Fresh concerns over genetically modified foods

OPPOSITION to genetically modified foods or organisms GMOs in Africa has manifested itself in several ways. African governments, especially in the recent past have adopted tight restrictions on the international movement of living GMO crops and seeds under the Cartagena Protocol, a United Nations Convention on biological diversity launched in 1996.
Currently, only three African nations produce biotech crops—South Africa, Egypt, and Burkina Faso. Only the first two grow GM food crops, and only South Africa grows them in significant quantities. Africans have yet to mount a serious debate among themselves on the pros and cons of GM crops, although regional groupings-the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)-and the African Union (AU) are becoming more actively engaged.
As more African countries move towards commercialization of GM crops, movement of food within regional economic groupings will become more complex and require greater harmonization of biosafety standards and stronger monitoring and enforcement capacities. Also, African media needs greater capacity in science, health, and risk communication and reporters more able to convey complex scientific debates in an accurate but publicly accessible way.
The use of GMOs to boost agricultural productivity is often touted in Washington policy circles as a potentially powerful tool for boosting agricultural productivity and reducing food insecurity in Africa. African governments have not shared this confidence, many of which remain wary of such application of scientific farming.
Professor of pharmacognosy at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Chief Executive Officer of Bioresources Development Group (BDG), and former Chairman of the Independent Election Commission (INEC), Prof. Maurice Iwu, who seems to toe the cautious line has therefore, urged the Federal Government to exercise caution before the introduction of genetically modified foods or organisms (GMOs) into the country.
     Iwu, in a chat with journalists in Lagos indeed called for nationwide debates between scientists, lawmakers, media practitioners and other stakeholders on the merits and demerits based on available literature before GMOs are introduced into the country.
     However, as part of its commitment to the successful implementation of the ongoing Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA), the Federal Government last week concluded plans to allow Monsanto, a leading global biotechnology company to introduce 40 varieties of hybrid seeds into the country.
       Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri, United States and it is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.
      Monsato, reputed for its hybrid seeds investment drive in the global agricultural development market, said the introduction of the crops would help identify the best of varieties that would grow in the country. This would enable it take the right investment decisions in its effort to partner federal and state governments to improve farmers’ crop yields nationwide.
     Iwu said: “I am asking for caution in the application of GMOs because there is a lot of politics involved. It is not as ethical as people believe. If they believe that there is a direct conflict between them and a drug company, they will kill that other product.
      “We are talking about billion dollar business. For example if they believe that Nigeria’s wheat farms are going to stop us buying wheat they are going to poison our wheat farms. They will spread things that will make them not to thrive; they will even give it to you free because the whole idea here is that they are protecting their countries’ economy. If we don’t recognize that linkage then we will be doomed. We should be aware that such a possibility exists.”
      Iwu further explained: “There is so much linkage between science and politics and if do not have the ability to recognize that linkage you will loose out. For example for a long time the West propagated a theory that tropical oils contain cholesterol and palm oil was condemned. But in science it is impossible for any plant to produce cholesterol, plants cannot. They are cholesterol free but they sold their con oil and so on because it all politics, it is commerce and for a long time it was promoted. The same thing is happening with GMOs.”
      On the need for nationwide debate, Iwu further explained: “I have some reservations about GMOs. They may look safe, harmless but they are not usually so. In other countries there is a lot of debate. We may have to have a small workshop with scientists, lawmakers and media people, to examine GMOs based on literature available to study the implications for allowing GMOs into the country.
      “One of the things they do and they do badly is that they will bring these things, they will give our farmers seeds for example and they will plant these seeds. Regardless on whether the seeds are safe or not you cannot replant the seeds the next year. You will go back and start buying from them and after a while there will be total dependency. And these things can be airborne and they can destroy our farms and so on.”
        According to Wikipedia, genetically modified foods (or GM foods) are foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their genetic material, DNA, using the methods of genetic engineering. These techniques have allowed for the introduction of new crop traits as well as a far greater control over a food’s genetic structure than previously afforded by methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.
       Commercial sale of genetically modified crops began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its Flavr Savr delayed ripening tomato. To date, most genetic modification of foods have primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. These have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and better nutrient profiles. GM livestock have also been experimentally developed, although as of November 2013 none are currently on the market.
        There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.
        However, opponents have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues, environmental concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that GM seeds (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights owned by multinational corporations.
       The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists.
        The key areas of controversy related to GMO food are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population.
          While there is concern among the public that eating genetically modified food may be harmful, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.
         The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.
         Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States or Canada and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
          Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Some groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling or a moratorium on such products.
        Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply, effects of GMOs on the environment and nature, the rigor of the regulatory process, and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.

For more news visit www.campusflava.com