biotech ambassadors: how the u.s. state department promotes the seed industry's global agenda

7/30/2019 Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry's Global Agenda

1/23

How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industrys Global Agend


2/23

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the ood, waterand fsh we consume is sae, accessible and sustainable

So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink,

we help people take charge o where their ood comes

rom, keep clean, aordable, public tap water owing

reely to our homes, protect the environmental quality

o oceans, orce government to do its job protecting

citizens, and educate about the importance o keeping

shared resources under public control.

Food & Water Watch Caliornia Ofce

1616 P St. NW, Ste. 300 25 Stillman St., Ste. 200

Washington, DC20036 San Francisco, CA 94107

tel: (202) 683-2500 tel: (415) 293-9900

ax: (202) 683-2501 ax: (415) 293-8394

[email protected] [email protected]

www.oodandwaterwatch.org

Copyright May 2013 by Food & Water Watch.

All rights reserved.

This report can be viewed or downloaded

at www.oodandwaterwatch.org.

About Food & Water Watch

VER PHOTOS: (LEFT) PHOTO COURTESY OF CHRIS LACROIX / SXC.HU; (TOP RIGH T) PHOTO CC-BY DAVE HOISINGTON/CIMMYT VIA PLoS.ORG


3/23

Execuive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Inroducion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sae Deparmen Sraegy, Message, Tacics and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

State Department Biotech Charm Ofensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Taking the Biotech Spin Cycle on the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Four Goals o Biotech Diplomacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Corporae Diplomacy and Monsanos Goodwill Ambassadors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Patently Ofensive: State Department Intervenes in Commercial Disputes or Monsanto. . . . 9

Pressuring Foreign Governmens o Reduce Oversigh o Bioech Crops. . . . . . . . . . . . .10

U.S. Embassies Aggressively Opposed GE Labeling Eforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Pushing Bioech on he Developing World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

U.S.-Biotech Industry Campaign to Commercialize GE Crops in Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . .13

U.S. Government Pushes Ghana Biotech Law Over Finish Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Nigeria Advances U.S.-Draed GE Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Combining Diplomaic Carros Wih WTO Sicks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Conclusion and Recommendaions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Mehodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Endnoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industrys Global Agenda


4/23

2 Food & Water Watch tXXXGPPEBOEXBUFSXBUDIPSH

Agriculural developmen is essenial or he developing

world o oser susainable economies, enhance ood

securiy o comba global hunger and increase resiliency

o climae change. Addressing hese challenges will

require diverse sraegies ha emphasize susainable,

producive approaches ha are direced by counries in

he developing world.

Bu in he pas decade, he Unied Saes has aggres-

sively pursued oreign policies in ood and agriculure

ha benei he larges seed companies. The U.S.

Sae Deparmen has launched a concered sraegy

o promoe agriculural bioechnology, ofen over he

opposiion o he public and governmens, o he near

exclusion o oher more susainable, more appropriae

agriculural policy alernaives.

In 2009, he presigious Inernaional Assessmen o

Agriculural Knowledge, Science and Technology or

Developmen concluded ha he high coss or seeds

and chemicals, uncerain yields and he poenial o

undermine local ood securiy make bioechnology a poor

choice or he developing world.1

The U.S. Sae Deparmen has lobbied oreign govern-

mens o adop pro-agriculural bioechnology policies

and laws, operaed a rigorous public relaions campaign

o improve he image o bioechnology and challenged

commonsense bioechnology saeguards and rules even

including opposing laws requiring he labeling o genei-

cally engineered (GE) oods.

Food & Waer Wach closely examined ive years o

Sae Deparmen diplomaic cables rom 2005 o 2009 o

provide he irs comprehensive analysis o he sraegy,

acics and U.S. oreign policy objecives o ois pro-

agriculural bioechnology policies worldwide. Food &

Waer Wachs illuminaing indings include:

The U.S. State Departments multiaceted eforts

to promote the biotechnology industry overseas:

The Sae Deparmen argeed oreign reporers,

hosed and coordinaed pro-bioech conerences andpublic evens and brough oreign opinion-makers o

he Unied Saes on high-proile junkes o improve

he image o agriculural bioechnology overseas and

overcome widespread public opposiion o GE crops

and oods.

The State Departments coordinated campaign

to promote biotech business interests: The Sae

Deparmen promoed no only pro-bioechnology

policies bu also he producs o bioech companies.

The sraegy cables explicily proec he ineress

o bioech exporers, aciliae rade in agribioech

producs and encourage he culivaion o GE crops

in more counries, especially in he developing world.2

The State Departments determined advocacy

to press the developing world to adopt biotech

crops: The diplomaic cables documen a coordinaed

eor o lobby counries in he developing world opass legislaion and implemen regulaions avored

by he bioech seed indusry. This sudy examines

he Sae Deparmen lobbying campaigns in Kenya,

Ghana and Nigeria o pass pro-bioech laws.

The State Departments eforts to orce other

nations to accept biotech crop and ood imports:

The Sae Deparmen works wih he U.S. Trade

Represenaive o promoe he expor o bioech crops

and o orce naions ha do no wan hese impors

o accep U.S. bioech oods and crops.

The Sae Deparmens eors impose he policy objec-

ives o he larges bioech seed companies on ofen skep-

ical or resisan governmens and public, and exempliies

hinly veiled corporae diplomacy. Food & Waer Wach

provides a deailed insigh ino he moivaions, acics

and goals o he Sae Deparmen and is closely coor-

dinaed advocacy eors wih he bioech indusry ha

undermine oher naions righ o deermine heir own

ood and agriculural policies and objecives.

Executive Summary


5/23

Biotech Ambassadorst

)PXUIF644UBUF%FQBSUNFOU1SPNPUFTUIF4FFE*OEVTUSZT(MPCBM"HFOEB 3

IntroductionIn he las decade, he Unied Saes has pursued oreign

policy objecives on ood and agriculure ha benei a ew

big seed companies. This commonly akes he orm o he

U.S. Sae Deparmen exercising is diplomaic presige and

bully pulpi o pressure oreign governmens o adop policies

avored by he agriculural bioechnology companies.

Food & Waer Wachs comprehensive analysis o SaeDeparmen diplomaic cables reveals a concered sraegy

o promoe agriculural bioechnology overseas, compel

counries o impor bioech crops and oods ha hey do

no wan, and lobby oreign governmens especially in

he developing world o adop policies o pave he way o

culivae bioech crops.

The Sae Deparmen views is heavy-handed promoion

o bioech agriculure as science diplomacy,3 bu i is

closer o corporae diplomacy on behal o he bioech-

nology indusry. Food & Waer Wachs close examinaion

o he cables demonsraes a concered public relaions

sraegy by he Sae Deparmen o improve he image

o bioech crops overseas, coordinae wih bioech seed

companies and press oreign governmens o adop pro-

bioech policies.

In he Unied Saes, agriculural bioechnology dominaes

corn, soybean and coton producion,4 bu mos counries

have no adoped geneically engineered crops. Bioech or

GE crops, also known as geneically modiied organisms

(GMOs), are creaed by ranserring geneic maerial rom

one organism ino anoher o creae speciic rais, suchas resisance o reamen wih herbicides or o make a

plan produce is own pesicide o repel insecs.5 Bioech

companies sell he seeds and ofen he agrichemicals ha

are used wih herbicide-resisan crops. By 2009, nearly all

(93 percen) o U.S. soybeans and our-ifhs (80 percen) o

U.S. corn culivaed were grown rom GE seeds covered by

Monsano paens.6

Alhough he U.S. commodiy crop marke is nearly

sauraed wih bioech seeds, mos o he world remains

bioech-ree. Even 17 years afer bioech crops were irsinroduced in he Unied Saes in 1996, only ive counries

culivaed 89.4 percen o bioech crops in 2012 (he Unied

Saes, Brazil, Argenina, Canada and India).7 The seed

companies need he power o he U.S. Sae Deparmen o

orce more counries, more armers and more consumers o

accep, culivae and ea heir producs.

The Sae Deparmen has been more han willing o

accommodae he bioech seed companies. Food & Waer

Wach ound 926 U.S. Sae Deparmen cables rom 113

counries beween 2005 and 2009 ha discussed agricul-

ural bioechnology and geneically engineered crops. (SeeFigure 1.) The cables were culled rom he quarer-million

cables released by he Wikileaks open-records organizaion

in 2010. Alhough Wikileaks gained nooriey or releasing

cables abou naional securiy, his analysis does no

include any cables classiied as secre or higher.

The dispaches provide a glimpse ino he moivaion,

mehod and goals o bioech diplomacy. The Wikileaks

cables were only a sample o all U.S. diplomaic commu-

nicaions raic, represening abou 10 percen o all Sae

Deparmen cables beween 2006 and 2009 (a subse o heperiod ha Food & Waer Wach examined ha had he

mos released cables).8 The number o bioech cables appears

o have increased seadily and grew aser han he overall

number o Wikileaks cables. (See mehodology, page 16.)

State Department Strategy,Message, Tactics and GoalsBeween 2007 and 2009, he Sae Deparmen sen

annual cables o encourage he use o agriculural

bioechnology, direcing every diplomaic pos worldwide

o pursue an acive bioech agenda ha promoes agri-culural bioechnology, encourages he expor o bioech

crops and oods and advocaes or pro-bioech policies and

laws.9 One sraegy memo even included an advocacy

oolki or diplomaic poss.10 Embassies could leverage

heir pro-bioech eors by coordinaing wih he U.S.

Agency or Inernaional Developmen (USAID, an inde-

penden agency under he Sae Deparmens auhoriy11)

he U.S. Deparmen o Agriculure (USDA) and oher

Figure 1.Number of Biotech Diplomacy Cables

SOURCE: FOOD & WATER WATCH ANALYSIS OF WIKILEAKS CABLEGATE DATABASE.

106

136

186

244 254

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


6/23


ederal agencies.12 The cables are nearly idenical rom he

Bush o he Obama adminisraions: promoing bioech

agriculure is a non-parisan, pro-corporae oreign policy

wih long-erm Sae Deparmen suppor.

6WDWH'HSDUWPHQW%LRWHFK&KDUP2HQVLYHThe Sae Deparmens uncriical endorsemen o bioech

agriculure is more eecive han he indusrys own exen-

sive public relaions eors. The diplomaic communicaionscampaign aimed o promoe undersanding and accepance

o he echnology and develop suppor or U.S. govern-

men rade and developmen policy posiions on bioech

in ligh o he negaive percepion o GE crops worldwide.13

In 2008, Secreary o Sae Condoleezza Rice admited, I

know ha GMOs are no popular around he world.14

The majoriy o European consumers opposed GE crops,

according o a 2010 survey.15 There was widespread

consumer resisance in Germany and absoluely no

demand rom consumers or producers or bioech cropsin Ausria.16 Despie he embassys eors o evenu-

ally wear down Hungarys resisance, he public has

shown no sign o changing heir minds abou he ban

on bioech corn.17 The Sae Deparmen recognized he

global weigh o he EU opinion and ried o limi he

inluence o EU negaive views on bioechnology.18

There was similar opposiion in he developing world. Mos

counries in Arica remained iercely opposed o culivaing

bioech crops.19 In 2012, Via Campesina, represening

200 million small armers worldwide, called or a ban on

culivaing bioech crops.20 In 2012, more han 400 Arican

organizaions demanded ha he Arican Union adop a

ban on culivaion and imporaion o bioech crops.21

Some embassies downplayed heir advocacy eors. In

Souh Arica, he embassy could no publicly lobby or

pro-bioech legislaion because any hin o U.S. involve-

men uels he oucry agains he iniiaive.22 In Uruguay

he embassy has been exremely cauious o keep [is]

ingerprins o conerences promoing bioechnology.23

In Peru and Romania, he U.S. governmen helped creae

new pro-bioech nongovernmenal organizaions o

advocae or bioech crops and policies.24

Alhough he goal o bioech diplomacy is osensibly o

improve he opinion o geneically engineered crops, he

Sae Deparmen preached primarily o he convered.

Mos embassy conacs were wih local oicials, bu he

second mos requen audience or diplomaic oureach

was pro-bioech indusry represenaives and scieniss.

Food & Waer Wach ound ha embassy oureach

eors argeed bioech indusry and scieniss abou

hree imes more requenly han armers and legislaors

and our imes more ofen han nongovernmenal organi-zaions or he public. (See Figure 2.)

The Sae Deparmen promoes a pro-bioech message

ha reads righ ou o he bioech indusry playbook. The

bioech indusry promises ha GE crops will increase

arm produciviy, comba global hunger and srenghen

economic developmen opporuniies, all wih a ligher

environmenal ooprin. In realiy, he shif o bioech

crops in he Unied Saes has delivered increased

agrichemical use and more expensive seeds. Alhough

many scieniss, developmen expers, consumers, envi-

ronmenaliss, ciizens and governmens dispue he

beneis o his conroversial echnology, he Sae Depar-

men merely spous indusry alking poins. (See Table 1.)

Figure 2. Target Audience for Biotech Diplomacy Outreach


Scientist/Academics

Industry Media Farmers Legislators NGOs Public

6.7%8.5%

11.8%

23.4%23.9%

6.5%5.6%


7/23



MYTH: GE reduces agrochemical applications

State Department Diplomatic strategy memo: Adoption of biotech crops has significantly reduced insecticide use.25

Biotech Industry Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO): Biotechnology-derived crops have contributed to a substantial reduction in pesti-cide volumes used in production agriculture and have provided economic and social benefits to growers in both developedand developing countries by reducing time and production costs, and increasing yields.26

Debunking

State Department-IndustryPropaganda

Biotech crops do not reduce agrochemical use: Most GE crops are designed to be tolerant of specially tailored herbicides

(mostly glyphosate, known as Roundup).27

Farmers can spray the herbicide on their fields, killing the weeds without harmingGE crops. A 2012 study found that even after accounting for reduced insecticide use on insect-resistant crops, total agro-chemical use increased by more than 400 million pounds from 1996 to 2011, a 7 percent increase, due to increased herbicideapplications.28

Glyphosate can pose risks to animals and the environment. A 2010 Chemical Research in Toxicology study found thatglyphosate-based herbicides caused highly abnormal deformities and neurological problems in vertebrates. 29 Another studyfound that glyphosate caused DNA damage to human cells even at lower exposure levels than recommended by the herbi-cides manufacturer.30

Resistant weeds increase herbicide use: Ubiquitous Roundup application has spawned glyphosate-resistant weeds, whichdrives farmers to apply more toxic herbicides and to reduce conservation tilling designed to combat soil erosion, accordingto a 2010 National Research Council report.31 At least 20 weed species worldwide are resistant to glyphosate. 32 Even biotechcompany Syngenta predicts that glyphosate-resistant weeds will infest one-fourth of U.S. cropland by 2013. 33 Agriculturalexperts warn that these superweeds can lower farm yields, increase pollution and raise costs for farmers.34 Farmers mayresort to other herbicides to combat superweeds, including 2,4-D (an Agent Orange component) and atrazine, which have

associated health risks including endocrine disruption and developmental abnormalities. 35

MYTH: GE crops reduce erosion

State Department Diplomatic strategy memo: Adoption of biotech crops has [] allowed many farmers to adopt no-till farming practices.36

Fedoroff: Herbicide tolerant crops contribute significantly to soil conservation because more farmers farm without everplowing their land, this is called no-till farming.37

Biotech Industry BIO: No-till agriculture, in limited use prior to 1996, has been widely adopted due to the superior weed control from biotechcrops that are able to tolerate herbicides with low environmental impacts. This has led to improved soil health and waterretention, [and] reduced runoff.38

DebunkingState Department-

Industry

Propaganda

South American GE soy and corn plantations have contributed to deforestation: The added land pressure forsoybean planting contributed significantly to deforestation in Latin America. In the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, whichhas the fastest growth in soybean production and deforestation, over half a million hectares of forest were converted to

cropland between 2001 and 2004.39 The large swaths of forests that were cleared for soybeans left the remaining forest morefragmented, which further undermined diverse ecosystems and forest health.40

U.S. biotech crop farmers are abandoning no-till and low-till practices: The rise in herbicide-tolerant weeds has forcedmore farmers to return to deep plowing and to reduce conservation tilling to combat weeds, according to a 2010 NationalResearch Council report.41

MYTH: GE crops are more productive

State Department Diplomatic strategy memo: Biotechnology is being used to increase crop yields.42

Fedoroff: The simple reasons that farmers migrate to GM crops is that their yields increase 525 percent and their costsdecrease, in some cases by as much as 50 percent.43

Biotech Industry CropLife America: With the use of agricultural herbicides, crop yields are increased by 20 percent or more.44

CropLife America: Thanks to modern agriculture, farmers have doubled the production of world food supplies since 1960,

tripled the output of foods such as cooking oils and meats, and increased per capita food supplies in the developing world by25 percent.45


IndustryPropaganda

Studies indicate no yield advantage: Biotech companies have focused on developing crops that are designed to workwith the herbicides they sell, not on developing high-yield seeds. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists survey found thatherbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans had no yield increase over non-GE crops, and that there was only a slight advantagefor insect-resistant corn.46 A 2001 University of Nebraska study found that conventional soybeans had 5 to 10 percent higheryields than herbicide-tolerant soybeans.47

Biotech crop yields have fallen as herbicide-resistant weeds have become more common. Research shows that higher densi-ties of glyphosate-resistant weeds reduce crop yields. 48 Purdue University scientists found that Roundup-resistant ragweedcan cause 100 percent corn-crop losses.49

Table 1.Debunking the State Department and Biotech Industry Myths


8/23


Food & Waer Wach ound ha one-quarer o he

cables (24.1 percen) emphasized he purpored beneis

o GE crops heir allegedly higher yields, produciviyand economic beneis or he developing world. A hird

o he cables (32.6 percen) addressed environmenal

issues, primarily repeaing he indusry conenion ha

GE crops reduce pesicide use and soil erosion as well as

he promised drough-resisance and climae resiliency o

uure crops.

The Sae Deparmen used he 2008 global hunger

crisis as a new, urgen jusiicaion o promoe bioech

crops.64 The Sae Deparmen encouraged embassies

o publicize ha agriculural bioechnology can help

address he ood crisis.

65

In 2009, he Sae Depar-men iniiaives were complemened by a new USAID

Feed he Fuure iniiaive ha included a parner-

ship wih bioech seed and agribusiness companies

such as Monsano, DuPon, Cargill and Syngena and

major oundaions o reduce world hunger.66 When he

immediacy o he ood crisis abaed, bioech culivaion

salled in Arica and Asia.67

Table 1.Debunking the State Department and Biotech Industry Myths (continued)

MYTH: GE crops and foods are safe

State Department Fedoroff: In fact, because of the extensive prior testing, I submit to you that GM crops are the safest weve ever introducedinto the food chain.50

Biotech Industry BIO: Biotechnology-derived crops are among the most thoroughly tested plants in history, and are closely overseen byfederal agencies to ensure that they do not cause harm to consumers, to agriculture or to the environment. 51

Debunking

State Department-IndustryPropaganda

The United States has very weak oversight of the safety of biotech foods: In most cases, the biotech industry self-

regulates when it comes to the safety of genetically engineered foods. In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)issued guidance allowing biotech companies to self-certify that new GE foods are safe and compliant with federal food safetylaws.52 The FDA trusts biotech companies to certify that their new GE foods and traits are the same as foods currently on themarket. The FDA evaluates company-submitted data and does not do safety testing of its own. 53

MYTH: GE crops promote sustainable development

State Department Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: [W]e want to shift our focus to agricultural sustainability, focusing on the smallproducers, helping them understand the value of GMOs genetically modified organisms.54

Biotech Industry BIO: To exclude any possible means to improve sustainable agricultural productivity would be to allow the already the [sic]desperate plight of the worlds poor and undernourished to deteriorate still further.55


IndustryPropaganda

High-priced seeds and herbicides are ill suited to farmers in the developing world: The prestigious 2009 Interna-tional Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development concluded that the high costs forseeds and chemicals, uncertain yields and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choicefor the developing world.56 (See Pushing Biotech on the Developing World , page 12.)

MYTH: GE crops survive drought and climate change

State Department State Department strategy memo: Agricultural biotechnology has great potential to help address the challenges of foodinsecurity and mitigate climate change.57

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: We believe that biotechnology has a critical role to play in increasing agriculturalproductivity, particularly in light of climate change.58

Biotech Industry BIO: Major biotechnology providers are working on developing drought-tolerant corn and cotton; such traits will be ofparticular benefit in developing countries where crops are often not irrigated. 59


Industry

Propaganda

Biotech has yet to deliver drought-tolerant seeds; conventional breeding is successfully delivering climateresilience: Biotech firms have long promised high-yield and drought-resistant GE seeds, but by mid-2012 only one variety ofdrought-tolerant corn was approved for U.S. planting.60 Crop research has yet to achieve the complex interactions between

genes that are necessary for plants to endure environmental stressors such as drought.61 Monsantos approved drought-tolerant corn has overestimated yield benefits, and there is insufficient evidence that it will outperform already availableconventionally bred alternatives.62

Traditional methods of breeding for stress tolerance produce crops that are more resilient to disruption and climate changethan GE crops because these crops complement and thrive in nutrient-rich and biodiverse soil.63 Even if research succeeded indeveloping drought-tolerant crops, biotechnology companies would control any viable seeds, potentially putting new seedsout of reach for poor farmers.


9/23



Taking the Biotech Spin Cycle on the Road

The Sae Deparmen delivered he pro-bioech message a

conerences and workshops, communicaed wih reporers

and sen local oicials on junkes o he Unied Saes.

Public relations and propaganda: The Sae Depar-

men urged embassies o generae posiive media

coverage o help inluence public opinions.68 More han

one in 20 oureach eors (5.9 percen) in 21 counriesargeed reporers. In 2005, he consulae in Milan, Ialy,

organized a our-ciy pro-bioech our garnering a our-

page inerview in LEspressomagazine as well as news-

paper and elevision coverage.69 In 2006, a senior Sae

Deparmen bioech exper hosed a journalis roundable

in Egyp ha generaed newspaper and magazine sories

and a TV inerview ha aired more han seven imes.70

In oher cases, embassies circumvened he media by

releasing pro-bioech propaganda direcly o he public.

The Sae Deparmen produced a pamphle in Slovenian

o explain he myhs and realiies o bioech agricul-

ure.71 The embassy in Colombia proposed airing a series

o canned radio spos eauring bioech expers ha also

could be used as indusry magazine opinion pieces.72 The

Hong Kong consulae sen DVDs o a pro-bioech presen-

aion o every high school.73 The embassy in Zambiaproposed airing pro-GE elevision documenaries during

prime ime.74

Biotech lecture circuit: The Sae Deparmen encour-

aged embassies o deploy deparmenal expers o

paricipae as public speakers on agbioech and und

conerences, workshops and seminars o promoe bioech

accepance.75 Sae Deparmen oicials and invied

expers paricipaed in nearly 169 public evens in 52

counries beween 2005 and 2009. (See Figure 3.)

A quarer (26.2 percen) o he embassies oureacheors included hese orums wih a paricular emphasis

on hose individuals ha may inluence naional bioech

policy.76 A 2008 cable rom Mozambique noed ha

one workshop provided an opening o urher advance

bioechnology and arge high-level decision makers

charged wih shaping bioech policies.77 A proposed work-

shop in Yemen was expeced o be a caalys o GMO

legislaion ha considers he U.S. posiion.78

Some o he conerences have been swanky aairs. In

2005, he consulae in Milan brough a bioechnologyscienis o paricipae in an opulen even on Venices

San Giorgio Maggiore Island eauring a magical

evening perormance by opera sar Andrea Bocelli and

an orchesra.79 In 2009, USDA Secreary Tom Vilsack

Figure 3.Pro-Biotech Conferences,Presentations, Workshops and Seminars


19 2025

47

58

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

^E'/KZ'/KD''/KZ/^>EsE/W,KdKz :hEt/


10/23


headlined a business orum a he Philippines luxury

Shangri-La Hoel atended by Cargill, Kraf Foods and

Land OLakes.80 The embassy in Slovakia unded and

co-hosed a bioech conerence in he spa own o Pies-

any where he presiden o he U.S.-based Naional Corn

Growers Associaion joined pro-bioech scieniss.81

Junket science: The Sae Deparmen encouraged

embassies o bring visiors especially reporers ohe Unied Saes, which has proven o be eecive

ways o dispelling concerns abou bioech [crops].82 The

Sae Deparmen organized or sponsored 28 junkes

rom 17 counries beween 2005 and 2009. In 2008,

when he U.S. embassy was rying o preven Poland

rom adoping a ban on bioech livesock eed, he Sae

Deparmen brough a delegaion o high-level Polish

governmen agriculure oicials o mee wih he USDA

in Washingon, our Michigan Sae Universiy and visi

he Chicago Board o Trade.83 The USDA sponsored a rip

or El Salvadors Miniser o Agriculure and Livesock ovisi Pioneer Hi-Breds Iowa aciliies and o mee wih

USDA Secreary Tom Vilsack ha was expeced o pay

rich dividends by helping [he Miniser] clearly advocae

policy posiions in our muual bilaeral ineress.84

7KH)RXU*RDOVRI%LRWHFK'LSORPDF\The Sae Deparmen sraegy sough o ois pro-

bioech policies on oreign governmens. Imposing a

bioech agriculural model on unrecepive armers and

consumers undermines oher counries ood sovereigny

and heir righ o deermine heir own ood and agricul-ural policies.

Promote biotech business interests: The Sae Depar-

men no only promoed pro-bioechnology policies bu

also he producs o bioech companies. The sraegy

cables explicily proec he ineress o bioech

exporers, aciliae rade in agribioech producs and

encourage he culivaion o GE crops in more counries,

especially in he developing world.85

Lobby oreign governments to weaken biotech

rules: The Sae Deparmen urged embassies o advo-

cae or pro-bioech laws and o roubleshoo prob-

lemaic legislaion.86 The 2009 sraegy memo urge[d]

poss o pay paricular atenion o advancing hissraegy wih counries ha ha[d] key bioech legisla-

ion pending.87 More han wo-hirds o he cables (69.9

percen) addressed he hos counries laws or regulaions

governing agriculural bioechnology.

Protect U.S. biotech exports: The Sae Deparmen

aimed o ensure ha global commerce in agbioech

producs is no unairly impeded o proec and promoe

an esimaed $25 billion in bioech crop expors. 88 In

2011, he Oice o he U.S. Trade Represenaive (USTR)

repored ha bioech crops and oods ace a muliude

o rade barriers in he European Union (EU), China,Kazakhsan, Turkey, he Ukraine and 16 Arican naions. 89

Trade is a prominen opic in almos hal (47.2 percen) o

he cables.

Press developing world to adopt biotech crops:

The Sae Deparmen memos urged embassies o

encourag[e] he developmen and commercializaion o

ag-bioech producs in he developing world where many

have hesiaed o join he bioech revoluion. 90 The

Sae Deparmen encouraged embassies o publicize he

beneis o agbioech as a developmen ool.91

One-sixho he cables (16.6 percen) suggesed ha bioech crops

would improve ood securiy, alleviae he ood crisis

and oser economic developmen. The message was

combined wih aggressive lobbying campaigns o pass

laws o allow bioech crop producion in he developing

world, especially in Arica.

Corporate Diplomacy andMonsantos Goodwill AmbassadorsThe bioechnology indusry is a core consiuency or

he Sae Deparmens bioech diplomaic oureach.The Sae Deparmen coners wih bioech ineress,

advocaes on behal o speciic bioech seed companies

and direcs oureach eors o energize he bioech and

agribusiness indusries. Abou one-ourh (23.4 percen)

o he Sae Deparmen oureach eors argeed

indusry represenaives and rade associaions, including

meeings, paricipaing in Sae Deparmen conerences

and atending embassy recepions.


11/23



The seed companies, including Monsano, DuPon

Pioneer, Syngena, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agro-

chemical, are more commonly menioned in he bioech

cables han ood aid (6.9 percen o he cables and 4.4

percen, respecively). Some cables explicily described

he collaboraion beween he embassies and he seed

companies. In 2006, he embassy in Romania planned o

work wih he U.S. GM seed companies o ensure ha

he seasons agreed-upon culivaion o bioech soybeanscould be planed.92 The embassy in Ecuador planned o

reinorce indusry lobbying o oppose proposed regula-

ions ha could hinder bioech impors.93

The Sae Deparmen worked especially hard o promoe

he ineress o Monsano, he worlds bigges bioech

seed company in 2011.94 Monsano appeared in 6.1

percen o he bioech cables analyzed beween 2005 and

2009 rom 21 counries. The Sae Deparmen exercised

is diplomaic persuasion o bolser Monsanos image

in hos counries, aciliae ield-esing or approval oMonsano crops and inervene wih governmens o

negoiae seed royaly setlemens.

U.S. embassies have atemped o burnish Monsanos

image. The consulae in Munich, Germany, promised

Monsano ha i would seek even-handed reamen

o Monsanos core business by Bavarian oicials, where

armers resisance o adoping bioech crops aeced is

brand.95 The embassy in Slovakia sough o dispel myhs

abou GMOs and advocae on behal o Monsano. 96

In 2009, he embassy in Spain asked or high level U.S.

governmen inervenion a he urgen requess o

Monsano and a pro-bioech Spanish oicial in order o

comba opposiion o GE crops.97

Some embassies encouraged he approval o Monsano

crops wih regulaors. In 2006, he embassy in Egyp

ried bu ailed o convince local auhoriies o accelerae

he approval o bioech crop varieies, including some

longsanding Monsano and Pioneer seed applicaions.98

In 2008, he ambassador in Argenina penned an opinion

piece in he local newspaper promoing he expanded

culivaion o Monsanos insec-resisan coton.99 In2005, he embassy in Souh Arica inormed Monsano

and Pioneer abou wo recenly vacaed posiions in he

governmens bioech regulaory agency, suggesing ha

he companies could advance qualiied applicans o ill

he posiion.100

The Sae Deparmen even coninued o advocae on

behal o Monsano afer he company was charged wih

violaions o he Foreign Corrup Pracices Ac. In 2005,

Monsano admited ha i was responsible or bribing an

Indonesian oicial o weaken environmenal oversigh

o GE crops and paid $1.5 million in ines o he U.S.

governmen.101 A Monsano consulan ried o persuade

an Indonesian oicial o relax or repeal an environmenal

rule governing he planing o GE crops; when he oi-

cial demurred, a Monsano oicial approved an illegal

paymen o $50,000 o incenivize he oicial o weaken

GE oversigh.102

There were 49 cables ha menionedMonsano ineress even afer he company paid he ine.

3DWHQWO\2HQVLYH6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWQWHUYHQHVLQ&RPPHUFLDO'LVSXWHVIRU0RQVDQWRSome embassies atemped o iron ou inellecual

propery law and paen wrinkles or Monsano. Bioech

seed companies vigorously deend heir paens and seed

royaly paymens in he Unied Saes.103 One ou o 14

cables (7.1 percen) addressed inellecual propery laws,

paens and seed royaly issues. In 2007, he embassyurged he Ukraine o pursue bioech counereiers o

proec companies like Monsano.104 When Burkina

Faso only oered Monsano a one-year auhorizaion

or a new insec-resisan coton, he company wihheld

he seeds unil he U.S. ambassador lobbied he Prime

Miniser, who insruced ha he adminisraive order

be changed o mee Monsanos erms or a ive-year

auhorizaion.105


12/23


The embassy in Argenina inervened exensively or

Monsano in a seed royaly dispue. Argenina approved

Monsanos herbicide-resisan Roundup Ready soy in

1996 wihou graning paen proecion or he seed

(Monsano sill earned money selling he brand name

herbicide Roundup, which was paened).106 By 2001,

90 percen o Argeninas soybeans were grown rom

Monsano seeds.107 Monsano began o increase pressure

on Argenina o allow he company o charge armers

seed royalies afer is paen on Roundup expired in

2000, as a way o recoup he prois Monsano los

when armers swiched o generic glyphosae insead o

Roundup.108

In 2005, he embassy ried o aciliae unsuccessul seed

royaly negoiaions beween Monsano and Argenina.109

Monsano insead suspended is Argenina-based

research and hreaened o exrac royaly paymensrom Argeninean soy expors.110 Farm groups agreed

ha Monsano had he righ o royalies, bu complained

ha Monsano would no agree on a price or he seed

royalies.111 In 2007, he Ambassador reieraed a reques

ha Argenina suppor a resoluion o Monsanos

dispues and communicaed Monsanos desire or even

an inormal signal o Argeninean governmen suppor

in order o ge he producers on board.112

Despie he ongoing negoiaions, Monsano wihheld

is nex generaion o bioech soybeans in 2007 unil

a deal on royalies was inked.113 The embassy ried o

improve he public percepion o he dispue. In 2008,

he embassy collaboraed wih Monsano o arrange a

junke o Argeninean journaliss o he Unied Saes

o learn abou new echnologies and he imporance

o [inellecual propery righs] proecion.114 In 2008,

he presiden o Monsanos Argeninean subsidiaryormally hanked he U.S. Ambassador or supporing

he company.115 Argenina allowed Monsano o paen

is nex-generaion soybeans in 2011, bu he company

secured royaly paymens by requiring armers o sign

individual conracs when buying seeds.116

Pressuring ForeignGovernments to ReduceOversight of Biotech Crops

The Sae Deparmen worked o weaken oher naionsoversigh o bioech crops and o quickly quash eors

o esablish new bioech rules and saeguards. The

embassy in Poland worked o keep he naion in he

bioech camp. In 2006, he op bioech Sae Deparmen

oicial suggesed ha proposed Polish bioech crop rules

could be harmul o join U.S.-Polish rade ineress. 117

In 2008, he Sae Deparmen joined Polish livesock

and grain ineress and he American Soybean Associa-

ion o deea a proposed ban on GE livesock eed.118

The embassy in Poland promoed pro-bioech rules and

legislaion bu recognized ha we need o ake care obe seen as proecing choice, no pushing use.119

In 2007, he Sae Deparmen and he USDA worked

wih Turkish bioech proponens o deea proposed

legislaion ha hreaened over $1 billion in U.S. GE crop

expors.120 In 2005, he USDA launched a lobbying and

public relaions campaign o successully derail proposed

ani-bioech legislaion in Nicaragua.121 The embassy in

Thailand lobbied o lif he ban on bioech papaya ield

rials in 2006.122 The embassy in Egyp ried o break he

regulaory logjam ha was salling he approval o new

GE crops.123

In Europe, he Sae Deparmen has argeed he EU

o weaken he regulaory saeguards ha have delayed

he approval o GE crops and o orce he EU o accep

bioech impors. Almos wo-ifhs o all bioech cables

(38.0 percen) were rom embassies in EU member saes.

U.S. embassies ried o persuade naions ha had been

hosile o bioech crops and o shore up counries ha


13/23



had been supporive. The embassy in France proposed

hosing a conerence highlighing how bioech can help

address ood shorages in he developing world as a

acic o counerac Frances negaive public opinion o

GE crops.124

The Sae Deparmen worked o increase he accepance

o GE crops in he EU by encouraging he mos bioech-

supporive member saes o airmaively suppor U.S.bioech posiions. Spain culivaed more bioech crops

ha any EU member sae,125 making i worh coninuing

o arge o encourage accepance o GE crops and oods

in Europe.126 In 2005, beore Romania had enered he

EU, he embassy worked o ensure ha he governmen

mainained a pro-bioechnology sance and coninued

o culivae GE soy so ha i could join he EU wih is

bioech indusry irmly secured.127 In 2009, a senior

Sae Deparmen bioech advisor pressed Romania

o play an acive role in he EU o preserve bioech

opions or armers.128

The Sae Deparmen also urgedBulgaria o become a successul model and advocae o

agbioech wihin he EU.129

The Sae Deparmen has encouraged he mos recepive

counries o suppor he approval o GE crop varieies

wihin he EU. In 2008, Bulgaria suppored a European

Commission proposal o approve GE crop varieies.130

In 2007, he embassy repored ha he Czech Republic

suppored he approval o wo GE corn varieies and GE

sugar bees in he EU.131 Monsano helped he embassy

arge EU member saes or some o hese bioech

variey ighs. In 2009, Monsano presened is sraegy

o embassy and USTR oicials, including oulining which

EU counries Monsano el were pro-bioech, ani-

bioech and undecided o help he embassy arge is

diplomaic eors.132

86(PEDVVLHV$JJUHVVLYHO\2SSRVHG*(/DEHOLQJ(RUWVConsumers worldwide wan o know wha is in heir

ood, bu bioech companies and ood manuacurers

would raher keep consumers in he dark abou heconens o heir grocery cars. The Sae Deparmen

has lobbied agains eors o require labeling o bioech

oods. Abou one ou o eigh bioech cables (11.6 percen)

rom 42 naions beween 2005 and 2009 addressed

bioech-labeling requiremens.

The Unied Saes opposed mandaory GE labeling laws

as rade barriers because allowing consumers o know he

conens o heir ood also wrongly impl[ies] ha hese

oods are unsae.133 The EU requires all oods, animal

eeds (bu no mea rom animals ed wih GE eed) and

processed producs wih bioech conen o bear GE

labels.134 Ausralia, Brazil, China, Japan, New Zealand,

Russia, Saudi Arabia and Souh Korea all require labels on

GE oods, alhough labeling requiremens vary rom zero

olerance o 5 percen GE conen.135

U.S. embassies lobbied agains new labeling eors andor weakening exising labeling requiremens. The embas-

sies in Malaysia and Vienam repored concerns o he

Sae Deparmen headquarers abou he poenially

negaive impac o proposed labeling laws.136 In 2008, he

consulae in Hong Kong played a key role in convincing

regulaors o drop a proposed mandaory labeling require-

men.137 To save o labeling eors in 2009, he consulae

in Hong Kong worked o culivae a local cadre o pro-

bioech advocaes, redoubled eors o comba consumer

groups and legislaors ha avored labeling and even

promoed bioech o high school sudens.138

Hong Kongdid no adop mandaory labeling.139

Some counries adoped labeling rules despie U.S.

opposiion. During 2008 and 2009, he embassy in Souh

Arica lobbied parliamenarians and oher opinion leaders

o preven he mandaory GE labeling law ha was

enaced in 2009.140


14/23


Pushing Biotech onthe Developing WorldThe Sae Deparmen has been insrumenal in promoing

pro-bioech laws and policies in he developing world. U.S.

embassies have oered echnical advice, provided legisla-

ive language, lobbied o enac pro-bioech laws and helped

creae pro-bioech regulaions. In 2005, he embassy in

Brazil claimed ha is inensive oureach was an impor-an caalys or he law ha legalized GE culivaion.141

High-priced seeds and herbicides are ill suied o armers

in he developing world. The presigious 2009 Inerna-

ional Assessmen o Agriculural Knowledge, Science

and Technology or Developmen concluded ha he high

coss or seeds and chemicals, uncerain yields and he

poenial o undermine local ood securiy make bioech-

nology a poor choice or he developing world.142 Mos

armers in he developing world plan seed ha hey

saved rom he previous years crop, and bioech paens

prohibi armers rom culivaing saved seeds, orcinghem o buy more seeds every year.143

The Sae Deparmen acively promoed pro-bioech

rules and laws in Arica. In 2008, only hree Arican coun-

ries culivaed bioech crops: Souh Arica, Egyp and

Burkina Faso.144 The pro-bioechnology organizaion Iner-

naional Service or he Acquisiion o Agri-bioechnology

Applicaions (ISAAA) called Arica he inal ronier or

bioechnology.145

In 2003, he USAID announced a program o promoe

bioech crop research, regulaory inrasrucure and

culivaion in a handul o counries, including Souh

Arica, Nigeria, Zambia, Kenya and Mali.146 In 2005, he

Sae Deparmen promoed he accepance o GE seeds

a a our-day conerence o he Economic Communiy o

Wes Arican Saes.147 In 2009, he Unied Saes urged

Brazil o leverage is presence and experience in Arica

o posiively inluence accepance o agriculural bioech-

nology.148

In 2009, he USAID launched a $3.5 billion Feed he

Fuure parnership wih bioech seed and agribusinesscompany parners including Monsano, DuPon, Cargill

and Syngena and major oundaions o reduce world

hunger.149 This parnership has invesed heavily in Arica.

In 2010, DuPon agreed o help develop supposedly

high-yield GE corn or sub-Saharan Arica unded by he

USAID and he Bill & Melinda Gaes Foundaion.150 As

par o he same projec, Monsano donaed he geneic

maerial or a promised drough-oleran corn o be

oered royaly-ree o Arican armers.151

The unusual royaly concession by Monsano may belitle more han a long-erm invesmen o build goodwill

wih Arican armers while srenghening he percepion

ha he seeds are more producive.152 Bu selling more

seeds in new markes wih or wihou iniial royalies

is likely he real prize. In 2013, ISAAA esimaed ha

he global bioech seed marke was already abou $15

billion annually.153 I more counries approve crops, hose

sales would only increase.

The combinaion o oreign research invesors and he

lobbying muscle o U.S. embassies and agribusinesses hasencouraged Arican naions o slowly adop pro-bioech

rules and regulaions. In order o pursue bioech crop

research, counries need enough regulaory inrasrucure o

approve GE ield rials. Ofen, he iniial rules allowing GE

research can go ino eec while he legislaures consider

permanen rules allowing commercial bioech culivaion. In

Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria, he Sae Deparmen, indusry

and pro-bioech oundaions pursued his mulipronged

sraegy o enac pro-bioech laws.

Secretary o State Hillary Clinton listens to a presentation ongenetic improvement or local crops hosted by the KenyaAgricultural Research Institute. /W,KdKzh^/


15/23



86%LRWHFKQGXVWU\&DPSDLJQWR&RPPHUFLDOL]H*(&URSVLQ.HQ\DThe Unied Saes has pushed Kenya o commercialize

GE crops or decades. U.S. oicials believed ha i

Kenya approved bioech crops, oher Eas Arican

counries would ollow sui.154 U.S. Secreary o Sae

Hillary Clinon observed, Wih Kenyas leadership in

bioechnology and biosaey, we canno only improve

agriculure in Kenya, bu Kenya can be leader or he res

o Arica.155 Afer decades o supporing bioech research

in Kenya, he embassy helped push legislaion leading o

commercial GE culivaion ha was enaced in 2009.

The U.S. governmen and Monsano have unded bioech

crop research since he early 1990s.156 Syngena and he

Rockeeller Foundaion began unding insec-resisan corn

research wih a Kenyan research insiue in 2001, and

he Gaes Foundaion joined he projec by 2008.157 Some

o he research eors have been high-proile scieniic

ailures, bu even unsuccessul bioech research programswere used o open he door o GE commercializaion.

From 1992 o 2004, he USAID, Monsano and he World

Bank invesed $6 million in a Kenyan research projec

o develop a virus-resisan GE swee poao variey.158

Bu he GE swee poao never succeeded in proecing

agains disease or increasing yields. Convenional crop

researchers in Uganda developed a successul, high-yield,

virus-resisan swee poao more quickly and cheaply

han he ailed GE atemp.159 In 2006, a USAID and

Monsano-unded projec o develop virus-resisan GE

cassava was scrubbed afer researchers conessed o

revelaions o he resisance ailure jus beore pre-

commercial ield rials were o begin in Kenya.160

These research ailures highligh he signiican oppor-

uniy cos o exclusively promoing bioech researchsoluions. The millions spen on GE swee poao and

cassava developmen could have unded much more and

poenially more successul convenional crop research.

Bu he GE cheerleaders viewed he wased GE research

invesmens as successul because hey encouraged

Kenya o develop a legislaive and regulaory sysem

o govern he echnology, which, o course, would also

aciliae bioech ield rials and culivaion.161

This research combined wih embassy pro-bioech advo-

cacy ulimaely paved he way or legislaion o approve

GE crop culivaion despie public opposiion. Kenyansmall armers and consumers did no wan GE crops, and

have proesed agains GE impors and culivaion.162 In

2009, he Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum opposed he

inroducion o GE crops because i could imperil Kenyan

expors o Europe.163

The USAID developed and promoed advocacy maerials

or he media and policymakers, helped o craf legisla-

ive language and lobbied members o parliamen.164 The

embassy urged Kenya o adop rade-riendly laws ha

would allow he Unied Saes o deliver GE ood aidcrops.165 The Kenyan Agriculure Miniser praised prelimi-

nary rules o approve GE crops as a way o as-rack

he inegraion o Arica in he global bioeconomy.166 In

lae 2008, he parliamen approved legislaion o approve

GE ield rials and ulimaely commercializaion; he

presiden signed i ino law in early 2009.167

In 2011, Kenya released guidelines o approve GE culiva-

ion (alhough no GE crops were planed), began devel-

oping labeling rules and planned o allow GE impors

while he regulaions were being inalized.168 In 2012,

sric labeling rules covering any oods wih more han

1 percen GE conen wen ino eec.169 Bioech rade

associaions and scieniss expec Kenya o begin planing

GE corn and coton by 2014.170 Despie he promised

adopion, Kenya haled he impor and sale o GE oods

in lae 2012 unil he Minisry o Public Healh ceriied

he crops saey; he U.S. embassy rapidly promised o

work o overurn he regulaory decision.171A Kenyan armer with a pest-resistant variety o maize, procuredwith USAID assistance. /W,KdKKhZd^zK&h^/

d&


16/23


86*RYHUQPHQW3XVKHV*KDQD%LRWHFK/DZ2YHU)LQLVK/LQHThe Unied Saes has pushed or Ghana o adop GE

crops and develop regulaions o approve culivaion since

2004.172 In 2005, he USAID promoed bioech research

alhough Ghanaian scieniss warned ha public wari-

ness abou bioech and popular suppor or regulaory

precauions made he eor premaure.173 Tha year, he

U.S. ambassador me wih he Miniser or Food andAgriculure o lobby or pro-bioech legislaion, and a

senior Sae Deparmen bioech crop oicial me wih

governmen and indusry leaders in Ghana o promoe

GE crops.174 Noneheless, he embassy admited ha

here was oo litle parliamenary suppor or pro-bioech

legislaion, and oreign assisance was required o opera-

ionalize bioechnology.175

In 2007, he USAID parially unded a conerence in

Ghana o build momenum and poliical will in Wes

Arica o enac bioechnology legislaion.176

I seemedo help. In 2008, Ghana passed emporary legislaion

o permi bioech ield rials unil permanen bioech

approval regulaions were enaced.177 Afer eigh years

o embassy pressure, he pro-bioech law was enaced

in 2011.178 The Gaes Foundaion provided $6 million o

implemen he law in 2012.179 Bu public opposiion did

no disappear. One poliical pary challenged he rules

approving GE impors in cour in 2012.180

1LJHULD$GYDQFHV86'UDIWHG*(/HJLVODWLRQMonsano and he Unied Saes began promoing GE

crops in Nigeria in 2001.181 In 2002, he USAID parially

unded he drafing o legislaion o aciliae GE crop

approval in Nigeria, bu he legislaion salled or years.182

In 2003, he USAID and companies like ExxonMobil and

Coca-Cola cosponsored a conerence ha included a

pro-bioech agriculural plenary, including major bioech

speeches and smaller workshops, and also eaured akeynoe speech by Presiden George W. Bush.183

In 2006, he embassy in Nigeria proposed raining regu-

laors o push pro-bioech legislaion during he nex

parliamenary sessions.184 The embassy noed in 2009

ha he proposed legislaion would aciliae marke

access o U.S. agribusinesses in Nigeria.185 The embassy

planned o send wo Nigerian junkes o he Unied

Saes beween 2007 and 2009.186 In 2008, Nigeria irs

allowed conined ield rials or a GE cowpea, parially

unded by he USAID.187

The combinaion o diplomaic pressure and U.S.-unded

research evenually helped o break he legislaive logjam

In 2009, he embassy rumpeed ha U.S. governmen

suppor in drafing he legislaion as well as sensiizing

key sakeholders hrough a public oureach program was

crucial o advancing he bill over a legislaive hurdle.188

In 2011, he bioech legislaion advanced o he Nigerian

Senae, and while he legislaion coninued o move

hrough he grueling process, Nigeria permited ield

rials o GE cowpea, sorghum and cassava o coninue.189

The parliamen inally passed he legislaion in 2011,

bu as o early 2013 i was sill awaiing he presidens

signaure.190

Combining DiplomaticCarrots With WTO SticksThe Sae Deparmen has argeed he European Unions

relucance o allow he culivaion or imporaion o

bioech crops or oods as he key o orcing developing

counries o accep agriculural bioechnology. The

EU represened a lucraive expor marke or bioechcrops, and orcing he EU o accep hese impors would

assuage ears in he developing world abou losing

expors o he EU i hey culivaed GE crops. The Unied

Saes successully challenged he EUs bioech approval

rules and EU member saes unwillingness o approve GE

crops a he World Trade Organizaion (WTO). The Sae

Deparmen aggressively pressed he EU o comply wih

he WTO ruling by weakening is bioech rules.

W,KdKKhZd^zK&d,/EdZEd/KE>/E^d/dhd

K&dZKW/>'Z/h>dhZ/E/'Z///d


17/23



The EU had approved 18 bioech crop varieies or

culivaion and sale by June 1999, when ive EU member

saes (Denmark, France, Greece, Ialy and Luxembourg)

eecively declared a moraorium on new auhorizaions

unil he European Commission inroduced legislaion

on labeling and raceabiliy.191 Ausria, Belgium, Finland,

Germany, he Neherlands, Spain and Sweden did no

apply a moraorium bu invoked a thoroughly precau-

tionary approachand urged he Commission o rapidlydevelop raceabiliy and labeling regulaions.192

In 2003, he Unied Saes, Canada and Argenina chal-

lenged he EUs bioech approval process and he member

sae moraoriums a he WTO. While he WTO was

considering he dispue, he Unied Saes coninued o

push or he EU o drop is bioech rules. In 2005, he

USTR demanded ha he Unied Saes ge he access

ha we hink were eniled o in he EU marke or

bioech crops.193

In 2006, he WTO ruled ha he undue delay in he

EUs approval process or 24 bioech crop varieies rom

1999 o 2003 consiued a de aco bioech moraorium

ha was inconsisen wih WTO rules.194 I also ruled ha

individual EU member sae bans violaed rade rules and

were unjusiied wihou adequae bioech risk assess-

mens.195 The ruling did no prohibi he EU rom applying

is own sandards and laws, including resricing bioech

crop approvals, provided ha he rules were implemenedproperly. Despie he limied and heoreical abiliy

o counries o regulae GE crops, he WTOs bioech

decision was anoher atack on he righ o counries o

ensure ood saey and proec he environmen.

Canada and Argenina setled and dropped heir bioech

claims wih he EU, bu he Unied Saes has mainained

is complain.196 The Sae Deparmen bioech sraegy

cables reieraed he eor o coninue o seek ull EU

compliance wih he 2006 WTO ruling.197 In France,

he U.S. embassy suppor[ed] aggressive realiaionagains WTO-illegal rade barriers mainained by he

European Union, such as Frances moraorium on GE

crops.198 The Sae Deparmen recommended leveraging

he successul WTO ruling o convince counries in he

developing world ha hey ulimaely would be able o

expor bioech crops o he EU.199

Conclusion and RecommendationsThe U.S. Sae Deparmen mus sop is imposiion o

bioech agriculure on he res o he world. Over he las

decade, U.S. oreign policy has pushed oher counries oaccep bioechnology as he primary agriculural policy

and developmen policy alernaive. The Unied Saes

has pressed counries o accep unwaned bioech crop

and ood impors, change heir laws o encourage he

culivaion o bioech crops and lobbied agains regulaory

saeguards ha are opposed by he bioech seed indusry.

The Unied Saes should no be picking agriculural policy

winners and losers. I is pas ime or he governmen o

abandon corporae diplomacy, and o allow he public and

oher governmens o navigae heir own pahs oward

more environmenally and economically susainable ood

and agriculure policies. Bioech agriculure is uniquely

unsuied o he armers o he developing world who

generally lack he inancial resources o purchase expen-

sive seeds and herbicides sold by he bioech companies.

There are a hos o promising, lower-impac agriculural

approaches ha have been shown o increase produc-

iviy, maximize economic reurn or armers and enhanceW,KdKKhZd^zK&KDDKE^t/


18/23


Food & Water Watch analyzed 926 U.S. State Department

cables from 113 countries released by the Wikileaks whistle-

blower organization sent from 2005 to 2009 containing the

words biotech or GMO related to agriculture or crops

(out of 1,526 biotech cables; the remainder were relatedprimarily to pharmaceuticals). Although Wikileaks gained

notoriety for releasing cables about national security, this

DQDO\VLVGRHVQRWLQFOXGHDQ\FDEOHVFODVVLHGDVVHFUHWRU

higher. (Six secret cables covering biotech agriculture were

excluded and no secret/nonforn cables that cannot be

shared with any foreign government appeared to cover the

WRSLF:LNLOHDNVGLGQRWUHOHDVHDQ\FDEOHVFODVVLHGDVWRS

secret.201

In 2010, Wikileaks released 250,000 diplomatic cables

exposing communication between the State Department

and more than 270 U.S. diplomatic posts.202 The cables

came from the U.S. military s Secret Internet ProtocolRouter Network (SIPRNET), developed after September 2001

to provide more secure global communication between

U.S. agencies, including embassies and consulates.203 The

Wikileaks cables represented about 10 percent of all State

Department cables between 2006 and 2009. Most of the

released cables were sent between 2006 and 2009, corre-

sponding to a period when the State Department sent 2.4

million total cables, including through other systems.204

Food & Water Watch categorized the prior contacts, future

contacts and diplomatic updates into separate diplomatic

events. Some cables describe multiple diplomatic events tha

were catalogued separately. The data analyze 987 diplomatic

events from the 926 biotechnology cables: 55 percent ofthe events were reports of prior outreach, 35 percent were

biotech updates from the host country and 10 percent

described proposed future diplomatic outreach.

It appears that the number of agricultural biotechnology

diplomatic cables increased steadily over the 2005 to 2009

period and increased twice as fast as the overall number

of Wikileaks-released cables between 2006 and 2009.

Outreach events (meetings, delegations to the United States,

DQGFRQIHUHQFHVDXGLHQFHVRFLDOVLQGXVWU\VFLHQWLVWV

academics, media, farmers, legislators, non-governmental

RUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGWKHSXEOLFDQGWRSLFVEHQHWVHQYLURQ-

ment, trade, regulations/laws, development/food security,intellectual property and labeling) were drawn from the text

of the cables.

$OO86GROODUJXUHVDUHLQQRPLQDOYDOXHVDQGFRQYHUVLRQ

to Euros was done with the U.S. Federal Reserve Boards

Foreign Exchange Rate G.5A Annual for the year that the U.S.

GROODUJXUHZDVUHSRUWHG

ood securiy. Many academic sudies have documened

he poenial o convenional, organic and oher more

susainable approaches o improve agriculural produc-

iviy in he developing world.200

The Sae Deparmen approach o agriculural develop-

men mus pu he ineress o oher counries beore he

ineress o he bioech seed companies. All naions have

he righ o esablish heir own prioriies or ood andagriculure policies, as well as he abiliy o grow wha

he public wans in order o eed isel. The Sae Depar-

men mus:

1. Halt the aggressive advocacy o pro-biotech

policies in the developing world: The Sae

Deparmen has lobbied oreign governmens o

enac pro-bioech laws and policies and opposed

eors o esablish sensible bioech saeguards. The

promoion o a pro-corporae agenda in he guise o

oreign policy is misguided and undermines he U.S.

image abroad. This corporae diplomacy mus endimmediaely.

2. Eliminate the unding to promote biotech crops

and policies overseas: The Sae Deparmen, he

USAID and he USDA direc millions o dollars each

year o promoe bioech crops and policies overseas.

These programs promoe an exclusively bioech solu-

ion and are a wase o axpayer money.

3. Stop demanding that governments accept

unwanted biotech crop and ood imports: The

Unied Saes should drop is WTO challenge o

he EU bioech rules and remove he accepance o

bioech crops rom is rade negoiaing objecives.

Counries should have he righ o esablish heir own

accepance o bioech crops and oods ree rom U.S.

inererence.

The Unied Saes should enhance oher counries abili-

ies o improve agriculural producion ha encourages

economically and environmenally susainable arming.

The Unied Saes should work wih oher naions o

develop he policies and objecives ha hey wan opursue and le he bioech seed indusry handle is own

public relaions.

Methodology


19/23



1 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and

Technology for Development (IAAS TD). Executive Summary of Syn-

thesis Report. April 2008 at 8 to 9.

2 U.S. Department of State (U.S. DoS). FY 2008 biotechnol-

ogy outreach strategy and department resources. Cable No.

07STATE160639. November 27, 2007.

86'R6>3UHVVUHOHDVH@)RRGFULVLVOHFWXUHNLFNVR-HHUVRQ

Science Fellows distinguished lecture series at the Department of

State. October 16, 2008.4 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service

(56$GRSWLRQRI%LRHQJLQHHUHG&URSV2QOHDW)RRG:DWHU

Watch and available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/.

Accessed September 9, 2009.

5 Shoemaker, Robbin (Ed.). USDA ERS. Economic Issues in Agricultural

Biotechnology. (AIB-762). 2001 at 9.

6 Whoriskey, Peter. Monsantos dominance draws antitrust inquiry.

Washington Post. November 29, 2009.

7 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications

(ISAAA). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012.

ISAA A Brief 44-2012: Executive summary. February 20, 2013.

8 Roberts, Alasdair. The Wikileaks illusion. The Wilson Quarterly. Vol.

35, no. 3. Summer 2011 at 18; U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland

6HFXULW\DQG*RYHUQPHQW$DLUV+HDULQJRQQIRUPDWLRQ6KDULQJLQ

the Era of Wikileaks: Balancing Security and Collaboration. March 10,2011.

9 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 07STATE160639. November 27, 2007; U.S. DoS.

FY 2009 biotechnology outreach strategy and department resourc-

es. Cable No. 08STATE129940. December 10, 2008; U.S. DoS. FY

2010 biotechnology outreach strategy and department resources.

Cable No. 09STATE122732. December 1, 2009.

10 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 07STATE160639. November 27, 2007.

11 U.S. Agency for Internat ional Development (USAID). ADS Chapter

101: Agency Programs and Functions. April 16, 2012 at 4.


13 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 09STATE122732. December 1, 2009; U.S. DoS.

Cable No. 07STATE160639. November 27, 2007.

+HGJHV6WHSKHQ-86XVLQJIRRGFULVLVWRERRVWELRHQJLQHHUHG

crops. Chicago Tribune. May 14, 2008.

15 Biotechnology Report . Special Eurobarometer. European Commis-

sion. 2010 at 18.

16 U.S. DoS. Lugar Codel: Germans emphasize need for cooperation

with Russians on energy. Cable No. 08BERLIN1244. September 10,

2008; U.S. DoS. Austrian response: demarche on EU regulatory

committee February 12 vote on biotech corn, cotton, and soybeans.

Cable No. 08VIENNA211. February 12, 2008.

86'R6%LRWHFKRXWUHDFKWR+XQJDU\YLVLWRI-DFN%RER0DUFK

1213, 2009. Cable No. 09BUDAPEST210. March 19, 2009.


)HGRUR1LQD6FLHQFH$GYLVRUWRWKH866HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHDQG

$GPLQLVWUDWRURI86$'QDXJXUDO/HFWXUHLQWKH-HHUVRQ)HOORZV

Distinguished Lecture Series. Seeds of a perfect storm: Genetically

PRGLHGFURSVDQGJOREDOIRRGVHFXULW\FULVLV2FWREHU

20 Via Campesina. [Press release]. Convention on biological diversity:Farmers demand an end to the commercialization of biodiversity,

GM seeds and synthetic biology. October 11, 2012; Via Campesina.

The international peasants voice. February 9, 2011.

21 African Center for Biosafet y. [Press release]. African civil society

FDOOVRQWKH$IULFDQ8QLRQWREDQJHQHWLFDOO\PRGLHGFURSV1RYHP -

ber 25, 2012.

22 U.S. DoS. South Africa, biosafety update and state senior biotech

DGYLVRUYLVLW&DEOH1R35(725$-XQH

23 U.S. DoS. Biotech conference hits the mark. Cable No. 06MONTEVI-

DEO980. October 16, 2006.

86'R6*HQHWLFDOO\PRGLHGVR\EHDQVVWLOOXQGHUUHLQ5RPDQLD

Cable No. 06BUCAREST574. April 5, 2006; U.S. DoS. Peru request for

EEB FY08 biotech funds. Cable No. 08LIMA226. February 7, 2008.


26 McGrath, Kathleen. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

Testimony of the Biotechnology Industry Organization Regarding

Assembly Bill 984: Manufacturer Liability. Committee on Agriculture.

California Assembly. April 29, 2005 at 2.

27 Monsanto. Monsanto Biotechnolog y Trait Acreage: Fiscal Years2QOHDQGDYDLODEOHDWKWWSZZZPRQVDQWR

com/investors/documents/2009/q4_biotech_acres.pdf; USDA,

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Quick Stats, Acres

Planted, Corn and Soybeans. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov

Monsanto. Roundup Power Max Herbicide. Brochure. 2008 at 4.

28 Benbrook, Charles M. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on

SHVWLFLGHXVHLQWKH86WKHUVWVL[WHHQ\HDUV Environmental Sci-

ences Europe9RO-DQXDU\DW

29 Paganelli, Alejandra et al. Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce

7HUDWRJHQLF(HFWVRQ9HUWHEUDWHVE\PSDLULQJ5HLQRLF$FLG6LJQDO -

ing. Chem. Res. Toxicol. Vol. 23. August 2010 at 1586.

30 Benachour, Nora and Gilles-Er ic Seralini. Glyphosate Formulations

Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and

Placental Cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol., vol. 22. 2009 at 97.

31 National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). Theimpact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the

United States. April 13, 2010 at S-3 and S-13. (Pre-publication copy).

32 International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Glycines (G/9)

5HVLVWDQW:HHGVE\6SHFLHVDQG&RXQWU\2QOHDQGDYDLODEOHDW

www.weedscience.org. Accessed May 31, 2012.

6\QJHQWD/HDGLQJWKHJKWDJDLQVWJO\SKRVDWHUHVLVWDQFH

2QOHDQGDYDLODEOHDWKWWSZZZV\QJHQWDHEL]FRP'RW1HW(%L]

ImageLIbrary/WR%203%20Leading%20the%20Fight.pdf.

34 Neuman, William and Andrew Pollack. Farmers cope with roundup-

resistant weeds. New York Times. May 3, 2010.

35 Ibrahim et al. Weight of the Evidence on the Human Carcinogenic-

ity of 2,4-D. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 96. 1991 at 213;

Hayes, Tyrone et al. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after ex-

posure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 99, iss. 8. April2002 at 5476; Stoker, Tammy E. et al. Maternal exposure to atrazine

during lactation suppresses suckling-induced prolactin release and

UHVXOWVLQSURVWDWLWLVLQWKHDGXOWRVSULQJ Toxicological Sciences. Vol.

52. 1999 at 68; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2,4-D: Chemi-

cal Summary. 2007 at 1 and 5.


)HGRUR

38 BIO. Agricultural Biotechnologys Environmental Success Story.

April 22, 2009 at 1.

39 Morton, Douglas C. et al. Cropland Expansion Changes Deforesta-

tion Dynamics in the Southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 103, iss. 39. September 26, 2006 at

14637.

40 Ibid.

41 NRC (2010).

42 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 09State122732. December 1, 2009.

)HGRUR

44 CropLife America. Annual Report 2012. 2012 at 3.

45 CropLife America. 2009 Annual Report to Members. 2009 at 5.

46 Gurian-Sherman, Doug. Union of Concerned Scientists. Failure to

Yield. April 2009 at 22 and 33.

47 Elmore, Roger W. et al. Production agriculture: Glyphosate-resis tant

soybean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal

Vol. 93. 2001 at 408.

Endnotes


20/23


48 Clapp, Stephen. Study says farmers relying on Roundup may

ZHDNHQEHQHWVFood Chemical News. April 20, 2009.

49 Ibid.

)HGRUR

:DFK0LFKDHO0DQDJLQJ'LUHFWRU6FLHQFHDQG5HJXODWRU\$DLUV

at BIO. Re: Interagency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species

Act; Proposed Rule; Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2008-0093. Public Com-

ment. August 3, 2009 at 3.

52 57 Fed Reg. 22984. (May 29, 1992 at I).

53 21 CFR 171.1(c).

54 U.S. Senate Appropriat ions Committee. Hearing on the President sFY2009 War Supplemental Request. April 30, 2009.

55 Laurit sen, Sharon Bomer, Executive Vice President of Food and

Agriculture at BIO. Letter to Professeur De Schutter, the UN Special

Rapporteur on the Right to Food. May 29, 2009 at 14.

56 IAASTD. Executive Summary of Synthesis Report. April 2008 at 8 to

9.

57 U.S. DoS. FY 2010 biotechnolog y outreach strateg y and department

resources. Cable No. 09STATE122732. December 1, 2009.

58 U.S. DoS. Secretaries Clinton, Vilsack on food securit y on World

Food Day; Host conference call to discuss global food security, U.S.

action. Conference call transcript. October 16, 2009.

59 Lauritsen at 6.

60 To date, the United States has only approved herbicide-tolerant and

insect-tolerant canola, corn, cotton and soybeans as well as virus-

UHVLVWDQWVTXDVKDQGSDSD\DV)HUQDQGH]&RUQHMR-RUJH5DSLG

growth in adoption of genetically engineered crops continues in U.S.

Amber Waves. Vol. 6, iss. 4. September 2008 at 6; ISAA A. Biotech

crops poised for second wave of growth. [Press release]. February

11, 2009; USDA. Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pend-

ing by APHIS as of February 1, 2012.

61 IAASTD. Agriculture at a Crossroads. Global Report . 2009 at 161.

62 Brasher, Philip. Monsanto to test seed that might beat drought. Des

Moines Register. May 21, 2011.

63 IAASTD (2009) at 10.

64 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 08STATE129940. December 10, 2008; Cable No.

09STATE122732. December 1, 2009.

65 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 08STATE129940. December 10, 2008.

66 USAID. Progress Report: Boosting Harvests, Fighting Poverty. 2012

at i, 3 and 28.67 Developing countries forge ahead with biotech crops. Food Chemi-

cal News-XO\


69 U.S. DoS. US speaker Prof. Bruce Chassy. Program in Northern Italy

on food safety and GMOs. September 1924, 2005. Cable No. 05MI-

LAN532. November 23, 2005.

70 U.S. DoS. Senior advisor for biotechnology advocates science-based

regulatory framework in Egypt and Middle East. Cable No. 06CAI -

RO2165. April 10, 2006.

71 U.S. DoS. Slovenia biotech: embassy hosts farmer to farmer round-

WDEOH&DEOH1R/-8%/-$1$6HSWHPEHU

72 U.S. DoS. Bogota proposal for biotechnology outreach funds. Cable

1R%2*27$-DQXDU\

73 U.S. DoS. Funding request for FY2009 biotechnolog y outreach andcapacity building for Hong Kong & Macau. Cable No. 09HONG-

.21*-DQXDU\

74 U.S. DoS. Proposal for FY2009 biotech outreach resources. Cable

1R/86$.$-DQXDU\

75 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 07STATE160639. November 27, 2007; Cable No.

08STATE129940. December 10, 2008.


77 U.S. DoS. Maputo s proposal for biotechnolog y funds. Cable No.

0$8372-DQXDU\

78 U.S. DoS. Biotechnology outreach projects FY05 Yemen Proposal.

&DEOH1R6$1$$-DQXDU\

79 First world conference on the future of science. Umberto Veronesi

Foundation. Venice. September 2123; U.S. DoS. Cable No. 05MI-

LAN532. November 23, 2005.

80 Philippines Embassy to the United States, Washington, DC. U.S. Agri

Chief, American businessmen visiting Manila for trade and invest-

ment mission. October 22, 2009; Land OLakes. [Press release].

U.S. agribusiness trade and investment mission to Philippines

led by secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, October 2427, 2009.

November 3, 2009; U.S. DoS. Secretary Vilsack leads U.S. agribusi-

ness trade and investment mission to the Philippines. Cable No.

09MANILA2329. November 9, 2009.

81 Embassy sponsors conference on biotechnolog y, biofuels. US FedNews. September 7, 2007; U.S. DoS. Prospects for biotechnology in

Slovakia improving. Cable No. 07BRATISLAVA542. October 1, 2007.


83 U.S. DoS. Poland may avoid GM animal feed ban. Cable No. 08WAR-

6$:-XO\3ROLVKDJULFXOWXUHGHOHJDWLRQWROHDUQDERXW

U.S. biofuels. US Fed News. May 19, 2008; Flakiewicz, Pawel, Natalia

Koniuszewska and Kacie Fritz. USDA Foreign Agriculture Service

(FAS). Poland Biotechnology Update 2008. GAIN Report. No. PL8029.

September 22, 2008.

84 U.S. DoS. Salvadorian minister of agricultures November 8-14 visit

to the U.S. Cable No. 09SANSALVADOR1043. November 5, 2009.



87 Ibid.

88 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 07STATE160639. November 27, 2007; U.S. DoS.

Demarche on liability and redress under the Cartagena Protocol on

biosafety. Cable No. 09STATE11910. February 10, 2009.

2FHRIWKH867UDGH5HSUHVHQWDWLYH86755HSRUWRQ6DQL-

tary and Phytosanitary Measures. March 2011 at 21, 39, 44, 45, 64,

75 to 76, 82 and 84. The African countries include Angola, Botswana,

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Madagas-

car, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, Swaziland,

Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

90 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 07STATE160639. November 27, 2007; Cable No.

08STATE129940. December 10, 2008.


86'R6*HQHWLFDOO\PRGLHGVR\EHDQVVWLOOXQGHUUHLQ5RPDQLD

Cable No. 06BUCHAREST574. April 5, 2006.

93 U.S. DoS. Draft Ecuadorian health law requires approval and label-ing of biotech food. Cable No. 06QUITO2698. November 7, 2006.

94 Berry, Ian. Monsanto Chief Cautious on Market Share. Wall Street

Journal. April 6, 2011.

95 U.S. DoS. Germany/agriculture: guilt by association genetically

engineered corn tarnishes Monsantos image in Bavaria. Cable No.

08MUNICH365. November 10, 2008.

96 U.S. DoS. The future of GMOs in Slovakia. Cable No. 05BRATISLA-

VA412. May 27, 2005.

97 U.S. DoS. Spain s biotech crop under threat. Cable No. 09MA-

DRID482. May 19, 2009.

98 U.S. DoS. Senior advisor for agricultural biotechnology advocates

science-based regulatory framework in Egypt and Middle East.

Cable No. 06CAIRO2165. April 10, 2006.

99 U.S. DoS. Monsanto Argentina president on seed royalty issue.

Cable No. 08BUENOSAIRES1153. August 15, 2008.

86'R6&DEOH1R35(725$-XQH

86'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH>3UHVVUHOHDVH@0RQVDQWRFRPSDQ\

FKDUJHGZLWKEULELQJQGRQHVLDQJRYHUQPHQWRFLDO3URVHFXWLRQ

GHIHUUHGIRUWKUHH\HDUV-DQXDU\

102 Ibid.

%DUOHWW'RQDOG/DQG-DPHV%6WHHOH0RQVDQWRVKDUYHVWRIIHDU

Vanity Fair. May 2008.

104 U.S. DoS. Ukraine: 2007 special 301 post input. Cable No.

07KYIV449. February 22, 2007.

105 U.S. DoS. Burkina Faso Seeks to Win Back Title as Africas Top Cotton

3URGXFHU28*$'28*28-XO\


21/23



106 Balch, Oliver. Seeds of dispute. The Guardian (U.K.). February 22,

2006.

$UJHQWLQDQGVDQGGHVWUR\VLOOHJDO*0VHHGVReuters (Buenos

Aires). May 9, 2001.

108 Balch (2006).

109 Argentina: Monsanto back to negotiations on RR royalties collect-

ing. South American Business Information in El Clarin. April 14, 2004;

U.S. DoS. Argentinas 2007 special 301 review. Cable No. 07BUENO-

SAIRES335. February 21, 2007.

110 Smith, Tony. Monsanto halts some Argentine seed sales. Interna-

tional Herald Tribune-DQXDU\6LVVHOO.DUD0RQVDQWROHV

suit to block Argentine exports to EU. Chemical Week-XO\Bertello, Fernando. Monsanto reclama que se respete la propiedad

intellectual. La Nacin-DQXDU\

111 U.S. DoS. Minis ter Miceli discusses economic policy and Latin Ameri-

can development with A/S Shannon. Cable No. 06BUENOSAIRES118.

-DQXDU\

112 U.S. DoS. Economic Minister on Mercosur Summit and commercial

DGYRFDF\FDVHV&DEOH1R%8(126$5(6-DQXDU\

113 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 07BUENOSAIRES335. Februar y 21, 2007.

114 U.S. DoS. Cable No. 08BUENOSAIRES1153. August 15, 2008.

115 Ibid.

116 Bronstein, Hugh. Monsanto signs royalty deals with Argentine farm-

ers. Reuters%XHQRV$LUHV-XQH

117 U.S. DoS. Senior DOS agricultural biotech advisor Spirnaks trip to

3RODQG0D\&DEOH1R:$56$:-XQH

118 ASA plays key role in protecting U.S. soy exports to Europe. States

News Service. September 11, 2008.

86'R6&DEOH1R:$56$:-XQH

120 U.S. DoS. Draft national trade estimate report. Cable No. 08AN-

KARA1728. November 7, 2008; U.S. DoS. Draft biotech regulation

could disrupt more than 1 billion in U.S. exports. Cable No. 09AN-

KARA1473. October 13, 2009.

121 U.S. DoS. Nicaragua: NGO attempts to advance anti-biotechnology

agenda. Cable No. 06MANAGUA2499. November 13, 2006.

122 U.S. DoS. Biotech cropping up again in Thailand. Cable No. 07BANG-

KOK4513. August 21, 2007.

123 U.S. DoS. FY 2006 funds available for biotechnology outreach pro-

posal: implementing the Cartagena Protocol. Cable No. 06CAI-

52-DQXDU\124 U.S. DoS. France agricultural biotech outreach proposal. Cable No.

08PARIS2328. December 24, 2008.

125 ISAAA (2013).

126 U.S. DoS. Survey: impact of rising food/agricultural commodity

prices. Cable No. 08MADRID489. April 30, 2008.

127 U.S. DoS. Biotechnology outreach project for Romania. Cable No.

%8&+$5(67-DQXDU\

128 U.S. DoS. Romania: successful biotech outreach to new government

RFLDOV&DEOH1R%8&+$5(67$SULO

129 U.S. DoS. Bulgaria: FY 2009 biotechnology outreach strategy. Cable

1R62)$-DQXDU\

130 U.S. DoS. Bulgaria to support vote on biotech corn, cotton, and

soybeans. Cable No. 08SOFIA91. February 12, 2008.

131 U.S. DoS. Czech Republic supports EU biotech food proposal. CableNo. 07PRAGUE415. April 17, 2007.

132 U.S. DoS. The plight of MON810: politics trumps science in the EU.

Cable No. 09BRUSSELS566. April 16, 2009.

133 USTR (2011) at 21.

134 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 at

Article 12.2.

6DWR6XJXUR86'$)$6*OREDO$JULFXOWXUHQIRUPDWLRQ1HWZRUN-D-

pan Biotechnology Annual Report 2008. September 19, 2011 at 1; La-

JRV-RVKXD(PPDQXHODQG:X%XJDQJ86'$)$6*OREDO$JULFXOWXUH

Information Network. China-Peoples Republic of, Biotechnology

*(3ODQWVDQG$QLPDOV$QQXDO-DQXDU\DW&URWKHUV

Linda. USDA FAS, Global Agriculture Information Network. Australia

Biotechnology GE Plants and Animals, Agricultural Biotechnology

5HSRUW-XO\DW/HH-RQHV'DYLG86'$)$6*OREDO

Agriculture Information Network. New Zealand, Biotechnology GE

Plants and Animals, Annual Update for Biotechnology in Agriculture.

-XO\DW&KXQJ6HXQJ$K86'$)$6*OREDO$JULFXOWXUH

Information Network. Korea-Republic of, Biotechnology GE Plants

and Animals Biotechnology Annual Report 2010. December 22, 2010

DW6LOYD-RDR)86'$)$6*OREDO$JULFXOWXUHQIRUPDWLRQ1HWZRUN

%UD]LO$JULFXOWXUDO%LRWHFKQRORJ\$QQXDO-XO\DW

Vassilieva, Yelena. USDA FAS, Global Agriculture Information Net-

work. Russian Federation, Agricultural Biotechnology Annual, An-

QXDO-XO\0RXVD+XVVHLQ86'$)$6*OREDO$JULFXO-ture Information Network. Saudi Arabia, Agricultural Biotechnology

$QQXDO6DXGL$UDELD$JULFXOWXUDO%LRWHFKQRORJ\-XO\

at 2.

136 U.S. DoS. U.S.-Malaysia FTA: encouraging signals. Cable No.

08KUALALUMPUR372. May 13, 2008; U.S. DoS. Vietnams National

$VVHPEO\VHVVLRQVKRZVLQFUHDVLQJEXWVWLOOOLPLWHGLQXHQFH&DEOH

No. 09HANOI1392. December 18, 2009.

86'R6&DEOH1R+21*.21*-DQXDU\

138 Ibid.

139 Yuen, Caroline. USDA FAS. Consumer Council renews call for labeling

of GM products. GAIN Report. October 4, 2011 at 2.

140 U.S. DoS. South African environment, science, and technology

PRQWKO\EULHQJV-XQH&DEOH1R35(725$-XO\

2008; U.S. DoS. South Africas response to CCFL demarche. Cable

No. 09PRETORIA884. May 4, 2009.

141 U.S. DoS. Brazil /US congress-to-congress outreach strategy. Cable

No. 05BRASILIA1407. May 25, 2005.

142 IAASTD. Executive Summary of Synthesis Report. April 2008 at 8 to

9.

143 Kenya: The GM debate is more than about biosafety. Nairobi Star.

May 11, 2012.

144 ISAA A. ISAAA Brief 39-2008. Global Status of Commercialized

Biotech/GM Crops: 2008; The First Thirteen Years, 1996 to 2008.

February 11, 2009 at Executive Summary.

145 ISAAA. [Press release]. Biotech crops poised for second wave of

growth: Political will strengthens globally. February 11, 2009.

146 USDA FAS. [Press release]. USAID announces international biotech

FROODERUDWLRQ-XQH

147 West African states hold talks in Mali on agricultural output

biotech ambassadors: how the u.s. state department promotes the seed industry's global agenda

Documents