Genetically modified organisms, Biodiversity Bill, do not protect us

Advertise

Genetically modified organisms, Biodiversity Bill, do not protect us

by Dr R Rabinowitz

Nobody can hear you if you don't speak up: genetically modified organisms, cloning, biotechnology. What's your view? Here Dr Rabionwitz provides her opinion on the GMO Act and Biodiversity Bill.

There are more than 12259 plants and animals threatened with extinction according to the latest Red List published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. This is 10 more species than last year and also more than the number of new species identified. Included on the list are the South African riverine rabbit and cycad.

Hence we are on a downward spiral and if our legislation meant to protect biodiversity is not effective, our response to this looming crisis amounts to nothing; our support for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol and the WSSD Declaration mere words and empty promises. These protocols and conventions require countries to commit themselves to protecting their biodiversity, protecting themselves from the harm of foreign produce and not inflicting harm on other nations.

While biotechnology is regarded as the phenomenon of the 21st Century it has been practised for millennia. It is the use of life forms in technology and even bread baking using yeast spores, is a form of biotechnology. Biodiversity is the variety of life forms that enables species to respond to stress and to evolve. Its importance has been recognised since we gained a better understanding of evolution and ecology. Ecology is simply the flow of energy through all living and non-living matter, towards a state of balance. Our bodies are ecosystems as is the earth. If we lack water, we thirst, we drink and achieve balance. If we don't get the water we die. If ecosystems on earth are deprived of essential sustenance, such as water or oxygen, they lose species and eventually collapse.

While we humans are trivial microscopic specs in the macrocosm, it is we who must prevent technology from fouling up the magnificent work of nature.

Modern biotechnology refers usually the use of genes, a field that gives humans a far greater capacity to create and to destroy, and it is no wonder that genetically modified foods are surrounded by public debate and concern. At a conference convened in South Africa, the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Network met to try to reach consensus on the likely impact of GM (genetically modified) foods in Africa. An overview of the pros and cons of GMOs (GM organisms) came up with the following points.

Arguments FOR the use of GMOs were:

That they produce seeds better able to resist stress.
They produce more nutritious staple foods.
They will make farm animals more productive.
They will produce more food from less land.
They can reduce the need for certain chemicals.
They can produce seeds that grow in infertile land.
Foods will have longer shelf lives.
We may be able to identify diseases more easily using genetic fingerprinting
Development of vaccines.
Identification of allergenic genes.

The arguments AGAINST GMOs were that

Genes may jump from one species to another such as from a plant that resists weed killer to weeds, rendering them resistant too. Once released they cannot be recalled.
Inserted genes may cause harmful mutations.
Sleeper genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes switched off. Genes behave rather like an orchestra, producing certain effects when switched on by stimuli that activate groups of genes to work together. New genes could change the behaviour patterns inherent in natural functions.
GM crops could replace normal crop varieties or compete with wild plants and replace them with the GM version.
GM crops could create resistant insect species and have a harmful effect on insects, essential for pollination.
Allergenic genes may be transferred through mixing plant and animal genes.
GMOs proved safe for animals could enter the human food chain.
Marker genes that confer antibiotic resistance are used to show that the process of gene transfer has occurred. They could cause increased resistance to antibiotics.
Multinationals may gain control of most seed and food production.

As that lists demonstrates, the advantages of GMO's are all short lived and could be attained in various other ways, such as through improved organic farming methods. The hazards are long term and may be irreversible.

South Africa has the potential to become a biotechnology hub based on our potential for developing our natural herbs and plants. Traditional healers use many, as do indigenous people (such as the diet plant, hoodia, used by the San) and overseas companies have already exploited our plants earning millions. Our variety of species and ecosystems provides scope for developing plants that can be engineered to survive drought or poor soil. These forms of GM technology are neglected in favour of GM crops, burgeoning with alarming speed and relative lack of control or transparency.

The GMO Act, which regulates the research, production, importation and sale of GMOs, is inadequate as a protection from GMO fallout. The Act requires that the Registrar of the GMO Council MAY require a risk assessment, a field trial and an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of any product involving GMOs. In South Africa at least 200 permits have been applied for to work with GMOs. All of these have had risk assessments and field trials, which usually involve paper work submitted by the company requesting the permit. The risk assessment can only look for what we know to be risky such as allergenic particles or known side effects in animals. The field trials are mostly to assess commercial factors such as yield, durability and size. Three products have been licensed for commercial farming (Bt cotton, Bt maize and Ready Roundup Soya), which form 80%, 20% and 11 % of the market respectively, but no research has been done to assess the impact these crops have on the environment. Recent research in Britain has resulted in a Europe wide ban on GM sugar beet and rapeseed, after it was demonstrated that they significantly reduce butterfly, bee and bird populations. In South Africa there has been no EIA on any product and if harm to the environment does occur, there is no way of knowing it or correcting it until it is too late.

The Biotechnology Bill adopted in parliament recently has the same flaws as the GMO Act, and allows that the Minister MAY call for an EIA if he thinks there may be harm to the environment. But without such an assessment why should he expect such harm? Ironically, the National Environmental Management Act states that every activity requiring a permit also requires an EIA, which must be advertised to the community. But, between the words and the action, falls the shadow. Our laws are not effectively enacted. This may be of nuisance value as regards smoking, but is has serious consequences when it comes to the impact of GMO's on biodiversity and human health.

We need an urgent re-appraisal of the GMO Act making it mandatory that all GM crops have EIA's. There must be a paper trail from seed to stomach for all GM foods so that if something does go wrong it can be stopped and prevented in future. We also need unimpeded transparency concerning who has applied for and been given permits to do what, where and why. Only then can we keep a wary eye on humans tinkering with nature's genes and give meaning to our alleged desire to protect our magnificent variety of plants and animals for future generations.]

More information:

Dr Ruth Rabinowitz is an Inkatha Freedom Party MP in South Africa

Debate, discuss, decide for yourself. Send us your feedback to this article.