In 2002, seven countries in Southern Africa experienced a famine which left 14 million at risk of starvation. The US aid donations offered were refused by Zambian president with the words:
'Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison, to give them food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health'
– Levy Mwanawasa at the World Summit on Sustainable Development September 2002.
NGOs led campaigns to stop the US sending GM food aid shipments. Friends of the Earth along with other NGOs supported the Zambian refusal and published alarmist allegations about the possible dangers of genetically modified organisms.
The Situation in Zambia
'During October, the World Food Programme (WFP) was only able to supply food to 50 % of those suffering from food shortages. The WFP predicts the number needing food will increase to 3.3 million before the next harvest in March 2003.'
– Will Knight, newscientist.com(opens in a new window)
The Open Letter
'Civil Society Organisations Condemn GM Food Aid': read the full letter at i-sis.org.uk/GMfoodaid.php(opens in a new window)
FOE [Friends of the Earth] joined with other organisations [including some NGOs based in Africa] to persuade 140 local African civil society representatives to sign an open letter to the World Food Programme protesting shipments of GM food aid.
Robert Paarlberg; Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa(opens in a new window), p144
'In a stunning decision, the government of Zambia last week rejected thousands of tons of corn donated by the United States because it is likely to contain genetically modified (GM) kernels. The refusal leaves an estimated 2.9 million people at risk of starvation, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization'
– Zambia Rejects GM Corn On Scientists' Advice(opens in a new window); Science Vol 298, 8 Nov 2002
'The safety of GM food is unproven. On the contrary, there is sufficient scientific evidence to suggest it is unsafe. GM food can potentially give rise to a range of health problems, including: food allergies; chronic toxic effects; infections from bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics, rendering these infections untreatable; and possible ailments including cancers, some of which are yet difficult or impossible to predict because of the present state of risk assessment and food safety tests.' – The letter(opens in a new window)
'Paarlberg argues that GM crops are being kept out of Africa because European lobby groups have forced the imposition of 'stifling regulations' based on 'extreme precaution' ... in fact the pro-GM lobby has been every bit as active, bombarding decision makers and media organisations with slick marketing materials and free trips to their corporate HQs... Paarlberg's claim that external anti-GM views have been the main influence on decision making by national governments in Africa is not substantiated. Instead, international players on both sides of the GM debate have fought a fierce tug-of-war over policy with African regulators and policy makers often left as bystanders.'
– Ian Scoones; Nature.com(opens in a new window), August 2009, p798. (Subscription site)
Statements of support for GM at the time of the Zambian decision to refuse aid
'There is at present no evidence that GM foods cause allergic reactions. The allergenic risks posed by GM plants are in principle no greater than those posed by conventionally derived crops or by plants introduced from other areas of the world.'
– Royal Society, Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health: An Update; royalsociety.org(opens in a new window), February 2002
The National Academy of Science, a private nonprofit honorific society of distinguished scholars, engaged in scientific and engineering research (2100 members from 31 disciplinary sections):
'Since the advent of GM technology, researchers have used antibiotic resistance genes as selective markers for the process of genetic modification ... No definitive evidence exists that these antibiotic resistance genes cause harm to humans'
– Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture(opens in a new window), 2000
GMO Safety Research
The EU commissioned 81 projects over 15 years involving 400 teams across Europe, which looked at GMO safety research. It published a summary of the results on 9th October 2001.
'Research on GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed, following usual risk assessment procedures, has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods. If there are unforeseen environmental effects – none have appeared as yet – these should be rapidly detected by existing monitoring systems.
– GMO Safety Research Press Release(opens in a new window), 9 Oct 2001
Nuffield Centre for Bioethics
An independent body that examines and reports on ethical issues in biology and medicine.
'The Working Party concludes that all the GM food so far on the market in this country is safe for human consumption.[...]'
– Genetically Modified Crops: the ethical and social issues(opens in a new window), Report, May 1999
The National Academy of Sciences
A private nonprofit honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research (2100 members from 31 disciplinary sections).
'To date, over 30 million hectares of transgenic crops have been grown and no human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of transgenic crops or their products have been identified.'
– Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture(opens in a new window), 2000
Statements of Support for the Zambia Decision
'Friends of the Earth International, on the basis of the precautionary principle, supports the right of any country to impose a moratorium or ban on the introduction of GMOs into the environment and the food chain, until GMOs have been proven safe through comprehensive and independently conducted assessments.'
– foei.org(opens in a new window), June 2003
'Zambia made a brave choice to preserve their agricultural heritage and its future.' [...] 'If the choice really was between GE grain and starvation then clearly any food is the preferable option but that's a false and cynical picture of the choice in this situation.'
– Greenpeace.org(opens in a new window), 30 Sept 2002
(Please note, these websites are external and open in new browser windows.)
Features:
Geoengineering I Zambia I Chernobyl I Golden Rice I Climate change I The energy debate I DTT
