Presentation by Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss from Biowatch South Africa, at the GMO Conference hosted by the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs 14 & 15 April 2003
What is the difference between biotech and genetic engineering (GE) Biotechnology is a new and exciting technology that will help "South Africa leapfrog into the future." Biotechnology is one of the oldest of technologies and we have been doing it for years. Genes cross in nature all the time.
These two sweeping statements are but one of the contradictions that is being used to confuse you and obliterate the very real social, political, economic, environmental and moral issues that GE presents us with. Promotors of GE will describe the obvious benefits of biotechnology and then switch seamlessly to GE as if it is all the same. Even our Biotechnology Strategy uses this technique.
So, if you do not want to be confused you have to be clear about the difference from the outset and you should not allow yourselves to be hoodwinked by clever PR. Biotechnology is an overall terminology that includes beer fermentation, hybridisation, tissue culture but also genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technology. One wonders when the need did arise to classify all these vastly different technologies under one term – but it certainly helps to make you believe it is familiar and harmless.
Genetic engineering is very different because it allows for the breaking down of all reproductive barriers and the mixing of genes across all living things. It is now possible to take any gene from any organism belonging to any species and introduce them to any other organism. Genes of unrelated organisms do not mix through sexual reproduction. With GE it can.
In GE, a DNA sequence from a donor organism is introduced into the cell or cells of a recipient organism in such a way as to enable the DNA to become expressed. Usually it is not easy and the DNA sequence is first combined with a vector which is usually a bacterium, a virus. Any genetic engineer will tell you that this introduction is usually very imprecise, contributing to the uncertain effects.
Apart from being clear about GE being very different, it is also vitally important to not let your perception of the benefits of the technology be clouded by the kind of pie in the sky sales rhetoric about amazing crops that will have vaccines in them, Vitamin A enriched rice, drought resistant plants, plants with antibiotics in them etc. Many of this might never materialise, is technically very difficult. You have to engage with the present, the crops that are now on the market and being tested. What benefits and risks do they bring? Is it appropriate for Africa? How do we manage this, do we yet have the capacity to control it? Or are we rushing it?
Is Questioning GMOs irresponsible and is caution a European luxury? Biotech companies and their science apologists often exploit fears of Africans being "behind" by using phrases like "Africa does not want to miss the boat" or the "biotech train" as some put it. They also slate anyone that asks for caution as either pushing European (trade) interests, hysterical, irresponsible and even immoral – that is to deny Africa this opportunity.
This is not a Greens issue or a European issue. It concerns basic human rights – to food security, to healthcare, and to environmental sustainability. These are critical African issues – where we are being targeted by biotech companies anxious to find alternative markets for their rejected products and to recoup their heavy investments in GE. South Africa is seen as a springboard to enter Africa – and the marketing strategy that has been used, is to depict genetically engineered crops as the answer to poverty and hunger. The belief that trade and increased yields can alleviate hunger is based on a simplistic quantitative perspective on food availability, disregarding many factors, above all the distribution of wealth and power. Global food production per person has outstripped population growth by 16% over the past 35 years and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) predicts it will continue to do so for at least the next 30 years, even without factoring in GE crops. South Africa produces enough food to feed itself, so why are people going hungry?
If we talk about being irresponsible, I believe it is irresponsible to:
- Use the images of starving children to sell expensive, patented GE seed to Africa. Why would this food be cheaper?
- Have illiterate farmers sign contracts that they will not save seed, exchange seed. By far the majority of African farmers depending on farm-saved seed and they are the unrecognised, unseen backbone of the African rural economy.
- Developing sterile seed to protect patents, i.e. Terminator seed and also the new Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS)
- Taking farmers to court and ruining them financially for unsolicited contamination
- Forcing Malawi, Zimbabwe to accept GE food aid, and continuing to this day to pressurise Zambia to accept it, telling them "beggars cannot be choosers"
- Put first GE staple food, GE white maize on the shelves without labelling.
Indeed, what kind of rights do we talk about when we say that Europe has the right to safe food, to know what they eat, to say NO, but Africa not?
In other words, what they are saying is: Caution is a luxury that Africa cannot afford. We expect our government to protect us and inform us.
I would argue that we in Africa have much to lose if we are not cautious. Biodiversity being one of them.
Biodiversity and Contamination We are the 3rd most biologically diverse country in the world. We are also the country with the 6th fastest expansion of GE in the world and to date we have not done a single risk assessment or EIA on the GMOs we have released, and if we have, it is certainly highly secret. Biowatch has repeatedly requested access to these risk assessments from the Department of Agriculture with no success.
We have a unique resource, something much of the rest of the world wants and have lost: genetic diversity. Africa is also the centre of diversity for several crops. GMOs are a serious threat to this diversity, which is of critical importance to us and the rest of the world. We only have to look at the case of Mexico. A Case of Contamination of Biodiversity
Maize has been domesticated by Mexican indigenous communities over several thousands of years, and embraces a deep cultural, nutritional and economic meaning for them. After three years of the presence of transgenic maize the whole species is at high risk. The Mexican government, announced this time last year that there is now scientific research that shows contamination of maize indigenous varieties at the world center of origin and diversity of maize, with transgenic varieties imported from the United States. This contamination is putting at risk the whole genetic structure of the maize populations.
Our generation may become the first in the history of the world to lose more knowledge that we will gain. Many call what is happening to the destruction of our genetic pool a kind of gene-suicide that the world may not survive.
Instead of being a panacea to the problem of hunger in Africa, GMOs threaten local control over a diversity of genetic resources and rural livelihoods. The promise of higher agricultural yields has not materialized if you look at studies from around the world. Commercial farmers say the one advantage is that it reduces labour costs and this is the main reason they adopt it. This is not exactly a solution for rural poverty.
The risks of GMOs A recent review published in the journal Science, states that key experiments on both the environmental risks and benefits are lacking, and points to the inevitable uncertainties of GE plants. Risks include invasiveness, gene transfer to wild relatives, the development of superweeds, killing of non-target species, development of insect resistance. Many of these risks have already played itself out in the US, Argentina, Canada where there is a problem with superweeds, contamination is rife and even contamination of the human food supply has taken place. In the US maize products have been contaminated with the Starlink maize that is only suitable for animal consumption and these products had to be withdrawn at huge costs. This has cost the company Aventis, US$ 1 billion. Our GMO Act puts liability on the consumer and farmer and we do not have traceability systems in place and should such a disaster occur, it would have untold effects on society.
The WWF concluded in its review of pesticide use that GE crops do not offer sustainable reductions in the use of and reliance on pesticides. In the case of RR crops, the use of the herbicide glyphosate has increased worldwide because farmers can now spray without risk of damaging their crops. In Argentina, Conicet, the government sponsored academic research council, say that glyphosate use per hectare shows signs of significant increase in the mere five years or so that RR has been used, indicating that weeds are already becoming resistant to its use.
GE in South Africa In South Africa, the only African country to grow GE crops commerically, 20% of cotton and 5% of maize grown, is now GE. Permits have been granted for field trials of cotton, maize, soybeans, apple, canola, wheat, potatoes, etc.
In South Africa, several transgenic crops are planted on a commercial basis, including Bt cotton, Bt maize and Roundup-Ready cotton and soya bean. Bt-maize and cotton has been genetically engineered with the Bt gene (Bacillus Thuringiensis), a naturally occurring soil bacterium that acts as a pesticide. This enables the plant to emit Bt 24 hours a day, in the leaves, stalks, flowers and roots of the plant. Target insects die and the theory is that farmers then do not have to spray their crops with pesticides. However, the bollworm, the main pest that Bt controls, will become resistant to the insecticide in the plant within 3 – 5 years which means that the farmer will have to revert to stronger pesticides than used before. It is thus a short-term strategy.
Roundup-Ready plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to the Roundup Ready herbicide of Monsanto. In other words, when the farmer spray RR herbicide, all the weeds die, except for the RR plant. Research has found that instead of just spraying before planting, farmers can now spray more often and the use of herbicide is increasing.
So, what is behind this all? Control over food and medicine is becoming concentrated with a handful of corporations. The past 10 years has seen the concentration in corporate power become the defining feature of today's global economy. The 'life sciences' industry is converging into new corporate structures that have profound implications for every aspect of commercial food, agriculture, and health.
*The top 10 pharmaceutical companies control an estimated 48% of the
$317 billion world market.
* The top 10 seed firms control 30% of the $24.4 billion commercial
seed market.
* One company's genetically modified (GM) seed technology (Monsanto -
now owned by Pharmacia) accounted for 94% of the total area sown to
GM crops in 2000.
*The top 10 agrochemical corporations control 84% of the US$30
billion agrochemical market.
In the words of one Monsanto executive, "What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it is really the consolidation of the entire food chain." Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Aventis are called the "Gene Giants" because between them they control virtually 100% of the genetically modified seeds market.
Only Four companies have almost complete control. In the face of this concentration and control over GE seed, how are we going to compete, how is this going to benefit us – here in Africa? Monsanto is increasing their local market share at a rapid rate – they have taken over some of our biggest seed companies – is it not a cause of concern to allow this kind of control over our seed industry?
This expanding economic might leads to enormous political power and as governments worldwide become subservient to corporations instead of citizens, democracy is undermined, diversity is destroyed, and human rights are jeopardized.
Who does knowledge belong to?
It is very important for you to know who you listen to and what their motives are. You will hear many stories, many facts this afternoon that may sound very convincing. In this country, as elsewhere, knowledge becomes increasingly privatised too. Most research institutions and scientists are now dependent on corporate funding and this sets the agenda for research.
Scientists in other fields than genetics seems to be the only ones prepared to ask the difficult questions and they must also be included in risk assessments, including those in the medical field, bio-ethicists who at the recent Human Genome Conference in Stellenbosch expressed grave concern over the impact of patents on research and availability of affordable medicines and vaccines. You have to include ecologists, toxicologists in your risk assessments and to testify on environmental and health risks. Development experts will tell you about the real causes of poverty and failed agriculture. I have only ever seen genetic engineers testify in these kind of fora and most of them dare not be too different. There is an incredible need for objective scientific debate as the strategy has been to politicise and polarise this debate, putting people in camps.
The public and government must look carefully and be vigilant to understand the strategy of the MNCs and how they operate to convince you. They will create the impression that they are the experts, they are the sole possessors of real science, that they are philantropic and are here in Africa to help the poor. They form and fund front organisations such as Africabio that has offered to "build your capacity" and to assist you with objective information. You will be presented today with the situation of small-scale farmers that will tell you that GE seed has saved them. You will not be told that these farmers have to take a loan to buy these expensive GE seed; that they are trapped in a debt cycle; that they are now highly dependent on the fluctuations of the markets and the private sector; that cash crops does not bring household food security; and that they have to sign contracts that the seed stays the property of the seed company. These farmers are not farmers any more, they are contractors to the seed company and the ginnery. They owe money and they do not own their seed. They also have no information on the environmental risks of GE seed and that it is necessary to plant refugia.
The promotors of GE creates a sense of inevitability in various ways:
1. "you are eating it anyway", in other words you are not dead yet. You also do not die on the spot if you inhale asbestos this week. We do not know the impact and GE food is different. I always find it such a blatant case of double standards when the industry argue that the food is substantially equivalent when you question safety and labeling. But when it comes to ownership, then it is so novel and different that it has to be patented.
2. "We have no other options, African agriculture is stagnating, we need something new. A seed will make all the difference." This is an illusion. We need much more than a seed and certainly not a foreign owned one. Land care, water harvesting, agro-ecology – extension support and infrastructure. These are things that will make a difference and it is possible.
3. "Contamination is so high, it is too late anyway." This is part of the strategy to create such a high level of contamination that people just give up. We cannot afford to do this and therefore it is urgent to put control measures in place now. Initially industry said contamination can be controlled, now they acknowledge that it is inevitable and push for certain thresholds of GMOs to be accepted.
If we talk about an African Renaissance – what does that mean? Africa needs to get out of the grip that the developed world have on us. We are so dependent and vulnerable. We have debts, we have to compete against agricultural subsidies, we are done in when it comes to trade agreements, we often serve as the dumping ground for unwanted products and waste.
A Renaissance means that we have to recognise our own worth, our own resources, develop our own and protect what we have i.to. diversity, knowledge and genetic resources, our greatest wealth and respect the rights of our local communities to control their own seed security. In terms of agriculture and food security, seeds are the first link in the food chain and it is totally unacceptable for these to be subject to exclusive control, monopoly patenting and genetically uniform breeding that limit diversity.