and its lobbyists with unprecedented backing from the US government. Even food aid has been used
to push GM into Africa.'7; and 'It is
clear that GM crops offer no benefits and cannot feed the world.'8
Propaganda on both sides of the
argument therefore contributes to
a skewed public perception of biotechnology, and creates confusion,
mistrust and cynicism among consumers and scientists alike.
Many scientists who develop genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
believe that risk assessments are
unnecessary or go beyond what is
required to establish a lack of risk.1
Nonetheless, risk assessments are
vital to determining human safety.
For example, a transgenic soybean
engineered to contain a protein
from Brazil nut would have been
fatal for those with nut allergies.
The allergy studies performed during the risk assessment were therefore necessary.9 Moreover, there is a
case where a risk assessment may
have proved vital. In 1989, the Eosinophalia– Mayalgia Syndrome
epidemic in the US, caused by the
GM dietary supplement Ltryptophan, resulted in 37 mortalities.10 It is not certain whether the
risk assessment performed was insufficient or whether it was undertaken at all. By claiming that risk
assessments are excessive, GMO
advocates unwittingly impede the
progress of biotechnology by implying that the technology is above
risk or that they fear scrutiny. In
addition to determining health
safety, environmental risk assessment is just as important. The conservation of biodiversity, including
the preservation of landraces, is a
global concern. A recent study in
the US found that an unreleased
transgenic herbicide-resistant
creeping bentgrass introgressed
into wild populations.11 Risk assessments are therefore imperative and
not futile if performed with diligence. However, most African
countries do not have the resources
or expertise to do this.
A debate continues among scientists as to whether a GMO is substantially equivalent to its non-GM
counterpart. Substantial equivalence implies that a GMO, with the
exception of the transgene, and the
corresponding non-GMO are not
significantly different. However, the
recognition of intellectual property
rights (IPR) makes a clear distinction between GM and non-GM
products in terms of plant breeder's
rights and patenting. In fact, GM
and non-GM products are biologically dissimilar (one has a
transgene) and the GM variety is
subject to patent rights and technology fees. Patent laws are alien
to farmers in Africa, especially subsistence farmers, who customarily
save and share seed. Thus whether
the scientific community agrees or
not, the legalities of transgene
technology prohibit classification of
GM and non-GM crops as substantially equivalent.
The numerous examples of 'gene
escape' over the last few years indicate that coexistence of GM and
non-GM crops requires careful
management. In Nebraska in 2002,
Prodigene's pharmaceutical maize
commingled with soybean an d, in
the same year in Iowa, crosspollination with conventional maize
occurred.12 Prodigene's financial
losses were more than US$3 million, which included fines and
cleanup costs. Similar incidents of
accidental transgenic entry into the
food chain have occurred with Starlink maize13 and Liberty Link rice
601.14 Clearly, there is an urgent
need for management to allow for
coexistence and minimize commingling. The entry of a pharmaceutical crop into the human food chain
would have devastating consequences for Africa, where maize is
a staple food and resources to deal
with such a situation do not exist.
The recurring examples of gene
escape suggest that more research
is required to prevent this situation
persisting.
A sector of the biotechnology community believes that GMOs are unscientifically over-regulated, while
others consider that regulations are
insufficient. In the United States,
the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) procedure to regulate GMOs
is not that of approval but rather a
consultation process, which is vol-