Corporate agriculture industry plans “organic” genetically engineered crops to fight climate change

Organic GM alternative considered

Freshinfo.com | Nov 11, 2009

Concern was raised over the organic agriculture industry’s ability to cope with the onslaught of climate change while spurning GM technologies, at a high-level debate in the capital last week.

A panel of experts discussed the possibilities for organic food to become “more robust” in front an audience including the government’s chief scientific advisor John Beddington, who last month called for GM crops to ensure global food security.

The panel, in discussing the role of GM in 21st Century Farming at last week’s Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum, suggested that if GM could overcome issues relating to its public image and the vandalism of trials, it could make real progression in replacing fertilisers, which continue to increase in cost and tackling food security.

Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, said: “In the US they are way ahead of the game on organic genetically modified foods and then there was a whole load of opposition.

“That was the last opportunity we had on that front before trench warfare set in. It is my concern that you can have a few organisations that scaremonger and make the governments back off.”

Julian Little, chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, told delegates that GM could be vital with changes to the environment impacting on agriculture. He said: “Drought tolerance will definitely be important. Climate change means there will be insect problems in the UK that we have not had to deal with before.

“There were trials into blight tolerance in potatoes in the UK which were trashed twice, but if we could find a potato that gave true blight tolerance then organic growers would have a real option to continue in a difficult climate.”

But Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, hit back at suggestions the lobbying body harness the opportunity. He said: “We looked at the option of GM with interest when it was first debated, but the more we looked at it the more concern grew. The GM debate is a distraction and it is a dangerous issue with the possibility of some of the larger developing companies having a vice-like grip over agriculture. I see no future for GM in the future of UK agriculture and the answers lie in things like plant breeding tactics.”

The debate comes as the Foods Standards Agency embarks on a 12-month consultation exercise looking into the various challenges surrounding GM food.

Dyer added: “A lot of what the Soil Association says is about lifestyles and we are not going to stop people eating meat and creating food shortages tomorrow, so we need to use the world’s resources well. We need to get realistic about the problems we face.”

Zero tolerance for GM foods in Europe

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

thehindubusinessline.com | Nov 2, 2009

by Mohan Murti

Food is to European culture what free speech is to American culture. There may not always be a good scientific reason for concern, but to consider eating something that has resulted from some laboratory manoeuvring is felt by many Europeans as a kind of refutation of the true self.

Whether judiciously or not, most Europeans are frightened to death of genetically modified food. And, this is not entirely a matter of Europeans’ falling victim to protectionist propaganda or frenzy. Trying to force genetically modified food down European throats is the surest way to guarantee that they swallow neither the potatoes nor a lot of the tactics to dump GM foods.

More than ever today, Europeans are talking about where their food comes from. Food scares push people towards farmers’ markets and more home-cooked fare made with fresh ingredients.

The Atharva Veda 12:1:62, says

O Mother Earth,

Let thy bosom be free

From sickness and decay

May we through long life

Be active and vigilant

And serve thee with devotion

In most of Europe, this Atharva Veda concept of manipulation-free, local-food movement has been gaining momentum in recent years.

Right Decision

Europeans applaud the recent Indian Government’s pronouncement to postpone its decision on the approval of genetically modified Bt aubergines. There are compelling reasons, Europeans feel, why India cannot afford to ignore the environmental and health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In Europe, regulations are being imposed in the Parliament, individual European nations, and some stores themselves have all imposed restrictions on GM foods.

There is virtually no market for GM foods in Europe as consumers and farmers have overwhelmingly rejected them. EU labelling and traceability regulations also give consumers better information to decide.

Several European retailers have a policy of not selling, under their own brand name, any product requiring a GM label in their markets. Most have put this policy in place years ago, and all have quality-control tests and audit systems to exclude GM ingredients. Countries that have planted GM crops on a large scale have seen their exports to Europe crash.

European Scenario

European farmers are rejecting GM crops and turning to ecological farming. They do not want to be at the mercy of bullying multinationals which are threatening to take control of food.

Most of the 27 EU nations are opposed to GMOs because of risks to the environment and the kind of cross-pollination, of which the Spanish farmers and others have complained. They have been calling for the EU’s agreement on authorising such crops, and the evaluation methods used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to be beefed up, notably to put more emphasis on the risks of cross-pollination.

Only a handful of GMOs have been approved for cultivation in the EU; of them, only Monsanto’s MON810 maize, approved in 1998, is so far being grown.

The MON810 case has become a source of transatlantic friction. The US has warned Europe against using environmental issues as an excuse for protectionism.

In Germany, the federal states are responsible for official food surveillance. Each of the 16 states has established at least one laboratory for analysing foods for their content of GMOs and, thereby, for their compliance with labelling regulations. Each year, thousands of foods are tested.

The individual results vary from state to state and year to year, but there is a clear trend.

Foods derived from unauthorised GM crops are usually picked up by the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and turned back at the borders. This system prevents unauthorised products from reaching the European market.

GMO-free label

Since May 2008, it has been possible in Germany to apply the label “without gene technology” to food products. Its primary application is in the identification of foods such as milk or meat, derived from animals for which no genetically modified plants such as maize or soy were used in feed.

The criteria are stricter for other foodstuffs: Neither the application of additives obtained through genetic modification nor the accidental admixture of genetically modified plants is allowed.

The standardised logo is making it easier for consumers to choose food products without gene technology in an informed manner.

No more soy shipments are reaching European shores from the US. After several ships were turned away due to traces of Bt maize MON88017 and MIR604 being found in the cargo, all importers are shying away from the risk of such imports.

Europeans are convinced that contamination of the food-chain with GM ingredients and GMOs would create serious and possibly irreversible economic impacts on farmers.

The resulting economic losses — together with patent infringement lawsuits by the biotechnology companies — are likely to lead to a veritable Pandora’s box of legal actions.

Genie in the Bottle

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

Europeans believe that the science of genetic engineering is unpredictable and that this ‘Golden Goose’ of industry is laying some stale, mouldy, rotten eggs.

The author is former Europe Director, CII, and lives in Cologne, Germany.

GM crops no panacea for food security: US scientist

thenews.com.pk | Oct 24, 2009

By Shahid Husain

KARACHI: Senior US scientist Dr Michael Hansen has said genetically modified crops are not the panacea for food security. Rather, the answer to food security lies with small-scale, ecologically rational, sustainable agriculture that focuses on local food systems.

“If you look carefully at global data, the most engineered crop is soybean. Ninety per cent of US acreage, 98 per cent of Argentina acreage and 60 per cent of Brazil are engineered,” he said.

“Scientific data show that on an average Roundup soybean has 10 per cent lower yield than non-engineered soybean. So if you want to feed more people, genetically-engineered soybean will not be the answer,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with The News recently, Dr Hansen, who is associated with the Consumers Union (USA), a non-profit publisher of consumer reports, said: “There is a global agreement under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTDI) and it basically answers the question what kind of agriculture will be most useful in feeding the poor of the world. This four-year assessment, involving 400 scientists, concluded that ‘business as usual is not acceptable.’ They say the answer is not high technology such as genetic engineering or nano technology; rather the answer lies with small scale, ecologically rational agriculture that focuses on local food systems, reforms of trade laws and enabling policy environment and paying attention to gender issues.”

Asked to comment on giant US multinational Monsanto’s claim that Bt cotton requires less water and is pest free, he said: “It’s wrong! In 2002, Bt cotton smuggled from Australia was planted in Sindh. A detailed survey of 138 farmers in four districts reporting growing Bt cotton on 4,249 hectares showed that local cotton variety non-engineered NIAB-78 received six irrigations while Bt cotton received 11 to 12 irrigations which resulted in increased cost of 1,750 rupees per acre. That clearly shows that Bt cotton uses more water.

“Similarly, in 2002, farmers were surveyed in five districts in Punjab. There the cost in terms of rupee per acre for water was Rs2,600 for Bt cotton and Rs2,100 for non-Bt cotton. Bt cotton used 25 per cent more water in Punjab than non-Bt cotton and almost 100 per cent more water in Sindh.”

Asked to what extent the apprehension was true that with the introduction of Bt cotton and other genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) seed business in Pakistan is likely to be monopolised, he said: “The answer is yes.”

Citing a report of the US Department of Agriculture and the Pakistan Annual Cotton Report released in May 2009, he said Monsanto has gained approval for a plan to introduce advanced genetically-modified crop technology and hybrid technology in Pakistan.

“Approval was granted by the Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet. In exchange, Monsanto would bring advanced genetically-modified hybrid seed technology to Pakistan.

The government has promised a law called the Plant Breeders Rights and Seeds Act and they will vigorously enforce that law. Such a law will effectively give Monsanto monopoly control over the seed industry in Pakistan since Monsanto is the largest seed company in this country.”

Asked to what extent the claim that GMOs are drought-resistant is true, he said: “While it is true that transnational chemical corporations such as BASF and Monsanto are taking out patents on ‘climate ready genes’ such as genes from drought tolerance, heat tolerance and flood tolerance, Monsantoís field test of drought tolerant corn and drought tolerant maize shows that under drought conditions, the drought-tolerant maize has higher yields. However, under normal conditions, maize has less yield than conventional seeds.

Then there are also other problems with tolerant crops: work with drought-tolerant wheat shows the same results. Increased yields under drought but lower yields when there is normal rainfall.”

He said in the meantime, in the last 10 years the International Centre for Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT) has released 50 variations of either hybrid or open pollinated maize varieties. So that means that genetically-engineered hybrid has not produced any useful drought-tolerant wheat varieties while conventional breeding has produced them.

“It makes more sense to go with the conventional technology such as traditional plant breeding that has already shown results in this area while genetically-modified technology has produced no useful results,” he said.

Finnish Chefs Urge Ban on GM-Foods

YLE News | Oct 21, 2009

A group of Finnish chefs, including television celebrities, have signed a petition urging the government to ban the import and sale of genetically-manipulated foods. They feel that allowing GM-foods into the natural food chain destroys the safe and natural production of food.

Chefs Hans Välimäki, Kai Kallio, and Jaakko Nuutila delivered the petition to Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen on Wednesday.

This autumn, the government is set to debate a bill which would allow the import and production of GM foods and crops in Finland.

“It’s also important to guarantee that consumers can identify genetically modified foods and animal products that have used genetically modified feed,” says the petition.

Government scientist and Royal Society in double push to promote genetically modified crops

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as “Frankenstein food”.

London Times | Oct 20, 2009

by Valerie Elliott

A double push for Britain to grow more genetically modified (GM) crops is to be made today John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, is to renew his call for GM crops to ensure global food security.

His support for the controversial technology coincides with a study from the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institution, out tomorrow, which will also endorse the need for Britain to conduct more GM crop trials.

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as “Frankenstein food”.

Ministers, scientists, farmers and food companies think that the time is right to soften public opinion and to try to win them round to the benefits of GM production.

A new 12-month public consultation exercise on GM food to be undertaken by the Food Standards Agency.

Ministers have asked the watchdog to find out if the public mood has changed towards GM produce.

The move is also in response to concerns by food manufacturers and supermarkets which fear that the growing use of GM technology in overseas food production will make it “impossible” shortly to maintain a non-GM food supply.

A similar exercise took place six years ago which found that most people would not choose to eat or buy GM foods.

The scene has changed dramatically since then with the burgeoning economies in China and India increasing demand for protein.

The impact of climate change with more extreme temperatures leading to increased risk of drought and flooding as well as competition for land use, water scarcity and fuel costs are also likely to cause instability in food production and supply worldwide.

Professor Beddington, addressing a global food summit organised by Cabi, a leading international scientific research body, in London, will highlight GM production as one of the ways the world can guarantee secure food supplies.

GM is not “the silver bullet” but should be used as part of range of solutions to meet the estimated 50 per cent increase in demand for food expected by 2030, he will say.

“A range of solutions will be needed if a world population set to pass 8 billion by 2030 is to be fed equitably and sustainably. Improved protection of crops from pests and diseases in the field and during storage will be critical to reducing crop losses and has a major contribution to make,” he will say.

The 100-page Royal Society report assesses the varous biological approaches that have been proposed to improve crop yield.

Sir David Baulcombe, of the University of Cambridge, who chaired the study, is to outline the steps that governments need to adopt to ensure that in coming decades farmers in the developed and the developing world are fully equipped to feed their growing communities.

Professor Baulcombe said: “If we are to take full advantage of the benefits which science can offer to food production, then we must act now, by identifying valuable science technologies, investing in research, and by laying the regulatory framework to bring these technologies to market.”

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We have always said that GM might be part of the answer to issues of food security. We are not closed to the technology. But we need the scientific evidence from GM trials to show that growing GM crops will pose no harm to human health or the environment.”

At present there is only one British trial under way at Leeds University where scientists are monitoring a GM potato variety which is resistant to blight, a common pest which can decimate crops.

GM Soy Herbicide Linked to Birth Defects

NaturalNews | Oct 13, 2009

by David Gutierrez

The active ingredient of the popular herbicide Roundup, widely used on lawns and genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide, causes birth defects of the brain, heart and intestines even in minuscule doses, Argentinean researchers have found.

“The observed deformations are consistent and systematic,” said lead researcher Andres Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires.

Argentina is the world’s third largest exporter of soy, planting nearly 17 million hectares (42 million acres), or half of the country’s cropland. Much of this soy has been genetically modified by the Monsanto Corporation to be resistant to the company’s trademark herbicide, Roundup. As a consequence, massive quantities of Roundup are sprayed over soy fields across the country. In many cases, the herbicide is sprayed from the air and may drift over nearby communities or enter their water supplies.

Approximately 200 million liters (53 million gallons) of Roundup are used in Argentina each year.

The new study, conducted by the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), was ordered by the Argentinean Health Ministry in response to complaints filed before federal courts over the health effects of widespread herbicide spraying. For the past five years, a wide coalition of environmental and rights groups have pointed to significantly higher rates of birth defects, cancer, lupus, and diseases of the kidney, skin and respiratory systems in communities located near field of GM soy. Most recently, the nonprofit Rural Reflection Group (GRR) published a paper containing reports of health effects from rural doctors, residents and experts.

The group has called for a ban on the use of Roundup in accordance with the precautionary principle.

In the first phase of the CONICET study, researchers diluted Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, to a strength 1,500 times less than that used on GM soy crops. Other than water, no ingredients were added. The researchers then submerged amphibian embryos into this glyphosate solution, finding that the embryos consistently developed into animals with deformed heads.

In the second phase, researchers injected embryos directly with the diluted glyphosate solution. In addition to head deformity, the researchers observed reduced head size, increased death of skull-forming cells, deformed cartilage and genetic changes to the animals’ central nervous system, on a much larger scale than in the first part of the study.

“One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans,” Carrasco said, noting that the observed results were “completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo.”

“Pure glyphosate, in doses lower than those used in fumigation, causes defects … (and) could be interfering in some normal embryonic development mechanism having to do with the way in which cells divide and die,” he said. Because the researchers deliberately excluded any of the additives that are also found in Roundup, they concluded that the herbicide’s active ingredient was definitely to blame for the effects.

Because the levels of glyphosate used “were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations,” the risk in real life “is much more serious” than that seen in the lab, Carrasco said.

“The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs,” Carrasco said.

Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?

The New Secretary of Agriculture is a Fan of Factory Farms, GM Crops and More

mercola.com | Oct 10, 2009

by: Dr. Mercola

As I write this I am in Washington DC for the International Vaccine Conference and I just did a 12 hour amazing tour of the Capitol that I will describe later, along with pictures that I will post on Facebook. So politics and patriotism is fresh in my mind.

When President Obama took office, many Americans welcomed what was supposed to be an era of much needed change not only for the economy but also for the food industry and U.S. health care system.

Time magazine put it quite well when they described current farm policy as “a welfare program for the megafarms that use the most fuel, water and pesticides; emit the most greenhouse gases; grow the most fattening crops; hire the most illegals; and depopulate rural America.”

And as has been recently disclosed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), between 2003 and 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies, even though they earned more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. In a speech given at the end of 2008, President Obama stated that this was a prime example of the kind of waste he intends to end when he takes office.

Meanwhile, American medical care is the most expensive in the world.[1] The United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. And yet it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing avoidable deaths through use of timely and effective medical care.

That the system is fatally flawed and in need of a radical overhaul is self-evident.

In fact, according to a 2008 report published in the New England Journal of Medicine[2], 90 percent of Americans believe our medical system should be “completely rebuilt” or that “fundamental changes” are required.

And many are looking toward the Obama Administration to carry out these fundamental changes — changes that appear, on the surface at least, to be in the works.

But while health care reform is finally on the table, and an organic farm has, for the first time, been planted on the White House lawn, there are an unsettling number of foxes being appointed to guard the U.S. health care and food industry hen houses … foxes that have entirely too many connections to Monsanto, the chemical manufacturer turned agricultural giant that is slowly gaining control over the world’s population, one seed at a time.

Full Story

Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

scoop.co.nz | Oct 5, 2009

By Edem Srem

Sad to say, Genetically Modified foods have been introduced to the African Market. It is now up to African consumers to reject them. This will save lives and cost for the treatment of the side effects of consuming Genetically Modified foods.*

The history of controlling the food industry in the world by the then American Government in 1973 under President Nixon started by introducing the “Food for Peace” programme which was led by Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.

According to the New African Magazine, Kissinger controlled absolutely the US foreign policy and summarized his activities as “Control oil and you control nations, control food and you control the people”. His idea of capturing the worldwide food industry started with the introduction of what was termed as the gene revolution.

The revolution did not succeed until 1990. a member of the South African consumer movement, Andrew Taynton explains that whereas natural breeding techniques select plants or animals with desirable traits and cross breed within a species to create better crops or animals, genetically modified are developed in laboratories by splicing genes from unrelated species into the host organism.

For instance, bacterial genes can be spliced into food crops and it will reproduce itself in each cell in the plants. Also scientists are now transferring anti-freeze genes from fish to tomatoes to keep it longer in the cold. There is also the splicing of pig genes into rice and daffodils to corn. All these have devastating effects, because of its imprecise processes.

The main effects of consuming genetically modified foods includes; allergies, new toxins, new diseases, antibiotic resistance and change in nutritional values. One other thing which needs to be mentioned is the “V Gurts” Varietal Genetic Use Restriction Technology which is popularly called the “Suicide Seeds” or terminator technology.

One expert believes Africa is in great danger now as genetically modified seeds are made in forms of herbicides and pesticides. These are normally exported to Africa and the Caribbean. The centre for Disease Control of the United States says that at lease 80% of food related illnesses are cause by viruses or pathogens that scientist cannot even identify.

Prince Charles, the heir to the British Throne, was once reported to have stated that “growing genetically modified crops in the developing world represents the biggest environmental disaster of all time”.

With the realities of climate change, it is just an option to reject these kinds of foods on the market. More revelations have been made by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, when he found out that rat fed on genetically modified potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains.

It was also revealed that their immune systems have been damaged with a lot of structural changes in their white blood cells, making them vulnerable to infections and other diseases as compared to rats which were fed on normal organic foods. The same changes occur in humans who also take genetically modified foods.

Thus, the whole world could be exterminated if nothing is done to stop it. We have all become lab rats in mass human experiment with huge risks. The risks will be too late to detect and save the world especially Africa because it will take longer times to find the antidotes. By then the genetically modified companies would have made their money.

Apart from South Africa which has started growing genetically modified crops, the remaining African countries must reject and fight against governments who want to adopt the technology. Ghana should also try to establish strict checks on imported foods, seeds, herbicides and pesticides to control, if not to stop the spread of the genetically modified crops in the country.

The solution is to accept nuclear foods which are done through induced mutations. World examples of induced mutations include; Tek Bankye which has been developed by the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in collaboration with the IAEA. The Biotechnology and Nuclear Agricultural Research Institute has carried out researches that show that the Tek bankye yields as high as 17.84 tons per acre.

Kenya has also developed a high yielding and drought resistant wheat. Hopefully all Africans, especially, Ghanaians would reject genetically modified foods for a sustainable environment and good health.

Uproar as GM canola ‘contaminates’ beehive

A Greenpeace activist takes samples in a genetically modified canola field near Teesdale, east of Geelong. Photo: Jason Souith

The Age | Oct 2, 2009

by ADAM MORTON

GENETICALLY modified canola has jumped containment lines and “contaminated” a commercial beehive in western Victoria, prompting claims that people are not being told enough about what they eat.

Scientific testing on behalf of Greenpeace Australia found Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” canola strain, which is resistant to some herbicides, had contaminated hives near Bannockburn owned by Edmonds Honey.

Victoria lifted a moratorium on growing GM canola in November 2007 after being advised it could be kept separate from non-GM crops.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Louise Sales said the contamination meant people were being denied choice: anyone buying honey from the affected hive could be eating GM food without knowing it.

She said it showed GM canola was “uncontrollable”. “We’re calling on the Federal Government to keep its election promise — basically not to release GM canola into the environment unless it was produced safe ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. We don’t believe it stands up to that test,” Ms Sales said.

The health effects of GM canola remains contentious, though it is regarded as safe for consumption by the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the Australian Academy of Science.

Local farmers and Melbourne restaurateur Dure Dara joined a protest against the spread of GM material into neighbouring crops. The beekeeper affected by the contamination, John Edmonds, was less worried. He was concerned it could affect sales and said labelling should be improved. But he said beekeepers had been using GM cotton for years without negative health impacts.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Government said the health risks of GM canola had been extensively investigated and found not to differ from non-GM canola. GM labelling standards were being reviewed, with a report due mid-next year.

The State Government said the potential impact of GM canola on bee-keepers was considered in a review before the state moratorium was lifted.

Mr Edmonds said he would report the campaigners to police for removing and testing his honey frames.

Vatican pushes genetically engineered crops on Africa

Vatican, food experts say biotechnology will improve African farming

“There is no choice.”

Catholic News Service | Sep 29, 2009

By Sarah Delaney

ROME (CNS) — African farmers should be able to use new biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms, to help lift their continent out of poverty, Vatican officials and agricultural experts said.

Focusing on agricultural development is the key to improving the lives of Africans and their economy, and all tools must be considered to further that goal, according to speakers at a symposium Sept. 24 in Rome on the topic “For a Green Revolution in Africa.”

The participants agreed that one of those tools could be genetically modified products, the use of which is widespread in the United States but controversial in Africa.

Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, former secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said that underdevelopment and hunger in Africa are due in large part to “outdated and inadequate agricultural methods.”

Therefore, he said, new technologies “that can stimulate and sustain African farmers” must be made available, including “seeds that have been improved by techniques that intervene in their genetic makeup.”

Father Gonzalo Miranda, professor of bioethics at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University, which sponsored the symposium, said in support of new biotechnology that, “if the data shows that biotechnology can offer great advantages in the development of Africa, it is a moral obligation to permit these countries to do their own experimentation.”

The symposium was held just before the Synod of Bishops for Africa, which was set to begin at the Vatican Oct. 4. The question of genetically modified foods has been a controversial one in the pre-synod discussions.

The synod’s working paper, released by the Vatican in March, called for a commitment to development in Africa but warned against the belief that genetically modifed products were the answer to the continent’s hunger problem.

It said that using modified crops risks “ruining small landholders, abolishing traditional methods of seeding and making farmers dependent on the production companies” selling their seeds.

But speakers at the Rome symposium spoke in favor of the responsible use of new biotechnology methods and emphasized that genetically modified products made up only a part of those new techniques.

Eric Kueneman, deputy director of the Plant Production and Protection Division of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, said that “biotechnology is not an evil empire” but is an element of a group of tools that also includes traditional farming methods.

With regard to genetically modified foods, he said the FAO allows each country to decide and provides guidance to countries that want to use them.

“It’s not that they are good or bad; their use needs to be evaluated in (a) local context and on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

Sylvester Oikeh, a Nigerian who manages an improved corn project for the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, a nonprofit organization that assists farmers, said Europeans tend not to embrace genetically modified products because they have a surplus of food.

But that is not the case in Africa, he said.

“More than 200 million starving people urgently need appropriate technology for survival,” Oikeh said. “There is no choice.”

Farmers from South Africa and Burkina Faso were on hand to testify to the improvements in their farming and their lives when they introduced genetically modified crops on their land.