Excerpt: "In a decision outraging campaigners for food sovereignty and agroecological approaches, the Gates Foundation has awarded a $10 million grant to develop genetically modified (GM) crops for use in sub-Saharan Africa."

The John Innes Centre hopes to engineer seeds for corn, wheat and rice that will eliminate the need for fertilizers. (photo: Unknown)

Gates Foundation Pours $10 Million Into Genetically Modified Crops

By Common Dreams

16 July 12

Vandana Shiva: Bill Gates "so totally wrong on this assumption that genetically modified seeds produce more."

n a decision outraging campaigners for food sovereignty and agroecological approaches, the Gates Foundation has awarded a $10 million grant to develop genetically modified (GM) crops for use in sub-Saharan Africa.

The grant is for the John Innes Centre in Norwich, which hopes to engineer seeds for corn, wheat and rice that will fix nitrogen (take nitrogen from the air) so that the crops would not need fertilizers. But GM Freeze, which campaigns against GM food, crops and patents, says that "nitrogen fixing wheat and other cereals have been promised by the GM industry for several decades" and that other, non-GM methods are the solution. Pete Riley, campaign director GM Freeze, adds that "GM is failing to deliver."

This approach sets up a highly profitable scenario for seed makers, as farmers would be reliant upon these companies to continue buying their seeds, and would not be able to save the patented, modified seeds.

Commenting on the Gates Foundation grant, Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biosafety in South Africa said: "GM nitrogen fixing crops are not the answer to improving the fertility of Africa's soils. African farmers are the last people to be asked about such projects. This often results in the wrong technologies being developed, which many farmers simply cannot afford. We need methods that we can control aimed at building up resilient soils that are both fertile and able to cope with extreme weather. We also want our knowledge and skills to be respected and not to have inappropriate solutions imposed on us by distant institutions, charitable bodies or governments."

Speaking to Bill Moyers on Moyers & Company, eco-activist Vandana Shiva said that Bill Gates is "so totally wrong on this assumption that genetically modified seeds produce more. In India, Monsanto came in with a claim of 1,500 kilograms of cotton per acre with their genetically engineered cotton. The average yields are 400 kilograms. Our studies show that. The government studies confirm this."

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+17 # DaveM 2012-07-16 07:21

There already ARE a number of nitrogen-fixing crops, soybeans and peanuts notable among them (not to mention clover for grazing). Both provide all of the benefits of corn and more besides. Why not take that money and buy seeds that can be planted tomorrow? The cost to the foundation and the farmers would be less, and the benefits would arrived much faster.

-3 # ericlipps 2012-07-16 12:16

Quoting DaveM:

There already ARE a number of nitrogen-fixing crops, soybeans and peanuts notable among them (not to mention clover for grazing). Both provide all of the benefits of corn and more besides. Why not take that money and buy seeds that can be planted tomorrow? The cost to the foundation and the farmers would be less, and the benefits would arrived much faster.

One reason might be thaat not every crop can be grown everywhere, so giving more crops this ability might be advantageous.

-10 # ericlipps 2012-07-16 12:20

Er . . . you are aware, I trust, that your "son of Satan" helped maake it possible for you8 to post your comments?

Bill Gates isn't immune to criticism, but let's keep things in perspective. Or would you rather tyou were still writing letters on a manual typewriter to make your views known?

0 # fernly2 2012-07-16 21:12

www.larouchepub.com/.../3840nawapa_engineer_biosphere_video.h... offers a comprehensive sensible approach to bringing Africa into a global community of sovereign nation states.

+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-17 11:09

Try growing soybeans in arid areas. It doesn't work. Clover does even worse. And further, the crops you mention don't make very good bread or porridge or any of the other things that grains are used for.

+26 # ErnestineBass 2012-07-16 07:23

In 2010, Bill "Son of Satan" Gates purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock.

Any question as to WHY his "Foundation" is helping to fund corporate efforts to dominate the global seed market?

+10 # John Locke 2012-07-16 11:12

ErnestineBass: The Gates foundation is yet another scam...They provided computers to children that had no food!

It's all just a tax write off for them but it also pays out big on the other end when they own stock!

Gates stole the technology to begin with!! But isn't that how they all make their billions, off some one else!

+2 # MidwestTom 2012-07-16 19:20

Looking at Monsanto stock, it has been a good investment.

+12 # dkonstruction 2012-07-16 07:33

Progressives need a serious critique of the role of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex" in global capitalism (including the role of funder foundations). Sure, we need the critique of wall street and multi-nationals but why is there is virtually no analysis of the role of non-profits? Just as the unions became the partners of management, non-profits became the partners of both the state and industry and have become a way to "manage" rather than solve whatever the latest social problem is. Thus, housing non-profits for example(where i have worked for more than 20 years) scrambled to chase "foreclosure prevention" money coming from the federal government without (with rare exceptions) ever seriously challenging either the banks for their ongoing criminal activities or the state (for their bailout of the banks that caused the problem while giving virtually nothing to the homeowner victims). In part this is because no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them and as long as non-profits are almost totally beholden to either the state and or private foundations to fund their activities they are in many ways willing accomplices instead of a true altenative. Non-profits provide a buffer between the state/business and "the masses" while at the same time providing "union busting" cheap labor while the funders on the other hand for the most part only fund work that channels "social protest" in a ways the system can absorb. See "The Revolution will Not Be Funded" by INCITE

+2 # madnana 2012-07-16 13:51

I have talked with friends who immigrated from countries with civil wars and famine. Sometimes the proliferation of competing NGO's does more harm than good. They do need to cozy up to their beneficiaries.

0 # RobertMStahl 2012-07-16 08:14

Gates contributed billions of dollars for AIDS in Africa. This should tell you something, Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS by Gary Null, on youtube years and years ago. More recently is a very similar documentary, House of Numbers.

Asymmetric crimes homogenize the real purpose of symmetrical contributions, evolution, that would be something like the psychology of Gregory Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Instead we have the Old Guard.

Indira Singh is missing.

There are too many victims.

+13 # Street Level 2012-07-16 09:17

I guess when you have more money than god, you don't need to do your homework.
Bill needs to watch "Bitter Seeds" and listen to the other 40+ countries that either label or ban the stuff outright.

+3 # John Locke 2012-07-16 11:13

Street Level: Gates is not concerned with reality, there is something else going on here perhaps eugenics?

0 # RLF 2012-07-17 04:06

Eugenics? Or maybe he sees that the developed world is so desperate to hang on to it's smart phones and tablets that it will do nothing about global warming...he is trying to feed the third world so that there is an ever expanding market for his and other big corps. products. More people!!! We need more consumers!

+11 # Glen 2012-07-16 10:55

Michael Crichton was criticized for a few of his books toward the end of his life, because, I believe, the books were not read well and with insight. His later books were a warning. Warnings concerning the environment, nanotechnology, and yes, genetics.

One of his messages was to be careful who you trust. Take care to research only with those who can remain independent and have no financial support from those with motives and a need for a profit.

Bill Gates has a lot of explaining to do. And he is NOT without financial motives.

0 # brux 2012-07-17 14:29

Crichton was way overboard against doing anything about global warming.

+1 # Glen 2012-07-17 15:43

Actually, he was not, brux. As I said, he was warning of the pseudo-science of politics, not of actual findings. Be careful who you trust with information.

0 # brux 2012-07-17 19:31

He wrote a whole book about it.

+2 # Glen 2012-07-18 04:11

If you are referring to State of Fear, he presented both sides of the issue. He spent three years researching before writing the book. Here's what he said about the issue in an interview:

"My view of this is that the media is like the guy going down the street with a sign that says 'The End of the World is Near,' and he picks a date and the day comes and goes, and the world doesn't end. So he doesn't stop with the sign. He goes home, makes another sign, puts a new date on it, and starts marching again. That's the way the media is," Crichton said.
The interviewer remarks:
He argues that researchers who study global warming often exaggerate the problem in order to get grants, often using celebrities to promote their cause.

I read the book to see what everyone was complaining about. It was another warning to be careful. Warming is chaotic and unpredictable. He may or may not have believed it is man made. Many of his books have predicted certain issues and warned of the dangers of technology and science. State of Fear is the same.

0 # brux 2012-09-02 02:53

he argued in a i2 debate on pbs against global warming.

+1 # Small Family Farmer 2012-07-16 11:41

If you want to examine the reality behind the claims made by the BioTech industry, read this white paper. The lead author, Dr. Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications, and has 28 years experience in the field. Here's a link to the paper. http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.31.pdf

+1 # madnana 2012-07-16 13:49

Money, my friend. All motivated by money- not human concerns or good science.

+3 # LeeBlack 2012-07-16 13:30

This reminds me of a recent news report about digging wells in Afghanistan. NGOs that went in and dug wells for Afghan communities. Seemed like a wonderful service. But the result was lowering the underground water levels so that the overall problem worsened. As Street Level indicated - do your homework.

+1 # madnana 2012-07-16 13:49

I am more concerned about drought resistant plants and research into solutions for addressing issues of increasingly rising temperatures. The dangers of genetic engineering are not yet well-known and the finding that genetically engineered plants can spread their seed into fields of non-engineered plants has yet to be addressed. Wonder who is giving Gates his advice? The whole world is taking such a frightening and Orwellian turn.

+2 # RnR 2012-07-16 15:35

What can you expect from the guy who said the internet would never catch on? He did...really.

0 # Mrcead 2012-07-16 19:28

Call me paranoid but that Svalbard seed bank has doomsday written all over it right? Monsanto can create seeds that produce single generation crops right? So what exactly is stopping Rockefeller, Monsanto and Gates from going Goldfinger on us with the Svalbard?

0 # brux 2012-07-17 14:06

> So what exactly is stopping Rockefeller, Monsanto and Gates from going Goldfinger on us with the Svalbard?

Bond, James Bond!

0 # Mrcead 2012-07-17 16:13

I wish.

0 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-17 11:21

I have never seen a clear explanation of why it's ok to insert some genetic component in a crop if it's done by either crossbreeding or by selection of irradiated seeds, but somehow doing the same thing by inserting the gene desired directly in the genome is a crime against Nature's God. Will someone, please, explain why the technique is the problem and not the particular goal (herbicide resistance) that the technique is used to accomplish? And citing bogus research that was misanalyzed deliberately does not count.

When canola was bred to be herbicide resistance by a group in Canada, you never heard boo from the left wing religionists, but when the same thing was done by GM techniques, they arose in holy horror. Look, it isn't the technique that matters. It's the end result. If you have wheat or millet that fixes its own nitrogen, then great! You don't have to spend money on petroleum derived fertilizer. But if you have a crop that is herbicide resistant thus encouraging the use of herbicides, not only do you poison the environment, but it costs the farmer money besides. It doesn't matter where the herbicide resistance gene came from. It may have evolved normally under the selection pressure of herbicide use, or it may have been transferred from another plant that had evolved the gene under selection by herbicides.

0 # brux 2012-07-17 14:04

That's a good question. It bothers me to hear someone ask it, but it is reasonable. The only thing I can point to in answer to it is that in all the life of this planet that process has not been done to anything living, and I think there is no telling in an almost infinite future what this is going to do. I do not want to bar experimentation , but this area of research is so dry in terms of products that they are way over-exhuberant to modify life and put it out in the world. They've never had to prove it's safe, and in these cases of crops, it is most often reported that it does not work well. The Indian debacle for one. It is a fascist imposition on the third world, another imperialistic regimentation attempt.

+1 # brux 2012-07-17 14:01

I really hate to read stuff like this. Gates is a jackass. He doesn't have any right to have so much power. There needs to be a maximum wage, then capital would have to spread out more and be more diverse and more regenerative and growth oriented.

0 # Dragonmother52 2012-07-17 20:28

Although genetically modifying crops to fix nitrogen may sound like a good idea I am very concerned about the nitrogen fixing bacteria that normally do this job. Nitrogen fixing bacteria are abundant in healthy soils that have not been chemically fertilized and spayed with pesticides and that have been managed with crop rotation, and with regular additions of organic matter. There are many nitrogen fixers that are drought resistant, especially in organic systems that build the soil so that it holds more water. Here is what they are doing in Haiti, which burned all the donated GMO seeds donated by Monsanto

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.