1. Introduction and purpose of submission
1.1 This submission is made in response to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)’s ongoing inquiry into the South African food system. Drawing on the most recent evidence and analysis from the ACB, it addresses specific concerns regarding the governance, approval, and proliferaGon of geneGcally modified organisms (GMOs) in South Africa, and associated pesGcides, especially the use of herbicides in conjuncGon with herbicide-tolerant geneGcally modified (GM) crops.
1.2 The ACB’s contemporary research and liGgaGon record illustrates pervasive systemic deficiencies in the country’s biosafety and administraGve framework, with significant implicaGons for ConsGtuGonal rights, parGcularly the rights to health, life, human dignity, food, access to informaGon, and an environment not harmful to health or wellbeing.
2. Recent judicial findings implicating GMO governance
2.1 In December 2025, the ACB secured a ConsGtuGonal Court victory following a decadelong legal challenge to the approval of Monsanto/Bayer’s drought-tolerant GM maize variety MON87460. The court’s ruling exposed substanGve irregulariGes and chronic “rubber-stamping” in GMO decision-making processes.1
2.2 Previously, in October 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeal set aside approvals for the same GM maize variety, holding that mulGple regulatory bodies failed to undertake the required evidence-based and legally compliant risk assessments under the GMO Act. These rulings confirmed serious deficiencies in safeguarding ConsGtuGonal environmental and health rights in the GMO approval process.2
2.3 These judgments collecGvely demonstrate a persistent pa^ern of administraGve shortcomings, procedural lapses, and inadequate applicaGon of the precauGonary principle.
3.
Socioeconomic and public
health implications
— glyphosate, 2,4-D, and glufosinate ammonium (GLA)
3.1 South Africa remains one of the world’s leading adopters of GM crops, with more than 85 % - 100% of maize (a staple food), soybean, and co^on producGon under GM culGvaGon, with GM wheat and canola approvals pending. This high dependence directly strengthens corporate concentraGon in the seed and inputs market and undermines seed sovereignty, farmer autonomy, and agricultural biodiversity.
1 “Huge Cons+tu+onal Court victory for ACB and GMO decision-making” African Centre for Biodiversity, 3 December 2025 Available at: hIps://t2m.io/ConCourt_victory_for_ACB_post
2 “Groundbreaking judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in ACB vs Monsanto/Bayer and the State” African Centre for Biodiversity, 22 October 2024 Available at: https://t2m.io/ACBvsMonsantoBayer_SCAruling
3.2 As the ACB’s research demonstrates,3 the entrenchment of GM monocultures escalates farmer dependence on proprietary seed systems, increases rural chemical exposure, and erodes indigenous seed pracGces essenGal to long-term food security and culturally appropriate diets.
3.3 Further, almost all GM crops culGvated in South Africa are herbicide-tolerant, requiring copious amounts of glyphosate to be sprayed for weed control, raising significant public health concerns. InternaGonal evidence cited in liGgaGon in the United States (US) links glyphosate to carcinogenic outcomes and has resulted in billions of dollars in damages, signalling profound implicaGons for South African public health governance.
3.4 In December 2025 , the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology formally retracted a highly- cited 2000 review paper that had long been used by regulators worldwide to support the claim that glyphosate the acGve ingredient in Roundup was safe for human use.4
The retracGon followed new scruGny showing that:
• Monsanto employees had ghost- wri^en substanGal porGons of the paper , yet their involvement was not disclosed.
• The study’s authors received undisclosed financial compensaGon from Monsanto , raising serious ethical and conflict-of-interest concerns.
• The paper’s conclusions were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies , without engaging with independent research available at the Gme.
These concerns resurfaced aeer two researchers Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes formally requested the retracGon, highlighGng how the paper had shaped global regulatory debates for 25 years, despite evidence of corporate influence and ghost-wriGng first surfacing in 2017 court disclosures. The retracGon has caused significant public and regulatory a^enGon because the paper has been widely cited in risk assessments , including by regulators such as the US Environmental ProtecGon Agency (EPA), Health Canada, and others.
This development undermines the credibility of claims that glyphosate is safe, highlights systemic vulnerability to corporate influence in chemical risk assessment, and materially strengthens the case for prohibiGng herbicide-tolerant GM crops, whose primary jusGficaGon depends on the conGnued use of glyphosate and related agrochemicals.
In the US, glyphosate-related litigation has escalated into one of the largest product liability battles in history, following the landmark 2018 California verdict awarding $289 million to a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after long-term exposure to Roundup, an outcome that triggered tens of thousands of subsequent lawsuits alleging similar harms. Since then, Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) has paid approximately $11 billion to settle nearly 130,000 claims, yet more than 60, 000 – 67,000 active cases
3 See ACB’s extensive work on GMOs in South Africa at hIps://acbio.org.za/gm-biosafety/
4 “Glyphosate study from 2000 retracted amid corporate influence concerns” Chemical & Engineering News (ACS), 5 December 2025. Available at: hIps://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/Glyphosate-study-2000-retractedamid/103/web/2025/12. This report details the retrac+on and the journal’s reasoning, including undisclosed payments and ghost wri+ng.
remain before US courts. Jury verdicts have included several multibillion-dollar awards most notably a $2 billion Georgia verdict while ongoing cases continue to yield substantial plaintiff victories. In February 2026, Bayer proposed an additional $7.25 billion nationwide settlement to address current and future claims related to glyphosate-induced cancers, a deal now pending judicial approval.5
3.5 The ACB has demonstrated that herbicide-tolerant crop systems drive a chemicalintensive agricultural treadmill , resulGng in escalaGng glyphosate use, soil contaminaGon, water polluGon, and ecosystem destabilisaGon. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have consistently produced long-term, irreversible ecological harm and pose risks incompaGble with the precauGonary principle and the ConsGtuGonal right to an environment not harmful to health or wellbeing.6
3.6 The ACB has, for more than a decade, undertaken sustained and deeply evidence-based advocacy against the use of 2,4 - D , a toxic herbicide historically associated with Agent Orange Central to the ACB’s work is its challenge to the introducGon and commercialisaGon of 2,4 - Dtolerant GM crops , parGcularly maize a staple food for millions in South Africa. The ACB has consistently opposed the approval, importaGon, culGvaGon, and field trials of GM maize engineered to withstand applicaGons of 2,4-D, warning that this technology will escalate chemical dependency, contaminate staple foods, and intensify harm to vulnerable communiGes.
The organisaGon notes that South Africa approved 2,4-D-resistant GM maize varieGes as early as 2019, despite strong scienGfic and civil society objecGons. These approvals, the ACB argues, pose “a grave threat to the health of food consumers, farm workers, and the environment”, exposing South Africa’s staple food chains to herbicide cocktails that oeen include 2,4 - D, glyphosate , and GLA .
3.7 In December 2023, the ACB submi^ed a comprehensive request under the FerGlizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947 calling for a formal review and deregistraGon of 2,4 - D 7 In this submission, the ACB detailed that 2,4-D is an immunosuppressant , posing parGcularly acute risks in a country with one of the world’s highest rates of HIV/AIDS, thereby threatening public health programmes and deepening health inequiGes. The organisaGon further highlighted 2,4-D’s well-documented links to cancers, birth defects, reproducGve harm, endocrine disrupGon, and significant biodiversity loss. The ACB’s scienGfic reviews underscore that stacked GM crops combining 2,4-D-tolerance with resistance to mulGple other herbicides are likely to trigger a 30 -fold increase in 2,4 - D use , fuelling herbicide resistance, increasing toxic chemical loads in soils and waterways, and contaminaGng food systems with mulGple unassessed chemical exposures. The organisaGon also points to the failure of both industry and regulators to assess the synergisGc and combinatorial effects of 2,4-D alongside other chemicals and transgenic traits, as well as evidence that non-GM varieGes outperform 2,4-D-tolerant GM lines in yield.
5 "Will the Supreme Court end Roundup lawsuits?" American Council on Science and Health, 5 February 2026. Available at: hIps://www.acsh.org/news/2026/02/05/will-supreme-court-end-roundup-lawsuits-49948
6 For example, “Biodiversity centre objects to field trial of gene+cally modified canola in SA” Daily Maverick, 19 August 2025 (media coverage of ACB’s objec+on) Available at: hIps://www.dailymaverick.co.za/ar+cle/2025-08-19-controversy-brewsacbs-objec+on-to-gm-canola-field-trials-sparks-environmental-debate/
7 "Call on South Africa to deregister agrotoxin 2,4-D" African Centre for Biodiversity, 7 December 2023. Available at hIps://acbio.org.za/gm-biosafety/south-africa/24d-submission-south-africa/
3.8 Across its publicaGons, legal intervenGons, and policy submissions, the ACB calls for urgent prohibiGon of 2,4-D and 2,4-D-tolerant GM crops, reform of outdated pesGcide legislaGon, and alignment with global approaches to phasing out highly hazardous pesGcides (HHPs). It advocates instead for agroecology, biodiversity-based farming systems, and food sovereignty as the only sustainable and rights-affirming path forward.
3.9 The ACB has been acGvely challenging the conGnued use of GLA in South Africa, idenGfying it as an HHP and highlighGng its growing use as a subsGtute where glyphosate has caused widespread weed resistance. In March 2025, the ACB submi^ed substanGve objecGons to the government ’s a^empts to create derogaGon regulaGons that would permit the ongoing use of GLA, despite naGonal commitments to phase out HHPs. The ACB argued that these “loophole” regulaGons are unlawful , rely on an “anGquated” legislaGve framework, and perpetuate regulatory failures that endanger farm workers, rural children, and ecological systems.8
3.10 The ACB emphasises that GLA is a broad - spectrum, non - selecGve herbicide widely used across agricultural seqngs, and that the rising reliance on GLA reflects systemic failures in industrial agriculture, parGcularly the glyphosate - driven emergence of resistant weeds . It further warns that GLA has well-documented links to harmful health effects , including impacts on skin, liver, kidneys, endocrine and nervous systems, and that its conGnued use undermines global commitments to phase out HHPs.
3.11 Across its advocacy, the ACB urgently calls for the eliminaGon of GLA , reform of pesGcide legislaGon, and the prioriGsaGon of agroecological approaches that protect biodiversity, farm workers, and the integrity of the food system.
4. Constitutional and administrative law obligations
4.1 The ConsGtuGon enshrines the rights to:
• An environment not harmful to health or wellbeing (s 24)
• Access to sufficient food and water (s 27)
• Dignity (s 10)
• Access to informaGon (s 32)
• Just administraGve acGon (s 33)
4.2 The jurisprudence and evidence presented indicate that regulatory authoriGes have, over an extended period, failed to uphold these rights in GMO approvals, as repeatedly confirmed by superior courts.
4.3 The legislaGve framework governing GMOs requires proper scienGfic risk assessment, transparency, meaningful public parGcipaGon, and adherence to ConsGtuGonal obligaGons. Recent events show that these requirements are not consistently met
8 “On-going assaults on our food system and peoples’ health: Legal loopholes to allow con+nued use of highly hazardous pes+cides, GM crops” African Centre for Biodiversity, 3 March 2025. Available at hIps://t2m.io/GLAderoga+on_post
5. Recommendations
5.1 Make findings with regard to the rigorous applicaGon of the precauGonary principle , including the adopGon of a naGonal ban on the culGvaGon, importaGon, and general release of herbicide - tolerant GM crops . These crops have been shown to intensify chemical dependency, increase exposure to potenGally carcinogenic herbicides, and cause long-term environmental contaminaGon, as documented in South Africa’s own biosafety proceedings and internaGonal experience. Such a prohibiGon must extend to GM crops engineered to tolerate glyphosate or other broad-spectrum herbicides, including, but not limited to, 2,4-D and GLA, given the serious public health concerns associated with glyphosate exposure, the recent retracGon of a key study previously used to support glyphosate’s safety, and ACB’s work on these agrochemicals.
6. Conclusion
The scale of US glyphosate liGgaGon underscores the severity of the global harms associated with herbicide-tolerant GM systems, with Bayer having already paid nearly $ 11 billion to se^le close to 130,000 Roundup cancer claims and sGll facing over 60,000 – 67,000 acGve cases. In February 2026, the company proposed an addiGonal $ 7.25 billion se^lement to address both current and future non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims, highlighGng the profound and ongoing legal and public health implicaGons of glyphosate use.
The cumulaGve evidence establishes that herbicide - tolerant GM crops pose unacceptable risks to human health, environmental integrity, and C onsGtuGonal rights , and that their conGnued approval cannot be jusGfied under South Africa’s legal and ethical obligaGons. In light of the ecological contaminaGon risks, the escalaGon of toxic chemical use, the internaGonal record of harm, and the compromised scienGfic foundaGons underpinning glyphosate safety assessments, a naGonal ban on herbicide - tolerant GM crops is both necessary and legally warranted.