The greatest achievement of the genetically engineered seed industry in South Africa has been to create a myth that it has improved on nature. This has enthralled  the government into believing that South Africa can lead Africa and bring benefits of higher yields, improve the environment by requiring less chemicals, feed the poor, and bring huge profits to farmers.

Wynand van der Walt, in his interesting column, Biomonitor of January 2005, in the Farmer's Weekly put forward a well balanced argument for the coexistence of genetically engineered and natural crops. A natural crop is one that is derived from seeds which have been bred by natural sexual reproduction. A genetically engineered crop is one which is manufactured in a laboratory by  non sexual means and contains such things as retroviral markers and other inserts not normally found in nature. He pointed out that the SA Bureau of Standards has since 2001  been dragging its heels over producing standards to make this dream possible. Standards were supposed to have been set to keep the natural and unnatural separate from seed phase to final consumption as a processed product. This involved production, handling and transport.  He says this is known as "Identity Preservation" or IP and requires diagnostic tests and certification.

What has happened to this dream?

Firstly, who is going to pay for this segregation or coexistence?

Must the vast majority of natural farmers pay?

GE farmers are required to cultivate gene-fences or refuges around their crops to protect their neighbours' crops and the environment  from contamination. Who will enforce this?

Must the consumer pay?

Must the taxpayer pay?

Will this be added to the cost of production?

Secondly, the South African Council of Churches has thrown it's arms up in outrage at having discovered that  " Without being told South Africans became the first people in the world to eat genetically engineered white maize. The public has aright to know." This announcement was followed by cartoons in the daily newspapers of South Africans being  used as unsuspecting guineapigs.  They have now formed a new alliance of Faith-based organisations against GE foods. One can expect powerful lobbying from this group for more regulation and labeling. One can also expect powerful sermons from the pulpits warning the flock about this invasion of their right to choose.

Thirdly, the Starlink catastrophy, where GE maize unfit for human consumption "accidently" found it's way into the human food chain, was the equivalent of 9/11 to the food industry. It sent out shock waves throughout the world. Large companies such as MacDonalds, Fritos, McCain and others stopped using GE foods. Even the GE seed  giant  Novartis who owned Gerbers the largest Baby food manufacturer in the world sold up its GE side of the business in the wake of this scandal.

Fourthly, a second scandal has arisen with BT10 maize containing ampicillin resistant markers "accidently" finding its way into the food chain and only discovered some years later in the human food chain. American ships are being blockaded at this very moment in Europe as their cargos are contaminated with this maize not fit for human consumption. The German government has described this incident as "unbelievable sloppiness on the part of the American regulatory system."

In another incident a silo was contaminated with maize used to produce medical vaccines. The whole silo had to be destroyed and the farmers compensated.

The issue of labeling and regulation seems to be hotting up. Reports indicate that the sale of organic food is going up by leaps and bounds because discerning consumers will rather purchase labeled organic food than unlabeled food, which may or may not contain, GE products. The Farmer's Weekly recently reported that three major broiler producers representing 80% of the Australian poultry industry had converted to conventional maize rations because of consumer resistance to unlabeled poultry fed with GE food.

The European Union has extremely strict regulations.

Kenya have applied very strict precautionary rules and will allow trials only under controlled greenhouse conditions.

South Africa seems to have followed the American model and forced GE products onto an unsuspecting public.  We are now left holding the baby and believe you me that baby is in an extremely messy state. We have seen that South Africa has been used as a springboard for illegal smuggling of GE seeds  to other countries where officials were bribed with gifts of expensive houses.  It is even believed that Bt 10 maize has found it's way into our food chain.

The rest of Africa have looked on with bated breath hoping to learn something from us.  They have learned that we are in an extremely precarious position.

On 20th May 2005 the Farmer's Weekly reported that only10% of maize produced in South Africa was Genetically engineered. The other 90% was GE free but it couldn't be sold because there are no separate grain storage facilities in South Africa. This meant that all our maize was condemned as contaminated and the World Food Program was not able to purchase this maize. Since then, Michael Huggins, World Food Program Manager, Southern African Region, says that the WFP are now purchasing uncontaminated maize form Zambia.

According to the Financial Mail of 22July 2005 South African farmers are expecting a bumper yield.   As the silos fill and farmers are forced to sell, the price is expected to plunge by up to R100/t . The Executive Director of the Chamber of Milling, Jannie de Villiers, announced  " The export situation in South Africa is complicated by a 'cocktail'  of of non GM and GM maize. Some countries  want GM maize, others do not."  "But", adds de Villiers,  "South Africa's system does not cater for differentiation, making it even more difficult to dispose of a surplus".

De Villiers reports a sharp decline in the sale of commercially milled white maize but notes that subsistence farmers are enjoying good production.

Tiger Brands have already shut down their Pietermaritzburg cocktail mill.  Bully Bothma predicting that many farmers will plunge into bankruptcy.

The future bodes well for natural farmers whether conventional or organic, provided they stand up against the onslaught. Whilst organic and subsistence farmers usually gather their own heritage seeds, conventional commercial farmers have many non GE options available to them. Ken Davies' Dwarf Maize, recently reported in the FW, produces several heads and can be grown  at a higher density per hectare requiring less water. This proudly South African seed with hybrid vigour has the potential to outstrip any GE crop.  Many non GE farmers are increasingly turning to milling their own grain and at least one commercial miller, Tongaat- Hulett are only accepting natural crops. The European market is wide open for non GE maize form South Africa, especially with the blockade on American ships carrying Bt 10. Our marketers need to break from tradition and  take the gap.

After having observed the South African fiasco African countries are not ready for and do not want unnatural or contaminated maize. The National Food reserve Agency of the Government of Malawi in conjunction with the European Union  recently invited farmers in Southern African Development Countries with the exception of Malawi to tender for the supply of  93,000 MT of non-GM white maize for 2005/2006.  Tenders closed at 12h00 on 17th August 2005.

Natural farmers who are experiencing losses caused by GE contamination or who would like to join the Farmers Legal Action Group, FLAG, can contact me at trevor@flag-sa.org

Trevor Wells,
Cape Town
0846202347