Looks like Monsanto ordered a distraction campaign in the run up to the current bad news week -- publication of the GM farm scale trial results, generating headlines like "The end of GM crops", and the admission that tons of rogue GM corn has gone into the food chain worldwide.

The industry will have had time to prepare for both and surely it cannot be just coincidence that, on one side of the Atlantic, we've had a wave of invective against critics of GM, as "extremists", "fundamentalists", etc, while on the other AgBioView's attack dogs have suddenly been let off the leash - not least, as these attack dogs have been pretty much kept out of the fray since the exposure in 2002 that AgBioView was being used as a front for poison pen attacks by Monsanto and its PR firm - see "Monsanto's Web of Deceit"
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=25&page=1

Now, suddenly, the pit bulls are back savaging the "execrable Zambian Jesuits", "infamous Oxfam", and accusing even Tony Blair of wanting to do down GM! At the same time a whole array of different people are being charged with having the "blood of starvation victims" on their hands.

Below we reproduce an interesting exchange of correspondence between AgBioView attack dog, Alex Avery, and Robert Vint over the GM food aid crisis in Zambia in 2002. For Avery's previous attack along these lines on Chuck Benbrook, see:
'Avery says Benbrook has blood on his hand'
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4993
For a profile of Avery see:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=14
For more nasty stuff see
'Today in AgBioView - Money and Blood!'
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5019

Back in 2002 Dr Benbrook told the Zambians he supected that, "To a large extent, this 'crisis' has been manufactured (might I say, 'engineered') by those looking for a new source of traction in the evolving global debate over agricultural biotechnology." 3 years on, it looks like the crisis is now being reworked by those desperate for a new source of distraction in the GM debate.
------

1. More to Blame for Zambian Decision to Reject U.S. Food Aid
- Alex Avery <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Chuck Benbrook emailed me upset that I singled him out in answering who is to blame for the Zambian decision to reject U.S. food aid corn and that I implied that he had blood on his hands. I do believe that among others, Chuck has the metaphorical blood of starvation victims on his hands. However, in the interest of fairness, Chuck wasn't the only one who advocated Zambia's unconscionable decision.

The Zambian delegation's report to Zambian President Mwanawasa noted in an appendix who they met with in their various visits in the U.S. and other countries. Here is a partial list of the organizations and people who met with the Zambian delegation and likely warned against accepting U.S. food aid corn given their past anti-biotechnology positions:

United States -- Consumer Union (Ed Groth, Michael Hansen), Friends of the Earth (Bill Freese), US Public Interest Research Group (Richard Caplan), National Environmental Trust (Matt Rand), Center for Science in the Public Interest (Greg Jaffe, Doug Gurian Sherman), Council for Responsible Genetics (Sujatha Byravan, Susan Fasten, Brandon Kein)

United Kingdom - Institute of Science in Society (Lim Li Chin), Genetic Engineering Network International (Joyce Hambling), Genetif Food Alert (Robert Yint)

Norway - Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (Terje Traavik of Philippines disease outbreak fame).

**

2. ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: re: More to Blame for Zambian Decision to Reject U.S. Food Aid
Date: Tuesday 22 March 2005 8:51
From: Robert Vint <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
To: Alex Avery <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Cc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Open Letter To: Alex Avery (cc C.S.Prakash)
From: Robert Vint, Genetic Food Alert

Dear Alex,

Your AgBioView article "More to Blame for Zambian Decision to Reject U.S. Food Aid" is entertaining stuff! Several articles from US politicians and lobbyists such as yourself have suggested that we be tried in the International Criminal Court for mass murder. Maybe you will allow my response to be published on AgBioView before my execution?

There are several problems with your case:

Firstly, there are no victims. Most donor nations offer cash to recipient nations to buy food as locally as possible. Surrounding nations and other parts of Zambia had surplus crops. When the US refused to offer cash to Zambia, the Zambian Government simply used its own financial reserves to buy food from Kenya and other African nations.

Secondly, the people you are accusing committed the offence of participating in a consultation exercise organised by the US and UK Governments for Zambian scientists. Discussing scientific matters as part of a dialogue in which opposing views were heard hardly constitutes murder. The Zambian scientists listening to these various views were doctors and professors mainly educated in American universities. Surely you don't believe that because they were black they could be easily brainwashed by Westerners? My specific crime, by the way, was to suggest to the Zambian delegation that they obtained and reviewed the original safety research on GM foods. I'm a great supporter of sound science and empirical research. Oddly both the US and UK Government representatives refused to provide this data - or even to confirm its existence. Maybe you could provide it?

Thirdly, the USA does not recognise the International Criminal Court - so your only legal option is to have us deported to Guantanamo Bay.

On a more serious note, you and your colleagues claim that GM crops are 'feeding the world' - yet no GM crop variety currently yields more food per acre than the best conventional varieties. The USA, which could once claim to be 'feeding the world' in the sense that it was a net exporter of food, has since the introduction of GM crops, become a net importer. US farms, unlike Mexican ones, need massive subsidies to compete on the international market.

Furthermore, hunger is still widespread in the USA :
- see www.secondharvest.org/hunger_by_state.asp?s=44
for a map of hunger in the USA state by state,
and www.secondharvest.org/hunger_stories.asp?s=44
for personal accounts of hungry Americans.
I'm not sure how GM crops are supposed to be helping them.

Last year Zambia had a bumper harvest and supplied 100,000 tonnes of its surplus to the World Food Programme. Maybe the WFP should be tried for crimes against humanity for failing to use this food to feed the hungry Americans?

Finally, I don't know your economic views, but I imagine that you think, as I do, that it makes better economic and humanitarian sense (both nationally and globally) to help the poor to look after themselves rather than to let them become dependent on handouts and lose the capacity for self help. The European Union and Japan realise that dumping free food on nations stops their farmers from selling their food. Dumping food year after year leads to a situation where farmers give up growing food - despite the demand and the fertility of the land. That is why the EU and Japan help nations to buy food for aid from farmers as close as possible to where food is needed - and why they allow recipient nations to choose what kind of food they buy. This supports local production and helps ensure food shortages don't arise there in future years. The USA, in contrast, has actually enshrined in federal law a requirement that all aid to hungry regions should take the form of dumped US grain. I wonder how many people have died in the long term because of the resultant destruction of Africa's agricultural economy?

Yours sincerely,
Robert Vint,
Genetic Food Alert UK.
**

3. On Tuesday 22 March 2005 9:55, you wrote:
Robert, thanks for the email. A few observations: I am a policy analyst for a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. I'm not a lobbyist (i.e. advocating for or against legislation). I've never worked for a lobbying organization nor have I ever worked for any for-profit corporations. I began working with the Center directly out of graduate school.

Nor have I ever called for anyone to be tried in the International Criminal Court, as you suggest. Such a call is, of course, absurd. That does not mean that I don't sincerely believe that the advice some groups and individuals gave to the Zambians did not at least give political cover for a Zambian political decision that had direct and dire consequences for southerners, thousands of whom starved to death or succumbed to diseases due to increased susceptibility from malnutrition.

You claim there were no victims? Please! Simply because these deaths were not recorded on camera doesn't mean they didn't happen (FYI: My stepmother lived in Zambia for many years and I know well the situation there and the horrific tribal politics that come into play). Such a claim as "there were no victims" is directly akin to those who claim that there has not been a genocide occurring in Darfur, Sudan over the past half decade.

Your claims that the "US refused to offer cash to Zambia" are ignorant of longstanding U.S. law, passed by the U.S. congress in the 1970s, requiring that any U.S. foreign food aid donations be in the form of U.S. commodity stocks. Thus, USAID is barred from offering cash. Yet this point is essentially irrelevant when the hungry must be fed food. Cash does not help procure food if there is little local food available (the reason for the food aid in the first place) and regional food prices are high because of those shortages.

Why is it that the villagers in one southern village, upon discovering that the U.S. food aid stocks locked in a local warehouse were to be shipped back out of Zambia, stormed the warehouse, overpowered the lone armed guard, and walked off with hundreds of tons of U.S.-donated corn? They did not rob a bank, they robbed a food warehouse. Clearly they did not share the unfounded food safety concerns of the Zambian president (who was never in danger of starving to death or losing his children to starvation)--unfounded food safety concerns promulgated by your group, among others.

You say that "Discussing scientific matters as part of a dialogue in which opposing views were heard hardly constitutes murder." Of course it doesn't, however, promoting baseless and scientifically unfounded food safety concerns that are used as transparent cover for unconscionable actions to starve out and punish a sitting president's political opposition are questionable at best and, at worst, aid and abet political murder.

Or are you so ignorant of the cynical machinations of African politics? This is currently occurring elsewhere in Africa, such as Zimbabwe, where one cannot obtain food aid donated from S. Africa and elsewhere unless one can show their ZANU-PF (i.e. President Mugabe's party) political affiliation card.

These are the nuances of the political reality in East and Southern Africa -- something that seems not to concern you but gravely concern me.

You ask "Surely you don't believe that because they were black they could be easily brainwashed by Westerners?" No, but I believe ignorant Westerners can be easily used by Machiavellian African politicians (and their scientist appointees) to advance their sinister agenda.

You observe that "the USA does not recognise the International Criminal Court - so your only legal option is to have us deported to Guantanamo Bay."

Again, I have never once suggested that you, Dr. Benbrook, or anyone else involved in this needless tragedy be tried in the ICC.

I totally agree with you that U.S. and European farm subsidies are counterproductive and directly harm small-holder farmers in developing countries. As such, The Center for Global Food Issues has actively argued against U.S. farm subsidy programs since the inception of the Center in 1989. Our director was the lead witness to the Senate Hearings for the 1995 "Freedom to Farm" farm bill that was supposed to phase out all U.S. farm subsidies over 7 years. The direction started with that farm bill was reversed, unfortunately, in the 2002 Farm Bill -- a policy we strongly advocated against.

I also think that the law that Congress passed in the 1970s should be scrapped in favor of a more flexible approach that could, when appropriate, provide monies to procure more locally-grown foodstuffs to aid in food shortages. You'll get no argument from me there.

But while we're on the topic of helping the poor, malnourished peoples of the developing countries, will you go on record in support of Ingo Potrykus's Rockefellor- European Union-funded efforts (along with IRRI, etc) to get Golden Rice free into the hands of small-holder farmers in Africa and Southeast Asia where Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD) is causing --according to the World Health Organization -- some 180,000 children to die each month from VAD-associated disease and another 40,000 to go permanently blind? That is akin to another Asian Tsunami every month, month after month, needlessly.

As Dr. Potrykus notes:
* Golden Rice has not been developed by and for industry.
* It fulfills an urgent need by complementing traditional interventions.
* It presents a sustainable, cost-free solution, not requiring other resources.
* It avoids the unfortunate negative side effects of the Green Revolution.
* Industry does not benefit from it.
* Those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged.
* It is given free of charge and restrictions to subsistence farmers.
* It does not create any new dependencies.
* It will be grown without any additional inputs.
* It does not create advantages to rich landowners.
* It can be resown every year from the saved harvest.
* It does not reduce agricultural biodiversity.
* It does not affect natural biodiversity.
* There is, so far, no conceptual negative effect on the environment.
* There is, so far, no conceivable risk to consumer health.
* It was not possible to develop the trait with traditional methods, etc.

Alex Avery
Director of Research
Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute
PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421
(540) 337-6354, or -6387
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
**

4. From: Robert Vint <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 23 March 2005 02:00:20 GMT
To: "Alex Avery" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Cc: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: Zambia - Response to Robert Vint and Genetic Food Alert, UK
To: Alex Avery (cc C.S.Prakash)
From: Robert Vint, Genetic Food Alert
Re: Your response below

Alex - Thanks for your rapid response.

I don't want to get into the semantics of the word 'lobbyist'. Your Center for Global Food Issues is part of the Hudson Institute - funded by AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Novartis Crop Protection, Zeneca, Du Pont, DowElanco, ConAgra, Cargill, Procter & Gamble and others. In apparent coordination with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Center for Public Policy Research, Steven Milloy's Citizens for the Integrity of Science, Frances Smith's Consumer Alert and Philip Stott's ProBiotech you campaign on a package of issues - not only advocacy of GM crops but also opposing the Kyoto treaty and CO2 emission regulations, opposing regulation of DDT and opposing organic farming & labels. These campaigns clearly benefit the above named sponsors.

James Morris and the World Food Programme have admitted that no deaths resulted from Zambia's rejection of the US maize. Whereas famine deaths in Sudan have been widely recorded and condemned since racial violence began, there there have been no documented observations or newspaper reports of deaths in Zambia. The only claim I can find, which is entirely unsubstantiated, is an email claiming that "perhaps as many as 20,000 Zambians died as a result" (AgBioView 6 Aug 2004). This comes from from your colleague and fellow lobbyist (or whatever term you prefer), Roger Bate - founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs and fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The failure of the WFP - or more particularly USAID - to provide appropriate local aid or to communicate with the Zambian government resulted in the chaos on the ground you describe. Zambia and other southern African nations provided over three months notice that they required non-GM food yet USAID ignored these messages and shipped the food half way around the world anyway - without prior informed consent. No help was offered to transport available food - such as 100,000 tonnes of surplus cassava from northern Zambia or maize from other parts of Zambia - despite specific requests by Zambia's Programme Against Malnutrition and by the Christian Council of Zambia. GM maize (unsegregated) was shipped from the US even though 70 percent of the US corn harvest (and the entire African corn harvest - except in SA) was non-GM. The intention of the US administration seemed to be to create the situation where southern African nations would face a "GM or Death" ultimatum. At the time Oxfam International stated that "food aid programmes have historically been used inappropriately with industrialised countries using them to dispose of surpluses and create food dependencies" and urged governments and the FAO to "develop and implement food aid standards that prevent the distribution of GMO's in food aid".

I am not aware that anyone informed Zambia that GM maize was dangerous - I certainly did not - nor did the Zambian scientists reach this conclusion. In fact, far from "promoting baseless and scientifically unfounded food safety concerns", I merely discussed possible scientific questions that the Zambian delegation could ask the UK Government's scientists. As President Mwanawasa said at the time, "We have not been advised that the GM maize is unsafe nor have we been advised that it is safe, there is no scientific evidence and therefore, as government we felt that it was only proper and sound that we take measures which we have taken." They were unable, for example, to obtain any research data from the US or UK into potential hazards from viral promoters or antibiotic resistance genes.

OK - you personally have not called for me to be tried in the International Criminal Court. Calls for us to be "tried for crimes against humanity" were repeated this year by Tony Hall, U.S. ambassador to the FAO. He earlier (Dec 2002) demanded that those who reject genetically engineered food aid should be tried "for the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts of the world". Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, has said "The Bush administration is not going to sit there and let these groups kill millions of poor people in southern Africa through their ideological campaign". You yourself quote Willie DeGreef's statement that "you're talking about literally crimes against humanity".

It is interesting that we seem to be in agreement on the need to repeal US Public Law 480. I'm well aware that this law requires that any U.S. foreign food aid donations be in the form of U.S. commodity stocks and I have campaigned against it in cooperation with several development charities. Not only does PL480 violate free market principles in the provision of aid but it also contravenes the 1999 Food Aid Convention - to which the US is a signatory. This recognises that food aid should be bought from the most cost effective source, be culturally acceptable and if possible purchased locally so that regional markets do not suffer.

We also seem to be in agreement about the impact of US and EU agricultural subsidies. We are part of an alliance that includes unions representing the majority of UK farmers. As well as opposing GM crops they oppose these subsidies because competition drives down farm gate prices as far as the subsidies permit and the subsidy then ends up in the pockets of the supermarkets rather than the farmers. Meanwhile farmers in poorer nations are unfairly put out of business through dumping - a lose-lose situation. It is notable, however, that most GM crops globally are grown by subsidised farmers.

Finally you ask about Golden Rice. I must ask why Vitamin A Deficiency has arisen. It seems to because the traditional source of Vitamin A in the Asian diet - diverse green leafy plants that grow in rice fields - have been eliminated by the herbicides that you and the Hudson Institute promote. Herbicide-resistant GM crops, designed to maintain demand for these herbicides, will prolong this deficiency. Golden Rice is still under development - and it seems it will have to be eaten in copious quantities to offer any benefits [See: 'Mirage' of GMs' golden promise
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3122923.stm ].

Meanwhile IRRI has already developed - through non-GM breeding - a variety of rice called IR-68114. IRRI says that this ''high yielding, high iron, high Vitamin A, high zinc variety is especially needed in poor countries where malnutrition is rampant''. The traditional Indian 'Sambaka' variety of rice also seems to be naturally rich in beta-carotenes. These varieties already seem to have all the advantages you hope Golden Rice might one day have - but none of the disadvantages - so should not Golden Rice research funding be diverted to promoting these less controversial varieties?

Robert Vint, Director
Genetic Food Alert UK.