This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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