<< home  < Articles

Toby Fiander wrote, on the 20th August, 2002, in response to a post by Chris Forbes-Ewan

Forbzy raises a thorny issue, should Zambia accept food aid even though it is genetically modified maize?

> I will be interested to see if the PM starves.

I don't think the decision as to whether to take GM food is as easy as you make out.  It easy to give advice from a comfortable study chair, while sitting on - at least in my case anyway - a well-padded backside.

But the government of a country which does not have the infrastructure or education to control genetically engineered solutions to agriculture needs to decide whether control of part of its agriculture will be passed to someone else in the future for the sake of feeding people now.  It may not be able to see how much control will be passed and be quite fearful of the consequences, which are largely unknown even in places where good research has been done.  In any case, it is always an issue when importing grain from some other place as to whether some will escape and there will be a problem with the foreign material.  in the drought of the 1980s, Australia was faced with the choice of importing grain from places that had diseases not present in Australia or not having enough bread flour.  In the end very little was imported, but it was a serious issue as to whether milling the grain would be feasible without contact with other agriculture sufficient to spread the diseases.

It is just important to know the consequences when using plants genetically engineered for particular resistances, not merely because there might control of the crop and its management in the future by some foreign entity. In this case, there would be little idea if how much gene flow there would be to local weeds, if the maize was grown, which some will inevitably be.

We may not see it as a clear cut choice, but it is an invidious choice for the leadership of a nation where people are starving.

I suppose in the circumstances I would opt for feeding people now because, like most people, I don't like to see people starve to death or die of disease, but seeing larger issues is not necessarily a sign of callous disregard for the population.

In any case, there may be other grain donors, although I notice no Government around here is offering to feed the hungry unless there is some political advantage in the future.  In the past 20years Australia has a history of self-serving "aid", and even very little of that.

As Chris Lawson points out there does seem to be a lot of clap-trap in the press about this stuff.

David Allen added
 

An interesting aside.

On Qld Country Hour yesterday the MD of Pacific Seeds was interviewed.

Evidently they have just destroyed their stocks of Maize seeds in New Zealand where commercial GM is mandated against.

Two plots (at Pukekoe and Gisborn) were contract planted with certified GM free seed to generate the next season's commercial seed. Testing of the seed produced revealed the presence of both Bt & Roundup ready genes.

The MD could not account for how the contamination occured but amongst his musings was that contaminated pollen had been intentionally released.

You may have missed this, but a month or so ago was a story on an Ethiopian family who were offered GM seeds but then realised if they took them that the problem would then be that they would need to buy
a lot of [presumably monsantos] fertilisers, bug sprays etc which the family and others simply couldn't afford.

The woman wasn't stupid, she said "no thanks" and opted for sustainable farming methods which included better water management and soil protection.

Working in this way they realised that they could keep their farm going, their families fed and practically for free.

The company attempted various techniques verging on blackmail to get these people to hurry up and accept their product.

So perhaps the Zambian PM is only echoing what the people want.

Chris Lawson responded:
 

At 06:31 21/08/02 +1000, Toby Fiander wrote:

>I suppose in the circumstances I would opt for feeding people now because,  like most people, I don't like to see people starve to death or die of  disease, but seeing larger issues is not necessarily a sign of callous  disregard for the population.

Toby, I would  agree in principle, but any "larger issue" that becomes more important than saving tens of thousands of lives strikes me as a triumph of ideology over humanity. This is not uncommon in the history of hysterical ideologies :-)
 

>In any case, there may be other grain donors, although I notice no Government around here is offering to feed the hungry unless there is some political advantage in the future.  In the past 20years Australia has a history of self-serving "aid", and even very little of that.
 

 
>As Chris Lawson points out there does seem to be a lot of clap-trap in the press about this stuff.

Which is what drives me mad. I don't know if the Zambian president is deliberately using the GMness as an justification for a political decision to starve his people while still appealing to the European ideologues. Or maybe he's swallowed the misinformation provided by the ideologues -- just as the South Africans swallowed the non-HIV AIDS bullshit.

But to be fair, Toby, even you have reiterated misinformation in this matter -- and you are intelligent and well-educated on the issue. It's very hard for those who don't have access to information to make informed decisions. In case you're wondering, the mistake you made was in assuming that Round-Up ready GM food will lock farmers into using Round-Up and become dependant on the company. In fact, Round-Up ready Gm food only contains genes that make the crops more resistant to Round-Up and therefoer able to tolerate higher spraying levels. You don't *have* to use Round-Up, or indeed any other pesticide/herbicides on the crops. They will still grow. And as for escape into the wild -- if your entire country refuses to use evil multinational Round-Up, then how do Round-Up resistance genes matter in weeds?

You see what I mean? It's an easy mistake to make because that's what the issue has been in the West, and that's what the anti-GM propaganda has been flogging. So believe me, I'm not calling you stupid! But it really, really irks me that almost none of the major media outlets have gone and talked to experts *and* let them have their say. By and large, the media outlets find some GM scientist and give him a five-second grab (which is way too short to convey the critical information), and then put that scientist up against one of the more extremist anti-GM groups. They don't seek out anyone like David Suzuki (who is anti-GM, but who is at least knowledgeable about biology!). Instead they seek out the most inflammatory rhetoric -- which is often meaningless or just plain wrong, but is effective in five seconds. What it means is that the so-called public debate never gets beyond extremists slogging each other over the head, with occasional excertps from people who actually know what they're talking about condensed to the point of meaninglessness. This is, I must admit, why i am not too happy about the general idea of moratoria on technology until soceity can get its head around it. History shows that society doesn't get its head around things until after they have been introduced. Before then, society at large is generally crippled by either apathy or hysteria. Let's face it, we're *still* waging a war against Creationists who are 150 years out of date, and 100 years past the point where there could be any reasonable scientific objection to evolutionary theory. What hope do we have of getting people to understand the social ramifications of technology we have only just developed? Even the experts can't be sure of all the ramifications.

Toby Fiander replied:
 

Chris Lawson wrote:

  In case you're wondering, the mistake you made was in assuming   that Round-Up ready GM food will lock farmers into using Round-Up   and become dependant on the company. In fact, Round-Up ready Gm   food only contains genes that make the crops more resistant to Round-Up   and therefoer able to tolerate higher spraying levels. You don't *have* to   use Round-Up, or indeed any other pesticide/herbicides on the crops.   They will still grow. And as for escape into the wild -- if your entire country   refuses to use evil multinational Round-Up, then how do Round-Up   resistance genes matter in weeds?
 

I make the point, as you did, that feeding people now is probably a greater attraction than saving a country from the evil commercialism of agriculture.  However, I am glad not to have to be making the decision in Zambia, just the same.

I don't think I have made the assumptions you assume I have.  I don't think it is open to you to dismiss my view as entirely doctrinaire or uninformed and it certainly is not merely theoretical.

Around here, we have mandated that adequate precautions before releasing any new variety with herbicide resistance into the wild would be:

• a study of the effect on local plants, having regard to gene flow from the imported plant material which is probably (local) insect dependent,
• a study of how the genetic material will affect the agriculture in the long term,
• a clear statement of who is going to own the genetic material in the long term.

None of these things is available for the maize which was earmarked for Zambia.

There are at least four herbicide resistance schemes in use in maize - I think they are all used in North America.  At least two of these use herbicides which are also used for spraying weeds of drains, so there is likely to be selection pressure for the genes resistant to these herbicides.  I am uncertain whether there would be this selection pressure in Zambia, but it is entirely likely, at least two of the herbicides are used in PNG to my knowledge.

I would not back the science of Zambia against the politics, I merely point out that there are likely to be other issues besides feeding the people who starve now, and that these are not irrational.

I have not dealt the other possible and semi-rational fears that a government of Zambia or anywhere else might have.  For example, suppose you have the gene for resistance to something in your country, and there is selection pressure for it because you spray with atrizine or something.  It is entirely possible that to obtain further aid from the EU, government would be required to enact and police regulation about the ownership of genes.  The aid would then be unavailable from that source effectively.  This seems quite realistic to me, but I have dealt only with the matter of weeds, which seems more realistic to me.

However, on other points we seem to agree.  Thank you for your explanation of your position.
 

Podargus added
 

 > Around here, we have mandated that adequate precautions before   releasing any new variety with herbicide resistance into the wild   would be:   ... a study of the effect on local plants, having regard to gene flow   from the imported plant material which is probably (local) insect   dependent,

In this case maize is the offered grain and is wind pollinated.  I very much doubt that it would cross with any native species.
 

 >   There are at least four herbicide resistance schemes in use in maize -   I think they are all used in North America.  At least two of these use   herbicides which are also used for spraying weeds of drains, so there   is likely to be selection pressure for the genes resistant to these   herbicides.  I am uncertain whether there would be this selection   pressure in Zambia, but it is entirely likely, at least two of the   herbicides are used in PNG to my knowledge.
 

I assume, on no evidence, that the maize would be hybrids.  They'll get a shock if they save seed for sowing.
 

> I would not back the science of Zambia against the politics, I merely   point out that there are likely to be other issues besides feeding the   people who starve now, and that these are not irrational.