Why Zimbabwe should continue to say 'No' to genetically engineered crops and food

I. INTRODUCTION

While Zimbabwe imports and mills genetically engineered (GE) maize from South Africa, it has until now taken a firm stance not to grow GE crops. 12 years after this stance was first taken this paper argues why Zimbabwe should continue to take this precautionary approach as huge pressure builds on the country to change.

A NOTE ON THE TERMS GMO AND GE

Proponents of GE crops and food often use the argument that genetic modification has been happening for a very long time through selective breeding. They are right, genetic modification has been with us a long time but genetic engineering has not. It is only with genetic engineering that we are seeing genes being moved between species. In this way, GMO is a misnomer and is why this paper prefers to use the term GE except when quoting others. GE is something completely new and is patented as such by those developing the GE crops, which is why the argument that it is not new is disingenuous. In fact the UN Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was developed in recognition of the fact that it is a novel science and needs special regulation. This protocol came into force in 2000 and has been ratified by 166 countries to date, including Zimbabwe (http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties/)

II. A COUPLE OF BACKGROUND POINTS ON ZIMBABWE AND ITS AGRICULTURAL POLICY

During Zimbabwe's colonial period, Government's agricultural policy was geared towards white commercial farmers. "This policy was supported by a system of laws and controls to ensure whites maintained a monopoly of economic and political power through land allocation, research and technology, marketing and service institutions and pricing policies." (Mutonodzo-Davies, 2010). Much of Zimbabwe's rural infrastructure was set up to serve the white farming community.

At Independence in 1980, the government quickly and rightly turned its attention to small-scale farmers in the communal areas. The aim was to give them the kind of support that commercial farmers had been having. This meant widescale, top-down promotion of deep ploughing, fertilisers and hybrid seeds along with pesticides. The main focus was on maize but there was also an emphasis on other crops such as cotton.

At one level this policy was a great success as communal farmers became the major producers of maize and cotton. However, the success was only when one looks at the short-term results and doesn't cost things from a holistic perspective. Big questions around dependancy and sustainability surround(ed) this high-input promotion policy.

The land reform programme of the 2000s has turned Zimbabwe into a country of primarily small-scale farmers, a very different situation from that at Independence in 1980.

Zimbabwe passed a Biosafety Law in the 2006. More recently, the Government has recognised that top-down approaches don't work and has also adopted conservation farming as a policy.

III. THE THREE AREAS OF MAIN CONTENTION SURROUNDING THE QUESTION OF GE CROPS AND FOOD

1. GE CROPS AND HUMAN HEALTH

For Zimbabwean consumers health is the main issue in relation to GE. Proponents for GE food say that people in the USA and Canada have been eating GE food for 16 years and there is nothing to show that it is bad for people's health. At the same time, however, there has been a significant increase in diet-related illnesses in the USA and Canada during the same period, illnesses such as allergies and autism.

Dr. Thierry Vrain, who was head of biotechnology at Agriculture Canada's Summerland Research Station and a former strong proponent of GE crops and food, made this point: "We have a lot of research that has been done, publicly funded research that has shown gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, infertility and cancer. That has all been observed in mice and rats. When we are discussing human health, we don't have labelling so there is no way of knowing that any of these symptoms could come from GMOs or Roundup Ready use in our food." (GMO mini-summit, November 2013)

Proponents will argue that there has been extensive testing of GE foods but when you look more closely you find that this testing is based on very short-term studies on laboratory rats, typically 90 days. These study periods are too short to show developmental, reproductive, chronic or multi-generational effects which are long term. Also there are questions about who does the testing and how. Very often it is the companies themselves who conduct the trials.

A literature review done many years back of all published data on GE health found nothing with regard to potential health impacts. However, very interestingly, the latest review done by the same people showed a significant increase in research since 2006, with half saying there's no problem with GE and human health and the other half showing problems (Domingo, J.L. & Bordonaba, J.G. 2011. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environment International 37 (2011) 734–742. Elsevier.)

The following are examples of issues being raised in research:

• The introduction of genes from one organism to another results in the production of new proteins which can cause allergic reactions in people consuming food from the organism, for example StarLink maize in the USA registered for animal feed caused headaches, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting in people (Bernstein et al, 2003)

• In the USA, a GE food supplement, L.Tryptophan caused death and muscle pain in many people (Marta et al, 2013)

• In Spain several people died after consuming oil from GE oil seed rape which contained a toxin aniline and its derivatives (Quero et al, 2011)

• Some workers harvesting Bt cotton in India have suffered severe skin rashes and needed hospitalisation (Gupta et al, 2005)

• In Canada Bt toxin was found in the blood of pregnant women and the umbilical supply to their foetuses showed that the toxin can survive digestion and enter the circulatory system with serious consequences for the unborn (Marta et al, 2013).

• Milk from cows injected with genetically modified growth hormones to increase milk production increases levels of the IGF-1 factor (insulin-resembling growth factor 1) in consumers which increases the development of tumours in lungs, breast and colon (Marta et al, 2013)

• GE potato was found to result in incorrect mitosis of cells and tissues producing tumours in rats after only 10 days of feeding the potatoes (Domingo et al, 2007).

• Mice fed GE maize had reduced reproductive capacity (Veliminov, 2010)

An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops can be found here.

In addition to potential problems with GE there is the consideration of increased herbicide use that comes with them and now with superweeds the need for higher volumes of herbicides and a return to older ones like 2,4D. New genetically engineered organisms are in the pipeline that are resistant to glyphosate, 2,4D and glufosinate ammonium. All these chemicals are linked with severe human health problems. See a letter">http://acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/UN-High-Commissioner-on-Human-Rights-OHCHR-19_03_2013.pdf">letter to the UN human rights commissioner on this issue.

2. GE CROPS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

As with human health a number of concerns continue to be raised about the potential impact of GE on the environment. This section highlights some of these concerns. At the same time it should be noted that the environmental risk assessment of GE crops is difficult because of their ability to grow, reproduce, disperse and recombine and evolve beyond initial intentions. (Breckling, 2010).

- There is the danger of gene flow to wild relatives and land races threatening biodiversity developed over thousands of years. Around some harbours in Japan volunteer GE oil seed rape (from Canada) is crossing with local cultivars of Brassica napa, B. juncea and B. oleracea to produce herbicide tolerant hybrids. GE oil seed rape from seed spillage during transportation also crossed with the weed Sisymbtrium (a different genus) to produce a herbicide tolerant weed (Kawata, 2009). Biochemist Erwin Chargraff, known as the father of molecular biology, has said that the release of GE organisms constitutes "an irreversible attack on the biosphere."

- Another major area of concern relates to the herbicide-tolerance thrust of GE technology. Over 60% of GE crops grown in the world today have the herbicide tolerance trait and are 'Roundup Ready'. There has been a great increase in the use of herbicides as a result of this, leading to serious contamination of soil and water and the living organisms in both of these. There is also the rapid development of weeds, such as Sorghum halepence that are resistant to glyphosate, the main constituent of Roundup. Some people are calling these 'superweeds'. As indicated above, Monsanto, the main suppliers of Roundup Ready seed, have already developed the next generation of crops tolerant to the more toxic herbicide 2-4D, which is a component of “Agent Orange”. Resistance is bound to develop to this too in due course. Where to after that?

- The other main GE crop today in addition to the Roundup Ready ones, are the crops inserted with the Bt gene for insect control. As with the herbicide tolerance this relates to the development of target insects that are resistant to the Bt crops, which in turn leads to greater application of pesticides not less. This insect resistance is already happening, as ecologists predicted from the beginning. 50 years of using pesticides has made clear that insect resistance always develops. In South Africa Monsanto’s Bt maize MON810 has been withdrawn from the market as of 2013 due to the development of widespread resistance. The technology is now obsolete and a “stacked variety” has been introduced. It turns out that the producers had false assumptions about the development of resistance in the African stemborer. (Van den Berg, J., Hilbeck, A. and Bøhn, T. (2013) Pest resistance to Cry1Ab Bt maize: Field resistance, contributing factors and lessons from South Africa. Crop Protection, 54, 154-160. (10.1016/j.cropro.2013.08.010).

- The other area of concern relating to Bt crops is the spread of Bt toxins through the food chain and especially its impact on soil organisms, so critical to healthy soil, especially for farmers who farm by managing the health of their soil rather than relying on fertilisers for nutrients. Disturbances by Bt toxins include displacement of indigenous populations, suppression of fungal populations, reduced protozoa populations, altered soil enzymatic activity, and increased carbon turnover (Naseby and Lynch, 1998). "....transgenic crops can produce environmental toxins that move through the food chain, and also may end up in the soil and water affecting invertebrates and probably ecological processes such as nutrient cycling" (Altieri, 2002). Transgenic Bt has been genetically altered to be always active and is constantly exuded throughout the life cycle of the Bt plant (Benbrook, 1999). Also, one must remember that Bt crops produce the Bt toxin from every cell in the plant.

- Once GE maize is introduced to a country, because of its ability to cross pollinate at great distances, it is highly likely that all maize in that country will become tainted with GE (and across borders too of course). For example, in the USA today there is no maize without a trace of GE. GE-free simply refers to that maize that is tainted below an agreed threshold.

3. GE CROPS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS (INCLUDING CORPORATE CONTROL)

GE is another farming technology designed for large scale farming and economies of scale. This leads to land consolidation, job losses, contract farming with its varied problems, massive debt, and entering into sophisticated global markets and away from local food security. See the article 'Hunger in a land of plenty' from the maize belts of South Africa: Mail and Guardian. 22 March 2013 (http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-22-00-hunger-in-a-land-of-plenty)

There is clear-cut evidence of corporate concentration across the commercial food sector from farming input supplies to retailing. Since the Second World War when munitions factories turned into fertiliser and pesticide factories, there has been a steady increase in control of the farming and food sector by fewer, ever-bigger corporates. Today, the top four firms control 58.2% of commercial seeds, 61.9% of agrochemicals, 24.3% of fertilisers, 53.4% of animal pharmaceuticals and, in livestock genetics, 97% of poultry and 2/3rds of swine and cattle research. "More disturbingly, the oligopoly paradigm has moved beyond individual sectors to the entire food system: the same six multinationals control 75% of all private sector plant breeding research, 60% of the commercial seed market and 76% of global agrochemical sales" (From ETC communique, 2013).

Genetic engineering is a further significant step in this concentration of corporate control of the agricultural and food sector. One has to look no further than the history of GE crops to date to see this. 61% of all GE crops being grown are Roundup Ready crops where the seed goes with the sale of the herbicide Roundup. The main job of corporations is to maximise profits for their shareholders. This is of course not wrong in itself but the problem is that to do this the corporations have created a self-perpetuating cycle in which funds, including for research, are channelled into technology and products that the corporations can sell. Everything is therefore geared towards this. One magic-bullet technology leads to another and then another, often missing the point as to what really needs to be addressed and often treating symptoms of problems rather than the real cause. Genetic engineering is another example of this. It is geared towards corporate profits rather than what is really needed for sustainable farming and food systems into the future.

A briefing about power and control in our food system, focusing chiefly on South Africa's staple food maize, shows how a select group of companies, including Tiger Brands, Pioneer and Premier Foods commandeer the entire maize value chain and continue to squeeze the poorest South Africans. These corporate giants are now glancing covetously to the vast African market north of the Limpopo. Experiences from South Africa should serve as stark warnings (http://acbio.org.za/index.php/publications/rest-of-africa/449-gm-maize-l...)

IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, here is a summary of some of the reasons why Zimbabwe should not change the precautionary stance it took early in the 2000s towards GE crops and food:

1. GE technology is driven primarily by Multinational Corporations whose concentration into fewer, larger companies has continued unabated during the last decade. Pursuing the GE technology route plays right into their hands. Their primary aim is profits and not sustainable farming.

2. There is no scientific consensus about genetically engineered crops and food, despite claims that there is.

3. GE technology is the most advanced technology within the ambit of industrial agriculture, which is an approach to farming that is best suited to monocropped, large-scale farms and is not small-scale farmer friendly. Within the umbrella of industrial agriculture, small scale farmers often end up being cheap labour for others in the production and marketing chain.

4. GE technology will continue down the path of losing evermore agricultural bio-diversity, both genetic and species diversity. This is not a sensible long-term route.

5. There is an alternative route to industrial agriculture and that is making a transition towards Agro-ecology where the emphasis is on ecosystem farming and local knowledge development, supported by appropriate technologies.

6. Ongoing studies in relation to the impact on human health of GE foods, at the very least, continue to raise more questions. This goes hand in hand with new light being shed on the complexity of the world of genes and DNA. It seems clear that the technology is going ahead of the science (again). One also needs to bear in mind that those who raise questions about the safety of GE crops and food do so in a mostly hostile scientific environment towards those who query the dominant scientific paradigm which sees genetic engineering as progressive.

7. GE is another 'magic-bullet', reductionist solution that treats the symptoms when what we badly need now is to deal with the complex crises facing us (including climate change, fossil energy depletion and unsustainable financial systems) using a more holistic and long-term approaches. We need technologies that support this holistic and sustainable approach and not those that lead us in a more reductionist direction, which, incidentally, brings more profit to MNCs.

8. It could be that consumers around the world will more and more reject GE crops and food. This seems to be happening in the USA, the world's GE laboratory. It has already happened in many countries in Europe.

9. Weed resistance to herbicide tolerant crops has developed. Use of these crops has led to much more herbicide being used, and now more and more potent herbicides will be needed to deal with the resistance.

10. Crops genetically engineered with Bt have led to an initial reduction in use of insecticides but this is changing as insect resistance to Bt develops.

11. Perhaps the strongest reason of all is that it is totally unnecessary for Zimbabwe to go the GE path. GE is not going to solve Zimbabwe's varied agricultural problems such as soil infertility, serious soil and water erosion, loss of agricultural biodiversity, and marketing (to benefit small scale farmers rather than middlemen).

GE is an industry led innovation not appropriate to small farmers and one in which the ever fewer and larger corporations have already made a lot of money and stand to make a whole lot more, especially if Monsanto's 1999 strategic planning dream of having all commercial seed genetically engineered comes about.

* John Wilson is a Zimbabwean facilitator and activist working at many different levels from community to continent to help strengthen the development and spread of agro-ecology and of the food sovereignty movement. This article was written in close collaboration with other members of FoodMattersZimbabwe and the Agricultural Research Council.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.