6-Genetech §§: Citizens call to revoke South AfricaŐs genetic engineering law
- To: GENETemail@example.com
- Subject: 6-Genetech §§: Citizens call to revoke South AfricaŐs genetic engineering law
- From: GENETNL <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:42:57 +0100
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
----------------------------- GENET-news -----------------------------
TITLE: Stop the crop!
Citizens call to revoke South AfricaŐs genetic engineering law
SOURCE: Biowatch, South Africa, press release
DATE: February 28, 2000
-------------------- archive: http://www.gene.ch/ --------------------
STOP THE CROP!
CITIZENS CALL TO REVOKE SOUTH AFRICAŐS GENETIC ENGINEERING LAW
A meeting of prominent environmental and development lawyers and
other experts was held in Cape Town last week to review South
AfricaŐs legislation regulating genetically modified organisms. Under
scrutiny was the Genetically Modified Organisms Act No 15 of 1997
("GMO Act"), which came into effect on 1 December 1999 with the
promulgation of its Regulations. The group, convened by the South
African NGO Biowatch, was unanimous in its criticism of the Act and
its newly passed Regulations, and commented that the legislation
showed "a cynical disregard for contemporary international and
national environmental principles, as well as for the development
imperatives of South Africa".
Biowatch, a South African non-governmental organisation working on
policy issues concerning biotechnology and the commercialisation of
biodiversity, convened a workshop in Cape Town last week of a group
of prominent environmental and development lawyers and specialists.
The purpose of the workshop was to evaluate the Genetically Modified
Organisms Act and its recently promulgated Regulations. A previous
examination of the GMO Act commissioned by Biowatch highlighted a
wide range of public concerns. The full report is available on
request to Biowatch. These included the absence of public
participation in the decision-making process, and in procedures for
the approval of field trials and commercial releases; inadequate
assessment and monitoring of environmental and social impacts; lack
of transparency in the decision-making process; and the placing of
liability on farmers and other users for environmental damage. The
expectation was that the Regulations would address these concerns.
Far from doing so, the Group concluded that the Regulations pay lip-
service only to the notion of a regulatory regime for meeting public
biosafety concerns. The following aspects were raised in particular
as key concerns and inadequacies:
- The Regulations provide an exclusion that negates the very purpose
of the law by precluding almost any genetically modified seed,
food or animal feed from permitting requirements.
- A new problem has been created in that academic or research
facilities are exempt from permitting requirements.
- The permit-granting process provides a totally inadequate means for
the public to be involved in decision-making processes that
directly affect their daily lives (eg food safety).
Genetic engineering is an imprecise technology with unpredictable
consequences. Despite these uncertainties, the widespread
experimentation and commercialisation of GM crops is proceeding in
South Africa without comprehensive risk assessment procedures in
place. The Regulations provide for risk assessment but do not
stipulate in any way how this is to be effected, nor do they lay down
baseline standards to indicate what is an unacceptable risk.
The Regulations provide no clarity on the procedures to be followed
for environmental impact assessments for GMOs. This should include an
evaluation of impacts on livelihood and food security, export trade
opportunities, long and short term impacts on indigenous wildlife,
implications for development options and the health impact of
consuming food containing a cocktail of genes not previously eaten by
The "precautionary principle" ("if you donŐt know donŐt do") as
drafted in the Regulations is considered a dangerous interpretation
of the principle, running in direct conflict to international and
national definitions that are enshrined in the Biosafety Protocol and
the National Environmental Management Act.
Liability for any damages caused through the introduction of
genetically modified crops is placed on the user of the product (eg
farmers or consumers) rather than the proponent of the technology.
For example, if a neighbourŐs organic field was contaminated with
pollen from a genetically modified crop, this would destroy the
farmerŐs market advantage in the expanding demand for organic
products. Similarly, if genetic contamination occurred through a
consumer disposing of food waste, the consumer would be held liable.
The Regulations fly in the face of South AfricaŐs responsibility to
its neighbouring countries, all of which have emphasised the need for
a strong biosafety regime to monitor and control the movement of
genetically modified material between countries.
On the basis of these concerns, the group strongly recommended that
legal action should be taken in the public interest to challenge the
GMO Act and its Regulations. The group was confident that such action
would meet with success.
Tel: +27 22 492 3426
Fax: +27 22 492 3426
The report and web address of the law can also be received at GENET
| GENET |
| European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering |
| Hartmut MEYER (Mr) |
| Reinhaeuser Landstr. 51 |
| D - 37083 Goettingen |
| Germany |
| phone: +49-551-7700027 |
| fax: +49-551-7701672 |
| email: email@example.com |