/ 24 May 2004

Environmentalists want state’s GM secrets

Environmental lobby group Biowatch sought a Pretoria High Court order on Monday compelling the government to divulge details of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) brought into or manufactured in the country to date.

The body is seeking an order directing the state to make available a list of facts concerning each permit, approval and authorisation granted for all GMO imports, exports, field trials and general releases to date.

This includes, in each case, a description of the GMO, its purpose, the name and address of the permit applicant, the area where the GMO will be used, plans for its monitoring, emergency measures in case of an accident, and the relevant environmental impact studies.

It also seeks similar particulars of those applications still pending.

Biowatch lodged its court application after several failed attempts to get certain information.

John Butler, for the non-governmental body, argued that a clear legislative duty of openness and transparency rests on the government in terms of environmental issues.

He disputed contentions that the information being sought is confidential, saying the government is obliged to inform the public prior to any GMO trial or general release.

”The information, if it does exist, should have been in the public domain in any event,” Butler told the court. ”Members of the public and farmers in an affected area should understand the potential threat they face.”

The Open Democracy Advice Centre joined the proceedings as amicus curiae (a friend of the court) and argued that Biowatch is entitled to the data being sought on the basis of its constitutional right of access to information.

Access to information held by public and private institutions should only be denied where it is clearly justified, and such a decision has to be supported by factual evidence, it said in court papers.

The respondents are the registrar of genetic resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms, the minister of agriculture, biotechnology company Monsanto South Africa, seed company Stoneville Pedigreed and GMO producer D and PL South Africa.

Mervyn Rip, SC, rejected on behalf of the registrar, the council and the minister the assertions that his clients are trying to repress information.

Some of Biowatch’s questions have been ”substantially answered”, he said.

However, Biowatch is asking such vast amounts of information that his clients are administratively unable to deal with the request.

He also contended that the requests do not follow procedures set out in the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

But he conceded under questioning by acting Judge Eric Dunn that the requests for information precedes the enactment of the legislation, and that Biowatch is ”possibly” entitled to the information it is seeking.

About 50 anti-GMO protesters gathered outside the court in yellow T-shirts with the words: ”Protect Africa’s harvest.”

They marched through the city centre with placards reading: ”Our world is not for sale”, ”Phucking pharming” and ”Save our seeds”. — Sapa