An ethical analysis of the rejection of genetically modified food aid by the Zambian government during the African famine of 2002 Bart R¨omgens, 1173197, b.a.romgens@student.tudelft.nl December 16, 2007 Abstract More than 2 million people needed food aid in Zambia during the African famine of 2002. One of the food donors was the government of the US, which offered thousands of tons of genetically modified (GM) maize. The government of Zambia created a national discussion on GM food and decided, based on the results of this discussion, that GM maize is not safe enough to give it to the people. This resulted in a global debate about the ban. While the government of Zambia most likely acted out of good will, they made the wrong decision by rejecting GM food aid. Mainly because the generally accepted risks of GM food are not severe enough to weigh up against the good that is done by feeding millions of malnutritioned and starving people.
1
Introduction
An estimated 2 to 3 million Zambians needed food aid in 2002. Excessive rain caused a maize crop failure in 2001 and a lack of rain caused a maize crop failure in 2002. It became the worst food crisis in 10 years. In a normal year, the urban poor spend up to 60% of their income on food. Many of them could not afford to pay the higher food prices caused by the maize shortage. The world produces enough food for everyone, but some just do not have the money to buy their necessary calories. The lives of those people depend mainly on international food aid. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The World Bank, members of the United Nations and charities provided money and food aid to help the starving people in Zambia. The largest food aid came from the government of the United States (US). They shipped 15 tons of genetically modified (GM) maize to Zambia and offered much more. This shipment was rejected by the government of Zambia in October of 2002. The president of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa, called the GM maize ”poison” and the Agriculture Minister gave ”the current scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue” as reason for banning GM food aid in the country. According to a conservative scenario from the World Health Organization, at least 35,000 Zambians would die of starvation by March 2003 if more food was not provided [7]. The Zambian Red Cross claims that more food was eventually provided and that they ”did not record a single death arising out of hunger.” [8]. The ban, however, resulted in large stocks of GM food that had to be protected against Zambians who desperately tried to steal it. [3][9][10][11][5] Public debate about the GM food aid, before and after the ban, involved various enclaves such as scientists, politicians, civil society organisations, traditional leaders, media and many others. They were greatly divided about the ban. Some thought the possible risks of GM food on public health and the environment were not worth taking, while others had the opinion that helping starving people, and thus saving human lives, is more important than the possible risks of GM food. [12][9] Banning GM food will almost certain harm public health and wellbeing in the short term, but allowing GM food may cause public health and environmental problems on the long run. This essay will try to find a solution for this dilemma. To be more specific, it will try to answer the following question, Is the Zambian ban on genetically modified food aid morally wrong? 1
by analysing the general risks and advantages of GM food, the risks and advantages of GM maize aid in Zambia, and the stake holders and their interests involved in this complex case. This will result in an overview of arguments supporting and opposing the ban on GM food aid in Zambia. Different ethical views and theories will be used as a tool to weight these arguments and decide whether is was morally right or wrong to ban GM food.
2
Genetically modified food controversies
The advantages and drawbacks of GM food will be discussed in this section, in general and specified on the Zambian food aid situation. The first subsection will discuss the advantages while the second subsection is about the disadvantages. A short definition of GM food has to be given before we are able to start this discussion. Genetically modified plants/food can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally [13]. To alter the DNA, DNA molecules from different sources are combined in vitro into one molecule to create a new gene. This modified DNA is then transferred into an organism, causing modified or new characteristics of the organism [14].
2.1
Advantages of genetically modified food
The general advantages of GM crops will be discussed first. Whether these advantages are relevant in the Zambian food aid case will be discussed after this. It is important to note that in the Zambian food aid case, we are talking about GM food aid from outside Zambia. It is not about growing GM plants in Zambia. All advantages of growing GM food are thus not directly advantageous for Zambians. 2.1.1
General advantages of genetically modified crops
GM foods are developed, and marketed, because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price and/or a better quality. [13] New characteristics of crops that have been created to lower the price include protection against fungal-, viral-, and bacterial diseases, insects, tolerance to selected herbicides as well as improvements in yield. New characteristics that improve the quality of the food include more flavour and a higher nutrition value. [15] The world produces enough calories to feed every human on earth [16]. The problem is that some people do not have the money to buy these calories [16]. This means that with a lower price, more people are able to buy enough food and malnutrition and starvation will decline. It should however be noted that a lower production price will only result in a lower price for the consumer in an free market economy where multiple producers compete for the lowest price. A better flavour of a product is always positive for the consumer, but it does not have the potential positive impact as genetically improved nutrition value. Scientists are, for example, working on rice that contains vitamine A. Vitamin A deficiency is widespread among rice-depending poor because rice grains do not contain vitamin A. [17][18] The general advantages of GM crops are a lower price and better food quality. Lower food prices can result in more people being able to buy enough food and better food quality can result in healthier humans. 2.1.2
Advantages of genetically modified maize aid in Zambia
To know what the advantages of GM maize in Zambia are, we have to know what specific GM maize was offered by the US. A report of Zambian scientists claims that the GM maize aid contained �StarLink� maize [10]. StarLink maize is only allowed for animal feed in the US, because of the possibility that a small number of people may develop an allergic reaction for a specific protein in the maize [19]. The
2
US firmly deny that the GM maize aid contains StarLink maize. They say it is GM maize that is tested and allowed for human consumption in the US. /citebbc2 StarLink maize was already tested on humans in 2000 when it appeared, by accident, in Taco Bell tacos and many other products in the US [20]. No adverse reactions were reported due to the inadvertent human consumption of StarLink maize [19]. It is not clear what specific type of GM maize was provided to Zambia by the US. Because the US say the maize is allowed for human consumption in the US and because StarLink maize did not have any adverse reactions on humans, it is assumed that the provided GM maize has the standards of GM maize that is consumed in the US. The only advantages of this GM maize aid is that it could feed starving people in Zambia. The GM maize is not more advantageous than normal maize, for the hungry in Zambia. So although GM maize has a lot of general advantages, it does not have an advantage over normal maize, in the Zambian maize aid case.
2.2
Disadvantages of genetically modified food
The general disadvantages of GM food will be discussed first. Whether these disadvantages are relevant in the Zambian food aid case will be discussed after the general disadvantages. 2.2.1
General disadvantages of genetically modified crops
The drawbacks of GM crops can be divided into negative health effects on humans after consumption of GM food and negative effects on the environment. It is important to note that no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods [13]. This means that all possible health risks discussed here are possible long term health effects of existing GM crops, or health risks of future, yet to develop, GM crops. The possible health risks are discussed first, the effects on the environment will follow hereafter. Health effects The main concerns about the effect of GM food on human health are allergenicity, gene transfer and outcrossing[15]. Direct toxicity is easy to test and since every new GM crop is thoroughly tested for toxicity, it will be omitted in this discussion [13]. The risks of allergic reactions to new substances in GM food can be shown with the following GM soybean example. A gene for an allergenic trait has been transferred unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered soybeans while intending to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use. Investigation of the GM soybeans revealed that they produced immunological reactions with people suffering from Brazil nut allergy. Pioneer Hi-Bred discontinued further development of the GM soybean and disposed of all material related to the modified soybeans. [13][21][22] Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the human body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concerns if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GM organisms, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistant genes has been encouraged by a FAO/WHO expert panel. [13] Outcrossing is the movement of genes from GM crops into normal crops or related species in the wild, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops. This outcrossing has unpredictable effects that may have an indirect effect on food safety. The risk is real and and the consequences are not predictable. It is hard to remove this risk, but it is possible to reduce the risks. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. [13][23] Environmental effects Negative effects on the environment are outcrossing, the susceptibility of non-target organisms and loss of biodiversity [13][23][14][21][24]. Outcrossing, the introduction of engineered genes in wild natural species, can have unpredictable effects. New genetic species can evolve which can have a negative effect on the environ-
3
ment. The risk of potential problems due to outcrossing is hard to estimate, but the same goes for new varieties of plants that are created using conventional breeding. [13][23][15] Another risk is the susceptibility of non-target organisms. When a crop is genetically modified to, for example, prevent pests, it can also harm other organisms that do no harm to the crop. An example is the colony collapse disorder of bees in 2006 [25]. Colony collapse disorder is a little-understood phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive or Western honey bee colony disappear abruptly. Some highly respected scientists believe that exposure to GM crops and their plant-produced pesticides can be the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of the colony collapse disorder [26]. A loss of biodiversity can be the result of creating a superior crop in terms of surviving in its environment. If the new GM crop is �fitter� in its environment, it will win the evolutionary battle with other species and can even extinct other species. This will result in a loss of biodiversity. [24][13] There are many possible future risks of GM crops, they have not yet happened and are impossible to predict in detail. All GM crops are tested on health and environmental effects and a risk assessment is made for possible future effects [13][15]. Experts who have contributed to the debate at national and international level generally agree that potential risks arising from foods produced through modern biotechnology are no different from those associated with new varieties of plants produced through conventional breeding. Furthermore, there are no indications that there may be adverse effects from the consumption of GM crops, like the herbicide-tolerant soybean and insect-protected maize.[15]. 2.2.2
Disadvantages of genetically modified maize aid in Zambia
When the government of Zambia would have accepted the GM maize aid, it would support the cultivation of GM crops in an indirect way. It is therefore also partly responsible for the environmental risks of the cultivation of GM maize. Eating the GM maize has no effect on the environment, but some farmers may use the maize as seeds to grow new maize instead of eating it. This could create the possible environmental risks discussed above. According to the US, the maize was already tested and widely used in the US. This means that it is already known that there are no short term negative effects on human health. The long term effects on health are unknown and are a risk for the Zambians who eat the GM maize.
3
Opinions, interests and risks of groups involved
This section will analyse the opinions, interests and risks of the stakeholders involved. The main stakeholders in this case are the Zambian government, the advisors of the Zambian government (the National Science and Technology Council, the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Soils and Crop Research Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives [27]), the US government, underfed Zambians, governmental institutes (World Health Organisation, World Food Programme, International Fund for Agricultural Development, US Agency for International Development), environmental NGO’s (Greenpeace, GM Watch) and GM food producers.
3.1
Zambians
More than 2 million Zambians were underfed and needed large amounts of food aid before the spring of 2003. 47% of Zambians were undernourished in 2002, 76% lived on less than a dollar a day and the average life expectancy was 33 years [6][28]. Multiple incidents of Zambians trying to steal the GM food were reported[5]. This shows that at least some Zambians wanted the GM food. They were not able to choose to eat the GM food. These people are struggling everyday to get enough food so their main, and for most people only, interest is to get enough calories a day. Many Zambians were not well informed about the risks of GM food and some thought it could even cause cancer and AIDS [29]. It is unclear how many Zambians would have wanted to eat the GM food.
4
All health risks involved in this case are for the Zambians, if they would eat the GM food. Environmental risks are in the first place for Zambians, but can spread all over the world and affect all world citizens.
3.2
Zambian government and its advisory institutes
The Zambian government was advised by the National Science and Technology Council, the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Soils and Crop Research Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives. These institutes independently advised their respective Government Ministries against the acceptance of the GM food aid. The Zambian government advised the WFP not to distribute the GM food aid until further notice. [27] The research of these advisory institutes resulted in to following arguments supporting the ban on GM food [27]: • GM food is poison. • Zambia, like most African nations, currently has no regulatory system and appropriate infrastructure to cope with the scientific assessment that came with the introduction of GM products. • There is still a lot of uncertainty about the safety of GM foods, not only for human and animal consumption but also for the environment. • The GM food aid was brought into Zambia without the Advance Informed Consent by the Zambian authorities, contrary to international practice. • Zambians eat unprocessed maize as the staple food and usually as the only source of carbohydrates, so its impact would be different from the impact on Americans who eat GM food. • The Zambian government had made its decision not to accept GM food aid in July and August of 2002, and the impact of the food crisis was going to be critical in March and April of 2003. This gave well-wishers enough time to source for non-GM food aid. The interest of the Zambian government is the wellbeing of the Zambians. This includes public health, but also the economic situations and the environment. For the Zambian, and African, economy it is better when the US donates money so that they can buy food on the local market. This way, money flows from the US to Zambia while Zambians also receive food aid. When they accept the GM food, producers in the US receive the money instead of African farmers. [30] The Zambian government and its advisories do not risk negative health effects because they have enough non GM food to eat. They, however, do risk the responsibility of a large humanitarian crisis.
3.3
The US government and GM food producers
The opinions of the US government and GM food producers are in great agreement. They both see no unacceptable risks in providing GM food aid and they both oppose the GM food ban in Zambia. Their main arguments are: • Millions of starving Zambians can not get food due to the ban [29]. • Experts who have contributed to the debate at national and international level generally agree that potential risks arising from foods produced through modern biotechnology are no different from those associated with new varieties of plants produced through conventional breeding. [15] • Millions of people all over the world eat GM maize and there have not yet been any negative effects. • GM food can, in general, create positive economical and health effects [15].
5
The interest of the US government is the wellbeing of every human, but at first the wellbeing of Americans. The American GM food industry is strong in the US and it tried to expend its market to the rest of the world. The US government supported this expansion because it is good for the (financial) wellbeing of Americans. Large portions of GM food could not be sold to Europe anymore, because of a GM food ban, and some say that the US dumped their surplus GM maize in Zambia [30] [29] [27]. This is better for the US economy than sending money to Zambia. It also has some negative effects on the maize economy in Zambia and the rest of Africa. The US interest is to help the starving Zambians and to do this in a way that is best for America. This probably is the reason why they offered GM maize instead of money.
3.4
Environmental NGO’s
The most important and largest environmental NGO in this case was Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes everything that is genetically modified, under (almost) all circumstances [31]. Their main arguments for supporting the GM maize ban in Zambia are [24][31][30]: • Nature should not be a playground for genetic experiments by commercial interests. • The biodiversity and environmental integrity of the world’s food supply is too important to our survival to be put at risk. • There is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the human health. Greenpeace has a major interest in the environment because that is what Greenpeace stands for. Greenpeace is financed with donated money and it therefor has an interest in saying things that their potential donors like to hear. Greenpeace itself, and people supporting Greenpeace, will not be affected by a ban on GM maize in Zambia. They do not starve and have enough food. Their main interest is in the environment and not in human wellbeing.
3.5
Governmental institutes
A few large and worldwide governmental institutes got involved in the Zambian GM food aid case. The most important ones are the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) [27]. The WFP wants to stop hunger and helps malnutritioned people all over the world. They act as a middle man for food aid. If the food meets the national standards of the donors, they accept it. WFP staff are under no obligation to alert authorities and have made no attempt to distinguish between GM and conventional cereals since 1996. This means that Zambians may have eaten GM food before without knowing. [32] The WHO tries to improve world health. It supports the opinion of the WFP [13]. The USAID is under control of the US government [33]. USAID therefor had the same opinion and interests as the US government.
4
Ethical analysis
The rightness of the banning of GM food will be analysed in this section. Three different approaches will be used for this ethical analysis; deontological ethics, consequentialism and common sense. Deontological ethics is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves [34], as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions, which is called consequentialism [35]. The last approach is the common sense approach. This approach does not start from an ethical theory, but focuses directly on the problem at hand and tries to use logic to come to an ethical judgement. [36]
6
4.1
Deontological approach
In this analysis it will be assumed that the Zambian government and president speak the truth about their reasons for banning GM maize aid. While the government and president are elected in a true democratic way [37], there exists a high perception of corruption in the country [38]. Despite of the probable corruption, the only possible motive that is not mentioned by the government is a motive based on religious beliefs. While this may have had an influence on the interpretation of the arguments, there is no evidence that supports this claim and it is therefore assumed that the given arguments are the true motives of the Zambian government. Not allowing food that you consider dangerous to public health is a norm that can and should be a universal law. When every government would act according to this norm, there would not be dangerous foods and human health would improve. It should thus be the duty of a government to ban all foods that are considered dangerous to public health. The exact same argument can be used for the norm of banning food that you consider a substantial risk to the environment. It is therefore also the duty of a government to ban foods that are a risk to the environment. In this case the Zambian government decided, after their own thorough analysis, that there are substantial risks to human health and the environment when allowing the GM maize aid. According to its duty and the norms discussed above, the only right thing it could do was ban the GM maize aid. The government of Zambia acted according to this duty and also because of its awareness of this duty. On the other hand it can be argued that it should be a norm to treat equal cases equally. This rule can and should be a universal law. When equal cases are not treated equally, it would inevitably result in cases where humans are not treated equally in the same circumstances. This results in a discriminating government that acts according to its own agenda, lost reason and logic and actively participates in creating an unfair world. This clearly is not something that we want to be applied universally and isn’t the duty of any government. According to leading scientists in the field of modified plants and foods, the risks of GM foods are equal to the risk of foods that are modified or engineered by humans without precisely changing the genetic structure of the plants (conventional breeding). These non GM engineered plants and foods are what everyone around the world eats everyday, including Zambians. This kind of food engineering is considered natural and is accepted in all countries without any controversy. Since the risks are equal and the discission process is based on the risks of GM food, the government should have treated GM foods the same as normal engineered foods. This means that they should have allowed GM food or that they should also have banned normal engineered foods. The latter option isn’t possible because that would ban almost all foods and would result in a major famine.
4.2
Consequences approach
We will limit this consequences approach to one type of consequentialism; utilitarianism. Utilitarianism measures the consequences of action against one value. The value that will be used in this analysis is happiness. We will try to answer the following question by this consequences approach; will a ban on GM food make the total world happiness larger or smaller? The effect on happiness, in this case, is mainly determined by public health (malnutrition is a medical condition) and the state of the environment. The consequences of the effect on health are only for Zambians, while the consequences of the effect on the environment can be for the whole world population. The problem in this case is that the possible long term effects of GM food on health are unknown and almost impossible to predict. The negative effect on long term human happiness is thus also hard to predict. The positive effect on human happiness is caused by giving people food aid. Zambians did not have enough food and will thus be happier, on a short term, when they have the option to eat GM maize. It is hard to compare possible, but unlikely, negative consequences on health and the environment with the direct effect on happiness caused by having enough food. The best way to estimate
7
the probability and severity of negative effects on health of GM food, is by using the estimates of experts in the field of GM food. These experts are independent scientists in the GM field. GM scientists do not fully agree on the probability and severity of the health and environmental effects. Most scientists, however, agree that potential risks arising from foods produced through modern biotechnology are no different from those associated with new varieties of plants produced through conventional breeding. Furthermore, there are no indications that there may be adverse effects from the consumption of GM crops.[15]. This makes it most likely that there will not be any negative long term effect on the happiness of the world population caused by eating GM maize aid in Zambia. Allowing GM maize will almost certain have a positive effect on short term human happiness. This makes it most likely that allowing GM food will result in the largest increase in average happiness. From this utilitarian perspective, it is morally wrong to ban GM maize. Because the effects on global human happiness are very difficult to predict and can only be addressed in terms of uncertain possibilities, it is possible to come to a different conclusion using the utilitarian approach. While the probability of negative health and environmental effects is considered very low, the severity of the effects can be catastrophic to human happiness. Since the probability is unknown, the Zambian government should not take the risk. It can only make a well argued and informed decision about the results on the happiness of its people when the risk is known. As long as the risk is not known, it should not allow the exposure of this unknown risk to the happiness of Zambians and other world citizens. From this point of view it can be concluded that a utilitarian analysis is not possible because the probability and severity of effects are unknown. When the risk is not known it is better not to take it. This argument is summarised in �better safe than sorry�.
4.3
Common sense approach
The common sense approach means that I will use arguments, based on my own norms and values and their mutual importance, to come to a moral judgement. The value of individual liberty in relation to this case will be discussed first. After that, the earlier discussed values of good health and environment will be addressed. The value that was not used in the deontological and consequences approach is individual liberty or freedom of your own body. Everyone should be able to decide for oneself what personal health risk they want to take. The government should provide the information needed to make an informed consent. All humans should be able to do with their own body what they want as long as they do not harm others. This includes the decision to eat GM maize or not. The effect on the environment and health of Zambians is also very important. It is clear that millions of people have been eating the GM maize for years and no problems, health and environmental, with GM food have ever been reported. GM scientist generally agree that the possible long term effects of GM food on health and environment are acceptable and probably treatable and reversible may they ever occur. GM crops, in general, have very little disadvantages while the advantages can be of large positive impact. There is thus no moral objection against GM food in general. The government of Zambia was therefor not responsible for severe negative effects of GM food, when it would have allowed the GM maize. The fear of the government that people would use the maize to grow new maize could have been taken away by milling the maize. From this we can conclude that when using individual liberty, estimated risks and effects on health as the three main criteria, the result is that it was morally wrong of the Zambian government to ban the GM maize aid.
5
Reflection
This section will reflect on the different ethical approaches and relating arguments given in the previous section. It will point out fallacies and contradictions in the arguments and reasons. The importance, criticism and usefulness of the different approaches will be examined in order to be
8
able to weight the arguments against each other and come to a logical and balanced answer to the main question of this essay. The arguments will be analysed in the order in which they were presented. Therefore the deontological approach and related arguments are discussed first. Not allowing food that is considered dangerous to public health is a good rule. There are three main problems with this Kantian norm; it is unconditionally, contradicts with other norms and is based on the subjective conclusion on what is dangerous. The fact that the norm is unconditionally leaves no room for providing food that is dangerous to public health. This can be the right thing to do when not providing food is even more dangerous to public health. The norm also contradicts with the second norm, that equal cases should be treated equally. The last problem with this norm is that is based on the good intention of the Zambian government, but not on the correct assessment of the facts. The norm that equal cases should be treated equally is also unconditionally, contradicts with the first norm and is based on the subjective conclusion on what are equal cases. In this case it is not a problem that the norm is unconditionally because equal cases should always be treated equally. There are no situations in which it would be right and logic to treat the same cases different. The problem in this reasoning boils down to the problem of the subjectiveness of equal cases. Everyone will have a different opinion about what are equal cases and circumstances. The two norms are contradicting and we therefore should find a way to give priority of one norm over the other. Since both norms have a subjective part, but the norm to treat equal cases equally is more general and imposes less problems when applied unconditionally, the last norm is considered more important. This means that, after reflection of the arguments, the Zambian government shouldn’t have banned GM maize aid according to the deontological approach. Different perspectives of the utilitarian analysis also gave contradicting results. However, the argument that supports the ban uses the delay fallacy. It was argued that GM maize should be banned because the risks are not very well known. As a consequence, the decision can always be postponed to wait for more accurate information. The utilitarian arguments that oppose the ban clearly show that it is much more likely that allowing GM maize will increase overall happiness and it should therefore be allowed. There is no time to wait for more accurate information when people are starving. The common sense approach uses the argument of informed consent or individual liberty. This argument is valid, but greatly depends on the availability of information. This information was not available for most Zambians, but could easily have been made available by the government while providing the food. A simple and cheap paper with information would have been sufficient since most Zambians are able to read. The argument of individual liberty does not take the global environmental risk into account because this does not pertain to individuals. The other common sense arguments, however, do argue against the ban when taking the global environment into account. From this reflection of the deontological, consequences and common sense approach we can conclude that the most important and valid arguments, argue against a ban of GM maize aid.
6
Conclusion and recommendations
This section gives a conclusion to the problem and answer to the question stated in the introduction of this essay; is the Zambian ban on genetically modified food aid morally wrong? It will end with some recommendations on future research and analysis on the topic of GM crops in general and the ban of GM maize aid in Zambia in 2002.
6.1
Conclusion
It was morally wrong of Zambian government to ban genetically modified food. Although it acted out of good will, it made a wrong assessment of the risks and benefits involved and decided on the wrong thing to do, based on this assessment.
9
The major error was made on the weigh, severity and probability of the long term health effects of GM maize. It is impossible to make a decent prediction on long term health effects of eating GM maize, but the Zambian government should have followed the majority of the scientist in the GM field who think that the health risk of GM food is acceptable, even when there is no shortage on food. There was a serious shortage on food in the Zambian case. Allowing GM maize would have helped millions of malnutritioned and starving Zambians. This clearly weighs up against the risks of GM food that are already eaten by millions of people around the world, have not yet shown any negative effects and are thoroughly tested before allowed for commercial use. Besides these pragmatic points, the Zambian government should have respected the freedom of people to make an informed decision about what they want to put into their body. People should be allowed to take their own responsibility and risk as long as they do not hurt others.
6.2
Recommendations
The ban of GM food in Zambia in 2002 is an extremely complex case with many stakeholder and interests, and complex connections between them. It takes an immense amount of time to get a decent overview of all motives and interests of all stakeholders. The hidden motives and interests, unofficial or secret, of the US and Zambian government are hard to analyse or check for truth. The long term risks of GM food are hard to estimate, which make the consequences of different actions almost impossible to predict. The author of this essay did not have the time nor data to give a truly complete overview and analysis of this complex situation. Future research, with a focus on a better ethical analysis, should focus on getting more information about what happened internally at the Zambian and US government. What are their true motives and interests? Did they act independently or was effective lobbying involved? Especially the aid method used by the US deserves some attention in future research.
References [1] UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Zambia: Food crisis persists, despite government action. http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=30137, 2002. [2] BBC. Tension mounts over zambia’s food shortages. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/ 2297207.stm, 2002. [3] BBC. Famine-hit zambia rejects gm food aid. 2371675.stm, 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/
[4] BBC. Zambia hit by aids and famine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2025611.stm, 2002. [5] Margaret Wilson. Starving zambia rejects america’s gm maize. http://www.telegraph.co. uk/news, 2002. [6] Reuters AlertNet. Zambia statistics. http://www.alertnet.org/db/cp/zambia.htm, 2007. [7] Science news journalist. Zambia rejects gm corn on scientistsadvice. Science, 2002. [8] Earth Report. Aliens in the field. http://www.tve.org/earthreport/archive/doc.cfm? aid=1690, 2004. [9] BBC. Zambia ’ignored science’ over gm. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2376505. stm, 2002. [10] BBC. Zambia ’furious’ over gm food. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2412603.stm, 2002. [11] BBC. Zambia gets $50m famine aid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2495033.stm, 2002. 10
[12] Pascal Newbourne Mwale. Societal deliberation on genetically modified maize in southern africa: the debateness and publicness of the zambian national consultation on genetically modified maize food aid in 2002. Public Understanding of Science, 2006. [13] World Health Organization. 20 questions on genetically modified foods. http://www.who. int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/, 2007. [14] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Genetically modified organism. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#Uses_of_GMOs, 2007. [15] A. K¨onig et al. Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (gm) crops. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2004. [16] FAO World Food Programme, IFAD. Reducing poverty and hunger: The critical role of financing for food, agriculture and rural development. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/ 003/y6265E/Y6265E.pdf, 2002. [17] Food Standards Agency. Altering food crops. http://www.food.gov.uk/gmdebate/aboutgm/ 108106?view=GM, 2003. [18] Golden Rice. How does golden rice work? how.html, 2007.
http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/
[19] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Transgenic maize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Transgenic_maize#The_StarLink_corn_controversy, 2007. [20] CNN. Safeway recalls its taco shells. http://edition.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/10/12/ safeway.taco.shells/, 2000. [21] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Genetically modified food controversies. wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_food_controversy, 2007.
http://en.
[22] Julie A. Nordlee et al. Identification of a brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England journal of Medicine, 1996. [23] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Outcrossing, 2007.
Outcrossing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[24] Greenpeace. Ge agriculture and genetic pollution. http://www.greenpeace.org/ international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/ge-agriculture-and-genetic-pol, 2007. [25] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Colony collapse disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Colony_Collapse_Disorder#Genetically_modified_crops_.28GMO.29, 2007. [26] Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee. Ge and bee colony collapse disorder – science needed! 2003. [27] Mwananyanda Mbikusita Lewanika. The real story behind the food crisis in zambia. National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research (Zambia), 2003. [28] CIA Factbook. Zambia information. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/za.html, 2007. [29] GM Watch. Gm lobbyists’ lies over zambia exposed yet again. http://www.gmwatch.org/ archive2.asp?arcid=7092, 2006. [30] David Fig. The decision of the zambian government to ban genetically modified food aid. University of the Witwatersrand, 2003. [31] Greenpeace. Say no to genetic engineering. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ campaigns/genetic-engineering, 2007.
11
[32] New Scientist. Un is slipping modified food into aid. http://www.newscientist.com/ article/mg17523610.400;jsessionid=FEDCBFNANIJG, 2002. [33] USAID. About usaid. http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/, 2007. [34] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Deontological ethics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Deontological_ethics, 2007. [35] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Consequentialism, 2007.
Consequentialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[36] I.R. van de Poel. Ethics for aerospace engineers. TU Delft, 2007. [37] Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Politics and zambia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Politics_of_Zambia, 2007. [38] Transparency International. Corruption perceptions index. corruption.cpi_2007.html, 2007.
12
http://www.icgg.org/