By Dr Dave Keetch
Last year’s Cosatu Congress decided to give affiliates more time to discuss the thorny issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the most recent Cosatu Central Executive Committee, the federation again agreed to postpone a decision on whether it is for or against them. In this Numsa Bulletin we carry a debate on the issue. Read the two articles and debate further in your structures.
GM crops: we want them!
Biotechnology has been defined as “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.”
This definition includes many of the tools and techniques that have been developed over many years and are common place in agriculture and food production.
Modern biotechnology, however, has only really developed over the past 50 years and includes recombinant DNA and genetic engineering techniques to produce genetically modified (GM) crops.
These latter techniques are currently somewhat controversial because they involve adding new genes or altering existing genetic material to produce new traits or substances or perform new functions.
The controversy focuses on whether these new traits or functions can or are adequately tested for safety.
It is important to understand that while GM crops refer to crop varieties with new, inserted genes, all food developed by traditional and classical plant breeding procedures is also genetically modified.
Plants improved by breeding and selection have attracted little public concern and have minimal regulation. Likewise, genetic modification through induced mutation using radiation or mutagenic chemicals.
The traditional breeding or hybridisation of two diverse parents results in whole new combinations of genes being brought together that can result in new and unpredictable offspring.
In terms of unpredictability, therefore, traditional methods of breeding involve the transfer of thousands of genes from one plant (often from different species) to another that leads to multiple effects; GM transfers one or a few genes, resulting in more predictable effects and as such, GM would likely result in fewer unintended risks.
The use of GM crops represents one of the fastest growing technologies in the history of agriculture. During the eight-year period from 1996 to 2003, the global area of transgenic crops increased 40 fold, from 1.7 million hectares to 67.7 million hectares, with an increasing proportion grown by developing countries.
However, as with all new technologies there are risks and concerns and these must be understood and assessed before governments can make rational decisions about the use and application of GM technology.
The following are some of the concerns that have been raised by the use of modern biotechnology:
Long term effects of GM are unknown
If the truth were known, we know we very little about the long-term effects of many commonly accepted agricultural practices. In the development of any new product there comes a point at which the developers and regulating authorities ask themselves, “If we release this product for public use, is the level of risk that an unforeseen development could take place, acceptable?” It is to answer this and similar questions that responsible governments like that in South Africa have established regulatory systems for the assessment and evaluation of GM crops before official approval is given for their general release. It is noteworthy that the regulatory requirements for GM foods are far more comprehensive than for any other food product on the market.
GM technology is controlled by multinational companies driven by profit rather than environmental safet y.
Multinational companies are driven by profit and this is a key feature of capitalism, an economic system widely practised in the developed world. Multinational companies involved in the development of GM crops also recognise their responsibility to the environment.
The bottom line, however, is that the use of GM technology is not controlled by multinational companies but by the governments of those countries that allow its use. Most responsible governments, in recognising the benefits and possible concerns of GM crops, have established regulatory systems that allow GM crops to be evaluated under local conditions before official approval is given for their use. This evaluation process includes the assessment of aspects such as food safety, environmental impact and economic benefits.
GM seeds are patented and this prevents farmers from saving seed.
This issue is not specific to GM seed but depends on whether the seed is public or whether a company has improved the seed and protected their investment with an Intellectual Property Right such as a patent. For example, most hybrid seed is covered by a Plant Breeders Right and may not be replanted without the breeders’ approval. Public seed can be kept year after year and replanted; seed with IPR protection must be bought each year and may not be kept or planted. Thus farmers have a choice – buy improved seed and observe the IPR requirements or obtain public seed to use and keep as they wish.
GM seeds have a terminator virus that automatically prevents farmers from saving seed.
This is a totally false but much publicised statement by the anti-GM lobby. The fact of the matter is that there is no terminator gene in use in any GM crop anywhere in the world. Furthermore, national GM decision-making committees would be unlikely to approve its use if it could adversely affect food security.
Some GM seeds are genetically engineered only to survive if they are sprayed by chemicals produced by the company that produces the GM seed. This gives too much control to these companies over seed production.
This argument is not about GM technology but about an economic system that is accepted by most developed countries in the world – capitalism. Furthermore, the dominant role played by multinational companies is not confined to seed, what about aircraft production, cellphones, paper production, etc.
It should be stressed, once again, that what is allowed to occur in a country is the responsibility of the elected government, not multi-national companies.
A number of countries have banned GM foods because they fear new health risks from new allergens and toxins found in these new foods.
The issue of food safety has been extensively investigated and the overwhelming consensus is that food derived from approved GM crops pose no greater risks than that obtained through conventional means. These findings have been released by, amongst others, the following credible bodies:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
The Codex Alimentarius Expert Group on Biotechnology
The Smith Committee Report to the United States Congress
The Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
The World Health Organization
The America Medical Association
The Royal Academy of Science
The French Academy of Science
The South African Department of Health
A number of countries in Southern Africa recently banned the import of GM grain supplied as foreign aid. This action appears to be based more on ignorance and/or hysteria generated by the anti-GM lobby rather than on scientific evidence and experience.
In South Africa there is no law requiring GM food to be labelled.
This is not true. On 16 th January 2004 , the National Department of Health published R egulation No. 25 entitled “Labelling of foodstuffs obtained through genetic modification”.
These regulations require that:
GM-derived food must be labelled if its composition, nutritional value, mode of storage, preparation or cooking, differs significantly from the conventional, or if it contains a listed allergen.
Food from plant material containing DNA or its protein from a genetically modified source that contains a human or animal gene must be labelled.
Food from animal material that contains animal genes from a different taxonomic family or a human gene must be labelled.
Voluntary labelling of a food as “genetically enhanced” or “improved” must be validated by a competent body accredited to the SA National Accreditation Services.
GM crops do not necessarily use less insecticides.
Improved yields, less pesticide use, less pesticide poisoning, improved no-till systems, reduced soil erosion and less change to the environment are well documented socio-economic benefits. Bit patronising!
Escaping genes will mix with unmodified ones and create superweeds
Transgenes could flow into wild populations through hybridisation between GM plants and closely related species. However, the potential invasiveness of a wild relative carrying a transgene would depend on the specific transgene and its effect on the fitness of the weedy wild relative in nature. This possibility is a major consideration in the evaluation and assessment of each candidate GM crop prior to official permission being granted for its general release. To date, no invasive superweeds have developed as a result of intraspecific hybridisation.
Provided that there is a regulatory system in place that allows for the objective scientific evaluation and assessment of candidate GM crops in terms of their possible impact on human health and the environment, the final decision on their use should be sought from the farmers themselves.
The author is Dr. Dave Keetch, President AfricaBio. AfricaBio is an independent, non-profit biotechnology stakeholders association, whose key role is to provide information and create awareness on biotechnology in South Africa and the region.