The harm of GM food hysteria

by Temba Nolutshungu*

European consumer panic and EU regulations about genetically modified foods threaten millions of Africans, who need cheap and reliable crops. Greenpeace has just garnered a million signatures around Europe for a petition to the EU demanding labels for traces of GM organisms in food. GM food may not solve malnutrition and starvation by itself, but it would make a huge
difference.

Remember, we are talking about a product that has been eaten by Americans and Canadians for more than a decade without harming anybody. Fifteen years of tests in 400 European laboratories led EU research commissioner Philippe Busquin to say in 2001 that they had not found “any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. “Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods,” Busquin said.

Even South Africa, with bumper harvests of GM crops, is threatened by irrational fears, with activists calling for restrictive laws, citing the “precautionary principle” — a legal concept that is promoted by the EU and the United Nations. At first sight, the precautionary principle looks reasonable. As children, we were warned that you should “look before you leap” or told that “if in doubt, don’t.” Following that advice will at times have avoided danger, loss and even injury. On the other hand, following precautionary advice to avoid all risk would keep away a lot of opportunities, and carrying out a risk assessment before avoiding an oncoming bus could prove fatal.

The precautionary principle requires action to avoid a risk even when there is no evidence of any risk: it demands that new inventions should not be used unless and until they have been shown to be absolutely safe, reversing the usual burden of proof : they are assumed to be harmful until proven safe to an impossible standard.

When the Zambian government turned away famine-relief GM maize in 2005 because of a theoretical health risk, it created a real risk and turned a disaster into a tragedy. But that same type of GM maize had been consumed by Americans and Canadians for more than a decade.

Applied to agriculture and food biotechnology, the precautionary principle ignores the real threats of hunger, starvation and malnutrition that can be reduced by new products. Applied to penicillin and aspirin or peanuts and potatoes, which are all the cause of rare fatal allergies, it would have demanded an outright ban. Yet GM foods do not even have those rare side effects.

It is worth repeating that no one has yet detected any allergy, harm or risk to humans, animals or the environment from commercialised GM crops. Farmers use GM seeds because they are more efficient, giving higher yields and lower pesticide costs. Consumers eat GM foods because they are just as good as any other crop, and cheaper too. Hundreds of millions of people, rich and poor, get income or food from them.

The “Frankenfood” myths about terminator genes, contamination and the destruction of species reflect only ignorance, pseudoscience or plain propaganda. In a continent that desperately needs growth, food, jobs and exports, innovation is exactly what we need.

The US, Canada and Argentina had the muscle to bring their GM-export case to the World Trade Organisation and to win against the EU, but African countries are still vulnerable to EU restrictions on GM products and consumer fears of (unspecified) contamination. Bizarrely, those barriers are supported by western activists in the aid industry, who are all opposed to free trade and GM products, ignoring the fact that these are just the tools that we need to boost exports and fight famine.

For European consumers, GM is a whimsical lifestyle issue. But for the poor of the world, this really is a question of life and death.

*Nolutshungu is a director of the Free Market Foundation. This article is based on his evidence before the parliamentary portfolio committee (South Africa) hearing on the Genetically Modified Organisms Bill.

Business Day