Forwarded message:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:55:15 -0800
From: "Albert V. Krebs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER #7
X-UID: 1930
--------------08F9B17977FDB32A5B0AD2FE
The
AGRIBUSINESS
EXAMINER Issue # 7 October 29, 1998
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective
A.V. Krebs
Editor\Publisher
Editors Note:
Several weeks ago, prior to the publication of the "Premiere Editon" of
the Agribusiness Examiner it was proposed that the readers might seek
from the various groups and organizations that they are affiliated with
institutional funding to support this publication and the editor's work.
That proposal sank faster than the Titanic.
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 glady be accepted and deeply appreciated.
And this week, proving the editor\publisher is getting brighter with
each new issue, the address to which you may send any checks is
included: PO Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201.
MONSANTOíS MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Outraged members of the British Parliament and many of the country's
environmentalists have accused U.S. President Bill Clinton of intruding
in a sensitive domestic matter. "It is quite wrong for the British Prime
Minister to be conspiring behind the back of the British public about
American business interests," said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat
environment spokesman.
What has the British so angry is the report that Clinton personally
intervened with his British political clone Prime Minister Tony Blair to
stop Britain from halting the controversial production of genetically
engineered foods. Clinton reportedly telephoned Blair during the summer
and discussed the matter during his visit to Number 10 in May to try to
persuade Blair that genetically modified (GM) crops - worth millions of
dollars to the US economy - would not be bad for Britain.
Consumer and environmental groups including English Nature, the British
Government's official wildlife adviser, want the Government to introduce
a moratorium on growing such crops commercially in the UK for at least
three years until more is known about their effects on the environment.
The first commercial GM crop, oil seed rape, is set to be sown in
Britain next year, following Government approval. Meanwhile, hundreds of
acres of trial crops have already been planted throughout Great Britain.
It is no accident that Clinton, who has served as a "blank check" for
corporate America during his six years in office, should be promoting
generically modified crops for the primary U.S. manufacturer of such
crops is the Monsanto Corp. The St. Louis, Missouri headquartered
company has been one of five companies spearheading Clinton's welfare to
work programs, and which the President singled out for praise during his
State of the Nation address in 1997.
During the 1996 election, London's The Independent On Sunday reports,
Monsanto was among those donating thousands of dollars in "soft money"
(legal funds which are not included in the ban on corporate donations)
to the Clinton campaign. Federal Election Commission reports indicate
Monsanto contributed $18,710 to the Democrats in the 1997-98 election
cycle and since January 1, 1995 its board of directors alone has
contributed nearly $110,000 in political contributions to both American
political parties.
In addition, currently sitting on Monsanto's board of directors is
former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative and
National Chairman for the 1992 Clinton Gore Campaign ---- Mickey Kantor
CANADIANS BEING "PRESSURED AND COERCED" BY MONSANTO
Appearing before the Canadian's Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry on October 22, scientists from that country's Health
Canada's Human Safety Division testified that they have not only been
"pressured," but "bribed" to approve the controversial Recombinant
Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) intended to boost milk production in dairy
cattle.
"We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable
safety,
including rBST," Dr. Shiv Chopra told the committee.
The senators, The Ottawa Citizen's James Baxter reports, sat dumbfounded
as Dr. Margaret Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials from
Monsanto Inc., the drug's manufacturer, made an offer of between $1
million and $2 million to the scientists from Health Canada -- an offer
that she told the senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe.
Ray Mowling, vice-president of Monsanto Canada Inc., who attended the
hearings admitted that Monsanto does give money to Health Canada to
oversee studies, but denied that company officials ever tried to bribe
the scientists. He said his company was eager to get rBST approved since
it could bring the company up to $50 million a year in sales, but only
when it has been deemed safe by Canadian authorities. He said it was
Monsanto's job to provide whatever data and studies are necessary to
assist Health Canada.
rBST is an artificial growth hormone that is estimated to increase milk
production in cows by 10 to 15 per cent. The drug has been widely used
in the United States since being approved by the Food and Drug
Administration in 1993, but remains unapproved in Canada and much of
Europe. The Canadian Senate has been investigating rBST for nearly a
year and requested testimony from the five scientists after they filed a
grievance with a government internal labor board that they were being
pressured to sign off on a drug they felt had yet to be sufficiently
tested.
Dr. Haydon also told the Senate committee how notes and files critical
of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing
cabinet in her office. Dr. Chopra said that all files pertaining to rBST
are now controlled by one senior bureaucrat and can only be viewed by
gaining permission.
"I can't even believe I'm in Canada when I hear that your files have
been stolen and that all the files are now in the hands of one person,"
said Senator Eugene Whelan. "What the hell kind of a system have we got
here?" Whelan was also strongly critical of Health Canada's willingness
to accept data and money from companies seeking approval to market drugs
in Canada. He said Canadian scientists are not free to conduct
independent research and are at the mercy of corporations on which they
depend for raw data.
Reading from a prepared text, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs scientist Thea
Mueller said "It was not the mandate of the (Health Canada scientists)
to make any recommendation regarding human safety ... only whether or
not the data upon which the (department's) conclusions would be based
are adequate."
Dr. Chopra said that without meaningful long-term studies on animals and
then on humans, it would be unsafe to release a hormone of this sort
into the basic food system. "These are chemical switches, which
triggers another one, which triggers
another one, which triggers another one," he said.
The scientists' also made it clear to the committee that their fear of
the Monsanto product is not necessarily the effects of rBST, but an
insulin-like byproduct called IGF-1 that is found in the milk of cows
injected with the hormone.
High levels of IGF-1 have been found in humans suffering from cancer,
particularly breast and prostate cancer. It is still unknown whether it
is a causal factor in the cancers or the body's reaction to the tumor.
While scientists generally believe IGF-1 would be broken down in the
digestive process, Dr. Chopra said there are too many questions that
need to be answered before the IGF-1 issue can be overlooked.
The Citizenís Baster also reports that Dr. Chopra raised additional
questions about the ethics of making cows sick to produce more milk. In
its packaging, Dr. Chopra says Monsanto lists 20 side effects, including
swollen and ulcerated udders, skin rashes, hoof disorders, and reduced
hemoglobin. Most veterinarians said that cows suffering these conditions
would be in some discomfort if not considerable pain.
These conditions are usually treated with antibiotics, which, in turn,
can make their way into the milk. Over time, scientists fear humans will
build up tolerances to many of the strongest antibiotics, rendering them
useless against infection. Another concern is that most dairy cattle
eventually are slaughtered for meat, and no studies have been done on
the effects of eating beef from rBST-injected cows.
The official transcript of the meeting is temporarily posted at the
website:
http://natural-law.ca/genetic/SenateHearingsBGH.html
"TACT AND SENSITIVITY" = LOWERED RESISTANCE ???
Mistrust among European consumers about gene-modified crop technology
and regulatory burdens on biotechnology companies in the European Union
will persist, Hugh Grant, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural
sector, recently declared unless farm biotechnology companies show "more
tact and greater sensitivity" in addressing E.U. concerns about the
safety of gene-modified crops.
Grant's remarks were made at a Brussels, Belgium conference organized by
EuropaBio, the lobby of E.U. biotechnology companies and came as the
E.U. Commission, the E.U. executive branch, faced an increasing number
requests for permission to import and plant gene-modified crops in the
15-member E.U.
"It would be a grand miscalculation for our industry to interpret the
dissonance voiced through the media and opinion polls as the echoes of a
few extremists," Grant warned. "Vocal opponents of biotech are
capitalizing on deep-rooted emotions. Our industry needs to do a better
job of understanding why the messages forwarded by these few resonate
with so many," he added.
Grant pointed out that many Europeans regard gene-modified crop
technology as a threat because Europeans celebrate food. "The meal
celebrates life and family, it nourishes us not only functionally but
also culturally," he said. "`Engineering,' genetic or otherwise, is not
what a mother wants to serve to her family."
He added: "If our industry desires acceptance in Europe, we need to
learn how to talk about foods produced from transgenic plants in these
terms. We need to acknowledge, better than we have to date, the cultural
importance of food."
Grant said the industry needs to educate the E.U. public about the
benefits of biotechnology and permit a full discussion about its
perceived risks. "When a full exploration of the facts is undertaken,
resistance is lowered," he said.
IN YOUR FACE
Robert B. Shapiro, the chairman of the board and CEO of the Monsanto
Corp. was recently given a taste of tofu cream pie, well maybe more than
just a taste, as he was hit in the face with the pie after giving the
keynote address at the "State of the World Forum" conference in the
Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco, California.
The incident occurred after Shapiro's address on the brave new world of
genetic engineering and was instigated by the "Anti-Genetix" splinter
faction of the Biotic Baking Brigade (BBB) and was code-named "Operation
Safe Harvest." The BBB is aligned with Belgian pieman Noel Godin's
International Patisserie Brigade, who are responsible for pieing Bill
Gates and many other deserving corporate-head targets.
"The Biotic Baking Brigade doesn't just promise pie in the sky, we
deliver" said a BBB operative named Apple, who served as Special
Agent-in-Charge of this operation. The pie incident was the second BBB
offensive this month. Nobel Laureate neoliberal economist Milton
Friedman suffered the same fate as Shapiro on October 9, 1998, at the
Marriot Hotel in San Francisco, during the "School Choice and Corporate
America" conference.
After Shapiro gave his speech and left the stage, he stopped to engage
in a dialogue with a heckler on genetic engineering and corporate crime.
It was at this point that BBB Field Agents Custard and Lemon Meringue
approached him and let fly with tofu creme and sweet potato pies, the
first of which reached its target. Custard and Lemon Meringue were
detained by security and arrested by San Francisco Police.
The vegan tofu creme pie symbolized the millions of acres of Monsanto's
genetically-engineered soybean crops and other "Frankenfoods" coming to
harvest this season. The sweet potato pie was tossed in recognition of
the recent New York Times Sunday Magazine cover story, "Playing God in
the Garden" by Michael Pollan (October 25), which detailed the fraud,
deception, and legacy of the dangerous products Monsanto has given the
world, using the genetically-engineered "New Leaf Russet Burbank
Potato" as an example.
BREEDING LARGER & LARGER COMPANIES
Dow Jones News Service reports that the United Kingdom's largest venture
capital group, 3i Group PLC, responsible for floating 14 of the
country's quoted biotech companies, recently urged that the time was
right for the industry to consolidate.
Michael Queen, finance director at the company, said bigger groups are
the key to generating revenue growth to cover the costs of research and
development and improve a company's chances of bringing new drugs to
the market and are needed to trigger a wave of mergers and create a
breed of larger companies.
Queen also said there was a strong number of investment opportunities in
Germany, Switzerland and northern Italy.
"I think the time is right for consolidation in the biotech industry.
Eighteen months ago you could float anything that was remotely linked to
biotech, now nothing can be done," Queen said. "Our view is that both of
those points of views were wrong. If we back a biotech company there is
a chance that it may not develop all of its drugs. I think that was not
truly understood by investors. You need some critical mass,
opportunities for revenue generation," he added.
Queen said consolidation could also lead to opportunities for buying
parts of businesses being spun off and free people who might be
interested in setting up new operations themselves.
QUARRELING AMONG THE BRETHREN AGAIN
Lawsuits against Asgrow Seed Co., Cargill Inc., and Dekalb Genetics
Corp., alleging "misappropriated genetics" were recently filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa by Pioneer
Hi-Bred.
Pioneer said it found certain corn hybrids being marketed by its
competitors contained genetic material developed at Pioneer making the
discovery as part of an effort to protect its proprietary germ plasm.
In its lawsuits Pioneer alleges that its competitors bought bags of
Pioneer Hi-Bred brand seed and searched for inbred seeds, which may be
found in some bags in extremely small quantities. Text on the Pioneer's
packaging prohibits the use of inbred seed found in the bag for research
or breeding purposes.
Cargill Inc., the nation's largest private company, said it denies the
misappropriation of genetics from Pioneer Hi-Bred, and that it will
"vigorously" defend itself against the lawsuit. A company spokeswoman
said the nation's largest grain trader has "policies and procedures" to
insure its products are distinct and different.
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION:
MORE ALL TALK, MORE NO ACTION
In a letter to Vice-President Al Gore, the Environmental Working Group
has announced its decision to resign from both the Pesticide Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) and the Pesticide Policy Dialogue
Committee (PPDC).
EWG pointed out in their resignation that "we cannot point to any
tangible action the
Administration has taken, as a result of either TRAC or PPDC, that
actually will protect children from pesticides. In fact, we believe
that, overall, pesticide risks have only gotten worse during the Clinton
Administration, despite the highly publicized White House pledge five
years ago to reduce pesticide risks and usage, and take the
mosthazardous pesticides off the market."
The environmental group, whose participation in literally dozens of TRAC
and PPDC meetings since 1996 was noted, pointed out that it was
repeatedly told by senior Administration officials that the committee
would in "no way delay implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act
or regulation of organophosphate insecticides." Indeed, the letter
notes, Administration officials repeatedly argued that TRAC was likely
to accelerate efforts to make politically difficult decisions, including
near term decisions to restrict or eliminate the use of the more
hazardous organophosphate insecticides.
"But TRAC has produced absolutely nothing that remotely resembles a plan
or schedule to reduce pesticide risks. Instead, by consuming enormous
amounts
of staff time, particularly by EPA pesticide program staff, the process
served only to delay implementation of the FQPA and regulation of
organophosphate insecticides. We came away from the committee with the
distinct impression that this government is going to talk about
protecting children from pesticide risks, but is unwilling to act to
reduce those risks in deference to the economic concerns of agribusiness
groups, pesticide companies and food processors."
The EWG adds that it belief in TRAC and PPDC's unwillingness to act has
been powerfully reinforced by the Administration's recent, "deplorable
action to accept, without so much as the slightest public protest, a
pesticide-industry and agribusiness rewrite of the Clean Air Act that
will further delay the phase-out of methyl bromide." Apart from the
damage this decision will do to the Earth's ozone layer, the EWG points
out, the delay means that thousands of California children will be
exposed to millions of pounds of this highly toxic fumigant for four
additional years.
Copies of the EWG letter also were sent to Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, EPA Acting Deputy
Administrator Peter D. Robertson, and USDA Deputy Secretary Richard
Rominger.
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE . . .
Things have not been going well for Mike Espy, former Secretary of
Agriculture, who is currently being tried in a Washington, D.C.
courtroom on 38 charges of taking illegal gifts, then trying to cover it
up. Espy's lawyers contend he believed many of the gifts were legal
because they came from people who as personal friends fall into a gray
area of ethics law.
One of those longtime "friends," Richard Douglas (a lobbyist for
Sun-Diamond Growers, a large nut and fruit growers' cooperative in
California) recently testified that Espy asked him to lie when the FBI
began investigating gifts that Espy received from companies he was
supposed to be regulating.
Douglas said the agriculture secretary wanted him to cover up the fact
that the two attended a National Basketball Association playoff game in
June 1993 with tickets provided by the chairman of Quaker Oats Co., a
firm regulated by USDA. He said he not only lied about that, but also
decided on his own to lie to investigators about gifts he personally had
given Espy.
"I misled the FBI and I lied to them," Douglas told a jury in U.S.
District Court. Douglas is currently on probation after pleading guilty
to a charge of making a false statement to the FBI. While it was not
illegal for him to give Espy gifts stemming from their friendship, but
it was against the law for him to provide them in hopes of influencing
policy. Among other things, Douglas gave Espy $2,400 in luggage, $4,200
in tickets to the U.S. Open tennis tournament in 1993, basketball
tickets, meals and a crystal bowl.
Douglas testified that he also lied when asked by the FBI if he or
Sun-Diamond had given Espy anything of value. In truth, Douglas
testified, he bought tickets and other gifts, but was reimbursed by Sun
Diamond for many of those expenses. Douglas said in addition he also
lied by denying that he and Espy ever discussed policy issues affecting
Sun-Diamond.
Douglas's ties, Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz pointed out, with Espy
appeared to have enhanced his career with Sun-Diamond, where he was a
vice president for corporate affairs. Smaltz said Douglas received
$170,000 in bonuses in 1993 and 1994, the years Espy was in office.
To date prosecutors have shown that Espy received tickets to sporting
events, dinners and other gifts from businesses under USDA oversight.
Witnesses have included Tyson Foods Inc. Chairman John Tyson, who
testified that Espy attended a football game and other events at company
expense. But Tyson also told jurors that some of Espy's policies
actually hurt the Arkansas-based poultry giant. Smithburg, the former
Quaker Oats chairman, testified that the basketball tickets were to
promote goodwill, not affect policy.
Earlier Betty Stern, a secretary who handled speaking and travel
invitations for Espy, testified that she was asked by another employee
who worked for Espy to delete certain items from a travel itinerary to a
meeting in Lubbock, Texas, and a stopover in Dallas for a Dallas Cowboys
game. Stern testified she was asked to delete the items, including a
limousine service and the presence of Tyson executives and Patricia
Dempsey, Espy's girlfriend, from the itinerary.
She said she deleted the material without knowing why she had been asked
to do so.
Stern said that when the FBI later requested a copy of the itinerary, an
employee told Stern that Espy had asked her to get the edited version,
"`the one we ran before,'" which Stern refused to provide. "I said you
can't give that one to the FBI," Stern said.
Stern, now retired, had worked at the Agriculture Department for 30
years. Starting during the Kennedy administration, she fielded
invitations, made travel arrangements and prepared expense reimbursement
vouchers for six agriculture secretaries before Espy. "It was part of my
job to make sure we kept him clean, well, honest, not owing anyone, just
as we had done for years," Stern testified.
CATTLE PRODUCERS:
SEEKING TO TAKE BACK THEIR MARKETS
Two "boycotts" in the meat industry have once again put the focus on the
desperate situation hundreds of independent cattle producers face today.
Recently, the Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC) called on
Wyoming's cattle producers to support the captive sale boycott conducted
by cattle
feedlots in Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado. The boycott is an attempt to
restore a
healthy cash market for fat cattle and reduce the use of captive
supplies, which the
packers have used to control supply and put downward pressure on the
market.
The feedlots that are participating are refusing to sell cattle that
don't have a price set
before they leave the feedlot or to commit a sale to the packer more
than seven days
prior to slaughter. "We applaud the feedlots for taking this stand,"
said rancher and PRBRC Board Member Skip Waters, "A competitive cash
market is absolutely essential for a healthy cattle industry."
PRBRC is calling on producers to use only feeders that are participating
in the
boycott. "If you retain ownership of your calves, insist that your
feeder participate,"
said rancher and PRBRC Agriculture Committee Chair Liza Millett,
"Otherwise tell
them you can find another feedlot that will. We all need to work
together to bring back a competitive market," she concluded.
PRBRC is also asking Wyoming feeders, and Wyoming's agricultural
organizations, to join in the boycott. "A clear message needs to be sent
from all of the states that we are taking back our markets," said
Waters.
The PRBRC, is also affiliated with the Western Organization of Resource
Councils (WORC) which has been pressing for the USDA to pass a rule that
would reduce captive supplies by:
1) Prohibiting packers from procuring cattle for slaughter through the
use of a forward contract, unless the contract contains a firm base
price that can be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day the
contract is signed, and the forward contract is offered or bid in an
open public manner.
2) Prohibiting packers from owning and feeding cattle, unless the cattle
are sold for slaughter in an open, public market.
Currently the proposal is stalled in the USDA bureaucracy after
receiving more than 1,700 comments in favor of the proposal a year and a
half ago. "The feeders recognize the harm that captive supplies have
done to the cattle industry, and are
working to fix the problem" said Millett. "USDA still wants to claim
there is no problem," she concluded.
Meanwhile, the National Farmers Organization Livestock, one of the
nation's largest cull cow marketers has announced it will encourage it's
producers to halt their cull cow marketings in an effort to focus
attention on disastrously low cull cow prices. Cull cows are used to
make hamburger and steaks for the fast food industry.
"The message we're hearing from beef and dairy producers is that they
simply can't continue selling at current prices," said NFO President
Gene Paul. "These are completely unprofitable and unjust prices. Our
members are simply going to shut the farm gate and we're hoping other
producers will follow suit. These plummeting prices can be compared to a
non agricultural employee accepting a 20 percent salary cut in one
month."
--------------08F9B17977FDB32A5B0AD2FE
<HTML>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=+2>AGRIBUSINESS</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=+2>EXAMINER </FONT>
Issue # 7 October 29, 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>
<BR>Several weeks ago, prior to the publication of the "Premiere Editon"
of the <U>Agribusiness Examiner</U> it was proposed that the readers might
seek from the various groups and organizations that they are affiliated
with institutional funding to support this publication and the editor's
work. That proposal sank faster than the Titanic.
<P>It has never been the intent of the <U>Agribusiness Examiner</U> to
charge a subscription for this service, however, if readers would care
to, checks made out to A.V. Krebs will glady be accepted and deeply appreciated.
And this week, proving the editor\publisher is getting brighter with each
new issue, the address to which you may send any checks is included: PO
Box 2201, Everett, Washington 98203-0201.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>MONSANTO’S MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE</FONT>
<P>Outraged members of the British Parliament and many of the country's
environmentalists have accused U.S. President Bill Clinton of intruding
in a sensitive domestic matter. "It is quite wrong for the British Prime
Minister to be conspiring behind the back of the British public about American
business interests," said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman.
<P>What has the British so angry is the report that Clinton personally
intervened with his British political clone Prime Minister Tony Blair to
stop Britain from halting the controversial production of genetically engineered
foods. Clinton reportedly telephoned Blair during the summer and
discussed the matter during his visit to Number 10 in May to try to persuade
Blair that genetically modified (GM) crops - worth millions of dollars
to the US economy - would not be bad for Britain.
<P>Consumer and environmental groups including English Nature, the British
Government's official wildlife adviser, want the Government to introduce
a moratorium on growing such crops commercially in the UK for at least
three years until more is known about their effects on the environment.
<P>The first commercial GM crop, oil seed rape, is set to be sown in Britain
next year, following Government approval. Meanwhile, hundreds of acres
of trial crops have already been planted throughout Great Britain.
<P>It is no accident that Clinton, who has served as a "blank check" for
corporate America during his six years in office, should be promoting generically
modified crops for the primary U.S. manufacturer of such crops is
the Monsanto Corp. The St. Louis, Missouri headquartered company has been
one of five companies spearheading Clinton's welfare to work programs,
and which the President singled out for praise during his State of the
Nation address in 1997.
<P>During the 1996 election, London's <U>The Independent On Sunday</U>
reports, Monsanto was among those donating thousands of dollars in "soft
money" (legal funds which are not included in the ban on corporate donations)
to the Clinton campaign. Federal Election Commission reports indicate Monsanto
contributed $18,710 to the Democrats in the 1997-98 election cycle and
since January 1, 1995 its board of directors alone has contributed nearly
$110,000 in political contributions to both American political parties.
<P>In addition, currently sitting on Monsanto's board of directors is former
U.S. Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative and National Chairman
for the 1992 Clinton Gore Campaign ---- Mickey Kantor
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>CANADIANS BEING "PRESSURED AND COERCED" BY MONSANTO</FONT>
<P>Appearing before the Canadian's Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry on October 22, scientists from that country's Health Canada's
Human Safety Division testified that they have not only been "pressured,"
but "bribed" to approve the controversial Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin
(rBST) intended to boost milk production in dairy cattle.
<P>"We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety,
<BR>including rBST," Dr. Shiv Chopra told the committee.
<P>The senators, <U>The Ottawa Citizen's</U> James Baxter reports, sat
dumbfounded as Dr. Margaret Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials
from Monsanto Inc., the drug's manufacturer, made an offer of between $1
million and $2 million to the scientists from Health Canada -- an offer
that she told the senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe.
<P>Ray Mowling, vice-president of Monsanto Canada Inc., who attended the
hearings admitted that Monsanto does give money to Health Canada to oversee
studies, but denied that company officials ever tried to bribe the scientists.
He said his company was eager to get rBST approved since it could bring
the company up to $50 million a year in sales, but only when it has been
deemed safe by Canadian authorities. He said it was Monsanto's job to provide
whatever data and studies are necessary to assist Health Canada.
<P>rBST is an artificial growth hormone that is estimated to increase milk
production in cows by 10 to 15 per cent. The drug has been widely used
in the United States since being approved by the Food and Drug Administration
in 1993, but remains unapproved in Canada and much of Europe. The Canadian
Senate has been investigating rBST for nearly a year and requested testimony
from the five scientists after they filed a grievance with a government
internal labor board that they were being pressured to sign off on a drug
they felt had yet to be sufficiently tested.
<P>Dr. Haydon also told the Senate committee how notes and files critical
of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing
cabinet in her office. Dr. Chopra said that all files pertaining to rBST
are now controlled by one senior bureaucrat and can only be viewed by gaining
permission.
<P>"I can't even believe I'm in Canada when I hear that your files have
been stolen and that all the files are now in the hands of one person,"
said Senator Eugene Whelan. "What the hell kind of a system have we got
here?" Whelan was also strongly critical of Health Canada's willingness
to accept data and money from companies seeking approval to market drugs
in Canada. He said Canadian scientists are not free to conduct independent
research and are at the mercy of corporations on which they depend for
raw data.
<P>Reading from a prepared text, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs scientist Thea
Mueller said "It was not the mandate of the (Health Canada scientists)
to make any recommendation regarding human safety ... only whether or not
the data upon which the (department's) conclusions would be based are adequate."
<P>Dr. Chopra said that without meaningful long-term studies on animals
and then on humans, it would be unsafe to release a hormone of this sort
into the basic food system. "These are chemical switches, which triggers
another one, which triggers
<BR>another one, which triggers another one," he said.
<P>The scientists' also made it clear to the committee that their fear
of the Monsanto product is not necessarily the effects of rBST, but an
insulin-like byproduct called IGF-1 that is found in the milk of cows injected
with the hormone.
<P>High levels of IGF-1 have been found in humans suffering from cancer,
particularly breast and prostate cancer. It is still unknown whether it
is a causal factor in the cancers or the body's reaction to the tumor.
While scientists generally believe IGF-1 would be broken down in the digestive
process, Dr. Chopra said there are too many questions that need to be answered
before the IGF-1 issue can be overlooked.
<P><U>The Citizen’s</U> Baster also reports that Dr. Chopra raised additional
questions about the ethics of making cows sick to produce more milk. In
its packaging, Dr. Chopra says Monsanto lists 20 side effects, including
swollen and ulcerated udders, skin rashes, hoof disorders, and reduced
hemoglobin. Most veterinarians said that cows suffering these conditions
would be in some discomfort if not considerable pain.
<P>These conditions are usually treated with antibiotics, which, in turn,
can make their way into the milk. Over time, scientists fear humans will
build up tolerances to many of the strongest antibiotics, rendering them
useless against infection. Another concern is that most dairy cattle eventually
are slaughtered for meat, and no studies have been done on the effects
of eating beef from rBST-injected cows.
<P>The official transcript of the meeting is temporarily posted at
the website:
<BR><A
HREF="http://natural-law.ca/genetic/SenateHearingsBGH.html">http://natural-law.ca/genetic/SenateHearingsBGH.html</A>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=+1></FONT>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>"TACT AND SENSITIVITY" = LOWERED RESISTANCE ???</FONT>
<P>Mistrust among European consumers about gene-modified crop technology
and regulatory burdens on biotechnology companies in the European Union
will persist, Hugh Grant, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector,
recently declared unless farm biotechnology companies show "more tact and
greater sensitivity" in addressing E.U. concerns about the safety of gene-modified
crops.
<P>Grant's remarks were made at a Brussels, Belgium conference organized
by EuropaBio, the lobby of E.U. biotechnology companies and came as the
E.U. Commission, the E.U. executive branch, faced an increasing number
requests for permission to import and plant gene-modified crops in the
15-member E.U.
<P>"It would be a grand miscalculation for our industry to interpret the
dissonance voiced through the media and opinion polls as the echoes of
a few extremists," Grant warned. "Vocal opponents of biotech are capitalizing
on deep-rooted emotions. Our industry needs to do a better job of
understanding why the messages forwarded by these few resonate with so
many," he added.
<P>Grant pointed out that many Europeans regard gene-modified crop technology
as a threat because Europeans celebrate food. "The meal celebrates
life and family, it nourishes us not only functionally but also culturally,"
he said. "`Engineering,' genetic or otherwise, is not what a mother wants
to serve to her family."
<P>He added: "If our industry desires acceptance in Europe, we need to
learn how to talk about foods produced from transgenic plants in these
terms. We need to acknowledge, better than we have to date, the cultural
importance of food."
<P>Grant said the industry needs to educate the E.U. public about the
benefits of biotechnology and permit a full discussion about its perceived
risks. "When a full exploration of the facts is undertaken, resistance
is lowered," he said.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>IN YOUR FACE</FONT><FONT SIZE=+1></FONT>
<P>Robert B. Shapiro, the chairman of the board and CEO of the Monsanto
Corp. was recently given a taste of tofu cream pie, well maybe more than
just a taste, as he was hit in the face with the pie after giving the keynote
address at the "State of the World Forum" conference in the Fairmont Hotel
in San Francisco, California.
<P>The incident occurred after Shapiro's address on the brave new world
of genetic engineering and was instigated by the "Anti-Genetix" splinter
faction of the Biotic Baking Brigade (BBB) and was code-named "Operation
Safe Harvest." The BBB is aligned with Belgian pieman Noel Godin's International
Patisserie Brigade, who are responsible for pieing Bill Gates and many
other deserving corporate-head targets.
<BR>
<BR>"The Biotic Baking Brigade doesn't just promise pie in the sky, we
deliver" said a BBB operative named Apple, who served as Special Agent-in-Charge
of this operation. The pie incident was the second BBB offensive
this month. Nobel Laureate neoliberal economist Milton Friedman suffered
the same fate as Shapiro on October 9, 1998, at the Marriot Hotel
in San Francisco, during the "School Choice and Corporate America" conference.
<BR>
<BR>After Shapiro gave his speech and left the stage, he stopped to engage
in a dialogue with a heckler on genetic engineering and corporate crime.
It was at this point that BBB Field Agents Custard and Lemon Meringue approached
him and let fly with tofu creme and sweet potato pies, the first of which
reached its target. Custard and Lemon Meringue were detained by security
and arrested by San Francisco Police.
<BR>
<BR>The vegan tofu creme pie symbolized the millions of acres of Monsanto's
genetically-engineered soybean crops and other "Frankenfoods" coming to
harvest this season. The sweet potato pie was tossed in recognition of
the recent <U>New York Times Sunday Magazine</U> cover story, "Playing
God in the Garden" by Michael Pollan (October 25), which detailed the fraud,
deception, and legacy of the dangerous products Monsanto has given the
world, using the genetically-engineered "New Leaf Russet Burbank
Potato" as an example.<P>Earlier Betty Stern, a secretary who handled speaking and
travel invitations
for Espy, testified that she was asked by another employee who worked for
Espy to delete certain items from a travel itinerary to a meeting in Lubbock,
Texas, and a stopover in Dallas for a Dallas Cowboys game. Stern testified
she was asked to delete the items, including a limousine service and the
presence of Tyson executives and Patricia Dempsey, Espy's girlfriend, from
the itinerary.
<P>She said she deleted the material without knowing why she had been asked
to do so.
<BR>Stern said that when the FBI later requested a copy of the itinerary,
an employee told Stern that Espy had asked her to get the edited version,
"`the one we ran before,'" which Stern refused to provide. "I said you
can't give that one to the FBI," Stern said.
<P>Stern, now retired, had worked at the Agriculture Department for 30
years. Starting during the Kennedy administration, she fielded invitations,
made travel arrangements and prepared expense reimbursement vouchers for
six agriculture secretaries before Espy. "It was part of my job to make
sure we kept him clean, well, honest, not owing anyone, just as we had
done for years," Stern testified.
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=+1>CATTLE PRODUCERS:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=+1>SEEKING TO TAKE BACK THEIR MARKETS</FONT>
<P>Two "boycotts" in the meat industry have once again put the focus on
the desperate situation hundreds of independent cattle producers face today.
<P>Recently, the Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC) called on
Wyoming's cattle producers to support the captive sale boycott conducted
by cattle
<BR>feedlots in Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado. The boycott is an attempt
to restore a
<BR>healthy cash market for fat cattle and reduce the use of captive supplies,
which the
<BR>packers have used to control supply and put downward pressure on the
market.
<P>The feedlots that are participating are refusing to sell cattle that
don't have a price set
<BR>before they leave the feedlot or to commit a sale to the packer more
than seven days
<BR>prior to slaughter. "We applaud the feedlots for taking this stand,"
said rancher and PRBRC Board Member Skip Waters, "A competitive cash
market is absolutely essential for a healthy cattle industry."
<P>PRBRC is calling on producers to use only feeders that are participating
in the
<BR>boycott. "If you retain ownership of your calves, insist that your
feeder participate,"
<BR>said rancher and PRBRC Agriculture Committee Chair Liza Millett, "Otherwise
tell
<BR>them you can find another feedlot that will. We all need to work together
to bring back a competitive market," she concluded.
<P>PRBRC is also asking Wyoming feeders, and Wyoming's agricultural
organizations, to join in the boycott. "A clear message needs to be sent
from all of the states that we are taking back our markets," said
Waters.
<P>The PRBRC, is also affiliated with the Western Organization of Resource
Councils (WORC) which has been pressing for the USDA to pass a rule that
would reduce captive supplies by:
<P>1) Prohibiting packers from procuring cattle for slaughter through the
use of a forward contract, unless the contract contains a firm base price
that can be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day the contract is
signed, and the forward contract is offered or bid in an open public manner.
<BR>2) Prohibiting packers from owning and feeding cattle, unless the cattle
are sold for slaughter in an open, public market.
<P>Currently the proposal is stalled in the USDA bureaucracy after receiving
more than 1,700 comments in favor of the proposal a year and a half ago.
"The feeders recognize the harm that captive supplies have done to
the cattle industry, and are
<BR>working to fix the problem" said Millett. "USDA still wants to claim
there is no problem," she concluded.
<P>Meanwhile, the National Farmers Organization Livestock, one of the nation's
largest cull cow marketers has announced it will encourage it's producers
to halt their cull cow marketings in an effort to focus attention on disastrously
low cull cow prices. Cull cows are used to make hamburger and steaks for
the fast food industry.
<P>"The message we're hearing from beef and dairy producers is that they
simply can't continue selling at current prices," said NFO President Gene
Paul. "These are completely unprofitable and unjust prices. Our members
are simply going to shut the farm gate and we're hoping other producers
will follow suit. These plummeting prices can be compared to a non agricultural
employee accepting a 20 percent salary cut in one month."</HTML>
--------------08F9B17977FDB32A5B0AD2FE--
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
