Tag Archive: Biosafety

African Agriculture under genetic engineering onslaught

Genetic engineering has made rapid entry into agriculture in the United States, Argentina, Canada, Brazil and South Africa, with these countries accounting for 99% of genetically modified (GM) crops grown globally. Now we are witnessing aggressive attempts, especially by the United States through its agency for international development (USAID) and its genetic engineering industry, to impose GM crops upon Africa under the guise of addressing food security, environmental stress and fighting poverty.

read more

Objections to application for a permit for additional trials with insect resistant Bt Cry V Genetically Modified Potatoes

Objections to application for a permit for additional trials with insect resistant Bt Cry V Genetically Modified Potatoes ( Solanum Tuberosum L. Variety ?Spunta? G2 and G3 ), as applied for by Dr G. Thompson, Director Plant Protection and Biotechnology , South African Agricultural Research Council, dated 24 May 2003

read more

BT-Maize 176 / Syngenta

Protest letter by the African Centre for Biosafety, the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering, Biowatch, and the Safe Food Coalition
  • Demand for a Ban on Imports of Bt176 and for a Public Enquiry into Safety of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Crops
    African Centre for Biosafety, the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering, Biowatch, and the Safe Food Coalition, May 2004
read more
  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Report
OVERVIEW

Dear Honourable Madam Ministers

We wish to bring your attention to the decision taken by the Spanish government on the 29th April 2004, to ban Syngenta’s genetically modified (GM) Bt176 maize for commercial cultivation on the grounds that it may confer resistance to ampicillin. (EIEstado espanol retirara un OGM a instancias de la UE. El maize Bt 176 Podrian provoca resistencisas a los antibioticals, GARA). According to Richard Lopez de Haro, Spain’s Office of Crop Varieties, Spain’s food safety authority banned Bt 176 after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its report on the utilisation of antibiotic resistance market genes in GM plants.

We also point out that even the United States, the world’s largest grower and exporter of genetically modified

Explanation And Comments On The Cameroon Biosafety Law Mariam Mayet, April 2004

OVERVIEW

The Cameroon Biosafety Law No 2003/006 titled “Law No 2003/006 of 21 April 2003 To Lay Down Safety Regulations Governing Biotechnology in Cameroon” (“Biosafety Law”) was signed by the President of Cameroon on the 21 April 2003, and passed by the Cameroon Parliament during November 2003. Cameroon is a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (“Biosafety Protocol“) The Biosafety Law was probably written in French and translated into English. It is entirely possible that in the course of such translation, the meaning of important concepts and principles have been lost or altered. Detailed explanations and comments are provided in a Table below. The analysis provided in the Table has been grouped around key issues, namely:

Risk Assessment; Authorisations; Safety Measures; Destruction of GMOs that pose risks; Products of GMOs; GMOs that are pharmaceuticals; Prohibition of hazardous substances connected with GMOs; Contained Use, Field Trials; General/environmental release; Waste and gas treatment; Risk Management; Import/Export of GMOs; Decision-making; Accidental releases and emergency responses; Transit; Liability and redress; Labelling,(identification), packaging and marketing; Transport, handling and packaging; Public Awareness , participation and consultation, Confidential information and access to Information, Offences and penalties; and Enforcement.

Having regard to the critical

GM Food aid: Africa denied choice once again?

Controversy over genetically modified (GM) food aid arose in 2000 in Latin America, and Asia, and exploded in 2002, when several southern African countries refused GM food aid during a food crisis. Now, in 2004 the controversy has erupted again after Sudan and Angola imposed restrictions over GM food aid. Food aid has been heavily criticized in the last fifty years, because it serves the interests of certain countries, particularly the US Government, as a tool to inter alia facilitate export surpluses and/or capture new markets. The use of GM food aid by the US has added a new dimension to the debate, because the provision of GM food aid is seen as providing an important back- door entry point for the introduction of genetically modified organism (GMOs) in developing countries.

read more

Africa: Dumping ground for rejected GE wheat

On the 19th of January 2004 Monsanto announced it had approached the South African government with permission to import its genetically engineered (GE) wheat, known as Round-up Ready wheat, in an obvious pre-emptive attempt to create a much needed market for its GE wheat, because none exists anywhere in the world. This comes at a time when Monsanto is faced with falling profits and increasing consumer aversion to GE foods.

read more

BT-Maize 176 / SyngentaBt-Potato G2 & G3 / South African Agricultural Research Council

SUBMISSION OF OBJECTIONS BY THE AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY (ACB), BIOWATCH, AND EKOGAIA
  • GMPotatoesObjection.pdf Additional Comments and Objections to Continued Trials of GM Potatoes

    African Centre for Biosafety, supported by various organisations, groups, companies, and individuals, Mar 2006

  • objection_bt_potato_g2_g3.pdf Objections to application for a permit for additional trials with insect resistant Bt Cry V Genetically Modified Potatoes (Solanum Tuberosum L. Variety ‘Spunta’ G2 and G3), as applied for by Dr G. Thompson, Director Plant Protection and Biotechnology , South African Agricultural Research Council, dated 24 May 2004 Download 157Kb

    G. Ashton, G. Baker, M. Mayet, E. Pschorn-Strauss, W. Stafford, June 2004

  • Report2_Bt_Potato_G2G3.pdf Report 2003/2004 GMO Potato Project.

    ARC-Roodeplaat, Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute and the Michigan State University (USA), made public in June 2004
    Download 156Kb

OVERVIEW

1 Rights of Access to information severely prejudiced

The extensive deficiencies in the information supplied by the Applicant in response to our request for access to information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (“PAIA”) coupled with the conflicting time frames provided by the Regulations under the Genetically Modified Organisms Act 15 of 1997 (“GMO Act” and those provided by PAIA, have severely restricted our rights to access

Monsanto

Monsanto and Genetic Modification in South Africa Facts For South African Consumers – Feb 2006
African Centre for Biosafety.

read more

Factsheet: Who Benefits From Gm Crops? Monsanto and the Corporatedriven Genetically Modified Crop Revolution- Jan 2006
Friends of the Earth International.

read more

A Profile Of Monsanto In South Africa – Apr 2005
Mariam Mayet.

read more