Search

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field that has developed rapidly in the last two decades. It involves the design and construction of new biological systems and processes from standardized biological components, networks and synthetic pathways. The goal of Synbio is to create logical forms of cellular control. Biological systems and their parts can be redesigned to carry out completely new functions. SynBio is poised to greatly impact human health, the environment, biofuels and chemical production with huge economic benefits. SynBio presents opportunities for the highly agro-based African economies to overcome setbacks that threaten food security: The setbacks are brought about by climate change, land degradation, over-reliance on food imports, global competition, and water and energy security issues among others. With appropriate regulatory frameworks and systems in place, the benefits of harnessing SynBio to boost development in African economies by far potentially outweigh the risks. Countries that are already using GMOs such as South Africa and Kenya should find the application of SynBio seamless, as it would be a matter of expanding the already existing regulations and policies for GMO use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to the debate about how regulatory science for agricultural technologies can be 'opened up' for a more diverse set of concerns and knowledges. The article focuses on the regulation of 'socio-economic considerations' for genetically modified organisms. While numerous countries have declared their intent to include these considerations in biotechnology decision-making, it is currently unclear both what counts as a socio-economic consideration and how such considerations should be assessed. This article provides greater clarity about how socio-economic considerations can be included in regulations by drawing upon the experience of two countries whose efforts in this field are particularly advanced: Kenya and South Africa. Based on extensive fieldwork, this article identifies the contours of an emerging regulatory regime by presenting two practice-based models for including socio-economic considerations in biotechnology decision-making. Whereas Kenya has taken a bottom-up process prior to assessing the first technologies and strongly emphasises scientific expertise, South Africa has instead established regulatory standards in an ad hoc fashion on a case-to-case basis, with a less prominent role for scientific evidence. The discussion of the distinct characteristics and tensions of both models provides insight into two potential pathways for including socio-economic considerations in the regulation of agricultural technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agriculture plays a vital role in the South African economy, as well as in the production of maize for food. Genetically modified maize is transformed to encode for crystalline (Cry) proteins found in Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and is referred to as Bt maize. Ingestion of specific Cry proteins causes the death of target insects that cause harm to maize plants. Bt crops, along with herbicides such as glyphosate and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), are widely adopted as part of the South African farming regime that aims to increase crop yield and reduce costs of production. As chemical compounds used in agriculture often end up in water sources, their presence should be monitored. There are many such monitoring programmes worldwide, but not in South Africa. We screened surface water sources in a maize-dominated agricultural area in the North West Province in South Africa for the presence of Cry1Ab, glyphosate and 2,4-D using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Cry1Ab was not detected at any site; glyphosate was below the limit of detection at most of the sites but one sample had quantifiable traces of glyphosate; and 2,4-D was detected at all the sites. The concentrations of 2,4-D exceeded those for drinking water according to European guidelines, thus highlighting the need for regular monitoring of these compounds. Many people depend on untreated water resources, which may be contaminated by toxic agricultural chemicals. This report is the first on levels of these target compounds in South African water systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetically engineered agricultural crops are widely grown for animal feed (yellow corn, soybean meal) and for industrial purposes (such as cotton for fabric, or yellow corn for ethanol), but almost nobody grows GMO food staple crops. The only GMO food staple crop planted anywhere is white maize, and only in one country – the Republic of South Africa. It has been two decades now since GMO crops were first planted commercially, yet it is still not legal anywhere to plant GMO wheat or GMO rice. When it comes to GMO food crops, anti-GMO campaigners have thus won a remarkable yet dubious victory. They have not prevented rich countries from using GMO animal feed or GMO cotton, yet farmers and consumers in poor countries need increased productivity for food crops, not animal feed or industrial crops. Today's de facto global ban on GMO food crops therefore looks suspiciously like an outcome designed by the rich and for the rich, with little regard for the interests of the poor. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: The South African Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 was passed into law, which among other things, mandates the labelling of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in packed goods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of mandatory GM food labelling in terms of the Consumer Protection Act by determining what products currently on the market would be implicated. A total of 46 food products from different companies was selected and sampled randomly with an emphasis on those containing canola, maize and soybean, since GM varieties for these crops have been approved in South Africa in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act of 1997. The products were screened for the presence of genetic modification and, if positive, quantified. Genetic modification was detected in 50% of products tested, including seven out of 14 (50%) products labelled to indicate an absence of genetic modification. The results from this study indicate that at a 5% GM labelling threshold, 19 out of the 46 products tested would need to be labelled for their GM content. Of the 14 products labelled to indicate an absence of GM, five exceeded the 1% threshold for non-GM labelling. Many companies are concerned about the cost effectiveness of mandatory labelling. However, the Consumer Protection Act makes a provision for a “may contain” clause that if used relieves the producer of the financial considerations to verify the GM content of a product. Although the Consumer Protection Act does not make any provision for monitoring, consumers or consumer groups have recourse against companies in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act through the provision of the National Consumer Commissioner (NCC). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]