GMOs in SOUTH AFRICA

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 74 | Comments: 0 | Views: 661
of 4
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Busi

ness

Nme

GMOs in South Africa
August 2013

Inside this issue:

Food labelling – your ‘right to know’
Is it the right of consumers to know what is in their food and be able to make informed choices? Yes, of course! Is it right of an activist group to mislead consumers into believing that the food they eat is unsafe when it is not? Certainly not! In a recent leaflet distributed by ACB it is claimed that South Africans have been eating genetically modified (GM) food for more than a decade without their knowledge or consent. Since when have South Africa consumers ever been asked to give their consent to the food they eat? Consumers are expected know what their food consists of and make their choice. After all a person who is allergic to peanuts is expected to avoid food containing peanuts or foods manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts. What is expected is that the national health authorities will ensure that the food we eat meets certain predetermined health and safety standards and that any ingredient in our food that could pose a risk to a specific group of people be brought to their attention, usually by means of an appropriate statement or logo on a label. To date, none of the GM foods officially approved and available in South Africa are considered by the national authorities to pose a risk to consumers so why is ACB trying to brainwash consumers into believing that their food is unsafe when clearly it is not? Why are they advocating the mandatory labeling of all GM foods? Why are they calling for a GM free Africa? After 15 years of GM food, activists continue to raise the same unsubstantiated fear-mongering allegations they raised 20 years ago, inter alia that GM food causes cancer, allergies, poses a general threat to the environment, human and animal health, and has not been properly tested. Although these allegations generate massive publicity in the media, it is interesting to note that nowhere in the world has an agricultural research institution, academy of science, or any faculty of science, medicine and agriculture supported these allegations with substantiated evidence. We suspect that the ACB are part of an international cartel whose aim is to discredit the technology in an effort to prevent it from being adopted by other African countries after the past decade has shown the benefits it has brought to smallholder farmers in other parts of Africa and Asia. The latest GM-crop development is drought- tolerant (DT) maize. Successful trials in the Northern Cape, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda are in an advanced stage. DT maize is expected to be available in 2017.

GM crops—the most extensively tested food crops ever Labeling of GM foods—how much? Food security—GM maize GM crop and climate change Is banning GM crops the answer? GM crops in Africa

2

2

3 3

3

Special points of interest:

All GM products officially approved by the national authorities for use in South Africa are safe.

15 Years of GM crops with no adverse effects
2013 is the 15th year that GM crops are being planted in South Africa. Since their introduction 15 years ago, GM crops have made a significant impact on South Africa’s agriculture, farmers – emergent and commercial – food security, sustainability, climate change and food safety, with meaningful economic benefits to producers. As far as food safety is concerned, numerous academies of science, including the Royal Society of London, as well as scientists from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), FAO, WHO and FDA, have given GMOs the green light. One of the most significant tests was conducted by the European Commission over a period of 25 years. More than 500 independent research program independently funded by the EC, costing more than €300 million and involving 130 projects, came to the conclusion that: “Biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding”. The Academy of Science of South Africa, seven national academies of science and 16 Nobel Laureates along with 3200 independent scientists, concur.



The regulations governing the use of GM crops in South Africa’ were robust and rigorous and that from the public health point, the risk assessment and risk management of the GM maize was adequately addressed - Dr Aaron Motsoledi, Minister of Health



GM crops—the most extensively tested food crops ever
”GM crops are tightly regulated both before they reach the marketplace and once they are on sale.” says Dr. Obokoh, CEO of AfricaBio. “This ensures that they are at least as safe, if not safer, than conventional foods. There are no substantiated scientific reports of any food safety issues. We are thus very concerned about the anti -GM movement and their activities here and on the rest of the continent. In South Africa.” “Our farmers have been growing GM crops for 15 consecutive years.” she added. “This technology has assisted our smallholder and commercial farmers with good yields, increased income, and contributed to job creation and food security. “ South Africa has the GMO Act, 1997 (Act No. 15 of 1997) under the Department of Agriculture Forestry & Fisheries (DAFF), whichwas implemented in 1999 and amended in 2007, to comply with international biosafety standards. All the GM crops grown in South Africa have been stringently tested for human, animal and environmental safety. Many respected scientific bodies and regulatory agencies have declared their confidence in the safety of biotech crops and GM food, including the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, among others. DAFF follows a rigorous, scientifically based safety evaluation process before any genetically engineered crop can be approved. The science under-pinning biotechnology is extremely advanced, and more precise than conventional techniques used to produce food. Testing involves measuring the availability and concentration of all nutrients in food to ensure that they fall within the normal range of variability. Levels of naturally occurring toxins and anti-nutrients found in all foods are tested. Immunological testing is also conducted to ensure that new potential allergens are not present. “Few analytical studies are done on conventional crops during development. We have to encourage the use of scientific evidence and not non-factual information to educate citizens about innovations in agriculture. Let us not deny farmers the right to choose and use new agricultural tools to help them address the challenges they face in the field with pests, diseases and the climate,” said Dr. Obokoh,.

Labelling GM of foods —how much?
The labelling of GM foods could increase food prices by as much as 10%, according to Dr Nompumelelo Obokoh, CEO of AfricaBio. According to the amendments, published by the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI), locally produced and imported food containing GM ingredients or components of 5% or more must be labelled: “contains genetically modified ingredients or components”. Obokoh said studies in other countries had indicated that GM labelling could push up food costs by 10%. Mandatory labelling was an expensive undertaking for farmers, industry and government and GM food labelling would not advance consumer health, but would increase food prices for consumers, she said. She raised concerns about the practical implementation and feasibility of the labelling regulation, which could incur expensive lawsuits against farmers, grocers and food companies who may find it impractical and confusing to implement. “To cut costs, we suggest that GM-free products should be labelled ‘non -GM’ to cater for consumers who wish to acquire products that do not contain GM ingredients,” she said Mr. Janusz Luterek of Hahn & Hahn Attor

-neys said that there were problems
with the wording used in the draft amendment that made the new regulations ambiguous. According to Luterek, many of the amendments were not clear, would defeat the purpose of the regulation and would lead to an increase in the administrative burden on food producers, manufacturers and retailers. Testing of ingredients and goods to determine their GM content was expensive, and in some cases GM content may not be determinable. “The amendment should be revised to provide consumers with essential information without increasing the burden on the food supply chain and the price of food and other goods,” he said. “Labelling requires testing of all ingredients at a huge cost, which will lead to food price increases .”

"It's time for action and not talking. We need to be decisive and move forward, rather than taking years debating issues of science and technology, because issues such as biotechnology and nanotechnology are being debated for too many years," Zimbabwe's Minister for Science and Technology Professor Heneri Dzinotyiweyi

Page 2
GM O s i n So u t h Af ri ca

Page 3

Food security—GM maize
According to a survey done by the Maize Trust, a cumulative 16 million ha of GM maize were planted during the 12 year period 2000–2012, producing a grain crop of 40 million MT. In one way or another, this grain was consumed annually by more than 40 million South Africans, 800 million broilers, 1.4 million feedlot cattle and three million pigs slaughtered at formal abattoirs, without any substantiated, scientifically or medically proven adverse effects to humans, animals or the environment. In 1998, when GMO maze was introduced in South Africa, the average non -GM maize dryland yield was 2.73t/ha. In 2008 the GM maize yield had increased to an average 5.09t/ha – a productivity increase of 81%, making a positive impact on food security. At for example R2000/t, the additional increase of 2.73t/ha means an extra income of R5460/ha for a farmer. GM crops have also proved in South Africa that they are a land saving technology. Greater yields from the same area of land. This phenomenon is replicated globally. In the first 16 years globally, 1996 2011, due to substantial yield gains an extra 328 million tons of GM crops were produced. If it were not for biotech crops an additional 108.7 million hectares would have been required to produce the same tonnage. (Brookes & Barfoot 2013 forthcoming.) Is there a better example for food security?

GM crops and climate change
Biotech crops also play a major role in reducing CO2 emissions and help mitigate climate change. This is mainly due to a reduction in the volume of tractor fossil fuels used as a result of fewer pesticide sprays required for GM crops. In 2011 globally, this was an estimated a saving of 1.9 billion kg of CO2, equivalent to removing 8 million cars from roads. The accumulative reduction in pesticide for the period 1996 to 2011 was estimated at 473 million kg of active ingredient. (Brookes and Barfoot 2013 forthcoming.)

Is banning GM crops the answer?
A Kenyan Member of Parliament (MP), Hon. Dr. Wilbur Ottichilo has questioned the prudence of banning GM imports to Kenya in a year when maize, which is Kenyans staple food crop, has failed as a result of the Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease. "Where is Kenya going to import maize from to feed the citizens? If we go to South Africa, South America, China or the US, they all grow GM maize. This is exactly why we need to re-think this decision" he said.
"We need to take a bold step forward as a country and fully accept biotechnology. As time goes by and the effects of climate change become more and more intense, the country's food security will inevitably be threatened. We therefore have to start considering use of new agricultural production technologies like drought tolerant maize," Kenyan Member of Parliament (MP), Hon. Dr. Wilbur Ottichilo

WHO WE ARE

Organization
AfricaBio P.O. Box 873 Irene Centurion 0062 Phone: 012 8440126 Fax: 086 619 9399 E-mail: [email protected]

AfricaBio is an independent, non-profit biotechnology stakeholders association. Our key role is to provide accurate information and create awareness, understanding as well as knowledge on biotechnology and biosafety in South Africa and the African region. WHAT WE DO • Locally, AfricaBio is engaged in transferring information about biotechnology and biosafety to all levels of society. This is done through information days, workshops, seminars, conferences, exhibitions, websites, newsletters and technology demonstration. • Nationally, AfricaBio carries out a range of programs that focus on education, technology demonstration and training on biotechnology and biosafety. • AfricaBio Facilitates coordinated approaches to biotechnology and biosafety development. • At a regional level, AfricaBio provides services and support to many countries in the SADC region on biotechnology education and training. • At an international level AfricaBio seeks to build capacity in all aspects of biotechnology and biosafety in Africa and to articulate the needs of African biotechnology stakeholders to the world.

www.africabio.com

GM crops in Africa
GM maize, cotton and soybean have been commercially available in South Africa for the past 15 years, and there has been no evidence that such products, which are thoroughly evaluated, have had any adverse effects on humans and animals. The GM crops commercially available in South Africa, undergo vigorous assessment for safety to the environment and human beings before commercial release. Unfortunately, there has always been a strong anti-GMO activism, misinforming and instilling fears about the technology on the public.

2011 was the fourth year for farmers in Burkina Faso to benefit significantly from Bt cotton. Out of a total of 424,810 hectares planted to cotton in the country, 58% were planted to Bt cotton. Egypt and Sudan have planted GM maize and cotton, respectively. According to ISAAA, GM crops are now the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture, with a 100 -fold increase in hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 170 million hectares in 2012. Thus millions of farmers globally elect to adopt biotech crops due to the socio-economic and environmental benefits they offer. Of the 28 countries which planted biotech crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries. In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew biotech crops – notably, over 90%, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Biotech crops contribution to:

  

Contributing to the alleviation of poverty and hunger Reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint Helping mitigate climate change and reducing greenhouse gases

South Africa is currently the leading producer of GM crops in Africa, after Burkina Faso, Egypt and Sudan and is the 8th largest producer of GMO’s globally with planting of 2.9 million hectares in 2012. The country has cultivated, imported and exported GMOs since 1998. About 86% of the maize produced is genetically modified and over 90% of soya and cotton 100% is GM. The country has cultivated, imported and exported GMOs since 1998. The GMO Act [Genetic Modified Organism Act, Act 15 of 1997], passed in 1997 and implemented in 1999, paved the way for the introduction and commercialisation of GM crops in South Africa. The act which was revised in 2007, legislates for the approval for the import, use and supply of the infrastructure required to utilise and evaluate genetically modified seed in South Africa.

 

Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change, Conserving biodiversity, biotech crops are a land-saving technology.

Future prospects look encouraging. Several new developing countries are expected to plant biotech crops before 2015 and there is cautious optimism that Africa will be wellrepresented: the first biotech based drought tolerant maize planned for release in Africa by ~2017. Golden Rice could be released in the Philippines in 2013/2014; drought tolerant sugarcane is a possible candidate in Indonesia, and biotech maize in China with a potential of ~30 million hectares and for the future biotech rice which has an enormous potential to benefit up to 1 billion poor people in rice households in Asia alone. Biotech crops, whilst not a panacea, have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the 2015 MDG goal of cutting poverty in half, by optimizing crop productivity, which can be expedited by public-private sector partnerships, such as the WEMA project,.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close