The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
Food Aid
| In the summer of 2002, several African governments rejected donations of food aid from the US through the World Food Programme (WFP). Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Zambia faced dramatic food shortages which threatened more than ten million people with starvation.* Their governments decided to refuse maize donations from the US on the grounds that the cereal was genetically modified. |
| In the autumn of 2002, Zimbabwe and Mozambique agreed to accept milled GM maize but the Zambian government remained unconvinced and rejected 63,000 tons of maize from the US, despite the threat of more than two million Zambians facing starvation.† The decision was based on an appeal to the precautionary approach (see paragraphs 4.35-4.42) as well as on advice from a team of Zambian scientists who undertook a fact-finding mission to the US, Europe and South Africa. |
| First, it was argued that circulation of GM maize in Zambia might lead to its uncontrolled spread, if kernels were used for planting rather than for consumption. There were fears that the unauthorised planting of GM maize could have unpredictable consequences in terms of gene flow and in particular, that pollen could eventually spread to fields on which non-GM maize might be grown for export. Given the de facto moratorium in the EU and its reluctance to accept imports of GM foods, there were concerns that a major future export market might be lost.‡ |
| Secondly, although the governments of Zimbabwe and Mozambique had eventually decided to accept milled food aid, the Zambian government was sceptical about whether GM food was safe to eat. While acknowledging that GM maize may be safe for consumption by the US population where the crop forms a relatively small proportion of the diet, it was noted that maize accounted for as much as 90% of the typical Zambian diet. It was also feared that the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Zambia could bias the transferability of studies on food safety undertaken in developed countries. Thus, it was argued that GM maize might be unsafe for consumption by Zambians. |
| In response to the controversy, agricultural ministers of 20 African countries decided at a meeting of the COMESA in the autumn of 2002 to establish a regional policy on the trade and use of GMOs. A similar agreement was reached between delegates of the SADC who decided to establish an Advisory Committee on GMOs ‘to develop guidelines to assist member states guard against potential risks in food safety, contamination of genetic resources, ethical issues, trade related issues and consumer concerns’.. |
| In view of the number of people faced with starvation in Zambia, international critics took issue with the decision to refuse food that was considered safe by US regulatory authorities and was consumed by the US population on a regular basis.** Others expressed support for the Zambian position and referred to the notification procedure enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol, arguing for respect for the decision to reject GM food aid.†† Various donor countries agreed with the Norwegian Minister for International Development who, in February 2003, offered to finance GM-free donations where a recipient country made the explicit demand, and urged that all international donors should respect the principle of freedom of choice of recipient countries, which should be ‘real and not illusive’.‡‡ |
- World Food Programme (2002) WFP launches massive regional appeal as starvation threatens millions. 26 Sept 2002. Available: http://www.wfp.org. Accessed on: 23 March 2003.
† Mitchell P (2003) Europe angers US with strict GM labelling, Nat Biotechnol 21: 6.
‡ Zambia exported 254 metric tonnes of maize to the UK in 1999, and 88 metric tonnes in 2000. See FAO (2000) FAOSTAT. Available: http://apps.fao.org/. Accessed on: 20 May 2003. . GENET (2002) COMESA to have regional GM policy. Available: http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Nov/msg00065.html. Accessed on: 2 June 2003.
- * The same stance was taken by India in January 2003, when it rejected a large shipment of GM maize and soybean. See Luce E (2003) India rejects gene-modified food aid, Financial Times, 3 Jan 2003.
†† As noted, the US is not party to the CBD and hence neither to the Cartagena Protocol. In addition, the Protocol has not yet entered into force.
‡‡ Johnson HF (2003) Globalisation, Food and Freedom. International Conference on GM Food, Oslo, 5 Feb 2003. Available: http://odin.dep.no/ud/norsk/aktuelt/taler/statsraad_b/032171-090111/index-dok000-b-n-a.html. Accessed on: 20 May 2003.