NEWS
Can Beggars Be Choosers

Author: Fackson Banda
Panos London . (Source)

The policy dilemma confronting Zambia over whether or not to accept genetically-modified maize, offered as food aid by the United States, has thrown up urgent questions over the way and the extent to which the debate over the issue has been allowed in the country.


When the government rejected the US offer in August, many commentators described themove as a bold step aimed at asserting the countrys national pride.

But with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimating that nearly three million peoplefaced starvation in Zambia, the rejection was seen by some Western observers as unreasonable- the UK Financial Times newspaper called it "absurd".

Now, following strong international pressure, a re-think is in the offing.

It is not as if there has been no public discussion about genetically modified organisms(GMOs). On 12 August the government organised a public debate in order to gauge thescientific evidence and other views. The debate highlighted deep divisions among Zambianscientists on the benefits of biotechnology.

The government voiced two concerns: initially, it highlighted the possibility of ill-health resulting from consumption of GM food. It later added an economic concern,saying GM crops may end up contaminating local non-GM crops and endanger Zambian agriculturalexports to Europe, which maintain strict guidelines on GMOs.

These discussions were held against a backdrop of little media coverage of GMOs. Accordingto one media content analysis, only four newspaper articles appeared on the issuethroughout 2000. Almost all covered biotechnology in a general way, with little localcontextualisation.

Focus group discussions organised by Panos in 2001, in conjunction with the ZambiaNational Farmers Union (ZNFU), showed that farmers too were divided on the issue.While most small-scale farmers wanted more information on the subject, commercialfarmers were opposed to GMOs, citing as their main reason the possibility of losingEuropean markets for their existing non-GM exports.

The European Union accounts for 53 per cent of Zambian exports - mostly made up ofprocessed and refined foods, primary agricultural commodities and floricultural, horticultural,animal and leather products.

Largely based on this trade-related rationale, ZNFU was among those organisationsthat welcomed the governments rejection of the US food consignment - others includethe Organic Farming Association and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

The scientific case for rejection is led by Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika of theNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. He says there is compellingevidence that GMOs would have a negative impact on the local breeds such as millet,sorghum and traditional maize, with the possibility of causing an ecological problemthat would affect farming.

Dr Lewanika says that the government would do well to err on the side of caution byinvoking the precautionary principle clause of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,arguing that his fears are borne out by a peer-reviewed study that showed GM plantsto have had adverse ecological effects on Mexican local maize varieties.

According to the precautionary principle, even if there is no clear scientific evidencethat a seed type is dangerous, the government can decide to take the precaution ofrefusing it, if there is likelihood that it might be harmful.

Quoting research projects from around the world focusing on potential ill effects,such as toxicity, resistance to antibiotics, allergies, loss of biodiversity, andresistance to pesticides, Dr Lewanika builds a case for rejecting GMOs.

Dr Lewanika lays down two basic preconditions for allowing GMOs into the country.Firstly, he says, there is a need to develop a national biosafety framework to regulatebiotechnology and GMOs. Second, the government must build the capacity to detect andmonitor GMO substances in foodstuffs coming into Zambia.

Alongside this dominant position has emerged a pro-GMO perspective. The proponentsare largely drawn from a pool of University of Zambia (UNZA) scientists, among whomare some who have been working with South Africas Muffy Koch, a senior microbiologistwho is serving on the South African governments working group developing GMO regulationsand drafting the countrys position paper for the International Biosafety Protocol.

Foremost among these are Dr Luke Mumba, dean of the School of Natural Sciences, andDr Fastone Goma, a medical doctor in private practice and research scientist in theSchool of Medicine.

Dr Mumba, quoting research sources from around the world, argues that "in the developedworld there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significantbenefits", including higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased profits andimprovements in the environment.

He also asserts that research focusing on "second generation" transgenic crops - thosemore to do with increased nutritional and/or industrial traits - has led to such beneficialproducts as iron- and vitamin-enriched rice, potatoes with higher starch content,edible vaccines in maize and potatoes and maize varieties able to grow in poor conditions.

In drought-prone Zambia, says Dr Mumba, hardy, genetically-modified maize would bea useful contribution to ensuring food security.

"…Given the importance people place on the food they eat," adds Dr Mumba, "policiesregarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest debate involving awide cross-section of society".

But Dr Mumba and Dr Goma have complained of having been left out of the planning committeefor the national debate held in August.

Both suggest that, if indeed it is true that GM maize might contaminate local cropvarieties, the GM maize grain should be milled so as to ensure that it is consumedby the starving masses without there being the possibility of storing any of it forthe next farming season. The position is shared by ZNFU.

Although most of the debate has been confined to scientific polemics, there has beensome ideological-nationalistic opposition to GMOs. Led largely by Women for Changesexecutive director, Emily Sikazwe, this argument suggests that the US government,pressured by huge seed transnational corporations, has an interest in establishingfuture markets on the African continent for its GM food exports. Sikazwe says theUS is not willing to offer non-GM maize in place of GM food aid.

What is clear from the debate so far, though, is the absence of the voices of themost affected people in rural areas. Bishop Peter Ndhlovu, the head of the Bible GospelChurch in Africa who has visited hunger-stricken villages, says: "The food crisisin rural Zambia is more grave than can be imagined from an urban perspective."

This echoes many concerns that the debate has been so urban-centred and elite-basedthat it has largely ignored the concerns and urgent needs of the rural poor.

The emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for policy-making has rendered thepublic debate elitist. Those who are not schooled in science have largely been onthe sidelines, apart from some vocal civil society organisations.

While there is obviously a desire to learn more about the science of GMOs, there isincreasingly a political-economic movement that seeks to highlight the issue of unequalpower relations between rich and poor nations as well as the role of multinationalcorporations in perpetuating research and development that may seek to scientificallyjustify GM food.

It is also clear that there is a general lack of information about GMOs, especiallyamong rural populations, including small-scale farmers.

There are signs that the government has actively marginalised the voices of thosewho would support GMOs. This trend is also evident in the largely one-sided way themedia have covered the issue in Zambia, favouring those opposed to introducing GMtechnology into the country. The policy dilemma confronting Zambia over whether ornot to accept genetically-modified maize, offered as food aid by the United States,has thrown up urgent questions over the way - and the extent to which - debate overthe issue has been allowed in the country.

When the government rejected the US offer in August, many commentators described themove as a bold step aimed at asserting the countrys national pride.

But with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimating that nearly three million peoplefaced starvation in Zambia, the rejection was seen by some Western observers as unreasonable- the UK Financial Times newspaper called it "absurd".

Now, following strong international pressure, a re-think is in the offing.

It is not as if there has been no public discussion about genetically modified organisms(GMOs). On 12 August the government organised a public debate in order to gauge thescientific evidence and other views. The debate highlighted deep divisions among Zambianscientists on the benefits of biotechnology.

The government voiced two concerns: initially, it highlighted the possibility of ill-health resulting from consumption of GM food. It later added an economic concern,saying GM crops may end up contaminating local non-GM crops and endanger Zambian agriculturalexports to Europe, which maintain strict guidelines on GMOs.

These discussions were held against a backdrop of little media coverage of GMOs. Accordingto one media content analysis, only four newspaper articles appeared on the issuethroughout 2000. Almost all covered biotechnology in a general way, with little localcontextualisation.

Focus group discussions organised by Panos in 2001, in conjunction with the ZambiaNational Farmers Union (ZNFU), showed that farmers too were divided on the issue.While most small-scale farmers wanted more information on the subject, commercialfarmers were opposed to GMOs, citing as their main reason the possibility of losingEuropean markets for their existing non-GM exports.

The European Union accounts for 53 per cent of Zambian exports - mostly made up ofprocessed and refined foods, primary agricultural commodities and floricultural, horticultural,animal and leather products.

Largely based on this trade-related rationale, ZNFU was among those organisationsthat welcomed the governments rejection of the US food consignment - others includethe Organic Farming Association and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

The scientific case for rejection is led by Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika of theNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. He says there is compellingevidence that GMOs would have a negative impact on the local breeds such as millet,sorghum and traditional maize, with the possibility of causing an ecological problemthat would affect farming.

Dr Lewanika says that the government would do well to err on the side of caution byinvoking the precautionary principle clause of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,arguing that his fears are borne out by a peer-reviewed study that showed GM plantsto have had adverse ecological effects on Mexican local maize varieties.

According to the precautionary principle, even if there is no clear scientific evidencethat a seed type is dangerous, the government can decide to take the precaution ofrefusing it, if there is likelihood that it might be harmful.

Quoting research projects from around the world focusing on potential ill effects,such as toxicity, resistance to antibiotics, allergies, loss of biodiversity, andresistance to pesticides, Dr Lewanika builds a case for rejecting GMOs.

Dr Lewanika lays down two basic preconditions for allowing GMOs into the country.Firstly, he says, there is a need to develop a national biosafety framework to regulatebiotechnology and GMOs. Second, the government must build the capacity to detect andmonitor GMO substances in foodstuffs coming into Zambia.

Alongside this dominant position has emerged a pro-GMO perspective. The proponentsare largely drawn from a pool of University of Zambia (UNZA) scientists, among whomare some who have been working with South Africas Muffy Koch, a senior microbiologistwho is serving on the South African governments working group developing GMO regulationsand drafting the countrys position paper for the International Biosafety Protocol.

Foremost among these are Dr Luke Mumba, dean of the School of Natural Sciences, andDr Fastone Goma, a medical doctor in private practice and research scientist in theSchool of Medicine.

Dr Mumba, quoting research sources from around the world, argues that "in the developedworld there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significantbenefits", including higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased profits andimprovements in the environment.

He also asserts that research focusing on "second generation" transgenic crops - thosemore to do with increased nutritional and/or industrial traits - has led to such beneficialproducts as iron- and vitamin-enriched rice, potatoes with higher starch content,edible vaccines in maize and potatoes and maize varieties able to grow in poor conditions.

In drought-prone Zambia, says Dr Mumba, hardy, genetically-modified maize would bea useful contribution to ensuring food security.

"…Given the importance people place on the food they eat," adds Dr Mumba, "policiesregarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest debate involving awide cross-section of society".

But Dr Mumba and Dr Goma have complained of having been left out of the planning committeefor the national debate held in August.

Both suggest that, if indeed it is true that GM maize might contaminate local cropvarieties, the GM maize grain should be milled so as to ensure that it is consumedby the starving masses without there being the possibility of storing any of it forthe next farming season. The position is shared by ZNFU.

Although most of the debate has been confined to scientific polemics, there has beensome ideological-nationalistic opposition to GMOs. Led largely by Women for Changesexecutive director, Emily Sikazwe, this argument suggests that the US government,pressured by huge seed transnational corporations, has an interest in establishingfuture markets on the African continent for its GM food exports. Sikazwe says theUS is not willing to offer non-GM maize in place of GM food aid.

What is clear from the debate so far, though, is the absence of the voices of themost affected people in rural areas. Bishop Peter Ndhlovu, the head of the Bible GospelChurch in Africa who has visited hunger-stricken villages, says: "The food crisisin rural Zambia is more grave than can be imagined from an urban perspective."

This echoes many concerns that the debate has been so urban-centred and elite-basedthat it has largely ignored the concerns and urgent needs of the rural poor.

The emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for policy-making has rendered thepublic debate elitist. Those who are not schooled in science have largely been onthe sidelines, apart from some vocal civil society organisations.

While there is obviously a desire to learn more about the science of GMOs, there isincreasingly a political-economic movement that seeks to highlight the issue of unequalpower relations between rich and poor nations as well as the role of multinationalcorporations in perpetuating research and development that may seek to scientificallyjustify GM food.

It is also clear that there is a general lack of information about GMOs, especiallyamong rural populations, including small-scale farmers.

There are signs that the government has actively marginalised the voices of thosewho would support GMOs. This trend is also evident in the largely one-sided way themedia have covered the issue in Zambia, favouring those opposed to introducing GMtechnology into the country. The policy dilemma confronting Zambia over whether ornot to accept genetically-modified maize, offered as food aid by the United States,has thrown up urgent questions over the way - and the extent to which - debate overthe issue has been allowed in the country.

When the government rejected the US offer in August, many commentators described themove as a bold step aimed at asserting the countrys national pride.

But with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimating that nearly three million peoplefaced starvation in Zambia, the rejection was seen by some Western observers as unreasonable- the UK Financial Times newspaper called it "absurd".

Now, following strong international pressure, a re-think is in the offing.

It is not as if there has been no public discussion about genetically modified organisms(GMOs). On 12 August the government organised a public debate in order to gauge thescientific evidence and other views. The debate highlighted deep divisions among Zambianscientists on the benefits of biotechnology.

The government voiced two concerns: initially, it highlighted the possibility of ill-health resulting from consumption of GM food. It later added an economic concern,saying GM crops may end up contaminating local non-GM crops and endanger Zambian agriculturalexports to Europe, which maintain strict guidelines on GMOs.

These discussions were held against a backdrop of little media coverage of GMOs. Accordingto one media content analysis, only four newspaper articles appeared on the issuethroughout 2000. Almost all covered biotechnology in a general way, with little localcontextualisation.

Focus group discussions organised by Panos in 2001, in conjunction with the ZambiaNational Farmers Union (ZNFU), showed that farmers too were divided on the issue.While most small-scale farmers wanted more information on the subject, commercialfarmers were opposed to GMOs, citing as their main reason the possibility of losingEuropean markets for their existing non-GM exports.

The European Union accounts for 53 per cent of Zambian exports - mostly made up ofprocessed and refined foods, primary agricultural commodities and floricultural, horticultural,animal and leather products.

Largely based on this trade-related rationale, ZNFU was among those organisationsthat welcomed the governments rejection of the US food consignment - others includethe Organic Farming Association and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

The scientific case for rejection is led by Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika of theNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research. He says there is compellingevidence that GMOs would have a negative impact on the local breeds such as millet,sorghum and traditional maize, with the possibility of causing an ecological problemthat would affect farming.

Dr Lewanika says that the government would do well to err on the side of caution byinvoking the precautionary principle clause of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,arguing that his fears are borne out by a peer-reviewed study that showed GM plantsto have had adverse ecological effects on Mexican local maize varieties.

According to the precautionary principle, even if there is no clear scientific evidencethat a seed type is dangerous, the government can decide to take the precaution ofrefusing it, if there is likelihood that it might be harmful.

Quoting research projects from around the world focusing on potential ill effects,such as toxicity, resistance to antibiotics, allergies, loss of biodiversity, andresistance to pesticides, Dr Lewanika builds a case for rejecting GMOs.

Dr Lewanika lays down two basic preconditions for allowing GMOs into the country.Firstly, he says, there is a need to develop a national biosafety framework to regulatebiotechnology and GMOs. Second, the government must build the capacity to detect andmonitor GMO substances in foodstuffs coming into Zambia.

Alongside this dominant position has emerged a pro-GMO perspective. The proponentsare largely drawn from a pool of University of Zambia (UNZA) scientists, among whomare some who have been working with South Africas Muffy Koch, a senior microbiologistwho is serving on the South African governments working group developing GMO regulationsand drafting the countrys position paper for the International Biosafety Protocol.

Foremost among these are Dr Luke Mumba, dean of the School of Natural Sciences, andDr Fastone Goma, a medical doctor in private practice and research scientist in theSchool of Medicine.

Dr Mumba, quoting research sources from around the world, argues that "in the developedworld there is clear evidence that the use of GM crops has resulted in significantbenefits", including higher crop yields, reduced farm costs, increased profits andimprovements in the environment.

He also asserts that research focusing on "second generation" transgenic crops - thosemore to do with increased nutritional and/or industrial traits - has led to such beneficialproducts as iron- and vitamin-enriched rice, potatoes with higher starch content,edible vaccines in maize and potatoes and maize varieties able to grow in poor conditions.

In drought-prone Zambia, says Dr Mumba, hardy, genetically-modified maize would bea useful contribution to ensuring food security.

"…Given the importance people place on the food they eat," adds Dr Mumba, "policiesregarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest debate involving awide cross-section of society".

But Dr Mumba and Dr Goma have complained of having been left out of the planning committeefor the national debate held in August.

Both suggest that, if indeed it is true that GM maize might contaminate local cropvarieties, the GM maize grain should be milled so as to ensure that it is consumedby the starving masses without there being the possibility of storing any of it forthe next farming season. The position is shared by ZNFU.

Although most of the debate has been confined to scientific polemics, there has beensome ideological-nationalistic opposition to GMOs. Led largely by Women for Changesexecutive director, Emily Sikazwe, this argument suggests that the US government,pressured by huge seed transnational corporations, has an interest in establishingfuture markets on the African continent for its GM food exports. Sikazwe says theUS is not willing to offer non-GM maize in place of GM food aid.

What is clear from the debate so far, though, is the absence of the voices of themost affected people in rural areas. Bishop Peter Ndhlovu, the head of the Bible GospelChurch in Africa who has visited hunger-stricken villages, says: "The food crisisin rural Zambia is more grave than can be imagined from an urban perspective."

This echoes many concerns that the debate has been so urban-centred and elite-basedthat it has largely ignored the concerns and urgent needs of the rural poor.

The emphasis on scientific evidence as a basis for policy-making has rendered thepublic debate elitist. Those who are not schooled in science have largely been onthe sidelines, apart from some vocal civil society organisations.

While there is obviously a desire to learn more about the science of GMOs, there isincreasingly a political-economic movement that seeks to highlight the issue of unequalpower relations between rich and poor nations as well as the role of multinationalcorporations in perpetuating research and development that may seek to scientificallyjustify GM food.

It is also clear that there is a general lack of information about GMOs, especiallyamong rural populations, including small-scale farmers.

There are signs that the government has actively marginalised the voices of thosewho would support GMOs. This trend is also evident in the largely one-sided way themedia have covered the issue in Zambia, favouring those opposed to introducing GMtechnology into the country.



(all) (at) (au) (br) (ca) (ch) (cn) (cu) (dk) (eg) (eu) (gr) (id) (in) (it) (jm) (jp) (ke) (ls) (my) (nz) (tr) (ug) (uk) (us) (vn) (ww) (za) (zm)

(all) () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () ().

Woolworths Acquires Macro Wholefoods

Banned Pesticide Blamed For Fish Mutations

EU Assembly Votes to Ban Toxic Pesticides

Obama's Choice of Vilsack: AgriBusiness as Usual at USDA ?

A Cautious Farm and Food Pick

Top Australian Chefs Unite Against GM Food

Organic Milk is Cream of the Crop

Majority of Darjeeling Tea To Go Organic

Nanotechnology - Sweating The Small Stuff

Government of Canada Invests Nearly $1.3 Million in Canadian Organic Industry

Seeds of Discontent

GM Moratorium Lifted in Two Australian States

Organic and Tastier The Rats Nose Knows

A Speyside Organic Whisky Wins the Supreme Title in the 2007 Scottish Food and Drink Excellence Awards

Work Starts on the National Australian Domestic Organic Standard

Long Island Rooting For Natural Landscaping

No Cloned Animals in Organic Food

Quiet Organic Revolution in South Africa

Nitrogen Testing Could Aid Organic Certification

Soil and Health Association Pleased at Organic Bread Victory

Ten Things the EU has Done for the Ordinary Citizen

Eastern European Countries Jumping on Organic Wagon

Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Marketplace Announce Merger

USDA in Legal Trouble over Industrial Scale Dairies

USDA Appoints Oregonian to National Organic Standards Board

Genetically Modified Hens Containing Human Genes Lay Cancer Fighting Eggs

The Hunt for Natural Food Colours

How Wal Mart Discovered Organic

Canada Announces National Organic Logo and New Regulations

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Addresses 'Organic' Claims

Tony Blair Choses Organic Over GM Farming

FAO to Hold International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security in 2007

The Battle of DDT

United States to Fund DDT Spraying in Uganda

WHO Gives Indoor Use of DDT a Clean Bill of Health for Controlling Malaria

Escaped Golf Course Grass Frees Gene Genie

How Wal Mart Discovered Organic

Lesotho: Farmers Overcome Child Malnutrition Through Organic Farming

East Africa: Region Seeks to Harmonise Organic Standards by 2007

Organic Food Goes Mass Market

Wal-Mart Targets the Organic Market

America's Whole Foods Market Expands into the United Kingdom

Organic Road To Riches For Chinas First Lady

15th IFOAM Congress Unites Organic World

Uganda Biggest Exporter of Organic Products in Africa

Italian Organic Standards Join Family of IFOAM Standards

The Australian Organic Industry Unites

Turkey Aligns Organic Farming Rules With European Union

Organic Sector Calls for Strict Liability Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Making San Diego an Edible City

Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study Into GM Food

The International Day for Biological Diversity 22 May 2005

Aussies Accused of Double Standards Regarding GM Food Labelling Because of USA

Soil Atlas of Europe: European Soil Quality Declining

The Legacy of Agent Orange in Vietnam

Food Sovereignty - Turning The Global Food System Around

Australian Scientists Develop Enhanced Crops To Feed The Poor Using Traditional Selective Breeding

Bio What? First Comprehensive Public Perception Study of Biotechnology in South Africa

The Zambia Experiment - GM vs Organic

Results of the First Global Review of Earth's Ecosystems.

Apeda Plans To Introduce Group Organic Certification For Small Farmers

Organic Milk Needs A Pasture

Brazil Says 'Yes' to GM Crops and Stem Cell Research

Biowatch Court Victory to Reveal GM Crops in South Africa

South Africa's Stance on GM Foods

Japan Urges Western Australia to Say No to GMO

Monsanto Agrees To $1.5m GM Crop Bribe Penalty In Indonesia

Australia's GM Free Status a Polite Fiction

Joining Resources To Improve Research In Organic Food and Farming

Report Proves That Organic Farming Is Better For Wildlife

Organic Agriculture in Greece

Wriggly Wonder - Culture of the Good Worm

X Games Skater Flips Over Organic Food

Traditional Rice Varieties Ideal For Organic Farming

Genetically Modified Food Is Heading For Your Fridge

Improving Quality Safety and Costs in the European Organic and Low Input Supply Chain

Vietnam's War Against Agent Orange

Genetically Engineered Salmon More Aggressive

European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming Adopted

Cuba Is A Potential Organic Produce Provider For The USA

The Green Party of New Zealand Launches The Food Revolution Campaign

United States Agriculture Department Rescinds Changes to Organic Food Standards

Shell Be (Organic) Apples

Bush Administration Threatens to Weaken Organic Program

Australia United States Free Trade Agreement

Stockholm Convention on POPs Becomes International Law. Launching a Global Campaign to Eliminate 12 Hazardous Chemicals

The Gene Revolution: Great Potential for the Poor - But no Panacea

Farming Is Not Like Any Old Business

USDA Orders Silence On Mad Cow Disease In Texas

Seaweed to Clean up DDT Contamination

Monsanto Shelves Its Global Plan for Genetically Modified Wheat

Biotech Foods Keep Coming Despite Monsanto Setback

Toxic Pesticides Above Safe Levels in Many U.S. Residents

Explore The Organic Table With Chateau Laurier And Ottawa Symphony

Top Chefs Serve Up Organic Cuisine To Summer Travellers Across America

NSW Rules Out GM Canola Trial

Fourth New Zealand Organic Food And Wine Festival In Oamaru

Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change Comes Into Force

Kim Wilde and the Pleasures of Gardening

Paying To Be Poisoned UK Pesticide Use

New Zealand Launch Of National Organic Standard

Farm Scale Evaluations Of Spring Sown Genetically Modified Crops

Billboards Milk The GM Debate

The GM Nation Report Findings Of The National Debate Is Published

Denmark Bans Glyphosates, The Active Ingredient In Roundup

The Cartagena Protocol On Biosafety Becomes Law

Brussels Rejects Bid For Ban On GM Crops In Austria

Sixty Four Countries Agree On Sustainable Fishing Practices

ANSI To Assess USDA National Accreditation Process

Little Economic Benefit From GM Crops

Europe Sets Rules For Labelling Genetically Modified Food

The European Union Stance On GMO and WTO

Cartegena Protocol On Biosafety Governing International Trade In GMOs To Become Law

EU Ratifies UN Protocol For Genetically Modified Food

Jamaica Looks To Organic Farming

Cuba Enters Market For Organic Products

USWTO Case Against EU On GM Is Misguided

Opening An Organic Restaurant The Paper Work Jungle

United Nations Commission On Sustainable Development Opens Its 2003 Session

Blair Faces Huge Resistance To His Support For GM Crops

Australian State Of NSW Bans Production Of GM Food Until 2006

Insects Thrive on GM Crops

Organic Food To Fight Cancer

Huge Possibilities For New Zealand Organic Exports - Biofach 2003

Global Precedent For Sustainable Agriculture Set By Australias State Of NSW

Chinas Largest Organic Food Base Setup In Qinghai Tibet

Organic Vegetables On Show In Tasmania

New Zealand Organic Food And Wine Festival In Oamaru Goes National

Natural Selection In Egypt

Chimps Go Ape For Organic Bananas

Kailis Has The Good Oil On Expansion

The Fear Of Food - The World Rejects America

Australian Shoppers Prompt Crackdown On GM Food

Heart Of The Country Working To Live In A Dream

Can Beggars Be Choosers

Requiem Agent Orange

Monsanto Hid Decades of PCB Pollution

Ousted Scientist and the Damning Research into Food Safety

First DDT Ban In United states Takes Effect In 1972

NEWS
HOMEhome pageCERTIFYcertification bodies and logosNEWSthe organic newslineNORANational Organic Registry AustraliaPEOPLEpioneers, supporters, membersBOOKSbooksGLOSSARYdefinitions of various termsADDITIVESadditives and linksPESTICIDESthe dirty dozenGMOgenetically modified organismsWHYwhy organic ?ABOUTconstitution, financial, incorporationCONTACTcontact detailsTRANSLATEtranslationsSEARCHsearch results
? 2009 Organic Ltd (ACN 102 995 344). organic.com.au/news/2002.10.01
RSS Feed Atom Feed RSS Feed