2003
Influential Groups Push Growing Penetration of Biotech Crops (December 4, 2003)
Supporters of sustainable agriculture fear that a growing alliance between the biotech industry and the World Bank overrides their concerns. This article exposes how GM companies such as Monsanto increase their influence within the World Bank through staff exchange programs. (Inter Press Service)
Feeding a Hungry World: Is Biotechnology the Answer? (October 16, 2003)
A new research initiative supported by the Gates Foundation, USAID and the World Bank, claims that "biofortification" – the selection of crops with greater nutritional contents – will combat malnutrition. Yet, this focus on technology disregards the root causes of hunger, which lie in an unfair system of food production and distribution. (Inter Press Service)
GE Crops Take a Double Hit (October 16, 2003)
Studies by the UK Royal Society confirm earlier warnings that genetically engineered crops may harm the environment. Monsanto, one of the biggest GM producers, reacted to growing opposition in Europe and announced its withdrawal from the continent. (Greenpeace)
Crops on Steroids (October 3, 2003)
Despite an EU embargo against imports of genetically modified organisms and uncertainty about the effect of GMOs, South African farmers increasingly cultivate GM maize and cotton. At the same time, US corporate giants Monsanto and Syngenta flood the department of agriculture with applications for GM seed permits. (Financial Mail, South Africa)
Hard Realities: Brazil Drops Resistance to Genetically Altered Crops (September 28, 2003)
Biotech companies like Monsanto applaud Brazil's decision to allow the planting and sale of genetically engineered soybeans. Yet, this decision marks a major setback for environmental and consumer groups, who led a decade-long battle to prevent Brazil from following Argentina and other big agricultural producers in allowing GMOs. (New York Times)
GMO Import Ban Caught in Crossfire (September 10, 2003)
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety allows governments to ban imports of genetically modified food that could have an "adverse effect" on biological diversity or human health. The US never signed the convention. Furthermore, it pursues legal action against the EU for opposing imports of GM food. (New Scientist)
Vatican Council Backs Genetically Modified Foods on Moral Grounds (August 8, 2003)
A recent Vatican council document urges Pope John Paul II to back biotechnology, considering genetically modified organisms the only way to meet the growing worldwide food demand and thus, to alleviate world hunger. (CNSNews.com)
The War of the World: America, GM, and Developing Countries (August 7, 2003)
OpenDemocracy contends that US support for biotechnology merely responds to commercial interests. While corporations and the US argue that biotechnology will eliminate hunger, this technology will in fact make poor countries dependent on GM food.
Food Bully (July 27, 2003)
The Bush Administration applies its "for us or against us" foreign relations tactics to trade policy and GMOs, particularly with poor countries. However, US companies paid scientists to create GMOs for huge US farms, not small-scale agriculture. (ZNet)
Burkina Faso Considers Use of Genetically Modified Cotton (July 23, 2003)
Burkina Faso considers cultivating transgenic cotton, which is resistant to caterpillars, to make its cotton farms competitive. Besides higher yields, farmers expect to drastically reduce the use of pesticides. (Inter Press Service)
Groups Seek Halt to Bio-Pharming Field Trials (July 15, 2003)
Environmentalists are using US endangered species laws to prevent open-field testing of GMOs that may spread the bio-engineered plants to natural environments. Even industries in favor of GMOs fear testing without strict government restrictions. (Inter Press Service)
European Parliament Lifts GM Food Ban (July 2, 2003)
The EU decided to strictly label GMO food in order to give consumers a choice and avoid a trade war with the US. However, the US plans to appeal to the WTO to eliminate labeling laws, and environmentalists oppose allowing any GMO foods into EU markets. (Independent Press Association)
Protesters Quietly Decry 'Frankenfood' (June 24, 2003)
Protesters gather to oppose the use of genetically modified foods, as the US pressures Europe to accept bioengineered food at the international conference on farm technology in Sacramento. (Los Angeles Times)
Old Europe and New GM Foods (June 24, 2003)
President Bush blames the EU moratorium on GMO foods for perpetuating world hunger, but unequal distribution of income, not food production, is the real problem. GMO foods will only go to those who can pay US agri-business. (Common Dreams)
The Battle over GMOs (June 23, 2003)
Following the EU, Asian countries put a moratorium on US-produced GMOs, pending further research into their environmental and commercial implications. Nonetheless, strong US trade ties increase the pressure on Asian countries to open their markets. (Asian Times)
'Frakenfish' Threaten Wild Salmon (June 17, 2003)
The WTO's anti-democratic procedures have ensured that genetically engineered fish will not be up for discussion at the ministerial conference in Sacramento, despite their harmful impact on wild fish stocks. (Counterpunch)
Genetically Modified Morals: A Global Food Fight (June 13, 2003)
Exporting US genetically modified food to Africa as aid makes rural communities dangerously dependent on large agri-business. What Africa really needs is support for its domestic agricultural infrastructure and fair pricing. (International Herald Tribune)
Throwing Precaution to the Wind (June 4, 2003)
The US challenge to a European ban on genetically modified food in the WTO demonstrates the danger the trade body poses to health and environmental laws. Worse, it could require the Europeans to adopt less rigorous safety regulations, giving the benefit of the doubt to manufacturers who claim their products are safe. (ZNet)
The GM Mirage Will Not Help the Poor (June 4, 2003)
Action Aid's reporter argues no evidence proves GM crops require fewer chemicals, yield more, or contribute to the alleviation of hunger. GM crops as means of sustainable agriculture remain questionable, especially when commercialized venders require poor farmers to re-purchase their GM seeds annually. (Guardian)
GM Crops (June 3, 2003)
Members of the international community persistantly argue over the use of genetically modified crops, as governments and world organizations contemplate how to regulate or deregulate this bio-technology. Guardian reporter outlines the debate and background behind GM foods.
African Food on Table at Summit (June 2, 2003)
The battle over exporting genetically modified seeds to Africa continues at the G8 conference in Evian. France is concerned the US wants more markets for its GM's, while the US accuses France of threatening African food security. (Christian Science Monitor)
Stop Playing with Hunger! (June 2003)
The US government promotes genetically modified food as the primary solution to improve food security in poor countries. Pointing towards the US legislation that ties assistance on AIDS to the acceptance of GM food aid, Friends of the Earth questions the sincere commitment of the US to the fight against hunger.
International Food Wars (April 2003)
An interview with Bruce Stokes highlights current issues and debates in international food policy. Skepticism of US genetically modified organisms (GMOs) grows and tension mounts over US and EU agricultural subsidies. (Foreign Policy)
EU Backs Poor Farmers' Seed Use (February 3, 2003)
The EU will review two proposals to limit the power of the biotech industry and protect the rights of poor and indigenous peoples. The proposals would require "bio-prospectors" to disclose the origin of biological materials used in new inventions, and would protect the rights of poor farmers to save and reuse seed. (BBC)
2002
Sowing Disaster? (October 28, 2002)
Scientists do not have ways to contain genetic modifications to selected crops. Though no one can predict the future scope of such findings, complications are already arising surrounding tainted non-GM crops, use of genetic alterations without permits, and adulteration of local genetic pools. Unfortunately, farmers have little judicial precedent to support their concerns, as this issue falls in the middle of a "legal black hole." If regulatory policy is not begun soon, permanent agricultural complications will make it obsolete. (The Nation)
2001
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (November 2001)
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Conference adopted this document after seven years of negotiations in November 2001. The treaty aims at guaranteeing international cooperation and open exchange of crops and their genes, and it covers all genetic resources that are relevant for food and agriculture. In particular, the agreement aspires to safeguard the interests of indigenous populations that have developed, saved and exchanged seeds for over 10,000 years.
Safety of Modified Food Taken Up by UN (July 8, 2001)
The 165 member states of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the top UN food standards body, agree to draft global guidelines to guarantee the safety of genetically modified food in supermarkets. (Associated Press)
