SA Graan April 2016

74 / 84

April 2016
72
RELEVANT
Facts and fiction about
GM crop safety
Biotechnology, genetic modification (GM), GM crops and
foods, biosafety and risks have all become buzz words
arising from polarised debates that have left many consum-
ers and some media confused. This is not unique, it has
happened to other scientific innovations as well, but none so acri-
monious.
This article endeavours to tackle a few key allegations on GM lack of
safety against factual science.
What is biotechnology?
Biotechnology deals with the science of investigating how living
organisms function to multiply, produce so many compounds, re-
spond to stress, pathogens, sunlight, and to beneficial microbes,
and how to harness these complex mechanisms to improve plant
performance and extend this to industrial uses. All of this is based
on new knowledge of genetics.
Molecular identification of useful genes enables fast selection for
food crop performance. Modern biotechnology takes us one step
further: Understanding how inherent genetic systems continuously
undergo minute changes in the DNA code which enable it to expand
its genetic diversity to adapt to environmental changes.
Genetic modification copies much of this by way of inserting genes
to express new or boost existing traits and to alter undesired genes.
This technology extends to human health: HIV-AIDS and TB vac-
cines, human insulin for diabetics that has been produced since
1982 in a GM bacterium that carries an inserted human gene. Today,
the number of GM-produced human health vaccines and therapeutic
products exceed 100.
South African regulatory framework to
ensure safety of modern biotechnology
The Genetic Modified Organisms Act of 1997 (as amended) strictly
regulates every activity that involves genetic modified organisms
(GMOs) to ensure safety. Expert scientific assessments to guide
government is provided by the Advisory Committee of ten scien-
tists while final decision making by government rests on the GMO
Executive Council, comprising officials from eight government de-
partments: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Health, Trade and
Industry, Science and Technology, Water Affairs and Forestry,
Labour, Environment, and Arts and Culture.
All import/exports, field testing, commercial release and research
facilities must be approved by way of a permit.
Assessments include safety of foods and feed, safety to humans,
animals and environment. Such extremely stringent regulations
do not apply to conventional and organic foods. The cost to a lo-
cal innovator to have his GM product successfully pass through this
system, is between R15 million and over R25 million. Despite our bio-
technology expertise, no local GM crop has as yet gone commercial.
Biotechnology and trade barriers
Trade disputes between industrial countries and regions are not
uncommon. The EU freeze on assessments of GM varieties (1999 -
2003) and banning of these by some member states, resulted in a
dispute between the United States and some 16 third party coun-
tries, against the EU at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) level.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Body found the EU guilty of a ‘de facto
moratorium’ and ‘causing undue delay’ that amounted to a ‘Techni-
cal Barrier to Trade’ (TBT) and, moreover, that the EU defence of
invoking the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) ‘did not
meet any of the SPS requirements’.
The EU did not appeal the ruling and in 2003 promulgated two regu-
lations: 1829 and 1830, to pave the way for GM varieties’ assess-
ment, traceability of GM, and GM food labelling, and establishing
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
It is exactly these trade disputes that have fuelled global spread
of scare-mongering on GM crops and their products, but they are
silent on human health or industrial products.
A few case study facts and fiction
Smallholder farmers do not benefit from
GM crops?
Fact: 90% of the global 18 million producers growing GM crops are
smallholders (James, C. 2014. ISAAA Brief no. 49, ISAAA, Ithaca,
N .Y.). In South Africa, smallholders planted over 26 000 ha GM
maize in 2014, double that of 2013 (Maize Trust project report. 2015).
Europeans have banned GM crops?
Fact: In 2014, five EU members planted 143 000 ha Bt maize ( ISAAA
Brief 49). Latest status of approvals of GM for food, feed and/
or processing, cover 40 types of GM maize modifications, 13 soy-
bean, eleven cotton, twelve canola modifications and seven GM
carnations for direct use ( EU 2016 Register of Authorised GMOs;
> Europa Commission > Food Safety).
The food/feed matter remains utterly confused. Why would Europe
continue to annually import some 30 million tons of soybeans if it is
unsafe? ( Politics and GM Crops. GM Crops and Food vol 5, issue 3.
2014).
France has banned further planting of
Monsanto GM Bt maize MON 810 due to
safety concerns?
Fact: Banned in 2011, yes. The highest EU court (European Court of
Justice) subsequently ruled that the ban was illegal and overturned
it as no evidence was provided that Bt maize is unsafe. The highest
French court (Conseil d’Etat) ruled likewise (
pubmed/10802608 ).
Rats fed on glyphosate formulations and
herbicide tolerant maize developed severe
cancer, suggesting a link to the herbicide?
Fact: These lab rats had been bred to be prone to cancer to facili-
tate cancer studies. In 2012, the European Food Safety Authority
and six member states – Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Italy, and Netherlands – conducted extensive separate and inde-
pendent tests and found that the research published in a journal is
of ‘insufficient quality’, ‘inadequate design, reporting and analysis’
( .
WYNAND VAN DER WALT, senior partner: FoodnCropBio Consulting