Kerry Howley writes about GM food in Africa:
In May 2002, in the midst of a severe food shortage in sub-Saharan Africa, the government of Zimbabwe turned away 10,000 tons of corn from the World Food Program (WFP). The WFP then diverted the food to other countries, including Zambia, where 2.5 million people were in need. The Zambian government locked away the corn, banned its distribution, and stopped another shipment on its way to the country. “Simply because my people are hungry,” President Levy Mwanawasa later said, “is no justification to give them poison.”The corn came from farms in the United States, where most corn produced—and consumed—comes from seeds that have been engineered to resist some pests, and thus qualifies as genetically modified. Throughout the 90s, genetically modified foods were seen as holding promise for the farmers of Africa, so long as multinationals would invest in developing superior African crops rather than extend the technology only to the rich. When Zambia and Zimbabwe turned away food aid, simmering controversy over the crops themselves brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state. Cast as toxic to humans, destructive to the environment, and part of a corporate plot to immiserate the poor, cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed.
My understanding at the time was that this was even worse than ignorance: Africans keep out relief grain because they know that farmers will hold some of it for seed. They were afraid that if GM entered the food chain, they would that never, ever be able to export any plant products to Europe because of their stringent regulations (these have, I believe, been somewhat relaxed). So even if the president of Zambia knew GM was harmless, he couldn't risk permanently impairing his country's economic guture.
Perhaps the real issue is we have no right to provide them with means like modern medicines, etc. that causes a fundamental imbalance in their population growth that can only ultimately lead to a collapse.
I think you are right Megan. Even when some of these African politicians say there are health risks to GM foods, they are probably just covering for the real reason--future inability to export into the EU. What is sad is that the European leaders most likely also know that GM foods are harmless, but they are afraid of their own irrational populace.
In the end, real harm stems from precautionary-principle minded conservationists, who spread mis-information.
"Africans keep out relief grain because they know that farmers will hold some of it for seed."
show me a list of GM crops that will germinate from heldover seed.
"knew GM was harmless"
where would one find the studies that would lead them to this notion?
The idea that Zimbabwe is anywhere near fit to export grain to Europe is giggleworthy. Or weepworthy.
I look at this as a balance of harm problem. Unless the GM crops were killing very people fast, the choice was to "eat GM crops" or "starve".
Starvation is an unpleasant death and fairly rapid too. I think that there are places and times to draw lines against GM crops. It is possible that long term health issues with these plants do exist and it is hard to be sure that mistakes may not have been made. But perhaps during a famine is a sub-optimal time to be focusing on this particular issue?
Given how the US has treated minorities in the past, I wouldn't trust anything they handed out for free either.
Seems to me that if you have to import food to prevent starvation, the very last thing to consider is exporting food!
I think there's two separate thoughts you can hold at the same time here: one, it's a bad idea for hungry people to turn away free aid food. Two, there are a host of complicating factors when planting GM corn, and it's important for the governments receiving that corn to insist that it not be used for seed. I know this probably seems like regular lefty fear-mongering to you, but there are many legitimate concerns about GM corn, particularly it's genetic aggression and resistance to coexistence, potential for damage to non-intended insect species, and (most vexingly) patent issues. Companies like Monsanto rigorously enforce their GM species patents, and that can create particular difficulty for famine-stricken countries, especially ones which continue to engage in a lot of subsistence farming.
In analyzing the logic of Zimbabwe's choice, we should be careful not to impose our own imperialist cultural values - based on revealed preferences, we have no reason to infer that Mugabe cares about the deaths of Zimbabweans.
This action gave Africans a chance to criticize and claim superiority to Americans, while also keeping open the potential for future dealings with Europe. The mere fact that Africans might die if food is exported in the future doesn't mean that it won't be economically desirable later, so why take chances? Once you accept that people are expendable unless they have connections, the rest makes perfect sense.
"The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify.131-140 Although they urged their superiors to require long-term tests on each GM variety prior to approval, the political appointees at the agency, including a former attorney for Monsanto, ignored the scientists. Official policy claims that the foods are no different130 and do NOT require safety testing. A manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the government or consumers.146 A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was "scientifically unjustifiable"136 to presume that GM foods are safe. Likewise, a 2002 report by the UK's Royal Society said that genetic modification "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods," and recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women, elderly people, those suffering from chronic disease, and babies.263
How could the government approve dangerous foods? A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion-not sound science-was the driving force.
Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired.77-83
Scientists were threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. Some regulators even claimed they were offered bribes to approve a GM product."
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm
do shills still get paid in Shillings, or, just paid for them?
What you say may be true, Ann, but you've elided right past a rather important question: are there reasonable justifications for preventing GM corn from entering local agriculture? Even a conservative reading of the available evidence seems to support the notion that there are deeply worrying aspects of the use of this corn seed by African farmers. And while those may not be the immediate reasons for a rotten dictator like Mugabe, there's no reason why we shouldn't confront them.
What you say may be true, Ann, but you've elided right past a rather important question: are there reasonable justifications for preventing GM corn from entering local agriculture? Even a conservative reading of the available evidence seems to support the notion that there are deeply worrying aspects of the use of this corn seed by African farmers. And while those may not be the immediate reasons for a rotten dictator like Mugabe, there's no reason why we shouldn't confront them.
MEH: Considering that there have been patent violation lawsuits over GM crops found in the fields of farmers who hadn't bought the seed (the farmers claiming that their seed stock had been contaminated by drifting seeds or pollen), I'd say that raising GM crops from heldover seed certainly is possible. There are a number of crops that it isn't wise to raise from seeds held back from food crops - hybrid corn crossed back with itself gives variagated seedlings with inferior yield, many high-producing fruit trees have deficient root systems in their genetics and must be spliced onto the roots of a different variety - but these are different matters than gene-splicing.
Maybe grain distributed for relief food should be irradiated until it is sterile. That also reduces the risk of insects, rodents, and plant diseases being transferred intercontinentally with the food shipments.
"Given how the US has treated minorities in the past, I wouldn't trust anything they handed out for free either."
I find the depth and logic of your argument unassailable.
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=dekalb
turns up things Gov ' RE
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=dekalb+seeds
LSS: Monsanto bought Dekalb, seed company that was The seed company.
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=dekalb+genetics
we should do some more study on the concept..you've hit on some of problems we know of, in dealing with seeds..
I agree that the patent system, as it applies to life forms, is horrible. If a farmer can be sued for raising modified plants that he didn't plant, then the the seed companies should be sued for contaminating other crops.
Freddie - but there are many legitimate concerns about GM corn, particularly it's genetic aggression and resistance to coexistence, potential for damage to non-intended insect species...
Regarding agression; the weeds around my old garden were far more agressive than the crops that were planted in it. Most modern cultivated crops do less well in the wild than their wild relatives. There's a legit concern that pesticide resistance could transfer from certain resistant crops to weeds. And likewise, BT-containing crops could harm some beneficial insects. But those issues are specific to certain types of engineered crops and not a feature of all GMO crops.
MEH -
Maybe grain distributed for relief food should be irradiated until it is sterile.
Cooking might work better. I believe that seeds can tolerate a lot of radiation.
Incidentally, It's entirely possible to get toxic food from traditional plants. One particularly insect-resistant strain of celery caused those who handled it to break out with photodermititis, a rash similar to poison ivy, due to high furanocoumarin levels in the plant.
The celery had been created through traditional selective breeding.
I'd happily eat produce from traditionally grown open pollinated plants. But there's absolutely no way to prove that that such plants are safe and without altered nutritional characteristics or even harmful toxins. The genetic variability from plant to plant and generation to generation is far too high.
Similarly, there's no evidence that biotech plants are more dangerous than traditional plants. On the contrary, since engineered plants are considerably more homogenous than open polinated plants, a serious problem with them is more likely to be noticed. One of the biggest benefits of hybrids , in fact, seems to be that, since all the plants are homogenous that they all ripen at the same time regarless of the weather through the growing season. Because they ripen simultaneously, they can be harvested en masse by equipment.
Personally, my concerns are a little less dire; many farmers pay for juices based on sugar content, so there's incentive to engineer juice fruits till they're almost nothing but sugar, but can still be called fruit.
There may be some legit concerns about GMO crops, but most of what I've read is lunacy masquerading as science.
"Africans keep out relief grain because..."
My guess it is not "Africans" that are refusing the corn (especially the starving Africans), but rather well fed African government leaders. Given that you are a so-called libertarian, I think you can understand the importance of this distinction.
Calls of racism and the untested nature of GM foods are both rather silly given one simple fact: Most of the corn grown and consumed in the United States is GM. We eat it and we have been eating it for years! It is not as if we are offering Africans some untested stuff we won't eat.
"The celery had been created through traditional selective breeding."
This is true of numerous agricultural products we eat everyday. Are opponents of GM foods against this sort of "tampering with nature" too? If not, why not?
"Given how the US has treated minorities in the past, I wouldn't trust anything they handed out for free either."
Given how Zimbabwe treats its minorities (and majority) today, I wouldn't trust its government to make any decisions with its people's interests in mind.
The idea of Africans keeping out GM corn because of a desire to export corn to the EU, seems rather silly (and strange for an economist). Africa is a net importer of corn and will remain so.
If Zambia had really banned the corn out of concern that some of it would be used as seed, why didn't they just transform it into flour, as Malawi did in a similar situation?
Probably this issue has nothing to do with export ambitions and everything with distrust of Western motives, partly plucked out of thin air (e.g. the so-called HIV controversy), partly based on experience (e.g. the Nestlé infant milk scandal), and, yes, partly based on the EU rules ("If the Europeans outlaw it, there must be something wrong with it.")
furan(s)-
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=furans
"..due to high furanocoumarin levels in the plant."
Ryan,
I find this: "Maybe grain distributed for relief food should be irradiated until it is sterile."
-counterintuitive, I'm not sure I said that.
"After graduation Booker T. Washington invited him to Tuskegee Institute in Alabama to be the director of agricultural research. Arriving at Tuskegee, he found that the agricultural department consisted of a barn, a cow, and some chickens. With the help of students, Carver scrounged and made tools and equipment. He taught farm management and programs on nutrition and health, even visiting farms and communities to help the people."
http://www.blackhistoryreview.com/biography/GWCarver.php
This is news? My ag economics classes have been talking about this problem ever since I started my degree.
Recently I've been reading the pro-GMO book Mendel in the Kitchen and this week there was an interesting article in the Boston Globe The New Organic, which tries to get the sustainable ag crowd to join the GMO-bandwagon.
I actually don't object to GMOs. I object to the fact that the companies that make them not only have no responsibility to contain them, but have the audacity to take legal action against farmers for having escapees on their property.
If they can create varieties that can coexist with older varieties with minimal contamination...then I say go ahead, but right now GMO crops are one big huge externality. If we do find out they pose health risks it might be too late.
Also, I think these countries would be more likely to accept these aid if the holders of the GMO-patents would waiver their right to sue citizens in the future.
Freddie -
I agree that there may be issues regarding GM food worth discussing. My point was just that we're giving Mugabe far too much credit if we act as if he has the general welfare of his people at heart. I had friends who vacationed in Victoria Falls a little more than a decade ago, and it was prosperous and yes, the country was exporting food. It's heart-breaking to hear how the economy has been utterly destroyed in a relatively short amount of time.
No country deserves what Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe. They had an election today (Saturday). I like the way the NY Times put it: "some people hope that, like many other things in Zimbabwe, the mechanisms for the rigging of elections have fallen apart from wear". It will take them a long time to dig their way back to where they were, but at least things might start to improve if they can get Mugabe out.
"This is news? My ag economics classes have been talking about this problem ever since I started my degree."
Melissa makes a fine point. Taking the opportunity to study AgEco, since the dawn of the '90's, I'll attest that this situation has been recognized, in fact, since then..
Further, study of this Field's history leads one to understand that these Questions have been with us for as long as Language..
Which is ironic, given that modern "non-GM" crops are routinely exposed to high levels of radiation in order to accelerate their rate of mutation.
Aren't most crops, in fact, genetically modified? And then selected breeding by farmers? This can be seen by looking at "wild" varieties of plants such as corn or strawberries, and comparing to the "Non-GM" equivalents. Aren't the domesticated crops a product of genetic mutations caused by naturally occurring radiation? If so, I have a hard time saying what should have the "GM" label and what shouldn't.
larrydj,
If you look at it that way, everything on earth is genetically modified, including ourselves. GM differs from selective breeding in that it adds new genes.
One reason to fear GM has nothing to do with health, and everything with economics. Courts have forced farmers who involuntarily planted GM-polluted seed to pay money to the GM companies who caused the pollution. What this means is that if Monsanto (for example) succeeds in polluting all soya in the world with its GM varieties, all soya farmers in the world will have to pay Monsanto. They will own the plant. Already in India there are huge problems with GM cotton: farmers committing suicide because they can't pay the patent rights. To say that poor countries who ban GM crops don't know what's good for them, is to ignore this major aspect.
As regards the environmental worries, people just don't know what will happen when these added genes cross over to other species, as they have shown they can do. To say this is "ignorant" is to pretend knowledge where knowledge doesn't exist. We just don't know. And some will say, let's take the risk, and others will say, let's not.
A second environmental aspect is that GM crops - especially soya - increase tolerance of pesticides, meaning that farmers can and do spread more and more poison on the land. GM soya is the main reason why the Amazon rainforest is being cut down so fast: soya cultivation on rainforest land was impossible before the invention of pesticide-resistant GM soya.
I have been in the international ag development business for 25 years and have worked in the countries discussed here. In fact I am in Africa as I type.
I have to admit that I am disappointed with the lack of knowledge exhibited in these comments. So many half truths used to push the anti-GM argument. I wish that these folks had the chance to visit the farmers in Africa to learn the real truth.
I suspect that the Zambia story is in fact related to economics but not in the way described in an earlier post. It probably has more to do with protecting someones grain importation business than the merits of GMO crops. (you can imagine what happens to the local prices when an international donor dumps several months supply in the market.
Greg C,
I didn't mean in my previous post to insinuate that the Zambian govt banned GMOs for valid reasons - I have no idea why they did. In fact in a previous post I had given the example of Malawi which ground imported GM corn into flour: the fact that Zambia did not opt for this simple solution proves that the fear of GM-contamination was not the reason for the ban.
My point that there may be valid reasons for a poor country to ban GMOs was more general. I'm not an anti-GMO activist and I will readily admit that the technology could be a good one, but I do think that the present laws and treaties on patents, as well as on environmental damage, do not take sufficient account of the needs and interests of society as a whole, not to mention those of small farmers. GM technology as I see it is developing in a bad legal framework, wherein one gets paid if things go well while society pays the cost if things go awry.
By the way I have a degree in tropical agriculture myself and I've lived for two decades in said countries.
Finally, someone (Greg C at 2:07 p.m.) brings up what is likely the real issue involved here- someone protecting their grain business from cheap (free) grain by using their influence in the government of the countries involved.
MEH - The 'irradiated till sterile' comment was markm responding to something by you. My mistake.
I'm not sure what you're saying the the furan link. Sorry.
Ryan,
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=furanocoumarin
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/dioxins.htm
simply, to your point about Celery's naturally evolved chemical defenses, I was drawing it out to the broad risk posed by our reckless handling of chemicals, naturally occuring or otherwise, throughout our Economy..akin to our reckless handling of GM seedstock
tangent from furan- in furanocoumarin..
GM differs from selective breeding in that it adds new genes.
Selective breeding adds new genes, too; or, more specifically, breeds are selected among individuals that have already gained new genes by random mutation.
All corn, ultimately, is "GM corn"; it's just a question of which modifications were done by guys in labs and which by Mesoamerican farmers 7600 years ago.
They are turning away food that Americans are already eating. From the article:
If they have some other source of non-GM food, then great... take it. But if the alternative is starve, then they are being fools. Whatever possible health risks might happen (and haven't happened in the US, yet), would be better than dying right now of starvation.
If this is really about health risks, then it's based on pure ignorance. But I suspect it's based on something else. Food aid, like other "in kind" aids does wreak havoc on the markets in the affected countries. With food, though, it may be necessary to feed people who are starving. In other areas (and in food) we should be focusing our aid on providing help establishing ways to be self-sufficient and not dependent on foreign aid.
"Food aid, like other "in kind" aids does wreak havoc on the markets in the affected countries."
I don't know about Zambia, but it's much too late for Zimbabwe to worry about how food aid might wreak havoc on their markets! With inflation over 100,000 percent a year and farmers being killed so that their farms can be stolen and given to political cronies, free grain is the least of the country's 'problems'.