Why Africans Are Starving -- Environmental Extremists

Why Africans Are Starving

Green groups and European bureaucrats aren't conspiring to starve millions of sub-Saharan Africans, but according to Andrew Natsios of the U.S. Agency for International Development, they may as well be.

Speaking at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg this month, Mr. Natsios said he's been unable to persuade Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa to accept food aid from the U.S., even though Southern Africa is facing its worst drought in a decade. The World Health Organization reports that famine-related deaths in the region could reach 13 million -- 2.4 million in Zambia alone.

The U.S. has shipped 17,000 tons of corn to Zambia, where many are already down to one meal per day, only to have it sit in storage. Because some of the U.S. corn has been genetically modified -- to make it more resistant to pests, diseases and the region's harsh growing environs -- Mr. Mwanawasa has declared it unsafe for consumption.

The green brigade, which likes to buttress its political opposition to GM foods with junk science, is cheering Zambia's intransigence. And the willingness of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the like to let Africans starve in the name of someone else's ideology is remarkable enough.

But the Europeans are also blameworthy. Zambia is just as worried about upsetting trade relations with Europe, its biggest export market. The European Union bans most GM crops -- lest they upset Europe's heavily subsidized farm system -- and Mr. Mwanawasa's concern is that the U.S. corn will cross-pollinate with non-GM varieties and taint future yields.

The eco-lobby has targeted the Third World with a five-year, $175 million campaign against GM foods. The Sierra Club is calling "for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops." Greenpeace says it "opposes all releases of genetically engineered organisms into the environment," an act it calls "genetic pollution." Supposed hazards include the spread of allergens and toxins and the creation of "superweeds" immune to herbicides.

Science and experience have proven these fears to be unfounded. Biotechnology has had no ill effects on human health or the environment. Gene-splicing technology dates back more than 30 years, and GM-products have been widely marketed in the U.S. for the better part of a decade. Today some two-thirds of the food products in American supermarkets contain genetically modified ingredients. No superweeds, no allergies, no illnesses and certainly no fatalities have ever been linked to GM foods.

While Europe's scientists reject the pseudo-science pushed by biotech opponents, Europe's protectionist trade policies effectively endorse it. Roger Bate of the London-based International Policy Network says this thinking is shortsighted. "The costs of agricultural products will continue to fall due to genetically modified food technologies, which are increasing productivity by 10% to 15% per year," says Mr. Bate. "Europe's subsidy programs will become that much more expensive, and their position on biotech that much more untenable."

Genetic modification has led to a healthier, more abundant food supply that is cheaper to produce and less stressful on the environment. Now that we have the means to feed Africa's hungry, who would've guessed that some would lack the motive?

Updated September 17, 2002