Search www.satyamag.com

Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues

 

September 2003
May All Be Fed (for a Price)

By Rachel Cernansky

 

 

Biotechnology for “the sake of a continent threatened by famine.” This is the noble reason put forth by the Bush administration for the limited food assistance it offered to Africa.

The U.S. recently endeavored to provide humanitarian assistance, in the form of food aid that had been genetically engineered, to several African nations facing famine or food shortage, and was shocked to find its donations rejected, on account of the precautionary approach their people and governments wish to take in allowing such food into their countries. Bush’s response included trying to blame Africa’s “scientifically unfounded” fears on Europe’s policy regarding genetically modified (GM) foods, and calling Africa’s leaders corrupt for not prioritizing the hunger being suffered by their people.

There may well be corrupt politicians in Africa, but they aren’t stupid. The leaders who boldly refused our offer are well aware that GM foods haven’t been extensively and properly tested—for human health or ecological consequences; and that once they’re released into the soil, there’s no stopping nature’s habit of pollination, which can spread GM seeds from one farm to the next, one country to the next, and so on, potentially contaminating any crops in their path.

Intentional or not, cross-pollination—just like with conventional seeds—can forever change the genetic makeup of a farmer’s crop and seed stock.

With regard to human health, extreme negative consequences haven’t yet been proved (just an allergy here and there)—or at least haven’t been released to the public—but the majority of GMO (genetically modified organism) consumption has thus far been in countries, such as the U.S., where people are not eating them in isolation—they are a small fraction of a larger, balanced diet. The ‘starving people of Africa’ would have no such buffer, as at least 70 percent of their diet is comprised of grains—all crops that we now genetically engineer. African leaders also know that GMOs promote monoculture over biodiversity, threatening the ecological relationships upon which agriculture and livelihoods depend.

On top of these concerns, African leaders recognize that at issue is much more than an earnest inclination to feed empty stomachs. Once GM foods take root in Africa, farmers there—mostly small-holder, often cash crop and/or subsistence farmers—become vulnerable to the same patent infringement lawsuits already plaguing farmers around the globe. [For an example, see the Satya interview with Percy Schmeiser, November 2002.]

And it’s more complicated than a simple yes or no. U.S. aid was contingent upon the money being spent only on U.S.-produced GM food, and in most, if not all, cases, on it being unmilled crop. Contrary to most of the publicity surrounding the issue, nations of Africa were willing to accept milled GM food during food crises—what they rejected were whole grains that could be planted as seeds.

Most countries, unfortunately, were unable to withstand the intimidation of the U.S., and gave in to the conditions demanded of them in order to qualify for its generous aid packages. Uganda is the most recent example. President Museveni announced a policy shift in late August to allow GM foods in, without much elaboration as to what fueled his change of heart, except that Bush had urged him to do so. His decision came in spite of warnings from agriculture experts and government officials. One misgiving was that the promised higher crop yield wouldn’t necessarily hold true or be helpful even if it did—a market for Uganda’s maize barely exists in the first place. Crop prices in the last two seasons—when the harvests were good—for instance, were at an all-time low. Basic laws of economics say that an increase in production does nothing to change market demand, and farmers are not left with much, aside from a lower price tag on what they are able to sell.

The Last One Standing

We offered Zambia some $50 million worth of food aid (equal to the biotech industry’s annual television advertising budget), but they couldn’t have bought any of the surplus rice that India, for example, offered to sell them at half the cost. Zambia refused. Investing government resources in Zambia’s very able farmers, President Levy Mwanawasa successfully pulled the nation out of its crisis: Zambia nearly doubled its white maize crop in just one year, and now has plans to reach three million tons of white maize (up from 1.1 million) next year—enough for export.

Zambia’s national paper confronted the matter head-on: “If the U.S. insists on imposing this genetically modified maize on our people, we will be justified in questioning their motive.” Our own FDA, meanwhile, which exists to protect public health in the U.S., asks for nothing more than voluntary testing from the companies producing GM foods, and are not required to share the results. And as a co-holder of GM patents, the USDA, the agency meant to safeguard our food supply, stands to reap substantial financial benefits from intellectual property laws—incentive, of course, to rally behind GM market development.

Besides. If it’s about humanitarian relief—where have we been all this time? Hunger was brewing long before Bush decided to tap into people’s sense of compassion when he journeyed to Africa in July. However, a famine unseen by Africa since the 80s—or earlier—was a looming possibility last winter but went largely unreported here. Single-issue journalism was demonstrated once again when Africa did make our front pages back in July. Headlines resonated the condemnation by U.S. officials that immoral nations in Africa were rejecting our food aid—but left out discussion as to why they might have done so. Stories quoted U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick saying, “some famine-stricken African countries refused U.S. food because of fabricated fears—stoked by irresponsible rhetoric—about food safety,” and reported commentary like that of Washington Times columnist Cal Thomas that “this is nothing less than genocide.”

Despite Bush’s proposal “that all developed nations, including our partners in Europe, immediately eliminate subsidies on agricultural exports to developing countries so that they can produce more food to export and more food to feed their own people,” the U.S. has made no moves to reduce its own agricultural subsidies, which total $50 billion annually. Cotton farmers alone receive more than $3 billion—well over Washington’s total budget for foreign aid to Africa—and corn farmers about $10 billion. This not only serves to depress commodity prices on the world market, but also, as even the World Bank agrees, “crowd(s) out poor but efficient farmers in West Africa” and other places.

What’s with the “helpless” myth anyway?
Europe and the UN’s World Food Program believe that financial aid is the most effective form of assistance—not food handouts. This allows recipient countries to buy locally the supplies they need, thereby strengthening local economies and infrastructure, thus ending (or reducing) reliance on handouts.

Then there’s the example of success in Zambia—the only African country that has refused GMO food aid. But Africa was never shy in the first place about voicing its opposition to being a mass experiment for biotechnology or a dumping ground for unwanted GM food. Many in the U.S. seem to have accepted GM food without giving the security of the global food supply a second thought, but most of the world did not move full steam ahead. Years of negotiations led to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, a UN-backed multilateral treaty, finalized in 2000, designed to regulate international movement of GM crops. And though the U.S. still refuses to sign, it played a significant role (with the largest government delegation) in shaping the treaty, and along with a few other countries succeeded in hampering the inclusion of certain provisions, such as the obligation of nations exporting GM food to obtain advance approval from those receiving it.

Africa has its share of activists, too. South Africa, for one, has been raising commotion with groups like Biowatch and South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE) working hard to keep GM issues included in the government’s Biodiversity Bill. Glenn Ashton of Safeage sums it up well: “We’re talking about a seed giant who wants to push seeds on us and which has a very powerful influence on the Department of Agriculture. The only logical way to deal with GMOs is to have new controlling legislation in the biodiversity bill.” And The Program Against Malnutrition in Zambia and the Zimbabwe-based Consumers International Office, which represents consumer groups supporting African nations that rose out of food shortages without relying on GMOs, are both working against a GM invasion of Africa.

What’s the real issue here?
Perhaps most staggering in all of this is the headway that biotechnology is making without anybody knowing what the long-term effects on human health, the planet, and all its inhabitants are going to be. As long as voluntary testing by the companies researching, producing, and selling these products is the norm, we’re not going to get very far in deepening that knowledge.

The attempt by the U.S. to toss unwanted food Africa’s way in order to open up markets for U.S. companies, and then disguise it as an effort to lead the world in embarking on “the great cause of ending hunger in Africa,” is appalling. Farmers the world over have long been deprived of any respect as people, as humans who grow the food upon which we all survive; and denied a decent price for the fruits of their labor. Now they’re being forced to accept, and then grow, crops that we have genetically engineered. (Just think about that for a moment: toying with DNA that will eventually make up our bodies.) Any security they currently have in their food supply is tenuous at best.

As has been said time and again, the problem in impoverished regions of the world is not a lack of food; it is distribution, politics, storage, and a host of other factors that obstruct food from getting to the hungry people who need it most. Increasing yield, decreasing pesticide usage, or any of the other benefits that biotechnology promises to deliver (false promises thus far, but that’s another discussion) will not help any cause that the average individual might consider great. If the minds who developed the technology, however, devoted their efforts to such a cause, the possibilities could be limitless, perhaps even great.

Sources: Genescapes: The Ecology of Genetic Engineering, by Stephen Nottingham (Zed Books, 2002), and the Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration (www.etcgroup.org).


The New Terminator

As if the fate awaiting farmers who can’t afford to buy seeds each year from large corporations—or to withstand a lawsuit against them for unintentionally (and unwillingly) violating a seed patent—weren’t enough, there could be more bad news in store.

One of biotechnology’s most brilliant brainchildren is what is known as Terminator technology—plants engineered to produce sterile seeds. (Simply put: If a crop doesn’t reproduce each year, the way nature’s designed them to do, then farmers have no choice, they have to purchase new seeds.) In 1999, Monsanto signed an agreement to cease efforts of developing Terminator, thanks to overwhelming public outrage at the prospect of undoing the age-old farmers’ tradition of saving seeds from one harvest to the next.

Now, not only has Monsanto’s development of Terminator seeds been resumed, however, but the research never actually stopped—Monsanto just kept its name out for awhile. Delta and Pine Land, which Monsanto had plans to purchase until it agreed to refrain from such research, picked up in its place. If (or more precisely, ‘when’) Terminator does become commercialized, the USDA will share in the royalties—five percent of net sales, to be exact, as a result of joint research efforts.

With Terminator seeds, cross-pollination has entirely new implications—a farmer ‘violating’ a seed patent will not only face a lawsuit for patent infringement, he could potentially have no harvest to defend. This is a Terminator beyond even Schwarzenegger’s wildest dreams. —R.C.

 


© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC.
All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.