Are genetically modified (GM) crops the answer to food shortage?
11/08/2011

For a long time, many researchers have concentrated so persistently on developing methods and technologies for developing cures and treatments for diseases that other fields of research have been neglected. However, one problem that may be as devastating as disease is food shortage.

Food shortage is a problem worldwide. Solutions to fight food shortage have long been sought but after many years of research, hunger still prevails, more so in developing countries. Ever-developing technology has brought with it many possibilities to alleviate food shortage.

Researchers in the different fields of science have collaborated to try and combat food shortage. Amongst these researchers are food scientists who apply scientific principles to develop and supply food that is safe, nutritious and affordable. Food scientists have also tried to combat hunger and malnutrition by developing vitamin- and mineral-fortified staple foods. Development of such food is done not only by food scientists, but also by a number of other researchers in different fields of science. Indeed, biotechnologists have long been involved in conducting research that could serve to alleviate hunger.

Biotechnology makes use of scientific techniques to produce, among other things, desired traits in plants, animals or micro-organisms by isolating, selecting and transferring genes from one organism to another.
Biotechnology has been used in agriculture to develop new tools for the improvement of productivity since the early 1900s. Today, over 8.5-million farmers grow crops that have been produced through the use of genetic modification. South Africa grows about two million hectares of GM crops, the majority of which is consumed by other southern African states. Biotechnology used to be considered as a technology for the wealthy, but surprisingly, nine out of ten farmers using genetically modified (GM) crops are in some of the world’s poorest countries.

In most of Africa, cereals are the staple diet. However, these cereals often lack essential micro-nutrients such as minerals, vitamins, amino acids, iron and zinc. Absence of these micro-nutrients may cause micro-nutrient malnutrition. Lack of essential micro-nutrients may cause other adverse effects; for instance, Vitamin A deficiency causes high child mortality, a weakened immune system and blindness.

Deficiencies in other micro-nutrients such as iron, zinc and certain amino acids can cause child birth complications and impaired development in children. The deficiency of essential micro-nutrients in staple foods prompted scientists to develop biotechnology-based techniques that would enhance the nutritional value of grains and fruits.

Scientists from Nehru University in New Delhi have used a gene derived from a South American plant (amaranth) to increase protein content in potatoes by about 30 percent. Other nutrient- and mineral-fortified crops include golden rice and canola oil. These crops have an increased content of Vitamin A. Golden rice was further developed to produce a high content of iron and to include a gene that improves the digestion of iron.

In light of the food shortage problems in some African countries, one would expect all such countries to allow production of GM crops supplemented with essential nutrients and amino acids to curb malnutrition, as well as crops that would be water efficient, amongst other characteristics. However, some countries in Africa still do not allow the production of GM crops. Possible reasons are a lack of awareness relating to biotechnology, resulting in little or no research being conducted to exploit the benefits of biotechnology, and safety concerns relating to GM crops. These safety concerns arise mainly due to yet unknown processes governed by genes.

Scientists were surprised to discover that, instead of the predicted 100 000 genes they expected, humans have only about 30 000 genes. Humans have almost the same number of genes as the mustard-like weed which has 26 000 genes. Our genome is about 70-90% similar to the mouse genome and 95-98% similar to the ape genome. Many theories have been formulated to explain why the human genome can be so similar to the mouse and the ape genomes, whilst the phenotypic differences are so vast.

Possible reasons are that there may be many interactions involving more than genes and there may be metabolic pathways that are yet unknown to scientists, which may bring about these major differences. One may argue that these different metabolic pathways as well as interaction between certain genes may produce some results that may not have been predicted when designing GM crops. Critics of GM foods have queried whether or not scientists know for certain that for instance, a bacterial gene inserted into a maize plant will produce the desired protein and nothing else.

On the other hand, the majority of scientists believe that GM foods do not pose greater threats than conventional foods. This is not to say that GM foods are totally without risk; it only means that the risks they cause are the same, if not fewer, than those caused by conventional foods.

In some cases GM foods are safer than conventional foods. This is illustrated by the fact that certain varieties of potatoes that are traditionally bred were found to produce unacceptable levels of toxins. It is known that genetic manipulation can cause unexpected or unrelated changes in GM crops. However, safety assessment of GM foods focuses mainly on ensuring that such foods do not contain any unexpected or unrelated changes.

Genetically modified foods undergo a rigorous process before being made publicly available. The government aims to ensure that whatever GM foods are made available to the public are absolutely safe. There is legislation in South Africa in the form of the GMO Act and its regulations which provide measures to promote the responsible development, production, use and application of GMOs, to ensure that all activities involving the use of GMOs are carried out in such a way as to limit possible harmful consequences to the environment, and to give attention to the prevention of accidents and the effective management of waste, amongst other things.

The Act requires that all applications for GMO activities be sent to the registrar for GMOs. The applicant is required by the regulations of the Act to submit a risk assessment with the application. The Act prohibits any person from undertaking any activity involving GMOs unless a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks created thereby to the environment, human and animal health and safety has been made.

The risk assessment should identify and evaluate potential adverse effects of any activity with a GMO on the environment, human and animal health safety. The registrar ensures that the application is compliant with the requirements of the Act. If the application is compliant, it is forwarded to an advisory committee which is made up of scientists with relevant skills. The advisory committee evaluates the risk assessment submitted with every application.

Based on their findings, the advisory committee may then recommend the application to the executive council (the decision making body) which is made up of officials from the departments of Agriculture, Health, Environmental affairs and Tourism, Labour, Trade and Industry and Science and Technology. The chairperson of the advisory committee is also a member of the executive council. Once the executive council is satisfied that a certain activity with a GMO may be conducted, the council authorises the registrar to issue a permit. The public also has a say as their comments are considered when evaluating an application. The general public is informed and consulted on GMO-related activities to be undertaken by means of notifications in major newspapers.

In addition to the GMO Act, there are other checks in place to ensure public safety. In 1993, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development introduced the concept of “substantial equivalence”, which is regarded by most as a “sound basis for safeguarding the quality and safety of GM foods and provides a historical context based on centuries of experience with conventional foods”. Substantial equivalence means that “a GM food is safe to consume as an existing food with the same compositional and nutritional characteristics and a history of safe use”.
The main concerns when it comes to food safety of GM crops are the potential changes in allergenicity, toxicity, nutrient composition and level, unintended effects, and the safety of antibiotic-resistant, marker-encoded proteins included with the inserted gene. The main aim of the evaluation is to ensure that new varieties are just as safe as, or even safer than, conventional crops.

Foods may found to be either:
I. Substantially equivalent to a conventional counterpart;
II. Substantially equivalent except for a few clearly defined differences; or
III. Not substantially equivalent.

In the case of option III, any significant differences between the GM food and its conventional counterpart would trigger additional tests and mandatory labelling.

The standard has been validated by international scientific and governmental organisations such as United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, World Health Organisation, and the international Life Science Institute. The Department of Health established policies that are consistent with substantial equivalence and other countries have adopted it in their regulations.

In most African countries, the legislation governing development of GM crops is underdeveloped. Perhaps as the awareness of biotechnology increases, the legislation governing it will improve. Many doors for research in the field of biotechnology would be opened and as a result, hunger could be alleviated by the increased interest in the development of better quality foods. Recently, Kenya joined Burkina Faso, Egypt and South Africa in allowing the production and use of GM crops. President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya promulgated new biosafety legislation on 13 February 2009.

There is reluctance in most African countries to permit GM crop farming. However, there is no question that genetically engineered foods may be an answer to mitigating food shortage, but at what expense? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? The key issue is the protection of consumers and farmers. Protection of consumers and farmers can be achieved by setting in place regulations and mechanisms to monitor and regulate GM crop farming.

In addition to the GMO Act, South Africa has statutes, i.e. The Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972 and regulations, set in place for the labelling of foods. Furthermore, there are also provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 which require products to be labelled in plain language thus ensuring that consumers know what they are purchasing or consuming. As a result, in cases where manufacturers comply with the law and label their products in the prescribed manner, the choice of whether or not to consume GM foods is left to the consumer.
James Davies
Partner
Patents
Kutlwano Hutamo
Candidate Attorney
Patents
Kutlwano has since left the firm