The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Monsanto and Gates Foundation Pressure Kenya to Lift Ban on GMOs
Kenya is on the verge of reversing its ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The East African country—which has banned the import and planting of GMOs since 2012 due to health concerns—may soon allow the cultivation of GMO maize and cotton after being pushed for approval by pro-GMO organizations including Monsanto, the agribusiness giant and world's largest seed company.
If it does so, Kenya will become only the fourth African country to allow the cultivation of GMO crops following South Africa, Bukina Faso and Sudan.
According to Mail & Guardian Africa, Kenya's possible GMO reversal comes after the country's National Biosafety Authority received one application from the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation to release Bt maize, and another application from Monsanto's Kenyan subsidiary to release Bt cotton. Bt crops have been bioengineered with the moth- and butterfly-killing bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis.
“We recommend lifting the ban,” National Biosafety Authority CEO Willy Tonui said. “We now have border control, surveillance and a strong regulatory system.”
On Nov. 21, 2012, the Kenyan Ministry of Public Health ordered public health officials to remove all GMO foods on the market and to enforce a ban on GMO imports. The Minister for Public Health, Beth Mugo, presented the concerns about the safety of GMOs during a Kenyan cabinet meeting, citing a (since retracted) French study that linked cancer in rats to the consumption of GMO foods.
The National Biosafety Authority is expected to make its decision on the maize seed Jan. 31 and then on Feb. 28 for the cotton seed, according to Tonui.
Scientists from the Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research Organization and African Agricultural Technology Foundation want the maize seeds released to farmers for mass production. As Bloomberg described, maize (or corn) is a major dietary staple in Kenya and would benefit from pest-resistant crops:
"Kenya is Africa’s largest per-capita corn consumer and the second-biggest seeds market, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Annual corn consumption is estimated at 103 kilograms (227 pounds) per person, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. In 2011, Kenya became the first African nation to report an outbreak of the Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease, which can wipe out farmers’ entire crops, the FAO says on its website."
"The industry has been in a sorry state," Waturu wrote in the paper Bt Cotton Research Progress. "In 1985, we used to produce 70,000 bales of cotton, but in 2013 we could only produce 20,000. In the same year, Tanzania and Uganda produced 700,000 and 400,000 bales respectively."
Still, the looming approval of GMOs in Kenya has been met with heavy protests by opponents. In September 2015, activists rallied in Nairobi against the lifting of the GMO ban, citing health concerns.
“We need to stand by our country’s economy and fight for the rights of our farmers. Biotechnology is not bad, but the introduction of genetically modified foods is unethical and unsafe,” nutrition expert Hellen Ngema said.
Lifting the ban is also perceived as a play that would benefit large multinationals such as Monsanto and other powerful organizations.
Kenya's potential GMO reversal comes after "pressure" from Monsanto, the United States Agency for International Development and the Gates Foundation, according to a report by RT.
The report cited Monsanto's Water Efficient Maize for Africa, a five-year development project led by the Kenyan-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation that aims to develop a variety of drought-tolerant maize seeds. Incidentally, as the website points out, the project receives funding from the Gates Foundation, United States Agency for International Development and Howard G. Buffett Foundation.
RT reported that in 2008, the African Agricultural Technology Foundation received $47 million from the Gates Foundation.
The argument for GMOs is controversial, to say the least. The pro-GMO camp touts the technology as a solution to malnutrition and global food security, as these crops have been genetically tinkered with certain nutritional benefits and/or spliced-and-diced to resist certain pathogens.
Bill Gates, for one, is known to be pro-GMO seed, especially for the crops' purported benefits to drought-prone African countries.
In February 2015, the business magnate and philanthropist told The Verge that "GMO-derived seeds will provide far better productivity, better drought tolerance, salinity tolerance, and if the safety is proven, then the African countries will be among the biggest beneficiaries."
The Verge noted in a report that the Gates Foundation Asset Trust, which manages the foundation's assets, previously held shares of Monsanto. Indeed, in 2010, it was revealed that the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio held 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (here's the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission).
Foundation spokesperson Alex Reid told The Verge that the trust has not held shares of Monsanto "for a few years" and added that the trust is managed separately and does not receive input into what the foundation funds.
Meanwhile, Monsanto has once again made headlines for its business woes and slumping profits.
According to the Associated Press, the embattled company will "eliminate another 1,000 jobs as it expands a cost-cutting plan designed to deal with falling sales of biotech-corn seeds and other financial headwinds."
Monsanto will now be cutting 3,600 jobs over the next two years, roughly 16 percent of its global workforce.
As of press time the Gates Foundation had not responded to EcoWatch's request for comment.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.