SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES


PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
GMOs

SACC STATEMENT sent separately

We in the faith communities are not opposed to scientific advances. But in some areas, particularly when dealing with the structures or patterns of life, we believe the precautionary principle should be applied, especially when we don’t know the full consequences of our actions.

I would add that we and many environmentalists are in favour of development, but it must be the right kind and must be sustainable. Just as we humans need to live in harmony and respect for one another if we want peace, so we must learn to live in harmony with the natural environment and respect it, if we are to have sustainable development in the future.

Ethically, I see three crucial areas:

1) The first is the changing of the patterns of life. If we are wanting to play God, we need to be sure of what we are doing! GMO’s may be for the benefit of humanity, but let us be sure and certain before we unleash these crops on the SA public.

There are unknown consequences. We should not go ahead until we are certain.

The Archbishop of Cape Town in a statement issued this time last year said: Genetic engineering tinkers with the essence of life. Species that would not naturally reproduce are mixed together. Through patenting seeds and genes, life forms can now be owned by corporations. Through contamination of natural wildlife and plants, genetic engineering forever compromises the rights of future generations to a safe, health and diverse environment.

I believe the present patenting of life by corporations to be immoral and we in SA should stand out against it and should not be bound by it. Apartheid was legal but immoral. Patenting of life may be legal, but if immoral, we are not bound to it.

Diversity and biodiversity is the key to life on our planet. We destroy biodiversity at our peril. The potato famine in Ireland in 1845 resulted in the death of a million people because there was one variety of potato that was attacked by fungus. Mexico has hundreds of varieties of maize. If we rely on one or two varieties from the seed giants and a disease attacks the few, we could risk the well-being of millions.

Equally alarming would be the introduction of the terminator gene. We know cross-pollination takes place. If the terminator gene got out and into our indigenous crops and our floral kingdom, you know the consequences of that!

2) The second area of concern is one of secrecy. We know that in a Democracy we need openness and transparency. Monsanto has consistently refused to be open, saying that secrecy is necessary because of "confidential business information". But not only is there the refusal to be transparent. If GMO crops are so wonderful, Monsanto should want to proclaim this from the rooftops. They would want to have billboards by the side of the road proclaiming "See how wonderful our GM maize is" and they would want to label the food so that the public would want to buy this wonderful food.

But far from it, and I must say that I find it verging on the criminal that GMO food is not required to be labelled.

Not only that – Organic food has to be licensed and labelled, yet we know organic food is good for us. GMO food, over which there is much uncertainty and question marks, does not have to be labelled.

It may be that there is now so much GM food in SA that we cannot separate it. Without being told, South Africans became the first people in the world to eat genetically engineered white maize, but the public has a right to know what we are buying and eating.

3) The third area is that of ethics and economic justice: This is possibly the most serious in its consequences because the monopolistic control by GM seed companies is furthering the gross economic injustices we are seeing in South Africa and our world today.

The promotion and use of GMO crops would seem to go right against African traditional faming and small scale farmers. The Government is committed to seeing more farming being undertaken by previously disadvantaged, but they are going to be seriously disadvantaged by economic enslavement. You are not allowed to save your seeds to use the next year. You have to buy your GM seeds afresh. That might suit the big commercial farmer who does that anyone, but enslaves the small farmer to the commercial seed corporation giants.

GM crops and American farming methods require high tech and high energy. The great advantage of Africa is that we can still use our greatest asset – our manpower. We all know the serious position we are I with the high rate of unemployment. Don’t then take further jobs away with more high tech/high energy farming methods. The future lies with small scale, organic farming. Richard Heinberg has recently toured this country and warned that we may be only three or four years away from the end of cheap oil. That, we climate change and global warming points to the need to move away from reliance on energy intensive high tech methods, and that future can lie with Africa if only we will do it the African way and not try to emulate big brother in America.

Another example is our energy policy.

It would seem that the Department of Agriculture believes that it is self evident that GMOs are the way to go for the future, and those who question them are causing unjustified panic. I would like to say that the ANC Government, a Government of the people, must defend the public and our small farmers against the power, corruption, secrecy and manipulation of multinational corporations.

The SA Faith Communities recently held a national conference on the environment, at the end of which stated the following regarding GMOs:

We call for control of food production to be in the hands of our people, rejecting its manipulation by multinational corporations. We therefore appeal for transparency, and a moratorium on the further use of GMO seeds and crops, applying the precautionary principle.

We call for full public participation in environmental decision making. For example, we should not have to resort to courts of law to be heard over GMOs and the pebble bed nuclear reactor.

STATEMENT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES (SACC), May 2004

As participants in the first SACC consultation on GMOs held at the ESCOM Convention Centre, Midrand, South Africa from 26-28 May 2004:

We welcome the initiative taken by the SACC in convening this consultation on a topic which needs in-depth and more urgent and focussed attention by Christians and the churches.

We thank the organisers for providing us the opportunity to enhance our understanding of GMOs by means of a well-balanced program, thus enabling us to broaden and deepen our contribution to the debate. We were given the opportunity to listen to presentations from different sides of the debate, and to reflect on and affirm our own Christian and indigenous spiritual heritage and traditions.

We are concerned about:

1. The manner in which complex issues on GMOs are treated by proponents of GMOs and South African legislation in a ‘purely technical’ manner, delinking science from ethics, values, economic and political ideology, and our African communal spirituality about life and food.

2. The link between the promotion of GMOs and neo-liberal economic globalization with its inherent unequal power relations;

3. The scientific uncertainties related to the long term economic, nutritional, health, ecological risks of gene transfer technologies in view of the irreversibility in the release and use of GE products;

4. The elevating of natural scientists and civil servants to be experts and adjudicators in regard to issues of GMOs even as they pertain to human life, the environment and the spirituality related to life;

5. The insufficient representation of relevant sciences (including ethics) to advise government, and the apparent non-independence of advisors to government and government institutions in the development and implementation of GMO policy;

6. The lack of public awareness and debate on GMOs, including our own lack of participation in GMO policy developments;

7. The overriding profit motive and supremacy of the market over issues such as human and environmental safety and health, and food supply;

8. The erosion of the sovereignty of national states, democracy and transparency in policy processes of international agreements and conventions related to food standards and agriculture which make domestic issues subject to trade concerns;

9. The commodification of life and monopolisation of knowledge through the patenting of genes and living organisms as well as indigenous science, products and practices.

We appreciate the role played by people and organisations outside the church who have committed themselves and their organizations to fight for socio-economic justice by resisting the unbridled introduction and use of GMOs and products.

We affirm:

1. Our conviction that there is sufficient food for all our people, but the problem remains inequitable access to and maldistribution of food.

2. Our commitment to the option for the poor, marginalized and disempowered. And as far as GMOs are concerned we are further driven by our vision of the dignity of the human person; the common good; solidarity; subsidiarity; integrity of creation; socio-economic and environmental justice.

3. That food and life is a gift from God and we are co-workers and custodians with God to sustain creation and life and the abundance thereof.

4. The power and sustainability of indigenous knowledge, practices and resources.

We commit ourselves to broaden and deepen:

1. our understanding of GMOs and the mechanisms dealing with these matters on local, national, regional and international levels;

2. our theological reflection and action in addressing the introduction, use and impact of GMOs and this biotechnology on food security;

3. our networks of solidarity and cooperation in South Africa, in the region, the continent and beyond;

4. our awareness of the organic link between food, HIV and AIDS, poverty and GMOs.

We call on the SACC and its members to:

1. Take the issue of the right to food seriously and co-own the issue of GMOs as an issue of justice in line with our longstanding commitment to solidarity with the poor and marginalised.

2. Redouble its efforts and programmes aimed at the eradication of poverty.

3. Learn from and be in solidarity with the struggles of the poor related to food sovereignty and the impact of GMOs as promoted by the dominant and fundamentally unjust economic ideology, systems and mechanisms of neo-liberal economic globalisation. We cannot but denounce and resist with the poor this ungodly ideology, since it affects the core of our common faith and vision for the world.

4.Undertake and facilitate the generation of prophetic/contextual theologies and resource material for education, liturgies, bible studies, as well as theological reflection and research at academic institutions which will empower the church to pursue its stand on GMOs.

5. Establish a pool of resources in terms of persons and institutions inside and outside the church to assist the SACC in a variety of engagements /interventions such as: dialogues with scientists; private sector companies; government; civil society; public awareness and education; and, policy interventions in national, regional and international forums.

6. Call on government, while it is still allowing GM technology to operate and have an impact on our environment to: -- affirm that GM is a high risk technology; -- impose a moratorium on any further permits granted for GMOs in South Africa; -- take all measures necessary to make South Africa compliant with the Cartegena protocol.

7. Develop regional and continental solidarity and cooperation related to the churches’ interventions on GMOs.

8 .Develop localised campaigns and advocacy initiatives.

9. Agree on a clear strategic planning process and eventual reporting on progress made towards achieving its commitments.

10. Make this document public, and bring it to the attention of the member churches and other stakeholders including small-holder farmers, government, scientists, private sector, and civil society organisations.

28 May, 2004*