ANTI-GM: A WORLD OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS There are many falsehoods, myths and misconceptions about GM food and

crops. Many of these myths were knowingly created and perpetuated by groups who campaign against GM. These groups often point to the economic and political stake which research institutes and companies have in GMOs. But the truth is that these groups and individuals also benefit from the continued misperceptions and fears which they spread about GM, and will do almost anything to damage the credibility of the technology: We are no longer in the same food-secure situation which prevailed in the late 90s. We need to rethink the impact of our current agricultural and food choices, reduce our carbon emissions and minimise its environmental impacts: Progressive NGOs are now working with scientists to address food security issues. They now accept that the initial concerns about GM crops have not materialised and that their anti-GM stance is now harming the agricultural prospects of those who need it most. In some cases, this is because their membership, funds or sponsorships are dependent on maintaining an anti-GM stance. In other cases, it is difficult for them to back down from the incorrect claims which they have publicised for many years. In a few cases there is a genuine ideological opposition to the interference of science in the natural world, which should be respected and separated from the much more widespread cynical opposition on the basis of pseudo-science. Over the past 15 years, the number of reputable scientists prepared to support anti-GM views has diminished. These groups have therefore turned to increasingly outlandish and unscientific claims, which have almost all been disproved through peer review. But mud sticks, and anti-GM activists know that they can continue to use these studies to generate media coverage even after they have been discredited. Some tactics used to prioritise communications and PR over scientific rigour, include: Promoting scare-stories based on poor science that has not been peer reviewed, often commissioned from scientists who have a clearly negative view of GM crops and who conduct research with the pre determined intention of revealing highly improbable negative effects of GM. A study by Prof Giles-Eric Seralini on the effects of GM maize on rats was promoted by a number of environmental groups as evidence of the toxic effects of eating GM. This study was later totally discredited.

Greenpeace promoted an Austrian study of mice fed on GM maize, claiming that it showed serious health threats of genetically engineered crops. But the research had not been peer reviewed and its author, Prof. J. Zentek, himself recognised the inconclusive results and refuted Greenpeaces conclusions. Greenpeace quietly changed its stance, but made no attempt to publicly correct the error.

AfricaBio
ABOUT AFRICABIO Who are we? AfricaBio is an independent, non-profit biotechnology stakeholders association. Our key role is to provide accurate information and create awareness, understanding as well as knowledge on biotechnology and biosafety in South Africa and the African region. What do we do? Locally: AfricaBio is engaged in transferring information about biotechnology and biosafety to all levels of society. This is done through information days, workshops, seminars, conferences, exhibitions, websites, newsletters and technology demonstration. Nationally: AfricaBio carries out a range of programs that focus on education, technology demonstration and training on biotechnology and biosafety. AfricaBio facilitates coordinated approaches to biotechnology and biosafety development. Regionally: AfricaBio provides services and support to many countries in the SADC region on biotechnology education and training. Internationally: AfricaBio seeks to build capacity in all aspects of biotechnology and biosafety in Africa and to articulate the needs of African biotechnology stakeholders to the world.

Anti-science campaign groups regularly use directional questions and leading language to misrepresent both the facts about biotech crops and consumer opinions. Using the destruction of field-trials as a high profile media tool. Destroying scientific experiments and threatening researchers is totally unacceptable in a modern society, but is valued by anti-GM campaigners for its shock media value. The groups responsible make little attempt to distinguish between conventional and GMO trials, and frequently wear unnecessary biohazard suits to ensure press coverage. All these targeted experiments are operated within the strict safety guidelines laid down by regulatory authorities, yet, anti-GM groups routinely complain that they would like more scientific evidence for GMO safety.

GM CROPS: WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

NEW SOLUTIONS FOR NEW CHALLENGES Sub-Saharan Africa faces serious political, economic and social challenges. With an annual rate of growth of 2.2%, its population is expected to increase from 906 million in 2005 to more than 1 billion in 2010 and to 2 billion by 2050. Twenty years of an almost 3% annual population growth has outpaced economic gains, leaving Africans, on average, 22% poorer than they were in the mid-1970s. Despite improved economic performance in recent years, the overall gross domestic product growth rate remains below that needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Experts recognise that food production must increase if the anticipated population growth is to be fed and clothed. Already, many in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have enough food, and many more are malnourished. Competition for land, water and energy is intensifying not to mention the effects of climate change and the on-going need to reduce waste and cut carbon emissions. As a result of these pressures, agricultural productivity is back in the political spotlight, and there is talk of the urgent need for new technology to help boost agricultural production. Farmers in Africa must be equipped with the right tools and techniques to help address the problems of food security by growing more food in a sustainable way. Together with conventional plant breeding, biotechnology and plant science innovations such as Genetically Modified crops (GM or GMOs) are such tools. GM means that certain genes have been modified or new genes added to give a plant variety more desirable characteristics, such as resistance to certain insect pests or herbicides. Because only a few genes with known properties are transferred, GM methods are more specific and faster than traditional breeding. The use of GMOs can also help to reduce inputs like fuel, water and fertiliser, by allowing the development of crops that can grow in harsher conditions, or by increasing crop yields from the same area of land. Higher, more reliable yields and reduced inputs mean lower food costs and the better management of agricultures footprint on the environment. World-wide, scientists, leaders and farmers have become increasingly vocal in calling for a rational, fact-based debate on crop technologies using scientific data and years of field experience. In Africa there is a need to rise above the emotional scare mongering, and consider what role biotechnology can play in providing food and clothing to those who do, and who will call Africa their home in the future.

Attacking individuals in an attempt to discredit or discourage sound science: In addition to threats of violence against scientists involved in GM research, increasingly desperate campaign groups have also sought to discredit high profile figures who have spoken in defence of GM evidence. These include Bill Gates (for his foundations funding of GM crops for the developing world). Campaign groups claims about GMOs must therefore always be checked. Their sources are not only frequently inaccurate, but often begin by determining their conclusions before seeking out the evidence to prove them, no matter how flawed. It is also worth noting the many well-respected organisations who have judged the science on the safety of GMOs to be reliable: UN, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation, and European Commission.

For more information contact: AfricaBio P.O. Box 873, Irene, Centurion South Africa 0062 Tel: +27 (0)12 844 0126 Fax: +27 (0) 86 619 9399 Email: infro@africasbio.com May 2013

Globally, GM crops, which represent one example of biotechnology, have been grown for more than16 years by more than 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries. In 2011, GM crops were grown on 160 million hectares of land. More than two trillion meals containing food produced from GM crops have been consumed without any substantiated health issues. Since the first appearance of GMOs in the 1990s, those opposed to biotechnology have sought to distort evidence on GM. But Africa today is not the same as Africa in the 90s. Current agricultural policies need to change it is not a contest between GM and organic farming, or between commercial and small-scale farming. In reality, countries do not choose one farming model or one farming system, it is a range of farming practices and types of technology that will provide the food security that Africa requires and give the continent its competitiveness on world markets. In this regard, therefore, it is time to defend independent evidence on the benefits and limitations of crop breeding technologies, and to confront some of the misleading tactics used by anti-GM groups. It is time to reconsider GMOs and to discuss how to reduce the immediate and future threats to food security In Africa. WHAT LED TO THE OPPOSITION TOWARDS GMOS? Recent media coverage of agricultural technology has focused on its potential to help tackle global food security, and consumers have shown more positive attitudes to GM foods. But where did the scepticism of GMOs come from? To understand this, it is necessary to look at the circumstances around the appearance of the first GM product in Europe in the mid-1990. Europe - a fertile ground for sowing fear The late 1990s were a turbulent time for European agriculture, food safety, science and global commerce: The confidence of European consumers in food science and safety was rudely shaken by the mismanagement and poor communication around a series of food crises such as salmonella, dioxin - contaminated chicken feed, and BSE or mad cow disease. Europeans became angry that regulations designed to protect the safety of their food were not operating properly, and lost trust in the authorities. Europeans were also concerned by a Common Agricultural Policy which had resulted in an oversupply of some agricultural produce. The first mass anti-globalisation protests aimed at multinational commerce and trade also began in Europe at this time. In this atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, the first GM crops were launched. Scientists and politicians tried to assure the public of their safety but this did little to calm their concerns. The European public wanted to know whether GMOs:

Were safe? Were good for the environment? Were produced by private companies? Were needed?

pressure had already resulted in the malfunctioning of the GMO approval system and a de facto moratorium on GM cultivation. A wider public debate on the consumer benefits of new and potential GM products in Europe therefore became theoretical. European citizens became even further removed from the debate as they continued to enjoy plentiful food supplies, and retailers played down the fact that many European farm animals are fed GM feed. The events in Europe spilled over into Africa and the anti GM campaigners were soon spreading fear and concern of GMOs among the regulators, like-minded NGOs and politicians in various African states. To back up this fear, it was suggested that because of Europes restriction on GM technology, any African state growing GM crops was likely to jeopardize its European markets. These tactics proved so successful that some African states, despite suffering from chronic food shortages as a result of extensive drought, refused to accept imports of GM grain despite assurances from the exporting authorities that the grain was safe for human consumption! DEFENDING SOUND SCIENCE One of sciences greatest strengths is the endless fascination it holds for consumers. But this eagerness to learn about the latest scientific developments also represents a threat to the reputation of balanced and independent academic research. Before they can release their findings, scientists know that they must first ensure that their findings are accurate. To do this they ask others to double-check their research and ensure that their work is open to question and challenge. This is undertaken through a well-established process known as peer review. They also include important caveats in their work to indicate where their findings might not be applicable or where further investigation is required. Agricultural biotechnology has suffered more than most from the lack of peer review in the evidence used by anti campaigners. So much so that a great deal of GM science over the past 10 years has focused on a small number of un -reviewed reports claiming negative effects of the technology. Campaign groups refer back to these un-reviewed reports repeatedly, knowing that the correction of disproved claims rarely receives the same attention. This proved claims rarely receives the same attention. This repetition and reinforcement creates a perception that their opinion is equally as valid as peer reviewed science, undermining independent scientific evidence, and gradually eroding customer confidence in what they hear or read about a new technology. Most people just want to hear about the exciting new discovery. Highly complex new science can rarely be explained in a sentence, and this can be frustrating to both the public and scientists. Its time to help consumers to assess

truly independent scientific opinions, and start to explode some of the common myths about GM. Sense about Science Not everything that has not been peer reviewed is bad science, but it does mean that it hasnt yet been crosschecked. Such information should, therefore, be treated scepticism and the opinions of other experts in the field be sought. One of the great benefits of peer review means that findings cannot be influenced by whoever funds the research. Peer review generally means that good science is good science, regardless of how it was paid for. Ironically, many anti-GM groups recognise the value of peer reviewed evidence in the fields of medicine and climate change science but not in the field of agricultural biotechnology. Time to think again? It is clear that there is no single solution to the problems facing agriculture in food production, but it is also clear that these problems are not going to disappear. There will be many millions of people to feed over the next 13 years, pressure on fragile habitats will increase, and climate change may drive down productivity in the developing world by 10-25%. We are no longer in the same food-secure situation which prevailed in the late 90s. We need to rethink the impact of our current agricultural and food choices, reduce our carbon emissions and minimise its environmental impacts: Progressive NGOs are now working with scientists to address food security issues. They now accept that the initial concerns about GM crops have not materialised and that their anti-GM stance is now harming the agricultural prospects of those who need it most. Government reviews indicate that without access to all available agricultural technologies, Europe will come to rely more and more on Africa, Asia and America to meet its food needs. Governments in Africa are starting to put in place their own biotechnology authorisation frameworks in order to investigate biotech crops which could address their local needs. Africans must be given the information and choice to decide for themselves what role they would like GMOs to play. Given the full scientific facts about biotechnology and a proper choice about the appropriate use of GM in Africa, Africans can decide if they are ready to change their minds and ready to make progress in the global food challenge.

The public perception of food and farming is often driven by marketing imagery which projects an idyllic, traditional, and pastoral picture of hand-ground grain, home-grown vegetables, and hand-milked cows. This is an unrealistic and misleading image of agriculture. Most first generation GM crops were developed to allow farmers to overcome plant diseases and pests, increase yields and decrease the use of pesticides and fuel. Therefore, it was difficult for Europeans to see the personal benefit from GM, rather than the indirect benefits such as lower commodity costs and more targeted use of pesticides. A further unexpected challenge was that GM seed companies had experienced a much less controversial introduction of GM crops in North America, where they were even more successful than anticipated. This success created the assumption that Europe would follow suit. As a result, some of the messages from industry on GM crops were inappropriate for European companies that dealt directly with the food buying public. Anti-science campaign groups were quick to exploit these concerns. Through the use of media-friendly but unsubstantiated terms like frankenfoods and powerful images of people in biohazard suits, anti-GM campaigners were able to instil a fear and mistrust about GM products which scientists had found to be as safe as if not safer than conventional foods. Those involved in the development of the technology were unprepared for this hostile environment, and were unable to communicate with the general public in an effective way. Most of the initial communication focused on the safety of GM products and how they were the same as existing products. This failed to address the core point of the debate in Europe a fear of further food scares mixed with a fundamental lack of trust in reassurances offered by politicians, scientists and companies. As the years passed and the media battle rumbled on, misinformation from campaign groups was reinforced by a number of politicians who were keen to use public mistrust as an electoral tool. Some former and current European politicians still openly attack the safety of GM crops, despite thousands of safety assessments and almost two decades of using biotechnology crops in Europe and around the world. By 2005, retailers, policy makers and global environment and development NGOs had started to see the benefits of GMOs, and that the scare mongering about GM safety was unfounded. Countries which had begun to reap the benefits of GM technology saw its future potential, both in improved agricultural production and in the economic benefits that followed. Unfortunately, in Europe the political