South Africa is the only country in the world that has allowed its staple foods to be genetically modified (GM). Last week, The Journalist illustrated how bread was affected. This week, we take a look at the second staple, maize.
Forty-four percent of the country’s maize is grown in the Free State. The mielie plants that cover the fields with a golden and green blanket may look the same as it always has but now it is very different. Since 1998, it has been tampered with by a process called genetic modification (GM) and only appears to be the same. Dealing with student hunger at the UFS will require an understanding of what they are consuming. The end product, maize, contains various levels of GM that science is showing to be dangerous to human health.
“The majority of South Africans are not only eating GM maize without their knowledge and consent but have no choice or alternative whatsoever even if the products were correctly labelled. This is totally undemocratic and unacceptable. It smacks of outright food fascism” said Mariam Mayet, Director of the African Centre for Biosafety.
“We are outraged that South Africa – the only country in the world to permit the cultivation of genetically modified staple – continues to do so despite a large and growing body of scientific evidence pointing towards severe potential health risks of consuming GM crops, including maize,” she said.
Take your pic. The GM doses by product.
Alone In the World Tampering With Staples
South Africa is not the only country to allow GM technology. The USA, Brazil, Argentina, India and some European countries allow GM technology. South Africa is unique in that it has allowed the country’s staple foods to be genetically modified. In other countries, the maize and soya is used predominantly for animal feed and for process foods – corn starch, corn syrup, soya flour, soya lecithin. “GM foods are not consumed as a staple by millions of people every day except in South Africa,” said Zakiyya Ismail, Consumer Campaigner for the African Centre for Biosafety.
How did this come about? She explained that the direction was driven by industry itself. “Our new government was not equipped to be able to assess GM technology and there was no civil society engagement in the process,” she said.
Research into genetically modified (GM) crops had been taking place in South Africa since 1979 under the now defunct South African Committee on Genetic Experimentation (SAGENE), she said.
SAGENE continued to act as regulators until the GMO Act (which had principally been drafted by SAGENE members) came into effect on 1 December 1999. “Many of SAGENE’s members had close links with the biotechnology industry and were nominated onto SAGENE by the South African Chamber of Business,” she said.
In 1997, two years before the GMO Act was passed, South Africa’s young democracy agreed to a technology that the rest of the world was extremely cautious about – genetically modified crops.
“The first GM maize was planted in 1998 – this was Monsanto’s insect resistant maize, called MON810 or “Yieldgard,” she said. “Grown extensively in South Africa for 15 years, it has failed hopelessly as a result of massive insect resistance.”
Since the beginning of 2008, the South African government has granted close to 1 200 permits for GM maize experimentation, cultivation, import and export.
GM for 86% of Maize Crop
‘Adoption by our commercial maize farmers has been rapid, with 86% of the 2012/13 season maize crop being genetically modified.
As with bread a few key companies control production. Milled maize products, Ace, White Star and Iwisa Super Maize Meal belonging to Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods, and Premier, respectively, constitute over 73% of the maize meal market respectively. These three major food producers also control the milling of 60% of the nation’s white maize crop. “This kind of control in the market is highly profitable for the producers,” said Ismail.
“In 2012 Tiger Brands’ milling and baking division achieved a profit margin of 22%, compared to a 15% overall operating profit margin,” she said. “Sakso, the milling and baking division of Pioneer, achieved a 9.5% profit margin, compared to an overall group margin of 6.2%.”
The Free State produces more maize than any other province
Food activists who will gather for a national dialogue in November are calling for an urgent reversal of this economic concentration. They want mechanisms to be put in place to develop and nurture small players throughout the maize value chain, from farmers to millers and retailers. This should include the promotion of agro-ecological production methods, decentralised value chains and public maize breeding programmes that provide access to seed that can be freely shared and exchanged. “We need a socially just food system,” said Ismail.
Efforts to reach the Free State Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries have been unsuccessful.
The poorest are paying the most for their staple foods.
I find this article quite alarmist and spreading misinformation. This is typical of the anti-GMO, anti-science movement and based on very sketchy research. We’ve been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years. That is the basis of agricultural cross-breeding.
In a growing world population, we do not have a choice but to embrace the science to ensure more sustainable crops. Pointing out a single example of failure misses out the vast amount of good GM crops have brought and the many, many lives it has saved. I urge The Journalist to make an effort to research a far more balanced story regarding this.
Dirk can you explain why we are the only county that has allowed this process into our staple food?
Dirk we have not been genetically modifying crops in this way for thousands of years – in recognition of this novel science the international community developed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety under the UN to deal with GM crops. The protocol is based on the precautionary principle and recognises the need for special regulation and assessment of GM crops. That is the science and the law of the issue. The US, which is not party to this treaty continues to claim that GM and conventional crops are no different, but most governments do not agree, including South Africa which is a Party to the Protocol.
In terms of food security – we have been growing GM in this country for 16 years and the HSRC recently published a report showing our food security is declining – half of our population is hungry. http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Food-security-in-SA-declining-study-20130806. When we had maize surpluses a few years ago it was sold on the international market at extremely low prices. How did that help the many hungry people here? When is GM going to fulfill its promises of contributing to food security and reducing agro-chemicals?
I would say that that’s in fact not true. A simple cursory glance on the internet will show various estimates – many equally alarmist – that many countries employ these methods.
I don’t personally see that as a problem. The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Norman Borlaug, who is often called The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives, started the Green revolution and essentially cured Pakistan and India from famine using GM methods.
With the effects of climate change becoming more pronounced every year, we will need these methods to ensure a sustainable future.
The “organic” (much abused word) anti-GMO movement is a middle class privilege born out comfort and, often, ignorance. Just like the anti-vaccination movements.
Although I support the science, the capitalist intentions make me uncomfortable. But one shouldn’t equate the science of GMO with capitalism.
I would also hope for a world that could be natural and beautiful and support regulation, but get rid of it, I certainly hope not.
I would be the first to admit that I do not know all the pros and cons, but, as far as I’ve seen, the pros far outweigh the cons.
Just my two cents (or in this capitalist age…R20) 😉
Monsanto registered its main corn seed as a pesticide, not a food. Manipulation of genes in a laboratory has not been going on for thousands of years. These are simple facts.
You call this anti-science too? http://bit.ly/1vFxSAJ
Have a look at this: http://bit.ly/1vFxSAJ, it is just one of many reports on the dangers of GMO, As a reminder, there has not been ONE single positive scientific report on GMO’s that has NOT been produced and/or modified by the industry itself, read again: NOT ONE!) whereas ALL truly independent research has shown to be negative on the matter. It is a policy however by these BigAg corporations to call all these negative outcomes ‘antiscience’ and ‘backwards’ to influence the masses and they will always come up with the fake argument ‘need to feed a growing population’ (as if they care). Since at least 30% of the food we already produce now is waisted, just thrown out and since it is possible to grow 1.000.000 pounds of organic food on 3 acres and just think of the possibilities of vertical farming, who needs GMO’s?
What if the Bees Die? http://yournewswire.com/what-if-the-bees-die/
Please read carefully: Bill Gates Foundation Giving Millions to Top University In Order to Add a “Stronger Voice” to GMO “Debate” http://shar.es/11XwdW
I quite like this summary about the myths of GMO. I think a rational, skeptical voice is needed in this debate, but that does not mean I endorse Monsanto or any other capitalist exploit of this.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked?src=SOC&dom=fb
This article about Vandana Shiva is also interesting…
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt
My point is that we shouldn’t simply ignore the science and we should instead look at the pros and cons objectively. I believe that the science is necessary and essential,..the capitalist greed is another debate completely.
this article is misleading and
untrue. its disturbing that journalist are not doing proper research on such subjects but take one side of the story and help to perpetuate the myths and lies of the
anti-GM lobby……….
The US may not use maize for pap, but they have a number of products derived from the GM maize and used for human consumption – grits: maize porridge; maize-bread; tortillas to name a few. And almost every food consumed by Americans contains maize in some way, shape or form. About 3 in 4 supermarket products are made of the grain. We go to the US for conferences and holidays and consume GM maize products without thinking twice!
The same goes for Brazil, Argentina – which are also the largest producers of GM maize and they export to Europe. Why the double standard for Africa? South Africa only grows GM crops on 2.9M tons, compared to the US at 64.4 M tons. Our small scale farmers have benefitted from the technology – giving them optimum insect and weed control in the field. This also has environmental benefits.
How can the scientists involved in producing GM-derived foods put themselves, their families at risk… they go to the same grocery store that everybody else goes to!! The scientists are now developing improved varieties of Maize that will be drought tolerant!
Our people need facts and such GM scaremongering in Africa is disarming the fight against poverty … The South African government made a wise decision in 1998 by approving the 1st GM maize – our small scale farmers are now producing on average 5tons/Ha vs. 1ton/Ha under rain-fed agriculture!
it is about time the government came out and address this issue. People everyday drink tap water because they trust is the government systems that the water they drink goes through a thorough regulatory process. 17 years of GM crops in the country with no scientifically substantiated report of ill-health.
We have the GMO Act. of 1997 and before any commercial cultivation GM crops, they go thru a thorough assessment by various government departments sitting in the Executive Council (EC) whose members represent the mandates of their various departments.
year in and year out farmers across 30 countries worldwide plant GM crops…..
but how to separate the issue of capitalist greed from this debate? The debate is less about health and safety (although important) and more about what a just and equitable food system looks like that can truly deliver food security. If you look into the patenting of these genes and the huge web of cross-licensing that goes on – you will see why this technology exists. It is honestly no more effective than good old classical breeding, but on the down sid is hellishly expensive to research and commercialise a GM crop, takes forever and so far is limited to Bt and HT after more than 20 years. In the meantime classical breeding is releasing many new varieties. Look at the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) programme. No GM crops have been released yet – but the same programme is operating in Tanzania with classical breeding and they have released a number of drought tolerant varieties that are performing as well as the GM varieties are supposed to. WEMA will not work on GM in Tanzania because the government has refused to revoke their strict liability law where polluters must pay. Even in “philanthropical” projects like this where the PR is that this technology is given for free, if you scratch a bit you still see the tangle of patents, licensing and conditions of sale are firmly there. And the other objective is to change the biosafety laws and create investment friendly environments through these projects. Philanthropical capitalism Gates calls it
Dirk, you quite clearly are either totally ignorant of the facts, or a paid-up troll working to spew disinformation on behalf of the GM industry… The Science is clear on GMOs – they are toxic, dangerous for both human and animal health, ecologically catastrophic, and have done the absolute opposite to their manufacturer’s claims (read LIES) in every country where they have been IMPOSED upon the people by apathetic and/or corrupted governments. Go back and do your homework before spewing forth any more empty opinions on a matter that you quite clearly know very little about… For instance, the claim that GMOs have saved “many, many lives” is utter rubbish – the absolute opposite is in fact the case!! Here’s a little eye-opener for you sir; hopefully you’ll actually take the time to read it – even though it doesn’t touch the far more important subject of ill-health in humans and animals that consume this “stuff”, which is another story entirely:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
Vandana Shiva’s response to Michael Specter in the New Yorker and his distorted facts and narrative http://vandanashiva.com/?p=105
The New Yorker released its response to Dr. Shiva sent on August 27. The New Yorker originally intended this to be private communication to address concerns she had expressed to its editors in private emails but decided to release it after Dr. Shiva published her criticism. We reproduce it unedited in it’s entirety as sent to the GLP by The New Yorker:
Dear Dr. Shiva:
This is in reply to the letter you sent and subsequently posted on the Internet earlier this week. It is not for publication in any way or on your website, but I thought you were asking for a serious reply. So here it is: I should say that since you have said that the entire scientific establishment has been bought and paid for by Monsanto, I fear it will be difficult to converse meaningfully about your accusation that the story contained “fraudulent assertions and deliberate attempts to skew reality.” But maybe I am wrong; I’ll try.
As to some of your more specific problems: Mr. Specter met you in the lobby of your New York hotel; you then talked in a café in that hotel. He didn’t interview you in the lobby. I regret that we suggested you were in Greece when you were not. You did, however, invite Mr. Specter to join the caravan there, and then sent him to an informational site titled: International Solidarity Caravan with Vandana Shiva. The dates on the site were April 26th to May 4th and it gave as locations: Greece, Italy, France.
Part of the problem is that after encouraging Mr. Specter to travel with you both in Italy and India, you apparently changed your mind, and stopped replying to his interview requests (or emails.) Our fact checker also tried for more than a week to contact you directly, as well as through your headquarters in New Delhi. You never replied. Without any participation from you it was impossible to know you changed your plans. Mr. Specter never suggested that the journey was an “unscientific joyride.”
You also charge that Mr. Specter misrepresented your education. We were interested in the field you entered as a doctoral student; but nobody disputes that you received a master’s degree in physics and I am sorry we didn’t note that in the piece. Nonetheless, Mr. Specter “twisted” neither your words nor your intentions when writing about your work history. When he realized you were not going to grant him another interview he sent you a quite detailed list of questions, two of which asked about your work history as a physicist. Instead of answering his questions, you replied – to me – asking why we were “interested in academic qualifications of four decades ago.
One hardly needs to hold a Ph.D. in physics to become an effective environmental activist, as you have demonstrated. Yet, when a prominent figure, such as yourself, is described for decades—in interviews, on web sites, in award citations, and on many of your own book jackets, as having been “one of India’s leading physicists” it seems fair to ask whether or not you ever worked as one.
It is not true, as you claim, that Mr. Specter neglected to include Africa in his piece. He discussed research in Africa on Golden Rice, cassava, and maize – which he described as the most commonly grown staple crop in Africa. He mentioned Tanzania’s efforts to produce a version of cassava that is resistant to endemic brown-streak virus, as well as research into insect-resistant cowpea and nutritionally enriched sorghum. Specter also quoted Sir Gordon Conway, who is a member of the board of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, and perhaps the world’s most renowned agricultural ecologist. “In Africa, the pests and diseases of agriculture are as devastating as human diseases.” Conway also told Specter that the impact of diseases like the fungus black sigatoka, the parasitic weed striga, and the newly identified syndrome maize lethal necrosis—all of which attack Africa’s most important crops—are “in many instances every bit as deadly as H.I.V. and TB.”
Your math and conclusions on the issues of farmer suicides and seed prices and values differ from the math in studies carried out by many independent, international and government organizations. Mr. Specter is far from alone in rejecting, based on data, your charge that Monsanto is responsible for “genocide” in India. In your letter you state that “Specter promotes a system of agriculture that fails to deliver on its promises of higher yield and lower costs and propagates exploitation.” This has always been your position, but as Mr. Specter pointed out in his article, there have been many studies on the effects of planting BT cotton in India, and on the whole, scientists – none of whom were connected to Monsanto –have found the opposite to be true.
You say that the prices of seeds are extremely high, but also that as a result of your action the government regulates their price. Several recent studies have shown that Bt cotton has been highly beneficial to cotton farmers in India. One of the best recent studies on the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers found that “Bt has caused a 24% increase in cotton yield per acre through reduced pest damage and a 50% gain in cotton profit among smallholders. These benefits are stable; there are even indications that they have increased over time.’’ The researchers also show that Bt cotton adoption has raised consumption expenditures, a common measure of household living standard, by 18% during the 2006–2008 period and conclude that Bt cotton has created large and sustainable benefits, which contribute to positive economic and social development in India.
You describe in your letter the stories of farmers who you believe were driven to suicide by Monsanto. Specter saw different farmers with different stories. Anecdotes involving a few people out of millions prove nothing. That was why he included the following sentence in his piece: “It would be presumptuous to generalize about the complex financial realities of India’s two hundred and sixty million farmers after having met a dozen of them.” The anecdotes happened, however, to support the vast preponderance of data that demonstrate that farmer suicides are driven largely by debt.
In the piece, Mr. Specter wrote that you had confused “a correlation with a causation.” That was specifically in reference to your charges that glyphosate caused increases in Alzheimer’s, diabetes, kidney disease and autism rates in America. But you have applied the phrase to another issue entirely.
On a few of the other points you raise:
1.) The Orissa Cyclone occurred in the last week of October 1999. Specter referred to letters from you and Oxfam, both of which are freely available on the internet. It might also be noted that your letter to Oxfam was dated November 4th, the day after the worst of the cyclone had passed.
2.) Corn is considered both a grain, and a vegetable (and by some, a fruit.)
3.) Specter used the anecdote about the farmer and the elephant to illustrate the remarkable complexity and clear signs of progress evident in even the most rural parts of India. Having been to India many times, several of them for this magazine, he is well aware how ubiquitous cell phones are there.
4.) We take particular exception to your charge that Mr. Specter’s physical description of a farmer, with “skin the color of burnt molasses and the texture of a worn saddle” was racist. It wasn’t. In a 2005 profile he described the Italian designer Valentino this way: “Valentino spends a lot of time in the sun. His skin, the color of melted caramel, has the texture of a lovingly preserved Etruscan ruin.” Last year, Specter described a sixty-eight year old American farmer as having “ a tan, weather beaten face.”
Dr. Shiva, I was distressed to read in your letter that you have been harassed and have received death threats. Nobody has a right to threaten you for expressing your views. It was all the more dismaying then, to learn that just a few weeks ago you posted on your web site a suggestion, made by Mike Adams, who runs the NaturalNews web site, that publishers, journalists, and scientists who support agricultural biotechnology have “signed on to the Nazi genocide machine of our day”, and that they should be “tried for crimes against humanity.” I am glad to see that you have now removed that awful screed from your web site.
Sincerely,
David Remnick
Shut up Dirk