GMO MOVING FORWARD?

 DONE DEAL: The GMO DILEMA

Presidential candidate, Al Gore, alerted us to the dangers of climate change as early as the 1970s, boney M begged us not to kill the world, but GMO apparently solved all our problems. The answer to the drought in Ethiopia in the 80s was not a dramatic movement to address climate change because by the 90s GMO as in full commercial use providing food security and the promise of the answer to crops enduring droughts.

the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and the European Commission define a GMO as a product “not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” Modification is achieved by inserting DNA gene fragments into the organism. (Dean & Armstrong, 2009). Genes are inserted randomly and mutations are known to occur. (Dean & Armstrong, 2009)

Genetically modified organisms are typically modified to be:

·         Pest resistant;

·         To withstand the glyphosate-based herbicide that is applied to them.

·         Resistant to plant viruses. (FDA, 2024) (Ecology, 2024)

Most recently GMO producers claim to be able to offer drought resistance. (South Africa’s Executive Council (EC): Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act, the GMO Appeal Board, and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

However GMOs have been found to produce none of these things without consequences, or produce them at a high cost and actually defeat the purpose for which they were supposedly produced. (Lewis & Sirinathsinghji, 2020).(Minford, 2015). While reports grow of the damage or sometimes inefficacy of this method, so do reports of bought research and studies and diversion tactics such as claims of non-toxicity of the actual seed, as opposed to the potential of insertions and of the adjuvants and contaminants to do harm.  Otherwise, attention is redirected to the new finding that the glyphosate base is not the actual cause of the harm.

Food has a major potential to heal, and sometimes when we have exhausted al pharmaceutical options, we should at least be able to rely on that rejuvenating quality to keep us fully functioning, intellectually present beings, but even this may be eroded and rapidly becoming only an illusion of good health and more and more empty calories at best.

Our environment, likewise, when looked after, when soil is not poisoned n our environment not overgrown with invasive species is good for our health and well-being.

Notably much has been done as well to keep this illusion alive with major players and perpetrators influencing and affecting research outcomes. “The "Monsanto Papers" cast light on practices of systematic manipulation of scientific studies, and on the influence exerted on experts by Monsanto. There is no political consensus on the cultivation of GMOs either. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, an independent expert, calls for the need to follow the precautionary principle at the global level. The Tribunal concludes that Monsanto has engaged in practices that negatively impacted the right to health.” (The Ecologist, 2024)

So farmers are increasingly sold more and more, “royalty” seeds at higher and higher prices while the International Monsanto Tribunal has found, after an examination of vast case studies that the products as a whole infringed:

1.       The right to a healthy environment (UNO, 2014): herbicide released into the environment was found to affect water bodies, aquatic animals, nearby non-GMO crops and surrounding environment.

2.       The right to food (UNO, 1966): Over time crops have been found to yield less, new resistant weeds have sprung up and the stranglehold that the large Corp has gained over agriculture increases as less and less other types of seeds become available. Practices such as agroecology have become widely ignored due to the aggressive marketing of GMO. Farmers tend to get caught in a cycle where, as more damage is done to the environment and yield lessens, more and differently modified GM seeds and products are needed, each bringing their own side effects.

3.       The right to the highest attainable standard of health of everyone can reach, (UNO, 1966): The actual herbicide (glyphosate plus adjuvants) has been linked with cancer and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma. The ITM mentions lack of consensus on other ailments and conditions caused by GMOs themselves, acknowledging interference in scientific studies. However several studies have attributed them to causing:

a.       Accelerated aging; (Dean & Armstrong, 2009)

b.       Immune system dysregulation.

c.       Changes in liver, pancreas and spleen and kidneys.

d.       Infertility.

e.       Changes in expression of over 400 genes, some linked to insulin regulation.

f.        Intestinal tract immune system disruption.

4.       Scientific Research: Basically, there are several documents and other evidence showing interference in research, masking of adverse finding, ghostwriting of articles and using websites such as Genetic Literacy Project and other industry groups to provide support for their spin.

 

THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGISLATIVE  POSITION

Like many other countries around the world SA started using glyphosate-based GMOs in the 1990s.More than 80% of maize produced in SA is now GMO. Legislation regarding the use of GMOs is contained in the GMO act of 1997(the Act). The Act makes provision for an Executive Councill of Genetically modified Organisms comprised of 8 members or less who must have one member from the following departments> Health, Agriculture, Arts, Culture, Science and Technology; Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Trade and Industry and Labour. The chairperson and for Agriculture apprised of activities in deputy chairperson will be chosen from among the members who in addition to the departments listed can have any other member.

The duties of the Council include keeping the Minister of Agriculture apprised of activities regarding GMO and making sure that these activities are conducted in line with the Act. In terms of the Act, together with its regulations risk and environmental impact assessments must be done before a GMO can be introduced into the environment or worked on in a lab or developed. A permit is required for the aforementioned as well as import, export, use as feed for humans or animals, extending previous authorization and registration of facilities. Appropriate assessments must be made in all cases. (GMO ACT, S5 read with reg 4) The applicant for permission to conduct activities with GMOs in SA must make the assessment. They are however required to make all supporting documentation available to the Council. (reg 4) 

The recent case of ACB and Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and others brought to the fore the potential for abuse of the process. The Act together with the regulations require:

1.       The assessment must be done by the applicant.

2.       Accepted scientific methods must be used: “Recognised risk assessment methods and techniques” must be used.

3.       Supporting data must be provided together with the assessment.

4.       The council when considering the application must consider mechanisms to deal with risks where they are found.

The success of this method, particularly with an applicant who is prone to downplay risks and redirect attention, depends on the assessing of the applicant’s data thoroughly and ordering a further assessment where necessary. The Monsanto papers are sufficient to suggest that an independent assessment should be sought but paid for by the applicant.

 

Notifications must also be printed in 3 National papers for interested parties to weigh in on the matter. Objections and comments are invited and these must be made within 30 days of the publication. In the ACB case ACB contended that having dealt with the applicant since 2007 special notice should be given to them. Considering the fact that there is ghostwritten research and other masking of results when those results are adverse to glyphosate-based herbicide and GMO, then this contention is indeed not excessive. The Act and regulations should make allowance for an outside expert because it may become as time passes more and more difficult to see that there was ever an issue without digging deep or having a whistleblower whose finger is on that pulse.

Works Cited

Dean, A., & Armstrong, J. (2009). Genetically Modified Food. https://www.aaemonline.org/genetically-modified-foods/: AAEM.

Ecology, B. (2024). Must-Avoid Foods Linking GMO to Toxicity and Disease. Retrieved from Body Ecology: https://bodyecology.com/articles/must-avoid-foods-linking-gmo-to-toxicity-and-disease/

FDA. (2024, March 5). How GMO Crops Affect our World. Retrieved from FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/agriculture

IMT. (2017). Summary of the advisory opinion of the International Monsanto Tribunal. The Hague, Netherlands: UNO.

Lewis, L., & Sirinathsinghji, E. (2020). GMOs in South Africa 23 years on: Failures, biodiversity loss and escalating hunger . Johannesburg: ACB.

Minford, M. (2015). Farmers test drought-tolerant corn hybrids. Farm Progress.

South Africa’s Executive Council (EC): Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act, the GMO Appeal Board, and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

The Ecologist. (2024). Tribunal judges: Monsanto isn't feeding the world - it's undermining food security (theecologist.org). https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/24/tribunal-judges-monsanto-isnt-feeding-world-its-undermining-food-security: The Ecologist.

UNO. (1966). Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva: UNO.

UNO. (2014). (Resolution 25/21 of the Human Rights. Geneva: UN.

 

Laws of War and War Crimes

 The INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)

Get My Concise Little Lawbook extended demo now !

Demo Version Contains

Introduction

Background History

Delict and

Cyber Law

Give it a try

App is compatible with Android 4.2 and above;

To Install allow installations from unknown sources in your device settings

Marilyn Murray Answers Your Legal Questions: Get The App

Marilyn Murray Answers Your Legal Questions: Get The App: My Concise Little Law Book Get this educational and informative app free. The app covers various law subjects.This demo version contains...

Nkandla

Nkandla what
Several South Africans, including a Member of Parliament, lodged complaints 

with the Public Protector concerning aspects of the security upgrades that were being 

effected at the President’s Nkandla private residence. This triggered a fairly extensive 
investigation by the Public Protector into the Nkandla project.
The Public Protector concluded that several improvements were non-security

features.

 Since the State was in this instance under an obligation only to provide

security for the President at his private residence, any installation that had nothing to

do with the President’s security amounted to undue benefit or unlawful enrichment to

him and his family and was to be therefore be paid for by him.
The President has the duty to ensure that State

resources are used only for the advancement of State interests.

Risk  of a conflict between official Responsibilities and Private Interests
To find oneself on the wrong side of section 96,

all that needs to be proven is a risk. It does not even have to materialise.

 
The public prosecutor concluded that the president must:

11.1.1 Take steps, with the assistance of the National Treasury and the

SAPS, to determine the reasonable cost of the measures

implemented by the DPW [Department of Public Works] at his

private residence that do not relate to security, and which include

[the] visitors’ centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal and chicken

run and the swimming pool.

11.1.2 Pay a reasonable percentage of the cost of the measures as

determined with the assistance of the National Treasury, also

considering the DPW apportionment document.

11.1.3 Reprimand the Ministers involved for the appalling manner in

which the Nkandla Project was handled and state funds were

abused.

11.1.4 Report to the National Assembly on his comments and actions on

However , the National Assembly After endorsing the report by the Minister exonerating the President from liability and

a report to the same effect by its last Ad Hoc Committee,

resolved to absolve the President of all liability. Consequently, the President did not

comply with the remedial action taken by the Public Protector.

The EFF was dissatisfied with this outcome, and  launched this application, asking for an order

affirming the legally binding effect of the Public Protector’s remedial action; directing

the President to comply with the Public Protector’s remedial action; and declaring that

both the President and the National Assembly acted in breach of their constitutional

obligations. The DA launched a similar application in the Western Cape Division of

the High Court, Cape Town and subsequently to the Constitutional Court conditional upon the EFF’s

application being heard by this Court.

The Constitutional Court concluded that:

The court has exclusive jurisdiction

 The exclusive jurisdiction of the Court is governed by section 167(4)(e) of the

Constitution which says:

“(4) Only the Constitutional Court may—

…

(e) decide that Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a

constitutional obligation.”

An alleged breach of a constitutional obligation must relate to an obligation

that is specifically imposed on the President or Parliament.

Only the Constitutional Court may—

(a) decide disputes between organs of state in the national or provincial

sphere concerning the constitutional status, powers or functions of any of

those organs of state;

(b) decide on the constitutionality of any parliamentary or provincial Bill, but may

do so only in the circumstances anticipated in section 79 or 121;

(c) decide applications envisaged in section 80 or 122;

(d) decide on the constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution;

(e) decide that Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional

obligation; or

(f) certify a provincial constitution in terms of section 144.

(5) The Constitutional Court makes the final decision whether an Act

Prescription

Prescription.

Many people lose out on claims they have due to prescription.

What is prescription. Prescription is the time allowed for a debt to remain current or for the question of ownership of property to remain uncertain. It is therefore the time allowed for a matter to be brought before court- whether it is to stake claim to land that has been occupied by others or to claim a debt that is owing by virtue of damages incurred or some other wrongdoing. The rationale behind the concept of prescription is, off course certainty and the practical concept that evidence becomes harder to provide as time passes.

What is the period of prescription in respect of debts:

Periods of prescription of debts The periods of prescription of debts are the following:

1. thirty years in respect of -

1. any debt secured by mortgage bond;
2. any judgment debt;
3. any debt in respect of any taxation imposed or levied by or under any law;
4. any debt owed to the State in respect of any share of the profits, royalties or any similar consideration payable in respect of the right to mine minerals or other substances;

2. fifteen years in respect of any debt owed to the State and arising out of an advance or loan of money or a sale or lease of land by the State to the debtor, unless ;
3. six years in respect of a debt arising from a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument or from a notarial contract, unless a longer period applies in respect of the debt in question in terms of other provisions;
4. three years in respect of any other debt unless legislation provides otherwise. When the State is the debtor. (2) A notice must be served on the organ of state within six months from the date on which the debt became due, notice must be served’ on an organ of state by delivering it by hand or by sending it by certified mail or, subject , by sending it by electronic mail or by transmitting it by facsimile. If a notice has been sent by electronic mail or transmitted by facsimile the creditor must-
   1. take all reasonable steps to w ensure that the notice has been received by the officer or person to whom it was so sent or transmitted; ; and
   2. within seven days after the date upon which that notice was so sent or transmitted, deliver by hand or send by certified mail a certified copy of that notice to the relevant officer which must be accompanied by an affidavit by the creditor or the person who sent or transmitted the notice:
   1. indicating the date on which and the time at which, and the electronic mail address or facsimile number to which, the notice was so sent or transmitted;
   2. containing any proof that it was sent or transmitted;
   3. setting out the steps taken to ensure that the notice has been received by the officer or person to whom it was so sent or transmitted; ; and
   4. indicating whether confirmation of the receipt of the notice has been obtained and, if applicable, the name of the officer or person who has given that confirmation.

      How may prescription be interrupted.

      Most importantly prescription is interrupted if the debtor acknowledges the debt and the debt starts to run afresh from the day on which the debt is acknowledge . Acknowledgment may be express or tacit - meaning that the debtor may acknowledge the debt by some form of action eg: paying off part of the debt. For matters of proof acquiring this acknowledgement in writing is preferable. Therefore a letter of demand should always be sent and any acknowledgement recorded in writing. Prescription is also interrupted by the service on the debtor of any process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt. Here the following must be present:
   5. The debtor must acknowledge debt or
   6. The creditor must prosecute the claim to judgement.
   7. The creditor must not abandon the judgement
   8. The judgement must not be set aside.
   It must be noted that even after a judgement has been given the debt can and will prescribe within the normal time frame if the debtor does not pay the debt.

   Prescription is Suspended in certain circumstances.

   1. the creditor is a minor or is insane or is a person under curatorship or is prevented by superior force including any law or any order of court from interrupting the running of prescription as contemplated above; or
   2. the debtor is outside the Republic; or
   3. the creditor and debtor are married to each other; or
   4. the creditor and debtor are partners and the debt is a debt which arose out of the partnership relationship; or
   5. the creditor is a juristic person and the debtor is a member of the governing body of such juristic person; or
   6. the debt is the object of a dispute subjected to arbitration; or
   7. the debt is the object of a claim filed against the estate of a debtor who is deceased or against the insolvent estate of the debtor or against a company in liquidation or against an applicant under the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966 (Act No. 28 of 1966);or the creditor or the debtor is deceased and an executor of the estate in question has not yet been appointed;

   If the relevant period of prescription would, (but for the Act ) be completed before or on, or within one year after, the day on which the relevant impediment referred to in paragraph has ceased to exist, the period of prescription shall not be completed before a year has elapsed after the day the relevant impediment has ceased to exist.

   RECIPROCAL DEBTS

   A debt which arises from a contract which would, but for the provisions of the Act, become prescribed before a reciprocal debt which arises from the same contract becomes prescribed, shall not become prescribed before the reciprocal debt becomes prescribed.

Environmental law

The Constitutional Position

S 24 of the South African Constitution provides that: Everyone has the right -

1. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
2. (b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that -

1. (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. To this end several pieces of important legislation have been enacted not least of which is the ** National Environmental Management Act **(Nema).
   Pollution is defined by NEMA as:

   any change in the environment caused by:
   
   
   

   (i) substances;

   (ii) radioactive or other waves; or

   (iii) noise, odours, dust or heat, emitted from any activity, including the storage or treatment of waste or substances, construction and the provision of services, whether engaged in by any person or an organ of state, where that change has an adverse effect on human health or well- being or on the composition, resilience and productivity of natural or managed ecosystems, or on materials useful to people, or will have such an effect in the future; And anyone found causing significant pollution is liable to a fine not exceeding R 1million.




Whistleblowers are protected

S31 (4) of NEMA provides that:

no person is civilly or criminally liable or may be dismissed, disciplined, prejudiced or harassed on account of having disclosed any information, if the person in good faith reasonably believed at the time of the disclosure that he or she was disclosing evidence of an environmental risk and the disclosure was made in accordance with subsection (5). (5) Subsection (4) applies only if the person concerned: (a) disclosed the information concerned to: (i) a committee of Parliament or of a provincial legislature; (ii) an organ of state responsible for protecting any aspect of the environ- ment or emergency services; (iii) the Public Protector; (iv) the Human Rights Commission; (v) any attorney-general or his or her successor; (vi) more than one of the bodies or persons referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (v); (b) disclosed the information concerned to one or more news media and on clear and convincing grounds believed at the time of the disclosure: (i) that the disclosure was necessary to avert an imminent and serious threat to the environment, to ensure that the threat to the environment was properly and timeously investigated or to protect himself or herself against serious or irreparable harm from reprisals; or (ii) giving due weight to the importance of open, accountable and participatory administration, that the public interest in disclosure of the information clearly outweighed any need for nondisclosure; (c) disclosed the information concerned substantially in accordance with any applicable external or internal procedure, other than the procedure contemplated in paragraph (a) or (b), for reporting or otherwise remedying the matter concerned; or (d) disclosed information which, before the time of the disclosure of the information, had become available to the public, whether in the Republic or elsewhere. (6) Subsection (4) applies whether or not the person disclosing the infor- mation concerned has used or exhausted any other applicable external or internal procedure to report or otherwise remedy the matter concerned. (7) No person may advantage or promise to advantage any person for not exercising his or her right in terms of subsection (4).

and the handling of other natural resources. The aim of the act is:
2. To provide for the management and conservation of South Africa's biodiversity within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998;
3. the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection;
4. the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources;
5. the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bioprospecting involving indigenous biological resources;
6. the establishment and functions of a South African National Biodiversity Institute; and for matters connected therewith.
The objects of the Act are delineated as:
1. (a) within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, to pro vide for-
1. (i) the management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity;
2. (ii) the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and
3. iiii) the fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources.
2. (b) to give effect to international agreements ratified by the repulic which are binding on the Republic relating to biodiversity
3. (c) to provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and
4. (d) to provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources;
5. (b) to give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the republic;
6. (c) to provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and
7. (d) to provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources; which are binding on the Republic; conservation; and achieving the objectives of this Act.
1.Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, 2. No. 10 of 2004: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004.

Contact Vivian Wright to find out what you can do to contribute to the preservation of our natural environment