THE EDITOR, Madam:
THE INTRODUCTION of genetically- modified (GM) foods on the international agenda has evoked emotions ranging from excitement among scientists to horror and fear among consumer groups. It is obvious that scientists worldwide committed the ultimate faux pas (for which they are paying dearly now) of neglecting to demystify this fascinating but complex technology for the man-in-the-street.
The spate of unfortunate instances affecting foods (Mad Cow Disease, E. coli infection) has done little to build confidence of the public in its officials and scientists. As expected, in many European countries, any talk of GM foods served merely to fuel the mistrust and suspicion many had regarding alteration of their food.
One may very well question the necessity of GM foods. An often touted (and demonstrated) benefit is the reduction of chemicals on crops. That in itself addresses prevailing concerns regarding highly toxic pesticides and herbicides some of which are thought of as being "necessary evils". Benefits to the farmer, environment and ultimately the consumer were predicted...but at what cost?
Possible risks to a country's biodiversity were demonstrated in a study which showed the reduction of the Monarch Butterfly population as a result of GM corn. Therefore it is evident that risk/benefit analyses are critical in the decision-making process. However, there is no simple 'magic formula' for determining the risks associated with the cultivation, importation or consumption of GM food.
While risk assessment is founded on a scientific basis, it involves a complex matrix of probabilities, specific to the ecological, agronomical and sometimes even social conditions in each country. It is interesting to note that although during conventional breeding of crops hundreds of genes are transferred (albeit within species) risk assessment is not the norm, while crops in which a single gene is transferred by genetic engineering, rigorous testing and risk assessment procedures are required, have been and are being conducted.
Jamaica has been part and parcel of the negotiating process which resulted in the recently adopted Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It offers an avenue for assuring that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) pose minimum risk to the environment and human health. While not yet ratified, this international instrument has taken into consideration concerns such as risk assessment and management, labelling of GM foods, conditions for movement of GMOs between countries, and presents prospects for developing countries to benefit from modern biotechnology. Individual countries may decide to become parties to the Protocol and benefit from the protection it offers. This however does not prevent a country from developing a legislative framework which has stricter rules for GM products.
In the advent of globalisation, whether or not a country embraces modern biotechnology, it would be short-sighted not to have a strategy concerning GMOs, GM products and products derived from GMOs. At present, Jamaica is developing a policy on Biosafety. This is aimed at setting the stage for a legislative and administrative framework, and will involve extensive public consultation.
The National Biosafety Committee of the National Commission on Science and Technology has a pivotal role to play and has been monitoring local experimental trials of GM papayas (engineered to be resistant to the dreaded ringspot virus). Jamaica will find that as with most other countries, the management of this cutting edge technology is an evolving process, one which demands keeping abreast of international developments, keeping the public informed and developing the capacity (and capability) to monitor and minimise inherent risks.
I am etc.,
AUDIA BARNETT, Ph.D.
National Commission on
Science & Technology
Secretariat,
1 Devon Road,
Kingston 10
