DISCLAIMER: the International Food Policy Research Institute is no good!

Posted on Updated on

Despite including a quote in the previous post Colonos does not in any possible way endorse the International Food Policy Research Institute (or their partners in crime, Oxfam-America):


In collaboration with Oxfam-America, national partners, and an advisory committee representing a range of stakeholders, IFPRI is also working to develop a set of ‘best practices’ for assessing the social and economic impact of genetically engineered crops. Case studies on herbicide-tolerant soybeans, insect-resistant cotton, and maize are in the planning phases in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to test the proposed methodologies. The goal of this set of studies is to create a ‘tool kit’ that can be used by national researchers to respond to the information needs of the Cartagena Protocol. IFPRI is also completing a round of case studies that assess the potential economic impact of genetically engineered crops, including highland bananas and maize in East Africa, and vegetable crops in Ghana.

IFPRI is actively engaged on the biosafety front as well, and is coordinating a Program on Biosafety Systems (PBS), which is being implemented by a consortium of partner organizations and CGIAR centers. The overall goal of PBS is to facilitate the inclusion of appropriate biosafety regulations within country-led sustainable development strategies. PBS activities include policy analysis and development, risk assessment, capacity building in regulatory systems, and communication and public outreach. The program is active in East Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa, and Southeast Asia. IFPRI’s South Asia Biosafety Program, coordinated with Agriculture & Biotechnology Strategies (AGBIOS), is assessing the impact of biosafety and marketing regulations in India and Bangladesh on the adoption and value of crops and traits….

In case you are still doubting to which degree genetically modified commodities (from Monsanto et al.) is included in IFPRI’s vision of “sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty” then look no further:

“Pure politics”

“We’ve been eating GM maize here in the US for six years without any problems. By saying no to aid, he’s increasing the risk that thousands of Zimbabweans are going to starve,” says Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, winner of last year’s World Food Prize. “The reason for Mugabe’s resistance is pure politics. He wants to show Western countries he doesn’t need them.”

So ending poverty and starvation happens by creating food dependencies?* (see more here and quote below)

What kind of a food policy is that, if not Old Skool Empire?

I rest my case.

=========================================

Appendix:

It’s about Monsanto or other large corporations making profits from selling GE food.

If they really wanted to feed us, they would feed us healthy food. In fact, a lot of food is thrown away in the U.S. because it’s considered surplus.”

Even the big man Bush himself has been busy trying to feed the world (well it makes a change from bombing it).

He told 5,000 delegates at the Biotechnology Industry Organisation conference in Washington that European opposition to GM food was impeding efforts to fight starvation in Africa – and nothing to do with the fact that the US has a huge surplus of GM crops it wants to offload.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s