What lies behind GMO activism?

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are defined as living organisms that possess a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. These techniques, combine DNA molecules from different sources to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes.

Modern biotechnology is being applied in health, industry, environment and Agriculture. For example Plants with combination of genes from different sources which confers resistance to pests and diseases or to herbicides is what Agricultural biotechnology is for.  Although the other areas of modern biotechnology are perceived to be safe and very useful, agricultural biotechnology is receiving a lot of criticism, rejections and activism. There are some reasons to the activism; however they are not limited to the ones below.

The process is shrouded in secrecy, and therefore it is not understood and resisted. Genetic engineering process is very complicated and tedious, it needs some extra work for a normal person to have a clear glimpse of what is being done,  issues related to intellectual property rights, IPR contributes to the secrecy and maybe public fear.

The general knowledge on biotechnology is not well understood by the general public. Studies show that if the knowledge about or experience of a topic is low chances are people will base their perceptions on already present global attitudes

Exposure to misinformation, fear of unknown environmental and health consequences of genetically modified crops

Perceptions are also linked to certain beliefs or a group in a community. Family, friends, class and culture have a huge influence on consumers’ perception and altitude.

==information is the most priceless thing; most of the controversy are because of misinformation or lack of the information. Lang et al. (2003) observed that public fears about bioengineering would be overcome if the public were given more genuine information. This is very important to Tanzania because the farming population in the country is aging and productivity per unit area of land needs to be increased to make farming more attractive to the younger generation and provide adequate amounts of food for the increasing population. It’s about time the responsible authorities should start taking serious actions.

Ernest Madard

sir.meddy@hotmail.com

May 2014

GM food labeling, a means to create more earning, and increase price of GM products

The abundance of food today and in the last years is being taken for granted; just because we have enough food does not mean we are not going to run out of it, the human population is growing very fast. There is no point of taking this surplus for granted, for example, in one study Jerry caulder (1998), reported that on any given day, the U.S has less than forty five days of food supplies, and these supplies are viewed as “surplus”. In contrast, two hundred years of oil supplies are viewed as a “strategic reserve’’. How can this be? Who is actually deciding on behalf of the public? Is Oil more important than food?

Basically there is a problem on how food issues are communicated to the public, a few people suffering from malnutrition or hunger is newsworthy while preventing billions from ever running such risk is not. We have lacked proper regulations on who precisely should decide which food is safer to eat and which one isn’t. This case of poor science is now affecting biotechnology advancement, especially with food LABELING.

Technically food labeling is supposed to provide important information to consumers, based on underlying scientific facts and not prejudice. Years back blood was labeled “Caucasian” or “colored” now this had nothing to do with the blood composition; it was only based on social prejudice. Labeling foods differently, simply because they are genetically engineered, is just another expression of prejudice.

Labeling is very useful and desirable when accurate, valuable information is communicated to the user/public.  For example genetically engineered cotton has been made to produce fibers, if valuable information is put about fibers’ reaction with other chemicals; that could be useful to consumers. Long shelf life tomatoes can be labeled to provide valuable information as well. In this case labeling should be used to communicate important information about services within the product, and this information is of economic value to the consumer.

Today there are thousands of food products derived from genetically engineered Soybeans,  and they are consumed by the public. If it is labeling, should we label every product individually just because genetically modified soybean was used as a raw material? Should we label chicken that fed on genetically modified corn? Should we label Milk from a cow that fed on genetically modified maize?  Who should be responsible for labeling these products? What criteria do we use to reach the conclusion of what is safe to eat and what is not? What information does the public have to make informed decisions on these labeled products (since labels have no information)? Other than science what rules do we use to guide us? Who actually pays for the label on food?

==labels with no information content are doing nothing rather than imposing costs to consumers.

Ernest Medard

May 2014

Sir.meddy@hotmail.com