As genetically modified foods flood global markets, environmentalists are insisting on greater protection to rein in scientists and governments that believe biotechnology is the next wave in accelerating development.
The anti-GM lobby hopes are pinned on the internationally accepted bio-safety guideline, the Cartagena Protocol, to ensure safe regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But it remains to be seen whether the protocol has teeth.
Last month saw the first gathering of members to the protocol in Malaysia. The meeting was attended by more than 750 delegates and laid the groundwork for the implementation of guidelines that will govern the handling, packaging, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) across international borders. It takes into account the impact these LMOs will have on humans, animals and the environment. The protocol uses the term LMOs, as the guidelines govern living modified organisms and not those that are already processed.
However, there is concern that the protocol isn’t moving swiftly enough to ensure that monitoring measures are in place and that punitive measures are set for those who flout the protocol’s guidelines.
”The Cartagena Protocol is a minimum guideline. South Africa’s seriousness about safety will be demonstrated in how they implement these guidelines,” says Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss of environmental group Bio-Watch.
Gert Willemse, deputy director of conservation management at the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Deat), attended the Malaysia meeting and explains these first guidelines deal chiefly with two types of trans-boundary LMOs — those that are intended for introduction into the environment, such as for planting, and those that are intended for food, feed and processing.
”Those that are intended for food, feed and processing only have to stipulate in their labelling and documentation that they may contain genetically altered material, while guidelines for LMOs intended for introduction into the environment are more stringent.”
But even so there was no consensus on the specific details that must be stipulated on the documentation for such imports and exports.
Another debate at the meeting centred on the question of liability should contamination of non-GM crops occur or should there be negative health or safety impacts linked to GMOs. Liability, Willemse says, can be laid at the door of the farmer and the end-user and not just with multinational seed giants and governments.
But this is a cop-out by Deat, says Pschorn-Strauss, who adds that government should be protecting the rights of small-scale farmers and end-users: ”There is no proper labelling and no proper tracing, so seed companies and the government cannot expect the liability to lie with the farmers or with consumers.”
The Malaysia meeting highlighted the rift between GMO exporters including North America, Argentina and Brazil and non-trading countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Africa (excluding South Africa). It also bought into sharp focus the fact that South Africa continues to go against the grain of the African stance on GMOs.
”South Africa does walk a fine line because we want to support the African stance that is cautionary, but we also have to preserve our trade interests,” says Willemse.
Pschorn-Strauss says that South Africa should fight to preserve Africa as a GMO-free zone and work in parallel with the African Model Law on Bio-safety, which was adopted by the African Union in July last year.
”This could be a positive marketing strategy because Africa will become a more attractive market for consumers in places such as Europe and parts of Asia, where GMOs have been rejected,” she believes.
Environmentalists have objected to the fact that Deat has taken a back seat in dealing with genetic modification, leaving the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs — which is widely viewed as being pro-GM — as the competent authority where GM is concerned. The department is also overseeing the current re-writing of the GMO Act, which has been slated by the anti-GM lobby.
”GM issues should naturally fall under Deat. The current Biodiversity Bill is very weak legislation and only allows for a bit of oversight from Deat. There should be a complete overhaul of the GMO Act that includes rigorous public participation processes. The department cannot be the promoter of GMOs and also the policeman that monitors the impact of GMOs,” says Pschorn-Strauss.
Glenn Ashton of SafeAge, the local umbrella body of organisations against GMOs, says they are deeply frustrated by government’s intransigence.
”There isn’t any proper consultation or public participation, because the government is evidently not interested in what civil society has to say, which is why we are still in the same position all these years later,” say Ashton.
Already there is growing concern that large volumes of GM maize are slipping into South Africa even before the guidelines from the protocol have been implemented. It is in instances such as this that environmentalists say the protocol needs to bare its teeth and bite down hard.