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] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~