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.