|
|
 
|
Letter to the Zambians (Thursday, Oct. 3, 2002 -- CropChoice news) -- The following is a letter that Dr. Charles Benbrook sent to Zambian scientists and policymakers who were in Washington D.C. last month to seek advice about whether to accept genetically modified corn.
September 13, 2002
Dear Distinguished Delegates from Zambia:
I am looking forward very much to a chance to visit with you
via the phone on Friday afternoon. I apologize for not being able to get
to Washington, D.C. to meet in person. I would have liked to do that
very much, but it is a long way from North Idaho to the East Coast.
I am hopeful that your fact finding mission will convince you
of a few key points, which should inform and guide your actions in the
future as you deal with your country's unfolding food security challenges.
First, there is no shortage of non-GMO foods which could be
offered to Zambia by public and private donors. To a large extent, this
"crisis" has been manufactured (might I say, "engineered") by those
looking for a new source of traction in the evolving global debate over
agricultural biotechnology. To use the needs of Zambians to score
"political points" on behalf of biotechnology strikes many as unethical
and indeed shameless.
Second, if and when GMO corn is planted in Zambia, some degree
of gene flow will occur to native varieties. There is universal
agreement on this point now in the global scientific community. The more
GMO corn planted, the more diverse its geographic spread, the faster and
more complete the movement of transgenes will be into Zambian land
races, i.e., your native corn varieties. Biotech advocates will argue
that this is a good thing -- that Zambia is getting the benefit of
"advanced" traits without having to pay for them. You should reject this
silly notion. The movement of biotech traits into your varieties will
almost certainly not be of practical benefit, since levels of expression
and the consistency of expression will be inadequate to provide farmers
with a meaningful level of insect control. Indeed, it is more likely
that gene flow will create some unexpected, and under certain
circumstances damaging, physiological growth problems, or perhaps
impairment of natural plant defense mechanisms.
Third, the flow of genes into Zambian corn varieties will
almost certainly be detectable. Once it becomes known that GMO corn is
growing in Zambia, European and Japanese buyers will insist upon a
system to certify that Zambian corn was not produced from GMO seeds.
Putting such a system in place, while possible, will prove costly, and
indeed even the United States has not been able to do so, except for the
organic market sector.
Fourth, when the companies advanced Bt corn through the
regulatory process in the U.S. and Europe in the early 1990s, it was
known and understood that 98% plus of the corn would be processed or fed
to animals.
If regulatory authorities had felt that a sizable portion of the
populations of people consuming this corn would eat it directly (largely
unprocessed) and that moreover, the corn might make up as much as half
or two-thirds of daily caloric intake, they would NEVER have approved it
based on the human safety data presented at the time. Anyone who claims
that U.S. and European regulatory reviews "prove" safety in the context
of food aid to Africa is either ignorant of the factual basis of U.S.
and European regulatory reviews, or is willing to make some rather major
assumptions. In the final analysis, Bt corn might prove to be just as
safe to humans when eaten directly and making up a large percent of the
diet, but today, no one can point to a solid set of scientific studies
that support this conclusion. Put simply, these questions have not
arisen before and have not been the subject of any research, to the best
of my knowledge. Perhaps other experts or the U.S. State Department will
be able to provide you with such studies.
Fifth, people in Africa who are suffering acute or chronic
malnutrition may react to consumption of Bt corn, especially when
minimally cooked and processed and present as a major share of their
diet, in different ways than the average American or European has
reacted to it, given how it has been incorporated in the food supply in
North America and Europe. It is known that Bt corn may have adverse
impacts on the stomach lining and that some potential food
safety/allergenicity impacts are a function of gut bacteria and the
overall health status of the GI tract. It is unlikely that any company
or institution has carried out any research to determine whether these
differences could translate into risks in Africa among the very hungry,
risks that are both qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from those
that might be expected in North America and Europe.
And sixth, the agronomic benefits of today's Bt corn varieties
in the United States have been marginal, given that the target pest, the
European corn borer (ECB) is an episodic pest in most corn growing
regions and does not do much damage in most years. My research has shown
that the premium price paid by farmers since 1996 for Bt corn seed
varieties has been a poor investment averaged out across the whole
nation. Where ECB levels have been high and consistent, Bt corn has
clearly paid for itself. But on about two-thirds of planted acres each
year, it clearly reduces per acre profits. The information and
technology exists in the U.S. to target Bt corn to high-risk acres, but
this approach is not compatible with biotechnology and seed company
marketing and financial plans/objectives, and for this reason, this
approach is the "road not taken." As Zambia looks to the tools of
biotechnology to improve the productivity of your farming sector, it
will be important for Zambians to define the needs and the ways that
this technology can be used in order for Zambia to be, and remain the
beneficiary of progress made.
I am sure your hosts in Washington will provide you copies of
various reports that substantiate the above points. You will also find
much information on our website, Ag BioTech InfoNet,
http://www.biotech-info.net.
Thank you for the chance to share these views.
Dr. Charles Benbrook | |
