Franken Foods: FARMERS GIVE GMOS COLD SHOULDER IN SOUTH AFRICA/ISAAA hype explod

[Guest guest]

ubject: GMW: FARMERS GIVE GMOS COLD SHOULDER IN SOUTH AFRICA/ISAAA

hype exploded - again!

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 3 May 2005 23:22:35 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

1.SA FARMERS GIVE GMOS COLD SHOULDER

2.The GM Bubble - ISAAA's inflated figures of GM crop uptake and

planting

 

" somewhere in the world this week or next a farmer will plant the 1

billionth acre of genetically enhanced crops. This is a huge milestone

for

the world, " says Dean Kleckner of Truth About Trade

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=3745

 

However, according to Val Giddings of the Biotehnology Industry

Organisation (BIO), in Washington D.C., ''We're approaching the 500

billionth

acre of crops improved by biotechnology being grown around the world, "

he claims.

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=28383

 

One billion - five hundred billion????? That's some difference!

 

WHAT'S GOING ON?

 

In fact, both of these figures might just as well be plucked out of the

air because the organisation that's sypposedly been doing the counting

- ISAAA, an industry backed lobby group - has repeatedly been exposed

as inflating the figures on global GM crop cultivation.

 

In the latest instance below, while ISAAA has been claiming 500 000 ha

are under GM cultivation in South Africa, it seems that's probably a

60% inflation of the real figure!

 

See item 2 for much more of the same.

------

1.MEDIA ADVISORY BY: SOUTH AFRICAN FREEZE ALLIANCE ON GENETIC

ENGINEERING (SAFeAGE)

 

MONSANTO GRABS SOUTHERN AFRICAN SEED MARKET BUT SA FARMERS GIVE GMOS

COLD SHOULDER

 

3 May 2005

 

Cape Town/Johannesburg, South Africa-According to research conducted by

the African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa's commercial growing of

genetically modified (GM) maize, soya and cotton has been grossly

exaggerated by the biotechnology industry for propaganda purposes.

 

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech

Applications (ISAAA), an industry supported organisation, consistently

tries to

inflate the figures of GM plantings around the world to support the

argument that GM crops are here to stay. Despite South Africa's

permissive GMO laws, Monsanto South Africa has estimated production of

its GM

maize (MON 810 and NK603) in South Africa to constitute no more than a

total of 6-7% of the area under maize, less than the ISAAA's estimate of

15-20% of GM maize grown during 2004.

 

South Africa does not produce enough cotton for domestic needs and has

to import the shortfall each year. In 2003/04 the area planted to

cotton was less than one-fifth of the area under cotton in the late

1980s.

Despite the dominance of Monsanto's GM cotton varieties, no more than 30

000 ha was planted to GM cotton in 2003, even though it represents 75%

of the cottonseed planted in that year.

 

South Africa's soyabean industry is similarly small and no more than 41

000 ha of Monsanto's GM (glysophate tolerant) soya was grown in South

Africa during 2004. However, during 2001-2005, just more than 67 000

tons of GM soya was imported for animal feed; equivalent to about 8% of

South Africa's domestic soyabean production over the same period.

 

This brings the total land under GM crops in South Africa to around 300

000 ha and not the 500 000 ha claimed by ISAAA.

 

Despite its historical status as a net exporter of maize, South Africa

has become reliant on imports from Argentina and the US of enormous

amounts of GM maize. GM maize imports during the period 1999-2005,

estimated to be in access of 2.6 million tons (MON 810, Bt11, Bt176

and TA25)

are equivalent to over 7.5% of the domestic production in South Africa

in the 2001-2004 growing seasons. Almost all GM seed imported into

South Africa contains Monsanto's technology.

 

The study also shows that South Africa is being used as a base from

which to distribute GM food aid to the region. South Africa has also

become an important country for GM seed bulking (propagating seed in

volume

for commercial use) and a base to produce GM seed for international

distribution for experimentation/consumption.

 

Alarmingly, the study shows that Monsanto, the globally dominant

company in the agrochemical, seed and agricultural biotechnology

sector has

about 45% of the South African maize seed market share and almost the

entire market share for wheat seed. In 2005, Monsanto had at least 15

yellow maize, 11 white maize, 17 wheat, 4 soybean and 5 sunflower

varieties on the market. The recent acquisition of Seminis, the global

vegetable company, with nearly 60 vegetable and melon seed varieties

registered by Seminis South Africa gives Monsanto an entry point into the

vegetable seed market,

 

As the engine for the distribution of commercial seed into Southern

Africa, control by Monsanto over South Africa's seed supply means control

over Southern Africa's commercial seed supply. Monsanto has identified

Brazil, India and South Africa as focal points for its efforts to

expand into the developing world.

 

The South African government supports genetic modification in

agriculture and has also used its own infrastructure and resources to

encourage

positive attitudes in the public. The state's support has allowed South

Africa to become a base for expansion into Africa, for export of GM

seed around the world and as an experimental base for new GM crops not

approved elsewhere.

 

The full report " A Profile of Monsanto in South Africa " produced by the

African Centre for Biosafety, April 2005 is available on

www.biosafetyafrica.net

 

For further information contact:

 

Glenn Ashton (SAFeAge) 083 403 6263

 

Mariam Mayet, (African Centre for Biosafety) 084 68 333 74

 

Stephen Greenberg, Researcher, 083 988-2983

 

RESOURCES

 

In South Africa

African Centre for Biosafety (www.biosafetyafrica.net)

 

Biowatch South Africa (www.biowatch.org.za)

 

Earthlife Africa (www.earthlife-ct.org.za)

 

GM Free Africa (www.gmfreeafrica.org/gmfa_main/)

 

South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (Safeage)

(www.safeage.org)

 

Other useful info on Monsanto

Badcorp.org (www.badcorp.org)

 

Consumers International (www.consumersinternational.org)

 

Corporate Watch (www.corporatewatch.org)

 

Corporate Dirt Archives (www.corporations.org/corplist.html)

 

GeneWatch (www.genewatch.org)

 

GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org)

 

GRAIN (www.grain.org)

 

Monsanto (www.monsanto.com)

 

Monsanto South Africa (www.monsanto.co.za)

 

Monsanto Watch (www.monsantowatch.org.uk)

 

Millions Against Monsanto (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html

 

Multinational Monitor (www.multinationalmonitor.org)

------

2.The GM Bubble

Science in Society issue 22, summer 2004

Subscriptions +44 (0)20 7383 3376 or online at

www.i-sis.org.uk/

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3639

 

Claire Robinson questions ISAAA's inflated figures of GM crop uptake

and planting

 

" India a key GM crop cultivator " ran a headline in the Times of India

back in January. " India has made it to the list of top ten transgenic

crop-growing nations, " the paper reported, alongside what it called the

" glowing figures " on " the global acreage of transgenic crops " and the

number of farmers planting them - seven million in 18 countries, up from

six million in 16 countries in 2002.

 

The Times of India was not alone in its breathless account of GM crop

expansion. Headlines around the world declared, " Frankenfood

flourishing " and " Biotech crops continue rapid global growth " . Every

January,

similar headlines appear when the International Service for the

Acquisition

of Agri-biotech Association (ISAAA) publishes its " Annual Global Review

of Commercialized Transgenic (GM) Crops. " They are drawn directly from

press releases sent out by ISAAA's agri-centers around the globe plus

country-specific media briefings via worldwide teleconferences. ISAAA

stands at the front line of a major public relations war, and as with all

wars, the first casualty is the truth.

 

Fortunately, a few are not taken in. India's Financial Express reported

that despite ISAAA's hype about India being " a key GM crop cultivator " ,

the actual area planted with India's first GM crop, Bt cotton, is

minuscule in terms of the total area devoted to cotton in India.

According

to an internal report of the country's agriculture ministry, " In

2002-03, the first year of its approval for commercial cultivation, Bt

cotton

covered an area of only 38,038 hectares, representing only 0.51 per

cent of the area under cotton in the period. In 2003-04, with good

monsoon

rains, the area under Bt cotton increased to 92,000 hectares. This area

coverage under Bt cotton is almost negligible as compared to over 9

million hectares under cotton crop in the country. This points to the low

acceptability of Bt cotton by farmers. "

 

As well as engaging in selective spin about the popularity of GM crops

among farmers, ISAAA stands accused of pumping up the planting figures.

ISAAA's Southeast Asia director, Dr Randy Hauteau, while briefing the

media, quoted ISAAA figures for Bt cotton plantings in India in 2003-04

of 100,000 hectares - a nearly 10% inflation of the agriculture

ministry's figures. When questioned about the data and methodology

underlying

this claim, the Financial Express reported that Hauteau refused to

comment. Hauteau was also unable, the paper reported, to justify claims

made in the ISAAA study that " in 2003-04 almost one-third of the global

biotech crop area was grown in developing countries. "

 

Although ISAAA's figures are quoted routinely by official bodies and

even governments, the organisation is vague about how its figures are

generated, referring only to their being " based on a consolidated

database

from a broad range of sources, including government agencies and other

organizations in the public and private sector " .

 

But Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies at the

University of Sussex has shown the questionable validity of ISAAA

figures.

Analysing GM cotton farming in South Africa, he notes, " ISAAA implies

that small farmers have been using the technology on a hundred thousand

hectares. Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe - an industry coalition -

suggests 5,000 ha of 'smallholder cotton.' The survey team [from the

University of Reading, UK] suggests 3,000 ha. " In other words, ISAAA's GM

plantings figures are 20 times higher than even those claimed by a

biotech industry source and more than 30 times greater than those from an

academic survey.

 

ISAAA's figures claiming increased profits to South African farmers

from Bt cotton are also dubious, deGrassi points out. ISAAA argued that

switching to Bt cotton allowed farmers to make an extra US$50 per

hectare, whereas the University of Reading survey team found that farmers

gained only US$18 in the second year. But deGrassi notes that in the

first

year, " Bt cotton non-adopters were actually $1 per hectare better off " .

 

As well as exaggerating the extent of GM plantings and profitability,

ISAAA has given misleading figures on yields that have been discredited

by subsequent scientific research findings. For instance, ISAAA's

" Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops " for 1998 claimed yield

improvements of 12% for GM soy over conventional soy, as reported by

American farmers. However, a review of the results of over 8 200

university-based controlled varietal trials in 1998 showed an almost

7% average

yield reduction in the case of the GM soy - the diametric opposite. It

later transpired that ISAAA's figures were based on nothing more

substantial than producer estimates.

 

Who pulls ISAAA's strings?

 

ISAAA is supported by cash from the GM industry. Its funders include

Bayer CropScience, Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred and the BBSRC (the

UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council). In other

words, ISAAA's reports should not be considered as coming from an

independent source.

 

ISAAA's multi-million dollar budget is matched by high-profile industry

board members past and present, such as Monsanto's Robert Fraley, Wally

Beversdorf of Syngenta, and Gabrielle Persley, Executive Director of

AusBiotech Alliance and advisor to the World Bank. ISAAA has no

representatives, however, from farmers' organizations in areas like

Africa.

 

One of ISAAA's goals is to " facilitate a knowledge-based, better

informed public debate. " To that end, ISAAA has three " Knowledge

Centers " :

the " AmeriCenter " based at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; the

" SEAsiaCenter " in Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines; and the " AfriCenter " in

Nairobi, Kenya. ISAAA's Africa office was originally headed by Florence

Wambugu, the Monsanto-trained scientist who hyped the company's GM

sweet potato around the globe until it was exposed as a failure earlier

this year (see " Broken promises " , this series).

 

Aaron deGrassi says that in Africa the ISAAA has " spun off a number of

innocuously named pro-biotech NGOs " , such as the African Biotechnology

Stakeholders' Forum and the African Biotechnology Trust. Pro-biotech

Western aid agencies have joined with these organizations to quietly

conduct one-sided conferences at upmarket venues around the continent,

such

as Kenya's Windsor Golf and Country Club, aimed at swinging high-level

officials in favour of GM.

 

But critics allege that these forums are facades for large

corporations; the NGOs consist of little more than a website and a few

staff. In a

report on ISAAA's activities in Asia, GRAIN concluded that its role was

one of " promoting corporate profit in the name of the poor " .

....

Claire Robinson is an editor with GM Watch www.gmwatch

 

 

 

 

----------