GM Bill may not protect farmers
Dec 07, 2010
SINCE we first learned that Monsanto the US bio-tech company was planning to start testing genetically modified maize in Uganda, no official has stepped forward with a simple explanation that my mother can understand on why we need this technology now.
Dr Opiyo Oloya
SINCE we first learned that Monsanto the US bio-tech company was planning to start testing genetically modified maize in Uganda, no official has stepped forward with a simple explanation that my mother can understand on why we need this technology now.
We heard from a Uganda scientist involved in bio-tech projects who extolled the virtues of genetically modified food, calling it the “solution to Africa’s hunger.†Last time I checked, the same Monsanto was pushing genetically modified wheat on Canadians who were not starving. Canadians said a loud “noâ€.
Then last week we heard from Komayombi Bulegeya, the Commissioner for Crop Protection in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. The senior official explained in some detail what his ministry is doing to protect plants. He wrote about the two bills currently before Parliament.
These are the Plant Variety Protection Bill 2010 and The Plant Protection and Health Bill 2010. About the former, he wrote, “The Legislation on Plant Variety Protection will address the formal seed sector and is aimed at recognising rights and providing incentives to plant Breeders to encourage them to develop new plant varieties with such agricultural values as high yields; resistance to pests and diseases; tolerance to droughts; good taste and high quality.â€
I apologise for asking this simple question, but why is the Ministry of Agriculture putting a Bill in front of Parliament to protect plant varieties that have not yet been developed? Why is the agriculture ministry not recognising and protecting the rights of small Uganda farmers cultivating many beautiful plant varieties like the millet that have fed generations since the beginning of time when Kintu and Mumbi roamed the earth? Are these plant varieties not worthy of protection or what?
Written in its haste to protect the rights and interests of commercial plant breeders including billion dollar Monsanto ahead of small voiceless farmers, these bills run roughshod over the very backbone of Uganda’s economy, namely, the small farmers. The small farmers presumably lack the means to have their voices heard, so why bother with them. Or perhaps in a macho attempt to showcase how progressive Uganda agriculture technology has come, the ministry has bought into the false argument that bigger is better.
Furthermore, Bulegeya stated that the Uganda seed industry is “heavily regulated to protect the farmers and the environment against harmful seeds that may be developed by plant breeders and seed companies.†Now, if this regulation truly works, how come Monsanto was allowed through the backdoor, in my humble opinion, to test GM maize seeds in Uganda? What are the Ministry of Agriculture’s criteria for determining harmful seeds? What legal remedies are in place for farmers who might buy seeds from plant breeders like Monsanto, plant them and suffer ill consequences?
Moreover, Bulegeya writes that the Plant Variety Protection bill will deal with varieties derived from conventional means. What does he mean by conventional means? If these are GMOs, he needs to state it clearly.
Now, the Plant Variety Protection Bill 2010 and The Plant Protection and Health Bill 2010 have very many good ideas. But they need to be taken apart and reassembled carefully so that the new Bill will spell out clearly the goal of protecting indigenous plant varieties first, and then the new plant varieties that are being created today. Here are my proposals for the way forward. I will try my best to put them in very simple language that my mother can understand.
One, the two Bills before Parliament are useless as written. They are useless because they do not protect indigenous plant varieties like matooke, millet, sweet potatoes, maize and so forth.
They also do not protect the rights of small farmers like my mother. These bills are only made for the benefits of plant breeders like Monsanto and big commercial farmers.
Two, these two bills are useless as written. They do not stop the testing of harmful plants and seeds in Uganda. They do not provide the framework for creating effective laws that govern the proliferation of genetically modified seeds. They do not say how Uganda small farmers will be compensated in case their farms are contaminated by genetically modified crops.
Three, these two bills are useless as written. They have loopholes large enough to be exploited by multinational profit-driven companies like Monsanto to introduce seeds that farmers must eventually buy to survive.
Four, these two Bills are useless as written. They must be melted into one clean bill. The most important goal of the new bill must be to protect indigenous plant species. It must state that the protection of naturally organic agriculture harvest (NOAH) is a priority. It must spell out the rights of small farmers to cultivate in perpetuity indigenous plant species like millet, maize, matooke and so forth.
Finally, the new bill must address emerging plant varieties. It must distinguish between small breeders who create hybrid plants using different varieties of the same plant, and big commercial plant breeders like Monsanto that employ biotechnology to create genetically modified seeds. It must define very neatly and tightly the parameters of genetically modified seed testing. It must state that such testing will not proceed where it may contaminate indigenous crops.
At all times, as hundreds have so passionately written on the ongoing online petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/noah-uganda/), the single most important goal of any agriculture bill is the protection of indigenous plant varieties, small Uganda farmers and naturally organic agriculture harvests (NOAH).
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca
SINCE we first learned that Monsanto the US bio-tech company was planning to start testing genetically modified maize in Uganda, no official has stepped forward with a simple explanation that my mother can understand on why we need this technology now.
We heard from a Uganda scientist involved in bio-tech projects who extolled the virtues of genetically modified food, calling it the “solution to Africa’s hunger.†Last time I checked, the same Monsanto was pushing genetically modified wheat on Canadians who were not starving. Canadians said a loud “noâ€.
Then last week we heard from Komayombi Bulegeya, the Commissioner for Crop Protection in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. The senior official explained in some detail what his ministry is doing to protect plants. He wrote about the two bills currently before Parliament.
These are the Plant Variety Protection Bill 2010 and The Plant Protection and Health Bill 2010. About the former, he wrote, “The Legislation on Plant Variety Protection will address the formal seed sector and is aimed at recognising rights and providing incentives to plant Breeders to encourage them to develop new plant varieties with such agricultural values as high yields; resistance to pests and diseases; tolerance to droughts; good taste and high quality.â€
I apologise for asking this simple question, but why is the Ministry of Agriculture putting a Bill in front of Parliament to protect plant varieties that have not yet been developed? Why is the agriculture ministry not recognising and protecting the rights of small Uganda farmers cultivating many beautiful plant varieties like the millet that have fed generations since the beginning of time when Kintu and Mumbi roamed the earth? Are these plant varieties not worthy of protection or what?
Written in its haste to protect the rights and interests of commercial plant breeders including billion dollar Monsanto ahead of small voiceless farmers, these bills run roughshod over the very backbone of Uganda’s economy, namely, the small farmers. The small farmers presumably lack the means to have their voices heard, so why bother with them. Or perhaps in a macho attempt to showcase how progressive Uganda agriculture technology has come, the ministry has bought into the false argument that bigger is better.
Furthermore, Bulegeya stated that the Uganda seed industry is “heavily regulated to protect the farmers and the environment against harmful seeds that may be developed by plant breeders and seed companies.†Now, if this regulation truly works, how come Monsanto was allowed through the backdoor, in my humble opinion, to test GM maize seeds in Uganda? What are the Ministry of Agriculture’s criteria for determining harmful seeds? What legal remedies are in place for farmers who might buy seeds from plant breeders like Monsanto, plant them and suffer ill consequences?
Moreover, Bulegeya writes that the Plant Variety Protection bill will deal with varieties derived from conventional means. What does he mean by conventional means? If these are GMOs, he needs to state it clearly.
Now, the Plant Variety Protection Bill 2010 and The Plant Protection and Health Bill 2010 have very many good ideas. But they need to be taken apart and reassembled carefully so that the new Bill will spell out clearly the goal of protecting indigenous plant varieties first, and then the new plant varieties that are being created today. Here are my proposals for the way forward. I will try my best to put them in very simple language that my mother can understand.
One, the two Bills before Parliament are useless as written. They are useless because they do not protect indigenous plant varieties like matooke, millet, sweet potatoes, maize and so forth.
They also do not protect the rights of small farmers like my mother. These bills are only made for the benefits of plant breeders like Monsanto and big commercial farmers.
Two, these two bills are useless as written. They do not stop the testing of harmful plants and seeds in Uganda. They do not provide the framework for creating effective laws that govern the proliferation of genetically modified seeds. They do not say how Uganda small farmers will be compensated in case their farms are contaminated by genetically modified crops.
Three, these two bills are useless as written. They have loopholes large enough to be exploited by multinational profit-driven companies like Monsanto to introduce seeds that farmers must eventually buy to survive.
Four, these two Bills are useless as written. They must be melted into one clean bill. The most important goal of the new bill must be to protect indigenous plant species. It must state that the protection of naturally organic agriculture harvest (NOAH) is a priority. It must spell out the rights of small farmers to cultivate in perpetuity indigenous plant species like millet, maize, matooke and so forth.
Finally, the new bill must address emerging plant varieties. It must distinguish between small breeders who create hybrid plants using different varieties of the same plant, and big commercial plant breeders like Monsanto that employ biotechnology to create genetically modified seeds. It must define very neatly and tightly the parameters of genetically modified seed testing. It must state that such testing will not proceed where it may contaminate indigenous crops.
At all times, as hundreds have so passionately written on the ongoing online petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/noah-uganda/), the single most important goal of any agriculture bill is the protection of indigenous plant varieties, small Uganda farmers and naturally organic agriculture harvests (NOAH).
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca