1

GMO and Poison-free Zones: a citizen-based initiative to raiseawareness and drive policy changes in pesticide managementlegislationinSouthAfrica

Submitted:May2019atthe“PoliticsofPesticidesinAfrica”conference,Arusha,Tanzania.Authors:SashaMentz-Lagrange,RushkaJohnson,BusisiweMgangxela,MatthewPurkisKeywords:SouthAfrica,spraydrift,agro-chemicalcontamination,pesticideexposure,GMOpoisonfreezones,civicoppositiontopesticidesAbstractThe health and environmental issues associated with contamination caused by agro-chemicalfarming in South Africa go largely undocumented and therefore disregarded by regulatoryauthorities.Many people living close to farming-intensive areas in South Africa, where over 3000pesticidesareregisteredforuse,reportalarmingsymptomsandseveralcasesofcancersthatmightfairlybeattributedtotheextensiveuseofagro-chemicalremediesonfruitorchards,vineyardsandcroplands,althoughtheissueofattributionremainsscientificallychallenging.Overall,theframeworkregulatingpesticideusageinSouthAfricaprovesweakandinsufficientasitnarrows their regulation to spraying protocols and product specification. Although the 2010 PestManagementAct,whichseekstoaddressthelimitationsofAct36of1947onagriculturalremedieswithspecificconsiderationtohumanhealthandtheenvironment,theseprovisionsfailtomaterialiseinatangiblemanner.Overall,theframeworkregulatingpesticideusageinSouthAfricaprovesweakand insufficientas itnarrows their regulation to sprayingprotocolsandproduct specification,withstill limited consideration given to occupational health, long-term environmental impacts and theneedtofirmlysanctionabusesandcompensatevictims.Atthecruxofthismatter is thefactthatthepesticide industry ishighly influentialandpressurizestheregulatorfortheindustry’sinteresttoprevail.Thecountryisexperiencingnumerousandseverecases of agro-chemical spray drift that affect the environment (accumulations of residues in soils,waterways and undergroundwater that goes largely unmonitored), compromise the livelihood offarmers running organic operations (either by direct drift or by general contamination of theenvironmentwhere farmingoccurs), and severelyaffects thehealth,notonlyof the farmworkersapplyingtheremediesbutalsoofcommunitieslivingadjacenttothesprayedfields.ThispaperdocumentstheGMO&Poison-freeZones(GPFZ)citizen-basedinitiativethatwascreatedinSouthAfricatoserveasacatalysttonurture(andreclaim)landnotyetpreytochemicalfarmingmethods through identifying and mapping «uncontaminated» land throughout the country, anddocumenting cases of spray drift (including pesticide-related health issues), and contamination oforganiccropsbyincursionsofgeneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs)inpeople’sfields.Thisactivist-driven,collectiveresistancemovement,whichseekstorootitsactioninsolidresearch,isproving tohave thepotential tobecome theprimarychannel throughwhichpartiesaffectedbyspraydriftandGMOcontaminationandwhichcanholdfarmers,authoritiesandtheagro-chemicalindustryaccountable in thecountry. It ishopedthiscanbedonebymakingvisible theagriculturalmanagement underwhich properties are and earmarking them clearly by signs reading “This is aGMOandpoisonfreeproperty–nosprayingallowed”.Ultimatelythegoalofthezonesistoi)encourageandsupportthegrowthofGMOandPoisonFreezones through the sharing of information and skills, seeds, resources, workshops and communityinvolvement and ii) to garner key evidence and sufficient support to lobby the legislator for thelegislationgoverningtheuseofpesticidestoberevised,soastoincorporaterobustsurveillanceandcontrol systems, as well as setting up sanction and compensation mechanisms in the event ofcontamination. As victims invariably feel powerless with little recourse against spray drift andcontamination,furthercompoundedbychallengesastohowtoobjectivelyattributeanyhealthissuetospraydrift, the initiative isbeingactivelypromotedamongactivists,consumersandcivilsocietyorganisations.

2

IntroductionThis papers attempts to capture in an academic fashion, an initiative that rooted inacademic research but that is expressed through tangible actions on the part of SouthAfricancitizenswhoseektoclaimbacklandwhichisbeingunfairlytaintedbytheinterestsof “big-Agri”. It frames how a grassroots movement is attempting to generate a criticalevidencebase (basedon thesystematicdocumentationofcontamination incidents in thecountry)combinedwiththeaformofcivicinsurgency(creatingtoxin-freezones)toreversethe tidal wave of contamination being pushed by the country’s agro-chemical farmingpractices.This contamination ismultiform: it is about agro-chemical contamination but also aboutcontamination through geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs). Pesticides tend tomovefrom the point of application into non-target environments, which can result in seriousacute and chronic human health and environmental effects. But it is proving difficult toestablishthecausationbetweenthemassuseoftheodd3000pesticidesregisteredinthecountry, the fact that over 89% of the country’s maize is GM (2015/16 planting season)(Esterhuizen, 2016) and the incremental number of people falling ill because of theexposure to these,be it through inhalation (spraydrift)or ingestion (spraydrift,pesticideresidues andGMOs).GMOs, especially for crops such asmaize,which have an extensiveperimeterofcross-pollination,havebeenfoundtocontaminatefieldsofheirloommaizeintheEasternCape,wheretestingwasdoneAs a response to this alarming state of affairs, citizens havemobilized and have startedclaiming back their land, by ensuring that what is not contaminated remainsuncontaminated. This they are able to do by declaring their spaces as “GMOandPoisonfree zones” and this declaration ismade to the neighbourwho is spraying agro-chemicaltooclose to them, to theirmunicipality, to theirgovernment–which ismeant toprotecttheirhealthand right toa cleanenvironment, asmadeprovision for in theSouthAfricanconstitution- and to the world. Declaring “GMO and Poison free zones” is about peoplebeingabletoshowthattheyarepreparedtostandfortheirrighttoprotecttheybody,theirfamily,theirlandtobefreeofpoisonandGMOsandthattheydon'tneedpermissionfromanyonetodoso,andthatwhoeverinfringesthisrightwillbenamedandshamed.Thehopeis that this platformwill grow to create such awareness on these issues, that the SouthAfrican legislationwill changeandactuallymake itpossible for those infringingon“GMOandPoisonfreezones”tobeheldaccountable.Aftermonths of preparation to conceptualise the initiative and put up awebsite, a largecampaignwasorchestratedinthesocialmediatolaunchtheinitiativeinSouthAfrica(May2019).Thisplatform,howitwasbornandwhatiscurrentlydoingandhopingtoachieve,iscaptured in this paper. Asmentioned the “zones” are about fighting agro-chemicals andGMOs in South Africa and pushing forth the agroecological alternatives, using a novelapproach.Forthepurposeofthe“PoliticsofPesticidesinAfrica”conference,thepaperwillnarrow down the focus of this initiative on the pesticide issue. But the reader needs tobearing in mind that these issues are very much intertwined, as what prompted theemergence of the “Round Up” ready maize is the fact that glyphosate is the darling ofconventionalfarmersinSouthAfrica.

3

1. PesticideandGMOcontaminationissuesinSouthAfricaSouthAfricasitswithahugechallenge:themainstayofourfoodisproducedthroughthemeans of chemical farming (a termpreferred to that of “conventional farming”,which ismisleading).Thisleadstomanyinstancesofcommunitiessufferingfrom“pesticidesdrift”,oftencalled“spraydrift”.1.1 SouthAfrica’schemicalloadanditsconsequencesThere are in excess of 3000 pesticide products approved for use in South Africa [SouthAfricanDepartmentofAgriculture,ForestryandFisheries(DAFF)].Andthisnumberissettoincrease. According to the 2013 Global Chemical Outlook (United Nations EnvironmentProgramme),SouthAfrica isthe largestconsumerofpesticides inAfrica,accountingfor2percentofglobalpesticideconsumption.SouthAfrica’spesticideexpenditurerosecloseto60 per cent over the period between the late 1990’s and 2009 andwas projected to riseanother55per cent in theperiod2009 to2019.Accrding toanalysts, theupward trend inglyphosate use is likely to continue, increasing the glyphosate levels present in theenvironment and potentially increasing animal and human exposure to the herbicide(Benbrook2016)In South Africa, studies have linked pesticide exposure to acute poisoning (Bennet et al2003),acetylcholineesteraseinhibitionasaresultofaerialapplicationoforganophosphates(Dalvie and London 2006), possible occurrence of Guillain–Barré syndrome in a ruralfarming community (Londonet al 2004), birth defects (Heeren et al 2003) and endocrinedisruption(Aneck-Hahnetal2007;Englishetal2012)inhumancommunities.Butpesticidecontaminationwithtoxiceffectsdoesn'tonlyaffecthumanbeingoranimals;pesticidesalsopenetrate deep into aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Almost all pesticides have theeffecttoeitherbio-concentrateinorganisms(whichoftenhappensinaquaticenvironmentasbio-concentrationisaboutacompoundbeingfoundinhigherconcentrationinthetissueof anorganism, than in its surroundingenvironment)or tobebiomagnified in foodwebs(i.e. the levels of concentration rises through the consecutive levels of a foodweb). Thiseco-toxicityissueiscriticaltothedebate,asmaximumresiduelevels(MRL)donottakeintoconsideration the cumulative impactof pesticides inour environment and foodweb, andespecially not the persistence of pesticides (resistance to degradation throughmetabolicactivity,ultravioletradiationandextremetemperatures)(Quinetal2011).These effects are concerning from an environmental and human health point of view,particularly in the latter case, considering that many communities in South Africa usegroundwater fordrinkingpurposesordonothaveaccessto,or reliableaccessto, treatedwaterandoftendrinkuntreatedwater(Dabrowski2014).Butevenifwater istreated,thistreatmentusuallyentailscompliancewithPh,e-colicountandsuspendedparticlescount,and water testing in South Arica not set guidelines/limits to pesticides levels in water.Which essentially means that “treated water” can contain pesticide residues (Dabrowski2019)1.2 TheinadequatelegalframeworkregulatingpesticideusageTheproblem is that this chemical load inSouthAfrica is notbeing adequatelymanaged.Every agricultural chemical remedy (fertilizers and pesticides including herbicide,insecticides,fungicides)thatisusedandsoldinSouthAfricamustberegisteredunderAct36of1947.Act36statesthatwhenagro-chemicalsareused,theProductLabelInstructions

4

& SpecialWarningsmust be followed scrupulously. In recognition that Act 36 is an out-dated piece of legislation, the Act has been amended to take into account the evolvingcontextofpesticideusageinSouthAfrica.In2011thePestcontroloperatorregulationamendment1broughtinadditionalregulationstoAct36.Itincludesprovisionforprecautionstobetakentopreventthedriftorspreadofagriculturalremediesfromatreatedarea.Theamendmentalsospecifiesthefollowing:“thepestcontroloperatormustensurethatagriculturalremediesareused(includingtheuseinthe workplace) in accordance with approved label and with good application practice”(article9).SectionII.11.ofthe2011amendmentdealwithspraydrift,whichstates:“apestcontroloperatormustensurethatallreasonableprecautionsaretakentopreventthedriftorspreadofagriculturalremediesfromatreatedarea”.Asthenextsectiondiscusses,thesewelcomeprovisionsremainweakinthatthecurrentpolicy frameworkessentially reliesoncompliance with labels to as the sole means of enforcing end-user compliance and topreventoff-targetexposures. In 2010, the Pesticide Management Policy was enacted, with the ambition to“systematicallyreviseAct36”.2Thedraftpolicypaperreceivedextensivecommentarythat,if incorporated into thedraft law,wouldhave significantly improved themanagementofpesticides and better protected people and the environment from non-target spraying.Thesearediscussedinfurtherdetailinthenextsection.ThePesticidepolicywasconceivedtobringabout“changestothemethodusedtomanagepesticides(whichshould)be basedonapolicythataimstoeliminateallsignificantriskstohumanhealthandenvironmentpotentiallyfrompesticidesuseandalsoincorporatessoundproductionsystems.”Morespecifically,the2010policyseeksto:

i. improve the legislative framework to ensure that South Africans are betterprotectedfromhealthandenvironmentalrisksposedbypesticides;

ii. encourage the development and use of alternative products and techniques andreducedependenceonchemicalplantprotectionproducts

iii. integraterelevantinternationalagreementsandinitiativesfromothergovernmentdepartments;

iv. Increase transparency. Access to information and improve public participation intheregistrationofpesticides.

The2010PesticideManagementActdidn'tquitebringaboutallthechangesithadsetitselftobringabout.ItonlymarginallyimprovesonthelimitedregulatoryscopeofAct36.Someoftheprovisionswewishtoflag–intermsofhowthesemayassistwithmitigatingtheimpactsofnon-targetspraying–include(chapter5):

- Introducingspecialprotectionforvulnerablepopulations(e.g.children,women,):- Takingintoaccountpesticideexposurefromallsources,including,foodandwater;- Consideringcumulativeeffectsofpesticidesthatactinthesameway;- Supportingsustainablepestmanagement;

1GovernmentGazette,18february2011.14no.34020no.r.98.Fertilizers,farmfeeds,agriculturalremediesandstockremediesAct,1947(actno.36of1947).Pestcontroloperatorregulation.2Notice 1120 of 2010 Department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries fertilizers, farm feeds, agriculturalremediesandstockremediesact,1947(actno.36of1947).AdoptionofPesticideManagementPolicyforSouthAfrica.

5

- Prohibitingregistrationofproductsthatposesunacceptablerisktopeople'shealthortheenvironment;

- Expeditingtheregistrationoflower-riskproducts;- Mandatingbufferzonesforpesticidesuseareas;and

The2010PesticideManagementpolicy,asitstandstoday,doesbringimprovementtoAct36asitexplicitlyrecognizestheunintendedconsequencesofpesticideusage.Theseareallwelcomedasconcepts,butaspractitionershaveexperienced,theyremaintheoreticalandin2019therewasstilllittleinplacetofleshouttheseconcepts.Thejuryisoutonwhetherthispieceoflegislationgenuinelyconstitutesanimprovementon“eliminating all significant risks to human health and the environment”. Act 36, itsregulations and the 2010 PesticideManagement Act that governs it are construed to besufficient and adequate by the national Regulator and Registrar (Rother 2019). Butempiricalevidencesuggeststhatthis legislativeframeworkremainsweakandinsufficient.TheauthorsareundertheunderstandingthatAct36isunderrevisionandthattherewillberoomforpubliccommentinthenearfuture.Solongabriefcriticofthislegislationandwhatitfailstocoverfollows.1.3CritiqueofthecurrentstateoflegislationofpesticidesinSouthAfricaAtthetimethatthedraftwascirculated(2006),DAFFreceivedextensivecommentsfromthe School of PublicHealth& FamilyMedicine from theUniversity of Cape Town (UCT),which singled out several issues in this draft policy (London and Rother 2006). But aftermanyoftheseconsiderationswereincorporatedinthemodifieddraft,itturnedoutthattheindustrymanagedtopressurizethedepartmenttohavesomeoftheseadditionalprovisionswithdrawnformthepolicy(Rother2019)3.The current regulatory framework for pesticides in South Africa proves weak andinsufficient.Thispaperonlyextractsahandfulofthecriticalissuesthatthelegislationfailstoaddressintermsofhumanhealthandtheenvironment,asthespecificfocusofthispaperandtheactionispresentsfocusesontheissueofspraydrift:

1) Theregulationofpesticideuseisnarroweddowntosprayingprotocolsandproductspecification,withlittleconsiderationgiventooccupationalhealthandnonetooff-targetareasandtheenvironmentingeneral

Box1.Whatis“pesticidedrift”?“Pesticide drift” is the drifting of spray and dust from pesticide applications. Pesticides include:insecticides (bugkillers),herbicides (weedkillers),and fungicides (funguskillers).Thisdriftposesaseriousthreattohumanhealthaswellastowildlifeandecosystemsinandaroundagricultural.Butiscanalsoaffectresidentialareaswhereharshchemicalsareusedtowardoffpests.Thebiggestriskfrompesticidedrift istothose living,workingorattendingschoolnear largerfarms,whichemployelevatedsprayingequipmentorcropdusterplanestoapplychemicalstocropsandfields.Childrenareespeciallyvulnerable to theseairbornepesticides,giventhat theiryoungbodiesandbrainsarestillgrowinganddeveloping.3The opening commentary touched on the fact that the 2010 legislation should have been called the “PestManagementpolicy” asopposed toa “pesticidemanagementpolicy” soas tomoreexplicitlymake room for“IntegratedPestManagement”,whichthepolicypurportstobestandingfor.Thisisisthetypeofrhetoricthatnodoubtsalarmindustrybodies,asitopensupalternativeavenuestomanagingpests.

6

2) Non-target areas (that is to say residential areas, schools, hospitals) are in nomannerprotectedfromexposuretopesticidesprayingactivities.Theonlymentionof buffer zones in the legislation pertains to areas where water sources may beimpacted.This isconstruedasacritical issue; theonlywaythroughwhichhumanandenvironmentalhealthcanbeprotectedfromspraydriftisthroughthecreationof buffer zones or no-spray-drift zones, whatever the nature of the area beingimpacted.

3) Wehavealsofoundthatinpractice,manychemicalfarmersdonotfeelcompelled

toissueanynotices,letalonetoidentifytheremedybeingapplied–whichisbreachwithwhat product labels requires. There is a strong sense of entitlement amongfarmers(andevenmunicipalitiessendingtheirworkerstosprayherbicidesinpublicplaces), who are quick to respond that whatever they spray is an authorizedchemicalremedyandthatitisinnocuous.

4) Legislationfails toefficientlycommunicatehazard,withfarmworkersshowingan

inabilitytounderstandtheriskelementsonthepesticidelabel(LondonandRother2006).Linkedtothisissueisthatfactthatlegislationdoesnotrequirepriortrainingand certification to buy/use/apply the most toxic pesticides sold in South Africa(e.g., Hazard Class Ia and Ib, and II pesticides), which means that children canactuallywalkintoahardwarestoreandpurchaseabottleofRoundUp.

5) There is a risk of possible conflict of interest in outsourcing of toxicological

assessmentofpesticideregistrationresponsibilitiestoprivateconsultantswhoactsimultaneously for the industry. The commentary also underlined that datasubmittedfortoxicologicalassessmentwerenotrequiredtoaddress localclimaticandhumanhealth(e.g.genetic,orhighratesofmalnutrition,TBandHIV)factors,which may significantly affect vulnerabilities of humans handling pesticides(LondonandRother2006).Also,MRLshouldbebasedonthedietaryprofileofthepopulation,whichcompoundsthisissueofMRLshavingtotakealocalcontextintoproperconsideration.

6) Also critical is that the labelling requirements are actually very limited and only

exhibit toxically to a point: currently the rules regulating the registration ofpesticide only focused on the active ingredients and not on the completeformulation, which results in non-disclosure on labels of inert ingredients. Byexcluding inert ingredientandonly including theactive ingredient, the toxicologyassessment becomes lopsided, as inert ingredients may be more toxic than theactive ingredient, as has been amply evidence in the case of Round Up. Indeed,someRoundupadditiveswere found tobe9,661 timesmore toxic tohumancellsthanglyphosate(Mesnageetal2014).Whenmeasuringthemitochondrialactivitiesandmembranedegradations toascertaincelldamage, the researcherdeterminedthatRoundupwasamong themost toxicof the9different chemicals tested.Theusual calculation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is based only on the activeprinciple, or “main ingredient”. This constitutes an alarmingmisrepresentation oftheriskspresentedbychemicalformulations.

7) The principles of cradle-to-grave responsibility for environmental (and one may

add, human) hazards and the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, enshrined in the NationalEnvironmentManagementAct, shouldbepartandparcelofanypolicy lookingatregulatingtheuseofpesticides(LondonandRother2006)

7

8) Despite the emphasis being laid on compliancewith product label both inAct 36

andits2011amendment,thereisnomentionofproductliabilityinthepolicy(whichwould involve the roleof theDepartmentofTradeand Industry).This is a criticalconsideration, asmany pesticides are used outside of the agricultural context, itwould be critical that consumers are adequately protected from hazards frompesticides.(LondonandRother2006)

9) When it comes to drift or spread to a non-targeted area, the law only makes

provisionforremedialaction.Ifapestoperatorisfoundtobenoncompliant,hecanbefined.Butthereisnoprovisionforcompensationfortheaffectedparty,letalonesanctionsthatwouldpreventthefarmerfromactuallysprayinganyremediesintheclose vicinity of other farming areas that wish to remain uncontaminated, or tohuman settlements (residential, homes, etc.). This not only infringes on SouthAfricans’ right to a clean and healthy environment, as provided for by the 1996Constitution,italsocompromisesthelivelihoodsofthousandsoforganicfarmers.

Inessence,thewords“liability”,“sanction”,and“compensation”areabsentfromthe2010legislation.Butinthespiritofforthcomingadvocacyactions,thispaperwishestoflagafew“apertures”thatthePesticideManagementActopensupandthatworthinvestigating:1.4ScopeforactionThelegalframeworkalsobringsforththefollowingpoints,whichpractitionersshouldbearinmindwhenstepsaretakentoholdthelegislatoraccountablefortheprovisionsmadeintheAct(Chapter4.(i)):i) “ special attention should be given to pesticides that pose unmanageable risk,with anunderstanding that suchpesticides shouldbe considered forphaseout, severe restrictionandbans.ThosethatwillbeconsideredincludethosewithEndocrineDisruptingProperties(EDP), Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), carcinogenic and immunotoxic potential,formulations classified byWHO as ExtremelyHazardous (class 1a) andHighlyHazardous(class1b),aswellaspesticidesassociatedwithfrequentandseverepoisoningincidents.”

ð giventhatinInMarch2015,theInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC)classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A)4and thelegalprecedentpresentedbythecaseofEdwinHardemanversusMonsanto,whichsaw the jury awarding $80 Million to the plaintiff suffering from non-Hodgkin'slymphoma.

Ii) “Considering how prevalent the use of pesticide is in ecosystems where endangeredspeciesareatrisk,theDAFFshallgiveexplicitprotectionforsuchspecies.”

ð in certain environmentswhere endangered species are at risk, this implies that amoratoriumonsprayingcouldbeplaced

iii) “Wherenecessary,theDAFF,throughtheregulatorysystem,shallplacerequirementsor restrictions on users to limit themovement of pesticides to water. These will includeinstitutingbufferzones,restrictingaerialsprayinginacertainproximitytowatersources.”4https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/

8

ð this isanexplicitmentiontobufferzones, whichareonlycalledforwhenthere issprayingclosetowatersources.Thisislimitedscopeyetstillanavenuetocreateaprecedentwithdefyingbufferzones.

iv) “The Policy recognizes that effective regulations are based on good science, and thatstrong ties are needed between research/monitoring and regulation. Research andmonitoring will help to identify changes in pesticide pollution, danger spots, andparticularlyproblematicpesticides.”

ð Underthisprovision,peopleshouldbeabletocomeforwardfor“goodscience”tobesupportedasanevidencebasetowardsthismonitoringefforts.

Althoughthesepointsarearticulatedasprinciples,withoutanyfurtherdetailsgiventohowtheseshouldmanifest,thereisscopeforthesetoformthebasisforputtingDAFFtotask.1.5TheGeneticallyModifiedOrganism(GMO)ProblemGeneticallymodified(GM)varietiesofmaize,soybeanandcottonhavebeenapprovedforcommercialproductioninSouthAfricaandthemainstayofthesecropsarenowGM.Thesecropsarepredominantlyengineeredtobeinsectresistantand/orherbicidetolerant.SouthAfricaisthefirstandonlycountryintheworldtopermitcommercialGMproductionof itsstaplecrop,maize.Thecountry is theninth largestproducerofbiotechcrops in theworld.TheinterestinGMcropsforkeycommoditiesinthecountryisontherise;in2008,therewere 94GM varieties available in SouthAfrica (ACB 2009) ; this number hasmorethantripled,withatotalof349GMvarietieslistedin2016(ACB2017).GMcultivationofmaize(bothwhiteandyellow)hasrisenfromaround69%ofallplantingsin2011/12to89%in2015/16(Esterhuizen,2016).By2013GMvarietiesalreadyconstituted90% of total soya cultivated (Gouse, 2014:15). In 2012, South Africa used approximately40,775tonnesofglyphosate,mostlyintheapplicationonHTcrops(Gouse,2014).There isno legislationregulatingthepossibledangerofaGMOescapingfromafieldandcontaminating nearby fields of traditional maize or organically grown maize. Wind-mediatedgene-flowandcross-pollinationoflandraces(localvarietyoftheplantspecies)ofcropscanresultin“contamination”ofmaizefieldswithinseveralhundredmetersfromGMcrop fields.Theparadox is that a farmergrowing traditionalGMvarieties cannot sue theGMseedproducer responsible for thecontamination: it is theGMpatentholderwhocansuethefarmerifGMmaterialisfoundtobepresentintheircropwithouttheGMOlicensefeehavingbeenpaid(BiowatchSouthAfrica2019).ItisimportanttobearinmindthatherbicideresistantGMOs,oftenmarketedasameanstoalleviatetheuseofherbicides,areinfactakeydriverofagrochemicalconsumptioninthecountry and worldwide. It is estimated that approximately 45% of glyphosate producedworldwide is used in the production of HT crops (Dill et al., 2010). And importantly,herbicidetolerantcropsdonotleadtoadropintheusageofsuchpesticides,asithasbeenproventhatthecontinuousapplicationofglyphosateonherbicidetolerantcropshasledtotheemergenceofresistantweeds(Benbrook,2012). Box2.AmicrocosmofhowthepesticideandGMOissuesmeetHowdoes this inclination for usingGMmaize that is herbicide tolerant translated in the realityofruralSouthAfrica?EvidencefromthefieldsoffarmersfromtheRaymondMhlabaLocalMunicipality

9

(EasternCape)indicatesthatfarmersthere,whoalmostexclusivelyrelyontheGovernment’sinputssubsidyprogramme(FISP)tofarmtheirland,havefoundthemselvessittingwithstocksofRoundUPcontainerssincewhichtheycannotuseinthecurrentmaizegrowingseason.Thedepartmentofruraldevelopmentandagrarianreform(DRDAR),whousedto“support”farmerswithploughing their fields in thisarea,byavailingmaizeseeds (themaizeseedsdistributedunderthe FISP are exclusively GM) and prescribing them the matching spraying programme (in otherwords spraying Round up on their growing maize at specific times) declared just before the2016/2017 planting season that this area was no longer suitable for maize production due totopographyandclimatechange.ThiswaswhenDRDARdecidedtodiscontinuesupportingfarmers.FarmerswhohadalreadypurchasedtheirRoundupfortheseasonhencefoundthemselvessittingwithfullcontainersoftheherbicidesintheirhomes.But it seemed that this ruling had a dual standard, as in April 2019, despite ruling that themunicipality was no longer suitable for maize production, DRDAR and the Department of ruraldevelopmentandlandreform(DRDLR)purchasedadoubleharvesterforfarmerswhichwasgivenataceremonyheldatoneofthevillagesplantingRoundupreadymaize,Xhukwane.Thiscreatedalotof confusion among farmers, who took the department to task when it ruled that the area wasunsuitableformaize,aselsewhereinthesamemunicipalityAgroecologyfarmerssucceedwiththeirOPVmaize.What the farmerswant is supportwithout the impositionof roundup readymaize seeds and thecompulsoryherbicidesthatcomewiththem.Notonlyare farmers findingthemselvestrapped inaviciouscycleofindebtednessanddependencyonagrochemicalfarming;italsobegsthequestionastohowhowthesestocksofRoundupwillbedisposedofandwhattheissueofthehealthrisksposedby these chemicalsbeing storednear (or in) people’shouse.Finally, farmersand serviceproviderscontracted byDRDAR formechanization (i.e. spraying the fields) are not aware of the dangers ofRoundupanddonottakeanynecessaryprecautionstoprotectthemselveswhilespraying.Insummary,thesoberingrealityisthatinSouthAfrica,peopleareexperiencingnumerousand severe cases of agro-chemical spray drift and GMO contamination, especiallycontaminationofthetraditionalheirloommaizevarieties.Theseagro-chemical inputsarecostly to the farmer and have a negative impact the environment, biodiversity and soilhealth (accumulation of residues in soils, water ways and underground aquifers),compromisethe livelihoodoffarmersrunningorganicsystems(eitherbydirectdriftorbythe general contamination of the environment where farming occurs). It also severelyaffects the health, not only of the farmworkers applying the chemicals, but also of thecommunitieslivingadjacenttothesprayedfields.Buttheculpritsarenotonlycommercialfarms; localmunicipalities inSouthAfricaareknown tomakeextensiveuseofherbicidessuchasglyphosatewhichissprayedalongsidepavements,sportsfields,inresidentialareasandroadways.Akeyproblemisthefactthatpeopleaffectedbycontaminationusuallyfeelpowerlessandwith little recourseagainst the issueof spraydrift and contaminationbyGMOs. It is alsochallengingtoobjectivelyattributehealthissuetospraydrift.

2. Approachesforfosteringresistance/institutingchange2.1Resistancehistory–inbrief IntheSouthAfricancontext,seedsofresistancehavebeensowedandslowlygrowingformany years, these were the fruit of individuals, advocating for change, and despite thecontributions these made in growing awareness on these issues, a mass adoption,awareness andmost importantly, possible and positive ACTION,with a common goal in

10

mind, isandwillmovetheawareness intoanarenaofpositiveoutcomesthatbringaboutpositivechange.Such initiatives that the South African grass roots, resistance movements have beenengaged in include: “Over Grow the System South Africa”, "Roundup Out” Campaign,“GuerrillaGardening”,“ResistanceisfertileSouthAfrica”5,“MarchagainstMonsanto”6,theSAMonsantotribunal7,,“NoGMOSouthAfrica”,“SeedsofFreedom”8,Seedswaps.Thesemovementshavebeencreatinga fertileground for sharingknowledge,organizingresistanceandsharinghandsonexperience.Avery importantplatformthatwascreated intheearly2000’stocreateawarenessaboutspraying issues was the TATIB foundation (“The Air that I breathe”) – Seehttp://tatibfoundation.blogspot.com/.Thisplatformwasinitiatedasameanstodocumentand denounce the intense spraying towhich residents of Riebeek Kasteel, a town in theWesternCap,werebeingexposed.In2018,individualsadvocatingforchangethroughsuchplatformswithafocusonresistingGMOs,thecapturingofourSeedandtheuseofpoisonsintheEasternCapeandGauteng(ledbyRushkaJohnson,BusisisweMgangxela,SibongileMaxuluCeleandMatthewPurkis)andindividualswhohadembarkedonfightingspraydriftintheWesternCape(ledbySashaMentz-Lagrange) decided to unite their action; this is how the GMO& Poison free zone(GPFZ)movementwasborn.

3.Fixingtheproblem?TheGMO&poisonfreezonemovementThe GMO & poison free zone (GPFZ) (www.gmopoisonfree.org.za andhttps://www.facebook.com/GMOFreeZoneSouthAfrica/) movement is a grassrootsinitiative affiliated to the South African Organic Sector Organisation (SAOSO) and theParticipatory Guarantee System of South Africa (PGS SA). The initiative was started byindividuals and civil society organisations concerned with the high level of GMO andpesticide contamination in the county and the insufficiently stringentMaximum ResidueLevels(MRL)setbySouthAfricanpolicy.This platform focuses on two kinds of contamination: 1) contamination through poison(spraydriftorotherpoisoncontaminationincidentssufferedfromtheapplicationofagro-chemicals)2)thecontaminationoffieldsbygeneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs).ThepurposeoftheGMO&Poisonfreezonesistwo-pronged:

1) Theinitiativeaimstoprotectuncontaminatedlandfromagro-chemicalexposurebymappingalllandthatis«GMOandpoisonfree»inthecountryaswellashigh-riskcontamination zones. Through this detailed GIS mapping, our South Africanfarmers are also given the opportunity to reclaim land that has fallen prey tochemical farming methods and to give parties affected by spray drift and GMOcontamination, aplatformdenouncewhat ishappening. It is vital thatalternative

5https://www.facebook.com/ResistanceIsFertileSouthAfrica/6https://www.facebook.com/MAMSouthAfrica/7https://monsantotribunalsouthafrica.wordpress.com/ 8https://seedfreedom.info/events/opposing-the-new-plant-breeders-plant-improvement-act-south-africa/

11

agroecologicalfarmingpracticesandtheirviabilitycanbepoisedagainsttheagro-chemicalestablishedmethodsadvocatedforinexistingagriculturalpolicy.

2) Itisalsoaplatformtorecordincidentsandcasesofspraydrift/poisonincidents/GMcontamination, with the aim of encouraging affected parties to open legal casesregarding the health/environmental/agricultural contamination suffered. This willmake themagnitudeof theproblemmoreapparent toourpolicymakers, so thattheytakeactiontoamendthecurrentweakpolicyregulatingtheuseofpesticides.In thisway, farmers/other activists/citizens canbe empoweredwith the legal andpracticalknowledgeavailable.

This initiative aims to be a grassrootsmovement and actively call on people wanting tocontributetoshiftthefoodsystemawayfromGMOsandobsceneuseofagro-chemicalsonourSouthAfricansoils.3.1 BriefhistoryofGPFZTheGPFZ initiativewas startedbyactivists and farmers concernedwith thehigh levelofGMOandagro-chemicalcontaminationinSouthAfrica.But thisgrassroots initiative seeks to involvepeople fromallwalksof life: journalists, themedia,farmers,teachers,students,artists,musicians,communitymemberscancontributeintheirownwayandcapacity.The instigators of the movement decided to formalize this grassroots/spontaneousmovementinassociationwithSAOSOin2018andtheplatformwascreatedinearly2019.In order to ensure the grassroots ownership of the GPFZ, an open call for designers tosubmittheir logoswasissuedinearly2019.Thisprovedausefulwayofnotonlygettingaqualitylogoforfreefortheinitiative,butalsotostartcreatinga“buzz”abouttheGPFZandtogivepeopleasenseofownership,aspeoplecouldnotonlysubmitadesignbutalsovoteforone.Intheend,thefollowingdesignwasselected:Asthefirststepsin2018,grassrootsfarmers,seedsaversactivistsandfilmmakerscreatedtheintroductoryvideoexplainingwhatthecampaignisabout,usingtheirexistingfarmsaspilot farmsandspacesforthecampaign.9Talksaboutthecampaignweregivenat inEastLondonbyRushkaJohnsonandBusisisweMgangxelaandataworkshop inJohannesburgwithSAOSO.InOctober2018,onWorld foodday, thesoft launchwasheld inPortElizabeth.Here theintroductory video was screened, existing zones showcased on the Good Food Networkplatform, committed organic farmers, activists, food suppliers, connected and met oneanother. Farmers present included the Soga organic farmers and Eddie Ferreira fromEddies’organicnonGMOeggs,whowereinterviewedandgivenaplatformtotellsomeoftheirstory.10

9This introductory videowasmade to showour fellowSouthAfricans,what is possible, howwhatmany arealreadydoingispartofthiscleanmovement,thatwearemakingapromisetodowhatittakesbychangingourownlivesandhopethatotherswillconnectalongtheway.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTTMuzEl1o410RushkaJohnsonwas thehostandMatthewPurkis skyped in to talkon themappingsystems thatcurrentlybeingcreated.

12

Throughtheabove-mentionedeventsandtalks,manypeoplerespondedviaemailandonthenoGMOSouthAfrica, twitter,Facebookandemailaccounts.The intention is tohavemanysimilarlaunchesacrossthecountry,tocelebratetheemergenceofthismovement.Thenextsectionsdescribesthemeansthroughwhichpeoplecanbeapartofthesolution,by creating and caring for their poison free spaces and preventing poison and GMOcontamination:itexplainswhatisrequiredtobecomeapoisonandGMOfreezoneaswellashowtoreportincidents.3.2 HowtobecomeapoisonandGMOfreezoneTheGPFZhasaproactive,“feelgood”,positivecomponentwhichaimstoinspirepeopleinbecoming part of the solution and tomake themgents of themaking of the zones. Thewebsite includes a dedicated section that addresses all aspects of food growing andidentifieswhatis,atthisstage,regardedaspermissibleandnotpermissibleinaGMPoisonfreezone.Thiswillbeworkinprogress.TheGPFZisverymuchaboutnurturingthealternativeandcreatinganenablingspaceforagroecologicalpracticestoexpandthroughoutthecountryandtheknowledgebaseonthistogrowandbewidelydisseminated.Thepromotionoforganicprinciples,whichadvocatefor minimal soil disturbance (no-till) in conjunction with cover crops, inter-cropping,integrated pestmanagement, clearly emerges as the viable (prebiotic) alternative to thecurative response consisting of spraying pesticides to cure imbalanced systems broughtaboutbymonoculturesystems.In essence, theGPFZ states that food that is organically grown isGMOand poison free.SouthAfricahasrecentlyadoptedorganicstandards,inwhichallpracticesandinputsthatareconsideredorganicareclearlydescribedandlisted.Butunderstandingtherealityofthecountry’schemicallyloadedenvironment,ithasalsoidentifiedinstanceswhereitwillprovedifficult to preclude all forms of poison (for instance necklaces to control fleas on dogs).People,atalocallevel,canalsodecidewhattheydeemacceptableintheirzone,buttherearesomeaspectsthatnon-negotiable,asdetailedhereafter.This section looks closely at requirements froma farmingperspective.When it comes tourbanareasandnon-farmingruralareas,themostimportantfactorsistojustbantheuseofanypoisoninsomeone’srarea.SeedsThere are 3 kinds of seeds available: Hybrids, Open pollinated varieties (OPVs) andGeneticallymodified(GM)varieties.HybridandOPVseedscanbothbeorganic;ifso,bothareacceptableinaGMOPoisonFreeZone.However,with hybrid seeds, new seed is required for each planting,whereasOPVseedscanbecollectedfromthemotherplantandre-used.SomeseedsareprotectedbytheBreeder’s right, which means that the rights over the seed are owned by a person ororganization. In otherwords, even if the protected seed is anOPV, if one is planting theseedcommercially,onalargescale,onewillhavetopayroyaltiesonthecollectedseed.Someseedarecoatedwithpesticideandshouldbeavoided.InaGMPoisonfreezone,noformofGMcropwhatsoeverispermissible,norseedthatiscoveredinatoxicpesticide.ThefollowingGeneticallymodifiedcropsarecurrentlygrowinginSouthAfrica:maize,soyaandcotton(the labelwilleithersaythattheseedisorganicorGMOfree; ifthis isnotthe

13

case, and if onedoesn’t know the farmerpersonally to view the farm, then it is probablyGMOseed).Recommendations:onlysourceseedsthatareGMandpoisonfree,joinorstartalocalseedbanktostartgrowingseedsthataresuitedtoyourlocalconditions.FertilitymanagementTechnically speaking, applying synthetic fertilizer has a smaller influence on the generalenvironment than GMOs would have and consequently on the health of people. The“zones” team is of the view that, at the early stage of the transition process, the use ofsyntheticfertilizercanbepermitted.Itisimportanttonotethatifchemicalfertilizerisusedin the absence of organic fertilizers, soil health and microorganisms will be negativelyaffectedandorganicmatterwillbe“burned”bythechemicals.Pest,DiseaseandWeedManagementNoformofsyntheticagro-chemicalremediesmaybeusedinaGMPoisonfreezone.Incasefoodgrowersorprocessorsneedtousecommercial formulated inputs,preferenceshould be given to formulations approved for use in organic agriculture by the certifyingauthority(RefertoAppendix3ofthestandards).Aboutorganicpest,diseaseandweedmanagementOrganic farming systems apply biological and cultural means to prevent unacceptablelossesfrompests,diseasesandweeds.Theyusecropsandvarietiesthatarewell-adaptedto the environment and a balanced fertility program to maintain fertile soils with highbiological activity, locally adapted rotations, companion planting, green manures,functional biodiversity, habitat management, beneficial organisms and other recognizedorganicpracticesasdescribedinthisstandard.ExceptionsFromourexperience,anaspect that remainsverydifficult tomanagepertains to tickandflea control on animals. In the areas where GMO Poison free zones were piloted, manypeople felt that the organic alternatives to tick and flea control on animals were notefficient.Althoughitisentirelypossibletocontrolticksandfleasonbothdomesticanimalsand livestockwithout using poison, GMPF’s proposal is tomake an exception the use ofcollarsondomesticanimals.Cattledippingontheotherhandshouldnotbeauthorized.3.3 Advicegivenonwhattodointhecaseofspraydrift The navigation space for people who are being affected by non target spraying is verylimited.InSouthAfrica,peoplehavetherighttohavetheirpesticidepoisoningorpesticidedamage incident investigated by the South African department of Agriculture and theSouthAfricandepartmentofhealth.TheissueisthatinSouthAfrica,thelimitationsofthelegislativeframeworksregulatingtheuseofagri-chemicalsresultsininvestigationshavingaverynarrowfocus,i.e.compliancewithsafetyrequirementsandproductlabel.Inotherwords,itisonlyifafarmerisoncontraventionofAct36andvariousOccupationalHealthandSafetyActs,whichhastodowithonfarmsafetyguidelineswhenpesticidesareapplied (ensuring labourers are wearing protective clothing e.g. overalls, gloves, masks,goggles)andafewconsiderationgiventoweatherconditionsthatafarmercanbefinedfornonecompliance.

14

Consequently, the root cause of the problem (spray drift/GM contamination) remainsunaddressed, and the spraying/contamination of fields, the environment or people oftenremainsuncurbed.ThePoison&GMOfreezonesspellsoutabasicprotocoltofollowtoadvisepeopleonwhattodo in theeventof spraydrift. Itunderlineshowpeopleaffectedshoulddocumenthowthe spraying is affecting them and to approach the head office of the company/municipality(usuallyunderParks&Cemeteries)doingthesprayingbyphone/emailtofindoutwhatisbeingsprayed,informationthatitoftenconcealed.Ifconcernisexpressed,thosesprayingarealsoquicktorespondthatitis“legal”produce,safeforuseandposesnothreattohuman&environmentalhealth;thecriticalpointhereisthatthepesticidemightberegisteredandlegaltouse,butitishowandwhenitissprayedthatmightbefaultyandwheretheycanbeproventobefoundguiltyofabreachoftheAct,which states that product labelsmust be adhered to.And these product labels are oftenvery specific in terms of spelling out the protocols that need to be adhered out. Inmostcases,onecouldfindthattheproductlabelguidelinesarenotbeingadheredto.3.4 ReportingincidentsontheGMOandPoisonfreezones“GMO&poison free zones” clearly states on itswebsite that it is not an agencyor Stateauthority,butagrassrootscollaborationoforganisationsandcivilsociety.Thisdisclaimerisimportant forpeople tounderstandwhat reportingacaseon theplatformwill contributeto. The intent is to collect data on pesticide drift, pesticide damage incidents and GMOcontaminationinSouthAfricaforresearchpurposes,inordertostartcompilingsoliddataonthemagnitudeoftheprobleminthecountry.Thisiscriticallyneeded,asthereisagrossunder-reportingofcasestotheappropriateauthorities.GPFZhasfoundthatinmostinstances,peoplewhofilecomplaintswiththedepartmentofagriculturearedissatisfiedwiththeinvestigationitself,whichneveraddressestheissueofspraydriftitselfbutmerelywhetherthefarmersprayingisadheringtoAct36,whichresultsinessentiallycheckingthat theyhavea licensetoapplypesticides,proper recordkeepingandproperequipmentforthelabour.Wherecasesofagro-chemicalspraydriftarenotified,crucial informationisoftenmissing.Asa result, there is very limited informationonpesticide-relatedmorbidityandmortalityandpesticide-relatedcontaminationoftheenvironmentinthecountry.When it comes to poisoning from pesticides, the current practice is to report onlyorganophosphate cases (whereas by law cases should be reported for all classes ofpesticides), resulting in severe under-reporting (Rother 2012). When is comes to GMOs,thereisvirtuallynochannelthroughwhichaffectedpartiescanreportthattheirfieldshavebeen contaminated and the issue is that those whose fields have been infiltrated areactually liable and can be sued by the holder of the plant breeders right (i.e. the patentholderoftheGMvarietythatescapedfromthefield).Consequently, the size of this contamination problem in South Africa’s food system, thehealth of its population and its environment cannot be accurately understood or shown,meaningthatthecountryhasbeenleftwantingwhenitcomestopreventiveandremedialaction.GPFZencouragespeopletoreportcontaminationincidentsusingtheformforwhichan hyperlink is given, so that a nationwide database of such cases can be compiled.

15

However, reporting these incidents on the platform remains insufficient to address therootcauseoftheproblemandstopit.GPFZthereforeencouragespeopletoalsofollowthetraditionallegalroutetoreportcases(andsharetheprogressandoutcomeofthese).Tomakeacaseoutofincidentsofcontamination/spraydrift,oneshouldrecordeverythingthat happens around the spray drift/contamination incident, including how this impactsone’senvironmentandhumanhealth(seetheStep-by-stepguideintheResourcessection).The hope is that ultimately this overwhelming evidence will play an important part instirring further legislative reform on chemical policies. The report incidents & cases ofcontaminationformisavailablehere:PesticideIncidentReportFormBox3.AnanonymousreportontheGMPZWe live in xx, an area outside xx adjacent to a commercial corporate Blue berry farm (wherepesticides,herbicides,growthhormoneandpresumablyvariousotherchemicalproductsareusedontheplants)upto3daysaweek.Wehavebeenexperiencingquiteseverehealthissuesoverthelastyearandtheimpactit’shadonourlivesisdebilitating.Wehavebeentothedoctornumeroustimesandwereadvisedtomonitoroursymptomsoverthisperiod.We’reexperiencingvarioussymptomsfromwateringeyes,skinrashesandirritation,nose,throatandchestproblems,difficultybreathing,numbness around the mouth and inside of the mouth, coughing, chest and joint pains, lack ofconcentration,head–achestomentionafew.Accordingtohealthpractitioners,long-termexposuretosuchchemicalscanbedetrimentaltoyourhealth.(ArecentcasestudyintheUSAfoundadirectlinkbetweenGlyphosateandcancer inhumans)Wework fromhomeandmyworkshop is locatedoutside,whereIamdirectlyexposedtothechemicalsandthismakesitdifficultformetoprovideforourfamily.Thedriftconditionsaresomedayssoseverethatitaffectsneighbours400+metersawaywith similar symptoms. Ihave tocloseall thedoorsandwindowsandstill suffer the symptoms. Itbecomessounbearablethatwehavehadtoreverttoextrememeasuresinordertotryandprotectus from this spraydrift and residue that entersour immediatehomeenvironment.Somedayswehavetoleavetheareaandworkfromafriend’shouseandsubsequentlywefeelwearebeingforcedtoputourpropertyonthemarket.This iscostingusbothfinancialandemotionalturmoil.Wefeelthatit’sourrightnottobeexposedtotheseharmfulchemicals.Ourhouseisabout40mawayfromtheneighbouringstructuresandouroutsideworkarea,10-30maway fromwhere spraying takes place. The netting structures are right up to the fence, with nobufferzonesforthepoisons-andchemicalspraydrift.(Thenettingcurtainshaslittleeffectonspraydrift). One can sometimes see the drift go through the nets with the naked eye and we haveaccumulatedamplevideoandphotographicfootage.Oftenfieldworkersandsprayingstaffworkinthesamearea–mostofthetimewithouttheproperfullprotectiongear.Theyevensprayondayswhererainandwindisimminent.Wehavebeenlivingintheareaforover15years–themajorityofresidencesaresmall lifestylefarmsaswellasorganiccropproducers(zonedasRuralresidentialbythexxMunicipality)withnopriorproblemsrelatedtospraydriftetc–thesprayingofchemicalsanddriftrelatedissuesrelatedtohealthandwellbeingstartedescalatingwhentheBerryestablishmentdecided to pursue a commercial investment route with berry production.We also had wonderfulrelationshipswith the local residents,working on the Berry establishment, but this has now beentaintedanddamagedbypoliticalandracial innuendos–somethingthatwetrulyfeelsaddenedby.We feel that the area and its’ residents are being harmed by these actions and that the 3rdparty(being the local residents)arenotbeing taken intoconsideration– theowner(s) /managernoranystaffresideontheBerryfarm.Toaddtothis,theareaweliveinlieswithinthexxcatchmentarea–themaincatchmentareaforthegreaterxxareaandtherecouldbeconcernsrelatedtowaterqualityetc.ThiswastakenuppreviouslywithWaterAffairsandthexxCatchmentareaManagement–withzerofeedback.Isitsothatwhenan establishment’s chemical holding facilities are inspected and are deemed up to regulatorystandards,therestoftheiractionsareunimportant?TheestablishmentstartedaWhatsappgrouptonotifypeoplewhentheyaresprayingbutunfortunatelythisdoesnotrectifytheproblem.Wehave

16

neverhadanissuewithAgriculturalpractisesandwefeelthateverybodyhastherighttoalivelihoodbutNOTtothedetrimentofotherswhoactuallyliveintheareaandmustprovideforourfamilies.Wehavenottakenthisupofficiallywiththeauthorities,becauseofseriousthreads(legal&political)madetousbythefarmmanagementinthepast.Thereforewewould likethiscorrespondencetostayanonymousforourownprotection.3.5 ResourcesandactiontoolsGPFZ isalsodevelopinganextensive libraryof resources,whichseeks toencapsulate thelatestnews touchingon issuesof contamination, showcaseexperiencesof contaminationincidents.Intheseresourcesarealso“actiontools”thatpeoplecanpurchaseonline:

i) includingmetal printed signposts displaying that the given property is “GMOand poison free “and which serve is a very strong indicator of the owner’spositionwithregardstosprayingandGMcontamination.Inaway,suchsignagecanserveasbeaconstodemarcatetheouter limitofspraydrift. Itwillalsobeusefulforpeopletousethesesignsinresidentialareastoinformmunicipalitiesthatnosprayingofherbicidesshouldhappenonthestreetsthusdemarcated.

ii) Tee-shirtsonwhich“thisisGMO&Poisonfreebody”willbolsterthemarketingcampaignandalso raiseconsciousnessabout the issue,bringing in thenotionthat other bodies- are people who are not mindful about their diets – mayindeedbyexposingthemselvestopoisonandGMOs.

3.5.1 MappingGPFZ is currently capturing the coordinates of all zones that have been declared GPZ.AdetailedGISmapwill be populatedwith relevant environmental data and zones thatwillallow for a detailed look into provinces and regions regarding production information,classificationofagrochemicalusage,biodiversityandbiomeinformation,hydrologywater,PGSgroups,organicproducers,high risk contaminationzones,high-riskareas forhumansettlementsandareasthatrequirelargescaleenvironmentalrehabilitation.This GISmap will be a visual representation for South Africa’s environmental and socialstatusandwillbeupdatedonaregularbasisthroughdatasharingpartnershipswithotherstakeholdersinvolvedinthiscampaign.Howeverdevelopingthismapwillrequireextensiveresources;thisisdiscussedfurtheron.

4 OutcomesIt istooearlytoassesstheoutcomeoftheGPFZinitiativeasthemovementhasjustbeenlaunched to the general public. However much grassroots, networking and awarenessabout the initiative was been created throughout the time that the platform was beingestablished.The response and support has been very positive as many people in our country havealready been creating these spaces and spendingmuch time, energy and even capital toprotect them. The platform is essentially consolidating the existing spaces, people,experience and knowledge of those who have been through and are currently goingthrough,thecreatingandprotectingoftheirownGMOandPoisonFreezones.GPFZisalsoprovidingguidance, supportandconnection for thosewanting tocontribute inareas thatare tangible and possible for them. GPFZ is thus also promoting GMO and Poison Freerestaurantsstartingwithsingledishes.

17

Several individuals and organisations were also approached in an attempt to formalizepartnerships and the profiling of the GPFZ. It was hoped that several “incidents” couldalready be featured online to inspire others to share their stories, but this has provenchallenging,asdiscussedinthelimitationsection.BreakingnewgroundAstheGPFZ’“leaders”areactivelyinvolvedinseveralsocialmediagroups(i.e.theSAOSOsupportersgroup,theSAagro-ecologicalnetwork,PGSSAsupportgroup,GMO&Poisonfree zone SA group, No GMO South Africa, Resistance is Fertile South Africa, SeedSovereigntySA)theyareontheforefrontofdiscussionsthatareleadingtosomechanges,asrecordedbelow.A fewprecedents have been noted in the past year,whereby concerned citizens exertedtheirrighttocallontotheMunicipalManager(MM)orMayoroftheirtowntocomplywiththeir duty of care to ensure that people are not exposed to anything that may bedetrimental to their health and well-being as a result of the municipality’s action, andrequestedforRoundUpnottobesprayedasameanstocontrolweedinresidentialareas.In twomunicipalities in theWesternCape, local leadershiphasobligedby this request. Inthe small village of McGregor, an individual circulated a petition requesting the MM topreventitsmunicipalworkersfromsprayingRoundUpinresidentialareas;theMMobligedby asking the requester to earmark the zone in question (end of 2018). To date, nosubsequent spraying of Round Up was reported in the area. In the municipality ofSwellendam, theMayor issuedamedia releaseon9April 2019 calling for the immediatewithholding of the use of glyphosate –based herbicides in the village of Barrydale,subsequenttoapetitionthatwascirculated.GPFZhassincelinkedwiththese“champions”inanefforttoconsolidatethemovement.IttooktheSwellendamMayortotaskbyaskinghimwhythebanwascircumscribedtheBarrydaleanddidnotapplytoothertownsunderthemunicipality’sjurisdiction.But engaging municipalities might prove easier than engaging the agriculturalcommunities;muchmoreisatstakeforfarmerswhoseentireproduction(beitgrape,fruit,cerealsproduction)dependsonhighinputfarming,includingtheheavyusageofpesticides.Casesofpeopletakingcommercial farmerstotaskonthe issueofspraydriftarefew,buttheoneswhohavebeeninthepubliceyehavebeenrecordedonGPFZ.

5. LimitationsandchallengesThereisariskthatGPFZwillreceivelimitedtractionbecauseitlacksvisibility,essentiallyasit doesn't have (yet) the means to market itself adequately and because it is driven byvolunteers.Thesocialmediawillserveasitmeanstomakeitknownandtheexpectationisthattheplatformwillgo“viral”.However the only means to measure its impact – beyond the number of visits to thewebsite- isthroughthenumberofzonescreatedornumberof incidentsuploaded.Atthisstage, “creating/declaring a zone” is a cumbersome process through which people arerequiredtosharethecoordinatesoftheirzonesonGoogleearth.Thisdata isfornowjuststoredattheGPFZteamdoesnothavethetoolsortechnologicalknowhowtoadequatelydisplay this data (it shows at best as dots on a Googlemap). Professionalising thismapthereforeconstitutesacriticalnextstep,whichGPFZisworkingon.

18

Also, it hasprovendifficult to enticepeoplewhoare known tobe affectedby spraydriftissuestoactuallysubmittheircase/incidentontheplatform,eitherbecause it isseenasalengthyprocessorbecausepeople– inasmuchas theydowant tonameandshametheauthorsofthesprayingandthesituationtochange-arefearfulofbeingsingledoutastheones denunciating the issue on a public platform, even though the option to do soanonymouslyisoffered.TheGPFZadministratorsareoftheviewthatthesecases/incidentsmighthavetoberecorded–anduploadedbytheminfuture.GPFZ isalsoworkinghardat institutingsolidpartnershipswith like-mindedorganisationsthathavebeendrivingchangeinthecountryformanyyearsnow.SAOSOstandsfirmlybythe initiativeandtheSouthAfricanWaterResearchcouncil.Otherorganisationthathavebeen asked to stand by GPFZ are Biowatch (Durban based), the African Centre forBiodiversity (ACB) and the PesticideActionNetwork (USA).DespiteBiowatch andACB’sinformal support to the initiative, these highly recognised research and advocacyorganisationshavenotexpressedanyfirmcommitmenttobeaffiliatedwiththeGPFZonthewebsite, asonepresumes theywant to seehowserious theplatformworksandhowwell it will fair. Another key dimension, in the context of Biowatch, is that it is currentlydevising its strategy toscaleup testingofGMtestingof fields,which itwishes to finalisebeforecommittingtoapartnershipwithGPFZ.Lastly, a critical challenge pertains to the risk that by naming and shamingfarmers/municipalitiesorotheractorsthataresprayingwillputGPFZinadelicatesituation,asitwillbebecomeseenasan“anti”platform.Someclevercommunicationwillberequiredtoensurethatsolutionsareportrayedinamorediligentmannerandthatpartnershipswithfarmerswilling to convert areentered into so thatGPFZbecomespartof the solutionaswell,andisnotnarroweddowntoaplatformthatbedevilsthefarmingcommunity.

6. Nextsteps6.1NextstepsformappingIn “professionalizing” itswork, theGPFZwill also focus on scaling out the visibility of itsactions throughhigh-level layeredmapping.The intension is todevelopahigh-resolutionmapinwhichallthezonesthusdelaminatedcouldbeclearlygeo-referencedasameanstogivethesaidzonessomedelimitationthatareknown–andrespectedbyall.Mappingthesezonesasmentionedwillrequiresolidmonitoringandevenground-truthing.Amechanismfor thiswillbe to relyon thePGSgroupsandcertifiedorganic farms in thecountry. But GPFZ does not wish to limit itself to these certification or endorsementprocesses. The intent is also to make these zones accessible to any citizen/tradesperson/restaurantwishingtostartsuchazone.Partnershipsarebeingenvisaged,whichwillpotentiallymakethesemapsveryusefultools.One such avenue being explored is the Cape farmmapper application, managed by theWesternCapedepartmentofagriculture(https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/).DiscussionsarealsobeingheldwithWWF,whichexpressedinterestedinfundingasuiteofapplicationssupportingthedevelopmentoftheorganicsector inSouthAfrica,whichwouldalsoentailsomesupporttomapping.MorerecentlytheWaterResearchCouncilgrantedpermissiontoGPFZtomakeuseofthepesticidemappingthatithasfundedforSouthAfrica.Theprojectconsistedofgenerating

19

mapsthatprovideanestimateoftheapplicationrateofover200pesticidespermagisterialdistrict. These maps were intersected with an agricultural land-cover map to provide arefinedmap giving details of the spatial distribution of pesticide use across the country.ThesemapsarethefirstoftheirkindinSouthAfricaandprovideaspatialoverviewofthelikely distribution of specific active ingredients based on the distribution of cropsthroughoutthecountry.Consideringthelargenumberofactive ingredientsusedinSouthAfrica, as well as the expense of monitoring these chemicals, the use of these maps incombinationwithexisting informationon the relative risksofpesticides tohumanhealthandtheaquaticecosystemprovideguidanceonwhichpesticidesshouldbemonitoredandwheretheyshouldbemonitored(Dabrowski2015).ThesynergieswithGPFZarenumerousanddiscussionsareunderwaytofindouthowbesttoexploitthesemaps.6.2VisionforthefutureTheGPFZ initiative aims to growmuch bigger and to expand its reach. It needs to hoistitselfoutoftherealmofadhocvolunteerworkbyafewindividualstobecomeaproperlyfunded advocacy vehicle with genuine capacity to support people and communitiesthreatenedbycontamination.Infuture,GPFZshouldbeabletodispatchsupportteamstoareasaffectedbyspraydriftandtohelpaffectedpartieswithcounteringandfightingspraydriftandGMcontamination.Extrapolatingonwhathasbeenexplainedabove, in thecontextof thepartnership in themakingwiththemappingofpesticidesinthecountry,therewouldbetremendousscopetocorrelatethecurrentagricultural remediesbeingusedwiththepestproblemthatfarmersaregrapplingwithinagivenarea.Thisway,themappingcouldbecomeawaytoshowcasetofarmershowtheirpeersinanotherareaaffectedbyasimilarpestissueonaspecificcrophasmanagedtoadoptintegratedpestmanagementalternatives.GPFZalsoneedstogarnertherequiredcapacitytobecomeapositivevehicleforchangebybringingforththealternativesthatexisttosprayingagro-chemicalsasameanstocontainweeds and pest. By the same token, it will seek to become the vehicle to promote andprotectheirloomseedsfromtheGMonslaughtandtoevenbecomeaplatformpromotingalternativestomaize–suchasmillet,sorghum-inareaswhereitisunsustainabletogrowmaize, essentiallybecauseof climate change.Such cropsarebecominga lostheritage inSouthAfricaandyethavesomuchtocontributeintermsoffoodsovereignty.

ConclusionTheGMO&PoisingfreezonesisanovelconceptforSouthAfrica,whichbuildsoncitizen-basedinitiativesthatprecededandsoughttomobilizeconsciousnessthroughinformationsharing or by seeking to gather people formarches and specific events. This platform isinnovativeinthatitgivescitizensameanstobecomeagentsofchange.Peoplearegivenaplatformto:i) delimitateproperties,residentialareas,farms,territoriesandentirezonesasGMO

and pesticide free, prompting others to respect the environmental integrity ofthesespaces;

ii) reportthecontaminationincidentsthatimpactstheirhealth,livelihoodsandlives.They can seek advice fromotherpeoplewhohavewalked the same journeyandmostimportantlybecomepartofthecriticalmassofevidenceneededtoprovetoSouthAfricanlawmakersthatthecurrentlegislationonpesticidemanagementisfailingtoprotectpeopleandtheenvironmentfromharmfulexposures.

20

ReferencesACB(AfricanCentreforBiosafety).2009.Biotechnology,seedandagrochemicalsinSouthAfrica.ACB(AfricanCentreforBiosafety).20017.Thethreeagriculturalinputmega-mergers:GrimreapersofSouthAfrica’sfoodandfarmingsystems.Aneck-Hahn NH, Schulenburg GW, Bornman MS, Farias P, De Jager C. Impaired semenqualityassociatedwithenvironmentalDDTexposureinyoungmenlivinginamalariaareain the Limpopo Province, South Africa. J Androl. 2007;28(3):423–434.http://dx.doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.106.001701BenbrookCM.(2016).TrendsinglyphosateherbicideuseintheUnitedStatesandglobally.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope28(1):1-15.Bennett, R., Buthelezi, T.J., Ismale, Y., Morse, S. 2003. Bt cotton, pesticides, pesticideslabourtandhealth:AcasestudyofsmallholderfarmersintheMakhathiniFlats.RepublicofSouthAfrica.OutlookAgric.2003;32(2(:123-128.Biowatch.2019.GMcrops.http://www.biowatch.org.za/list.php?cat=GM%20cropsDabrowskiJ.DevelopmentofpesticideusemapsforSouthAfrica.SAfrJSci.2015;111(1/2),Art.#2014-0091,7pages.http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140091Dabrowski,J.Pers.Com.heldon22April2019.Dalvie MA, London L. The impact of aerial application of organophosphates on thecholinesterase levels of rural residents in the Vaalharts district, Northern Cape Province,South Africa. Environ Res. 2006;102(3):326–332.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2006.01.008Dill GM, Sammons RD, Feng PC, Kohn F, Kretzmer K, Mehrsheikh A. 2010. Chapter 1:Glyphosate:discovery,development,applications,andproperties.In:Nandula,VK.(Editor).Glyphosateresistanceincropsandweeds:history,development,andmanagement.Hoboken(NJ).Wiley1-33.English,R.G.,Perry,M.,LeeM.M.,Hoffman,E.,Delport,S.,DalvieMA.,FarmresidenceandreproductivehealthamongboysinruralSouthAfrica.EnvironInt,2012;47C:73-39.GouseM.(2014).AssessingthevalueofglyphosateintheSouthAfricanagriculturalsector.http://www.africabio.com/value-of-glyphosate-in-sa-agriculture/.Esterhuizen, D. 2016. Agricultural biotechnology annual: Biotechnology in South Africa.UnitedStates.DepartmentofAgricultureForeign InformationServiceGlobalAgriculturalNetwork.https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/south-africa-agricultural-biotechnology-annual-0HeerenGA, Tyler J,MandeyaA.Agricultural chemical exposures andbirth defects in theEasternCapeProvince,SouthAfrica:A case–control study.EnvironHealth. 2003;2(1):1–8.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-2-11

21

London L, Bourne D, Sayed R, Eastman R. Guillain–Barre syndrome in a rural farmingdistrict in South Africa: A possible relationship to environmental organophosphateexposure. Arch Environ Health. 2004;59(11):575–580.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00039890409603436LondonL,DalvieMA,CairncrossE,SolomonsA.Thequalityofsurfaceandgroundwater intheruralWesternCapewithregardstopesticides.WRCreportno.795/1/100.Pretoria:WaterResearchCommission;2000Mesnage,R.,sDefarge,N.,Vendômois,J.S.andSéralini,G.E.2014.MajorPesticidesAreMore Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles. BioMed ResearchInternational,vol.2014.https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/179691Pesticidemanagement policy for South Africa. GovernmentGazette no. 33899. Pretoria:GovernmentPrintingWorks;2010.

Quinn,L.P.deVos.B.J.,Fernandes-Whaley,M..,Roos,C.,Bouwman,H.Kylin,H.Pieters,

R. andJvandenBerg.2011.PesticideUse inSouthAfrica:OneoftheLargest Importersof

Pesticides in Africa, Pesticides in the Modern World - Pesticides Use and Management,

Margarita Stoytcheva (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-459-7, InTech, Available from:

http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/pesticide-use-in-south-africa-one-of-the-

largest-importers-of-pesticides-in-africa

Rother,APers.Com.heldon9May2019.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)2013.GlobalChemicalsOutlook-TowardsSoundManagementofChemicalsISBN:978-92-807-3320-4JobNumber:DTI/1639/GE