| 
Marc Shoul Send it back: Zambia refused GM food aid from the US.
Nearly a third of Zambians were starving last year when the United States donated 74,600 tons of food to the southern African nation. President Levy Mwanawasa didn't want it. The food – mostly corn – was genetically modified to be pest-resistant. To Mwanawasa, that made it "poison." Never mind that numerous scientific bodies have deemed it safe. If he were to accept it, he'd jeopardize future crop exports to GM-wary Europe – and imperil his nation's economy. Zambia is the most dramatic example of the growing conflict over GM food – one that threatens to ignite a global trade war. Here's a guide to the competing interests in a scuffle that makes cloning debates seem tame.
Americans buy it
Introduced in the mid-'90s as a way to decrease pesticide use, GM crops now dominate US agriculture. Today, 70 percent of all American foodstuffs contain ingredients with altered DNA. Acreage grew from zero in 1996 to about 88 million in 2002. For the most part, US consumers seem more concerned with the fat in their diets than genetic engineering. Not so in Europe. The EU placed a moratorium on GM foods in 1998 and has used its economic leverage with African governments to get them to do the same.
Europeans fear it
Europeans cling to the time-honored idea of food purity, preferring fresh to processed, stovetop to microwave. Despite assurances that GM food is safe, consumers remain dubious; they haven't forgiven farming authorities since being misled about the spread of mad cow disease. The European Commission is trying to lift the moratorium, replacing it with legislation requiring that any food containing more than 0.9 percent modified ingredients be labeled. But given the way consumers feel about GM, such a change probably wouldn't make much difference.
Environmentalists hate it
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have come down hard on GM crops – especially in Europe, where they have more lobbying power. They argue that we won't know for decades the danger GM food poses to our health, and they're particularly concerned about the environment. They worry GM crops will overtake indigenous strains, kill species of feeding insects, and create superweeds. The groups also object to the influence that Big Ag companies like Dow and Monsanto have over American farmers – not to mention the cozy relationships between these corporations and US regulatory agencies.
Farmers are locked into it
GM seeds increase crop yields, save money on expensive pesticides, and reduce the need for fertilizer. But the EU's moratorium has cost US farmers $300 million in corn exports. With so much at stake, why don't farmers switch back? It's too expensive. And they can't grow both GM and standard crops – there's no accounting for airborne pollen.
Biotech execs are banking on it
Meanwhile, science marches on. Public biotech firms spend $15 billion a year on R&D and are about to release a new generation of products that contain everything from new genes to drugs and industrial chemicals. Epicyte Pharmaceuticals expects to begin clinical trials next year on a herpes antibody derived from corn. Which means the heated GM debate will only get hotter.
| START
| Why GM Food Could Start a Trade War
| The FBI’s Candyman Cases Go Sour
| Oh, Nooo! What If GPS Fails?
| 3 Ways to Rethink the Pay Phone
| The High Priest of the Atari Cult
