By Neels Blom
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.


[www.businessday.co.za]