There has been a recent flurry of media promoting genetically modified (GM) crops as the answer to food security and environmental challenges. However, the proof is in the pudding. After almost two decades of cultivating GM crops in this country, South Africans are hungrier than ever and the use of agrochemicals has increased. What is the reality beneath the hype?

South Africa was an early adopter of GM crops, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), wholeheartedly embracing the notion that these crops would increase production, which, in turn, would increase food security. After 17 years of GM maize, soya and cotton cultivation, where our maize production is now more than 80% GM, this fallacy is exposed. Average maize yields have increased over the last decade, which may or may not be attributed to GM technology, but, at the same time, food security has declined.
The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) published an extensive national nutritional survey in 2013 which found that only 45.6% of South Africans were food secure and that one out of four people go to bed hungry every night. The survey also found a shocking prevalence of stunting in children and micronutrient deficiency in the population. There is a brutal hunger and malnutrition crisis in South Africa, even as GM maize is exported.

Most GM crops in South Africa are engineered to be sprayed with a herbicide called glyphosate. In 2012, more than 23-million litres of agrochemicals and agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto’s Roundup, valued at an estimated R641-million, was sold in South Africa, with 46% being used in maize production. In that year, 55% of all GM maize cultivated was specifically engineered to be sprayed with glyphosate, with the figure increasing to 71% in 2014. Close to 100% of our soya and cotton production is glyphosate tolerant.
Overuse of glyphosate has caused weed resistance; so, since 2012, crops that are tolerant to another herbicide, glufosinate ammonium, were approved. An application is pending for field trials of GM maize resistant to 2,4-D (a component of the notorious Agent Orange defoliant used by the US in Vietnam) and international trends suggest that we will soon see crops resistant to dicamba. As with glyphosate, the introduction of these crops will dramatically increase the incidence of these chemicals in our food supply and soil and water, with far-reaching adverse health and environmental consequences.
In March this year, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organisation categorised glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogenic”. Monsanto, predictably, is ‘outraged’ by this ruling because it does not accord with its own research, which shows that glyphosate is safe. The South African government has shown little sign that it will restrict the use of glyphosate or independently assess this new scientific evidence, choosing rather to toe Monsanto’s line in its communications.
The food industry has persistently tried to wangle out of its responsibility to inform consumers of the GM content of the food it sells and attempted to place the burden of labelling on those not using GM ingredients. However, Article 24(6) of the Consumer Protection Act is clear: foodstuffs must be labelled for the presence of GMOs, not their absence.
South Africa has the dubious honour of being the only country in the world that has allowed its staple food to be genetically modified and, while many other countries severely restrict GM crops in the human food supply, we are force-fed the stuff as GM-free maize is no longer available on our market.

The South African government recently approved Monsanto’s GM drought-tolerant maize, developed under of the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project. The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has lodged an appeal against this decision, citing procedural flaws. For example, regulators relied solely on Monsanto’s safety data (which, incidentally, is not peer- reviewed or fully available to the public), despite receiving public input from the ACB and other stakeholders. The ACB also vehemently disputes that this GM variety will perform under drought conditions and is concerned about this novel gene entering South Africa’s staple food chain. Substantive appeal papers supported by independent biosafety experts have been lodged. The appeal board is currently being constituted by Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Senzeni Zokwana.

Increasing yield is not the most pressing problem in our fight against hunger; rather, we need to transform our inequitable and unhealthy food system. This system is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations, often under the spotlight for anticompetitive behaviour that punishes the poorest with inflated food prices and locks out small farmers, millers, manufacturers and retailers from participating in the food economy. If anything, adopting expensive GM technology, which operates on economies of scale, has deepened the divide between rich and poor and exacerbated hunger in South Africa.