Author Topic: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?  (Read 66471 times)

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #165 on: 24.03.23 - klo:06:04 »
Eräs järjestö mainittu nimeltä:

Viewpoint: ‘A grim record of denying poor countries new technologies’ — From climate change to crop biotechnology, Greenpeace promotes the interests of the wealthy

Quote
The Greens are elitist, representing rich people in rich countries. They do not want Africa to develop as Europe has done. They do not want poor African countries to become as rich and comfortable as Germany, Britain, Canada, the USA and other prosperous nations. They want to deny African countries the technologies that made their own countries safe, rich and clean. They have a grim record of trying to deny to poor countries technologies that will improve their food production, prevent disease and give them clean, plentiful energy.
« Last Edit: 24.03.23 - klo:06:08 by Heikki Jokipii »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #166 on: 09.06.23 - klo:04:11 »
Kehityskulkuja kahteen suuntaan:

As Kenyan High Court mulls future of GM imports, neighboring Ethiopia moves closer to approving genetically engineered maize, wheat, potato and enset

Tämä...

Quote
In a stark contrast to Kenya, the Ethiopian government is currently testing the adoption of consumable GMOs without opposition. The government is testing GMO maize, wheat, potato, and enset in confined areas within different agricultural research centers, according to an official at the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR).

... tuo kyllä vielä mieleemme vanhan keskustelumme:

Se Etiopian ihme taas

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
« Last Edit: 12.07.23 - klo:09:31 by Heikki Jokipii »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #168 on: 06.08.23 - klo:04:23 »
Tämä ei ole ohi (palaan tähän jo linkattuun artikkeliin):

How European Union restrictions fueled anti-GMO voices and hunger in Global South, and mainly Africa

Quote
Anti-GM sentiments in the EU have profoundly affected Africa and shaped GM policies.

In most cases, Africa’s leaders have always cited Europe as a benchmark for adopting genetic engineering technologies in agriculture.

Now that the EU is softening its stance on genetic technologies, we hope this can revolutionize agriculture in the Global South.

Agriculture accounts for 17.2 percent of Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provides livelihood to over 50 percent of the population.

Yet, Africa’s agriculture is the least developed, has the lowest productivity, and is significantly affected by diseases, emerging pests, and extreme weather events.

Even as the EU is taking a new direction regarding genetic modification in agriculture, it will take much effort to change decades-old anti-GM sentiments in the Global South.

Vaikka tämä vuoden 2002 kriisi jossain mielessä onkin:

Quote
The European Union (EU) was and is still the largest market for African agricultural produce.

The EU has been waging war against GMOs for decades, citing its citizens’ safety and health concerns.

The EU was protecting its farmers from competitive American producers who had embraced GM food crops.

It was said the US food aid would contaminate African crops, ultimately closing export markets for Africa’s agricultural produce in the EU.

In 2003, The Royal Society published the results of field trials on GMOs in the UK, finding them harmful in some cases and helpful in others.

Based on these mixed findings, some non-governmental organizations in the EU demanded that all GM crops be banned.

Niinpä koko maailma tarkkailee nyt EU:ta sen kärvistellessä oman päätöksensä kanssa.

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #169 on: 17.08.23 - klo:08:53 »
Varmaan asiaan on montakin syytä:

"Africa faces the world’s largest food and hunger crisis. Why then are Africans so skeptical of genetically modified crops that could produce more and healthier food"

Mutta tämäkin on siellä yhä mukana:

Quote
The EU’s strict regulations on GM products have affected its trade partners, including countries in Africa. Egypt and Burkina Faso, which had commercialised GM maize and cotton in 2008, backtracked on GM partly because of their trade relationship with the EU.

Eli samaa asiaa kuin edellisessa puheenvuorossa. Tai toisissa puheenvuoroissa tässä triidissä. Vuodesta 2008 alkaen.
« Last Edit: 17.08.23 - klo:09:01 by Heikki Jokipii »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #170 on: 29.08.23 - klo:04:07 »
Vääntö jatkuu:

Cost of GMO bans: Global crop assessment finds GMO restrictions limit food production to ⅓ of potential, with poorer countries hit hardest

Quote
How costly are GM bans? To find out, we calculate by how much yields would have been higher in 2019 had all bans on cultivation been lifted ten years before. The result… shows that GM bans mainly hurt Sub-Saharan Africa. Not only because the region is relatively poor and warm, but also because it grows substantial amounts of cotton and maize. Moreover, Sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income countries have large agricultural sectors, so the cost of GM bans relative to their total economies would be disproportionately larger than in richer countries.

At the global level, we find that cost of GM bans in terms of lost output was about US$69 billion in 2019. As our estimated realized gain was $39 billion, it follows that only one-third of the potential of the currently available GM varieties has been realized. The one-third is an average for the four crops, however. Without bans, the world would have produced 13 percent more cotton, 28 percent more maize, 26 percent more rapeseed, and 4 percent more soybean in 2019.

Kansainvälisesti, mutta myös maiden sisällä:

Genetically-modified crops poised to revolutionize sustainable farming in Nigeria

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #171 on: 01.10.23 - klo:04:52 »
Tällaisella on vaikutusta:

Viewpoint: As the BBC spews organic farming propaganda, the world’s poor suffer

Quote
In sum, organic agriculture makes the food supply more expensive and more tenuous, and when practiced in poor societies, puts vulnerable populations at risk.
[..]
All these factors will adversely affect consumer welfare among the poorest in the world, even in wealthy enclaves in the UK, Europe and North America..

Organic agriculture and food production, to say nothing of utter nonsense like organic sheets and pillows, are a colossal, and expensive, hoax.

It is bad enough to see this misinformation inflicted on the affluent, but it is grotesque that consumers in poorer countries will bear the largest burden of these narcissistic policies. Influential sources of information like the BBC should rethink their collaboration on this deception.

Ihan erikseen tästä osasta tuota "tiedon" välitystä:

Quote
There are several factual whoppers in a short, summary BBC graphic, “Organic Farming and Genetically Modified Food.” It states that genetic modification “involves farmers using seeds which have been altered by scientific techniques. In the past plants were improved by breeding them with better plants. This allowed farmers to grow strong plants which yielded large amounts of crops to sell.” 

In fact, for about a century, many new varieties of plants have been created by mutagenesis — treating seeds with chemicals or radiation to create mutations — and by wide crosses (also called “distant hybridization”), which employs artificial means to overcome natural breeding barriers. Crops created these ways, including sweet Ruby Red Grapefruit and Italian durum wheat (mutagenesis); and strawberries, bananas and mangoes (distant hybridization). In sum, all crops have been ’genetically modified’ in one way or another over millennia, with the newest techniques—recombinant DNA technology, RNA interference and gene-editing — the most precise and predictable, and, therefore, safer than traditional breeding.
« Last Edit: 01.10.23 - klo:05:01 by Heikki Jokipii »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #172 on: 14.10.23 - klo:04:12 »
Nykytilanne:

Only 7 African countries commercially grow genetically engineered crops. Here’s a blueprint to unlock the continent’s enormous farm and food potential

Ja sen hahmottelua, miten tästä eteenpäin. Tämä tulee siinäkin esille:

Quote
Internationally, the stakeholders interviewed believed that trade partners, like the European Union, wield a lot of influence over the political decisions in Africa, and are partly responsible for the low number of commercialized GM crops. To address this, African representatives can participate in international forums, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, to influence the opinions and political positions of such trade partners.
(lihav. HJ)

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #173 on: 17.10.23 - klo:05:35 »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #174 on: 23.10.23 - klo:05:14 »
Tätä ilmiötä olen minäkin ihmetellyt:

Marxist Neo-Colonialism: Jacobin Magazine Backs Anti-GMO Agenda In Africa

Quote
Several pro-science NGOs are trying to expand Africa's access to modern farming technologies, including biotech crops and pesticides. The Marxist busybodies at Jacobin would rather poor people across the continent go hungry.
[..]
This evidence is compelling to anyone who will consider it fairly, but there is a dedicated cohort of ideologues that refuse to let the facts frame their conclusions about modern farming practices. That description could apply to any number of publications or activist groups, but I have in mind Jacobin Magazine, “a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.”

Modernin tekniikan vastustus (julkilausutusti) vasemmistolaisesta lähtökohdasta, erityisesti maataloudessa, ei ole tuntematonta Euroopassakaan.

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #176 on: 17.01.24 - klo:11:03 »
Ei sitä pystytä estämään:

50%+ yield boost: Nigeria commercializes four varieties of insect-resistant, drought-tolerant corn

Tulokset tällaisia:

Quote
The new maize varieties are drought tolerant and are resistant to stem-borer and fall armyworm resulting in yield advantage of up to 10 tonnes per hectare under good agronomic practices. The national average for similar hybrids is 6 tonnes per hectare. The varieties are suitable for Rain Forest, Guinea, and Sudan Savannas. Stem-borer reduces maize production in several countries in Africa, while fall armyworm can destroy up to 20 million metric tons of maize in Africa each year, enough to feed 100 million people.

Lähestytään siis USA:n Iowan satotasoja!!!


Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 24843
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?
« Reply #178 on: 10.02.24 - klo:05:04 »
Tällainen häiriö lupaavalle kehitystyölle:

USAID’s funding freeze on blight-resistant GM potato research in Ethiopia could have grave consequences

Quote
Researchers are left in limbo as they await funding for a genetically modified potato project that lost its financing as part of the US government’s suspension of non-humanitarian aid to Ethiopia.

The National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center (NABRC) working with researchers at Michigan State University won a USD 13 million grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for a project in 2021.

The project was intended to create a late-blight resistant potato for agricultural production using genes from a wild species of potato. The genetically modified organism (GMO) project is headed by Tadesse Daba (PhD), country coordinator at Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology at NABRC.



The US government announced the suspension of all non-humanitarian aid to Ethiopia in 2021, a few months after fighting began between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the federal government.
(lihav. HJ)

USA:n hallituksella on varmaan linjaukselleen perustelunsa, mutta:

Quote
Tadesse warns the potato project cut off could have grave consequences.

“Late-blight could attack all edible species of potato all over the world,” he said. “The devastation to production could be between 70 and 100 percent, which is why grant proposals were submitted from various countries.”