New Straits Times / March 10, 1999
They are here. Sitting innocuously on our supermarket shelves, they could be in our bread, breakfast cereal, corn and potato chips, the tofu drinks we love; perhaps even in cooking oil, and the soya sauces we use for seasoning!
Undoubtedly, they form a significant basis for our diet. But, unknown to many Malaysians, raw produce like maize, soyabean and potatoes is coming into the country from places in which such crops are being tampered or tinkered with - genetically.
In simple terms, this means, somewhere along the natural path taken by a plant to reach maturity, genetic modification hastens or delays ripening. In crops like maize and soyabean, the technology is said to strengthen the plant's resistance to herbicides and pesticides.
But unlike traditional breeding, or even hybridisation, agricultural biotechology (as it is practised now) is the movement of genetic material between completely unrelated plant species and even between the plant, animal and microbe kingdoms, in ways that can never occur naturally.
In the case of plants, genetic modification can result in an increased level of toxins, or the transfer of allergens. Another possible occurrence is the transfer of antibiotic resistance.
The potential for genetic pollution (when genes move from one plant to another, either of the same type, or closely related) and the creation of superweeds (when genes for herbicide tolerance escape into wild relatives of crop plants that are weeds) has been raised by environmentalists.
Such fears, downplayed by proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, have not been sufficiently allayed. Instead, companies producing such crops have insisted these are perfect foods.
Currently, there are no quick or simple methods to identify such produce. They look and taste like their unmodified counterparts.
Labelling would help, but companies producing such crops are resisting this, denying governments and people the right to choose what they want on their dinner tables.
And, although consumer groups, in Europe especially, are becoming more adept at fighting the entry into their countries of GMOs (are GMO and GM the same?) - or "Frankenstein foods", as some fiendishly call them! - the sophisticated marketing strategies of companies producing such foods are difficult to discern and counter.
Because of this, and the unfortunate fact that consumer protection laws in this country lag far behind social and market developments, such foods may already be available in Malaysia.
As pointed out by F. Josie, director of Consumers International's Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (CI-ROAP), the ban on GM foods in the European Union can only mean countries like Malaysia are "at high risk of being treated as a dumping ground" for such items.
Her concerns were echoed by local consumer activists, government officers and academicians attending the International Conference on Food Security, organised by CI-ROAP, in Penang late last week.
Over meals, coffee breaks and between sessions, participants discussed the possible presence of such items here, and ways to deal with the matter.
"Labelling is a must," said Gurmit Singh, who heads the Centre for Technology, Development and Environment Malaysia. "People must know what they are buying and eating."
A health ministry officer agreed. Without labelling, she said, it will be impossible to know whether raw produce coming into the country has been genetically modified.
"Even if we keep close tabs on imported raw and processed foods, how can we know if the produce should be banned?" she asked.
She said she is aware that much of the soyabean in Malaysia comes from countries like China and Canada, and the bulk of the corn consumed here is from the US - all three countries have millions of hectares devoted to GM crops.
Universiti Putra Malaysia deputy dean of Graduate Studies, Dr Mohamad Ghazali Mohayidin, also had strong reservations. "I am all for science and technology. But I also believe people have a right to choose and refuse. What we need is more information about the effects of such technology."
Soil microbiologist and Biodiversity Panel member Dr Zulkifli Shamsuddin said, "We are still far too relaxed about raw produce coming into the country. We cannot have soil and plant material coming in without the knowledge of the authorities. The public should know how important this is. Such carelessness can, for instance, wipe out our entire palm oil industry."
But, as Josie lamented at the close of the conference, "how can we effectively prevent the entry of banned items when we don't have the laws or the experts at entry points to deal with such matters?"
In fact, she adds, some people are saying that Monsanto - the biotechnology company with the biggest stake in GM crops - is making subtle incursions into several Government departments, to persuade Malaysia to consider wide-scale planting of GM crops.
As Malaysia is beginning to grapple with this problem, several governments, especially in Europe, have either banned such produce - raw and processed - or insisted on moratoriums before allowing it to enter their countries.
Critics of GM produce have been accused of being hysterical; but, to date, there are no discernible benefits to the consumer, who will end up with these products.
The biggest producers of GM organisms - Monsanto, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Avantis - say the technology will feed the world, create sustainable development, help communities in developing countries and, most importantly, reduce the use of pesticides (a boon for the environment) and increase yield.
But critics like Dr Michael Hansen say otherwise. Speaking at the conference, the consumer advocate and vociferous critic of biotechnology said GM produce does have higher resistance to pesticides and herbicides, but does not display the higher yield claimed.
Recent scientific experiments suggest that much more research is needed before GM foods can be certified safe for human health - in the medium and long-terms.
All these factors, however, have been whitewashed by governments like that of the US, who are pressured by business interests to push GM foods onto the world market.
Last month, two British scientists wrote in the British newspaper The Guardian that people and groups belonging to the "genetic-industrial complex" are using mafia-like tactics to promote and protect their cause.
So powerful is the complex, the article said, that "enemies" are dealt with by the use of legal suits. In some cases, critics are paid huge sums to keep quiet. Many who question the technology are eventually hired by the companies.
Hansen also said some scientists studying GMOs have been effectively silenced by huge research grants from companies with a stake in such technology.
The unfortunate few who come up with negative findings on GM organisms face alienation, ridicule and searing criticism from other scientists.
Last August, one scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai, lost his job at the Rowett Institute for Agriculture in Aberdeen, when he announced that potatoes genetically modified to make a natural insect poison called a lectin had, when fed to rats, made their organs grow somewhat more slowly, and depressed their immune systems.
Although twenty scientists in Britain and America signed a memorandum seeking his re-instatement, the boot Pusztai received will be a reminder to many others that research on GM organisms has far-reaching non-scientific implications.
Added to this is the recent introduction of a technology - which Monsanto is in the process of buying - creating plants which kill their offspring by producing sterile seeds, preventing farmers from collecting these seeds to replenish their stocks.
Naturally, such developments have raised questions.
Apart from the issue of morality, which some say must be considered when there is considerable meddling with the genetic make-up of plants, there are consumer groups asking about the real motivation of the GM foods industry: is it need - or greed?
As they do this, many organisations, including the aggressive Greenpeace movement, are raising public awareness and helping governments create legal frameworks and keep GM produce off their markets.
The fight has risen to the level of the United Nations where, a fortnight ago, attempts to forge the world's first global treaty to regulate trade in GM products failed, due to disagreements about market safeguards.
As Hansen stated, At the protocol talks, the US was fighting tooth and nail to resist the labelling and liability of GM foods. "Why? If these companies insist their produce is perfectly safe, they should stand by it.
"The fact that they won't tells us we need to be very careful, very suspicious about such foods."
