Publications

HUNGER, POVERTY AND GMOS – THE ZAMBIAN EXPERIENCE

Mutale, a forty-year old Zambian peasant farmer I was visiting, was standing in front of his two hectares of maize (corn), smiling broadly.  He had just finished explaining to me that despite poor rains, he was able to raise a good crop to feed his family and to sell a bit of surplus for some extra cash to meet household needs.  He looked so very different from the other farmers I had spoken to only a few days earlier.  They were his neighbours, worked soil similar to his, and had experienced the same dry season.  But they were not at all smiling!  No good maize harvest for them….

The difference was that Mutale had planted his maize field using an organic agriculture approach, not relying on heavy dozes of chemical fertiliser as did his neighbours.  The organic agriculture approach – using cattle manure and decayed materials from nitrogen-rich plants like legumes – was both much less expensive and much more efficient.  During a drought season such as Zambia has being periodically experiencing in recent years (consequence of global warming?), it is important to keep as much moisture as possible close to the crops we plant.  But chemical fertilisers don’t store this moisture like organic matter in the soil.  The organic matter retains excess moisture and slowly releases it to the crop in a very natural way.

The smile on Mutale’s face taught me one more important reason for the wisdom of Zambia’s rejection of GMO crops coming into our country.  There simply are plenty of alternatives to the GMO approach being vigourously pushed by the Untied States of America.  The USA government argues that global hunger can best be dealt with by introducing GMO technologies that are supposed to increase agricultural yields.  But those of us who live in Zambia and other poor countries know that the major cause of hunger is not insufficient food production but poverty and the unjust social structures of distribution and accessibility of food.

The Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) approach to agriculture departs significantly from natural ways, while claiming to be much more efficient, modern and helpful for feeding hungry people around the world, especially in Africa.  Yet the President of Zambia, in the midst of drought and severe food shortage in 2002, rejected the offer of the United States of America to provide maize that was genetically modified.  Was that a responsible thing to do?

To answer that question we first must understand what genetic modification means.  There is a very intricate technology involved in producing GMOs: a gene of very distinct origin is brought into a plant for the purpose of modifying some of the original characteristics of that plant.  For example, a cotton plant could be protected from certain pests after having been engineered to carry a particular gene that kills the pests. Or the gene from a fish that swims in the Antarctic could be introduced into a tomato plant, making the tomatoes more tolerant of cold and frost.

High technology, associated with an industrial model of agriculture (huge investments, large plots of land, sophisticated mechanisation), characterises the GMO approach.  So when Zambia rejected the USA offer of GMOs – after widespread consultation with Zambian experts and foreign experts, including many from the USA – it did so with a primary concern about the impact on our agricultural infrastructure.  More than 80% of Zambia’s food is grown by small-scare farmers (like Mutale, cited in the opening paragraph) and they would face immense problems with the introduction of GMOs.  Dependency on external inputs (most GMO seed is controlled by USA corporate giants like Montsanto) is just one of the difficulties.

Moreover, there is the question of the food safety of GMOs – a highly controverted topic, indeed, with scientists lining up on both sides of the question!  But one argument that simply has no force at all is: “Well, we in the USA eat plenty of GMOs and look at us -- we don’t suffer any ill effects!”  Let’s leave aside whether or not any ill effects are felt and just reject outright the implication that people in the USA eat GMO maize and therefore people in Zambia shouldn’t fear it.  We are talking “apples and oranges”!  You cannot intelligently compare the small daily intake of maize by the average USA person (Corn flakes for breakfast? Popcorn for a snack?  Corn-on-the-cob for dinner?) with the huge daily intake of maize by the average Zambian (large servings of plain porridge several times a day when available) in a generally nutrition-deficient diet in an environment of very poor health care.

Pro-GMO advocates argue that their products can also offer inexpensive health remedies for people in poor countries.  But a story to the contrary was told to me by Father Roland Lesseps, a Jesuit priest from the USA with a doctorate in plant biology.  Roland has worked for almost twenty years in Zambia, training peasant farmers in sustainable agriculture techniques (organic farming, agro-forestry, appropriate technology, etc.).  He explained to me that a vitamin A deficiency is often common in the diets of poor people.   A GMO method to increase intake of this important vitamin is to insert into rice a gene for making beta-carotene, a substance that the body can convert to vitamin A.

But very large amounts of this modified rice would be necessary every day, and it would have to be accompanied by adequate amounts of zinc, protein and fats – elements often lacking in the diets of poor people.  So Roland encourages farmers to plant the so-called “vegetable tree” (moringa tree), whose leaves are rich in vitamin A as well as rich in protein, vitamin C, iron and calcium.  Besides providing a full range of nutrients, the leaves are delicious, especially when cooked in a traditional Zambian way with powdered groundnuts (peanuts).  Why promote GMOs when natural alternatives are cheaper and more readily available?

So why is the US government so adamant in pushing poor countries like Zambia to accept GMOs?  Is it strictly a humanitarian reason – feed the hungry?  And is the Zambian government acting irresponsibly in rejecting the GMOs?  People in the United States might be shocked when they hear US government officials accuse Zambian government officials, and anti-GMO advocates, of actually starving the people by their refusal to accept GMOs!

But let me suggest that people in the USA should be more shocked to learn of the economic pressures driving the global GMO push on the part of the US government.  The USA is an immense producer of GMO crops, promoted by the huge multinational seed companies like Monsanto, and it needs ever-expanding markets for its produce.  Currently the USA is in a multi-million dollar dispute with the European Union over restrictions on importing into Europe of GMO products (for example, labeling of the products, so that people can know what they are buying – something that the US government rejects).  In an increasingly globalised economy, Zambia’s refusal of GMOs is seen as a threat to USA dominance.

Those of us who have been involved in the debate in Zambia have also raised some religious and ethical concerns about the GMO approach.  Because we humans are fellow-creatures with the rest of creation – members of the earth community – we must show due respect for the integrity of creation.  Manipulation of the forces of nature through bio-technology is not a neutral or purely technical matter.  It has its limits in terms of the overall effects on nature and must continually be subjected to ethical evaluation.

Helpful to that ethical evaluation are the principles and norms found in the church’s social teaching.  These include, for example, the principles of the common good (all should benefit from advances in science), option for the poor (special concern should be shown for impact on the poor and vulnerable), subsidiarity (decisions should be made by those immediately affected), and solidarity (promotion of inclusive community and not exclusive isolation) Here in Zambia, we have found that this social teaching (sometimes called the “best kept secret” of the church!) provides a value-added dimension to public policy debate and decisions.

The political, economic and ethical struggle to resist the imposition of GMO technology into Zambian agriculture has echoes in many other developing countries, as well as in rich countries.   The Catholic bishops in the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa have raised their voices of caution about introduction of GMOs.  It is true that some offices of the Vatican have recently expressed more favourable opinion about GMOs as a contribution to meeting the problem of world hunger.  But frequently these offices have been compromised by their readiness to listen more to pro-GMO corporate and scientific voices than to the expressions of concern coming from people working with the poor in developing countries.

It is also ironic that at the very moment when the USA is pushing hard on spreading GMO technology, many of the larger seed companies are pulling back on scientific research and production. In Europe, companies such as Syngenta, Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer have withdrawn from GMO production in England and are re-considering their investments in other parts of Europe.  Popular skepticism about GMO food production seems to be on the rise in the rich countries even while the USA and the larger companies sing praises for its usefulness – indeed, its necessity – in poor countries.

For the time being, however, Zambia continues to honour a pledge to keep out GMOs.  It is finding that with the good agricultural practices of farmers like Mutale, the people can be feed and their health promoted, the environment can be protected, and God’s good earth can be respected.  

Peter Henriot, a Jesuit priest and political scientist, directs the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, Lusaka, Zambia.  Prior to coming to Zambia 16 years ago, he directed the Center of Concern, Washington, DC.