'Africa should beware of GM food aid'

Mail & Guardian ^ | April 25, 2003

[sarcasm]

Environmentalists from around the world on Thursday urged African scientists to conduct more research on genetically modified food offered as aid to the continent's hungry.

"Local or African scientists need to liaise with concerned authorities and do more research on the genetically modified food to establish whether they are suitable for Africans," Coalition of African Organisations for Food Security and Development (COASAD) co-ordinator Christine Andela told some 300 enviromentalists gathered for a three-day meeting in Nairobi.

Andela said that scientists and governments needed to assess the risk and impact of contamination of local food, labour and health before considering the GM food aid.

In Zambia, despite the threat of starvation that faces more than two million people, the government has imposed an outright ban on GM food aid, insisting such products must be proven to be safe.

This prompted both criticism, particularly from the US, home of powerful pro-GM lobbyists, and praise from environmentalists.

"The development rhetoric and the accompanying policies must be analysed with utmost care so that the distinction can be made between development aid ... and the manouvering of multinational companies with a view of expanding their market share," said Andela, referring to the firms that control the research and sale
of GM technology.

Kenyan Assistant Environment Minister Wangari Maathai told the meeting that "those pushing GM food to Africa were exploiting the poverty level of African markets" and urged farmers to "secure and plant their own seedlings to avoid further impoverishment".

According to Mwananyanda Mbikusita Lewanika, a Zambian biochemist, "there is need to obtain views on the GM food aid, especially maize, in terms of food safety, environment, trade and ethics from the regulators, interest groups and farmers".

"We need to determine the acceptance of GM foods and explore the possibility of obtaining some assistance to build national capacity in biodiversity and biosafety," Lewanika said.

In January, thousands of Zambian villagers disregarded their government's position and made off with 4 600 50-kilogramme sacks of rejected GM food aid.

[sarcasm]

Andela said that scientists and governments needed to assess the risk and impact of contamination of local food, labour and health before considering the GM food aid.

Moron.

[ImpotentRage]

Perhaps if these sanctimonious enviromentalist do-gooders could spend a month or two under the conditions of the African populace they just MIGHT be more receptive to GM food. In fact, I would imagine they woud be "receptive" to ANY food. These people disgust me.

[Jhoffa_]

Starving your family to death in a principled, earth concious fashion is obviously preferable to dining in sin..

Remember, if you plant a genetically modified corn.. Hitler rides on the tractor!!

(or something equally stupid..)

[MEG33]

Piffle. outrageous denial of food for the starving.

[Rudder]

Most US experts say GM food is perfectly safe...how do they know that?

[walden]

I think WE eat it.

[MEG33]

We do..I just used google to check. It is also possible to add nutritional value,but don't know if that's happened yet.I did a cursory look see.

[Rudder]

Well, yeah we do. But there are some problems with some GM products, e.g., milk from cows treated with Monsanto's GM growth hormone.

But exactly how does the GM industry test its new GM products for safety in human consumption? Are we, the consuming public, serving as their test guinea pigs?

Whenever I ask this question, I always get the same answer: "We eat (or, we have been eating) it."

[MEG33]

You may get some answers on google..I typed genetically engineered corn in search.

[Teetop]

Let them starve then....

[Rudder]

Thanks. I'll try Google.

[paolop]

What precisely are "some problems with some GM products, e.g., milk from cows treated with Monsanto's GM growth hormone"?

[KeyWest]

Most US experts say GM food is perfectly safe...how do they know that?

Most problems with food are allergic in nature, so that is where most of the tests are conducted. The food, be it corn, papaya whatever, is still the same food except for the genetic additive. There are a variety of ways to test for allergy problems in the lab which do not involve people. If there is even a trace, it is not allowed, which is more stringent than nature. There are loads of allergens and naturally occurring pesticides in non-gm foods. If the onion were presented to the FDA as a new food, it would never make it because of its chemicals composition.

We have been eating GM foods for years. Truth is, the people that want GM crops are in developing countries where improper use of pesticides is rampant. The anti-GM crowd is more interested in the politics than in saving people.

[abclily]

According to the environmentalists the Africans should ban all genetically improved food and starve to death.

[DarkWaters]

Most plant food that has been eaten for the last couple hundred years is technically GM type food. Selective breeding of crops has given rise to heartier foods and new ones as well. Now a days its just more high tech. As far as safety goes, how would you test it to find out if its harmful or not? Aside from feeding it to lab animals and people, and then watching what happens over a year, 10, 20, 50, until death. Real studies will be non existent for long range effects(good and bad). Short range ones tend to give faulty results and has too small of a sample group to be of statistical use.

To top it all off, GM food is now a political issue and not a scientific one. Which means any real testing and data results can and will be skewed, to one side or the other. This will prevent real info from coming into public view(good or bad so goes making proper determination on what GM food should be used and what shouldn't). Another aspect to the political side of the GM issue, is that a lot of leftist, socialists, Marxists/Leninists(communists), and totalitarians are against GM foods all together. They have a stake in a world that cannot feed everyone. If we do, the hunger issue to use poor people to stay in power goes out the window and so does the threat of withholding food from a population(just like everyone one of communists[Stalin &Mao where the biggest users of this tactic] did to 'cleanse' the country side of anti-revolutionaries).

[LauraJean]

liberals are only interested in using starving people as their poster children. They support the socialist governments that cause the starvation. Keeping starving people from the basic necesities is a way to keep them in check. Stalin did this in the Ukraine, Mao in China and we found going into Iraq stores of food stockpiled for Saddams troops while the general population went hungry.

[Puddleglum]

Ah, the wisdom of the healthy corpse crowd. Starve the Africans to snub the US. That's some rareified moral code the Europeans and their friends have.

[Rudder]

What precisely are "some problems with some GM products, e.g., milk from cows treated with Monsanto's GM growth hormone"?

The synthetic hormone is given to increase milk production. Monsanto's is called recombinant bovine (cow) growth hormone. Traces of this are found in treated cow's milk. Monsanto's version was flawed in as much as a particular sequence in the polypeptide chain was found to be "unidentifiable." There's a bunch of research literature that shows this (Monsanto's) hormone is active in human beings and promotes tumor growth. Some research scientists and medical doctors claim it promotes some cancers, especially prostatic cancer. Now, some supermarket chains require that mik from treated cows be labeled as such.

If you're interested, I can provide html links within about a hour.

[verity]

"According to the environmentalists the Africans should ban all genetically improved food and starve to death."

Perhaps they should be accused of advocating genecide.

[abclily]

'genecide' - too funny! Exactly!