Biotechnology research and development in South Africa should not be hampered by onerous and unnecessary safety checks, members of Parliament’s agriculture and land affairs committee heard on Tuesday.
Speaking at a public hearing on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), University of Pretoria honorary Professor Jocelyn Webster said it was only very large companies or public institutions in wealthy, developed countries that could afford all the biosafety assessments required.
Webster told the South African Press Association after her presentation she was certainly not suggesting South Africa took safety shortcuts on GMOs.
”What I am asking the government to do is look at the risk-benefit process, and to understand… there is quite an extensive amount of data that has already been collected globally.”
This should be examined in a much more comprehensive manner so that ”we do not waste our resources trying to re-invent the wheel by doing it all over again ourselves”.
The committee is conducting public hearings over the next two days on the Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill, which seeks to promote greater care in the development, production and use of GMOs than is required under existing legislation.
Webster sketched the importance of biotechnology for Africa, where up to three-quarters of the workforce was involved in agriculture, and 70% of the population depended on farming as their only source of income.
She said the continent’s crop production was the lowest in the world at 1,7 tonnes a hectare, compared to the global figure of four tonnes. Estimates showed the demand for maize alone was set to rise 80% by 2020 (off a 1997 base) in sub-Saharan Africa.
Agricultural biotechnology offered the prospect of more insect, virus and fungal-resistant maize crops, as well as the opportunity to make them more drought tolerant.
However, scientific research could not go forward if there was slow decision-making and onerous legislation.
South Africa should ”develop science-based data of what it is necessary to know, not what it would be nice to know. In many cases I believe the decision-making council [on GMOs] asks for additional data from organisations that is not absolutely necessary for the risks involved”.
This was causing delay after delay.
”We need to tighten our focus, we need to streamline our process,” Webster warned.
Regulations and legislation needed to provide safety checks and balances, but remain easy to use by all, including scientists and farmers.
The cost of biosafety assessment also needed to be minimised to ensure maximum benefits from the technology, she said. – Sapa