When hungry African nations voice their concern over genetically modified foods our own well-fed society may want to sit up and take notice.
A week before Christmas, when we were busy with holiday menus, Ethiopians were challenging genetically modified food aid flown in to the hungry nation from the United States. Regulation of genetically modified organisms imported or produced in Ethiopia was proposed at a conference on sustainable food security.
Ethiopia's agricultural sector is less productive today per capita than 24 years ago when Band Aid tried to defeat famine. Over half the land is arable but only 10 per cent has been cultivated, mostly because farmers are not allowed to own land.
If farmers owned the land they could use it as collateral on which to take out a loan to invest in better production. Instead, they face taxes on agricultural inputs and have difficulty getting credit with exorbitant interest rates if they are able to get a loan.
Hunger and poverty are complex political and social challenges exacerbated by illiteracy, lack of access to water, and poor healthcare, rather than by deficient agricultural production techniques.
Yet the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) views genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as 'necessary survival tools'. Science and technology adviser to the US Secretary of State Nina Federoff has remarked: "Developing an environmentally friendly agriculture for a hot and crowded planet will require the most advanced agricultural methods available, including GM techniques."
International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development by a bureau made up of the United Nations, World Bank and WHO, expresses more caution in a report about biotech crops:
"The possibility of patenting genetic modifications can attract investment in agricultural research but it also tends to concentrate ownership of resources, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and undermine local farming practices such as seed-saving that are especially important in developing countries".
The multi-stakeholder bureau also found that, because new techniques are rapidly being developed, longer-term assessments of environmental and health risks tend to lag behind discoveries.
The assessment concluded that problems in agriculture could be better solved if the focus were shifted to local priorities identified through transparent processes involving a full spectrum of stakeholders.
Consumer association director Yeshmachoch Mahiber, based in Addis Ababa, sums up consumer fears: "We are very much concerned about the impact of GMOs on the environment, including unknown effects on human health, ethics of interfering with nature, freedom of con-sumer choice and patenting life forms."
The American public has been largely unaware of GMOs in their food, although opinions became stronger after a genetically modified hormone, injected into dairy cows to increase milk yields, met with consumer opposition.
Ex-Monsanto corporation lawyer Michael Taylor, now appointed to US President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, has been widely credited with ushering recombinant bovine growth hormone through the regulatory process and into America's milk supply.
Retailers and producers moved to ban the hormone from their products. Wal-Mart, Safeway, Starbucks and Kraft reassured customers that only GM-free dairy products could be bought in their outlets.
After hefty investments and years of research, the GM industry is frustrated over what it sees as the EU's delay in approvals, denying it access to European markets. Approving a new GMO crop for cultivation has become almost impossible, with Austria, Greece and Luxembourg leading the vote against.
It is the unintended effects of GMOs that consumers are most wary about. A study published by the Austrian government last November identified impaired fertility in mice fed on genetically modified maize that had been approved for use in human food.
Action taken by Malta's department of public health when a health warning was issued in 2006 over the presence of unauthorised GMOs in two brands of rice on the local market has been dismissed as "somewhat reactive rather than proactive" by a source within the Health Department.
Responsibility for assessing risks of GM food (and, indirectly, animal feed) on human health lies with the Malta Standards Authority, which relies on reports prepared by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA).
Greenpeace criticised EFSA last May for contravening EU legal requirements. The authority came under attack for its flawed role in which a scientific opinion is translated into decision, without broader consideration of social or economic arguments for or against GMO crops.
European ministers sent a clear signal to the EU Commission last month on the need for wider assessment of impacts from GMOs. Guidelines on risk assessment must be revised by EFSA by March 2010.
A decision by the Council of Ministers in December now permits GMO-free zones in Europe. Under existing rules, a ban to protect biodiversity in fragile ecosystems such as Natura 2000 sites is favoured.
A conference on food and democracy will be held in Switzerland this April by the European movement of GMO-free regions, offering a platform for farmers, consumers environ-mental organisations and animal welfare groups.