South Africa needs more stringent legislation on genetically modified organisms, argue Mariam Mayet and Saliem Fakir
Products which contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are slowly filtering into South Africa. If they’re not planted in maize fields, you can be pretty sure they are in your canned soybeans, milk powder and tomato sauce. In this country we simply do not have a clear idea about which products are a result of genetic engineering.
South Africa sent representatives to join delegates from 170 countries who met in Cartagena, Colombia, last month to discuss the development of an international protocol to regulate the use, handling and cross- border transfers of GMOs.
Developing countries are pushing for such a protocol because they believe they will be the main dumping ground of GMOs.
There are fears that unregulated movement of GMOs between countries is likely to affect food security and contribute to “gene pollution” of natural habitats.
However, a minority of countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay managed to block at the 11th hour the passing of the protocol. In six months the 170 countries will meet again, and in that time who knows what kinds of pressures may be put on developing countries to toe the line of the “big powers”.
In South Africa, the GMO Act passed in 1997 is meant to regulate field trials of crops or the experimental release of GMOs, but it is insufficient in dealing with processed products for commercial purposes. Some of these can be ordered on the Internet, others are finished products delivered directly to our shelves from external exports.
The government does not have proper mechanisms in place to regulate finished products that contain GMOs.
This puts consumers in a precarious position, because they are unable to judge whether certain products are harmful.
Local and international consumer groups, particularly in Europe, where anti-GMO movements are on the increase, are pushing for companies that use GMO-based processes to provide clearer information.
They want the companies to label their products to explain how they were produced and whether they pose any potential health or environment risks.
While various debates are going on about the risks of GMOs and their scientific efficacy, our view is that labelling lies at the heart of the matter.
Labelling is an assertion of the consumers’ right to know what they are purchasing so they can make an informed decision.
Producers resist labelling because it increases the cost of production. The US regulatory authorities, for instance, argue that there is no need to distinguish between GMO-based products and other products if they meet similar health and other standards.
Labelling also represents a culture of resistance against big companies and governments that are pushing GMOs as the new hope of the 21st century without adequately exploring alternatives.
Perhaps the resistance to GMOs is a reflection of a deeper malaise in modern society: a mistrust of bureaucracy and scientists.
In Europe the reaction against GMOs is largely due to a mistrust of regulatory authorities following the outbreak of “mad cow disease”.
And then there is the feeling that the motivation behind the sale of GMOs is pure profit.
Companies do want a quick and legitimate return, but this does not mean they should not listen to lobby groups and consumers, and try to understand their perceptions and fears.
Generally, proponents of GMOs tend to view anti-GMO groups as ignorant and irrational.
The backlash from the anti-GMO groups has sometimes taken a violent turn, with the burning of crops and the destruction of products.
In South Africa opposition is growing. The country is perceived to be a convenient testing ground for GMO products as it has a good scientific infrastructure to support GMO development.
Multinationals also find it a convenient home because of a lack of awareness among the public and the little attention given to these issues by the government.
There is a need for better dialogue and public debate on these matters so that we can move away from parochialism to real informed choice.
Companies must accept that the public is not stupid, and that they should take seriously the perceptions that prevail. Is this not what matters at the end of the day?
Mariam Mayet is an independent consultant who represented Biowatch at the Cartagena meeting. Saliem Fakir is country programme co-ordinator of the IUCN-South Africa office