Debates on GM crops in Europe: Implications for international food and agricultural policies Ksenia Gerasimova Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge

Abstract Europe is particularly known for its opposition to the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. While the main object of the debate, the GM plants, is a product of scientific research, the debate has gone beyond the discussion of purely scientific topics and turned into 'an ideological debate inseparable from political and economic conflicts, where rational thinking is mixed with irrationality and hysteria' (Cook et al, 2004). While this appears as a regional issue, the European resistance brings implications to international policies on food and agriculture. For example, African leaders are hesitant to allow GM crops in fear of losing access to the European markets. In the early 2000s this fear led the Zambian government to reject GM grain as food aid and deprive the affected population by severe hunger from additional food supply (Brand, 2010). This paper aims to examine the causes of such strong resistance in the region by comparing socio-economic implications resulting from accepting/rejecting GM crops for Europe itself and two other regions, such as Northern America and Africa, and identifying main institutional actors involved. In the case of GM crops' debates, such institutional actors include scientists, European bureaucrats, and NGOs' activists. Such mapping can help to understand more about motivations and lobbying strategy of each of the group involved and of Europe as a region. The hypothesis of this paper that the European NGOs working in environmental issues and social justice form a strong lobby and enjoy close ties with the bureaucrats and thus influence each other will be tested with the social network analysis. Thus, the paper will contribute to understanding of inter- and intra-institutional interactions for food security and agricultural policies. Key words: Africa, Europe, GM Crops, NGOs.

Introduction This paper contributes to the ICPP 2015 Panel: “The new policy and politics of food and agriculture”, specifically to its session ‘Food and agriculture policy: A global shift to new ideas and paradigms?’ First, let me remind the definition of agriculture, which is ‘the science or practice of cultivating the soil and rearing animals’ (Barber, 2004, p.26). The word ‘science’ is particularly important to the discussion of agriculture and GM plants. In the 1980s there was ‘a decline in the relative importance of agriculture to the overall economy, as the industrial and service sectors grow even more rapidly, partly through stimulus from a modernising agriculture’, and as a result academics and donors shown less interest in the sector (Timmer, 2006, p.5). However, this trend in perception of agriculture in public policy is getting reversed by the rise of agro-biotechnology. This rise presents both opportunities and challenges for farmers, agro-companies, retailers, consumers and policy-makers in both developing and developed countries. Timmer has laid out this process in what he called three revolutions. These include a genetic revolution, a supermarket revolution and a profitable agriculture revolution (Timmer, 2006). All of them seem to part of wider contemporary processes of globalization.

Another global trend is a growing importance of food security. It is expected that by 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, and the main increase will occur in developing countries. In order to feed this population which will be rapidly growing, more urban and richer, food production will have to increase by 70 percent (FAO, 2009). Although some counter-argue that there is no need in increasing global yield and what is needed is the redistribution of food (Trueba & MacMillan, 2013). Both arguments, however, indicate the need to transform the current system of agricultural production and food consumption towards more sustainable practices. Food is the most basic human need which needs to be satisfied daily, any delay in its supply can cause political implications, such as food riots. That’s why food policy is always going to be political. It appears that since the 1980s the cases of hunger have become more frequent and more acute. In 2011 around 563 million hungry people live in Asia, and 239 million – in Africa. Another form of hunger is malnutrition. For example, vitamin A deficiency (VAD), one of the largest nutritional burdens in the developing world, particularly affects children and women. It increases child mortality and blindness due to susceptibility to infection (Rein & Herbers, 2006). All that requires both change in food production and distribution as well as necessary policy interventions to all this happen at both national and international level. Recognition of both the changing nature of the contemporary food systems and the role of policy-making brings back political science to the discussion of agriculture and food production (Grant, 2012). This paper looks at one feature of the described processes – genetically modified agriculture and discusses how it is perceived in the European Union’s public domain and what implications results from such perceptions in relation to other regions, particularly Africa. The paper illustrates that in the debates on GM crops, the focus is not on the technology itself, but on its policy-making, and the main presented arguments are the importance of institutional context to the adoption and application of transgenic agriculture and a link between regional choices about the GM technology and international cooperation. The chosen structure of the paper aims to provide necessary background information, illustrate this link and prove the importance of regional contexts. First, it provides a brief history of perceptions of genetically modified crops, trying to understand the institutional context. Then it will review ongoing debates over the use of GMOs in agriculture, particularly those relevant to developing countries, who are arguably might be the main recipients of the technology. Although full application of the methodology of network analysis is difficult to apply due to the nature of available data on NGOs1, the paper will still refer to this method by analysing the links between the NGOs involved in the debate. Social Network Analysis is a research methodology developed for analyzing social networks, originated from sociological and mathematical studies since the mid-1930s, but has wide spread across different disciplines from the early 1990s (Freeman, 2004). According to Davies (2009), SNA is 'a representational technology', meaning that it is not tied to a specific theory of how society or individuals operate. So it can be adapted to a variety of research projects. While the work described in this paper is still in progress,

1

There is no comprehensive database for NGOs participating in the GM debate. Few authors (Ansell et al, 2013; Schurman & Munro, 2010) working on the subject have to create their own database, and so does this paper. See appendix.

several case studies of NGOs’ engagement will be used to illustrate the interconnectedness of NGOs operating in different regions, in this instance Europe and Africa.

1. General characteristics of debates over the use of GM crops Genetic modification is a technique where individual genes can be copied and transferred to another living organism to thus incorporate or delete specific characteristics into or from the organism. The development of genetically modified crops consists of several stages: laboratory, greenhouse, field trials, risk assessment tests, farm release and post-marketing surveillance. All these procedures are run by biologists under established regulations, yet the discussion and policy-making for GM crops in agriculture go beyond laboratories and regulatory offices into a wider general public domain. Proponents of GM technology (Moore, 2014, Ammann, 2014) refer to a wide number of studies which show safety of GM food, but there are still very serious concerns from the opponents’ side. The debates over the use of GM varies in scale and regional case studies, but they also seem to have a number of common trends. First, they are the best example of ‘advocacy science’ (Grundmann, 2011), when the science and subjects what were exclusively in the domain of professional scientists become open to a wider audience. Gaudilliere (2006) separates two levels of debates: the scientific debate and the debate which include other scientists outside molecular biology, and other interested parties from 'lay people' (i.e. not scientists). The research by Cook et al showed how scientists tend to distance themselves from public and opponents of GM, the group which would include media and campaigning NGOs (Cook et Al, 2004). In general, it appears that the major debates are taking place between the activists, often among themselves, and scientists. The media then acts as their voice to influence public opinion and use direct and indirect ways to engage with policy decision-makers. Farmers and consumers are often referred as their constituencies who would benefit from results of such lobbying. However, in many cases the same people who represent the scientific community become activists and vice versa. For example, Dr Fagan, a molecular biologist, in 1994 took a stand against genetic engineering, renounced his grants and decided to dedicate his time to anti-GM activism (Fagan, 2007). In the other direction, Mark Lynas, a former Greenpeace activist, left green activism and has joined Cornell University to work alongside the scientists instead (Lynas, 2014). There is also a geographic context: Europe is known for opposing GM crops being grown in the region. That correlates with the fact that Europe is most possibly home to the highest number of anti-GM NGOs and campaigns (Ansel et al, 2013; also see appendix). Another common trend is the argumentation in debates. In some cases, the strategy to win a debate appears to be not through counter-arguing the argument of the other side, but by ‘ad hominem’ accusations of biased interests and undermining the authority of opponents. It is also remarkable that often two sides use the same form of presenting their arguments. Both of them use the counter-arguing, both refer to 'myths about GM' and then compare it to 'reality', in order to persuade their audiences. One of the possible ways to briefly summarise the main arguments over the GM crops can be done through the reference to three pillars of sustainable development, namely environment, which also include human health issues, economics and social

development. This also explains why the two sides in the debates refer to the same framework of sustainable development and same terminology cannot reach compromise. Both sides use such terms as sustainability, but each of them reads them differently. The specific feature of the arguments around the safety of GM plants on human health and the environment is possibility of risk, rather than the actual risk. At the moment there is no official research which would have proven the immediate danger from GM crops to human health, and a lot of risks remain debated. The question of the impact of GM crops on Nature, its flora and fauna, has also produced a diversity of opinion. For example, Losey et al, 1999, argued that Bt corn plants might cause higher mortality rates among larvae of the monarch butterfly. Another scientific research, however, has disproved the previous results and came to conclusion that 'the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly population is negligible' (Sears et al, 2001). The major issues discussed in the economic debates on GM crops are the rates of yields, level of input costs, such as costs of pesticides, and economic benefits to farmers and consumers and comparison of biotech and organic agricultures. The most discussed issues about GM crops’ are social aspects, the impacts of GM on small farmers in developing countries. Proponents point out the possibility to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and capacity to provide food security through GM agriculture. Fast growing population and the necessity to 'ensure food security for everyone' is another argument (Lynas & Robinson, 2012). Opponents, however, see it in a totally different way, a path leading to destroying small farming and ultimate corporate take-over. The patenting of seeds by the agro-companies has been called biopiracy, which prevented farmers from having their own seeds supply and created dependency on big business (Shiva, 2000).

2. Europe and its stand on GM crops Brief History of Opposition to GM crops in Europe and Possible Reasoning Economists have identified three possible explanations for the European strict policy on GM crops. First, the European policy makers run the anti-GM regime as a part of protectionist policy to allow European companies ‘to catch up with American competitors’. Secondly, for European farmers it is economically beneficial to remain GM-free. This can be partially proved by the fact that in the densely populated Europe farmers would need buffer zones between GM crops and non-GM which would ultimately increase the costs. In contrast, the American land resources allow to avoid zoning. The third explanation is that governments are ‘appeasing the anti-GM protesters’ (Jackson & Anderson, 2005). While Jackson and Andersen, cited above, do not consider this version as the main explanation, one has to add to the hypothesis the fact that the European Union is much more heterogeneous institutional environment than the USA. European politicians come from different backgrounds and are susceptible to lobbying from different groups. As a matter of fact, genetic research started in Europe. Europe has greatly contributed to genetics: Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, Freidrich Miescher and Archibald Garrod, Francis Crick were the Europeans who laid out important foundations for the contemporary research in genes. The Flemish Prof. Marc van Montagu led the research

on transfer of genes between bacteria and plants and founded one of the first biotech companies as early as in 1982. Yet, statistics reveal the European resistance to GM crops. Only 27% of Europeans indicated a positive attitude to GM food according to a 2005 Eurobarometer poll, which is still a rise in comparison to 21% in 2002 (Gaskell, 2006) While national public opinions do vary from year to year, it is possible to identify that Austrians and Germans have the highest degree of mistrust to GM technology: 41% and 33% respondents in two countries assessed effects of biotechnology as negative in 2010. The German public has also claimed to be the most knowledgeable on GM foods, with 95% of the population have heard of the GM technology (EC, 2010). While it might be possible to explain the suspicion and sensitivity towards genetic research among the German speaking countries by the painful memories from the Second World War, when the Nazi supported unhuman research trials, other European countries, for example Britain, have no obvious reason to avoid GM. Local context and power divide at institutional level might be named as explanations. The first approvals of field trials of GM plants started in the early 1990s. The first commercial GM product was GM tomato. There were several research to produce GM tomato, and successful version of biotech tomato came from Don Grierson’s program at the University of Nottingham. Campbell Soup Company has granted rights to use the genetic technology on fresh tomatoes to the American company Calgene produced first commercial genetically engineered tomatoes (Flavr Savr) for the American market in 1994. The licensing of the same technology for processed tomatoes went to Zeneca, a biotech company based in the UK (Martineau, 2001). In 1996 Zeneca released canned tomatoes for the British market and they were sold initially successful through Sainsbury’s and Safeway supermarkets. The same year was also known for the discussion of dangerous impact on human health from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and for the British public food safety became a sensitive topic, resulting in “widespread public distrust of regulators and scientific assessments” (van der Heijden, 2010). Another incident which outburst public distrust to genetic science was the Puzstai affair increased even more this distrust. Arpad Puzstai, a Hungarian biologist, was working for the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen. His project involved the transfer of gene from a snowdrop plant to potato. In 1998 he gave an interview, where he said: “If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it,” and "I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs” (Randerson, 2008). Anti-GM movement and its media took up the argument and framed it as ‘Frankenstein food’ and compared it to the Chernobyl catastrophei. Puzstai was criticized for his public appearance and lost his job. Renowned biologists, such as Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Brown (2004), published their critique of his research, blaming for methodological flawsii. At the same time Puzstai was claimed a hero by NGOs and has given more than 200 lectures on GMOs. In 2009 he received the Stuttgart Peace Prize for his advocacy. As a result of this case, activists started to ask a question ‘Can scientists still be trusted?’, which was then translated in political decision making process (Smith, 2010). The European authorities adopted with the Novel Foods Regulation in 1997, which also covered GM food. However, it was ‘largely inoperable’, as there were no specifics on implementation provided, individual member state had to define thresholds, testing methods, products to testing and the content of labels. This led national governments to adopt their own measures. Austria initiated the process, by being first to ban GMOs in 1997. This example was followed by Luxemburg, France, Greece and Germany. And in 1999 the Council of Environmental Ministers stalled the approval process until updated regulations were adopted (van der Heijden, 2010).

As a result, less than 100 field trials were approved over the period 2001-2006. In 2006 the moratorium was removed, but many experiments were still disrupted (Huffman, 2011). The new president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker in his opening statement claimed his plans to review the legislation on authorization of GMO and aimed “to give the majority view of democratically elected governments at least the same weight as scientific advice, notably when it comes to the safety of the food we eat and the environment in which we live (Juncker, 2014). Prof. Glover, a Scottish biologist, who served as chief scientific adviser to the predecessor of Juncker, Jose Manuel Barroso, and made public her public views on GM, left Brussels. In November 2014 her post was disappearing, allegedly because of the lobbying from the European green lobby (Brown, 2014). For example, the EU has funded a number of environmental NGOs active in antiGM propaganda and also two GM projects AMIGA and GRACE which are kept ‘in shadow’ rather on purpose (Hoegel, 2014). Member countries are given the authority to develop legislative or non-legislative approaches to coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic agriculture based on the Directive 98/34/EC. All that allows diverse initiatives which support both sides of the debate on GM agriculture within the EU, but it would appear confusing for anyone without specific knowledge. Interestingly, the comparison of regulatory regimes in Europe and the USA reveals that two regions operate on reverse trends: in the period of 1960s - late 1980s the USA had stricter regulation on risks in relation to health and environment, while European regulators worked in cooperation with industry and NGOs had little access to the public policy. But then the European regime started to be based on the precautionary principle and is stricter than the American one (Lynch & Fogel, 2001). The strictness of the European regime was embedded by local context (for example the BSE outbreak in the UK) and institutional context. Contrast to the USA where several institutions were made responsible on GM regulations (EPA, the USDA and FDA), the major institutional upper hand in the European Union was given to the Directorate General on Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear safety (DG XI), which had more cautious approach on GM technology than other directorates and was able to win over the opposition from other directorates, such as the Directorate on science, research and development (ibid). As a result, despite the strict regime on GMOs in the past, in the USA, scientists have more favorable conditions for approving field trials and patents and the country have the highest acreage of biotech crops in the world (ISAAA, 2013). The Role of the European Civil Society Groups in GM Opposition and their Tactics The importance of the economic argument should not be downplayed, but the role of civil society groups in Europe to influence political processes and form public opinion has been exceptionally high. Two strategies of civil society groups’ lobbying can be identified: direct blockage and ‘advocacy science’. The first strategy is aimed to physically destroy crops. It has been adopted by a number of radical NGOs, particularly Greenpeace. Greenpeace first engaged in the debate over GM crops in 1994. By the end of the century, the campaign reached its momentum accompanied with much attention from media, who picked up ‘the problem with public consent’ and invented the term ‘Frankenstein food’. In 1997 Greenpeace protesters blocked the ship carrying genetically modified soybeans in Rotterdam iii. In 2000 protesters blocked a ship off Anglesey, UK and placed a banner with the words "Europe says no to GM" (BBC, 2000). On numerous occasions protesters destroyed trial crops, in 2000 in the

UK, in 2006 in crops were destroyed in France, in 2010 in France and Spain, in 2011 in Germany, just to name a few. Such campaigns appeared to be viral, although they have been arranged by a different, rather independent groups, since Greenpeace operates as a network (Parr, 2014). In addition to the Puzstai affair, another example of ‘advocacy science’ is the Seralini case. Gilles-Éric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at the Caen University, France, chairs the scientific board of the NGO CRIIGEN (Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering). To promote his research, which was retracted by the journal that had initially published it, Seralini and his supported created a website called GMO Seralini, which is ‘owned and maintained by a group of concerned citizens and scientists’. The managing editor used to be Claire Robinson, a British activist, has also teamed up with the English anti-GM biologist Michael Antoniou and John Fagan. The website is illustrated with stomach disturbing photos of internal parts of rats with pathologies2. The comparison of two cases – the Pusztai affair and the Seralini affair, reveals common tactics. Both scientists have turned to civil society’s domain when they could not win the debate in the traditional academic space and formatted the presentation of their research into a different language that appeal to fears of an average citizen over biotech and food poisoning. That is what is called ‘advocacy science’, when boundaries between scientific research and civil society activism have started to dissolve, as the lay element often overshadows the official scientific community. It is also common for anti-GM groups to tune into emotions of their audiences and that is why it is so difficult for scientists to lead a scientific debate with activists. This is how Rao describes an experience of a German scientist: I went to a panel at the nearest high school with a green member of the state parliament. There were 500 people in attendance and it was packed. I was winning the argument, and suddenly (his opponent started to scream and cry. So I said to her, "don't you think we should stop being so emotional and be more objective/factual about this?" At that point a 50 year lady in the audience stood up and said, "Mr X., are you only a brain or do you actually have a heart in this issue, too?’ That's when it became very clear to me that...the problem for the big corporations is that they are already anonymous and faceless, perfect target for activists, you can't win with the rational staff, have to show a human face (Rao, 2009, p.160).

Such debates often focus at addressing environmental ethical concerns and revoke strong emotions. For example, a Greenpeace activist explained his participation in the trial destruction: 'When I saw those yellow rapeseed fields in spring, I would want to cry, because I felt that in some years, even this will be totally artificial plants, constructs made by humans rather than nature, and where are we going with that? For me that is the end of nature. ...We should not play God, not only based on ethical issues but also based on the ethics of environmental protection. It makes sense that a rose cannot make babies together with a horse!' (Weasel, 2009, pp. 46-7).

Some have tried to explain the high number of concerns about GM technology by the lack of comprehension provided by scientists and ‘scientific jargon’ which led to misunderstanding and even hostility in public. Even scientists themselves have started to raise questions about science: either resolving uncertainties ‘through a social process, and not by inexorable logic driven by a set of crucial experiments’ or ignoring ‘other human ideas’ in the Dawkins style (Perry 2002). Slowly, scientists are also mobilizing and put joint efforts to fight back their ability to influence policy-making and start using methodology of their opponents from NGOs. For example, in 2014 the Telegraph published an Open letter by the twenty seven most world 2

www.gmoseralini.org

cited scientists calling Europe for a change in the political response towards academic science and GM crops, including permits to conduct field experiments, and protection of scientific property from vandalization. They reminded about the European scientific traditions in biology and ambitious goals to innovate set up by the Horizon2020. They also responded to the argument that GM agriculture is controlled by big business and negatively affects small business and small holder farmers: ‘De facto moratorium has been detrimental to science and business, ‘small companies’, ‘the resulting reduced competition has enhanced the dominance of the major seed and agrochemical corporations’ (Baldwin et al, 2014).

3. Africa, GM Crops and Influence from Europe What seems to be a matter of internal choice has direct international implications. Europe as an actor of international politics has been criticised for its stand on GMOs. In 2003 the USA, jointly with Canada and Argentina, opened a case for dispute settlement panel in WTO demanding the European Union to justify its moratorium on GM importsiv. Robert Zoellick, the US Trade representative in Africa have even called the European policymakers 'Luddites' and pinned African rejection of GM food aid on them (Weasel, 2009). This subchapter analyses this influence.

Challenges of African agriculture and discussion of GM as a possible solution Food security, or to be more precisely, food insecurity is one of the most serious problems for the African continent. World Food Program has accounted about 795 million people in the world to do not eat enough to stay healthy. Most of the undernourished people live in Southern Asia, closely followed by sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Asia (WTF, 2014). It is striking to compare the current situation of food aid in Africa with the early 1980s. Previously, Africa was able to feed itself and only Egypt and Morocco received food aid (Raikes, 1988). In 2012 four African countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Sudan) were among eight countries, the main food aid receivers, all under the category of emergent aid (WFP, 2013). Food aid increases the amount of cheap foods in recipient countries, and thus decreases the price of agricultural production and the income of farmers in those countries (Kirwan and McMillan, 2007). Before offering any possible solution, one may need to understand what has changed since the early 1980s. This include changing conditions in the African environment, associated with climate change and human activity, and new trends in the global agriculture, such as food price instability. The first group of factors consists of rapid population growth, changing natural environment, meaning lesser resources available for agriculture. The world's population has been rapidly rising, due to improvements in medicine, and is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050. In Africa future population will comprise more than double of the number of people living today, as it is expected to hit 2.4 billion by 2050 (The Telegraph, 2014). Thus, Africa will become home of more than 25% of world’s population. This means higher demand in food and agricultural resources. To feed everyone in 2050, global food production will have to increase by 60 % from its 2005– 2007 levels (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). According to FAO’s estimations in 2000, 85% of African soils north of the equator was undergoing accelerated erosion (FAO, 2000). In addition to that, African soils have

very high average annual depletion rate, which in its turn means much less soil fertility and poorer crops (Sanchez, 2002). One fifth of the world's population (1.2 billion people) live in areas with water scarcity. In future almost half the world's population will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030, and between 75 million and 250 million of them will be people in African. In addition, water scarcity in some arid and semi-arid places will displace between 24 million and 700 million people. It is estimated that Sub-Saharan Africa will have the largest number of water-stressed countries (UNDP, 2006). Climate change has negatively been affecting African crops. Because of drought African farmers have lost one fifth of their maize crops, and in three years in the twelve year cycle the loss was near total (Rosenberg, 2014). In this background, it is a common argument among the supporters to suggest that agricultural productivity should be increased in Africa. Even those with more cautious approach to biotech accept that Africa, particularly south of the Sahara, has remained its food production per capita stagnant for a too long period of time and should improve crop productivity (Sanchez, 2002). In 2002 during a famine Zambia rejected the import of free corn from the USA in fear that they could lose their 'GM free' free status within the EU, which could affect trade, and had to wait until the UN provided 'GM free' crops. During that waiting 3000 people died from hunger. European NGOs have been instrumental in preventing approvals in the developing countries. Greenpeace, for example, invested around $US7 million to stop genetic engineering in developing countries that have not yet approved any GM crops (Paarlberg, 2003). Also, the debates over potential of genetic revolution in Africa often refer to the example of Green Revolution. Originally, the Green Revolution was brought in to address this exact issue, to increase yields. The set of programs disseminating new technologies based on the combination of water-seed-fertilizer, were advanced for its time in the 195060s and generally delivered expected outcome. From 1961 wheat yields increased by 3.5 times, rice yields doubled in developing countries and total cereal production tripled in Asia and Latin America. These higher production levels worked to stabilize and even lower domestic food prices and contributed to higher income for farmers. Two countries with the highest number of population, India and China were able to move the balance of trade in cereals from deficit to surplus despite the rapid growth of population (Pincus, 2006). Africa, however, ‘is widely assumed to have missed out on the benefits of the green revolution’. The new technology has been available in the continent, but its application was different from other places. Intensification of agricultural production in Asia brought high yields, because of prior large scale investment in improvement of irrigation system by the public sector. African governments, unlike the Asian counterparts, did not provide credit, subsidized inputs and training in new farming methods to farmers. Infrastructure which could help farmers to commercialize crops was missing (Rosenberg, 2014). Only 4% of African farmland was irrigated during the tie of Green Revolution, because the installation was expensive and the focus was placed on rain-fed agriculture. There were also too many regional varieties in conditions and crops for the scientists to address (DeVries, 2014, p.24). Green activists have criticized the Green revolution for the high use of pesticides and fertilizers, which produced deterioration of soil and water quality, health problems among farmers, loss of biodiversity and increased risk of crop disease, which was accompanied with inadequate technology transfer, when farmers did not follow

instructions on the use of agrochemicals. All that then brought decline in yields. Organic farming was named by Greenpeace as an obvious and only solution for African agriculture (Parrott & Marsden, 2002). These arguments has been then counter-argued by the father of the Green revolution, Prof. Paarlberg, suggesting that intensification in farming allowed to reduce need to cut forests and while cereal production doubled the area under cultivation increased only by 4 % and improved farmers well-being (Paarlberg, 2008). As one can see the discussion of the Green revolution has similar patterns with the debates over GM crops. Organic agriculture is opposed to biotechnology, which is claimed to be responsible for environmental degradation and economic loss of farmers. Organic agriculture is portrayed as environmentally and economically sustainable, in contrast to conventional agriculture. This discussion can be also useful for formulation of new agricultural policies. A valuable point comes from Sanchez, who argues that the potential of genetically improved crops cannot be realized without “low-tech” proceeding “high tech”. This includes institutional change in policies, such as improvements in farmers’ access to seeds, fertilizers and market development, and educational programs for farmers (Sanchez, 2002). Without doubt, the current challenges of designing an innovation system for Africa are more complex than those faced at the time of the Green Revolution. A particular difference is in the institutional framework, where a declining role of public sector in agricultural innovation is accompanied by the entry of new actors, such as private research companies and advisory services, as well as civil society organizations. African leaders from the country where GM technology has been already commercialised, advice their counterparts in other African countries to prepare regulatory base first (Pandor, 2014). Understanding this complexity may lead to a more careful approach in reliance on GM crops in Africa. If the technology is chosen as a main strategy, which is being discussed now, then a preparatory work at institutional level should be done first. African debates over GM crops and participating NGOs High dependency on food aid to address hunger and food insecurity has been a negative factor. In the worst cases large food aid may contribute to increased conflicts over resources and political power, misuse and further inequality. Genetic engineering is considered by some as a way forward for Africa (DeVries, 2014), but African leaders have followed a cautious approach, as shown above in the case of Zambia, which government was fearful to lose access to the European market. One may argue that Europe has adopted mixed position. On the one hand, the European scientists have developed crops potentially beneficial for African farmers, such as Golden rice for example (Moore, 2014). On the other, many European NGOs, such as Open Earth Source, GRAIN, GMWatch, are against the use of GM crops in Africa. African producers have been receiving informal messages from the EC trade representatives over a substantial period of timev. The current debates over African agriculture’s future discuss the possibility to decrease the dependency on the European stand on GM crops. IFPRI (2013), for example concluded that African regulatory models should be less influenced by European models and some African prominent figures, such as Dr Okogbenin from AAATF, argued that Africa should develop more independent from Europe stand on the GM crops and start using this biotech more widely (Okogbenin, 2014).

The view of Europe-based humanitarian organisations, such as Oxfam, who directly work with these issues, is different. Before the GM crops were introduced to the agenda of hunger and poverty alleviation, Oxfam referred to traditional knowledge of farmers and organic farming in their aid programs in Africa, affected by drought and hunger in the early 1990s (Myers et al, 1992). And in the 1990s Oxfam members, such as Dorothy Myers, considered organic cotton as a better alternative to GM cotton (Myers & Stolton, 1999). In 2010 Oxfam published a report 'Biotechnology and Agricultural Development', which summarized the results from the Oxfam-America project entitled ‘Learning from the Experience of Small-Scale Farmers. The Case of Transgenic Cotton’. It studied the experience of growing GM cotton in developing countries and discussed 'the relevance of agricultural biotechnology for resource-poor farmers' (Tripp et al, 2010). The authors admitted that they had 'to examine a very complex and controversial subject' and did not insist on the universality of their findings, due to research methodology limitations, but the data they found proved the decrease in insecticides costs and increased yields resulting from adoption of Bt cotton, happening in a number of countries, including China, India and South Africa (ibid. p.74). For farmers it also meant fewer cases of pesticides related health problems (ibid. p.76) and saving more time for farm management (ibid.p.81).The main factor which determined farmers' net returns was the balance between the costs of seeds and savings from derived from the application of less chemicals and yield gains. The report considered Bt cotton as a part of broader strategy in increasing efficiency of agriculture and addressing farmers’ well-being, insisting that it should be accompanied with other policy measures. The environmental anti-GM NGO GRAIN criticised Oxfam-America for publishing the report as a book and denied the validity of its data. In their view, the report was a 'review of a very limited volume of existing data on the topic', which concentrated only on economic analysis of yields and profit, lacked neutrality and 'diverted attention from real solutions for smallholder and subsistence farmers: structural reform and ecologically based agriculture' (GRAIN, 2010). Another organization GMWatch has also expressed their 'concerns with the recent publication publicized by Oxfam America in support of agricultural biotechnology as a viable solution for addressing poverty faced by resource poor and subsistence farmers in developing country'. In their eyes, Oxfam appeared to be positioning itself as a 'good broker' for GM technology, 'false advertising on appearing neutral (GMWatch, 2010). As a result, Oxfam has withdrawn from the debate and does not center its anti-hunger strategy on GM crops. A regional South African case study of the Makhatini Flats' farmers has become particularly much debated among the activists and researchers. The case study was researched and published by a number of academic groups, some suggested that the need to spray less was one of the major reasons of local farmers choosing to switch to Bt cotton, and it reduced sickness in the local hospital (Meritt, 2003). In its turn, GMWatch (2010) called the case study 'a Potemkin village for the biotech industry whose lobbyist swoop down in delegations to visit a handful of carefully nurtured farmers with scripts extolling the wonders of Bt cotton’ (GMWatch, 2010). The activists cited another research on Makhathini area suggesting that adopting Bt cotton in the area did not reduce farmers' dependency of pesticides. Biowatch South Africa argued that Makhatini farmers found themselves in debt in order to purchase seeds, defaulting on loans (ibid.). GMWatch has used the phrase ‘Trojan horse’ to win over the Western Africa for explaining the rapid growth of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. In their bulletin they published an interview with Ousmane Tiendrebego, a farmer who happened to be also a secretarygeneral of Syntapa, which is a farmers trade union and an NGO, whose main mission is ‘leading the fight for better compensation for farmers’. GM crops are part of this struggle.

This African NGO has good links with anti-GM movement in Europe. The farmer’s visit to France was arranged by Artisans of the Monde-Rhone and he met up with Combat Monsanto. He based his anti-GM arguments on two grounds – environmental and economic risks. He mentioned about children getting sick and herds of goats who got sick and died after close interaction with Bt cotton. The fact that the government launched a trial and did not find anything suspicious in sampled cotton leaves was explained by a guess that the government has not conducted trials at all or under pressure from corporations produced fake results. The economic argument has been developed by three facts which should prove that Bt cotton leaves farmers losers and agrochemical corporations to win. The increased, in comparison to other seeds, GM seeds became more expensive. The promise of high yields did not realize. And as the Bt cotton is lighter in weight for the same amount of fiber, farmers receive less per kilo (GMWatch, 2011). He also claimed that Monsanto made a deal with the government of Burkina Faso in return of promotion seeds the company offered 50% of revenues from sales of seeds. Other pro-GM organizations, such as Gates and Rockefeller Foundations funded laboratories which are working at bio-fortified sorghum and insecticidal cowpeas, were also assessed by Tiendrebego as ‘the invasion of GMO which works against the interests of farmers and the people’s food sovereignty’ (ibid., p.2). South African Farmer T.J.Buthelezi, a chairman of the Ubongwa Farmers Union in Makhatini, in 2002-3 appeared at a number of public events, such as conferences and official visit of the USA Trade representative. As he spoke good of his experience in growing Bt cotton, this was interpreted by the anti-GM activists as ‘the clear message to both the EU and Africa’ showing that ‘the US was standing by the African farmer by giving it access to GM technologies, whereas the EU was not (Pschorn-Strauss, 2005, p.13). In 2007 GMWatch, promoted a film in which the wife of Buthelezi said that the family did not profit from the crop. However, one should not forget another actor in the debate – farmers. While African farmers might have less knowledge on GM technology, they are very keen in getting varieties which can produce better yields, decrease costs and increase their profits. They have a pragmatic approach and might take a risk if the promise is good (Moon, 2014). To compare, European farmers have been more cautious about new technology, although recognizing potential benefits but worrying about public opinion and potential liability issues resulting from the use of GM seeds in their farms (Richardson, 2002). It also appears that in Africa farmers are getting mixed knowledge about GM technology and in a way they are getting tired of NGOs teaching them how to do agriculture (Moon, 2014). This is how a farmer from Uganda described his experiences of dealing with NGOs: When we had just set our farm, about 30 years ago, we used to attend seminars organised by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), where we were usually taught about organic farming and the need for minimal use of agricultural chemicals as a way of sustaining the natural fertility of the soil and increasing crop production. We would also sometimes be warned about “fake” seeds – ensigo enkolelele – made by scientists and carrying the risk of causing cancers and depleting soil. We were even warned that these seeds were to be planted only once and that it would be useless to save seed from the harvested crop for replanting in the next season because the yields would be poor. The aim of the “fake seed producers”, we were further told, was to keep us going back to the same people to buy seed every planting season. We had no understanding at all of genetics and plant breeding…and we developed suspicions about their efficacy and safety (Ssali, 2014, p.36).

Conclusion The discussion of the use of GM technology in agriculture has been long and complicated. The complex nature of the topic and a limited capacity of science to communicate and provide guarantee for safety solutions for unexpected risks have become

an Achilles heel in its attempt to win over public acceptance. Yet, in the current debates the discussion of the technology itself is overshadowed by the discussion of its policymaking. Even the opponents to technology, for example from Third World Network openly claim that the discussion is not about safety of the technology but about its application and policy-making (Ling, 2015). The result of these controversial debates which are often conducted by either extreme proponents or extreme opponents of the technology is the lack of policy framework. In the multi-institutional structure of the European Union it is possible to run a two-ended regime which gives opportunities to both – GM supporters and their opponents which benefits more the anti-GM group and outsourcing decision-making on GM to national and regional levels. It is also possible to assume that despite the efforts of lobbying groups to free Europe from GM completely, this mission will take time and might not be realised. With comparatively stable food security status and traditional political susceptibility to farming lobby, Europe as a region can afford to sustain such regime and pay costs of the disagreements between member states about the use of GM crops. The case for developing countries might be different. The challenge of food security exists in a different level and require comprehensive and timely policy response. Of course, it would be a narrow-minded approach to expect the GM technology will be a silver bullet for this challenge, but the promises of the use of GM in African agriculture are high and might push some African leaders to adopt an approach, different from their European counterparts. The anti-GM lobbying in Africa is perceived with growing criticism. African farmers and policy-makers are often presented a one-sided approach, usually a negative one. A comprehensive and balanced approach in studying this question would be more beneficial. The debate over GM agriculture has another distinct feature – active participation in the debate and strong influence of non-governmental organizations. While NGOs are part of representative democracy and can bring positive elements to the debate such as the need in transparent information available to citizens, in this instance they have also produced a phenomenon that is called ‘advocacy science’ that has undermined the public trust in science and resulted in even further debates. Often the European debates over GM crops seem not to allow a scientific discussion and are not based on the supremacy of logic over emotions and uncontested authority of science. That is particular unique for Europe, whose civilization Weber praised for its ‘empirical knowledge, reflection on problems of the cosmos and of life, philosophical and theological wisdom of the most profound sort’ (Weber, 1976). In their turn, scientists have started to realise that keeping distance from general public is an unaffordable luxury, and many scientists have now entered the debate and started slowly implement the tactics of the anti-GM lobby, such as running events where they explain the complex technology to public in a simple comprehensive terms3 and making public claims. While recognizing the particular role NGOs play in the formation of the European opposition to GM, authors as Reisner (2001) and Ansel, Maxwell and Sicurelli (2013) find not much difference in the social movement landscape in Europe and the USA and argue that international NGOs, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, operate on the both side of the Atlantic Ocean. This research argues that same NGOs adapt differently to different institutional context. Oxfam, as described above, can serve as an example of an NGO where an American branch and a European branch had different approaches towards GM. This allows to conclude that while the presence and active engagement of an actor is important, it is the context that define its activity. In Europe the institutional context is different from the American one and favors more anti-GM campaigns. As it is shown in this research, Africa has also active participation of NGOs in the debate on GM crops and 3

Prof. Ottoline Leyser, biologist from the University of Cambridge, has run several workshops for “lay people”, such as the talk at Literature Festival in April 2014 and a lecture organised by Women’s Institute, Cambridge.

there are links between European and African NGOs, they are parts of the same social networks, as they share information and resources. As modern agriculture heavy relies on scientific research, the lack of a clear stand on GM, in other words confusion, is thus extended to the discussion of the future of agriculture. This a particular case in Europe. At the international level this confusion is exported to developing countries, trade partners of Europe and recipients of aid, coming from different channels, including through civil society charitable organizations. In this light, the desire of African leaders to be able to take decision on the use of GM technology in a more independent manner is understandable, although the question if they are able to remains open. Any technology without well designed and implemented governance will not produce expected results, and the same applies to biotechnology. Thus, there is another constraint for developing countries - it is not just the lack of technology, which can be resolved through technology transfer by the lack of positive experience in creating favorable conditions for adopting technology.

Bibliography Alexandratos N, Bruisma J. (2012) World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050 The 2012 Revision. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03 June 2012. FAO: Rome. Ammann, K. (2014) Presentation. Asset 2014 GM Debate. Belfast: 9th April 2014. Anderson K., Lee Ann Jackson L.A. (2003) “Why are US and EU Policies Toward GMOs So Different?” AgBioForum, 6(3): 1-8. Ansell C., Maxwell R., Sicurelli D. (2013) Protesting Food: NGOs and Political Mobilization in Europe, in C. Ansell, D. Vogel (eds.) What’s the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp.97-122. Baldwin I.T. et al (2014) Genetically Modified Crops: an Open Letter to Europe. The Telegraph. 30 October 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/11196095/Gene tically-modified-crops-an-open-letter-to-Europe.html Accessed 12.06.2015. Barber K. (2004) Canada Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press: Oxford. BBC (2000) ,“Greenpeace ambushes GM ship”, BBC Wales, 25 February 2000 http://rahsaan.web.unc.edu/files/2013/05/AnsellMaxwellSicurelli.pdf Accessed 21.06.2014. Brand S. (2010) Whole Earth Discipline: an Ecopragmatist Manifesto. London: Atlantic. Brown A. (2014) “It’s wrong to sack a Scientist for her Opinions”, The Guardian, 14 November 2014 Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. (2004) '"The scientists think and the public feels": expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food', in Discourse and Society 15 (4): 433449.

Davies R. (2009) The Use of Social Network Analysis Tools in the Evaluation of Social Change Communications An input into the Background Conceptual Paper: An Expanded M&E Framework for Social Change Communication. http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/pdfs/2nd%20draft%20the%20use%20of %20social%20network%20analysis%20tools%20in%20the%20evaluation%20of%20soci al%20change%20communications%20b.pdf Accessed 12.06.2015. DeVries J. (2013) Seed: hope for smallholder farmers? , in Insights. Africa’s future…Can bioscience contribute. Lavenham Press. European Commission (2010) Biotechnology Report. Brussels: DG for Communication. Fagan, J. (2007) A Science-based, precautionary approach to the Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods. http://www.psrast.org/jflabel.htp as viewed 23.06.2014 FAO (2009) How to Feed the World in 2050. FAO: Rome. (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_Wo rld_in_2050.pdf Accessed 12.06.2015. Fedoroff N., Brown N.M. (2004) Mendel in the Kitchen. A Scientist's View on Genetically Modified Foods. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.

Freeman L. C. (2004) The Development of Social Network Analysis. A Study in the Sociology of Science. BookSurge: North Charleston.

Gaskell G. (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Eurobarometer 64.3 Brussel: European Commission. Gaudilliere, J.P. (2006) Globalisation and Regulation in the Biotech World: The Transatlantic debates over Cancer Genes and Genetically Modified Crops. In Global Power Knowledge Science and Technology in International Affairs. OSIRIS 21, pp.251272. GMWatch (2006) Pusztai replies to Fedoroff. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2006/1937-pusztai-replies-to-fedoroff as viewed 23.06.2014. GMWatch (2010) Open Letter to Oxfam-America. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12130 as viewed 23.06.2014. GMWatch (2011) Burkina Faso is a Trojan horse for GMOs in Africa. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13342-burkina-faso-is-a-trojanhorse-for-gmos-in-africa Accessed 12.06.2015. GRAIN (2010) An Open Letter to Oxfam. 12 April 2010. http://www.grain.org/es/bulletin_board/entries/4221-an-open-letter-to-oxfam-america Accessed 02.04.2014. Grant W.P. (2012) Can political science contribute to agricultural policy?, in Policy and Society, 31:271-9.

Grundmann, R. (2011) Transnational Policy Networks and the Role of Advocacy Scientists: from Ozone Layer Protection to Climate Change, in Global Activism Reader. Ed. By L. Reydams. L.: Continuum. Hoegel, Jens. Inteview with Jens Hoegel. Brussels, 04 June 2014. Huffman W.E. (2011) “Contributions of Public and Private R&D to Biotechnology Innovation, in “Genetically Modified Food and Global Welfare”, ed. Colin A. Carter, GianCarlo Moschini and Ian Sheldon. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. Bingley: Emerald Group. ISAAA (2013) Brief 46- 2013. Global Status of Commercialised Biotech/GM Crops. Nairobi: ISAAA. Jackson L.A., Anderson K. (2005) What’s behind GM food trade disputes? in World Trade Review, 4(2): 203-228. Juncker J.C. (2014) A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change. Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission. Opening Statement. Brussels: EC. Kirwan B.E., Macmillan M. (2007) Food Aid and Poverty. http://www.tufts.edu/~mmcmilla/papers/FoodAidPoverty.pdf accessed 12.06.2015. Martineau B. (2001) First Fruit: the Creation of Flavr savr tomato and the birth of genetically engineered food. MacGraw-Hill, pp. 223-224. Moore, P. (2014) Interview with Patrick Moore. London, 30 January 2014. Ling Y. (2015) Contribution to the High Level Plenary Session. Danube Soya Congress. Berlin, 8 May 2015. Lynas, M. (2014) Interview with Mark Lynas. Oxford: 06 February 2014. Lynas M., Robinson, C. (2012) Is there a Place for GM Crops in a Sustainable Future?, in New Internationalist. November 2012. Lynch D., Vogel D. (2001) The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics. Council of Foreign Relations Press: N.Y. Merritt C. (2003) The Status of GM Crops Across the World. In GM Crops The Scientists Speak. Proceedings of the 2002 Cambridge Conference on Genetically Modified Crops and Food, organised by the Cambridge Society for the Application of Research. Ed. By Brian J.Ford. Cambridge: Rothay House, pp. 19-28. Moon, M. (2014) Interview with Marion Moon. Nairobi, 19th November 2014. Myers, D., Davidson J., Chakraborty, M. (1992) No Time to Waste: Poverty and the Global Environment. Oxford: Oxfam. Myers, D., Stolton S. (1999) Organic Cotton. From Filed to Full Product. L.:Intermediate technology. Okogbenin E. (2014) Contribution to the panel “Food Security, Biotechnology & Genetic Modification- a mature conversation”, Festival of Ideas. Cambridge, 16.05.2014.

Paarlberg R.L. (2003) Reinvigorating the genetically modified crops, in Issues in Science and Technology, 19(3): 86-92. Paarlberg, R.L. (2008). Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pandor G.N.M. (2014) Welcome Speech. 13th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO13). 9-13 November 2014, Cape Town. Parr D. (2014) Interview with Doug Parr. Oxford, 1 May 2014. Parrot N., Marsden T. (2002) The Real Green Revolution: Organic and Agroecological farming in the South. L.: Green peace Environmental Trust. Pincus J. (2006) Green Revolution and Biotechnology, in The Elgar Companion to Development Studies, ed. Clarck D.A., Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp.207-212. Pschorn-Strauss E. (2005) Bt cotton in South Africa the case of the Makhathini farmers, in Seedling, April 2005. Raikes P. (1988) Modernising hunger: famine food surplus and farm policy in the EEC and Africa. Currey. Randerson J. (2008) “Arpad Pusztai: Biological Divide”, The Guardian, 15 January 2008. Rao H. (2009) Market Rebels- How activists Make or Break Radical Innovations. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). Rein D., Herbers K. (2006) ‘Enhanced Nutritional Value of Food Crops’. In Plant Biotechnology. Current and Future Applications of Genetically Modified Crops. Edited by Nigel Haldord. Chichester. Reisner A.E. (2001) Social Movement Organizations’ Reactions to Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, in the American Behavioral Scientist, 44(8):1389-1404. Richardson D. “A Farmer’s View”, in “GM Crops The Scientists Speak. Proceedings of the 2002 Cambridge Conference on Genetically Modified Crops and Food”, ed. by Brian J. Ford (Cambridge: Rothay House, 2002), p.12. Rosenberg T. (2014) A Green Revolution, This Time for Africa, in The Opinion Pages Opinator. 9 April 2014 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/a-greenrevolution-this-time-for-africa/?_r=0 Accessed 12.06.2015. Sanchez P.A. (2002) Soil Fertility and Hunger. Science, 295:2019-20. Schurman R., Munro W.A. (2010) Fighting for the Future of Food. Activists versus Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology. University of Minnesota: Minneapolis. Sears M.K., Hellmich R.L., Stanley-Horn DE,., Oberhauser K.S., Pleasants J.M., Mattila H.R., Siegfried B.D., Dively G.P. (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 98:11937–11942. Shiva V. (2000) Stolen Harvest: the Hijacking of Global Food Supply. South End Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Smith J. “Scientists Under Attack”, 9 August, 2010 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm. Accessed 07 January 2015. Ssali M. (2014) Why I changed my mind about biotechnology for African countries?, in Viewponts. Africa’s future...Can Biosciences contribute? Lavenham Press. Sylvester O. (2014) Interview by Author. Cape Town, 12 November 2014. Timmer C.P. (2006) Agriculture and Economic Growth, in The Elgar Companion to Development Studies, ed. Clarck D.A., Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp.5-9. Tripp, R. (2009) (Ed.) Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton, Rural Institutions and Poor-resource Farmers. L.: Routledge. Trueba I., MacMilan A. (2013 ) How to End Hunger in Times of Crises. Fast Print: Peterborough.

UNDP (2006) Water Scarcity. UNDP. http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml Accessed 10.06.2015. van der Heijden H.A. (2010) Social Movements, Public Spheres and the European Politics of the Environment. Green Power Europe? Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Weasel L. (2009) Food Fray: Inside the Controversy over Genetically Modified Food. N.Y.: AMACOM. Weber M. (1976) The protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. L.: George Allen & Unwin. WFP (2014) Hunger Statistics. https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats Accessed 12.06.2015. WFP (2013) Food Aid Information System. http://www.wfp.org/fais/ Accessed 12.06.2015.

Appendix

List of NGOs participating in the GM debate: Business Associations: British Society of Plant Breeders Ltd EuropaBio International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications Irish BioIndustry Association Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) Washington Biotech Action Council World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

Farmers' Associations: African Agricultural Technology Foundation Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) Andhra Pradesh Farmers Association Association de Producteurs de Coton Africans (APROC) California Certified Organic Farmers Coldiretti Italian Farmers; Union Confederation Paysanne Eastern African Farmers Federation (EAFF) Eastern and Southern African small scale Farmers’ Forum (ESAFF) European Farmers and AgriCooperatives Food and Allied Workers’ Union German Farmers Association

Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association Irish Sheep and Cattle Association Karnataka Farmers Movement (Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha) Minnesota Food Association Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ Organization of West Africa (ROPPA) Plateforme sous Regionale des Organizations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC) Syntapa

Foundations funding anti-GM projects: AME Foundation Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Fund GAIA Foundation Proterra Foundation

Humanitarian NGOs: ActionAid Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation CAFOD Catholic Association for Overseas Development (London, England, UK) Caritas International International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) Oxfam Save the Children

International Think Tanks: Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Biodiversity International Centre for Food Safety Centre for Science in the Public Interest Committee for Responsible Genetics

Econexus Environmental Policy Institute Green Alliance Institute for Food and Development Policy/FoodFirst Institute of Ideas New Economics Foundation

Regional Green/Eco NGOs: African Biodiversity Network (ABN) African Biodiversity Conservation and Innovation Centre African Centre for Biosafety Agent Green Agrolink Alliance for Biointegrity ASEED Europe Basel Appeal against Genetic Engineering Bioengineering Action Network Biolands BioRe India Biosustain Biowatch Bird Watch Clean Water Fund COAG (Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos / Coordinator of farmers' and livestock farmers' organisations, Spain) Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN) Coalition of Free GM India Concerned Citizens CRANN (Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices)

CRIIGEN (Comité de Recherche et d'Information Indépendantes sur le Génie Genétique - Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) Dio Earthlife Africa Ecologistas en Accion Ecoropa Equivita ETK European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) FAHAMU Family Farm Defenders Food and Trees for Africa Genetic Engineering Action Network Gentechnikfreies Europa Gene Watch GMO Free Idaho GMO-NET Green Foundation Green Network of Vojvodina Group for Environmental Monitoring Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC) Institute of Science in Society Irish Seeds Savers Association Just Label It Kheti Virasat La Via Campesina Africa London Food Commission MYRADA National Environmental Trust

National Family Farm Coalition National Sharecroppers Union/Rural Advancement Fund International (RAFI) National Wildlife Federation Native Forest Network Organic Agriculture Association in Africa Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) Priroda I Molodezh Primal seeds PRObio Rashtiya Yuva Dal Resistance is Fertile Right2Know The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Shektari Sanghatana Sluzba Okhrany prirody Soil Association South African Committee on Genetic Experimentation South African Council of Churches South African Environmental Justice Networking Forum South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Southern Eastern Environmental Network Spanish Farming Family Association Tanzanian Alliance for Biodiversity Tanzanian Organic Agriculture Movement Testbiotech Totnes Genetics Group Upper Midwest Resistance against Genetic Engineering (RAGE groups)

Uralskyi Ekologicheskiy Souz Vermont Genetic Engineering Action Network Vo imya Zisni Vosrozdenie Zoloti Vek Western Organic Network Za biobezopasnost Zelenaya Orbita

Scientific Research Organizations: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAS) Biosustain DTU Novo Nordisk Foundation Institute of Arable Crops Research/Rothamsted Centre International Food Policy Research Institute International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre International Rice Research Institute John Innes Centre Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) Sense about Science The Society for the Anthropology of Food and Nutrition (SAFN) Union of Concerned Scientists

Social and Environmental Justice/Campaigners NGOs: Association of India Development Centre for Ethics and Toxics Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Compassion for World Farming Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice Consumers International Corner House

Corporate Europe Observatory Council for Responsible Genetics Earth First! Earth Open Source Ending Destructive Genetic Engineering (EDGE) Environment Support Group Foundation on Economic Trends Friends of the Earth Gateway Green Alliance Gene Campaign Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) GenetiX Snowball Greenpeace International Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Institute for Social Ecology International Centre for Technology Assessment International Organization of Consumers Union Linking Farming and the Environment LEAF Navdanya International Organic Consumers Association (OCA) Rising Tide UK Sierra Club Third World Network Women's Environmental Network World Wildlife Fund (officially withdrawn position)