When some of the world’s poorest and most hungry people reject GM food, others will, and should take note. As a social scientist exploring the political economy and governance of GM food, I was captivated by international press headlines highlighting the Zambian Government’s vociferous opposi- tion to GM food aid during a period of desperate food insecurity. As a result, I travelled to Zambia, conducted 27 interviews (see appendix) and quickly realised that this Southern African landlocked country with a popu- lation of 10.5 million people had become a beacon of guidance for its neighbouring nations on the GM issue, as well as an international site of spiteful political and economic turf warfare involving the trade superpowers. The case of Zambian resistance is important to explore in detail, as it high- lights the ways in which Western state and corporate power is mobilised through various contexts in violation of international law to exploit hunger in pursuit of trade and economic interests. It also identifies how Zambian state sovereignty over resources and biodiversity were challenged and usurped by pro-GM international authorities, but also how ‘power from below’ is capable of triumphing against the trade superpowers. Moreover, the following case study also emphasises the ways in which ‘risk’ has been constructed and used by biotechnology companies and the US Government to pressure impoverished nations in ways that are tantamount to culturecide (discussed later).
Previously known as Northern Rhodesia and subject to South African and British rule, Zambia became a republic in 1964, and unlike many other African nations has not experienced civil war. It is rich in natural resources
including copper, zinc, gold and gems stones, however, its external debt of $US 5 billion and an unemployment rate in excess of 50 per cent of the population makes it one of the United Nations’ Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). Alongside disturbing economics trends, Zambia con- tinues to tackle intense social problems. These include an HIV rate of 16.5 per cent of the entire population, a national life expectancy of 38 years and upwards of 90 per cent of its people living below the poverty line including 65 per cent having no access to safe drinking water, electricity or sanitation (World Health Organisation, 2009). That said, a 23 per cent rise in exports in 2003, a stable inflation and an increased domestic gross product in what the government refers to as the ‘longest period of sustained growth since inde- pendence’ provides reason for optimism (Magande, 2004; cf. World Bank, 2004). Along with mining, one of the best performing sectors is agriculture. For the first time in Zambia’s 40-year independence, in 2004 it began exporting surplus grain to neighbouring Malawi and Angola. In 2008/2009, Zambia produced 1.9 million metric tons of grain, vastly exceeding its necessary food security target of 1.2 million tons. The increased yields have been attributed to growth in development and infrastructure (Bupe, 2009). Agriculture is an essential part of the social and economic fabric of Zambian society. Zambia has more than 800,000 farmers (Simwanda and Mwila, 2004a) and an estimated 85 per cent are‘small-scale or peasant farmers’ who own less than one hectare of land and produce 80 per cent of the nation’s crops (Simwanda and Mwila, 2004b). Agriculture is a central political issue where farming union representatives are frequently in the national press. For example, the President of the Zambian National Farmers Union, Jervis Binda, has recently strongly criticised and accused the government for cover- ups and a lack of dialogue with the agricultural community regarding food marketing strategies. Such inferences of government deceit over food policies are an issue of widespread public concern and outrage in Zambia. The cur- rent Zambian president, Mr Banda, was quick to allay public fears with comments about the future for a sustainable and secure food industry. He advised that food security was embedded in irrigation initiatives and finan- cial investments to enhance infrastructure (Singyangwe, 2009). The point to be made here is that food security, grain, farming and government food policies are pervasive and integral to social and political life in Zambia. The Zambian Government’s rejection of GM food
As mentioned above, farming is a cornerstone of Zambian society, especially cassava and maize that are staple foods in the north and south respectively. While fulfilling dietary needs it also holds substantial social and political value as one interviewee said‘if you can’t manage maize then you cannot be a President of Zambia, it is our lifeblood’. While conducting fieldwork in Zambia, various discussions centred on grain; types, colours, smells, and
tastes were recounted as a means of describing the ways in which grain, notably maize, has a national identity. It is more than a food and a source of trade and income; it has social and cultural capital or as one farmer said‘it is part of who we are; it is our life blood’. The cultural significance of food is a relatively recent topic in Western academic discourses (see Ashley et al., 2004); however, in Southern Africa it has played an essential role in cere- mony, worship and social structure for thousands of years.
As discussed earlier, the concerns over GM food safety received interna- tional headlines when the former Zambian president referred to it as poison. The introduction of genetic technology into the food chain has posed a per- ceived danger to their staple food and has generated a discourse of fear and moral panic among many Zambians who were united behind their former president’s opposition to GM food. In Lusaka, as discussed earlier, the col- loquial name for a prostitute (most of whom are HIV positive) is a‘GMO’. The use of language that seeks to demonise GM food as morally repugnant, diseased and harmful must be contextualised within the social value of maize in Zambia and within contemporary discourses of risk and moral panic. Indeed, the use of the word ‘organism’ has powerful connotations. Through- out the world genetically modified foods are widely referred to in media, scientific and political discourses as ‘GM food’. In Zambia, the situation is different. Consistent with the cultural interpretations of grain as a ‘life- blood’, the introduction of a foreign and unnatural element to the food supply is seen as contamination, a form of bodily poisoning. GM food represents a living organism, capable of reproducing and responding to stimuli – it is a living being. To ingest GM maize is to consume an unknown or alien species; to grow it is to pollute centuries of natural seed breeding.
Not only is GM maize considered harmful to human health but the Zambian authorities interviewed for this research had reasons to believe that unmilled US grain donations were being strategically transported to Zambia to permit illegal growing of GM crops that would contaminate natural maize varieties in what was perceived as a strategic attempt to pollute bio- diversity and create economic dependence (cf. Nottingham, 2003).1
The Zambian Government has been hailed as leading the African oppo- sition to GM food. It rejected GM grain during its food deficit of 2002 and prompted other nations at the September 2002 World Earth Summit includ- ing Ethiopia, Mozambique and Zimbabwe to oppose US Government claims that they were‘letting people starve through misplaced concern over GM food’ (Martin, 2002). The Zambian Government called a national debate in August 2002 on the safety of GM food. This meeting recommended a Zambian-led ‘fact finding mission’ involving leading scientists and medical experts travelling overseas with a specific remit to comment on the govern- ment’s adoption of the precautionary principle. It concluded that the safety of GM food was uncertain, that GM maize would contaminate indigenous Zambian maize varieties, that the export industry of maize and organic
foods was jeopardised and that the‘government should maintain the current stand of not accepting GM foods by employing the precautionary principle’ (Banda et al., 2002:38). Thisfieldwork resulted in the Zambian Government maintaining its cautious approach and moving towards the drafting of biosafety legislation. The Ministry of Science encapsulated the government’s position in the publication of its Biosafety Strategy.
While biotechnology is often promoted by agri-business as an answer to the world’s food problems, real food security problems are caused not by food shortages, but inequity, poverty and the concentration of food production. Therefore, unless regulated, biotechnology is likely to further consolidate control of the seed industry in the hands of a few largefirms. (Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training, 2003: 7) It should be noted that the Zambian Government is not opposed to bio- technology per se. The National Institute for Scientific Research continues to conduct experiments using genetic technologies that aim to reduce animal disease as well as exploring medicinal benefits. A senior scientist with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training (interviewed for this book) dismissed allegations that Zambia was anti genetic technology claiming:
of course we are exploring developments in genetic science but our resources are limited. We have various laboratories and experiments conducting research into genetic possibilities … But to suggest that Zambia is opposed to genetic technology is simply not true, we are opposed to GM food and we are opposed to the pressure to accept it. As Paarlberg (2001) argues, the politics of precaution across developing countries is not simply‘thumbs up or thumbs down on a single issue’, but a variety of ways that countries are responding to intellectual property laws, risk assessment and management, biotechnology research and regulation. The debate surrounding the refusal of GM food is, therefore, not one- dimensional; indeed there are several reasons for adopting the precautionary principle. For example, the Minister of Agriculture stated:
we are adopting the precautionary principle on GM food and until we have more accurate scientific facts that clearly show that it is safe, we will not introduce it to our environment … I am wanting to explore the potential of our biodiversity before we destroy what we already freely have, what God has given us for free. How can we accept GMOs when I know that such technology could destroy our biodiversity, the possibilities of which are still unknown.
A reasonable argument, however, the expansion of bio-agriculture in Southern Africa is not subservient to ecological dangers or risks to biodi- versity. As the following section explores, the production and sale of GM food is driven by the economic imperatives of‘free trade’ and an aggressive political economy that seeks new markets in fragile, vulnerable and‘at risk’ societies.
Political and economic pressure to accept GM food
In 2003, despite having a clear understanding of Zambia’s explicit opposition to GM food, the United States continued to distribute food aid through the UN’s World Food Programme that contained GM maize. When the Zambian Government called for an immediate withdrawal of all the contaminated food, a riot broke out among some starving people in Southern Zambia. The Zambian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Mundia Sikatana, accused the US of ‘promoting food riots in order to force Zambia to accept GM maize’ (quoted in Jonathan, 2004).
Moreover, US authorities continued to place intolerable pressure on African nations to accept what was a surplus of GM food from US farmers. For example, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Tony Hall, suggested that Zambia’s political leaders be convicted as criminals by stating ‘people that deny food to their people, that are in fact starving people to death, should be held responsible … for the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts in the world’ (quoted in Reuters, 2002). Other sources in the international press were claiming that‘millions’ were dying in Zambia (see Laidlaw, 2002), and Minister Sikatana explained that this was all part of the political pressure placed on his government by US authorities:
[f]ood is a weapon of mass destruction. It is used by some countries to control and pressure the poorer African nations. Western leaders have accused my President of untruths. In 2002 when we had a food deficit, they said that 4 million people were starving. This was all propaganda. No one in Zambia died from starvation. The food deficit was isolated to Southern regions where people eat maize. In the north we had a surplus of cassava, if the US Government really wanted to help Zambians why not transport our surplus cassava from the north to hungry people in the south, but no. So you must understand how lies and manipulation are used to exploit the hungry. But this year we have a surplus of maize. For the first time in Zambia’s 40 year independence we have a surplus of grain, and we are now exporting grain to Angola and Malawi, and we’ve done it without GMOs.
Other government interviewees also placed the above comments of US Ambassador Hall within its political and economic contexts arguing that it: served to endorse US food aid policies… African countries experience this sort of political pressure from the West all the time whether it be in health, education or whatever. And why? Because there are more and more business opportunities emerging in Africa in engineering and development and Western countries are all competing for the profits.
(Sikitana, 2004) The US Government was also accused of dumping unwanted GM food on starving African countries and using Africa as a ‘human experiment’ (Townsend, 2002). In addition, it was alleged that the US Government and biotech industries were using the UN food aid programme as a‘covert subsidy for US farmers’ (Vidal, 2002). This criticism further deepened the scepticism of sub-Saharan nations and stiffened their resolve to reject GM foods from the US. One Zambian scientist explained:
[t]he US oversupply of GM grain creates a danger for the North American market. Too much grain drives prices down which effects local American markets. Food aid to Africa provides an option to rescue local markets while scoring international political points as a donor of food. But then again, it is never simply donated, it always comes with a debt of some kind. But it must be remembered that the US are not motivated by a sincere humanitarian desire to help people who are hungry, they are motivated by their own local economies and their own local markets. Government, NGOs and farmer groups in Zambia interviewed for this research reported that starvation was exaggerated by the West to optimise commercial opportunities. That said, there is no doubting that Southern Zambia experienced a six-month food shortage in 2002, but reports of widespread famine and death were untrue and exploited. For example, the former United States President George Bush claimed that US efforts to reduce hunger in Africa were‘impeded’ by European nations that ‘have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded, unscientific fears’. As a result, President Bush argued that African countries ‘avoid investing in bio-technologies for fear that their products will be shut out of European markets’ (see BBC News, 2003).
Yet, it is clear that the politicisation of hunger serves to mask the eco- nomic priorities of the US Administration. Take for example, the non-food industries of cotton and tobacco.
Zambia has a very productive and thriving cotton industry. Indeed, cotton has been hailed as the‘one unquestioned success of Zambia’s turn towards a market economy’ since the country’s liberalisation policies in 1994 (Tschirley
et al., 2004). Like other Zambian industries that have proven commercially and internationally fruitful, such as copper, gold and gemstones, cotton has also attracted offshore corporate interests. Several interviewees reported that US and UK cotton corporations were growing and testing genetically mod- ified cotton without the Zambian Government’s knowledge. Again, a grow- ing and lively market economy for cotton in Zambia has attracted corporate interests with a pro-GM position for increasing yields and maximising prof- its. Of course, the proposed bt cotton for the Zambian market (which has been prohibited by current Zambian authorities) would have seen offshore corporate industries patent cotton plantations and increase their profit share in crop production.
Interestingly, while US officials have put pressure on Zambia to accept biotechnologies with food and cotton, the opposite is true for tobacco. Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the US with cigarette brand varieties consuming 49.9 per cent of the US retail markets, refuses to purchase GM tobacco from international growers (Philip Morris, 2009). GM technologies in cigarette production are used solely by US-based Vector Group Limited that also produces a nicotine-free cigarette. Vector claims that it is com- mitted to helping people quit smoking and their research demonstrates that one in three smokers using its Quest nicotine-free cigarette cease smoking within four weeks (Tobacco.org, 2004). As one Zambian interviewee from the tobacco industry stated:
if GM technologies are so good, as the US keeps saying with food and cotton, why not for tobacco? It’s simple, GM tobacco is less addictive and therefore it’s not wanted, now what does that say about the US’ motivation?
This contradiction serves to briefly illustrate that the propagation of GM technologies by the US Government and bio-corporations is more about exploitation for economic growth than humanitarian relief and pov- erty reduction. Of course the West’s plunder of Africa is a familiar and tragic story.‘US imperialism’ continues to stir a growing African resistance or anti- imperialist struggle against Western ‘neo-colonialism’ (Ismi and Schwartz, 2007).
Within the Zambian context, the international pressures and‘trade wars’ (discussed above) have clearly influenced the local WFP as well as USAID. In 2004, the US Government provided an estimated $US 66 million in financial assistance to Zambia through the USAID. Its Strategic Plan for Zambia for 2004 to 2010 focuses onfive key objectives of ‘increased private sector competitiveness’, ‘improved quality of basic education for more school- aged children’, ‘improved health status of Zambians’, ‘Government held more accountable’, ‘reduced impact of HIV/AIDS through multi-sectoral response’ (US Department of State, 2004).
The Zambian’s Government rejection of US GM food has reportedly produced ramifications for funding. An interviewee for this research who sits on various official committees stated ‘USAID has reduced funding for pro- jects in social and health type projects. This is a silent or unspoken penalty for rejecting GMOs’. It appears, however, that USAID remains committed to its first objective in Zambia, namely providing business opportunities for US-based companies. As one scientist stated, ‘USAID champions Wes- tern ideals whilst creating opportunities for US business … business is number one and if research starts saying that GM food is harmful then it will effect US business … so the research doesn’t get done unless it can produce positive results’.
Another scientist interviewed for this research stated that his organisation received substantial funding from USAID (as many organisations in Zambia do) and that USAID‘actively dissuaded us from doing research on GM food’. Indeed, scientific research into GM technology in Zambia has received substantial funding from biotech companies and pro-GM lobbies. As one senior government scientist interviewed for this research