(NOTE:  This document is available from safeage@mweb.co.za in an A4 version with decent lay-out and all of its formatting.) It will be available in .pdf soon. But the content is very valid and useful.

 What are GMO’s?

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) are living organisms, produced in laboratories by transferring the genes, containing the codes of life, from one organism, be it a plant, an animal, or a bacteria, into another, unrelated, organism.

Ever since the genetic structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was discovered in 1953, the potential for genetic manipulation has attracted scientists to the alluring prospect of redesigning nature to enhance human development.

Genetic engineering involves technically manipulating the DNA of living cells to respond to a new set of instructions on how to behave. The result is known as recombinant DNA, more commonly called genetically engineered (GE), or manipulated (GM) products.

Presently two major commercially available GM products, or traits, are used in farming. Their purposes are to enable crops to either tolerate herbicide or to resist certain species of insects or both. GM crops grown in South Africa are used for both human and animal consumption and are sold throughout the country. 

 

A brief history of GMO's - and Monsanto

To trace the history of genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops in the world is to trace the history of Monsanto, the worlds leading producer and seller of GM seeds.

Monsanto began as a chemical company in the United States in 1901 and is associated with the production of chemicals for industrial, agricultural, food and military use. Through the years Monsanto has manufactured a range of products, including; Agent Orange - used by the US military in Vietnam; DDT; Polychlorinated Biphenyl’s (PCBs), a mutagen and carcinogen, as well as the controversial GM artificial sweetener aspartame.

In the 1980s Monsanto shifted its emphasis toward biotechnology. It systematically purchased up the worlds largest seed companies, including Dekalb Genetics, allowing it to dominate the US maize seed market.

In 1999 Monsanto bought two major South African seed companies, Sensako and Carnia, gaining significant access to the maize, soybean, wheat, barley and sunflower seed markets. These companies are now merged under the Dekalb brand.

In 2005 Monsanto entered the international vegetable seed market by purchasing the worlds biggest vegetable seed company, Seminis, making it the worlds largest seed company. Seminis supplies over 3,500 seed varieties to fruit and vegetable growers in 51 countries.[i]

Monsantos’ monopoly also extends to herbicides and pesticides. Their GM seeds have been engineered to promote the use of its Roundup™ herbicide so that it profits twice - from the sale of seeds and from the sale of herbi­cides. The herbicide-tolerant trait has been engineered into soybeans, maize, cotton and canola. It allows farmers to spray their crops with weed killer, leaving the crop unaffected.

Farmers who buy Monsanto's GM seeds pay a technology fee and sign technology users agreements, only allowing farmers to use the seeds for one season whilst obliging them to purchase Monsantos’ Roundup herbicide.

Monsanto owns patents on over 600 GM traits and aggressively prosecutes those deemed to violate their agreements. The NGO ‘Friends of the Earth’ noted how Monsanto sued 500 Canadian and American farmers in 2004.[ii] Lawsuit results are not publicly available, as farmers contracted to Monsanto may not disclose rulings.

 

GMO's in South Africa

South Africa is seen as a gateway into Africa because of its sophisticated economy and agricultural expertise, coupled to its political influence both regionally and continentally. Unlike almost every other African nation South Africa has embraced GM technology for commercial plantings, field trials and for direct animal and human consumption. 

Monsanto holds patents on nearly 100% of GM crops marketed in this country, while Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred and other biotech multinationals push to enter this market. Monsanto's agricultural chemicals have been used locally since the 1960s. Their GM products have steadily entered the market from 1997.

Only three GM crops are officially grown: According to PG Economics, genetically modified cotton accounts for 70% of total plantings in the country, while modified soya beans and maize account for 43% and 14% of total plantings respectively[iii]. However field trials are being conducted in secret locations on other crops, including vegetables, flowers and fruit.

 

Maize – a genetically contaminated staple food

White maize is a staple food regionally and within our borders. Approximately 10% of white maize production is GM[iv]. Yellow maize is mainly grown for animal feed and some processed human foods. Most maize is produced on around 8000 large commercial farms. Significant amounts are also imported from the USA and Argentina. Subsistence farmers grow small amounts, strongly aided by the corporate sector.

South Africa is the only country in the world where a staple food is permitted to be genetically modified. Both yellow and white GM maize use so called Bt technology, enabling plants to repel stem borers and other worms. In 2003 so-called ‘Roundup Ready’ maize was introduced, allowing farmers to saturate their fields and surroundings, killing all plants but the GM maize. Both of these GM traits encourage damaging farming methods that are inappropriate for small-scale farmers.

Although maize is not indigenous to this region it has been grown long enough for farmers to have developed different varieties suitable to specific needs and situations. For instance, drought resistant crops that enable household food security are often more important than bumper yields. The potential loss and displacement of locally adapted strains by GM maize is of deeply worries scientists and farmers, concerned about contamination and displacement of traditional, locally adapted varieties.

Pollen from GM maize readily spreads to natural maize. The resulting seed will con­tain genetic information from both parent plants. Farmers are therefore unable to prevent unwanted and often unapproved GM characteristics from migrating into their crops. Generations of crossbreeding and specialisation stand at risk.

Farm saved seed is being contaminated by homogenised, GM crops controlled by multinational corporations, who claim ownership of contaminated seed through patents and other intellectual property mechanisms. These corporations are more focussed on increasing turnover and profit than in supporting local sustainability and genetic purity amongst maize farming and -dependent communities.

Although South Africa is usually a net exporter of maize, it has become involved in a regional controversy around GM maize contamination of food aid. Both imported and local GM maize enters neighbouring countries because of South Africa's lenient approach facilitates a regional transfer of GM contaminated crops. GM food aid is regionally perceived as a cynical mechanism to both support US agricultural production and to open African markets to GM crops.

Even in the most promising regions GM maize has failed to provide proof of any significant gains, despite concerted media spin. Widely reported successes amongst small-scale farmers have been misleading and incon­clus­ive. No claims of higher yields have been supported by sufficient data to prove them to be true[v].  

 

Consumer information and Labelling

South Africa's inadequate labelling regulations utterly fail to provide information to consumers about contamination by GM foods. No mandatory labelling of GM foods is required, despite extensive public pressure for this. A 2006 study[vi] showed how a broad variety of consumer products were found to contain both GM maize and soy.

 

Soya

Soya bean cultivation presently comprises only 1% of South African agricultural production, although this amount is growing. Food produced from soybeans includes oil, used in margarine, shortening and salad dressings as well as a wide variety of processed products including tofu, soya sauce, simulated milk and meat substitutes and also ice cream and confectioneries. Soya has replaced fishmeal as the main protein component of animal feed. GM soya was first planted here in 2001. 

Unlike maize, where concerns revolve around the contamination of a staple crop, GM soya holds an additional potential to displace traditional crops and natural biodiversity. GM Soya is an industrial crop that requires economies of scale and intensive mechanis­ation to be viable.

In South America GM soya has displaced thousands of small farmers, destroying sustainable livelihoods and disrupting food security. A carpet of chemically dependent, machine-managed soya has replaced communities, forests and grassland to supply animal feedlots in the US, Europe, China and even in South Africa. 

GM products generally, and soya in particular, should be analysed in light of the motive of multinational corporations to secure the control of the production of basic commodities in developing countries.

This so-called “new green revolution” is every bit as disruptive to sustainable, self-sufficient systems and lifestyles as was the first green revolution. Short-term increases in production come at the cost of displacing sustainable systems by factory farms that enrich a small minority. In Argentina alone, at least 150,000 small farmers and their families have been forced off their land by intensive soya farming. Commercially grown soya is predicted to destroy an area of South American forests and savannah equal to that of Great Britain by 2020.

A side effect of herbicide-resistant GM soya is the development of numerous herbicide resistant weeds. The original intention to rely on only a single herbicide has proven misguided. With farmers and the environment now trapped in a chemical treadmill, using ever more toxic chemicals in attempts to deal with the consequences.

 

 

Intentional contamination?

From these two lists it becomes clear that despite the best intentions of many of these companies to prevent contamination by GM ingredients, this has nevertheless occurred. Well-trusted household brands suffered a blow to their credibility. The only beneficiaries are the transnational corporations that hold patents on these products. Under South African law[ix] “the user” is liable for any negative consequences. This can mean the farmer, retailer or consumer, but lets developers off the hook.

 

Cotton

The South African government has supported the development of small-scale cotton farmers, using Monsanto's insect resistant cotton in the Makhatini Flats, KwaZulu Natal. The Makhatini experiment has been portrayed as a 'success story' by Monsanto, while it has not yet proven to benefit the lives of local small-scale farmers.

According to a study by Biowatch,[x] only four of 36 Makhatini farmers studied had made a profit when using this product. Large numbers have defaulted on loans, showing how this GM technology has failed to provide meaningful solutions to what are complex socio-economic challenges. This is illustrative of the shortcomings of industrial agriculture to provide relevant solutions to the challenges confronted by the developing world. 

Most of the cotton grown in the country is marketed locally. GM Cottonseed oil is a major concern because it finds its way into cooking oil, shortening, salad dressing, and in snack foods such as crackers, biscuits and chips. The meal and hulls produced from cottonseeds are fed to livestock – and thence back to us, the consumers.

 

WHAT ARE SOME KEY CONCERNS WITH GMO's?

On one hand, the developers of these novel products claim their benefits will translate into gains for the public good. The first decade of GM crops has seen no such advantages with the same two traits only offering advantages to producers, not consumers. These traits have enabled corporations like Monsanto to control market share through patents and licensing.

On the other hand growing numbers of farmers, consumers and scientists have serious concerns about how the technology is being employed. These concerns justify halting further development of GM agricultural crops until they are addressed. Taken together they indicate an orches­trated campaign and include:

·         Monopoly – in the years since the development of GM technology, three multinational corporations, Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, have risen to dominate the market, with Monsanto controlling more than 90% of global GM plantings. This stranglehold on seeds and agricultural inputs - the first links in the food chain - has far-reaching implications for global food security.

·         Misrepresentation - GM companies have a history of misrepresenting and suppressing scientific evidence. Key experiments failed to be performed, or to be properly followed up[xi].

·         No solution for hunger – GM proponents claim that GM crops will end hunger. In reality they worsen it by displacing established, sustainable, viable, family farms in favour of industrial, debt-dependent agri-businesses. Farmers are forced to mechanise, reduce employment, causing serious environmental and social impacts, simply in order to remain economically viable. 

·         The myth of higher yields – international studies clearly show how GM crops have failed to deliver promised benefits like increased yields or reduced herbicide or pesticide use[xii]. GM crops are estimated to have cost the US approximately $12billion in subsidies, lost sales and product recalls.[xiii]

·         Dangers for human and animal health - Although there are increasing indications of the negative impact of GMO's on human and animal health[xiv], the full impact on health is likely to take years to manifest. The greatest dangers are inherent to the process of genetic engineering itself.  Two rodent studies released in 2005 raised profound questions; one about specific dangers to foetal and infant development[xv] the other about unexplained lung lesions[xvi], each linked with different GM crops. Another study in 2001 shows how GM processes accidentally created a potentially catastrophic GM mouse virus[xvii].

·         Genetic Contamination – Plant pollen is spread by both insects and wind, making it impossible to control. Cross pollination, accidental seed spillage and co-mingling of GM and natural seeds during transportation and processing, resulting in uncontrolled contamination. In 2005 the Greenpeace contamination register noted 62 cases of contamination of food, animal feed, seed and wild plants across 27 countries.[xviii]

·         The Threat to Biodiversity  - GM technology has caused increases in weed problems, chemical usage, deforestation, destruction of agricultural biodiversity, reduced yields and the displacement of small farmers that traditionally rely on biodiversity[xix] [xx].

·         Loss of food security and sovereignty - Monsanto’s Terminator technology creates sterile GM seed, preventing the age-old process of saving and sharing seed. Farmers are forced to not only purchase new seeds every year but will become increasingly dependent on privately controlled inputs instead of becoming more independent and self-sufficient.

 

Who will gain most from the adoption of GM crops?

Monsanto's intention is to replace conventional seed with its patented GM seeds throughout the world in order to gain of US$210 billion per year within the next decade, with the largest potential gains occurring in developing nations.[xxi]

GM technology is being promoted in order to create dependence and undermine traditional agricultural practices. In nations where GM technology has been extensively adopted by either state subsidised farmers  - as with the USA – or amongst labour intensive farms, increased mechanisation has followed. Over 330 farmers leave the land in the USA every week[xxii]. Locally, since the adoption of GM cotton, 58,000 jobs have been lost within that sector in only six years.[xxiii]

 

Who stands to lose most?

·         Consumers – extensive and disturbing evidence exists of significant risks to health and food security. Consumers should beware of GM products until far more comprehensive testing programmes have been undertaken.

·         Farmers – many thousands of small farmers have either been ruined by the technology failing them[xxiv], or displaced by large industrialised farms which are often subsidised, masking the true costs and impacts of GM farming. 

·         Environment – the genes in GM crops have contaminated crop diversity while also supporting the use of toxic chemicals that destroy natural biodiversity.

·         National sovereignty - corporate strategy has been to contaminate, then legislate, to permanently introduce GM products onto our shelves and into our fields. Once this has occurred they apply pressure on governments to legitimise this contamination, while insisting on special, privileged ownership rights.

 

Is it too late?

With widespread GM contamination already present, even amongst some products claimed to be GM-free, have we passed the point of no return? Even if we are able to immediately halt all new GM cultivation and ban all imports, can we reverse contamination of the food chain? One way is to systematically reduce this contamination, rendering it less invasive and pervasive. The current emphasis on healthy lifestyles and environment makes this an attainable goal. Given the consequences of permitting further dominance of the food chain by Monsanto and other private corporations, this is an urgent task.

 

 

 

 

 

The South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering - (SAFeAGE) - demands a mora­torium on all GM food products until industry is able to prove that they are safe, sustainable and beneficial. Despite the relentless imposition of GM products into the South African market, SAFeAGE continues to call upon South African consumers to support:

·         Mandatory Labelling  -  Foods with GM content, including products from animals who have consumed GM feeds, must be labelled so that consumers can make informed choices and take personal responsibility to manage potential health risks.  Given that our legislation holds consumers, not the developers of these products liable for negative consequences, it is our right to demand this basic right to protect ourselves.

·         GM-free zones – SAFeAGE supports the establishment of recognised areas where buyers can be certain of sourceing uncontaminated products. These can include agricultural regions, suburbs, shops or shelves.

·         True food lists – SAFeAGE is in the process of compiling a printable, web-based listing, of GM and GM-free foods. In order to compile this list SAFeAGE calls for a public debate on acceptable GM threshold levels. A maximum level of 0.9%, in common with most of our agricultural export markets, is presently the preferred option.