Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

Genetically Modified (GM) crops are touted by some as the answer to world hunger; by others as a dangerous intervention by multi-national agri-business that will have far reaching impacts on all aspects of human life. Pambazuka News asked Mariam Mayet from the African Centre for Biodiversity for her views on the implications of GM crops for Africa.

Pambazuka News: What are the implications of GM crops for human life generally, including the human rights of populations and farmers?

Mariam Mayet: The risks posed by GM food are extremely contentious in current scientific discourse, primarily because the GM industry has failed, to date, to provide conclusive evidence that GM foods are safe. Amidst the enthusiasm for genetic engineering, there has been little space for critical reflection. Leaping into genetic engineering brings with it a wide range of biosafety issues including health and environmental risks, and broader socio-economic impacts. It requires the acceptance of intellectual property rights on living organisms, the privatisation of public research, and expensive research and development at the expense of farmer-based innovation. Amid all the complexities of the legal and scientific arguments, decisions must be made in Africa about the measures to be taken, to protect human health, agricultural biodiversity, and farming systems.

Pambazuka News: So what decisions are being taken? Have governments introduced laws to govern this area?

Mariam Mayet: Very recently, the African Centre for Biodiversity did an analysis of the draft Biosafety law of Mozambique, which is interesting to consider in answering this question. Mozambique views genetic engineering as having a role to play in agriculture, food security and human health care, but believes that the risks have to be managed by the creation of an enabling legislative environment, to this end. In other words, Mozambique will follow the route taken by South Africa and permit the entry of GM crops into its agriculture systems, after an evaluation of the risk assessment data provided by an applicant.

Currently, Mozambique's seed law prohibits the import and planting of GM seed. But Mozambique does accept genetically modified (GM) food aid, including and especially from the United States. USAID's Food for Progress (FFP) has provided 15.500 MT of PL480 (A US law relating to food aid) Title II emergency food assistance valued at $11.6 million to Mozambique through the World Food Programme. (USAID, Southern Africa-Food Insecurity, February 3 2006).

Without dwelling on the politics of hunger and food aid, it's worth pointing out that the opening or maintaining of markets is a key objective of Public Law 480 (PL 480). PL 480 clearly asserts that the purpose of US food aid programmes is to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities”. [1] A position repeatedly pronounced by US government officials is that the opening of new markets is immensely important for the future of US agriculture. [2] Moreover, US agribusiness have been the main beneficiaries of US food aid programmes.

Therefore, in considering the Mozambique law, its worth warning that countries should not be pushed into believing that GM food aid is the only alternative to consider during emergencies and that countries should be careful when developing legislation that their laws will not be used as a conduit to push GM food aid into the rest of Africa.

Pambazuka News: So there's definitely some vested interests operating in the trade in GM crops. What role does the World Trade Organisation (WTO) play?

Mariam Mayet: The United States, the world's largest producer of GM crops, has effectively used the threat of WTO sanctions against developing countries such as Sri Lanka, Bolivia, South Korea and Thailand when these countries tried to ban or restrict imports of GM crops in adopting biosafety measures.

Countries in Africa have also been the target of US style pressure: one of the main reasons given for Egypt's initial support of the US, Argentina and Canada WTO complaint against the EU (On May 13, 2003 the US, along with Canada, Argentina and Egypt, filed a complaint in the WTO against the EU's de facto moratorium on GMOs.), was that Egypt would be rewarded with a Free Trade Agreement in 2004; an offer retracted with indecent speed when Egypt subsequently withdrew from the complaint, stating that their decision was in recognition of “the need to preserve adequate and effective consumer and environmental protection.” [3]

Similarly, in May 2003, when Sudan banned the import of GM food aid, it was forced to issue a series of temporary waivers enabling food aid shipments to the country to continue while alternatives were found. The US response was to suspend food aid shipments to Sudan and exert enormous pressure on the government to rescind the ban. The government relented, and ended up extending the waiver for six months, allowing the distribution of GM food aid to continue.

Hence, the extent to which African countries and indeed, developing countries, will be given opportunities to take biosafety measures aimed at banning or severely restricting the trade in GM crops will be greatly influenced by the outcome of the complaint submitted during May 2003, by the United States, Canada and Argentina to the WTO against the European Union's Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (EC-Biotech) [4]. For those of us in Africa, reliant on trade and aid from the US, the WTO challenge most certainly has conveyed a lasting message that either we open our markets for GM food and seeds, or face reprisals.

Pambazuka News: You mention GM food aid. Shouldn't food aid be welcomed?

Mariam Mayet: The most frequent criticism of food aid is that it impacts on local food security. Food aid acts as a disincentive to local production by driving down domestic prices. Local farmers may withdraw from producing a surplus, forcing governments to import the growing deficit. Alternatively, it may lead a government to neglect its own agricultural sector, relying on aid or imports rather than facilitating local agricultural development. It may also introduce a taste for a particular food, which is not produced locally, therefore undermining the long-term potential for self-sufficiency. Crucially, the provision of food aid is intimately tied to the disposal of highly subsidised surplus food on the planet's poorest and most vulnerable people.

Already, controversy over the shipment of GM food aid has erupted twice in Africa. During the Southern African food crisis in 2001/2002, Zambia imposed a ban on the acceptance of GM food aid, and several other Southern African countries imposed various restrictions. Last year, Angola and Sudan introduced restrictions on GM food aid. These countries are almost always presented with a false choice between accepting GM food or facing dire consequences, whereas non-GM alternatives almost always exist at the national, regional and international level.

Pambazuka News: What has been the role of civil society in Africa - do they have a say in any parts of the decision making process about GM crops? Has civil society been active in opposing GM crops coming into Africa?

Mariam Mayet: Civil society in Africa is active - alive and kicking - quietly. The fact that Africa (except for South Africa) has not taken any decisions on biosafety grounds, to permit the commercial import and growing of GMOs, is a huge victory for us. Whereas in the rest of Africa, over the last five years, only eight other countries have conducted field trials of GM crops: Burkina Faso, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, on small plots of land.

The key target countries for USAID, the World Bank and the gene giants are the cotton markets in West Africa. However, already the farmers have rejected GM crops. Recently, in an unprecedented move, farmers in Mali voted not to grow GM crops on their land. In a "farmers' jury", cotton growers and other farmers debated the issue and came to the conclusion that their government should reject GM crops. The citizens' jury was hosted by the regional government (Assemblee Regionale de Sikasso) and was designed and facilitated by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development and RIBios, the University of Geneva's Biosafety Interdisciplinary Network, together with a wide range of local partners in Mali.

* Interview conducted by email. Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

References

[1] United States Department of Agriculture, US Food Aid Programs Description: Public Law 480, Food For Progress And Section 416(B) http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/pl480/pl480brief.html

[2] Hembree Brandon, 'Veneman says more farm aid likely', Southwest Farm Press, Jun 21, 2001 http://southwestfarmpress.com/ar/farming_veneman_says_farm/

[3] Letter by the Egyptian Ambassador to the EU, Suleiman Awaad, Cited in Al Amrani.: Egypt follows EU line on GM, Middle East Times, June 6, 2003.

[4] European Communities-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (EC-Biotech), WT/DS291