April, 2005

Africa Says No To GM Food
By Readith Mwila Muliyunda,

IN 2002, Zambia experienced a food shortage in some parts of the country due to unfavourable weather conditions. The US offered the country aid in terms of corn which was turned down when the Zambian government discovered that the corn was genetically engineered.

Zambian leaders were upset that the the corn was brought into the country without the donor disclosing that it was genetically modified until it had already been delivered. From a wide consultation carried out with local scientists, academics NGOs, other stakeholders and the general public, it was decided that the GM corn be taken out of the country because its safety was questionable, especially that the country has never consumed this type of food before and it had no policy in place on the matter.

This rejection of food aid by Zambians by ‘generous’ America was met by an uproar and debate in the international community which questioned whether ‘starving’ Africans were entitled to pick their food. Around the same time, Mali, a leading producer of cotton in Africa was resisting US agri-business conglomerate Monsantos’ bid to genetically engineer the country’s cotton gene. A move which would have deprived Malian farmers ownership of their gene and would instead have to buy it from the US company each farming season.

Mali and Zambia were just among several other countries on the continent that were resisting attempts by the US to dump GM foods on their markets. Zambian scientist Dr Mwananyanda Mbikusita-Lewanika and his Malian counterpart Ibrahim Coulibaly were recently at a conference at UQAM University here in Montreal to discuss issues surrounding some African countries like Zambia’s rejection of GMOs.

The two told the crowd that it was not right for the US to force GMOs on people when they had said no. Mr Coulibaly explained that GMO, there were too many health questions surrounding the issue of GMOs that had not yet been answered, apart from the US tendency of dumping its inferior products on African markets. He said there was also the issue of contaminating the environment while its safety to human health and the environment, were also a matter of concern.

Dr Mbikusita-Lewanika also explained that even if Zambia’s rejection of the corn sparked a lot of controversy, the country’s decision was based on a wide consultation and the acknowledgement of the fact that GMOs was not a solution to hunger, especially considering the US attitude of playing its business cards in the situation as opposed to genuine concern for the people.

“Here is what people should know, at that time the food shortage was looming in Zambia, non GM corn was available within the southern African region and elsewhere in the world. But most importantly, the northern parts of Zambia also had surplus corn. What was required were resources to transport it to areas that had food deficits. A number of African countries also offered us non GM corn. Non GM corn was available even in the US,” he said. Zambia rejected the GM food aid in July and August of 2002, and the impact of the crisis was to be critical in March and April of 2003. Well-wishers had enough time to source for non GM food aid.

But instead, they spent all the time and resources trying to convince the Zambia to reverse its decision. The World Food Programme which had brought the GM foods in Zambia and one of the organizations that were forcing the corn on the country was asked to help with transportation of non-GE food from surplus regions to deficit areas.

“But they refused to offer any help saying they could obtain the corn through an open tender,’’Dr Mbikusita-Lewanika said Keen to shove this corn down the throats of Africans by any means, the US tried had to come up with all sorts of tactics from using international agencies to flashing its money as a bet.

A loan of $50 milllion was dangled for release to Zambia only if government was willing to use it to purchase GM corn coming from the US. When the Zambian maintained its stance, it was labeled radicle and US leaders took turns lashing out at the country’s leaders stating that “Beggars cannot not be choosers”. An American representative at FAO warned that those responsible for the Zambian decision should be tried for crimes against humanity while another phoned the Vatican asking them to proclaim GMOs safe just so that Africans could accept it.

This controversy was as ussual followed and nurtured by endless media reports on how abominable it was that ‘hungry’ Africans could deny food from mighty America. CNN showed pictures of emaciated Africans claiming they were images of Zambians that were already dying of starvation. The images irked Agriculture minister Mundia Sikatana as they turned out to be pictures old film clips of victims of the Ethiopian famine. Dr Mbikusita-Lewanika said that such frantic efforts raised further questions and drew Zambia and other African countries even further away from America’s food aid as the behaviour exposed the US’ mere economic interests.

“The US interests at the expense of local farmers and Zambians was clear and that is what we are trying to move away- exploitation,” he said. He said that they had also given a thorough explanation that Zambia did currently no have a policy or mechanisms to determine the bio-safety of GE foods. Crop varieties would also be lost which would consequently affect the country’s already troubled agro exports to the EU.

Mr Coulibaly added that the agricultural industry also risked to be monopolized by a few corporations like Monsanto. “What would happen after this GM gene has been used on the soil is that farmers would lose ownership and will have to continually buy the seed from Monsantos. Letting one or just two companies to control seed is putting health to ransom,’’ he said He also highlited on the dangers of crossing breeding saying that research had revealed that it could be disastrous. “We do not want to contaminate our crops or our environment. We will do things the way we have always done. Until safety is guaranteed, it is better for Africa to do it the natural way’’ he said.

And a representative of Union Paysanne of Quebec Province observed with concern the lack of democracy as some countries choose to recognize the rights of corporations while ignoring the rights of consumers and the order of nature. “Consumers have less and less freedom of choice of food. A few people are now dictating how and what we should eat and this is not healthy at all,” he said.

The panel concluded that until suct a time when it will be deemed fit GMOs should not be imposed on people and that in countries where it is already being produced, there should be mandatory labeling of GMO products. Ends……………