Environment

South Africa: NGO's slam GM labelling regulations

2004-02-05, Issue 142

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/environment/19919

Printer friendly version

After six years of growing Genetically Modified (GM) crops for animal and human consumption in South Africa without proper public knowledge and consent, the Department of Health (DOH) recently published its belated labelling regulations for GM foodstuffs. "These regulations do not require that GM foodstuff be labelled and effectively defeat the very purpose for labelling of any sort, namely to give the consumer the right to choose. They are totally unacceptable in that they don't require mandatory labelling of any of the major GM crops currently grown in South Africa. The Department of Health has cunningly provided industry with a way out of mandatory labelling by invoking the discredited and scientifically flawed concept of 'substantial equivalence'," said Andrew Taynton of the Safe Food Coalition.

SAFEAGE PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release, no embargo

start
NGOS SLAM SHAM GM LABELLING REGULATIONS.
Cape Town, 1 February 2004. 1200h

After 6 years of growing Genetically Modified (GM) crops for animal and
human consumption(1) in South Africa without proper public knowledge and
consent, the Department of Health (DOH) recently(2) published its belated
labelling regulations for GM foodstuffs.

"These regulations do not require that GM foodstuff be labelled and
effectively defeat the very purpose for labelling of any sort, namely to
give the consumer the right to choose. They are totally unacceptable in that
they don't require mandatory labelling of any of the major GM crops
currently grown in South Africa. The Department of Health has cunningly
provided industry with a way out of mandatory labelling by invoking the
discredited and scientifically flawed concept of 'substantial equivalence'
,(3)" Said Andrew Taynton of the Safe Food Coalition.

The South African market is saturated with GM foodstuff. South Africa grows
GM maize (yellow and white maize), GM soybeans and GM cotton. GM yellow
maize is used in South Africa as an important ingredient in feed rations for
dairy, beef, poultry and egg production(4). It is also a raw material for
the production of starch used in the manufacture of sweeteners, syrups, and
fermentation products. Maize oil is also extracted from the germ of the
kernel. Thus maize products are present in a wide range of processed food
products available on the South African market. White maize on the other
hand is South Africa's most important agricultural product because it is the
staple food of the majority of South Africans, and is exported for this use
throughout Southern Africa(5). South Africa approved GE white maize, a world
first, for commercial growing, and for human and animal consumption during
2001(6).

Cottonseed oil is used routinely in cooking oil, in shortening and salad
dressing, and is used extensively in the preparation of snack foods such as
crackers, cookies and chips. The meal and hulls are an important protein
concentrate for livestock.(7)

A major food use of soyabean is as purified oil used in margarines,
shortenings, lecithin and cooking and salad oils. It is also a major
ingredient in foods such as tofu, tempeh, soya sauce, simulated milk, as
well as in meat and meat substitute products and in animal feed.

"This stunt pulled by the DOH will effectively absolve GM companies such as
Monsanto from carrying out necessary nutritional and toxicological animal
tests to establish safety. It is also a ploy to placate the public with
false notions that GM foods are not inherently different from their
conventional counterparts" Said Mariam Mayet, of the African Centre for
Biosafety.

Spokesperson from SAFeAGE, the SA Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering(8),
Glenn Ashton says, "Despite our members' protracted engagement with
government, manufacturers and retailers, the rights of consumers have been
sacrificed in favour of corporate interests. These labelling regulations
display a cynical disregard for consumer rights and will effectively prevent
them from making properly informed choices about the source of their
families food."

Industry opposes labelling as it insists that it will result in increased
food production expense, due to the cost of isolating GM crops from
conventional crops. This is ironic, given their claim that GM technology
will provide cheaper and more plentiful food. Instead these uninvited and
unwanted foods and crops stand to further increase food costs in an already
inflationary food market. It is also remarkable that GM developers such as
Monsanto face no sanction whatsoever when they contaminate conventional food
crops; again, all the costs and risks are borne by consumers.

"Our members and the public have constructively engaged in good faith for
many years but the time has arrived for the gloves to come off, as our
concerns have clearly fallen on deaf ears. It is essential that consumers
now take a stand in this important matter of our food choice," said Ashton.

_____________________

Contact names and addresses

Andrew Taynton; Safe Food Coalition +27 (0) 83 662 0411

Mariam Mayet; African Centre for Biosafety +27 (0)11 646 0699

Glenn Ashton; SAFeAGE +27 (0) 21 789 1751

_______________________

Footnotes;

(1)The National Department of Agriculture approved Monsanto's GM yellow
maize, (MON 801) for commercial growing, food and feed in 1997. That same
year, it approved Monsanto's GM cotton (MON 531/757/1076) for commercial
growing, food and feed. Source: Agbios GM Database
http://www.agbios.com.dbse.php

(2)Govt. Gazette no. 25908, 16 Jan, 2004.

(3)"Substantial Equivalence" is based on the flawed assumption that
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not new and inherently different
to their conventional counterparts and therefore do not bear unforeseeable
risks. GM foods are evaluated primarily by comparing their compositional
data with those from their non-GM counterparts. If that composition minus
the added gene and protein is the same, the GMO is regarded as substantially
equivalent and no further tests on animals are required. The scientifically
flawed rationale is that side effects of the gene(s) would be picked up in
the chemical composition. However, tests are conducted only of the isolated
gene and the protein, independently from the organism they would eventually
be inserted. Thus the tests and the results are seriously flawed.
"Substantial Equivalence" has been severely criticised as being a
pseudo-scientific concept by eminent scientists and as being nothing more
than a commercial and political judgement masquerading as science. See in
this regard, Millstone, E., Brunner, E. and Mayer, S. (1999) Beyond
substantial equivalence. Nature 401, 525-526.

(4)Trends in the Agriculture Sector 2003 National Department of Agriculture
www.nda.agric.za/doc/Trends2003.Field _husbandry.pdf

(5)Trends in the Agriculture Sector 2003 National Department of Agriculture
www.nda.agric.za/doc/Trends2003.Field_husbandry.pdf

(6)South Africa to produce first GMO white corn 2002-2003
www.monsantoafrica.com/news/africashowlib.ph+ml?uid=6740

(7)Agbios GM Database http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php

(8)SAFeAGE is a broadly representative network of organisations and
individuals calling for a moratorium on the growing, sale, import and export
of GM crops and food until such time as the necessity, desirability and
safety is properly shown for the use of these novel organisms. Please see
www.safeage.org for further information.
end article

↑ back to top