Genetic Modification ~ The 'Anti' Position
Author: Kim Kruyshaar and Glenn Ashton ~ SAFeAGE
( Article Type: Opinion )
Agriculturalists have been modifying the genetic make-up of our companion species for millennia by managing the process of who pollinates or mates with whom. Genetic engineering, however, differs radically from conventional breeding. To give plants new attributes, genetic engineers alter the genetic make-up of plants by artificially altering, removing or adding specific genes to the DNA of the host plant. 
These altered genes, called transgenes, are usually extracted from species unrelated to the host, such as bacteria and viruses.
Today, many food crops, including soy, canola, maize, wheat, rice, potatoes and cotton, to name a few, have genetically modified (GM) variants. These GM crops come with huge social and environmental price tags while failing to address the fundamental causes of hunger. Equally disturbing is the threat to food security resulting from patents on GM crops.
Currently the health risk remains poorly assessed, but a negative impact on biodiversity is already being experienced. Given limited credible research, inadequate legislative and agricultural control mechanisms, consumer opposition and weak food labelling, GM crops present risks that we should not accept.
Public misgivings about threats to health and the environment have fuelled vigorous rejection of GM products globally. Incidents of inaccurate labelling of GM products and of contamination of food by unapproved GM products undermine any claim of protecting public interests. However, instead of taking a precautionary approach, South Africa has permitted the rapid introduction of GM crops. This is driven not by the needs of farmers or consumers but by trans-national GM seed companies seking new markets and a foothold into Africa.
Key reasons why South Africa should reject GM crops and GM produce
- GM crops pose a health risk: Scientists on both sides of the GM food debate acknowledge that interference with the genetic make-up of organisms can and does create unexpected allergens and toxins. Genes that are translocated between unrelated organisms can change their ‘job description’ in response to the genes and proteins present in their new metabolic environment. Some of the DNA from the food we eat is absorbed by the gut lining and, while the DNA in conventional crops has passed the evolutionary test of time, GM food has not evolved so much for our benefit as for the economic benefit of the corporations owning the patents on the GM products.
- GM crops threaten biodiversity: Once released, it is practically impossible to recall transgenes, which spread through pollen dispersal and other natural and human actions. The consequent spread of transgenes and their contamination of local varieties is a threat to both biodiversity and to food security. Well-known examples include the contamination of indigenous maize varieties in Mexico and of both conventional canola and its weedy relatives in Canada. South Africa, ranked as the third most biologically diverse country in the world, has not yet undertaken a single environmental impact analysis on any single GM plant trialed or released in South Africa.
- GM crops cannot co-exist with conventional crops: Examples around the world show that it is impossible to protect conventional crops from contamination by GM crops. Through pollen dispersal, adulterated seed stock and contamination during processing, it is only a matter of time before conventional crops became contaminated. Conventional farmers stand to lose revenue as they cannot guarantee that their crops are GM free and/or eco-friendly. South Africa risks losing valuable European Union and other export markets, which are averse to GM produce, simply because the issue of contamination of conventional crops is not taken seriously. For this and other reasons, Grain SA, the industry umbrella body, has opposed the introduction of several GM varieties for commodity clearance in South Africa.
- GM crops are incompatible with traditional farming practices: The GM seed industry misleadingly portrays its insect- and herbicide-resistant crops as a means of empowering emerging farmers and rural communities. However, GM crops have generally under-performed in traditional farming communities, resulting in poor yields and increased farmer indebtedness. GM seed is expensive and comes with numerous patent restrictions, including a prohibition on saving or collecting seed for replanting. Traditional farmers rely extensively on saved seed. They also use a range of seed varieties adapted to local conditions, in contrast to the mono-culture offered by GM crops. Once GM seed companies undermine the independence of traditional farmers, they are more able to impose a seed monopoly, influencing what gets planted at the expense of crop diversity and local varieties. For instance, global GM giant Monsanto subsidiaries maintain control of much of our maize, barley and wheat seed varieties, be they GM or conventional. This chemical corporation has recently become the world’s biggest seed company.
- GM patents threaten food security: The patenting of plants (and animals) and associated claims of intellectual property rights has created the means for trans-national seed and chemical corporations to effectively privatise staple and traditional crops. Globally, numerous examples testify to this, e.g. the Du Pont corporation registered a patent for maize with a high oil content and the processed products of these plants from oil to maize flour – ignoring the fact that South American farmers have been developing and processing maize varieties for centuries. A legal challenge by Greenpeace caused the patent to be withdrawn in Europe, although it remains valid in the USA. Speculative patents have been taken or sought on crops such as basmati rice, mustard, pepper, neem, to name just a few (Greenpeace publication: H 0221).
- GM seed industry disregards the ‘polluter pays’ principle: The GM seed industry has developed a number of herbicideresistant crops. As a result of over-application of herbicides, several weeds have now developed a resistance to herbicide. Conventional crops have also been contaminated by GM crops. In both instances, the GM industry rejects the responsibility for such contamination or for any financial or environmental liability and lays the blame on bad farming practice. The GM industry vehemently opposes a meaningful liability and redress system. Yet, if the technology is so safe, why is there reluctance to assume risk?
- GM crops fail to reduce chemical use: Although the industry promoted GM crops as a shift away from chemical farming, this has failed to occur. While there is an initial reduction in chemical use, resistance rapidly develops among both insects and weeds. The US Environmental Protection Agency predicts that pests will develop resistance to GMOs within three to five years. Once resistance occurs, more potent chemicals need to be used to combat it, as is already the case with herbicideresistant ‘super weeds’ that evolved through contamination with GM crops. Argentina has seen more than a tenfold increase in herbicide use since GM soy was introduced there. It is no coincidence that companies that control the rights to herbicide-resistant seed also control the rights to the herbicide to which the crops are resistant. Farmers need to purchase a twin pack of seed and herbicide, increasing their dependence on specific chemicals. All the big GM seed corporations are among the world’s largest pesticide producers.
- Inadequate monitoring and control of GM food products: ‘One of the ironies is the enthusiasm of food producers to claim that their biologically engineered products are different and unique when they seek to patent them, and their similar enthusiasm for claiming that they are the same as other foods when asked to label them.’ (J Edwards, Director-General of Consumers International)
The choice to consume GM products is a personal one and over 80% of international consumers wish to have that choice. However, the choice is being denied us. The GM industry has lobbied against any form of identifying their products, and regulators in South Africa have shown a marked unwillingness to challenge this powerful industry lobby.
The way forward
Over 120 organisations, including workers’ and farmers’ unions, faith-based groups, consumer organisations, together with a range of NGOs and academic institutions, have denounced the state support of GM crops in South Africa and have formed a powerful, publicly mandated network known as SAFeAGE the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering. They support organisations and individuals to become active and informed consumers, and to:
- Pressurise the Departments of Health, Environment and Agriculture to develop effective legislation that protects people and the environment from harmful GMO side effects, and to enforce it.
- Pressurise regulatory authorities to enforce labelling of GMO foods to make it possible for us to exercise our civil right to choose whether to eat GMO food – or not.
- Insist that food retailers honour consumer rights by labelling and identifying any GM products sold in their stores and to commit themselves to providing alternative GMO-free products.
- Support organisations, such as Biowatch and SAFeAGE, that monitor GMO activities and work on behalf of the public interest.
- Buy locally grown, natural and organic produce.
