Tanzania: Tensions over Genetically Modified Crops | Pulitzer Center

Published October 17, 2013
FINNIGAN WA SIMBEYE
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania — A typical Tanzanian family will not pass a day without eating ugali — a stiff porridge made from ground corn, somewhat like Italian polenta.

Would Tanzanians eat ugali if the flour came from genetically modified corn?

Tension over that question is tearing at the country, with scientists insisting the answer should be “yes,” while GM foes say, “No way!”
Most of Tanzania’s corn is grown by smallholder farmers who typically plant seeds from traditional varieties and rely on natural rains. But the rains have failed them. The country’s 44 million people suffered severe droughts in 2003, 2005 and 2011. Millions needed food handouts to survive.
Beyond drought, local scientists say this basic crop also is threatened by climate change, disease and pests.
Genetic modification could help overcome those problems, scientists say. The technology has been adopted by more than 17 million farmers in other countries.
Under current government regulations, though, Tanzanian scientists cannot conduct field trials with GM plants. And farmers cannot cultivate any crop developed with the new biotechnology.
Alois Kullaya is one of several local scientists who are urging the government to relax the regulations. He is principal agricultural research officer at Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute and also Tanzanian coordinator of a research consortium called Water Efficient Maize for Africa.
“We have finished confined laboratory trials from genetically modified seeds in 2009, but until now we can’t conduct field trials because of restrictive liability regulations, which means that all this research goes to waste,” Kullaya said....

@ Tanzania: Tensions over Genetically Modified Crops | Pulitzer Center:

H/T Mark Lynas on Twitter

20 GMO questions: Animal, vegetable, controversy?

A journalist doing honest research. Nathanael Johnson at Grist does a good summary :

This is a slightly unusual end-of-the-year list. Instead of a selection of the best or worst news over the year, this is simply a bullet-point summation of what I’ve learned about GMOs in 2013.

When I started this series, I proposed to cut through the debate by finding the facts that both sides agree upon. I also proposed to do this (back in July) “over the next few weeks.” Ha. Not only has this taken me much longer, I’ve also learned that this controversy has turned into something resembling trench warfare, where the two sides refuse to agree on anything, lest they give up an inch of their hard-won position. So I don’t expect everyone to agree with the list below, but I do expect that reasonable people on both sides will concede (if only under their breath) that the bulk of the evidence leads to these conclusions.

As I’ve dug into this over the past six months, I know I’ve provided more detail than all but the most fascinated readers really wanted. In this list, therefore, I’ve aimed for brevity. If you want more nuance I’ll include links to the longer stories, which, in turn, contain links to even more technical scholarly articles, not to mention a detailed dissection of my every sentence in the comments.

• Regulation
• Academic freedom
• Health
• Environment
• Money
• Policy
• Labeling

Regulation

I’ve heard that GMOs are totally unregulated, is that true?

Nope. In the United States, GM food is regulated by the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. The FDA process is technically voluntary, but every creator of GM food has opted to jump through those hoops, so it’s voluntary in name only. Genetically engineered foods are regulated much more heavily than many other new technologies, including other modes of genetically modifying crops, like mutagenesis.

Caveats: The regulatory process is not transparent — you can’t just go on the web and look up the tests that have been performed. And non-food plants may escape regulation, as was the case in this instance.

More nuance here.

Academic freedom

Do the big seed companies prevent scientists from doing research on their patented plants?

They used to. Not anymore. I’ve been asking university scientists if they’ve run into restrictions, but the system seems to be working.

More nuance here.

Are there dangers for scientists working on genetically engineered plants?

Yes. Anyone who challenges an accepted paradigm — like the consensus that genetic engineering is basically safe – will come under attack (see Copernicus, Galileo, and Thomas Kuhn). On the other hand, there are huge rewards for anyone who is able to overturn a paradigm...

Continues @ 20 GMO questions: Animal, vegetable, controversy? | Grist:

PaxVax applies to have GM cholera vaccine tested in Australia - But "Genethics" objects to Australia testing Solutions for Third World Disasters

Original ABC post by medical reporter Sophie Scott and Alison Branley Posted Mon 23 Dec 2013, 11:59am AEDT
Original nwes clip here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-23/gm-cholera-vaccine-trial-draws-criticism/5172118

Australia could join a global trial of a new genetically-modified cholera vaccine which could save thousands of lives in the developing world.

United States-based vaccine company PaxVax is running a trial of the oral vaccine, and has applied to the Federal Government to run part of the trial in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.

PaxVax says the single-dose vaccine has been genetically-modified to remove the part of the cholera bacteria that makes people sick.

It wants to use Australia as a trial site to test the vaccine on about 1,000 adults, and potentially children, planning to travel overseas to cholera-affected areas.

PaxVax chief executive Nima Farzan says the plan is to then expand the vaccine's use to developing countries.

Cholera is a worldwide health problem with 3 to 5 million cases and up to 130,000 deaths a year.

"Cholera is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, cholera is endemic in parts of south Asia and even parts of Latin America," Mr Farzan said.

"Outbreaks can come quite rapidly. Cholera, if not treated, can be a fatal disease."

Mr Farzan says the vaccine is safe because it has been genetically-modified, meaning it cannot produce toxins or reproduce the cholera bacteria.

"The study in Australia will only be looking at the immune response or the antibody levels and the safety from taking this vaccine," he said.

"What we are measuring in the vaccine is anything that could come about local or systemic reaction that could come from the vaccine."

First World Worries First. Third World Realities Last
 -- "Genethical" approach to Third World Problems. 

However, anti-genetic modification campaigner Bob Phelps from the Gene Ethics Network says as cholera is rare in Australia, there is no justification for a mass vaccination program.

He is also concerned that people taking part in the trial will only be monitored for one hour.

"In the [company] application, there is no follow-up monitoring or proper surveillance," he said.
Doctors say 'no risk' vaccine will spread cholera in Australia

Victoria is one of the potential trial states. Its chief health officer Dr Rosemary Lester says there is a rigorous process to assess anything which is genetically modified, not just vaccines.

"The risk would be carefully assessed before the trial is allowed to go ahead," she said.

There's really no risk to people living in Australia.
Our sanitation and hygiene systems are so good. I would be very comfortable with that sort of trial going on.Victorian chief health officer Dr Rosemary Lester

Dr Lester says there is no risk of the vaccine spreading cholera to Australia.

"There's really no risk to people living in Australia," she said.

"Our sanitation and hygiene systems are so good. I would be very comfortable with that sort of trial going on."

Over the past five years, there have been 22 cases of cholera reported in Australia. Most of these were acquired in South-East Asia.

"In Australia, fortunately cholera is a very rare disease," Dr Lester said.

"It's almost always seen in returned travellers. We typically see about three to six cases per year in returned travellers," Dr Lester said.
Adverse reactions to vaccine infrequent, mild

Results of a phase one trial into the PaxVax vaccine found that a single dose created an immune response in almost 90 per cent of patients.

The company says the vaccine was well-tolerated, adverse events were infrequent, and generally mild.

Of 3,000 volunteers worldwide, 1,000 would be from Australia and the remainder from North America.

Cholera is a gut infection caused by consuming of food or water contaminated with the bacterium vibrio cholerae.

It usually presents quickly after infection and in extreme causes large amounts of painless, watery diarrhoea that can quickly lead to severe dehydration and death.

Most episodes are mild or moderate and similar to other stomach flus.

In Australia there is an existing travel vaccine which can prevent cholera that is typically given to health-vulnerable travellers, but it is a double dose regime which takes longer to complete.

The Federal Government's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator will seek public comment on the PaxVax trial after a risk assessment and risk management plan is released in late January.

The trial is expected to last 12 months.

@ PaxVax applies to have GM cholera vaccine tested in Australia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):