Why South Africa's apex court reversed GMO approval

The Supreme Court laid down a number of reasons for reversing that scientific approval.

At the heart of the decision was the assertion that the Executive Council, which oversees GMO approvals, had failed to conduct thorough safety assessments before licensing the M8746 maize. 

The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), which spearheaded the legal battle against GMO approval, argued that inadequate evaluations had been made concerning the potential health risks to humans and the environmental impact of this genetic modification.

The ACB presented compelling evidence suggesting that the decision-making process neglected crucial safety data and expert opinions. 

Central to the court's ruling was the application of the "precautionary principle," a fundamental tenet in environmental law that advocates minimising risk in the face of uncertainty. 

The Supreme Court determined that the regulators had not appropriately applied this principle, which calls for protective measures when there is potential for serious or irreversible harm.

The court emphasised that regulatory bodies must prioritise public health and ecological integrity over agricultural efficiency or economic benefits, especially when uncertainties exist surrounding long-term impacts. 

The judgment also illuminated the historical context of GMO regulations in South Africa. The regulatory framework governing GMOs has its roots in an apartheid-era institution, the South African Committee on Genetic Experimentation (Sagene), founded under a strategy that prioritised agricultural control.

This historical backdrop has raised significant questions about how past biases may continue to influence contemporary policies and regulatory practices. 

Critics argue that the Executive Council has often favoured the interests of foreign biotech companies and has routinely rubber-stamped safety data provided without rigorous scrutiny. This culture of complacency around GMO approvals has, until now, gone largely unchallenged.

The court highlighted that vital expert evidence presented by the ACB and other stakeholders had been dismissed or inadequately addressed during the approval process.

This led to a troubling pattern where the Executive Council accepted the claims of foreign biotech companies without conducting independent assessments or considering contradictory scientific evidence.

Such a lack of due diligence has profound implications for public trust in regulatory institutions and underscores the need for transparent and evidence-based decision-making.

The ruling also raises serious implications regarding the health of populations in neighbouring countries reliant on GMOs from South Africa.

Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Malawi heavily import South African agricultural products, including GMO maize and soy. These populations often face significant health challenges, including cancer.

The court's decision to reverse the approval of GMOs reflects concerns about the potential risks of consuming these products and acknowledges the interconnectedness of health and agricultural policies across borders. 

This landmark ruling establishes a precedent that calls for stricter scrutiny of GMO approvals in South Africa moving forward. It suggests that regulatory bodies must commit to rigorous evaluations and a transparent decision-making process that prioritises the health of the public and the environment. 

The Supreme Court’s decision provides an opportunity for stakeholders, including the government, scientists and civil society, to re-evaluate the regulatory landscape and to create frameworks that protect public health while promoting sustainable agriculture.

The reversal of South Africa’s approval of Monsanto’s GMO maize represents a watershed moment in the country’s approach to agricultural biotechnology.

It emphasises the necessity for comprehensive safety assessments, adherence to the precautionary principle, and a critical evaluation of expert evidence. 

As debate on GMOs continues, the implications of this ruling may extend beyond South Africa, influencing international discussions on food safety, environmental protection, and the ethics of biotechnology.