The GMO debate Part I

It finally came to pass on Thursday 18h July 2013 at the Makerere University Main Hall in Kampala, Uganda. The build up to this debate was eventful - the Makerere University academic staff mailing list was littered with lots of posts arguing for or against GMOs. There were more silent listeners though! I attended the debate and came back with a confirmation of what I wanted to hear: biotechnology is good and should be applied to improve humankind and the environment but should be done responsibly as there seems to be some undesirable sides to it that should preferably not be swept under the carpet. It was also clear that the current draft law (the so-called biotech bill) is inadequate in some (many?) significant areas. I captured a few issues from the speakers and I, unfortunately, present them here from my perspective - paraphrasing influenced by my own perception of the issues that came up. This is not in anyway an exhaustive representation of what was discussed by the scientists, legislators and the public.

1. God is central in science.
2. Biotechnology is important for improving quality of life of humans, animals and the environment. There are several examples of ways in which biotechnology has been used to achieve this especially in developing crop varieties with special/desirable characteristics.
3. GMO crops are not a panacea to food problems in Uganda.
4. There is need for a regulatory framework for the application of biotechnology in Uganda which GMOs are part of. Unfortunately, the current Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill (dubbed the GMO Bill) has several loop holes as compared to the one passed in Tanzania for example.
5. Broad stakeholder involvement is very important in the process of making the law to regulate GMOs.
6. In Uganda, regulatory functions are quite weakly implemented and poses a great concern especially with GMOs.
7. There is not much evidence of exhaustive safety studies done on many foods of GMO origin hence a bold statement about their safety cannot be made yet.
8. The conventional methods of crop production still hold their rightful place and make a significant contribution to agricultural production systems and food security in Uganda.
9. There is need to put more energy in developing indigenous genetic materials as opposed to depending on foreign supplies in order to avoid foreign 'manipulations'.
10. The application of biotechnology to enhance crop performance should be managed on a case by case basis as plants behave differently in their propagation mechanisms, e.g. maize should be handled more cautiously.

The one thing that I have to challenge the proponents and the opposers of GMOs is that they have spent too much time defending their side of the argument without placing much efforts in objectively demonstrating what I think might help the Members of Parliament and indeed members of the public to come to a final informed decision on how to proceed with this matter.

It is a known fact that everything has a risk and that because of this knowledge, we should not either fear to do anything because we are in fear of risk or simply plunge into something recklessly ignoring all the possible risks. What will usually inform our decision to adopt or not adopt something will be our assessment of the risk. I am yet to see a clearly developed objective risk matrix that informs our decision. The discussion, or should I call it argument, has been going on by and between scientists but they forget the major question of demonstrating the risk level in a way that a lay person can easily perceive.

I believe the lay man, just like the legislators who are debating the "GMO Bill", wants to hear answers to the following, seemingly trivial, questions so as to form an informed opinion on GMOs:

1. Would we die or suffer significant negative effects (which and what degree) if we do not adopt GMOs?
2. Why would we not die or suffer significant negative effects if we do not adopt GMOs?
3. Would we die or suffer significant negative effects if we adopted GMOs?
4. Why would we not die or suffer significant negative effects if we adopted GMOs?
5. Would we die or suffer significant negative effects if we do not adopt/perfect alternatives to GMOs?
6. Would we die or suffer significant negative effects if we adopted/perfected alternatives to GMOs?
7. Why would we not die or suffer significant negative effects if we adopted alternatives to GMOs?
8. Why would we not die or suffer significant negative effects if we do not adopt alternatives to GMOs?
9. What would the picture look like if we considered a combination of both in each case?
10. What would happen to the country's trade balance if we adopted/refused to adopt GMOs?
11. What should we do so as not to die from either adopting GMOs or not?

I am pursuaded that coming up with answers to these seemingly simplistic and trivial questions (that can potentially earn me a few insults here and there) would require us to develop and deeply analyse the risk matrices associated with each of the scenarios (perform an objective risk assessment): adopting GMOs, not adopting GMOs, adopting/perfecting alternatives or not. It would require that we identify key issues in each of the scenarios (in various crops and broadening it beyond just food crops) and consider their likelihood of happening and the consequence(s) that we would suffer if they happened. Borrowing from the common risk matrix used, I suggest that we add another (higher) level for both consequences and likelihood of happening/occurrence - the level is 'unknown'. In this case the score associated with 'unknown' on any of the axes should be considered high enough to cause rejection of the technology.

By the way, what are our practical and realistic targets for agriculture in Uganda - some kind of "agriculture agenda" for the nation and where we hope to take agriculture (crop and animal)? Wouldn't it be realistic to define the direction, set the milestones and then define what means we will use to get there? Considering GMO as possibly one of the means, with or without GMO, how far can we go along that journey; how safe during and after the journey; what happens to our trail; etc? This will help some of us regular waninchi ("laymen") see the point for or against GMOs or for a cautious (read objective) middle position.

What do you think?

CONSADOLE SAPPORO AT SAPPORO DOME

It happened on 10 November 2013 on the hanging soccer stage at the all weather sports arena, the Sapporo Dome. The hanging soccer stage is home turf of Sapporo's number one football team, Consadole Sapporo. The home team beat their visitors, Vissel Kobe 1-0 courtesy of a first half goal (penalty). This win gives them hope to qualify for play-offs so that they qualify for promotion to the top league. Two games remain - one away (17 Nov 2013) and the final one at home on 24 Nov 2013. If they maintain this performance they will qualify to tussle with three other clubs for the single promotion position that will be up for grabs.