ekogaia+AEA-iafrica.com
ekogaia+AEA-bigfoot.com
From South African Sunday Times Magazine
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/08/12/lifestyle/life01.htm
Lifestyle
It's all in the genes

Genetically modified crops could well out-organic the entire health food industry, and the geneticists are winning the battle for acceptance.

JENNIFER THOMSON explains the huge potential for Africa

Newspaper headlines in Europe scream “Are you eating Frankenstein

foods?”, “Genetically modified foods reap a harvest of fear” and “Beware of genetic pollution”. Why aren't we getting headlines like “GM rice saves millions of Asian children from blindness” or “GM sweet potatoes save East African crops from virus plague”?

Well-fed people in the developed world may have problems, but hungry  people in the developing world have only one - how to feed themselves and their families. Well-fed people may engage in lengthy debates about the real or imagined risks of the use of genetically modified crops. Hungry people see crops produced by biotechnology as food. It is abundantly clear that if governments halt the growth of this technology, poor countries will be denied an important solution to the lack of food security.

What do we mean by genetically modified crops and foods and how do they compare with conventional crops and foods?  

Humans have been meddling with nature since time immemorial. A chihuahua would hardly compete with the wolves from which dogs were bred. Maize  would not be recognised by the ancient Mexicans who began breeding from its wild progenitor, teosinte, some 7 500 years ago. And wheat would probably not  be passed by food-safety regulatory authorities if it were introduced today because of the numbers of people who are allergic to it.  

The breeding programmes that have given us nearly all the food we eat  today are inherently hit-or-miss affairs. Breeders take two different varieties of a plant which have individual attractive characteristics: one might have a high yield and the other might be resistant to an insect pest. They cross-pollinate these two varieties, obtain seeds and plant them. The  plants that grow will be a complete and random mix of the genes from the parent plants. The breeders will then select those plants that have high yields  and insect resistance. Unfortunately, due to the randomness of the process,  some of those plants might have become sensitive to a virus and will have to be discarded, and others selected. This is an extremely inexact process and very time-consuming. However, it works in time - witness the abundance of crops that have been developed in the past thousands of years.  

Genetic engineering can be used to speed up this process. It will never replace breeding - indeed genetic engineers depend heavily on plant  breeders to ensure that any gene introduced operates in concert with the other  genes of the plant. What genetic engineering of plants enables scientists to do is to take any gene from any living being and introduce it into a plant. The resulting transformed, or transgenic, plant is referred to as a  genetically modified plant. The genes that are introduced are very carefully characterised, their entire DNA sequences having been determined.  Therefore this part of the process is, unlike classical plant breeding, extremely precise.  

What is not precise is where the gene is introduced into the plant.  Although scientists are working on improving this aspect, at present genes are inserted into plant DNA in a random fashion. Therefore, once the genes  have been introduced, a great deal of work is required to ensure that the inserted genes and the plant's own genes work harmoniously together.  

Critics of GM plants often cite this randomness of insertion as being totally unacceptable. However, they omit to explain that in nature genes jump all over the place within living organisms anyway. Indeed some of the plants in your garden, especially those with variegated leaves, may well  be the result of these +ACI-jumping genes+ACI-.  

I am the first to agree that the use of GM crops is not the only solution to feeding in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa. Certainly there is enough  food produced in the world to feed everyone. The problem is how to get it to  the people in need. Obviously we need to stop wars, eliminate corruption so  that food aid gets to the right people, build roads and rails to transport  food. But how long will this take?  

It has been calculated that if we continue with current agricultural practices, Africa south of the Sahara will have a grain shortage of 88.7 million tons by the year 2025. The use of GM crops that give increased yields is one way to make up this projected shortfall. They are urgently needed today and will be indispensable tomorrow.  

Most traits that have been introduced into plants so far involve tolerance to herbicides (weed-killers) and resistance to insects. Herbicide  tolerance means farmers are able to spray less often and, as spraying is usually  done from small planes, there is less drift of toxic chemicals onto other land and people.  

As a result of the decrease in the use of harmful chemical insecticides on insect-resistant plants, beneficial insects return and with them insectivorous birds. In addition, frogs, which are supremely sensitive to chemicals, are being found in these fields. The use of GM cotton certainly appears to be having a beneficial effect on biodiversity in parts of South Africa.  

Let's look at a real-life example. In 1997 four cotton farmers in the Makhatini Flats region of KwaZulu-Natal agreed to participate in GM field trials. The crop yields were so impressive that the next year 75 farmers planted GM cotton. By last year, 644 farmers had bought into the scheme - a pretty impressive +ACI-take-up+ACI- of the new technology.  

In fact, I recently met a scientist in the US who had visited the farmers to evaluate the effectiveness of, and possible problems associated with, the plantings and he told me a farmer had approached him and said via an interpreter: “You're not going to take these seeds away from us, are  you?”  

The answer is no, but a qualified no. This technology must be managed correctly in order to prevent the build-up of insects' resistant to the GM cotton. Monitoring by officials of the National Department of Agriculture is required for this under the 1997 Genetically Modified Organisms Act.  

OTHER impacts on the environment must also be monitored. For instance, can non-targeted insects be killed by insect-resistant crops? There was an outcry in the American media when a study showed that pollen from insect-resistant maize could kill Monarch butterfly larvae. +ACI-GM pollen that can mean a cloud of death for butterflies+ACI- was one such headline. What wasn't disclosed was that this was a laboratory study in which the  butterfly larvae were force-fed leaves covered with pollen. The press omitted to comment on the fact that subsequently 20 or so field trials had shown that not only was there no effect on Monarch butterfly larvae but that the  larvae preferentially chose not to eat leaves that contained pollen, whether genetically modified or not. In fact, since the widespread acceptance of insect-resistant GM crops in the US, populations of Monarch butterflies  have increased, probably due to the decrease in the use of insecticides.  

An accusation often made against the sale of GM seeds, especially to small-scale farmers, is that they will be forced to buy such seed. Does  the question cited above, +ACI-You're not going to take these seeds away from us, are you?+ACI-, sound like coercion? Similarly with commercial farmers,  market forces will determine the sale, or lack thereof, of GM seeds.  

In addition, the accusation is made that farmers cannot plant seeds  derived from GM crops. This is the so-called +ACI-Terminator Technology+ACI- whereby GM plants are sterile, forcing farmers to buy seed every season. The fact is that commercial and even many small-scale farmers do buy seed,  conventional seed, every season. However, the technology was seen as potentially extremely harmful and it has therefore been withdrawn. But readers should bear in mind that for a seed company to protect its investment in its product is no different from an IT company protecting its software or a record company its CDs.  

Critics of genetically modified crops often cite the fact that the technology is all in the hands of the big commercial seed companies who  only pay lip service to the needs of developing countries. In South Africa the private and public sector have joined hands to try to solve one of the subcontinent's most pressing problems - lack of water. Research into drought-tolerant crops is making tremendous progress with the promise of improved crop production.  

Likewise in Kenya, similar partnerships are tackling virus resistance in sweet potatoes.  

Halfway round the world, China has more than 20+ACU- of the world's  population and only 7+ACU- of the world's arable land. With its growing population  and changing eating habits, food security is an imminent concern.  

My colleague, Professor Zhang-Liang Chen, vice-president of Peking University, tells me that China first turned to biotechnology in the mid-1980s. Hundreds of laboratories across the country have been involved in the research effort. Roughly half a million hectares of transgenic crops have been planted, making China one of the world's leading countries  growing transgenic crops. While Europe vacillates, China is moving forward.  

I have said that the benefits of GM crops currently available are geared only to seed companies and to farmers, not to consumers. But consider Africa - here the farmer is often the consumer. Small-scale farmers feed their families and their neighbours, all of whom are consumers. In  addition, although the +ACI-first generation+ACI- of genetically modified crops, with traits such as insect- and herbicide-resistance, are those currently available commercially, the +ACI-second generation+ACI- is hot on its heels. These  include rice enriched with the precursor to Vitamin A. Impoverished Asian children whose parents cannot afford to supplement their diets can convert this precursor into the precious vitamin that will save them from blindness.

Additionally, even more advanced applications will have enormous benefits for people in developing countries. Imagine eating a banana, supplied by a health clinic, that can vaccinate you against a disease such as cholera, diarrhoea or even HIV/AIDS. Such “bio-pharmaceuticals” are being  developed in the US and in SA.  

Smallpox was eradicated because needles could be re-used - it was done before the onset of HIV/AIDS. Today the most expensive parts of any  vaccine are needles and the need for cold storage. Vaccines in edible form will eliminate both these problems.  

An alternate option is the use of GM crops in “pharming”, using a hardy and highly productive crop such as tobacco to produce pharmaceuticals,  including vaccines. Using a crop plant is much cheaper than using animal cells in tissue culture and, in addition, the product cannot be contaminated by animal viruses that could become a problem for humans. There is also a measure of satisfaction in using tobacco to produce products such as anti-cancer drugs.  

But if truth be known, the very best crop to choose for pharming is  Cannabis sativa, hemp, marijuana or dagga, call it what you please. It grows almost anywhere and has almost no known pests or pathogens. But that is part of another story.  

Maize is one of the staple crops of Africa, indeed some people eat it  three times a day. Colleagues and I at the University of Cape Town have  developed the first maize plants that are resistant to the virus that plagues maize only in Africa, maize streak virus. In addition, we are working on developing maize that is tolerant to drought stress as water is going to  be one of the most severely limiting resources for sustainable food  production in sub-Saharan Africa.  

Although it is clear that I favour the use of genetically modified crops, I do not advocate a blanket approval of all such crops in all geographical regions. They must each be tested on a case-by-case basis and subjected to a rigorous risk-benefit assessment.  

In addition, the foods derived from these crops must also be carefully tested for both short- and long-term safety. I am confident that the GM crops and foods derived therefrom that are commercially available in South Africa are safe. Remember, there is no such thing as safe food, there is only the safe use of food.  

Readers should be aware that foods derived from GM plants are treated as  if they were toxins - the only foods to be treated in this way. They are subjected to a battery of toxicological tests, including ones that can detect potential long-term adverse effects on humans or animals. Only then are they declared safe. By comparison, when a new food is introduced into the market, not derived by genetic modification, no such tests are  required. Take, for example, one of my favourite foods, the peppadew. How long have these been on the market and who has checked that they might not have long-term adverse effects on consumers? Please don't misunderstand me, I  am quite sure that peppadews are perfectly safe for human consumption, but  the fact is they haven't been tested in the way that GM foods are.  

Given the socio-economic realities and needs in countries such as South Africa, Kenya and China, it is almost irrelevant to ask whether they  should use a technology that has already shown its benefits to their populations. These countries cannot afford to limit themselves to the developed world's narrow interpretation of risk assessment. Likewise, they cannot afford to allow the Western debate to slow their access to existing and expected future benefits of biotechnology. Because Europe has enough food and  doesn't want foods derived from GM crops, should we in Africa allow them to  dictate to us as to what is best for us and others in the developing world?

Thomson is a professor in the department of molecular and cell biology at the University of Cape Town

“All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector,”- THE LANCET, April 2000

“We should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems - and we should not  assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organisation of society.”- --- Albert Einstein, May 1949

“One could not be a successful scientist without realising that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and  dull, but also just stupid.”- - James Watson. (as in Watson-Crick,  Nobel Prize winner)