Endi Biotech Aff

Emory 07-08 Biotech AFF
Emory National Debate Institute // June 5, 2007
Contention One: Patents hurt Africa

The proprietary status of Biotech blocks research to remedy food insecurity in sub-Sahara Africa. The
threat of litigation deters research on GM varieties of African staple crops
Trudell 05 – 06 JD Candidate @ Syracuse University College of Law [Robert H. Trudell, “FOOD SECURITY EMERGENCIES AND THE POWER
OF EMINENT DOMAIN: A DOMESTIC LEGAL TOOL TO TREAT A GLOBAL PROBLEM,” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, Fall 2005, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277]edlee
Early Developments to Treat Food Insecurity

Currently, our capacity in agricultural production can sustain the food
Because of strides in agricultural productivity, Malthus has been wrong, up to now.
needs of the human population so that there is food supply for all. 20 However, the most pressing food security problem of
today is not the supply of food production, but rather the access to that supply of food, and, more importantly, access to the technology to increase food
production. 21
Improving agriculture productivity has challenged humankind for over 10,000 years. 22 In relatively modern times, scientific improvements to agriculture now play a distinct role in productivity. 23 "Darwin's theory of
evolution, the pure-line theory of Johannson, the mutation theory of de Vries, and the rediscovery of Mendel's Laws of Heredity all contributed to the rise of plant breeding in the beginning of the twentieth century." 24
Accordingly, the application of science and technology are crucial to the continued improvement of agricultural productivity and treatment of food insecurity.
Recent Developments: Biotechnological Research Tools

Since the 1980s, the biotechnology industry has expanded into a [*281] multi-billion dollar business. 25 During this time, there
has also been a shift in agricultural development within the developed world, from research based in the public-sector to
research based in the private-sector. 26 Certainly, private investment in agricultural technology has led to great strides in the development of new biotechnological processes for the research
and development (R&D) of new crops, which grow more productively than ever before. 27 These biotechnological processes are called "research tools," or sometimes "upstream" processes; they are used by researchers to
research tools developed and used to improve agriculture productivity

improve agricultural crops and increase agricultural productivity. 28 Legally,
through biotechnology are protected as intellectual property and such proprietary rights may block research to
treat food security in sub-Saharan Africa. 29 Unfortunately, this may result in a global problem.
Framing the Issue: Access to Research Technology
Today, agricultural productivity continues to improve largely because of the biotechnological methods used to develop more productive agricultural crops. 30 While improved agricultural productivity addresses the supply-
the [*282] proprietary nature of today's agricultural biotechnology contributes to the access-to-
aspect of global food security,
food problem because plant biotechnology patents impede access to new technologies that researchers
concerned with today's food security problem need. 31
Investments in agricultural biotechnology are largely motivated by profits which arise from the intellectual property rights (IPRs) that biotechnology firms enjoy in the results of their R&D. 32 Property rights, like patents in
research tool technology, may lead to great profits. 33 Because of the huge investment cost that such R&D demands, the focus in agricultural biotechnology R&D has largely been in the development of crops with high profit-
yields on the commercial market. 34 These crops may not address serious food security problems in places like sub-Saharan Africa. 35
In sub-Saharan Africa, food security is a question of survival for hundreds of millions of people. Improved
agricultural productivity must take place in another class of crops which have not enjoyed considerable, modern-day R&D because of their low commercial value in the global
marketplace. 36 These are the "staple crops" of the sub-Saharan diet. 37
Because of the proprietary nature of today's agricultural biotechnology R&D, improvements in nutritious crops
that grow well in sub-Saharan Africa's poor soil, such as cassava, may be blocked. 38 Also, the majority of
agricultural research conducted on behalf of sub-Saharan Africa is still done in public research facilities.
39 This important work may be hindered by the existence of a layer of IPRs - especially upon the research tools - at the vital R&D
stage of [*283] agricultural biotechnological productivity. 40
IPRs exacerbate the food insecurity of the developing world - in particular that of sub-Saharan Africa
Thus, the question presents itself whether
- because the means to research and develop the crops needed to sustain the developing world are blocked by the proprietary
nature of modern agricultural biotechnology. There are those who stand ready to conduct the necessary R&D
of crops to address the food security needs of regions like sub-Saharan Africa, yet find their progress is chilled by
the threat of litigation stemming from intellectual property rights. 41 This problem could have dire international ramifications because global
security is at risk in a food insecure world. Part I of this Note examines how food insecurity threatens global security.
1
Financial relations with the US will deter African researchers from violating US patent law. They rely on
extremely restrictive material transfer agreements that hinder indigenous biotech development
Taylor & Cayford 03 - Sr. Fellow & Researcher @ Resources for the Future [Michael R. Taylor and Jerry Cayford, American Patent
Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change, RFF Report, NOVEMBER 2003 pg. RFF-RPT-Patent.pdf]edlee
Indirect Impacts of U.S. Patents

Most of the R&D work to apply biotechnology to developing country agronomic problems and improve food security is likely to
be conducted in developing countries, CGIAR institutions, or national agricultural research organizations, and
on subsistence or other crops that have little or no export potential. It is sometimes argued that researchers outside the United States who want to
use a U.S.-patented tool to develop an improved plant for such purposes are not affected by U.S. patents because U.S. patents are binding only in the United States. While the legal point is
correct, this argument overlooks the indirect but very real impact that U.S. patents have on use of patented technology by these researchers.
these researchers and their institutions rely heavily on the U.S. government and international financial institutions for their
First,
funding. As discussed above, the U.S. government pushes hard for foreign countries and institutions to protect the intellectual property rights of U.S. companies. National
agricultural research systems and CGIAR institutions could jeopardize their funding if they systematically
violated U.S. patents to develop useful applications of biotechnology.164
Second, to the extent that developing country research institutions are currently involved in biotechnology, they
often seek and rely upon cooperation from the Western biotechnology companies that hold many of the necessary patents.165 These companies jealously guard their patent rights and are less likely
to cooperate with institutions that do not respect their patents.
Third, the holding of patents by biotechnology companies provides them with incentive and leverage to tightly control use of technologies, whether or not they choose to share access. To gain physical access to patented gene
material transfer agreements (MTAs) that place strict restrictions on the

traits or enabling technologies and necessary know-how, researchers typically must enter into
use of the technology, including prohibitions on commercialization.166 The leverage to impose strict MTA conditions arises in part from the patent holder’s
ability to exercise close control over the use of the patented technology. MTA provisions can thus operate as a de facto extension of the patent to
the country where the researcher works: to the extent the researcher was legally free to use the invention outside the United States, that freedom is usually lost in the MTA. Workshop
participants and survey respondents alike considered this a particularly important barrier to the use of biotechnology in other countries. One survey comment asserted that “limitations imposed through MTAs by patent
holders on the use of their inventions by researchers is often precluding applications in developing countries.” Strictly speaking, this use of MTAs is a function of contract law and choices made by patent holders, not of
patents or patent policy per se; but, as a practical matter, it can extend the impact of U.S. biotechnology patents beyond the United States.
these indirect impacts of U.S. patent law, combined with the large number of patents in the patent thicket surrounding biotechnology, are a deterrent
Overall,
to the development of biotechnology applications by researchers in developing country institutions. Pg. 48-49
2
US patent law prevents the patent holder from even donating the end product for humanitarian use.
2. Researchers Need the Freedom-to-Operate

researchers
Even though there is no such thing as an international patent, widespread Intellectual Property Rights may be blocking research which could benefit sub-Saharan Africa. 238 Many
may not have the freedom-to-operate and conduct research on crops which may best treat food insecurity
in sub-Saharan Africa. 239 While the use of technology patented elsewhere may be legal in an African country, patents still chill research from going
forward. 240 Less research occurs in agriculture for the sub-Saharan region because the African researchers cannot share their
developments with researchers from the developed world. African research is blocked by Intellectual Property Rights. 241 What is more, the focus of
international trade is gearing towards more IPR protection. This means the freedom-to-operate with patented agricultural biotechnological research technology may become more difficult for
researchers working in (or for) the benefit of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. 242
Even when patent owners want to "give it away," patents and Intellectual Property Rights chill researchers' freedom-to-
operate. To illustrate, we shall return to GoldenRice(R), whose inventors and patent holders have been seeking for years to "donate" for
"humanitarian use" (i.e. use that is free of most intellectual property protection) their technology to poor farmers in the developing world. 243
[*309]
3. You Can't Even Give It Away

Ingo Potrykus was one of the chief scientists on the GoldenRice(R) project in Switzerland. 244 In 2004, Mr. Potrykus published an essay highlighting the benefits of GoldenRice(R) and the "humanitarian" motives behind its
hoped-for donation. 245 Of the seventy patents needed to produce this product, most are held by the "private sector." 246 The private-sector patent owners were clear that a donation of GoldenRice(R) for "humanitarian use"
means uses which generates less than $ 10,000 in sales. 247
it has
GoldenRice (R) has taken nearly thirty years to develop - most notably ten of those years were necessary to overcome "a series of GMO-specific hurdles such as IPRs." 248 That is,
taken ten years for a sophisticated research institution in one of the wealthiest, most developed countries in the world to
negotiate through the Intellectual Property Rights in order to "give away" its end product. Ten years to negotiate through the blocking patents and IPRs in
order to develop a downstream agricultural product designed to treat blindness and address food insecurity in the developing world. 249 Even without international patents, it is not hard to see why agricultural
biotechnological research focused on the crops staple to the sub-Saharan diet have not advanced so as to treat food insecurity in the region.
The food insecurity situation in sub-Saharan Africa is an emergency with global implications. Crop biotechnology offers a strong treatment for the emergency through innovative applications
Crop biotechnology patents present some barriers to the access of these tools
of patented research tools in agricultural development.
thereby preventing these innovations from taking place.
3
Contention Two: Hunger, Pestilence, and War

The most severe and intractable form of poverty is destroying sub-Sahara Africa. It is the place where
poverty is expecting to rise over the next decade and hunger is expect to remain a recurring crisis
Peacock 04 - Chief Executive of FARM-Africa [Dr Christie Peacock, An adviser to the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), Reaching
the poor: a call to action - Investment in smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, Spring 2004]edlee
POVERTY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

INTRODUCTION
1. In September 2005 a UN Special Assembly will assess progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, some things are already clear: while at current rates of progress China
There is no shortage of statistics showing that,

should comfortably exceed most of the MDG targets, the majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa will not – by a long way.
globally, poverty is most severe and most intractable in sub-Saharan Africa. The plight of Africa’s poor –
ravaged by conflict and hunger or simply condemned to lives of apparently unrewarded toil – is frequently and
vividly presented in the media. Africa, particularly rural Africa, desperately needs poverty-reducing economic growth.
This paper argues that growth in smallholder agriculture offers the best prospects for stimulating such growth in much of sub-Saharan Africa.
Unfortunately, while most Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) recognise the critical importance of the agricultural sector to national economies, employment, income and food security, this awareness is not matched
by budget allocations to the agricultural sector. Meanwhile, while major donors, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID),
have recently taken the welcome step of acknowledging the critical importance of agricultural growth to poverty-reduction strategies in Africa, there is little consensus on what a strategy for stimulating smallholder
agricultural growth in sub-Saharan Africa should look like.T his paper, therefore, identifies priority areas for investment and intervention, by both national governments and donors, to enable smallholder agriculture to fulfil
its potential to contribute to poverty-reduction and a better standard of living for people in sub-Saharan Africa. The word agriculture is used to cover all livelihoods based on the use of renewable natural resources – crops,
livestock, forest products etc.
ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

2. The international community has made clear and repeated commitments to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Goal 1, to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, contains two targets:
• halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than a dollar
a day
• halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
3. Box 1 provides a basic set of facts on the distribution and incidence of global poverty, which these targets address. Annex Tables 1 and 2 also provide information on the regional concentration of poverty and under-
nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. The Box and Tables highlight that:
• poverty is predominantly a rural problem
• poverty is increasingly concentrated in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
• in sub-Saharan Africa the depth of poverty is most severe and, in contrast to the rest of the world, the
incidence of poverty is increasing in many countries, and
• smallholder agriculture is an important component of the livelihoods of very large numbers of poor people.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figures show that in sub-Saharan Africa 64% of the total population are
directly involved in agriculture as their primary source of income and livelihood.
4. Annex Table 1 also shows that only in sub-Saharan Africa and in the much smaller Middle East and North Africa region are the numbers of
people in absolute poverty are expected to rise between now and 2015. For the foreseeable future poverty is
likely to remain widespread within sub-Saharan Africa, with hunger a recurrent problem in several countries. Large
numbers of people in more remote areas are also likely to remain heavily dependent on semi-subsistence agriculture for their
livelihoods for some time to come. Thus, while this paper sets out a vision for renewed agricultural growth in sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture’s vital contribution
to food security and welfare for the poor (particularly the chronic poor in remote areas) should not be forgotten. Pg. 1-2
4
The poverty trap is engulfing the entire continent. Over 8 Million people will die every year
Clover 03 – Researcher @ Institute for Security Studies. [JENNY CLOVER, “FOOD SECURITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA,” African Security
Review Vol 12 No 1, 2003]edlee
The consequences of worldwide hunger are only now being appreciated. At the 2002 WFS the chairperson stated: “Together with terrorism, hunger is one of the greatest
problems the international community is facing.”5
James Morris, executive director of World Food Programme (WFP), in his address to the UN Security Council in December 2002 about Africa’s food crisis, said:
Never before has WFP had to contend with potential starvation of this magnitude on the African continent
38 million people in Africa alone

with the simultaneous outbreak of two enormous and complex crises exacerbated by HIV/AIDS and economic policy failures. The reality is that right now
face an urgent and imminent threat to their peace, security and stability ... This is an unprecedented crisis, which calls for an unprecedented response.6
In its response the UN Security Council acknowledged its concern that Africa’s food crisis is a threat to peace and security. Africa, which reversed
from being a key exporter of agricultural commodities into being a net importer,7 has the highest percentage of undernourished people and has
shown the least progress on reducing the prevalence of undernourishment in the last 30 years. Chronic food
insecurity now affects some 28% of the population—that is, nearly 200 million people who are suffering from malnutrition. Acute food insecurity in 2003 is
affecting 38 million people in Africa who are facing the outright risk of famine, with 24,000 dying from hunger daily. Famines are the most visible and extreme
manifestation of acute food insecurity. Of the 39 countries worldwide that faced food emergencies at the beginning of 2003, 25 are found in Africa.
The African continent is now the continent receiving most food aid, with some 30 million people requiring emergency food aid in any one year. Sixty per cent of the WFP’s work now takes place in Africa. Aid officials have
estimated that their budget for Africa is $1.4 billion for feeding those who will face starvation in the coming months if they do not receive considerable food assistance.8 It is of great concern that only $700 million had been
raised by the end of 2002.9 The hunger crisis spans the entire continent and has grown particularly acute in the wake of two major,
simultaneous regional emergencies in the past year. Southern Africa is facing the most severe crisis in which, according to Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) latest
figures, 16.7 million people are in need of emergency assistance to survive until the next harvest in April 2003.
This has been a crisis that has emerged in slow motion, the extent of which has become apparent only gradually although the first warning bells were rung as early as mid-2001. During the course of 2002, Malawi, Zimbabwe,
Zambia and Lesotho each declared a national disaster and appealed to the international community for help. The most dangerous situation is developing in Zimbabwe, a country which until recently was a surplus food
producer. Developments in Swaziland and Mozambique are also of great concern. The continuing response to the food crisis has not stabilised food security and with the 2002/03 crop already compromised and
This crisis is not going to disappear even with improved climatic

food shortages likely to increase, the current emergency conditions are worsening.
conditions; these countries will need ongoing assistance for many years to come in agriculture and health. pg. 6-7
365 Days x 24,000 per day = 8, 760,000 per year
5
AND … These deaths will be accompanied a spike epidemics of communicable diseases

Devereux 01 – Research Fellow for the Institute of Development Studies @ University of Sussex [STEPHEN
DEVEREUX, “Sen’s Entitlement Approach: Critiques and Counter-critiques,” Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2001]edlee
A potentially serious challenge to Sen’s privileging of “entitlements collapse” as the primary cause of famine mortality is presented by de Waal’s research on the western Sudan famine of the
mid-1980s. De Waal (1989, pp. 182–83) found that: “Indicators of poverty had no evident relation to mortality” in Darfur in 1985, and that “mortality in the very poorest households … was not
signié cantly higher than in the others”. This finding led de Waal to conclude that mortality risk was more closely associated with patterns of migration and exposure to new disease vectors
most mortality in recent African famines is explained neither by starvation nor hunger-related
than with relative wealth and access to food. It is known that
diseases, but by epidemics of communicable diseases —such as cholera, measles or typhus—especially among displaced populations on the move or in crowded
refugee camps, that are not directly related to inadequate food consumption. The key determinants of mortality during the Darfur famine, according to de Waal (1990, p. 481), were not poverty
or entitlements, but “quality of water supply, sanitation and overcrowding”. De Waal’s “health crisis” model sees famine mortality following a very different causal pathway from the “food
In famines where mortality is triggered by epidemics, “it is not the undernutrition caused by
crisis” model (see Figure 1).
the famine but the social disruption caused by it that is critical in causing excess deaths” (de Waal, 1990, p. 481). The
conclusion is that famine mortality is a consequence of the social process of famine, rather than the economic process (entitlement collapse)—lack of food or poverty at the individual level.
Where does the “health crisis” model leave the entitlement approach, predicated as it is on a posited causal pathway from disrupted access to food through to death by starvation or hunger-related disease? There are two ways
in which the entitlement approach can be salvaged on this issue. One is to attribute vulnerability even to communicable diseases to heightened susceptibility due to undernutrition (weakened biological resistance).
Nutritionists such as Young & Jaspars (1995, p. 105) favour this view, arguing that de Waal underestimates “the synergism between malnutrition and morbidity” which they regard as best explaining famine mortality. The
second defence is to assert that people who become exposed to communicable diseases (for instance, displaced populations in refugee camps) left their villages and migrated in search of relief precisely because they had lost
the relationship between food shortage and morbidity or mortality

their entitlements to food. Ravallion (1996, p. 9), for instance, suggests that
outcomes reflects “behavioural synergies” (which might include increased exposure due to famine-induced
distress migration) as well as “biological synergies” (increased susceptibility to infection). In terms of both explanations, exposure to
disease is accepted as the proximate cause of death, but the underlying cause of death remains as “entitlement failure”.
Famine mortality reflects both increased susceptibility and

A reconciliation of this debate might be to accept the merits of both explanations.18
increased exposure to diseases, some of which are hunger-related while others are not—but both reflect a
common origin in disrupted access to food (epidemics that are not triggered by food scarcity are not, definitionally speaking, famines). The relative contribution
to mortality of starvation, hunger-related morbidity and epidemic diseases will vary from one famine to another, but all three contributory factors are intrinsic to the famine process, and all
three can arguably be accommodated within a broadly framed entitlement analysis. One feature that the “health crisis” model does highlight, though, is the recognition
of famine as a social crisis rather than an economic crisis scaled up from the household to the group level. Once again, the entitlement
approach proves to be unable to explain collective outcomes (in this case, disease epidemics) because of its analytical focus on the individual or household unit. Pg. 251-252
6
Diseases in Africa will mutate and quickly spread beyond the continent
UDaily 06 [“U.S. can help halt spread of diseases, Africa expert says,” 2:51 p.m., March 23, 2006, pg. http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/mar/global032306.html]edlee
globalization has transformed economies around the world and has allowed for more personal mobility, it also has helped
2:51 p.m., March 23, 2006--Although
spread diseases, Lisa Meadowcroft, executive director of the American affiliate of the African Medical and
Research Foundation, said at UD Wednesday evening, March 23.
“Health is a global issue relevant to everyone, everywhere,” she said. “In the age of globalization, we need to recognize this vital fact and consider its implications. Even more, we need to figure out what it means to be a
global system.”
there is recognition among American and European leaders that responding to challenges in
During her lecture, Meadowcroft said
Africa and other parts of the developing world is in their best interest.
Meadowcroft, formerly of the International Rescue Committee, said the health care system in Africa lacks the personnel and resources to function at an appropriate level.
“Many ministries of health can only allocate about $10 per person per year to health, and that includes job salaries and administration costs,” she said. “Moreover, 80 percent of the better equipped hospitals are in cities, while
80 percent of Africa's population lives in rural areas.”
Meadowcroft said 40 million people around the world have HIV, with 26 million of them living in Africa. Although the country makes up less than 15 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of those infected with
HIV/AIDS in the world live in Africa.
“The human toll of HIV/AIDS in Africa is startling,” she said. “Last year alone, 2.4 million people died. Imagine. Imagine the pain, grief and suffering of African families trying to come to terms with losing so many of their
loved ones, then imagine having to deal with the grief and suffering along with all the extraordinary economic burdens caused by HIV/AIDS.”
Meadowcroft said the disease is destroying families and is a threat to world security. By 2010, it is estimated that more than 20 million children will be orphaned because of
HIV/AIDS. Meadowcroft also discussed the devastating affects of malaria on African economies and the strain it puts on health care resources even though it is a preventable disease.
Meadowcroft said the avian flu could potentially become the worst pandemic the world has ever seen and said it is in the U.S. government's best interest to protect
Africa from the avian flu before it starts.
“Africa is a continent rich in natural resources and those resources could be useful and very valuable to the U.S.,” she said. “Countries like Nigeria and Sudan, for example, could become significant energy suppliers to the
U.S., helping us to relieve our dependency on oil in the Middle East.”
Meadowcroft said the violence, political instability and poverty in many of these countries prevents the U.S. from establishing an economic relationship.
Meadowcroft also explained how SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) caused a decrease in tourism and a weakening of the health care system in Asia and said the same problems could arise in the U.S.
there are some pretty horrible diseases mutating in the world today,” she said. “And there are new
“The point of all this is that
diseases mutating on a regular basis. From the standpoint of U.S. interests, these diseases pose a huge
economic and social cost. Can you imagine the reaction here if suddenly we found ourselves faced with epidemic that began killing tens of thousands of Americans every
week?”
Meadowcroft said the U.S. must help improve economies in Africa and support its health care systems to help halt the spread of devastating
diseases.
Even conservative estimates conclude that a global epidemic will kill over 100 million people. No other
threat compares in liklihood and lethality
Falkenrath 06 - Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies @ The Brookings Institution [Richard A. Falkenrath, Former Special
Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Policy, Former Plans within the Office of Homeland Security, and Former Director for Proliferation Strategy on the National Security
Council, “PUBLIC HEALTH MEDICAL PREPAREDNESS,” Committee on Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, CQ Congressional Testimony, March 16, 2006 Thursday, pg.
l/n]edlee
A catastrophic disease event is admittedly an extreme scenario, residing at the very highest end of the threat spectrum. With respect to manmade threats - bioterrorism - I am not suggesting that
such a scenario can be easily effectuated or is imminent. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the trends are in our favor. With every passing year, the latent
technological potential of states and non-state actors to use disease effectively as a weapon rises inexorably. With respect to naturally occurring disease
threats, no one can estimate precisely the likelihood, timing, or consequence of the appearance of a new human
pathogen.5 However, for at least one potentially catastrophic disease, even the conservative World Health Organization concludes
that "the world may be on the brink of another pandemic."6 According to the WHO, a pandemic along the lines of the
relatively mild pandemic of 1957 would result in 2 million to 7.4 million deaths worldwide. A pandemic with the death rate of the 1918 Spanish flu - perhaps the most extreme human disease
event in history - could result in several million fatalities in the United States and perhaps over one hundred million
abroad.
In sum, when viewed in comparison to all other conceivable threats to U.S. national security, the catastrophic disease threat is and for the foreseeable
future will remain the gravest danger we face. No state, no terrorist group, no ideology or system of government, no other tactic or
target or category of weapons, no technological accident, and no other natural phenomenon, presents as terrifying a combination of likelihood,
poor defenses and countermeasures, and consequence.
7
ADDITIONALLY … Hunger is a underlying cause of conflicts. Ag development is key to prevent war

Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 02 [“MULTI STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE: Food, Security, Justice and Peace,” 2002
pg. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/msd/Y6808e.htm#P43_14217]edlee
"Hunger anywhere threatens peace everywhere."10 Poverty and deprivation are seen as underlying causes of
13.
endemic conflict and civil violence.11 "Persistent poverty and oppression can lead to helplessness and despair. When governments fail to meet the most
basic needs of these people, these failed states can become havens of terror."12 Much of deprivation is rural, with seven out of ten of the world's poor (less
than $1 income per day) living in rural areas; among those, the undernourished represent the most extreme level and form of poverty and must constitute the priority target of poverty reduction efforts.
14. The various forms of inter-state competition, national, ethnic or religious conflicts, disputes for control over territories or resources, and even the legacy of imperialism and colonialism in modern times, continue to take
their toll even after the end of the Cold War, which had for long fed and shaped many of the violent clashes taking place around the world. Conflicts over natural resources, especially minerals, are becoming relatively more
frequent (Figure 3).
15. In some cases, there is competition for control of highly valuable minerals that also finance war; in other settings, the concentrated ownership of diffuse resources like land and water may lead to conflicts, as underlined by
the UN Secretary General: "Recent conflicts and farm invasions in southern African countries and the struggles between pastoralists and sedentary
farmers in eastern Africa underline the importance of access to resources by the poor as a basis for peace
land-based and sustainable
development. Similarly, land concentration, coupled with poverty in Latin America, is one of the key issues underlying long-term conflict in that region. Where the need to meet family food
requirements forces people to deplete natural resources or rely on degraded natural resources, ...natural resource development activities and other land and resource management
interventions...can help prevent conflicts that are based on or related to tensions over limited natural resources" 13.
to make the resolution of conflicts a lasting outcome and to prevent

16. Many avenues must be followed to prevent conflicts and restore peace; but
new fuel being added to the sleeping fire of violence, it is necessary to address not simply conflicts but "the deep-rooted socio-
economic, cultural, environmental, institutional and other structural causes that often underlie the immediate political symptoms of conflicts"14. Food insecurity is one of them.
17. The issue of the ultimate causes of recent or older collective violence and conflicts has been the subject of considerable scrutiny by scholars, and a host of varied interpretations have been
Modern
proposed: all these theories have used aspects of social transformations as the dominant explanation for violent collective action, in the rural milieu in particular15.
conflicts, however, illustrate that in many of the poorest countries, severely affected by endemic strife, social convulsions are the
result of the dramatic inadequacy of economic development to meet the growing aspirations of rising populations. The deep
dissatisfaction of segments of society (both urban and rural) that ultimately challenge the state is a main reason for violence. The inadequate
response of the state to such challenges, due to the development of political institutions lagging behind social and economic change, can also be part of
the explanation of violence 16. Democratic governance on one hand, and vitality of civil society organizations on the other, are critical ingredients for defusing the accumulation of grievances
within society.
18. Conflicts are rooted in the sense of frustration , injustice and despair, which pervades large parts of society and is fuelled by poverty ,
inequality and discrimination. What triggers revolt is not only "absolute" but "relative" poverty as well; and not only does inequality rise in our times -but also the conscience of inequality, which many have-nots identify
with injustice. While almost every village and hamlet in the world is now connected through radio, and often television, to global information, these channels of communication carry messages designed to induce higher
levels of consumption by those who have the means to acquire them; they ostentatiously display lifestyles and consumer goods that are far beyond the reach of the vast majority of people in poor countries. One consequence
of the globalisation of information and communications is that income disparities are now felt not only within the ambit of each national society, but also at a global scale. While there appears to be no generalised and
discernable trend in within-country income inequality, international inequality has dramatically increased the gap between the richest and poorest regions -a gap that would appear even greater by comparing individual
countries. In 1960, most developing regions had per capita incomes (expressed in Purchasing Power Parity) worth about 1/10th of the average for OECD countries; by the end of the century, the gap for the least developed
countries and Sub-Saharan Africa had doubled, to almost 1/20th.
One consequence of these developments in both the level and the awareness of inequality is that large segments of the population,
19.
become convinced that the world in which they are to live is fundamentally
especially the youth, in poor and rich countries alike,
unjust. The fatalist concept that "being poor is your fate, because the world is like that", has lost a lot of ground, making it easier for the
promoters of violence to harness support and enroll followers. The transformation, in recent years, of the meetings of the powerful leaders of the world into
risky encounters that mobilise a war-like apparatus of protection shows how quickly the violence of protest against felt inequity has been gaining ground, building upon a widespread new pessimistic perception of the world
and how it is governed. But these disturbing trends, that easily capture attention, should not hide the vibrant and growing vitality of civil society organizations in mobilizing themselves voluntarily for enhancing awareness of
local and global issues of development, sustainability, justice and peace; for debating new and creative ways of action; for embarking on a multitude of constructive initiatives at the local, national, regional and international
levels.
The contribution of food security and agricultural development to a peaceful world
The fight for peace, the fight against social insecurity and conflicts, must comprise determined action against
20.
poverty, inequality, injustice, and against the most extreme and most dependence-inducing form of poverty - being
hungry, insecure of today's and tomorrow's food. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in their General Comment on the right to adequate food, prepared in response to the request by the World
Food Summit to "clarify the content of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger", affirmed that "the right to adequate food is indivisibly linked to the inherent dignity of the
human person and is indispensable for the fulfilment of other human rights enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights. It is also inseparable from social justice, requiring the adoption of appropriate economic,
environmental and social policies, at both the national and international levels, oriented to the eradication of poverty and the fulfilment of all human rights for all" 17.
21. Of serious concern, the regular monitoring conducted by FAO of progress towards the 1996 WFS target "to reduce by half the number of undernourished in the world no later than 2015" continues to show that, year after
year, such progress is insufficient and uneven. According to the most recent data, the number of undernourished has been declining by 6 million a year on average over the last decade, thereby raising to 22 million per year
the size of future reductions required if the target is to be reached on time18. But the same study, noting that a few countries have significantly improved since 1990 their food security situation while the majority have
suffered deterioration, reveals once again that where resources are available for agriculture development, hunger recedes, while it gains ground where such resources diminish (Table 1).
22. Looking ahead, prospective studies conducted by FAO further conclude that it is now becoming unlikely, unless decisive shifts are made in agricultural development and food security policies, that the WFS target would
be met by 2015, and possibly even by 203019. Yet, never before has the world been so well equipped with the financial and technical resources to ensure that all people have adequate access to food. The question then is
-does it lack in political commitment?
Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 02 1/2
8
Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 02 2/2
23. The international community is bracing itself to respond to the new challenges. Throughout the global Conferences of the 1990s and at the Millennium Assembly, the reduction and elimination of poverty and hunger has
emerged as the overarching aim of development in the twenty-first century. In the words of the Monterrey Consensus, "peace and development reinforce each other". What had been accepted for centuries as a normal, if
regrettable, part of human condition it is now considered a scandal that has to be eradicated. The global conscience, thanks to worldwide instant communications, is alerted to distant losses of life, due to natural or human-
caused disasters, that would have gone unnoticed beyond the neighbourhood in earlier times. Nowadays, the boundaries of moral concern are those of the planet.
24.Eliminating hunger is not just a moral imperative: it also makes economic sense, increasing productivity, raising incomes, creating jobs and adding to the demand for
goods and services throughout the economy. It is also a necessary contribution to the many avenues that need to be followed to reduce violence and
promote lasting peace. As concluded in a study commissioned by Future Harvest, a foundation established by former US President Jimmy Carter, "rehabilitation
of agriculture is a central condition for development, reducing poverty, preventing environmental destruction -and for reducing
violence. Poor conditions for agriculture hold grave implications for socio-economic development and
sustainable peace. We also see good governance as crucial in building healthy conditions for agriculture, and thus in breaking the vicious cycle of poverty, scarcity and violence. The central issues are not
merely technical: they relate directly to the way human beings organize their affairs and how they cope with natural and man-made crises"20.
Agricultural development, as part of economic and social changes that give the
25. Policies need to be put in place to promote growth and distribute its benefits broadly across society.
poor greater power over the productive resources and the social factors that shape their livelihoods, is indispensable to the enhanced food security of the
rural population and to a more peaceful and stable environment. Equitable growth and pro-poor policies are
critical not only to prevent the outbreak of conflicts but also in immediate post-conflict situations.
9
Proliferation of small arms and light weapons throughout Africa will make these wars worse than
nuclear conflagrations. They will quickly escalate and become inextinguishable
Musah 01 - Head of Research & Advocacy @ Centre for Democracy & Development [Abdel-Fatau Musah, “Africa: The Political
Economy of Small Arms & Conflicts,” As published in: DPMN Bulletin - Development Policy Management in Sub-Sahran Africa Conflicts in Africa: Resolution, Management and Peace
Building, Volume VIII, No. 1, July 2001, pg. http://www.cdd.org.uk/resources/papers/smallarmsmusah.htm]edlee
Until quite recently, the threat of nuclear war and the proliferation heavy weapons systems dominated the global security debate. In
weapons transfer transactions, small arms and light weapons (SALW)[1] only served as sweeteners or gifts to induce recipient countries to conclude heavy weapons deals. Since the beginning
however, SALW [small arms and light weapons] discourse has displaced the nuclear debate as the greatest
of the 1990s,
threat to global security on the international disarmament agenda, and for good reason. The transformation of warfare post-cold war, as
well as the typology of war-fighters and their targets in conflicts in the developing world, has also transformed
SALW from auxiliary tools of violence into weapons of mass devastation. The object of this article is to discuss the small arms problem as it relates to Africa. By
contextualising the issue of small arms proliferation, it will then be possible to examine the approaches that have been adopted to combat it, thereby pinpointing the adequacy or otherwise of the initiatives.
Introduction
The July 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in SALW that saw civil society decisively gatecrash what had usually been an exclusive forum of Governments, was a deciding moment in this shift in priorities. The
Conference is the culmination of collaborative efforts by non-governmental organisations and willing nations to force the issue of small arms proliferation up the agenda of international discourse and make governments
around the world take political stands. It is significant, and also symptomatic of our times, that Africa’s actions actually propelled the SALW issue into the purview of the United Nations. In December 1993, following a
peace deal with Tuareg combatants from the north and the realisation that the diffusion of small arms in Mali continued to threaten the fragile peace process the Malian President, Alpha Konare, requested the assistance of the
UN secretary-general to locate and curb the flow of small arms in the country (Musah, 1997: p.8). Since then, the United Nations has led from the front in pushing for measures to combat the trafficking in small arms and
also mop up excess weapons from conflict-prone societies through its micro-disarmament programmes. Regional organisations, such as ECOWAS, EU, OSCE, OAS and SADC, taking a cue from the UN and informed by
local security concerns, have initiated wide-ranging measures either to inject responsibility into legal transfers, or contain the trafficking in SALW. Though much has been done in this direction, positive results remain
notoriously paltry.
The Small Arms Problem in Africa
In Africa, the sources of SALW proliferation are many and varied. While the thrust of international efforts to curb proliferation tend to concentrate on the manufacture and supply of new weapons, a major
pipeline of SALW remains the stockpiles that were pumped into Africa in the 1970s and 1980s by the ex-Soviet Union, the
USA and their allies to fan proxy interstate wars. These leftover weapons have found their way through clandestine networks involving rogue arms brokers, private military
companies, shady airline companies and local smugglers to exacerbate on-going conflicts and facilitate the commencement of new ones
in the continent. The break-up and deregulation of once state arms industries in eastern and central Europe has also led to the mushrooming of mini industries whose aggressive search for new markets in the developing world
have made nonsense of existing export regimes. Africa itself boasts countries that are arms manufacturers – South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Morocco and Nigeria among others, and countries that are dotted with growing
small arms cottage industries. Finally, small arms have found their way into civilian hands from official sources due to a combination of factors, including the breakdown of state structures, lax controls over national
armouries and poor service conditions for security personnel.
Conservative estimates put the number of SALW in circulation worldwide at 500 million, seven million of which are guessed to be circulating in West Africa alone with comparable figures in the Great Lakes conflict vortex.
These weapons have helped regionalise and prolong wars in conflict clusters around the continent – from the Mano River Union in West Africa
through the Great Lakes Region to the Greater Horn. The effects – a most insecure social environment, spiraling violence, the mounting death toll
and floods of refuges and IDPs – constitute a major developmental and human rights challenge. Where wars have officially come to an end, the presence
of small arms makes sure that physical insecurity persists through banditry and violent settlement of scores. In the context of Africa, many countries could be described as nominally at peace.
As
But even in these societies – South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana – armed robbery is rampant and coercive protection and vigilante justice are replacing the incapacitated state security rackets.
long as the small arms pipelines remain open, the prospects for peaceful conflict management, reigning in crime and promoting
human rights will be greatly undermined. This has dire consequences for the process of democratisation and fostering secure livelihoods.
The so-called civil wars, fuelled by SALW, are sickening in their uncivil execution. Firstly, easy access to global criminal networks, the diffusion of arms into the civilian domain became a key facilitating factor in the
emergence of the civilian warlords, desperate to create his autonomous politico-economic power base by jumping on the bandwagon of legitimate internal grievances, appropriating these grievances and using them as a
smokescreen for his personal gain. In the Mano River Union, the Great lakes Region and the Great Horn, these warlords have created elaborate transnational criminal networks, with the help of which they carry out
illegitimate exploitation of natural resources in part exchange for weapons and the hiring of mercenaries to prosecute personal wars. Secondly, the SALW-facilitated wars led and executed by people other than the military, in
many instances child combatants. These civilians-turned combatants usually benefit from the very minimal, if any, combat training and are hardly aware of international human rights laws. As a consequence the civilians –
women, the elderly and children – constitute legitimate targets during the war.
war becomes an opportunity for self-expression and

Finally, to these warlords and their armies of dispossessed combatants, war becomes an end in itself. In their minds,
the AK-47or Uzi, the ultimate blank cheque for livelihood. Thus, attempts to end such wars at the negotiation
table become an exercise in futility, a dialogue of the deaf. As was demonstrated in the numerous attempts to broker peace in Sierra Leone,
Liberia, the DRC and Somalia, rebels often appear at negotiations when their backs are to the wall, drag the talks with unreasonable demands while
using the lull to rearm and regroup. The proliferation and diffusion of SALW often take on a life of their own, creating multiple
centres of power and bringing into play many more armed actors. SALW are particularly prone to rights abuse as they are easier to maintain,
manipulate and carry, and are deadly.
10
Sub-Sahara is sitting on time-bomb that can quickly turn the entire continent in a cauldron of genocidal
violence and wars that places all of humanity at risk. Food insecurity is the detonator
2. But, Is It Really an Emergency?

In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill dismisses the scenario where environmental degradation destabilizes an area so much that "security problems and ... resource scarcity may lead to war." 101
McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one, largely because history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of widespread calamity due, in part, to the slow pace of any major environmental change. 102 This
as the events in Rwanda illustrated, the environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before
may be so. However,
one's eyes - when food insecurity drives people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural
practices. 103 Furthermore, as Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation and land scarcity can contribute to a breakdown of society itself. 104
Mr. McNeill's assertion closely resembles those of many critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue we face (e.g., environmental change or overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we
can face the problem long before any calamity sets in. 106
today, with up to 300,000 child soldiers fighting in conflicts or

This wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of which are a functioning society and innovations in agricultural productivity. But,
wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts, the very fabric of society is under increasing world-wide pressure. 107 Genocide,
anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic throughout Africa; it is a troubled continent whose problems
threaten global security and challenge all of humanity. 108 As [*292] Juan Somavia, secretary general of the World Social Summit, said: "We've
replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is part of the fuse
burning to set that bomb off. It is an emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is too late.
11
The Plan
U.S. federal government should exercise its statutory eminent domain authority to authorize the use of patented
tools of biotechnology for research done in Sub-Sahara Africa for the purpose of increasing food security. The
US federal government should compensate the patent holder for economic loss.
12
Contention Three: Eminent Domain Helps Africa

Exercise of imminent domain will increase food security without undercutting inventive incentives
Taylor & Cayford 04 - Senior fellow at Resources for the Future & Former research associate at RFF [Michael R.
Taylor & Jerry Cayford, “American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Spring 2004, 17 Harv. J. Law
& Tec 321]edlee
the U.S. government would exercise its existing statutory eminent

Exercise U.S. Eminent Domain Authority -- Under this policy alternative,
domain authority 221 to authorize the use of patented tools of biotechnology for research seeking to increase
food security in developing countries. A designated authority would establish and administer [*393] a mechanism
under which a researcher seeking to apply patented technology for such purposes could seek a ruling that the
efforts are on behalf of the United States. The government would then be liable for any damages that the patent holder established
in court.
This use of existing eminent domain authority would improve global food security by creating a mechanism that
would afford developing countries access to all relevant U.S.-patented technology without fear of liability for
infringement. It would not significantly undercut invention incentives given the right of patent holders
establishing economic loss to obtain compensation from the government. Moreover, the option would not be available to those seeking to
compete domestically.
13
Placing patented tech in the public domain is critical to give African researchers access to essential
information needed to commercialize agricultural biotech. It will also curtail public opposition
Konde 04 - Post-Doctoral Fellow in Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program @ Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs. [Victor Konde, PhD in Biochemistry from Brunel University, “The Biotechnology Promise: Capacity-building for Participation of
Developing Countries in the Bioeconomy”, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 2004, pg. stdev.unctad.org/docs/biotech.pdf]edlee
In this regard, intellectual property protection has co-evolved with the biotechnology industry and is one of its key institutional attributes. There are, of course, many areas of industrial and
biotechnology in developing countries that have developed through the use of public domain
environmental
technology and have therefore not been affected by increased intellectual protection barriers. This, however, is going to change as more countries are brought under the auspices of the TRIPS agreement, its
successor arrangements and extrajudicial measures.
Trends in agricultural biotechnology suggest that the impact of Intellectual Property Rights on the ability of developing countries to participate in the new bioeconomy varies considerably, depending on the nature of the
Public sector research programmes remain particularly vulnerable to changes in the

research, level of technological development and enterprise size.
intellectual property regime because of their traditional dependence on public domain technologies and lack of
knowledge of intellectual property practices.
many developing countries are still far from mastering the details of inventive activity.
Although this situation is starting to change,
intellectual
It is paradoxical that for these countries to participate in the new bioeconomy, they will need to establish a certain level of familiarity and compliance with the emerging
property rules. Ironically, however, these same rules might affect their ability to be players in the new bioeconomy.
most developing countries are still in the early stages of technological learning where access to
Furthermore,
patented technologies is essential for industrial development. The more advanced developing countries need to balance between their interests to have access to
protected technologies now, while preserving the possibility that any of their future inventions will be protected. There are no general models that would enable countries to reflect these various balances in one strategy.
However, there are specific areas that require policy attention.
First, developing countries will need to ensure that they meet the minimum requirements for intellectual property protection and create suitable environments for inventive activity. In turn, developed countries should help
increase the level of trust in the intellectual property system by seeking to balance strong intellectual property protection with the need to broaden the base for technological partnerships with developing countries.
However, the public debate on patenting genetically engineered organisms and, in general, patenting of life remains a points of
confrontation, especially in the face of perceived increasing ownership of patents by private corporations in
areas previously thought to fall in the public domain. They argue that the concentration of patents in a few large firms constitutes a monopoly over our
food production and food security in general. Finding a fair intellectual property protection that takes care of the interests of the
poor nations is one of the prerequisites for social acceptance of biotechnology-derived products. Pg. 71-73
14
Agricultural biotech is a top priority. Research alliances will guarantee wide dissemination
Developing Countries in the Bioeconomy”, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development , 2004, pg. stdev.unctad.org/docs/biotech.pdf]edlee
2.2.2 The case of agricultural biotechnology in Eastern and Central Africa

In Africa, agriculture features very high on any development agenda. Almost 50 percent of the population depends on agriculture for their
survival. Unfortunately, the cereal yields are lowest in Africa and arable land is limited. The population of Africa has increased
threefold, while cereal production has increased twofold in the last four decades. Consequently, cereal production per capita dropped from 183 kg in 1962 to 143 kg in 2000 (see figure II.1).
Therefore, African countries have made agricultural biotechnology their top priority. The Eastern and
Central African region is composed of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, the United Republic of
Tanzania and Uganda. These countries have formed the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). ASARECA, in conjunction
with the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) at Michigan State University, commissioned a study that developed a list of agricultural research
priorities for the region (Johanson and Ives, 2001) as shown in table II.1.
The country reports seem to point to two factors.Most of the biotechnology research is concentrated in public institutions, and
Governments are setting the research agenda. Secondly, most of the biotechnology research efforts have been added to existing institutions except where
countries have significant investment resources.
The lack of major differences in the research priorities of many countries within given regions gives hope for
the development of regional alliances. These have been used successfully in some agricultural, veterinary and
medical projects. Therefore, countries with limited financial and human resources could benefit from regional
alliances by sharing information, human resources and facilities. Pg. 23-24
15
Expanding sub-Sahara access to biotech will boost agricultural productivity. This is key to solve food
insecurity and jumpstart local economies.
& Tec 321]edlee
There is no single solution to the problem of hunger in Africa or other developing regions. A common reality in many developing and food-insecure countries, however, is that a large majority
of the people depends on agriculture for their livelihood, directly or indirectly . In sub-Saharan Africa, 70% of the people are rural and largely
agriculture-dependent, ranging from 39% in the Republic of the Congo to 93.7% in Rwanda. 21 Although industrialization has fueled growth and hunger reduction in some
Asian economies, it is generally recognized among experts that the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa must [*329]
improve their agriculture and food systems to achieve economic growth and food security. 22 Moreover, according to the World
Bank, global food production will have to double by 2025 to meet rising demand. 23 By improving agricultural productivity and local food
processing and distribution systems, developing countries can increase locally available food stocks to feed
their people and also generate income, allowing workers to purchase food in the marketplace, supplementing
local production. Improving agricultural and food systems in developing countries is critical to meeting the
world's longterm food needs. Especially in sub-Saharan Africa, any solution to food insecurity will require
increased agricultural productivity, to which biotechnology can contribute.
B. Biotechnology and Food Security
Successful agricultural systems require a combination of natural resources, productive farming methods, and market outlets for surplus production. No element is sufficient by itself, but all are necessary. Natural resources --
soil, water, and climate -- are the least malleable, but successful agricultural systems have been created all over the world in diverse soil, water, and climatic conditions. 24
In developing countries, the lack of effective and fair markets for surplus food production may be the greatest obstacle to agricultural development. Access to local, national, and international markets provides farmers with an
incentive to risk their labor and capital on expanded production. Without workable markets, the best natural resources and farming techniques are not enough to produce successful food systems. Many developing countries
lack a basic framework for establishing effective markets: sound political, economic, and social institutions and policies, as well as transportation systems and other physical infrastructure. The creation of effective markets in
developing countries will require changing some of the agricultural and trade policies of the United States and other industrialized countries, which currently distort market prices for staple commodities and create obstacles
to developing-country exports.
Improved productivity is, however, an important part of the

We recognize that improving the productivity of farmers is not by itself the solution to food insecurity.
picture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In the face of difficult growing conditions, better access to the [*330] basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides,
improved seeds, and irrigation can play an important role in improving African farmers' productivity. With the environmental lessons of the Green Revolution in mind, many
agricultural experts also believe that the tools of modern biotechnology (including the use of recombinant DNA technology to produce genetically modified
plants) can play a role in solving developing-country agronomic problems. 25 By building into the seed itself traits for drought and
disease resistance, insect and other pest control, and improved yield under specific local growing conditions,
biotechnology may enable farmers to increase their productivity without as much reliance on the external inputs that characterized the Green
Revolution.
researchers in national and international agricultural research organizations are

Mindful of these potential benefits,
experimenting with biotechnology and working to produce genetically modified plants that could be useful to
farmers in developing countries. 26 The authors conducted an informal survey of experts in this field, and 79% of respondents (37 of 47) rated the importance of access
to the tools of biotechnology by researchers working on developing-country agricultural problems as "very high" or "high" (60% and 19% of respondents, respectively). 27 Biotechnology
companies also promote the potential of biotechnology to improve agriculture and food security in developing countries. 28
16
Support for GM varieties of African staple crops will increase crop yields by 10-15%
Developing Countries in the Bioeconomy”, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 2004, pg. stdev.unctad.org/docs/biotech.pdf]edlee
biotechnology applications could help meet food security issues affecting a number of developing countries, especially Africa.
Arguably,
However, the current transgenic crops on the market were not developed to help feed the developing world,
although they may help the commodity sector in a number of them. There are only a few major public sector programmes that target crops and livestock of interest to developing countries
70% of investment in agricultural biotechnology R&D comes from the private sector. From the early 1990s
because about
major biotechnology firms targeted products for lucrative markets of Western Europe, the United States and Canada that
made infinite promises about profit.
A similardedication to develop genetically improved lines of African staple crops such as sorghum, cassava, yams,
pearl millet, pigeon pea, chickpea, groundnut and cowpea would make a big impact and possibly increase yields
10% to 15%, if properly adopted and adapted. For example, transgenic rice varieties, developed through technologies patented by private firms, have the potential to improve yields
by as much as 20% by resisting disease, and yet no field testing is under way (Piore, 2003). Pg. 106
17
All the peer-reviewed studies conclude AFF. GM crops increase yields and profits
Furniss 06 – Sub-editor and writer for GEOGRAPHICAL, the magazine of the Royal Geographical Society
[Charlie Furniss, “The New GM Revolution,” Geographical dossier, July 2006]edlee
Reports of Bt cotton tailing in India, and South African farmers abandoning their Bt varieties in the past few years are misleading (see Public
scmct' or piopii;^iuuhi?). So far, only a handful of independent, peer-reviewed studies have assessed the performance of
GM crops in developing countries accurately and thoroughly. And, without exception, these have found that
the overall impact has been positive. Studies on Bt cotton in China, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa and India
reveal average yields up by between 11 and 65 per cent and profits increasing by between 12 and 340 per cent, "In both South Africa and India, we've found
that the Bt technology actually improves livelihoods," says Richard Bennett, an agricultural economist from Reading
University. "It means the farmers have more money and more time to do other things - often other agricultural activities. In India, the money has been used to repay debts, send children
to school and to carry out other enterprises, both on-farm and off-farm." Pg. 38
18
Geographical limitations make biotech the only game in town for African farmers
Prakash & Conko 03 - Professor of plant biotechnology @ Tuskegee University & Director of Food Safety
Policy @ Competitive Enterprise Institute [C.S. Prakash and Gregory Conko, “RELEVANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS TO DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES,” Cumberland Law Review, 2003 / 2004, 34 Cumb. L. Rev. 437]edlee
Soon, many bioengineered varieties that have been created specifically for use in underdeveloped countries will
be ready for commercialization. Examples include insect resistant rice for Asia, virus-resistant sweet potato for Africa, and virus-resistant papaya for Caribbean nations.
The next generation of bioengineered crops now in research labs around the world is poised to bring even
further improvements for the poor soils and harsh climates that are characteristic of impoverished regions.
Scientists have already identified genes resistant to environmental stresses common in tropical nations, including
tolerance to soils with high salinity and to those that are particularly [*441] acidic or alkaline.
much of
The primary reason why Africa never benefited from the Green Revolution is that plant breeders focused on improving crops such as rice, wheat, and corn, which are not widely grown in Africa. Also,
the African dry lands have little rainfall and no potential for irrigation, both of which played essential roles in
the success stories for crops such as Asian rice. Furthermore, the remoteness of many African villages and the poor
transportation infrastructure in landlocked African countries make it difficult for African farmers to obtain
agricultural chemical inputs such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides - even if they could be donated by
charities, or if they had the money to purchase them. However, by packaging technological inputs within seeds, biotechnology can
provide the same, or better, productivity advantage as chemical or mechanical inputs, and in a much more user-friendly manner. Farmers would be able to control
insects, viral or bacterial pathogens, extremes of heat or drought, and poor soil quality, just by planting these crops.
19
Inherency: Contention 1 - SQ GM crops not useful for Africa 1/

----While we will challenge the environmentalist totalizing claims about GM crops, we will concede that
the current research focus has failed to improve stable crops that are critical to addressing African
hunger and starvation
Help for orphans

One of the main criticisms of GM crops is that they haven't been developed to tackle the needs of the poor
directly. And in this respect, the environmental groups are right. Although Bt cotton has improved the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers in
China, India and South Africa, none of the principal biotech food crops will help reduce hunger and malnutrition in the
developing world: soya and rape are both grown primarily for processing into vegetable oil, while GM maize is used for cattle feed.
These crops, says FOE's Clare Oxborrow, have been developed to cater for the commercial agriculture market. "But millions
of small-scale farmers still face starvation every year because they have difficulty growing staple crops such as
sweet potato and cassava. The technology hasn't been implanted into these types of foods." Pg. 39
----African diseases are neglected by western biotech companies

Nwabueze 05 – Professor of Law @ University of Ottawa [Remigius N. Nwabueze, “WHAT CAN GENOMICS AND HEALTH
BIOTECHNOLOGY DO FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?,” Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 2005, 15 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 369]edlee
Biotechnology R&D is an expensive enterprise, and only wealthy countries and corporations can afford the necessary investment. 88 Though the public sector in some developed countries is
biotechnology research, 89 the sector is dominated by private corporations, as shown in a recent survey by the Stanford-in-
actively involved in
The concentration of biotechnology R &D in the North has important implications for research
Washington Program. 90
priorities, which are strongly driven by market and profit incentives. 91 Accordingly, since developing countries
constitute only 20% of the global pharmaceutical market, 92 and Africa only 1.1% of that market, 93 it would
appear that diseases prevalent in such countries are largely neglected in the research agendas of Western biotech
and pharmaceutical industries. 94 Biotech industries concentrate on diseases prevalent in developed countries,
where there is effective market for their products and consumers whose demands are backed by effective
purchasing power. 95 It is [*389] therefore not surprising that out "of the 1233 new drugs marketed between 1975 and 1999, only 13" were for diseases suffered in developing
countries. 96 Worse still, only 4 out of the 13 tropical disease drugs resulted from the research and development during this period. Two of the remaining 9 came from improvements on earlier
drugs, and 7 were the products of military and veterinary research. 97
----Biotech that has been developed is not useful for Africa

Pardey, Koo & Nottenburg 04 - Professor of Science and Technology Policy @ University of Minnesota,
Research Fellow @ International Food Policy Research Institute, & Principal of Cougar Patent Law [Philip G. Pardey,
Bonwoo Koo & Carol Nottenburg, “Creating, Protecting, and Using Crop Biotechnologies Worldwide in an Era of Intellectual Property,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology,
December, 2004, 6 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 213]edlee
Historically, there have been large spillovers of improved varieties and the technology and know-how embodied in them from one country to another. However, we cannot presume that the rich
countries of the world will play the same roles as in the past. 143 In particular, countries that in the past relied on technological spillovers from the North may no longer have that luxury
the types of technologies being
available to them in the same ways or to the same extent. 144 This change can be seen as involving three elements. First,
developed in the rich countries may no longer be as readily applicable to less-developed countries as they were
in the past. The agenda in richer countries is shifting away from areas like yield improvement in major crops to
other crop characteristics and even to non-agricultural issues. 145 Second, the private presence in rich country
agricultural research and development has increased and many biotech companies are not as interested in
developing technologies for many less-developed country applications. Even where they have such technologies available, often they are not
interested in pursuing potential [*251] markets in less developed countries. 146 And third, those technologies that are applicable and available are likely to require more substantial local
development and adaptation, calling for more sophisticated and extensive forms of scientific research and development than in the past. For instance, more advanced skills in modern
biotechnology or conventional breeding may be required to take advantage of enabling technologies or simply to make use of less-finished lines that require additional work to tailor them to
local production environments. 147 In short, different approaches may have to be devised to make it possible for less-developed countries to achieve equivalent access to technological
potentials generated by rich countries. In many instances, less-developed countries may have to extend their own research and development efforts to more fundamental areas of the science.
20
Inherency: Contention 1 - SQ GM crops not useful for Africa 2/
---Status Quo GM crops are not useful for African farmers. The tech must be adapted
Kelemu et al 03 – Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) [Segenet Kelemu, George Mahuku (Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical), Martin Fregene (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical), Douglas Pachico (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical), Nancy Johnson (Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical), Lee Calvert (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical), Idupulapati Rao (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical) , Robin Buruchara (Kawanda Agricultural
Research Institute), Tilahun Amede (African Highland Initiative), Paul Kimani (Professor of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences @ University of Nairobi), Roger Kirkby (Kawanda
Agricultural Research Institute), Susan Kaaria (Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute), Kwasi Ampofo (Agricultural Technology Development and Transfer Project) “Harmonizing the
agricultural biotechnology debate for the benefit of African farmers,” African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 2 (11), pp. 394-416, November 2003]edlee
The currently available and widely commercialized GM traits are not good examples of technologies that will help resource-poor farmers. Most small African farmers cannot afford herbicides or pay high premiums for
Available GM crops are not designed for poor African farmers and it is doubtful that
purchasing GM seeds.
large agricultural companies will ever design crops exclusively for the benefit of poor African farmers. African
scientists, international agricultural research centres (IARCs) and other players need to join forces to tackle the specific problems that African farmers
face. For specific major agricultural constraints where no conventional methods are currently available to solve them,
Africans, instead of shying away, should turn to agricultural biotechnology as another potential source of solutions.
Several agricultural biotechnology initiatives are tackling constraints of importance to Africa. UNECA (2002) reports on ongoing plant biotechnology activities in several African countries; and Walter S. Alhassan
(2003) describes those for West and Central Africa. Pg. 402-3
----Africa lacks access to biotech. US is key to remedying this deficiency

Kowalski 02 - JD @ University of California at Davis [Tara Kowalski, “International Patent Rights and Biotechnology: Should the United States
Promote Technology Transfer to Developing Countries?,” Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, Winter 2002, 25 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 41]edlee
III. Statistics on Developing Countries' Access to Biotechnology

Developing countries currently lack sufficient access to biotechnology in two respects. First, they do not have
an adequate quantity of biotechnology to address their needs. Second, developed countries, which conduct most
biotechnology research and development (R&D), create products for developed markets. Therefore, most
current biotechnology does not address problems that are unique to developing countries.
The United States is currently the world leader in both the production and consumption of biotechnology. 24
U.S. international patent filings demonstrate its dominance in the area of biotechnology R&D. 25 In the first half of the 1990s, the United States held priority of 63%
of international biotechnology patents and 59% of the most highly cited biotechnology inventions. 26 Federal grants and private industry are the two primary sources of funding for biotechnology R&D in the United States.
The United States provides more funding for biotechnology R&D than any other government in the world.
Additionally, the private sector spends $ 18 billion a year on biotechnology R&D. 27
[*46] The disparity in access to biotechnology is illustrated by the global distribution of GM crops. Between 1996 and 2000, developed countries grew 85% of GM crops. 28 Although developed countries possess most of
the global GM crops, developing countries' share of GM crops has been steadily increasing. For example, from 1997 to 2000, developing countries' share of GM crops increased from 14 to 24%. 29
In 2000, thirteen countries grew GM crops - eight developed countries and five developing countries. 30 The
Despite increasing ownership, developing countries still lack access to a majority of GM crops.
United States, Canada, Argentina and China grew 99% of the global GM crop area. 31 Of these countries, the United States grew 68% of the global GM crop area. 32
Argentina, Canada, and China grew 23%, 33 7%, and 1%, respectively. 34 These statistics demonstrate that most developing countries continue to lack access to GM crops.
Since developed countries dominate biotechnology R&D, most biotechnology advances do not address the
needs of developing countries. For example, most GM crops are not staple foods, like rice and cassava, in
developing countries. 35 Rather, GM crops, like corn and cotton, are better suited for the U.S. and European markets. 36 In fact, the four major GM crops grown globally are
soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. 37 Soybean, the leading GM crop, constituted 58% of the global area of GM crops in 2000. 38 In addition, most GM crops are
genetically modified to increase crop yields in temperate zones, such as Europe and the United States. 39
Developing countries, however, need biotechnology advances that are adapted to their native environments. The
technology should be geared to increase crop [*47] yields in tropical and desert zones and engineered to be
drought-resistant, tolerable of saline soils and resistant to native diseases and pests. 40
21
Inherency: Contention 1 - Patents deny African farmers access to biotech

----Private-sector patents have a blocking effect. Monsanto denies access to must have tools
In considering the impact of patents on access to biotechnology for developing country purposes (or for any purpose), it is important to consider not only the number but also the
sort of patents being issued. The use of modern biotechnology to develop a genetically improved crop requires
use of multiple tools, including gene traits, transformation tools, and germplasm, all of which may be patented. Some biotechnology patents are so
broad in their scope or cover tools that are so widely applicable that they can have the blocking effect on
innovation described earlier. For example, in 1992, Agracetus (now a subsidiary of Monsanto Company) was granted a U.S. patent covering all genetically engineered cotton plants.82 In 1994, Agracetus was
granted a European patent on all transgenic soybeans, though it was later denied in the United States.
In 1999,Monsanto filed patent applications in 81 countries on soybeans with enhanced yield derived by using a
marker-assisted selection (MAS) technique. It covers “any cultivated soybeans containing certain genes or segments of DNA from ‘wild’ or ‘exotic’ soybeans
identified through MAS.”83 The MAS technique, which allows plant breeders to “tag” genes that may contribute to increased yield or other positive attributes, is relatively
simple and holds promise for crop improvements by public-sector researchers. Yet private companies are able to use
their patents to make tagged genes proprietary and thereby undercut the utility of the MAS technique for public purposes. 84
Monsanto has patents on other critical tools used to genetically transform plants. These include a recently issued U.S. patent (No. 6,174,724)
that covers “all practical methods of making modified plant cells that employ antibiotic-resistance markers,” a widely used technique85; the widely applicable Agrobacterium tumefaciens vector system for transforming
cotton plants, which Agracetus patented in the United States in 199186; and the CaMV 35S promoter.
Monsanto antibiotic-resistance marker patent “appears to be just another nail

According to Gary Toenniessen of the Rockefeller Foundation, the
in the coffin of public-sector researchers’ ability to produce transgenic plants with freedom to operate.”87 Such
consequences are feared because some transformation tools, such as the Agrobacterium vector system, have very wide appeal and utility to researchers and thus can be a “must
have” tool in many situations. The holders of such patents have the ability to exclude others not only from using the tools for
purposes that compete directly with the use to which the patent holder is putting the patented invention, but also
from other uses far removed. Under this circumstance, the transformation tools, which could be thought of (and may originally have been developed) as research aids, take
on significant economic value and become more jealously guarded. Developers of new plant varieties that might require such patented traits and transformation tools, including researchers in
public or other nonprofit research settings, must obtain permission from the patent holder and may have to pay royalties or agree to “reach-through” restrictions on the dissemination of
varieties they develop. Pg. 32-33
----Patents block the use of biotech to address food insecurity in sub-Sahara
Researchers, who seek to develop new agricultural products to address the food security problems in sub-
Saharan Africa, for example researchers in universities, do not directly benefit from the increasing role of intellectual property
rights in agricultural biotechnological research and development because profits are not their only motivation. 202
This is to say, the scope of patent rights may introduce social costs as well as provide for social benefits.
researchers face may come when they find they lack the "freedom to operate" in their work since there are patents that block
The costs
access to the research tools they need for their work. 203 The duration of a patent in the United States is twenty years, but its
overall scope, particularly when it covers an agricultural research tool, is much more difficult to quantify. 204 This is an example of the "Blocking Patents" phenomenon. 205 Still, it has been
noted that other researchers (or innovators) focused on treating food security issues who work in countries outside of the jurisdiction of the country offering intellectual property protection are
not really restrained in accessing the needed technology because those property rights do not cross borders. 206 This topic will be treated in the next Part of this Note.
----No compulsory license provisions in patent law. Biotech firms are not oblige to license their tech
2. Compulsory Licenses to Use Patented Technology

The phenomenon of compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights is not an unknown legal tool. There are statutory requirements for compulsory licenses for inventions which serve the public interest, such as
provisions within the Clean Air Act and the Atomic Energy Act. 257 U.S. copyright law has a compulsory license provision for the [*311] copying and distribution of "nondramatic musical works" in phonorecords or digital
, there
transmission. 258 International treaty law contains provisions which allow for the creation of compulsory licenses to facilitate access to technology for situations such as food security emergencies. 259 However
are no compulsory license provisions in U.S. patent law. 260 Therefore, agricultural biotechnology firms cannot be
obliged to license their technology to help stave the food security problem in sub-Saharan Africa. A global security
emergency with food insecurity as one of its root causes may require the use of another source of compulsion to motivate agricultural biotechnological firms to license their patented research
22
tool technologies.
23

----Patents chill agricultural biotech research on African staple crops
When a patent covers an agricultural biotechnological research tool with wide application in agricultural
research to address food insecurity in developing countries, then that patent may block important food security
research and innovation. 222 A "blocking patents" strategy is one in which a firm in a complex industry, such as agricultural
biotechnology, will build up its portfolio of patents to create "bargaining chips" for cross-licensing negotiations with rival
firms and to also secure the freedom-to-operate to develop new inventions using the needed technology protected by their rivals' patents. 223 According to one survey of complex industries, this "blocking" capability served
as motivation for patenting technology second only to the motivation in securing protection from copying. 224 It has been noted that when firms patent to block their rivals, they do so "to hold their rivals hostage by
controlling technology that [their rivals] need." 225
It is the threat of legal action, which blocks the use of patented technology. 226 Firms can counter such threats by holding patents of their own:
patents that their rivals may wish to utilize in their own product development. 227 Therefore, in complex industries, blocking patents can be used offensively or defensively as a counter-measure to a threatened infringement
suit. 228
This blocking phenomenon chills agricultural research. For example, one public research organization in Africa, the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
(IITA), headquartered in Nigeria, has been calling for assistance in increasing its capacity to conduct biotechnological research. 229 The main thrust of the call was for [*307] increased research capacity (researchers,
equipment, etc.), but IITA also stated the need for legislation on intellectual property rights, "for countries to take full advantage of biotechnological tools." 230 Unlike private agricultural biotechnological firms, researchers
there has been little agricultural biotechnological research on the

at IITA do not hold portfolios of patents on their technology. 231 As has been stated,
staple crops which thrive in sub-Saharan Africa's soil with its low fertility, for example on cassava. 232 Patents
which block such research from going forward blocks the research needed to treat food insecurity.
When
IITA is one of fifteen public research centers worldwide that together comprise the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a result of the Green Revolution, founded in 1971. 233
the research centers of CGIAR seek to derive new agricultural crops through biotechnology, say by using upstream research tools, the
number and breadth of the patents covering today's technology make establishing clarity in "freedom to
operate ... an onerous task." 234
----Restrictive patents undermines public sector development of biotech for humanitarian purposes
Traditionally, the public sector has done research on many public-interest projects that may not be of any
commercial interest to the private sector. Results of such research were systematically channeled to the public. 120 For instance, universities and public [*393]
sector institutions in the U.S.A and other countries have, in the past, developed new and improved varieties of crops that were transferred to the public through agricultural extension services.
121 However, the increase in patenting and licensing of many biotechnology products that originated from the
universities is threatening this significant role of the public sector. 122 Some public sector institutions have recently
realized that the restrictive terms of technology transfer licenses undermine the institutions' ability to utilize
their inventions for humanitarian purposes or to address the needs of specialty farmers in the developed world.
123 Furthermore, a public sector wishing to develop a biotech product that could address the health needs of a
developing country might discover that it has to navigate through a maze of patents with fragmented ownership.
124 Bundling such disparate patents may be cost prohibitive or discourage the desired innovation. 125 An example is the
production of vitamin A [*394] enhanced rice known as "golden rice." 126 Rice is a staple food in many developing countries where vitamin A deficiency is a serious health problem and
contributes to infant mortality. 127 The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, a public sector institution, sought to confront this health problem by conducting the needed biotechnology
research that led to the development of golden rice. 128 This significant innovation with potentials for addressing vitamin A deficiency in many developing countries was nearly stillborn
because the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology needed to bundle 70 different "proprietary research tools belonging to 32 companies and universities." 129
24

----Corporate control of agricultural biotech prevents it use by small-scale African farmers
There are many constraints, besides U.S. patents and patent policy, on the ability of developing countries to
access and effectively use biotechnology for food security purposes. These have been studied and documented
extensively by others157 and well summarized recently by Walter Falcon.158 One of the most fundamental is
the shift of agricultural research resources from the public to the private sector. This has not only placed many
of the tools of biotechnology in the hands of private companies that lack an economic incentive to apply them to
the problems of subsistence and small-scale African farmers, it has also diminished the capacity of public-sector
researchers to take full advantage of the latest technology. As discussed in Chapter 2, if the potential of
biotechnology to address developing country agronomic and food security problems is to be realized in the near
term, the technology needs to be in the hands of public-sector researchers in the very institutions—national
agricultural research organizations and the international research system159—that have experienced funding
declines in recent years. Their ability to take advantage of biotechnology is thus constrained by a scarcity of
research infrastructure, financial resources, and scientists trained to conduct biotechnology research.160 pg. 47-
48
---Public research organizations are forced to work in isolation. The lack of data from private firms
impairs their ability to navigate the regulatory and commercialization processes
Spielman, Cohen, & Zambrano 06 - Research Fellow @ International Food Policy Research Institute, Senior
Research Fellow in the Environment and Production Technology Division @ International Food Policy
Research Institute, & Research Analyst @ International Food Policy Research Institute [David J. Spielman, Joel I. Cohen, &
Patricia Zambrano, “Will Agbiotech Applications Reach Marginalized Farmers? Evidence from Developing Countries,” AgBioForum: The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management &
Economics Volume 9 // Number 1 // Article 3 (2006) pg. http://www.agbioforum.org/v9n1/v9n1a03-spielman.htm]edlee
The IFPRI-ISNAR study also suggests that progress has been hampered by the fact that most public research organizations
surveyed are working in isolation from other research actors, both public and private. Only 7% of transformation events generated
by these organizations were conducted in collaboration with the private sector, while only 22% were generated in collaborations
between or among public institutions (Table 3).3 Relatedly, only 5% of all genetic resources used in transformation events were obtained
from either local or foreign private sector sources. Instead, most genetic materials were derived from public
sources (Atanassov et al., 2004). Furthermore, there was no evidence found of any collaborative research links between or among developing countries (i.e., south-south collaboration),
whether in the public or private sectors.
In the absence of efficacy or safety data from private firms and other research institutions that have conducted transformations of similar crops and/or traits in
other countries, public research organizations often have less information with which to navigate regulatory and
commercialization processes. Moreover, in the absence of scientific interaction and information exchanges between sectors and organizations, many of the public researchers who are tapped to
serve on biosafety committees, regulatory agencies, or advisory bodies might be less equipped to provide real expertise in such positions.
The relatively small role attributable to the private sector in agbiotech and GM research in developing countries
suggests that public-private research collaborations face significant barriers to implementation. Respondents to the IFPRI study
indicate that public-private partnerships are constrained by conflicting incentive structures, high transaction and opportunity costs, risks
associated with proprietary assets, and mutually negative misperceptions. Their responses indicate that risk, along with negative misperceptions, are the most significant
constraints, followed by conflicting incentives and high costs.
25
Ext To: Contention 2 – Lots of subsistence farmers 1/

----Subsistance farming dominates Africa’s food production
Mwikisa 05 – Director of the Division of Healthy Environments and Sustainable Development @ WHO
Regional Office for Africa [Dr C.N. Mwikisa, “ANNEX 5: OPENING REMARKS,” FINAL REPORT: FAO/WHO Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa, 3–6
October 2005, Harare, Zimbabwe pg. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/010/a0215e/A0215E20.htm#ann5]edlee
Food insecurity is also pervasive, making it critically important that we use the resources at our disposal effectively and efficiently. Food being a scarce resource
requires special attention to ensure that the little that is available is safe for human consumption . In many African countries, food still continues to be
produced on subsistence basis. As a result, Africa imports about 60% of its food supply. This presents huge challenges, as it is
especially difficult to monitor the safety of food grown and processed abroad.
26
Ext To: Contention 2 – Chronic hunger 1/

----sub-Sahara Africa is the most poverty-stricken region in the world. It is plagued by chronic hunger
"Chronic hunger is a profound,

Today, more than 842 million people - nearly three times the population of the United States - are chronically hungry. 43
debilitating human experience that affects the ability of individuals to work productively, think clearly, and
resist disease. It also has devastating consequences for society: it drains economies, destabilizes governments, and reaches across
international boundaries." 44 The enormous number of chronically hungry people conjures up a critical question: how can we feed these people?
While the rate of population growth has been leveling off in the developed, wealthy countries of the world, the populations of the poorest countries and regions of the world still grow at an alarming pace. 45 Population
In sub-Saharan Africa,
statisticians refer to this phenomenon as population momentum. 46 Of the seventeen countries whose women average six or more births in a lifetime, all but two are in Africa. 47
millions are undernourished and millions more live on a dollar a day, making it the most poverty-stricken region
in the world today. 48 [*285] Chronic hunger and poverty are the rock-and-a-hard-place in between which the
people of sub-Saharan Africa find themselves today. One tragedy endlessly feeds upon and exacerbates the
other because a person needs money to buy food, but she (or he) cannot earn money when she is chronically hungry. 49 The food security issues of this region are a global concern. Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of
Italy, and Chairperson of the 2002 World Food Summit in Rome said, "Together with terrorism, hunger is one of the greatest problems the international
community is facing." 50
----200 Million people in sub-Sahara Africa are chronically hungry

The most food-insecure countries of the world exist in the sub-Saharan region of Africa. 7 There, hunger
devastates so many lives. 8 In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 200 million people live with chronic hunger - every
single day, right now at this very moment. 9 The consequences of so many hungry people in one vast region are dangerous for us all because global security deteriorates in
a food-insecure world. 10 Food security emergencies, or "food insecurity," also impact the developed, wealthy nations. For example, in the United States, 13 million children
live in households struggling with hunger. 11 This issue will only compound itself, all around the globe, as the world's population grows in the decades to come. 12
----30% can not afford a diet with a minimum caloric intake

In developing countries, 840 million people currently suffer from malnutrition and 1.3 billion are afflicted with poverty. 4 Approximately 30 to 40% of
the people in these countries cannot afford a diet consisting of the minimum amount of calories necessary to ensure a
healthy and active life. 5 In addition, 250 million children are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which can result in learning disabilities and irreversible blindness. 6 Population
growth threatens to intensify hunger and poverty in developing countries. Global population is expected to double by [*43] 2050, with 90% of the growth occurring in developing counties. 7
Life-threatening diseases, such as malaria, hookworm, sleeping sickness, and schistosomiasis, also burden populations in developing
countries. 8 Biotechnology offers hopes of solving these problems, primarily through GM crops and life-saving
drugs.
27
Ext To: Contention 2 – Hunger increasing in Africa

----Hunger is increasing in Africa
AfricaBio Mar 13, 07 [AfricaBio is a non-political, non-profit biotechnology association for the safe, ethical and responsible research, development and application of
biotechnology and its products. The Association also serves as a forum for informed dialogue on biotechnological issues in Africa. “The role of agricultural biotechnology in hunger and
poverty alleviation for developing countries,” pg. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/march/18674.htm]edlee
Top of the agenda for world leaders today is the alleviation of poverty and hunger, with the goal to cut poverty 50% by 2015. However, as
Prof. Diran Makinde, from the School of Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry of the University of Venda in
South Africa, pointed out in his presentation to Biovision, ten years after the 1996 World Food Summit, which promised to reduce the number of
undernourished people by half by 2015, there are more hungry people in 2006 than there were in 1996. Prof. Makinde called for new
approaches to ensure sustainable food production in developing countries; especially in Africa because the majority of least developed countries are in Africa.
----A quarter of a billion people are at risk. Increasing the yield of Maize solves
SeedQuest Jan. 29, 07 [“Enhanced, drought-tolerant maize will give African farmers options, even with global warming,” January 29, 2007, pg.
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/january/18232.htm]edlee
More than a quarter of a billion Africans depend on maize as their staple food, often eating a quarter kilo or more of maize and maize
products every day. Any disruption in the supply of maize, either at the farm level or to the markets, has destructive consequences for the most vulnerable. Unpredictable rainfall,
recurring drought, and loss of soil fertility have all made the maize harvests in Africa uncertain. Today, many farm families cannot grow enough food to last the
year and do not have income to buy food. Accepting donated food aid is often the only way to survive. This robs families
of their dignity and shackles development.
For more than a decade, CIMMYT and IITA, working in cooperation with a wide range of partners in countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, have been developing solutions, in particular maize that can produce even
during drought, for farm families who depend on maize for their food security and livelihoods. Farmers themselves participate in the breeding process, providing land for test plots and screening, and scoring potential new
varieties. Thanks to the combined efforts of national agricultural research systems, non-government organizations, and seed companies in several African nations, up to a million hectares are now sown to new, drought-
tolerant varieties, giving farmers a 25-30% boost in yield.
there is much more potential to be realized for farmers in the region, potential that can raise farm families from
But
below subsistence to annual surplus. That will give them the option to sell surpluses to the rapidly growing
urban markets or to devote some of their land to other crops, in particular crops which contribute to restoring
soil fertility and enhancing incomes. In either case the farmer’s overall risk is lessened and life and livelihoods
improved.
28
Ext To: Contention 2 – Food insecurity risk war 1/

----This food insecurity risks global wars
Messer, Cohen, & Marchione 01 - Professor of Nutrition Science and Policy @ Tufts University, Special
Assistant to the Director General @ International Food Policy Research Institute & Nutrition Advisor @ Bureau
for Humanitarian Response, U.S. Agency for International Development. [Ellen Messer, Marc J. Cohen, & Thomas Marchione,
“CONFLICT: A CAUSE AND EFFECT OF HUNGER,” ECSP REPORT · ISSUE 7]edlee
Econometric studies provide additional empirical evidence of a link between food insecurity and violent conflict.
These studies find a strong relationship between indicators of deprivation (such as low per capita income, economic stagnation and decline, high
income inequality, and slow growth in food production per capita) and violent civil strife (Nafziger & Auvinen, 1997; Collier & Hoeffler, 1998).
Mathematical models developed for a U.S. government study identified high infant mortality—the variable
that most efficiently reflects a country's overall quality of material life—as the single most efficient variable for explaining conflicts between 1955
and 1994. Along with trade openness and regime type, infant mortality was one of three variables best correlated with the historical cases studied. It often interacts with lack of trade openness and repressive regimes
to trigger state failure (Esty et al., 1995; 1998).
In sum, political and institutional factors in interaction with environmental factors (such as drought and deforestation) are key indicators of potential conflict in Africa: well-being is affected not just by natural disasters, but
also by how effectively a regime responds to them. Ineffective responses include inappropriate policies, such as those used by some Sahelian countries in the 1960s and 1970s: they both neglected agriculture and subjected it
to disproportionate taxation relative to the allocation of public expenditure received. These policies greatly intensified the impact of the severe 1972-75 drought in the region (Christensen et al., 1981). Other ineffective
responses include unwillingness to respond to disaster, as in Ethiopia in 1974 or Rwanda in 1993 (J. Clay et al., 1988; Uvin, 1996b), and deliberate use of food and hunger as weapons, as in the Horn of Africa in the 1980s
and 1990s (Messer, Cohen, & D'Costa, 1998). These examples demonstrate that famine is a result of political choices as well as capabilities (Drèze & Sen, 1989).
Ethnic and Political Rivalries, Hunger, and Conflict
There is a high correlation between a country's involvement in conflict and its classification by FAO
as a “low-income food deficit” country. Such countries have high proportions of food-insecure households. And, as already noted, conflict is also highly
correlated with high rates of child mortality (see Figure 2), which is a common index for food insecurity. Nevertheless, a
number of analysts have challenged the notion that food insecurity is a causal factor in conflict. Paarlberg, for instance, argues that environmental scarcities such as land shortage, land
degradation, and rapid population growth—what he refers to as “eco-Malthusian emiseration”—are not generally a factor in African conflicts. Rather, Paarlberg notes, the level of conflict in
Africa has been relatively stable since the end of the colonial era. In his view, “[a] far more convincing explanation for violent conflict in sub-Saharan Africa starts with the serious
geographical mismatch, long noticed on the continent, between post-colonial national boundaries and ethnic boundaries.” (Paarlberg, 1999, page 1). More generally, Gleditsch (1998) has
pointed out that most conflicts can be sufficiently explained as a result of political, economic, and cultural factors, without reference to environmental scarcities. In fact, neither viewpoint
precludes a food-security connection. EvenHomer-Dixon (1999), a leading figure in the environmental security field, concedes that environmental scarcity alone does not inevitably
result in conflict. Instead, he stresses that resource constraints can have a profound influence on the social factors that
eventually lead to conflict—as when elites monopolize control over scarce resources (such as water, cropland, or forests) and non-elites perceive themselves as unfairly deprived.
As an example of how this works in practice, Uvin (1996b) argues persuasively that environmental factors
in general—and food insecurity in particular—critically contributed to triggering the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Per capita food
production and availability had declined dramatically in Rwanda over the preceding decade. The collapse of the world price of coffee in 1985 greatly
reduced local and national government revenues and sapped rural households' purchasing power, even as urban job opportunities grew scarce and food prices rose. Deteriorating
living conditions made many Rwandans into a ready audience for government appeals to ethnic hatred.
The basic, underlying, and trigger causes of conflict are not exclusively environmental, ethnic, or political-economic, but interactive. For policymakers, the relevant questions are: What finally
triggers conflict? And at which points might international diplomats most effectively intervene? Unfortunately, even cutting-edge studies on conflict
prevention in Africa focus almost exclusively on the immediate question of where engagement or diplomacy failed (e.g., Zartman, 2001). These studies explicitly do not address the
underlying structural causes and thus ignore the crucial politics of food. In contrast to the 1970s, when foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation addressed
concerns that the world was entering a neo-Malthusian crisis, today's institutional funders avoid the food-security connection to conflict. Yet the structural conditions of
inequality and hunger that were present then persist today and contribute to the underlying causes of conflict. These underlying causal
steps connecting food insecurity and conflict demand more attention. Moreover, microsimulation studies of the factors and clusters of factors
linked to conflict (e.g., Esty et al., 1998) suggest that it should be possible to learn from peaceful cases in which environmental scarcities and food shortages did not spark or incite violence.
Some agricultural specialists suggest that the critical factor in this regard is the ability of local people in resource-poor areas to intensify agricultural production or otherwise diversify
livelihoods without degrading the environment. Social, cultural, and economic variables (such as proximity to markets or alternative employment opportunities) may also be relevant (Pender &
Hazell, 2000). Since the 1960s and especially since the 1980s, food and nutrition policymakers have favored plans and programs that encourage participation by community-based
organizations (Marchione, 1999). But there still are few case studies that show how peaceful development activities are mobilized at the community level. Nor are there many studies of how
such community organizations can scale-up their activities to widen (a) the numbers of participants; (b) the functional areas they address (e.g., health and nutrition, water, education); and (c)
the breadth and strength of their contacts with governments, NGOs, UN agencies, or other sources of technical or financial assistance. Pg. 7-9
29
Ext To: Contention 2 – Food insecurity risk war 2/
----Food insecurity threatens to collapse African states and spread war, economic destitution, and disease
outbreaks across the continent
Jooma 06 - Researcher with the African Security Analysis Program @ Institute for Security Studies. [Mariam Bibi
Jooma, “Africa in 2006: The humanitarian hangover?,” African Security Review 15 NO 1 2006, pg. http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?
link_id=3&slink_id=3464&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3]edlee
The question of food security nevertheless goes to the heart of issues surrounding chronic poverty and
underdevelopment. At the time of writing an estimated 11 million people in East Africa and the Horn of Africa are facing
critical food shortages owing to a prolonged drought – some 1.75 million people in southern Ethiopia’s Somali and Oromiya regions alone. Experts predict that the coming
rains will be insufficient.
The food debate is not a new one. From the 1970s development theory of agricultural underproduction to Amartya Sen’s more nuanced appreciation of the gaps between production and access to food, the new millennium
, food security in the Horn resonates not only with the compromise of human
feels all too familiar for large parts of the continent. Seen in the larger context
dignity of individuals, but also with a severe collapse of social capacity that is likely to destabilise political
institutions.
it is the longer-term structural violence of poverty that undermines the
So, while the current flash appeals for aid will make the headlines,
‘democratisation’ project. Out of more than 850 million chronically hungry people globally, an estimated 10 million will die every year of hunger – this accounts for more than tuberculosis, malaria,
and HIV/AIDS combined.
mass starvation is only one result of famine. Others include a drop in fertility, economic
According to Stephen Devereux of the University of Sussex,
destitution, community breakdown, distress migration, and outbreaks of disease.1
30
Ext To: Contention 2 – Ag is key 1/

----70% of Africa is dependent on agriculture for survival. Crop-yields are extremely low
Despite natural genetic wealth,many parts of Africa are crippled by poverty and chronic food shortages exacerbated by natural and man-
made disasters. About 70% of the continent’s population lives in rural areas and depends largely on agriculture (UNECA,
2002). Most are small farmers with few or no resources and using very few agricultural inputs if any. Many grow low-yielding landrace varieties on
nutrient depleted soils. Diseases, pests and weeds cause heavy yield losses. As a result, crop and livestock yields are
far lower than they could be. For example, average cereal yields in Africa are half of those in the rest of the developing world (FAO 2001b; Ongaro, 1999), indicating the
potential for improvement using existing conventional methods like plant breeding, soil-fertility management, and disease, pest, weed and other constraint management. Deforestation for
agricultural expansion, firewood and building materials has further contributed to environmental degradation. Pg. 397
----70% of sub-Sahara Africa is agriculturely-dependent. Increasing agricultural productivity facilitates

economic growth and food security
There is no single solution to the problem of hunger in Africa or other developing regions. A common reality in many developing and food-insecure countries, however, is that a large majority
. In sub- Saharan Africa, 70% of the people are rural and largely
of the people depends on agriculture for their livelihood, directly or indirectly
agriculture-dependent.17 Although industrialization has fueled growth and hunger reduction in some Asian economies, it is generally recognized among
experts that the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa must improve their agriculture and food systems to
achieve economic growth and food security.18 Moreover, according to the World Bank, global food production will have to double by 2050 to meet rising
demand.19 By improving agricultural productivity and local food processing and distribution systems, developing
countries can increase locally available food stocks to feed their people and also generate income to purchase
food in the marketplace, as needed to supplement local production. Improvement in developing country agricultural and food
systems is critical to meeting the world’s long-term food needs. But in sub-Saharan Africa especially, any
solution to food insecurity will require increased agricultural productivity, to which biotechnology can contribute. Pg. 19-20
----Poverty and Hunger will increase in sub-Sahara. Agricultural development is key to reverse the trend
Taylor & Howard 05 – Sr. Fellow @ Resources for the Future & Prof of Agricultural Economics @ Michigan
State University [Michael R. Taylor (Administrator of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service from 1994 to 1996; Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the Food and Drug
Administration from 1991 to 1994; and an FDA staff lawyer and Executive Assistant to the FDA Commissioner from 1976 to 1981) and Julie A. Howard , INVESTING IN AFRICA’S
FUTURE: U.S. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, FINAL REPORT—SEPTEMBER 2005, pg. RFF-RPT-AfricaAssistance.pdf]edlee
The problems are particularly acute in sub-Saharan

Never before has the divide between the world’s rich and poor been more glaring.
Africa, where nearly half of the region’s 700 million people live on less than one dollar a
day and a third lack basic food security. And sub-Saharan Africa’s situation is
deteriorating: It is the only region of the world where poverty and hunger are projected
to increase over the next two decades unless major new investments are made.
Agricultural development is a critical catalyst for economic growth and poverty reduction
in sub-Saharan Africa. Three-quarters of the population lives and works in rural areas and
for every $1 generated through agricultural production, economic linkages add another $3 to the rural economy. Pg. v
31
----Agricultural development is key to reducing poverty and hunger in Africa
Taylor & Howard 05 – Sr. Fellow @ Resources for the Future & Professor of Agricultural Economics @
Michigan State University [Michael R. Taylor (Administrator of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service from 1994 to 1996; Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the
Food and Drug Administration from 1991 to 1994; and an FDA staff lawyer and Executive Assistant to the FDA Commissioner from 1976 to 1981) and Julie A. Howard , INVESTING IN
AFRICA’S FUTURE: U.S. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, FINAL REPORT—SEPTEMBER 2005, pg. RFF-RPT-
AfricaAssistance.pdf]edlee
The recommitment to poverty reduction has been accompanied by a reaffirmation of the essential role of
agriculture. For millennia, agriculture provided the foundation for economic well-being and growth worldwide, and it has reemerged today as the key
driver of strategies to reduce poverty and hunger in Africa. Today, there is widespread recognition among
African leaders, international institutions, and leaders in the United States and other donor countries that improving the
productivity and income-generating capacity of agriculture is essential if goals to reduce poverty and hunger—
and increase broad-based economic growth—are to be achieved.
This recognition is grounded in the great potential of Africa’s vast land and creative people to produce not only
an abundance of food but genuine wealth through modern, marketoriented agriculture and agribusiness. The challenges are real, including the lack
of roads and other essential market infrastructure, the lack of capacity to apply modern technology to Africa’s farming challenges, policies in need of reform, and public institutions in need of
challenges can be overcome by investment in the same “public goods” that any modern
improved performance. But these
agricultural economy needs to succeed—investment that, to achieve the necessary scale and effectiveness, must come from both African and external sources.
Pg. 1-2
----Increasing Africa’s agricultural production is key to reduce poverty and prevent famines
Agriculture is the single most important sector in the economies of most low-income countries, accounting for one-fourth to
one-half of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the bulk of export earnings. About 75% of Africans depend solely on income from agriculture
and agribusiness, which, in turn, constitutes 40% of the GDP of African nations (Machuka, 2003). Productive agriculture, with concomitant
increases in incomes, is needed to raise food-purchasing power and to reduce poverty. Poor people’s links to the land are critical for sustainable
development. The front line of any successful assault on poverty and environmental degradation must therefore have
a focus on agriculture and rural development.
Africa’s current population is projected to rise to 1700 million by 2050 (Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch, 1999). Demand for
imported food—mostly cereals and legumes—will increase from 50 to 70 million tons per year. If the current
economic situation of Africa does not improve, food-deficit nations are unlikely to have the resources to
purchase such a huge volume of food on a commercial basis. Several countries are already regular recipients of food aid. Even if food aid
continues, it often misses the rural poor. To prevent future human catastrophes, African countries will have to
develop and implement strategies for increasing agricultural productivity. Pg. 394-395
32

----Increasing agricultural productivity is essential to ameliorating food insecurities and poverty in sub-
Sahara Africa. However, US patent law poses a substantial challenge to this pursuit
Taylor & Jerry Cayford, “ “Biotechnology Patents and African Food Security: Aligning America's Patent Policies and International Development Interests,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science
& Technology, December, 2004, 6 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 277]edlee
Substantial improvement in agricultural productivity is essential for achieving sustainable food security and
reducing chronic rural poverty in many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Modern biotechnology, along with other
important tools, can help solve some of the basic productivity problems that plague the millions of small-scale and
subsistence farmers who are the backbone of African agriculture. However, important components of the
biotechnology tool kit - gene traits, plant transformation tools, and genetically improved germplasm - have been
patented in the United States and elsewhere by companies that have little economic incentive to develop and disseminate
the technology to meet the needs of these farmers. This article analyzes how U.S. patent policy affects the development and dissemination of biotechnology
to improve agriculture and food security in Africa, and the article makes the case for policy change.
----Subsistence farming is counter-intuitive for sub-Saharan Africa. It has the climate to a major player
in the global agriculture market
An aggravating factor throughout sub-Saharan African deforestation is inefficiency in farming, a characteristic true of
Rwandan agriculture. 90 There, few modern-day methods are utilized. The farmers [*290] still use hand tools and rely upon animal manure for fertilizer. 91
Additionally, sub-Saharan African farming is largely based on "self-sufficiency," that is, farmers in the countries of the region (Rwanda and
Kenya are two examples) limit their cultivation to crops with little export value. 92 The climate of Rwanda, however, is unlike most of sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, the climate
is more predictable with regular rainfall, which may explain the immense population density. 93 With such a climate, self-sufficiency
agriculture is counterintuitive; one would think Rwanda could have a strong agricultural economy. Growing crops for the world market
could help treat the poverty endemic to this region of sub-Saharan Africa. 94
----Poverty is devastating Sub-Sahara. Only a boost in agricultural yields can drive broad-based
economic growth and poverty reduction
The most severe and intractable poverty in the world is in Africa south of the Sahara. Nearly half of all the
people there live in absolute poverty, with incomes of less than a dollar a day. On present trends, two of the most fundamental
Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations – halving the number of people living in absolute poverty and halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger – will not be
the World Bank forecasts that in Africa and the Middle East the number of “absolute poor” will
met by the target year of 2015. Indeed,
actually rise between now and 2015.
To reverse this disaster, the focus of development in sub-Saharan Africa must be on rural areas, where three-
quarters of poor people live. Here, tackling poverty means boosting smallholder agriculture and recognising that
this is the best – and perhaps only – way of driving broad-based economic growth and poverty reduction in Africa:
compared with other sectors, smallholder agriculture has the highest potential for kick-starting and supporting self-
sustaining growth and employment across a range of agricultural and non-agricultural activities.
Achieving smallholder agriculture growth will not be easy. Small-scale farmers continue to face a host of problems, including poor access to markets and to the financial, extension and research services needed to help them
work in difficult conditions; limited resources; and high exposure to price and production risks.These difficulties are compounded by the debilitating impacts of HIV/AIDS on individuals, households and communities.
Unless these and other constraints are addressed by national governments and international organisations, the prospects for Africa’s poor
remain bleak. Pg. v
33

----Poverty is on the rise. Agriculture is vital to check its expansion
only in sub-Saharan Africa and in the much smaller Middle East and North Africa region are the numbers of people
4. Annex Table 1 also shows that
in absolute poverty are expected to rise between now and 2015. For the foreseeable future poverty is likely to
remain widespread within sub-Saharan Africa, with hunger a recurrent problem in several countries. Large
numbers of people in more remote areas are also likely to remain heavily dependent on semi-subsistence
agriculture for their livelihoods for some time to come. Thus, while this paper sets out a vision for renewed agricultural growth in sub-Saharan Africa,
agriculture’s vital contribution to food security and welfare for the poor (particularly the chronic poor in remote areas) should not
be forgotten. Pg. 2
----Only investment in sub-Sahara’s agricultural sector will solve the advantage
60. The fact that one in every five people still lives in absolute poverty is totally unacceptable. Whilst this is clearly recognised, at present the international community is not on target to meet
the Millennium Development Goals on poverty reduction by 2015. Major efforts are required that impact on rural poverty, especially in sub–
Saharan Africa.
61.Poverty reduction during the latter part of the last century, principally in Asia, was associated with initial agricultural
sector development, including increased productivity, higher incomes, falling real food prices and rising agricultural wage
rates. The impact on poverty reduction was further enhanced where broad–based agricultural growth, based on smallholder production, created the conditions for expansion in
manufacturing and services. Smallholder agriculture can still provide the drivers for economic growth and poverty relief in
Africa today. Indeed, not only is it the best option, it may be the only option that can provide these necessary pro-poor drivers.
In order to increase progress in meeting the Millennium Development Goals, agriculture must have an increased profile in
62.
development policy leading to much higher levels of direct investment in the sector. At the micro level a variety of government, NGO and
local initiatives have demonstrated that agricultural pathways out of poverty are possible in Africa, but greater investment is needed to scale-up these successes to impact on poverty reduction at the national level. This paper
advocates targeting investment at the meso-level to create and develop the enabling institutional environment that allows smallholders to increase production and supply the expanding markets. Crucial elements of this
enabling environment include the provision of coordinated support services such as credit, input supplies, technical support, access to information, access to markets and market services.
63. Smallholders are also more likely to succeed if they operate in an environment in which their voice is more widely heard, where a fair trading system exists, rural infrastructure is improved and they are provided with
incentives and protection to allow innovation.These conditions provide the crucial support for the success of a poverty-reducing, equity-enhancing smallholder agricultural growth strategy. Clearly, support for smallholder
agriculture cannot succeed in isolation and must be complemented with basic investments in education, health and good governance, together with facilitation of non-farm activities acting as supporters to spread growth
benefits within rural societies. However, it is agriculture that is best placed to provide the initial kick-start to self-sustaining growth and
poverty reduction.
agricultural growth offers for much of sub-Saharan Africa the best option for
64. This paper has argued that despite its difficulties, smallholder
initiating the sustained poverty-reducing growth that its people so desperately need. Analysis of these options, with lessons from
successes and failures in Africa and in Asia, sets out a clear set of policies required to stimulate both demand and supply in the smallholder agriculture sector. International donors,
multilateral agencies, regional organisations in Africa and African governments need to move forward with a clear commitment to pro-poor
agricultural development and to the implementation of these policies. There are opportunities for donors and governments to address the problems currently constraining
smallholder agriculture in Africa and these opportunities must be grasped, urgently. This course of action is not without major challenges, as it requires substantial long-term political and
financial commitment while grappling with new problems. However, unless commitments are made to address these problems, the prospects for the
African poor remain bleak. Pg. 23
34
Ext To: Contention 3 – US eminent domain solves hunger

----Congressional declaration of eminent domain patented biotechnological research tool technology will
restore food security to sub-Sahara Africa
IV. A Proposal: Taking During a National Emergency

A. Background
28 U.S.C. 1498 addresses takings of patents where an entity which makes or uses a patented invention under contract to the United States
government is shielded from prosecution and all claims for infringement are instead to be directed toward the government for reasonable compensation. 270 This
section of the U.S. Code is closely analogous to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it provides for "reasonable and entire compensation" for owners whose patent rights have
been infringed. 271 To date, the federal government has never used the eminent domain power to appropriate patented technology in the name of an emergency. However, after the
September 11, 2001 attacks, such action was seriously contemplated by the U.S. government.
Two weeks after the September 11th attacks, the prospect of a [*313] biological attack involving Bacillus anthracis ("anthrax") 272 prompted people to stockpile the only known
antidote, ciprofloxacin, or Cipro (R), a product patented and branded by the German pharmaceutical giant, Bayer. 273 Three weeks after September 11th, with anthrax attacks no longer a
Canada overrode the patent and ordered Bayer's competitors to
prospect but a fact, and supplies of Cipro(R) limited by Bayer's patent,
produce the needed antidote in the form of generic ciprofloxacin. 274 For a period of time, many called upon the U.S. government to take the
same action and order enough doses of the antidote to prevent a national emergency. 275 After a month of uncertainty, Bayer eventually agreed to produce
the needed doses at a reasonable price, thereby preventing the threatened taking. 276
The anthrax attacks introduced the question of whether the U.S. government should have initiated a taking by, in effect, granting compulsory licenses to manufacturers of generic ciprofloxacin
. Likewise, if serious
to infringe upon Bayer's patent rights to Cipro(R). It is the conclusion of this Note that such an action during a national emergency would have indeed been proper
global insecurity caused by severe food insecurity were to cause an emergency of similar proportions, it would be proper for the U.S. government to use 28
U.S.C. 1498 to allow the use of patented agricultural biotechnological research tools in the research and
development of improved varieties of the crops staple to the sub-Saharan African diet.
Critics of this conclusion point to the need for inviolable patent rights to protect the incentives for invention and innovation. 277 In addition to the above discussion, this Note further concludes, as will be discussed below,
that such an incentive will not be unduly weakened by a limited use of the power of eminent domain in times of national emergency. What is at issue, then, is the tension between the incentive to develop new technology and
access to that technology to treat a [*314] national emergency.
B. When Emergencies Change the Debate: Incentive vs. Access to Technology
At its root, the fundamental issue with intellectual property rights often is whether the public interest in the incentive for invention outweighs the public interest in access to patented technology thus generating continued
innovation. 278
1. The Incentive to Invent
For members in the incentive camp, the long-term costs in diminished incentives outweigh any short-term benefits in treating an emergency. 279 This is because without the incentive to invest in time and capital, inventors
will not invest in vital technologies like biotechnology. 280 What is more, it has been observed that were the government to order patent infringement, say, during an Anthrax emergency, the costs of its "just compensation"
obligations would have been prohibitively high. 281
In order to illustrate this prohibitive cost to the government in using its powers of eminent domain, Professor Daniel Cahoy, in his 2002 article in the American Business Law Journal, substituted patent property for real
property in an analysis of "just compensation" originated by Judge Richard Posner:
Let us assume that the wholesale cost in the United States of treating an individual with a certain anti-anthrax antibiotic is $ 200 per month (prices for illustration purposes only). Next, assume that there are 10,000 people who
could possibly benefit from treatment with the antibiotic, but for a cost of $ 1 million (screening, investigating, etc.), the government could make a much more accurate determination of the affected number of people and cut
the number of treated individuals to 1,000. If the government must pay the market price for the antibiotic, the cost to both the government and society as a whole - which includes the patent owner - under the cheaper
screening option will be $ 1.2 million ($ 1 million screening + $ 200 x 1000 people). Alternatively, if the government can appropriate the [*315] anti-anthrax antibiotic and pay only the generic cost (assume it is 10 cents on
the dollar), the total cost to the government if it chooses to forego the screening option will be $ 200,000 ($ 20 x 10,000 people), but the cost to society as a whole is $ 2 million ($ 200 x 10,000 people). Obviously, this
example oversimplifies many issues, but it is useful in creating a common framework. 282
2. An Overlooked Incentive: Emergencies

A most crucial word missing in Professor Cahoy's scenario - a word which appears to have missed its mark for the incentive camp entirely - is "Emergency." During the Anthrax attacks, the question was not simply whether
Bayer would be motivated to continue its research and develop new medicines, but whether its patent would block access to the antidote needed to save the lives of, potentially, tens of millions of people in America. Similar
questions have been raised by the need for other antidotes, for example whether there is enough potassium iodide available for an emergency arising out of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility. 283
What is more, the question of patents blocking needed technology is not limited to emergencies which arise from terrorist attacks. At its 115th Executive Board and Health Assembly meeting, the World Health Organization
included discussions of Avian Influenza, or "Bird Flu," in its agenda. 284 The assembled members expressed the concern "about the general lack of preparedness for an influenza pandemic." 285 Intellectual property rights,
patents on the needed treatments for Avian Influenza in particular, were identified as one of the specific problems in meeting this potential emergency. 286 Still, it is the destabilizing effects emergencies have on society
which introduce the gravest security risks.
The United States pursues its freedom from fear in several ways, not least of which is through its powerful military. The U.S. will spend [*316] more than $ 500 billion on the military in 2005, "but that amount is never
going to buy Americans peace if the government continues to spend an anemic $ 16 billion ... in foreign aid that addresses plight of the poorest of the world's poor." 287 On December 26, 2004, a large earthquake off of the
Indonesian coast created a tsunami which claimed over 100,000 lives, which destabilized many areas of Asia and Africa and created a great emergency for those regions. 288 The developed world rose to the occasion and has
organized multiple ways of helping the tsunami victims, while keeping an eye on the needs of the rest of the developing world. 289
It has been noted that 30,000 children die from poverty related deaths every single day. 290 Therefore, every five days, another virtual tsunami sweeps the world. As has been discussed above, agricultural biotechnology can
help.
3. Actually, Access Is the Incentive
The argument for preserving the property rights incentive in intellectual property is compelling. This Note does not seek to deny that our intellectual property laws are a vital part of the forward
moving society we enjoy. Why would a firm invest huge sums of capital and develop a product if the government will simply take it and give it away? Again, the crucial word in this discussion
is "Emergency" - it is unlikely that the power of eminent domain will be used haphazardly in the appropriation of patented technology because even during the Anthrax attacks (a
national emergency) such an event did not take place.
Trudell 05 1/2
35
Trudell 05 2/2
Professor Cahoy used the Cipro(R)/Bayer controversy for what he identified as a "real world" prediction of the just compensation that the United States would have to pay the infringed patent
the interest in incentives [*317] for invention. 292
holder. 291 As already noted, Professor Cahoy would find the costs of such action prohibitive; and these costs could not outweigh
However, this analysis does not stand up to reality because the more likely result is the one which really did occur, specifically, an agreement
between Bayer and the U.S. government which precluded any action under the power of eminent domain. 293 The government wanted access to
the technology that Bayer held. When the threat of a taking seemed real, Bayer found incentive to meet the needs of the
nation in a time of emergency.
Incentives for invention come in profits. Bayer is reported to earn $ 1 billion per year on Cipro(R). 294 It is reasonable to infer that such profits inspired Bayer to recognize the value of agreeing to lower its prices and to
increase its output to meet the short-term emergency demand for Cipro(R) made by the government in October 2001. It is also reasonable to infer that there is incentive from such profits to continue the R&D which leads to
them - even though such a demand and an emergency compromise may actually introduce itself. Agricultural biotechnological firms, for example Monsanto, are some of the most profitable companies in the world. 295 It is
just as reasonable to infer that Monsanto's interest in preempting the government's use of its eminent domain power in
time of a recognized emergency outweighs an inference that Monsanto will cease the R&D of new technologies and products.
If the United States made it clear to the biotechnological and chemical firms in the pharmaceutical and agricultural research and development industries
that a policy centered around the power of eminent domain is on the table to treat international and national emergencies, they will
not likely be motivated to cease operations, but will merely plan to avoid such a reality. 296 Thus, access to
patented technology through the power of eminent domain, creating compulsory [*318] licenses, under situations of serious emergency, will act
as an incentive itself. The power of eminent domain can assist and treat the problem of food insecurity,
and at the same time will not hinder our society from moving forward.
Conclusion
The power of the eminent domain should be used to improve access to agricultural biotech nological research tools. The
balance of access to technology in times of emergency outweighs the public interest in maintaining the incentives for invention and innovation because of the multitude of human lives that are
potentially at stake.
the actual incentive to preempt any moves made by the U.S. government in this regard, as was the case for
What is more,
will likely obviate any need for such patent appropriations. By announcing a clear policy
Bayer with Cipro(R),
embodying the power of eminent domain to utilize patented biotechnological research tool technology in times of emergency, the
United States could raise the awareness of the severity of the global problem of chronic hunger caused by severe
food insecurity. A problem where more than 800 million people are chronically hungry, 1.2 billion live on less than a dollar a day, and more than 30,000 children die every single
day. 297
treating food insecurity through improvements in agricultural productivity is

There is a potential for a global security catastrophe and
one sure way to keep Malthusian prophecies at rest. Therefore, the power of eminent domain is an efficient way
to treat a food security emergency and ensure that "all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food," for the
continued security of us all. 298
36
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech solves hunger 1/

----GM crops key to prevent African famines
Lawrence 06 [Biotechnology Only Solution to Feed the World,” Kenya Times, July 06, 2006, Pg. http://www.africabiotech.com/news2/article.php?uid=150]edlee
Biotechnology holds tremendous promise for the developing world. The use of high-yielding, disease and pest
resistant crops will have a direct bearing on improved food security, poverty alleviation and
environmental conservation in Africa.
By developing crops that more efficiently absorb nutrients from the soil, biotechnology can help farmers produce more on land already under cultivation, and may reduce the need for costly
inputs such as fertilisers and nonrenewable resources such as oil and natural gas.
the use of tropical biotech crops can be modified to tolerate aluminum and acid
According to a Mexican scientist Luis Herrera Estrella,
soils to significantly increase the productivity of corn, rice and papaya.
Biotech crops that require less tilling may help to decrease soil erosion and development of plants that can grow in tough conditions such as drought, or dry or poor soils may make it easier to
farm marginal lands hence helping to keep fragile soils such as wetlands and rain forests out of food production.
In many African countries, subsistence farmers eke out meager livings, and the ability to provide enough food
for survival is often less than assured and the vital importance of staple crops such as rice, sweet potatoes and
cassava can’t be overstated. Over 650 million of the world’s poorest people live in the rural areas and without
sustainable agriculture; they will have neither the resources nor employment they require for a better life.
Burgeoning population especially in the developing world will soon outstrip food production since the rate of food production globally has dropped from 3 percent per annum in the 1970s to 1
percent per annum today.
Biotechnology is working to solve these problems by producing plants that resist pests and diseases which is a major cause of crop damage in the developing world.
According to Jonathan Swift (1727), the king of Brobdingnag in Gulliver’s Travels, whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass grow upon a spot of ground where only one
grew before would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.
Biotechnology also offers hope of improving the nutritional benefits to food varieties and it is poised to bring
direct health benefits to consumers through enhanced nutritive qualities that include more and higher quality
protein, lower level of saturated fats and increased vitamins and minerals.
The technology can also reduce the level of natural toxins (such as in cassava and kidney beans) and eliminate certain allergens like peanuts, wheat and milk
In many countries, from Africa to Indonesia to South America, cassava plant is an important source of starch, carbohydrates, protein, calcium, and vitamins A and C, and plays a vital role in
the diet and income of some 500 million people worldwide. Sweet potato on the other hand is a staple that provides vital source of calories and essential minerals to millions in the developing
world.
In 1998, African farmers lost 60 percent of the cassava crop to mosaic virus and sweet potato yields were laid dangerously low, loosing in some cases up to 80 percent of expected yields due to
sweet potato weevil and the feathery mottle virus (SPFMV).
Towards developing more nutritious staple crops, researchers are using biotechnology to develop cassava that more efficiently absorb trace metal and micronutrients from the soil, have
enhanced starch quality and more beta-carotene.
A strain of “golden rice” that packs more iron and beta carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, could be in the market in the near future. This will help more than 100 million children who suffer
from vitamin A deficiency, the global leading cause of blindness as well as some 400 million women of childbearing age who are iron-deficient, placing their babies at risk of physical and
mental retardation, premature births and natal motility.
Science and technology can contribute positively towards alleviation of hunger and that is why Americans overwhelmingly
support initiatives aimed at increasing agricultural productivity and the use of biotechnology in addressing concerns of global food and nutritional security.
Biotechnology represents a frontier advance in agricultural science, and has far-reaching potential in advancing global food production in an environmentally sustainable manner. While the
world population continues to grow in the developing countries where food is already a problem, biotechnology represents a powerful tool that can be employed in concert with many other
traditional approaches in increasing food production in the face of diminishing land and water resources.
“To still have hunger in our world of abundance is not only unacceptable but unforgivable”, Ronald Cantrell of the International Rice Research institute, in the Philippines said. World hunger is
a complex issue, one for which there is no answer yet, while biotechnology may not be the only solution, it can be a valuable tool in the struggle to
feed a hungry world.
37
----Agricultural Biotech is the only way to solve. It is the path to economic self-sufficiency for sub-Sahara
2. Agricultural Biotechnology
an increase in agricultural productivity is the only way to increase the food security of some of the most troubled
As we have seen,
With biotechnology, agriculture can be made more productive because

regions of the world. Modern biotechnology can help. 139
bioengineered crops can better survive many of the natural pressures which contribute to food insecurity in Sub-
Saharan Africa. 140 Crops can be designed to be drought tolerant or to capture nitrogen from the air, thereby reducing irrigation
needs and dependence on fertilizer, and the harm from its resultant run-off. 141 Pesticide use is currently a vital [*296] element of African farming. Summer 2004 witnessed locust
swarms, which devastated the crops of the North Western and Sahel regions of Africa. 142 Biotechnology can make plants which are "insect proof." 143
Agricultural biotechnology is, in many respects, merely the better informed and more organized process of breeding plants. Since the middle twentieth century, with the deeper understanding of the mechanics of DNA, the
science of genetics has led to great improvements in agricultural development. 144 For example, through research and development, scientists have been able to isolate a protein secreted by the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
bacterium, which is deadly to many caterpillars while completely harmless to human beings. 145 Researchers at Monsanto, one of the world's largest chemical and biotechnology firms, have been successful in breeding the Bt
gene into agricultural crops including corn and cotton, thereby making them able to withstand pests like the corn root worm and the cotton boll weevil. 146
There are many ways in which biotechnology can address food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Most importantly, the
potential gains in agricultural productivity could help make the countries of the region self-sufficient. 147 In January 2005,
economist Jeffrey Sachs, wrote: "food security in Africa would be a prelude to sustained economic growth." 148 Biotechnology can also
assist the malnourished by developing foods with increased mineral and vitamin content. 149 The increased productivity that biotechnology can deliver to the countries
of sub-Saharan Africa will have consequences which may address other pressures on food insecurity, such as farmer income and food
prices. 150
----GM crops alleviate hunger. Crops are pest resistant

GM crops can alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries by increasing developing countries'
crop yields. GM crops can increase crop yields because they can be genetically engineered to resist the
destructive conditions prevalent in developing countries, such as insects, herbicides, viruses, drought, and soil acidity. 9 To date, scientists
have created more than twenty plant species that are resistant to over thirty different viral diseases. 10 In addition, they have
engineered herbicide-resistant canola, corn, cotton, maize, and soybean, 11 as well as insect-resistant cotton, maize, potatoes, rice, sugarcane, tobacco,
tomatoes, and walnuts. 12 Although most of these crops are not staples for developing countries, the same technology can be applied to developing
countries' crops. 13
----GM crops reduce hunger by preventing spoilage

GM crops can also reduce hunger in developing countries by preventing crops from spoiling before human
consumption. Many developing countries lose substantial amounts of tropical fruit because they lack the
necessary storage conditions and transportation systems to deliver the fruit before spoilage. 16 Biotechnology
can alleviate this problem by producing crops that are genetically modified to delay ripening. In fact, scientists
have already created a delayed-ripening tomato, and may be able to create delayed-ripening tropical fruits. 17 Through the use of such
GM crops, developing countries would be able to increase and preserve crop yields.
38

----Biotech is key to ending African food shortage
Nicholson 03 - Registered patent attorney working for the USDA Agricultural Research Service [David R. Nicholson,
Former Associate Solicitor at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetically-Modified Foods: Will the Developing World Bite?,” Virginia
Journal of Law and Technology, Summer, 2003, 8 Va. J.L. & Tech. 7]edlee
X. Agricultural Biotechnology, If It Is Allowed To Mature in the Developing World, Holds the Promise of Creating Stronger Economies and Healthier People.
Biotechnology holds huge promise for the developing world. Africa barely feeds its people now, and often has food shortages. In order
to keep pace with current consumption levels in Africa, farmers will have to double their production by the year 2020.
170 Kenya, for example, a country where over eighty percent of the population is involved in farming, cannot provide adequate food for a population of 30 million people. 171 Africa
also needs food that is more nutritious in general, and there are several crop varieties that have been bio-
engineered to meet this need and which are in final development. 172 In short, biotechnology could be a key part in
helping the developing world feed itself.
----Denying African farmers biotech dooms the continent to hunger and starvation
In the
64. If agricultural biotechnology is not permitted to fully flower in the developed world, it will not be critical since food production in developed nations is not a problem. 189
developing world, however, biotechnology might mean the difference between having enough food and starvation.
190 Already, hunger is most severe in exactly those areas where advanced agricultural techniques are not being
practiced. 191 Therefore, denying farmers access to biotechnology in poor countries might very well cause the
problems that so many would like to avert: hunger and starvation. 192
----GM maize is key to solve chronic hunger in Africa

Davis Jan. 16, 07 [Crystal Davis, “Genetically Modified Crops May Boost African Agriculture,” Tuesday, January 16, 2007, pg. http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/142]edlee
Nearly one-third of people in Sub-Saharan Africa suffer from chronic hunger--the highest proportion found in
any region in the world. Fighting African hunger is largely dependent upon the success of the agricultural
sector, especially among the small-scale farmers that comprise a vast majority of Africa's rural poor. Although the "green revolution" of the mid-twentieth century introduced technologies that doubled and tripled crop
yields all over the world, African farmers did not experience similar gains. A recent article in Science, GM Technology Develops in the Developing World, discusses the potential for genetically modified (GM) crops to bring
belated success to Africa's agricultural sector.
The Challenge of Agriculture in Africa
Small-scale farms account for over 90 percent of agricultural production in Africa and are dominated by the
rural poor. African farmers face numerous obstacles including ongoing civil conflict, HIV/AIDS, vulnerability to natural disasters, and insufficient investment in agricultural research and rural infrastructure. For
these and other reasons, the technology of the green revolution did not transfer well into African soil. Maize is a staple food in Africa, accounting for over 50
percent of calories in local diets and up to 90 percent of cropland in some countries. It is subject to drought and
disease including the maize streak virus, which destroyed between 5 to 100 percent of African farmers' crops in
2006.
Genetically Modified Maize
After over a decade of work, a team of scientists in South Africa will soon test a crop of maize plants that have
been genetically modified to resist infection from the maize streak virus. The tests, scheduled to begin in late 2007, will be the first field
trial of GM agriculture in South Africa (one of only a few African countries that currently allows the planting of GM crops). If successful, this project could help
alleviate grain shortages, thereby reducing hunger and poverty.
39

----Biotech is a vital weapon to address African malnutrition and poverty
Driessen & Boynes 05 [Paul Driessen and Cyril Boynes, Jr., “Out of Africa: What Thoughless Activists Want To Do With Biotechnology,” Center for Global Food Issues,
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/feb_21_05.htm]edlee
Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Ruth Oniango has a dream. A member of Kenya's parliament, she envisions a day when the people of her poor country "can feed themselves."
"Over 70% of Africans are employed in
Congress of Racial Equality national chairman Roy Innis shares that vision. But he also knows the obstacles.
farming full time," he points out. "Yet, half of those countries rely on emergency food aid. Within ten years, Africa will
be home to three-fourths of the world's hungry people."
Many of the continent's farmers are women who labor sunup to sundown on 3 to 5 acre plats. They rarely have enough crops to feed their
own families, much less sell for extra money. Millions live on less than a dollar a day.
Maize (corn) is southern Africa's most important crop. But because of drought, insects, poor soil, plant diseases
and lack of technology, the average yield per acre is the lowest in the world. Other crops suffer similar fates.
"We eat cassava for breakfast and mash it with potatoes and bananas. But the mosaic virus attacks the plants, the leaves fall off, and it's no good for eating," Kenya's Samuel Njeru laments.
"We can't afford to spray. We need a variety that is resistant to the virus."
Mosaic virus first appeared in Africa in 1894 and now infects every cassava plant. Over 35 million tons of this staple are lost every year—along with tens of millions of tons of other crops.
"I farm a third of a hectare with cotton," says Alice Wambuii. (A hectare is 2.5 acres.) "I spray five times a season with pesticides, but sometimes the insects still destroy my entire crop. Last
year, I got 3,000 Kenyan shillings for my cotton, but I had to spend 5,000 for sprays."
"Africa needs a new agricultural revolution," Mr. Innis says flatly. One is finally on the way—a biotechnology revolution. It's not a magic bullet.
But it is a vital weapon in Africa's thus far losing struggle against malnutrition, poverty, despair and deepening
anger.
Participants in a day-long conference hosted by CORE at the United Nations in January conveyed that message forcefully. So do Kenyan and South African scientists, farmers and politicians
interviewed by Mr. Innis for a video documentary. With this technology, farmers don't have to learn new skills. They just plant and tend seeds the
same way as always—but with amazing results.
chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, says
Clive James,
"biotechnology is a contribution, not a solution, to the hunger crisis." It is a technology that African farmers can afford to have—and can't afford
not to have.
40
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech superior to traditional crops

----GM crops have a greater potential than traditional crops. Access to fresh water and arable land is
decreasing
GM crops are more promising than traditional plant breeding at increasing crop yields because traditional plant
breeding may be nearing its peak. Traditional plant breeding requires ample fresh water and arable land in order
to increase crop yields. Unfortunately, both resources are decreasing rapidly. In fact, during the last twenty-five
years, misuse and overuse have degraded more than one fourth of the world's agricultural lands, pastures,
forests, and woodlands. 14 In addition, experts have warned that even with improved irrigation, the world needs 17% more fresh water than is currently available, in order to
meet its food needs. 15 These figures suggest that traditional plant breeding alone cannot sufficiently increase crop yields. In contrast, GM [*44] crops can be genetically engineered to survive
drought and infertile soil. Therefore, they may be more effective than traditional plant breeding at improving developing countries' crop yields .
----- 17% more fresh water is needed. GM crops are superior

GM crops are more promising than traditional plant breeding at increasing crop yields because traditional plant breeding may be nearing its peak. Traditional plant breeding requires ample
fresh water and arable land in order to increase crop yields. Unfortunately, both resources are decreasing rapidly. In fact, during the last twenty-five years, misuse and overuse have degraded
experts have warned that even with improved
more than one fourth of the world's agricultural lands, pastures, forests, and woodlands. 14 In addition,
irrigation, the world needs 17% more fresh water than is currently available, in order to meet its food needs. 15
These figures suggest that traditional plant breeding alone cannot sufficiently increase crop yields. In contrast,
GM [*44] crops can be genetically engineered to survive drought and infertile soil. Therefore, they may be more effective than
traditional plant breeding at improving developing countries' crop yields.
41
Ext To: Contention 3 – GM crops viable for small farmer 1/2

----GM crops are economically viable for small farmers. South Africa study proves
Wachai 06 [James Wachai “Genetically Modified Maize Beneficial to South African Farmers,” Friday, June 09, 2006, pg. http://www.gmoafrica.org/2006_06_01_archive.html]edlee
Anew research shows that smallholder farmers in South Africa have benefited enormously from growing
genetically modified maize.
According to the study conducted by Marnus Gouse and Johann Kirsten both of University of Pretoria, South Africa, Carl Pray (Rutgers University, U.S.A.) and David Schimmelpfennig
smallholder farmers who adopted insect-resistant (Bt) varieties of white
(United States Department of Agriculture Research Service),
maize benefited from planting Bt over the last three seasons.
“Farmers benefited more from planting Bt maize in high stalk borer or corn borer infestation years,” notes the study
entitled, Three Seasons of Subsistence Insect-Resistant Maize in South Africa: Have Smallholders Benefited?
These findings are significant since they reinforce past studies that have found growing genetically modified
crops economically viable both to smallholder and large-scale farmers.
Smallholder farmers in South Africa and other parts of Africa should now rest assured that genetically modified
crops can revolutionize their agriculture.
Contrary to anti-biotech activists, GM crops are not a preserve of the well-endowed commercial farmers. Like commercial farmers, poor resourced farmers stand to
gain immensely from GM crops. Asserting to the contrary negates the very spirit of modern agricultural biotechnology, which is to emancipate poor resourced farmers
from poverty.
For a long time, the anti-biotech activists have vainly sought to associate GM crops with the elite. You’ll often hear them say that GM crops are a ploy by the U.S. and other industrialized
countries to dominate the world’s agriculture.
In South Africa where GM maize and cotton have brought fortunes to many farmers, anti-biotech activists have been busy peddling
lies that GM crops don’t make economic sense to poor smallholder farmers. Theirs has been empty rhetoric devoid of any substance.
With the publication of a study affirming the superiority of genetically modified crops over conventional
varieties, smallholder farmers in South Africa have nothing to worry about. They should seize this opportunity and grow more GM
crops. Doing so will guarantee them a steady flow of income.
----Biotech works for small farmers

Wachai 06 [James Wachai “Agricultural Biotechnology is Beneficial to Smallholder Farmers,” Sunday, August 20, 2006, pg.
http://www.gmoafrica.org/2006_08_01_archive.html]edlee
Anti-biotech activists are fond of casting genetically modified (GM) crops as a domain for stinking-rich farmers. They have vainly tried to ingrain in the
minds of many that smallholder farmers have nothing to gain from GM crops cultivation.
But a research published last month by Marnus Gouse and Johann Kirsten, both of the University of Pretoria, South Africa, Carl Pray (Rutgers University, U.S.A.), and David
Schimmelpfennig (United States Department of Agriculture Research Service), showed that smallholder farmers in South Africa have benefited
from genetically modified maize cultivation, just like their large-scale counterparts.
Last week, Mexican researchers published yet another study that will further reinforce the argument that
agricultural biotechnology is geared towards poor-resource farmers.
42
Ext To: Contention 3 – GM crops viable for small farmer 1/2

----1st Generation GM Crops are highly adaptable. 2nd generation crops are being designed for resource
poor farmers
Prakash and Conko 04 – Professor of plant biotechnology at Tuskegee University and Director of Food Safety
Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute [C. S. Prakash (President of the AgBioWorld Foundation) and Gregory (Vice president of the AgBioWorld
Foundation, “Can GMOs Play a Role in Developing Countries?,” National Research Council of Canada's Plant Biotechnology Institute, December 06, 2004, pg.
http://www.africabiotech.com/news2/article.php?uid=120]edlee
while the first generation of bioengineered crops was not designed with poor tropical farmers in
And, as we have seen,
mind, these varieties are highly adaptable. Examples of the varieties that now are being designed specifically for
resource-poor farmers include virus-resistant cassava, insectresistant rice, sweet potato, and pigeon pea, and
dozens of others. Chinese scientists, leaders in the development of both bioengineered and conventional rice have been urging their government to approve commercialization of
their biotech varieties that have been thoroughly tested and ready for market for several years.
43
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech prevents crop failure

----Biotech prevents large-scale crop failures
, there is a risk of large-scale crop failure (which is distinguishable from a loss in biodiversity) if a single cultivated crop
On the other hand
variety comes under attack by pests or disease and is not able to resist. This would pose a serious and immediate
economic challenge to the farmers in the region affected, but that is different from the threat of losing "biodiversity," per se. Obviously, it would be to
everyone's benefit to insure that a wide variety of crops is under cultivation in a particular region at any given
time in order to minimize the risk of having a single crop failure result in an economic disaster. Agricultural
biotechnology is being used to address and solve the problems faced by farmers, such as crop failure caused by pest and disease.
If one particular crop comes under attack, agricultural biotechnology is intended to provide responses and options. Biotechnology as applied to crop science, in and of itself, is an aid to
preserving biodiversity, not diminishing it.
44
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech increases crop yields 1/

----Bt increases yields and income. South African study proves
AfricaBio Mar 13, 07 [AfricaBio is a non-political, non-profit biotechnology association for the safe, ethical and responsible research, development and application of
biotechnology and its products. The Association also serves as a forum for informed dialogue on biotechnological issues in Africa. “The role of agricultural biotechnology in hunger and
poverty alleviation for developing countries,” pg. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/march/18674.htm]edlee
Makinde referred to a study carried out in South Africa in 2002 in which Bt maize and Bt cotton were compared to non-Bt crop
varieties and the Bt varieties, in both cases, were found to produce a higher yield and generate more profits. Two farmers using the technology in South Africa
further substantiated these findings, Mr. Motlatsi Musi, a small-scale farmer in Olifantsvlei, South Africa said “I plant Bt maize because it has increased my yield
and my income. I earn R3000.00 [$430.00] more from a Bt crop than from a non-Bt crop”. Ms. Thandiwe Myeni, a small-scale farmer from Makhatini Flats, South Africa has been planting Bt cotton since
1999 and said “I get more than double yield per hectare from my Bt cotton than from my non-Bt cotton and I am also saving on pesticides by spraying only twice before harvest for Bt cotton, but weekly on my non-Bt
cotton”.
----10 year study proves. GM has economic and environmental benefits

The Philippine STAR Feb. 18, 07 [“Study shows positive impact of biotech crops,” pg. http://www.gmoafrica.org/2007_02_01_archive.html]edlee
After just 10 years of commercialization, biotech crops have made significant, positive impacts on the global
environment, according to a new study by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, two UK-based economists.
The study quantifies the cumulative economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops grown during the
past decade (1996-2005).
Brookes and Barfoot said biotech crops have contributed to significant environmental benefits from the
reduction in overall usage of pesticides. They also noted a significant reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions from biotech crop production.
----Access to biotech key. Survey of experts prove

Mindful of these potential benefits,researchers in national and international agricultural research organizations are
experimenting with biotechnology and working to produce genetically modified plants that could be useful to
developing country farmers.22 In an informal survey of experts familiar with this field, conducted for this study by the authors, 79% of respondents
(37 of 47) rated as “very high” or “high” (60% and 19% of respondents, respectively) the importance of access to the tools of
biotechnology by researchers working on developing country agricultural problems. 23 Biotechnology companies also promote the
potential of biotechnology to improve developing country agriculture and food security .24 pg. 20
----Biotech allows African farmers to increase productivity without reliance on external inputs
Within this context, we recognize that improving the productivity of farmers is not by itself the solution to food security. Improved productivity is, however, an
important part of the picture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. African farmers often face difficult growing conditions, and better access to the basic Green Revolution
tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, and irrigation certainly can play an important role in improving their productivity. With the environmental lessons of the Green Revolution in
mind, many agricultural experts also believe that the tools of modern biotechnology (including the use of recombinant DNA technology to produce
genetically modified plants)can play a role in solving developing country agronomic problems and increasing
productivity.21 By building into the seed itself traits for drought and disease resistance, insect and other pest control, and
improved yield under specific local growing conditions, biotechnology may enable farmers to increase their productivity without as
much reliance on the external inputs that characterized the Green Revolution. Pg. 20
45
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech increases crop yields 2/
----Biotech allows the rapid development of drought resistant crops
Kupchella 01 – JD @ College of William & Mary School of Law [Mary Lynne Kupchella, B.A. in Biology @ Franklin & Marshall College,
“Agricultural Biotechnology: Why It Can Save the Environment and Developing Nations, But May Never Get a Chance,” William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Spring
2001, 25 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 721]edlee
Aside from greater environmental benefits, agricultural biotechnology provides much hope for many problems faced by developing or third-world nations. In developing
countries, an increase in the quality and volume of agricultural production is greatly needed. 31 The potential of
biotechnology in allowing the rapid development of new crop [*726] varieties and hybrids that are resistant to
stresses such as soil salinity and drought could be an important step towards meeting the needs of subsistence
farmers. 32 Such farmers are largely unable to afford the costly inputs on which past advances in agriculture have been based, so their crops have until quite recently been neglected by
research. 33 Africa particularly needs agricultural biotechnology to improve food production as well as its agricultural problems. 34
Biotechnology will also be able to solve nutritional deficiencies in developing nations. 35 Approximately 400 million women suffer from iron deficiency in
third-world nations where the staple diet is rice. 36 A new variety of rice containing iron and vitamin A will be able to decrease this number. 37 However, the availability of biotechnology to
third-world nations, while highly desirable and necessary, is subject to intellectual property and production concerns, which will be addressed in Part III. 38
----Recombinant DNA-modified crops are already creating massive crop yields. They are grown on 165
million acres in 18 countries
Indeed,recombinant DNA-modified crops have already increased crop yields and food production, and reduced the
use of synthetic chemical pesticides in both industrialized and less developed countries. These advances are
critical in a world where natural resources are finite and where hundreds of millions of people suffer from
hunger and malnutrition. Critics dismiss such claims as nothing more than corporate public relations puffery. However, while it is true that most commercially available
bioengineered plants were designed for farmers in the industrialized world, the increasing adoption of biotech varieties by underdeveloped
countries over the past few years demonstrates their broader applicability.
Globally, bioengineered varieties are now grown on more than 165 million acres (67.7 million hectares) in 18 countries,
such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, and the United States, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Nearly one-quarter of that acreage is farmed by some 6 million resource-poor farmers in less
Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
developed countries. Why? Because they see many of the same benefits that farmers in industrialized nations do.
----The fact that farmers will commit crimes to get GM crops proves that they improve crop yield
There are few greater testaments to the benefits of biotechnology than the fact that thousands of poor farmers
are willing to acknowledge having committed a crime just to gain access to the improved varieties. The clear
lesson is that, where bioengineered varieties become available (legal or not), most farmers themselves are eager
to try them.
46
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech solve – Adoption rates prove

----GM crops work. Adoption rates prove
According to James, the past ten years have

provided clear evidence that biotech crops can
deliver benefits to the poor. "This technology has
been used by millions of farmers on a total of
four million square kilometres. Every year more
farmers are adopting it. Why? Because they see it
in their neighbours' field, they compare it with
their conventional varieties and decide they'd be
better off with biotech. If Friends of the Earth are
correct and this technology has nothing to offer,
then these millions of farmers must be wrong." Pg. 39
47
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech advances snowball

----African scientific advancements will snowball. They will quickly build on small steps of innovation
Science is a cumulative endeavor, with a snowball effect. Innovations

These trends may actually understate the scientific knowledge gap.
beget new ideas and further rounds of innovation or additions to the cumulative stock of knowledge. The
sequential and cumulative nature of scientific progress and knowledge is starkly illustrated by crop-
improvement. It generally takes seven to ten years of breeding [*219] to develop a uniform, stable, and superior variety. 32 But breeders of today build on a
base of knowledge built up by breeders of yesteryear. 33 The cumulative nature of this process means that past
discoveries and related research are an integral part of contemporary agricultural innovations. Conversely, the loss of a
variety, or the details of the breeding histories that brought it about, means the loss of accumulated past research to the present stock of knowledge. "Providing adequate funding for research is
. Putting in place the policies and practices to accumulate innovations and increase and
thus only part of the science story
preserve the stock of knowledge is an equally important and almost universally unappreciated foundation." 34
Estimates of the stocks of scientific knowledge arising from public and private research conducted in the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa have been developed by Philip G. Pardey and
Nienke Beintema. 35 In their report, Slow Magic, Pardey and Beintema compared historical research spending with the agricultural GDP for 1995. 36 They examined historical research
spending starting from 1850 for the United States and 1900 for Africa and allowed for a gradual diminution of the effect of distant past research and development spending on money measures
of the current stock of knowledge. 37 They found that the accumulated stock of knowledge in the United States was about eleven times more than the amount of [*220] agricultural output
produced in that year. 38 In other words, for every $ 100 of agricultural output there existed a $ 1,100 stock of knowledge to draw upon. 39 In Africa, the stock of knowledge in 1995 was
The ratio of the U.S. knowledge stock relative to U.S. agricultural output in
actually less than the value of African agricultural output. 40
1995 was nearly twelve times higher than the corresponding amount for Africa. 41 Stocks of knowledge measures provide a better basis for
evaluating the developed versus developing country's capacity for actually carrying out crop biotechnologies. In fact, the overall differences may understate the effective gaps for this advanced
These gaps also underscore the immensity, if not the outright impossibility, of playing "catch-up," in addition to the
area of agricultural research and development.
need to transfer knowledge across borders and continents.
48
Ext To: Contention 3 – US is KEY

----The vast majority of plant biotech innovation happens in the US
& Tec 321]edlee
U.S.-based companies and researchers generate much of the

The U.S. government's stances on biotechnology and patents invite such an inquiry.
world's innovation in plant biotechnology. The U.S. government is a strong advocate of developing biotechnology for the needs of not only U.S. farmers, but also
farmers in developing countries. 10 The U.S. patent system has enthusiastically embraced plant biotechnology by issuing
thousands of patents, and the United States generally champions strong patent protection worldwide, favoring
international adherence to the stringent U.S. model. It is thus important to explore how U.S. patent policy might be changed to harmonize U.S. positions on
patents, biotechnology, and the need for progress in developing-country agriculture, thereby enhancing both food security [*325] of developing countries and broad U.S. foreign policy
interests. It is particularly important and timely to address these questions as the "development round" of trade negotiations launched by the World Trade Organization ("WTO") at Doha
unfolds with heavy emphasis on agriculture, and as the international debate heats up about the role of intellectual property in development. 11
49
Add-on: Economy 1/
----GM Foods will jumpstart Africa’s economy and prevent future food crises
Ogodo 06 [Ochieng’ Ogodo, “US Biotech Companies Urge Africa to Catch Up,” Islam Online, June 13, 2006, pg. http://www.africabiotech.com/news2/article.php?uid=149]edlee
A Solution to Africa's Food Insecurity?
African food insecurity and trade imbalance in the global arena could worsen due to the reluctance of
It is argued that
African countries to take up modern agricultural sciences.
The international trade in agricultural products and processed foods continues to increase and African nations
must strive to be effective partners in this global network.
African nations considering biotechnology as an integral part of their agricultural economy and food supply, it is
argued, will contribute significantly to the development of agricultural biotechnology and thus food security. Africa could become
a key player in the global food economy.
Plant biotechnology is still in its infancy. The development of commercial biotechnology products has been achieved without particularly addressing farming problems in developing countries.
research is ongoing in the US and elsewhere, particularly in universities, public institutions and international plant breeding centers, that is focusing
However,
on staple crops that are typical in many developing countries. These include rice, cassava, sweet potatoes, cowpea banana and maize among many
others.
Researches are focusing on traits that would solve key farming problems such as disease resistance, drought tolerance, and pest resistance. Their goal is to
enable small resource farmers to produce enough food to eat in addition to surplus which is commercially
attractive to sell.
But for African farming to truly go commercial, Stautz argued, there are other fundamental factors that must be addressed. These include pricing policies and government controls imposed on
agriculture, access to reliable water supplies, taxation, road and rail infrastructure and even direct factors like access to health care.
The business of agriculture has become bigger and more specialized since the mid 1950s and is now one of the world's largest industries, employing 1.3 billion people and producing US$ 1.3
trillion worth of goods each year.
Farming is the most important economic activity in Africa, occupying 60 to 80 percent of the population and
contributing 30 to 50 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in African countries. Eighty percent of farming is in the hands of small-scale
farmers, most of whom farm on small, low-yielding overexploited farmlands. Farming thus remains an unattractive occupation and those involved are members of the lowest rungs in the
poverty index.
----GM crops will stabilize economies. Drought will collapse agriculture-based economies
Finally,developing countries can use biotechnology to boost their economic growth and alleviate poverty. GM
crops offer an opportunity to improve agricultural programs in developing countries, which can lead to increased
employment opportunities, greater self-sufficiency, and heightened economic stability. 20 These possibilities are particularly
important, considering that most developing countries have a sizable agriculture sector and some have agriculture-based economies. In Ethiopia,
for example, agriculture "accounts for half of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 90% of exports, and 80% of total employment." 21 In India, agriculture accounts for 25% of the GDP and
Since these countries continue to lose arable land and suffer from periods of drought, 23
60% of total [*45] employment. 22
GM crops that are immune to these conditions could help stabilize and improve these countries' economies.
With poverty being the leading cause of malnutrition, improved economies in developing countries could also
help solve their hunger problems.
50
Add-on: Economy 2/
----The use of GM crops raises the standard of living for subsistence farmers. The 2nd wave of crops will
be developed to meet the unique needs of these farmers
But how can this be? According to environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace, GMOs and the developing world don't mix. They're simply the means by which large multinationals such as
Monsanto plan to take over the world's agriculture and squeeze every last penny out of its poorest farmers. Not only is GM technology dangerous, they say, it doesn't work.
Ten years after the commercialisation of the first biotech crops, more than
In fact, all of the available evidence suggests that the opposite is true.
six per cent of the world's agricultural land is devoted to GM varieties. Not only have the plants themselves
flourished, with none of predicted health and environmental problems, but millions of people are enjoying the
benefits, the vast majority of them resource-poor small-holders in developing countries who live on less than
US$1 a day. The fact is that, contrary to what we in Europe have been led to believe, GM crops can work. And not only can they work safely and effectively,
they can also give poor farmers such as Manukuza an opportunity to raise their standard of living.
Indeed, with experts predicting the arrival of a second wave of GM crops developed specifically to meet the needs of the
world's poorest farmers, the next ten years might well prove that it's in the developing world that GMOs will be
most appreciated. Pg 36-37
51
Add-on: Biotech saves Biodiversity (2AC)

GM crops key wildlife habitat preservation
The productivity gains generated by bioengineered crops provide yet another important benefit: they could save millions of acres
of sensitive wildlife habitat from being converted into farmland. The loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitats
caused by agricultural encroachment in regions experiencing the greatest population growth are widely recognized as among the most
serious threats to biodiversity. Thus, increasing agricultural productivity is an essential environmental goal, and one
that would be much easier in a world where bioengineering technology is in widespread use.
Wildlife preservation key to human survival

World Proust Assembly 05 [“Biodiversity,” Last Updated March 30, 2005 01:30 PM, pg. http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/03/biodiversity.html]edlee
Biodiversity, or biological diversity, refers to the sum total of all organisms in an area, taking into account the diversity of species, their genes, their populations, and their communities.
Biodiversity is crucial to human survival, because when we lose particular species, it affects the entire ecosystem. Certain
species of plants may contain cures for cancer, diabetes and other diseases, and biologists may not yet have discovered those plant
properties. Aside from this, World Prout Assembly believes in the inherent existential value of all life forms. Hence it is our duty to protect biological diversity
in all parts of the earth, and to support other like-minded organizations who are engaged in this important task.
52
Add-on: Biotech saves Biodiversity 1/2

----Biotech preserves biodiversity… AND our TURN is unique
It should also be pointed out that the CBD is not only about access to genetic resources but that it was also negotiated with the express objective of conserving the world's biological diversity.
the loss of biodiversity 165 which has been underway for many years due
164 There is concern that genetically-engineered crops may accelerate
to the modern practice of farmers who use just one variety of seed instead of many different varieties. 166 In other
words, large scale production of a single, uniform crop variety, like the current trend in the United States, bears an
inherent risk. 167 When crops are genetically similar, they tend to react the same to environmental stresses, thus increasing the risk of massive crop failure. 168 Many fear that this
loss of biodiversity will increase the chances of a widespread crop failure, leading to famine and general social dislocation. 169 Again, some of this would seem to be valid criticism initially,
but upon further analysis there is a case to be made that agricultural biotechnology actually promotes biodiversity.
A key element of agricultural biotechnology is the concept of isolating particular genetic traits. Characteristics that are favorable to agriculture, such as drought or pest resistance, are isolated on a genetic level. Once isolated,
The germplasm that is used as the starting material for this gene
the genes can be transferred to other crops, and thereby transfer the favorable characteristic.
research is obviously vital, and there has been a long-standing practice of preserving samples of germplasm to insure
that there will always be raw materials available for further research. Biotechnology researchers, therefore, have a
powerful incentive to preserve as many germplasm samples as possible, from as many different varieties as possible. There is an argument,
therefore, that agricultural biotechnology operates to preserve biodiversity, not diminish it.
----Biotech saves biodiversity

Agricultural biotechnology 1 has the potential to solve

Commercial biotechnology is perhaps one of the most important developments of the last century.
many of the most daunting environmental problems facing the world, such as a decrease in biodiversity and
shortages of food. 2 With proper regulation, biotechnology can save biodiversity and solve numerous other environmental concerns. One expert has noted,
The tools of biotechnology are going to be essential if crop-yield ceilings are to be raised , the environment preserved through reduction of
pesticide use, the nutrient value of basic foods increased and farmers on less-favored lands provided with varieties better able to tolerate drought, salinity and lack of soil nutrients. 3
----Higher yields allows for habitat preservation

By the year 2050, the world will need almost three times
Higher-yielding crops are yet another way in which biotechnology will aid agricultural output.
the amount of grain per year as it uses today. 48 Crop yields have ceased to grow as rapidly as needed to keep
pace with population increases. 49 Additionally, the percentage of the population working in agriculture has steadily declined. 50 If higher-yielding
crops are not used, wild lands will have to be used for agriculture. 51 On the other hand, if the same product can be
produced with less cultivated land, then more land can be returned to a natural habitat. 52 Genetically modified crops will also
[*728] result in land that needs less tilling, benefiting the environment through decreased erosion and soil infertility. 53
53
Add-on: Biotech saves Biodiversity 2/2

----Biotech decreases the amount of agriculture that needs planting. Risks are not significant
Crops that exhibit disease

The economic benefits of "more efficient, higher yielding, higher quality, disease- and stress-resistant crops and livestock are evident." 39
resistance have an enormous potential as the annual worldwide loss from plant disease is estimated at ninety
billion dollars. 40 The most obvious environmental benefit of resistant plants would be a reduction in
fungicides. 41 By reducing the amount of crops lost each year to disease, fewer acres may need to be planted,
thus [*727] providing the benefits associated with a reduction in agriculture. 42 The possibility exists that disease resistant plants may
pose environmental risks; however, such risks are only potential and even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regard them as
significant. 43
----Food Insecurity triggers African deforestation. An increasing numbers of farmers are forced to “slash
and burn”
B. Want This: A Sustainable Environment
In 1994, the United Nations Development Program, an organization dedicated to sustainable development in the developing world, identified seven main categories of threats to human security: economic, health,
food security is fundamental to each of the other listed threats because a population that
environmental, personal, community, political, and food security. 71 Certainly,
cannot feed itself will not be able to thrive, will be increasingly unhealthy, and will destroy the environment of the
land it depends upon in its desperate pursuit of food.
[*288] The lack of food security in sub-Saharan Africa makes it one of the least stable regions of the world. 72 Such
instability has a negative effect on global security, especially in the poorer countries of the world, which suffer from major violent conflicts. 73 One cause of
this instability can be seen in the connection of food insecurity with the degrading sub-Saharan environment. 74 In
the search for sustainable agriculture, the pressures of a growing population have resulted in a reduction of cropland. 75 In Africa, forests are cut down to make grazing
pastures, then grazing pastures erode away and become deserts or areas of land incapable of producing any
sustainable harvest because the soil has no more nutrients. 76 One commentator, writing about sub-Saharan Africa, noted: "the relationship that
exists between human security and environmental degradation is best illustrated in the agricultural sector." 77
Many of the farmers in this region still use the "slash-and-burn" method of subsistence farming. 78 The forests of sub-
Saharan Africa are cut down for agriculture because, as will be further discussed below, the African soil quickly loses its ability
to sustain plant life so more and more land is needed to grow the same amount of food. 79
54
Add-on: Biotech prevents Soil Erosion (2AC)

GM crops reduce soil erosion
We have already realized significant environmental benefits from the biotech crops currently being grown,
including a reduction in pesticide use of 20 million kg in the U.S. alone. A 2002 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology report also
found that recombinant DNA-modified crops in the US promote the adoption of conservation tillage practices,
resulting in many other important environmental benefits: 37 million tons of topsoil preserved; 85 percent reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from farm machinery; 70 percent reduction in herbicide run-off; 90 percent decrease in soil erosion; and from
15 to 26 liters of fuel saved per acre.
Soil erosion risks extinction

Robbins 97 [John, author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated Diet for a New America, “The Ground Beneath Our Feet,” accessed on 12/24/04. pg.
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/invest/robbins1.html]edlee
It is becoming increasingly apparent that our world is in deep peril. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t learn of some new misfortune to the
ecosystem: The accelerating greenhouse effect, the erosion of topsoil, the decimation of forests and habitats, the widening hole in the ozone layer, the pollution of air, water, and soil, the tidal
It is becoming increasingly inescapable that the very biological fabric on which all
wave of extinction sweeping over the globe.
human and other forms of life depend is coming unravelled. And the reason? Livestock today consume 80% of the corn, 95% of the oats, and almost
all of the soybeans grown in the United States. They consume enough grain and soybeans to feed more than five times the entire human population of the country. If people ate the grains
directly, instead of cycling them through livestock, the benefits to the ecosystem would be staggering. So much more efficient is a more vegetarian diet that less than one half the current
agricultural acreage would be needed. The rest could revert to the wild, producing enormous savings in water and energy. We would not have to cut down forests and destroy habitats to create
land on which to grow feed for livestock. We wouldn’t have to force our acreage to produce and squeeze every last possible yield from it. We could dispense with synthetic fertilizers and toxic
pesticides, and still have vast surpluses of food. Our world would be a far greener one, with far less pollution, cleaner air and cleaner water, and a more stable climate. In fact, it is hard to
conceive how much we have environmentally to gain by switching to a more vegetarian diet. There is not a single aspect of the ecological crisis that would not be immediately and profoundly
Archaeologists tell us that soil erosion has played a determining
improved by such a transformation. From dust we came and to dust we return.
role in the decline and demise of many great civilizations, including those of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and the Mayans. Wherever soil
erosion has destroyed the fertility base on which civilizations have been built, these civilizations have perished. Two hundred years ago, most of
America’s croplands had at least 21 inches of topsoil. Today, most of it is down to around six inches, and the rate of topsoil loss is accelerating. We have already lost 75 percent of what may
well be our most precious natural resource .The U.S. Soil Conservation Service reports that more than four million acres of
cropland are being lost to erosion in this country every year. That’s an area the size of Connecticut. Of this staggering loss, 85 percent is directly
associated with livestock raising. Without a diet-style change, we are well on our way to losing what many scientists feel has always been
the basis of our strength as a nation.
55
Add-on: Pesticide poisoning

----Herbicide-resistant crops decreases the use of toxic herbicides
The production of crops which exhibit herbicide resistance is one of the more "controversial applications of biotechnology to agriculture." 19 Herbicide- resistant crops are most attractive to
industry, however, as herbicide expenditures have risen steadily over the past fifteen years. 20 Plants exhibit various levels of tolerance to herbicides and some can be damaged or even killed
The use of herbicide- resistant crops will likely cause a reduction in the quantities of herbicides
by very low doses. 21
used. 22 Herbicides may be applicable in stronger doses and multiple herbicide treatments may be replaced by
the use of a single herbicide, resulting in a reduction in the number of applications and quantity used. 23 Additionally,
herbicide-resistant crops may be able to promote integrated management of weeds by causing a shift to a total
post-emergence approach to weed control. 24 Proponents of resistant crops also believe that [*725] they will allow older, more
toxic and generally more harmful herbicides to be replaced with ones which are more environmentally
favorable. 25
---- Insect-resistant crops decreases insecticide use
insect-resistant crops will have similar advantages. Transgenic plants that produce insect toxins are environment-ally friendly
The production of
because they will not have to be sprayed with insecticides. 44 The problems caused by insecticides are well
known and include toxicity to humans and animals. 45 Crops are also currently being developed which can be grown in poor soil conditions and which
will require less water. 46 "Stress-tolerant plants" are also being developed which have the capability to extend "agricultural possibilities to marginal lands," providing a "powerful benefit to
poor farmers." 47
----GM crops reduce pesticide poisoning

There is even evidence that biotech varieties have literally saved human lives. In less developed nations,
pesticides are typically sprayed on crops by hand, exposing farm workers to severe health risks. Some 400 to 500 Chinese
cotton farmers die every year from acute pesticide poisoning because, until recently, the only alternative was risking near total crop loss due
to voracious insects. A study conducted by researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Rutgers
University in the U.S. found that adoption of bioengineered cotton varieties in China has lowered the amount of pesticides used by more
than 75 percent and reduced the number of pesticide poisonings by an equivalent amount. Another study by economists at the University of Reading in the U.K. found that
South African cotton farmers have seen similar benefits.
----GM crops decrease insecticide use

"If you're a small-

And the benefits aren't just financial, explains Jocelyn Webster, executive director of AfricaBio, a South African biotechnology stakeholders organisation.
scale farmer with tour hectares of cotton and you have to spray that cotton with insecticide, you have to do between eight and ten
sprays a season with a knapsack sprayer on your back. That would mean you'd walk 400 kilometres in one season. In this respect, Bt cotton takes away a huge amount of effort and
time."
Studies in China have documented benefits to farmers' health and the wider environment as a result of
substantial reductions in insecticide use. And it's thought that lower levels of mycotoxins - which cause cancers,
birth defects, and, at high levels, acute toxicity in humans - in Bt maize could benefit consumers in those countries where the crop is
a staple. Pg. 38-39
56
Add-on: Aquifer Depletion

----GM crops prevent aquifer depletion
Comrade Tortoise Jan 24, 07 [“Why Organic Farming is Not Sustainable and GMOs Rock Agricultural Socks.,” 01/24/07, pg. http://libriumarcana.com/blogs/index.php?
blog=12&title=why_organic_farming_is_not_sustainable_a&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1]edlee
Genetically modified crops can be engineered to use less water than normal crops as well. Drought resistant plants are useful anywhere, even where
water is plentiful. This is because most agriculture gains its water from subterranean aquifers. These aquifers are not being
replenished as fast as water is being taken from them. They WILL dry up. Already overuse is starting to cause sink
holes in some areas where the water pressure is no longer sufficient to hold up the ground. Drought resistant crops use less water. The benefit of this
should be obvious. They can also be engineered to use less space per metric ton of food produced. Less habitat
destruction per unit of production is an obvious benefit of this. They can also be modified to produce more and better nutrients. Two words. Golden
Rice. All of this in addition to making their own natural pesticides with a narrow target range. Genetic Modification, not organic farming, is the sustainable solution to balancing the needs of
people and the long-term future of our environment, and the resistance we have seen to it from Europe and environmentalists is absurd. So the next time you guys are at the grocery store, avoid
organic crops like the plague. Look for genetically modified foods and remember, if it is not labeled organic, chances are unless it is produce, it has a genetically modified component.
Biotech crop cultivation is now in its 11th year — and eighth in South Africa — despite having being attacked
for posing health and environmental threat by anti-genetically modified crops groups.
57
Add-on: Terrorism
----Food insecurity in sub-Sahara increases the risks of terrorism
Human security is a value which can be broadly defined as both the "freedom from fear" and the "freedom from want." 51 Until recently, security was largely a concern arising out of the conflict among states, i.e. state
security, which can be summed up in the phrase "military preparedness." 52 Today, it is recognized that the achievement of freedom from want is as important a goal as the achievement of freedom from fear and countries
must arm themselves against such fear by addressing food insecurity. 53 In an editorial in the Economist, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote that today's threats to security
- terrorism, food security and poverty - are all interrelated so that no one country can tackle them alone. 54
For example, keeping our food supply secure plays a direct role in achieving freedom from fear. The State Department has been studying the possibilities of food-borne bioterrorism, introducing the national security element
to food security concerns. 55 Likewise, in December [*286] 2004, during his resignation announcement, Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, stated: "For the life of me, I
cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." 56 Yet it is a mistake to think of global security only in military terms. 57
Food security deserves its place in any long-term calculation regarding global security . Widespread chronic hunger causes widespread instability and
debilitating poverty and decreases all of our safety, for example from the increased threat from global terrorism. 58
Widespread instability is an unmistakable characteristic of life in sub-Saharan Africa. 59 Food insecurity, therefore, causes global insecurity because
widespread instability in places like sub-Saharan Africa threatens all of our safety. Food insecurity in the unstable regions of the world must
be taken on now lest we find ourselves facing some far worse danger in the days to come.
58
Add-on: Child Soldiers

----Food Insecurity is the underlying cause of the rise in child soldiers
A. Fear This: Children as Soldiers

Our concern of food insecurity is a concern for our future. The living embodiment of our future is our children, and food insecurity is one underlying cause of a great tragedy that
young people face in our world today: the rise of armies of child soldiers. 60
In his book on this disturbing topic, P.W. Singer describes the connection a swelling world population has with the degradation of the environment, the depletion of safe drinking water, and the reduction of land suitable for
a "third of all children in Africa suffer from severe hunger. By 2010, this figure may rise to as
agriculture. 61 Mr. Singer notes that
many as half of all African children." 62 Africa is rife with zones of human conflict. 63 Indeed, it is ironic that on a continent with [*287] countries
"fabulously rich in natural resources, including agriculture," there are so many hungry people. 64 The worst areas of violence in Africa currently witness armed
groups totaling over an estimated 100,000 child soldiers; these are soldiers who are often as young as twelve years old. 65
sixty percent of the child soldiers

Many of these children are forced into service, but that is not always the case. 66 Singer states that, in Africa, up to
"volunteer" to join, largely due to the economic forces of hunger and poverty. 67 For many of these children, becoming a
soldier may be "the only way to guarantee regular meals, clothing, or medical attention." 68 Placing this horrifying scenario into a
global perspective, Singer notes a similar ratio of children soldiers enlist in the conflicts in East Asia. 69 The causes of this new element of global conflict are as complex as the causes of food
security, and, sadly, in many ways the same. 70 Again and again, there is a link between the pain of poverty and the horror of chronic hunger, and a growing world population that exists in
between the two.
59
Add-on: Scientific Isolation

----African acceptance of GM crops is key to prevent scientific isolation
Ghana News Website Jan 25, 07 [“Africans urged to embrace biotechnology,” January 26th, 2007, pg. http://ghana.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/africans-urged-to-embrace-
biotechnology/]edlee
Coordinator of the West and Central Africa Programme for Bio-safety

Accra, Jan. 25, GNA - Professor Walter Sandow Alhassan,
Systems (PBS), on Thursday urged African leaders to support the development of modern biotechnology including Genetically Modified (GM) Crops.
This, he said, should attract investment from Africa and should not rely solely on donor assistance.
Prof Alhassan made the appeal to journalists, when he briefed them on: “The 2006 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops” a publication by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Application (ISAAA) in Accra.
ISAAA is a non-profit organization committed to alleviating hunger and poverty by sharing crop biotechnology application with poor subsistence farmers throughout the developing world.
The Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops by the ISAAA is an annual publication that provides information and knowledge sharing service to the Global community, by compiling and sharing updates and
progress made in areas of biotechnology.
Prof Alhassan said African leaders must invest in the training of scientists and provide the needed infrastructure to enable them to make meaningful contribution to the economic development of the Continent.
He noted that the current biotechnology products that were developed or used in West Africa depended on the status of each country’s bio-safety legislation.
According to Prof Alhassan, a Former Director-General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Nigeria was the only West African country with a developed biotechnology policy and was almost at the
completion stage of its bio-safety policy.
He said Ghana’s bio-safety draft law was currently at Cabinet level “hopefully we would complete the development of the biotechnology policy this year”.
although African governments were showing some political will through

Prof Alhassan, who is also a Biotechnology Policy Adviser, said
pronouncements such as building the needed capacity in biotechnology: “It was time the rhetoric was matched with needed resources beginning from
the in-country level to develop the needed capacity for the development and safe use of the product of modern biotechnology.”
Prof Alhassan observed that the negative mindset surrounding GM crops was rather unfortunate and that there was the need for more education on the benefits
of using biotechnology in food production.
Mrs Elizabeth Parkes of the CSIR Crop Research Institute (CRI) explained that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) were products whose genetic make up
had been modified by moving a gene from one organism artificially into another.
She said the process allowed the movement of genes across the species barrier into species that were not related, citing an example of taking a gene from an animal to a plant or between unrelated plants.
She said GMOs had the potential to improve upon food and medicine for the advancement of man.
“We need biotech because we need to match our food production needs with the increase in population,” she said.
Dr Ahmed Yakubu Alhassan, MP for Mion, said it was important that nations that needed to be part of the global scientific village to
introduce and adapt biotechnology in their indigenous sciences.

“Indeed Biotechnology is to science as modern Information Communication Technology (ICT) is to global communication systems,” he said.
60
Add-on: Patents allow corporate control

----Patent allows agribusiness to control farmers and their food supply
Hickey & Mittal 03 – Program Coordinator @ Pesticide Action Network North America & Co-director of the
Institute for Food and Development Policy [Ellen Hickey and Anuradha Mittal, Voices from the South: The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on
Genetically Engineered Crops, A joint project of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and Pesticide Action Network North America, May 2003]edlee
Although many people find it hard to believe that companies can actually patent plants and plant DNA, the biotechnology industry has used patents to gain monopolies on living things and to usurp traditional knowledge from
indgenous people.
Since almost all genetic engineering of food crops is oriented toward profit, patents are a crucial part of insuring a high return and are absolutely necessary, the corporations say, if we are to have future improvements in plant
breeding.
through patents, genetically engineered crops extend agribusiness’ control over seeds, and therefore its
However,
control over farmers and our food supply. Farmers throughout the world save seeds, freely replanting, trading
and sharing them, as well as breeding them to create strains that are well suited to local conditions. Building on the
commercialization of modern hybrids, which produce un suit able seeds and thus require farmers to purchase new seed every year, patented GE crops entail far-reaching
restrictions on farmers’ use of seeds.
Genetically engineered seeds are licensed to farmers, not owned, generally for one season. The farmer can eat or sell the harvest, but
cannot use the seeds produced by the crop. In fact, Monsanto has brought legal action against hundreds of
farmers in the U.S. and Canada to assert its control over how seeds are used. Pg. 39
----Patents allow corporations to control the food supply

Ribeiro 03 - Researcher and program manager with ETC Group (The ETC Group is the action group on
erosion, technology and concentration.) [Silvia Ribeiro, “Patents, Genetic Engineering and Bioserfdom,” Voices from the South: The Third World Debunks
Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops, A joint project of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and Pesticide Action Network North America, May 2003]edlee
Corporations seek to increase control over markets by increasing the scope of patentable things. It is worthwhile
to look at this more closely since corporate concentration, genetic engineering and patents mutually reaffirm
and strengthen each other.
Patents are powerful instruments for market control. The corporation that has a patent has the “advantage” in
that it can retain a monopoly on a product, prevent similar products from coming to market or even stop
companies from doing research on similar products. In fact, approximately two thirds of patented products are
never produced.1 Thus it can be argued that the real purpose of patents is to guarantee marketplace monopolies
rather than to “protect inventions.” Pg. 40
61
Ans To: US patent law does NOT apply to Africa

----The desire to access export market deters African researchers from violating US patents
The direct legal impact of U.S. patents can also reach researchers working in developing countries if they are
working on applications of biotechnology to crops that are intended to be exported to the United States, even on
a limited basis. The importation into the United States of a crop produced with a U.S.-patented technology
would constitute an infringement of the patent, unless the use is licensed. Because researchers and research
institutions in developing countries frequently lack the skills and resources required to manage their way
through the patent thicket,163 the possibility that a crop will be exported to the United States—where
applicable patents may exist—is a legal obstacle and a disincentive for developing country researchers to use
U.S.-patented technologies. Pg. 48
62
Ans To: African Countries will not accept

----The desire to compete as an agricultural exporter will drive African countries to accept GM foods.
Many are already moving in the direction
McDonald 04 – 03 JD Candidate @ University of Georgia [Michelle K. McDonald, “International Trade Law and the U.S.-EU GMO Debate: Can
Africa Weather This Storm?,” The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring 2004, 32 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 501]edlee
. Africa's desire to strengthen its position on the

Even among the various African countries, the possibility for internal conflict appears likely
international trade market as an agricultural exporter may be irreconcilable with the desire to protect citizens
who fear the long-term repercussions of internal use of GM products. In addition, the ongoing hunger epidemic that remains unresolved by Africa's own agricultural production
is likely to worsen if immediate action, such as acceptance of GM food aid from the United States, is not taken.
several countries in Africa 214 have begun to

Even while taking a stand regarding labeling and indicating their desire for superior-quality food imports,
participate in agricultural genetic engineering and are actively researching, developing, and producing GM
foods themselves. 215 Those African countries can be divided into three distinct groups based on their level of production. They are (1) countries that use genetic engineering to
generate products ultimately placed into the open market for international trade (Egypt, South [*533] Africa, and Zimbabwe), (2) countries engaging only in biotechnology research and
development but not production (Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda), and (3) counties engaged in minimal biotechnology activities such as tissue culture (Tanzania and Uganda). 216
----We solve for public opposition. It is driven by a resistance to IPR

NGOs are opposed to biotechnology simply because they are opposed, as a general proposition, to intellectual
It appears that many
property protections. 145 The biotechnology industry, as has been set forth previously in this article, relies heavily on intellectual property protections in order to recoup the
large investments that are necessary to conduct research and development. 146 This includes not only private enterprise, but also government research agencies which make use of the patent
because
system and intellectual property law as an aid in transferring technology. Because of the prevalence of intellectual property (and the concept of private rights) in this field, and
many in the developing world and their NGO supporters believe genetic resources (such as crop seeds) are "public
goods," there is a natural tension between these two groups. This reflects a general ideological divide, pitting the creators against those who desire to
regulate and rein them in. In other words, there is a larger political issue involved. Some have even argued that the very idea of intellectual property protection is "antithetical to the concept of
liberal democracy." 147
----African leaders are dedicated to pursuing an agriculture-based growth strategy.

This report examines the complex system through which the United States provides assistance to African agriculture, whether the United States has significantly increased its assistance since
. Never before
2000, and features of how U.S. assistance is delivered that affect its impact on the ground in Africa. The purpose for providing this information is forward-looking
has the opportunity been so great to construct a foundation for sustainable economic growth in Africa.
At their July 2003 African Union Summit in Maputo, African heads of state endorsed the Comprehensive
African Agriculture Development Programme developed by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD). They also pledged to allocate 10% of their national budgetary resources to its implementation based
on their conclusion that “agriculture led development is fundamental to cutting hunger, reducing poverty …
agriculture must be the engine for overall economic growth in Africa” (NEPAD 2002, 9).
In collaboration with Africans and other donors , the United States has a critical role to play in devising and implementing an
effective public investment strategy to foster agriculture led economic growth. For U.S. agricultural development assistance programs in
Africa to make progress, however, the starting point must be well understood. In this report, we attempt to provide that understanding. Pg. vi
63
Ans To: Farmers will not use 1/2

----African farmers will use GM crops. South African Bt cotton proves
Manukuza is one of 3,500 farmers who've adopted Bt cotton in South Africa since it was first introduced in 1998. Togetlier, they
Ongoing research by agricultural economists from Reading University
represent an estimated 95 per cent of the country's smallscale cotton farmers.
has shown that, almost without exception, the new technology has been well received: average yields are up by
65 percent and profits by almost 300 per cent. "Today, I am very respected in the community as one of the men who gives job opportunities," says 55-year-old Dumezwenl
Mhawu Ntuli, also from Makhathini Flats. "To myself, I'm very happy to know that I can provide for my family's needs." Pg. 36
----Their opposition argument is a smokescreen. Farmers use GM crops when they are available
However, it appears that, behind the smokescreen of anti-GM propaganda, many governments and farmers are
enthusiastically adopting the technology. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit
organisation that delivers the benefits of new agricultural biotechnologies to developing countries, the uptake of biotech crops has increased dramatically
since 1996. Today, 8.5 million farmers grow transgenic crops in 21 countries, covering an area of 900,000 square kilometres - six per
cent of the world's agricultural land. "We've seen a 50-fold increase in the area devoted to biotech crops during the past ten
years," says Clive James, the ISAAA's director "This technology is moving faster than any other crop technology that we know of." Pg. 37-38
----Farmers are progressively adopting GM crops
CHOWDHARY Mar. 12, 07 [SUDHIR CHOWDHARY, “Seeking better biotech ‘yields’,” Posted online: Monday, March 12, 2007 at 0152 hours IST, pg.
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=157490]edlee
All in all, farmers around the world continue rapid adoption of biotech crops. Biotech crop area is now 102
million hectares. The number of farmers planting biotech crops too has gone up to 10.3 million. Agriculturalists
expect these adoption levels to continue accelerating in the times to come. By 2015, more than 20 million
farmers are expected to plant 200 million hectares of biotech crops in about 40 countries.
----GM works. High farmer satisfaction proves
Scientists aver that the importance and potential of transgenic crops is hard to ignore . Importantly, India – a country with first-hand experience of the life-
saving benefits of the Green Revolution in wheat and rice – exported rice and imported wheat last year. Yields in both wheat and rice are now plateauing and the conventional technology currently used in wheat and rice and
other crops will need to be supplemented to feed a growing population that will increase by 50% to 1.5 billion by 2050. Hence, the aggressive focus in research on new biotech crops.
“Higher adoption rates reflect farmer satisfaction with the

KC Bansal, principal scientist, National Research Centre on Plant Biotechology (NRCPB) says,
products that offer substantial benefits ranging from better crop management, lower cost of production, higher
productivity and net returns per hectare.”
64
Ans To: Farmers will not use 2/2

----90% of biotech farmers are resource-poor
These statistics appear to support the claim that biotechnology doesn't help the poor. But since 2000, the uptake of hiotech crops in developing countries
has outpaced that in the industrialised world, and last year, the former accounted for 38 per cent of the total area. Aside from Argentina and Brazil, in Latin
America, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay all planted around 100,000 hectares last year. In Asia, China planted .•i3,()00 square kilometres of GM cotton last year and
.
India 13,(XX), while the Philippines grew 100,000 hectares of GM maize. Iran planted 4,000 hectares of Bt rice with a view to full commercialisation this year
More importantly, of the 8.5 million people currently using this technology, 90 per cent are resource-poor
farmers. Around 6.4 million farmers now grow Bt cotton in China, and one million in India. In South Africa, 95 per cent of all small-scale cotton farmers now use Bt varieties. Pg.
38
65
Ans To: No capacity to increase biotech

---- African governments have already invested in capacity-building mechanisms
Komen, Mignouna, & Webber 00 - Associate Research Officer at ISNAR’s Biotechnology Service, IITA’s
Project Coordinator for Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology for Crop Improvement & Research Analyst @
ISNAR. [John Komen, Jacob Mignouna, and Hope Webber, “BIOTECHNOLOGY IN AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:OPPORTUNITIES FORDONOR
ORGANIZATIONS,” International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Briefing Paper #43, Feb. 2000]edlee
Many African governments have set up special governance and capacity-building mechanisms to advance the
application of modern biotechnology in their countries. These cover a broad range: from establishing advisory committees to developing specific
programs for research and training activities to establishing specialized biotechnology research institutes. It should be noted that these initiatives are primarily
supported by donor agency funds. Pg. 2
---Africa has already established programmes for agricultural biotech capacity-building

On the other hand, biotechnology development in Africa and Latin America has a strong bias towards
agriculture even when health is ranked very highly. Most of the programmes on capacity building and policy
aspirations in these countries seem to target agricultural biotechnology. The research institutions that have
acquired significant capacity are agricultural centres. Pg. 22
----There are numerous applied agricultural research centers in sub-Sahara Africa

Woodward, Brink, & Berger 99 – Researchers @ ARC-Roodeplaat Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institue,
South Africa [Barbara Woodward, Johan Brink, and Dave Berger, “Can Agricultural Biotechnology Make A Difference In Africa?,” AgBioForum: The Journal of Agrobiotechnology
Management & Economics, Volume 2 // Number 3 & 4 // Article 5, pg. http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a05-woodward.htm]edlee
Africa has several centers with a long-standing history of applied agricultural research on crops important to
Africa. These centers include the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Nigeria, the Kenyan
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in Kenya, and the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) in South Africa. More
recently, the Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI) in Egypt was established. In
addition, there are many other smaller research organizations and universities with well established
biotechnology facilities. Generally, tissue culture techniques are easiest to implement initially, and micropropagation is a valuable and much-used technique in Africa for the
multiplication of many vegetatively propagated food crops such as cassava, sweet potato, yam, potato, banana and plantain.
66
Ans To: Public-Private Partnerships solve

----Public researchers cannot forge effective partnerships with the private sector in the status quo
Third, findings indicate that the public research organizations heading up much of the agbiotech research in
developing countries are largely working in isolation from the private firms that lead the industry. These
organizations have proven largely unable to forge effective partnerships with the private sector to exploit
complementarities and achieve scale economies in agbiotech research. This means that public researchers are
unable to access many of the tools, applications, and information needed to support their research processes.
67
Ans To: GM is dangerous – It is safe 1/

----Rigorous testing solves the food safety threat
Rigorous testing of GM crops can identify potential food safety risks before they are released for consumption
(Taylor, 2002). For example, a project was halted after tests showed that some people, allergic to Brazilian nuts,
developed allergies to a GM soybean containing a gene from the nuts (Nordlee et al., 1996). Pg. 400
----Transgenics increase food safety

Current data show that transgenic crops can enhance food safety. For example, GM maize containing Bt has reduced
predisposition to infections by mycotoxinproducing fungi such as Aspergillus and Fusarium spp. Mycotoxin levels in maize food products are therefore reduced (Munkvold et al., 1999; Windham
et al., 1999). Likewise, transgene-induced gene silencing has been used to prevent allergens accumulating in crops (Herman
et al., 2003). These positive findings imply that the potential benefits of transgenic crops in enhancing food
safety should also be taken into account when considering potential risks. Pg. 400
----History is on our side on this question. US consumption proves that there are few food safety
concerns
Finally, much of the soybean and maize produced in USA consists of transgenic varieties, and people have
been consuming GM food products for some time now. So far, no cases of ill health from such consumption are
known, bringing us to the question of why Africans cannot safely grow and consume crops genetically modified
with enhanced agronomic traits of importance. Pg. 400
---No substantiated evidence for their claim that biotech has harmful health consequences
Not everyone is convinced of the merits of biotechnology and the benefits of genetically-modified crops. Some of the opposition regarding agricultural biotechnology relates simply to the
notion that the technology may not deliver on its promises, and that it might even lead to lower overall yields and increased pesticide use. 127 An additional factor is the perceived uncertainty
that may arise when there is a gene transfer between unrelated species, and some have accused the biotechnology industry of "flying blind" because of the inability to predict all the effects of
this type of technical research. 128 This criticism would seem a little misplaced
, perhaps, if for no other reason than the fact that research activity is itself
intended to increase knowledge and understanding in the first place -- it is meant to reduce uncertainty. Criticizing scientists because they want to better understand the world around them and
it is important to note that many of the fears expressed by
bring improvements to all of mankind does not seem particularly productive. Moreover,
the opponents of biotechnology, so far at least, are not supported by much, if any, evidence or substantiation. 129 In
particular, no one has yet detected a health problem caused by a genetically-engineered food. 130
68
Ans To: GM is dangerous – It is safe 2/
---- All the world's leading academies argue that GM is safe
Motsoeneng Jan 23, 07 [Tiisetso Motsoeneng, 'GM foods not a threat', Tue, 23 Jan 2007, pg. http://iafrica.com/news/sa/596433.htm]edlee
"Not a shred of medical or scientific evidence has been produced anywhere in the world to support these claims. To the
contrary, all the world's leading academies of science and medicine and agricultural research institutions have
given GM food a clean bill of health," the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) said on Tuesday.
----30 years and millions of experiments disprove your impact
Judson Mar. 17, 07 - Evolutionary biologist at Imperial College [Olivia Judson, “Time to try the forbidden fruit GM food has had a terrible
press, but without it we would all starve, argues biologist Olivia Judson,” The Daily Telegraph, Mar 17 2007 10:15AM, pg. http://www.bioportfolio.co.uk/cgi-bin/dialogserver.exe?
CMD=hit.displayMdoc&ID=141693&HITNO=3&MSIZE=1000&LANGUAGE=en&FILE=doc.NEWSFEED&SAVEQUERY00=GM%20crop&SAVEPROP00=L
%3den&SAVEDB=news&SAVEORGANISE_CODED=R:date&R=141693&THISHREF=file:/D:/newsedge/newsedge_19_03_2007/nitf/St_Nitf_Time_to_try_the_forbidden_frui_e0319843.
7ie.xml&THEHOST=]edlee
Today, genetic modification is a routine technique in laboratories around the world. Since the potential for it
was discovered, 30 years ago, millions of experiments with it have been done. One of the most common modifications is to insert a jellyfish
gene into something else. The jellyfish Aequorea victoria has a gene for a protein called green fluorescent protein? The protein glows green when you shine blue light at it. If you add the gene for green fluorescent protein to
the end of some other gene, you can see when that other gene is being used: a little green light goes on. This doesn't harm the organism - and gives us a way to watch what's happening in the cell.
69
Ans To: GM is dangerous – Science is on our side 1/2

----The best science is on our side
Foundation) “Technology That Will Save Billions From Starvation,” The American Enterprise, March 01, 2004, pg. http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/save-
billions.html]edlee
Leading scientists around the world have attested to the health and environmental safety of agricultural
biotechnology, and they have called for bioengineered crops to be extended to those who need them most--hungry people in the developing world. Dozens of scientific
and health associations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association,
the U.K.'s Royal Society, and the United Nations Development Programme, have endorsed the technology.
Nearly 3,500 eminent scientists from all around the world, including 24 Nobel laureates, have signed a
declaration supporting the use of agricultural biotechnology. And a review of 81 separate research projects
conducted over 15 years--all funded by the European Union--found that bioengineered crops and foods are at least as safe for the
environment and for human consumption as conventional crops, and in some cases even safer.
----GMOs are safe. History and the best scientific research is on our side
Lombard 06 - Public relations consultant to the agricultural biotechnology industry in South Africa. [Hans Lombard,
'GMO is safe', iafrica.com, Tue, 05 Dec 2006, pg. http://lifestyle.iafrica.com/dining_in/local_cuisine/506367.htm]edlee
Genetically modified crops (GMOs) have been produced for the past 11 years. Seven in South Africa. Yet we still have the anti-GM lobby
claiming, without any substantiated medical or scientific evidence, that GM crops:
* Pose a health risk to man and beast.

* Threaten the environment.
* Will cross-pollinate with non-GM varieties.
after 11 years on the market, there is not a shred of medical or scientific

As far as health risks and the safety of GM food are concerned,
evidence available anywhere in the world to prove any adverse effects of GM food/crops on humans, animals or
the environment. Nobody has suffered as much as a tummy ache from GM food. The environment is
untarnished by it.
The most recent study from leading scientists of the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety (SCEB) reports: "The safety of GM crops is generally assessed more intensely than that of
conventionally bred crops. In addition to the selection process performed during classical breeding, a thorough pre-market risk assessment of potential unwanted effects of the GM crop on the
environment is a prerequisite to obtain permission to market any GM crop variety."
The Royal Society of London, one of the world’s leading and most respected academies of science, says: "There
is no potential harm from GM technology. Biotech crops may even be safer than regular food."
This report was endorsed by eight of the world's leading academies of science.
The European Union Commission funded 81 scientific research projects on GMOs over a period of 15 years,
costing R640-million, and came to the conclusion: "GM food is both safe for humans and the environment."
The French Academy of Science concurs. After intensive research it came out in full support of GMOs: "There
is no evidence to date showing that GMOs pose potential health or environmental risks."
70
Ans To: GM is dangerous – Science is on our side 2/
---- The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization sides with us

The UN's Food and
That is why the use of bioengineering technology for the development of improved plant varieties has been endorsed by dozens of scientific bodies.
Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization, the UK's Royal Society, the American Medical Association, and the French Academies of Medicine and Science,
among others, have studied bioengineering techniques and given them a clean bill of health. Moreover, bioengineered crop plants may be of even greater value in less developed countries than
in industrialized ones.
In a report published in July 2000, the UK's Royal Society, the National Academies of Science from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the U.S., and the Third World Academy of Science,
embraced bioengineering, arguing that it can be used to advance food security while promoting sustainable agriculture. "It is critical," declared the scientists, "that the potential benefits of GM
report issued in May 2004 argued that "effective transfer of existing
technology become available to developing countries." And an FAO
technologies to poor rural communities and the development of new and safe biotechnologies can greatly
enhance the prospects for sustainably improving agricultural productivity today and in the future," as well as
"help reduce environmental damage caused by toxic agricultural chemicals."
71
Ans To: GM dangerous – China empirically denies

----Non-Unique – China is increasing biotech production
Bowden Mar 15, 07 [Richard Bowden, “China To Increase Spending On Agricultural Biotechnology,” All Headline News, March 15, 2007 7:18 p.m. EST, pg.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006757771]edlee
China is expected to increase its spending on agricultural biotechnology almost five fold by 2010 in an attempt to improve
food security for its rapidly increasing population the Financial Times reported on Thursday.
China's population, currently 1.3 billion or twenty percent of the world's total, is expected to rise to 1.5 billion by 2020. Yet with only seven percent of the world's arable land, China needs to address the problem of feeding its
people.
By increasing its research in genetically modified food products, China hopes to lessen its dependency on other countries for food products such as soy beans.
"The government takes the issue of food security seriously," said Zhang Liang Chen, president of the Agricultural University of China. "Last year we imported 17m tonnes of soybean from the US, Brazil and Argentina. This
dependency could lead to trouble in the future."
Already accounting for twenty percent of the world's investment into global research into agricultural
biotechnology, the spending is expected to more than quadruple as China attempts to meet soaring food
demand.
----Non-unique: Asia will drive the growth of GM Foods

Shuping Jan 30, 07 [Niu Shuping, “Asia to drive growth of GMO crops in next decade,” 1/30/2007, pg. http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=6959]edlee
BEIJING (Reuters) - Asia is set to become the driving force behind biotech crops in the next decade, despite hesitance by China to
commercialize GMO rice, a Chinese scientist and an international body said on Monday.
In 2006, the first year of the second decade of biotech crops, India took over China as the world's top grower of genetically modified (GMO) cotton, the pro-
biotech International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
"The second decade will likely feature strong growth in Asia led by China, India and new countries like
Pakistan and Vietnam," it said in a report. "The first decade (1996-2005) was the decade of the Americans."
----China’s adoption will be modeled

The adoption of Bt cotton by India and China can greatly influence the adoption and acceptance of biotech
crops in countries throughout the world, particularly in developing countries. It is noteworthy that both
countries elected to pursue a similar strategy by first exploring the potential benefits of crop technology with a
fibre crop, Bt cotton, which has already generated significant and consistent benefits in China, with the same
pattern emerging in India, the largest grower of cotton in the world.
72
Ans To: GM dangerous – Global adoption empirically denies

----53% of the world’s population lives in countries that approves biotech crops
Chowdhary Feb 8, 07 [ Sudhir Chowdhary, “‘Critics of GM crops are selfish people’” The Financial Express, February 8, 2007, pg.
http://www.gmoafrica.org/2007_02_01_archive.html]edlee
Why is a significant portion of the farming community paranoid about the adoption of GM crops?
Almost 53% of the world’s population now lives in countries where biotech crops are being approved, used, and are
generating profits. In fact, majority of the global population is enjoying the benefits of biotech crops. This is a very conservative estimate because it is
based on the 22 countries that actually plant biotech crops today. If we take into account the number of countries that have approved import of
biotech crops for food and feed, the number of countries increases from 22 to 51.
----Global adoption now… US, Brazil, EU

The United States continues to drive growth in North America and globally, accounting for the greatest absolute
acreage increase in 2006 with the addition of 4.8 million hectares. Brazil leads growth in South America with an
increase of 22% to total 11.5 million hectares of soybeans and biotech cotton. Growth also continues in the
countries of the European Union (EU) where Slovakia became the sixth EU country out of 25 to plant biotech
crops.
----Adoption of the technology is booming in other parts of the world

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications 06 [“Global Biotech Crop Area Continues to Soar in
2005: After Decade of Commercialization” ISAAA Briefs No. 34-2005: Press Release, Jan. 11, 2006, pg. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/bin/briefs34/pr/index.htm]edlee
Farmer demand has driven annual double-digit increases in biotech crop adoption since
SAO PAULO, Brazil (Jan. 11, 2006) —
the crops were commercialized a decade ago. In 2005, four new countries and a quarter million more farmers
planted biotech crops as part of an 11 percent increase in global biotech crop area, according to a report released today, authored by
Dr. Clive James, chairman and founder of ISAAA, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
Since initial commercialization in 1996, global planted area of biotech crops has soared by more than fifty-fold from 1.7 million hectares in six countries to 90 million hectares in 21 countries
in 2005. The 8.5 million farmers planting biotech crops in 2005 also marked a significant milestone as the 1 billionth cumulative acre, or 400 millionth hectare, was planted.
Herbicide-tolerant soybeans continue to be the most widely adopted trait, accounting for 60 percent of the total global area. Varieties with stacked traits are growing in popularity, accounting
for 10 percent of the global area. In 2005, 100 million “trait hectares” were planted, which better quantifies those hectares planted to varieties with multiple biotech enhancements.
“Farmers from the United States to Iran, and five EU countries demonstrate a trust and confidence in biotech
crops, as indicated by the unprecedented high adoption rate of these crops,” said Dr. James, chairman and founder of ISAAA. “The
continued expansion of countries growing biotech crops also bears witness to the substantial economical,
environmental and social benefits associated with these crops.”
---- The expansive use of GMOs in the US and all six continents empirically denies your claim
Two highly reputable United Nations Agencies — the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)
have fully endorsed GMOs in a joint statement: "Biotechnology (GMOs) provides new and powerful tools for
research and for accelerating the development of new and better foods."
In 2005 some 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries on all six continents
As the old saying goes: The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
planted 90-million hectares of GM crops, up 11 percent over the previous year.
In the USA, for the past 11 years, 280-million people (40-million in South Africa for the past seven years) have each year been eating
GM food without developing as much as a headache.
73
74
Ans To: Food Unsafe - Ewen and Pusztai study bad

----Ewen and Pusztai research is methologically bankrupt
Another poker inflaming the fiery GM food safety debate was a paper published by Ewen and Pusztai (1999) in The
Lancet, which examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tracts of rats. The potatoes expressed a snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis L.) lectin (agglutinin), which is known to be toxic to
Not only was the
mammals. The study claimed to have found appreciable differences between the intestines of rats fed with GM potatoes and those fed with unmodified potatoes.
goal of the experiment inappropriate (introducing a gene coding for a known poison) but the methodology employed and data
interpretation were also doubtful (Mowat, 1999). Unfortunately, this work continues to be cited to support health hazard claims by opponents of the GM crop
technology. Pg. 400
75
Ans To: Antibiotic Resistant gene flow

---- Antibiotics resistance genes safe. No risk of gene flow
Antibiotic resistance genes are frequently used as selection markers along with the specific genes of interest. There are concerns that antibiotic resistance genes may be transferred to other
plants or humans, with the result that pathogens and pests, through constant exposure to their hosts, may become resistant to antibiotics and thus become much more intractable problems.
However, antibiotics resistance genes confer no selective advantage to plants, making this issue of gene flow fairly
academic. Since only peptides are absorbed, there is no threat of humans developing antibiotic resistance. Even
so, this issue is being addressed because other markers are being developed and used (Goddijn et al., 1993; Haldrup et al., 1998;
Kunkel et al., 1999). Methods are also available to remove antibiotic resistance marker genes before the modified crop is
commercialized (Zubko et al., 2000). Also being developed are tissue-specific promoters, which cause transgenic genes to be expressed in a limited set of plant tissues. These
types of improvements are reducing some of the potential problems associated with transgenic plants. Pg. 400
----Multiple techniques exist to prevent unwanted pollen dispersion

Strategies to address concerns of unwanted pollen dispersion from GM crops include using tissue-specific
promoters and introducing genes into plant chloroplast instead of nuclear DNA. The latter strategy would prevent transgenes
spreading via pollen in those species where chloroplasts are strictly maternally inherited (Daniell et al., 1998; DeGray et al., 2001; Lutz
et al., 2001; Scott and Wilkinson, 1999). The use of male-sterility tools can also minimize gene flow via unwanted pollen. As
technologies advance, more techniques may become available to make the pollen transmission of introduced genes ineffective . Pg. 401
----Status Quo farming techniques prevent cross-fertilization

As far as cross-pollination is concerned, plants can only cross-pollinate with plants of the same species. Maize
cannot cross-pollinate with soya or cotton plants, or vice versa.
As far as maize is concerned, farmers have learned long before the advent of GM crops to plant neighbouring
yellow and white maize at least 100 metres apart to avoid the two varieties cross-pollinating. If this
management discipline is maintained, no cross-pollination can occur.
76
Ans To: GM crops hurt species

----Bt pollen does not reach levels that are toxic to non-targeted species
However, these concerns can apply to any improved crop variety with specific traits of interest, regardless of
how the variety was developed. In addition, studies by Strickland (1999) showed that, under field conditions,
unwanted Bt maize pollen rarely reaches the levels toxic to the larvae of the non-targeted monarch butterfly, in
contrast to the findings of Losey et al. (1999), who conducted laboratory experiments. Pg. 401
----Current biotech focuses on temperate zone agriculture. Not useful in desert climates
The disparity between R&D aimed at developed and developing countries needs is best illustrated by comparing the budgets allocated to the two areas of research. Monsanto, a U.S.
biotechnology company that develops GM crops, allocates the overwhelming majority of its budget toward improving temperate-zone agriculture. 41 Monsanto is only one of the many
Monsanto's R&D budget alone is twice the size of the R&D budget
biotechnology companies that focus on temperate-zone agriculture. Yet,
for the entire worldwide network of public-sector tropical research institutes. 42 This disparity demonstrates
that R&D inadequately addresses developing countries' unique agricultural needs.
77
Ans To: Food Aid Solves

----Food Aid will not solve African food insecurity
To address food security emergencies, one solution has been the provision of food aid to the developing world. This treatment is practiced by the governments of the developed world, 110
international organizations, 111 nongovernmental organizations, 112 and individuals worldwide. 113 These efforts helped stave off numerous catastrophes. 114 Yet, food aid alone
is not enough to help many of the emergencies in sub-Saharan Africa, which increase the food insecurity of the region. 115 While there have
been charitable organizations for centuries, such "business as usual" is not a solution to treat the severe food security problem,
which may lie ahead. Indeed, food aid may be little more than a "band-aid" treatment for a growing
international problem. 116
78
Ans To: Green Revolution Solves 1/2

----Green revolution will not solve. Soil infertility
There are several reasons why the Green Revolution will not cover sub-Saharan Africa with luxuriant crops: the
lack of efficient road systems and the high costs of the energy-intensive farming methods central to the Green Revolution plan, to
name two. 131 More fundamental to the problem is the soil of sub-Saharan Africa. It is not suitable for Green
Revolution methods of farming. 132 Sub-Saharan Africa's soil has a naturally low and declining fertility that
would require billions of dollars worth of chemical fertilizers to correct. 133 What is more, the run-off pollution from the fertilizer would be another
input to the [*295] environmental degradation in sub-Saharan Africa. 134
---Soil is too acidic for fertilizer use

the pH level of sub-Saharan African soil is naturally acidic and becomes increasingly so
In addition to being nutrient-poor,
when fertilizer is used extensively to improve agricultural production. 135 Thus, beyond the run-off pollution from such fertilizer use,
the soil itself would become too acidic to support the staple crops essential to the sub-Saharan diet. 136 Finally, many sub-
Saharan countries, and their growing populations, are in areas which suffer from recurrent drought. 137 Moving large amounts of water with heavy or poorly managed irrigation systems (both problems for the region) can
increase the salinity of sub-Saharan Africa's soil, leading to further environmental degradation. 138
----Droughts undermine the potential for “Green Revolution” technologies to solve

In addition to being nutrient-poor, the pH level of sub-Saharan African soil is naturally acidic and becomes increasingly so when fertilizer is used extensively to improve agricultural
,
production. 135 Thus, beyond the run-off pollution from such fertilizer use, the soil itself would become too acidic to support the staple crops essential to the sub-Saharan diet. 136 Finally
many sub-Saharan countries, and their growing populations, are in areas which suffer from recurrent drought. 137
Moving large amounts of water with heavy or poorly managed irrigation systems (both problems for the region) can increase
the salinity of sub-Saharan Africa's soil, leading to further environmental degradation. 138
Therefore, the use of Green Revolution technologies is not the best approach to treat the food insecurity of sub-
Saharan Africa. Fortunately, innovations in agricultural biotechnology may lead to new crops, which can thrive in sub-Saharan soil, resist persistent pestilence, reduce the need of chemical fertilizers, require
less irrigation, and, most importantly for food security, increase the region's agricultural productivity.
----“Green Revolution” tech cannot alleviate hunger in Africa

& Tec 321]edlee
[*328] Food insecurity is closely linked to poverty and concentrated in the developing countries of South Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 17 It is, however, an extraordinarily complex social,
economic, and political problem whose causes and solutions vary from country to country. 18 In India and some other Asian countries, great strides have been made through the Green
Revolution in increasing the productivity of agriculture, albeit with well-recognized costs to the environment. 19 These countries produce enough food to feed their populations, and in some
cases, have become food exporters, but many people in these countries are hungry because they lack the economic means to purchase or produce the food they need for themselves and their
the basic problem of poor agricultural productivity
families. Poverty and social instability are obstacles to food security in many African countries, but
has never been solved. The Green Revolution largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa, 20 and areas in that region
have soil, water, climate, and plant pest conditions that make productivity gains hard to achieve and sustain.
79
Ans To: Green Revolution Solves 2/2

----Green Revolution is unpopular and ineffective in Africa
The major difference between the African experience of the Green Revolution and the Asian, is that Africa had
fewer areas with suitable conditions for the Green Revolution technologies. The Green Revolution was not
developed for local conditions; rather, local conditions were expected to adapt to the technologies. The
technologies did not bypass Africa, they were available but were unpopular and ineffective. Pg. 10
80
Ans To: Precautionary Principle

----Precautionary Principle ignores the risks of hunger and starvation that comes with the rejection of
biotech. You must privilege the need to avoid the risks of NOT using biotech in our decision calculus
Nolutshungu 06 - Director of the Free Market Foundation, South Africa. [Temba Nolutshungu, “Question of Life or Death in Africa,”
The Standard (Hong Kong), February 08, 2006, pg. http://www.africabiotech.com/news2/article.php?uid=143]edlee
Applied to agriculture and food biotechnology, the precautionary principle ignores the very real existing risks of
hunger, starvation and malnutrition that can be reduced or eliminated by the new products.
Applied decades ago to innovations such as polio vaccines and antibiotics, the precautionary principle would have cited occasional serious side effects at the expense of millions of lives lost to
infectious diseases. Applied today to penicillin and aspirin (or peanuts and potatoes), to which some people are allergic, it would deny their use to others who are not allergic.
It's worth repeating that no one has yet detected any allergy, harm or risk to humans, animals or the
environment from commercialized GM crops. Farmers use GM seeds because they're more efficient, giving higher yields and costing less in pesticides.
Consumers use them because they're indistinguishable from any other crop and cheaper too.
By acceding to the Cartagena Protocol, African governments, including my own in South Africa, have risked deterring biotechnology companies from carrying out research in their countries or
making their products available to their citizens.
Major potential investments that could provide jobs and reduce poverty in Africa are at risk. Without such
investments, African scientists may leave the continent to research and produce elsewhere.
The precautionary principle requires that we take action to avoid a risk even when there's little or no scientific evidence of its existence, magnitude or potential impact. In that case, consider the
risk of applying the precautionary principle. How do we know what harm it will do in blocking agricultural development? Can we be absolutely sure that rejecting biotechnology will not cause
future poverty, hunger and malnutrition in Africa? We cannot be sure and nor can the opponents of the use of biotechnology.
Applying the precautionary principle to itself, we must therefore avoid the risks attendant on not using
biotechnology.
In a continent that desperately needs growth, food, jobs and exports, innovation is exactly what we need.
The United States, Canada and Argentina have the muscle to bring cases to the World Trade Organization, but African countries are still vulnerable to EU trade barriers and to Western activists
supported by the aid industry, all opposed to free trade and GM products - just the tools we need to boost exports and fight famine.
For Africans, this really is a question of life or death.
81
Ans To: Honeybees turn

----Non-unique: varroa mite and conventional pesticides are killing honeybees
Latsch 07 [Gunther Latsch “COLLAPSING COLONIES: Are GM Crops Killing Bees?,” SPIEGEL ONLINE, March 22, 2007, pg.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4596.cfm]edlee
Walter Haefeker is a man who is used to painting grim scenarios. He sits on the board of directors of the
German Beekeepers Association (DBIB) and is vice president of the European Professional Beekeepers
Association. And because griping is part of a lobbyist's trade, it is practically his professional duty to warn that
"the very existence of beekeeping is at stake."
The problem, says Haefeker, has a number of causes, one being the varroa mite, introduced from Asia, and
another is the widespread practice in agriculture of spraying wildflowers with herbicides and practicing
monoculture. Another possible cause, according to Haefeker, is the controversial and growing use of genetic
engineering in agriculture.
82
Ans To: Corporate monopolization turn

----Their corporate monopolization argument is irrelevant. The public sector is doing all the research on
GM crops for developing countries
More importantly, however, the large multinationals have little interest in orphan crops because they aren't
commercially lucrative. "The cost of biotechnology research is huge," continues Scoones. "The cost of
developing a product froin scratch and getting it through bio-safety' clearance is in the region of hundreds of
millions of dollars. The private companies aren't going to invest these amounts of money into developing a
product unless they can make significant profits in return." it's unlikely they will get that from selling a trop
such as vims-resistant cassava in the developing world, he continties, where farmers can't afford to pay high
premiums for the technology.
In focusing on the corporatisation argument, the anti-GM lobby has overlooked the fact that the majority of
research into orphan crops is being conducted in the public sector, funded by governments and charitable
organisations, and by relatively small private companies. "In these cases, market monopolisation and access to
technology aren't major issues," says Scoones. Pg. 41-42
----Corporation will not price gauge

But even when a private company is selling to poor farmers, it makes no sense for it to sell its seed at an
extortionate price, says Yousouf Ismael, an agricultural economist from Reading University, "In South Africa
and India," he says, "Monsanto sells its Bt cotton seed for the same price that farmers would have had to pay for
their conventional seed and insecticide combined, so their costs end up being the same." According to James,
farmers won't be fooled, despite what FOE would have us believe. "It's naive to think you can rip off farmers.
You may be able to do it once. But never a second time. Farmers are the best judges of technology. They have
to be, because their livelihoods depend on it. What happens is they try it once and if it works, they use it again.
If it doesn't work, they won't buy it again. It's as simple as that." Pg. 43
83
Ans To: Organics Turn – Lower yields

----Organics have a lower yield
Avery NO DATE – Director of the Center for Global Food Issues [Dennis T. Avery, “The Nine Most Dangerous Myths About Pesticides and
High-Yield Farming,” Center for Global Food Issues, pg. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/speeches/nine_myths.htm]edlee
The well-fed elitist children announce that the world should go back to organic farming to produce "natural"
food that it claims, without any proof whatsoever, would somehow be more nutritious. But organic farmers'
yields in the First World are usually 20 to 40 percent lower than high-yield farmers' yields. More wildlands
would have to be plowed down for crops.
----Organics decrease crop yields by 50%

Sunday Morning Herald 07 [“Organic could help fight world hunger,” May 6, 2007 - 6:59AM, pg. http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Organic-could-help-fight-
world-hunger/2007/05/06/1178390110892.html]edlee
Crop yields initially can drop as much as 50 per cent when industrialised, conventional agriculture using
chemical fertilisers and pesticides is converted to organic. While such decreases often even out over time and
promote other benefits, the figures have kept the organic movement largely on the sidelines of discussions about
feeding the hungry.
84
Ans To: Organics Turn – E. Coli

----Organics cause E coli deaths
Avery 02 - Director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute [Dennis T. Avery, “The Hidden Dangers In Organic Food,” Center for Global Food Issues,
pg. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/jun_25_02.htm]edlee
According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control CDC), people who eat organic and “natural” foods
are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157: H7).
This new E. coli is attacking tens of thousands of people per year, all over the world. It is causing permanent liver and kidney damage in many of
its victims. The CDC recorded 2,471 confirmed cases of E. coli 0157: H7 in 1996 and estimated that it is causing at least 250 deaths per year in the United States alone.
Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the
infamous salmonella bacteria. Salmonella was America’s biggest food-borne death risk until the new E. coli O157 came along.
Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major
source of fertilizer for their food crops. Animal manure is the biggest reservoir of these nasty bacteria that are
afflicting and killing so many people.
----Eating organics is like playing Russian Roulette with your dinner

Avery 02 - Director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute [Dennis T. Avery, “The Hidden Dangers In Organic Food,” Center for Global Food Issues,
pg. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/jun_25_02.htm]edlee
In truth, until the last few years the threat of food-borne bacteria was relatively mild in the U.S. It was prudent to refrigerate one’s food and wash one’s hands before preparing food or eating,
and those simple procedures kept food-borne illnesses to a minimum. On occasion, neglect of these rules would cause a family to suffer severe stomach aches. And every year a few weak
individuals—the very young, the very old, or those who were already quite ill—would die from exposure to food-borne bacteria.
the new E. coli attacks even the strong. It inflicts permanent damage on internal organs. It even kills healthy
But
adults. The new salmonella is nearly as dangerous.
Harsh Organic Reality
As these lethal new bacteria spread, organic foods have clearly become the deadliest food choice. Put simply,
animal manure is too dangerous to use on food crops if there is any alternative whatever. To eat produce grown with animal
fertilizer is like playing Russian roulette with your family’s dinner table. It only takes one contaminated food
product to bring on a tragedy.
----Organics increases the amount of manure needed to grow crops. Forests will be cleared to produce
manure
In addition, there is the "organic fertilizer penalty." The world has less than half enough organic nitrogen to
nourish its crops. Farmers globally use 80 million tons of nitrogen per year that's taken from the air through an
industrial process. Giving up that industrial fertilizer would require fertilizing our crops with the manure from
another 7-8 billion cattle. Where would we get the forage? There isn't enough land on the planet to feed the
expected 8 billion people plus another 8 billion cattle. The forests would be cleared—to produce manure. What
a ghastly prescription we are getting from the children of the elites.
85
Ans To: Organics Turn – deforestation

----Organics are the greatest threat to ecosytems and biodiversity
Lentz 07 [Doyle Lentz, “Organic farming is a fraud,” FargO Forum, 4/25/2007, pg. http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=7457]edlee
Organic farmers generally rely on conventional tillage for weed control, a practice universally understood to increase soil and water erosion and the loss of organic matter, which is the key to soil productivity.
Because organic crops do not yield as well as conventional or biotech crops, organic production requires more
land. Alex Avery, in his must-read book "The Truth About Organic Foods" writes that "organic farming, on a large scale, poses the single greatest threat
to natural ecosystems and biodiversity in human history." Why? Because "organic only" would force us to clear-cut,
graze, plow, and farm larger areas of the earth's remaining wildlife habitat due to lower yields.
biotechnology has the power to improve just about every aspect of farming, and has already done so in many
Avery points out in his book that
ways. Then why is there such intense organic opposition to, and misrepresentation about, biotech crops? Avery speculates that it's competition. "Biotechnology offers a
more cost effective way to achieve the lower pesticide use and more eco-friendly farming systems claimed by
organic farmers and desired by consumers," he writes. "In short, biotechnology represents a direct threat to organic agriculture's current monopoly on eco-
conscious consumers and the illusions of super safety."
----Organics increase starvation and destruction of wildlife

pushing an organic farming mandate that would be unable to feed more than half the world's
The same well-fed elitists have been
current human population—apparently not realizing that the hungry people would destroy the remaining wildlife before they
grew too weak to slash, burn, and hunt.
86
Ans To: Organics Turn – soil erosion

----Organics are a mandate for increased soil erosion
The farming-ignorant children of the well-fed elitists crusade against high-yield farming with the claim that it allows too much soil erosion.
Let's think about that soil erosion claim logically. If the high-yield fields get three times as much yield, than we can get the same amount
of food by planting only one-third as much land. One-third as much planted land should mean one-third as
much soil erosion.
If we need only one-third as much land, moreover, we can concentrate our crops on the land with the least erosion potential—and we do. That means high-yield farming must allow
less than one-third as much erosion as would a global mandate for organic farming.
87
Ans To: Public Sector CP 1/

----79% of agricultural biotech patents are in private hands.
Many biotechnology patents have already been issued. Considering only biotechnology specifically applicable to agriculture and focusing on specific genetic
traits, plant germplasm, and tools to modify the genome of plants, we calculate that about 2,247 inventions were patented between 1975 and 1998. Beyond just the overall number of patents,
the rate at which biotechnology patents are being issued is increasing. Data on this were not available specifically for agriculturally applied
biotechnology, but in scientific areas closely related to plant biotechnology, PTO data show that the number of patents issued per year increased
almost nine-fold between 1981 and 2001.80 In the same time, overall utility patents per year slightly more than
doubled.
In agricultural biotechnology specifically, we can get an idea of the trend from a study of patents issued to universities. Barham et al. found that the number of agricultural biotechnology
patents issued to universities in the four years from 1996 through 1999 (481) greatly exceeded the cumulative total of such patents issued in the previous 20 years (314).81We assume that the
trend is similar for patents assigned to private individuals and corporations, though we have not found an analysis of that trend in the literature.
Graff’s data also show how agricultural biotechnology patents are distributed among three groups of patent holders: universities or other public institutions, individuals and small or startup
firms, and large corporations. Of the 2,247 inventions covered by agricultural biotechnology patents that were issued from 1975 to 1998, 525 were patented by universities or public
institutions, 812 by small firms or individuals, and 970 by corporations. (The sum of the patent holders exceeds 2,247 because a single patent can be granted to multiple assignees.) These
data confirm that most of the agricultural biotechnology patents (79%) are in private hands. Pg. 31-32
----Over 2/3rds of the patents are privately held. Publicly held patents will not solve
. In
With the advent of biotechnology and the availability of plant patents, the balance between the public and private sectors—in terms of research and control of technology—has shifted
the United States, most of the investment in research to produce improved seeds is now financed and conducted
privately, much of it by biotechnology companies.32 And innovation in seed technology is commonly patented. This includes the tools used in the laboratory to transfer DNA and
produce genetically modified plants—such as transformation vectors and systems, gene-expression promoters, and transformation marker systems—as well as specific gene traits that perform
Gregory Graff has compiled a database of 2,428 patents related to
some useful agronomic function and the plants that contain these traits.
agricultural biotechnology that were issued from 1975 to 1998.33 Of these, 76% are assigned to private
individuals or corporations, with the remainder assigned to universities or public institutions. The top four patenting organizations, with a combined 26% of the patents, are
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Mycogen, USDA, and Monsanto Company. Of the top 30 patent holders, 22 are U.S. or European corporations, which together hold 50% of the patents.34 pg. 22
AT// Public Patents CP
----Cooperative Agreements give corporations exclusive licensing of patents filed by public institutions
Since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, public and university research

The dominance of the private sector may be even greater than these numbers reveal.
institutions have been allowed and encouraged to patent their results and to enter into public-private
partnerships. These cooperative agreements often include an option for the private partner to receive an
exclusive license to any resulting patents filed by the public institution or university. Consequently, not only are
the majority of biotechnology patents in private hands, but some important patents remaining in public hands, or developed by
university researchers with public money, are exclusively licensed to private corporations. Furthermore, the ability to patent has given public
institutions and universities the incentive to treat their patents—exclusively licensed or not—less as a public good than as a source of institutional revenue. Their incentive is to behave like the
private sector.35 pg. 22 //AT: Public Patents CP
88

----Private companies conduct 80% of the world’s biotech R&D. Profit maximinzation is there primary
motivation for research
private companies conduct most of the world's biotechnology R&D, 82 accounting for 80% of all
Today,
international biotechnology research. 83 Since this industry's primary motivation is profit, R&D investment is
unlikely unless a viable market exists for the resulting product. The enormous expense and time-commitment
associated with biotechnology R&D exacerbates the private industry's bias towards profit maximization. 84 Due
to the extreme poverty of developing countries, the biotechnology industry does not perceive these countries as
commercial prospects. 85 Accordingly, the private industry creates few biotechnology products aimed at developing countries' needs. 86 [*52] This is particularly problematic
for developing countries because the private industry conducts most biotechnology R&D. 87
----Public investment in agricultural research is slowing dramatically
The public share of agricultural investment was [*216] substantial, but is now flagging. Worldwide, public investments in agricultural research nearly
doubled in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two decades, from an estimated $ 11.8 billion in 1976 to nearly twenty-two billion dollars in 1995. 12 Yet for many parts of the world,
growth in spending during the 1990s slowed dramatically. In the rich countries, public investment grew just 0.2 percent annually between 1991 and
1996 compared with 2.2 percent per year during the 1980s. 13 In Africa, there was no growth at all. 14 In Asia, the 4.4 percent annual growth figure compared with 7.5 percent the previous
decade. 15
----Private researcher dominate the market

Private agricultural research is displacing public research generally and specifically regarding the development
of new varieties of crops that have high commercial value. 25 This tendency is especially pronounced in countries like the United
States where private agricultural research and development was ninety percent of public spending in 1960, growing to 133 percent by 1996, the latest year for which comparable public-
private data are available. 26 Private investments, fueled by agricultural biotechnology research, gravitate to techniques which promise large
markets, are protected by Intellectual [*218] Property Rights, and are easily transferable across agroecologies. These included food processing and other post-harvest
technologies and chemical inputs including pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. 27 Hence, while private research is much more geographically concentrated than public research, many of its
fruits may be more easily transferred across borders and agroecological zones. Even so, private research is far less likely in products or methods with small markets, weak intellectual property
protection, and limited transferability-precisely the situations in which most poor farmers are found.
89

----Bayh-Dole Act encourages universities to do applied research that is not useful
One way of reducing dynamic costs and encouraging technology transactions is to clarify property rights. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and subsequent legislation, which allowed U.S.
universities, other non-profit institutions, and government labs to patent and exclusively license federally funded inventions, was intended to achieve this purpose. 53 Firms are often unwilling
to invest significantly in developing and disseminating innovations lacking clearly defined property rights. This point was clearly captured by the 1945 Report of the U.S. House of
Representatives, which stated that "what is available for exploitation by everyone is undertaken by no one." 54 The main objective of the Bayh-Dole Act is to foster markets for the transfer of
technology, and there is some evidence the Act has achieved these aims. 55 However, the
Bayh-Dole Act is most effective when inventions require heavy expenditure in
[*225]
constrain and delay the
downstream technology and product development, which is not the case for all technologies. In addition, some have argued that the Act may actually
flow of fundamental scientific knowledge as "prior art" concerns impede open scientific discourse through
seminars and the professional literature. 56 This could shift the emphasis of university research from fundamental
basic research toward more applied research that is potentially more rewarding financially for the university or
its research faculty, but not necessarily for society as a whole over the long run. 57
----76% of patents are issued to private entities

& Tec 321]edlee
. In
With the advent of biotechnology and the availability of plant patents, the balance between the public and private sectors -- in terms of research and control of technology -- has shifted
the United States, most of the investment in research to produce improved seeds is now financed and conducted
privately, much of it by biotechnology companies. 39 Innovation in seed technology is commonly patented. [*333]
This includes the tools used in the laboratory to transfer DNA and produce genetically modified plants -- such as transformation vectors and systems, gene-expression promoters, and
Gregory Graff has
transformation marker systems -- as well as specific gene traits that perform some useful agronomic function and the plants that contain these traits.
compiled a database of 2,428 patents related to agricultural biotechnology that were issued from 1975 to 1998. 40 Of these, 76% are assigned to
private individuals or corporations, with the remainder assigned to universities or public institutions. The four organizations holding the most patents are Pioneer Hi-
Bred International, Mycogen, USDA, and Monsanto Company, which together hold 26% of the patents. Of the top thirty patent holders, twenty-two are U.S. or European corporations, which
together hold 50% of the patents. 41
90
Ans To: Ethics K – Food insecurity is more important

----Ethical challenges to the plan are insignificant in light of the life-or-death situation brought on by
African food insecurity. A NEGATIVE ballot is an articulated preference for death
In Africa, chronic food shortages, famines and malnutrition determine choices between life and death. Are these issues
not as important as pharmaceutical drugs? Food is a basic need, and access to food is a basic human rights issue. If one does not have food,
everything else becomes insignificant, as a Chinese proverb vividly puts it: ‘A person who has food has many problems; a person who has no food has only one’.
debating environmental or ethical issues is hard with destitute people who have lost their dignity
Discussing and
and their hope for life because they have nothing to eat. If we want to address biotechnology issues relevant to
Africa, we must include crop and animal productivity, food security, alleviation of poverty and gender equity, and
exclude political considerations. While we should debate and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the GMO debate into
food aid in Africa when millions are faced with life-and-death situations is irresponsible. When people are
reduced to eating grass, is it ethical to prevent them from consuming GM foods that are nevertheless being
consumed by millions of people around the world? Who really would prefer to die rather than eat GM foods?
Pg. 398-399
91
Ans To: Environmental Ethics K – Nature does not exist
----Natural crop development does not exist. Seed manipulation have occurred for ten millenia
Most crops are grown in places where they did not occur naturally, but were introduced there incidentally or intentionally. The
international development and dissemination of new and improved seed varieties have been the basis for
productivity improvement in agriculture since crops were first domesticated about ten millennia ago. 1 Initially, the
movement of plant material involved farmers carrying seed as they migrated to new areas. 2 Columbus returned from his voyage to the New World in the latter part of the fifteenth century
laden with new plants that ushered in an extended era of state-sponsored expeditions to gather and evaluate plant materials the world over. 3 For most of that time, new crop varieties were
largely treated as common property, shared freely among farmers and countries and [*214] generating billions of dollars of benefits worldwide. 4
----Civilization cannot exist without agriculture

Agriculture is closely related to the rise of civilization itself. Indeed, it was only through the cultivation of crops
that people were able to stay in one place long enough to establish more sophisticated social institutions. And this correlation
seems to have continued into the modern day -- those cultures with the most advanced agricultural practices also have the most
sophisticated economies and societies, creating the most opportunities and highest standard of living for their
citizens. It would seem to be in the best interests of developing countries, then, to adopt modern agricultural
practices. Yet, there appears to be significant resistance to implementing the inventions made possible by agricultural biotechnology on the part of many in the developing world. This
paper will explore recent advances in agricultural biotechnology, and address the reluctance of developing countries to embrace such technology.
----All agriculture is unnatural. Their K is a recipe for mass starvation

Judson Mar. 17, 07 - Evolutionary biologist at Imperial College [Olivia Judson, “Time to try the forbidden fruit GM food has had a terrible
press, but without it we would all starve, argues biologist Olivia Judson,” The Daily Telegraph, Mar 17 2007 10:15AM, pg. http://www.bioportfolio.co.uk/cgi-bin/dialogserver.exe?
CMD=hit.displayMdoc&ID=141693&HITNO=3&MSIZE=1000&LANGUAGE=en&FILE=doc.NEWSFEED&SAVEQUERY00=GM%20crop&SAVEPROP00=L
%3den&SAVEDB=news&SAVEORGANISE_CODED=R:date&R=141693&THISHREF=file:/D:/newsedge/newsedge_19_03_2007/nitf/St_Nitf_Time_to_try_the_forbidden_frui_e0319843.
7ie.xml&THEHOST=]edlee
Why bother with any of this? Like it or not, the history of agriculture is a history of beating nature: all agriculture is
unnatural e_SEnD it has to be? Much of what occurs in nature is inedible, or meagre in quantity. The ancestor of the potato, for
example, is poisonous. Moreover, growing crops in abundance is difficult. Lots of other organisms like to eat what we like. To have a harvest, a farmer has to
defeat slugs, pigeons, rabbits, deer, rats, squirrels, moulds, aphids and weevils - not to mention weeds. It's remarkable that any of us has anything to eat, let
alone that, in the West at least, we've made food plentiful and cheap.
We've done this by employing a variety of tools. Genetic modification is just another one. Like any tool, we can wield it well or badly.
It's not a silver bullet: it won't solve all our problems. But all farming, be it organic or ''industrial'', is bad for the environment. All
farming puts land under cultivation, erodes the soil and requires pest control.
92
Ans To: Topicality – NOT public health

----A paradigm shift has happen. Food insecurity is now considered a public health issue (T)
Mwikisa 05 – Director of the Division of Healthy Environments and Sustainable Development @ WHO
Regional Office for Africa [Dr C.N. Mwikisa, “ANNEX 5: OPENING REMARKS,” FINAL REPORT: FAO/WHO Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa, 3–6
October 2005, Harare, Zimbabwe pg. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/010/a0215e/A0215E20.htm#ann5]edlee
Globally, there is a paradigm shift, which will no longer only consider food as an agricultural/trade commodity
but also as a public health issue. At the international level, the 1992 FAO/WHO International Conference on Nutrition recognized that ‘access to nutritionally adequate
and safe food as a right of each individual’. As a basic human right, food safety was endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2000 and accepted by all Ministries of Health as an
essential public health function. WHO in consultation with its Member States developed a Global Strategy for Food Safety, which provides guidance to WHO and countries' activity in this
area. At the regional level, Resolution AFR/RC53/R5 endorsed by the WHO Regional Committee for Africa in 2003 urged the Regional Director and Member States to strive to improve food
safety programs in order to assure the safety of the food of the people in the region.
----Nutrition is a public health issue (T)

United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition 01 [Report of the Sub-Committee on Nutrition at its Twenty-Eighth Session, Hosted by the World
Food Programme, at the Stanley Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya, April 2 – 6, 2001, pg. http://www.unsystem.org/SCN/Publications/AnnualMeeting/SCN28/28th_session_report.htm]edlee
Dr. Ngongi thanked the WFP/Nairobi office for hosting the 28th Session, and all involved in logistics and organization of all meetings held during the session for their capable work. He
thanked participants for their commitment to the SCN and reflected on the success of the session. This year’s session was much more than good presentations; there was true participation and
dialogue amongst all who attended. The SCN fosters communication amongst nutritionists. More importantly, the SCN packages nutrition messages for national actions. Indeed advocacy is
. Nutrition is not only a public health issue, it is a development issue. Nutrition is a powerful tool against
one of the SCN’s main roles
HIV/AIDS, just as malnutrition is a powerful ally of the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS. Various indignations were
underscored during the 28th Session. Chief amongst these is that hunger prevents people from seeking essential services. The SCN should work towards removing old structures that serve as
Nutrition can help people live more decently with
obstacles for people to exercise their basic human rights. There is also hope that the battle is winnable.
HIV/AIDS. The nutrition community can work with the HIV/AIDS community to ensure that nutritional care is accessible to all those who need it.
----Food biotechnology is a public health issue (T)

Ontario Health Promotion E-Bulletin 02 [“Food Biotechnology: Public Health Issues,” (Friday, 26 April 2002) - - Last Updated, pg.
www.ohpe.ca/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=166]edlee
The OPHA Workgroup believes food biotechnology is a public health issue because it
* affects the food supply of the entire population,
* has strong impact on agriculture and the environment, and
* is a new technology with unpredictable consequences, and therefore requires reliable policies and methods for
assessment, monitoring and regulation.
----Food is an essential public health issue (T)

Canadian Nurses Association 00 [CNA Factsheet: Primary Health Care (2000), pg. www.cna-
nurses.ca/CNA/documents/pdf/publications/PS51_Food_safety_security_Nov_2001_e.pdf]edlee
Food is not only an agricultural and trade commodity but also an essential public health issue. There are three
food-related health hazards: malnutrition, contamination of food products and food additives. CNA believes that
addressing each of these hazards will improve the overall health of the population, reduce the need for health care and increase productivity.
----Food insecurity is a public health issue. It is a determinant of health

McIntyre 06 – Professor of Community Health Sciences @ University of Calgary [Lynn McIntyre MD, MHSc, FRCPC, POVERTY
ADMIDST AFFLUENCE: FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, October 16, 2006, pg. ]edlee
Food is a basic human need along with water, peace, shelter, education and primary health care. It has also been described as a determinant of health. I would
suggest that problematizing food insecurity as a public health issue and one that is manifested in poor health
outcomes is part of what makes it bad and not wrong. Food security is a determinant of health, yes, but it is also a determinant of life, of human dignity,
social progress, civil society, gender equity, justice and sustainable development. In this broader context, food insecurity is wrong.
93
Ans To: Topicality – Must be government-to-government

----The majority of agriculture research in Africa is done by public institutions. The plan is Government-
to-Government (T)
We assume that for the foreseeable future—the next two decades at least—the development of biotechnology
for the use of small-scale and subsistence farmers in Africa will proceed largely through the public and public-
private cooperative channels. This assumption is based on two factors. One is the current reality that most
agricultural research for Africa is conducted in public institutions.38 The other is the situation articulated in the
previous subsection: that large, private biotechnology companies lack adequate economic incentives to invest
their R&D dollars in products to improve the local crops and germplasm that are important to smallscale
and subsistence farmers.39 pg. 23-24
94
Ans To: Topicality – You must be USAID

----Agriculture plays a central role in USAID’s development strategy (T)
From the beginning of his tenure in 2001 as administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
Andrew S. Natsios stressed the central role of agriculture in USAID’s development
strategy and called for increased assistance: Without economic growth and food security, no development effort is sustainable. We will
increase support for economic growth and agriculture programs that reduce poverty and hunger, while finding better ways to mobilize and partner with the private sector. (Natsios 2001)
pg. v
95
Ans To: Topicality - Not sub-Sahara Africa

----Definition of sub-Sahara Africa
Click here to return to the footnote reference.n7. "Sub-Saharan Africa," defined: Angola, Benin, Botswana,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote
d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya,
Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nambia, Niger, Reunion,
Rwanda, St Helena, Sao Tome e Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Western Sahara, Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo), Zambia,
Zimbabwe (sometimes South Africa is not included). Gordon Conway, The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for
All in the 21st Century xiii (1998).
96
Ans To: Topicality - Must be Government –to-Government

----Public institutions dominate Africa’s biotech research
& Tec 321]edlee
for the foreseeable future -- the next two decades at least -- the development of biotechnology for the use of small-
We assume that
scale and subsistence farmers in Africa will proceed largely through the public and public-private cooperative
channels. This assumption is based on two factors. One is the current reality that most agricultural research for Africa is conducted
in public institutions. 45 The other is the situation articulated in the previous subsection: that large, private biotechnology companies lack
adequate economic incentives to invest their R&D dollars in products to improve the local crops and germplasm
that are important to small-scale and subsistence farmers. 46
97
NEG Ans To: Contention 2 – Food Security Increasing

---Food security increasing
IMF 07 [International Monetary Fund, “Regional Economic Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa,” April 07, pg. sreo0407]edlee
Food security has improved as the result of another good harvest in 2006. It is estimated that cereal production
in Africa increased in the 2006 agricultural season, with bumper harvests in several West and Southern African
countries. But severe floods and outbreaks of disease are threatening food security in East Africa, in particular
in parts of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. Conflict and refugee movements are jeopardizing food security in
Chad and the Central African Republic. In Zimbabwe high inflation, foreign exchange shortages, and poor
agricultural policies—in particular insecurity in land tenure and distorted pricing—are undermining food
security, especially in rural areas. Overall, some 18 million people in SSA are considered to be at risk of
starvation. There is also growing recognition that climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases could
precipitate more floods and drought in SSA (Box 2.4). pg. 12-13
98
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Honeybees Turn (1NC)

GM crops are toxic to honeybees
Cummins 07 - Professor of Genetics @ University of Western Ontario [Prof. Joe Cummins, “Requiem for the Honeybee: Neoniccotinoid
insecticides used in seed dressing may be responsible for the collapse of honeybee colonies,” Organic Consumers Association, 24 April 2007, pg.
There has been a great deal of concern over the decline of the honeybee across the US, Europe and Australia [1] (The Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees, this series). The United States National Research Council (USNRC)
Committee of the Status of Pollinators in North America report [2] focused on the impact of parasites, fungi, bacteria and viruses, but did not pay much attention on the impact of pesticides and genetically modified (GM)
crops, which may have lethal or sub-lethal effects on the bee's behaviour or resistance to infection. There have been strong responses to the report. Any suggestion that GM crops and pesticides may be causing the decline of
honeybees are declining both in areas where GM crops are widely grown, and
honeybees is met with heated denial from the proponents. Certainly,
a common thread that links both areas? Yes there is, the universal use of systemic
in other areas where GM crops are released in small test plots. Is there
pesticide seed dressing in GM crops and conventional crops; in particular, the widespread application of a relatively new class of systemic
insecticides - the neonicotinoids - that are highly toxic to insects including bees at very low concentrations. Systemic pesticide seed dressings protect the newly
sprouted seed at a vulnerable time in the plant's development. Seed dressings include systemic insecticides and fungicides, which often act synergistically in controlling early seedling pests.
The neonicotinoid insecticides include imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and several others. Imidacloprid is used extensively in seed dressing for field and horticultural crops, and
particularly for maize, sunflower and rapeseed (canola). Imidacloprid was detected in soils, plant tissues and pollen using HPLC coupled to a mass spectrometer. The levels of the insecticide
French and Italian beekeepers have been noticing
found in pollen suggested probable delirious effects on honeybees [3]. For several years since 2000,
that imidacloprid is lethal to bees, and the insecticide is suspected to be causing the decline of hive populations
by affecting the bee's orientation and ability to return to the hive.
Bees are key to the food supply. Colony collapse risks human extinction
Hutaff 07 [Matt Hutaff, “Give Bees a Chance,” The Simon, May 1, 2007, pg. http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01375_give_bees_chance.html]edlee
Rumor has it Albert Einstein once declared humanity could only outlive the bee by about four years . His reasoning was simple: "no more bees, no more pollination, no
more plants, no more animals, no more man."
Nothing like entomological doomsday scenarios from a classical physicist, right?
Nonetheless, it looks like we're poised to find out if the godfather of relativity is right. Bees are disappearing at an alarming rate, particularly in the United States and Germany. And while it's normal for hive populations to fall during colder winter months, the recent
exodus is puzzling beekeepers and researchers around the world. Are we witnessing the death throes of the human race firsthand? Will the bee go the way of the dodo? Not likely, but I'll tell you one thing – whatever's driving the collapse of the bee population, it's man-
made.
"During the last three months of 2006, we began to receive reports from commercial beekeepers of an alarming number of honey bee colonies dying in the eastern United States," says Maryann Frazier, an apiarist with Penn State University. "Since the beginning of the
year, beekeepers from all over the country have been reporting unprecedented losses," including one gentleman who's lost 800 of his 2,000 colonies in less than four months.
Those losses are atypical. The usual causes of death, aside from climate, are varroa mites, hive beetles, and wax moths, which infest hives weakened by sickness and malnutrition. Annual casualties tend to hover in the 20th percentile, and beekeepers work with
entomologists to protect their investments via antibiotics, miticides, and advanced pest management.
Not so today. The current blight has spread across the country rapidly, leaving abandoned hives full of uneaten food and unhatched larvae. Natural predators brave enough to enter behave erratically, "acting in a way you normally don' t expect them to act," says
beekeeper Julianne Wooten. And whereas naturally abandoned hives are infested by other insects within a short period of time, hives affected by what is tentatively labeled colony collapse disorder (CCD) are avoided.
California and Texas have been hit particularly hard by the sudden disappearance of bees, but dozens of other states are reporting major losses as well. And when you consider bees are big business as well as a critical part of the food chain, that vanishing act is no
laughing matter. Consider:
bees are essential for pollinating over 90 varieties of vegetables and fruits, including apples, avocados, blueberries, and cherries; pollination increases
the yield and quality of crops by approximately $15 billion annually; and California's almond industry alone contributes $2 billion to the local economy, and depends on 1.4 million bees, which are brought in from all over the
United States.
Bees stimulate the food supply as well as the economy. So what's the cause of colony collapse? Suspicions are pointed in several different directions, including cell phone transmissions
and agricultural pesticides, some of which are known to be poisonous to bees. But if these two factors are responsible, why are the deaths not a global phenomenon? The bee collapse began in isolated pockets before
progressing rapidly around the nation. If cell phones are to blame, shouldn't the effect have been simultaneous, and witnessed years ago? And if pesticides are strictly to blame, shouldn't beekeepers near major farm systems
be able to track those pollutants and narrow the field of possible suspects?
Perhaps they have – and the culprit is bigger than we imagine.
Several scientists have come forward with the startling claim that genetically modified food – you know, that blessing from above that would solve
famine and put food in the belly of every undernourished, Third World child – is destroying bees. How could something so wondrous as pest-resistant corn kill millions upon millions of bees? Simple – by
producing so much natural pesticide that bees are either driven mad or away.
Most genetically-modified seeds have a transplanted segment of DNA that creates a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in its cells. Normally Bt is not a problem – it's a naturally-occurring pesticide that's been used as a spray for years by farmers looking
to control crop damage from butterflies. And it's effective at helping beekeepers keep bees alive, too – Bt is sprayed under hive lids to keep those pesky wax moths from attacking.
But "instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop," writes biologist and beekeeper John McDonald. "As the transformed
plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect.
"Canadian beekeepers have detected the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants. [And] the planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to
statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields."
McDonald's analysis stands up under scrutiny. A former agronomist has commented that the one trial of GM crops in the Netherlands quickly led to colony collapse within 100 kilometers of the fields, and it's reasonable to hypothesize nature's pollinators would bear an
averse reaction to plants with poison coursing through every stem.
"The amount of Bt in these plants is enough to trigger allergies in some people, and irritate the skin and eyes of farmers who handle the crops," writes Patrick Wiebe. "In India, when sheep were used to clear a field of leftover Bt cotton, several sheep died after eating it."
If it can kill a sheep, it can certainly kill a bee.
"There is no way to keep genetically modified genes from escaping into

What can be done? Precious little if gene-modified plants are the genesis of colony collapse.
the wild," says Mike Rivero. "Wild varieties of corn in Mexico have been found to contain artificial genes carried by the wind
and bees. Indeed it is probable that the gene that makes the plant cells manufacture a pesticide has already escaped, which means this problem will only spread.
"This is far more dangerous than a toxic spill, which confines itself to the original spill and the downwind/downstream plumes. A mistake in a gene, once allowed into the wild,
can spread across the entire planet."

Genetically-modified food is produced by companies such as Monsanto (how many of its scientists do you think drive a hybrid?). Despite a number of tests, the food created by these
gene-spliced crops are considered a failure. It consistently makes animals ill, increases liver toxicity, and damages kidneys. What's the incentive to grow this food? What's the incentive to eat it?
In our dash to trademark the very building blocks of our food supply, companies experimenting with "upgrading" crops may have irreparably damaged one of nature's most important contributors. Instead of approaching
famine from a balanced perspective, corporations have patented the right to subsist. If Einstein's lesser-known theory is right, they have unwittingly become Shiva, the destroyer of
worlds.
99
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Honeybees Turn: Link Ext.
----GM crops are a death camp for honeybees
Cummins 07 - Professor of Genetics @ University of Western Ontario [Prof. Joe Cummins, “Requiem for the Honeybee: Neoniccotinoid
insecticides used in seed dressing may be responsible for the collapse of honeybee colonies,” Organic Consumers Association, 24 April 2007, pg.
Bayer corporation scientists reported that neither honeybees exposed to imidacloprid in sunflower seeds dressed with the insecticide [9] nor maize seeds dressed with the insecticide or released
from the seeds during planting [10] were detrimental to honeybees. The Bayer studies did not deal with sub-lethal behaviour of intoxicated bees. An independent study found that imidacloprid
was released to the environment from treated maize seeds during seed planting [11]. Bayer eco-toxicologists directed harsh criticisms at reports showing lethal or sub-lethal toxic effects of
imidicloprid seed dressing and concluded that imidacloprid does not pose any significant risk to honeybees in the field [12], without, however, disproving the findings. It is simply yet another
it is
case of the anti-precaution principle being applied [13] (Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle, ISIS News 6). Turning to GM crops such as maize, canola, cotton and soybean
clear that all of these GM crops, with or without Bt genes, use seeds most of which are coated with neonicotinoid pesticides highly
toxic to honey bees. For example, Herculex maize with Bt genes to control rootworm, like Yieldgard corn borer resistant maize, is planted with seeds dressed with a neonicotinoid
insecticide and a fungicide. Furthermore, the GM planting requires setting aside plots of non-GM maize making up 20 percent of the
planted area as a "refuge" to discourage the evolution of resistant insects. But the "refuge" is sprayed with
neonicotinoid pesticide to protect its yield [14], and is more like a death camp for insects. Monsanto's US Patent 6,660,690 provides
for coating GM seeds with chemical pesticides [15].
100
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – GM will not be used to grow food

----GM tech is primarily used to produce feed – Not Food
Sexton & Hildyard 99 [Sarah Sexton & Nicholas Hildyard, “Ten Reasons Why GE Foods Will Not Feed the World,” Extracted from "Food? Health? Hope? Genetic
Engineering and World Hunger", a 28-page briefing prepared by The Corner House,, pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/tenreasons.cfm]edlee
1. Feed, Not Food

The two main GE crops grown commercially in the United States – soybeans and maize (corn) - are used to feed livestock, not
people.
This may be good for GE companies and their partners in the grain trade, but it will do little to relieve world hunger. Indeed, livestock
production in many Southern countries has often been at the direct expense of poorer
people's diets.
Egypt, for instance, encouraged by USAID, invested heavily in livestock from the 1970s onwards. The country now grows more food for animals than for humans. Human supplies of grain
have been made up through US imports which contributes to Egypt's external debt. The consistent beneficiaries have been large US grain merchants which have exported US grains at hugely
subsidised prices to Egypt.
101
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Herbicide poisoning Turn

----Biotech herbicides become toxic once consumed by humans
Smith 06 [Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines,” Spilling the Beans/Institute for Responsible Technology, April/May 2006,
pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_637.cfm]edlee
There are no required safety tests for HT crops in the US-if the biotech companies declare them fit for human consumption, the FDA has no further questions. But many scientists and consumers remain
concerned, and the Liberty Link varieties pose unique risks.
herbicide (also marketed as Basta, Ignite, Rely, Finale and Challenge) can kill a wide variety of plants. It can also kill bacteria, fungi and insects, and has toxic effects
Liberty
on humans and animals. The herbicide is derived from a natural antibiotic, which is produced by two strains of a soil bacterium. In order that the bacteria
are not killed by the antibiotic that they themselves create, the strains also produce specialized enzymes which
transform the antibiotic to a non-toxic form called NAG (N-acetyl-L-glufosinate). The specialized enzymes are called the pat protein and the bar
protein, which are produced by the pat gene and the bar gene, respectively. The two genes are inserted into the DNA of GM crops, where they produce the enzymes in every cell. When the
plant is sprayed, Liberty's solvents and surfactants transport glufosinate ammonium throughout the plant, where the enzymes convert it primarily into NAG. Thus, the GM plant detoxifies the
herbicide and lives, while the surrounding weeds die.
The problem is that the NAG, which is not naturally present in plants, remains there and accumulates with every subsequent spray.
Thus, when we eat these GM crops, we consume NAG. Once the NAG is inside our digestive system, some of it
may be re-transformed back into the toxic herbicide. In rats fed NAG, for example, 10% of it was converted back to glufosinate by the time it
was excreted in the feces. Another rat study found a 1% conversion. And with goats, more than one-third of what was excreted had turned into glufosinate.
It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or rectum, are responsible for this re-toxification. Although these
rats fed NAG did show toxic effects.
parts of the gut do not absorb as many nutrients as other sections, This indicates that the herbicide had been regenerated, was
biologically active, and had been assimilated by the rats. A goat study also confirmed that some of the herbicide regenerated from NAG ended up in the kidneys, liver, muscle, fat and milk.
----Herbicide resistance risks toxic reaction

Smith 06 [Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines,” Spilling the Beans/Institute for Responsible Technology, April/May 2006,
pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_637.cfm]edlee
Pioneer Hi-Bred's website boasts that their genetically modified (GM) Liberty Link corn survives doses of Liberty herbicide, which would normally kill corn. The reason, they say, is that the
after you eat the GM corn, some inactive herbicide may become
herbicide becomes "inactive in the corn plant." They fail to reveal, however, that
reactivated inside your gut and cause a toxic reaction. In addition, a gene that was inserted into the corn might
transfer into the DNA of your gut bacteria, producing long-term effects. These are just a couple of the many
potential side-effects of GM crops that critics say put the public at risk.
Herbicide tolerance (HT) is one of two basic traits common to nearly all GM crops. About 71% of the crops are engineered to resist
herbicide, including Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) and Roundup (glyphosate). About 18% produce their own pesticide. And 11% do both. The four major GM crops are soy, corn, cotton
and canola, all of which have approved Liberty- and Roundup-tolerant varieties. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are a particularly big money-maker for biotech companies, because when farmers
buy HT seeds, they are required to purchase the companies' brand of herbicide as well. In addition, HT crops dramatically increase the use of herbicide, which further contributes to the
companies' bottom line.
102
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Cash Crop Turn (1NC)
----The tech will be used to grow tropical cash crops for the north – Not to alleviate hunger and poverty
3. Substituting Tropical Cash Crops
genetic engineering to create substitutes for tropical cash crops will destroy the livelihoods of the rural poor
Using
in many Third World countries - aggravating poverty and hunger.

Several applications of biotechnology are aimed at growing tropical cash crops in the North, or at producing in laboratories the
substances currently derived from such crops.
Canola, for example, has been genetically-engineered to produce oils which would replace coconut and palm oils. Coconut oil provides seven per cent of the total export income of the Philippines, the world's largest exporter
of coconut oil, and direct or indirect employment for 21 million people, about 30 per cent of the country's population. Other tropical crops at risk include vanilla and cocoa.
Although some of these cash crop producers will be able to switch to growing other crops, many will not. With
their income from export earnings slashed, few Southern countries will be in a position to compensate such
workers and farmers. They will be left to fend for themselves: many are likely to become malnourished for lack of cash to buy food.
103
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Superweeds Turn (1NC)

----GM crops risk “superweeds” and reduced genetic variety. Both are direct threats to food production
7. Unsustainable Agriculture
Genetic engineering in agriculture is likely to have adverse environmental impacts which are in turn likely to
undermine the ecological basis of food production.
Genetically-engineered crops will stimulate the evolution of "superweeds" and "superbugs" which will necessitate higher
doses of chemicals and make food supplies more vulnerable to pest damage.
The outcrossing of engineered traits to other plants also poses a major threat to food production.
In addition, the adoption of genetically-engineered crops is likely to reduce genetic diversity, resulting in fewer and fewer types
of food crops; the narrowing of the genetic base of food adds to the likelihood of pest
and disease epidemics.
Many of these problems stem from the fact that genetically-engineered crops will be grown in industrial monocultures. Other forms of agriculture offer far safer, proven andecologically-benign
means of protecting crops against pest damage.
104
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Superweeds Turn

----GM risks superweeds that will force farmers to use highly toxic weedkillers that will devastate human
health and wildlife
INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY 03 [“UK Told GM Crops Will Lead to "Environmental Catastrophe"”, 06/29/03, pg.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=419968]edlee
GM threatens a superweed catastrophe English Nature says the new crops could lead to farmers using toxins that would devastate the countryside By Severin
Carrell 29 June 2003 Genetically modified farming will lead to a new generation of herbicide-resistant crops which could
devastate the countryside, says English Nature.
the inevitably far stronger weedkillers that would be needed would devastate hedgerows and
The Government's chief conservation agency says
produce "superweeds" unless strict controls are imposed. English Nature has warned ministers to prepare for the "worst
verges and
case" scenario if they press ahead with proposals to grow GM crops. If the worst case becomes reality, the
agency fears that farmers could turn to highly toxic and old-fashioned weedkillers such as Paraquat and 2,4-D
because they will be faced with GM "superweeds" that can resist most modern weedkillers.
These superweeds will emerge because it is "inevitable" that weedkiller-tolerant genes will escape from GM
crops such as sugar beet, maize and oilseed rape into normal plants, English Nature states. The dangerous genes will be carried by the pollen of
GM crops, spread by the wind, by insects and by farmers moving between fields. Dr Brian Johnson, a co-author of the English Nature report,
said: "If you hit them with most of the conventional herbicides they just smile at you.
insects and birds that live off weeds, wild flowers and grasses will
They certainly don't die." And - unless the use of GM weedkillers is very strictly policed -
be killed off because farmers will be using herbicides at the wrong time of year. This would wreck the Government's multi-
million- pound programmes to save endangered birds, wildlife and insects. "It may well make some of these policies unworkable," Dr Johnson said. The "worst
case" scenario could be avoided, however, if ministers conducted even more trials, and drafted detailed and binding rules on how and where farmers grow GM crops.
The current field trials, due to finish this summer, have been too limited in scope, the agency believes. English Nature's warnings - in a detailed report to the official GM science review headed by Professor David King, Tony
Blair's chief scientific adviser - have been supported by Lord May, the president of the Royal Society. Writing in The Independent on Sunday today, Lord May says that without proper tests and controls, GM crops could lead
to a further intensification of agriculture and harm wildlife.
This would lead to "an even more silent spring" - a reference to Rachel Carson's famous 1962 book exposing the link between songbird deaths and pesticides. Dr Johnson, a
member of Professor King's panel, said one GM superweed now appears to be resistant to four types of herbicide. Experts fear that future superweeds could end up with
herbicide, fungicide and insecticide resistance, unless GM crops are heavily restricted. Drafting strict rules on GM crops was "very, very important", Dr
Johnson said.
105
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – GM has lower yields

----GM Crops lower yields
8. Lower Yields
The genetically-engineered crops now being cultivated do not have significantly increased yields. In some cases, yields are lower than those
for conventional varieties of the same crop.
In the first large-scale field trials in Puerto Rico u 1992 of Roundup Ready plants, Monsanto scientists found statistically
significant reduced yields, averaging some 11.5 per cent, in three of seven trials.
Many of the first growers of Roundup Ready cotton in the Mississippi Delta of the US complained in 1997 of low
yields and poor quality, noting that bolls dropped prematurely and were deformed. Over 50 growers filed complaints with the newly-formed US Seed Arbitration Council; Monsanto has since paid out
substantial compensation.
---No difference in crop yields

Altieri & Rosset 99 - Professor of Entomology @ UC Berkeley & Executive director of the Food First/Institute
for Food and Development Policy [Miguel A. Altieri & Peter Rosset, “Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world,” Food First, October 1999, pg. http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/altieri-11-99.html]edlee
4. Recent experimental trials have shown that genetically engineered seeds do not increase the yield of crops. A
recent study by the USDA Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different
in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations were Bt crops or HRCs fared better, they
exhibited increased yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in
another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than
similar conventionally bred varieties (USDA l999).
106
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn (1NC)

African farming is primarily organic. GM crops are a direct threat
Makanya 04 - Researcher for the PELUM (Participatory Ecological Land Use Management) Association, a
network of 170 NGOs in ten countries of East and Southern Africa: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda,
Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Lesotho, Bostwana and South Africa. [Zachary Makanya, “Twelve Reasons for Africa to Reject GM Crops,”
Seedling Magazine (published by GRAIN). Date: 17 August 2004, pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/africa-12.cfm]edlee
7. GM crops threaten organic and sustainable farming.
Most of the farmers in Africa practice organic agriculture (by default or by choice). Genetic engineering poses a great
threat to such farmers in several ways, including the following:
· Many farmers in Africa rely on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a microbe found in the soil that farmers can use as a natural
insecticide. The toxin-producing genes of Bt have also been genetically modified into certain crops so that these GM crops constantly express the Bt toxin. The widespread
growing of GM Bt crops will encourage the development of resistance to Bt among important crop pests, thus
rendering this natural insecticide useless.
· Organic farmers practice mixed cropping and crop rotation. These practices will be threatened by herbicide-tolerant GM crops, which
use broad-based herbicides that kill all plants, not just the weeds that farmers may not want.
· Natural fertility is a key factor in organic/sustainable agriculture. The herbicides encouraged by GM crops kill fungi
and bacteria essential to soil fertility management.
Organics are the only real solution to African famines

The Independent 05 [“The Solution to Famine in Africa is Organic Farming Not GMOs,” Posted 6/27/05, pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/famine062705.cfm]edlee
Hungry for an alternative Tewolde Berhan believes that organic farming is the only real solution to famine in Africa . Sally J Hall meets the quiet but
formidable Ethiopian who has become a thorn in the side of the GM foods lobby 27 June 2005 Organic farming is a slow-to-grow, low-yield industry favoured by middle-class parents who
have the time and money to meander the overpriced aisles of Waitrose, deliberating over wild rocket or white asparagus. Right? Wrong, says Tewolde Berhan. He thinks organic farming could
be the solution toEthiopia's famines. The chief of the country's Environment Agency has worked his way through academia and government to become one of the
world's most influential voices in the biotechnology field. Berhan believes that, properly applied, this approach could save the lives of many of the
thousands of Africans who die every day as a result of hunger and poverty.
He maintains that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remove control from local farmers. He speaks for a growing number who believe that Africa should return to natural,
sustainable methods of agriculture better suited to its people and environment.
Can one man hope to stand against governments and the huge multinationals? Visiting London, Berhan appears to be a frail - if nattily dressed - sexagenarian. But our conversation reveals his determination, intelligence and encyclopedic memory, combining to create an
indomitable force.
Asked why bad harvests seem to have a greater impact on Ethiopia than its neighbours, he has a simple yet stark response. "It's largely because of the lack of infrastructure," he says. "The road system in Ethiopia has doubled in the past 10 years, but is still very poor.
"Ethiopia is still an agrarian society, and there isn't one such country that hasn't had famines," he adds. "The reasons are clear: some years you have plenty and others not enough. If you don't have the technological and financial capacity and the infrastructure to store in
good years, you can't make provision for the bad. People here depend entirely on the crops they produce in their fields, so when one season fails, the result is famine." Born in 1940, Berhan graduated in 1963 from Addis Ababa University and took a doctorate at the
University of Wales in 1969. Later posts as dean of science at Addis Ababa, keeper of the National Herbarium and director of the Ethiopian Conservation Strategy Secretariat kept him in touch with the agricultural needs of Ethiopia's people.
In 1995, he was made director general of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, in effect becoming the country's chief scientist in agriculture. A strong critic of GMOs, he's a powerful voice in lobbying on food safety. His most notable triumph came in
negotiations on biosafety in Cartagena, Colombia in 1999. Berhan acted as chief negotiator for a group of southern hemisphere countries. He helped to secure an agreement to protect biosafety and biodiversity, while maintaining respect for the traditional rights of the
Third World population, gained against strong opposition from the European Union and North America.
So why is organic farming the answer? Given low yields, poor soil and drought, you'd think that industrial farming would help Ethiopia to maximise production. Not so, Berhan says. " Organic farming deviates little
from the natural environment in supplying nutrients to crops. We've developed the ability to change things in a big way and, without considering the consequences,
we create disasters. Look at what happened with DDT.
"Organic farming disturbs nature as little as possible and reduces those risks. Intensive farming has led to the exacerbation of pests and diseases, and loss
of flavour in food."
These views are at odds with the "conventional" industry. Tony Combes, the director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, a big player in the GM market, says: "Going organic isn't the way to increase yields. But then,
neither is going totally GM. Farmers need solutions suitable for local predicaments. This means choosing from a range of options - organic, conventional and GM. If yields can be increased, that surplus can be sold." Berhan
is undeterred. He has persuaded the Ethiopian government to let him demonstrate his ideas in the Axum area of Ethiopia. Old field-management techniques have been resurrected, while methods new to the area, like compost-
making, have been successful.
Those who think organic farming means low yields will be surprised by Berhan's evidence. "When well managed, and as fertility builds over years, organic agriculture
isn't inferior in yield. Now, farmers don't want chemical fertilisers. They say, 'Why should we pay for something we can get for free?'" Berhan expresses gratitude for the West's famine-relief efforts, but he has reservations. "When countries
want to help, they may not know how, so the intention has to be appreciated. But if you go beyond the intention and begin to dictate terms, it becomes more sinister. In times of shortage, making food aid available is helpful - for that year. If you keep making it available,
you discourage production."
He believes there are times when food aid can be more about control by Western governments than assistance. "The feeling is strong that this is deliberate. I attended a meeting where farmers from the USA were present. I told them a story I'd read about how rice
production in Liberia was depressed because of cheap imports from the USA. The American farmers said this was a deliberate policy by the US State Department to make countries dependent on them for food.
"I began to investigate and discovered that, while the EU has abandoned its policy of providing food aid, initially sending money so that food can be bought locally, the US still insists it will only give food in kind. This makes me feel those farmers were right."
Berhan insists on the necessity of further trials for GM crops, and believes extreme caution should be used in their growth and trade. His application for a visa to attend talks in Canada on GM labelling was turned down earlier this year, suggesting that his influence is
feared. "We were finalising the labelling of grain commodities," he says. "A compromise had been reached in 2000 for labelling to say, 'This product may contain GMOs,' but we wanted to toughen it up, to say, 'This product contains these GMOs,' and to list them."
GMOs give higher yield. "This is mainly hype. So far, there's not one GM crop that produces higher yields per
He also contests that
acre than conventional crops. They offer an economical advantage to farmers as they can apply herbicide in large doses and not have to worry about weeds: that's all."
107
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: GM tradesoff with Organics
----GM crops make it impossible to grow organics
As soon as a GM crop is released, it may contaminate other related non-GM plants through pollination. For
example, wild maize in Mexico, which is the origin of new maize genetic material, is now con tam i nat ed by
GM maize. It is irresponsible to contaminate the wild species of crops with GM material. Once released a GM
crop can never be recalled. Should such contamination be allowed, given its impact on future sustainable
agriculture in Zambia?
The introduction of GM crops will make it impossible to grow related organic crops such as baby corn because
of cross-pollination. But there is a fundamental moral responsibility that one’s actions should not harm one’s
neighbour. Introduction of GM crops into Zambia will contaminate the organic crops and prevent the organic
farmer from marketing her or his produce as organic. By what right can such damage be done to a large number
of Zambians? Pg. 18
108
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: Solves Famines

----Organic farming solves African hunger
Sunday Morning Herald 07 [“Organic could help fight world hunger,” May 6, 2007 - 6:59AM, pg. http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Organic-could-help-fight-
world-hunger/2007/05/06/1178390110892.html]edlee
organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa could help the region's hungry because it could reduce
A similar conversion to
their need to import food, Niels Halberg, a senior scientist at the Danish Research Centre for Organic Food and
Farming, told the UN conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security.
Farmers who go back to using traditional agricultural methods would not have to spend money on expensive chemicals and would grow more diverse crops that are more sustainable, the report
In addition, if their food is certified organic, farmers could export any surpluses, bringing in cash, since organic food has
said.
such premium prices.
Alexander Mueller, assistant director-general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, or FAO, praised the report and noted that projections indicated the number of hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa was only
expected to grow.
Considering that the impact of climate change will target the world's poor and most vulnerable, "a shift to organic agriculture could be beneficial", he said.
other studies of a hypothetical food supply that she said indicated organic
The Rome-based FAO's Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, who organised the conference, pointed to
agriculture could produce enough food per capita to feed the current world's population.
One such study, by the University of Michigan, found a global shift to organic agriculture would yield at least
2,641 kilocalories per person per day, just under the world's current production of 2,786, and as many as 4,381 kilocalories per person per day, researchers reported.
"These models suggest that organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture today, but with reduced
environmental impacts," Scialabba said in a paper presented to the conference.
109
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: Organics increase crops

----The spread of agroecological technologies solves
10. Although there may be some useful applications of biotechnology (i.e. the breeding drought resistant varieties or crops resistant to weed competition),because these desirable traits are
polygenic and difficult to engineer, these innovations will take at least l0 years to be ready for field use. Once available and if farmers can afford them, the contribution to yield enhancement of
such varieties will be between 20-35%; the rest of yield increases must come from agricultural management. Much of the needed food can be produced by
small farmers located throughout the world using agroecological technologies (Uphoff and Altieri l999). In fact, new rural
development approaches and low-input technologies spearheaded by farmers and NGOs around the world are
already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia and Latin America
(Pretty l995). Yield increases are being achieved by using technological approaches , based on agroecological
principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment (Rosset l999). When
such features are optimized, yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, as well as a series of ecological services
such conservation of biodiversity, soil and water restoration and conservation, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc (Altieri et al l998). These results are a
breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation in the developing world, but their potential and
further spread depends on investments, policies , institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policy makers and the scientific community, especially the CGIAR who should devote
much of its efforts to assist the 320 million poor farmers living in marginal environments. Failure to promote such people-centered agricultural research and development due to diversion of
funds and expertise to biotechnology, will forego a historical opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign and socially uplifting ways.
----The ability of agroecological technologies to improve crop production is scientifically proven

9. As the private sector has exerted more and more dominance in advancing new biotechnologies, the public sector has had to invest a growing share of its scarce resources in enhancing
biotechnological capacities in public institutions including the CGIAR and in evaluating and responding to the challenges posed by incorporating private sector technologies into existing
funds would be much better used to expand support for ecologically based agricultural research, as
farming systems. Such
The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping
all the biological problems that biotechnology aims at can be solved using agroecological approaches.
on crop health and productivity, as well as of the use of biological control agents on pest regulation have been
confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. The problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private funders at the expense
of public good research such as biological control, organic production systems and general agroecological techniques. Civil society must request for more research on alternatives to
biotechnology by universities and other public organizations (Krimsky and Wrubel l996). There is also an urgent need to challenge the patent system and intellectual property rights intrinsic to
the WTO which not only provide multinational corporations with the right to seize and patent genetic resources, but that will also accelerate the rate at which market forces already encourage
monocultural cropping with genetically uniform transgenic varieties. Based on history and ecological theory, it is not difficult to predict the negative impacts of such environmental
simplification on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri l996).
110
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: GM crop yield worse than
organics
----African GM crops have a lower yield than organics. Their solvency evidence is just media hype
deGrassi 03 - Researcher in the Institute of Development Studies @ University of Sussex [Aaron deGrassi, GENETIICALLY
MODIIFIIED CROPSS AND SUSSTAIINABLE POVERTY ALLEVIIATIION IIN SUB--SAHARAN AFRIICA: An Assessment of Current Evidence, June 2003]edlee
the three GM
In concluding, I briefly summarize the findings of the preceding sections, and then examine implications arising from the material. Specifically, having shown that
crops analyzed above are inappropriate for poverty alleviation, the large amount of publicity they have garnered
is attributable to carefully crafted and well-financed media campaigns by GM advocates. Various people have participated in
these campaigns, each for their own reasons. Politicians have latched on to biotechnology to illustrate their otherwise absent commitment to the poor. Academics have found another fad.
The result of this unjustified publicity is muted debate and
Corporations try to sell their products. Scientists have projects that need funding.
diminished capacity to select and develop appropriate science and technologies for poverty alleviation in sub-
Saharan Africa.
To summarize, virus-resistant sweet potatoes are also not demand driven, site specific, poverty focused, cost effective, or institutionally sustainable. The environmental sustainability of
modified sweet potatoes is ambiguous. Bt cotton scores low on criteria of demand drive, site specificity, and institutional sustainability. It shows ambiguous results in poverty focus and cost
effectiveness. Environmental sustainability is currently moderate, but could potentially be moderate to strong. For Bt maize, the analysis shows low demand drive,
cost-effectiveness, and institutional sustainability. It is too early too detect unambiguous site specificity or poverty focus. Environmental sustainability is currently low to moderate, but could
potentially be raised.
As mentioned in the first section, while this survey examined only genetic modification, other types of biotechnology such as molecular markers or tissue culture could be equally evaluated
with the criteria used here.
The maximum possible production increases—according to project staff themselves—are displayed in table above. These maximum gains from
genetic modification are small, much lower than with either conventional breeding or agro-ecology based
techniques. What might explain the high commitment of resources given the low relevance, sustainability, demand and poverty focus? The answer is that governments and
corporations have mobilized funding as part of high-stakes international dispute over biotechnology, in essence
rendering African agricultural research projects—and our understanding of poverty dynamics on the continent—pawns in the conflicts of
the powerful. Pg. 51
111
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn (1NC)
----Africa is key to world’s agricultural diversity. The adoption of GM crops will push more farmers into
poverty and risks monocropping
FoodFirst 07 [“Statement from 70 organisations African civil society organisations from 12 African countries at the World Social Forum 2007,” 25 January 2007, pg.
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1610]edlee
Africa is the source of much of the world's agricultural knowledge and biodiversity. African farming represents
a wealth of innovation: for example, Canada's main export wheat is derived from a Kenyan variety called "Kenyan farmer"; the US and Canada grow barley bred from
Ethiopian farmers' varieties; and the Zera Zera sorghum grown in Texas originated in Ethiopia and the Sudan. This rich basis of biodiversity still exists in Africa
today, thanks to the 80% of farmers in Africa that continue to save seed in a range of diverse eco-systems across the
continent.
The future of agriculture for Africa and the world will have to build on this biodiversity and farmers'
knowledge, especially in the current context of climate change. The diversity of seed varieties continually developed by African farmers will be vital to
ensure that they have the flexibility to respond to changing weather patterns. With the challenges that climate change will bring, only a wealth of
seed diversity maintained by farmers in Africa can offer a response to prevent severe food crises.
However, new external initiatives are putting pressure on these agricultural systems. A new initiative from the Bill Gates/Rockefeller Foundation partnership, called the "Alliance for
a Green Revolution for Africa" (AGRA) is putting over $150 million towards shifting African agriculture to a system dependent on expensive, harmful chemicals, monocultures of hybrid
seeds, and ultimately genetically modified organisms ( GM Os). Another initiative funded by the G8 is pushing biotechnology in agriculture through four new major Biosciences research centres in Africa. And
GM companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta are entering into public-private-partnership agreements with national agricultural research centres in Africa, in order to direct agricultural research and policy towards GMOs.
These initiatives under-represent the real achievements in productivity through traditional methods, and will fail to address the real causes of hunger in Africa.
initiatives
This comes at a time when the world is realising the need for organic agriculture; however these initiatives would promote the use of more chemicals, and less seed diversity in the hands of farmers. These
will destroy the bases of biodiversity, knowledge and adaptive capacity at a time when it is needed most.
This push for a so-called "green revolution" or "gene revolution" is being done once again under the guise of solving hunger in Africa. Chemical-intensive agriculture is, however, already
known to be outmoded. We have seen how fertilisers have killed the soil, creating erosion, vulnerable plants and loss of water from the soil. We have seen how pesticides and herbicides have
harmed our environment and made us sick. We know that hybrid and GM seed monocultures have pulled farmers into poverty by
preventing them from saving seed, and preventing traditional methods of intercropping which provide food
security. We vow to learn from our brothers and sisters in India, where this chemical and genetically modified system of agriculture has left them in so much debt and hunger that 150,000 farmers have committed
suicide.
The push for a corporate-controlled chemical system of agriculture is parasitic on Africa's biodiversity, food sovereignty, seed and
small-scale farmers. Farmers in Africa cannot afford these expensive agricultural inputs. But these new infrastructures seek to make farmers
dependent on chemicals and hybrid seeds, and will open the door to GMOs and Terminator crops. Industrial breeding has in fact been driven by the industry's demand for new markets--not to meet the
needs of farmers.
We know, however, that the agroecological approach to farming, using traditional and organic methods, provides the real
solutions to the crises that we face. Studies show that a biodiversity-based organic agriculture, working with
nature and not against it, and using a diversity of mixed crops, produces higher overall yields at far lower costs
than chemical agriculture. A 2002 study by the International Centre for Research on Agroforesty (ICRAF) showed
that Southern African farms using traditional agroforestry techniques did not suffer from the drought that hit the
region so severely that year.
112
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn: GM link

----GM crops risk monocropping and genetic erosion
it is difficult for formal sector seed breeders (often biotechnology corporations) to provide the kind of seeds wanted by the
To summarize,
majority of farmers in Africa. This is because the formal sector seed system is geared towards generating a
limited number of varieties, each of which is distinct, uniform and stable, displays a wide environmental adaptability, and has a potential in terms of high yield if grown with applications of external
inputs. Variation is dealt with by releasing a stream of new varieties over time, each to replace the previous, rather than by generating a large range of varieties at any one time, among which farmers can choose.
High research and development costs for genetically engineered crops will severely limit the available selection
of crop species and varieties. Therefore the technology favors monocropping with high-yielding hybrids and all
its associated economic and ecological risks. Use of a restricted number of high yielding GE varieties threatens to hasten the
already serious genetic erosion in Third World countries. Reliance on these high yielding varieties will easily
lead to genetic susceptibility and the loss of well-adopted regional varieties. Pg. 9-10
----GM crops will destroy genetic diversity. Farmers will be forced to abandon traditional varieties
The biotechnology industry maintains that genetically engineered crops actually increase the world’s agricultural biodiversity. They claim that growing more food on less land will leave more
None of the crops that have been commercialized to
room for other species to survive and may “play a part in making farms of all sizes more viable.”
date, however, have consistently increased yields or biodiversity. Rather, they have presented ongoing threats to
centers of diversity in areas around the world. Centers of diversity are areas that contain populations of relatives of crops, such as corn, rice, soy
and wheat. These populations are a reserve of genetic material that traditional crop breeders can use to breed new varieties.
The world’s agriculture cannot survive without these centers of diversity which provide the raw genetic material
for breeding new characteristics into crops—characteristics such as disease resistance, cold tolerance and drought resistance.
While genetic diversity is already being threatened by loss of small farms and industrialized agriculture, widespread use of genetically
engineered crops could intensify this loss. Wild relatives could be displaced by crops or weeds with engineered
traits that give them an advantage, such as insect resistance. In addition, farmers may abandon even more traditional
varieties as the biotechnology industry aggressively markets genetically engineered crops around the world. Pg. 44
---GM crops risks cross-contamination that will endanger Africa’s indigenous seeds
1. GM Crops will contaminate non-GM crops; co-existence is not possible

GM crops are plants and, as such, they cannot be easily controlled. Pollen can travel long distances by way of wind and
insects. Human error and curiosity or simply regular farming practices also help seed to spread. GM crops can
therefore never co-exist with non-GM crops of the same species without the risk of contaminating them, especially in
Africa where tight controls over seeds and farming is unrealistic. This contamination would have serious
implications for small-scale farmers. For instance, it would endanger the indigenous seeds that these farmers have developed over
centuries and that they trust and know. Farmers with contaminated fields could also end up being forced to pay royalties to the companies that own the patents on the GM crops that
contaminated their fields.
113
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn: Genetic diversity key to

Food Security
----Genetic diversity is key to food security
Lucas 02 – 88 JD @ University of Oregon [SCOTT C. LUCAS, “Halting the Downward Spiral of Monoculturization and Genetic Vulnerability: Toward a
Sustainable and Biodiverse Food Supply,” Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, Spring, 2002, 17 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 161]edlee
1. Genetic Diversity in Food Sources

Genetic diversity is crucial to a species' ability to survive changes in the environment, resist disease, combat predation by
other species, and generally evolve. The reason for this is grounded in Darwin's theory of evolution. When a species' survival is
challenged by disease, predation, weather or other changes in its environment, some members may survive the threat due to their genetic
makeup. Their offspring are more likely to carry the resistant genetic makeup and are therefore also more likely to survive similar threats. Over time, the overall
population of the species is strengthened and able to survive future threats because of the increased resistance of
its genetic makeup. The overall adaptability of the species and its prospects for long-term survival are thus
inextricably tied to the genetic variability of its individual members. Hence, the genetic variability of the species
humans utilize for food is key to both the survival [*170] of the species and its availability as a food source for
humans.
114
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn: Destroys Food security
----Agricultural diversity is key to African food security
The home garden is an important feature in traditional African farming systems, and perhaps the most
widespread. These gardens contain a great deal of plant diversity, since they serve as a source of vegetables, medicines, local brew for ceremonies
and even clothing.
Maintaining this diversity is critical to African livelihood and food security. Abundance of food resources
therefore would not necessarily ensure that communities have sustainable livelihoods. It is run and managed for many diverse
reasons. Pg. 8-9
----If we win our “monocropping” arg, it undermines their ability to solve the AFF
The lessons from the chemical era, and especially the Green Revolution, remind us that long term sustainability
can only be achieved through a comprehensive ecological, social and economic assessment of sustainable livelihoods, poverty
eradication and human development in rural areas, and the production systems which serve these goals. Otherwise, any short term increase in yields will
soon be offset by environmental, health and social costs, which eventually lead to a total net loss. Caution is
even more urgent where new technologies can cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem and human health,
and the benefits have yet to be fully assessed against the hazards and risks. Pg. 16
115
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Africa opposes GM 1/2

----Africa rejects GM food. Rejection of food aid proves
For proponents of genetically modified food, these are dark times. Led by Zambia, and recently followed by India, more and
more countries in the Global South are spurning genetically modified (GM) food aid, and questioning the wisdom of a corporate-controlled food
system. Zambia is the mouse that roared. A country facing widespread famine, Zambia refused genetically
contaminated food aid from the U.S., after a review by its scientists of studies on GM foods showed insufficient evidence to demonstrate its safety. Pg. 1
----Africa is united in their opposition to GM foods

Africa has, however, been largely united against U.S.- pushed GM, opting instead for self-sufficiency. In 1998, all
African delegates (except South Africa) to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) negotiations on the International
Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources released a statement, “Let Nature’s Harvest Continue” (see page 5).
During the past few weeks European citizens have been exposed to an aggressive publicity campaign in major European newspapers trying to convince the reader that the world needs genetic engineering to feed the hungry.
Organized and financed by Monsanto, one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and titled, “Let the Harvest Begin,” this campaign gives a totally distorted and misleading picture of the potential of genetic engineering
the undersigned delegates of African countries participating in the 5th Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic
to feed developing countries. We,
Resources, strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant
multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically
beneficial to us….We think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural
systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves. We invite European citizens to stand in
solidarity with Africa in resisting these gene technologies so that our diverse and natural harvests can continue and grow. Pg. 4
----Over 20 African consumer organizations is leading opposition

Over 20 African consumer leaders from more than 20 organizations gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, found
enough “reasonable suspicion” to reject genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, as an answer to food
security in the region.
After several days of plenary sessions, workshops and debates on issues dealing with trade, international
governance, environment, health and economic issues, bioethics and legitimate factors, and intellectual property
rights, delegates at the conference came out with the decision that “GM technology is not a solution for food
security in Africa, including the small Island states.” Pg. 60
116
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Africa opposes GM 1/2

----The majority of African countries reject the use of biotech
Ogodo 06 [Ochieng’ Ogodo, “US Biotech Companies Urge Africa to Catch Up,” Islam Online, June 13, 2006, pg. http://www.africabiotech.com/news2/article.php?uid=149]edlee
But in Africa, only South Africa has started benefiting from biotech farming and has increased its combined area of GM maize, soybean
and cotton to 0.4 million hectares.
At present, most African countries cannot advance GM crop research because national policies or regulatory
systems are not prepared to deal with safety requirements for approving its general use. This is even worsened by the fact that
most decision-makers lack science-based biosafety information crucial to improving the clarity of these regulatory policies and procedures.
Only South Africa and Nigeria have a specific policy for biotechnology development and application.
----Sub-Sahara continues to block GM Foods

Gombakomba 06 [Carole Gombakomba, “Outside South Africa, Southern African Nations Eschew GMO Crops,” Voice of America, 23 November 2006, pg.
http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/Zimbabwe/2006-11-23-voa36.cfm]edlee
Not enough is known about the potential risks of genetically modified crops for Southern Africa to embrace the
controversial technology, according to scientists and government officials attending a conference at Victoria Falls this week.
Zimbabwean and other scientists concluded that despite the food shortages facing countries in the region -
Zimbabwe among them - more research is needed to ensure the safety of genetically modified seeds and other organisms.
Reverend Forbes Matonga, national director of Christian Care, which organized the conference, said the Harare government has recommended that all grain be milled outside the country so
modified grain cannot be planted within Zimbabwe.
continues to block the entry of genetically modified food from countries such as the United States and South Africa.
Harare
The use of genetically modified organisms in farming is also banned as research and debate continues.
----Public opposition will doom agricultural biotech

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are spearheading the opposition to agricultural biotechnology. Their campaign is full of histrionics and scare tactics the effect of which should not be
it simply does not matter how technically promising
underestimated since political decisions are often driven by emotional concerns. Hence,
genetically engineered crops are -- if the public is afraid of them and unwilling to accept GM foods, then the
technology will go nowhere. There will be no market for the crops, which means no funding for additional
research. Ironically, some of the emotions surrounding biotechnology inventions are legitimate and understandable since, to the layperson at least, it might be alarming to discover that
scientists have developed the ability to transfer genes from one species to another, or to create a seed that will produce just a single crop but that is otherwise sterile, actually unable to self-
propagate. 132 A thoughtful examination of the details, however, serves to assuage most of these concerns. What may seem spectacular and threatening to the non-expert, generally turns out to
be quite innocuous if not prosaic to those who are in the best position to evaluate the risks: the researchers themselves. Most agricultural scientists working in this field simply do not view
biotechnology as a threat but rather see it as a technology holding great promise. 133 Yet, many NGOs seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the data and instead insist on distorting the facts
and slandering the technology.
----Massive opposition to biotech

Whether or not biotechnology will be allowed to address many of the problems facing the developing world is still an open question . Many in the developed world
condemn biotechnology and genetically modified organisms because of the perceived problems that they may cause to health, the environment, and social institutions. 176
Most agricultural scientists, however, understand the value of biotechnology and do not view it as a threat. 177 This includes many African scientists who are convinced that biotechnology can
. One aspect of this opposition in the developing world stems from
stave off starvation. 178 Still, significant opposition to the technology exists
the perception that biotechnology will not only alter agriculture but that it will also alter the overall economy,
perhaps adversely. Moreover, whenever there has been new technology introduced into agriculture, there has been resistance, although the opposition to modern
biotechnology is unprecedented. 179 Perhaps this issue can be better understood if it is placed in historical context.
117
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Scientist Oppose

---African scientist perceive GM as a waste of time
deGrassi 03 - Researcher in the Institute of Development Studies @ University of Sussex [Aaron deGrassi, GENETIICALLY
MODIIFIIED CROPSS AND SUSSTAIINABLE POVERTY ALLEVIIATIION IIN SUB--SAHARAN AFRIICA: An Assessment of Current Evidence, June 2003]edlee
If most analysts now agree that biotechnology is not a panacea, nor a “magic bullet” that will on its own solve hunger, the next question we must ask is, “how effective a tool is it?” The
evidence compiled in this report shows that while genetic modification may constitute a novel tool, in Africa it is a relatively
ineffective and expensive one. Cash-strapped scientists working with poor farmers in Africa might well regard
genetic modification as a waste of time and money. The evidence assembled here supports the view of a South African commentator: “There are better ways to feed Africa
than GM crops.”418
In fact, the language of biotechnology as a tool one can “choose” or “not choose” may obscure crucial decisions about planning and democratic priority setting. Some analysts suggest that the best approach is to simply let
farmers choose whether they like conventional or GM crops best. This simple suggestion is misleading for several reasons. First, it is a wasteful and irrational to invest huge sums of resources to develop many sorts of
technologies, and then when the technologies are completed, let farmers choose which they prefer. Experience has shown it is much better to involve farmers in the process of developing technologies, rather than merely
where cross-pollination is likely (as with maize, but not cotton or sweet potatoes) and marketing channels
choosing between end products. Secondly,
messy, then neither farmers nor consumers will be able to choose whether they plant and/or consume transgenic
varieties.419 pg. 57
118
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Alt Causality

----Lack of access to international markets prevent reforms
In developing countries, the lack of effective and fair markets for surplus food production may be the greatest
obstacle. Access to local, national, and international markets provides farmers the incentive they need to risk
their labor and capital on expanded production. Without workable markets, the best natural resources and
farming techniques are not enough to produce successful food systems. Effective markets require sound
political, economic, and social institutions and policies, as well as transportation systems and other physical
infrastructure, which are lacking in many developing countries. Effective markets in developing countries will
also require change in the agricultural and trade policies of the United States and other industrialized countries
that distort market prices for staple commodities and create obstacles to developing country exports. Pg. 20
----Too many causes of food insecurity. They can’t solve

There are many other causes of food insecurity in sub-

The pressure from a growing human population is but one source of the food security problem.
Saharan Africa, including natural disasters, like drought and pestilence, and human-made problems, like
corruption in government, warfare, and civil strife. 18 Food security transforms into an [*280] emergency when its long-term (growing population) and
short-term (drought and warfare, e.g.) causes converge. In the time it takes to read this paragraph, fifty human beings were born into the world: human population grows exponentially every
single moment of every single day. 19
119
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Production is not the issue 1/2

----Production is not the issue. AFF can’t solve for the root cause
Drago 06 [Tito Drago, “Hunger Due to Injustice, Not Lack of Food,” Inter Press Service, October 16 2006, pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3162.cfm]edlee
hunger-related causes every year. However, that is not because of actual shortages of food, but is a
MADRID, Oct 16 (IPS) - Millions of people die of
result of social injustice and political, social and economic exclusion, argue non-governmental organisations that launched a campaign in Spain on World
Food Day Monday.
Oct.16 was established as World Food Day in 1979 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), commemorating the agency's Oct. 16, 1945 founding date. Monday also marked the first day of Anti-
Poverty Week, which will include events in Spain and around the world to raise awareness of the issue.
FAO's slogan for World Food Day this year is "Invest in Agriculture for Food Security". But NGOs argue that the problem is not a lack of food production, but of the injustice surrounding access to and use of foods.
enough food is produced in the world to cover the needs of

Theo Oberhuber, head of the Spanish environmental NGO Ecologists in Action (EEA), told IPS that
everyone, so that no one would have to go hungry.

But, he added, there are two problems that stand in the way of this. The first is that a large part of all food, whether agricultural products or food obtained
from oceans or rivers, goes towards feeding livestock "whose meat and by-products are consumed mainly in the countries of the industrialised North."
The second, he said, is social injustice. In many countries, the majority of the population cannot afford food, "not even food of lesser quality."
----GM can’t solve hunger. Distribution – Not production – is the problem

Schwind & Poole-Kavana 05 - Program Director at the Institute for Food and Development Policy &
Associate at Food First. [Kirsten Schwind (Masters degree in Natural Resources Management from the University of Michigan) and Hollace Poole-Kavana (Studied biology at
Cornell), “We Need GMO Food Like a Hole in Our Kidneys,” CommonDreams.org, Published on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/kidneys062805.cfm]edlee
What of the famed argument that GM crops are worth it because they will resolve world hunger? GM crops fundamentally cannot end hunger because
hunger isn’t caused by a lack of food. The world currently produces enough food for everyone on earth to
consume over 2,800 calories a day – that¹s enough to make most people a bit pudgy. The problem is that food doesn¹t go the hungriest people because they
don¹t have the resources to buy it or grow it. Pennsylvania is full of productive farms, yet one in ten residents of the City of Brotherly Love know hunger all too well. Hunger is
caused by a lack of access to basic human rights, including good education, health care, housing, and living wages – in the Untied
States and throughout the world. Hunger is also caused by racism and inequality. These topics aren¹t on the agenda of this year¹s BIO conference.
----Production is not an issue. There is enough food to provide 4.3 pounds every person everyday
1. There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely
The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is
populated and hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia.
available to provide 4.3 pounds every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits
and vegetables. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Too many people are too poor to
buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins and
Rosset l998).
----Food production is increasing. The primary issue is distribution

Extensive research on hunger by Food First reveals that the first assumption is not based in fact. The world today produces more food per in hab it ant
than ever before. In fact, over the past 35 years, per capita food production has outstripped population growth by 15%.
The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but
often poorly distributed) or lack the land and re sourc es to grow it themselves. Pg. 5
120
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Production is not the issue 2/2
---Access to food is the issue. GMO’s make the problem worse
GMOs are the wrong answer to the wrong problem. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that too many people
have no access to adequate food. Four out of five hungry people live in countries that are exporting food, while
Europe and North America are facing a food surplus problem. That is why they want to break open the markets of poor countries for their agricultural products. Besides, GMOs will
increase the stranglehold of transnational corporations. The top five agrochemical companies also dominate the transgenic seed business. They will
dictate the terms. The farmers will be at the losing end. So what’s the use of increasing yields when you’re pushing
millions of small farmers deeper into perennial poverty? And then there’s the question of whether GMOs will actually increase productivity. I doubt it.
Farms that produce an adequate and diversified food supply for the local market are much more productive than
those that produce only one crop destined for cities or export. Pg. 7
----The problem is purchasing power.

9. GM crops will not reduce hunger in Africa

Hunger in Africa is not due to a lack of food; there is enough food for all. The main problem is the poor purchasing power
of the population because of poverty. This poverty is exacerbated by trade liberalisation in the context of deep global inequality. With trade liberalisation,
African farmers have to compete directly with the heavily subsidised and marketed agricultural products from
the West. It¹s like a soccer match with the small scale farmers playing uphill.
121
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No funding for R&D

----Developing countries lack funding to for biotech R&D
The cost of introducing a

Biotechnology has been characterized as "one of the most capital and research intensive industries in the history of civilian manufacturing." 66
new GM crop to market can range from $ 30 to $ 50 million. 67 Similarly, bringing biotechnology-based
pharmaceuticals to market costs [*50] approximately a quarter of a billion dollars and takes four to seven years.
68 Developing countries lack the government funding and capital markets necessary to fund expensive
biotechnology R&D. For example, in 1988, India's total R&D budget was $ 2.5 million. 69 This is less than 5% of the capital needed to bring a new GM crop to market, and less
than 1% of the capital needed to bring a new pharmaceutical to market.
----Africa lacks the scientific resources to expand its biotech capacity

While the articulation and implementation of a biotechnology policy requires political will and financial resources to back it up, scientific resources are needed for the development of
science departments in the
biotechnological capacity necessary for the utilization of the promises of genomic revolution. Hassan observed that former world-class
universities of some African countries, for instance, Nigeria, Tanzania, Sudan and Ghana, have long deteriorated due to insufficient
funding and adverse effects of political instability, and a host of socio-economic problems that have come to
characterize many African countries. 262 Revamping such scientific centers along the lines of a well-developed
biotech policy is a necessary step in the evolution of biotech capacity in many developing countries. Developments in
India (as well as Brazil, Cuba, and China) relating to biotechnology capacity building are commendable and could serve as a model to other developing countries seeking to formulate and
implement a biotechnology policy.
-----Resource challenged countries will not have the funds for biotech R&D
Though the preceding analysis attempted to highlight the importance and benefits of an appropriate biotechnology policy in developing countries, it should be emphasized, however, that even
a resource-challenged country might still be unable to engage in health biotechnology
with the appropriate technology policy,
R&D. 313 I observed earlier that India spends more than US$ 30 million annually on its Department of Biotechnology alone
and Nigeria spends about US$ 230 million on its own National Biotechnology Development Agency. 314 Some of the
least-developed countries cannot afford these sums of money. To effectively confront this financial problem, a resource-poor country with a well-
articulated biotechnology policy may wish to establish research collaboration links with industry, universities, and the public sector in the North. 315
122
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No infrastructure 1/

----They lack the infrastructure to support biotech development
Even if developing countries had adequate R&D funding, they lack the infrastructure necessary to support
biotechnology development, including regulations, facilities, equipment, transportation, telecommunications, training, distribution channels, and links between researchers
and the industry. 70 Developing countries also lack trained scientists. For example, in 1988, India had only 3.12 researchers per 10,000 people. 71 Developing
countries lack trained scientists for three reasons. First, their national curricula, until very recently, did not include biotechnology courses. 72 Second,
they lack strength in basic science and technology. 73 Finally, they have limited resources to invest in training. 74
Some countries have attempted to solve these problems by sending students abroad for training or by collaborating with foreign universities and training institutions. However, many countries
students who train abroad often do not return to their native countries because the foreign
cannot afford to do this. Plus,
countries offer better resources. 75
----Africa lacks the technical skills and institutional support for biotech development
B. Lack of Technical Skill & Institutional Support for Biotechnology.

Another obstacle to the realization of the promises of genomics is the absence of technical and institutional
capacity in many developing countries, with the possible exception of Brazil, 98 India, 99 China, 100 and Cuba. 101 In some parts of Africa,
governmental support for scientific enterprise has witnessed an all time [*390] low, following debilitating political and economic
problems. 102 Lack of governmental commitment to technological growth through adequate funding and favorable
policy 103 has exacerbated the movement of skilled manpower from the South to the North (brain drain syndrome). 104 For instance, Hassan observed
"that 30,000 [African] Ph.D. holders ... live and work outside their home countries," while a much lower figure with same qualification work in Africa. 105 Also, 100,000 Indian professionals a
Brain drain diminishes the ability of a developing country
year are expected to be issued working visas for technology-related jobs in the U.S.A. 106
to build the critical mass necessary for technological growth. 107 Absent basic capacity in biotechnology, the
promises of genomics can hardly be realized. 108 In certain circumstances, however, it is possible to convert brain drain to brain gain. For instance, diasporas
can enhance their countries' reputation and contribute to the technological growth of their home countries by forging effective research collaboration links. 109
----Africa lack the scientific base to take advantage of biotech

Historically, there have been large spillovers of improved varieties and the technology and know-how embodied in them from one country to another. However, we cannot presume that the rich
countries of the world will play the same roles as in the past. 143 In particular, countries that in the past relied on technological spillovers from the North may no longer have that luxury
available to them in the same ways or to the same extent. 144 This change can be seen as involving three elements. First, the types of technologies being developed in the rich countries may no
longer be as readily applicable to less-developed countries as they were in the past. The agenda in richer countries is shifting away from areas like yield improvement in major crops to other
crop characteristics and even to non-agricultural issues. 145 Second, the private presence in rich country agricultural research and development has increased and many biotech companies are
not as interested in developing technologies for many less-developed country applications. Even where they have such technologies available, often they are not interested in pursuing potential
those technologies that are applicable and available are likely to require more
[*251] markets in less developed countries. 146 And third,
substantial local development and adaptation, calling for more sophisticated and extensive forms of scientific
research and development than in the past. For instance, more advanced skills in modern biotechnology or conventional breeding
may be required to take advantage of enabling technologies or simply to make use of less-finished lines that require additional work to tailor them to
local production environments. 147 In short, different approaches may have to be devised to make it possible for less-developed
countries to achieve equivalent access to technological potentials generated by rich countries. In many instances, less-
developed countries may have to extend their own research and development efforts to more fundamental areas
of the science.
123
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No infrastructure 2/
----Africa’s agricultural research capacity is shrinking
Komen, Mignouna, & Webber 00 - Associate Research Officer at ISNAR’s Biotechnology Service, IITA’s
Project Coordinator for Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology for Crop Improvement & Research Analyst @
ISNAR. [John Komen, Jacob Mignouna, and Hope Webber, “BIOTECHNOLOGY IN AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:OPPORTUNITIES FORDONOR
ORGANIZATIONS,” International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Briefing Paper #43, Feb. 2000]edlee
While the factors affecting growth and productivity in agriculture are many, there is general agreement that investing in a functioning agricultural R&D system is a necessary component of a
successful development strategy. In Africa this principle spurred a rapid increase in the number of agricultural researchers. The total number of full-time-equivalent researchers grew fourfold in
real agricultural research expenditures began to shrink in the
the period 1961-1991, and their levels of formal training rose as well. However,
1980s. The result is that research spending per scientist in 1991 averaged about 66% of the 1961 level. This
downward trend also reflects the changing composition of the scientific workforce, from predominantly well-
paid expatriates—accounting for 11% of the researchers working in national agencies throughout sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) in 1991, down dramatically from
90% in the early 1960s — to local staff. Only Botswana, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe spent more per scientist in 1991 than they had three decades earlier. Pg. 2
----Lack of human resource availability dooms the program

Human resource availability has been identified as one of the key determinants in
biotechnology development. The birth of the US biotechnology industry has been
associated with presence of individuals endowed with intellectual capital (Zucker et
al., 1994). The abundance of scientists with intellectual capital and the flexibility in
interaction between academia and industrial clusters accelerated the growth of the
biotechnology sector. The strength of basic research capabilities seems to be a
determinant in biotechnology or genetic product design and development
(Henderson et al., 1999). Many countries have combined local training programmes
with international training opportunities. For example, the Department of
Biotechnology in India initiated a programme to train at least 500 graduates a year at
post-graduate level in biotechnology (Department of Biotechnology, India, at
http://dbtindia.nic.in/). Pg. 29
124
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No technology policy

----The lack of a sustainable technological policy undercuts their ability to solve
developing countries lack a well-articulated and workable technology policy.

[*391] In addition to the problem of brain drain, some
Building the desired technological capacity and unleashing the creativity of scientists in developing countries
demands a focused and sustainable technology policy. 110 The uneven diffusion of biotechnology capacity within developing countries (for instance, the
biotechnology gap between India and Ethiopia) could be explained in terms of differences in their technology policies. 111 A good technology policy would determine the specific
biotechnology research and development to be pursued and the timeline for its realization. At this time, for instance, developing countries need not develop capacity for cutting-edge
technologies. 112 What developing countries need is to evolve local capacity to adapt biotech innovations to their particular circumstances and needs. 113 The importance of
policy in the biotechnology enterprise cannot, therefore, be overemphasized. 114 The point, however, is that absent institutional capacity for
health biotechnology, such as skilled scientists, well-funded research centers and institutions, and good [*392] technology policy, the benefits of genomics will remain a mirage for many
developing countries.
----US cannot formulate a technology policy for Africa. The policy must address a host of other issues
before biotech development can take place
Developing countries must establish relevant and sufficient policies that encourage the development of biotechnological capacity, and improve their health-care delivery services. 256
However anxious an industrialized country may be to help a developing country, it cannot formulate technology
policies for the developing country. Every developing country must bear the burden of making a policy choice
and developing one for itself, knowing that it swims or sinks with its decision. A developing country's technology policy should determine whether biotechnology research
should focus on scientific solutions to local problems, 257 or address scientific questions of global importance, 258 or embody an optimal mix of both objectives. Brazil is a major exporter of
a
agricultural products and has adopted a biotechnology policy that increases agricultural productivity through its sequencing programs on pathogens of local citrus crops. 259 Accordingly,
good policy framework is very important for both developing and reaping the benefits of biotechnology.
Unleashing the creativity of a country's citizens demands a focused and sustained policy that addresses a [*416]
host of relevant factors including: education (which involves the rethinking of school curricula to address the needs of a knowledge-based global economy); 260
establishing political and macroeconomic stability that stimulates an innovative environment; increasing
expenditure on health, improving health-care infrastructure, and ensuring access to health services; 261 promoting
university-industry partnership; and reforming the telecommunication sector.
125
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Poor Training

----Training African scientist receive is not applicable to conditions in sub-Sahara
Woodward, Brink, & Berger 99 – Researchers @ ARC-Roodeplaat Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institue,
South Africa [Barbara Woodward, Johan Brink, and Dave Berger, “Can Agricultural Biotechnology Make A Difference In Africa?,” AgBioForum: The Journal of Agrobiotechnology
Management & Economics, Volume 2 // Number 3 & 4 // Article 5, pg. http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a05-woodward.htm]edlee
One of the more serious problems with training of African scientists is the lack of opportunities for African
graduates once they return to their home-countries, and particularly after obtaining degrees in developed
countries. Training gained in developed countries using hi-tech equipment to study esoteric topics does often
not equip African scientists to return and contribute to growth in their own countries. Some countries in Africa
are now sending students for training at South African universities in the hope that graduates will be more
willing to return to their home-countries once their studies have been completed.1
126
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Regulations

----Regulatory environment prevent the use of GM crops
First, findings suggest that the regulatory environment governing the introduction of new technologies is
slowing the forward movement of research into later stages of product development. The absent, incomplete, or
nascent character of many regulatory regimes means that very few GM crops have moved onwards to efficacy
and performance trials, testing for human and environmental safety, commercialization, marketing, or
distribution.
----Regulatory regimes will delay commercialization

In terms of R&D processes, however, the study shows that most of these events remain confined to the
experimental stage of laboratory and greenhouse trials, with few advancing to field trials for biosafety testing,
scaling-up for environmental, health, and efficacy testing, or commercialization for release to farmers (Cohen,
2005). Survey respondents indicated that progress has been delayed not only by slow movement through normal
R&D processes, but also by other, more ad hoc, regulatory barriers. Some countries covered by the study have
subjected GM crops to multiple years of testing and significant waiting periods for approvals for scale-up or
precommercial trials above and beyond the requirements for conventionally bred cultivars. Other countries have
only implemented interim guidelines or regulations that do not allow for commercial approvals. Even some of
those countries that do have the ability to evaluate and commercialize GM crops lack confidence in their
decision-making capacity and have thus delayed commercialization. Some countries are also facing physical
limitations, such as growers' inability to produce adequate seed amounts for large-scale or food safety testing.
127
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – EU opposition 1/

----Africa countries will not use GM crops. They fear EU trade restrictions
McDonald 04 – 03 JD Candidate @ University of Georgia [Michelle K. McDonald, “International Trade Law and the U.S.-EU GMO Debate: Can
Africa Weather This Storm?,” The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring 2004, 32 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 501]edlee
In addition to cultivating GMOs domestically for sale both at home and on the world market, the United States is also the largest contributor of relief food to the World Food Program (WFP),
an organization that provides food aid to developing countries. 18 United States officials do not deny that a majority of the food products it provides for use and consumption by developing
severe trade restrictions being imposed by
countries, including several within Africa, have undergone some level of genetic modification. 19 However,
countries within Europe against those who utilize GMO technology to create biotech crops has prompted a
backlash by both critics of biotechnology and the [*506] potential recipients of food aid who blame the United States for "inflam[ing] a debate in starving southern Africa about the
gene-altered foods." 20
Developing countries in Africa that are impacted by an ongoing hunger epidemic remain concerned that the EU could halt ongoing
trade essential to their economies. 21 They fear that the genetically modified foods offered by the United States
to help eliminate harmful food shortages could contaminate Africa's remaining food and grain supply. 22 Furthermore,
GMO opponents within Africa remain concerned that the prophesied environmental harm could be realized, contaminating plants, animals, and humans alike. GMO proponents,
however, are frustrated by the ongoing refusal by many African countries to accept the U.S. offer of food aid since many
believe that the benefits of GMO technology, which could provide food aid to over thirteen million people currently starving in Africa, outweigh the potential harms. 23 The difficulty in
finding some resolution to the GMO dispute is further compounded by the ongoing "intergovernmental squabbling" within the EU. 24 Furthermore, the current EU position appears to stand in
direct opposition to the WTO's underlying principal encouraging free trade among all of its members. 25
----European opposition to GM Foods is forcing poor countries to adopt overly restrictive policies. It will
deny them the much-needed benefits of GM foods.
Foundation) “Technology That Will Save Billions From Starvation,” The American Enterprise, March 01, 2004, pg. http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/save-
billions.html]edlee
The biggest threats that hungry populations currently face are restrictive policies stemming from unwarranted
public fears. Although most Americans tend to support agricultural biotechnology, many Europeans and Asians have been far more cautious. Anti-biotechnology
campaigners in both industrialized and less developed nations are feeding this ambivalence with scare stories that have led to the
adoption of restrictive policies. Those fears are simply not supported by the scores of peer reviewed scientific
reports or the data from tens of thousands of individual field trials.
In the end, over-cautious rules result in hyper-inflated research and development costs and make it harder for
poorer countries to share in the benefits of biotechnology. No one argues that we should not proceed with caution, but needless restrictions on
agricultural biotechnology could dramatically slow the pace of progress and keep important advances out of the hands of people who need them. This is the tragic side effect of unwarranted
concern.
In 2002, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa rejected some 23,000 metric tons of food aid in the midst of a two-year-long drought that
threatened the lives of over 2 million Zambians. President Mwanawasa's public explanation was that the bioengineered corn from
the United States was "poisonous." Other Zambian government officials conceded that the bigger concern was for future corn exports to the European Union, which observes a
moratorium on new G.M. foods.
Zambia is not unique. European biotechnology restrictions have had other, similar consequences throughout the developing world. Thai government officials have
been reluctant to authorize any bioengineered rice varieties, even though it has spent heavily on biotechnology research. Uganda has
stopped research on bioengineered bananas and postponed their introduction indefinitely. Argentina has limited its approvals to the two
bioengineered crop varieties that are already permitted in European markets.
Even China, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding advanced biotechnology research, has refused to authorize any new
bioengineered food crops since the European Union's moratorium on bioengineered crop approvals began in 1998. More recently, the International Rice Research Institute,
which has been assigned the task of field-testing Golden Rice, has indefinitely postponed its plans for environmental release in the Philippines, fearing backlash from European-funded NGO
protestors. Still, the E.U. moratorium continues to persist after five long years, despite copious evidence, including from the E.U.'s own researchers, that biotech modification does not pose any
risks that aren't also present in other crop-breeding methods.
128
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – EU opposition 2/
----EU opposition guts their solvency
. If those countries with

Finally, in Part V, this paper concludes that agricultural biotechnology can, with the cooperation of every nation, solve serious environmental issues
opposing views are further polarized, however, biotechnology cannot reach its potential. Currently, developing
nations are in desperate need of aid from the developed nations. Agricultural biotechnology will solve many of
their problems, but can only do so effectively with support from the EU. Differences must be set aside, as must political influences, to aid
those less fortunate. While [*723] third-world nations are currently the most in need, the entire world's population relies on the biodiversity found mainly in the developing nations. Even if the
EU is unwilling to accept agricultural biotechnology for its citizens, it must realize the good it can do in other areas of the world .
----EU and Japanese opposition destroys the incentive for biotech research
Biotechnology is not the panacea, but it is perhaps the best tool that is available today. It can aid third-world nations, preserve biodiversity, and increase the food supply for the developed
nations. As the world population increases, biotechnology provides the only current answer to solving food shortages. If the EU and other nations of the world do not embrace this technology,
opposition to GMOs by the EU, and most recently by Japan, because of their
they will not be able to feed themselves one day. The unwarranted
trading relationship with the United States, threatens the existence of GMOs on a global scale. If import
restrictions become severe and/or widespread, the United States will be prohibited from growing genetically
modified crops. If the United States is not growing these crops, U.S. biotech companies will have no incentive
[*748] to continue researching and developing GMOs. The outcome of this chain of events will be that the
developing nations will be denied the great benefits of genetically altered crops.
----European opposition prevents adoption

At present, however, the dogmatic opposition to GM crops in Europe is hindering their development. "Several
countries, including Thailand, Zambia and Zimbabwe, have delayed or abandoned biotech crop programmes
because^ of fears for food safety and that they would lose export markets into Europe," says James. Pg .43
129
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Courts will strike down

----No research exemptions. The court will strike the CP down
1. Research Exemptions to Patent Rights

Patents for agricultural biotechnology are utility patents. 251 There is no practical research exemption available
to utility patents. 252 In Madey v. Duke University, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the available
research exemption in patent law is "very narrow and strictly limited." 253 The Court rejected the district court's ruling that an affirmative
defense existed for use of a patented invention for "research, academic, or experimental ... [and] non-profit purposes." 254 The Court held the research exemption is limited to uses "for
amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry" and not for the research conducted at a university. 255
130
Counterplan – China Shell 1/1

----China has the capability to do extensive biotech research. They have already created transgenic
varieties for the most difficult crops
Qifa 99 – Reasearcher on biotechnology @ Huazhong Agricultural University [Qifa Zhang, “China: Agricultural Biotechnology
Opportunities to Meet the Challenges of Food Protection,” in Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor, ed. G. J. Persley and M. M. Lantir (Washington, D.C.: Consultive Group on
International Agricultural Research, 1999), http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/zhang.pdf.]edlee
In the last 15 years there have been rapid developments in China in scientific infrastructure and also research
programs in biotechnology and molecular biology of various crop plants. Infrastructure developments include
the establishment of National Key Laboratories in the general areas of agricultural biotechnology and crop
genetics and breeding, in north, central and south China. These laboratories are well equipped for biotechnology and
molecular biology research. In addition, there are open laboratories supported by the Ministry of Agriculture,
the Ministry of Education, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. These laboratories have provided good
opportunities for biotechnology research.
Financial Resources
During the same period, regular funding channels were formed at the central government level, which support
basic and applied research. This includes the establishment of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and The Chinese Foundation of Agricultural Scientific
Research and Education. Major research initiatives and
The most important programs for biotechnology R&D are the
programs were also established at the state level and by various ministries.
National Program on High Technology Development (also known as the 863 Program) and the National Program on the
Development of Basic Research (also known as 973), both of which included agricultural biotechnology as a major
component. Programs were set up to promote young scientists by awarding special grants from the National Natural Science Foundation, the 863 Program, and also various ministries.
Similar systems, although smaller, were also developed by local governments in many provinces.
International funding channels also opened to Chinese scientists during this period, including those of the Rockefeller Foundation,
McKnight Foundation, the International Foundation for Science, and the European Union-China collaboration programs. The availability of financial support has
enhanced research capacity and has promoted the development of young scientists. Some of the programs have a
training component as well.
Scientific Advances
Rapid advances have been made in molecular biology and biotechnology research in China in the 1990s. These
include genomic studies in rice and other cereals, development of molecular marker technologies, identification, and mapping and molecular cloning of a large number of agriculturally useful
studies have resulted in powerful tools for crop improvement (for example, marker-assisted selection) that can be applied
genes. These
to develop new cultivars and hybrid parents.
Transformation technologies have also been firmly established in many laboratories for most of the crop
species, including major cereal crops such as corn, rice, and wheat that are often considered difficult to transform. Transgenic plants can
now be routinely produced for crops such as rice, corn, wheat, cotton, tomato, potato, soybean, rapeseed, and
other crops, using Agrobacterium, particle bombardment or other methods. Pg .45-46
131
Counterplan – China CP Ext. 1/1

----China has taken a lead position in agricultural biotech research
McConnell 07 - USINFO Staff Writer [Kathryn McConnell, “Asia Seen as Next Focus of Agricultural Biotech Production: India, China, Vietnam take the lead in
research, expert says,” 16 February 2007, pg. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=February&x=20070216144428AKllennoCcM6.266421e-02]edlee
The next decade of research in crops improved by biotechnology will include a major role for the
Washington --
rapidly increasing number of projects in Asia, according to the head of a leading agricultural research institute.
Countries in Asia increasingly are investing in agricultural biotechnology research aimed at helping them meet their growing needs for food, feed, fiber and fuel, said Clive James,
chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
ISAAA is a nonprofit international network based at Cornell University in New York with centers in the Philippines and Kenya.
Biotech crops, also known as genetically modified crops, increasingly are being grown in and approved for import by Asian countries, James said in a recent interview with USINFO.
The researcher, recently back from visiting several countries in Asia, said acceptance is strong among farmers in such countries as India, China, Pakistan, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and the Philippines where traditional
crops often are destroyed by insects or harsh environmental conditions. These farmers stand to benefit financially from increased harvests due to genetic improvements that make certain crops resistant to insects and because
such crops need fewer applications of insecticides, James said.
"The development of biotechnology will be a major development for all of agriculture" as scientists look for ways to improve a variety of crops that also effectively will be able to counter soil erosion and conserve moisture,
James said.
Plants with genes conferring some degree of drought tolerance, which are expected to become available in approximately 2010 or 2011, will be particularly important for developing countries as drought is the most prevalent
and important constraint to increased crop productivity worldwide, he said.
India is emerging as a key biotech leader in Asia, surpassing China for the first time in the number of hectares planted with biotech seed, James said.
In 2006, India tripled from the previous year the area it planted in biotech cotton, its first commercialized biotech crop. India now has a total of 3.8 million biotech hectares while China has 3.5 million such hectares.
The other countries in the top eight in of terms of number of hectares devoted to growing biotech crops are: the United States (54.6 million hectares), Argentina (18 million), Brazil (11.5 million), Canada (6.1 million),
Paraguay (2 million) and South Africa (1.4 million), according to an ISAAA report on the global status of biotech crops released in January.
After cotton the next main crop to be commercialized in Asia likely will be "golden rice" -- rice enhanced with vitamin A, which is important for vision and the respiratory, urinary and intestinal tracts, James said. Vitamin A
deficiency can lead to children becoming prematurely blind.
China, the largest investor in Asia in biotech research, is expected to spend $200 million on biotech in 2007.
"China has made a clear decision to invest in biotech because it doesn't want to be dependent on other countries for food, fiber or fuel," James said.
----China has a huge plant biotech capacity. It is focusing on crops used by small farmers that are
currently being ignored by biotech industry
Huang 02 - Director of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy @ Chinese Academy of Sciences [Jikun Huang,
Scott Rozelle (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California), Carl Pray (Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Rutgers University),
Qinfang Wang (Associate Professor, Biotechnology Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences), “Plant Biotechnology in China,” Science 25 January 2002: Vol. 295. no.
5555, pp. 674 – 676// http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5555/674]edlee
China is developing the largest plant biotechnology capacity outside of North

A survey of China's plant biotechnologists shows that
America. The list of genetically modified plant technologies in trials, including rice, wheat, potatoes, and peanuts, is impressive
and differs from those being worked on in other countries. Poor farmers in China are cultivating more area of
genetically modified plants than are small farmers in any other developing country. A survey of agricultural
producers in China demonstrates that Bacillus Thuringiensis cotton adoption increases production efficiency and improves
farmer health.
Private life-science companies in the industrialized world perform most of the world's agricultural biotechnology research (1). Concerns have arisen in developing countries that their scientists
and producers can only obtain genes and seeds from foreign companies and that biotechnology research does not focus on the crops that are important to the world's poor farmers. Recently,
because of consumer resistance and governmental regulations affecting international trade in genetically modified (GM) products and the rising cost of commercializing new products, private
China is
research and development on plant biotechnology is declining, further jeopardizing the little private research that is done on developing country problems (2). In contrast,
accelerating its investments in agricultural biotechnology research and is focusing on commodities that have
been mostly ignored in the laboratories of industrialized countries. Small farmers in China have begun to
aggressively adopt GM crops when permitted to do so.
132
Counterplan – Tax Breaks

----Tax Breaks for infrastructure development and tech transfers facilitates independence. Scientific
base will be a permanent fixture of Africa’s economy
The U.S. government can increase developing countries' access to biotechnology in two important ways. First, it can ratify the Biodiversity
Convention and satisfy its obligations under the Convention. These obligations include respecting developing countries' proprietary rights to their genetic resources, sharing R&D with developing countries, and transferring
technology to developing countries. 140 Because the United States conducts most of the world's biotechnology R&D, developing countries would benefit substantially if the United States adopted and fulfilled its obligations
under the Biodiversity Convention.
Second,the United States can provide organizations and corporations financial incentives to build infrastructure,
transfer technology, train scientists, and invest in developing countries. For example, Congress should pass H.R. 2912.
Additionally, public agencies should offer similar grants to institutions that assist developing countries in building infrastructure,
training scientists, and conducting R&D. The U.S. Congress should also offer tax breaks to corporations, like
Monsanto, that establish programs to further developing countries' access to biotechnology.
[*61] To ensure the efficacy of these assistance programs, the U.S. Congress should prioritize building infrastructure and training
scientists. Then, they should concentrate on assisting developing countries with implementing simple biotechnology
techniques that focus on the crops and drugs most important to each individual country. Financial incentives and tax breaks are preferable to direct
foreign aid because they offer permanent changes. Developing countries with biotechnology infrastructure and
trained scientists will no longer be dependent on developed countries for their biotechnology needs.
133
Counterplan – University patents

----US universities and non-profits research institutions hold 25% of the agricultural patents
Boettiger & Bennett 06 – Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California,
Berkeley & Associate Vice Chancellor in the Office of Research - Technology and Industry Alliances @
University of California, Davis [SARA BOETTIGER and ALAN BENNETT, “THE BAYH-DOLE ACT: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES,”
IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 2006, 46 IDEA 261]edlee
A. Access to Basic Research

North-South partnerships are a key element in developing countries' access to technology. The North's concentrated ownership
and control of technologies necessary for research in agriculture and health creates the potential for the needs of the poor and underserved to remain unmet by technological advances. 4
Recent growth in U.S. patenting and the debate about proprietary ownership of research tools are, therefore, particularly relevant to
developing countries' research. Whether access to enabling technologies has been impeded, per [*263] se, by the Bayh-Dole Act is not clear. However, it is clear that,
since 1980, universities have increasingly used the patent system as a tool to commercialize their research
results. David Mowery 5 cautions against attributing increased university patenting solely to the Bayh-Dole legislation, citing university patenting trends that began before 1980 and many
other influences to a widespread rise in patenting, but the trends in universities acquiring proprietary rights to technologies are undisputed. As a consequence, there are reasons to highlight the
In their
importance of the role of U.S. universities and non-profit institutions in managing their intellectual property ("IP") so as to provide greater access to developing countries.
patent portfolios, U.S. universities and non-profit institutions hold a valuable resource to which developing
country access may be increasingly limited. While the U.S. public sector owns roughly 2.5% of patents across
all technology fields, in agriculture the story is quite different; almost a quarter of patents are owned by
universities and non-profit research institutions. 6 In health, too, patents central to developing country needs are held by universities. Kapczynski et al. 7 cite
major HIV treatment drug patents held by Yale University, University of Minnesota, Emory University and Duke University. 8 //Universities CP
----Public sector research is key. Private sector ignores the agricultural challenges of Africa
Boettiger & Bennett 06 – Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California,
Berkeley & Associate Vice Chancellor in the Office of Research - Technology and Industry Alliances @
University of California, Davis [SARA BOETTIGER and ALAN BENNETT, “THE BAYH-DOLE ACT: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES,”
IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 2006, 46 IDEA 261]edlee
III. The U.S University Research Agenda and the Bayh-Dole Act
Commercial development of agriculture and health technologies leaves developing countries' needs largely unmet.
Less than 10% of health research funding is targeted at diseases that account for 90% of the global disease
burden. 16 In agricultural biotechnology, too, investment remains focused on a small number of crops and traits
of very limited relevance to developing country agricultural challenges. Public research, therefore, remains
pivotal to the development of technologies in health and agriculture that do not have commercial markets. This is not a new
situation, since advances in subsistence crops and neglected diseases have historically depended on research in the public sector. What is new, is that while these targeted
research results have been historically [*266] treated as public goods, today they are increasingly proprietary
and have the potential to be diverted from their intended recipients to commercial applications. Thus, the Bayh-Dole Act's
effects on the research agenda of U.S. university faculty are an appropriate concern for developing countries' needs. Two areas of concern deserve attention. The first is whether Bayh-Dole has
influenced university faculty toward research with more commercial applications and second, whether the general increase in patenting has created impediments to research and to humanitarian
applications of new technologies.
134
135
136
Counterplan – US government research

----Make available biotech tools developed by the US government
& Tec 321]edlee
Make Available U.S. Government-Funded or -Owned Biotechnology -- Still another alternative would be to establish as a matter of policy that
all tools of agricultural biotechnology developed by the USDA and other U.S. government agencies, whether
patented or not, shall be freely available (without the need for a license or other permission) for efforts to enhance food security in
developing countries. This would not entail any change to existing law. In the case of government patents, even an ostensibly exclusive
license extends only to the limits of the specific practical application that the licensee negotiated. 222 As for patents not owned by the government but
developed with government funding, this proposal requires that the government exercise its retained licenses
under the Bayh-Dole Act 223 and allow contractors to use government-patented technology for research related
to food security. Thus, this proposal would provide ready access to any necessary technology that the government
funded in whole or in part; the identity of the patent holder is irrelevant. It would not significantly undercut invention incentives
for government agencies, because agencies presumably do not make research decisions based on anticipated
marketplace returns. As for the fruits of CRADAs, private patent holders could rest assured that use of their technologies
would be limited to applications beyond the scope of their business plans.
137
Neg Topicality: NOT public health assistance

----Agricultural assistance is distinct from public health assistance (T)
Although this broader conception is much closer to reality than a narrow one, it blurs the
definition of agricultural development assistance. One could argue that support for basic
education and health services in rural communities should be included because it helps
build the human capacity needed for agricultural success. We do not include assistance
for these “social” sectors in this report, however, because doing so would obscure any
distinction between investments whose primary purpose is to support agriculture-led,
rural economic growth and ones that have broader social purposes and effects. Pg. 3
138
Definitions
----Definition of Intellectual Property Rights
III. Intellectual Property Rights

Black's Law Dictionary defines intellectual property as, "[a] category of intangible rights protecting
commercially valuable products of the human intellect." 163 Intellectual property manifests itself in trademarks,
copyrights, trade-secrets, and the general right against unfair competition. 164 This Note shall focus on the law
of patents, particularly those for downstream biotechnologically-developed agricultural products and the
upstream biotechnological research tools used to develop them.
----Definition of Eminent Domain

3. The Power of Eminent Domain

"Eminent domain is the power of the sovereign to take property for the "public use' without the owner's
consent." 261 In Western civilization, this right of the sovereign originated in the dawn of written history -
references to what we know of as the power of eminent domain have been found in the Athenian Constitution of
Aristotle and in the Old Testament. 262 It has been recognized that the development of the modern state has
depended upon the existence of this legal doctrine which qualifies the absolute right the sovereign traditionally
enjoyed over private property. 263 The power of eminent domain has been enshrined (and limited) in the
"Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 264 The limitations to the power enjoyed by
the government are the requirements that takings of private property rights be for "public use" and with "just
compensation." 265
139
AFFIRMATIVE
1AC
Contention One: Patents hurt Africa ....................................................................................................................1
Contention Two: Hunger, Pestilence, and War .....................................................................................................4
The Plan ................................................................................................................................................................12
Contention Three: Eminent Domain Helps Africa ..............................................................................................13
Inherency: Contention 1 - SQ GM crops not useful for Africa 1/.....................................................................20
Inherency: Contention 1 - SQ GM crops not useful for Africa 2/.....................................................................21
Inherency: Contention 1 - Patents deny African farmers access to biotech .........................................................22
Ext To: Contention 2 – Lots of subsistence farmers 1/ .....................................................................................26
Ext To: Contention 2 – Chronic hunger 1/ ........................................................................................................27
Ext To: Contention 2 – Hunger increasing in Africa ............................................................................................28
Ext To: Contention 2 – Food insecurity risk war 1/ ..........................................................................................29
Ext To: Contention 2 – Food insecurity risk war 2/ ..........................................................................................30
Ext To: Contention 2 – Ag is key 1/ .................................................................................................................31
Ext To: Contention 3 – US eminent domain solves hunger ..................................................................................35
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech solves hunger 1/ .............................................................................................37
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech superior to traditional crops ..............................................................................41
Ext To: Contention 3 – GM crops viable for small farmer 1/2..........................................................................42
Ext To: Contention 3 – GM crops viable for small farmer 1/2..........................................................................43
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech prevents crop failure .........................................................................................44
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech increases crop yields 1/...................................................................................45
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech increases crop yields 2/...................................................................................46
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech solve – Adoption rates prove ...........................................................................47
Ext To: Contention 3 – Biotech advances snowball..............................................................................................48
Ext To: Contention 3 – US is KEY .......................................................................................................................49
Add-on: Economy 1/ .........................................................................................................................................50
Add-on: Economy 2/ .........................................................................................................................................51
Add-on: Biotech saves Biodiversity (2AC)...........................................................................................................52
Add-on: Biotech saves Biodiversity 1/2 ..........................................................................................................53
Add-on: Biotech saves Biodiversity 2/2 ..........................................................................................................54
Add-on: Biotech prevents Soil Erosion (2AC)......................................................................................................55
Add-on: Pesticide poisoning ...............................................................................................................................56
Add-on: Aquifer Depletion ..................................................................................................................................57
Add-on: Terrorism ................................................................................................................................................58
Add-on: Child Soldiers ........................................................................................................................................59
Add-on: Scientific Isolation ..................................................................................................................................60
Add-on: Patents allow corporate control ..............................................................................................................61
Ans To: US patent law does NOT apply to Africa ...............................................................................................62
140
Ans To: African Countries will not accept ..........................................................................................................63
Ans To: Farmers will not use 1/2 .....................................................................................................................64
Ans To: Farmers will not use 2/2 .....................................................................................................................65
Ans To: No capacity to increase biotech ..............................................................................................................66
Ans To: Public-Private Partnerships solve ...........................................................................................................67
Ans To: GM is dangerous – It is safe 1/ ..........................................................................................................68
Ans To: GM is dangerous – It is safe 2/ ..........................................................................................................69
Ans To: GM is dangerous – Science is on our side 1/2.....................................................................................70
Ans To: GM is dangerous – Science is on our side 2/.......................................................................................71
Ans To: GM dangerous – China empirically denies .......................................................................................72
Ans To: GM dangerous – Global adoption empirically denies ...........................................................................73
Ans To: Food Unsafe - Ewen and Pusztai study bad............................................................................................75
Ans To: Antibiotic Resistant gene flow.................................................................................................................76
Ans To: GM crops hurt species.............................................................................................................................77
Ans To: Food Aid Solves ......................................................................................................................................78
Ans To: Green Revolution Solves 1/2 .............................................................................................................79
Ans To: Green Revolution Solves 2/2 .............................................................................................................80
Ans To: Precautionary Principle ...........................................................................................................................81
Ans To: Honeybees turn ......................................................................................................................................82
Ans To: Corporate monopolization turn................................................................................................................83
Ans To: Organics Turn – Lower yields ................................................................................................................84
Ans To: Organics Turn – E. Coli ..........................................................................................................................85
Ans To: Organics Turn – deforestation ...............................................................................................................86
Ans To: Organics Turn – soil erosion ..................................................................................................................87
Ans To: Public Sector CP 1/ .............................................................................................................................88
Ans To: Ethics K – Food insecurity is more important ........................................................................................91
Ans To: Environmental Ethics K – Nature does not exist.....................................................................................92
Ans To: Topicality – NOT public health .............................................................................................................93
Ans To: Topicality – Must be government-to-government .................................................................................94
Ans To: Topicality – You must be USAID .........................................................................................................95
Ans To: Topicality - Not sub-Sahara Africa .........................................................................................................96
Ans To: Topicality - Must be Government –to-Government ..............................................................................97
NEG Ans To: Contention 2 – Food Security Increasing.......................................................................................98
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Honeybees Turn (1NC) .......................................................................................99
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Honeybees Turn: Link Ext....................................................................................100
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – GM will not be used to grow food .......................................................................101
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Herbicide poisoning Turn ....................................................................................102
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Superweeds Turn (1NC) .......................................................................................104
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Superweeds Turn...................................................................................................105
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – GM has lower yields ............................................................................................106
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn (1NC).............................................................................................107
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: GM tradesoff with Organics.........................................................108
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: Solves Famines.............................................................................109
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: Organics increase crops ...............................................................110
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Organics Turn: GM crop yield worse than organics ............................................111
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn (1NC)...................................................................................112
141
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn: GM link .............................................................................113
Neg Ans To: Contention 2 – Monocropping Turn: Genetic diversity key to Food Security .............................114
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Africa opposes GM 1/2 .................................................................................116
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Africa opposes GM 1/2 ..................................................................................117
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Scientist Oppose .................................................................................................118
NEG Ans To: Contention 3 – Alt Causality .......................................................................................................119
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Production is not the issue 1/2 ..........................................................................120
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Production is not the issue 2/2 ..........................................................................121
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No funding for R&D ...........................................................................................122
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No infrastructure 1/ ..........................................................................................123
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No infrastructure 2/ ..........................................................................................124
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – No technology policy ..........................................................................................125
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Poor Training ......................................................................................................126
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Regulations .........................................................................................................127
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – EU opposition 1/ .............................................................................................128
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – EU opposition 2/ .............................................................................................129
Neg Ans To: Contention 3 – Courts will strike down .....................................................................................130
Counterplan – China Shell 1/1 ........................................................................................................................131
Counterplan – China CP Ext. 1/1.....................................................................................................................132
Counterplan – Tax Breaks ..................................................................................................................................133
Counterplan – University patents ........................................................................................................................134
Counterplan – US government research ............................................................................................................137
Neg Topicality: NOT public health assistance ..................................................................................................138
Definitions ...........................................................................................................................................................139
There is not a DA in the file. Howeve, the case turns are a viable neg strategy. I will also try to put together a biotech research DA but I am not sure
I will have time.
I suggest a 1NC of:

T- NOT public health assistance
CP – China develop and distribute GM varieties of African staple crops (Make sure you look in Billand Dave’s China work for other useful cards)
DA – Politics
Big Case - Lots case turns and solvency takeouts
142

Endi Biotech Aff

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Endi Biotech Aff

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Emory 07-08 Biotech AFF

Emory National Debate Institute // June 5, 2007

Contention One: Patents hurt Africa

Early Developments to Treat Food Insecurity

Recent Developments: Biotechnological Research Tools

research tools developed and used to improve agriculture productivity

Indirect Impacts of U.S. Patents

material transfer agreements (MTAs) that place strict restrictions on the

2. Researchers Need the Freedom-to-Operate

3. You Can't Even Give It Away

Contention Two: Hunger, Pestilence, and War

POVERTY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

There is no shortage of statistics showing that,

ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

38 million people in Africa alone

This crisis is not going to disappear even with improved climatic

AND … These deaths will be accompanied a spike epidemics of communicable diseases

the relationship between food shortage and morbidity or mortality

Famine mortality reflects both increased susceptibility and

ADDITIONALLY … Hunger is a underlying cause of conflicts. Ag development is key to prevent war

to make the resolution of conflicts a lasting outcome and to prevent

The contribution of food security and agricultural development to a peaceful world

Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 02 1/2

The Small Arms Problem in Africa

war becomes an opportunity for self-expression and

2. But, Is It Really an Emergency?

today, with up to 300,000 child soldiers fighting in conflicts or

Contention Three: Eminent Domain Helps Africa

the U.S. government would exercise its existing statutory eminent

Public sector research programmes remain particularly vulnerable to changes in the

2.2.2 The case of agricultural biotechnology in Eastern and Central Africa

Improved productivity is, however, an important part of the

researchers in national and international agricultural research organizations are

Inherency: Contention 1 - SQ GM crops not useful for Africa 1/

Help for orphans

----African diseases are neglected by western biotech companies

----Biotech that has been developed is not useful for Africa

----Africa lacks access to biotech. US is key to remedying this deficiency

III. Statistics on Developing Countries' Access to Biotechnology

Inherency: Contention 1 - Patents deny African farmers access to biotech

Monsanto antibiotic-resistance marker patent “appears to be just another nail

2. Compulsory Licenses to Use Patented Technology

Inherency: Contention 1 - Patents deny African farmers access to biotech

there has been little agricultural biotechnological research on the

Inherency: Contention 1 - Patents deny African farmers access to biotech

Ext To: Contention 2 – Lots of subsistence farmers 1/

Ext To: Contention 2 – Chronic hunger 1/

"Chronic hunger is a profound,

----200 Million people in sub-Sahara Africa are chronically hungry

----30% can not afford a diet with a minimum caloric intake

Ext To: Contention 2 – Hunger increasing in Africa

Ext To: Contention 2 – Food insecurity risk war 1/

Ethnic and Political Rivalries, Hunger, and Conflict

destitution, community breakdown, distress migration, and outbreaks of disease.1

Ext To: Contention 2 – Ag is key 1/

----70% of sub-Sahara Africa is agriculturely-dependent. Increasing agricultural productivity facilitates

The problems are particularly acute in sub-Saharan

Ext To: Contention 2 – Ag is key 3/

Ext To: Contention 2 – Ag is key 4/

Ext To: Contention 3 – US eminent domain solves hunger

IV. A Proposal: Taking During a National Emergency

2. An Overlooked Incentive: Emergencies

treating food insecurity through improvements in agricultural productivity is