bein g f orced t o accept a gif t . does n ’ t t h is worr y us as ......playing with hunger the...

PLAYING WITH HUNGERTHE REALITY BEHIND THE SHIPMENT OF GMOs AS FOOD AID

2002-©W

FP/R

. Lee

“It is very interesting to note that for the first time Zambia was being forced to accept a gift. Doesn’t this worry us as recipi-ents that the giver is insisting that we take the GM foods. Are the Americans just concerned about our stomachs or there is something behind the gift”

Zambia Daily Mail. November 5, 2002.

Friends of the Earth International

A publication of the FoEI GMO Programme

The GMO Programme is composed of FoE members and affiliates in Argentina,Australia, Benin, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Curacao, El Salvador, Europe, Ghana, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia,Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,South africa, Sri lanka, Togo, Tunisia, United states, Uruguay

Friends of the Earth International is a federation of autonomous environmentalorganizations from all over the world. Our members, in 68 countries, campaignon the most urgent environmental and social issues of our day, whilesimultaneously catalyzing a shift toward sustainable societies.

First edition April 2003Second edition July 2003

Contact information:

Friends of the Earth InternationalGenetically Modified Organisms ProgrammePO Box 191991000GD AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: 31 20 622 1369Fax: 31 20 639 21 81email: [email protected]

Pictures

p. 5: Courtesy of Acción Ecológica Ecuadorp. 6: Courtesy of Fobomade, Boliviap. 7: Courtesy of Centro Humboldt, Nicaraguap. 11-12: Source Muleka Luhila, F. 2000. Household Cassava Processing inZambia. PAM Training Guide n 1.

Printed on 100% recycled chlorine-free paper.


"It is very interesting to note that for the first time Zambia wasbeing forced to accept a gift. Doesn't this worry us as recipi-ents that the giver is insisting that we take the GM foods. Arethe Americans just concerned about our stomachs or there issomething behind the gift"

Zambia Daily Mail. November 5, 2002

Friends of the Earth InternationalGMO ProgrammeJuly 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A controversy over genetically modified(GM) food aid arose in 2000 and grewincreasingly in 2002, when severalSouthern African countries refused GMfood aid during a food crisis. Africancountries were presented with a falsechoice of either accepting GeneticallyModified Organisms (GMOs) or watch-ing people starve. This situation, whereGM food aid was presented often as theonly solution to hunger was advancedprimarily by the US which is alsoaggressively marketing GeneticallyModified (GM) crops in developingcountries.

GM crops and Hunger

Today it is widely recognized that GMcrops are not the solution to hunger,and are not at all on the priority list ofAfrican and other developing countries.Despite that, in 2003, President Bushand his Administration launched one ofthe biggest campaigns ever to convincedeveloping countries that GM crops area key to solving hunger in Africa.

Nations such as Zambia are asking theworld to provide non-GM food aid fromlocal sources and to provide assistancein achieving sustainable and diverseagriculture to avoid famine in thefuture. The fact that the US gives priori-ty to the promotion of GM crops in third

world countries, rather than promotingsolutions desired by recipient nations,is a major consequence of the econom-ic interest of the multibillion dollarbiotech industry in the US.

"Is it better to die than to eat GM food?"

This question, often raised in theSouthern Africa food crisis, presented ascenario where there is nothing but GMfood available. This scenario has beenproven incorrect, as other options werepossible - large quantities of non-GMfood were available to be used as foodaid and, indeed, were provided byJapan, members of the European Unionand other donor nations.

A real right to choose?

The World Food Programme (WFP)already operates on the principle thatall governments have the right tochoose to accept or reject GM food aid,and if accepted, to set terms for suchfood import. But that principle was notobserved during the Southern Africafood crisis in 2002, since alternativeswere not initially provided by the WFP.The WFP and the US Agency forInternational Development were awareof some countries refusing GM food aidas early as 2000, but ignored that con-cern when they failed to offer an alter-

native and failed to inform recipientnations about the GM content in theirshipments.

Another issue of serious concern aroseon May 15th 2003 when the US Senatepassed a bill tying assistance on AIDSto acceptance of GMOs.

The need for strict regulations on food aid

Food aid is being used, particularly bythe US, as a tool for facilitating exportsurpluses or as a marketing tool to cap-ture new markets. There is a need forstricter regulation of food aid in order toprevent it from being used as a market-ing tool. There is also an urgent need forrules governing food aid to be directedat achieving food security: respondingto local food needs, emphasizing localpurchasing, not undermining an ade-quate long-term food supply, and pro-viding direct grants rather than loansrequiring purchase of imports.

Some principles for food aid

Pressure to accept food aid or face star-vation should not happen again. US leg-islation to tie food aid, or financial aidfor AIDS prevention to the acceptanceof GM food aid is immoral and unac-ceptable. Instead, Friends of the Earthbelieves that donors (both countries

and international institutions such asthe WFP) should apply 5 principleswhen dealing with food aid:

1. Every country has the right to decidethe type of food it wants to accept forits citizens, and alternatives shouldalways be available. Third world coun-tries should not be faced again with thedilemma of either accepting GM foodaid or nothing. At the same time coun-tries that choose not to take GM foodaid should not be penalized or pun-ished. This principle should be ade-quately implemented and the alterna-tives should be real.

2. Food aid in cash should be increased,and local and regional purchases offood prioritized.

3. Each country should be informed andprior informed consent should be grant-ed before GM aid is introduced.

4. Food aid, which consists, contains ormay contain GMOs should be identifiedand labelled accordingly.

5. Assistance in the form of support fordevelopment of sustainable agriculturalpractices should be made a priority sothat all nations can avoid food crises inthe first place.

p a g e 4 P L A Y I N G W I T H H U N G E R

INTRODUCTION

A controversy over genetically modifiedfood aid arose in 2000 and grew increas-ingly in 2002, when several SouthernAfrican countries decided to refuse GMfood aid during a food crisis. Africancountries were presented with a falsechoice of either accepting GMOs orwatching people starve.

WFP and USAID ignored concerns

As very rightly pointed out by one faminerelief organization, Save the Children,when the controversy in Southern Africastarted in July 2002: "the GM issueshould have been anticipated earlier byall actors".i Indeed it should have beenanticipated and prevented. The WorldFood Programme (WFP) and the UnitedStates Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) were certainlyaware for some time previously of prob-lems and controversies over food aid andGMOs. In several countries between2000 and 2002, many complaints anddenouncements of the use of GMOs infood aid were issued. In one of the cases,a Latinamerican government evenordered in 2001 that the WFP stop usingGM ingredients in two food programmesand ordered the destruction of the GMmaterial. In 2001, an African governmentdid not allow US food aid in the countrybecause the US did not respect thelabelling standards set by domestic legis-lation.

Such cases and others described belowshow that WFP and USAID were veryaware of the concerns of developingcountries over food aid and GMOs longbefore the Southern Africa crisis hap-pened. Taking into account the controver-sy, and the scientific uncertainty sur-rounding the impacts of GM crops on thehuman health and the environment, theWFP had an obligation to inform therecipient countries of the type of food aid,and to offer and guarantee alternatives.

US pressure to force GM food aid

Particularly, the US Government has usedthe crisis to make a case for GM crops indeveloping countries. They have notrespected the concerns, nor the right tochoose of the recipient countries andhave put pressure on them to force theacceptance of GM food aid. ii

The US has even used the food crisis toattack the European Union (EU) moratori-um on GMOs, by accusing the EU of beingresponsible for the African rejection. EUleaders' response to the US has shownthe real motives of US policy behind theirattacks: "Food aid to Southern Africashould be about meeting the urgenthumanitarian needs of those who arestarving. It should not be about trying toadvance the case for GM food, or plant-ing GM crops for export, or finding outletsfor domestic surplus. This in turn isimmoral." iii

P L A Y I N G W I T H H U N G E R p a g e 5

FOOD AID AND GMOs: CASE STUDIES

Since 2000, the fact that GMOs wereintroduced via food aid shipments inregions and countries without prior infor-mation, or where GM food was notallowed has been severely criticized bycivil society groups and in some casesmet with recipient government opposi-tion.iv

Ecuador: ordered destruction of GMFood

In 2000, Ecuador received a large foodaid donation which included 30,000 met-ric tonnes (MT) of bulk soya paste. TheWFP sold these products, and the moneyobtained was used in food aid programsfor low-income sectors, especially indige-nous populations.v Civil society groupsmonitored food donations in 2001, andfound out that the soya was geneticallymodified. In the two programmes moni-tored, one aimed at children betweenages of 6 months and 2 years and theother at 90,000 lactating mothers.Nutrisoya (imported soya from the UnitedStates) was used in spite of technicalstipulations stating that national prod-ucts should be used.vi GM ingredients

were forbidden also by the technicalrequirements of such programmes.vii

After the findings the Director General ofthe Ecuadorian Health Ministry stated inMay 2001 that "we will not allow thesetypes of products to be consumed in thecountry, especially if we take into accountthat both products are destined to chil-dren under 6 years of age, and pregnantmothers".viii In a letter addressed to theWorld Food Programme (WFP) by theEcuadorian Minister of Social Welfare in2001, the WFP representative was told tostop the production of the two productswith GM ingredients unless the WFP issure they don´t contain GMOs. TheEcuadorian authorities ordered thedestruction of the product which con-tained raw GM material.ix They alsodecided not to stop the food relief pro-grammes but asserted that aid could bereplaced by quinoa, beans or non-GMOsoya existing at the national level.

Bolivia: StarLink found in USAID donation

In May 2001, in Bolivia, civil societygroups denounced the presence of GMingredients in food aid sent by the US.x

Ecuadorian children protesting against the use of GMOs in food aid programmes in 2001


Despite a moratorium at that time on theintroduction of GM food in the country,the US violated those measures. The USambassador Manuel Rocha said "Thosewho don't want our donation should nottravel to our country, because this is theonly food we can offer to our visitors".xi

One year later, in May 2002 the groupsdiscovered in US food aid sent to Bolivia,StarLink, a genetically modified variety ofmaize not authorized in theUS for human consumption,despite the promise by DanGlickman, Secretary of theU.S. Department ofAgriculture in 2000 that theagency would make sureStarLink did not enter foodaid.xii When this variety wasfound in the US food supplyit was immediately recalled.Nevertheless, despite theletters written to USAID to take similar measures inBolivia, US authorities didnot do anything.

Colombia: GM soya with-drawn from food aid pro-grammes

In Colombia, US food aid containing GMingredients was found in May 2001.xiii

The levels of GM content found in thesamples tested were as high as 90%, thehighest levels documented to date. Afterthe discovery, the GM soya was with-drawn from national food aid pro-grammes aimed at young children.xiv

Nicaragua: contaminated corn seedsent as food aid to a center of origin ofcorn

Civil society groups in Nicaraguadenounced the presence of GM ingredi-ents in food aid samples in June 2002. Ina news release dated May 24, 2002, theWorld Food Program declared that "TheWFP does not distribute food that is not

acceptable for human con-sumption by the citizens ofthe producing countries(donor countries) and bythe countries that receivethe food assistance".However one of the seedsamples donated byGermany via WFP testedpositive for GMO content at3.8%, which would notrespect the labeling stan-dards existing in Germany,and would therefore not beallowed on German grocerystore shelves. The organi-zations that made the find-ings raised the concernthat food aid with GM seedmay be another pathway of

genetically engineered crops into thebirthplaces of corn, creating a form of biological pollution that cannot berecalled.xv

Guatemala: WFP says not to allowGMOs

Civil society groups from Guatemala alsodenounced the existence of GM ingredi-ents in food aid in the form of corn seed

US Food Aid bag whereStarLink was found in Boliviain 2002


from the WFP in June 2002.xvi The GMOswere not authorized in the EU and thefact that Guatemala as well asNicaragua, is a center of origin of cornraised the concern that corn as food aidcould contaminate Guatemalan corn. TheGM presence was a contradiction to pre-vious statements by the World FoodProgramme in Guatemala, which said inApril 2002 that "All food given by the WFPis certified by the health authorities ofthe Minister of Agriculture, Ranching andFood and the Minister of Public Healthand Social Assistance in order not toallow the introduction of GM products".xvii

Uganda: Food aid not allowed for lackof labelling

In 2001, Uganda did not allow theentrance of a consignment of corn soyblend which was part of a US food forpeace agreement, because it was con-trary to the nation's labelling require-ments. The Uganda National Bureau ofStandards noted that the food aid did not

indicate the list of ingredients, the nameand address of manufacturers, norinstructions for use.xviii

India: US food aid rejected by government

The first documented complaint aboutthe shipment of GMOs in food aidoccurred in June 2000, in India, whenfood aid donated by the USAID and WFPcontaining GMOs was denounced.xix InDecember 2002, India rejected a largeshipment of food aid from the UnitedStates because it contained geneticallymodified ingredients.xx

A. M. Gokhale, chairman of the Indiancommittee that rejected the consignmentlast year said that "if there is reason tobelieve that there may be damage tohuman health, we have the right to rejectany import." Among the concerns raisedby the competent authorities was the factthat there was no full guarantee thatStarLink GM corn not authorized forhuman consumption in the US was not infood aid.

Several agencies like CARE-India and theCatholic Relief Services (CRS) pushed theIndian Government to allow the authori-zation in the beginning of 2003, butagain in March the Genetic EngineeringApproval Committee (GEAC) rejected it.The Committee stated that one of theimportant causes was the fact thatimporters of the food aid didn't want tocertify the consignments as StarLink-free.xxi

WFP Food aid bag donated by Germany toNicaragua where GM contaminated maizegrain was found


In December 2002 StarLink was againfound in Japanese imports of US corn.Paradoxically the introduction of US foodaid is being pushed while India has 65 million tonnes of surplus non-GM wheator rice in their Food Cooperation stocks.xxii

Eastern Europe: US food aid withdrawnin Bosnia

In January 2001 Bosnian authoritiesasked US officials about donated cornand demanded thorough information onpossible effects on both humans and ani-mals. The US did not reply, but chosedinstead to withdraw a four million dollardonation of 40,000 tonnes of geneticallyengineered corn for animal feed.xxiii

THE SOUTHERN AFRICA REFUSAL

In 2002 a food crisis affected many coun-tries in Southern Africa, namely Angola,Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho,Mozambique and Swaziland. Zimbabwewas the first country that rejected USfood aid. Others followed. After a fewmonths some of them accepted food aidmilled to at least avoid the prospect ofaccidental planting of GM seed from food

aid. Only Zambia decided to reject GMfood aid as both grain and milled.

The right to choose impaired

African countries that decided to take aprecautionary approach to GM food aidand asked for non-GMO food aid were ini-tially left with little choice. The US andeven the WFP told them they shouldaccept some GM content. The right tochoose was clearly impaired. Anunnamed US official even said that "beg-gars can´t be choosers".

But African consumers leaders who metin Zambia in November 2002 establishedtheir position on GMOs and food securityand reaffirmed the right to choose as acornerstone for consumers. "Consumershave the right to choose what they wantto eat (…) such decisions must berespected".xxiv

Providing real alternatives: the role of donors

The WFP already operates on the princi-ple that all governments have the right tochoose to accept or reject GM food aid,and if accepted, set terms for such foodimport.xxv At the same time the EU hasalready expressed a clear position on thisand stated that "choices for developingcountries should not be limited to "acceptGM food aid or starve." xxvi

But the principle should be associatedwith a real mechanism of implementa-tion, which guarantees that those coun-tries effectively have a choice. That did

"As the concerned parties are not willingto certify that the said consignmentwould not contain any traces of Starlinkcorn or any other GM traces hazardousto human health, the committee, undercircumstances, is unable to permit suchimports."

Indian Genetic Engineering ApprovalCommittee (GEAC). March 2003


not happen during the Southern Africacrisis. As Norway's Minister ofDevelopment acknowledged "This princi-ple should be real and not illusive. Thecurrent situation does not seem to pro-vide countries with sufficient choice. Infact, if GM-food is offered in an emer-gency situation, and no other competitivealternatives are provided, neither inquantity nor in price, significant pressurewill be the result when there is foodscarcity".

Several countries though, decided tofinance food aid in cash which wouldrespect the desires of the recipient coun-tries. Japan, the Netherlands, Norway,

and the EU Community have sent finan-cial resources for the purchase of non-GM food for those countries which madethat choice. The overall EU (EUCommunity and the Member States)response to the Southern Africa humani-tarian crisis amounts to 326 million euro,which is equivalent to 40% of the totalneeds of the region. This amount wasdestined primarily for the hardest hitcountries, i.e. Zimbabwe, Malawi andZambia. 90% of the food aid given by the

EU Commission is given for purchases atthe local and regional levels so as not todisrupt local markets or local consump-tion habits.xxvii

Prior informed consent and labelling

In order to guarantee the right to choose,the WFP and other donors should haveinformed recipient countries about theGM content and requested prior informedconsent. The Southern Africa Develop-ment Community (SADC) guidelines onGMOs recommend that "Food aid thatcontains or may contain GMOs has to bedelivered with the prior informed consentof the recipient country",xxviii and that allconsignments have to be clearly identi-fied and labelled in accordance withnational legislation or in accordance withArticle 11 of the OAU African Model Lawon Safety in Biotechnology.xxix

Environmental and health concerns

GMOs have been introduced too quicklywithout adequate knowledge about theirimpacts on health and the environment.

The shipment of whole corn kernels asfood aid raised the concern over geneticcontamination because the GM graincould be planted in countries without anybiosafety regulation, and without capaci-ty to deal with GM crops. Those concernsinclude negative impact on agro-ecosys-tems, such as development of resistancein target insect pests, harmful effects onnon-target insects, development of herbi-cide tolerance in weeds, and genetic ero-sion or loss of traditional crop diversity as

p a g e 1 0 P L A Y I N G W I T H H U N G E R

a result of genetic contamination throughcross-fertilization. To avoid these poten-tial risks most of the countries decidedthat the GM food aid should at least bemilled, so grain would not be planted.

But milling the maize did not take intoaccount any possible potential riskderived from the consumption of GMfood. According to Norway's Minister ofInternational Development, "there mightalso be a probability of higher risk whenone is in a food crisis situation, consum-ing only one GMO-product over time".xxx

Many third world based organizationshave been very critical on this aspect andconsidered that the "assumptions onalleged GM food safety are based on alimited range of experiments that do nottake into account the specific situation ofpeople in developing countries".xxxi It istheir opinion that populations fed viafood aid are particularly vulnerable dueto malnutrition and lack of food, espe-cially children, and any potential dangerthat these foods may present wouldincrease when an immune-depressedpopulation consumes them. According toUK Chief Scientist Professor David Kingforcing GM foods into Africa as food aid is"a massive human experiment".xxxii

"Is it better to die than to eat GMfood?"

This question, often raised in theSouthern Africa food crisis, presented ascenario where there was nothing but GMfood available. This lack of choice wasillusory and has since been provenwrong. Alternatives could have been

made available and are now being madeavailable in large quantities. Currentresearch shows that there is enough non-GM maize and non-GM cereals in theworld that could have been sent to thosecountries which decided not to acceptGM food, from the African region, India,and Mexico. Even in the US it has beenshown that there is non-GM corn thatcould be sent.xxxiii

The WFP argued, despite those facts,that the main problem would be to meetthe short term food needs at the end of2002. Particularly regarding Zambia,which was the only country to decide notto accept food aid either in grain form ormilled, the WFP said that it would beimpossible to mobilize non-GM food fastenough, since to organize those opera-tions requires considerable time andresources.

But, again, the lack of choice was illusorysince Zambian NGOs pledged to be ableto quickly mobilize surpluses of tradition-al foods available in the country, like cas-sava, to food deficit areas, if financialresources were available.

Zambia: Using traditional foods as oneof the key elements to overcome thefood crisis

The drought season in Zambia affectedparticularly the southern part of thecountry leaving local maize suppliesclearly insufficient. However the northernpart of the country, particularly NorthWestern Province was food secure due tothe fact that cassava was the main staple

P L A Y I N G W I T H H U N G E R p a g e 1 1

food. Cassava, one of the traditionalfoods in Zambia, was estimated to be insurpluses of around 300.000 MT in thenorthern parts of the country.

The Zambian government asked the WFPto use traditional foods in the crisis. ''Wehave traditional foods in abundance. I donot know why there is this maize maniawhen some of our provinces do not evengrow maize, traditionally,'' said Mundia Sikatana, Zambia's minister of agricul-ture.xxxiv

Particularly cas-sava has a longhistory of beingused as a keycrop for foodsecurity. But,cassava was not even included in the cal-culations of the food deficit of the coun-try, and the WFP has not considered it asa possible alternative for the crisis.Cassava apparently has been consideredby WFP as an inferior food, though it iseaten by more than 200 million people in

Africa and constitutes the main staplefood of 30% of the Zambia population.xxxv

''If we can buy cassava then we have wonthe war on this hunger and farmers willbecome solvent to produce more food forthe next season,'' said Sikatana.

A coalition of groups comprised ofchurches and non-governmental organi-zations (NGOs), working with theZambian government formed an allianceto raise funds to buy cassava from areasof surplus and distribute it to the food-

deficit areas.xxxvi

Despite therecognition thatit was a goodproject, the WFPhas refused asof April 2002 to

give support to such an initiative.

Taking into account that the WFP inZambia channels the financial resourcesof donors and coordinates all food reliefefforts, their refusal has prevented theproject from being implemented.

Cassava leaves

WFP refused to finance cassava as food aid inZambia. Instead, the WFP brought barley fromthe United States, which is not a staple foodin the country and is only used in Zambia forproducing beer.

Cassava tubers


Cassava in Zambia

Cassava is a major staple food in most ruralhouseholds in the northern Zambia. The frequentdroughts experienced in Zambia in the recent pasthave made cassava especially vital for the ruralfarming community. Cassava requires little rainand therefore makes it very good crop for droughtvulnerable areas.

It is important to note that consumption of poorlyprocessed cassava could lead or expose con-sumers to unnecesaary negative effects.Fortunately, there are so many methods of pro-cessing cassava that remove the toxic effects.Besides an example of the method of producingquality cassava flour, which involves the followingstages: After the cassava is harvested it should beinmediately peeled (1), washed (2), grated (3),dewatered, dried, and grinded or milled (4).

Every part of cassava is useful. The roots are usedfor energy provision in people´s diets, the leavesused as relish contain protein, iron and vitaminsas well as provision of relish. The stem is the plant-ing material for propagation or future production.

Also it can be stored in the soil for a long time andonly harvested when needed, minimising storagelosses.

More than 200 million people in Africa depend oncassava. In Zambia cassava is the main source ofenergy in Luapula Province, North Western,Northern and parts of Western Province.

Source: Muleka Luhila, F. 2000. Household CassavaProcessing in Zambia.

PAM Training Guide n 1.


Instead, the WFP brought barely from theUnited States, which is not a staple foodin the country and is only used in Zambiafor producing beer. This goes clearlyagainst the principle that food aid shouldbe socially and culturally acceptable torecipient countries.

THE WRONG POLICIES OF FOOD AID

Another problem is related to food aid perse. Food aid in kind has been criticizedfor being more damaging than helpful. Asthe development organization OXFAM

said: "Food aid programs have historical-ly been used inappropriately with indus-trialized countries using them to disposeof surpluses and create food dependen-cies".xxxvii Dr. Wilma Salgado, Ecuadorianeconomist and former employee of theWorld Food Programme said that "Thewrongly called "Food Aid" is in reality anaid to northern farmers in order to widentheir market.xxxviii

Indeed, the US has used its food aid pro-grammes not only to get rid of its agricul-ture surpluses but also as a tool to opennew markets. A Research Service for theUS Congress presented a report in 1994recognizing that food aid has been animportant tool for the spreading of com-mercial markets for American agriculturalproducts exports.xxxix

US Agribusiness corporations such asCargill and ADM which control most of US

"There is a value to the United States inthat food aid can open up new andemerging markets down the road"

John Miller, Chairman of the NorthAmerican Export Grain Association

Milling & Baking News, March 11, 2003

US Agribusiness Corporations are the winners

“The corruption of aid delivery can be seen from the point of origin. Eighty percent ofthe funds for the goods and services provided through Public Law 480 (US Food AidProgramme) do not go to meet needs in developing countries; rather they are spentin the US.

On the macro-level, food aid has further benefits to the US. Eligibility for food aidassistance is often more closely attuned to the market potential of recipient countrymarkets than their need. For example, in 2002, Peru , with its abundant naturalresources, received the same amount of food aid –about $40 million worth- asEthiopia, a country with three times the population but very little to offer the US inthe way of markets. That said, without careful articulation with local marketeconomies, food aid in quantity has also been shown to undermine local farmers andtheir markets because of the dumping of unregulated food aid by agribusiness.”

Source: OXFAM America Briefing Note. March 2003. US Export Credits: Denials and Double Standars.


corn exports have been one of the mainbeneficiaries of US food aid Programmes.

Linking HIV support to the acceptanceof GM food aid

An issue of serious concern arose on May15th 2003 when the US Senate passed abill tying assistance on AIDS to accept-ance of GMOs. The United States Leader-ship Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, andMalaria Act of 2003 urges African statesto accept GM food aid, implying this is acondition for release of assistancefunds.xl USAID implements programs onAIDS/HIV in more than 50 countries.xli InJanuary 2003 the Bush Administrationannounced the Emergency Plan for AIDSrelief which would provide $15 billionover five years.xlii This initiative targetsspecifically the 14 most affected coun-tries in Africa and the Caribbean. Severalcountries where GM food aid has beenrejected due to concerns over GM food,like India and Zambia are also recipientsof US AIDS assistance.

Promoting local/regional purchases offood aid

The most adequate system of food aid isthe one given in cash that purchases thefood locally or regionally: "the EU's ownpolicy is to source food aid regionally,thus ensuring that the countries in needreceive the foodstuffs to which they areaccustomed as well as helping localeconomies."xliii Local purchase also con-tributes to the development of local mar-kets, reduces costs, and improves timing."Whenever possible, these purchases

should be made from local producers'organizations, thereby promoting theiraccess to the market".xliv

The option of cassava in Zambia is anexample of a good alternative for the foodcrisis since cassava growers in the northdon't have adequate markets. Using cas-sava would improve the livelihoods oflocal producers and also benefit peoplein the south of the country. Despite that,Richard Ragan, the WFP representativein Zambia was quoted saying that the reg-ulations prevented him from buying foodlocally: ''the government has been askingus to use the funds mobilised to buy foodlocally but we are constrained by our reg-ulations''.xlv

GM CROPS AS THE SOLUTION TOHUNGER?

The US has been strongly promoting GMcrops as a solution for hunger in develop-ing countries, as they did during theWorld Food Summit in June 2002. At thatSummit the US Agriculture Secretary AnnVeneman said "Biotechnology hastremendous potential to develop prod-ucts that can be more suited to areas ofthe world where there is persistenthunger". The United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID)launched a 10 year, 100 million dollarcalled Collaborative AgricultureBiotechnology Initiative to invest inresearch of GM varieties in developingcountries.xlvi

Being really committed to solving hungerwould mean supporting a comprehensive


policy to eradicate the causes of povertyand hunger. However, the US policy onagricultural subsidies clearly shows thereal face of the US. The US Farm Billadopted in May 2002 subsidizing USfarmers at 15-20 billion dollars per yearfor crops alone works directly against theinterests of the developing world wherehunger problems are most acute. Thosesubsidies unfairly encourage the US tosell crops often below the price at whichfarmers in other countries can growthem. This depresses food prices forthese farmers and ultimately undercutsthe capacity of their nations to grow food.Far from being a free market, the USdumping of subsidized crops puts localfarmers at a competitive disadvantage,forcing many out of business and con-tributing to the need for food aid.Subsidized US food aid then completes aviscious cycle. As the BrazilianAgriculture Minister Marcus de Moraessaid: "If we could eliminate all these sub-sidies for just 24 days, we would elimi-nate hunger in the world". Thozo Didiza,agriculture minister for South Africa, said"The signal they (the United States) haveindicated does not bode well for develop-ing countries and reducing hunger in theworld".xlvii

WTO: Bush attack on EU GMO moratori-um as a cause of hunger in Africa

Beginning May 2003, the issue ofGenetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)in food aid faced renewed controversy. Inthe World Trade Organisation (WTO) casefiled by the US against the EU in May, theUS Government blamed the EU moratori-um on GMOs as the cause of African

rejection of GM food aid.xlviii PresidentBush in his speech to thousands of par-ticipants in a biotech conference inWashington, D.C. on June 23rd said that"For the sake of a continent threatenedby famine, I urge the European govern-ments to end their opposition to biotech-nology".xlix

The European Union found US Govern-ment accusations as unacceptable, andasserted that developing countries have"their own legitimate right to fix their ownlevel of protection and to take the deci-sion they deem appropriate to preventunintentional dissemination of GMseeds".l

The real causes of hunger

GM crops are not the right answer to thecauses of hunger and poverty in southerncountries and clearly are not going to

(African) Countries have not adoptedbiotechnologies not because of EUrestrictions, but rather for other rea-sons, such as lack of suitable technolo-gies, and lack of regulatory laws andcapacity. Consequently, no sub-SaharanAfrican nation joined the US's challengeto Europe's ban, and even Egypt with-drew from the complaint. In contrast, 20African countries have filed petitionsagainst the United State's own cottonsubsidies.

Third World Network. 2003. Geneticallymodified crops and sustainable poverty alle-

viation in Sub-Saharan Africa: an assess-ment of current evidence.


address the underlying political and eco-nomic causes of hunger.

In the Southern Africa food crisis, forexample, the model of agriculture liberal-isation imposed by international financialinstitutions has been considered one ofthe key causes of poverty and food inse-curity. Affected countries includeMozambique, Zambia and Malawi. In 15years, those countries have been pushedtowards radical reforms of their agricul-tural sectors to asystem purport-edly based onfree markets.Those reformswere part oflending condi-tions placed bydonors like theWorld Bank orthe International Monetary Fund (IMF)and supported by most donor countries.It is widely documented that the disman-tlement of the state's role in agriculture inthose countries has accentuated povertyand undermined food security.li

Technological solutions such as GMcrops will not tackle the key causes ofhunger. As the magazine New Scientistsays "The real causes of hunger in Africaare poverty, debt, a lack of infrastructureand the Western farm subsidies thatmake it difficult for African growers tocompete in world markets. Today´s GMcrops will not ease any of these prob-lems. They might even make themworse".lii

Corporate control of the food chain

GM crops are not at all a priority in the listof the key needs of Africa and otherdeveloping countries. The fact that theUS gives priority to the promotion of GMcrops in developing countries, rather thanpromoting solutions preferred by recipi-ent countries, is a major consequence ofthe economic interest of the multibilliondollar biotech industry in the US.

The role of corpora-tions in the promo-tion of GM crops isclear. Christian Aidresearch into thebiotechnology indus-try's involvement inrural economies ofthree developingcountries concluded

that "genetic modification is being usedto increase farmers' dependence on thecompanies themselves … and reveals aconsolidation of control over the foodchain in the hands of a small number ofcompanies whose primary motivation isprofit and not the best interests of devel-oping country agriculture".liii Five devel-opment and food relief organizations inthe UK (Action Aid, CAFOD, Christian Aid,Oxfam, and Save the Children) are con-cerned about the fact that "the develop-ment and marketing of GM technology isconcentrating power over food produc-tion in a very few companies. With littleeffective capacity at the national leveland no mechanism at the internationallevel to regulate corporations, the trend

“Genetic modification is being used toincrease farmers' dependence on thecompanies themselves … and reveals aconsolidation of control over the foodchain in the hands of a small number ofcompanies whose primary motivation isprofit and not the best interests of devel-oping country agriculture”.


in market concentration raises seriousquestions about the influence largetransnational corporations may wieldover every aspect of the food supply ….There is a danger that the hasty applica-tion of GM technology and the spread ofpatented GM crops may further acceler-ate this trend".liv

Monsanto is at the forefront of the pro-motion of GM crops worldwide. Seedswith Monsanto traits accounted in 2001for more than 90% of the hectares plant-ed worldwide with biotech crops. One ofthe key strategies of Monsanto is to opennew markets. The company is very active-ly pushing many GM crops in developingcountries like Brazil, India and thePhilipines.lv

GM crops today not suitable for Africa

A recent assessment done in 2003 of GMCrops in Africa gives more evidenceabout their inability to alleviate poverty. Itexamined three GM crops in Africa atpresent -- GM cotton, sweet potatoes andmaize - and concluded that in generaltheir nature is inappropriate for povertyalleviation in sub-Saharan Africa. Thereport shows also that genetic modifica-tion is a relatively ineffective and expen-sive tool, and the evidence assembled inthe report supported the view that "thereare better ways to feed Africa than GMcrops".lvi

Moreover, Mr. Bush's State Departmentnotes on its development agency websitethat genetically engineered corn sent to

Africa as food aid "would be expected toperform poorly in African growing condi-tions" and is "not well suited for plant-ing".lvii This is a concern, since it is a com-mon practice of food aid recipients inrural areas to save a part of the grain forplanting. Farmers in famine strickenareas who plant U.S. biotech corn canexpect lower yields and less food in thefuture.

Towards sustainable agriculture andfood security?

GM crops are driving agriculture into fur-ther industrialization focusing on produc-ing cash crops to be sold on world mar-kets rather than meeting the needs oflocal communities and promoting agricul-tural biodiversity which plays a key role infood security and food sovereignty.

According to a letter by the UK faminerelief groups, the trends towards GMmove away "from support for sustainableagriculture approaches that meet theneeds of the poor and hungry in develop-ing countries".lviii The model of GM cropsin agriculture fosters increasing depend-ence on pesticides and use of monocul-tures, threatening the environment andendangering food security. Diversity iskey for sustainable agriculture and foodsecurity. The Southern Africa crisis inZambia shows, for example, that localcommunities which didn't cultivate onesingle crop like maize, but multi-croppedwith traditional staple foods like cassava,were still food secure in the face ofdrought and a maize failure.lix


The large scale introduction and furtherhomogenization with transgenic cropswill exacerbate the ecological vulnerabili-ty already associated with monocultureagriculture. At present there are alterna-tives that are cheaper, more accessible,more productive in marginal environ-ments and culturally and socially moreacceptable.lx

THE WAY FORWARD

Applying the precautionary principle

GMOs are being introduced too quicklyand without adequate knowledge abouttheir environmental, health and socioeco-nomic impacts. Friends of the EarthInternational, on the basis of the precau-tionary principle, supports the right of anycountry to impose a moratorium or banon the introduction of GMOs into the envi-ronment and the food chain, until inocu-ity of GMOs has been proven throughcomprehensive and independently con-ducted assessments.

Promoting Sustainable Alternatives

The promotion of GM crops as the solu-tion to hunger is undermining PresidentBush's own stated goal of feeding theworld. GM crops today are inappropriatefor African conditions and inadequate toalleviate poverty. There are better ways tocope with hunger, and those should beprioritized.

The need for strict regulations on food aid

Food aid is being used, particularly by theUS, as a tool for facilitating export of sur-pluses or as a marketing tool to generatemore sales. There is a need for stricterregulation of food aid in order to preventit from being used as a marketing tool.There is an urgent need for rules govern-ing food aid aimed at achieving foodsecurity like responding to local foodneeds, emphasizing local purchasing, notundermining an adequate long-term foodsupply, and providing direct grants ratherthan loans requiring purchase of imports.

Some principles for food aid

Pressure to accept food aid or face star-vation should not happen again. US legis-lation to tie food aid, or financial aid forAIDS prevention to the acceptance of GMfood aid is immoral and unacceptable.

Friends of the Earth believes the follow-ing principles should be applied bydonors when dealing with food aid andGMOs:

1. Every country has the right to decidethe type of food it wants to accept for itscitizens, and alternatives to GM food aidshould always be available. Third Worldcountries should not be faced again withthe dilemma of taking GM food aid ornothing. At the same time countries thatchoose not to take GM food aid shouldnot be penalized or punished. This princi-ple should be adequately implemented


and the alternatives should be real.

2. Each country should be informed andprior informed consent should be grantedbefore GM aid is introduced.

3. Food aid which consists, contains ormay contain GMOs should be identifiedand labelled accordingly.

4. Food aid in cash should be increased,and local and regional purchases of foodprioritized. This would allow a betterimplementation of the principle that foodaid should be cultural and socially ade-quate to the recipient countries.

5. Assistance in the form of support fordevelopment of sustainable agriculturalpractices should be made a priority sothat all nations can avoid food crises inthe first place.

i Save the Children. 2002. Evolution of aCrisis. A Save the Children UK perspective.September 2002.ii For more information see: FoEI. 2002. USWrecks Earth Summit. Press Release 4thSeptember.iii EU Commissioners Pascal Lamy, FranzFischler, Poul Nielson, David Byrne, MargotWallström, Chris Patten. 2003. EU Doesn'tTell Africa GM Foods Are Unsafe - Letter to theEditor of The Wall Street Journal Europe 21January 2003.iv AP. 2002. As food summit wraps up, criti-cism of biotech and good intentions heats up.12 June 2002. See Centro Humboldt, AcciónEcológica, Fobomade, Colectivo Madre Selva,FoEI. 2002. StarLink and other forbiddenGMOs found in Food Aid sent to Latinamerica.Press Release June 10 2002.v Acción Ecológica, Instituto de Estudios

Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo, RALLT. 2002.World Food Summit: Food aid and GMOsvi Acción Ecológica, Instituto de EstudiosEcologistas del Tercer Mundo, RALLT. 2002.World Food Summit: Food aid and GMOsvii Ministerio de Salud Pública. 2000.Especificaciones Técnicas: bebida fortificada.PANN 2000. Programa Nacional deAlimentación y Nutrición.viii El Universo (Ecuador). 2001. Investigaciónde transgénicos. Mayo. http://www.eluniver-so.comix Reuters. 2001. Ecuador asks US food aidcontain no biotech crops. 15/5/2001;Ministerio de Bienestar Social Ecuatoriano.2001. Carta a la representante del ProgramaMundial de Alimentos. 30/3/2001.x Molina, P. 2001. Cronología, primeras solici-tudes, pruebas de campo, ayuda alimentariain Los transgénicos en el contexto de Bolivia,Memoria del Seminario 12 y 13 diciembre de2001; Reuters. 2002. Biotech controversyensnares US food donations. June 12 2002.xi La Prensa (Bolivia). 2002. Rocha: a quienno le guste la donación que no vaya a EE.UU.May 8th 2002.xii Le Monde. 2002. Le sujet des OGM troublele Sommet mondial de l'alimentation.12/6/02.xiii Fobomade, Acción Ecológica, ConsumidoresColombia. 2001. Genetically EngineeredIngredients found in food aid in Bolivia,Colombia and Ecuador. Press Release May15, 2001.xiv Consumers International. 2003.CorporateControl of the food chain: the GM link:18xv Friends of the Earth International. 2002.GMO Contamination around the world.See http://www.foei.org/gmo/index.htmlxvi Reuters. 2002. UN Slammed for distributingGM corn in Guatemala. 13 June 2002.xvii World Food Programme. 2002. Letteraddressed to the Newspaper "El Periódico"the 1st of April 2002.xviii Uganda National Bureau of Standards.2001. Letter to the Permanent Secretary

22/11/2001xix Food First. 2000. Food aid in the new mille-nium: Genetically Engineered food and for-eign assistance. Food First Fact Sheet,December 2000; Le Monde. 2000. L'aide ali-mentaire, vecteur des céréales trans-géniques. 17/10/2000.xx Financial Times. 2002. India rejects foodaid over GM content. January 2 2003.xxi Financial Express. 2003. GEAC Once AgainSays `No' To Proposed GM Corn-Soya BlendImports. New Delhi, March 6xxii Letter from The National Alliance of Womenfor Food Rights to Care InternationalSecretariat. 19th February 2003.xxiii Agence France Presse. 2001. 30 January.xxiv Press Release Consumers International.2002. African consumer leaders adopt a criti-cal position with respect to GMOs and theirimplications for food security in the region.xxv WFP. 2002. WFP policy on donations offoods derived from biotechnology. PolicyIssues: Executive Board, Third RegularSession, Rome, 21-25 October 2002.WFP/EB.3/2002/4Cxxvi EU Commissioners Pascal Lamy, FranzFischler, Poul Nielson, David Byrne, MargotWallström, Chris Patten. 2003. EU Doesn'tTell Africa GM Foods Are Unsafe - Letter to theEditor of The Wall Street Journal Europe 21January 2003.xxvii The Courier, the magazine of ACP-EU devel-opment cooperation. 2002. Biotech and thepoor: a solution to the famine in SouthernAfrica?. November-December 2002.xxviii SADC Plant Genetic Resources Board.2002. Guidelines on genetically modifiedorganism in SADC.xxix "Article 11. Identification and labelling Any genetically modified organism or productof a genetically modified organism shall beclearly identified and labelled as such, andthe identification shall specify the relevanttraits and characteristics given in sufficientdetail for purposes of traceability.Any genetically modified organism or any

product of a genetically modified organismshall be clearly labelled and packaged, andshall comply with such further requirementsas may be necessary to indicate that it is, orhas been derived from, a genetically modifiedorganism, and, where applicable, whether itmay cause allergies or pose other risks."xxx Johnson. F. H., Minister for InternationalDevelopment of Norway. Extract from speech"Globalisation, food and freedom" on the 5thof February 2003.xxxi Third World Network et al. 2002. Open let-ter to the Government of the United States ofAmerica, the World Food Programme, theWorld Health Organisation, and the Food andAgriculture Organisation. Don´t pressure hun-gry peoples to accept GM food aid. 2September 2002.xxxii The Observer. 2002. Blair urges crackdownon third world profiteering. 1/9/2002xxxiii GRAIN. 2002. Better dead than GM Fed?See www.grain.org; Greenpeace. 2002. USAIDand GM Food Aid. See www.greenpeace.orgxxxiv IPS. 2003. Traditional Foods in Abundanceto Feed 3m Starving People. January 2.xxxv Muleka Luhila, F. 2000. HouseholdCassava Processing in Zambia. PAM TrainingGuide n 1.xxxvi Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection.2002. Alternatives to maize for Zambia foodCrisis. See video and appeal onhttp://www.foe.org/foodaidxxxvii OXFAM International. 2002. Oxfam con-demns the distribution of food aid contami-nated with Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs). Press Release June 12 2002.xxxviii Dr. Salgado W. 2001. Food Aid orExportations Aid? Paper presented at theseminar on Food Aid and GMOs organized inEcuador in August 2001 by Acción Ecológica.xxxix Idem.xl H.R.1298 United States Leadership AgainstHIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of2003 passed the Senate on May 15th."(g) SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TOFOOD ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS LIVING



WITH HIV/AIDS-(1) FINDINGS- Congress finds the following:(C) Although the United States is willing to

provide food assistance to these countries inneed, a few of the countriesobject to part or all of the assistance becauseof fears of benign genetic modifications to thefoods.(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is therefore thesense of Congress that United States foodassistance should be accepted by countrieswith large populations of individuals infectedor living with HIV/AIDS, particularly Africancountries, in order to help feed such individu-als." (Note that the "sense of Congress" is notmandatory)To view full text of the bill Go to Congressionalrecord:http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html, Clickon Daily Digest, May 15, and afterwards clickon Senate passed H.R.1298, United StatesLeadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,and Malaria Act. Then click on the last ver-sion, Section 104axli To view the list of countries go to USAIDwebpage:http:www.usaid.gov/pop_health/aids/Countries/index.htmlxlii The White House. January 29, 2003.Factsheet: The President's Emergency Planfor AIDS reliefhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas-es/2003/01/20030129-1.htmlxliii EU Commissioners Pascal Lamy, FranzFischler, Poul Nielson, David Byrne, MargotWallström, Chris Patten. 2003. EU Doesn'tTell Africa GM Foods Are Unsafe - Letter to theEditor of The Wall Street Journal Europe 21January 2003.xliv This is based on the European NGO Codeof Conduct on Food-Aid and Food Security,adopted by the Liaison Committee ofDevelopment NGOs to the European Unionand EuronAid in 1995. See EuronAid. 1996.Facts About Euronaidxiv IPS. 2003. Traditional Foods in Abundance

to Feed 3m Starving People. January 2.xlvi FoEE. 2002. "The World Food Summit: astep back" in FoEE Bulletin, July 2002.xlvii IPS. 2002. "U.S. Finds few friends" inTerraviva, World Food Summit, Rome, June10-13, 2002, n 3.xlviii Zoellick, R. May 14th. Transcript: USTRsays WTO biotech ban case aims to quellfears. xlix CNN. 2003. Bush urges Europe to dropopposition to biotech crops.http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLI-TICS/06/23/bush/index.html l European Commission. 2003. EuropeanCommission regrets US Decision to file WTOcase on GMOs as misguided and unneces-sary. 13 May.li Action Aid. 2002. State of Disaster: causes,consequences and policy lessons fromMalawi; OXFAM. 2002. Death on the doorstepof the Summit. lii New Scientist. 2002. When Myths kill. 3August 2002.liii Christian Aid. Hunger for profit: the geneticmodification of developing country agricul-ture.http://www.id21.org/society/s2bas1g1.htmlliv Action Aid, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam,Save the Children. 2002. Letter from theBritish Overseas Aid group to the UKGovernment GM crops team. 25th October.lv Monsanto. 2001. Annual Reportlvi Third World Network. 2003. Geneticallymodified crops and sustainable poverty allevi-ation in Sub-Saharan Africa: an assessmentof current evidence.lvii The U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment website is located at:http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saha-ran_africa/africa_humanitarian_crisis/bio_questions.htmllviii Action Aid, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam,Save the Children. 2002. Letter from theBritish Overseas Aid group to the UKGovernment GM crops team. 25th October.lix Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection.


2002. Alternatives to maize for Zambia foodCrisis. See video and appeal onhttp://www.foe.org/foodaidlx Altieri. M.A. 2000. The case againstAgricultural Biotechnology: Why are trans-genic crops incompatible with sustainableagriculture in the third world? In FoEE-OXFAMConference on Sustainable Agriculture in theNew millennium: the impact of biotechnologyon developing countries. ConferenceProceedings


2002-©W

FP/R

. Lee

“It is very interesting to note that for the first time Zambia was being forced to accept a gift. Doesn’t this worry us as recipi-ents that the giver is insisting that we take the GM foods. Are the Americans just concerned about our stomachs or there is something behind the gift”

Zambia Daily Mail. November 5, 2002.

bein g f orced t o accept a gif t . does n ’ t t h is worr y us as ......playing with hunger the...

Documents