A ROW over genetically engineered maize is overshadowing efforts to tackle the famine that threatens the lives of at least 14 million people in several southern African countries. Negotiations were under way earlier this week to settle the dispute.
Robert Mugabeās government in Zimbabwe is refusing to accept thousands of tonnes of maize from the US, ostensibly because some of it is genetically modified. Offered by the US Agency for International Development through the Rome-based World Food Programme, the maize was due to arrive in Africa this week aboard the USAID-chartered ship, the Liberty Star.
Negotiations have already been soured by reports that Mugabeās government is denying emergency food aid to people in areas that oppose his government. Andrew Natsios, USAIDās administrator, last week warned that food aid would be stopped altogether if this form of political repression continued.
Advertisement
Now Harare has said that it doesnāt want USAIDās maize, despite the spectre of famine looming over six million of its citizens. āThe position is that no GM foods are allowed in Zimbabwe,ā a spokesman at the Zimbabwe High Commission in London told 51¶ÆĀž earlier this week. āScientifically, they havenāt proven to be safe.ā
The spokesman also said that Zimbabweās beef sales to Europe could be under threat if any of the maize is fed to animals. Yet 51¶ÆĀž has established that there are no restrictions in Europe on the sale of meat, milk or eggs from animals raised on GM fodder.
An editorial last weekend in the Zimbabwe Herald ā regarded as the mouthpiece of the government ā also expressed concern that āvegetablesā¦could be contaminated with genes from such grainā. But interbreeding between grain and vegetables is impossible.
However, the maize seeds could be spilt, contaminating fields, or farmers could deliberately plant them. Thereās been extensive contamination of Mexican fields via such routes (51¶ÆĀž, 15 June, p 17). But thereās no evidence that this āgene flowā has had any harmful effects on the environment or people. And while such contamination might affect exports to Europe, at present Zimbabwe doesnāt send any maize to Europe.
āWeāve been eating GM maize here in the US for six years without any problems. By saying no to aid, heās increasing the risk that thousands of Zimbabweans are going to starve,ā says Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, winner of last yearās World Food Prize. āThe reason for Mugabeās resistance is pure politics. He wants to show Western countries he doesnāt need them.ā
Other countries in the region, such as Malawi and Zambia, have already agreed to accept the maize, although Zambia is setting up an advisory board to monitor the fate of the material. Mozambique, whose ports will receive the material, is wary about having to transport it through its territory.
As 51¶ÆĀž went to press, it looked likely that a compromise would be reached ā milling the maize before distribution, so it canāt be planted. āBut it delays things, and thatās the problem,ā says Luis Clemens, a spokesman for the World Food Programmeās office in South Africa. āIt becomes an issue of timing and cost.ā
The US seldom has milled maize available, USAID deputy administrator Roger Winter told a press conference in Johannesburg last week, and to mill it in the US would increase the cost by a third. āIf they want to mill it locally, thatās their business.ā
Both sides were locked in negotiations earlier this week to find a way forward. āOur experts in Harare are waiting for the UNās Food and Agriculture Organization to make proposals,ā said the Zimbabwean spokesman in London.
Some charities think the request to mill the maize is reasonable. āWe should not [reject] grain even if itās GM, when itās at the expense of peopleās lives,ā says Alice Wynne Willson of British charity ActionAid. āBut a food crisis should not be used as a bargaining chip for introducing GM technology. People are losing their right to say no because they are hungry.ā
She also points out that while the US grain is welcome in a crisis, its production relies on government subsidies. That enables USfarmers to sell grains at prices that undermine markets in Africa.
Thereās no doubt that local mismanagement and corruption have played a big part in many southern African countriesā failure to cope with the current drought. But experts agree that itās been made worse by factors such as subsidies, the AIDS epidemic and the lack of infrastructure.
āAs it is, it costs more to send maize to Malawi from Ethiopia than from Argentina,ā says Pinstrup-Andersen. Parts of Ethiopia had bumper harvests this year. But prices dropped by 20 per cent because they couldnāt transport it elsewhere in the continent.
And the disparities in subsidy rules applied by lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have made things worse, says agricultural economist Laurence Cockcroft. These institutions forced countries such as Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia to dismantle the boards that managed the distribution and sale of grain, on the grounds that they were āsubsidisedā and disrupted the workings of the free market. āItās been disastrous,ā he says. āWe canāt sacrifice food security on the altar of free-market economics.ā