Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly 

#666 - The Bad Seed, September 02, 1999 
   
The Bad Seed 
Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis has been maneuvering for more than a
decade to dominate the world's supply of seed for staple crops (corn,
soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that Monsanto's critics say is
nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto says it is just devilishly good business. 
Monsanto has spent upwards of $8 billion in recent years buying numerous
U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto and Pioneer (recently
purchased by DuPont), now dominate the U.S. seed business. Monsanto
specializes in genetically modified seeds -- seeds having particular
properties that Monsanto has patented. 

The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new technologies. From
the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy, genetically modified seeds offer a key
advantage over traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are
patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this year's crop to
plant next year. To use these patented seeds, farmers must buy new seed from
Monsanto every year. Thus a farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and
fails to retain a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a
transnational corporation. Nations whose farmers grew dependent upon
corporations for seed might forfeit considerable political independence. The
Clinton/Gore administration has been aggressively helping Monsanto promote
ag-biotech, bypassing U.S. health and safety regulations to promote new,
untested gene-altered products. 

A key component of the U.S./Monsanto plan to dominate world agriculture with
genetically modified seeds is the absence of labeling of genetically
engineered foods. All U.S. foods carry labels listing the ingredients: salt,
sugar, water, vitamins, etc. But three separate executive agencies -- U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency -- have ruled that genetically-modified
foods deserve an exception: they can be sold without being labeled
"genetically modified." This strategy has successfully prevented consumers
from exercising informed choice in the marketplace, reducing the likelihood
of a consumer revolt, at least in the U.S., at least for now. 

Earlier this year, opposition to genetically modified foods exploded in
England and quickly spread to the European continent. (See REHW #649.)
Burgeoning consumer opposition has now swept into Asia and back to North
America. The NEW YORK TIMES reported last week that, "the Clinton
Administration's efforts have grown increasingly urgent, in an attempt to
contain the aversion to these crops that is leaping from continent to
continent."[1] 

** Recently Japan -- the largest Asian importer of U.S. food -- passed a law
requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.[1] A subsidiary of
Honda Motor Company immediately announced that it will build a plant in Ohio
and hire farmers to supply it with traditional, unaltered soy beans. Soy is
the basis of tofu, a staple food in Japan. 

Subsequently, the largest and third-largest Japanese beer makers, Kirin
Brewery and Sapporo Breweries, Ltd., announced that they will stop using
genetically modified corn by 2001. Other Japanese brewers are expected to
follow suit. 

** The Reuters North America wire service reported Sept. 1 that South Korea,
Australia, and New Zealand have all now passed laws requiring the labeling
of genetically modified foods. Reuters says the U.S. government has publicly
protested against such labeling laws and has privately lobbied hard against
them, unsuccessfully. 

** Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour -- recently
announced it will no longer purchase any genetically modified corn. Corn
flour is made into tortillas, a Mexican staple. Mexico buys $500 million of
U.S. corn each year, so the Grupo Maseca announcement sent a chill through
midwestern corn farmers who planted Monsanto's genetically modified
seeds.[1] About 1/3 of this year's U.S. corn crop is being grown from
genetically modified seeds. 

** Gerber and Heinz -- the two leading manufacturers of baby foods in the
U.S. -- announced in July that they would not allow genetically modified
corn or soybeans in any of their baby foods.[2] After the baby food
announcements, Iams, the high-end pet food producer, announced that it would
not purchase any of the seven varieties of genetically modified corn that
have not been approved by the European Union. This announcement cut off an
alternative use that U.S. farmer's had hoped to make of corn rejected by
overseas buyers. 

** As the demand for traditional, unmodified corn and soy has grown, a
two-price system for crops has developed in the U.S. -- a higher price for
traditional, unmodified crops, and a lower price for genetically modified
crops. For example, Archer Daniels Midland is paying some farmers 18 cents
less per bushel for genetically modified soybeans, compared to the
traditional product.[1] 

** The American Corn Growers Association, which represents mainly family
farmers, has told its members that they should consider planting only
traditional, unmodified seed next spring because it may not be possible to
export genetically modified corn.[1] 

** Deutsche Bank, Europe's largest bank, has issued two reports within the
past six months advising its large institutional investors to abandon
ag-biotech companies like Monsanto and Novartis.[3] In July, 1998, Monsanto
stock was selling for $56 per share; today it is about $41, a 27% decline
despite the phenomenal success of Monsanto's new arthritis medicine, Celebrex. 

In its most recent report, Deutsche Bank said, "...[I]t appears the food
companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal
to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs [genetically modified
organisms].'" 

Deutsche Bank's Washington, D.C., analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer
Mitchell, announced nine months ago that ag-biotech "was going the way of
the nuclear industry in this country." "But we count ourselves surprised at
how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out," they told the London
GUARDIAN in late August.[3] 

In Europe, the ag-biotech controversy is playing out upon a stage created by
an earlier -- and ongoing -- scientific dispute over sex hormones in
beef.[4] About 90% of U.S. beef cattle are treated with sex hormones --
three naturally-occurring (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) and
three synthetic hormones that mimic the natural ones (zeranol, melengesterol
acetate, and trenbolone acetate). Hormone treatment makes cattle grow faster
and produces more tender, flavorful cuts of beef. 

Since 1995 the European Union has prohibited the treatment of any farm
animals with sex hormones intended to promote growth, on grounds that sex
hormones are known to cause several human cancers. As a byproduct of that
prohibition, the EU refuses to allow the import of hormone-treated beef from
the U.S. and Canada. 

The U.S. asserts that hormone-treated beef is entirely safe and that the
European ban violates the global free trade regime that the U.S. has worked
religiously for 20 years to create. The U.S. argues that sex hormones only
promote human cancers in hormone-sensitive tissues, such as the female
breast and uterus. Therefore, the U.S. argues, the mechanism of carcinogenic
action must be activation of hormone "receptors" and therefore there is a
"threshold" -- a level of hormones below which no cancers will occur. Based
on risk assessments, the U.S. government claims to know where that threshold
level lies. Furthermore, the U.S. claims it has established a regulatory
process that prevents any farmer from exceeding the threshold level in his
or her cows. 

In a 136-page report issued in late April, an EU scientific committee argues
that hormones may cause some human cancers by an entirely different
mechanism -- by interfering directly with DNA.[5] If that were true, there
would be no threshold for safety and the only safe dose of sex hormones in
beef would be zero. "If you assume no threshold, you should continually be
taking steps to get down to lower levels, because no level is safe," says
James Bridges, a toxicologist at the University of Surrey in Guilford,
England.[4] 

Secondly, the EU spot-checked 258 meat samples from the Hormone Free Cattle
program run jointly by the U.S. beef industry and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. This program is intended to raise beef cattle without the use
of hormones, thus producing beef eligible for import into Europe. The spot
check found that 12% of the "hormone free" cattle had in fact been treated
with sex hormones. EU officials cite this as evidence that growth hormones
are poorly regulated in the U.S. beef industry and that Europeans might be
exposed to higher-than-allowed concentrations if the ban on North American
imports were lifted. "These revelations are embarrassing for U.S.
officials," reports SCIENCE magazine.[4] Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to
assert that its hormone-treated beef is 100% safe. 

Thus we have a classic scientific controversy characterized by considerable
scientific uncertainty. This particular scientific dispute has profound
implications for the future of all regulation under a global free trade
regime -- including regulation of toxic chemicals -- because the European
Union is basing its opposition to hormone-treated beef on the precautionary
principle. The U.S. insists that this precautionary approach is an illegal
restraint of free trade. 

The EU's position is clearly precautionary: "Where scientific evidence is
not black and white, policy should err on the side of caution so that there
is zero risk to the consumer," the EU says.[6] The Danish pediatric
researcher, Niels Skakkebaek, says the burden of proof lies with those
putting hormones in beef: "The possible health effects from the hormones
have hardly been studied -- the burden of proof should lie with the American
beef industry," Skakkebaek told CHEMICAL WEEK, a U.S. chemical industry
publication that is following the beef controversy closely.[6] 

It appears that European activists have seized upon hormones in beef, and
upon Monsanto's seed domination plan, as a vehicle for opposing a "global
free trade" regime in which nations lose their power to regulate markets to
protect public health or the environment. The NEW YORK TIMES reports that a
Peasant Confederation of European farmers derives much of its intellectual
inspiration and direction from a new organization, called Attac, formed last
year in France to fight the spread of global free trade regimes.[7] The
Confederation has destroyed several McDonald's restaurants and dumped rotten
vegetables in others. Patrice Vidieu, the secretary-general of the Peasant
Confederation, told the TIMES, "What we reject is the idea that the power of
the marketplace becomes the dominant force in all societies, and that
multinationals like McDonald's or Monsanto come to impose the food we eat
and the seeds we plant." 

What began as consumer opposition to genetically-modified seed appears to be
turning into an open revolt against the 25-year-old U.S.-led effort to
impose free-trade regimes world-wide, enthroning transnational corporations
in the process. If approached strategically by ALLIANCES of U.S. activists
and their overseas counterparts (and it MUST NOT be viewed as merely a
labeling dispute) genetic engineering could become the most important fight
in more than a century. 

--Peter Montague(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) 

===== 

[1] "Melody Petersen, "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers," NEW YORK TIMES
August 29, 1999, pgs. A1, A18. 

[2] Lucette Lagnado, "Strained Peace: Gerber Baby Food, Grilled by
Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul -- Gene-Modified Corn and Soy Will Go,
Although Firm Feels Sure They Are Safe -- Heinz Takes Action, Too," WALL
STREET JOURNAL July 30, 1999, pg. A1. 

[3] Paul Brown and John Vidal, "GM Investors Told to Sell Their Shares," THE
GUARDIAN [London] August 25, 1999, pg. unknown. 

[4] Michael Balter, "Scientific Cross-Claims Fly in Continuing Beef War,"
SCIENCE Vol. 284 (May 28, 1999), pgs. 1453-1455. 

[5] "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to
Public Health; Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone
Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products." European Commission, April 30,
1999. 139 pgs. The report is available in PDF format from:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scv/out21_en.html . 

[6] "Europe's Beef Ban Tests Precautionary Principle," CHEMICAL WEEK August
11, 1999, pg. unknown. 

[7] Roger Cohen, "Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes on Food," NEW YORK
TIMES August 29, 1999, pg. unknown. 

Descriptor terms: genetic engineering; farming; agriculture; monsanto;
pioneer; france; peasant confederation; beef industry; hormones; 

 





 back to the top

Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly is a publication of the Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403. Fax (410) 263-8944;
Internet: [log in to unmask] Back issues available by E-mail; to get
instructions, send Email to [log in to unmask] with the single word HELP in the
message. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, E-mail the words SUBSCRIBE
RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] NOTICE: Environmental
Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT
& HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization
considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to
provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible
contribution(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax- deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation,
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card
information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible
contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-
2RACHEL. --Peter Montague, Editor 





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%