BIOTECHNOLOGY: WFP INTERNAL GUIDANCE ON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 ROME 002657

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

STATE FOR E, EB - CHASE, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC,
OES/ETC - NEUMANN AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USDA FOR FAS - BRICHEY, LREICH AND RHUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK
USAID FOR EGAT - SIMMONS, MOORE, BERTRAM AND LEWIS

FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR EAID ETRD SENV AORC WFP
SUBJECT: BIOTECHNOLOGY: WFP INTERNAL GUIDANCE ON
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

REF: ROME 2436

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED. PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY.


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: IN AN INTERNAL "CORPORATE MESSAGE"
RECENTLY DISTRIBUTED TO ITS STAFF WORLDWIDE, SENIOR
MANAGEMENT OF THE UN WORLD FOOD PROGRAM (WFP) STRESSED
THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS NEUTRAL IN THE DEBATE ON
GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS. EMPLOYEES ARE
INSTRUCTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT (1) WFP'S RESPONSIBILITY IS
"TO MOBILIZE AS MUCH SAFE, HEALTHY FOOD AS POSSIBLE FOR
THE WORLD'S HUNGRY;" (2) ALL WFP-DISTRIBUTED FOOD IS SAFE
FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION; (3) WHO AND FAO STATE THERE ARE
NO KNOWN HEALTH RISKS; (4) WFP RESPECTS THE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS OF DONOR AND RECIPIENT GOVERNMENTS, (5)
GOVERNMENTS ARE FREE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT
GM FOODS, AND (6) WFP WILL DO ITS BEST TO IDENTIFY
ALTERNATIVES, BUT CANNOT GUARANTEE NON-GM FOOD WILL BE
AVAILABLE. ALTHOUGH WFP CONTINUES TO COME IN FOR
CRITICISM BY CERTAIN GOVERNMENTS AND ACTIVISTS, WE
BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN LARGELY SUCCESSFUL IN FINDING THE
CORRECT BALANCE ON THIS CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) U.S. MISSION HAS OBTAINED A COPY OF A JUNE 7
COMMUNICATION FROM WFP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JIM MORRIS TO
WFP STAFF WORLDWIDE, PROVIDING GUIDANCE ON HOW TO RESPOND
TO QUERIES REGARDING FOOD DERIVED FROM GENETICALLY
MODIFIED CROPS. THE TEXT OF THE INTERNAL DIRECTIVE --
INCLUDING A COVER LETTER TO STAFF, THE CORPORATE MESSAGE,
AND GUIDANCE IN THE FORM OF QS AND AS -- IS REPRODUCED
BELOW AFTER PARA 6.

--------------
U.S. MISSION COMMENT
--------------


3. (SBU) WFP HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO STAY OUT OF THE
DEBATE ON GM FOOD BY STRESSING ITS NEUTRALITY AND RESPECT
FOR THE LAWS OF DONOR AND RECIPIENT GOVERNMENTS, AND
LEAVING QUESTIONS OF FOOD SAFETY TO THE UN AGENCIES
COMPETENT TO ADDRESS THEM. THIS APPROACH IS REFLECTED IN
THE INTERNAL GUIDELINES REPRODUCED BELOW, AS WELL AS IN
THE ORGANIZATION'S OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES ON THE DONATION
OF FOODS DERIVED FROM MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY (SUBMITTED TO
THE FEBRUARY 2004 SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND
ACCEPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION).


4. (SBU) NOTWITHSTANDING THIS EFFORT, WFP REMAINS A
TARGET OF CRITICISM FOR SOME GM OPPONENTS. A RECENT
EXAMPLE WAS A 4 MAY 2004 OPEN LETTER FROM A GROUP OF
AFRICAN NGOS, WHEREIN THEY "REGISTER[ED] [THEIR] DISQUIET
AT THE FAILURE BY THE WFP TO GUARANTEE ANGOLA AND SUDAN
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AID ... WFP AND OTHER DONORS
HAVE MISLED THESE GOVERNMENTS BY PRESENTING THEM A
SCENARIO OF NO CHOICE: THAT THEY EITHER ACCEPT GM FOOD OR
FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES."


5. (SBU) THE RECENT FAO REPORT ON THE STATE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE -- WHICH PRESENTS A NUANCED BUT LARGELY
POSITIVE VIEW OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY (REFTEL) --
MAY HELP TONE DOWN SOME OF THE RHETORIC GRADUALLY.
NEVERTHELESS, THE ISSUE WILL NOT GO AWAY QUICKLY. IT
WILL LIKELY CONTINUE TO BE EXPLOITED BY ACTIVISTS AND
OTHERS WITH THEIR OWN AGENDAS. AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND
WFP HAS HAD TO STRIKE A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN THE
CONCERNS OF SOME FOOD AID RECIPIENTS (IRRATIONAL AS THEY
MIGHT SEEM) AND THE SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC REALITIES OF
MODERN-DAY PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. WE
THINK IT HAS BEEN LARGELY SUCCESSFUL IN FINDING THAT
BALANCE.


6. (SBU) THE REALITY FOR WFP AND FOOD AID RECIPIENT
COUNTRIES IS THAT: (A) THE U.S. CONTINUES YEAR AFTER YEAR
TO SUPPLY OVER HALF OF ALL GLOBAL FOOD AID; AND (B) THE
U.S. IS BY FAR THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO WFP (1992-2003)
$8.79 BILLION (44 PERCENT). THE U.S. ALSO HAS THE
ABILITY (UNLIKE SOME OTHER MAJOR DONORS) TO DELIVER ITS
DONATIONS FAIRLY EFFICIENTLY. HENCE WFP MANAGERS HAVE
FEW READILY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES TO U.S. COMMODITY

ROME 00002657 002 OF 006

-------------- --------------
COVER LETTER TO WFP STAFF FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-------------- --------------

BEGIN TEXT:

FEW OTHER ISSUES HAVE GENERATED SO MUCH DEBATE IN RECENT
YEARS AS THE ADVENT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WFP HAS OFTEN FOUND ITSELF IN THE MIDDLE
OF CONTROVERSY AS DONOR AND RECIPIENT GOVERNMENTS DEBATED
THEIR OWN POLICIES ON THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.

ESSENTIALLY, OUR POSITION IS NEUTRAL. WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MOBILIZE AS MUCH SAFE, HEALTHY FOOD AS
POSSIBLE FOR THE WORLD'S HUNGRY. IN THIS CASE, AS IN ALL
OTHERS, WFP RESPECTS THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF BOTH
DONOR AND RECIPIENT GOVERNMENTS CONCERNING THE IMPORT OF
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS. ALL OF THE FOOD WE DISTRIBUTE
HAS BEEN CERTIFIED SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN, AND WILL CONTINUE TO FIND YOURSELF
ASKED QUESTIONS BY GOVERNMENTS, PARTNERS, MEMBERS OF THE
PRESS AND PUBLIC ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I URGE YOU TO READ
THE CORPORATE MESSAGE BELOW, AND POLICY DOCUMENTS LISTED
AT THE END OF IT. IN PARTICULAR, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
PAPERS DETAILING OUR POLICY ON DONATIONS OF FOODS DERIVED
FROM BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES INCLUDE
KEY INFORMATION ON HOW WFP OFFICES AROUND THE WORLD NEED
TO DEAL WITH FOOD WHICH MAY BE GENETICALLY MODIFIED.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT THE
PEOPLE LISTED [NEIL GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS
DIVISION, AND ALLAN JURY, CHIEF, FOOD SECURITY, SAFETY
NETS AND RELIEF SERVICES].

-------------- --------------
CORPORATE MESSAGE: WFP AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
-------------- --------------

INTERNAL USE ONLY

DO SAY:

OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MOBILIZE AS MUCH SAFE, HEALTHY
FOOD AS POSSIBLE FOR THE WORLD'S HUNGRY.

THE SAME FOOD DISTRIBUTED BY WFP, INCLUDING GM PRODUCTS,
IS REGULARLY EATEN BY PEOPLE IN TORONTO, JOHANNESBURG,
BOSTON, AND BUENOS AIRES.

ALL FOOD DISTRIBUTED BY WFP HAS BEEN TESTED AND FOUND
SAFE TO EAT IN BOTH DONOR AND RECIPIENT COUNTRIES.

WHO AND FAO ARE THE AGENCIES BEST QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON
THE SAFETY OF GM FOODS, AND THEY STATE THAT THERE ARE NO
KNOWN HEALTH RISKS.

WFP ABIDES BY ANY IMPORT REGULATIONS RELATED TO GM FOODS
WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT INTO OR TRANSIT HOST COUNTRIES.

GOVERNMENTS ARE FREE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS. WFP WILL DO ITS BEST TO
IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES, BUT CANNOT ALWAYS GUARANTEE NON-GM
FOOD WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM DONORS.

DO NOT SAY

WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY THINK GM FOODS ARE A GOOD OR BAD
THING.

THAT YOU PERSONALLY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH A GOVERNMENT'S
POLICY ON GM FOODS. WFP MUST RESPECT WHATEVER POLICY AND
LEGISLATION IS IN PLACE.

WFP'S ADVOCACY GOAL

(1.) MAXIMISE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD AID AVAILABLE TO HUNGRY

ROME 00002657 003 OF 006

IFIED FOOD.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:

(1.) MONITOR ANY PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT DEBATE IN YOUR
COUNTRY ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS. FIND OUT
WHETHER OR NOT YOUR HOST GOVERNMENT HAS IMPORT
RESTRICTIONS ON GM/BIOTECH FOODSTUFFS. FIND OUT WHICH
FOODS THESE REGULATIONS REFER TO (E.G. WHOLE GRAINS,
MILLED OR PROCESSED CEREALS, VEGETABLE OILS DERIVED FROM
GM COMMODITIES SUCH AS SOYBEANS DO NOT THEMSELVES HAVE GM
CONTENT AND HAVE NOT BEEN AN ISSUE OF CONTENTION IN
INTERNATIONAL TRADE).

(2.) NOTIFY THE RELEVANT UNITS IN HQ (SHIPPING,
PROGRAMMING, DONOR RELATIONS, ETC) ON THE NATURE OF ANY
RESTRICTIONS ON GM FOODS, AND ANY CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT
POLICY.

(3.) ENSURE ALL STAFF UNDERSTAND AND CAN RELATE WFP'S
POSITION ON GMOS.

(4.) FOLLOW THE WFP POLICY ON DONATIONS OF FOODS DERIVED
FROM BIOTECHNOLOGY OUTLINED IN WFP/EB.3/2002/4-C AND
WFP/EB.A/2003/5-B/REV.1 AND THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES IN
WFP/EB.1/2004/10-C.

--------------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR WFP STAFF
--------------

(1.) DOES WFP DISTRIBUTE GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS?

YES, BUT ONLY IN COUNTRIES ACCEPTING SUCH FOODS. WE DO
NOT DISTRIBUTE GM FOODS IN COUNTRIES THAT HAVE ENACTED
LEGISLATION OR IMPORT REGULATIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE
OF THESE FOODS. DETAILS VARY FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY ON
WHETHER OR NOT PROCESSED FOODS (E.G. BLENDED FOODS) ARE
INCLUDED IN THE RESTRICTIONS, OR WHETHER THEY REFER ONLY
TO WHOLE GRAINS AND/OR SEEDS.

(2.) HOW MANY WFP BENEFICIARIES HAVE RECEIVED GM FOODS?

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WITH ANY PRECISION, BUT THERE IS
A GROWING VOLUME OF GM FOOD IN GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND
TRADE AND IN FOOD AID DONATIONS TO WFP. THEREFORE IT IS
LIKELY THAT TENS OF MILLIONS OF BENEFICIARIES HAVE SAFELY
CONSUMED GM FOOD PROVIDED BY WFP.

(3.) HAS WFP EVER RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS OF ILLNESS OR
ALLERGIC REACTIONS AS A RESULT OF BENEFICIARIES EATING
FOOD THAT MAY HAVE CONTAINED GMOS?

WFP HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY REPORT OF ILLNESS OR ALLERGIC
REACTIONS TO GM FOOD. IN A JOINT STATEMENT ISSUED IN
AUGUST 2002, WHO, FAO AND WFP CONFIRMED THAT THEY ARE NOT
AWARE OF ANY SCIENTIFICALLY DOCUMENTED CASES IN WHICH THE
CONSUMPTION OF GM FOOD HAS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMAN
HEALTH AND THAT THESE FOODS MAY BE SAFELY EATEN.

(4.) WHAT KINDS OF WFP FOOD AID MAY BE GM?

THE MAIN COMMODITIES CONCERNED INCLUDE MAIZE (CORN) AND
SOYBEANS (OFTEN USED IN BLENDED FOODS). THESE
COMMODITIES ARE OFTEN INCLUDED IN STANDARD WFP RATIONS.

(5.) WHAT PORTION OF WFP FOOD AID IS GM?

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY, AS FEW MAJOR GM-PRODUCING
NATIONS SEPARATE GM FROM NON-GM COMMODITIES. WE DO KNOW
THAT MANY OF THE PRODUCERS OF GM FOOD (THE UNITED STATES,
AUSTRALIA, ARGENTINA, SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA, AND CHINA)
ARE AMONG THOSE FROM WHICH WFP TRADITIONALLY SOURCES ITS
FOOD AID.

(6.) WHAT IS WFP'S POLICY ON GM FOOD?

WFP'S POLICY ON GM FOOD IS TO RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF
ALL GOVERNMENTS, WHETHER THEY RELATE TO IMPORTING FOOD

ROME 00002657 004 OF 006

T TO PURCHASE FOOD THAT
MAY BE GM WITH THEIR CASH DONATIONS. SEVERAL DONORS
(GERMANY, NORWAY, BELGIUM, AND SWITZERLAND) HAVE
REQUESTED THAT THEIR CASH CONTRIBUTIONS NOT BE USED TO
PURCHASE GM FOODS AT THIS TIME.

OUR BROADER POLICY REMAINS: ALL FOOD DISTRIBUTED BY THE
PROGRAMME MUST MEET INTERNATIONALLY MANDATED STANDARDS
FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY AND BE CERTIFIED TO BE FIT FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

(7.) WHAT IS THE UNITED NATIONS' POLICY ON GM FOOD?

IN THE MOST RECENT UN STATEMENT, ISSUED IN AUGUST 2002,
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION AND WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME CONFIRMED THAT THEY
WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY SCIENTIFICALLY DOCUMENTED CASES
IN WHICH THE CONSUMPTION OF FOODS CONTAINING GMOS HAD HAD
ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH.

IN JULY 2003, THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (A JOINT ACTIVITY OF
FAO AND WHO) ADOPTED THREE INTERNATIONALLY AGREED UPON
STANDARDS FOR SCIENTIFICALLY ASSESSING FOOD DERIVED FROM
BIOTECHNOLOGY. "PRINCIPLES FOR RISK ANALYSIS OF FOODS
DERIVED FROM MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY", "GUIDELINES FOR THE
CONDUCT OF FOOD SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF FOODS DERIVED FROM
RECOMBINANT-DNA PLANTS" AND "GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT
OF FOOD SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF FOODS PRODUCED USING
RECOMBINANT-DNA MICRO-ORGANISMS" WHICH WILL STANDARDIZE
THE PROCEDURES FOR JUDGING THE SAFETY OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS ONCE IMPLEMENTED IN MEMBER STATES OF THE
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS.

FAO'S STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2003-04 CONCLUDED
THAT BIOTECHNOLOGY OFFERS SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITIES TO
INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY AND VARIETY OF FOOD, RAISING
OVERALL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY WHILE REDUCING SEASONAL
VARIATIONS IN FOOD SUPPLIES. THE EMERGING EVIDENCE ON
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRANSGENIC CROPS SURVEYED IN THIS
REPORT SUGGESTS THAT RESOURCE-POOR SMALLHOLDERS IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CAN BENEFIT IN TERMS OF BOTH
ENHANCED INCOMES AND REDUCED EXPOSURE TO TOXIC
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS. BUT SO FAR ONLY A FEW FARMERS IN
A FEW DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE REAPING THESE BENEFITS.
THERE IS STRONG CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS CONCERNING THE
NEED FOR A CASE-BY-CASE EVALUATION THAT CONSIDERS THE
POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS OF INDIVIDUAL GMOS COMPARED
WITH ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES. (SEE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
ABOVE).

(8.) DOES WFP INDICATE WHICH SHIPMENTS MIGHT BE GM, OR
LABEL FOOD CONTAINERS?

AS PARTIES TO THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL MAY REQUIRE
DOCUMENTATION OF 'LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS', WFP WILL
INCLUDE A DECLARATION ON THE COMMERCIAL INVOICE
ACCOMPANYING ALL SHIPMENTS OF WHOLE GRAIN MAIZE OR
SOYBEANS TO OR THROUGH COUNTRIES WHICH ARE PARTIES TO THE
CARTAGENA PROTOCOL. WHOLE KERNEL MAIZE AND SOYBEANS ARE
CURRENTLY THE ONLY COMMODITIES HANDLED BY WFP THAT
ARE CONSIDERED 'LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS' SINCE THEY CAN
BE PLANTED. THE DECLARATION WILL READ: 'CARTAGENA
PROTOCOL PROVISION. THIS SHIPMENT MAY CONTAIN "LIVING
MODIFIED ORGANISMS INTENDED FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD OR
FEED, OR FOR PROCESSING" THAT ARE NOT INTENDED FOR
INTRODUCTION INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.' (THE CARTAGENA
PROTOCOL IS NOT INTENDED TO REGULATE TRADE IN FOOD
PRODUCTS, BUT APPLIES ONLY TO TRADE IN SEEDS AND OTHER
LIVE GENETIC MATERIALS.)

ANY NEED FOR FURTHER DOCUMENTATION, OR LABELLING OF FOOD
CONTAINERS, WILL BE ADDRESSED ON A COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY
BASIS, DEPENDING ON EACH COUNTRY'S REQUIREMENTS.

(9.) WHAT IS THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK WHICH GOVERNS DONATIONS
OF GM FOOD?

FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, ALL FOOD AID MUST ADHERE TO THE
SAME LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS THAT APPLY TO

ROME 00002657 005 OF 006

ON BIOSAFETY ONLY
GOVERNS THE TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF LIVING MODIFIED
ORGANISMS INTENDED FOR USE AS FOOD OR FEED; IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE PROCESSED FOODS SUCH AS CSB, VEGETABLE OIL ETC.
THE PROTOCOL ENTERED INTO FORCE IN SEPTEMBER 2003, AND
THOSE NATIONS THAT RATIFIED THE PROTOCOL ARE NOW ADAPTING
THEIR IMPORT REGIMES TO REFLECT ITS PROVISIONS. WFP WILL
CONTINUE TO ABIDE BY WHATEVER NATIONAL LEGISLATION IS PUT
IN PLACE REGARDING THE IMPORT OF FOOD AID, INCLUDING ANY
RESTRICTIONS ON GM FOODS.

(10.) IS WFP INVOLVED IN 'DUMPING' GMO COMMODITIES ON
THE POOR?

NO. GLOBAL FOOD AID REPRESENTS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF
THE 1.5 BILLION TONS OF GRAINS CONSUMED GLOBALLY EACH
YEAR. THE FOOD AID MARKET IS HARDLY RICH PICKINGS IN AN
INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKET VALUED AT $583 BILLION A YEAR.
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, THE PRICE OF MAIZE AND SOYBEANS
WORLDWIDE HAS ACTUALLY RISEN SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR
EXPORTERS TO "DUMP" UNWANTED GM COMMODITIES THAT THEY
COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD PROFITABLY ON THE INTERNATIONAL
MARKET. SINCE COMMODITIES ARE GENERALLY NOT SEGREGATED
ACCORDING TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY MIGHT BE GM, IT WOULD BE
QUITE DIFFICULT TO 'DUMP' THEM SEPARATELY IN ANY EVENT.

ADDITIONALLY, DONORS TO WFP ARE REQUIRED TO PAY ALL
TRANSPORT, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH COMMODITY DONATIONS, AND THESE OFTEN AMOUNT TO MORE
THAN THE COST OF THE FOOD ITSELF. FROM AN ECONOMIC
VANTAGE POINT, FOOD AID IS A HIGHLY INEFFICIENT WAY TO
DISPOSE OF FOOD SURPLUSES. THERE ARE FAR CHEAPER WAYS
FOR EXPORTING NATIONS TO REDUCE THEIR SUPPLIES OF FOOD,
SUCH AS DISCOUNTS, EXPORT SUBSIDIES ETC.

(11.) HAS WFP EVER FORCED A COUNTRY TO ACCEPT FOODS
CONTAINING GMOS?

NO. WFP RESPECTS THE POLICIES OF ITS DONOR AND RECIPIENT
COUNTRIES ON FOODS DERIVED FROM MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY.
WFP IS NOT A TECHNICAL AGENCY; WE CANNOT PROVIDE GUIDANCE
ON THE SAFETY OR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF GMOS, OTHER
THAN REITERATING THE OFFICIAL UN POSITION (SEE ABOVE).
WE SHOULD, HOWEVER, ADVISE HOST COUNTRIES OF THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT LEGISLATION ON GM FOODS MIGHT HAVE ON
THE AVAILABILITY OF FOOD AID, IF THAT COUNTRY HAS
TRADITIONALLY RECEIVED FOOD FROM COUNTRIES THAT GROW GM
COMMODITIES.

WHEN REQUESTED TO DO SO, WFP DOES ITS BEST TO IDENTIFY
OTHER NON-GM SOURCES OF FOOD AID. AS A VOLUNTARILY
FUNDED AGENCY, OUR SUCCESS IN DOING THAT DEPENDS ENTIRELY
ON DONORS PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE COMMODITIES OR CASH TO
PURCHASE THEM.

IN SOUTHERN AFRICA IN 2002, SEVERAL GOVERNMENTS RAISED
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE FOOD AID THAT CONTAINED
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS. EVENTUALLY, ALL OF THE
COUNTRIES CONCERNED, EXCEPT ZAMBIA, ELECTED TO ACCEPT GM
FOODS AS LONG AS THEY WERE MILLED OR PROCESSED, WHICH WFP
ENSURED. ZAMBIA DECLINED ANY FOOD WITH A POTENTIAL GM
CONTENT. WFP MANAGED, AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE AND DELAY,
TO IDENTIFY NON-GM FOOD FOR ZAMBIA'S FOOD AID NEEDS.

(12.) WHAT KIND OF IMPACT CAN THE DECISION TO BAN GMOS
HAVE ON FOOD AID AVAILABILITY AND THE HUNGRY?

IF A COUNTRY DECIDES NOT TO PERMIT THE IMPORTATION OF
FOOD WITH A GENETICALLY MODIFIED CONTENT, WFP WILL TRY TO
IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES, ALL OF WHICH MAY IMPLY HIGHER
COSTS, FEWER BENEFICIARIES REACHED AND POTENTIAL DELAYS
FOR FOOD AID DELIVERIES.

- WHILE WHOLE GRAIN MAIZE OR SOYBEANS MIGHT NOT BE
PERMITTED, MILLED MAIZE OR PROCESSED SOY MIGHT BE.
MILLING AND PROCESSING NOT ONLY HAVE AN ADDED COST PER
TON, BUT MILLED AND PROCESSED PRODUCTS ALSO HAVE A
SHORTER SHELF-LIFE AND MORE COMPLEX TRANSPORT AND
LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS.

ROME 00002657 006 OF 006

OF MONEY. IT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR WFP TO PROVIDE INFO ON HOW A PARTICULAR
REGULATION MIGHT AFFECT WFP OPERATIONS IN THE COUNTRY IN
QUESTION. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE FACTUAL AND COUNTRY-
SPECIFIC, AND MAY INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE PRACTICAL
ARRANGEMENTS NECESSARY FOR WFP TO COMPLY WITH ANY
PROPOSED NEW REGULATION.

(13.) WHAT ABOUT THE CONCERNS REGARDING GM SEEDS
ENTERING THE ENVIRONMENT?

WFP DOES NOT GENERALLY DISTRIBUTE SEEDS. IT MAY HAPPEN
THAT WHOLE GRAIN MAIZE OR SOYBEANS WOULD BE PLANTED, BUT
GIVEN THAT MOST OF OUR FOOD IS GIVEN IN EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS, PEOPLE ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO EAT THEIR
RATIONS THAN PLANT THEM. FOR MOST FOOD COMMODITIES, THE
OPTION OF MILLING OR PROCESSING THE WHOLE KERNELS ALLAYS
THIS CONCERN.

END TEXT.


7. (U) KHARTOUM MINIMIZE CONSIDERED.

HALL


NNNN
2004ROME02657 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED