7/27/2019 Gm Crops - The Facts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gm-crops-the-facts 1/2

For more information contact:  AfricaBio 

P.O. Box 873, Irene, Centurion  South Africa 0062 

Tel: +27 (0)12 844 0126 Fax: +27 (0) 86 619 9399 

Email: infro@africasbio.com May 2013 

Greenpeace promoted an Austrian study of micefed on GM maize, claiming that it showed ‘serioushealth threats of genetically engineered crops’. Butthe research had not been peer reviewed and its au-thor, Prof. J. Zentek, himself recognised the inconclu-sive results and refuted Greenpeace’s conclusions.Greenpeace quietly changed its stance, but made noattempt to publicly correct the error. 

 Anti-science campaign groups regularly use direction-

al questions and leading language to misrepresentboth the facts about biotech crops and consumer opinions.

Using the destruction of field-trials as a high profilemedia tool. 

Destroying scientific experiments and threateningresearchers is totally unacceptable in a modern soci-ety, but is valued by anti-GM campaigners for itsshock media value. The groups responsible makelittle attempt to distinguish between conventional andGMO trials, and frequently wear unnecessary biohaz-ard suits to ensure press coverage. All these targetedexperiments are operated within the strict safetyguidelines laid down by regulatory authorities, yet,anti-GM groups routinely complain that they wouldlike more scientific evidence for GMO safety. 

 Attacking individuals in an attempt to discredit or dis-courage sound science: 

In addition to threats of violence against scientistsinvolved in GM research, increasingly desperate cam-paign groups have also sought to discredit high-

profile figures who have spoken in defence of GMevidence. These include Bill Gates (for his founda-tion’s funding of GM crops for the developing world).  

Campaign groups’ claims about GMOs must thereforealways be checked. Their sources are n ot only fre-quently inaccurate, but often begin by determining their conclusions before seeking out the evidence to provethem, no matter how flawed. It is also worth noting themany well-respected organisations who have judgedthe science on the safety of GMOs to be reliable: UN,Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health

Organisation, and European Commission. 

AfricaBio ANTI-GM: A WORLD OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS 

There are many falsehoods, myths and misconceptionsabout GM food and crops. Many of these myths wereknowingly created and perpetuated by groups who cam-paign against GM. These groups often point to the eco-nomic and political stake which research institutes andcompanies have in GMOs. But the truth is that thesegroups and individuals also benefit from the continuedmisperceptions and fears which they spread about GM,and will do almost anything to damage the credibility of the technology:

 

We are no longer in the same food-secure situationwhich prevailed in the late 90s. We need to rethink theimpact of our current agricultural and food choices, re-duce our carbon emissions and minimise its environ-mental impacts: 

Progressive NGOs are now working with scientists toaddress food security issues. They now accept thatthe initial concerns about GM crops have not materi-alised and that their anti-GM stance is now harmingthe agricultural prospects of those who need it most. 

In some cases, this is because their membership,funds or sponsorships are dependent on maintainingan anti-GM stance. 

In other cases, it is difficult for them to back downfrom the incorrect claims which they have publicisedfor many years.

 

In a few cases there is a genuine ideological opposi-tion to the ‘interference’ of science in the naturalworld, which should be respected and separatedfrom the much more widespread cynical oppositionon the basis of pseudo-science. 

Over the past 15 years, the number of reputable scien-tists prepared to support anti-GM views has diminished.These groups have therefore turned to increasingly out-landish and unscientific claims, which have almost allbeen disproved through peer review. But mud sticks,and anti-GM activists know that they can continue to usethese ‘studies’ to generate media coverage even after they have been discredited. 

Some tactics used to prioritise communications and PRover scientific rigour, include: 

Promoting scare-stories based on poor science thathas not been peer reviewed, often commissionedfrom scientists who have a clearly negative view of GM crops and who conduct research with the pre-

determined intention of revealing highly improbablenegative effects of GM. 

 A study by Prof Giles-Eric Seralini on the effects of GM maize on rats was promoted by a number of en-vironmental groups as evidence of the ‘toxic effects’

of eating GM. This study was later totally discredited. 

 ABOUT AFRICABIO Who are we?

AfricaBio is an independent,

non-prot biotechnology

stakeholders associaon. Our

key role is to provide accu-

rate informaon and create

awareness, understanding as

well as knowledge on bio-

technology and biosafety in

South Africa and the African

region. 

What do we do?

Locally: AfricaBio is engaged

in transferring informaon

about biotechnology and bi-

osafety to all levels of society.

This is done through infor-

maon days, workshops,

seminars, conferences, exhi-

bions, websites, newsleers

and technology demonstra-

on.

Naonally: AfricaBio carries

out a range of programs that

focus on educaon, technolo-

gy demonstraon and train-

ing on biotechnology and

biosafety. AfricaBio facili-

tates coordinated approaches

to biotechnology and biosafe-

ty development.

Regionally: AfricaBio provides

services and support to many

countries in the SADC region

on biotechnology educaon

and training.

Internaonally: AfricaBio

seeks to build capacity in all

aspects of biotechnology and

biosafety in Africa and to ar-

culate the needs of African

biotechnology stakeholders

to the world. 

GM CROPS: WHAT ARE THE FACTS?  NEW SOLUTIONS FOR NEW CHAL-LENGES 

Sub-Saharan Africa faces serious politi-cal, economic and social challenges.

With an annual rate of growth of 2.2%, itspopulation is expected to increase from906 million in 2005 to more than 1 billionin 2010 and to 2 billion by 2050. Twentyyears of an almost 3% annual populationgrowth has outpaced economic gains,leaving Africans, on average, 22% poor-er than they were in the mid -1970s. De-spite improved economic performance inrecent years, the overall gross domesticproduct growth rate remains below thatneeded to achieve the Millennium Devel-opment Goals. 

Experts recognise that food productionmust increase if the anticipated popula-tion growth is to be fed and clothed. Al-ready, many in Sub-Saharan Africa do

not have enough food, and many moreare malnourished. Competition for land,water and energy is intensifying – not tomention the effects of climate changeand the on-going need to reduce wasteand cut carbon emissions. As a result of these pressures, agricultural productivityis back in the political spotlight, and thereis talk of the urgent need for new tech-nology to help boost agricultural produc-tion. Farmers in Africa must be equippedwith the right tools and techniques tohelp address the problems of food secu-rity by growing more food in a sustaina-

ble way. 

Together with conventional plant breed-ing, biotechnology and plant science in-

novations such as Genetically Modifiedcrops (‘GM’ or ‘GMOs’) are such tools.GM means that certain genes have beenmodified or new genes added to give aplant variety more desirable characteris-tics, such as resistance to certain insectpests or herbicides. Because only a fewgenes with known properties are trans-ferred, GM methods are more specificand faster than traditional breeding. 

The use of GMOs can also help to re-duce inputs like fuel, water and fertiliser,by allowing the development of cropsthat can grow in harsher conditions, or byincreasing crop yields from the samearea of land. Higher, more reliable yieldsand reduced inputs mean lower food

costs and the better management of agri-culture’s footprint on the environment. 

World-wide, scientists, leaders and farm-ers have become increasingly vocal incalling for a rational, fact-based debateon crop technologies using scientific dataand years of field experience. In Africathere is a need to rise above the emo-tional scare mongering, and consider what role biotechnology can play inproviding food and clothing to those whodo, and who will call Africa their home in the future. 

7/27/2019 Gm Crops - The Facts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gm-crops-the-facts 2/2

Globally, GM crops, which represent one example of bio-technology, have been grown for more than16 years bymore than 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries. In 2011,GM crops were grown on 160 million hectares of land.More than two trillion meals containing food produced fromGM crops have been consumed without any substantiatedhealth issues. 

Since the first appearance of GMOs in the 1990s, thoseopposed to biotechnology have sought to distort evidenceon GM. But Africa today is not the same as Africa in the

90s. Current agricultural policies need to change – it is nota contest between GM and organic farming, or betweencommercial and small-scale farming. In reality, countriesdo not choose one farming model or one farming system, itis a range of farming practices and types of technology thatwill provide the food security that Africa requires and givethe continent its competitiveness on world markets. In thisregard, therefore, it is time to defend independent evidenceon the benefits and limitations of crop breeding technolo-gies, and to confront some of the misleading tactics usedby anti-GM groups. It is time to reconsider GMOs and todiscuss how to reduce the immediate and future threats tofood security In Africa. 

WHAT LED TO THE OPPOSITION TOWARDS GMOS? 

Recent media coverage of agricultural technology has fo-cused on its potential to help tackle global food security,

and consumers have shown more positive attitudes to GMfoods. But where did the scepticism of GMOs come from?To understand this, it is necessary to look at the circum-stances around the appearance of the first GM product inEurope in the mid-1990. 

Europe - a fertile ground for sowing fear  

The late 1990s were a turbulent time for European agricul-ture, food safety, science and global commerce:  

The confidence of European consumers’ in food sci-ence and safety was rudely shaken by the misman-agement and poor communication around a series of food crises such as salmonella, dioxin- contaminatedchicken feed, and BSE or ‘mad cow disease’.  

Europeans became angry that regulations designed to

protect the safety of their food were not operating

properly, and lost trust in the authorities. 

Europeans were also concerned by a Common Agri-

cultural Policy which had resulted in an oversupply of some agricultural produce. 

The first mass anti-globalisation protests aimed at mul-tinational commerce and trade also began in Europe atthis time. 

In this atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, the first GMcrops were launched. Scientists and politicians tried to as-sure the public of their safety but this did little to calm their concerns. The European public wanted to kno w whether GMOs: 

Were safe? 

Were good for the environment? 

Were produced by private companies?  

Were needed? 

The public perception of food and farming is often drivenby marketing imagery which projects an idyllic, traditional,and pastoral picture of hand-ground grain, home-grownvegetables, and hand-milked cows. This is an unrealisticand misleading image of agriculture. 

Most first generation GM crops were developed to allowfarmers to overcome plant diseases and pests, increaseyields and decrease the use of pesticides and fuel. There-fore, it was difficult for Europeans to see the personal ben-efit from GM, rather than the indirect benefits such as low-er commodity costs and more targeted use of pesticides. 

 A further unexpected challenge was that GM seed compa-nies had experienced a much less controversial introduc-tion of GM crops in North America, where they were evenmore successful than anticipated. This success createdthe assumption that Europe would follow suit. As a result,some of the messages from industry on GM crops wereinappropriate for European companies that dealt directlywith the food buying public. 

 Anti-science campaign groups were quick to exploit theseconcerns. Through the use of media-friendly but unsub-

stantiated terms like ‘frankenfoods’ and powerful imagesof people in biohazard suits, anti -GM campaigners wereable to instil a fear and m istrust about GM products whichscientists had found to be as safe as – if not safer than –conventional foods. 

Those involved in the development of the technology wereunprepared for this hostile environment, and were unableto communicate with the general public ‘in an effectiveway. Most of the initial communication focused on thesafety of GM products and how they were the same asexisting products. This failed to address the core p oint of the debate in Europe – a fear of further food scares mixedwith a fundamental lack of trust in reassurances offered bypoliticians, scientists and companies. As the yearspassed and the media battle rumbled on , misinformationfrom campaign groups was reinforced by a number of poli-ticians who were keen to use public mistrust as an elec-

toral tool. Some former and current European politiciansstill openly attack the safety of GM crops, despite thou-sands of safety assessments and almost two deca des of using biotechnology crops in Europe and around theworld. 

By 2005, retailers, policy makers and global environmentand development NGOs had started to see the benefits of GMOs, and that the scare mongering about GM safetywas unfounded. Countries which had begun to reap thebenefits of GM technology saw its future potential, both inimproved agricultural production and in the economic ben-efits that followed. Unfortunately, in Europe the political 

pressure had already resulted in the malfunctioning of theGMO approval system and a de facto moratorium on GMcultivation. 

 A wider public debate on the consumer benefits of new andpotential GM products in Europe therefore became theoreti-cal. European citizens became even further removed fromthe debate as they continued to enjoy plentiful food sup-plies, and retailers played down the fact that many Europe-an farm animals are fed GM feed.  

The events in Europe spilled over into Africa and the anti -GM campaigners were soon spreading fear and concern of GMOs among the regulators, like-minded NGOs and politi-cians in various African states. To back up this fear, it wassuggested that because of Europe’s restriction on GM tech-nology, any African state growing GM crops was likely to

 jeopardize its European markets. These tactics proved sosuccessful that some African states, despite suffering fromchronic food shortages as a result of extensive drought, re-fused to accept imports of GM grain despite assurancesfrom the exporting authorities that the grain was safe for human consumption! 

DEFENDING SOUND SCIENCE 

One of science’s greatest strengths is the endless fascina-tion it holds for consumers. But this eagerness to learnabout the latest scientific developments also represents athreat to the reputation of balanced and independent aca-

demic research. 

Before they can release their findings, scientists know thatthey must first ensure that their findings are accurate. To dothis they ask others to double-check their research and en-sure that their work is open to question and challenge. Thisis undertaken through a well-established process known aspeer review. They also include important caveats in their work to indicate where their findings might not be applicableor where further investigation is required. 

 Agricultural biotechnology has suffered more than mostfrom the lack of peer review in the ‘evidence’ used by anti -

campaigners. So much so that a great deal of GM scienceover the past 10 years has focused on a small number of un-reviewed reports claiming negative effects of the technolo-gy. 

Campaign groups refer back to these un-reviewed reports

repeatedly, knowing that the correction of disproved claimsrarely receives the same attention. This proved claims rare-ly receives the same attention. This repetition and rein-forcement creates a perception that their opinion is equallyas valid as peer reviewed science, undermining independ-ent scientific evidence, and gradually eroding customer confidence in what they hear or read about a new technolo-gy. Most people just want to hear about the exciting newdiscovery. Highly complex new science can rarely be ex-plained in a sentence, and this can be frustrating to both thepublic and scientists. It’s time to help consumers to assess  

truly independent scientific opinions, and start to explodesome of the common myths about GM. 

Sense about Science 

Not everything that has not been peer reviewed is badscience, but it does mean that it hasn’t yet been cross -

checked. Such information should, therefore, be treatedscepticism and the opinions of other experts in the fieldbe sought. 

One of the great benefits of peer review means that find-ings cannot be influenced by whoever funds the re-search. Peer review generally means that good scienceis good science, regardless of how it was paid for. Ironi-cally, many anti-GM groups recognise the value of peer reviewed evidence in the fields of medicine and climate -

change science but not in the field of agricultural biotech-nology. 

Time to think again? 

It is clear that there is no single solution to the problemsfacing agriculture in food production, but it is also clear that these problems are not going to disappear. Therewill be many millions of people to feed over the next 13years, pressure on fragile habitats will increase, and cli-mate change may drive down productivity in the develop-ing world by 10-25%. 

We are no longer in the same food-secure situation

which prevailed in the late 90s. We need to rethink theimpact of our current agricultural and food choices, re-duce our carbon emissions and m inimise its environmen-tal impacts: 

Progressive NGOs are now working with scientists toaddress food security issues. They now accept that theinitial concerns about GM crops have not materialisedand that their anti-GM stance is now harming the agri-cultural prospects of those who need it most.  

Government reviews indicate that without access to all

available agricultural technologies, Europe will come torely more and more on Africa, Asia and America tomeet its food needs. 

Governments in Africa are starting to put in place their own biotechnology authorisation frameworks in order 

to investigate biotech crops which could address their local needs.

 Africans must be given the information and choice todecide for themselves what role they would like GMOsto play. Given the full scientific facts about biotechnol-ogy and a proper choice about the appropriate use of GM in Africa, Africans can decide if they are ready tochange their minds and ready to make progress in theglobal food challenge.