Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

How the Coronavirus will give rise to a global food pandemic that may…

- - - - Governments of developing countries are responding to those concerns in a variety of ways with some banning GMOs outright, some embracing them, and others attempting to find balance between the concerns and needs of all sides.
      - Climate change, domestic food security, and local economies all play a key role in governments’ weighing of GMO.
      - In countries where the key economic partners are the U.S. and China — which have fewer regulatory restrictions on the import of GMOs — introducing such crops could potentially increase economic opportunities
      - One hundred and seventy-one nations signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, requiring countries to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology since 2003. Signatory governments including Cambodia, Kenya, and Nigeria have had to implement policies and legislation creating a safe framework for the possible research and introduction of GMOs into their country. The year 2003 also saw 40 African countries, convened by the African Union, sign the Maputo Declaration. This committed them to investing at least 10 percent of their national budgets into agriculture development — including science and research.
    - - Corporations such as Bayer and Monsanto say they are engaging in open conversations on the topic of GMOs. But the distrust of corporations and belief they put profitability above public health and the environment can sway public perception.
      - As long as food insecurity exists and private sector investment is required to support investment in agricultural research and development, corporations such as Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta will continue to play an important role in the conversation surrounding GMO and food security.
      - For decades, these corporations and their role in the development and use of GMOs have faced criticis, but they have continued to grow and expand — as has their presence in developing countries. They lobby and advise governments on GMO regulation, and they work with farmers on GMO cropping.
      - “Our aim is to help farmers, including the many smallholders in emerging nations, be productive and profitable,” Paul Minehart, head of North American corporate communications for Syngenta, told Devex.
      - Corporations such as Bayer and Monsanto say they are engaging in open conversations on the topic of GMOs. But the distrust of corporations and belief they put profitability above public health and the environment can sway public perception.
    - - The African Agricultural Technology Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and United States Agency for International Development are among the collaborating partners for Monsanto. There organizations provide funding for innovative agricultural research, including hundreds of millions of dollars for GMO projects.
      - Within the development sector, Greenpeace and Fairtrade International are the leading voices opposing GMOs. The arguments of both Greenpeace and Fairtrade against GMOs are similar — the risks that GMOs pose are still unknown, and they may have unforeseeable environmental, social, and health impacts.
      - Aside from the corporations profiting from GMOs, scientists are one of the most vocal groups in favor of the use of GMOs. They argue that there has never been any evidence of health issues associated with GMOs and the impact on the environment is less harmful than traditional agriculture. They claim that the science and the rigorous testing and approval processes GMOs are required to go through before reaching the market should build public confidence — they are put through a tougher process than any other food product
      - There are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons.
      - Media plays a significant role in our perception of GMOs. Strong lobbying from organizations against GMOs has created a negative public perspective that even science is having a hard time to break through.
- - - - Heavily dependent on trade with the United States under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), Swaziland raised no objections to the GM aid. Lesotho, also dependant on AGOA, requested that food aid be milled before distribution but quickly backed down on its request and accepted unmilled food aid.
      - Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, however, were far more cautious. All four challenged the inclusion of genetically modified maize which had not received regulatory approval in the region in US food aid shipments. The concerns articulated by recipients of GM food aid in Southern Africa centered on three key areas: (1) the potential health impact of GM food on recipients; (2) the impact of GM food on domestic agricultural biodiversity; and (3) the impact of GM food on their ability to export agricultural commodities in the future.
      - Africa has followed Europe’s lead in its regulatory approach to this technology. African countries export a lot of agricultural products to Europe, and they conclude that if European consumers don’t want to purchase these products, it’s safer not to plant them at all. Also, European governments play a prominent role in the United Nations, and they have shaped U.N. treaties like the 2003 Cartagena Protocol, to give expression to a highly precautionary European approach to GMOs. The United States, which often turns its back on these U.N. special agencies, has left the field wide open for European influence. governments in Africa deeply appreciate the one-country-one-vote ethic that prevails in the United Nations General Assembly, and they depend heavily on U.N. agencies for opportunities to express themselves in international fora.
      - The main reasons other countries haven’t followed suit are political and economic. The negative attitude to GM crops found in Europe, where they import GM crops such as soybeans for animal feed but do not allow their own farmers to plant it, has had a strong influence on African politicians. The reluctance of so many African countries to GMOs is also attributed to fears about the impact it would have on trade with other countries, particularly Europe where a number of countries have banned GM imports.
- - - - In Nigeria, development donors and large corporations have joined forces to invest in GMO advancements for the country. The GMO variety of cowpea was developed as a collaboration between the Network for Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the African Agricultural Technology Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The GMO sorghum project is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United States Agency for International Development, and DuPont Pioneer. Monsanto is the key investor in GMO varieties of cotton and maize.
      - Kenya, too, is seeing corporate and public interests in GMO research intersect with a rapid increase, and commercialization of production is expected — and this despite banning all GMO foods and imports for health concerns in 2012.
      - In September last year, the Uganda’s President H.E. Yoweri Museveni spoke at an agricultural science conference about his openness to technology supporting food security — including GMOs Less than a month later, the Ugandan parliament passed the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill, 2017, allowing for commercialization of GMOs — but in January, the bill was sent back by the president with concerns over the impacts to the environment and indigenous communities.
  - - - The Philippines is often used as an example of how adoption of GMOs can improve the income of farmers within a developing country. “The benefits of biotech corn to Filipino farmers’ livelihood, income, and health, and to the environment have been well studied and documented,” ISAAA reported in 2015. “Overall, the four studies that examined net farm income, as well as other indicators, consistently confirmed the positive impact of biotech corn on small and resource-poor farmers and corn producers generally in the Philippines.”
      - The adoption and progress of GMOs has been driven by economic value rather than responding to a localized agricultural problem, such as pest or disease, but it has not been without controversy. In December 2015, a Supreme Court decision stopped field trials of genetically modified eggplant and voided existing biotechnology regulations. The decision was based on constitutional rights to health and a balanced ecology and a lack of scientific consensus on the health and environmental impacts of genetically modified eggplant. While the decision was overturned just six months later, it forced the government to implement new GMO regulations that provided more consideration to socioeconomic issues and environmental impacts.
      - The government of Cambodia, in particular, has been pushing back on GMOs for more than a decade. “If we export organic products to the EU, we will receive higher prices than by exporting chemical-produced foods to other countries,” Siphana said. Cambodia has introduced a regulatory framework relating to the control and management of GMOs as part of their responsibility as signatories of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
    - - In Brazil, in April 2003, the president signed an executive order requiring packed food and feed containing more than 1 percent of GMOs to be labelled, informing consumers about its biotech content. This was followed with Brazil’s ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and by 2005 they had introduced legislation establishing the regulatory framework to produce and market GMO crops within the country. In the intervening years, the government has shown a keenness to partner with large corporations. Bayer, BASF, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta all have seeds approved for growth in the country.
      - According to a recent study on the economic impact of GM crops, GMOs have delivered financial benefit to farmers in Brazil.
        But this has not stopped alternative methods of sustainable agriculture from developing in the country.