|
 Genetic
modification technologies (GM, GE, GI or rDNA) started in an
innocuous way but their application soon ran into stormy waters.
This planet is not what it used to be. The fact that
pasteurization of milk took a hundred years to be commercially
accepted offers little consolation in today’s fast moving
technological world. Lousy communication strategies create a
fertile breeding ground for activists and consumer concerns.
South Africa was one of the early
starters in genetically modified (GM) crops, commencing with Bt
cotton trials in 1990, followed by commercial Bt cotton in 1997,
Bt maize in 1998, and herbicide tolerant soybeans in 2000. The
present GM share comprises 29 per cent of the commercial maize
crop, 92 per cent of cotton and 59 per cent of soybeans. The
initial biosafety guidelines of pre-1990, drafted by concerned
scientists, served as foundation for the GMO Act of 1997. This
is probably the most comprehensive GMO legislation in the world,
covering the spectrum of GM technologies on all organisms from
registration of research facilities, to commercial production,
imports and exports of products. Decisions are made by the GMO
Executive Council comprised of officials from eight government
departments, guided by a national scientific advisory committee
and independent reviewers. Biosafety and procedural requirements
have been strengthened every year.
GM traits approved for commercial
use include insect resistant cotton and maize, herbicide
tolerant cotton, maize and soybeans, and stacked genes for both
traits in cotton. Similar stacked genes in maize are in the
process of approval. Both smallholder and commercial farmers
have voted for the technology with their orders for GM seed. GM
share of total maize doubled from 14.5 per cent in 2004 to 29.4
per cent in 2005 planting. Stacked genes in cotton were approved
in September 2005 and immediately captured 40 per cent of the
market. New GM crops under trial include drought tolerant
soybeans, maize and peanuts; virus resistant sweet potatoes and
maize; and insect resistant potatoes. Much of this comes from
local research. Cutting edge research is being done in forestry
and sugar cane.
South Africa remains the only
country on the African continent that grows commercial GM crops.
Kenya has started trials with GM maize and sweet potatoes,
Burkina Faso is growing Bt cotton trials and Egypt has tested
various GM crops. Other members of the
Southern African Development
Community (SADC) retain a temporary anti-GM stance.
It remains
difficult to understand why so many stakeholders and governments
have not learned from experience of others and continue to miss
the cue on the primary factor:
communication.
-
The
South African government has not played a leading role in
SADC, despite having been alerted since 1998 to the fact
that modern biotech crops will have trade implications.
Little public communication was done until 2003 and then it
focused on youngsters and the general public.
-
Anti-GM
lobbyists have known that food scares sell well in some
media but that the real target audiences are politicians in
Parliament, where policies and laws are made. Very few
scientists are visible in participating in dialogue with
Parliamentarians. As a result, there is divided opinion
amongst members of Parliament. Fortunately, a strong voice
of reason came from the Minister for Agriculture, Mrs Thoko
Didiza, ensuring that Parliament approved the GMO Amendment
Bill on May 18.
-
Scientists
do not share common views and most are not visible in
debates or lobbying. Scientific and technical associations
have as yet not come out with factual position statements on
modern biotechnology. Everybody just seems to be too busy to
get involved.
AfricaBio
remains the sole voice for biotech communication. Many
biotech companies, local and multinational, prefer not to be
too visible. Perhaps they do not realize that they are also
the target for globalized activism.
-
Government
does not speak with one voice, despite the consensus GMO
decision making process. Environment tends to over-regulate
precaution. Inadequate practical consultation takes place
between senior government officials. A prime example is the
Department of Trade & Industry that has just published a
draft Consumer Protection Bill that includes extensive
requirements for GM ingredients labeling, slipped in under
an article dealing with hazardous substances, without having
consulted with other departments on whose domain they
encroached.
-
SADC plans
to move to a regional common market but most relevant laws
have not yet been harmonized, including that for biosafety.
Apart from a few member states, Africa remains the only
continent that stalls on adopting modern agricultural
practices.
South Africa adopted a positive
strategy on modern biotech in 2002 and provided some US$65
million start-up funding for regional biotech innovation
centers. Despite this beautiful start, model legislation and GM
crops, the country still falls short in meaningful, factual
communication. The spill-over may be two-fold: ongoing
tightening of regulatory systems without considering practical
and cost implications that will stifle application of local
technology, and sending mixed messages to neighboring states
whose politicians are dithering.
Perhaps all of us should again be
reminded of an old adage: “If we focus on doing what is urgent,
we will forget to do what is important”. |
