Miten bioteknologia on pidetty poissa Afrikasta?

[Heikki Jokipii]

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

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.

[Heikki Jokipii]

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...

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]

Analyysi otsikkomme asiasta:

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

****

Ja siiten siitä, mitä pitäisi tapahtua:

Viewpoint: African nations must take on the responsibility of developing agricultural innovations as well as benefiting from them

[Heikki Jokipii]

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

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:

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]

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:

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.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Vääntö jatkuu:

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

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]

Tällaisella on vaikutusta:

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

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:

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.

[Heikki Jokipii]

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:

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]

Keniassa tällainen voitto:

‘There is no evidence GMOs harm people’: Kenyan judge clears genetically-modified corn for cultivation, export and import

Kenia oli kyllä jo edellä mainitun 7 joukossa.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tätä ilmiötä olen minäkin ihmetellyt:

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

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]

Heidän (Mark Lynas, Victor Oria | Nation Africa | December 8, 2023) mukaansa tämä hylätty tutkimus vaikuttaa vielä:

Here’s how French activist-professor Gilles-Éric Séralini’s retracted and discredited paper — that claims GMO crops and glyphosate cause cancer — continues to undermine Kenyan agriculture