|
The refusal to accept genetically modified food is critically affecting the
welfare of starving people in Zimbabwe and Zambia
BY GEORGE ELLIS
Business Day (South Africa)
November 7, 2002
The refusal to accept genetically modified food is critically affecting the
welfare of starving people in Zimbabwe and Zambia. The scientific world
has given the issue of genetically modified crops careful attention, but
their
view is not being heard in the current emotional debate.
First, the issue of safety and testing. Currently 46% of world soybeans,
20% of cotton, and 7% of maize are genetically modified crops, after
having been approved by regulatory authorities in the US, Argentina,
Canada, China, Australia and other countries, and a vast amount of
data has accumulated as a result of this widespread use.
This February the Royal Society (London) published a policy
document on genetically modified plants for food use, based on an in depth
study of all presently available evidence regarding potential risks to human
health. This document states there is no reason to doubt the safety of food
made from genetically modified ingredients that are currently available, nor
to believe that genetic modification makes food inherently less safe than
their conventional counterparts. It has been stated that genetically
modified food has not been tested on humans.
However millions of Americans have been eating genetically modified
maize and soya since 1995 without ill effects. It has been alleged that
this widespread consumption of such food has lead to a silent pandemic
of allergic reaction. The Royal Society study states there is at present no
evidence that genetically modified foods cause allergic reactions.
Second, the issue of increased yields and the need for genetically modified
crops. There are 5.5-million farmers worldwide who find it worth paying
higher prices for genetically modified seeds to obtain greater returns. In
China last year genetically modified cotton acreage tripled to 1.5-million
hectares as farmers saw the benefits.
The Indian government has now agreed to introduce genetically modified
cotton because of pressure from Indian farmers who have seen how its use
increases productivity. In July 2000, after careful scientific study, a
white paper issued jointly by the Royal Society of London, the national
academies of science of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the US, and the
Third World Academy of Sciences urged action to promote the use of
biotechnology in alleviating world hunger and poverty. They urged
governments to base their decisions regarding biotechnology on sound
science.
Third, it has been stated that the recent rejection of genetically modified
foods by Zambia was based on recommendations by Zambian scientists.
This is not true. SA scientists are in touch with Zambian scientists
knowledgeable about genetically modified foods, and they do not support the
position of the Zambian government, which has taken this decision for
political rather than scientific reasons.
Members of the lobby opposed to genetically modified food reject evidence
from all those involved in research on which their careers are based,
because
of the implication that all such people are biased. This stipulation refuses
to
accept the considered opinion of any scientist who has the requisite
professional
qualification to evaluate the evidence, including all members of the
academies of science I have cited above.
Member of the Inter-Academy Council (The Hague)
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=021107006825&query=soybeans&vsc_
appId=totalSearch&state=Form
|
back
