Report From Zambia and Johannesburg: Biotechnology and Food Security

Thomas P. Redick
tpredick@gjn.com

In the decade that has passed since the first U.N. Conference on Development and the Environment in 1992 (the “Earth Summit”) in Rio de Janeiro, the world has debated the role that agricultural biotechnology should play in delivering food security to the less developed nations of the world. At the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development (also known as “Rio +10,” and herein referred to as the “Summit”), there was widespread agreement that “progress in implementing sustainable development has been extremely disappointing since the 1992 Earth Summit, with poverty deepening and environmental degradation worsening.” See The Johannesburg Summit Test: What Will Change? <http://www.johannesburgsummit.org.> (site visited Nov. 5, 2002). In particular, the world appears divided on the role that agricultural biotechnology could play in promoting sustainable development and secure food supplies in developing nations.

This article will report on what did not happen at Johannesburg, but probably should have happened: a critical reassessment of the “precautionary approach” as it is being applied to biotech crops. This reassessment should have occurred in the factual context of the Zambian government’s refusal to accept food aid containing biotech corn from the United States, which refusal was occurring in a very public manner before, during, and after the Summit. If developing nations of the world follow the original Rio principles set forth in Agenda 21, a seminal statement on sustainable development, the road to Rio + 20 will necessarily include a role for biotech crops in creating enhanced food security for developing nations. If, on the other hand, developing nations turn their backs on all agricultural biotechnology, the cost in terms of lives lost and environmental degradation could be devastating. As a result, the tale of Zambia’s refusal of U.S. food aid merits telling today and retelling in the future, as more lives are lost to precautionary policies.

Report from Johannesburg on Agriculture and the Environment
The Johannesburg summit launched new initiatives in “Agriculture” that should benefit the global environment considerably in the coming years. The United States will invest $90 million in 2003 for sustainable agriculture programs. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has received 17 partnership submissions with at least $2 million in additional resources for the “Conservation of Biodiversity.” The United States will provide $53 million for forests in 2002-2005, and the United Nations has received $100 million from 32 biodiversity partnership initiatives.

While farmers from developing countries marched in the streets of Johannesburg demanding more access to biotech crops, the Summit, however, concluded without initiatives taking on the divisive issue of the role of agricultural biotechnology in sustainable agriculture. This omission of significant biotech policy initiatives was unfortunate. Biotech crops should play a key role in promoting the objectives of Agenda 21, the mission statement that was crafted in the first Rio “Earth Summit” meeting in 1992. Agenda 21 carefully balanced the role of a “precautionary approach” to environmental degradation with the competing and limiting principle of fair trade that is not restricted by arbitrary regulations.

With the impending ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Biosafety Protocol), which is expected to enter into force in 2003 after the 50th nation ratifies it, the European Union’s (EU’s) anti-biotech model for regulation may proliferate around the world. This model could have serious adverse consequences for human health and the environment in developing nations, particularly in Africa. Nations in Africa are uniquely positioned to take advantage of vast reservoirs of biodiversity and human potential, if they seize the opportunities agricultural biotechnology has to offer.

With thirty-seven nations having ratified the Biosafety Protocol to date, including eight African nations (Botswana, Kenya, Liberia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, and Uganda), the future of agricultural biotechnology in developing nations hangs in the balance. See <http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/signinglist.asp>. It would appear that many developing nations lacking adequate food security will reject the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, with resulting loss of life.

Zambia: The Latest Biotech Food Policy Battleground
The HIV epidemic, war, and weather have combined to turn Central Africa into a region plagued by hunger. Food aid has been pouring into the region for the past several months, alleviating hunger where possible. Unfortunately for some starving Zambians, however, their government has taken a firm stand against the biotech corn that is present in food aid shipments from the United States. Simply stated, the government would risk starvation before it risks even temporary approval of biotech corn as food for its citizenry.

In contrast to Zimbabwe and other African nations facing critical food shortages (which accepted 30 percent biotech corn as food aid), Zambia held out against pressure to accept whole corn imports from teh United States that contained biotech corn. Greenpeace infromed Zambia adn that Zambian farmers would not be able to sell organic foods to Europe if Zambia were to accept a biotech food aid.Zambia authoritarian leader President Mwanawasa reasoned that corn might be "poison" for all they knew, since the EU had refused to approve certain varieties of biotech corn for human consumption. Even after Zambians consulted the EU’s health commissioner, who reassured the Zambians about health risks (which are too speculative to warrant starvation), Zambia rejected biotech food aid as potential “poison” to its people. A delegation of Zambian scientists and economists conducted a thorough tour of facilities for biotech crop production in the United States, South Africa, and Europe, only to conclude that the widely reported “safety” of biotech corn was “inconclusive” when the “precautionary principle” was invoked. See John Bohannon, 298 Science at 1153-1154 (Nov. 6, 2002). Under the precautionary principle as applied here, health effects are presumed to be possible unless they are proved to a virtual certainty to be unlikely to arise in the future.

The reason for this precaution may be partially economic, not health-related. EU represent-atives have offered reassurance that future corn exports from Zambia will not be banned if imported biotech corn is milled and not planted. See Mildred Mulenga, European Commission Donates 15 Million Euros for Food Aid to Zambia, Associated Press (Nov. 12, 2002). However, Greenpeace and other activists with interests in making “organic” agriculture the global standard repeatedly urged Zambia not to accept biotech crops, even if the corn could be milled to prevent planting. Moreover, since the EU lacks complete control over member nations (several member states may opt to reject biotech food indefinitely), Zambia’s economic concerns are not entirely unfounded.

As reports emerged of starvation deaths and hungry looters attacking stored corn supplies, Zambia’s government faced increasing criticism from all sides (even a few anti-biotech activists publicly admitted the need for a starvation exemption from zero tolerance “no GMO” policies). President Mwanawasa’s response, however, was to jail opponents who dared to provide damaging information to the press.

As this article went to press, scientists from the EU and United States had embarked on a joint “fact-finding mission” seeking in part to influence the position of Zambian leaders on biotech corn. Given President Mwanawasa’s action to date, however, Zambia’s ultimate decision is still expected to be “no biotech food aid” according to Patrice Charpentier, food distribution coordinator for CARE International. Indeed, Zambia is expected to continue to reject biotech food aid even if the corn were milled to prevent replanting and limited in distribution to 300,000 starving refugees.

Joining forces with Zambia’s government, certain anti-biotech activists with non-governmental organizations struck back in policy dialogues on the Internet, accusing the United States and the World Food Programme of avoiding sources of “non GMO” food aid from nearby nations. Anti-biotech activists accused the United States of “diplomatic terrorism” against starving nations and applauded the Zambian leaders’ courage in demanding non-GMO grain for hungry citizens and refugees. See Robert Vint, Force-Feeding the World: America’s ‘’M or Death’ ultimatum to Africa reveals the depravity of its GM marketing policy, New Scientist (Sept. 19, 2002) (also available at <http://www.ukabc.org/forcefeeding.htm>); Robert Vint, Africa Resists U.S. Biotech Onslaught at Earth Summit, Genetic Food Alert (Sept. 1, 2002). Even hunger-fighting groups in Europe have endorsed this anti-biotech stance. See <http://www.ukabc.org/wssd_5.htm#b16> (site visited Nov. 11, 2002).

The accusation against the World Food Programme proved unfounded when South Africa stepped up with enough non-biotech food aid for the month of September 2002. Ruth Ragan of World Food Program in Zambia reported imminent shortages for the coming months, however, even with South Africa’s non-biotech supplies. CARE reported distribution of 50 kilograms of corn to needy families in October 2002, but found non-biotech corn supplies inadequate to meet demand for November and December.

The World Food Programme was founded by 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Norman Borlaug, known as “ the architect of the green revolution.” This revolution brought modern agricultural technologies (particularly innovations in plant breeding, such as dwarf varieties adapted to local conditions) to the developing world. Borlaug contributed a chapter to the new book Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Ronald Bailey, Ed., Competitive Ent. Inst. 2002), debunking the myth that organic production and outdated agricultural management methods could ever hope to feed the populations of the 21st century. Borlaug’s chapter also cites agriculture’s increasing impact on “soil erosion, loss of forests and grasslands, biodiversity, and extinction of wildlife species” – all core issues for the Biosafety Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Biotech crops could provide a solution to certain specific concerns in global agricultural management. Some biotech crops are proven to reduce soil loss and pesticide usage. In addition, food security in developing nations could clearly be enhanced by the use of particular applications of agricultural biotechnology that reduce naturally occurring plant virus infections or fungal toxins. If needy African nations, ravaged by HIV, were to adopt a precautionary approach to biotech crops that have been proven safe through FDA approval and widespread consumption in the United States, then African nations will have more hungry people.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Looms Large Over Zambia’s Policy
Part of the blame for the crisis in Zambia could be laid at the feet of the biosafety protocol. Peter Masunu, spokesman for the Zambian Department of Agriculture, told the press: “The Zambian government does not have the capacity to detect whether food is genetically modified, we have not yet ratified the [biosafety protocol] and we have no legislation in place on biotechnology and biosafety.” See European objections to GM food could have a devastating effect on the poorest countries of Africa, The Daily Telegraph, London (Nov. 20, 2002).

This sort of “policy before people” approach to food could be disastrous, and contrary to the intended objectives of the Biosafety Protocol. After the “Biosafety Protocol” was first proposed at Rio in 1992, the world took eight years to finally draft an international law that would regulate biotech crops. Over 180 nations, including the government of Zambia, participated in the drafting of the protocol.

After intense negotiations conducted from 1996 to 2000, the protocol was “opened for signature” in January 2000. By that time, the EU – which had been importing biotech soybeans from the United States for over half a decade with no reports of health or ecological problem – had closed its doors to biotech crops, suspending regulatory approvals indefinitely.

European nations led the way in Cartagena to insert the “precautionary approach” to biotech crops in the Biosafety Protocol, which the EU hoped to use to support its “moratorium” under international trade laws mandating scientific approaches to human health and environment issues. Zambia was one of the “like-minded” nations that joined with the EU in Biosafety Protocol negotiations, voting to approve the final text with the common understanding that they would follow the EU’s fearful lead on approval of biotech crops. While Zambia has not yet ratified the Biosafety Protocol, it has clearly looked to the EU for guidance on the question of whether to impose a “precautionary approach” to approving the import of biotech crops. Other African nations, including Zimbabwe, have applauded Zambia for standing up to the United States.

As a result, it should come as no surprise that Zambia decided to refuse food aid from the United States that contained biotech corn. Zambia’s government is betting on a future world market in non-GMO grains that will emerge under the leadership of Greenpeace and the EU, once the “precautionary approach” becomes the dominant regulatory paradigm. Zambia is hoping that it will play a role in that future world marketplace.

Should the Road from Rio Lead to Non-GMO Food Aid?
The policy divide on biotech crops and the “precautionary approach” presents one of the most complex environmental policy debates in agriculture. In the context of Rio +10, it might be helpful to explore the basic principles giving rise to the “precautionary approach” and how it might apply to regulate the use of agricultural biotechnology. The original Agenda 21 from Rio captured the fundamental problem with efforts to manage global environmental policies through domestic initiatives (as the United States has done with dolphin-safe tuna and the EU is now doing with its strict import rules banning most biotech crops). Such programs risk creating arbitrary barriers to international trade, as has clearly occurred in the case of Zambia’s policies.

Agenda 21, the original Rio roadmap, encoded “soft law” non-binding principles warning of such arbitrary policies and urging adoption of the precautionary principle. According to Agenda 21:

States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus. [Agenda 21, Principle 12.]

* * *

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. [Id., Principle 15.]

Where environmental degradation on a global scale can be prevented by the use of a new agricultural technology, the precautionary approach should be used to force the rapid deployment of new agricultural technologies, not ban them. This forcing of new technology has occurred with the ozone layer, where new compounds were forced into use to replace ozone-depleting CFCs. The same concept appears to underlie the move toward implementing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, where alternative energy technologies are being more rapidly deployed.

While the technology-forcing aspects of environmental law should drive the more rapid adoption of particular biotech crops (e.g., the herbicide-resistant soybean, which even anti-GMO researchers are grudgingly willing to recognize as beneficial to soil conservation), there are powerful economic forces arrayed against biotech crops. An emerging global marketplace in “non GMO” soybeans and corn stands ready to carve out “non GMO” zones for production and consumption. The EU is rapidly becoming such a zone, and its conceptual framework – built on unfounded fears of biotech crops – is being extended to certain African nations. These economic factors help to explain the apparent disregard of Zambia’s leader for the immediate human health benefits and the broader environmental benefits of biotech crops.

Will Trade Policy Support Banning Beneficial Biotech Crops?
It is not clear at this stage in international environmental law and trade law whether the “precautionary approach” to biotech crops adopted by the EU. Zambia, and other nations will pass muster under international trade agreements. Under Agenda 21 and various binding trade agreements (overseen by the World Trade Organization), trade policies that discriminate against biotech crops cannot be supported by the precautionary approach. This is particularly true where such discriminatory policies appear to hasten environmental degradation and prevent the more rapid deployment of technologies that have documented benefits to the environment.

As a result, the use of the precautionary approach to ban biotech crops without a case-by-base review of their potential environmental benefits stands as a policy trend that cries out for reversal. With the latest data compiled from growers of biotech crops, it is now quite clear that herbicide resistant soybeans conserve topsoil, which could prove an enormous benefit to the environment and human health. B.t. corn, which resists corn borers, also reduces the incidence of mycotoxins – known carcinogens that grow naturally on corn. B.t. cotton reduces pesticide usage significantly. New varieties of phosphorous-reducing animal feed (corn and soy) could become the legally mandated “best available control technology” for reducing phosphorous in animal waste. The global environment could benefit from these innovations. Under the “blinders-on” precautionary approach to biotech crops, however, the neediest nations could miss the biotech bandwagon altogether.

When industry and the governments regulating biotech crops grow too careful and delay the launch of life-saving biotech crops, there is clearly a need for a countervailing assessment of the risks of not proceeding with certain biotech crops. The death toll in Zambia could bring about an ethical realignment of forces now opposing biotech crops on “ethical” grounds that are a cover for trade protectionism, and a legal realignment on the appropriate use of the precautionary approach in this factual setting. Specific exemptions from the precautionary approach toward biotech crops will clearly be warranted where human lives will be lost and where environmental degradation will occur without the use of particular biotech crops. The world owes this much to the future – when Rio + 20 rolls around in another decade, developing nations that have made wise use of agricultural biotechnology (particularly their own innovations, not those licensed at steep fees from the West) will probably have greater food security than those who follow in Zambia’s wary footsteps.

A “Biosafety Body Count” would track the number of deaths caused by policy decisions influenced by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The world would benefit from efforts to track the protocol’s impact in terms of loss of life, loss of biodiversity (hastened, ironically, by a precautionary approach to biotech crops), and economic losses.

Thomas P. Redick is a member of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C. in St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Agricultural Management Committee.