By Busani Bafana

As Africa grapples with the question of food insecurity, biotechnology buffs
seem to have an answer: genetically modified crops that could feed a
continent vulnerable to famine and food deficits. But environmentalists warn
of new dangers.
An appeal board recently overturned opposition from the South African GMO
Executive Council to allow testing of a nutritionally enhanced, genetically
modified sorghum, known as 'Super Sorghum' in greenhouses in Pretoria.

The application by the Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) -
and endorsed by South Africa's Minister of Land Affairs and Agriculture -
was successful at the second attempt when the applicant supplied additional
information that it would meet biosafety requirements for the laboratory
trials.

Genetic modification involves identifying the genetic codes for specific
traits in plants or animals and removing or exchanging them to create
varieties with desired characteristics. Biosafety refers to the safe
transfer, handling, and use of any living modified organism resulting from
biotechnology.

The battle between supporters and critics of genetically modified (GM) crops
that promise higher yields, better resistance to pests or adaptability to a
changing climate is expected to increase in intensity should this trial move
from the greenhouse to the fields.

Biotechnologists and scientists are celebrating the decision to license the
CSIR to develop 'Super Sorghum' under the "African Biofortified Sorghum"
(ABS) project which received a 16.9 million dollar grant from the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. The aim of the ABS Project is to "develop sorghum
with improved food quality by enriching it for essential amino acids (part
of the protein component of the diet), and later by increasing its content
in essential vitamins (vitamin A and E)."

"This process proves that South Africa has robust regulation," the CSIR
Biosciences Executive Director, Dr. Gatsha Mazithulela, said in a media
statement. "We respect the fact that decision-makers have an obligation
towards safety and that rigorous investigations are part of the process.
Work on the project will now continue in our level 3 biosafety greenhouse."

The pro-GM lobby argues that while sorghum is one of the few crops that
grows well in arid parts of Africa, it lacks many essential nutrients and
has poor protein digestibility - qualities that biotechnology will improve.
The anti-GM lobby strongly dismisses this, saying African farmers have
traditionally been fermenting sorghum to make essential nutrients available
to the human digestive system. In addition, farmers have developed their own
sorghum varieties, high in lysine, which they grow when needed. They fear
that these varieties would be threatened by contamination by GM sorghum.

Mazithulela says the CSIR and its consortium partners support biosafety.
They are undertaking additional measures to satisfy regulators and the
public that the work conducted is ethical, conforms to the highest safety
levels, and is in the interests of the public.

"The consortium has already started investigating some fundamental questions
in genetics of sorghum as an additional contribution to knowledge in this
area," said Mazithulela. "Scientific progress will be documented for
scientific review and the organisation will keep the Minister's advisory
panel abreast of developments."

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), which objected to the CSIR's 2006
application, condemns the decision, stating that experimentation with GM
sorghum will inevitably result in the contamination of Africa's prized
sorghum heritage.

"The risks posed by GM sorghum to wild and weedy relatives cannot be
tolerated at all and the granting of this permit is tantamount to a licence
to taint Africa's heritage," says researcher and outreach officer of the
ACB, Haidee Swanby, adding that, "We objected to the original permit, and
the permit was denied by our government. The Industrial Research Council
appealed the decision and they won the appeal. So this is the end of the
road."

Sorghum is the main food source for more than 100 million farmers in
Sub-Saharan African according to the Pantancheru, India-based International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, a research organisation
focused on the needs of the poor.

The ACB says the ABS project is being developed for commercial release and
the CSIR will be seeking permission for field trials soon.

"It is a done deal," Swanby told IPS, "However this permit is for
experimentation in a contained environment. The next permit application will
be for open field trials and we will fight that application hard."

Research released this year - carried out under the auspices of the UN's
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and accepted by 58 countries,
including South Africa - found that supporting local ecological forms of
agriculture and transforming unfair trade policies would be a better
strategy towards food security than GMOs.

More than 400 contributors were involved in producing International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAASTD) draft report,
drawing on the evidence and assessments of thousands of experts worldwide.
The IAASTD was launched as an intergovernmental process, with a
multi-stakeholder Bureau, under the co-sponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP,
UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO.

Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, programme officer for GRAIN Africa, an
organisation that promotes the sustainable management and use of
agricultural biodiversity, says, "It is not for the South African government
to decide, on behalf of the rest of Africa, that they may approve an
industrial project which will result in the inevitable contamination of
Africa's astounding genetic diversity in sorghum. This crop has been
developed and cared for by farmers for over 5,000 years."

But according to biotechnologist Wynand van der Walt, modern biotechnology
application, especially used in agriculture, food science, bio-processing,
and medicine, offers opportunities to ensure food security in Africa. He
says the anti-GM activists have failed to bring evidence to bear that GM
crops posed a threat to health and the productivity of other crops.

Foods from GM crops, Dr. van de Walt, says have been consumed by over 3
billion people on all continents and there are no substantiated cases of
negative impact on human health or the environment. On the contrary, GM
crops have ensured substantial reduction in pesticide use (some 290,000
tons) to the benefit of humans and the environment.

"We have high food prices and high food insecurity," van der Walt says. "We
cannot wait for long term policy discussions. The urgency is now and all of
us have an obligation to go out and communicate and counter the
misinformation we face every day about GM crops."
www.checkbiotech.org