Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe is refusing to accept thousands of tonnes of maize from the US, ostensibly because some of it is genetically modified. Offered by the US Agency for International Development through the Rome-based World Food Programme, the maize was due to arrive in Africa this week aboard the USAID-chartered ship, the Liberty Star.
Negotiations have already been soured by reports that Mugabe's government is denying emergency food aid to people in areas that oppose his government. Andrew Natsios, USAID's administrator, last week warned that food aid would be stopped altogether if this form of political repression continued.
Now Harare has said that it doesn't want USAID's maize, despite the spectre of famine looming over six million of its citizens. "The position is that no GM foods are allowed in Zimbabwe," a spokesman at the Zimbabwe High Commission in London told New Scientist earlier this week. "Scientifically, they haven't proven to be safe."
The spokesman also said that Zimbabwe's beef sales to Europe could be under threat if any of the maize is fed to animals. Yet New Scientist has established that there are no restrictions in Europe on the sale of meat, milk or eggs from animals raised on GM fodder.
An editorial last weekend in the Zimbabwe Herald- regarded as the mouthpiece of the government- also expressed concern that "vegetables...could be contaminated with genes from such grain". But interbreeding between grain and vegetables is impossible.
However, the maize seeds could be spilt, contaminating fields, or farmers could deliberately plant them. There's been extensive contamination of Mexican fields via such routes (New Scientist, 15 June, p 17). But there's no evidence that this "gene flow" has had any harmful effects on the environment or people. And while such contamination might affect exports to Europe, at present Zimbabwe doesn't send any maize to Europe.
"We've been eating GM maize here in the US for six years without any problems. By saying no to aid, he's increasing the risk that thousands of Zimbabweans are going to starve," says Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, winner of last year's World Food Prize. "The reason for Mugabe's resistance is pure politics. He wants to show Western countries he doesn't need them."
Other countries in the region, such as Malawi and Zambia, have already agreed to accept the maize, although Zambia is setting up an advisory board to monitor the fate of the material. Mozambique, whose ports will receive the material, is wary about having to transport it through its territory.
As New Scientist went to press, it looked likely that a compromise would be reached- milling the maize before distribution, so it can't be planted. "But it delays things, and that's the problem," says Luis Clemens, a spokesman for the World Food Programme's office in South Africa. "It becomes an issue of timing and cost."
The US seldom has milled maize available, USAID deputy administrator Roger Winter told a press conference in Johannesburg last week, and to mill it in the US would increase the cost by a third. "If they want to mill it locally, that's their business."
Both sides were locked in negotiations earlier this week to find a way forward. "Our experts in Harare are waiting for the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization to make proposals," said the Zimbabwean spokesman in London.
Some charities think the request to mill the maize is reasonable. "We should not [reject] grain even if it's GM, when it's at the expense of people's lives," says Alice Wynne Willson of British charity ActionAid. "But a food crisis should not be used as a bargaining chip for introducing GM technology. People are losing their right to say no because they are hungry."
She also points out that while the US grain is welcome in a crisis, its production relies on government subsidies. That enables US farmers to sell grains at prices that undermine markets in Africa.
There's no doubt that local mismanagement and corruption have played a big part in many southern African countries' failure to cope with the current drought. But experts agree that it's been made worse by factors such as subsidies, the AIDS epidemic and the lack of infrastructure.
"As it is, it costs more to send maize to Malawi from Ethiopia than from Argentina," says Pinstrup-Andersen. Parts of Ethiopia had bumper harvests this year. But prices dropped by 20 per cent because they couldn't transport it elsewhere in the continent.
And the disparities in subsidy rules applied by lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have made things worse, says agricultural economist Laurence Cockcroft. These institutions forced countries such as Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia to dismantle the boards that managed the distribution and sale of grain, on the grounds that they were "subsidised" and disrupted the workings of the free market. "It's been disastrous," he says. "We can't sacrifice food security on the altar of free-market economics."
Author: Andy Coghlan
New Scientist issue: 3 August 2002
PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com
"These articles are posted on this site to give advance access to other authorised media who may wish to quote extracts as part of fair dealing with this copyrighted material. Full attribution is required, and if publishing online a link to www.newscientist.com is also required. Advance permission is required before any and every reproduction of each article in full - please contact angela.bourton@rbi.co.uk. Please note that all material is copyright of Reed Business Information Limited and we reserve the right to take such action as we consider appropriate to protect such copyright."
US CONTACT - Michelle Soucy, New Scientist Boston Office:
Tel: +1 617 558 4939 or email michelle.soucy@newscientist.com