Imagine starving people in southern Africa directly affecting the lifeblood of the American heartland. The latest scrutiny is from Zambia, a nation with an extreme food shortage due to drought. There, a population nearly that of Iowa faces imminent starvation.

In response to a World Food Program request, the United States has offered to donate more than 50,000 tons of corn to narrow the harvest shortfall. Famished Zambia refuses to accept genetically modified corn, with President Levy Mwanawasa alleging insufficient evidence of safety in the GM crop for him to allow it into his country. While many U.S. agriculture officials and biotechnology companies rushed to allay his fears, his concerns resonate throughout the Commonwealth nations, where a tradition of British regulatory caution prevails. Moreover, President Mwanawasa is concerned for the long-term food security of his nation – if genetically modified seeds are planted, their pollen will contaminate the traditional varieties of corn, leading to continued problems of isolation and the ultimate alteration and disappearance of currently cultivated varieties.

While we may dismiss President Mwanawasa’s refusal of the genetically modified food aid as irrational, reverting to the “beggars can’t be choosers” adage, the underlying message in his refusal is one we have been hearing in many forms from many African leaders: warning the rest of the world to respect their sovereignty. President Thabo Mbeki’s famous doubt on the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, President Daniel Moi’s recent threat to expel Western diplomats as the election nears, and even Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi and his surge of pan-Africanism are all symptomatic of continent-wide assertion of individuality and a strong desire to no longer be arrows in the bows of their benefactors.

Literally speaking, all hybrids have been genetically modified through traditional cross-breeding methods, improving them by selecting for traits within the species such as resistance to drought and robust stalks. The crops in question have been modified through insertion of genetic material from another species, a bacterium, which gives the crop pest resistance previously achieved through application of pesticide.

Nations like the United Kingdom, along with many of its former colonies, remain suspicious of genetically modified crops, citing inadequate research to prove that consumption of genetically modified crops is indeed safe for humans.

Despite the important considerations President Mwanawasa is making, Zambians will die without food. While it is hardly optimal for people to eat something they consider unsafe, it may be a temporary and necessary solution to save the people in Zambia, already so decimated by HIV/AIDS, from immediate starvation.

It is possible to extend food aid to Zambians without unduly compromising their ability to produce food in the future. Several alternatives exist. First, the United States could buy non-genetically modified food with the money earmarked for the Zambian aid project. However, such a plan seems unlikely considering the current U.S. surplus and government willingness to subsidize American agriculture.

Second, the genetically modified corn headed to Zambia could be milled in the United States so the likelihood that any seeds would be sown in Zambia is minimized. While providing enough food to counter this year’s famine, the United States would not give Zambia a new burden and further impair the nation’s ability to provide for its people.

Finally, the aid package could include a component of sustainability, ensuring that improved production methods are put in place to avert future famines of this magnitude.

Zambian officials’ refusal of genetically modified crops in the interest of the safety of the Zambian people should give those in the American agriculture industry pause for reflection. If we cannot even manage to give away a surplus of genetically modified foods to a starving African nation, how do we expect these crops to perform profitably on the world market? The United Kingdom, the European Union and China have antagonized U.S. GMO trade for years, citing public health concerns. While we are quick to accuse them of obstructing the free market, our agricultural subsidies have received the same criticism by others. Ultimately, the United States will have to decide the role of genetically modified crops in its food supply and devise a reliable system of isolation for regular hybrids. In the meantime, let our benevolence to Zambia be sincere, not backhanded.

Rachel Faber Machacha

is a graduate student in international development studies. She is the opinion editor of the Daily