LECTURELECTURE

GEOG 270GEOG 270Fall 2007Fall 2007

November 30, 2007November 30, 2007

Joe Hannah, PhDJoe Hannah, PhDDepartment of GeographyDepartment of Geography

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington

GMOs and HungerGMOs and Hunger

Food Security and Food AidFood Security and Food Aid

Last TimeLast Time► Reviewed “Permissive” Reviewed “Permissive” vs. vs. ”Precautionary” ”Precautionary”

approachesapproaches► A little history of GMO adoptionA little history of GMO adoption

US, Canada, Argentina first users (rich, large US, Canada, Argentina first users (rich, large farms)farms)

““Mad Cow” and European adoption of Mad Cow” and European adoption of Precautionary PrinciplePrecautionary Principle

Third World policy dilemmasThird World policy dilemmas Is “privatized development” a good thing for Third Is “privatized development” a good thing for Third

World countries?World countries?► Some policy examples Some policy examples (from Paarlberg)(from Paarlberg)

Kenya, Brazil, ChinaKenya, Brazil, China

TodayToday

► GMOs and Food SecurityGMOs and Food Security

► Famine, Food Aid, and GMOs: Famine, Food Aid, and GMOs: Southern African Food Emergency Southern African Food Emergency 20022002

The Food Security DebateThe Food Security Debate

► What is “Food Security?”What is “Food Security?” Over 200 definitions Over 200 definitions (Maxwell and Buchanan-Smith, (Maxwell and Buchanan-Smith,

1992)1992)

Different scales: Different scales: ►e.g., amount of food available world-widee.g., amount of food available world-wide►e.g., access to food by all people at all timese.g., access to food by all people at all times►my experience in early 1990s: seasonal securitymy experience in early 1990s: seasonal security

Different focusDifferent focus►Production, sustainability, nutrition, Production, sustainability, nutrition,

trade/markets, access (e.g., famines)trade/markets, access (e.g., famines)

Food Security and GMOsFood Security and GMOs

►Proponents of GMOsProponents of GMOs Future “food gap” Future “food gap”

►population -- +73 million per year thru 2010population -- +73 million per year thru 2010►UrbanizationUrbanization

““productivity gap”productivity gap”►can’t leave the poor behindcan’t leave the poor behind►Must use available land to its utmost potentialMust use available land to its utmost potential

Food Security and GMOsFood Security and GMOs

►Opponents to GMOsOpponents to GMOs Technology not the answer: Green Revolution Technology not the answer: Green Revolution

did not end hungerdid not end hunger GMO technology is driven by commercial (not GMO technology is driven by commercial (not

humanitarian) interestshumanitarian) interests Real challenges are social/political: foremost is Real challenges are social/political: foremost is

accessaccess to food, poverty alleviation, land reform to food, poverty alleviation, land reform Ecologically sustainable agriculture will give Ecologically sustainable agriculture will give

cheaper, longer-lasting increases in cheaper, longer-lasting increases in productivityproductivity

Food Security and GMOsFood Security and GMOs

The debate over whether GMOs can help The debate over whether GMOs can help reduce hunger reflects, in large part, reduce hunger reflects, in large part, actors’ ideas of the causes of hunger actors’ ideas of the causes of hunger

(i.e., their definition of “food (i.e., their definition of “food security”):security”):

• production, production, • sustainability, sustainability, • nutrition, nutrition,

• trade/markets, trade/markets, • access (e.g., access (e.g., famines)famines)• etc.etc.

GMOs and US Food Aid:GMOs and US Food Aid:Southern Africa 2002Southern Africa 2002

► Six countries, over 14 million people “rapidly Six countries, over 14 million people “rapidly slipping into a food crisis”slipping into a food crisis”

► Estimated food requirements: over 1 million Estimated food requirements: over 1 million metric tons of grainmetric tons of grain

► ““Trigger” for crisis: weather (floods, drought)Trigger” for crisis: weather (floods, drought)► ““Causes” more complicated (poor Causes” more complicated (poor

governance, land redistribution, sale of governance, land redistribution, sale of surpluses to pay debt, etc.)surpluses to pay debt, etc.)

► Access to food (no alternative sources) – not Access to food (no alternative sources) – not lack of foodlack of food

US Donates GMO GrainUS Donates GMO Grain

►US took the lead in donating food to US took the lead in donating food to alleviate crises: ½ required additional alleviate crises: ½ required additional foodfood

►Some of the unmilled grain aid was GMOSome of the unmilled grain aid was GMO►Each country had to respond:Each country had to respond:

Swaziland, Lesotho accepted aid (Lesotho Swaziland, Lesotho accepted aid (Lesotho initially asked that it be milled first)initially asked that it be milled first)

Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia challenged: grain did not have regulatory challenged: grain did not have regulatory approval in USapproval in US

Concerns about GMO AidConcerns about GMO Aid

►Potential health impacts on food Potential health impacts on food recipientsrecipients

► Impact on local agricultural Impact on local agricultural biodiversity (genetic pollution)biodiversity (genetic pollution)

► Impact of possible GMO pollution on Impact of possible GMO pollution on abilities to export grain n the futureabilities to export grain n the future

Recipients’ Policy ResponsesRecipients’ Policy Responses

► Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe asked that the Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe asked that the grain be milled first (to prevent replanting by grain be milled first (to prevent replanting by farmers and crossing with local varieties)farmers and crossing with local varieties)

► Zambia: refused aid until Zambian scientists Zambia: refused aid until Zambian scientists could study potential health impacts; could study potential health impacts; concluded:concluded: Health effects unclearHealth effects unclear High risk of eroding biodiversityHigh risk of eroding biodiversity High risk of impacting exports (e.g., honey, corn) to High risk of impacting exports (e.g., honey, corn) to

EUEU Rejected AidRejected Aid

Official US ResponseOfficial US Response

► Initially simply dismissed critics’ Initially simply dismissed critics’ concerns: “ignorant and uninformed”concerns: “ignorant and uninformed”

►As opposition grew, US sought to As opposition grew, US sought to “educate” recipients on safety of GMOs“educate” recipients on safety of GMOs

►Refused to replace food aid with cash Refused to replace food aid with cash aid (to by regionally available grain)aid (to by regionally available grain)

►Refused to mill the grain first (too Refused to mill the grain first (too expensive)expensive)

Official US ResponseOfficial US Response

““Washington, however, failed to to both Washington, however, failed to to both understand the nature of the concern understand the nature of the concern of the governments of the region and of the governments of the region and

to take them seriously. For to take them seriously. For Washington, the choice was simple: Washington, the choice was simple:

either accept US food aid either accept US food aid unconditionally, or allow your unconditionally, or allow your population to starve” population to starve” (Zerbe, 2004)(Zerbe, 2004)

Recipients’ Policy DilemmaRecipients’ Policy Dilemma

“For the governments of the region, however, the matter was far more complex. For them, the decision to

accept US assistance in the form of GM food aid represented a trade off, not just between the potential short and long term health of their populations, but between the short and long term health of their economies.” (Zerbe, 2004)(Zerbe, 2004)

Short-term resolutionShort-term resolution

►South Africa intervened: milled US South Africa intervened: milled US donated grain.donated grain.

►Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe accepted distributionaccepted distribution

Zambia Still Refused US AidZambia Still Refused US Aid

► “ “Framed” as sovereignty – Framed” as sovereignty – Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa: :

““we may be poor and experiencing food we may be poor and experiencing food shortages shortages but are not ready to expose people to ill-defined risks. . . I am not

prepared to accept that we should use our people as guinea pigs” (Zerbe, 2004)(Zerbe, 2004)

US US vs. vs. EUEU

►US blames the EU:US blames the EU:“This dangerous effect of the EUs moratorium became

painfully evident last fall when some famine-stricken African countries refused US food aid because of

fabricated fears stoked by irresponsible rhetoric about food safety.” (US Trade representative)

►The EU responds:The EU responds:“Food aid to starving populations should be about

meeting the urgent humanitarian needs of those who are in need. It should not be about trying to advance the case for GM food abroad, or planting GM crops for

export, or indeed finding outlets for domestic surplus…” (EU policy response)

Policy Situation, 2005Policy Situation, 2005

Will GMOs Reduce Hunger?Will GMOs Reduce Hunger?

► The debate seems to have come to an The debate seems to have come to an impasse – entrenched positions divided impasse – entrenched positions divided along lines of “theory” and “world view”along lines of “theory” and “world view” Causes of hunger, importance of markets, safetyCauses of hunger, importance of markets, safety

► Each side claims “moral high ground”Each side claims “moral high ground”► Each stakeholder has (potentially) a great Each stakeholder has (potentially) a great

deal to gain or lose deal to gain or lose ► Policy approaches are developed inthis Policy approaches are developed inthis

ambiguos environment, relying on best ambiguos environment, relying on best science, local knowledge and science, local knowledge and understandings, and personal beliefsunderstandings, and personal beliefs

Next time…Next time…

►Wrap up GMO TopicWrap up GMO Topic►Re-visit “Sustainability” and Re-visit “Sustainability” and

“Development”“Development”►Talk about ”Participatory Talk about ”Participatory

Development” approachesDevelopment” approaches