Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

Direct in vitro and in vivo comparison of 161Tb and 177Lu using a tumour-targeting folate conjugate

Purpose The radiolanthanide 161Tb (T 1/2 = 6.90 days, Eβ− av = 154 keV) was recently proposed as a potential alternative to 177Lu (T 1/2 = 6.71 days, Eβ− av = 134 keV) due to similar physical decay characteristics but additional conversion and Auger electrons that may enhance the therapeutic efficacy. The goal of this study was to compare 161Tb and 177Lu in vitro and in vivo using a tumour-targeted DOTA-folate conjugate (cm09). Methods 161Tb-cm09 and 177Lu-cm09 were tested in vitro on folate receptor (FR)-positive KB and IGROV-1 cancer cells using a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) viability assay. In vivo 161Tb-cm09 and 177Lu-cm09 (10 MBq, 0.5 nmol) were investigated in two different tumour mouse models with regard to the biodistribution, the possibility for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging and the antitumour efficacy. Potentially undesired side effects were monitored over 6 months by determination of plasma parameters and examination of kidney function with quantitative SPECT using 99mTc-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA). Results To obtain half-maximal inhibition of tumour cell viability a 4.5-fold (KB) and 1.7-fold (IGROV-1) lower radioactivity concentration was required for 161Tb-cm09 (IC50 ~0.014 MBq/ml and ~2.53 MBq/ml) compared to 177Lu-cm09 (IC50 ~0.063 MBq/ml and ~4.52 MBq/ml). SPECT imaging visualized tumours of mice with both radioconjugates. However, in therapy studies 161Tb-cm09 reduced tumour growth more efficiently than 177Lu-cm09. These findings were in line with the higher absorbed tumour dose for 161Tb-cm09 (3.3 Gy/MBq) compared to 177Lu-cm09 (2.4 Gy/MBq). None of the monitored parameters indicated signs of impaired kidney function over the whole time period of investigation after injection of the radiofolates. Conclusion Compared to 177Lu-cm09 we demonstrated equal imaging features for 161Tb-cm09 but an increased therapeutic efficacy for 161Tb-cm09 in both tumour cell lines in vitro and in vivo. Further preclinical studies using other tumour-targeting radioconjugates are clearly necessary to draw final conclusions about the future clinical perspectives of 161Tb.

Diagnostic endoscopy of the navicular bursa using a needle endoscope by direct or transthecal approach: A comparative cadaver study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the practicability, visualization of structures, and iatrogenic damage of direct and transthecal approaches to the navicular bursa for diagnostic needle endoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Equine cadaver forelimbs (n = 30). METHODS: Direct and transthecal approaches for insertion of a needle endoscope into the navicular bursa were performed. Video recordings of endoscopic procedures were assessed to determine all structures visualized within the navicular bursa. Number of attempts to gain access to the navicular bursa and total time for insertion and examination were recorded. Distribution and severity of iatrogenic lesions were assessed and scored after dissection. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences for number of attempts or time needed for insertion and examination between direct and transthecal approaches. The direct approach offered significantly increased visibility of the ipsilateral abaxial and proximal margins of the navicular bone, and ipsilateral collateral sesamoidean ligament. Iatrogenic lesions were superficial and focal, regardless of approach taken, or whether a blunt or sharp trocar tip was used. CONCLUSIONS: The direct approach provided significantly better visualization of the ipsilateral structures within the navicular bursa compared to the transthecal approach. Needle endoscopy offers a reliable technique to evaluate the navicular bursa and may complement or replace other diagnostic modalities in horses with lameness localized to the navicular region.