Forwarded message:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:02:42 -0800
From: "Albert V. Krebs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER #8
X-UID: 430
--------------8B02801E687FD0FB35F415BD
The
AGRIBUSINESS
EXAMINER Issue #
8 November 7, 1998
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective
A.V. Krebs
Editor\Publisher
Editors Note:
It has never been the intent of the Agribusiness Examiner to charge a
subscription for this service, however, if readers would care to, checks
made out to A.V. Krebs will gladly be accepted and deeply appreciated.
The address to which you may send any checks is: PO Box 2201, Everett,
Washington 98203-0201.
FED UP WITH YANKEE-DOODLE LANGUAGE
"We have a PR mountain to climb. You have a problem if the market leader
has firmly set ideas about how to do things, which others might not
agree with. An expensive failure can be made into an asset if you've
learnt from it, but Monsanto still has some learning to do."
Willy de Greef, head of regulatory and government affairs at Novartis
Seeds in Basel, Switzerland, is only one of many in the biotech industry
to recently attack their rival, the Monsanto Corp., for the
unprecedented consumer backlash in European countries to genetically
engineered food.
Since 1997 when Monsanto's herbicide-resistant RoundUp Ready soya beans
were first shipped to Europe mixed with ordinary soya polls have shown
that consumer acceptance of engineered food has collapsed in Europe.
Consumers interpreted the move as a ploy to force biotech engineered
soya down European throats and now the entire industry is having to deal
with the consequences of that miscalculation.
By comparison food consumers in North America, and Canada in particular,
are reacting more positively to genetically modified food as compared to
shoppers in the European Union, according to speakers at the Canadian
Wheat Board's Biotrek: "The Next Generation of Value Added Cereals"
recent conference. Ray Mowling, vice-president and director of
Monsanto's Life Sciences business in Canada, noted there was significant
approval of genetically modified products in North America, with 34%
approved in the US and 30% in Canada compared with only nine percent in
the European Union.
One senior figure in the biotech industry, who asked to remain
anonymous, described Monsanto's actions to New Scientist magazine�s Andy
Coghlan as "arrogant stupidity." "The issue with RoundUp Ready soya
beans is the elimination of choice. It's not about genetic engineering,
it's an issue of `no one's going to tell me what to eat'."
Other companies were less willing to single out Monsanto for criticism,
but those contacted by New Scientist agree that the failure to segregate
RoundUp Ready soya was a setback. Likewise, some industry sources noted
that a high-profile advertising campaign by Monsanto, designed to
reassure European consumers, has if anything hardened negative public
attitudes to agricultural biotechnology. "We're as fed up as some others
with the Yankee-Doodle language that comes to our consumers," observed
de Greef of Novartis.
Zeneca, the British-based biotechnology corporation, after winning
applause from consumer groups in 1996 by labeling its tomato puree as
containing genetically modified tomatoes, is particularly angry. "It's a
matter of respect for your customer," says Nigel Poole, head of
regulatory affairs at Zeneca Plant Science in Bracknell, Berkshire.
Many of Britain's major retailers, New Scientist has learned, are
telling their soya suppliers to order as much material as possible from
sources outside the US --- mainly in Argentina and Brazil --- that are
guaranteed unmodified, however, Brazil recently approved commercial
plantings of RoundUp Ready soya beans, and Monsanto has declared that it
aims to capture 20% of the Brazilian market within three years.
TERMINATING "THE TERMINATOR"
"The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
will not incorporate into its breeding materials any genetic systems
designed to prevent seed germination. This is in recognition of (a)
concerns over potential risks of its inadvertent or unintended spread
through pollen; (b) the possibilities of sale or exchange of inviable
seed for planting; (c) the importance of farm-saved seed, particularly
to resource-poor farmers; (d) potential negative impacts on genetic
diversity and (e) the importance of farmer selection and breeding for
sustainable agriculture."
With that statement the Terminator --- and related genetic seed
sterilization technology --- has been banned from the crop breeding
programs of the world's largest international agricultural research
network. The strong and unambiguous policy was adopted by CGIAR at a
meeting at the World Bank in Washington on October 30th.
"It's a courageous decision. The CGIAR has done the right thing, for the
right reasons," says Pat Mooney, Executive Director of Rural Advancement
Foundation International (RAFI), "a ban on Terminator is a pro-farmer
policy in defense of world food security."
The CGIAR is a global network of 16 international agricultural research
centers, which collectively form the world's largest public plant
breeding effort for resource-poor farmers. The Terminator genetic
engineering technique renders farm-saved seed sterile, forcing farmers
to return to the commercial seed market every year. The technology is
aimed primarily at seed markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where
over 1.4 billion people depend on farm-saved seed and on-farm plant
breeding. If widely adopted, the Terminator would make it impossible for
farmers to save seed and breed their own crops.
Since the Terminator was developed jointly by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and Delta & Pine Land, a Monsanto subsidiary, Mooney
says the policy is "a slap in the face to the US Government --- a major
CGIAR funder --- and to Monsanto because it soundly negates their claims
that sterilizing seeds will boost plant breeding in marginal areas and
help feed the hungry." Mooney adds, "The defenders of biotechnology's
suicide seeds are certainly powerful; but they must be feeling pretty
lonely."
Adoption of the CGIAR policy to ban Terminator was uncharacteristically
swift, with barely no resistance from member states and donors attending
the annual meeting. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, the chair of CGIAR's Genetic
Resources Policy Committee and World Food Prize recipient, presented the
anti-Terminator proposal to all the delegates at the meeting in its
final hours, making a passionate plea for acceptance of the policy.
In the ensuing discussion, numerous delegates from the South and the
North alike endorsed the ban on Terminator. The Ugandan delegate said
that the Terminator was a concern at the highest political level in his
country.
Representatives from Zimbabwe, India, UK, and the Netherlands also made
statements favoring the anti-Terminator policy. It was agreed that
CGIAR scientists might retain the option to study the technology in the
laboratory - without aims to release it to farmers; but it was only
Canada's delegate who expressed reservations about the policy.
There was a deafening silence from embarrassed U.S. government
officials, who were expected to vehemently defend the technology on
behalf of Monsanto and the multinational seed industry. The silence has
lent credence to rumors circulating at the meeting and on the internet
that the USDA is getting cold feet about the Terminator.
Expected to be applicable to wheat, cotton, soybeans and other crops,
the new technology is jointly owned by the USDA and Delta and Pine,
which is based in Mississippi. If given exclusive rights, Delta and Pine
and Monsanto executives have indicated, they will apply for patents in
87 countries. Monsanto and the Department of Agriculture say the
benefits of the new technology outweigh farmers' other concerns.
"Loss of cost savings from `brown-bagging' must be weighed against the
productivity gains to the farmer from having superior new varieties that
could increase crop values such as yield and quality ... and reduce
losses such as those due to pest or adverse soil and weather," says the
USDA in a statement released the week prior to CGIAR condemnation.
"If true, the [USDA shift] policy would be welcomed;" says RAFI Research
Director Hope Shand, "but it would not put the controversy to rest.
Opponents of Terminator would question why USDA would admit that the
technology is unacceptable for release to US farmers, while on the other
hand surrender the patent rights to Monsanto for commercial development.
How could the technology be bad for US farmers and good for farmers in
the rest of the world?"
For More Information/Contacts:
RAFI Home Page:
http://www.rafi.org
Terminator Letter Writing Page:
http://www.rafi.org/usda.html
CGIAR Home Page:
http://www.cgiar.org
WITHOUT THE MONEY . . . .
Lost in the frenzy of Congress's recent adjournment was the fact that
the biotechnology funding for the USDA's animal and plant health agency
was reduced to $7.39 million for the fiscal year that began October 1,
down from $8.13 million the year before.
The nine percent reduction "sends a misleading and potentially damaging
signal regarding a valuable technology that is currently under siege in
the international marketplace," Carl Feldbaum, president of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington-based organization,
said in a letter to to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.
An estimated 60 million acres, or about 20 percent of all U.S. crop land
is currently planted with some type of genetically engineered seed
this, according to Alan Goldhammer, the Biotechnology Industry
Organization's executive director for regulatory affairs.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for
issuing permits to such biotech seed firms as Pioneer Hi-Bred
International Inc., Monsanto Co., Dekalb Genetics Corp. and others that
conduct field tests on genetically engineered seeds. With less money,
Goldhammer said, there will be fewer people available to evaluate
requests and issue permits.
"Any kind of delay in these permits that comes from a shortfall in
funding are clearly going to have an adverse impact on American
agriculture," Goldhammer added.
In the first quarter of 1998, the USDA approved 870 requests to field
test genetically engineered crops, almost double the approvals made
during the same period in 1997, he said.
"In view of these facts," Feldbaum said in the letter to Glickman,
"biotechnology members expected to see some increase in this unit's
budget. You can imagine our disappointment, indeed dismay, when we
learned instead of the cut."
Not surprisingly a spokesman for Glickman said the agriculture secretary
had no immediate comment.
MONSANTO'S SEED COPS
Thanks to my respected colleague Russell Mokhiber at the Corporate Crime
Reporter we learn that Monsanto Corp. has opened more than 475 seed
piracy cases nationwide, generated from over 1800 leads. More than 250
of these cases are under active investigation, according to Monsanto's
Kate Marshall. More than 100 cases have already been settled.
More than 45 million acres of U.S. farmland is currently planted with
genetically engineered seed, including Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soybeans
and a natural pesticide Bt. For sometime now Monsanto has been cracking
down on farmers who "illegally" save and replant seeds containing
"patented technology."
Marshall told Mokhiber that Monsanto is "vigorously pursuing growers who
pirate any brand or variety" of the St. Louis-based company's
genetically enhanced seed. It has hired five full-time and a number of
part-time investigators to follow up on all seed piracy leads it
receives. In addition, it is has also hired Pinkerton, a private
detective firm, and a number of outside law firms, to help investigate
and prosecute its cases.
According to Scott Baucum, chief of Monsanto's seed piracy enforcement
arm, "Monsanto invests many years and millions of dollars in biotech
research to bring growers new technologies sooner rather than later.
When growers save and replant patented seed, there is less incentive for
companies to invest in future technologies that will ultimately benefit
farmers."
MORE "LEADERSHIP" FROM THE NCBA?
Mexican meat producers are angry over the growing dominance of U.S. beef
and pork products in their country and have successfully lobbied Mexican
authorities to open an investigation into alleged dumping by their U.S.
counterparts.
"They're taking all the market," according to Jesus Anchieta, head of
trade relations for the Mexican Cattleman's Union in the border state of
Sonora. "We believe in free trade, but we want the big U.S. packers to
see our market as a complement to their own, not to try to take it over
100%."
According to Mexico's top trade official, Commerce Secretary Herminio
Blanco, cattlemen's groups have presented evidence that they say proves
that U.S. meatpackers are selling their product as much as 30% below
cost in violation of free-trade agreements. U.S. beef packers, he says,
are trying to reduce their own oversupply because of the drop in demand
from troubled Asian and other economies.
On October 21 Mexico's Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial
(SECOFI) announced the initiation of dumping cases against U.S. beef and
live pork products after a dumping case involving live cattle from
Mexico was filed on June 30 in the U.S by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action
Legal Foundation (R-CALF) . In the U.S. case, the Department of Commerce
was asked to decide whether to begin investigations on separate
antidumping cases on cattle from Canada and Mexico and a countervailing
duty case against imports of Canadian cattle
Meanwhile, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) has proposed
to its Mexican private-sector counterparts that they seek to remove live
cattle from the Mexican antidumping case against beef and cattle imports
from the U.S. in exchange for NCBA "leadership" in seeking to stop
R-CALF and the U.S. dumping investigation against live-cattle imports
from Mexico, according to a NCBA source.
Exports of live cattle to Mexico from the U.S. increased by 3,323% from
the period June to December 1995 to the same period in 1996, and 22%
from that period in 1996 to the same in 1997, the period under
investigation. The U.S. runs a trade surplus with Mexico on cattle,
according to an informed source. In 1997, Mexican exports of live
cattle and calves to the U.S. were 211,717, while imports from the U.S.
were 667,802, based on Census Bureau statistics, the source said.
Since the 1994 passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) which all but eliminated import duties U.S. exports of meat
products to Mexico have soared. Beef imports from the U.S. have
increased more than 200% since 1993, while pork imports have gone up
nearly 40% over the same period. For the first eight months of 1998,
imports are already well ahead of last year's record shipments, on track
to surpass $600 million for the first time.
Anchieta contends that U.S. cattlemen are selling their steers at a loss
of between $100 and $200 a head which in turn, has allowed them the U.S.
beef packers to capture market share from local producers in Mexico.
U.S. trade officials argue the big increase in meat shipments to Mexico
is due not to dumping but to a "normal free market push by U.S.
producers," who enjoy greater economies of scale and have access to
cheaper feed than their Mexican competitors.
Some 48 trade associations have come out in support of the petitions
filed by R-CALF. In addition, close to 14,000 ranchers and feedlot
operators have signed petitions and mailed in letters indicating their
support of the cases
"Our submissions both shows the continuing nature of the injury to the
U.S. cattlemen and the tremendous support that exists within the U.S.
cattle industry for our government to investigate whether imports are
being dumped or subsidized and causing injury to our industry,"
according to Leo McDonnell, Jr., a Montana rancher and President of
R-CALF .
"USDA released a few days ago the estimated returns for cow-calf
operators across the United States, showing losses in 1997 on a cash
expense basis of $130.42/head of cattle."
Kathleen Kelley Sullivan, a cattle producer in Colorado and Vice
President of R-CALF, reviewed the basic elements of the cases, "We
believe that there are very strong cases of dumping of live cattle from
both Canada and Mexico and of substantial subsidies from Canada.
Indeed, Canadian cattle producers have stated publicly their concerns
that subsidies were being provided and that action would eventually be
taken in the U.S."
She added that all that cattle producers are being asked is whether they
support the U.S. government investigating the facts. "Most cattle groups
have said they are in favor of fair trade. The antidumping and
countervailing duty laws have been part of U.S. law for many decades as
the legal vehicles to secure conditions of fair trade. R-CALF believes
that most American cattlemen and women want a fair price for their
product. The cases if initiated and won will give U.S. cattlemen and
women certainty that imported trade will no longer be at unfair price
levels."
McDonnell observed on the recently initiated investigations in Mexico on
alleged dumping of live cattle and beef from the United States that "our
trading partners in North America have shown little reluctance in the
past to pursue their international rights when imports from the U.S. or
elsewhere are viewed as problematic. That is their right. The cases
filed by R-CALF represent an effort to invoke U.S. cattlemen's rights to
have unfair trade practices addressed in our country. That is our
right. With Mexican cases having been initiated, U.S. producers should
be certain the U.S. market is not left open to foreign dumping."
E.-coli AND IBP
IBP, the world's largest processor of fresh beef said it has
voluntarily recalled the 556,226 pounds of ground beef produced at its
Dakota City, Nebraska, plant on October 22 due to the fact that a sample
might have contained the deadly bacteria E. coli 0157:H7.
Much of the shipment to 33 states may have already been consumed, but
the company said its officials knew of no illnesses associated with the
beef produced on that day. Most of the ground beef is processed by
grocers and restaurants before being eaten, so there is no brand name,
product code or production lot numbers for consumers to check.
The recall is the second this year by IBP, which is based in Dakota
City. In April it recalled more than 282,000 pounds of ground beef after
a single package produced at a plant in Joslin, Illinois, contained the
virulent strain of E. coli bacteria.
In the wake of an outbreak of e-coli caused illnesses in the summer of
1997 that was traced to tainted ground beef processed by Hudson Foods at
its Columbus, Nebraska, plant the Company sold its then closed facility
to IBP, and in turn was bought by Tyson Foods, the nation's largest
poultry producer.
IBP had supplied beef to Hudson's Columbus plant, which Hudson then
processed into its products. "There is no indication from either the
USDA or Hudson that our product was involved" in the suspected
tainted-patty recall, an IBP spokesman said at the time. Midwest packing
and salebarn circles, however, were saying the Hudson e-coli beef may
have come from the IBP, Gibbon, Nebraska cow plant.
Also, in 1997, coincidentally, South Korea discovered e-coli in a
shipment of IBP beef and IBP was banned by South Korea from shipping
meat to that country; the U.S.'s third largest beef export account.
You may have missed that story since the media simply reported that
"Nebraska" beef and "a major U.S. packer" shipped e-coli contaminated
beef to Korea.
A DANISH MERGER QUESTIONED
It seems concentration in the meat packing industry is not unique to the
North American continent where three firms (IBP, Cargill and ConAgra)
control 81% of the U.S. meat packing industry with IBP slaughtering
nearly 66% of Canada's beef.
The planned merger of Denmark's two largest cooperative pig and cattle
slaughterhouses: Slagteriselskabet Danish Crown AmbA and Vestjyske
Slagterier AmbA are being carefully studied by the European Union. The
EU Commission said it's concerned that the merger would unduly limit
competition in the Danish markets for pig and cattle slaughtering and
for fresh pork and beef.
The company resulting from the proposed merger --- DC-VJS Holding AmbA
--- would control up to 80% of the Danish meat processing trade, DC-VJS
Holding AmbA with annual revenues of 37 billion Danish Kroner (DKK) and
about 18,000. It would slaughter and process about 15.5 million pigs a
year and 400,000 cattle a year.
FIELDS OF SHAME
In an unprecedented action the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) has sued a Salinas Valley, California farm labor contractor,
alleging that its supervisors routinely touched, groped and demanded sex
from female employees.
The complaint against Fresh West Harvesting is the first such suit by
the EEOC against an agricultural employer in California, according to
William R. Tamayo, regional attorney for the agency's San Francisco
office. The class-action suit against Fresh West was filed after
receiving separate complaints from two women who harvested broccoli for
the company in Monterey County.The firm has denied the charges.
Tamayo, however, promised there will be more lawsuits against other
contractors, noting that the agency has received a flood of harassment
complaints from female farm workers, who often are poor immigrants, have
limited English skills and endure deplorable working conditions.
The women told EEOC lawyers that their bosses made lewd comments and
would grab and fondle them. One of the women was fired and the other had
her workload reduced after they rejected their bosses' advances, Tamayo
said. After investigating the complaints, EEOC officials uncovered
"pervasive evidence of sexual harassment," he said.
COLLECTING THOSE PAST DUE DEBTS
The United States Treasury confirms that several European countries are
still refusing to repay the loans they took during the First World War,
80 years ago. The three biggest debtors are Britain ($14.5 billion),
France ($12 billion) and Italy ($3 billion).
Many countries borrowed from the U.S. during and after the First World
War, and in 1934, at the depth of the great depression, they all stopped
paying. Since then, only three have paid their debts -- Cuba, Liberia
and Finland.The U.S. Treasury stresses that the debt has not been
written off and is still due. Indeed, each year interest is added to the
debt.
The fact that these countries still owe the U.S. billions evokes some
curious history relative to such debts.
During the initial stages of World War I many of the major financial
institutions, both in the U.S. and abroad, were called upon by England,
France, Holland and Italy and their allies to loan them huge sums of
money to wage war against the Central Powers. Such international bankers
as J.P. Morgan & Co., the Rothchilds of England, the Guggenheims of
France and others responded to the Allies' appeal by making available an
unheard of $15 billion in American money.
As history tells us, things did not go well for the Allies in those
early years of the war and pressure began to build to induce the U.S. to
enter the conflict. When the U.S. finally did declare war on the Central
Powers, it not only sacrificed untold human life and material goods, but
it was also asked to loan another approximate $15 billion from its
public treasury to prop up the faltering Allied effort. Now the Allies
were indebted to the international bankers for $15 billion and to the
U.S. government for another $15 billion, neither of which they could
readily pay off after the Armistice in 1918.
And it was clear at the time, particularly to the international bankers,
that conditions were such in war-ravaged Europe that this debt would not
soon be paid back and that to collect on their loans they needed to turn
elsewhere. By carefully orchestrating an outcry from the American
taxpayer ("Europe pay us what she owes us") the bankers successfully led
people into believing that "us" was the taxpayer.
In fact, as the economic and political policies of the next decade
proved, it was not the people of the U.S. who were collecting on the
nation's war debt, but rather the Morgans, Rothchilds, et. al.
By encouraging agricultural imports through lowering tariff barriers
while adopting strong protectionist measures against industrial goods
and terminating credits to former European allies these financiers began
to collect on their loans. Meanwhile, American taxpayers were forced to
dig ever deeper into their pockets to buy imported agricultural goods
with money that went to the debtor nations and from there back into the
pockets of the American bankers.
>From 1920 through 1930 the United States, according to government
figures, imported goods worth some $40.8 billion of which over 52% were
agricultural. This despite the fact that our factories were extremely
capable of turning out all the manufactured goods people needed, our
farmers were capable of producing all the food, fiber and feed that was
necessary for the nation's well being, the labor supply was adequate and
the country was beginning to enjoy a prosperity it had yet to experience
as the economy became adjusted to a high level of prices and volume.
With the aid of the compliant Coolidge and Harding Administrations,
however, a glut of surplus goods and commodities, the surplus coming
primarily from foreign imports, soon began to flood our markets. Some 12
million Americans became unemployed and thousands of farmers were forced
into bankruptcy as these agricultural imports began to take away a
significant portion of the nation's market from American farme
--------------8B02801E687FD0FB35F415BD
<HTML>
<B><FONT SIZE=+1>The</FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=+2>AGRIBUSINESS</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=+2><B>EXAMINER </B> </FONT>
Issue #
8
November 7, 1998
<P><I>Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective</I>
<P>A.V. Krebs
<BR><I>Editor\Publisher</I>
<BR>
<P>
<B>Editors Note:</B>
<P>It has never been the intent of the Agribusiness Examiner to charge
a subscription for this service, however, if readers would care to, checks
made out to A.V. Krebs will gladly be accepted and deeply appreciated.
The address to which you may send any checks is: PO Box 2201, Everett,
Washington 98203-0201.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>FED UP WITH YANKEE-DOODLE LANGUAGE</FONT>
<P>"We have a PR mountain to climb. You have a problem if the market leader
has firmly set ideas about how to do things, which others might not agree
with. An expensive failure can be made into an asset if you've learnt from
it, but Monsanto still has some learning to do."
<P>Willy de Greef, head of regulatory and government affairs at Novartis
Seeds in Basel, Switzerland, is only one of many in the biotech industry
to recently attack their rival, the Monsanto Corp., for the unprecedented
consumer backlash in European countries to genetically engineered
food.
<P>Since 1997 when Monsanto's herbicide-resistant RoundUp Ready soya beans
were first shipped to Europe mixed with ordinary soya polls have shown
that consumer acceptance of engineered food has collapsed in Europe. Consumers
interpreted the move as a ploy to force biotech engineered soya down European
throats and now the entire industry is having to deal with the consequences
of that miscalculation.
<P>By comparison food consumers in North America, and Canada in particular,
are reacting more positively to genetically modified food as compared to
shoppers in the European Union, according to speakers at the Canadian Wheat
Board's Biotrek: "The Next Generation of Value Added Cereals" recent conference.
Ray Mowling, vice-president and director of Monsanto's Life Sciences
business in Canada, noted there was significant approval of genetically
modified products in North America, with 34% approved in the US and 30%
in Canada compared with only nine percent in the European Union.
<P>One senior figure in the biotech industry, who asked to remain anonymous,
described Monsanto's actions to <U>New Scientist </U>magazine�s Andy Coghlan
as "arrogant stupidity." "The issue with RoundUp Ready soya beans
is the elimination of choice. It's not about genetic engineering, it's
an issue of `no one's going to tell me what to eat'."
<P>Other companies were less willing to single out Monsanto for criticism,
but those contacted by <U>New Scientist</U> agree that the failure to segregate
RoundUp Ready soya was a setback. Likewise, some industry sources noted
that a high-profile advertising campaign by Monsanto, designed to reassure
European consumers, has if anything hardened negative public attitudes
to agricultural biotechnology. "We're as fed up as some others with the
Yankee-Doodle language that comes to our consumers," observed de Greef
of Novartis.
<P>Zeneca, the British-based biotechnology corporation, after winning applause
from consumer groups in 1996 by labeling its tomato puree as containing
genetically modified tomatoes, is particularly angry. "It's a matter of
respect for your customer," says Nigel Poole, head of regulatory
affairs at Zeneca Plant Science in Bracknell, Berkshire.
<P>Many of Britain's major retailers, <U>New Scientist</U> has learned,
are telling their soya suppliers to order as much material as possible
from sources outside the US --- mainly in Argentina and Brazil --- that
are guaranteed unmodified, however, Brazil recently approved commercial
plantings of RoundUp Ready soya beans, and Monsanto has declared that it
aims to capture 20% of the Brazilian market within three years.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>TERMINATING "THE TERMINATOR"</FONT>
<P>"The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
will not incorporate into its breeding materials any genetic systems designed
to prevent seed germination. This is in recognition of (a) concerns
over potential risks of its inadvertent or unintended spread through pollen;
(b) the possibilities of sale or exchange of inviable seed for planting;
(c) the importance of farm-saved seed, particularly to resource-poor farmers;
(d) potential negative impacts on genetic diversity and (e) the importance
of farmer selection and breeding for sustainable agriculture."
<P>With that statement the Terminator --- and related genetic seed sterilization
technology --- has been banned from the crop breeding programs of the world's
largest international agricultural research network. The strong and
unambiguous policy was adopted by CGIAR at a meeting at the World Bank
in Washington on October 30th.
<P>"It's a courageous decision. The CGIAR has done the right thing, for
the right reasons," says Pat Mooney, Executive Director of Rural Advancement
Foundation International (RAFI), "a ban on Terminator is a pro-farmer
policy in defense of world food security."
<P>The CGIAR is a global network of 16 international agricultural research
centers, which collectively form the world's largest public plant breeding
effort for resource-poor farmers. The Terminator genetic engineering technique
renders farm-saved seed sterile, forcing farmers to return to the commercial
seed market every year. The technology is aimed primarily at seed
markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where over 1.4 billion people
depend on farm-saved seed and on-farm plant breeding. If widely adopted,
the Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seed and breed
their own crops.
<BR>
<BR>Since the Terminator was developed jointly by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and Delta & Pine Land, a Monsanto subsidiary, Mooney
says the policy is "a slap in the face to the US Government --- a major
CGIAR funder --- and to Monsanto because it soundly negates their claims
that sterilizing seeds will boost plant breeding in marginal areas and
help feed the hungry." Mooney adds, "The defenders of biotechnology's
suicide seeds are certainly powerful; but they must be feeling pretty
lonely."
<P>Adoption of the CGIAR policy to ban Terminator was uncharacteristically
swift, with barely no resistance from member states and donors attending
the annual meeting. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, the chair of CGIAR's Genetic
Resources Policy Committee and World Food Prize recipient, presented the
anti-Terminator proposal to all the delegates at the meeting in its final
hours, making a passionate plea for acceptance of the policy.
<P>In the ensuing discussion, numerous delegates from the South and the
North alike endorsed the ban on Terminator. The Ugandan delegate
said that the Terminator was a concern at the highest political level in
his country.
<P>Representatives from Zimbabwe, India, UK, and the Netherlands also made
statements favoring the anti-Terminator policy. It was agreed that
CGIAR scientists might retain the option to study the technology in the
laboratory - without aims to release it to farmers; but it was only Canada's
delegate who expressed reservations about the policy.
<P>There was a deafening silence from embarrassed U.S. government officials,
who were expected to vehemently defend the technology on behalf of Monsanto
and the multinational seed industry. The silence has lent credence to rumors
circulating at the meeting and on the internet that the USDA is getting
cold feet about the Terminator.
<P>Expected to be applicable to wheat, cotton, soybeans and other crops,
the new technology is jointly owned by the USDA and Delta and Pine, which
is based in Mississippi. If given exclusive rights, Delta and Pine and
Monsanto executives have indicated, they will apply for patents in 87 countries.
Monsanto and the Department of Agriculture say the benefits of the new
technology outweigh farmers' other concerns.
<P>"Loss of cost savings from `brown-bagging' must be weighed against the
productivity gains to the farmer from having superior new varieties that
could increase crop values such as yield and quality ... and reduce losses
such as those due to pest or adverse soil and weather," says the USDA in
a statement released the week prior to CGIAR condemnation.
<BR>
<BR>"If true, the [USDA shift] policy would be welcomed;" says RAFI Research
Director Hope Shand, "but it would not put the controversy to rest. Opponents
of Terminator would question why USDA would admit that the technology is
unacceptable for release to US farmers, while on the other hand surrender
the patent rights to Monsanto for commercial development. How could the
technology be bad for US farmers and good for farmers in the rest of the
world?"
<P>For More Information/Contacts:
<P>RAFI Home Page:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.rafi.org">http://www.rafi.org</A>
<BR>Terminator Letter Writing Page:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.rafi.org/usda.html">http://www.rafi.org/usda.html</A>
<BR>CGIAR Home Page:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.cgiar.org">http://www.cgiar.org</A>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>WITHOUT THE MONEY . . . .</FONT>
<P>Lost in the frenzy of Congress's recent adjournment was the fact that
the biotechnology funding for the USDA's animal and plant health agency
was reduced to $7.39 million for the fiscal year that began October 1,
down from $8.13 million the year before.
<P>The nine percent reduction "sends a misleading and potentially damaging
signal regarding a valuable technology that is currently under siege in
the international marketplace," Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, a Washington-based organization, said in a letter
to to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.
<P>An estimated 60 million acres, or about 20 percent of all U.S. crop
land is currently planted with some type of genetically engineered
seed this, according to Alan Goldhammer, the Biotechnology Industry Organization's
executive director for regulatory affairs.
<P>USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for
issuing permits to such biotech seed firms as Pioneer Hi-Bred International
Inc., Monsanto Co., Dekalb Genetics Corp. and others that conduct
field tests on genetically engineered seeds. With less money, Goldhammer
said, there will be fewer people available to evaluate requests and issue
permits.
<BR>
<BR>"Any kind of delay in these permits that comes from a shortfall in
funding are clearly going to have an adverse impact on American agriculture,"
Goldhammer added.
<P>In the first quarter of 1998, the USDA approved 870 requests to field
test genetically engineered crops, almost double the approvals made during
the same period in 1997, he said.
<P>"In view of these facts," Feldbaum said in the letter to Glickman, "biotechnology
members expected to see some increase in this unit's budget. You can imagine
our disappointment, indeed dismay, when we learned instead of the cut."
<P>Not surprisingly a spokesman for Glickman said the agriculture secretary
had no immediate comment.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>MONSANTO'S SEED COPS</FONT>
<P>Thanks to my respected colleague Russell Mokhiber at the <U>Corporate
Crime Reporter</U> we learn that Monsanto Corp. has opened more than 475
seed piracy cases nationwide, generated from over 1800 leads. More than
250 of these cases are under active investigation, according to Monsanto's
Kate Marshall. More than 100 cases have already been settled.
<P>More than 45 million acres of U.S. farmland is currently planted with
genetically engineered seed, including Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soybeans
and a natural pesticide Bt. For sometime now Monsanto has been cracking
down on farmers who "illegally" save and replant seeds containing "patented
technology."
<P>Marshall told Mokhiber that Monsanto is "vigorously pursuing growers
who pirate any brand or variety" of the St. Louis-based company's genetically
enhanced seed. It has hired five full-time and a number of part-time investigators
to follow up on all seed piracy leads it receives. In addition, it is has
also hired Pinkerton, a private detective firm, and a number of outside
law firms, to help investigate and prosecute its cases.
<P>According to Scott Baucum, chief of Monsanto's seed piracy enforcement
arm, "Monsanto invests many years and millions of dollars in biotech research
to bring growers new technologies sooner rather than later. When growers
save and replant patented seed, there is less incentive for companies to
invest in future technologies that will ultimately benefit farmers."
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>MORE "LEADERSHIP" FROM THE NCBA?</FONT>
<P>Mexican meat producers are angry over the growing dominance of U.S.
beef and pork products in their country and have successfully lobbied Mexican
authorities to open an investigation into alleged dumping by their U.S.
counterparts.
<P>"They're taking all the market," according to Jesus Anchieta, head of
trade relations for the Mexican Cattleman's Union in the border state of
Sonora. "We believe in free trade, but we want the big U.S. packers to
see our market as a complement to their own, not to try to take it over
100%."
<P>According to Mexico's top trade official, Commerce Secretary Herminio
Blanco, cattlemen's groups have presented evidence that they say proves
that U.S. meatpackers are selling their product as much as 30% below cost
in violation of free-trade agreements. U.S. beef packers, he says, are
trying to reduce their own oversupply because of the drop in demand from
troubled Asian and other economies.
<P>On October 21 Mexico's Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial (SECOFI)
announced the initiation of dumping cases against U.S. beef and live pork
products after a dumping case involving live cattle from Mexico was
filed on June 30 in the U.S by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation
(R-CALF) . In the U.S. case, the Department of Commerce was asked to decide
whether to begin investigations on separate antidumping cases on cattle
from Canada and Mexico and a countervailing duty case against imports of
Canadian cattle
<P>Meanwhile, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) has proposed
to its Mexican private-sector counterparts that they seek to remove live
cattle from the Mexican antidumping case against beef and cattle imports
from the U.S. in exchange for NCBA "leadership" in seeking to stop R-CALF
and the U.S. dumping investigation against live-cattle imports from Mexico,
according to a NCBA source.
<P>Exports of live cattle to Mexico from the U.S. increased by 3,323% from
the period June to December 1995 to the same period in 1996, and 22% from
that period in 1996 to the same in 1997, the period under investigation.
The U.S. runs a trade surplus with Mexico on cattle, according to an
informed source. In 1997, Mexican exports of live cattle and calves to
the U.S. were 211,717, while imports from the U.S. were 667,802, based
on Census Bureau statistics, the source said.
<P>Since the 1994 passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
which all but eliminated import duties U.S. exports of meat products to
Mexico have soared. Beef imports from the U.S. have increased more than
200% since 1993, while pork imports have gone up nearly 40% over the same
period. For the first eight months of 1998, imports are already well ahead
of last year's record shipments, on track to surpass $600 million for the
first time.
<P>Anchieta contends that U.S. cattlemen are selling their steers at a
loss of between $100 and $200 a head which in turn, has allowed them the
U.S. beef packers to capture market share from local producers in Mexico.
U.S. trade officials argue the big increase in meat shipments to Mexico
is due not to dumping but to a "normal free market push by U.S. producers,"
who enjoy greater economies of scale and have access to cheaper feed than
their Mexican competitors.
<P>Some 48 trade associations have come out in support of the petitions
filed by R-CALF. In addition, close to 14,000 ranchers
and feedlot operators have signed petitions and mailed in letters indicating
their support of the cases
<P>"Our submissions both shows the continuing nature of the injury to the
U.S. cattlemen and the tremendous support that exists within the U.S. cattle
industry for our government to investigate whether imports are being dumped
or subsidized and causing injury to our industry," according to Leo McDonnell,
Jr., a Montana rancher and President of R-CALF .
<P>"USDA released a few days ago the estimated returns for cow-calf operators
across the United States, showing losses in 1997 on a cash expense basis
of $130.42/head of cattle."
<P>Kathleen Kelley Sullivan, a cattle producer in Colorado and Vice President
of R-CALF, reviewed the basic elements of the cases, "We believe that there
are very strong cases of dumping of live cattle from both Canada and Mexico
and of substantial subsidies from Canada. Indeed, Canadian cattle
producers have stated publicly their concerns that subsidies were being
provided and that action would eventually be taken in the U.S."
<P>She added that all that cattle producers are being asked is whether
they support the U.S. government investigating the facts. "Most cattle
groups have said they are in favor of fair trade. The antidumping
and countervailing duty laws have been part of U.S. law for many decades
as the legal vehicles to secure conditions of fair trade. R-CALF
believes that most American cattlemen and women want a fair price for their
product. The cases if initiated and won will give U.S. cattlemen
and women certainty that imported trade will no longer be at unfair price
levels."
<P>McDonnell observed on the recently initiated investigations in Mexico
on alleged dumping of live cattle and beef from the United States that
"our trading partners in North America have shown little reluctance in
the past to pursue their international rights when imports from the U.S.
or elsewhere are viewed as problematic. That is their right.
The cases filed by R-CALF represent an effort to invoke U.S. cattlemen's
rights to have unfair trade practices addressed in our country. That
is our right. With Mexican cases having been initiated, U.S. producers
should be certain the U.S. market is not left open to foreign dumping."
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>E.-coli AND IBP</FONT>
<BR>
<BR>IBP, the world's largest processor of fresh beef said it has
voluntarily recalled the 556,226 pounds of ground beef produced at its
Dakota City, Nebraska, plant on October 22 due to the fact that a sample
might have contained the deadly bacteria E. coli 0157:H7.
<P>Much of the shipment to 33 states may have already been consumed,
but the company said its officials knew of no illnesses associated with
the beef produced on that day. Most of the ground beef is processed by
grocers and restaurants before being eaten, so there is no brand name,
product code or production lot numbers for consumers to check.
<P>The recall is the second this year by IBP, which is based in Dakota
City. In April it recalled more than 282,000 pounds of ground beef after
a single package produced at a plant in Joslin, Illinois, contained
the virulent strain of E. coli bacteria.
<P>In the wake of an outbreak of e-coli caused illnesses in the summer
of 1997 that was traced to tainted ground beef processed by Hudson Foods
at its Columbus, Nebraska, plant the Company sold its then closed facility
to IBP, and in turn was bought by Tyson Foods, the nation's largest poultry
producer.
<BR>
<BR>IBP had supplied beef to Hudson's Columbus plant, which Hudson then
processed into its products. "There is no indication from either the USDA
or Hudson that our product was involved" in the suspected tainted-patty
recall, an IBP spokesman said at the time. Midwest packing and salebarn
circles, however, were saying the Hudson e-coli beef may have come from
the IBP, Gibbon, Nebraska cow plant.
<P>Also, in 1997, coincidentally, South Korea discovered e-coli in a shipment
of IBP beef and IBP was banned by South Korea from shipping meat to that
country; the U.S.'s third largest beef export account. You
may have missed that story since the media simply reported that "Nebraska"
beef and "a major U.S. packer" shipped e-coli contaminated beef to Korea.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>A DANISH MERGER QUESTIONED</FONT>
<P>It seems concentration in the meat packing industry is not unique to
the North American continent where three firms (IBP, Cargill and ConAgra)
control 81% of the U.S. meat packing industry with IBP slaughtering nearly
66% of Canada's beef.
<P>The planned merger of Denmark's two largest cooperative pig and
cattle slaughterhouses: Slagteriselskabet Danish Crown AmbA and Vestjyske
Slagterier AmbA are being carefully studied by the European Union. The
EU Commission said it's concerned that the merger would unduly limit
competition in the Danish markets for pig and cattle slaughtering and for
fresh pork and beef.
<P>The company resulting from the proposed merger --- DC-VJS Holding AmbA
--- would control up to 80% of the Danish meat processing trade,
DC-VJS Holding AmbA with annual revenues of 37 billion Danish Kroner
(DKK) and about 18,000. It would slaughter and process about 15.5 million
pigs a year and 400,000 cattle a year.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>FIELDS OF SHAME</FONT>
<P>In an unprecedented action the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) has sued a Salinas Valley, California farm labor contractor, alleging
that its supervisors routinely touched, groped and demanded sex from female
employees.
<P>The complaint against Fresh West Harvesting is the first such suit by
the EEOC against an agricultural employer in California, according to William
R. Tamayo, regional attorney for the agency's San Francisco office. The
class-action suit against Fresh West was filed after receiving separate
complaints from two women who harvested broccoli for the company in Monterey
County.The firm has denied the charges.
<P>Tamayo, however, promised there will be more lawsuits against other
contractors, noting that the agency has received a flood of harassment
complaints from female farm workers, who often are poor immigrants, have
limited English skills and endure deplorable working conditions.
<BR>
<BR>The women told EEOC lawyers that their bosses made lewd comments and
would grab and fondle them. One of the women was fired and the other had
her workload reduced after they rejected their bosses' advances, Tamayo
said. After investigating the complaints, EEOC officials uncovered "pervasive
evidence of sexual harassment," he said.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>COLLECTING THOSE PAST DUE DEBTS</FONT>
<P>The United States Treasury confirms that several European countries
are still refusing to repay the loans they took during the First World
War, 80 years ago. The three biggest debtors are Britain ($14.5 billion),
France ($12 billion) and Italy ($3 billion).
<P>Many countries borrowed from the U.S. during and after the First World
War, and in 1934, at the depth of the great depression, they all stopped
paying. Since then, only three have paid their debts -- Cuba, Liberia and
Finland.The U.S. Treasury stresses that the debt has not been written off
and is still due. Indeed, each year interest is added to the debt.
<P>The fact that these countries still owe the U.S. billions evokes some
curious history relative to such debts.
<P>During the initial stages of World War I many of the major financial
institutions, both in the U.S. and abroad, were called upon by England,
France, Holland and Italy and their allies to loan them huge sums of money
to wage war against the Central Powers. Such international bankers as J.P.
Morgan & Co., the Rothchilds of England, the Guggenheims of France
and others responded to the Allies' appeal by making available an unheard
of $15 billion in American money.
<P>As history tells us, things did not go well for the Allies in those
early years of the war and pressure began to build to induce the U.S. to
enter the conflict. When the U.S. finally did declare war on the Central
Powers, it not only sacrificed untold human life and material goods, but
it was also asked to loan another approximate $15 billion from its public
treasury to prop up the faltering Allied effort. Now the Allies were indebted
to the international bankers for $15 billion and to the U.S. government
for another $15 billion, neither of which they could readily pay off after
the Armistice in 1918.
<P>And it was clear at the time, particularly to the international bankers,
that conditions were such in war-ravaged Europe that this debt would not
soon be paid back and that to collect on their loans they needed to turn
elsewhere. By carefully orchestrating an outcry from the American taxpayer
("Europe pay us what she owes us") the bankers successfully led people
into believing that "us" was the taxpayer.
<P>In fact, as the economic and political policies of the next decade proved,
it was not the people of the U.S. who were collecting on the nation's war
debt, but rather the Morgans, Rothchilds, et. al.
<P>By encouraging agricultural imports through lowering tariff barriers
while adopting strong protectionist measures against industrial goods and
terminating credits to former European allies these financiers began to
collect on their loans. Meanwhile, American taxpayers were forced to dig
ever deeper into their pockets to buy imported agricultural goods with
money that went to the debtor nations and from there back into the pockets
of the American bankers.
<P>From 1920 through 1930 the United States, according to government figures,
imported goods worth some $40.8 billion of which over 52% were agricultural.
This despite the fact that our factories were extremely capable of turning
out all the manufactured goods people needed, our farmers were capable
of producing all the food, fiber and feed that was necessary for the nation's
well being, the labor supply was adequate and the country was beginning
to enjoy a prosperity it had yet to experience as the economy became adjusted
to a high level of prices and volume.
<BR>
<BR>With the aid of the compliant Coolidge and Harding Administrations,
however, a glut of surplus goods and commodities, the surplus coming primarily
from foreign imports, soon began to flood our markets. Some 12 million
Americans became unemployed and thousands of farmers were forced into bankruptcy
as these agricultural imports began to take away a significant portion
of the nation's market from American farme</HTML>
--------------8B02801E687FD0FB35F415BD--
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
