While GMO technology suffers from a public perception problem, technical and academic voices have been virtually missing from the discourse. To address the knowledge gap, BR Research sat down for an extensive conversation with Muhammad Asim, chairperson of CropLife's Seed subcommittee. The first part of this interview focused on developing an understanding of the science behind GMOs; and was published in this section on Monday April 15, 2019, and can be accessed here: (https://www. brecorder.com/2019/04/15/489150/poultry-growth-may-flatten-without-gm-corn/)
The second part, reproduced below, focuses on the environmental safety and regulatory aspects. Edited excerpts are presented as under:
BR Research: An oft-cited criticism on biotech companies is that they oppose collective ownership of seeds, as well as sharing and saving of seeds by farmers. Even if this makes economic sense in countries such as USA where corporate farming is the norm, do you believe it is appropriate for an agri-landscape dominated by small-hold farmers?
Muhammad Asim: The prevailing laws across Pakistan, and much of the remaining small-hold farmer geography, do not impose restriction on seed saving and the traditional barter arrangements within farming communities. This practice has also received official recognition in the most recent Plant Breeders Rights Act.
However, the commercial and unauthorised sale of saved seed poses several problems to the seed companies that invest heavily in developing them, and the farmer, that relies on quality seeds to improve profitability. Much like any other technology industry, security of intellectual property rights is fundamental to sustainable investment in R&D. The ever-changing climatic conditions, emerging pest pressures and water scarcity necessitate the provision of newer, higher-yielding seeds that are adaptive to the changing environment and consumer demands. Furthermore, proliferation of illicit commerce through saved seed puts the farmer's interest at risk. This is primarily due to subsequent generations of saved seed losing genetic purity as a result of cross-pollination with other seed varieties in the open field. The situation is further exacerbated by the declining germination of seed that is not stored adequately when traded in this manner. It is for this reason that commercial transacting of seeds is governed by regulations for seed safety certifications.
BRR: On one hand you argued that GMO technology is scale neutral. On the other hand, you noted that cross-pollination is detrimental to GM crop's productivity. Given the highly fragmented farming landscape, how can cross-pollination be avoided?
MA: Cross pollination between plants of the same species is a natural phenomenon which can be observed in the field every day. For example, maize crop of two different varieties can cross pollinate in the field, if given the right circumstances. However, contrary to the myth being peddled, this phenomenon is scientifically impossible between two crops of different species, such as in the case of maize and rice.
Under normal circumstances where farmers harvest the grain for human or industrial consumption, cross pollination does not pose any challenge whatsoever. Special measures to avoid cross-pollination are only relevant when a crop is grown for seed production, where genetic purity requires preservation. This is a commonly known fact amongst the seed industry which already employs the established scientific isolation strategies to ensure genetic purity.
The existing protocols for seed production are not affected by the adoption of GM maize by Pakistani farmers. The only difference is in the case of those farmers who would want to grow non-GM maize to meet the demand of a specific buyer or market. For such farmers, well established coexistence protocols are available, including distance-isolation, and time-isolation. For example, in EU if a conventional crop contains more than 5 percent or more from GMO region, it must be labelled as such. In order to remain under this threshold, four- or five-meters distance is sufficient. To achieve absolute zero, at least 50 meters distance is required. That may not be possible in Pakistan given the average small size of farms.
In this case, farmers may opt for time isolation with respect to sowing. The two farmers may sow the seeds at 15 to 20 days interval. That's because to avoid cross pollination, a period lasting one to two weeks after sowing is critical, which is when the male and female parts of the plant sprout.
BRR: Coming to commercial side of things. As green politics becomes more dominant along with increase in absolute levels of income, do you not see a long-term tilt toward organic market, at least in the developed markets?
MA: The organic niche is driven by consumer preferences and has little to do with environmental sustainability. World's largest organic grocer, Whole Foods, is owned by none other than Amazon. It does not get more big business than that. A lot of anti-GMO lobby is funded by businesses such as The Body Shop. The conflict is due to competing commercial interests, and not rooted in science.
Answering your question, the numbers from organic farming are just not sustainable, as it will never be able to provide for a growing world population. The key to ensuring global food security is producing more with less. Organic food just does not match up given the quantum of resources it gobbles up for the same level of caloric output.
You also have to take into account falling inputs: in 1960, an acre of culturable land was available per capita, which has shrunk to one-third of an acre. Freshwater available for farming is also declining. How do you feed all those people? The answer invariably comes out to be high-yield seeds technology accompanied by precision agriculture.
BRR: If GMO is such an obvious solution to fulfill growing domestic food requirements, why do we see delays in regulatory approval for its adoption?
MA: The problem is regulator's erratic regulatory behaviour. As a country we have failed to follow the science, not only in agriculture but also in other sectors. Agriculture may be referred to as the economic backbone; yet relevant government departments sometimes lack the requisite technical knowledge to take science-based decisions.
On a societal level also, we are often afraid of embracing new technology. It is regulator's job to assess whether the opposition to new technology stems from vested interests or genuine scientific concerns, yet it lacks the will and confidence to do so. GMO technology was introduced globally 20 years ago, and we are still struggling to take a consistent policy position on it either way.
Remember, the regulatory indecision has been a severe dampener for biotech companies. They have spent millions of dollars in trialing and years of effort is at stake. In our experience, the regulatory process is highly discretionary, and changes direction arbitrarily.
The continued indecision on GM crops will not only be a serious loss of opportunity, it will also create an environment of fear-mongering where future technologies are also seen with suspicion. If a decision is not taken soon, plans for introduction of future technologies in pipeline may face a fatal blow in times to come.
The few in the official quarters who have an appreciation for science, lack the confidence to speak up. On other occasions, such sane voices are stifled through accusations of collusion with technology providers, undermining our own scientists and technical bodies in the process.
There is another problem. Even though policy documents such as National Food Security Policy, 2018; and Pakistan Vision 2025; all mention biotechnology as a key priority area for agricultural growth, the policy decision has failed to cascade down from the top. As a consequence, fresh discussions on policy are often triggered at each regulatory review forum in general disregard of the existing law and underlying policy position.
The relevant regulator for GMOs is National Biotech Safety Committee, which includes members from Ministry of National Food Security; Science & Technology; Finance; Climate Change and others. But because institutional boundaries are so blurry, other authorities whose job is to comment on yield and efficacy of specific seed varieties, treat biotech safety as a subject under their purview.
BRR: By vested interests, are you referring to competition from local seed companies? These are usually small-sized firms that lack financial muscle to compete with a multinational's PR campaign.
MA: We do not view the local seed industry as competition. We believe that it is in the interest of all stakeholders that a vibrant local seed industry flourishes in Pakistan. Much work needs to be done in the way of seed research and plant breeding. Concerted efforts are required to build local capacity and general adequate investment in the required infrastructure. All of this will need to be driven by the local industry. This, however, can only be possible through technology transfer and knowledge sharing amongst the broader industry. Therefore, the multinational should not be viewed as an existential threat, but in fact as partners and collaborators. The local industry can learn a lot from the global wisdom of multinational companies. Even today, many of the local companies have benefited from the expertise and human resource first nurtured by the multinational crop science companies.
It is highly unfortunate that in the current scenario some local players do not see the value in collaboration and promotion of latest technology. The anti-GMO propaganda being fuelled by these elements has muddied an otherwise informed discussion on the issue. The fearmongering is now beginning to impact the government's ability to make objective, science-based decision.
In the midst of all this, the irony should not escape our attention. The elements labelling GM maize as 'poisonous' are the same who presently market GMO cotton, which as was clarified in the last interview, was first introduced in Pakistan through illicit channels.
BRR: Even voices from civil society have opposed GMO. Surely the opposition is much more widespread.
MA: People in general are not for or against GMO, they are indifferent to it, mostly because they lack basic awareness. If provided the right context and understanding around sustainable agriculture practices and the benefits of GM crop technology, widespread acceptance can be easily achieved. Farmers, on the other hand, maintain a very positive outlook and await the technology in anticipation. However, final policy decision will have to flow from the government; only then will the public begin to appreciate the technology once it starts to see improved yield and productivity from it.
At present the government is seeking feedback from stakeholders, essentially pitting local and multinational seed companies against each other. In our view this is not seeking feedback, it is choosing one competing commercial interest over another.
If the government seriously wishes to involve stakeholders, it needs to obtain feedback from scientists, agriculturalists, and food security experts.
BRR: Speaking of agricultural experts, surely there are several competent technical agriculturalists associated with government run agri-research institutes. Why have you not been able to enlist support from the same?
MA: Yes, they are generally supportive because almost everyone in scientific community has in principled agreement on the technology and the science behind it. But you have to appreciate that the scientific community lacks the kind of influence necessary to force decisions. Their role is mostly relegated to that of an advisor, at best. Thus, the decision making is often done without due consideration of scientific facts and expert opinions.
BRR: Going back to the subject of safety. One concern often raised is that chemicals from GMO-based herbicides have been traced in human blood. Please comment.
MA: Every tablet of vitamins consumed can be traced into human blood after sometime. But should the mere presence of a chemical or substance in human blood be the cause to raise alarm?
GM maize or Bt maize provides protection against insect attacks. These have been thoroughly studied before they are introduced into commercial agriculture. Numerous regulatory authorities around the world have evaluated the data on Bt-protected crops and concluded that these products are safe. In fact, commercial GM crops have been grown since 1996, and more than 1,700 independent scientific studies attest to the fact that GM crops are safe for human consumption and have no links to new allergies, cancer, celiac or other diseases. This fact is reviewed and verified by third parties such as the American Medical Association, UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), The World Health Organization (WHO), The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. National Academies of Science. Similarly, food safety and environment protection authorities of U.S, E.U, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Canada, Korea, amongst many others, also assess potential safety risks and continue to stand behind the overall safety of GM crops.
Bt is a protein present in a commonly occurring soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis. For it to be active against any other living organism, it needs two things. First, the target organism should have a complementary protein (usually called a receptor) that can bind Bt, and second, it should have gut pH that is alkaline. The human gut and skin lack receptors that can recognize and interact with Bt. Moreover, the human gut is acidic, thanks to all the hydrochloric acid that our stomachs produce naturally. Therefore, Bt gets the same treatment as all other proteins of animal or plant origin get once it enters our digestive system: it is digested.
Scientifically speaking, protein cannot be digested without breaking down into amino acids; therefore, the concern is unnecessary. Even so, regulators all over the world have specified maximum threshold limits along with timing of herbicide application. This makes sure that upon harvest, level of chemical remains under maximum threshold. The grain is safe even when consumed by humans.
In Pakistan's case, it should also be noted here that cottonseed is the biggest domestic source of edible oil, and more than 95 percent of cotton grown locally is Bt. cotton-based. GMO food crop is already a part of our staple food diet, without any health or safety incident. However, the inertia only kicks in when the policymakers and bureaucracy have to take a decision on a fresh crop.
BRR: What is the strategy of biotech companies to counter the campaign?
MA: The strategy is to focus on farmer education, instead of talking about the brands. The idea is to talk about GMO's environmental sustainability and its role in mitigating water scarcity.
At the end of the day, Pakistan needs to decide whether its agriculture is going to be forward looking or not. For our nation to embrace modern agriculture technologies to increase our productivity, an enabling environment for farmer and the industry needs to be introduced. With an evolving technology landscape, a less cumbersome, yet robust regulatory regime needs to be put in place. A regime that builds the confidence of the industry and encourages investment in new technologies.
For instance, if tomorrow a progressive farmer seeks to deploy drones to remotely monitor their fields, they have to deal with cumbersome laws and protocols that would make it nearly impossible to sustainably employ drones and achieve precision farming. The indecision around the introduction of GM cotton, together with the subsequent regularization without adequate stewardship, has already led to an unprecedented decline in cotton output. India's guided launch of Bt. cotton under stewardship efforts resulted in their cotton output growing from 14 million bales to 40 million bales. Pakistan, on the other hand, saw a decline from 14 to 10 million bales. One has to wonder who has gained from the loss of productivity and who is the beneficiary.