UN Has Been Slipping Frankenfood
into Food Aid Shipments for 7 Years

From: Genetic Food Alert (UK)


As African and international outrage grows over the use of food aid as a GM
marketing tool by the US-controlled World Food Programme, the New Scientist
reveals an incredible seven years history of unauthorised GM dumping. The
now exposed Director of the World Food Programme, James Morris, is hitting
back with a ludicrous propaganda campaign for the biotech industry, claiming
that 'Biotech food can save millions of African lives'. Its easy to make
such claims when you have the power to deny people access to non-GM food.

Why is is that such claims about feeding the world with GM crops are made
only by the world's main producers of GM crops and not by the recipients of
food aid? Why is it that the World Food Programme has had to hide the
dumping of GM crops from the recipients of 'aid' for so long ? Why is it
that the World Food Programme has consistently bought unwanted GM crops from
the USA in preference to non-GM surplusses from poor nations near famine

In 1998 the food and agriculture representatives for Africa jointly stated
that they "strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our
countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a
technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically
beneficial to us". Four years later these corporations, through the World
Food Programme, are giving Africa their ultimatum: "GM or Death".

1. U.N. is slipping modified food into aid. (New Scientist, 19 Sept 02)

2. Biotech food can save millions of African lives. (James Morris,
International Herald Tribune, 19 Sept 02)

For the full story of America's international campaign to force GM food and
crops on the world see:
Force-Feeding the World www.ukabc.org/forcefeeding.htm
Africa Resists US Biotech Onslaught at Earth Summit


UN is slipping modified food into aid

Fred Pearce,
New Scientist, 19 Sept 2002

THE UN has been delivering genetically modified food as emergency aid for
the past seven years, New Scientist has learned. And it has done so without
telling the countries concerned. Its admission makes a mockery of African
governments' recent efforts to reject GM food aid.

Countries getting GM food aid in the past two years - often in breach of
national regulations - include the Philippines, India, Bolivia, Colombia,
Guatemala, Nicaragua and Ecuador, as well as many African countries.

The UN World Food Programme told New Scientist this week that its staff are
under no obligation to alert authorities and have made no attempt to
distinguish between GM and conventional cereals since 1996, when GM crops
first became part of US grain stocks destined for aid. Half of world food
aid comes from the US, and a quarter of the nation's maize is genetically
modified. "We do business with 83 countries in the world," WFP director
James Morris said last week.

The news comes amid allegations that the US is exploiting southern Africa's
drought to drum up markets for its large unsold stocks of GM maize and
soya. Saliem Fakir, director of the South African branch of the IUCN (World
Conservation Union), calls the offer of GM food aid to the region a moral
trap. "Africa is just a pawn in the US's attempt to break the European
Union's position on GM foods," he says.

The UN estimates that 14 million people in southern Africa will need food
aid in the coming months. Zambian president levy Mwanawasa angrily rejected
GM food aid as "poison" earlier this month, but has been forced to admit
that his citizens have been eating GM aid on and off since the mid-1990s.
Zambia's neighbours Zimbabwe and Malawi have now accepted GM maize on
condition that it is milled to prevent farmers planting it in their fields.

The WFP, the world's largest supplier. of food aid, uses mostly North
American grain. "We think the starving would rather eat GM grain than
dirt," said spokesman Trevor Rowe this week. But African governments argue
there is plenty of GM-free maize available on world markets that could be
supplied as aid.

Independent aid groups are being caught up in the row. Most turn A blind
eye to GM cereals in their food aid, says anti-GM campaigner Patrick
Mulvany of the Intermediate Technology Development Group in Britain. A
recent study found that none has formal policies banning GM cereals.

The WFP says it sees no need to warn about GM material in food aid. It
says, "We are just the middle man. If the food meets the national standards
of the donors, we accept it."

But Mulvany says that since 1996, most poor countries have made clear in
negotiations on international rules for GM trade that they want to be told
in advance about GM imports, and many have announced outright bans. "The
WFP would have been aware of this. If it was not informing recipient
countries after that, it should be severely criticised."

Though health scares grab local headlines, southern African countries have
a real fear that once GM grain is planted it will contaminate domestic
grain fed to livestock destined for European markets. "African livestock
commands a high price because it is organically raised," says Andrew Clegg
of the ELI-funded Namibia Human Resources Development Programme. "This
market strength will vanish if there is even the slightest suspicion that
products can no longer be guaranteed GM-free."

Recent research in Mexico found that GM maize imported from the US to make
tortillas has been planted and is now contaminating fields far and wide. So
far as New Scientist has been able to establish, no similar tests have been
done on maize growing in countries that have received food aid.

Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 19 Sept 2002

Comment on International Herald Tribune article
'Biotech food can save millions of African lives'
from Patrick Mulvany Food, Security Policy Adviser
ITDG, (Intermediate Technology Development Group):

"James Morris (WFP Director) admits that WFP has been shipping GM foods in
food aid for the past 7 years. This story surfaced as a result of tip-offs
from within WFP during the Johannesburg summit. After a period of denial,
pressed by a New Scientist journalist, the WFP has decided to come out. The
WFP now admits unashamedly that it has been shipping the stuff since it was
first commercialised in 1995/6. (See Int Herald Tribune article below).


Biotech food can save millions
of African lives

James Morris International Herald Tribune
Thursday, September 19, 2002

Lift a tragic blockade on aid

JOHANNESBURG Who has not now seen images in the media of the
bone-thin children, the withered fields, and the empty store shelves in
Southern Africa? The lines of desperate people waiting for food aid stretch
longer each day. In rural villages there is a growing sense of panic. The
regions' food crisis, spawned by natural disasters, the impact of AIDS and
failed economic policies, is deepening with the approach of the long hot
summer in sub-Saharan Africa. The next harvest is at least four months
away. We will soon enter what humanitarian agencies call the "lean season,"
and without decisive action millions of lives are threatened.

It is therefore all the more tragic that the World Food
Program's campaign to feed 12.8 million people in Southern Africa at risk
of starvation has been subverted by an emotional and often uninformed
debate about genetically modified food. At the very time that the suffering
of the people is rising to monumental proportions, the criticism of biotech
food products reached fever pitch. Genetically modified became virtually
overnight a touchstone for misinformation and rhetorical fury out of touch
with modern science.

Why has this happened? The World Food Program has been
distributing food with some biotech content in Africa and around the world
for seven years. In doing so, we observe the food safety guidelines of the
Codex Alimentarius, the principle UN body dealing with food safety. All our
food aid is certified as fit for human consumption in the donor country -
so the food our beneficiaries eat in Africa is the very same food eaten
daily in cities like New York and Toronto.

Amid the uproar over the past few weeks, the World Food Program
has worked with many governments to try to overcome their food shortages.
External food aid simply must be part of the solution because stocks in
southern Africa are very low and heavy buying would drive up food prices,
bringing added misery to the lives of the poor people throughout the

Three-quarters of the food aid already on hand in the region
has come from the United States and is likely to have some genetically
modified content. Biotech foods are readily accepted in a growing number of
countries. They are produced and eaten in the United States, Canada, China,
Argentina, Australia, the European Union and, increasingly, in South Africa
itself. Recently published estimates are that two-thirds of processed food
products in Canada have some genetically modified content. Yet some needy
countries are still reluctant to accept biotech food.

What are their concerns? Some center on the environment and
trade. Accidental cross-pollination of biotech maize with varieties now
grown has been raised as an issue.

But if governments are concerned they can always opt to mill
the maize. The Food and Agriculture Organization believes there is less of
a biodiversity issue for southern Africa, as existing maize varieties are
not native but introduced.

Another concern is possible European Union restrictions on
African exports of livestock fed with genetically modified maize, but EU
representatives say the real problem is the prevalence of foot and mouth

In fact, genetically modified commodities are routinely fed to
livestock within the EU itself.

If the World Food Program cannot give biotech food to countries
in southern Africa, it will have substantially less to offer in the weeks
ahead and we are running out of time to appeal for more funds from donors.

The added demand for cash donations will mean the related
emergency operations of our colleagues at the World Health Organization,
UNICEF and the FAO will all be shortchanged as donors divert more cash for
urgent food needs.

The anti-biotech food advocates are free to argue that people
should starve while the scientific jury is out (as hundreds of millions of
people in other parts of the world are contentedly eating genetically
modified foods). But is the jury really still out when it comes to the
safety of biotech foods? Naturally, all genetically modified food products
need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. But all scientific risk
assessments thus far show that the biotech foods now on the market are
every bit as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts. In an effort
to calm the increasingly irrational debate, the EU Commission recently
cited 81 separate studies that support this view.

Never, in nearly 40 years of operations, has the World Food
Program confronted a blockade of its food aid in peace. We will try our
best to save lives, working with recipient country governments, a wide
spectrum of donors and our partner nongovernmental organizations. But we
urge the political leaders in Southern Africa to weigh the scientific
facts. The fate of millions of hungry people lies in their hands.

The writer, executive director of the United Nations World Food
Program, has just completed a fact-finding mission in Southern Africa as
the special envoy of the UN secretary-general. He contributed this comment
to the International Herald Tribune.


Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.