http://www.eraction.org/publications/SayNotoGMOinAfrica.pdf

http://www.eraction.org/publications/SayNotoGMOinAfrica.pdf

AFRICA MUST NOT USE BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD PRODUCTION

Re: AFRICA MUST USE BIOTECHNOLOGY TO MAXIMISE FOOD

PRODUCTION

We the undersigned representing civil society groups are concerned about recent statements that emanated from the first Pan African Biotechnology Stewardship Conference held in Accra, Ghana on the 1^st of December 2011, which called on Africans to use biotechnology to provide “poor farmers with healthier, more bountiful crops to reduce hunger and poverty in Africa".

The high profile conference which was on the theme “Africa In Search Of Safe and High Quality Biotech Crops” was graced by experts in Biotechnology from around the world, who unanimously endorsed the use of gm crops for providing “poor farmers with healthier, more bountiful crops to reduce hunger and poverty in Africa."

At the said meeting, Deputy Executive Director of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Ramadjita Tabo, was quoted as saying that the sole aim of of the Agricultural Biotechnology Biosafety Policy Platform was to build the capacity of Africans “for the deployment of biotechnology”, and that

“ This capacity strengthening covers both genetically modified and non-GM approaches.”

1

Professor Adewale Adekunle, Director of Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa (FARA) Unit, which deals with partnership, in his closing remarks stated that, to meet the food security needs, African countries need to rely on biotechnology and stewardship. 

2

We are disappointed that an unproven and unsafe technology is being hoisted on Africa simply because of the unfortunate continual characterization of Africa as a chronically hungry continent.

It is important to understand that, the agricultural fortunes of the continent have been adversely impacted mainly by externally generated neo-liberal policies. Our agricultural systems are threatened by industries that seek to control our food and our livelihoods by destroying our agricultural systems. The move towards intensified, chemical based agriculture is set to undermine the predominant family based agro-ecological food production on the continent.

The promotion and introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with intellectual property rights over seeds represents a serious threat to African farmers rights to reproduce,

1 AFRICA MUST USE BIOTECHNOLOGY TO MAXIMISE FOOD PRODUCTION???

SOURCE: Ghana News Agency, Ghana (GNA), DATE: 01.1

2.2011

URL:

http://www.ghana.gov.gh/index.php?option=com_conten

t&view=article&id=9459:africa-must-

use-biotechnology-to-maximise-food-production-&cati

d=28:general-news&Itemid=162

2

ibid

save and share seeds. It also threatens to erode seed diversity represents new forms of stealing, as all industrial seeds are taken from seeds cultivated, developed and preserved through thousands of years of selection and breeding by our people.

We express total disgust at the manner by which the burden for solutions to every crisis faced by the North is shifted unto Africa. For example, with the climate change and energy crises the burden has been inequitably placed on the continent through land grabs for agro-fuels production as well as the unfair sentencing of Africa to adapt to climate impacts that she did not create.

While the world is advancing towards stricter control of GMOs, it is a different situation in Africa where our leaders are covertly or ignorantly

colluding with multinational agribusinesses to colonize our food systems as well as give out our arable lands through dubious land grabbing greements.

We note that recently many countries have been taking steps to secure their agriculture from pollution through modern biotechnology and to secure

the safety of national food systems. We give examples here.

1.   Benin Republic has maintained a moratorium on GMOs over the past 10 years.

2.   Peruapproved the law banning GM production for 10 years.

3.   The Mexican States of Tlaxcala and Michoacán each passed legislation banning the planting of genetically modified corn to protect natural plants from further contamination of transgenes. China said GMO is not a priority, stemming from public debate and outcry over the safety of GMO food

4.   In the United States: California counties of Mendocino, Trinity and Marin have successfully banned GM crops.

5.   In New Zealand: No GM foods are grown.

6.   In Germany: There is a ban on the cultivation or sale of GMO maize.

7.   Peru approves law banning GM production for 10 years http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2011/11/perus-congress-approves-10-year-gmo-ban/Two Mexican States ban GM corn! http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/03/0 GM in China 'not a priority' http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/china-agriculture-

idUSTOE71M04V20110223

8.   In Ireland: All GM crops were banned for cultivation in 2009, and there is a labeling system for foods containing GM to ensure that such foods are identified as such.

9.   In Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Luxembourg there are bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs.

10.               In France: Monsanto's MON810 GM corn had been approved but its cultivation was forbidden in 2008. There is widespread public mistrust of GMOs that has been successful in keeping GM crops out of the country.

11.               Madeira the autonomous Portugese island requested a country-wide ban on genetically modified crops last year and was permitted to do so by the European Union (EU).

12.               12.Switzerland banned all GM crops, animals, and plants on its fields and farms in a public referendum in 2005, but the initial ban was for only five years. The ban has since been extended through 2013.

There are several other examples.

It is clear that the Genetic engineering is a technology in search of a market. Experts in Biotechnology from around the world” and lobbyists from the genetic engineering (GE) industry are pushing the notion that Africa’s only choice is between hunger and GE crops. This is patently false and is merely an arm-twisting effort that African farmers and peoples’ must resist. Hunger can be avoided without growing and eating GE crops. Studies have shown that the claim that genetically engineered (GE) crops have a higher yield than natural varieties is virtually a myth. It is also not true that GE crops lead to reduction in the use of pesticides and other agro chemicals. Neither is it true that the way to overcome nutritional deficiencies must be through techno fixes. 6 The so-called nutritional fortification of crops is simply market grabbing exercises as better quality and more nutrious traditional varieties exist.

For these reasons we ask our governments and peoples as a matter of urgency to support ecological-friendly farming which nurtures our soil, cultivates diversity and supplies our families with safe and nutritious food. Ecological agriculture also helps to combat climate change.

We therefore resolve as follows:

1.That there are no successes stories to tell about GMOs other than tales of woes. Africans must not be used as guinea pigs for unverified technologies and the continent must no longer be used as a dumping ground for the products of the biotech companies.

6

Nnimmo Bassey:

Playing politics with genetically modified organism

s

http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Money/Busines

s/Energy/5635474-

183/oil_politics_playing_politics_with_genetically.

csp

2. That production of GMOs is not only a threat to biosafety; it also poses great danger to biodiversity which is at the base of sustainability of life. 3.We call for a local and global paradigm-shift towards Food Sovereignty: food production and consumption that are fundamentally based upon local contextual considerations. Small-scale farmers, pastoralists, fisher-folk, indigenous peoples and others have defined a food system based on the human Right to adequate Food and food production policies that increase democracy in localized food systems and ensure maximisation of sustainable natural resource use.

In 2008, after three years of solid work, over 400 scientists, 30 governments from developed and developing countries, as well as 30 civil society organizations, concluded work under the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). About 60 countries endorsed the report at a meeting in Johannesburg in April of that year. The report concluded that modern biotechnology would have very limited contribution to the feeding of the world in the foreseeable future. That report is an excellent blue print for action by African governments rather than getting tied to the apron-strings of speculators and neo-colonial powers whose objective is to exploit subjugate and destroy food production systems on the African continent

===============================

Genetically modified (GM) crops. (illustration: Melvyn Calderon/Greenpeace)

Africa's Frankenfoods

By Paige Aarhus, Indypendent

09 June 12

n the sprawling hills of the Kangundo district in Kenya’s Eastern Province, just a few hours outside of capital city Nairobi, Fred Kiambaa has been farming the same small, steep plot of land for more than 20 years.

Born and raised just outside Kathiini Village in Kangundo, Kiambaa knows the ups and downs of agriculture in this semi-arid region. He walks up a set of switchbacks to Kangundo’s plateaus to tend his fields each morning and seldom travels further than a few miles from his plot.

Right now, all that remains of his maize crop are rows of dry husks. Harvest season finished just two weeks ago, and the haul was meager this time around.

“Water is the big problem, it’s always water. We have many boreholes, but when there is no rain, it’s still difficult,” he said.

Kiambaa and his wife, Mary, only harvested 440 pounds of maize this season, compared to their usual 2,200. They have six children, meaning there will be many lean months before the next harvest, and worse: Though March is Kenya’s rainiest month, it’s been mostly dry so far.

“The rain surely is not coming well this year. Rain is the key. We can only pray,” he said.

Wonder Crops?

Farmers like Kiambaa are central to a push to deploy genetically modified (GM) technology within Kenya. In recent years, donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have invested millions of dollars into researching, developing and promoting GM technology, including drought-resistant maize, within the country - and have found a great deal of success in doing so through partnerships with local NGOs and government bodies.

The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), a semi-autonomous government research institution, recently announced that after years of trials, genetically modified drought-resistant maize seeds will be available to Kenyan farmers within the next five years. Trial GM drought-resistant cotton crops are already growing in Kidoko, 240 miles southeast of Nairobi.

Researchers and lobbyists argue that in a country so frequently stricken by food shortages, scientific advancements can put food into hungry bellies. Drought-resistant seeds and vitamin-enriched crops could be agricultural game changers, they say.

But serious concerns about viability, corporate dependency and health effects linger - even while leading research firms and NGOs do their best to smooth them over.

Agriculture dominates Kenya’s economy, although more than 80 percent of its land is too dry and infertile for efficient cultivation. Kenya is the second largest seed consumer in sub-Saharan Africa, and Nairobi is a well-known hub for agricultural research. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, farming is the largest contributor to Kenya’s gross domestic product, and 75 percent of Kenyans made their living by farming in 2006.

Half of the country’s total agricultural output is non-marketed subsistence production - meaning farms like Kiambaa’s, where nothing is sold and everything is consumed.

On top of that, the country is still reeling from the worst drought in half a century, which affected an estimated 13 million people across the Horn of Africa in 2011. Kenya is home to the world’s largest refugee camp, housing 450,000 Somalis fleeing violence and famine, increasing the pressure to deal with food security challenges.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga recently called on parliament to assist the estimated 4.8 million Kenyans, in a country of about 40 million, who still rely on government food supports, as analysts predict that this year’s rainy season will be insufficient to guarantee food security.

“The situation is not good... Arid and semi-arid regions have not recovered from the drought,” Odinga said.

At the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), a massive NGO working on GM research and development in partnership with KARI, Regulatory Affairs Manager Dr. Francis Nang’ayo says GM crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-genetically modified foods and should be embraced as a solution to persistent drought and hunger.

In 2008, the AATF received a $47 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This partnership involved the Howard G. Buffett Foundation and American seed giant Monsanto.

In 2005, the Water-Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) program became one of the first main partners in a program aimed at developing drought-resistant maize for small-scale African farmers. Monsanto promised to provide seeds for free. The Gates Foundation claimed at the time that biotechnology and GM crops would help end poverty and food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Gates Foundation had invested $27.6 million in Monsanto shares.

Donors had been investing millions in KARI for decades in an effort to develop seeds that would produce pest- and disease-resistant plants and produce higher yields. Monsanto promised results, with the goal of distributing its seeds to small-scale farmers across Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

Since then WEMA’s African partners have made major strides in bringing GM crops to Kenya, most notably when KARI announced in March that it is set to introduce genetically modified maize to farmers’ fields by 2017. Until 2008, South Africa had been the only country using GM technology. Now Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mali, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ghana are researching GM seeds and growing trial crops of cotton, maize and sorghum.

“Five years ago it was only South Africa that had a clear policy. Since then a number of countries have put their acts together by publishing policies on GM technology laws. In Kenya we’re moving on to create institutional mechanisms,” said Dr. Nang’ayo.

Deeply Divided

But Nang’ayo and his team face several challenges. Popular opinion on the technology is deeply divided in Kenya, in large part due to suspicions about the giant foreign corporations that control it.

Monsanto-patented seeds are usually costly, which has led to numerous accusations of exploitation and contemporary colonialism. But how long will these particular strains of seeds last? What are the guarantees? Critics fear dependence on corporate fertilizers and pesticides, the emergence of super-weeds and pests that can no longer repel GM varieties, and terminator seeds that only last for one planting season.

At Seattle’s AGRA Watch, a project of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, director Heather Day said there aren’t enough questions being asked about introducing GM technology to developing countries.

“Our campaign started because of our concern about the Gates Foundation’s influence on agriculture and the lack of transparency and accountability. We also have ecological concerns, in terms of food sovereignty and farmers’ ability to control their food system. We need to be concerned about the industrialization of the agricultural system,” she said.

AGRA Watch’s objective is to monitor and question the Gates Foundation’s push for a “green revolution” in Africa.

Monsanto has promised an indefinite supply of royalty-free seeds for this project, but Day said the pitfalls have the potential to devastate the continent’s agriculture.

“Genetically modified crops actually haven’t been that successful,” Day said. “We’ve seen massive crop failure in South Africa, and farmers there couldn’t get financial remedies or compensation for their losses. There’s genetic resistance and super-pests, these things are happening now, and it’s not surprising. It’s what you would expect from an ecological standpoint.”

The horror stories are real - in India, for example, farmers who purchased Bollgard I cotton seeds from 2007 to 2009 wound up spending four times the price of regular seeds, and paying dearly for it. It was believed that Monsanto’s patented GM seeds would be resistant to pink bollworms, which were destroying cotton crops across swaths of India, but by 2010 Monsanto officials were forced to admit that the seed had failed and a newer breed of far more aggressive pests had emerged. The solution? Bollgard II, an even stronger GM cotton seed.

As of December 2011, Monsanto was actively promoting the latest Bollgard III cotton seed, stronger than ever before. Pesticide spending in India skyrocketed between 2007 and 2009, forcing thousands of farmers into crushing debt, and hundreds more into giving up their land. Some media outlets later drew a connection between the Bollgard debacle and a rash of suicides across farms that had purchased the seeds.

Land Grabs

Kenya is a country where land-grabbing is all too common, be it on the coast to make way for new tourist resorts, or in Nairobi, where slum demolitions left hundreds homeless when the government bulldozed several apartment buildings to reclaim an area near the Moi Air Base.

Farmers here are skeptical of risking everything for a few seasons of higher yields. In Kangundo, Kiambaa said he would try GM technology if it was a matter of life or death - but he is wary.

Kiambaa uses the Katumani breed of maize, a widely available seed that is reasonably drought-tolerant and affordable. Higher yields are tempting, of course, but Kiambaa said he doesn’t want to chance his livelihood on a foreign corporation. While his family has been on the land for decades now, Kiambaa said they didn’t get to farm it until British colonialists returned it to local farmers. He pointed out trees that line the steep hillside, planted by the British.

“It’s because of Mzungus that we have charcoal,” he said, smiling wryly.

After the last harvest, Kiambaa can’t even afford to use Kenya’s standard DAP fertilizer, which costs 59 cents per pound. Instead, he has a lone cow tied to a post in his fields.

“This provides the fertilizer we need. We can’t afford anything else. The maize yield could have been much better, but we know our plants will grow each year. It is better we keep it the way it is. My family has been on this land for 100 years. We have always survived,” he said.

At the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), CEO Willy Tonui claims media hysteria and inaccurate reporting are to blame for resistance to GM technology, arguing the NBA maintains stringent guidelines about GM seeds in Kenya. Referring to the plans to allow GM maize seeds in by 2017, Tonui said, “The National Biosafety Authority does not have the mandate to introduce GM maize or any other crop into Kenya. We only review applications that are submitted to the authority. To date, the authority has not received any application on commercial release of GM maize or any other crop.”

Anne Maina, advocacy coordinator for the African Biodiversity Network (ABN), a coalition of 65 Kenyan farming organizations, said that’s not a good enough answer.

“Who’s controlling the industry?” she asked. “If you are going to talk to the National Biosafety Authority, they’ll tell you the information is available, but there is a confidential business information clause where whoever is controlling the industry is not held accountable. The level of secrecy and lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

Farmers’ Needs

The ABN has actively lobbied the government since 2004 to crack down on GM technology slowly filtering into Kenya, with some measure of success. A 2009 Biosafety Act required all GM imports to pass stringent government standards before entering the country.

Maina recognizes the uphill battle she’s facing.

“Our public research institutions must shift their focus back to farmers’ needs,” she told The Indypendent, “rather than support the agenda of agribusiness, which is to colonize our food and seed chain. We believe that the patenting of seed is deeply unethical and dangerous.”

Joan Baxter is a journalist who has spent years reporting on climate change and agriculture in Africa. Reporting now from Sierra Leone, Baxter was quick to point out that even if a farmer chooses not to use GM technology, it won’t guarantee crop safety.

“Farmers are always at risk of contamination from GM seeds. That has been shown in North America. The farmers [in Africa] may lose their own seeds, perhaps be given GM seeds for a year or two, then have to purchase them and be stuck in the trap and in debt,” she said.

Like Maina, Baxter sees a problem in how GM technology is being marketed, and slowly introduced, into African countries, under the guise of ending famine. With climate change becoming an increasingly influential factor in the GM debate, Baxter said companies claiming to help are only looking for profit.

“Basically this is disaster capitalism. The disaster of hunger and drought, climate change and policy-related, is now a profit opportunity for Monsanto and Syngenta. The Gates Foundation buying shares in Monsanto tells you what the real agenda is: To get GMOs in Africa,” she said.

In 2010, NBA’s CEO resigned after it was revealed that 280,000 tonnes of GM maize had found its way into Kenya from South Africa through the Port of Mombasa.

Farmers mobilized en masse after the Dreyfus scandal (named for the South African company responsible for shipping the seeds) was revealed, marching on Parliament to demand an end to secret imports. After the most recent GM announcement, however, there were no protests. The long rains that would ensure a good yield haven’t come. The drought may continue.

Added to the potential problems with GM technology are health risks-the strains of maize that were illegally imported in 2010 had been deemed unsafe for children and the elderly. Maina also worries about animal feeding trials that showed damage to liver, kidney and pancreas, effects on fertility, and stomach bleeding in livestock that has consumed GM feed. A more recent study carried out on pregnant women in Canada found genetically modified insecticidal proteins in their blood streams and in that of their unborn children, despite assurances from scientists that it wasn’t possible.

The political scandal that erupted after 2010’s illegal imports brought GM technology into the forefront of Kenyan public debate, but last year’s massive drought has shifted public and political discourse. The ABN doesn’t have a $47 million grant to keep it going, and the pressures it faces from politicians and corporations, now waging their own propaganda war, are overwhelming.

GM Treadmill

At the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health in Toronto, researchers recently released a report titled “Factors in the adoption and development of agro-biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa.” The report, which was financed by a grant by the Gates Foundation, came to the conclusion that “poor communication is affecting agbiotech adoption,” and that “widespread dissemination of information at the grassroots level and can spread misinformation and create extensive public concern and distrust for agbiotech initiatives.”

Lead researcher Obidimma Ezezika declined to comment on Monsanto’s involvement with GM technology, and denied that his team was creating corporate propaganda.

“I think it is important to actively and soberly engage in the debate by offering facts to the policy makers, media and public on ag-biotech which will dispel fears and anxieties,” he told The Indypendent.

The mounting evidence, health questions and political scandals all mean Kenya would be wisest to take a step back before jumping on board the GM train, says Maina.

“Our key concern is that the development of insecticides and pesticides is primarily the emergence of companies getting farmers to buy highly toxic chemicals, which they will become totally dependent on. We don’t yet know the extent of the health risks posed, nor how we are expected to trust companies that have a record of putting small farmers out of business. It is time for sober second thought,” she said.

---

Seeds of a Controversy

Genetically modified foods were first introduced on a commercial basis in the United States in the mid-1990s. The new technology made it possible to splice desirable qualities from one species into another - such as inserting the gene that keeps a flounder from freezing in cold water into a tomato for longer cold temperature storage. The usage of GM crops in the United States grew rapidly in the following years with minimal public debate. Today, more than 70 percent of the food in supermarkets have GM derivatives, including virtually all processed foods. However, GM food continues to be controversial in other parts of the world, especially in Europe and Africa. Here are some of the reasons why:

Human Health: The process of genetic engineering can introduce dangerous new allergens and toxins into foods, such as when Starlink, a gene-altered animal feed corn containing a potential allergen, was found in corn chips and taco shells. Questions have also been raised about the potential impact of gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract.

PATENTED SEEDS: Farmers have saved harvested seeds for replanting since the dawn of human agriculture 11,000 years ago. But farmers who carry on this practice with GM crops can be charged with violating intellectual property rights in much the same way that people who share music files online without paying can be hauled into court. Biotech giant Monsanto has also explored the use of Terminator technology that would render harvested seeds sterile and unusable. To date, this technology has not been commercialized due to intense opposition around the world.

Contamination of non-GM crops: As the planting of genetically modified crops become more widespread, the number of incidents in which their pollen contaminates traditional or organic varieties increases. Such contamination can cost organic growers their certification and their consumers access to non-GM food. It can also lead to a lawsuit from corporations like Monsanto, which aggressively litigates against farmers whose fields have been contaminated claiming - of all things - patent infringement. Many non-GM farmers will refrain from growing certain crops in order to avoid the risk of being sued. The problems associated with crop contamination could get worse - for both humans and wildlife - as biotech companies prepare a second generation of GM crops that will produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals.

INCREASED PESTICIDE USAGE: Many of Monsanto’s GM crops are designed to withstand much higher doses of Roundup, Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide. A study by the Organic Center found that the planting of GM crops in the United States from 1996 to 2008 increased the average use of active ingredient pesticides by a quarter pound per planted acre, or a total of 318.4 million pounds over the time of the study. The largest increases in pesticides occurred in 2007 and 2008 as heavy usage of Roundup spawned Roundup-resistant weeds.

Cost: From higher seed prices to increased pesticide and fertilizer usage, planting GM crops is more expensive and favors agribusinesses that can operate on large economies of scale. For small farmers in the Global South, the extra expenses can quickly lead to crushing debt burdens and loss of their land, especially when GM crops don’t deliver their expected results.

UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES: After 4.5 billion years of natural evolution, the advent of genetically modified organisms represents a “second genesis” in which the planet is being repopulated by commercially patented lifeforms, says Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century. The potential long-term impact of these laboratory creations - from the emergence of new super-pests to the loss of genetic diversity in the natural world - is not known yet. For many skeptics, that is reason enough to proceed with caution.
- JOHN TARLETON

---

Carving Up Africa, Again

Small farmers in Kenya and its African neighbors worry that the extra costs associated with using genetically modified crops will bury them in debt and force them to give up their land. If that happens, there will be many buyers ready to seize the opportunity.
The British food aid organization Oxfam reports that over the past decade 561 million acres of land in the Global South and the former Soviet Bloc have been sold, leased or licensed largely in Africa and to international investors. It’s an area larger than Alaska and Texas combined. The trend has accelerated since 2008 when food prices spiked around the world and Western investors fled from the U.S. property market.
Asian and Middle Eastern countries have bought up large tracts of land in Africa to ensure their future food supply. Western investors, meanwhile, are turning to Africa to boost biofuel production by planting vast swaths of sugar cane and palm oil. In many cases, investors see their taxes waived by host governments and are allowed to produce entirely for export. Examples of land grabs include:

• China purchased 250,000 acres of agricultural land in Zimbabwe in 2008 and is investing $800 million in Mozambique to modernize rice production for export.

• In 2008 Philippe Heilburg, a former commodities trader at AIG, leased 988,000 acres in the south of Sudan from a local warlord. Since South Sudan became its own country last year, Heilburg has leased another 740,000 acres. Heilburg’s goal is to convert the land into an agricultural plantation.
• From 2006 to 2010, 22,000 Ugandans in the Kiboga and Mubende districts were violently displaced from their forest homes by local security forces after a British timber company acquired title to the land they had been farming for decades.

“The scale of the land deals being struck is shocking,” Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute told the (UK) Guardian. “The conversion of African small farms and forests into a natural-asset-based, high-return investment strategy can drive up food prices and increase the risks of climate change.”
- J.T.

 http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/11832-africas-frankenfoods