ANB-BIA SUPPLEMENT

Zambia and other developing countries have taken a stand against the use of  genetically modified organisms (GMO). What are the rights and wrongs of the case?

On 15 October 2002, the European Union could not agree on rules to allow new biotech crops in the farming and food industry. It is these divisions within the EU over biotech labelling and tracing rules that have kept the ban alive. Sadly however, there are indications that an end to this ban is imminent. The EU‘s Health and Consumer Affairs chief, David Byrne, said after the EU farm ministers meeting: «We are making progress step by step. Inevitably there will be a lifting of the ban.» The ban is believed to have cost the US corn growers over $200 million a year in lost exports. The US itself is mulling over going to the World Trade Organisation to challenge the four year-old respite on approving new GM organisms (GMO)s.

Ethical debate

As the debate on rules to allow new biotech crops rages on, the other debate on the ethics of GM food still remains largely unresolved. In 2002, South Africa harvested its first crop of GM white maize which was grown on about 100,000 hectares of farmland. The seed technology for this maize was from the US. An argument has been made by those who are promoting genetically engineered foods, that the food is necessary to feed a hungry world. But this argument is patently false, not least because the world population is less than seven billion yet there is enough food in the world to feed nine billion people.

The question of who benefits from GM food must then be asked. The UN‘s special investigator on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, has commented: «I am against the theory of the multinational corporations who say if you are against hunger you must be for GMOs. That’s wrong. There is plenty of natural, normal good food in the world to nourish double the number of people living in the world. There is absolutely no justification to produce genetically modified food except the profit motive domination of the multinational corporations.» This comment is not to be taken lightly because the clear and present danger of the threat poised by a handful of companies controlling the world’s food supply is no idle threat. Big corporations have more to gain than poor countries fighting starvation. Ziegler’s comment is also a sharp indictment on institutions, including the World Health Organisation (WHO), which have given their seal of approval to GMOs.

The Monsanto Affair

The lofty zeal of big corporations who hide behind the banner of feeding humanity, does not hide the fact that all they want is to defend their profits. There is no better example proving the hypocrisy of big businesses, than the case involving Canadian farmer Percy Schemeiser who was sued by Monsanto, a multinational agribusiness company after being accused of growing a genetically engineered variety of canola, a product of Monsanto. Monsanto’s argument, which carried the day in court was that Schemeiser had violated the company’s patent by growing the seed without permission. Yet Schemeiser had personally and naturally developed his seeds.

Monsanto managed to win the case as the judge concurred with them that it did not matter how the seeds had got into Schemeiser’s field. The judge went on further to say that since Monsanto seeds were on Schemeiser’s farm, the whole crop was now Monsanto’s property because now you could not distinguish which plants were GMO and which were not. So he lost his entire crop to Monsanto. This case illustrates that the promotion of GMOs by big business has nothing to do with dealing with hunger.

There is also the added menace posed by GMOs to agro-biodiversity, in that it is a threat to people’s right to use their own seed.

Applauding Zambia’s stance

The blithe assumption that people should applaud, when the corporate world brings products on the market that destroy the hard work of other farmers and possibly brings harm to our environment and us, is wrong. This is why Zambia should be applauded for its stance of refusing to accept GMOs. A study conducted by the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection has shown that GMOs would impact negatively on the informal seed sub-sector, which supplies 85% of planting seed to the 75% of the farming community in this country».

Historically, communities from developing countries have been relying heavily on traditional foods and seeds, and they have been sharing these for healthy cross breeding purposes without fear of any legislative reprisals. However, because of the controversial World Trade Organisation’s Trade–Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights, using patented foods and seeds, means patent holders (the wealthy multinational companies) have the right to licence their proprietary knowledge/technology to others for a fee. For developing countries this has serious implications.

Serious implications

• Firstly, buying patented seeds means importing a product that has been developed under closely monitored conditions, that may not be easily found in developing countries. For example these seeds are produced using high technology, chemicals, fertilisers and require irrigation, things which might not be readily available to the peasant communities in the developing countries. Using them, therefore, might need a great deal of input in those areas. Failure to create such conditions means failure of the crop once it is planted and failure to harvest anything. This, then, threatens the food situation of that particular community and if those seeds are used on a large scale, then it means the whole country will fail to produce any food for its people. Moreover imports are far more expensive than locally produced seeds.
• Secondly, it is also believed that high technology industrial agriculture may expand drastically in developing countries, encouraging the penetration of external seed varieties and displacing traditional ones, which may play valuable roles in local health and food strategies.

The vast majority of people in Africa, in fact more than 80%, live in rural communities and are dependent on farming for their livelihoods. It is here that such highly technical agriculture will have the greatest impact in terms of the number of people it affects.

• Thirdly, GM foods are, to a very large extent, artificial foods. They are foods grown under a conditioned environment, which compromises the health standards of the people. It is a known fact that natural foods are the healthiest. So developing countries must really take a chance to look at themselves in the mirror and decide whether they really want these GMO

The short term and long-term risks of GMOs to human health and environment need to be assessed. Governments from developing countries should put in place a bio-safety regulatory system and initiate a regional regulatory framework to facilitate regional cooperation. Developing countries need to be steadfast and not be dazzled by the latest technological revolution. They should not be rushed into accepting GMOs. Legislation on GM foods must be stringent and the public must be allowed to access and debate information on GMOs.

• Percy F.Makombe, Zimbabwe, January 2003 — © Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgment