Phan
Anbinh Phan, Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs
Implications of the EU-US WTO Trade Dispute on GM Foods:
Zambia’s Acute Food Shortage and Rejection of US Food Aid
The GM food debate rages on, this time reaching the southern borders of Africa. Zambia,
a country plagued by food shortage, drought and disease perceives a threat from the
consumption GM foods. Is there a real scientific danger to human health? Or are the
Africans once again caught in a battle between Western nations? As 30 percent of
Zambia’s 10.2 million people face starvation or “acute food shortage,” United States food
aid is the object of controversy (Africa News, 2-12-2003). Despite food insecurity, in
October 2002, Zambia rejected United States transgenic or genetically modified (GM)
food aid for health and environmental reasons.
First, Zambians fear that the GM food aid will cut immunity to disease, cause antibiotic
resistance and allergic reactions as a result of the emergence of new food toxins. This,
they speculate, will aggravate those with already poor health conditions.
Second, they
are concerned that the GM seeds may contaminate local crops and limit indigenous
biodiversity. Lastly, Zambians are cautious of crop contamination that can adversely
affect exports to the European Union, which strictly prohibits the importation of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) via a moratorium on biotechnology products.
Trade Ambassador Robert Zoellick cries foul against the European Union’s ban on GM
crops and its influence in shaping the opinions of the Zambians. On May 12, 2003, U.S.
and Cooperating Countries File WTO Case Against EU Moratorium on Biotech Foods
and Crops: EU's Illegal, Non-Science based Moratorium Harmful to Agriculture and the
Developing World. Ambassador Zoellick claims that GM foods are safe and that the EU
use of the “precautionary principle” under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Agreement of the WTO acts as an effective barrier to trade. Europeans believe that this
is not a trade issue but a matter of science and food safety.
1
Phan
Currently, whether rational or irrational consumers Zambian leaders, based on European
analysis, are not convinced that GM foods are safe for human consumption. Zambian
leaders oppose their citizens being “guinea pigs” and have refused to distribute GM foods
that, in the words of Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, are “poison” (Africa News, 127-2003). Zambia is the only country that has refused milled maize. Other Southern
African nations such as Swaziland and Lesotho accept the maize and Mozambique,
Zimbabwe and Malawi accept it if it is milled.
Political Considerations
Africa
In Africa the politics of the GM debate are governed by rhetoric on national sovereignty.
By taking an ethical high ground, or a rights based framework, the Zambian President
Levy Mwanawasa is able to advocate what considers best for the Zambian nation. He
suggests that despite the conditions of drought and starvation, Africans should not be
forced to bear the risk of consuming GM food aid on their health and environment.
Critics of the President claim that the GM food debate is not about food safety, but rather
a symbolic test of national strength by the urban elites who are powerful and wellorganized at the cost of starvation of villagers who have a persistent collective action
problem. Proponents support the Presidents’ bold move of protecting future agricultural
interests of the country.
In August 2002, President Levy Mwanaswasa sent a delegation of Zambian scientists on
a fact-finding mission to South Africa, the United States and Europe. The fact-finding
mission cited British Medical Association and African doctors studies over new food
toxins, new allergens and anti-biotic resistance.
They pointed to adverse allergic
reactions in some modified foods, different immune systems across continents, the
difference between processed and unprocessed maize consumption (there is potential for
greater harm to Africans because they eat primarily unprocessed crops whereas
consumers in the US eat primarily processed crops), and other potential threats as
2
Phan
grounds to support the current Zambian position on GM food aid. The mission raised
concerns over the effects of GM crops on the variety of maize cultivated in Zambia.1
Even if GM foods are scientifically proven to be safe, Africans run the risk of losing
export markets to Europe if they accept GM foods from the US. This poses long-run
economic costs. Concurrently, experts claim that the effects of GM foods on untested
African soils may devastate the land and limit biodiversity.
Africans fear crop
contamination will threaten local varieties and create a dependency syndrome on patented
seed. Thus crops contaminated with a GM strain, such as corn and maize, will not only
cause problems for current consumption, but also make the nation ineligible for export to
developed countries such as those in the EU and Japan. (Moreover, they do not have the
expertise or financial means to food label to distinguish between organic and GM foods.
Food labeling will increase their production costs and decrease profits.)
For purposes of preserving biodiversity and limiting any potential adverse effects, in the
short-run the three other famine-threatened countries have accepted GM relief maize, on
the condition that it is milled before distribution. Milled foods will only solve the
problem in the short-run, in the long-run African nations fear losing important export
markets.
Moreover, as Africans depended upon European Support in the past for issues of health
and humanitarian assistance, and since Europe is not advocating for the consumption of
GM foods, if health and humanitarian problems emerge as a result of the introduction of
the crops, Europe will be unable to provide its usual level of support and assistance.
Despite pressure from the US, multinationals, and ravage starvation of Zambians, the
government has rejected GM foods on safety grounds.
Even though several U.N.
agencies declared the food safe, the Zambian government taking precaution and will not
allow distribution. After the October 2002 refusal of US Food Aid, the United States
1
Zambians face pressure from environmental groups such as Greenpeace to refuse GM foods on the
premise that it reduces biodiversity.
3
Phan
made the political decision to deny other forms of aid to Zambia.
Around 200
environmental and development groups, such as Greenpeace and Action Aid, have
supported the Zambian position (Peta) and opposed the hard line by the US government.
These groups accuse the US of introducing GM foods during this time of crises to spread
genes and make crops ineligible for export to Europe. Furthermore, they are criticizing
the new bill proposed in Congress tying funds to fight AIDS to the acceptance of GM
foods.
In a conference on Biotechnology and Food Security in Lusaka, Zambia at the end of
November 2002, those who oppose GM foods concluded that Africa could solve its lack
of food security through other low technological methods, such as improved distribution.
At this conference debate raged over the ethics of allowing millions to starve based on
scientific concerns as well as the overall ethics of biotechnology (Mulenga). To address
the immediate crises, the World Bank approved a $50 million package ($20 million grant
and $20 million credit form the International Development Association (IDA)) to fund
imports, improve transport, health and sanitation services, fund education, and protect
livestock.
European Union and the United States
The politics of the GM debate in Europe focus on the concerns of food safety, regulatory
transparency, and scientific uncertainty. Consumers in the EU question the health and
environmental risks of GM foods. GM foods are stigmatized and viewed as inferior
goods. Currently, the EU has a de facto moratorium on genetically modified foods in the
World Trade Organized, filed under the “precautionary principle” of the SPS
Agreement.2
Under this principle regulators can ban a crop before they show
3 Although the precautionary principle is not explicitly mentioned in the [EU] Treaty except in the
environmental field, its scope is far wider and covers those specific circumstances where scientific
evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and there are indications through preliminary objective
scientific evaluation that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects
4
Phan
scientifically that a biotech crop is unsafe. Zambia models its position on GM foods after
the EU.
As one of primary producer of GM food crops and the loudest opposition to EU policy
over these issues, the United States consistently promotes these products are safe. Thirty
percent of the crops grown in the US are genetically modified. Donations of food aid
from the US can be from the 30% of GM or from the 70% that grown without gene
modification (Wamboka). The United States claims that the GM foods are tested and
consumed by tens of millions of Americans and that Africans should not feel threatened
by the food aid.
Ambassador Zoellick claimed that European rejection of GM foods influenced the
decisions of African Nations to reject US food aid and that dangers of GM foods were
“invented” (European Report, 1-22-2003). To discourage Zambia and other nations from
modeling their regulatory framework after the EU, the United States will take action.
The United States filed a case against the EU before the WTO based on violation of
Article 5.1 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. The proponents of GM foods point out that
there is no verifiable evidence that they are harmful.3
European Development Commissioner Paul Nielson decries Zoellick for his accusation of
lobbying the Zambians not to accept American food aid. He denies claims that the
Europeans countries “threatened to cut off support to southern African countries if they
accept GM maize” (European Report, 1-22, 2003). Although the Europeans vehemently
on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the chosen level of
protection.
3
Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes: identification of potentially negative effects
resulting from a phenomenon, product or process; a scientific evaluation of the risk which because of the
insufficiency of the data, their inconclusive or imprecise nature, makes it impossible to determine with
sufficient certainty the risk in question.
5
Phan
deny lobbying Zambia to reject GM food aid, they have acknowledged sharing scientific
assessments.
The Europeans believe that the US should mill the grain sent as food aid. Further, they
suggest that the US should not send food aid, but rather money. Currently, the EU policy
is to source food aid regionally, meaning food aid is purchased in the region and not from
European food surplus. Ninety percent of the food aid from the EU is food sourced
regionally, and only 1% is from the EU (European Report, 1-22, 2003). The Europeans
believe that regional food sourcing is a way to catalyze African markets.
Critics of the EU claim that the GM food debate is a guise for EU agricultural protection.
The Common Agricultural Policy is the capstone of the EU, and farming is viewed as a
way of life. As such, the “precautionary principle” is viewed as a legal way to decrease
competition from international markets. However, even if barriers to trade were lifted,
EU consumers’ distaste for GM foods would persist. It is difficult to discern if current
consumer rejection of GM foods is a result of government led hysteria, or a result of true
consumer health concerns. The press and environmental groups such as Greenpeace and
Friends of the Earth further stress that there are real concerns at stake. A possible reason
for fear of GM foods among consumers in the EU is that as a whole the EU has a weak
regulatory system for food. This weak regulatory system resulted in unsafe outbreaks,
and a lack of transparency over health risks such as “mad cow.”4
Strength and credibility of food regulation may be a primary reason why GM foods are
accepted in the United States. In the United States, GM foods or GMOs are recognized as
a more advanced form of crop development, an improvement in crop variety that has
been occurring for decades. Before reaching consumers, GM foods must pass three
organizations. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates potential
agricultural risks and potential hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
evaluate biopesticide concerns, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates
the nutritional and overall characteristics of the good.
4
In a discussion will Christina Davis, Associate Professor of Politics, Princeton University.
6
Phan
Risk Perception
African rejection of US food aid may be directly linked to the negative perception of GM
foods. The Zambians fear being unwitting guinea pigs for risky biotech commercial
ventures. The failure of the biotech industry to successfully promote GM foods has led
to great skepticism about its potential harms. There is a general distrust in Africa of
biotech organizations such as Monsanto.
GM crops are not viewed as a potential
humanitarian benefit, adding vitamins for health or increasing immunity for disease, but
rather as threats. For instance, the Biotech industry introduced wheat, soy and corn
varieties, but did not introduce crops, such as cassava, that are well suited to the African
climate. The introduction of these GM crop varieties, were viewed as profit and not
humanitarian motives. Although GM crops can provide substantial benefits, such as
pesticide reduction, and crop resistant to drought, they are not viewed as such. Instead
they are considered to be in the commercial interests of business who earn profit from
GM seeds.
The High Production Costs of Food Labeling
To address health concerns and to consider the interests of business that heavily invested
in GM crops, the EU is formally legislating the GM foods regulation process. The EU
requires pre-market monitoring and surveillance of GM foods and it is increasing
transparency over the authorization and surveillance of GM foods. The EU believes that
food labeling is one short run resolution to ensure that consumers can choose their level
of risk imposition.5
However, food labeling to distinguish between GM and non-GM
foods is an expensive process that Zambia will not be able to afford. Food labeling will
require expertise, technical capacity and result in higher production costs and a decrease
in profits. At every level, it will cost more to supply crops such as corn and maize and
therefore increase the marginal cost of production, shift the supply curve in and up, and
5
Due to the stigmatization associated with GM foods, food labeling is a contentious issue in the United
States. Labeling a food as genetically modified, will effectively cut it sales. For this reason the United
States has resisted food labeling. An alternative use of semantics that are more ambiguous and beneficial
to producers has the potential to misinform consumers.
7
Phan
reduce the overall quantity that Africans can produce. These costs result in a loss for
consumer welfare and additional producer costs. However, since African nations fear
losing important export markets, they may resort to food labeling practices.
Conclusions
Many Zambian people are willing to eat genetically modified foods, even at a cost to
future prospects, because they face extreme starvation. Since Zambia rejected food aid
from the US, the World Food Program (WFP) was able to only find half of the 21,000
tones of non-GM food needed to feed the 2.5 million people in risk of starvation. As
diseases such as AIDS decrease household earning ability, poverty and starvation result
in the unthinkable.
In Zambezi, prostitution services readily exchange for basic
necessities such as fish and charcoal. In light of these concerns, the government of
Zambia still has a right to make sovereign decisions and believes that other countries
should respect its decision to reject GM foods. They believe that the future is at stake.
The current EU moratorium on biotechnology products from entering the country is a
regulatory framework model for other countries, both in the developed and developing
world. This is a threat to free international trade. The EU ban is in direct violation of
Article 5.16 and 5.57 of the SPS Agreement. These articles seek to make cost-benefit
analysis based on risk assessment and to minimize negative trade effects. As GM foods
must pass the same or stricter regulatory and food safety standards than do non-GM
foods, and since these products are nearly substitutable, the EU has a weak legal and
scientific case if the US files a case before the WTO. Hence, the EU is in the difficult
Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as
appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into
account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations.
6
SPS Agreement, Article 5.7. In cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may
provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information,
including that from the relevant international organizations as well as from sanitary or phytosanitary
measures applied by other Members. In such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and review the sanitary or phytosanitary
measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time.
7
8
Phan
position of balancing consumer preferences, domestic production and the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as the international law under the WTO.
As
evidenced in this case, issues of sovereignty and free trade are complex, reaching beyond
the borders of countries in dispute influencing other nations.
A WTO case filed by the United States against the EU moratorium on GM foods will be
a landmark case for the WTO if it reaches the Dispute Settlement Body. Robert Zoellick
claims that the EU moratorium, effectively halting trade on GMO food, is illegal under
WTO law. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, is pressing to file the
case. The worst-case scenario will be if this case goes before the Appellate Body. It will
be advisable that the United States and the EU work towards a negotiated agreement.
The WTO will be a very vulnerable position when ruling on this case. Ruling in favor
and against one nation will result in backlash either in non-compliance or retaliation and
weaken the institution as a whole.
Whatever the ruling, the scientific and food safety
concerns of Zambia will not be resolved.
To reduce risk perception and increase
consumer and government trust of GM foods, clear scientific information of safety needs
to be distributed. Although science can not prove without a doubt that no harm will come
from food consumption, the more the information and the better informed the African and
European consumers, the better risk assessment they can make.
Zambia claims that it is making the same argument as the EU regarding food safety and
human health. The clear difference is that Zambia does not have the financial capacity
for comprehensive formal regulation and that Zambian citizens are in a much more dire
situation.. In Europe wealthy consumers have the luxury of choosing between GM and
non-GM foods. Unfortunately, in Zambia the decision to reject GM foods may be one of
life and death.
Plagued by drought, food shortage and the reality of famine the
unfounded speculations of potential harm have grave implications. In the long-run, the
country must develop its own capacity to regulate biotech goods. In the short-run, it must
weigh to costs and benefits of its policy decisions and its toll on human life. The United
States role is to work with the Zambian government to address concerns of the GM food
debate over health and environmental safety and to minimize the toll on human life.
9
Phan
Sources:
AFX News Limited, “US Had Decided To Challenge EU’s Policy on GM foods in WTO,” May
9, 2003, AFX European Focus
Africa Recovery “Southern Africa; Controversy Rages Over ‘GM’ Food” February 12, 2003, All
Africa, Inc., Africa News
African church Information Services, “Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Farmers’ Use of GM
Seed ‘Could Disturb Ecosystem’” December 23, 2002, All Africa Inc., Africa News
Alvarez, Lizette, “Europeans Still Refusing To Be Forced Fed Franken Foods: Consumers in
Europe Resist Gene- Altered Foods” February 11, 2003, New York Times
Bush, George, “Transcript: Bush Remarks to World Bank on G-8 Leaders Meeting” July, 17,
2001
Byerlee, Derek and Ken Fischer 2001 “Accessing Modern Science: Institutional and Policy
Options for Biotechnology in Developing Countries” World Development
Carroll, Rory, “Zambia Slams Door on GM Relief Food,” November 20, 2002, Manchester
Guardian Weekly
Crilly, Rob, “Children Go Hungry As GM Food Rejected,” October 30, 2002, Scottish Media
Newspapers Limited, The Herald (Glasgow)
European Information Service, “Development: Nielson Blasts US Claims Over GM-food,”
January 22, 2003, European Report
Geeloo, Zarina, “Development: Zambia Faces Hard Choices on GM Food,” November 20, 2002,
Inter Press Service
Hanyona, Singy, “Zambia Develops Biotechnology Strategy,” May 13, 2003, Environmental
News Service
10
Phan
Huang, Jikun, Scott Roselle, Carl E. Pray, and Qinfang Wang. "Plant Biotechnology in China"
Science Vol.295.(25 January 2002). pp 674-677
Krige, Dulcie, “There Are Better Ways to Feed Africa Than With GM Crops,” March 2, 2003,
Sunday Times (South Africa)
Lipton, Michael “Reviving Global Poverty Reduction: What Role of Genetically Modified Plants?”
Journal of International Development 13, 823-846, 2001
Mulegna, Mildred, “Conference On GM FOOD in Zambia Recommends Greater Labeling, “
November 20, 2002, Associated Press Worldstream
Naseem, Anwar, Carl Pray. “Economic Impact Analysis of GMOs: Implications for Food Crops
in Developing Countries” Presented at the Workshop on Biosafety of Transgenic Rice, October
27 to 30, 2002, Chennai, India
Newsweek, “The Case for Caution,” January 27, 2003, Atlantic Edition, Newsweek
Nottenberg, Pardey, and Wright (2001) “Assessing Freedom to Operate Issues: Questions for
International R&D.” in P.G.Pardey (ed) The Future of Food: Biotechnology Markets and Policies
in an International Setting. IFPRI: Washington DC, 2001
Paarlberg, Robert L. “Governing the GM Crop Revolution: Policy Choices for Developing
Countries” IFPRI 2020 Discussion Paper 33
Pingali, P.L. and G. Traxler. “Changing locus of agricultural research: will the poor benefit from
biotechnology and privatization trends?” Food Policy 27 (2002) 223-238
Pray, Carl E., Jikun Huang, Danmeng Ma, and Fangbin Qiao “Impact of Bt Cotton in China”
World Development Vol.29, No.5, pp.813-825, 2001
The Times of Zambia, “Zambia; Genetically Modified Organisms a Health Hazard-Report,”
December 6, 2002, All Africa, Inc., Africa News
11
Phan
Van der haegen, Tony, “The Looming US-EU Conflict Over Plant Biotechnology and Trade,”
(speech) September 25, 2002, Cato Policy Institute, Washington DC
Wamboka, Nabusayi L. , “Better Eat GM Food Than Starve –World Food Program,” January 26,
2003, The Monitor (Uganda)
Wilson, Margaret, “Will Their Protests Leave Her Hungry? European Objections to GM Food
Could Have a Devastating Effect on the Poorest Countries of Africa” November 20, 2002, The
Daily Telegraph
Zoellick, Robert, “Text: USTR Zoellick Discusses Free Trade Agreement with African SACU”
February 20, 2002, United states Department of State, International Information Programs
12
Phan
Appendix
Suggested Policy Recommendations:
1. The United States should work with the EU to reach a negotiated agreement
before the case reaches a Dispute Settlement Body hearing of the World
Trade Organization (WTO).
Acknowledging that the EU moratorium on
biotechnology products is a barrier to trade that does hurt the US economy and
unduly influences other countries, and respecting EU consumer sovereignty, the
United States should reach a negotiated agreement to open EU markets to GM
foods and harmonize food safety standards. A ruling on a trade dispute will cause
resentment among consumers in the EU and may lead to consumer bans on US
exports, even if the moratorium is lifted. Although there is concern at the United
States Trade Representative (USTR) that this will set a bad precedent for
regulation under the SPS and TBT agreements, the United States should first try
to reach a negotiated agreement before the DSB makes a ruling.8
2. The United States should reduce risk perception by educating domestic and
international consumers of the technology behind GM foods. Although the
United States does not have burden of proof to show that GM foods are safe, it is
in their benefit to credibly do so the short-run and the long-run. To do this they
need to disseminate clear scientific information from credible scientific groups
on process and product of the GM foods, relay information as to the advantages of
the technology (i.e. reduction in pesticide use, possible increase of vitamins) as
well as reduction in irrigation costs.
The United States scientists need to
specifically answer the questions regarding the particular effects on the people of
Africa. Most importantly, this information campaign should reach international
leaders, non-governmental organizations, as well as a broad base of consumers,
especially those in Europe and Africa.
The United States is expected to file a case against the EU before the WTO in mid-June 2003. See
conclusions for details (AFX News Limited).
8
13
Phan
3. The USAID should indicate to the Africa that it is aware of the dynamic and
complex issues that surround food shortage and that they are not simply
looking out for the interests of Western multinationals. As such, the United
States should recognize that food shortage is a mix of drought, poverty, lack of
transport, shortage of agricultural extension officers, and political instability
(Krige). This entails a comprehensive strategy to achieve long-term food security
and development in Africa.
4. Scientists, agricultural economists, and policy makers from the international
community should assist Zambia’s effort to develop a National Biosafety and
Biotechnology Strategy Plan. Currently, most developed countries have GMO
biosafety guidelines, and national biosafety committees to review GM crop
applications (Paarlberg). South Africa is the only country in Africa that has
commercial planning approval (GM maize and GM cotton). The international
community should work together to take measures to develop biosafety and
biotechnology regulations in Africa. The United States should provide expertise,
technical assistance, and scientific research to other countries.
14