“There is almost no food that isn’t genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution. Things change because our planet is subject to a lot of radiation, which causes DNA damage, which gets repaired, but results in mutations, which create a ready mixture of plants that people can choose from to improve agriculture”
-Nina Fedoroff
In 2007-2008 there was a sudden surge in food prices which has raised the issue of food security by the global food system. The abrupt spike was a result of the population growth, increased demand from the current population and climatic change, causing a reduction in food production and disruption of the supply chains. Therefore, there was an innate need to find out alternative solutions that would increase the productivity of agriculture (i.e., the quantity of food) and improve the nutritional qualities of food crops. Agricultural biotechnology has been considered an environmentally sustainable technology that would benefit the poor on a larger scale, improve food security, and gain agricultural profits in the developing countries. With such technology, one can create a crop that was herbicide tolerant, bacterial, fungal, and viral resistant, insect and pest resistant, and abiotic stress tolerant. These potential benefits were seen as a moral imperative to advance plant molecular approaches.
Yet, agricultural biotechnology has been a source of social and environmental conflict for decades, with existing governance institutions relying on traditional processes of scientific risk assessment having failed to address the sources of the persistent and deeply polarised conflict. This included concerns relating to the concentration of ownership and power in agri-food systems, clashing visions of desirable futures, and limited trust in regulatory systems and available science. Finding new ways to approach biotechnology governance that can adequately account for the issues generating this conflict was urgently required as the field was rapidly expanding through tools for genome editing, synthetic biology, and the digitalisation of biological information. In an attempt to better address the sources of conflict, an increasing number of countries have aimed to incorporate socio-economic and ethical considerations in their appraisal of new biotechnologies.
The importance of these considerations was also gaining traction at regional and international levels. For example, the European Directive 2015/412 allows member states to restrict the cultivation of GM-crops based on ‘non-scientific’ concerns, and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety has developed a framework for conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations. While in South Africa GM-crops were regulated by the Genetically Modified Organism Act (Act 15 of 1997), Animal Health Act (Act 7 of 2002), Hazardous Substance Act 15 of 1973, Health Act 61 of 2003, and Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004, to mention a few. The regulatory framework for biosafety and biosecurity for GM-crop has sparked debated in how GM-Crops are regulated, its implication to research, innovation, development, and as well as import and export matters.
– ASSAf 2015
“Although
the South African regulatory framework for biosafety and biosecurity- related
issues is robust and comprehensive, it suffers from significant limitations and
challenges that should be addressed to ensure effective regulation without
impeding research and development.”
As a result, the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) compiled a report titled “The State of Biosafety and Biosecurity of South Africa” in 2015 to identify and come up with solutions in addressing some of the gaps in the regulation of GM-Crops and more, but more specific to issues relating to biosafety and biosecurity. Thus the concepts and practices of biosafety and biosecurity relate directly to the activities and conduct of life scientists and intend to safeguard against exposure to, or the deliberate or inadvertent development or release of, living organisms and/or biological material that may harm humans and/or the environment. It was understood that, biosafety and biosecurity have a common ( general goal), that being, protecting people and the environment against hazardous living organisms and biological materials, however they mitigate different risks. Biosafety, or more specifically laboratory biosafety, was a fairly well-established concept that refers to the containment principles, technologies, and practices that were implemented to prevent unintentional exposure to (potentially) hazardous biological material, e.g. pathogens and toxins, and/ or their accidental release. More recently the term has also become synonymous with GMOs – specifically referring to the food or feed and environmental safety of these organisms. In general, biosecurity refers to the management systems that was designed to protect society and the environment against potentially harmful organisms and biological materials, but it too has divergent meanings depending on the context in which it may be used.
Since, the concept behind GM-crops has always sounded ‘unnatural’ to the public, due to the belief that human intervention of using different technologies for the insertion of desirable traits added a synthetic and unnatural value to the crop. Conversely, genetic modification of crops does not differ much from conventional breeding that has experienced certain difficulties and limitations, except that the molecular approach was precise, reliable, faster and less expensive. One of the GM-plant breeding programs which has generated the above misconception was the introduction of genetic material from a non-plant species, for instance, when Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterial insect of a toxin gene sequences were introduced in crops to create transgenic crops that were resistant to pests or the integration of the Arctic flounder antifreeze genetic material into strawberries to extend their growing season. Another aspect of controversy regarding the unnaturalness of GM techniques was the issue of cross pollination between nonGM-crops and GM-crops. The belief was considered a myth since horizontal gene transfer happens normally in nature, but on a longer time scale, whereas genetic modification occurs abruptly. Therefore, if such a sudden release happened into the environment, there might not be enough time for the biological and ecological systems to get adapted with the plant genetic integration.
“Roughly
– Bayer Global (2023)
70% of harvested GM crop are fed to food-producing animals, making them the
world’s largest consumer of GM foods worldwide”
In conclusion, it was crucial to incorporate a holist approach when dealing with or in the governance of GM-crop, such as the inclusion of socio-economic and ethical consideration and not make it a legal exercise only. In a nut shell the various concern with GM-crops were: A. Genetic erosion and biodiversity loss, Potential introgression, Contamination, Resistance emergence, Harm to other organisms, Resistance to antibiotic; B. Human health issue -such as toxicity potential and allergies, and damage to food quality and nutrition; C. Socio economic issues- such as Religious belief, Difference in view across areas/ cultures, Labelling and autonomy, and Power in balance and vulnerability. Therefore, it is obvious why a holistic approach in the governance of GM-crop is necessary in order to avoid irreversible damage to the ecosystem, thus, we must critically analyse, monitor, and evaluate not only the complexity of the biological issues posed by GM-crops. But consider all issues that GM-crops may pose in the present time and in the future, respectively.
Written by: Fikile M Mnisi
References:
Abushall, L.T., Salama, M., Essa, M.M. and Qironfleh, M.W. 2021. “Agricultural biotechnology: Revealing insights about ethical concerns”. J Biosci. (2021)46:81. DOI:10.1007/s12038-021-00203-0.
Academy of Science of South Africa. 2015. “The Statement of Biosafety and Biosecurity in South Africa”. May 2015. www.assaf.co.za.
Winston, F., Preston, C., Binimelis, R., Herrero, A, Hartley, S., Wynberg, R. and Wynne, B. 2017. “Addressing Socio-Economic and Ethical Considerations in Biotechnology Governance: The Potential of a New Politics of Care” . Food ethics. (2017) 1:193–199. DOI:10.1007/s41055-017-0014-4.
Tim, B., 2013. “ Ethical Concerns in Plant Biotechnological Research” . Asian Horizon. Vol 7(4): 647-655.