Thwarting Famine
by Jason Lott

Leaders of several southern African nations have an enormous dilemma on their hands: accept genetically modified corn from the World Food Programme and the United States, or let millions of their own people die. In response, some actions groups, such as Greenpeace and Actionaid, are wondering why it has come to this, why these countries must choose between eating "untested and harmful food products" and mass starvation. Is this not yet another attempt by Western nations to subdue and exploit southern Africans to further their own greedy commercial agendas, they ask. Must food always be a weapon?

These questions, however, reveal the misguided fears of GM technology pulsing through the region. Ironically, their origin is European, where critics of genetically modified food have been quick to reject GM foods amidst scares of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) and dioxin-contaminated animal feed. Lack of confidence in their governments' ability to ensure the safety of agricultural produce has left a bad taste in most European mouths, resulting in a general paranoia about all foods that seem somehow "unnatural." Luckily, Europe is a wealthy place where consumers can choose instead to eat more expensive "organic" food and not worry about going to bed hungry, even if their preferences are motivated more by ignorance and ideology than by fact and reason.

The situation in the United States and Canada is quite different, where farming depends heavily on GM technology and where GM veggies are eaten regularly. GM and non-GM corn are not distinguished from each other in the United States, as the Food and Drug Administration considers GM corn equivalent to its natural counterpart. The only difference between them, in fact, is that GM corn contains an extra gene that produces a chemical harmful only to the long grain boarer, a common pest for corn growers. The GM corn slowly produces this toxin over its lifespan (until it is harvested), allowing farmers to reduce the overall amount of pesticides needed to control the boarer. The result is a more environmental and consumer-friendly crop, which has been exposed to significantly less chemical sprays and which is arguably safer to eat. Consequently, both varieties are mixed together for storage and subsequent distribution, whether they are headed for a processing plant in Iowa or a starving village in Swaziland (recently enacted legislation on organic labeling may change this in the future, however).

Contrary to claims of Greenpeace and other biotech critics, all GM food, including GM corn, undergoes extensive testing and regulation to ensure its safety, and there have been no deaths or illnesses associated with GM crops in North America. In the United States, for example, GM crops have wiggled their way into everything from corn flakes to Pop Tarts, with no one the worse for it. Genetic modification has simply become another tool to meet a growing demand for food, much the same way the intensive farming techniques developed by Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug (who also endorses GM technology) during the Green Revolution have now become standard methods in agricultural production.

All of this comes as bad news to most anti-GM critics, who have been forced to push their fears of "imminent" biological Armageddon, full of environmental devastation and widespread death, back a couple decades while they regroup and think of new ways to scare the public into rejecting this promising science. Luckily most of the world hasn't been fooled by their sophistry, but statesmen in southern Africa may yet buy into it. Fearful of the GM corn offered by the United States to avert the current famine, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has openly stated he would rather let his people starve than eat something "toxic" and rejected all GM food aid to his country. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has chosen a similar path, accepting only a small amount of milled GM corn that cannot be replanted in the future. These leaders worry that the food will either poison their people or render their existing farming methods useless, though ample evidence suggests the contrary (neither has happened in the United States, South Africa or elsewhere, for example).

Their reluctance to accept GM aid may also stem, in part, from commercial concerns. Regional leaders argue that accepting GM maize may affect their "GM-free" export status with the European Union, which has only recently lifted a four-year entry ban on all GM produce. They contend that accepting GM aid now means sacrificing the marketability of southern African produce as GM-free in the future, thereby weakening their export foothold in the EU and destabilizing their economies. GM aid must be rejected, they argue, if only to protect the financial integrity of southern Africa’s primary agricultural industry.

Whether there is any truth behind such economic appeals is uncertain. Though it is obvious that Europeans are currently not fond of GM food, they may not always remain so biased. Indeed, as more GM food flows into Europe, they are likely to become indifferent between conventional and GM crops, recognizing that the latter is no less safe (or tasty) than the former. In this case whichever carries the cheaper price tag will determine consumer preferences, not GM status per se.

But even if Europe remains stubborn over GM food, this does not give regional leaders license to reject GM aid to their countries. Mwanawasa, Mugabe and the rest have a responsibility to feed their people now, leaving worries over agricultural trade to be settled at a later date. If an adequate supply of conventional aid cannot be procured cheaply and efficiently to stop the current famine (and the WFP maintains that it cannot), then GM aid must be accepted. The real lives of today arguably mean more than the potential lives of tomorrow, and the prospect of future economic bouts with the EU should not determine who gets to eat and die in southern Africa. Economic planning must eventually take a back seat to proper ethical reasoning, despite whatever financial repercussions may result (however probable or improbable they may be).

It is also unclear whether these economic, government-centric objections reflect genuine concern for regional constituencies, or instead conceal deeper fears of accountability for the current disaster. Though severe droughts and floods have contributed significantly to the ongoing famine, questionable government policies have certainly added to the problem. Once hailed as the "breadbasket of Africa," Zimbabwe's agricultural infrastructure has been all but destroyed by Mugabe's draconian land redistribution program. Malawi's government has recently revealed that it sold all of its emergency grain reserves against the advice of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, while more generalized corruption and mismanagement in Zambia have exacerbated their current food shortage. Meanwhile none of the affected countries have adequately addressed the HIV/AIDS epidemic that continues to weaken and cripple the general workforce, leaving fewer people healthy and in suitable condition to farm.

Unfortunately, such malfeasance may be the upshot of a debate driven more by pseudo-science and political vice than reasoned appeal to saving human lives. Government officials in the affected countries have excused themselves from culpability by wielding unfounded fears of GM food against their own people, feeding lies and growing suspicion with tales of "Frankenfood" and killer crops. Mugabe, Mwanawasa and their supporters cast the WFP and the United States as the bad guys, intent on enslaving southern Africa's agriculture for their own nefarious ends, when in fact they are the ones quite happy to let 13 million of their own countrymen die needlessly — all in the name of "safety" and "best interests."

No, food mustn't always be a weapon. But apparently that's how crooked southern African regimes wish to use it. Consequently, solving the current food shortage demands as much internal political reform as external education about GM technology. Southern Africa's leaders should be censured for the famines they help maintain and the fears they help propagate at the expense of innocent lives. They should spend more time eliminating corruption in their governments (which may mean eliminating themselves) and less time worrying about "manna from hell." Ultimately only honest rule absent of idle banter and lazy rhetoric can defend against state-sponsored hunger. Otherwise no amount of food aid, GM or not, can protect southern Africa's peoples against future crises.

E-mail Jason Lott at hoffa at uab dot edu.