In an important judgment, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently blocked the release of Monsanto’s genetically modified maize, highlighting government failures in applying mandatory environmental safety checks.
This decision, stemming from a prolonged legal battle against the US agrochemical firm initiated by the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), underscores growing concerns over the environmental and health impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The dispute dates back to 2015 when Monsanto received approval to release the GMO maize.
Following the approval, the ACB appealed the decision under the Genetically Modified Organisms Act 15 of 1997, pointing to insufficient risk assessments in Monsanto’s application.
The ACB argued that Monsanto's studies failed to identify credible hazards, lacked data on food processing effects, and presented no clear record of safe human exposure.
Environmental experts supporting the ACB flagged Monsanto's risk assessment as inadequate, with one expert stating that “the data submitted by Monsanto in support of its safety claims were based on fermented and digested forms of the product”.
In response to these findings, the ACB escalated its appeal to the Gauteng Division of the High Court in 2017 after the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries upheld Monsanto's permit approval. Although the High Court initially dismissed the appeal, it granted ACB permission to escalate the matter to the SCA.
The SCA cited significant failures in adhering to the precautionary principle, which requires authorities to take proactive measures in the face of potential environmental harm.
It determined that the Executive Council, the Appeal Board, and the Minister had all neglected the principle by disregarding safety concerns raised against Monsanto’s application. Instead of mandating a cautious approach, the government relied solely on Monsanto’s own assurances.
Additionally, the court noted non-compliance with section 5(1)(a) of the GMO Act, which mandates the Executive Council to decide whether an environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) is required.
Despite this legal obligation, the government failed to enforce this requirement, effectively bypassing an essential environmental safeguard.
The SCA’s judgment effectively overturns all previous approvals, compelling a comprehensive reassessment of GMO maize applications to ensure adherence to environmental and public safety standards.
IOL