The US Is Force-Feeding
Developing Countries with
GE foods and Crops

America's 'GM or Death' ultimatum to Africa
reveals the depravity of its GM marketing policy

Zambia has been told by the USA to use $50 million to buy America's GM
maize through the World Food Programme or face starvation. When The US
tried to force GM food aid on India, Catherine Bertini, then Executive
director of the World Food Program, declared: "Food is power. We use it
to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize",1
whilst an unnamed USAID spokesman told the media "beggars can't be

Robert Vint, UK Coordinator of Genetic Food Alert, investigates.

In 1998 Monsanto sent an appeal to all Africa's Heads of State, entitled
'Let The Harvest Begin',2 which called upon them to endorse GM crops.
Monsanto were following the advice of the world's leading PR company to
avoid the 'killing fields' of health and environmental issues in the GM
debate, such as the absence of independent safety testing, and to shift
the debate to focus on supposed benefits for the poor. Western 'greens'
should be singled out for demonisation for preventing biotech
corporations from 'feeding the world'.

Ministers in Western governments have been bombarded with propaganda
calling upon them to ignore the 'selfish' objections of their own
citizens - consumers, health advocates, environmentalists and food
retailers - because this technology was the only hope for the world's
poor. American TV audiences have seen hundreds of adverts depicting
smiling well-fed Third World farmers joyfully growing GM crops. None of
this propaganda is based on fact and, significantly, none of it
originates from the nations that would supposedly benefit from this

Monsanto's letter-writing exercise could well have been the most
catastrophic PR stunt in history. In response the Food and Agriculture
representative of every African nation (except South Africa) signed a
joint statement called 'Let Nature's Harvest Continue' that utterly
condemns Monsanto's policy. It stated: "[We] 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",y "we think
it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable
agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millenia, and
that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves".2

Since that memorable occasion four years ago none of these African
nations have accepted GM food or crops. The situation is no better for
Monsanto in other parts of the Global South.

Europeans were told that their insistence on labelling and regulation of
GM food and crops would restrict the development of a technology
desperately needed by the poor. But no poor nation was to be heard
making such claims. What are we to make of the claims when dozens of
poor nations themselves decide to regulate, label or ban these products?
And how sincere does American concern for the poor appear when their
Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, responds by threatening these
nations with sanctions? Such threats are numerous:

* America's treatment of Sri Lanka is one of the most shameful examples
of its coercive policies. Sri Lanka's Health Ministry banned GM imports
for a year on 1st May 2000, because of the untested nature of GM foods,
and renewed this ban on 1st May 2001 after the discovery of imported
chocolates, oils and soups containing GMOs. Within ten days the US
began to use the WTO to threaten sanctions. As a result the new import
ban was postponed to 1st September 2001, but the President sent a
'strongly worded' letter to President Bush to demand that the US stopped
dumping untested GM foods in his country. US threats continued and by
August peasant groups across Asia were protesting about them. Hundreds
of letters of solidarity were sent to the Sri Lankan Government. On the
14th August a petition from 200 organisations demanding an end to US
threats was presented the Bush Government. "Sri Lanka should not be
subject to oversight or punitive action by the WTO because of its
efforts to protect its citizens from the unknown risks posed by
genetically modified organisms," the groups said in their letter to U.S.
Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. These appeals were ignored and on
3rd September Sri Lanka surrendered to threats from the US backed up by
its ally Australia. 3

* Mexico's Senate unanimously backed GM food labelling in November 2000.
Within three months the USA was threatening to impose sanctions via
NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Area - unless the decision was

* The Secretary-General of the Thai Food and Drug Administration
revealed in July 2001 that a US trade delegation had threatened to
impose trade sanctions on Thailand if proposals to label GM foods were

* China introduced GM food labels and documentation requirements for GM
imports in May 2001. By October Ann Veneman, US Agriculture Secretary
(and previously Director of a Monsanto subsidiary), was objecting to the
inspection of imports of US GM soya. By March 2002 China had been forced
to 'temporarily' abandon its inspections and to allow unregulated
imports of US GM soya.

* Similar sanctions threats have also been issued by the USA against
wealthier nations such as Canada (March 2002 in response to plans to
introduce labelling), Argentina (Monsanto Warns Argentina to Loosen GE
Crop Restrictions April 2002) and the entire European Union (for
labelling GM food and for regulating GM crops)

These acts of diplomatic terrorism by the USA may be objectionable but
some of the steps it has taken to force acceptance of GM food and crops
by these nations are more extreme. America reasoned that if no-one else
wanted the crops then at least starving nations would accept them. As
one USAID spokesman said "beggars can't be choosers". America is now
the majority stakeholder in the World Food Programme, which it uses to
facilitate the dumping of its crop surplusses, so it was not difficult
to ensure that its unsellable GM crops ended up in virtually all WFP aid
packages. As the World Food Programme's previous American Executive
Director, Catherine Bertini,
boasted: "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call
that bribery. We do not apologize".1 But America is finding that it
cannot even give its GM crops away:

* In March 2000 The Independent (UK) reported on growing protests in an
article entitled 'America finds ready market for GM food -- the hungry'.
It stated that 'Aid is the last unregulated export market open to US
farmers as worried European and Asian consumers shun GM grain and
introduce strict import and labelling rules' and reported on protests by
the Malaysia-based Third World Network and by Ethiopia's Dr Tewolde
Gebre Egziabher who, on behalf of an alliance of Third World nations,
stated "Countries in the grip of a crisis.. ..should not be faced with
a dilemma between allowing a million people to starve to death and
allowing their genetic pool to be polluted".6 A report by Food First
(USA) written around this time concluded: "The US food aid system
appears to disregard the rights and concerns of recipient citizens in
order to assure profits for US agribusiness giants. It is a system that
allows for the misspending of public funds in ways that benefit the
private sector; a system that takes advantage of the lack of regulation
concerning the genetic engineering of food; and a system that undermines
democratic decision making about food consumption ".7

* In the Philippines in April 2000 the nation's main farmers union, the
KMP, protested about USAID dumping unsellable GM food on the country via
the WFP. Rafael Mariano, chair of the KMP, condemned the deal, saying
"The US Department of Agriculture does not conceal the true objectives
of the program. It shamelessly describes the 'Food for Peace' as a
'concessional sales program to promote exports of US agricultural
commodities'".8 South Africa's Biowatch joined in the protests, stating
"Africa is treated as the dustbin of the world. To donate untested food
and seed to Africa is not an act of kindness but an attempt to lure
Africa into further dependence on foreign aid".8

* In June that year cyclone-hit Orissa, India, was the unknowing
recipient of unlabelled and illegal GM food aid from the US. India's
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology detected the
dumping, condemned it as a hidden subsidy for America's biotech industry
and issued a declaration calling for a ban on the practice.9

* The Association of Burundi Consumers (ABUCO) and other organisations
wrote to President Clinton in September 2000 to protest about dumping of
unlabelled maize in Burundi and to ask why food exported to Europe was
labelled but food aid to Africa was not.10

* In January 2001 Bosnian officials rejected 40,000 tonnes of GM animal
feed provided as aid by the US.11

* Equador halted imports of World Food Programme aid for poor children
in May 2001 after the children held protests outside the WFP offices.12
The food was from the USA and 55% of the ingredients were GM so making
it illegal in Equador.13

* Later, in April 2001, Bolivians were furious to discover that their
food aid from the USA contained high levels of GM soya and cornmeal -
which were illegal under Bolivian law. US Ambassador Manuel Rocha,
ignoring the regulations, told Bolivia that "if they didn't like
genetically engineered food, they should think twice about ever visiting
the US because that is what we offer to visitors."14 Tests of Bolivian
food aid in 2002 have revealed Star Link corn and other varieties banned
in the EU.

* In May 2001 tests arranged by Colombia Consumers (COCO) of Colombian
food aid supplied to the National Program of Food and Nutrition Program
revealed that the soya was an incredible 90% genetically modified.15

* In June 2000 Guatemalans protested about the presence of GM corn in
imported aid for drought-hit peasants,16 while eight leading Nicaraguan
organisations made similar complaints about the activities of the WFP
and USAID after food samples tested positive for GM. A US Embassy
spokesperson said emphatically, "We are not using genetically-altered
seeds. Neither USAID nor any other agency is promoting or financing the
distribution of such seeds within Nicaragua." Representatives of the
World Food Programme also issued 'denials' which on close reading did
not deny anything.17

* In the last few months America's controlling stake in the World Food
Programme has given it the power to exploit Africa's crisis by offering
its 'GM or Death' ultimatum to Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. It is
only because the US can prevent the WFP from purchasing available non-GM
food from Southern nations that it able to tell these nations that they
must buy GM maize, that they must buy it from the US and that it must be

Financially, this aid primarily benefits the US biotech industry rather
than the poor. The US offered Zambia $50 million (the annual sum the
biotech industry spends on TV ads) on strict condition that it only be
spent on GM maize from the USA. India has vast surplus stocks of rice -
65 times as much as Africa needs - that would be available at half the
cost of the US maize, but Zambia is forbidden to buy this with the
money. Similar conditions were imposed on Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique
and Malawi. Zambia's response marks the death of the 'feeding the world'
PR strategy. Referring to the maize, President Levy Mwanawasa said "if
it is not fit then we would rather starve" 18 - and the national paper
added "If the US insists on imposing this genetically modified maize on
our people, we will be justified in questioning their motive".18

In a region devastated by HIV/AIDS, where much of the population have
deficient immune systems, where bacterial diseases are widespread and
where outdated antibiotics are in widespread use there are sound medical
reasons to reject crops containing genes for antibiotic resistance. This
is the very reason for which they have been rejected in Europe. 19

Monsanto and its Government cronies are desperate for real television
footage of starving Africans gratefully eating GM food - so desperate
that they would allow millions to starve if they fail. But independent
experts agree that agricultural biotechnology is, at best, irrelevant to
famine prevention.

American GM agricultural systems are irrelevant to poor and
famine-stricken nations. US farms employ under 2 million farmers yet
will require in 2002 a subsidy of over 20 thousand million dollars. This
subsidy does not help American family farms, most of which face
bankruptcy, but it does provide an essential indirect subsidy to the
biotech corporations. Poorer nations cannot support agricultural systems
that are so capital-intensive and that employ so few.

Indian food and trade policy analyst, Devinder Sharma, says: "Somehow,
biotechnologists prefer to turn a blind eye to the ground realities,
missing the realities from the commercial interests of the biotechnology
industries. In their over-enthusiasm to promote an expensive technology
at the cost of the poor, they have forgotten that biotechnology has the
potential to further the great divide between the haves and have-nots..
.. Biotechnology will, in reality, push more people in the hunger trap.
With public attention and resources being diverted from the ground
realities, hunger will only grow in the years to come".20 Ethiopia's
Food and Agriculture spokesman, Tewolde Egziabher, agrees, adding "this
notion that genetically engineered crops will save developing countries
misses the real point. The world has never grown as much food per capita
as it is doing now, yet the world has also never had as many hungry. The
problem is not the amount of food produced, but how it is both produced
and distributed. For example, farmers in developing countries who buy
genetically engineered seeds that cannot reproduce--and so can't be
saved and used for next year's crop--become tied to transnational
companies like Monsanto".21

A Christian Aid report states "GM crops are taking us down a dangerous
farm track creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine" 22,
whilst an ActionAid statement concludes "The use and patenting of GM
food and farming technologies in developing countries could have
extremely serious economic implications.. ..the worst off are likely to
be the poorest farmers.. ..this may ultimately lead to the very poorest
leaving farming altogether, exacerbating the shift to cities and
increasing urban poverty".23

Even Steve Smith, Director of biotech corporation Novartis (now
Syngenta), admitted in 2000 that " If anyone tells you that GM is going
to feed the world, tell them that it is not. To feed the world takes
political and financial will".24

There is no global shortage of food, nor is there likely to be one in
the near future. Europe and America destroy surplus crops each year -
but so do some of the poorest nations. The problem is not production but
distribution. During every famine the affected nation exports food.
Millions of people - including many farm labourers - are now too poor to
buy the crops grown in their own nations - or even on the land they
work. They starve while much of the world's food crops are bought by the
West to feed cattle, pigs and chickens - and while much of the farmland
is used, as required by the IMF, to grow cotton, coffee, tobacco and
flowers for export. The millions of tons of surplus Indian rice that
the Zambians are forbidden to buy is rotting in warehouses because the
poor of India cannot afford to buy it. Malawi, too, had non-GM
surplusses until a few months ago, but was required by the World Bank to
sell them to service its debt.

GM crops can do nothing to address the true causes of famine. Inasmuch
as they benefit wealthy farmers - who can afford the GM seeds and the
chemicals that must be used with them - at the expense of smallholders,
GM crops actually exacerbate the inequality that causes famine.
Exported GM cash crops, such as Bt cotton and 'controlled-ripening'
coffee, will not feed the poor - nor will profits from them go to the
poor to enable them to buy food.

GM 'controlled-ripening' coffee, being developed in the USA, does away
with the need for coffee-pickers - so threatening with unemployment (and
therefore malnutrition) up to 60 million destitute coffee-pickers in
over 50 nations.25

The 'Vision 2020' development project in the state of Andhra Pradesh,
India, will involve the clearance of 20 million cotton growers and other
smallholders from the land to make way for vast automated plantations of
GM cotton. The wealthiest landlords will profit whilst millions of
refugees will face starvation. 26

A handful of biotech corporations, such as Monsanto, now have virtual
monopoly control of agricultural seed and chemical sales in many
Southern nations - making the food security of these nations vulnerable
to stock-market fluctuations. The corporations have the power to buy up
any local seed company and thereby remove traditional seed varieties
from the market. To ensure a continuing market for their products they
are determined to destroy the traditional practice of saving seed from
one harvest for planting in the next season. If farmers use their own
seeds they will not buy from corporations. To prevent this practice the
companies already give priority to the marketing of F1 hybrids - plants
that produce sterile offspring. But even more desirable for them are
'terminator crops' - seeds genetically modified to ensure that they grow
into sterile crops - and 'traitor crops' - crops genetically modified so
that they fail to grow or ripen unless sprayed with a chemical bought
from the same company. Only when the biotech companies have monopolised
the seed industry and forced Third World nations to accept GM crops will
they be able to universalise Terminator and Traitor crops and so
permanently trap Third World farmers.

Through the 'GM or Death' aid policy it may be possible to force the
poor to eat GM food but it still seems difficult to force poor nations
to plant GM crops. The most effective technique is to ensure that they
are planted without consent. Several nations have discovered that GM
seeds have been illegally sold to farmers without their consent -
sometimes GM seed has deliberately been marketed as conventional seed,
often conventional seed supplies contain suspiciously high levels of GM
contamination and, finally, GM seeds provided as food aid have been
accidentally planted by farmers. This seems to be the cause of the
widespread GM contamination of maize in Mexico, where GM varieties are

Deliberate contamination through food aid neatly complements America's
strategy of forcing GM food down the throats of the starving. Having
successfully contaminated Mexico, America hopes to repeat the exercise
across southern Africa. America has made it very clear to the African
nations obliged to receive its aid that it will only provide whole
kernels of maize and will not mill them to prevent them from growing.
They know that wealthy farmers in these nations, desperate to obtain
seed corn for next year's crop, will be able to pay more for this corn
than will the starving poor. Once GM crops are illegally growing
throughout southern Africa, America reasons, how will they be able to
ban these crops?

GM crops have no future. The people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia
and Latin America refuse to eat them. Farmers in India,27 Brazil 28 and
the Phillippines 29 are burning and destroying them. The people of
America are blissfully unaware of their existence - but, when asked, 93%
want GM food labelled and most would try to avoid it. In response the
share values of Monsanto are crashing. The US is on the verge of a GM
trade war with the rest of the world. Now the principal marketing
strategy of the biotech indus try, refined over the years, has descended
into blatant terrorism that threatens the food security of dozens of
nations and the lives of millions.

23rd August 2002

Robert Vint, National Coordinator
Genetic Food Alert



1 Africa's Tragedy: Famine as Commerce. Devinder Sharma 06/08/02

Selling Suicide: farming, false promises and genetic engineering in
developing countries. Christian Aid

3 PANAP Press Release 14 August 2001
Asian Groups Strongly Protest U.S. Threat of WTO Retaliation on Sri
Lankan GMO Ban 4 US Agribusiness Fights Mexico Mandatory Labels for GE
March 29, 2001

4 Industry mobilizes to modify Mexico's labeling measures February 12,
2001 -- Cropchoice news

5 US threatened trade sanctions to block GM
labels, says Thai FDA editorial team July 19, 2001

6 America finds ready market for GM food -- the hungry By Declan Walsh
Independent (UK) 30 March 2000

7 Food Aid in the New Millenium - Genetically Engineered Food and Foreign
Assistance Food First (USA)

8 'Farmers decry dumping of hazardous GMOs from relief agencies, biotech
firms'. KMP Press Release, 14th April 2000

9 Action Alert (June 2000) STOP DUMPING GE FOOD! Research Foundation for
Science, Technology and Ecology, India

SUSPECT. Text of report by Burundi news agency Net Press on 5th
September Source: Net Press news agency, Bujumbura, in French 1834
gmt 05 Sep 00.BBC Worldwide Monitoring/ (c) BBC 2000.

11 "Humanitarian" GM corn: U.S. Withdraws
Genetically Engineered Corn - Animal Feed Donation After Bosnia's
Hesitation SARAJEVO, Jan 30, 2001 -- Agence France Presse


OFFICES OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM 7 May 2001 Info & Photos from Red por
una America Latina Libre de Transgenicos Casilla 17-15-246-C Quito -

14 Let Them Eat Scrambled DNA:
Genetically Altered Crops Included In Bolivian Food Relief 22 Sept 2001
Earth Island Journal

THREE COUNTRIES IN THE ANDEAN REGION 05 May 2001 Red por una America
Latina Libre de Transgenicos


17 Environmentalists Accuse World Food Program and USAID of Distributing
Genetically-Modified Foods SOURCE: NicaNet, May 27, 2002

18 Dignity in hunger, The Post, Zambia, Editorial, July 30, 2002

19 British Medical Association report: The Impact of Genetic
Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health 1999 ISBN 07279 1431 6

20 Biotechnology will bypass the hungry. Devinder Sharma. AgBioIndia
Mailing 28 June 2002 21 Why poor nations would lose in a biotech war on
hunger. Marilyn Berlin Snell interviews Tewolde Egziabher. Sierra
Magazine, July/August

22 Selling Suicide: farming, false promises and genetic engineering in
developing countries. Christian Aid

23 AstraZeneca and its genetic research: Feeding the
world or fuelling hunger? ActionAid 1999 ISBN 1 872502 59 8

24 Steve Smith, SCIMAC and Novartis (now SYNGENTA), Tittleshall Village Hall
public meeting on proposed local GM farm scale trial, 29th March 2000

25 Robbing Coffee's Cradle.... ActionAid

26 Prajateerpu: A Citizens' Jury/Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming
Futures for Andhra Pradesh, India. IIED 2002 ISBN 1 84369 191 4

27 Cremation Monsanto continues in Karnataka 05/01/02

28 Friday January 26, 8:57 am Eastern Time Brazilian farmers storm
Monsanto, uproot plants

General, KMP- Far Southern Mindanao





GRAINS OF DELUSION: Golden Rice Seen From the Ground: Joint report by
BIOTHAI (Thailand), CEDAC (Cambodia), DRCSC (India), GRAIN, MASIPAG
(Philippines), PAN-Indonesia and UBINIG (Bangladesh) February
[Also available as a PDF File: Adobe Acrobat needed to read it]

KMP Peasant Movement of the Philippines


GM Third World Warning (BBC News)

Third World rejects GM (Independent)




Selling suicide - farming, false promises and genetic engineering in
developing countries
Biotechnology and genetically modified organisms
The Biosafety Protocol - controlling trade in GMOs

GMOs and the WTO: Overruling the right to say no
The Biosafety Protocol: Agreed in Montreal
The Battle for International Rules on GMOs: The biotech industry versus
the world's poor
Genetically modified seeds: Corporate control over farmers in the Third

GRAIN: Genetics Resources Action International

Rural Advancement Foundation International

Food First

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Corner House Briefing 10 on Genetic Engineering & World Hunger

Genetic Engineering: Can it Feed the World? GeneWatch Briefing

Feeding the World? Jules Pretty examines the myths and realities of
sustainable farming's quiet revolution

Suspend GM Crops For 5 Years demand Scientists from South & North

Corner House Briefing 10 on Genetic Engineering and World Hunger

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.