This Reuters article (item 1) is full of bull. For instance, it talks about:

"Supporters of drought- and insect-resistant GMO crops say they offer a way to fight famine, but so far only South Africa has taken the plunge."

But there are no "drought- and insect-resistant GMO crops" being grown in S Africa! What is being grown there are the usual Bt and herbicide-resistant crops.

The reason they're being grown there is that South Africa's regulatory system has become hopelessly corrupt - having been shaped and directed by industry-connected lobbyists.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=282
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271

It's also been seriously lacking in transparency - see the second article below on the court case it's taken to open up even the most basic of information.

And the reason that Bt cotton seeds, for instance, sell is not to be found in the Reuters piece. There is credit and other support for their purchase.

But, as Aaron de Grassi of the Institute of Development studies has shown, despite such support, the actual practical impact in the Makhathini area where Monsanto's GM cotton is grown has not been positive.

The very crop that has been reported to be giving small farmers an easier and more affluent life, turns out to have not only failed to solve Makhathini farmers' existing problems with debt, but to have actually deepened and widened indebtedness. De Grassi found the expensive seeds had helped to saddle the small farmers with debts of $1.2 million!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1431

Perhaps other african countries are right to be wary.

1.S.Africa leads on GMO, other African states wary
2.Genetically modified organisms: govt to reveal all
------

1.S.Africa leads on GMO, other African states wary
By Peter Apps
Reuters AlertNet, UK
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28700039.htm

JOHANNESBURG, Feb 28 (Reuters) - South Africa is striding ahead with genetically modified maize and cotton but many other African countries shun GMO crops, fearful of environmental damage and reduced exports to Europe.

Parts of Africa have chronic food shortages, with millions left malnourished and vulnerable to disease. Supporters of drought- and insect-resistant GMO crops say they offer a way to fight famine, but so far only South Africa has taken the plunge.

Anti-GMO campaigners say higher yields are not the issue in battling famine, arguing that the world already produces enough food to feed everyone. Land control issues, poverty and conflict are the main reasons for famine, they say.

"Farmers are extremely enthusiastic about GMO crops," said Kobus Lindeque, area director for biotech giant Monsanto in Southern Africa.

"Since GMO crops have been introduced in South Africa, every company that has seeds has been sold out."

But while a handful of other African countries -- including Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania -- are looking at creating new laws to allow planting of GMO crops, many others ban or strictly control imports, creating a headache for food aid operations.

Analysts say Africa's cotton-producing countries in West Africa are the most likely to move rapidly into GMO, which Monsanto says has increased yields in South Africa by as much as 50 to 70 percent.

Several West African cotton producers such as Burkina Faso and Mali have either already approved GMO crops for test planting or are looking at doing so, industry insiders say. Both Kenya and Nigeria are looking at making their own GMO variants.

Companies such as Monsanto are keen to protect their intellectual property and say they will not sell to countries that do not have biosafety laws. But in much of Southern Africa, that seems a distant prospect.

HUMAN HEALTH

Zambia prohibits GMO imports, saying it fears the impact on human health, forcing the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to move stocks out of the country when it introduced the ban in late 2002 as the agency tried to feed some 14 million people across the region after a drought.

Other nearby countries, including Malawi, Lesotho, Angola and Zimbabwe, which aid workers say still face serious local food shortages, only allow milled GMO maize products to enter the country -- banning the import of raw GMO maize.

"There are general concerns that something might escape," Rob Tripp, research fellow at British aid think-tank the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) said. "Maybe some maize would fall off the truck and someone might plant it."

Monsanto says these countries could boost crop yields by at least 15 percent if they switched to GMO, but with the European Union demanding labelling of so-called "Frankenstein foods" some countries fear contamination could hit their trade.

Traders say South Africa's GMO status has made it more difficult to shift its 3 million tonne maize surplus -- partly a product of better yields under GMO.

And the WFP worries that the popularity of GMO growing in South Africa -- where it was introduced in 1997 and now accounts for some 20-30 percent of output -- might cause problems in the event of serious regional shortages.

"If there was another major emergency on the scale of 2002/03, then it might be an issue," WFP spokesman Richard Lee said. "We were lucky then that South Africa had a large surplus of white maize that was not GMO."

The import controls prevent states from accepting food donations from the United States, where stocks are mixed in warehouses leaving recipients unable to tell if they are getting GMO food or not.

ODI's Tripp said countries like Zambia opposed GMO for a variety of reasons. They heard demands in Europe that GMO produce be labelled and were lobbied by environmental groups such as Greenpeace and South Africa's Biowatch, he said. [They actually set up their own panel of experts who travelled to the US and met scientists, regulators and others, and they reached their own conclusion - that the evidence for safety just wasn't there]

"For a number of the countries, it's an easy way to stand up to the multinationals and to U.S. pressure," he said.

"You wish their governments would put as much effort into making sure the crops that reach the markets are free from toxins and pesticides." (additional reporting by Lagos and Nairobi bureaux)
------

2.Genetically modified organisms: govt to reveal all
Mail & Guardian, 25 Feb 2005

PRETORIA, South Africa - The Pretoria High Court has made an order compelling the government to provide information on all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) brought into or manufactured in South Africa.

The court made the order on Thursday, on the application of the environmental lobby group Biowatch.

Acting Judge Eric Dunn ordered the registrar of genetic resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms and Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Thoko Didiza to provide Biowatch with access to data.

The data relates to risk assessments accompanying requests for trials and commercial releases of GMOs, including field-trial risk assessments as well as commodity import and animal-consumption risk assessments.

Biowatch must also be given access to information about all applications for permits and other authorisations submitted under the Genetically Modified Organisms Act. Information about all permits granted and all applications pending in respect of imports, exports, field trials and general releases must also be provided.

This includes a description of the GMO, the name and address of the applicant and the purpose of the contained use, or release and location of use.

The methods and plans for the monitoring of the GMOs, emergency measures in the case of an accident and the evaluation of foreseeable impacts -- particularly any pathogenic or ecologically disruptive impacts -- must also be supplied.

The government bodies must also provide all records pertaining to: public participation since the commencement of the GMO Act; a register of academic and research institutions; the minutes of all meetings of the Executive Council for GMOs and its advisory committee; and records pertaining to all people currently represented on the advisory committee.

They were also ordered to provide Biowatch access to all records pertaining to the areas of the field trials and commercial releases.

However, Dunn ruled that Biowatch has no statutory right to be furnished with the exact coordinates of the locations of the trials and commercial releases.

The registrar is entitled to refuse access to certain records on the grounds contained in the Promotion of Access to Information Act (which includes a refusal to reveal information that is confidential or contained trade secrets), but has to provide written reasons for such a refusal.

Dunn said Biowatch established that it has a clear right to some of the information and that the registrar's failure to grant access to the information was an infringement of Biowatch's rights.

However, he stressed that the environmental lobby group has no absolute right of access to information.

He said biotechnology company Monsanto's bold denial that there has been "disastrously harmful experiments with, and releases of, GMOs" does not detract from Biowatch's point that GMO technology is unpredictable, and that public health and environmental safety issues arise from the use, control and release of GMOs.

None of the respondents disputed that potential dangers existed in GMO experimentation. This could hardly be disputed since Parliament itself has recognised that statutory intervention is required for the proper governance of matters pertaining to GMOs, Dunn said.

Dunn refused to make a full order about the legal costs, except to order Biowatch to pay the costs of biotechnology company Monsanto, which was forced to come to court to protect its interests.