To ease your site search, article categories are at bottom of page.

August 29, 2011

Monsanto interests guide U.S. diplomacy, WikiLeaks cables show

by Sarah Damian

We know Monsanto and other biotech giants have been pushing genetically modified crops around the globe, but new diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks last week make it clear how entangled our government is in corporate agricultural interests.

U.S. diplomats have certainly been making an effort to protect GM interests abroad. Truthout reports:

''Several cables describe "biotechnology outreach programs" in countries across the globe, including African, Asian and South American countries where Western biotech agriculture had yet to gain a foothold. In some cables  US diplomats ask the State Department for funds to send US biotech experts and trade industry representatives to target countries for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials.''

The promotion of agricultural biotechnology in dozens of countries was referenced in U.S. embassy documents ranging from 2005 to 2010. France, in particular, seems to be a major target since it has been slow to adopt GM crops despite outside pressure.

A 2008 cable summarizes a French documentary, "The World According to Monsanto," that attacks the U.S. biotech regime, including the "revolving door" between Monsanto and the U.S. government which has allowed little government oversight over biotech products. The cable reads:

''The film argues that Monsanto exerted undue influence on the USG. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is interviewed saying he had felt that he was under pressure and that more tests should have been conducted on biotech products before they were approved. Jeffrey Smith, Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, who is interviewed says that a number of Bush Administration officers were close to Monsanto, either having obtained campaign contributions from the company or having worked directly for it...''

Clearly disturbed by these points, embassy diplomats requested "that Washington agencies provide talking points" so the officers could respond to the documentary on an "if asked" basis. They didn't want to draw attention to the film, but instead focus on "the positive role ag biotech can play in meeting world food needs." Sounds like Monsanto's PR claims … straight from the mouths of government officials (do they get commission for that?).

Talking points are one thing. Systematic retaliation against dissenting countries is another. You see, when it came to French efforts to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety, a more aggressive reaction resulted, as shown in a 2007 cable released by WikiLeaks in December 2010. Craig Stapleton, former ambassador to France under the Bush administration, "asked Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops," reported AlterNet. Stapleton wrote:

''Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. ''

So not only were U.S. diplomats working on behalf of the biotech industry, they were also advocating threatening other governments who didn't follow suit.

It's not exactly breaking news that corporate and government power are intertwined at the federal level. But even for us dealing with whistleblowers every day, it's astonishing to see more evidence of how commonplace it is for corporate marketing to be propelled on government dollars.

Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, a leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

full article with relevant links...Food Whistle Blower

Related: The role of the U.S. in Kenya's embrace of GM crops

Article Categories

AGRA agribusiness agrochemicals agroforestry aid Algeria aloe vera Angola aquaculture banana barley beans beef bees Benin biodiesel biodiversity biof biofuel biosafety biotechnology Botswana Brazil Burkina Faso Burundi CAADP Cameroon capacity building cashew cassava cattle Central African Republic cereals certification CGIAR Chad China CIMMYT climate change cocoa coffee COMESA commercial farming Congo Republic conservation agriculture cotton cow pea dairy desertification development disease diversification DRCongo drought ECOWAS Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia EU EUREPGAP events/meetings expo exports fa fair trade FAO fertilizer finance fisheries floods flowers food security fruit Gabon Gambia gender issues Ghana GM crops grain green revolution groundnuts Guinea Bissau Guinea Conakry HIV/AIDS honey hoodia horticulture hydroponics ICIPE ICRAF ICRISAT IFAD IITA imports India infrastructure innovation inputs investment irrigation Ivory Coast jatropha kenaf keny Kenya khat land deals land management land reform Lesotho Liberia Libya livestock macadamia Madagascar maiz maize Malawi Mali mango marijuana markets Mauritania Mauritius mechanization millet Morocco Mozambique mushroom Namibia NEPAD Niger Nigeria organic agriculture palm oil pastoralism pea pest control pesticides pineapple plantain policy issues potato poultry processing productivity Project pyrethrum rai rain reforestation research rice rivers rubber Rwanda SADC Sao Tome and Principe seed seeds Senegal sesame Seychelles shea butter Sierra Leone sisal soil erosion soil fertility Somalia sorghum South Africa South Sudan Southern Africa spices standards subsidies Sudan sugar sugar cane sustainable farming Swaziland sweet potato Tanzania tariffs tea tef tobacco Togo tomato trade training Tunisia Uganda UNCTAD urban farming value addition value-addition vanilla vegetables water management weeds West Africa wheat World Bank WTO yam Zambia Zanzibar zero tillage Zimbabwe

  © 2007 Africa News Network design by

Back to TOP