There is clearly some misunderstanding on the real reasons behind Zimbabwean, Mozambican and Zambian reluctance to accept Genetically Engineered (GE) food-aid, sourced from the USA. This was evident by both Grogan's cartoon of Presidents Mugabe and Mwanawasa feasting whilst their people starve, and other misinformed and superficial analyses elsewhere in this newspaper. Firstly, it is obvious that the need for food aid in the region is urgent. However the wild and unsubstantiated claim that those opposed to the uncontrolled release of GE crops have misinformed the leadership of Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe is false and misleading. This leadership has clearly acted independently and has followed international best practice by implementing precautionary practices as indicated by international, African and other biosafety law. Interestingly, a USAid official recently blamed the Zambian rejection on the 'green party', a non-existent figment of their imagination in Zambia! Secondly, Zimbabwe has accepted milled grain that may contain GE crops with little resistance. The only grain being embargoed is whole grain that may be planted and may germinate. This is because the introduction of this seed stands to affect the exports of the region to Europe and elsewhere, driven by consumer and market demand for GE-free produce. The region also has an important role in seed production, and this aid may also pollute this industry. There is also a significant export market for beef to Europe, even in the midst of this drought. European consumers have insisted, as is their right, that their meat is to be fed on GE-free grain. With so few exports, the region cannot afford to endanger their lucrative export markets. Certainly it is a luxury for Europe to choose GE free food, but modern market demands are inexorable and unforgiving. It is often the case that famine and starvation exists alongside surplus. Famine is usually results from crop failures plus a lack of ability to purchase food. During the Irish potato famine, ships were leaving Ireland filled with food for England while around 1.5 million Irish people starved. Southern Africa continues to export meat while its people starve. Again this is a result of market demands where market forces perversely starve developing nations with their insatiable appetite for meat and other agricultural products such as flowers. We can also argue that South Africa too, is experiencing a famine; between 40-70% of our people suffer food scarcity. Our poor simply cannot afford food. So why is there not a call for internal food aid as well? There is a strong argument to support this stance; we have internal famine just as much as Zimbabwe or Malawi has. Just look at the desperation right around you, even amongst the 3.5 million people now crammed in the Cape Town metropole; for most, hunger is a way of life. GE food is not going to solve this problem either. The problem is economic and social; a technical quick fix offers no real solution. What we really need is a revolution in how we produce our food. Production and consumption of food are now completely separated in the developed world and this is increasingly occurring in developing nations. However there are numerous success stories. Ethiopia has been self- sufficient and food secure for the last 7 years after the terrible drought there in the late 80s and early 90s. This food security is due to small farmers sharing and saving conventional seed while using best agricultural practices. No GE or commercial hybrid seed has been used. Similarly, in Kenya many schemes have significantly increased food production with reduced external inputs, contrary to popular received wisdom. Instead, GE seed tends to create dependence on an economic system, simultaneously undermining individual independence and self-sufficiency. GE grain is unique in that it is patented by its originators. This means that seed saving and sharing becomes impossible when crops contain these patented genes. In North America, corporations have successfully sued farmers who have unwittingly grown and saved GE seed. This seed has been shown to have been inadvertently contaminated by cross-pollination from neighbours' crops, or by the presence of GE grain in the original seed stock. But even these reasons carry insufficient legal weight against the rights of patent holders. On the other hand, seed varieties that farmers have developed and bred over generations are immediately lost, instead becoming the property of the corporate complainants in such cases of genetic pollution. In this insane version of reverse onus, selected and bred seed is genetically polluted. Not only is the polluter let off but is then perversely allowed to claim ownership of these crops by legal trickery, in turn supported by the World Trade Organisation and other regulatory groups. To call the law an ass does not even begin to describe this travesty of justice. Experienced aid workers point out that aid grain is regularly planted as crop seed. If this seed is planted, the entire region stands to be gradually polluted with GE grain. For instance, even in isolated regions of Mexico, the centre of global maize biodiversity, GE maize has proven to have polluted local crops. Mexico has long banned GE maize completely, for obvious reasons of biosafety, yet this genetic pollution has nevertheless occurred. Clearly the situation is far more complex than most superficial analyses indicate. Zimbabwe and Zambia have both indicated they will accept milled grain, but donors have indicated their unwillingness to carry this extra cost. This GE grain is already heavily subsidised to producers and has allegedly been supplied to USAid because it is unwelcome elsewhere, in the developed world. For example a type of GE maize forbidden for human consumption in the US and elsewhere was found in USAid grain to Bolivia. This amounts to little more than the unethical dumping of internationally unmarketable crops. Recent scientific reports such as those of Prof. S. Prakash, Senior Biochemist, Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), have expressed concern that those suffering from compromised immune systems are at increased risk from GE crops. Southern Africa is at the epicentre of the global AIDS pandemic. There is no mechanism to monitor the spread of these crops in these nations. There are no mechanisms to monitor the effects of this aid on the local populace. Organisations such as Codex Alimentarius, the UN food safety body, have recently indicated that such monitoring would be useful in ascertaining safety and suitability. This is clearly needed in this case. Contrary to claims by promoters of these crops, profound concerns about the safety of these foods remain. They have never been tested on humans and animal feeding studies indicate further concerns around effects on digestive systems and gut lining. We are after all ingesting novel genetic structures containing sections of viral, bacterial and antibiotic genetic instructions. GE scrambles the genome in ways that are not understood; given our limited knowledge of the operation of genetics, we should at least monitor the effects of these foods. Supporters constantly say that nobody has been found to have been affected by these crops, but then who is looking? In light of this lack of institutional oversight are the leaders of these nations being responsible or irresponsible? It is internationally agreed that nations are allowed, and indeed are encouraged, to follow a precautionary stance under existing biosafety legislation. These ill-resourced nations are merely exercising a sovereign prerogative of attempting to ensure biosafety. In fact the refusal to accept whole grain may actually be one of Mugabe's more astute decisions in the past few years. Yes, we must feed our neighbours. But we must be very careful to not let this need undermine sensible regulation of this novel type of pollution. The end result of this pollution could be that in a few years a significant proportion of Southern African maize might be genetically polluted. Then private investigators such as have been used by corporations in the US to track down errant genes in innocent farmer's crops, will be able to visit the region in order to protect the rights of their principals to enforce ownership of "their" genes. Such an act of biological appropriation would prevent the saving and sharing of seed, an essential means of ensuring crop security for this region. More importantly African farmers will be beholden to corporate inputs thus increasing exploitation of the South at a time when the region strives for self-sufficiency. We cannot allow this important discussion to be misled when there is so much at stake. The risks of these plants to national sovereignty, safety, ecology and economy cannot be lightly dismissed. It is a necessity, not a luxury, for the leadership of any nation to appropriately consider these all these risks while simultaneously investigating the alternatives. Interestingly, it is now abundantly clear that conventional, non-GE food aid is available from the US and elsewhere. For instance Europe is sitting on a mountain of conventional rye grain that would provide excellent aid. It can be used as flour, be sprouted or used as gruel. There are many lower risk alternatives than allowing patented GE seeds to surreptitiously enter the region with no means of regulation or oversight. Once GE crops are released there is no means of recall. This is an entirely novel form of pollution with both immediate long-term effects. It also introduces the possibilities of as-yet-unforeseen consequences. We must engage in a profound, inclusive examination of this matter. Instead we see far too much superficial knee-jerk dismissal of the issues by those misinformed by the promoters of GE crops. These groups apparently only wish to cast aspersions whilst engaging in shallow sound-bites of misleading rhetoric, masquerading as analysis. Africa deserves better. We need solid, profound debate on this complex and critical matter.:
