GMOs... What is their impact on Sustainable Agriculture in Zambia?

Presentations, Papers, Positions, Issues

Government Commended by KATC and JCTR for clear GMO stand 21 AUGUST 2002

[The Government of Zambia is to be strongly commended for its clear and far-reaching decision to reject the importation of GMO maize, according to two church-related NGOs that have been closely involved in the public debate.

The Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre (KATC) and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) have called the stance of the Government “courageous” and urged that it fulfill its pledge to get the necessary relief food to hungry Zambians as quickly as possible.

In a study released last week by KATC and JCTR, the damaging impact of GMOs on sustainable agricultural was cited as the key reason for rejecting offers of this maize. MORE

(Dr.) Roland Lesseps, S.J., Senior Researcher and Instructor, Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre, Lusaka, Zambia  rl@uudial.zm

(Dr.) Peter Henriot, S.J., Director, Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, Lusaka, Zambia  phenriot@zamnet.zm

HUNGER, POVERTY AND GMOS – THE ZAMBIAN EXPERIENCE; [Published in SOJOURNERS, April 2004]

What is the impact of GMOs on sustainable agriculture in Zambia?
A research study sponsored 

"There are conflicting points of view presented in the public media about health considerations.  Some reports say: “No problem!” and others say “Warning: extreme dangers!”  In the midst of all this is the looming spectre of hunger and starvation facing an increasing number of Zambians." PDF 336KB | DOC 127KB

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE GMO MAIZE DEBATE IN ZAMBIA AND WIDER

1. KATC and JCTR began discussion about GMOs almost two years ago, with interest in what impact moving in this direction would have on the small-scale farmer, who produces 80% of Zambia’s food.  Our concern was and is based on principles of the church’s social teaching such as emphasis on basic human rights, an option for the poor, the economy serving the people, participation in decision making, etc.

2. The specific KATC/JCTR study was commissioned over six months ago, long before the controversy about USA offer erupted. The focus of our study has been primarily on implications for sustainable agriculture in Zambia, the necessary prerequisite for food security in the country.  We have not focused strongly on the food safety questions, as others have done that.

3. Our recommendation to Government to turn down the USA offer is based on our scientific study, which concludes that the acceptance of GMO “relief” maize raises the clear and present danger of introducing GMOs into our agricultural system, with consequences for small-scale farmers’ ability to maintain their contribution to Zambia’s food security, destruction of organic farming capabilities, and loss of European markets.

4. Operating on the grounds of the “precautionary principle,” we therefore have urged that GMO maize be kept out of the country – unless and until the aforementioned consequences to our agricultural infrastructure are adequately dealt with. That is why we have supported quicker action by Government into adopt a Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy.

5. Keenly aware of the current crisis of food shortage, we have supported Government’s efforts to source non-GMO maize, both within the country and from neighbouring countries (e.g., Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique).  Moreover, we believe that major cooperating partners such as the EU and the USA can and should respond according to the Government’s commitments to protect Zambian interests.  Only as a last resort would we consider “milled” GMO maize being brought in – we still have the legitimate questions about its safety

6. Indeed, we find perplexing and disturbing the current reaction to the Government’s decision by “friends” – e.g., castigation of the Government for not caring about the people, high-level pressures exerted both inside and outside the country to get the Government to change its position, outside media campaign against Zambia’s decision, etc.

7. Honest questions can surely be asked as to why the IMF is pushing so hard for a change, why the WFP is unwilling to accept Zambia’s position, why the USA will limit its assistance to “loans made to commercial millers.”

8. We are aware that some of the anti-GMO debate has degenerated into name-calling and conspiracy theories and raises scientific points that can be legitimately questioned.  But that should in no way be allowed to distract from the very substantial arguments being raised on keen scientific and ethical grounds. We therefore urge an open and accountable debate, with respect for the integrity of Zambia’s official position.

Pete Henriot
26 August 2002