Pro vs. anti GMO battle rages on in South Africa

Judging by the level of antagonism between the proponents of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the anti-GMO activists, the struggle between these lobby groups is far from over.

It has certainly prompted a call from the South African Women’s Agricultural Union (SAWAU) for better communication about biotechnology.

Organised agriculture and seed companies, however, would have us believe that the battle is won, and they have the statistics to prove it.

Agri SA president Lourie Bosman showed at a news conference last week that the mean area planted to GMO crops last year increased more than 30% to 1,8-million hectares, up from 1,4-million hectares in 2006.

That means that SA, now in its 10th year of GMO production, retains its eighth position among the world’s 23 leading producers of genetically modified crops, 11 of which are industrialised economies and 12 developing economies. SA’s position is particularly meaningful, since it holds it among countries with considerably larger agricultural sectors and vastly greater areas of arable farmland.

In order of acreage, they are the US, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, China and Paraguay. Behind SA are economies such as Australia, Spain and France. Worldwide, the acreage under GMOs has increased an average of about 12% a year, or by about 12,3-million hectares for 12 years. It now stands at 114,3-million hectares.

The GMO proponents present these statistics as a victory over those who would oppose this branch of biotechnology, as though it is fait accompli. They also present the consistent increase in planting as proof that GMOs are safe for consumption.

“This (genetically modified) maize is being consumed, in one way or another, every year by 40-million South Africans without any medical or scientifically substantiated adverse effects on humans,” Bosman said.

The GMO proponents also make much of its uptake worldwide by resource-poor farmers which, in SA, are represented by more than 450000 emerging farmers, if subsistence farmers are taken into consideration.

A pro-GMO non-profit organisation, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, says that 11-million of the world’s 12-million GMO farmers are regarded as resource poor. But these statistics tell only part of the story.

In SA, the uptake of GMOs is due to enabling legislation and comparatively poor traceability of genetically modified content in food, and not as a result of demand, general acceptance or even apathy. Bosman admitted that it is virtually impossible for South African consumers to avoid ingesting genetically modified substances, even if they tried.

Already about half of all maize and almost all soya beans consumed in SA are genetically modified. While consumers can theoretically avoid these foodstuffs where their GMO status is labelled, maize and soya beans find their way into the food chain as animal feed and as constituents of processed food.

It must be understood, also, that for all the fanfare about the technology, only two genetic modifications are prevalent in South African agricultural practice, both of which are applied for their agronomically desirable traits, and not because they improve the quality of the resulting food products.

They are Bt organisms (Bacillus thuringiensis), which impart an insecticidal property to maize and cotton target species (maize and cotton), and RoundupReady, which gives target species resistance to a broadleaf herbicide.

A new generation of GMOs, reportedly with improved nutritional value, is expected between four and six years from now.

As for the feted relief for emerging farmers, no one on the panel presenting the GMO statistics last week, or anyone in the contingent of technical experts at the meeting, could provide verifiable statistics for SA. The panel did, however, present one small-scale black farmer, Motlatsi Musi, who farms 25ha south of Johannesburg, to testify about his success with GMO.

Musi is the same black farmer the panel presented last year at a similar meeting and he testified similarly about his profitability. He admitted again, as he did last year, that he was “helped with seed” from the seed companies.

After fuel and labour, seed is the costliest input for a farmer.

Pannar, a South African seed company, said earlier this year that the costs associated with producing GMOs are prohibitive for emerging farmers and that certain farming practices made that market difficult to penetrate.

The use of farm-saved seed, for instance, posed a problem of intellectual property rights for seed companies in SA that could scupper their arrangements with their principals overseas.

The environmental and food-safety issues have not been adequately addressed either. Although the anti-GMO lobby’s objections based on experimental evidence are not supported by repeat experiments, the proponents of GMOs have not proven food safety beyond doubt either. As champions of a new technology, it is incumbent upon them to show food and environmental safety, regardless of other “acceptable” risks associated with food production.

The SAWAU lauded SA’s regulatory system at the panel meeting, but neither it nor the panel could enumerate what the specific safety issues were.

That no one in SA has fallen ill or died (as far as we know) as a direct consequence of ingesting GMOs does not make the technology safe, and to suggest otherwise is spurious. It is perhaps this attitude, combined with the expedient use of statistics, that maintains the high level of public mistrust of the new technology.

Business Day SA