““WHERE YOU SIT IS WHERE YOU STAND”WHERE YOU SIT IS WHERE YOU STAND” The case of the GM Grapes and Wine in SAThe case of the GM Grapes and Wine in SA

GMOs and Wine Media Round TableGMOs and Wine Media Round Table

25 June 200825 June 2008

2

Applicable guidelines:

The GMO Amendment Act of 1997 requires:• Public Notification i.t.o. notice in 3 local newspapers where the permit release is contemplated.• Details of the name of the applicant, background, objective, location, general information

(predominantly scientific), call for comments from interested parties.• Interested parties given 30 days to provide comments to the Registrar: Genetically Modified

Organisms.

Section 33 of the Constitution entitles South Africans to procedurally fair administrative action. Sections 3 and 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000 set out the requirements for procedural fairness. The essence of procedural fairness is that people affected by administrative decisions must be given advance notice of these and the opportunity to make representations to the decision-maker. The decision-maker must provide adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action so that comment can be meaningful.

In addition, article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol obliges South Africa to ensure that there is public participation and awareness concerning the use of GMOs and to consult the public in decision-making processes and make decisions available to the public.

 .

The Public Participation Process for Field Trial Permit The Public Participation Process for Field Trial Permit ApplicationsApplications

3

In terms of the GM grapevine application in 2006, Biowatch followed the requirements of the GMO Act of 1997 and submitted comments to the GMO Registrar. A scientific assessment by a microbiologist from UWC supported our comments.

Biowatch comments included:

•The application had inadequate monitoring and assessment to prevent contamination and damage to the environment. The application mentioned the use of netting to shield the GM plants from the wider environment but did not mention the size of the netting. There also did not appear to be measures to contain decomposing plant material and the proposed method of bagging flowers would not be able to ensure that pollen from the GM plants would be contained.

•There were significant discrepancies in the public notice and the application to the Registrar of Genetic Resources. For example, the public notice did not mention that the GM grapevines would contain an additional marker gene which is antibiotic resistant.

•The field trial was meant to test the stability of the GM grapevines but the methods proposed to do this would not achieve this.

•The exact purpose of testing the stability of the GM grapevines was not revealed.

•The highly technical language in which the notice was written made it difficult for meaningful public engagement and assessment about the value of the application.

•Genetically modified food and drink is unacceptable to the majority of consumers in Europe – a key wine export market for South Africa

4

In addition, a telephonic survey of wine farmers in the Stellenbosch wine route was undertaken on Friday 13 October 2006. Standard questions were used by all conducting the survey.

Survey results:

Total number of estates spoken to: 38

Total number of estates in Stellenbosch wine route: 104

 Number spoken to as percentage of total in area: 36.5%

Of 38 spoken to:

• Twenty-eight (28) said they were not aware of the application

•  Ten (10) said they were aware of the application

 Of the 10 who were said they were aware,

• Five (5) said they were very concerned about it

Those who were aware of application

1. Le Riche 6. Koelenhof

2. Stellenzicht 7. Clovelly

3. Distell (Ernst le Roux) 8. Dornier

4. Asara 9. Goede Hoop

5. Bellevue/Middelpos 10. Hartenberg

5

Those who did know and were very concerned:

1. Distell group manager grape and wine buying

2. Stellenzicht

3. Goede Hoop

4. Hartenberg

5. Clovelly

Biowatch’s next steps:

• Sent Prof. Asmal, Chairperson SA Wine Council a copy of our comments on the GM grapevine application

• Visited Prof. Kader Asmal with a request to meet with the Board of the SA Wine Council to discuss the application

Response by Prof. Asmal:

• Required a second, independent assessment of the application. This was developed by a microbiologist from the University of the Free State and sent to Prof Asmal.

• Agreed to a meeting as requested by Biowatch. Meeting on 10 May 2007 included discussions with Prof. Melanie Vivier and Prof. Florian Bauer of the Institute of Wine Biotechnology, University of Stellenbosch.

• SA Wine Council confirmed its policy only to support GMO research within international approved protocols and monitoring procedures. Until the long-term impacts of GMO developments have been clarified, no commercialisation will however be approved by the SA Wine Council. It was also agreed that Stellenbosch University and Biowatch would work in cooperation to ensure responsible progress.

6

Was the type and amount of information supplied sufficient to facilitate meaningful participation in the GM grape vine application process?

No, Biowatch had to use the Promotion of Access to Information Act to obtain further information. This involved writing to the Department of Agriculture and them posting the additional information (the detailed application for the GM permits) to us, upon receipt of a deposit for photocopying and posting the material.

This process has financial implications for those wishing to object to GMO permit applications. In addition, only one staff person is assigned, by the Department of Agriculture, to respond to Promotion of Access to Information Act requests. When she is on leave, attending courses or meetings or ill, the process of obtaining the information is significantly delayed.

Additional problems with the public participation process for GMO permit applications:

No feedback or comments on our objections. Without notification of decisions, it is impossible for interested and affected parties to exercise their rights to appeal against a decision.

No opportunities to engage with or make representations to the decision-maker (i.e. the GMO Council) prior to the decision being made.

Was Biowatch informed whether a decision was taken to grant a permit?

No. We had to regularly ask the Registrar about the status of the application and the responses received were often provided some time after our inquiries.

Eventually, Biowatch received the decision on the application by going onto the NDA’s website where minutes of the Executive Council are posted some time after the meetings have taken place.

For example, the minutes of the October 2007 meeting at which the application was removed from the EC’s agenda, were placed on the website in February 2008.

7

What does Biowatch recommend that would help to ensure that public participation would be meaningful?

 The Registrar should maintain a database of interested parties that have submitted comments on any applications for permits or for registration of a facility.

The applicant should appoint an independent consultant to facilitate the public notification process in respect of its application.

If no newspapers circulate in the relevant area, the notification should be broadcasted on the radio station with the widest audience in the immediate area.

In addition to publication and broadcasting of the notification, the applicant should give written notification to all landowners in the immediate vicinity of the site where the activity is to take place or the facility is to be established; and all persons on the registrar’s database of interested parties;

·    The notification of the application should include the following information:

•a summary of the main risks and impacts identified in the risk assessment and any other assessments done;

• information on how to obtain access to a full copy of the application, including risk assessments, risk management measures and, if applicable, environmental and socio-economic impact assessments;

•information about how to obtain updates from the Department of Agriculture’s website about the status of the application;

· The registrar should also notify the parties referred to and the public that they have the right to appeal against the decision.

8

The notification from the Registrar, should contain at least the following details:

a.     full name and address of the applicant;

b.     objective of the application;

c.      a description of the GMO, including the name of the donor organism, recipient organism, inserted gene(s), marker genes, traits and type of GMO;

d.     a description of the place of release, including the name of the town, the size of the release and information about the surrounding environment;

e.     reasons for the Executive Council’s decision regarding the application;

f.        information on how to obtain access, on the Department of Agriculture’s website, to a copy of the application, including risk assessments, risk management measures and, if they were required, an assessment of the impact of the proposed activity on the environment and an assessment of its socio-economic considerations;

g.     a request that interested parties may appeal the decision from the Executive Council and the manner in which to do so;

h.      the address of the Minister of Agriculture and the Registrar, with whom appeals may be lodged.

This public notification should be in the form of a standard notice published in at least two (2) newspapers circulating in the immediate area in which the proposed release is to take place and at least one (1) newspaper that circulates nationally. Where no newspapers circulate in the immediate area in which the release will take place, the Registrar should notify the public through broadcasts on a radio station with the widest audience in the immediate area.

9

Why is Biowatch opposed to the release of GMOs into our environment and food production system?

•We believe the precautionary approach should be adopted with Genetic Engineering.

•We think it's a risky technology and that other kinds of biotechnology have shown themselves to be more immediately useful for producing better crops, without having the same potential risks to the environment and human and animal health.Marker assisted selection, for instance is a speeded up kind of hybridisation process that uses genes from wild relatives of domesticated crops to improve the qualities of those domesticated crops. It doesn't insert genes from unrelated species as GM does.  

•There aren't any major studies on the effects of GM food on human health, as far as we're aware.

•Various studies, including some conducted by the British government, have shown negative impacts on the environment from GM crops.

•There have been no studies specifically examining the effects of GM crops or food on humans. Some tests on animals have shown that their immune systems get compromised, among others. In 2007, for example, Greenpeace commissioned an independent analysis of raw data supplied by Monsanto to get approval for a particular strain of GM maize. The scientists found that there were significant differences in the rats fed the GM maize and those that were fed conventional maize.

• The world's scientists are divided on what the long term effects are of GM crops - crops with either a built-in pesticide or crops which are resistant to herbicides. No one knows what the long term effects are on humans, animals or the environment of crops which have had genes from unrelated species inserted into them. 

•Some GM crops contain antibiotic markers. In South Africa some of the antibiotic markers used in GM seeds are the same as those commonly used as medication.

10

Thank YOU!!

Leslie LiddellDirector

BiowatchPh: +27 (0)21 447 5939Fx: +27 (0)21 447 5974leslie@biowatch.org.zawww.biowatch.org.za