GMO Again

The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) debate on food products has made it into the media again. This time the debate is taking place in India where Bio Tech (BT) Brinjal (Egg Plant or Aubergine) is causing a fierce debate in political circles, amongst the scientists, and more importantly, within the farming community.

This month India imposed a moratorium on the production of BT Brinjal for various reasons which were brought out by the wider set of stakeholders.

What issues have surfaced as a consequence of the BT ban?

One sector of private business will smuggle the BT crop and technology into the country in defiance of the ban, and possibilities of the agriculture sector being contaminated by GMO crops is open to unbridled abuse.

Another sector of society will be biased against GMO crops and the many imaginary perceptions of scientifically made products that are considered to create new diseases and even new unnatural creatures will be fuelled.

In India, some scientists submit that many tests and trials have been done over the last nine years to ensure that the GMO crops that are introduced into the country are safe and profitable across the board for the country.

Another group of scientists are of the opinion that the tests and trials done by seemingly local government owned universities, are funded by outside stakeholders who may influence the work in favour of supporting GMO technologies.

The farming community are generally supportive of GMO technologies through the positive experience of BT Cotton, but they largely are concerned about the fact that Brinjal is a local food and that there are no convincing tests that indicate that BT Brinjal will be safe for human consumption.

This situation brings to the table a challenge that also faces Zambia.

The challenge is twofold. Firstly, the need for a state owned and funded research centre on GMO’s and Biotechnologies. Secondly, a forum for all stakeholders to air their views and concerns, to form a basis on which to arrive at pertinent decisions on the use of GMO’s at national level.

Some influential leaders in India are not very happy with the constitution of the members of the state owned Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). The GEAC itself has the power to approve GMO products, but due to the ferocious debate going on in the country in respect to GMO’s, it has passed on its opinions to the top government officials for consideration and decision making on behalf of the nation.

There are calls for the government to invest public resources into GMO research such that the opinions and decisions made by the GEAC will be in the best interest of the nation. Calls are also made for the introduction of a GMO regulation authority that will authorise and monitor the use of GMO technologies and products. This would probably be the best course of action for Zambia too.

Interestingly, the various states of India have shied away from Bt Brinjal, substantially on the basis of concerns about human health and safety issues. At least eight states banned the introduction of BT Brinjal even before any national government decision was released on the matter. Even Tamil Nadu, the state in which one key GMO research laboratory has done extensive work on BT Brinjal, has banned the introduction of the crop.

For the lay person and wider society at large, this state of affairs raises more questions about GMO crops than it gives answers or reassurances. The public tend to error on the side of caution when faced with decisions that are connected with complex technologies, hence the public outcry and political frenzy on BT Brinjal.

As a result, the government has decided to make public most of the GMO documentation through their web site (www.moef.gov.in) and has marked January and February 2010 for a series of proposed consultations in different parts of the country with consumer groups, scientists, Non Governmental Organisations, farmers organisations, agriculture experts, and all civil society who want to engage in a responsible manner.

Zambia has already made some progress by developing a GMO laboratory system at Mount Makulu under the umbrella of the Ministry of Science Technology, and Vocational Training. Of course, for the laboratories to do research work that will be in the best interests of Zambia, it is imperative for the research centre to be funded through the national budget and not through direct donor or cooperating partner funding.

Some concerns pertaining to GMO crops include; safety in respect to the environment, human and animal health; the lack of conclusive research for GMO bio-safety and its possible contributions to food security and the well-being of the farmers community; the lack of a government agriculture commission to examine various technical reports and forward their views to the relevant government department to support a well informed decision making mechanism; lack of focus on the interests of small and marginal farmers; and the impact of pesticide use that can have a damaging effect on public health.

GMO’s and BT crops have the potential to leap frog decades of development in the agriculture sector. But as long as the scientists and the politicians use the GMO debate to further both scientific and political causes, the benefits may never trickle down to the poor people that the technology can lift out of poverty and hunger.

It is now time for the intellectuals and government experts to come together with the single agenda of looking to make GMO’s benefit Zambia as a whole. This single goal will set the stage for sincere, comprehensive, and inclusive debate and dialogue on GMO’s and BT such that at the appropriate time, national consensus will be achieved on Zambia’s national strategy.

Published 16 February 2010