Biowatch South Africa

Last updated
South African flag Flag of South Africa.svg
South African flag
South African regions South Africa-Regions map.svg
South African regions

Biowatch South Africa is a non-profit, environmental justice NGO which aims to achieve food sovereignty and food justice for smallholder farmers. Biowatch researches, monitors, and publicizes issues around GMOs, as well as promotes biological diversity, biosafety, food sovereignty, and social justice. [1] Biowatch formed in 1997 and was officially established in 1999. [2] The organization works with community members and the government to ensure the protection of farmer's rights, as well as the continuation of sustainable and ethical food production systems. Biowatch encourages the advance of agroecological practices, hoping to advance farmers abilities and freedom while simultaneously protecting the environment. [2]

Contents

Biowatch South Africa receives its funding from five primary donors located at both the national and international levels. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] In 2000, a 10 year long battle in court was launched between Biowatch and the South African government regarding access to information surrounding the use of genetically-modified organisms in South Africa. [2] Biowatch refused to step down until they felt justice had been fully served in the name of public interests. [8] Since 1999, the organization has released research papers, books, policy submissions, and other resources for the public to engage with and utilize. [9]

History

The South African sector of Biowatch was established in 1999. The organization's head office is located in Durban, and their rural office located in Mtubatuba. [2] However, advocacy and research has occurred at both the local and global levels. [2]

Aims and Principles

Biowatch works with other civil society organizations and the government to ensure that the people of South Africa have control over their food, agricultural resources and processes, as well as controlling other natural resources in a sustainable way in order to maintain biodiversity within the region. [2] In order to achieve these goals, Biowatch supports policies which encourage agroecology, with hopes that the food production sector can make the best use of nature's goods and services without also damaging these valuable resources. BioWatch argues in favor of agroecology as a way of pushing back against the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that the current industrial food sector of production emits. [2] From land clearing, to monocultures, to packaging, transportation and food waste, the industrial food sector produces nearly 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [2] In addition to fighting against these current practices, Biowatch resists corporate ownership and exploitation of natural resources. [2]

National and International Funders

Biowatch South Africa's funding primarily comes from five different programs. Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World) is a German, Protestant church organization committed to enabling smallholder farmers enough land to yield healthy food for their family throughout the year, as well as maintaining control over seeds. [7] The National Lotteries Commission provides funding for the development of projects that increase South African people's well-being. [6] The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) focuses on development cooperation and policies to achieve social justice for all beneficiaries. [5] The Global Environment Facility Small Grants Program provides financial and technological support to community-based initiatives aimed at bettering the environment. [4] Lastly, the Thousand Currents program, a grassroots charity organization, promotes sustainable food production methods and protecting biodiversity, as well as prioritizing producers over shareholders and corporations. [3]

Past & Current Efforts

Biowatch South Africa works with different communities, organizations, as well as the government to help protect farmer's rights. BioWatch is the founding partner and project holder of the regional Seed and Knowledge Initiative (SKI), which is a group of South African organizations committed to achieving food sovereignty. [2]

Between 2000 and 2005, BioWatch researched and monitored the socioeconomic impact of genetically modified cotton, also known as Bt cotton, on small-scale farmers. [10] BioWatch interviewed not only farmers, but also industry and government officials, as well as researchers educated in the topic. [10] The study ultimately questioned the relationship between politics and economics, and highlighted how those with political power are often the ones who benefit from technological advances regarding GM content.

Currently, Biowatch is working with women in 5 different communities located in northern KwaZulu-Natal, at adapting to and achieving agroecological practices. [2]

GMOs in South Africa

South Africa was one of the first countries to become thoroughly involved in the production of genetically modified crops. [11] In 1979, the apartheid government gathered a group of scientists educated in the genetic engineering of food, agriculture, and medicine, to form the South African Committee on Genetic Engineering (SAGENE). [12] In 1989, the government decided to begin their first open trial experiments on GM crops, as suggested by SAGENE. [12] Roughly 8 years later, the SAGENE drafted the GMO Act, allowing the production of genetically modified crops, which was passed by parliament in 1997, but not in effect until 1999. [12] Yet, before the Act was even in effect, 178 permits were granted for open field trial experiments on a range of GMOs. [12] Ever since the GMO Act went into effect, thousands of permits have been granted for the use of GMOs in South Africa. [12] Various authorizations have been given to begin the growing of GM maize, GM cotton and GM soya, and millions of tons of GM maize has been imported intro the country from Argentina, effectively contaminating local maize. [12]

In Africa today, South Africa remains the only country to have approved the commercial production of GM crops. [11] According to the ISAAA, a biotech industry that tracks GM crops across the globe, South Africa was the 9th largest producer of GM crops in 2016, growing almost 2.7 million hectares of GMOs. [13] For any foods that contain 5% or more GM content, a GMO label is mandatory for producers to include. [13] Producers may voluntarily choose to label products where GM content is less than 5%, but they can even label something as not having GM content if there is less than 0.9%. [13]

Biowatch on GMOs

Of all the environmental organizations, Biowatch remains the most active opponent of GMOs in South Africa, lobbying for appealing provisions of the GMO act. [11] Biowatch argues that the regulation of GMOs in South Africa is inherently flawed, as it approves field trials and commercial release of crops that pose major health risks to the environment and the surrounding populations. [1] According to research conducted, a large proportion of crop diversity has been lost and has become increasingly vulnerable to erosion. [14] This loss of diversity contributes to an array of environmental and social issues, including diminished social cohesion, increased reliance on the cash crop economy, reduced ability to cope with external shocks, and the overall reduction of ecological resilience within the affected ecosystems. [14]

One farmer interviewed by Biowatch, Thombithini Ndwandwe, states,

“As agroecology farmers we are independent and grow nutritious food for our families. But now the government is changing the laws on seed. We are worried that these new laws will take away our right as farmers to freely save, exchange, and sell seed and produce. Farmers have always saved and exchanged seed; and this is what makes our seed diverse and strong.” [2]

However, these laws would directly violate the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. [15] In section 9, the treaty states that nothing in the Article can be used to limit any rights that farmers have regarding saving, using, exchanging, or selling seed that was saved. [15]

Access to Information Court Case

The Biowatch South African court case was a 10 year long battle in court against the government of South Africa and Monsanto (a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation) regarding access to information surrounding GMO usage in South Africa. [2]

Background

In the post-apartheid era, the new constitution implemented in 1996 sought to increase transparency within South Africa by making access to information from the private sector a constitutional right for citizens. This was progress from the previously oppressive policies, which were exclusive along racial, ethnic, gender and religious lines. [1] A report across five countries, based on a 2003 pilot study conducted by the Open Society Justice Initiative, shows that South Africa responded to only 23% of all access to information requests. [1]

On 2 February 2000 the Promotion to Access of Information Act (PAIA) was implemented. The preamble states, "RECOGNISING THAT- * the system of government in South Africa before 27 April 1994, amongst others, resulted in a secretive and unresponsive culture in public and private bodies which often led to an abuse of power and human rights violations... AND IN ORDER TO- * foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private bodies by giving effect to the right of access to information; * actively promote a society in which the people of South Africa have effective access to information to enable them to more fully exercise and protect all of their rights." [16]

Request for Access

In the same year that PAIA was enacted, Biowatch submitted 3 different requests throughout the year to the National Department of Agriculture (NDA), requesting access to information regarding GMO permits, permit applications, and risk assessments to using GMOs. [1] Despite the government's recognition of lack of transparency, PAIA did not go into full effect until a year later in March 2001. [16] The NDA responded with very little information which was deemed inadequate in fulfilling the requests of Biowatch, leading the organization to seek legal aid the following year, in 2001. [1]

Biowatch's lawyers submitted several follow-ups with requests to access to information, with no substantial response given. [1] The case was then brought to the high court in 2002, but was not heard for 2 more years until May 2004. [1] When the case was finally presented, it was heard by Judge Justice Dunn in the Pretoria High Court (now renamed the North Gauteng High Court). [1]

Final Ruling

On 23 February 2005 Dunn gave his final judgement, declaring,

“Biowatch sufficiently established its right to some of the information to which it sought access... The Registrar's refusal to grant access to this information thus constituted an infringement of Biowatch's rights under section 32 of the Constitution.” [1]

According to the South African's Constitutional Bill of Rights, section 32 states that "everyone has the right of access to any information help by the state; and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights". [17]

Although not brought up in court, section 24 also grants the rights to a safe environment, something that Biowatch argues GMOs inherently work against. The section states that "everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development". [17]

Response and Criticisms

For the first time in South African history, information surrounding the impacts of GM crops on environmental and social communities had become available to the public. This court case became notable due to its demonstration of the significance of good relations between the government and community members. Yet, Monsanto's director, Jocelyn Webster, felt that Biowatch had ulterior motives, “Biowatch’s aim is not to contribute to the scientific evaluation of GM technology but to maintain mass negative publicity to sway public opinion". [8] Webster and the company claimed they had always been transparent with information, and voiced concerns towards the spread of misinformation.

Despite Biowatch winning the case, the judge ruled that Biowatch would pay Monsanto's legal costs, supposedly because Biowatch was too general in some of their requests for information, ultimately forcing Monsanto to join the case. [8] However, it was clear that the wealthy corporation was not in need of the money, instead, Biowatch alleged that they were trying to put the organization effectively out of funding and business. [8] Thus, Biowatch requested that Monsanto drop the costs. The appeal unfortunately did not pass, and Biowatch was forced to pay both the legal costs of Monsanto, as well as the legal costs of the appeal for the Minister of Agriculture, the Registrar of Genetic Resources, and the Executive Council for GMOs. [8] Over the next 4 years, Biowatch appealed to the state and awaited what they felt was a just response, demanding that they not pay the legal costs over an issue that was voiced as a public concern. In 2009, the Constitutional Court judges announced that the previous courts had been misdirected in asking Biowatch to pay Monsanto's legal costs, and that the state should be held responsible for such costs. [8] After a 10-year battle, this small environmental organization will go down in history for demonstrating the perseverance of individuals when it comes to upholding constitutional rights.

Publications and Policy Work

Biowatch South Africa has worked extensively towards protecting farmers through policy submissions, research papers, direct action, and more. Between 2010 and 2018, the organization has completed and published 5 research papers surrounding the use of GMO's and its impact on communities. [9] In 2012 the organization had a policy brief written. [9] Between 2017 and 2019, Biowatch submitted 3 separate GM permit objections to the government. [9] Since 2014, the organization has published 2 books, titled "A Landmark Victory for Justice" and "Agroecology Is Best Practice". [9] Their online website also includes a compilation of crop information sheets, handouts, posters, and other fact sheets. [9]

Policy Submissions

Between 2013 and 2019, Biowatch South Africa submitted 12 policy submissions to the government. [9] These include the following:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified maize</span> Genetically modified crop

Genetically modified maize (corn) is a genetically modified crop. Specific maize strains have been genetically engineered to express agriculturally-desirable traits, including resistance to pests and to herbicides. Maize strains with both traits are now in use in multiple countries. GM maize has also caused controversy with respect to possible health effects, impact on other insects and impact on other plants via gene flow. One strain, called Starlink, was approved only for animal feed in the US but was found in food, leading to a series of recalls starting in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vandana Shiva</span> Indian philosopher, scientist and environmentalist

Vandana Shiva is an Indian scholar, environmental activist, food sovereignty advocate, ecofeminist and anti-globalization author. Based in Delhi, Shiva has written more than 20 books. She is often referred to as "Gandhi of grain" for her activism associated with the anti-GMO movement.

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. Monsanto's best-known product is Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, developed in the 1970s. Later, the company became a major producer of genetically engineered crops. In 2018, the company ranked 199th on the Fortune 500 of the largest United States corporations by revenue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food</span> Foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA

Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using various methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits when compared to previous methods, such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.

<i>Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser</i> Supreme Court of Canada decision

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified crops</span> Plants used in agriculture

Genetically modified crops are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. Plant genomes can be engineered by physical methods or by use of Agrobacterium for the delivery of sequences hosted in T-DNA binary vectors. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments, or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.

Since the advent of genetic engineering in the 1970s, concerns have been raised about the dangers of the technology. Laws, regulations, and treaties were created in the years following to contain genetically modified organisms and prevent their escape. Nevertheless, there are several examples of failure to keep GM crops separate from conventional ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food controversies</span>

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes 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 disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified 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. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.

The United States is the largest grower of commercial crops that have been genetically engineered in the world, but not without domestic and international opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified soybean</span> Soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques

A genetically modified soybean is a soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques. In 1996, the first genetically modified soybean was introduced to the U.S. by Monsanto. In 2014, 90.7 million hectares of GM soybeans were planted worldwide, making up 82% of the total soybeans cultivation area.

The genetically modified brinjal is a suite of transgenic brinjals created by inserting a crystal protein gene (Cry1Ac) from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into the genome of various brinjal cultivars. The insertion of the gene, along with other genetic elements such as promoters, terminators and an antibiotic resistance marker gene into the brinjal plant is accomplished using Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation. The Bt brinjal has been developed to give resistance against lepidopteron insects, in particular, the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (FSB) by forming pores in the digestive system. Mahyco, an Indian seed company based in Jalna, Maharashtra, has developed the Bt brinjal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mendocino County GMO Ban</span>

Mendocino County, California, was the first jurisdiction in the United States to ban the cultivation, production or distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The ordinance, entitled Measure H, was passed by referendum on March 2, 2004. Initiated by the group "GMO Free Mendocino", the campaign was a highly publicized grassroots effort by local farmers and environmental groups who contend that the potential risks of GMOs to human health and the ecosystem have not yet been fully understood. The measure was met with opposition by several interest groups representing the biotechnology industry, The California Plant Health Association and CropLife America, a Washington-based consortium whose clients represent some of the largest food distributors in the nation, including Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical. Since the enactment of the ordinance, Mendocino County has been added to an international list of "GMO free zones." Pre-emptive statutes banning local municipalities from such ordinances have now become widespread with adoption in sixteen states.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

Genetic engineering in the European Union has varying degrees of regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">March Against Monsanto</span> International protest movement

The March Against Monsanto was an international grassroots movement and protest against Monsanto, a producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made from GMOs. Advocates support mandatory labeling laws for food made from GMOs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food in Ghana</span>

Genetically Modified (GM) food crops were introduced into Ghana in 2013. GM crops are controversial around the world for various reasons and Ghana is no exception. Groups against its introduction include Food Sovereignty Ghana, The Coalition For Farmer’s Rights, Advocacy Against GMOs, Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Convention People’s Party (CPP). They argue that genetically modified food is not conducive to good health and is neo-colonialist in nature. That is, it hands control of the food supply to rich nations, which threatens food sovereignty and the national interest.

Genetic engineering in Hawaii is a hotly contested political topic. The Hawaiian Islands counties of Kauai, Hawaii and Maui passed or considered laws restricting the practice within their borders due to concerns about the health, the environment and impacts on conventional and organic agriculture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GMO conspiracy theories</span> Conspiracy theories related to GMOs

GMO conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food. These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

A genetically modified sugar beet is a sugar beet that has been genetically engineered by the direct modification of its genome using biotechnology. Commercialized GM sugar beets make use of a glyphosate-resistance modification developed by Monsanto and KWS Saat. These glyphosate-resistant beets, also called 'Roundup Ready' sugar beets, were developed by 2000, but not commercialized until 2007. For international trade, sugar beets have a Maximum Residue Limit of glyphosate of 15 mg/Kg at harvest. As of 2016, GMO sugar beets are grown in the United States and Canada. In the United States, they play an important role in domestic sugar production. Studies have concluded the sugar from glyphosate-resistant sugar beets is molecularly identical to and so has the same nutritional value as sugar from conventional (non-GMO) sugar beets.

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been commercially cultivated in four African countries; South Africa, Burkina Faso, Egypt and Sudan. Beginning in 1998, South Africa is the major grower of GM crops, with Burkina Faso and Egypt starting in 2008. Sudan grew GM cotton in 2012. Other countries, with the aid of international governments and foundation, are conducting trials and research on crops important for Africa. Crops under research for use in Africa include cotton, maize, cassava, cowpea, sorgum, potato, banana, sweet potato, sugar cane, coconut, squash and grape. As well as disease, insect and virus resistance some of the research projects focus on traits particularly crucial for Africa like drought resistance and biofortification.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Peekhaus, Wilhelm (2011-10-01). "Biowatch South Africa and the challenges in enforcing its constitutional right to access to information". Government Information Quarterly. 28 (4): 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.12.008. ISSN   0740-624X.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "Biowatch South Africa | Biodiversity | Food Sovereignty | Agroecology". Biowatch South Africa. Retrieved 2020-04-01.
  3. 1 2 "Grassroots Solutions – Thousand Currents" . Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  4. 1 2 "GEF Small Grants Programme". Global Environment Facility. 2016-03-24. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  5. 1 2 "Development and Cooperation". www.eda.admin.ch. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  6. 1 2 "National Lotteries Commission | OUR MANDATE" . Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  7. 1 2 "Bread for the World". www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wynberg, Rachel. (2013). A landmark victory: Biowatch's battle with the South African state and Monsanto. Biowatch South Africa. ISBN   978-0-620-55828-0. OCLC   829678910.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Publications & Documents | Biowatch South Africa | Agroecology". Biowatch South Africa. 10 August 2017. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  10. 1 2 "Bt cotton in South Africa: the case of the Makhathini farmers". www.grain.org. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  11. 1 2 3 Wolson, Rosemary A. (2007). "Assessing the Prospects for the Adoption of Biofortified Crops in South Africa". AgBioForum. ISSN   1522-936X.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mayet, Mariam. (2007). Regulation of GMOs in South Africa: details and shortcomings. African Centre for Biosafety. ISBN   978-0-620-39333-1. OCLC   1017278938.
  13. 1 2 3 "Fact Sheet: GMOs in South Africa". Biowatch South Africa. February 2018. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  14. 1 2 Wynberg, Rachel. (2012). Policy Brief: Securing Farmers’ Rights and Seed Sovereignty in South Africa.
  15. 1 2 "International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations". www.fao.org. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
  16. 1 2 https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-002.pdf [ bare URL PDF ], DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/Statutes and Regulations of South Africa/Statutes of South Africa
  17. 1 2 "Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 - Chapter 2: Bill of Rights | South African Government". www.gov.za. Retrieved 2020-04-03.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.