| Many people were shocked by the recent decision of the government of Zambia to refuse the food aid offered by the USA. The press expressed its disapproval and even its incomprehension that a country, whose population was on the point of famine, could have the nerve to refuse the offer that was made! In reality, in most of the articles that I read, the real reasons that pushed Zambia to make such a difficult and risky choice to refuse were not mentioned. Many writers preferred to point out that Zambia’s refusal was inspired by the fear that the American government could not guarantee that the corn on offer was not genetically modified (GM). These writers quoted the Zambian authorities who regretted that no enquiry had been made on the subject. No one knows the long-term effects of GM food on those who eat it: that’s a fact. Yet the American government did not hesitate to reply that its citizens eat it everyday and are no worse off! Pam! An American official who does not mince his words pointed out that “Beggars can not be choosers”! Maybe the first quotation points in the direction of what many people believe to be behind the insistence of the American government to offer these GM cereals to Zambia and other African countries. Between 1994 and 2000, 30% of 500 000 tons of corn and by-products given by the USA were the surplus of GM cereal stocks. Given the choice, Zambia – and many other countries – preferred to refuse to import the GM food, and this to the great displeasure of the American agricultural industry. The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection in Lusaka point out that the two principal dangers of GM products are the possible threat to health and the risks to Zambian agricultural infrastructures. As to the first – it has already been said – no one knows as yet the long-term effects of GM food on health; the question has still not been studied in depth. As for the second, there are other future problems which are just as important: the risk of diminished production, the massive use of weed killers, disparate results and the reduction of economic profit for small farmers. Maybe too – and above all – the possible loss of access to European markets for Zambian produce, such as flowers, fruit and vegetables, tobacco, coffee and organic products. In 1999 – 2000, Zambia exported more than 8 400 tons of products towards Europe, for the sum of 62.6 million dollars. If these Zambian products are contaminated by cross pollination with GM crops, Europe – which is allergic to all that is GM - could well refuse everything that is produced in Zambia. Some people say that this is precisely the aim of the USA in multiplying its export of GM products towards the countries that are practically incapable of refusing them. If the USA can not enter the European markets by the main door, then they will try to get in by the back door; by the poor countries which are in need of help. Biowatch of south Africa says plainly : “Africa is being used as the dumping ground of the world… giving it food and seed that has not been tested is not human kindness, but is very much an attempt to further entrap Africa into an ever more enslaving dependence on foreign aid.” In theory, the organisations that produce GM seeds could even insist on their implied rights of copyright on crops in the neighbouring fields of traditional farmers that have been cross pollinated from GM plants. So, those farmers who keep their seeds to sow next year could be prosecuted for plagiarism. There is also a fear that biotechnology companies could introduce exterminator genes into their seeds which would stop the small farmers from using their seeds again after the crop; these farmers would then become totally dependent on the big companies which control the price of the seeds. If this were not enough, the GM seeds can also create problems causing the destruction of the environment and biological imbalances – already noticed in certain cases, for example the recently discovered risk to the Monarch butterfly. There will be acquired resistances among the insects, contamination of wild plants close to the domestic plants, a greater usage of chemical products, the apparition of biodiversity and harmful and noxious mutations.
”But the people are hungry!” some say. “Does the Zambian government have the right to close its eyes? Is there another way of acting?” The reply is: “In fact, yes!” This would be to grind the GM seeds to powder so that they can only be used for food and not for sowing; but that would be expensive… and the USA refuses to cover the cost. But it’s just as risky: if the mill is in the importing country the grains will inevitably escape from the mill, accidentally or deliberately. Another solution – without a doubt that preferred by the World Food Programme (WFP) – would be to ask the USA to give money rather than grain. The WFP could then use this money to buy abundant surplus non-GM grain from neighbouring African countries, thus eliminating the problem of GM seeds and at the same time helping the economies of the surrounding countries. Unfortunately the USA used their veto against this logically simpler and more practical proposition. Zambia should be praised for its courageous attitude. Its decision was tested and resisted against strong pressure. A delegation of Zambian scientists and politicians was sent to the USA and to Europe to study the question. Handicapped by an international economic system that is often unjust, they chose the option of dignity. We would hope that their example will serve as a model for action for the countries that are experiencing the same difficulties. Their choice was not only between famine and infected food; there was much more in play; a refusal to play the role of feeble victim before a cold and callous capitalism. They showed the world that they were not beggars but a people conscious of their own destiny.
Phil Reed, M.Afr | 
View from the South