THE BIOWATCH BULLETIN - JUNE 2005

IN THIS ISSUE:
1. Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Wangari Maathai visits South Africa
2. Biowatch granted leave to appeal court costs order
3. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism gets new Director of Biosafety
4. SA government decision on Monsanto's MON863 GM maize still pending
5. Interview with Arpad Pusztai - the scientist who spoke out on the safety of GM crops
6. Monsanto wins in annual Corpse Awards
7. Wessa award to Biowatch SA

1. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER PROFESSOR WANGARI MAATHAI VISITS SOUTH AFRICA
Well-known environmentalist, community activist and recipient of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Professor Wangari Maathai is visiting South Africa from July 17 to 22 - at the invitation of former president Nelson Mandela. Maathai, who is Kenya's Deputy Minister of Environment and founder of
Kenya 's Greenbelt Movement, will visit Johannesburg first - to deliver the annual Nelson Mandela Foundation lecture. Last year Archbishop Desmond Tutu -  also a Nobel Peace Prize recipient - presented the lecture and in 2003 the annual event was inaugurated by former United States of America president Bill Clinton. While in Johannesburg Maathai will also meet representatives from non-governmental organisations (including Biowatch South Africa), and  launch the newly-established South African Faith Communities Environment  Institute. She arrives in Cape Town on the evening of Wednesday 20 July and will deliver the University of Cape Town vice chancellor's open lecture on 21 July.

2. BIOWATCH GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL COURT COSTS ORDER
Acting Judge Eric Dunn has granted Biowatch South Africa leave to appeal his costs order which arose out of the major victory which the organisation
achieved around access to information about genetically modified (GM) crops in South Africa. A full bench of the Pretoria High Court will hear the
appeal, at a date still to be set. In February, Acting Judge Dunn ordered that Biowatch be granted access to most of the information it had  requested on how decisions are made about growing GM crops in South Africa. Acting Judge Dunn also found that Biowatch had been forced to go to court to get access to this information. But in a surprising twist, he ordered Biowatch to pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd and made no
other costs ruling. Biowatch's court application for access to the information was brought against the Registrar of Genetic Resources, the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture. Monsanto SA (Pty) Ltd., which is part of  the controversial American-based crops and chemicals multinational, voluntarily joined in opposing the application and insisted on costs being awarded to  it to the very end of the case. A wide range of organisations are supporting Biowatch's bid to appeal the costs order, including:
· the Treatment Action Campaign and the Aids Law Project
· the South African Faith Communities Environmental Institute (which represents all major religious communities in South Africa)
· the Congress of SA Trade Unions
· the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa
· the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering
· Earthlife Africa

3. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM GETS NEW DIRECTOR FOR BIOSAFETY
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) has established a new directorate to deal with biosafety and the impact of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Biowatch asked Wadzi Mandivenyi, the new director, to tell us more about herself and the important work she has
been appointed to do.

Q: You were appointed to this position at the beginning of June. Given the short time you have had in your new position, what have you so far
identified as priority areas for you to tackle?
A: My priority is ensuring that the DEAT plays its full role in the GMO review process i.e. ensure that the legislation is implemented effectively and efficiently. GMOs have the potential to impact on the environment and the focus of this directorate is to ensure that biosafety is implemented
effectively to protect the South African environment.

Q: At a meeting with your Minister (Marthinus van Schalkwyk) and Deputy Director-General Fundisile Mketeni on 18 May Biowatch South Africa was told that your directorate had been established to create capacity for the department to deal with the whole issue of genetically modified organisms and biodiversity. What, in your opinion, have been the major gaps in government's handling of the GMO phenomenon? In your opinion, what are the key environmental risks posed by genetically modified organisms?
A: The government has provided a framework for biosafety review that enables a review of the safety and impact of GMOs before they are used in this country. The process allows consideration of environmental impact, human health, food and feed safety and socio-economic impact. The process also allows public input into decision-making and science-based risk  assessment. All of these are positive contributions. The process has also recently
been revised to ensure compliance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The process is sound and the role of this directorate is to concentrate on ensuring that it is implemented effectively. Regarding key environmental risks, GMOs have the potential to be stronger than natural organisms. As
such they may out-compete local organisms and cause changes in natural populations thereby impacting on biodiversity. For this reason their
impact needs to be assessed before they are approved. To date, none of the  approved GMOs are expected to impact adversely on the environment, but each new GMO will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Q: Your Minister also said, at the same meeting, that he would like his department to play a crucial role in raising broad public debate about the
issue of GM crops? What plans do you have to contribute to this?
A: The DEAT will continue to encourage public input into GMO decision-making and to support the Ministry of Science and Technology in their Public Understanding of Biotechnology programme. There are also other DEAT processes here, i.e. the public processes encouraged by the Biodiversity Act and the National environmental Management Act (NEMA) that will inform the work of the Directorate. A comprehensive communication framework that will allow all stakeholders to play an active role in the public dialogue on biotechnology and biosafety will be developed under this directorate.

Q: What role do you see for civil society organisations, such as Biowatch South Africa, in widening the GMO debate in South Africa, acting as
watchdogs over the introduction of GMOs, assisting the department in monitoring the impact of GMOs on biodiversity and assisting with the
drafting of more Comprehensive legislation to protect biodiversity?
A: Civil society organisations and NGOs need to continue to provide accurate information to the public and encourage participation in the public input
process as part of their contribution to widening the GMO debate in South Africa. As far as the watchdog role is concerned, CSOs and NGOs should continue to give input on possible negative impacts of proposed GM technology and balance these with consideration of the potential benefits
society might gain, e.g. the use of GM hepatitis B vaccinations.  Monitoring programmes are implemented as part of approvals where these are deemed necessary. The DEAT will continue with this role as a primary function of the department. However, NGOs are able to implement parallel monitoring programmes where they see these as necessary. The new Biodiversity Act 10  of 2004 is just being implemented. NGOs have had input into its development and will be involved in its implementation as well. A review of the Act will  be necessary and all input into this process will be valuable. Therefore where appropriate the DEAT will give CSOs and NGOs a platform to assist the department in drafting more comprehensive legislation to protect biodiversity.

Q: Could you tell us about your background and how you developed an  interest in issues of biodiversity?
A: I was born in Zimbabwe and obtained my Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Biological Sciences majoring in Genetics and Microbiology from the University of Zimbabwe in 1995. I have a Master of Science Degree in Molecular Genetics from the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. I began
 my career with Environment and Development Activities (ENDA) Zimbabwe as Programme Officer for the Zimbabwe Biotechnology Advisory Committee Secretariat. The project was later expanded and came under the banner of  the Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe, where I was the Programme Officer for the 'biotechnology for resource poor farmers' project. I have been involved in issues of biotechnology and biosafety since I began my professional career in 1996. I have always believed in the need for people and communities to make informed choices and have therefore been communicating about biotechnology and biosafety, particularly at the community level, for the last six years. I was part of the first group of trainees of the African Regional Biosafety Focal Point Project funded by DGIS, in Harare. DGIS is the Directorate General of International Cooperation Biotechnology for Sustainable Development Programme under the Netherlands' Ministry of  Foreign Affairs. My last position was with AfricaBio, a biotechnology stakeholder association, where my work was focused on the safe and responsible implementation of biotechnology. This work required a strong component of biosafety and understanding of environmental issues and impact.

Q: Some people working in the environmental non-governmental organisation sector feel that, because you worked for AfricaBio before taking up this
post, you come with a bias in favour of GMOs. What is your response to these claims? Do you think it will be important to allay suspicions that you
will be biased in favour of GMOs?
A: AfricaBio has been a good training ground in the potential benefits of the technology and in how regulation is essential to ensure sustainable  and safe use of the products of the technology. The environmental impact of  GMOs is an important component of GMO development and has been a valuable part of my AfricaBio activities. The position in DEAT allows me to focus my attention on implementing risk assessment to ensure that the new
technology will not impact negatively on the South African environment.

4. SA GOVERNMENT DECISION ON MONSANTO'S MON863 GENETICALLY MODIFIED MAIZE STILL PENDING
In May this year a leading British newspaper revealed details of research carried out by Monsanto which showed that its own research raised doubts
about the safety of genetically modified (GM ) food. Rats fed on Monsanto's MON863 maize had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of
their blood which were not present in rats fed with non-GM maize, according to the report. The South African Department of Agriculture is still considering whether to grant Monsanto approval for the importation of MON863 to South Africa for human and animal consumption. The Johannesburg-based African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) and GRAIN have lodged objections to the application. An evaluation of the Monsanto MON853 study by Dr Arpad Pusztai, a genetic modification researcher who the German government commissioned  to carry out the evaluation, is available from Third World Network. Pusztai's evaluation highlights the need to critically evaluate studies submitted by applicants trying to gain approval of their GMOs.

5. INTERVIEW WITH DR ARPAD PUSZTAI - THE SCIENTIST WHO SPOKE OUT ON THE SAFETY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
About seven years ago genetically modified organism researcher Dr Arpad Pusztai provoked a storm of controversy when he criticised the tests
carried out on genetically modified food as being too superficial. In an interview on British national television in August 1998 Pusztai (with some 270
published scientific papers to his name) revealed that regulations did not require long-term safety testing of genetically modified crops. This meant
that slow-acting substances in genetically modified food would not be detected. To illustrate his point, Pusztai mentioned results from his own
tests on genetically modified potatoes. The rats fed on these had developed immune system defects and stunted growth. The results surprised Pusztai,
who had been a supporter of genetic modification. His nationally-broadcast remarks cost Pusztai his career. His research with the prestigious Rowett
Research Institute was stopped, he was forced into early retirement and the British government blocked attempts to repeat his experiments. Such
experiments would have proved or disproved Pusztai's statements.
Q: In previous interviews you have said that you were initially in favour of GM foods but became sceptical as a result of the tests you were conducting
around the effects of GM foods. What are your views, currently, about GM crops? How did you arrive at the position you currently hold?
A: Our views are spelt out in our Lancet paper and the review which we published in 2003. We think that in the case of our GM potatoes it was not
the transgene that caused the problem but the disturbance in the potato genome caused by the insertion of the transgene construct. As it is
unpredictable where the construct will land and how many copies of it and what sort of disturbance it will cause, the current method of
gene-splicing is potentially dangerous both for our health and the environment.

Q: Have you been involved in the anti-GM campaign in Europe? If so, in  what way?
A: I am a scientist and not an activist. I do work and then publish our findings and these happen to show that the present method of developing GM
plants is scientifically incorrect and therefore against the public good and interest.

Q: What are your views about the strengths and weaknesses of the campaign in Europe?
A: It is fragmented, just like in South Africa. One more thing, a campaign based on ideology and sentiments, no matter how important these are, would not make the world GM-free. We need much more actual work showing scientifically that GM is dangerous. Because of their fragmentation, the green movements do not contribute to sponsoring actual biological testing work.

Q: How do you think an anti-GM lobby should be conducted in South Africa?
A: With more pooling of resources.

Q: What effect did your ostracisation in 1999 have on your professional life and your life in general?
A: Initially, it was a disaster but I can say with some confidence that all efforts to destroy my scientific credibility have come to very little judging from my current work. I never do, write, go to conferences, etc. or anything unless I am asked for it and commissioned to do it.

Q: Have you done any other research since then? If so, what was it about?
A: Yes, in Tromso with Professor Terje Traavik's group on testing the biological properties of Bt maize. (Terje Traavik became a Professor at
the University of Tromsø, Institute for Medical Biology in 1983. He has been Scientific Director at GenØk since 2001, and in 2003 he was also appointed Professor in Gene Ecology at the University of Tromsø. He works closely with the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology and advises a number of scientific organisations and scientific committees. Last year Traavik released preliminary results of a study on the effects of Bt maize which suggests the GM crop could have caused an immune reaction, triggering respiratory illnesses, skin diseases and fevers. Traavik said he would continue
research before publishing his results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. He  said he had announced his preliminary findings because scientific publication of research results could take a year or more and that was not in the public interest. Monsanto and the Philippines government rejected Traavik's preliminary findings.)

Q: How do you feel now after the latest rat study revelations? (Monsanto's own research showed that rats fed genetically modified maize had smaller
kidneys and changes in their blood composition - which could indicate damage to the immune system. Rats fed non-genetically modified maize showed none of these symptoms.)
A: I do not want to be too smug but my attitude can be summed up: I have told you so.

Q: What, if anything, would you do differently?
A: Not very much. I have kept to my scientific principles and keep telling the truth. Best wishes for your campaign. Arpad Pusztai, 9 June 2005

6. MONSANTO WINS IN ANNUAL CORPSE AWARDS
United States-based crops and chemicals multinational Monsanto unanimously won the Fraud for Life award for "failing the future" at the annual Corpse Awards held in Durban in June. But it narrowly missed coming out as overall winner. That dubious title - the Sustainable Catastrophe Award - went to Mittal Steel South Africa's Vanderbijlpark plant which, Corpse Awards organisers said, was responsible for the longest running environmental
incident in SA - leaking poisons into groundwater after building evaporation dams to hold its liquid waste. The Corpse Awards are a toast to the year's deadliest corporations, intended to shame companies with bad environmental practices and were hosted by groundWork, the South African chapter of the international environmental organisation Friends of the Earth. Like the other winners who didn't attend the ceremony, Monsanto received a
miniature coffin. Others who won awards were:
· Eskom - Pick The Public Pocket Award - for costing taxpayers R1.5 billion so far and another possible R10 billion to realise its plan to resuscitate
the nuclear power industry with its pebble bed modular reactor.
· Sasol - the Big Bang and Bad Air Award - for pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere.
· AngloGold Ashanti - the Finger In Other People's Pie Award. The company recently admitted to paying off militias in the Democratic Republic of
Congo to secure business operations.
· Sappi - the Land Scraper And People Pulper Award - for collaborating with apartheid land dispossession to acquire land for plantations.

 7. WESSA AWARD TO BIOWATCH SA
 A well-attended annual general meeting of the Wildlife and Environment society of South Africa (Wessa) Western Cape Region on 15 June presented
 Biowatch South Africa director Leslie Liddell with its Non-governmental Organisation Award for 2005. Wessa gave the award to Biowatch for its
 "dedicated work in the area of genetically modified organisms and particularly for the successful court application regarding the release of
 information on genetically modified organisms".

 FOR ANY MORE INFORMATION OR SUGGESTIONS FOR INCLUSIONS PLEASE CONTACT:
 biowatch@mweb.co.za