Lusaka — In 2002 the Zambian government shocked many by returning emergency food aid just when million of Zambians faced starvation. The reason: the package contained potentially unsafe GM maize. Three years on, an audit of the manner in which the GM 'debate' was played out in the national media offers important insights.

Zambia made international headlines in July 2002 when it ordered the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to take back over 35,000 tonnes of food aid - just when three million Zambians faced hunger caused by a severe drought.

The government argued that the WFP's consignment of genetically modified (GM) maize could harm Zambian agricultural exports if non-GM Zambian farms became contaminated. It pointed to studies conducted by scientists in the United States, Europe and South Africa which demonstrated that "insufficient evidence was available to demonstrate their (GM's) safety."

The US, the main food donor to the WFP along with the UN agency's Lusaka office, tried its best to persuade the government to rescind the order, but Zambia remained adamant.

When reports surfaced of hungry villagers looting the WFP storage houses where the GM maize was kept, the government cranked up its propaganda machinery. First it ensured that the government electronic and print media, the largest in the country, reported its side of the story. It then organised what it called a "consultative debate" - but it was largely seen as an anti-GM legitimacy-seeking conference.

The US on its part paid for airtime on national television so that a group of visiting African-American government officials could counter the Zambian government view.

In all of this, the media remained largely a passive recipient of information. Because journalists had very little knowledge of the issue they could be easily manipulated in either direction. In this case, the government prevailed.

Those who were opposed to the introduction of GM crops into Zambia can be broadly categorised into three groups.

First there was the powerful lobby of agricultural exporters - consisting of groups such as the Tobacco Association of Zambia, the Zambia Export Growers Association and the Zambia Coffee Growers' Association. They were mainly concerned about the potential loss of the European market if their farms were contaminated by GM organisms (the European Union bans imports of GM crops). Zambia exports about 27,216 tonnes of cotton and about 2,000 tonnes of tobacco annually to Europe. Food exports constitute more than 30 percent of Zambia's Gross Domestic Product.

Then came the Organic Producers and Processors Association of Zambia, which was worried about the effects of GM crops on sustainable agriculture.

Finally, there was widespread concern among small-scale farmers, who comprise more than three-quarters of all Zambian farmers. They argued that GM crops could contaminate seeds grown by them - the so-called 'informal seed sub-sector' supplies 80 per cent of all planting seeds in Zambia.

However, there was little technical debate on bio-safety or analysis of crop contamination. If anything, says radio presenter Anthony Mwikita, the story quickly became one of Zambia standing up to the US.

"It was a David versus Goliath kind of story - people were proud that Zambia took a decision and defended it under intense pressure, against the US and the WFP, for the good of her people. It was a purely populist issue with the government being made to look like the good guys. Journalists were not interested in GM. It was all about standing up to a perceived bully."

Mwikita has since tried to put alternative views on the radio but found their proponents unwilling to go on air. "There is so much anti-GM feeling that those who are pro-GM are scared of public opinion and keep quiet."

Kelly Kaunda of the Media Institute of Southern Africa adds, "there is a knowledge among journalists that the government has put some kind of a closure on the debate and there are few people willing to resurrect the story."

Even some well-known critics of the government, such as the Women's Lobby Group, the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) and opposition political parties, went along with the official stand.

One influential research paper, co-sponsored by the JCTR and Kasisi Agriculture Training Centre, received wide media coverage. Titled What is the impact of GMOs on sustainable agriculture in Zambia? it argued that commercial GM crops had little, if anything, to offer to small-scale farmers. In fact these crops were likely to exacerbate rural household food insecurity and further erode the little cash income that might be there.

The paper said Zambia should wait for more clarity on the potential risks to and long-term impacts on human health, the environment and the agricultural infrastructure before considering the adoption of GM crops. "During this waiting period, however, there is a need to build the capacity to test and control GM crops."

Another research paper, published by Third World Network Africa, examined the 'appropriateness' of three GM crops - Bt cotton, Bt maize and virus-resistant sweet potato - by assessing whether or not the crop is demand-led, site-specific, poverty-focussed, cost-effective and environmentally and institutionally sustainable.

Its conclusion: "The maximum gains from genetic modification are small, much lower than with either conventional breeding or agroecology-based techniques."

However, a study by the Zambian National Farmers Union, Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety in Zambia: A ZNFU Position Paper for Input into Government Policy and Legislation, did outline some potential benefits of GM crops, which included: the positive impact on national food security with genetically modified crops becoming a valuable tool to complement conventional and organic approaches; and the reduction of input costs (such as insecticides and herbicides) through resistance to various pests and reduction of the level of crop management.

Today, Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana insists his government consulted all stakeholders and made an informed decision.

Sikatana says Zambia will not go back on its decision: "We do not have conclusive evidence that GM food is good for us and we reserve the right to refuse it."

The government has now prepared a legal instrument on bio-safety legislation to help regulate and monitor GMOs. It will also establish a national bio-safety authority - part of a five year plan to initiate bio-safety research and protection of bio-diversity.

Alongside this authority the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has set up an advisory committee to develop a standardised policy for the entire region. WFP spokesperson in Lusaka Jo Woods says it no longer stocks GM maize in Zambia, adding "We have moved on, this debate has run its course and things have been settled." The US Embassy in Lusaka said the Zambian government had taken a decision and that there was no more debate on the issue.

According to Father Peter Henriot of the JCTR, people are generally comfortable with the ban on GM food - "that's why there has been no further debate."

Meanwhile, subsistence farmers Melita and her husband Joseph Nkomani who suffered crop failure at the time and were in need of food aid, feel they should have been given information to make an informed choice. "We were the ones who went hungry. The option should have rested with us."

The Nkomanis say if what they hear about drought-resistant GM maize is true, then it should be made available to farmers like them who suffer from drought. "Again, it's people in Lusaka making decisions on our behalf."