Position Statements

Mandatory Labelling
AfricaBio supports the efforts of Codex Alimentarius to establish labelling standards for foods derived from modem biotechnology in accordance with the Codex mandate, food safety and fair practices in food trade. However, we strongly oppose any text that causes confusion of the very different issues of informed consumer choice and "consumer health". This can only result in a lack of understanding of the thorough safety assessment that foods derived from modem biotechnology products have undergone. There is no peer reviewed scientifically substantiated negative evidence that those thoroughly evaluated products, widely grown and consumed (for over eight years) throughout the world, have any ill effect on human health. Both FAG and WHO endorsed the Codex standpoint and WHO has released a statement that highlights the fact that foods from GM crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts.

AfricaBio believes that the strident calls for labelling by pressure groups is merely an attempt to have the products of modern biotechnology tagged so that an unwarranted campaign of discrimination can be launched against them.

AfricaBio supports labelling when it can be demonstrated, through an appropriate analysis of data, that t.,e composition, nutritional value, or intended use of the food or food ingredient differs to that of the conventional counterparts, having regard to the natural limits of variation. This is the current position as reflects in Department of Health, Government Notice No. 25 of 16 January 2004 entitled "Regulations governing the labelling of foodstuffs obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification" (see attachment).
In the case of highly refined foods and feeds, the genetic modification cannot be detected or verified as neither protein nor DNA is present in the final product. Therefore, such products should not be subjected to discriminatory or misleading mandatory labelling requirements concerning the use of GM technology.

Food Safety
Under the previous and amended GMO Act, the products from approved GM crops have to pass a series of extensive tests to ensure that they pose no additional risk to consumers over that of the conventional counterpart. I n fact none of today's foods have had to go through such rigorous evaluation which at times approaches that of a new pharmaceutical drug.

An aspect of food saf~ty that is currently being debated is that raised in a Greenpeace press release of 14 June 2007 (http://www.qreenpeace.on:~/euunitlpress-centre/press-releases2/seralini-NK603) regarding the analysis by Crii Gen (Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering), led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, on differences between rats that received NK603 in their diet and those fed conventional maize, which was submitted to European Union regulatory authorities prior to approval in the European Union for import, feed and processing.

We would like to point out that the Crii-Gen report does not include any new data or statistical analysis of the original study data and has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is merely a critique of the analyses carried out by private sector scientists and the conclusions reached by regulatory authorities in the European Union in su pport of the safety of NK 603 maize for use in feed and processed foods.

The Crii-Gen report is contradicted by the assessments by EU member state authorities (Spain and The Netherlands), the European Food Safety Authority, and expert reviewers of the study published in a leading peer-reviewed, toxicology journal (Hammond et al. 2004. Food & Chemical Toxicology. 42:10031014). All statistically significant differences were investigated and no biologically or toxicologically significant differences were observed. Furthennore, we would add that the Crii-Gen authors are not toxicologists, oppose the commercial use of GM crops, and frequently challenge the safety of GM crops without legitimate scientific basis. These views are not shared by most scientific and regulatory experts around the world and were published on the Internet, not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
,,--,.
We would like to draw the Committee's attention to a press release dated 28 June 2007 in which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), at the request of the European Commission. (EC), examined another report by Seralini et aI., on the statistical evaluation of a feeding study in animals with genetically modified maize MON 863. to identify any consequences for EFSA's risk assessment of the safety of MON 863. Following a detailed statistical review and analysis by an EFSA Task Force, EFSA's GMO Panel once again concluded that this reanalysis of the data did not raise any new safety concerns. (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press room/press release/Dr efsa maize Mon86 3.html ).

This kind of misinformation, which is being distributed by anti-GM activists such as Greenpeace, Biowatch, Safeage, etc., is not in the best interests of South Africa. We believe that all citizens have the right to their own opinions, but misinfonnation is a tactic of the activists that does not fit in with the National Strategy on Biotechnology that has been endorsed by the Cabinet