Mr. Ciise,
<<Commission officials say the US could have solved any problems by buying
food-aid maize locally, as does the EU, to provide countries with non-GM
maize, or by milling corn so it cannot take root.>>
Despite WHO's position on GM foods, there are genuine fears in several
African countries accepting GM food assistance. The EU position appears to
be in tune with general sentiments in southern Africa region despite the
apparent recapitulation of Mozambique and Malawi. Purchasing food-assisiance
maize and corn locally and in the process contribute to the local economy
while assisting those in need of food asssitance appears sensible to me.
Ironically, there's ample food stock in the southern African region for
sale, mainly in South Africa. Zimbabwe also used to have surplus food for
sale until very recently.
You may wish to note that American Corn Growers Association (ACGA)came out
last week opposed to the State Department's policy of offering GM food
assistance. According to the ACGA official, it is a deliberate policy of
the US not to segregate GM from non-GM grains to deny prospective
beneficiaries the much desired choice given the different scientific
opinions about the long-term effects of GM foods. The ACGA official stated
that although there is increasing tendency in the US not to segregate GM
from non-GM, the US government can still purchase non-GM grains at higher
premium due to increased cost in providing separate storage facilities and
specialised handling.
Apart from the health reasons, the economic side of the equation is equally
important because to accept GM foods could negatively impact traditional
grain and organic food exports to the EU, by far the biggest market for
southern Africa. As illustrated in your two postings, when it comes to GM
foods the EU Commission is less accomodating than the US State Department,
FAO and WFP. The food-deficit countries in the region are left with the
stark choice of: turn down the GM food and face the possibility of a
starving population and the associated incalculable risks, according to
opponents of GM foods, or accept it and risk losing a valuable EU market in
an era when access to global markets is at the centre of the developing
countries demands in an increasing globalized trade environment.
Until I am convinced about the safety of GM foods, I side with the Zambian
authorities in turning down the stuff. South Africa, meanwhile, should
assist Zambia meet its food-deficit requirements either through SADC or
bilaterally, and on concessionary terms.
Mr. Ciise, thanks for posting the differing views of the EU, FAO and the US
Department of State.
Sidi Sanneh
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Ngorr Ciise" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [>-<] Brussels refuses to back GM food for Africa
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:42:08 +0000
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
