GMW:_Sending_GMOs_to_Starving_People_is_'Inhuman_Aid'

[Guest guest]

It is also inhuman to feed Frankenfoods to the people

in the USA without informing them that they are eating

GMO's. F.

 

 

>

GMW:_Sending_GMOs_to_Starving_People_is_'Inhuman_Aid'

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:42:06 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> -------

> Sending GMOs to Starving People is 'Inhuman Aid'

> By Vandana Shiva

> Humanitarian Review, Summer 2003

> http://www.humanitarian-review.org

>

> FOOD AID IS INCREASINGLY being used as a weapon to

> create markets for the biotechnology industry and

> genetically engineered foods. The most dramatic

> example of this inhuman form of aid was the attempt

> by USAID to supply GM maize as food aid to the

> famine stricken countries of Southern Africa

> including Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique and

> Malawi. Malawi accepted the GM maize because under

> pressure from the World Bank it had been forced

> to sell its maize reserves in order to repay

> commercial loans. However, Zambia, Zimbabwe and

> Mozambique, which had played a significant role in

> negotiating the Biosafety Protocol, the regulatory

> system for GMOs under the United Nations

> Conventionon Biodiversity, refused to accept GM

> maize in the form of food aid.

>

> Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa said his people

> would rather die than eat toxic food. The

> President's statement followed a national

> consultative meeting in Lusaka on 12 August 2002 at

> which farmers, women's groups, church leaders,

> traditional leaders, members of parliament,

> opposition politicians and government jointly

> recommended that Zambia should not accept GM food

> aid.

>

> The Zambian president condemned the Food and

> Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, the

> World Health Organisation and the World Food

> Programme for being irresponsible in supporting the

> US. " We may be poor and experiencing food

> shortages " , he said, " but we are not ready to expose

> people to ill-defined risks " . He also pleaded that

> Zambians should not be used as guinea-pigs.

>

> Drought and famine

>

> The combination of climate change and the World

> Bank's structural adjustment programmes have turned

> Southern Africa into a victim of drought and famine

> with the result that countries have been obliged to

> dismantle their food security systems.

>

> More than 300,000 people now face starvation and the

> policy of sending them food aid containing GMOs is

> now a major issue. In the closing plenary of the

> 2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit, for instance, US

> Secretary of State Colin Powell was heckled by both

> NGOs and governments when he insisted that African

> countries import GM food from the US. Hundreds of

> African farmers and government representatives also

> condemned the US pressure to distribute GM

> contaminated food aid. Instead, they proposed small

> scale, indigenous solutions based on farmers rights

> to land, water and seed. A forthright statement

> issued by representatives of civil society in 45

> African countries made the following points in

> support of the governments and people of Zambia and

> Zimbabwe:

>

> * We refuse to be used as the dumping ground for

> contaminated food, rejected by the northern

> countries; and we are enraged by the emotional

> blackmail of vulnerable people in need, being used

> in this way;

>

> * The starvation period is expected to begin early

> in 2003, so that there is enough time to source

> uncontaminated food;

>

> * There is enough food in the rest of Africa

> (already offered by Tanzania and Uganda) to provide

> food for the drought areas;

>

> * We want to strengthen solidarity and selfreliance

> in Africa, in the face of this next wave of

> colonization in which corporations are trying to

> control our agricultural systems by manipulating the

> supply of seed;

>

> * As a mark of responsibility to future generations

> we will stand together in preventing our continent

> from being contaminated by genetically engineered

> crops.

>

> Food aid is also being used to create markets for

> the biotech industry in non-African countries:

>

> * After the devastating cyclone in India which

> killed 30,000 people, a corn-soya blend was

> distributed as food aid despite the fact that the

> local people eat rice. On analysis by our

> organisation, the Research Foundation for Science,

> Technology and Ecology, the mixture was found to be

> genetically engineered, in total violation of GM

> laws in India;

>

> * The World Food Programme has been distributing

> transgenic food for seven years without informing

> recipient countries and often in violation of the

> national laws of these countries;

>

> * On 10 June 2002, the Bolivian Forum on Environment

> and Development found that a sample of USAID food

> aid tested positive for the presence of Starlink

> maize, a GM corn not approved for human consumption

> due to health concerns over possible allergenic

> effects;

>

> * Aid to Columbia was found to be 90% transgenic.

>

> =Three major issues arise when food aid is used to

> market biotech products. Firstly, hunger and food

> scarcity increase as a result of the destruction of

> ecological security and food security. In our

> opinion the best solution to food insecurity is to

> strengthen the ecological resilience of farming

> systems through biodiversity and sustainable

> agriculture and the economic strength of local

> communities through food sovereignty.

>

> Secondly, when countries facing food scarcity want

> non-GM food, their views must be respected. Southern

> Africa needed a million tonnes of food grain to

> relieve its immediate food crisis. 1.16m tonnes of

> non-GM maize is available in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda

> and South Africa. More than double this amount is

> available on the world market. The EU announced that

> it would provide Southern Africa with €30m to buy

> GMfree food and India has 65m tonnes of non-GM food

> stockpiled which can be provided for less than US$

> 0.10 a kilo. There are many alternatives to GM food.

> We believe that coercion in periods of emergency is

> inhuman action, not humanitarian aid.

>

> Food security

>

> Finally, India's experience with Bt. cotton

> demonstrates that the GM option is a threat to food

> security since it creates ecological and economic

> vulnerability. On 26 March 2002 the Genetic

> Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the

> Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF),

> Government of India, gave conditional clearance for

> commercial planting of genetically engineered

> Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.) cotton to Monsanto and

> Mahyco.

>

> Commercial clearance was granted on the grounds that

> the crop had been fully tested in Indian conditions,

> that it does not require pesticide sprays and it

> gives higher yield and farmers have higher incomes.

> However, all the claims on the basis of which the

> clearance was granted have since been proven false

> by the total failure of Bt. cotton in the states

> where it was cleared for planting. A field survey by

> the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and

> Ecology last year found the following results:

>

> *Bt. Cotton is not pest resistant

>

> *The Bt. cotton was devastated by pest attacks such

> as bollworm, aphids and thrips and required more

> frequent spraying than non-Bt. cotton. In some

> areas the Bt. cotton was also attacked by wilt and

> root rot which do not affect other varieties.

>

> *Promised higher yields did not occur

>

> *Bt. cotton was sold with the claim that it would

> give 15 quintals of yield per acre. Average yields

> of Bt. cotton were in fact only 1.2 quintals per

> acre and none were higher than four quintals per

> acre, which is well below the expected yield in

> other cotton hybrids. The Bt. cotton plant

> yielded up to 200-250 bolls on each plant.

>

> Farmers' incomes were not higher

>

> Some growers received very poor yields from their Bt

> cotton, despite spending thousands of rupees on its

> cultivation. The poor return has made farmers angry

> with the companies who have sold them Bt. cotton.

> Many of them did not earn enough to cover the costs

> of seed and labour, which amounted to

> 3500-4000 rupees ($76-$86) per acre. Both

> Monsanto-Mahyco and GEAC, predicted that a Bt.

> cotton grower would get an average increased income

> of 10,000 rupees ($276) per acre. In fact, the Bt.

> cotton failure has cost farmers a total loss of

> 1,128m rupees ($24m) in one cropping season.

>

> Major mechanism

>

> Food aid has become a major mechanism for

> undermining food security which can be assured only

> by ecological and sustainable agriculture. It is

> usually assumed that food aid is a simple matter of

> countries donating food. However, food aid also

> creates a market for northern agribusiness.

>

> The World Food Programme and bilateral aid agencies

> use public money to buy food in international

> markets and provide it to countries facing food

> emergencies. Usually food aid undermines domestic

> markets, brings down prices, and thus destroys local

> food security. Sometimes, as in the case of

> the recent drought and famine in Southern Africa,

> the US has tried to use food aid to blackmail

> countries to accept GM food.

>

> Aid needs to be oriented to build long-term food

> security through sustainable agriculture.Emergency

> food aid needs to be based on procurement as close

> to the crisis area as possible and in ways that do

> not undermine domestic food security by destroying

> domestic markets and food production.

>

> People's cultures and choices need to be respected

> when emergency food aid is distributed.

>

> In conclusion, aid can either be support for

> sustainable agriculture and food security, or a

> subsidy for dumping non-sustainably produced

> inappropriate foods on victims of poverty and

> disasters. It is time for citizens worldwide to

> insist that their public taxes and public money be

> used for enhancing public good, not for subsidising

> global corporations and private profits.

>

>

>