|
US Bullying Developing Countries on Accepting
Food Aid Containing GMOs
1. US Aid Agencies instructed to report anti-GM
nations to USAID
2. US Aid Agencies pressing India to accept GM
The USDA has instructed US Aid Agencies to act
as international policemen on behalf of US biotech corporations.
In the minutes of its meeting with aid agencies [http://www.foodaidmanagement.org/worddocs/environmentwg/50602.doc
] it ismade clear that US Aid Agencies are expected to immediately
report any opposition to GM food imports by recipient nations to
USAID, that they are to make investigations to enable USAID to classify
objections as either 'political' or 'trade' related and that USAID
will then take the necessary 'diplomatic action' (sanctions?, WTO
prosecutions?, aid cancellations/, IMF action?) to ensure that the
shipments are accepted. In these minutes it says: "USDA stated that
the first response when a PVO encounters questioning from the receiving
government on the GMO content of food aid shipments should be to
inform the local USAID mission of these new concerns. The PVO should
begin immediately collecting documentation to serve as proof of
the recipient country's laws/policies and to assist in determining
if the problem is trade or politically motivated. The local USAID
mission will likely negotiate with the local government officials
to clarify and gain an understanding of why the clearance of these
products is being questioned/disputed now at this time and for what
reasons. Especially at this early stage of the situation, USAID's
diplomatic ability in resolving the situation is crucial."
Whereas most Aid Agencies buy their food on
the free market - and thereby support the livelihoods of small farmers
in recipient nations - some US Aid Agencies only ship US grain provided
by USAID. This is an anti-competitive practice condemned by the
OECD and the international aid community because of its trade-distorting
effects and its devastating impact on the rural economies of poor
nations. As the European Commission recently stated: "The EU does
not at all question the granting of genuine food aid. It questions
the use of food aid donations used as surplus disposal measures.
Some WTO members have used food aid donations more as a production
and commercial tool to dispose of surpluses and promote sales in
foreign markets than as a development tool tailored to the needs
of the recipient countries. It is ironic that the amount of food
aid given by some countries tends to increase significantly when
prices are low whereas levels are much lower when prices are high
- and food aid is most needed."
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/1892|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display
The dependency of US agencies such as CARE and
Catholic Relief Services on USAID means they are now being used
as international policemen and marketers for the US biotech industry.
The following article from India explains how these two charities
are being used to force open the door to GM in India after a USAID
shipment was rejected.
---------------------------
This is a News Report appearing in The Financial
Express, India on January 13, 2003. The news report says that after
the government refused to give permission to CARE-India and Catholic
Relief Services to import GM corn and soya from US, these two organisations
have appealed before the Appeallate Authority constituted under
GMO Rules of the country. Below the News Report is a comment piece
of the author on the same subject in his weekly column FARM FRONT
---------------------------
GM Corn-Soya Import Issue Referred To Appellate
Body
Ashok B Sharma
New Delhi, Jan 12
The controversial issue of refusing the first
shipment of 1,000 tonne soya-corn blend from the US on the grounds
that it might contain genetically modified (GM) foods hazardous
to human health has been referred to the Appellate Authority constituted
under the GMO Import Rules. The one-man Appellate Authority headed
by the former environment secretary, Viswanath Anand, is slated
to hear the contending parties on February 11, 2003.
According to the GMO Import Rules, only those
GM products which are approved by GEAC can only be imported for
commercial use. The GEAC has, so far, approved only transgenic Bt
cotton for commercial cultivation. GM corn, maize and soya are not
approved by the GEAC. Earlier, the international NGOs operating
in the country namely the Cooperation for American Relief Everywhere
(CARE) and the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) had proposed to import
corn-soya blend from the US for distribution to schools children.
The CARE had proposed to import 15,000 tonne of soya-corn blend
while CRS proposed to import 8,000 tonne of the same from the US.
Both CARE and CRS applied to the government way back in July 2002
to allow them to import these food products. Subsequently, towards
the end of the year 2002, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
(GEAC) functioning under the Union environment ministry refused
to allow the import of this food consignment from the US on the
grounds that it may contain GM stuffs which may be hazardous to
human health and environment. There was also an apprehension that
the consignment may contain GM Starlink corn which is approved in
the US only for industrial use and animal feed and not for direct
human consumption.
The matter turned worse when the US government
and the exporting agency refused to certify that the consignment
does not contain any GM products. Instead, they stated that in the
US, non-GM foods are mixed with GM foods and is, therefore, difficult
to segregate. Meanwhile, the CARE and the CRS approached the Appellate
Authority constituted under the GMO Import Rules to intervene.
GEAC former chairman AM Gokhale, who passed
the order for refusing the controversial consignment of GM food
from the US, said, "We are not against any GM foods as such, but
we do not want to undertake any risks of possible hazards as these
products are not yet tested in our country."
Mr Gokhale has been shifted out of the Union
environment ministry and has joined his new assignment as chairman
of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) from January 3, 2003. Incidentaly,
the news of GEAC's refusal on the controversial GM food consignment
was unkown to the media till a foreign agency reported it on January
2. Meanwhile, the GEAC is now headless. Ms Meena Gupta, IAS from
the Orissa cadre is expected to join her new assignment by January
15.
(This news report appeared in The Financial
Express, India on January 13, 2003)
FARM FRONT
Caution Needed In Imports Of Starlink Corn
Ashok B Sharma
The Indian government and the country's Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has rightly expressed concerns
about the possible hazards of Starlink Corn and other genetically
modified (GM) food products which are not yet approved in this country.
The GEAC has recently disapproved the request
of CARE-India and the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) to import of
the first consignment of 1,000 tonne of corn-soya blend from the
US on the ground that it may contain GM products. The GEAC also
has apprehensions that the consignment may contain the 'hazardous'
Starlink Corn, which is not yet been found fit for human consumption
in the US.
Both the CARE-India and CRS has now approached
the appeallate authority on imports of GMOs to intervene and allow
them to import the consignment. The Appeallate Authority is likely
to hear the contending parties on February 11, 2003. The GEAC gave
its disapproval for the import of the US consignment after the the
US government and the exporting agency failed to certify that the
consignment does not contain GM foods.
The issue is now clear. There are reports of
many countries refusing the US consignments of GM foods on grounds
of health and environmental safety. Since, the rejected consignments
was said to contain GM corn and soya, it would be better to limit
the scope of discussion to only to these two GM crops. Concerns
about the US export of GM corn has been recently raised in Japan
and Australia. Reuters News Service from Washington in December
30, 2002 had reported "Japan has found trace amounts of unapproved
Starlink Corn in an American shipment bound for Tokyo's food supply,
renewing fears that major trading partners may once again turn their
backs on the US crops." Japan's ministry of agriculture, forestry
and fisheries detected Starlink Corn in in the vessel, The North
King docked at Nagoya harbour. The USDA officials in Washington
was reported to be then unaware that the said consignment contained
Starlink Corn.
The genetically modified Starlink Corn was developed
by Aventis CropScience. It slipped into the US food chain in September
2000 sparking a nationwide recall of more than 300 kinds of cornbased
foods. The regulatory authority in the US has approved Starlink
Corn for animal feed only. It has not approved Starlink Corn for
human consumption as it might cause allergic reactions. Though the
USDA's Federal Grain Service has put in place specific procedures
to identify and segregate Starlink corn and its traces from the
food chain it seems that the system has not worked well.
Japan has found that about 1,200 tonne of cron
in a 19,234 tonne shipment from US contains traces of Starlink Corn.
It has decided to enhance its capability in testing and decting
Starlink Corn and any other hazardous GM foods. China has developed
a microchip for testing and detecting hazardous GM foods. There
are reports that one of the major importer of US corn in South Korea,
KOCOPIA is now insisting on non-Starlink certification and samples
for its tenders.
There are reports that 50,000 tonne of the US
corn containing genetically engineered (GE) varieties arriving in
Brisbane, Australia on January 9, 2003 for use as chicken feed.
The Australian Gene Technology Regulator licenced the cargo even
though some GE lines have not been assessed or approved in that
country. This has caused widespread resentment in Australia. The
Democrats agriculture spokesperson, Senator John Cherry had said
that mixing of GM corn with GM-free corn into the animal feedstock
chain could interfere with certification that Australian pork, poultry
and beef exports are GM free. Australian government is now concerned
that their meat and poultry exports to the European Union and other
countries may be hampered.
Thus it shows that the concern of the Indian
government and the GEAC over the unapproved GM foods entering the
country is really serious. The Indian government should put in place
effective mechanism for detecting traces of unapproved GM products
in the food chain in the country and be stern in refusing imports
of such hazardous foods. It should import the technology for detecting
and testing unapproved GM traces in the food chain from either Japan
of China. The sooner the better.
Further it a matter of concern to note that
an independent consultant to the World Health Organisation (WHO),
Norbert Hirschhorn has found that food companies have attempted
to place scientists favourable to their views on WHO and FAO committees.
They have financially supported NGOs which were invited to formal
discussions on key issues on the UN agencies. They have financed
research and policy groups that supported their views and they have
financed individuals who promote anti-regulation ideology to the
public. It is, therefore, necessary that national governments and
the public should be very cautious of such moves of the multinational
companies.
(This article appeared in The Financial Express,
India on January 13, 2003 in the author's weekly column FARM FRONT)
|
