Tag Archives: GMO

Seeds of Controversy: The Battle Over Africa’s Agricultural Future

Charles W. Elliott

One would not expect the lowly seed to be the object of international controversy. But converging forces — some malign, others benign – have placed food crop seeds into the center of clashing visions of the future of agriculture and the place of smallholder farming in Africa. At issue is control over how seeds are owned, saved, and planted, with implications for the survival of smallholder farms, food crop biodiversity, and the resilience of global food supply in the face of climate change.

Earlier this year, the African Union adopted a free trade protocol that will dictate how food is cultivated and how the seeds of life are managed and owned across the entire African continent. Under this document, with its dry and innocuous-sounding title, “Protocol to the Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area on Intellectual Property Rights”, 1 all 54 African nations will be locked “into a proprietary and punitive model of food cultivation, one that aims to supplant farmer traditions and practices that have endured on the continent for millennia.” Alexander Zaitchik, The New Colonialist Food Economy, The Nation, September 18, 2023, https://www.thenation.com/article/world/new-colonialist-food-economy.

The new protocol, together with other agreements designed to advance the interests of industrial agriculture, biotechnology firms, and large agri-business corporations, creates a system that will pressure African farmers to use genetically-modified seeds protected by intellectual property rights in place of the ancient foundation of human agriculture: the heritage of planting self-replicating seeds from nature’s bounty.2

According to Zaitchik: “A primary target is the farmers’ recognized human right to save, share, and cultivate seeds and crops according to personal and community needs. By allowing corporate property rights to supersede local seed management, the protocol is the latest front in a global battle over the future of food.” Details of the system are to be set forth in an Annex to the Protocol, which has not yet been finalized. However, the protocol will likely reinforce the “plant variety protection” system of the Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), which promotes crop genetic uniformity, fails to recognize farmers’ rights, and prevents peasants from reusing seeds.3

While GMO crops were originally touted as the solution to global hunger, conflicting reports on the quality and yield of genetically modified commodity crops4 and local opposition to the loss of control over seed and food production has led GMO proponents to shift their marketing focus to claims that GMO crops are part of “climate smart agriculture.” Zaitchik argues that “[t]his broad rhetorical phrase conjures a suite of practical, climate-driven upgrades to food production that conceals a vastly more complicated and contentious effort to reengineer global farming for the benefit of biotech and agribusiness—not African farmers or the climate.”

Who has pushed African governments to finalize and adopt this model? The major players are unsurprising. Zaitchik’s article says: “[t]he most direct beneficiary of this plan is the four-company oligopoly that controls half the global seed market and 75 percent of the global agrichemicals market: Bayer (formerly Monsanto), Corteva (formerly DowDuPont), BASF, and Syngenta, a subsidiary of ChemChina.”

One cannot easily reconcile this model with the recognition of traditional seed and agricultural systems enshrined in other multinational treaties and United Nations Declarations, viz., the Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Art. 9), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Art. 31), and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (Art. 19). Under Article 19 of the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants, they have the “right to seeds”, including:

(a) The right to the protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
(b) The right to equitably participate in sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
(c) The right to participate in the making of decisions on matters relating to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture;
(d) The right to save, use, exchange and sell their farm-saved seed or propagating material.

They also have the “the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their own seeds and traditional knowledge.” Member States must “recognize the rights of peasants to rely either on their own seeds or on other locally available seeds of their choice and to decide on the crops and species that they wish to grow.” Moreover, Member States “shall ensure that seed policies, plant variety protection and other intellectual property laws, certification schemes and seed marketing laws respect and take into account the rights, needs and realities of peasants and other people working in rural areas.”

The problem is that the Protocol, its Annexes, and its underlying international agreements will represent legally binding obligations of the African Union countries, while the non-binding United Nations Declarations, by themselves, do not. Thus, the Protocol will inexorably accelerate the ascendancy of the biotechnology-industrial model of agriculture, favoring large corporate interests over traditional, smallholder farming.

Since its founding, Buddhist Global Relief has supported smallholder farming around the world and traditional farming practices. Yet, recognizing the need to provide enough food for a rapidly growing global population, we have also encouraged the use of modern sustainable and yield-enhancing ecological agriculture practices using techniques such as the Grow Biointensive system.5 These practices allow smallholder farmers the ability to avoid dependency on industrialized agriculture, with its chemical inputs and the use of patented seeds that cannot be replanted. These practices are deeply harmonious with natural systems.

We will continue to support smallholder farming in Africa, and to help these communities with sustainable and resilient practices, enabling them to resist this most recent form of corporate colonialism.

  1. The Protocol on Intellectual Property Rights was adopted by the African Union Assembly in February 2023 in Ethiopia. It will enter into force 30 days after 22 countries in the African Continental Free Trade Area ratify it. https://www.tralac.org/resources/infographic/16151-afcfta-protocol-on-intellectual-property-rights-factsheet.html ↩︎
  2. The push to adopt legal structures to lock in this model throughout the African continent could be foreseen years ago. In our blog post More Food or New Colonialism for Africa? posted on July 12, 2013, we said, “We can expect African officials to be targeted by intense pressure and corrupting influences to accept these [GMO] technologies at the expense of traditional, sustainable agriculture.” https://buddhistglobalrelief.me/2013/07/12/more-food-or-new-colonialism-for-africa/#more-855. For more background on this struggle, see, GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part II, posted on December 21, 2012, https://buddhistglobalrelief.me/2012/12/21/gmos-food-money-control-part-ii/ ↩︎
  3. “What future for seeds under the African Free Trade Area?”, GRAIN, July 2023, https://www.cadtm.org/What-future-for-seeds-under-the-African-Free-Trade-Area ↩︎
  4. Compare: “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops,” Union of Concerned Scientists, (2009), https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/failure-yield-evaluating-performance-genetically-engineered-crops and “Uncertain Harvest: Doubts About The Promised Bounty Of Genetically Modified Crops”, New York Times, Oct. 29, 2016, with “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops”, PLoS One. 2014; 9(11): e111629, published online 2014 Nov 3. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. The Nation article also describes community complaints about the poor aesthetic and functional qualities of GMO crops. ↩︎
  5. “Grow Biointensive® employs a variety of techniques that work well on smallholder farms, are easily adapted to a variety of climates, are ecologically sound, and can easily be taught to aspiring farmers. These include double digging or deep soil penetration to preserve moisture; use of compost to provide cover and add nutrients; spacing plants close together; growing crops that are high in calories; using open-pollinated seeds (which are native to the area and not genetically modified); and “treating all of the elements as parts of a whole system with a focus on long-term, ‘closed system’ sustainable soil fertility.” David Braughton, “Reducing Malnourishment Through Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture in Malawi”, Buddhist Global Relief Helping Hands Newsletter, March 2023. ↩︎

Poor Farmers Facing Mysterious Illness Across Two Continents

Charles W. Elliott

We’re following a story that continues to emerge from Sri Lanka, India, and Central America of a mysterious illness striking down tens of thousands of poor farm workers, destroying their kidneys. The victims are often young, male outdoor farm workers, far removed from the usual patient with severe kidney failure: older, sedentary men with a history of diabetes or hypertension. What would connect these dying farm workers in different countries across two continents?

Dambj_20120501_9681Photo credit: Anna Barry-Jester, Center for Public Integrity

A recent study estimated that the ailment, called “chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology” (CKDu) has killed more than 20,000 people in Central America alone.

We invite you to watch this five-minute video “Mystery in the Fields” from the Center for Public Integrity that explains the problem and shows its devastating human impact on poor families and communities.[1]


Continue reading

New Report: Feeding the World Without GMOs

Charles W. Elliott

Feeding the World Without GMOsA new report, Feeding The World Without GMOs , by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) refutes the corporate biotech/industrial narrative that genetically modified organism (GMO) foods offer real solutions to global hunger and food insecurity.

Despite significant progress over the past 30 years, the world still faces an ongoing crisis of hunger and food insecurity. 805 million people continue to go hungry, according to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.[1] The world also faces a “hidden hunger” problem —micronutrient deficiency—which affects some two billion people, causing long-term, irreversible health effects and significantly impairing economic productivity. We face stark challenges posed by population growth: by 2050 the demand for food will be twice what it was in 2005.[2]

Feeding the World Without GMOs takes a hard look at ways to address this problem and concludes that GMO food is a non-solution. In nine pages of tight synthesis, it analyzes: (1) why GE crops don’t contribute to food security; (2) what would work to boost the global food supply; and (3) the unfulfilled promise of genetic engineering.
Continue reading

A Bad Month for Monsanto; A Good Month for Food and Farmers

It’s been a rough month for biotech and chemical industrial giant Monsanto. On May 25, 2013, millions of people in 250 cities in 52 countries around the world protested against Monsanto’s GMO activities and its corrupting influence in governments. Investigations confirmed that Monsanto’s unapproved GMO wheat has inexplicably escaped into the wild and now contaminates wheat fields in Oregon, even though the field trial experiments for that GMO wheat took place long ago and far away. Monsanto finally abandoned its intensive lobbying efforts to strong-arm European governments to approve its GMO plant varieties. And Connecticut became the first state in the United States to pass a bill that would require food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients. (For the Connecticut labeling requirement to take effect, additional states totaling at least 20 million in population must also pass similar legislation, and one of the states must border Connecticut.)
Continue reading

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part III

Charles W. Elliott

(In Parts I and II of “GMOs: Food, Money & Control,” we explored the failure of the leading U.S. state proposal to require labeling of GMO foods (California Proposition 37), the control of crop seeds through GMO patents and licensing, the loss of seed and crop diversity, and the increasing domination of the seed industry by biotechnology firms.  In this post, we examine GMO contamination of other food crops and the impacts of GMO technologies on pesticide use.)

“When we try to pick out anything by itself we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe. —John Muir

Despite pervasive human intervention, the dynamism of the natural world overcomes virtually all artificial boundaries and limits.  We directly experience nature’s refusal to stay within the lines we draw. Plants penetrate concrete sidewalks; moving water inexorably surmounts or breaks through barriers; nature retakes land abandoned by humans.
Continue reading

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part II

Charles W. Elliott

It’s All About the Patents. And Control. And Money.

“Seeds are the most basic thing that we got. Everybody has to eat. We want to have a healthy planet with healthy people, we have to have good seeds.” – Seed Farmer, Dan Jason

For more than 10,000 years, humans have engaged in the simple free act of saving natural seeds from a season’s crop and replanting them in the next season. The primeval cycle of planting crops, saving seeds and replanting them in the next season is the practice of agriculture itself.  But we are now witnessing the passing away, in a single generation, “this ancient ritual as old as civilization, a ritual in many ways responsible for civilization.” [1]  This is due to the use of genetically engineered plants, protected by patents and contracts, which make saving seed and replanting them in the next season illegal. The replacement of nature’s bounty with increased sale of genetically engineered crops under such restrictions leads inexorably to expanded corporate control of our food supply.  This problem is exacerbated by the loss of crop diversity and increasing market concentration in the seed business.

Seeds and Patents

A patent is the exclusive right, granted by law, to commercialize a new invention for a limited period of time. Thus, patent law confers upon the patent holder a monopoly on the “exploitation” of the invention. Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions that recognized the right to patent life forms[2], crop seeds and other agricultural products produced from genetic engineering are subject to patent rights.

In the context of crop seeds, this monopoly grants companies the exclusive right to sell the seeds and allows them to charge higher prices for them. As applied in most countries, such seed patents prohibit farmers from saving seeds from their own harvest. As a result, they must either buy new seeds each year or pay for a license to use the patented seeds they have saved. [3]

For non-hybrid crops that employ transgenetic biotechnology, agribusiness and seed companies use intellectual property law, tangible property common law, and strict contracts to prohibit farmers from saving seed. For example, when Monsanto sells seeds for its genetically modified crops, it requires that farmers agree to severe restrictions before they can open a bag of its GMO seed. Monsanto’s typical so-called “Technology/ Stewardship” license: (1) prohibits growers from using seeds for any purpose other than planting a single commercial crop; (2) prohibits growers from saving any crop produced from seed for planting; (3) prohibits supplying seed produced from seed to anyone for planting other than to a Monsanto-licensed seed company; and (4) prohibits transferring any seed containing patented “Monsanto Technologies” to any other person or entity for planting. The agreement also requires that the grower allow intrusive investigation of the growers’ records, including examination and copying of “any records and receipts that could be relevant to Grower’s performance of this agreement.”[4]
Continue reading

GMOs: Food, Money & Control: Part I

 

Charles W. Elliott

The recent battle over California’s Proposition 37, a ballot initiative to require consumer labeling of genetically modified organism (“GMO”) food[1], has shone a harsh spotlight on the impacts of biotechnology on agriculture and our food supply, and on corporate influence over the political process and the public’s right to information. As corporate efforts to expand the use of genetic engineering in agriculture march onward, we see a counterweight in the movements for sustainable food production and support for organic and small scale farming. We’ll be taking a look at some of the issues surrounding use of genetic engineering in food production in a series of blog posts on GMOs: Food, Money & Control.

Consumers Kept in the Dark: Big Push to Label Genetically-Modified Food Fails

Proposition 37 — the ballot initiative that would have required GMO food labeling in California, the world’s ninth largest economy — drowned under the tsunami of corporate money opposing it.  Monsanto, a leading maker of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million alone. More than $45 million was spent by large agribusiness, big processed food manufacturers, and chemical companies, including DuPont, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Conagra and Dow. It should come as no surprise that Dow, the company that brought us dioxin-laced Agent Orange, would prefer that we not know whether the food we eat contains foreign genetic material.
Continue reading