion of GM cotton plantings. As one farmers' leader put it, "Farmers have suffered heavy losses on account of cultivation of approved varieties of Bt cotton, for which the seed company is liable to pay compensation. Without addressing this, how can GEAC give approval for commercial cultivation of six new varieties of Bt cotton?" (ASIA)

Don't miss our story about an important and revealing new report on the real motives behind American food aid to Africa (AFRICA).

In response to subscriber requests, I'm experimenting with a new Question and Answer section (Q & A). If you have a question and can't find the answer on our website, send it to me. I'll publish a selection, in the hope that some knowledgeable person will enlighten us. This section belongs to you, and will only work with the active participation of both questioners and answerers - so whether you're among the baffled or the boffins, please get on those keyboards!

Claire [email protected]
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
LOBBYWATCH
EUROPE
THE AMERICAS
ASIA
COMPANY NEWS
WTO LATEST
WORLDWIDE ACTION
Q & A
URGENT ACTION REQUEST RE BRAZIL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ FEEDING THE FAMINE? NEW REPORT ON US FOOD AID IN AFRICA
American food aid containing GM maize sent to Southern Africa during the 2002 food crisis had little to do with ending famine and much to do with promoting GM in Southern Africa. By demanding that countries accept US food aid unconditionally in an effort to promote its own foreign policy and commercial objectives, the US policy actually exacerbated the food crisis. Thus argues an important and very readable new report, "Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa".

Here are a couple of telling quotes from the report:

"Food is a tool. It is a weapon in the US negotiating kit" - former US Secretary of Agriculture

"For Washington, the choice was simple: Either accept US food aid unconditionally, or allow your population to starve."

The report concludes that US food aid policy in the crisis followed a tradition of using "food power" to achieve US policy objectives. In this case it was intended to promote the adoption of biotech crops in Southern Africa, expanding the market access and control of transnational corporations and undermining local smallholder production thereby fostering greater food insecurity on the continent.

3 specific American policy objectives affecting the crisis that the report identifies were: surplus disposal, market development, and foreign policy considerations.

Surplus Disposal: Following the introduction of genetically modified maize in the United States in 1996, maize exports to Europe collapsed. From a peak of 3,513 million metric tons in 1995, total maize exports to the EU collapsed to just 26 million metric tons by 2002 (USDA, 2003). The increased competition for European markets from non-GM producers left the US with large quantities of surplus maize which it was unable to sell on international markets. Export to Africa under the banner of food aid conveniently disposed of the growing maize surplus.

Market Development: USAID has a long history of promoting agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Indeed, the agency has made it its mission to "assist developing countries in building the framework for decision- making that will facilitate access to these opportunities the science [of biotechnology] holds and will ensure the safe and effective application of this technology" (USAID, 2003). However, Africa has been at the forefront of challenging the expansion of agricultural biotechnology, and especially of the proprietary system of patent rights that surrounds it - opposition most clearly articulated in the African Model Law on plant genetic resources (Zerbe, 2003). But, for USAID, the food crisis represented an opportunity to expand the promotion of biotechnology on the continent. Faced with the choice of importing GM food aid or allowing their populations to starve, USAID was banking on the governments of Southern Africa choosing GM food.

Foreign Policy Objectives: As noted above, US biotech corporations had been locked out of Europe since the EU imposed its moratorium on the approval of new GM crops. With no sign of the moratorium being lifted, the United States chose to pursue a more aggressive strategy. In exporting unmilled GM maize to Africa, the US was hoping (indeed banking) on cross-pollination with domestic varieties. If Europe had no alternative, non-GM sources of food, it would be unable to resist biotechnology. Furthermore, the more countries cultivating GM crops, the more likely US pressure on the European Union (either backdoor diplomacy or public pressure through the World Trade Organization) would be successful. Either way, European markets would again be opened to US maize exports.

The report was written by Noah Zerbe, Department of Government and Politics, Humboldt State University, USA; and the Center for Philosophy of Law, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium
LINK TO PDF FOR THE FULL REPORT: http://www.geocities.com/nzerbe/pubs/famine.pdf
EXCERPTS:
"food power" - guiding mythology for US foreign policy
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4963
report's conclusions
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4968

+ HOW ZAMBIA IS FACING DOWN THE US OVER GM SEEDS
In 2002, in the midst of drought and severe food shortage, the president of Zambia rejected the US's offer of GM maize. Was that a responsible decision? In an inspiring article, Peter Henriot, director of the Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection in Lusaka, Zambia, looks at the evidence.

EXCERPT:
Mutale, a 40-year-old Zambian peasant farmer, was standing in front of his two hectares of maize (corn), smiling broadly. He had just finished explaining to me that despite poor rains, he was able to raise a good crop to feed his family and to sell a bit of surplus for some extra cash to meet household needs. He looked so very different from the other farmers I had spoken to only a few days earlier. They were his neighbors, worked soil similar to his, and had experienced the same dry season. But they were not at all smiling! No good maize harvest for them.

The difference was that Mutale had planted his maize field using an organic agriculture approach, not relying on heavy doses of chemical fertilizer as his neighbors did. The organic agriculture approach - using cattle manure and decayed materials from nitrogen-rich plants such as legumes - was both much less expensive and much more efficient...

The smile on Mutale's face taught me one more important reason for the wisdom of Zambia's rejection of GM crops coming into our country. There simply are plenty of alternatives

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive