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.
