Rejection of Genetically Modified Food Aid, Zambia

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Rejection of Genetically Modified Food Aid, Zambia

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

Rejection of Genetically Modified Food Aid, Zambia

Background Information

Genetically modified (GM) has raised controversies worldwide concerning food security. The development of GM crops commenced in 1996 and has expanded in the past few years (Cui & Shoemaker, 2018). Countries producing GM crops have benefited from the technology by attaining a stable economy, improved food security as well as improved quality of life amongst its population. The increased income is helpful to the resource-poor farmers in the developing countries such as Egypt, South Africa and Burkina Faso (Adenle, 2011). However, in this case, the Zambian government rejected approximately thirty-five thousand tons of genetically modified food aid in 2002. At that time, hunger had struck the country, with roughly three million individuals experienced a lack of food (Lewin, 2007). Consequently, the villagers became anemic, and those living with HIV infection kept on deteriorating as their immunity system collapsed. The government of Zambia has remained firm concerning GM foods even though other African countries still embrace both milled and nonmilled GM food import.

The author designed a set of policies in an attempt to deal with the variation between shippers, agribusiness and NGOs over food aid. Also, it addresses poverty which is identified as the root cause of the need for food relief. In essence, the policies were to make sure food aid is utilized effectively, and it is welcomed by the Zambian stakeholders and other southern Africa countries as well as other donor nations. (Lewin, 2007). Policies addressing the food crisis should incorporate a rational policy towards GM food relief and ways for using the aid from donor countries efficaciously. However, countries that benefit from food aid and those importing food can either accept or reject GM foods. Other countries ask for either milled or nonmilled GM foods (Lewin, 2007). Another policy needs to address the long-term plan to establish a sustainable development, both the social and economic well-being. Implementation of these policies will improve the way food aid is allocated and it will prevent the case of rejecting GM foods.

Current Situation

The anti-GM campaign in Zambia drew attention to the whole world despite many groups lobbying for the GM foods. Poverty is tied to food aid in Africa because if there were an improved economy and social well-being of its population, food aid would have been a past thing. Consequently, some are in support of the GM food aid, whereas others claim that it should be rejected no matter the circumstance. The author of the case identified that the United States have been faulted for taking advantage of the food relief system to profit a particular group of agribusinesses and shippers. Besides, non-governmental organizations have been blamed for being dependent on food relief. Pointedly, the United States have been campaigning heavily for the acceptance of GM foods within the European Union as well as Southern Africa (Lewin, 2007). After the rejection of the GM food relief by the Zambian government, the countries’ food security state is devastating.

World Food Programme (WFP), and the iron triangle, which comprises three stakeholders, namely; NGOs, shippers and U.S agribusinesses were involved in rescuing Zambia’s hunger strike. It is the leading food donor across the globe, and the United States gives two-thirds of food relief for emergencies. In the U.S., food from farms is donated directly for shipment instead of providing cash, an action that is executed by other donor countries. According to the author, there is increased farming of GM food in the U.S. which translates to its highest food aid contribution (Lewin, 2007). However, WFP has been providing food aid to Zambia before the rejection of 35, 000 tons of food relief in 2002, something that brought a discussion on the possibility of the GM food within their region. Markedly, WFP aims to fight hunger across the globe by providing relief food in case of emergencies and work closely with communities to improve the quality of life. In this case, people in Zambia were in a bad state, and they were forced to survive at all cost. As the leading humanitarian organization, their objective is to end hunger worldwide by making sure there is food security.

Prioritizing Issues

From the case rejection of GM foods in Zambia, several factors led to this problem of food insecurity. First, the country experienced harsh weather conditions that comprised of erratic rainfall as well as extreme drought. It affected the farming practice within the country because the conditions are not favorable. Secondly, the government is infested with corruption leading to mismanagement of food supplies. Large sums of funds are lost to the corruption that keeps disorienting the economy and social development. According to Carnell (2001) cited in Lewin (2007), the auditor’s general showed misapplication of billions each day. If the funds were used for the right course, the problem of food insecurity in Zambia would have been eradicated. Corruption inhibits economic growth of a country, making it lag. Thirdly, Zambia lacks natural resources that can help sustain its population. As a result, it attracts food aid to combat severe hunger conditions. Most developing countries are provided with food aid to sustain their population. Besides, there is distorted trade policies in the country which lowers the country’s economic output. Lastly, the spread of poverty is attributed to widespread HIV/AIDS infection (Lewin, 2007).

However, the core focus of the case study was the set policies that address the inadequacies in tackling chronic poverty in the country as well as imbalance depicted with the iron triangle. No policy prohibits the consumption of GM foods, and WFP receives most of its food donation from U.S. According to Paarlberg (2010), the U.S. have advanced their farming practice with the help of new technologies, and there is no reported risk so far. However, the government rolled out policies to strengthen its stand against GM foods. Apart from banning GM foods, these legislations penalize that who act against the biosafety legislation. Consequently, lobbying for the use of GM foods is ongoing, even though the research by the lobbyist indicated the challenges of the GM crops to the environment. There is no danger posed by GM foods to animals and humans. Moreover, the author did not delve into the cause of poverty which is the major cause of seeking food aid. Poverty-stricken countries encounter food shortages. It is a root issue to be prioritized when developing ways that promote food security in Zambia.

Analyzing Alternatives

In the past, the government tried to curb GM foods to be stepping up its legislation. The legislation aimed to contribute to the safe movement, handling and utilizing the modified microorganisms, for instance, the engineered animals, plants and microbes which traverse borders. Another aim of the protocol was to prevent severe impacts on the sustainable utilization of biodiversity with no effect on World Food Trade. The government understood that when they encourage the propagation of GM foods, they will lose exporting their products to the European Union, which had banned the consumption of GM food. However, before organisms are imported, the protocol allows nations the chance to get more information. It is the right of every country to regulate the utilization of bio-engineered products due to various reasons. Also, these legislations establish a framework that assists undeveloped nations to conserve their biodiversity (Lewin, 2007).

Further, the new protocol to help eradicate GM foods in the country requires the importer to label and document all the shipment. The details of the exporter and the importer must be documented, which helps nations to know what is being received. In short, Zambia and other developing countries have the opportunity to see the background of the food aid as well as imported products. Despite this legislation helping to stop GM foods from entering the country, it does not solve the problem of food security.

Existing literature indicates that GM foods are beneficial and can help fight hunger. A research conducted by Broadbent (2011) suggests that support to GM foods would benefit the economy of the country by changing the policies. Lifting bans on bio-engineered products by developing policies will not be useful; instead, the population will continue suffering. However, if proper protocols are put in place, small scale farmers will not be affected, a common criticism that has been coined by researchers. Adenle (2011) posits that over four decades, African countries were bypassed after the implementation of the Green Revolution. The main reason for the slow acceptance of GM technology is that there are no beneficiaries, such as scientists and farmers, to GM crops. It was propelled by the international influence against GM foods which has led to African nations not adopting GM technology.

Recommendations

In providing solutions to food security and prevention of the use of GM foods, the practical approach to solving the food crisis in Zambia is by allowing the use of bio-engineered products while curbing any risk to the environment or human health (Paaarlberg, 2010). Applying this standard will help improve food production, which leads to sustainable development. However, no evidence has been documented approving that GMOs have posed threats to environmental and human health. Studies have been conducted about GM products on human and environmental health; it was approved for use, but a consensus came out that there is no risk involved with these bio-engineered products (Paarlberg, 2010). GMO products have not interfered with nature, and there was evidence that GMOs have transferred advantages to other crop products such as tolerance. Embracing GM foods in Zambia will solve the problem of food security and the problem with lifting bans.

With embracing GM foods, sceptics need to understand that studies that have been done for more than 15 years after the inception of GM technology have indicated no risk to either human or environmental health. People against GM foods have no proof to lift bans. It is logically impossible to prove that something is absent. Shoemaker & Cui (2018) coin that public perception has brought a considerable impact on adopting the product. The case of Zambia rejecting GM foods, yet its population was struck with hunger brought debate across the world.  However, Lewin (2007) has indicated that people broke into GM food storage units. In Africa, agriculture is the backbone of its economy, and there is a need to improve farming practices. According to Adenle (2011), the solution is embracing GM technology out of which its probable benefits in eradicating hunger and poverty, improving quality of life and food security.

Establishing an Action Plan

For the adoption of the new biotechnology, a coherent strategy such as educating the public, farmers and government institution on the importance of GM foods will help solve these problems. Campaigns to acknowledge GM foods should be flagged so that people can comprehend the benefits involved. The African population is growing at a fast pace and action need to be in place to ensure there is food security to stop depending on food aid. Eradicating poverty is through empowerment by use of modern methods of farming to increase production, 60% of its population still depends on agriculture (Paarlberg, 2010). Also, the government can remove the ban on GM foods and develop a strategy that monitors its use in the country to mitigate any risks.

Implementing the adoption of GM technology is a collective responsibility, both the government, private institutions as well the public. The policies set by the government can affect the success of this recommendation positively or negatively. It is their role to oversee the well-being of its population. African countries are still dependent on foreign aid. Averagely, African nations are four-times as aid-dependent relative to the gross domestic product compared to the developing world (Paarlberg, 2010).

However, implementation of the recommendation can be done immediately to uproot this problem in the country. Chronic poverty has slowed the growth of the country’s economy. Despite the lack of required infrastructure and skilled personnel, it can be outsourced to reduce this menace. It will lead to improved quality of life and a sustainable economy.

Conclusion

The case of rejecting GM food aid in Zambia depicts the stand of the tough measures against GM foods in the country. Further, the author pinpoints the force behind the food aid and the major contributors to food aid. The set policies for long-term and short-term strategies to food aid quoted poverty as the primary cause of the food crisis. The production of GM foods is continuing in the U.S because there is substantial evidence against it. Apart from Zambia, the case also highlighted other African countries that have entirely banned GM foods which were crucial to making a comparison on the impact of the ban. The set policies greatly influence the adoption of GM foods.

Compared to Zambia, in the U.S, GM technology has been embraced wholeheartedly, and it has benefited them. Despite the rejection of GM foods from the U.S, they are still the leading contributor to food aid. There are no cases of food insecurity in the U.S because they have more produce. Also, compared to Europe who have banned GM foods, African countries are dependent on agriculture, and they should make policies independently and avoid outside influence. Besides, a country like South Africa have benefitted from the adoption of GM technology over the past decade (Adenle, 2011). In short, chronic poverty can be resolved by accepting GM foods. Over the past decade, research has indicated that effective use of GM crops that can translate to sustainable development.

References

Adenle, A. A. (2011). Response to issues on GM agriculture in Africa: Are transgenic crops safe? BMC research notes, 4(1), 388.

Broadbent, E. (2012). Politics of research-based evidence in African policy debates. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Cui, K., & Shoemaker, S. P. (2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a nationwide Chinese consumer study. npj Science of Food, 2(1), 10.

Lewin, A. C. (2007). Zambia and genetically modified food aid (4-4). Case Studies in Food Policy for Developing Countries: Policies for Health, Nutrition, Food Consumption, and Poverty, 1, 183.

Paarlberg, R. (2010). GMO foods and crops: Africa’s choice. New Biotechnology, 27(5), 609-613.