THE debate about biotechnology and the food derived from it, known as genetically modified food (GMF), has gained momentum. More so with the famine which is threatening the lives of more than 10 million people in sub-region.

The issue at the moment is whether or not the Zambian government should accept GM relief maize from the US. A number of people; scientists and non-scientists alike have rendered their voices to this immortive debate.

I would like to observe that recent sentiments issued in both the print and electronic media on the subject, have been sensational and to some extent alarming to the consumer.

Pronouncements on the subject have dampened the hopes of many Zambians (especially those in rural areas) who have been anxiously waiting to receive relief maize, which would rescue them from the impending catastrophe.

All of us who consider ourselves to be experts in biotechnology must accept that we have not done enough to guide our policy makers on the subject. Each time we are afforded a forum we are invariably issuing contradictory statements on GM maize and biotechnology in general. Little wonder that our government is to date undecided on whether or not to accept maize aid from the US (The Post edition of 26th July).

It is with this background that I have been compelled to contribute on the subject, specifically to address three pertinent issues on the current debate. Firstly to advise on the question of the safety of genetically modified foods. Secondly, to deal with some common misperceptions that have clouded the debate and thirdly, to make specific suggestions on the way forward as regards GM maize which has been offered by donors.

It is important from the onset to distinguish between scientific methodology on the one hand and myths on the other. Science relies on deductive empirical evidence and is dynamic whereas myths are purely perceptions which cannot be substantiated with empirical data.

Myths have become popularly known as smoke screens and are largely being peddled by the anti-GMO activists. As regards food safety, the public need to know that all foods derived from biotechnology are thoroughly assessed to ensure that they are safe to eat.

They all undergo an extensive regulatory food safety review in the countries of origin prior to being made available for sale to the public. Countries around the world have developed National Biosafety laws and regulations that assure the safety of these foods. In Africa; Kenya, South Africa, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Namibia and Cameroon have guidelines in place while several other countries including Zambia are in the process of formulating policies on the issue.

GM foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are evaluated according to processes endorsed by FAO and WHO. They are subject to the same food standards as non-biotech foods and must be substantially equivalent with regards to their composition, nutrition, toxicity, allergenicity, mutagenecity and digestibility before they can be released for consumption.

Professional expert reviews attest to the safety of biotech foods: the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, Food Advisory Council (UK) and the FAO have all endorsed biotechnology as a responsible tool. The influential British think-tank, the Nuffield Council of Biotechs, concluded that all GM crops so far released are safe for human consumption. Biotechnology companies are under obligation to ensure that all the genetically improved crops they produce comply with all national and international guidelines.

Their survival as companies is dependent on complying with regulations and consumer expectations. The debate in Zambia like in many other countries, has focused attention on the food safety and environmental concerns associated with biotechnology.

Some of these concerns are real, others imagined. Let us take food safety concerns first. So far there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that eating GM food will be bad for anyone's health. To be more specific there is no experimental data so far to prove that GM foods cause allergies, anti-biotic resistance or suppression of immune systems in human bodies. These are but some of the common myths which I referred to earlier.

For instance, findings of a Royal Commission which was set up to investigate the validity of the claims that GM foods suppress the immune system concluded that 'the evidence by Dr Pusztai to indicate that rats had depressed immune system was not the result of standard immune response tests'. The report further states that 'within the scientific community there is general agreement that the results of Dr. Pusztai's experiment are inclusive insofar as there were flaws in the process, and the project was incomplete'.

Extensive testing carried out by Chinese researchers, similar to that described by Drs. Pusztai has not replicated the results as claimed by the latter. It is therefore a misrepresentation of facts to suggest that GM foods depress immunity in humans as no such evidence has been documented. Millions of people around the world have been eating biotechnology crops (maize included) for a number of years and no ill health effects have been attributed to them. In a 6-year study of 65 000 GM Irish potatoes, no negative features caused by GM were found.

The reasons why we may be confident that GM foods are safe is that food safety depends on what a food contains, not how it was produced. Consequently, anti-nutritional elements, toxic micro-organisms, substances that cause allergies and other undesirable attributes are no more likely to be present in genetically modified than in conventional foods.

GM foods may even turn out to be better for people since, if resistance to pests in the original crop has been genetically induced, the food derived from it may contain fewer traces of pesticides. Biotechnology is no different in principle from breeding techniques that have been used for decades.

We can be assured of the long-term safety of food derived through biotechnology for several reasons. First, proteins available in biotechnology products have a history of safe use.

For instance, Bt proteins have been safely used as a 'harmless-to-people' insecticide for over 35 years. In medicine, the hormone known as insulin, which is given to diabetic patients, has been produced through this new technology for decades and has proved to be safe. Secondly, predictive tools are used, including animal feeding trails, to assess the long-term health and safety of these products. Now to the environmental concerns.

One of the most powerful myths surrounding genetic modification is that it is 'unnatural' because it allows genes to 'cross the species barrier'. Activists tune to this myth whenever they use emotive expressions such as 'Frankenstein foods', 'Superweeds' or portray biotechnology as a plot perpetrated by mad scientists playing God.

The truth is that genes already move between species in nature. DNA from viruses is an example: It moves from grasses into the gut of insects, then into cultivated crops. Similarly, some of the DNA in humans (known as Mitochondrial DNA) is thought to originate from bacteria that entered the human genetic make up (genome) at an early stage of evolution.

In addition, conventional plant breeders have long moved genes between species in crops such as wheat and rice. Genetic modification is simply one more instrument enabling them to do so, albeit a powerful one since it broadens the genepool that can be accessed.

End of part one