South Africans not concerned with GM crops

Some South Africans may feel it is not such a big deal when Biowatch South Africa, a small non-profit organisation, secures a court application to gain access to information about how decisions are made about growing genetically modified (GM) crops in the country.

There was no broad public policy process to shape the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act which became law in 1999 - two years after the first GM crops were introduced into South Africa.

And labelling regulations, which came into effect last year, do not make it compulsory to label GM food.

So, it is not surprising that a recent survey found only about one percent of South Africans are familiar with the issue of GM crops. Not many South Africans are aware that genetically engineered white maize for human consumption was planted in 2002, that GM maize, cotton and soya beans are planted commercially.

Or that permits have been granted for field trials and experiments with apples, canola, wheat, potatoes, sugar cane, eucalyptus trees and grapes.

Of course, GM crops are a really big issue because this new technology will change the nature of agriculture as we know it.

Experiences from other countries indicate the change might not be for the better. Nowhere have GM crops eliminated hunger yet - because hunger and poverty are not caused by the production of too little food. The problem lies in the unequal distribution of the food and resources and international trade scenarios which generally favour developed countries.

The world's top five pesticide companies control most agricultural biotechnology patents, including patents on genes for wheat and sorghum. These patents and intellectual property rights generally enhance the profitability of the biotechnology industry. The question is: should private individuals control the fundamental biological components of life?

Even if there is not widespread awareness about GM crops, it should be a big deal for all South Africans when the same court which ordered access to information about how decisions are made about growing GM crops in South Africa, makes a cost order in favour of a major transnational company which opposed the application.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), with nearly two million members, and South Africa's organised religion community believe the issue is indeed important, and have pledged their support for Biowatch's application for leave to appeal the court's costs order.

In February, Biowatch won its application to the Pretoria High Court for an order compelling the department of agriculture's registrar of genetic resources and executive council for genetically modified organisms to release information about how decisions are made regarding GM crops being grown in South Africa.

Before applying to the courts, Biowatch had tried to get the information from the department several times without success.

The judge ordered the release of the information, and said the granting of this access to the information was necessary for the proper administration of the GMO Act. He also upheld the right of access to information contained in the constitution, reaffirmed that access to the information was in the public interest, that Biowatch had a right to this information, and that the organisation had been forced to go to court to exercise this right.

But, in a surprising twist, the judge ordered Biowatch to pay the legal costs of Monsanto SA, a local subsidiary of the American-based chemical and crops giant Monsanto, which joined in opposing the application.

His reason was that Biowatch had been too general in its request for some of the information, and that this had forced Monsanto SA to come to court to protect its interests. The judge made no order for the payment of Biowatch's legal costs, although the organisation was successful in its application.

The cost order in favour of Monsanto SA is likely to have a deterrent effect on future public interest litigation because it creates the impression that if any part of a request for information is found to be insufficiently specific, even a successful litigant may be heavily penalised.

Along with two distributors of its products - Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Company and D & PL South Africa - Monsanto voluntarily joined the action to oppose access to the information sought by Biowatch, acting to ensure that its rights to commercial confidentiality were not infringed. Initially, all the respondents demanded costs.

But, during the court hearing when Biowatch's rights to access information became clear, the others dropped this demand. Only Monsanto pursued its costs order to the end.

Besides its deterrent effect on other public interest litigation, the costs order will impede Biowatch's capacity to gain access to, analyse and disseminate to the public the very information for which the court ordered access because much-needed resources will be diverted away from the organisation's core business.

The court order granting access to information means it will be possible to perform a comprehensive and transparent analysis of the ways in which environmental, health and social impacts have been assessed for GM crops in South Africa.

This analysis is important in assessing whether there are adequate controls in place to safeguard our rich biodiversity. South Africa is the third most biodiverse country in the world.

Last year, for instance, Biowatch commissioned an independent analysis of a risk assessment conducted by Syngenta Seed Company for the release of GM maize in SA.

According to the analysis, the risk assessment used was desk-based, contained incorrect information and was based on experiments conducted abroad, mainly by Syngenta scientists, on species that did not occur in SA.

Biowatch's lobbying around the issue resulted in stricter conditions being imposed for the granting of Syngenta's permit.

In a letter supporting Biowatch's application for leave to appeal the costs order, Cosatu said: "Civil society should be able to challenge unfair practices through, amongst others, exercising their legal right to access to information, especially when direct, indirect, intended or unintended suppression of information had the potential to negatively affect the health, welfare and well-being of the community.

"Any outcome of a legislative, judicial or policy process that prevents the constitutional realisation of the right to access to information should be exposed, challenged and reversed.

"The courts need to interpret the law in a manner that makes it easier for civil society and the disadvantaged to get access to information, bearing in mind that it is already difficult to do so due to high costs and other practical difficulties."

It was regrettable, Cosatu said, that Biowatch had been forced to resort to litigation because government departments, in particular, should share information in a manner that honours the spirit and letter of their constitutional obligations.

The South African Faith Communities Environmental Institute, which represents a wide cross-section of SA religious communities, said it was alarmed that Biowatch was required to pay the costs of court action for what should be public knowledge.

Convener of the institute, Bishop Geoffrey Davies, said a national meeting in March of representatives of religious communities had called for full public participation in decision-making around GM crops.

The meeting had noted with dismay the underhand promotion of GMOs and the monopoly of transnational companies in food production and the destruction of biodiversity through monoculture agriculture and forestry.

"We believe the rights of our people are being seriously compromised by multinational corporations seeking monopolistic control over the essentials of life," Davies said.