The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
Interdependence: the case of food aid
5.37 The nature of international economic interdependence means that the freedom of developing countries to choose technologies that they judge to be to their own advantage is influenced by decisions of policy makers and consumers in developed countries. For example, the agricultural policies of the US and the EU have been of particular significance in the case of food aid to three East African countries in 2002 (see Box 5.5).
5.38 The issues raised by food aid are complex. For example, it is noteworthy that the US donates food aid in kind, whereas the three other major donors worldwide, the WFP, the EU and the UK, donate in cash. The latter group argues that financial assistance allows for the quickest and most effective form of aid, which also supports local economies of countries close to the recipient country. The US, on the other hand, has provided aid to southern African countries entirely in the form of shipments of US maize. Indeed, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) emphasises on its website that in buying cereals from US farmers rather than from the world market or markets in developing countries, it actively seeks to subsidise US farmers and the US economy.27 Furthermore, the US did not offer to provide milled maize, once it had become apparent that several African countries would prefer the donation in that form. This has led some to allege that USAID is seeking to play a role in a US-led marketing campaign designed to introduce GM food in developing countries.28 There have also been reports that donations through the WFP have previously included GMOs, and that the recipient countries had not been informed accordingly.29
5.39 While these events are quoted as evidence that food aid is being used to promote the marketing of GM crops, there are also reports that pressure has been put on developing countries from the opposite end of the spectrum. For example, it has been alleged that African leaders were advised by EU officials not to accept GM maize, as this would jeopardise current and future trade relations. However, this claim has been refuted vehemently by, amongst others, EU Development Commissioner Poul Nielsen.30 With regard to discussions organised in Zambia, proponents of the use of GM crops reported that major workshops had been organised by national, regional and international consumer organisations. These had been attended by Zambian government officials, but apparently failed to provide balanced panels of speakers. It has also been alleged that inaccurate evidence had been presented which supported claims that GM crops posed dangers to human health and the environment.31
5.40 However, a number of recent authoritative reviews have concluded that, on current evidence neither GM crops, nor food produced from GM crops, pose a significant risk to humans who consume them.32 During the course of our investigation, we have been repeatedly impressed by the extent to which complex issues are over-simplified in public and policy debates. In a highly charged political atmosphere, the impact of public statements by influential bodies needs to be carefully considered, including the way in which those statements may be misinterpreted. In our view, there is a pressing obligation on all those who seek to be influential in the making of policy to weigh carefully all the current and relevant evidence and to consider the characteristics of specific uses of GM technology by comparison with other feasible systems. This obligation to base statements on an impartial consideration of the evidence applies as much to campaigning organisations as it does to any other public or professional body. We have therefore come to a sceptical view of claims from individuals or organisations who found their arguments on political convictions rather than scientific evidence.
5.41 We recognise that long-term reliance on food aid, whether provided in the form of GM or non-GM cereals, is highly undesirable. Clearly, assistance to developing countries should, where possible, be directed towards self sufficiency in food production. This is a complex task and GM crops could play a substantial role in improving agriculture. However, the question remains as to how developed countries can comply with their ethical obligations when emergencies arise. With regard to donations of GM crops as food aid we note that the preferences of developing countries dependent on emergency food aid must be taken seriously. A genuine choice between GM and non-GM food should be offered, where this is possible. It will therefore be necessary to provide full information about whether or not donated food is derived wholly or in part from GM crops.
5.42 Where developing countries prefer to receive non-GM food, the World Food Programme and other aid organisations should consider purchasing it. This is subject to its availability at reasonable financial and logistical costs. Where only donations of GM varieties are available and developing countries object to their import solely on the basis of environmental risks, we recommend that it be provided in milled form. This is because seeds from food aid donations are likely to be planted in developing countries, and it would be unacceptable to introduce a GM crop into any country in this way against its will. We further note that although milling increases the costs of providing food aid, it does allow for the fortification of the milled produce with micronutrients.
Footnotes27 ‘The principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the US. Close to 80% of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods, created new markets for American industrial exports and meant hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans.’ USAID (2002) Direct economic benefits of US assistance by State. USAID. Available: http://www.usaid.gov/procurement_bus_opp/states/. Accessed on: 30 Sept 2002. 28 Greenpeace (2002) USAID and GM Food Aid. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5243.pdf. Accessed on: 18 May 2003; Friends of the Earth International (2003) Playing with Hunger: The Reality Behind the Shipment of GMOs as Food Aid (Amsterdam: Friends of the Earth International). 29 Pearce F (2002) UN is slipping modified food into aid, New Scientist 175 (2361): 5; Friends of the Earth International (2003) Playing with Hunger: The Reality Behind the Shipment of GMOs as Food Aid (Amsterdam: Friends of the Earth International). 30 Verbal statement at the conference Towards Sustainable Agriculture for Developing Countries: Options from Life Sciences and Biotechnologies, 30-31 Jan 2003, Brussels.
31 Institute of Science in Society (2002) African Consumer Leaders Support Zambia. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ACLSZ.php. Accessed on: 31 Oct 2003. Consumers International organised a three day conference 18-21 Nov 2002 in Lusaka, Zambia. Delegates agreed the Lusaka Declaration which concluded that GM technology was not suitable to address problems of food security. See http://www.consumersinternational.org/search/newssearch.asp?newsID=175®ionid=135&langid=1. Accessed on: 31 Oct 2003.
32 GM Science Review (2003) First Report (London); The European Network on Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Food Crops (ENTRANSFOOD) Forthcoming report; International Council for Science (ICSU) (2003) New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas (France: ICSU); Royal Society (2002) Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health – an update (London: Royal Society).