GMW: Panos gets African journalists to pledge more balance

[Guest guest]

GMW: Panos gets African journalists to pledge " more balance "

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:33:59 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

The Panos Institute in London, which provides an information service

specialising in issues for developing countries, has attracted some very

powerful backers.

 

In 2004 the British government's pro-GM Department for International

Development (DfID) entered into a partnership with PANOS worth over a

million pounds in its first year, with a possibility of a further 5 years

of similarly generous funding. Panos also attracts generous funding

from major US foundations, like the Ford Foundation.

 

This pattern of support has been reflected in Zambia where Panos has

been funded to carry out a " programme of initiatives... to raise public

understanding and stimulate public debate in Zambia on the issues

surrounding genetically modified organisms " by the Rockefeller Foundation.

 

As Panos itself acknowledges, the Rockefeller Foundation " is in favour

of informed, constructive use of GM technologies. " And despite its

efforts to project an image of neutrality, the conduct and analysis of

Panos in Zambia seems to be guided by the Rockefeller line. (see 'The GM

Debate in Zambia')

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5245

---

African journalists pledge more balanced GM coverage

By Talent Ngandwe

SciDev.Net, October 14, 2005

http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news & doc_id=11439 & start=1 & \

control=217 & page_start=1 & page_nr=101 & pg=1

 

LUSAKA - Journalists in east and southern Africa have pledged to make

their coverage of biotechnology-related issues more balanced, accurate

and analytical.

 

The group issued a declaration outlining their resolve on 7 October in

the Zambian capital Lusaka.

 

This states that with growing pressure on African nations to accept

genetically modified (GM) crops, journalists have a critical role to play

in educating the public about biotechnology.

 

Acknowledging that biotechnology is a divisive area dominated by strong

pro- and anti-GM viewpoints, the journalists committed themselves to

" accurate and truthful " reporting and to " learning and interpreting the

science of genetic engineering for the benefit of the public " .

 

The journalists - who hail from Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Tanzania,

Uganda and Zimbabwe — issued their declaration at a workshop organised by

the southern African branch of the UK-based Panos Institute.

 

So far, none of these countries has commercialised GM crops or

developed a comprehensive biotechnology policy. The governments of Kenya,

Tanzania and Uganda are in favour of GM technology, while those of

Malawi,

Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe have adopted a more precautionary approach

to it.

 

In May, the Panos Institute released a report that said the Kenyan and

Zambian media tended to be one-sided on GM issues and uncritical of the

government line.

 

The declaration appears to tackle this issue, stating: " We acknowledge

that an informed media is key to pluralism, thus we must be active in

making people aware of the issues, and stimulate debate between

different stakeholders. "

 

Among the authors are journalists from government-owned media outlets

including Uganda's New Vision newspaper, the Zambia Daily Mail, the

Times of Zambia and the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rise and Fall of the GM Debate in Zambia by Zarina Geloo - has been

widely circulated on pro-GM listservs but there are good reasons for

treating some of its claims with a degree of caution.

 

The article is published by the Panos Institute in London, which

provides an information service specialising in issues for developing

countries. Panos has an agenda of encouraging " informed and inclusive

debate "

and when the GM food-aid crisis hit Zambia in 2002, Panos put forward

the view that the " heated and difficult " debate over the issue was

" tending to drown out the voices in favour " of GMOs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2459903.stm

 

The services and perspective that Panos offers have attracted powerful

support. In 2004 the British government's Department for International

Development entered into a partnership with PANOS worth over a million

pounds in its first year, with a possibility of a further 5 years of

similarly generous funding. Panos also attracts generous funding from

major US foundations, like the Ford Foundation.

 

This pattern of support has been reflected in Zambia where Panos has

been funded to carry out a " programme of initiatives... to raise public

understanding and stimulate public debate in Zambia on the issues

surrounding genetically modified organisms " by the Rockefeller

Foundation. As

Panos itself acknowledges, the Rockefeller Foundation " is in favour of

informed, constructive use of GM technologies. "

http://www.panos.org.zm/downloads/GMOs.pdf

 

Panos claims its activities in Zambia have been conducted entirely

independently of its sponsor but the article below (item 2), although

written by a Zambian journalist, very much reflects the Panos line on

the GM

issue in Zambia. The article argues that the GM debate in Zambia has

failed to be inclusive enough and that pro-GM voices have been drowned

out. It suggests that the decision to reject GM food aid as well as any

debate over GM in Zambia have been essentially dominated and controlled

by the Zambian government, which " cranked up its propaganda machinery "

and so drew the Zambian public and the country's civil society along in

its wake.

 

In support of this view of opposition to GMOs being essentially

government driven, the article states, " Even some well-known critics

of the

government, such as the Women's Lobby Group, the Jesuit Centre for

Theological Reflection (JCTR) and opposition political parties, went

along

with the official stand. "

 

But, in fact, organisations like the Jesuit Centre for Theological

Reflection were so far from merely going " along with the official stand " ,

that they were the focus of ferocious attack from the GM lobby which

accused them of engaging in " Activist Scare Tactics " in support of an

anti-GM agenda, etc.

http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm

 

Similarly, the claim of a radio journalist quoted in the article that,

" There is so much anti-GM feeling that those who are pro-GM are scared

of public opinion and keep quiet, " seems somewhat at odds with the fact

that a GM lobby group - the Biotechnology Outreach Society of Zambia -

has not only been launched in Zambia since the 2002 crisis but has

clearly been been getting its views across to journalists, as can be

seen,

for instance, in a recent article on Zambia and its stance on GMOs by

the award-winning Zambian journalist, Brenda Zulu.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5025

 

The Panos article is perhaps at its most questionable in the way in

which it seeks to create the impression of a significant alternative

voice

on the GM issue in the farming community that is being ignored. Thus,

the article contrasts reports critical of the impact of GMOs on farmers

with " a study by the Zambian National Farmers Union, 'Agricultural

Biotechnology and Biosafety in Zambia: A ZNFU Position Paper for Input

into

Government Policy and Legislation' " which outlined " some potential

benefits of GM crops " .

 

This would seem to imply that ZNFU's position is, in part at least,

pro-GM. But that's not the case. The paper in question outlines what are

said to be the potential pros and cons of the technology. It does not in

any way promote a pro-GM position or draw pro-GM conclusions.

 

In the light of what seemed to us a misleading account of the ZNFU's

position, GM Watch got in contact with a Zambian who had until recently

worked for the ZNFU to gain his impression of the article. It turned out

that not only did he disagree with the impression given of the Union's

position but that he specifically remembered the journalist who wrote

the article " sending an e-mail with a request to interview someone at

the union over the GMO issues. My boss... was not in the office , so i

set a date for her to come to talk to me. She never did. "

 

The article concludes by quoting two subsistence farmers whose views

happen to coincide precisely with the Panos line. The article says that

they " feel they should have been given information to make an informed

choice " . And they go on to express an interest in what the technology

may have to offer. (Remember the Rockefeller line promotes " informed,

constructive use of GM technologies " )

 

By way of contrast, according to PELUM ZAMBIA - www.pelum-zambia.net -

which works with the small scale farmers who actually produce 75% of

Zambia's agricultural produce, " very few small-scale have expressed any

willingness to adopt this technology " .

 

What adds irony to the situation, of course, is the fact that while

Panos, and this article, proclaim the right to informed choice in Zambia,

poll after poll shows that the majority of American citizens remain

almost entirely unaware of the scale on which this technology has been

introduced into US agriculture or even that much of what they are eating

contains genetically modified ingredients.

 

It seems, therefore, somewhat naive to, on the one hand, condemn the

Zambian government for what, in part, appears to amount to little worse

than (a) having successfully put across its viewpoint and (b) being in

agreement with many of its usual critics, while on the other hand

completely ignoring the fact that successive administrations in the

massively

powerful country Zambia has found itself up against have

(deliberately!) failed to offer American citizens an informed choice.

And where, come

to that, is the concern that America's corporate media has stimulated

so little by way of debate on this issue?

 

The Panos article ends with the two subsistence farmers saying that " if

what they hear about drought-resistant GM maize is true, then it should

be made available to farmers like them who suffer from drought. 'Again,

it's people in Lusaka [Zambia's capitol] making decisions on our

behalf.' "

 

The problem with this is that the article fails to make clear two key

points: (a) that the GM maize that the Zambian government rejected was

not " drought-resistant " and (b) that, in fact, there is no

drought-resistant GM maize available for these farmers to grow - it's

an untried and

untested development, which may be available at best many years in the

future but is certainly not being denied to them now.

 

This typifies the problems with an article that seems to reflect either

a troubling naivety or else a desire to make the facts fit a

preconceived agenda.

 

 

------------------------