www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Biotech crop cultivation is now in its 11th year ? and eighth in South
Africa ? despite having being attacked for posing health and environmental
threat by anti-genetically modified crops groups, January 2007 by Tiisetso
Motsoeneng.

"Not a shred of medical or scientific evidence has been produced anywhere
in the world to support these claims. To the contrary, all the world's
leading academies of science and medicine and agricultural research
institutions have given GM food a clean bill of health," the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) said on
Tuesday.

ISAAA was commenting on the release of crop production figures around the
world, which showed that South Africa stretched the area under genetically
modified crops by a massive 180 percent to 1.4 million hectares with the
developing world combined increasing the area by seven million hectares to
40.9 million hectares.

However, South Africa's anti-GM crops lobby group, Biowatch, has been
actively campaigning against the extended use of GM crops saying that they
posed environmental and health hazards.

The lobby group's director, Leslie Liddel, told I-Net Bridge on Tuesday that
there was evidence that these crops could pose long-term risks to human and
animal health.

"Some studies show an increase in pesticide use although the GM seed
industry claims their seeds reduces use of pesticide. Generally the seed
companies have pushed for as little regulation as possible over what is a
radically new technology, the ramifications of which are unknown because it
has not been studied for long enough," Liddel said.

She added that it was worrying that the seeds of GM crops were owned by
"powerful multinationals chemical and seed companies" who have patents on
them, making it difficult for local players to play a significant part in
biotech agriculture.

ISAAA argued that the GM crops played a vital role to the humanitarian
Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty and hunger by 2015.

However, Liddel said there were other technologies that could be used to
develop agriculture and reduce hunger, as biotech was too risky to use.

"GM is one type of technology, not the only one. Why are we choosing a risky
technology instead of others, such as marker assisted selection ? a
speeded-up version of conventional plant breeding but which doesn't insert
genes from unrelated species, which have no risks to the environment or
human and animal health and which have produced good results in terms of
yield and quality of food?" charged Liddel.

Farming body, Agri SA, said the body "is in favour of biotechnology
development by means of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the
purpose of attaining sustainable agricultural production and,
simultaneously, promote profitability and competitiveness". The
organisation's president, Lourie Bosman, said his organisation was behind
GMOs provided that the application thereof does not detrimentally affect the
health of humankind or animals, as well as the environment".

In 2001 South Africa compiled an official biotechnology strategy in which
agricultural biotechnology formed part of that strategy. It also has a
comprehensive legislation ? the GMO act of 1997 ? that regulates genetic
modification from research to where it is made available for human
consumption. The country also has guidelines for bio-safety and bio-safety
requirements, which evaluates the crops before approval would be given for
human consumption.

However, Liddel said that there was only a "token of scope" in South African
GM crops legislation for public opinion to be taken into account when
permits are granted for planting of GM crops.

"There is also no choice for consumers who don't want to eat foods
containing GM ingredients because South Africa does not require the
labelling of foods containing GM ingredients," Liddel concluded.

[www.agbios.com]