|
|
 
|
Monsanto lobbies to keep the status quo for gene-altered crops
(Monday, Sept. 19, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Monsanto lobbies to keep the status quo for gene-altered crops 1. Monsanto lobbies to keep the status quo for gene-altered crops Monday, September 12, 2005 Sometimes a company's lobbying success is best measured by what doesn't
happen: tighter regulations kept off the books, tax loopholes left open,
hot-button issues never debated or investigated. Take, for example, Monsanto Co., the agricultural and biotech giant based in
Creve Coeur. Despite years of controversy over Monsanto's genetically
modified seeds, there hasn't been a single congressional hearing on legislation
calling for labeling genetically modified foods, even as much of Europe, Japan
and several other nations adopted labeling laws. Monsanto lobbyists have worked hard to preserve the current system in which
its gene-altered products are treated as essentially equivalent to regular
crops -- and therefore don't need any additional labeling. Among area companies, Monsanto was by far the biggest spender on lobbying,
dishing out more than $18.5 million from 1999 through 2004. In 2001, Monsanto
had nine in-house Washington lobbyists on its payroll, along with another 13
at private firms. Over the years, Monsanto has become known for its connections in Washington,
hiring high-ranking government officials and a former member of
Congress,_Rep. Toby Moffett, D-Conn. Among those lobbying for Monsanto last year were
Peter Scher, who served in the administration of President Bill Clinton as the
top negotiator and troubleshooter on global agriculture trade deals in which
Monsanto had a huge stake. Monsanto has generally deployed its phalanx of lobbyists on three fronts:
shaping regulations that apply to its genetically modified crops; prying open
European and other foreign markets for genetically modified foods; and winning
Legislative battles to tailor the federal agriculture budget critical to its
business. More than other St. Louis companies, Monsanto and its lobbyists
have to navigate Washington's regulatory maze because three federal agencies
regulate its gene-altered farm products. Michael Dykes, a top Monsanto in-house
advocate, said the compare's lobbyists didn't try to influence the
scientific review process (their scientists do that). But they do try to shape the
policies that dictate how those reviews unfold -- what steps are necessary to
get a new biotech product to market, for example.
Even as European nations continue to maintain a ban on most genetically
modified crops, Monsanto has pressed for more government-approved uses of its
technology in the United States. In June, the company won approval from the
Agricuiture Department for its latest product -- alfalfa that is genetically
engineered to tolerate a Monsanto-developed herbicide that kills weeds but not
the alfalfa. The agriculture giant is now in the midst of a controversial battle to
commercialize a herbicide-tolerant grass that could be a big seller to golf
courses. Monsanto is working with another company, Scotts Co., on that issue, and
they have already run into opposition. Because grasses are wind-pollinating
perennial paints, they are difficult to contain and could pose a contamination
threat, critics say. Bill Freese, a research analyst for the environmental group Friends of the
Earth, said the grass could produce "Super weeds" that are resistant to
herbicides. Monsanto lobbyists exercise considerable influence over the regulatory
process, Freese said, even though the rule-making might appear to be more driven
by facts and less by politics. "They have tremendous clout with the government," Freese said. Monsanto's Dykes said his work on the special grass focused on keeping
interested lawmakers abreast of the approval process, not on talking to
regulators. "We would brief legislators and staff . . . on what the process is, what
we're doing, how our scientists are engaged," he said. Monsanto has a track record of political victories. Three years ago, for
example, the White House sided with the company and others in the industry in
their effort to avoid costly recalls and other repercussions if there's
accidental contamination during field trials of gene-altered crops. The effort by Monsanto and others in the biotech business began after the
StarLink scandal in 2000, when discovery in human food of genetically modified
corn approved only for animals sparked a recall of dozens of foods and a
financial disaster for a company, Aventis CropScience. The biotech companies' efforts paid off: In 2002, President George W. Bush's
administration issued a directive to three federal agencies asking them to
write regulations allowing unapproved materials in commercial seed and
commodities "if they pose no unacceptable environmental risk." Although it was a key win for the biotech industry, the battle isn't over.
Critics argue that the policy prejudged environmental tests and posed health
threats to consumers, and they are now Iobbying the agencies to write tight
rules an the issue. "We don't want to see a blanket approval for contamination," Freese said. Monsanto, of course, is also weighing in. "We're trying to advocate a sound
regulatory process as to how to effectively manage this issue," Dykes said.
2. Researchers say University of Manitoba blocked video on GM crops September 12, 2005 WINNIPEG -- Stephane McLachlan, an environment professor at the University of Manitoba,
and his PhD student Ian Mauro, were cited as accusing the university of blocking the
release of their video exploring the risks of genetically modified crops while at the
same time courting funds from biotech companies. The story explains that the two completed a feature-length documentary in 2002 with help
from independent Winnipeg filmmaker Jim Sanders, and is based on interviews with Prairie
farmers about their experiences -- good and bad -- with genetically modified canola. But the Seeds of Change video has never been screened because the university and the
researchers, who share the copyright, have been unable to negotiate an agreement on its
release. The story explains that the university originally demanded assurances it would not be
liable if anyone sued. One insurer demanded a $50,000 deductible for any lawsuits by crop
marketer Monsanto, which has a reputation for protecting its interests vigorously through
the courts. The company is featured in the documentary because of its legal battle with a
Saskatchewan farmer and its development of genetically modified wheat. Monsanto Canada
spokeswoman Trish Jordan was quoted as saying, "Obviously, we've never seen (the video),
so I'm not sure how these guys could assume that we would sue them." Now that a private investor has pulled out of the Seeds of Change project and the
filmmakers have made it clear they don't intend to make a profit, the lawsuit issue has
apparently been dropped by the university. Alan Simms, who represented the university in early negotiations before going on to head
the university's Smartpark research complex, was quoted as saying, "I've seen (the video)
and I think it's fair. It's not a biased kind of thing." But McLachlan said the university is still demanding control over where and when the
video is shown, while at the same time requiring a disclaimer indicating the project has
nothing to do with the university. University spokesman John Danakas would not say what restrictions the university would
place on how the video is screened, because those details have not yet been discussed
with the researchers. The university wants to make sure the documentary is only used for educational purposes,
he said.
3. Department of Indian Work of the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota Resolves to Protect Wild Rice WHITE EARTH LAND RECOVERY PROJECT St. Cloud, MN: On September 13, 2005 The Department of Indian Work of the
Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota forwarded a unanimous resolution to the
Bishop. The resolution, aimed at protecting sacred wild rice from
contamination from potential genetic engineering, passed without dissent. The
group has asked that the Bishop James L. Jelinek of Minnesota communicate to
the Governor of Minnesota, the State House of Representatives, State Senate,
and other relevant State agencies the "importance of protecting our wild
rice resources by prohibiting genetically engineered wild rice from being
introduced into Minnesota." The Rev. Canon Stephen Schaitberger brought the resolution forward. A man
with a love of the natural world, Rev. Schaitberger is deeply concerned
about the environmental and spiritual implications of the genetic alteration
of rice. "We want to support Minnesota's diverse religious community, and
this issue is of great spiritual importance to our Ojibwe brothers and
sisters," he said. "If wild rice is 'tamed' in the laboratory through
genetic engineering, and planted alongside lake rice, the environmental
consequences could be detrimental. Wild rice is a state symbol for all
Minnesotans, and I, along with this committee, want to make sure it's
protected," Schaitberger stated. He summed up, "Wild rice is our mother, our
sister, our brother; it is a relative as well as a plant." The passage of this resolution adds another voice to the growing chorus of
advocacy groups, businesses, and individuals who oppose genetic engineering
of wild rice. Legislation to protect wild rice is expected to be introduced
at the Minnesota Legislature in the upcoming session, which will begin March
1, 2006. ###
4. Stakes High in U.S./EC Genetically Modified Crops Dispute at WTO Press Release from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Minneapolis - In the next month, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is
scheduled to rule on a highly anticipated case that will directly
impact how countries around the world regulate genetically modified
(GM) crops and food. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
(IATP) has outlined the key issues in a new backgrounder on the trade
dispute between the primary plaintiff, the United States (joined by
Canada and Argentina), and the European Communities (EC). The
backgrounder can be found at: http://www.iatp.org . In addition to ruling directly on the EC’s regulatory system for GM
crops, the WTO ruling will set a precedent on food safety, public
health and environmental health measures applied to internationally
traded goods and services. The U.S. is the world’s largest user of GM
crops. Most corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. are
genetically modified. As of 2002, the U.S. State Department claimed at
least $300 million in lost sales of GM corn and soy products to the
EU. "This case is about whether WTO members may use precaution when
scientific uncertainties preclude regulators from assessing the risks
not only of GM crops but also other new technologies," said Steve
Suppan, IATP’s Director of Research and author of the backgrounder.
"U.S. regulators allow biotech firms to determine when biotech product
risks merit regulatory concern. Now, the U.S. wants to export its
deregulatory model to other WTO Members through this decision." The U.S. charges that by not approving a single new GM crop from 1996
through 2001, the EC regulatory system imposed a WTO illegal
moratorium on new approvals without scientific basis. The EU countered
it was developing a regulatory system during this period and that
there is significant scientific uncertainty related to the health and
environmental consequences of GM crops. The EC subsequently put in
place a regulatory system for biotech products that has approved
several new GM crops. A ruling in favor of the U.S. would undermine the ability of
regulators to consider broader regulatory objectives cited in the EC
arguments, such as biodiversity conservation, and the EC’s ability to
do independent assessment of biotech product claims and data.
Developing countries, many of which have yet to establish regulatory
regimes for GMO crops, will be particularly affected by this decision.
Aspects of the ruling could also be applied to a threatened U.S. case
against a draft EC regulatory plan to regulate more rigorously certain
industrial chemicals for public health purposes. The backgrounder identifies four central questions in the case:
1 - Will the EC and other WTO members be able to develop and maintain
a regulatory system for GM crops that allows for the use of
precautionary measures to protect consumer, animal and/or plant health
when there is insufficient scientific evidence to assess the risks? 2 - Will the WTO agree that some of the EC’s regulatory objectives for
GM crops fall outside of the WTO and are instead covered by other
international agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol to Biosafety,
which allow for a more precautionary approach? 3 - How will the panel document its use of expert opinion in
determining the factual matters in the dispute? 4 - How will the panel use previous WTO dispute panel and appellate
body rulings on "scientific uncertainty" to justify its ruling? The backgrounder on the case can be found at: www.iatp.org. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works globally to
promote resilient family farms, communities and ecosystems through
research and education, science and technology, and advocacy. | |
