GM Crop Lawsuits; Colorado Farmer sees GE Crop Threat to Family Farmers. Monsanto. StarLink.

[Guest guest]

Colorado Farmer sees Transgenic Threats to Family Farmers

www.cropchoice.com news by Robert Schubert,

 

Cropchoice.com Editor, 6 March, 2001.

 

One try with transgenic crops was enough for David Dechant.

" I don't trust it, " says Dechant, who grows wheat, corn and alfalfa on

3,000 acres in northern Colorado with his father and brother.

 

Transgenics describe the process in which scientists insert a gene

construct into one plant species to create a different one. It's unlike

conventional hybridization in that the gene(s) originate in a species

with

no close relationship to the resulting plant.

The technology has affected the lives of family farmers in numerous

ways.

They've lost money to foreign markets that don't want transgenic corn or

soy. Major European grocery store chains, such as Tesco and

Asda/Wal-Mart, have cleared their shelves of foods containing such

ingredients. The Japanese and South Koreans cut their corn imports

following the StarLink corn debacle.

The U.S. government had approved transgenic StarLink only for livestock

feed. Nonetheless, the corn that scientists suspect may be allergenic

contaminated the human food supply, spawning a slew of food recalls.

Despite consumer rejection and lost markets, Monsanto plans to push

ahead

with a 2003 introduction of Roundup Ready wheat, which it has engineered

to resist the Roundup herbicide (glyphosate).

Meanwhile, the St. Louis-based biotechnology company is suing hundreds

of

farmers. It accuses them of violating its patents by saving seed to

plant

on their own farms.

An alternative to this technology that benefits mainly big agribusiness

companies, says Dechant, is more public investment and research into

crops

that help the family farmer.

 

TRANSGENICS GET THE BOOT ON THE DECHANT FARM

The first and last time David Dechant tried growing transgenic crops was

1998, when he planted Roundup Ready corn on 60 acres. The plants yielded

almost the same amount of corn as his conventional varieties, but he had

a

tough time getting Roundup to kill a weed called lambs quarter.

 

But it's what happened late that summer that turned Dechant sour on

transgenics. He learned that the European Union was rejecting all U.S.

whole corn to avoid contamination with the Roundup Ready variety, which

it

had not approved for human consumption. (Monsanto's Bt corn did have

approval.) Knowing that the United States lacked a reliable mechanism to

verify or segregate transgenic corn, Europe's decision possibly avoided

a

prequel to the StarLink episode. Europe still buys U.S. gluten meal for

animal feed, which he says likely contains Roundup Ready corn.

 

U.S. farmers had been selling about 1 million tons of corn a year to

Europe at a reduced tariff. This was part of a concession the European

Union made to non-member countries when it extended membership to Spain

and Portugal in 1986. This provision allows countries outside the EU to

sell 2 million tons of corn a year to Spain and 500,000 tons to

Portugal.

 

Dechant directs his ire over the loss of the European whole corn market

at

Monsanto. Instead of taking responsibility, he says, the company blamed

Europe. He remembers a Monsanto representative's statement at a grower

meeting: " The EU's regulatory system isn't working right. "

" I feel that Monsanto took something of great value from us, " he says.

" Monsanto did nothing to guarantee that Roundup Ready corn would not

contaminate export crops, " because it failed to instruct farmers about

the

common sources of contamination -- cross-pollination, leftover

transgenic

seed and grain in planting and harvesting equipment, and commingling

during distribution.

 

" The European Union was justified in refusing our corn because of

possible

Roundup Ready corn contamination. The StarLink debacle proves that, " he

says. In 2000, Roundup Ready corn acreage exceeded StarLink by about

three

times.

" I blame the StarLink problem on the fact that Monsanto got away with

costing us the European whole corn export market, " he says. " It set a

precedent for Aventis to come in with StarLink that wasn't approved at

all

(for livestock or animal feed) in Europe or Japan. "

 

Dechant sent a 1999 Monsanto technology agreement to Cropchoice to make

his point that farmers were on their own to deal with the consequences

of

planting its transgenic crops. At one point in the document, the company

tells growers: " Regulatory approval of grain harvested from seed of

Roundup Ready corn is pending in certain export markets and may not be

received before the end of 1999. As a result, the Grower may be

restricted from introducing the grain into channels of trade where the

potential for export to those markets exists. In such cases, the Grower

must be prepared to feed the grain on-farm, or sell it for use in

domestic

markets only. "

 

While foreign markets were spurning genetically modified organisms,

Monsanto set about investigating hundreds of farmers it thought were

violating the patent on its herbicide resistance technology by saving

the

seed for future use.

 

" Monsanto was using police state tactics to sniff out seed savers, "

Dechant says. " It sent Pinkerton investigators into rural communities to

investigate and harass farmers, broadcast radio ads urging neighbors to

rat out one another. "

 

Lori Fisher, the director of Public Affairs for Monsanto, says that it

must protect growers who abide by its seed-saving prohibition.

" That argument is a bunch of crap, " he says. " Monsanto lets Argentinian

farmers save seed. "

 

PATENTS AND PLANT PROTECTION

Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred International got utility patents for their

transgenic crop technology under section 101 of the Patent Act (Title 35

of the U.S. Code).

 

The companies claim that these patents can be used to prevent both

farmers

from saving the genetically modified seeds for their own use and

researchers from experimenting with the seeds, says Iowa attorney Bruce

Johnson.

He is defending J.E.M Ag Supply Co. against a Pioneer Hi-Bred

International lawsuit contending that the supply company infringed on

its

patent by selling hybrid corn seed purchased from Pioneer. The U.S.

Supreme Court has agreed to hear J.E.M.'s appeal of lower court rulings

favoring Pioneer.

 

" At issue in the case is whether the Plant Variety Protection Act

provides

the exclusive federal statutory means of prohibiting others from

sexually

reproducing (by seed) a plant variety and therefore renders invalid any

attempt to use utility patents to prevent others from sexually

reproducing

a plant variety, " Johnson says.

 

To protect the rights of creators of plants that reproduce sexually

(with

seeds), such as soybeans, corn and wheat, Congress passed the Plant

Variety Protection Act in 1970. However, the Act includes an exception

that honors farmers' centuries-old practice of saving seed for their own

use.

This case bears on Monsanto lawsuits against a number of farmers over

seed

saving. It examines specifically the relationship between the Plant

Variety Protection Act and utility patents, says attorney Sosamma

Samuel-Burnett of Waide and Associates in Tupelo, Miss. She's

representing farmers in those lawsuits.

 

" Even if a utility patent protects the patent holder in terms of the

first

generation of seed, " Samuel-Burnett explains, " there is considerable

question as to whether that same patent can extend to the progeny of

that

seed. "

 

EXPANSION INTO MARKETS WITHOUT PATENTS

 

Monsanto wants to expand the reach of its transgenic technology into

South

America. Argentinian farmers already grow Roundup Ready soybeans, but

they're allowed to save seeds because Argentina doesn't recognize

patents

on plants, Dechant says.

Next door, the Brazilian government has forbidden the cultivation of

transgenic soybeans. This has helped Brazilian farmers exploit European

markets hungry for conventional soybeans. Nonetheless, some farmers

reportedly plant and use unlicensed Roundup Ready soybeans and Roundup

herbicide.

 

" Monsanto is licking its chops to introduce Roundup Ready soybeans into

Brazil, " Dechant says, " but it's unlikely to enforce the seed-saving

prohibition there because of the presence of bootleg Roundup Ready

soybeans. "

 

To get around these problems, Dechant thinks we could see the

re-emergence

of two types of genes.

Delta and Pine Land has announced plans to commercialize the Terminator

gene, which renders a plant's seeds sterile.

 

" What really burns me is that the USDA, which owns fifty percent of the

patent covering the gene, hasn't come out against it, " he says. " They

call it gene-use-restriction technology. I call it monopoly-protection

technology. Is this what President Lincoln wanted when he created the

USDA and subsequently the land grant universities? "

In Brazil, Dechant says, Monsanto might turn to the Traitor gene to

enforce its patent. With this gene, scientists could engineer the

herbicide resistance in Roundup Ready soybeans to activate only when

growers apply Roundup with a particular chemical.

In the June 1999 issue of the Argentinian farm magazine La Chacra, a

Brazilian seed company executive discusses the Traitor gene: " I believe

Monsanto doesn't want to happen here (Brazil) the same thing that

happened

in Argentina, where it lost a lot of market share because of the large

number of generic glyphosate products. They are looking at a way to mix

with Roundup -- it could be a coadjuvant -- that would permit that

Roundup

Ready soybeans can only be sprayed with this product. "

 

WHEAT WORRIES

 

Dechant is flatly opposed to Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat, which it

plans to introduce sometime between 2003 and 2005.

He's concerned about the negative effects the transgenic wheat could

have

on foreign markets and about whether those farmers who choose to grow

Roundup Ready wheat will be allowed to save the seed.

 

Cropchoice reported last month that markets in Asia, Europe and the

Middle

East, which together buy millions of tons of U.S. wheat, have warned

Monsanto and U.S. farmers not to bother with the transgenic wheat

because

they won't buy it. Even if governments eventually approve the variety,

as

the biotechnology industry is pressuring them to do, millers and stores

don't have to buy it. In short, approval doesn't equal acceptance.

 

Tsutomu Shigota, senior managing director of the Japan Flour Millers

Association, in January told Dow Jones: " Under the circumstances, I

strongly doubt that any bakery and noodle products made from genetically

modified wheat or even conventional wheat that may contain modified

wheat

will be accepted in the Japanese market. World wheat supply has been

abundant in recent years, and I don't see why we have to deal with

modified wheat...I believe the production of modified wheat at this time

will be a very risky challenge for U.S. producers. "

 

On Jan. 5, Algeria, which imports large amounts of durum wheat from the

United States, announced that it would not import any genetically

modified

wheat. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are taking a similar tack with respect to

wheat.

One must remember that the major wheat exporters -- the United States,

Argentina, Canada and Australia -- support transgenic crops. If all were

to commercialize Roundup Ready wheat, could reluctant foreign markets

avoid it?

 

Dechant thinks that at least one of the big exporters will hold

out to capture market share on conventional wheat.

Australia took conventional canola markets away from Canada, and Brazil

has stepped in to supply Europe and other places with non-transgenic

soybeans.

According to Monsanto spokesman Mark Buckingham in an earlier

Cropchoice.com story ( " Farmers, foreign markets send negative signals

about Roundup Ready wheat, " February 2001): " We will not launch Roundup

Ready wheat until it has full regulatory approval for food and feed use

in

the United States and in Japan. " Europe is conspicuously absent from

that

statement.

 

" I remember being at a meeting where a Monsanto representative got up

and

said, 'we will not commercialize the wheat until it gets worldwide

approval, except for Europe because its regulatory system doesn't

work,' "

 

Dechant says. " Monsanto ought to be damn glad that the EU is still

taking

Roundup Ready and BT corn in gluten meal or else it would have a hard

time

selling the technology anywhere. "

 

To further assuage anti-transgenic markets, Monsanto wants to work with

the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates to

develop a system of separating transgenic from conventional wheat.

 

But the lingering StarLink issue plants the seeds of doubt in the minds'

of some wheat growers.

North Dakota wheat farmer Todd Leake is one of them. Based on

conversations with farmers, elevator managers and executives at grain

companies, he doubts whether Monsanto and the wheat industry have the

ability to segregate transgenic wheat.

 

Dechant agrees, but even if it were to succeed, he says, " all of the

burden of segregation should be placed on gmo (genetically modified

organisms) growers and seed companies, not on gmo-free growers. I

shouldn't have to do anything out of the ordinary when I go to sell

wheat. "

 

As the experiment with transgenic crops proceeds, vocabulary has been

changing.

" The industry is calling gmo-free corn a specialty crop, " he says. " They

do that so they can stick the non-gmo growers with the cost of

segregation. "

 

A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

 

Most land grant universities with wheat breeding programs, including

Colorado State University, are working with Monsanto to engineer the

Roundup Ready gene into adapted wheat varieties for their region, says

Dr.

James Quick, head of the Soil and Crop Sciences Department at CSU. When

the research is done, Monsanto likely will patent the seed. This of

course means that farmers must buy new seed every year.

" We have a partnership with Monsanto and other companies that have gene

characteristics that we think add value to Colorado agriculture, " Quick

says. " Companies will not invest in seed research or variety development

if they can't get a return on the investment. To do this, they have to

control the seed. "

In any case, he says, soybean and wheat farmers save their seed because

viable hybrids don't exist. Soybean and wheat cultivars are

pure-breeding

lines, which means they're self-pollinating.

Almost all U.S. corn growers, on the other hand, have to buy new seed

each

year because they are planting commercial hybrids. If they were to save

and re-plant the hybrid seed, their yields would drop by 30 to 40

percent.

With Roundup Ready soybeans (and soon, transgenic wheat), Monsanto has

essentially created a " transgenic hybrid " that it wants to protect with

patents.

PUBLIC RESEARCH AND

 

SUSTAINABILITY

The alternative to public universities helping Monsanto and other

biotechnology companies satisfy their profit motives, Dechant says, is

more public investment and research into crops and technologies that

benefit the family farmer.

Expanding research into open-pollinated corn is one way to do this, he

says. Farmers plant almost 50 percent of the world's corn acreage to

open

pollinated varieties, most of it in developing countries.

 

The biggest benefit for growers is that they save their seed. The

downside is lower yields, which more public research could address, he

says.

But are private companies going to invest in a technology that will

allow

farmers to save seed?

" I'm all for open pollinated varieties, " says Scott Haley, a CSU

associate

professor and wheat breeder. " But I don't see where the money is going

to

come from for it. "

USDA Agricultural Research Service and Iowa State University corn

breeder

Kendall Lamkey is a big proponent of open pollinated varieties.

Before discussing the benefits of these varieties, he mentions that

American agriculture focuses too much on acreage and production.

 

" Farmers have a high yield mentality, " Lamkey says. " They equate high

yields with high profits. "

Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. U.S. farmers harvested a

record corn crop last year, but the prices they received were low --

$1.85

per bushel on average.

 

Open pollinated corn has a long history.   Farmers grew it in the

1930s, prior to commercialization of hybrids. Researchers, including

breeders at

ISU, created hybrid lines from open pollinated corn.

 

Growing these types could help farmers reduce their input costs. First

off, he says, not having to buy seed is a considerable savings. By

comparison, growers of hybrids spend about $30 to $50 per acre for seed

every year.

And farmers also apply a lot of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, the

production of which is energy intensive. Growers could cut their

nitrogen

use in half, he says, if they switched to open pollinated varieties.

Even

better, they'd not have to apply nitrogen at all if they planted alfalfa

or some other legume and then plowed it down prior to sowing corn.

 

Lamkey has anecdotal evidence that open-pollinated varieties feature

more

protein.

Organic corn farmers often choose to grow open pollinated corn to avoid

transgenic contamination.

 

That was until two years ago, when organic corn seed began showing

transgenic characteristics. This likely will lead to a shortage of

organic corn this year, he says, noting that agribusiness has made no

attempt to deal with the issue.

 

Researchers have been working on improving the yields of these

varieties.

They've developed a synthetic variety that is genetically equivalent to

open-pollinated varieties. Some of those that Iowa State University

researchers have tested yield 80 to 90 bushels per acre, which is less

than hybrid varieties.

" I think we could catch up (to hybrid yield levels) if there were enough

breeders working on the issue, " he says.

But if a 1994 Iowa State study is any indication, that's not going to

happen. It found that of 545 scientists involved in corn breeding, 510

worked in private industry. The other 35 were divided between state

agriculture experiment stations and the USDA Agricultural Research

Service.

Once public universities create these public variety seeds, their policy

is to give them to farmers.

" I think farmers have already paid for the seeds through my salary and

research

costs, " he says.

 

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY FARM

 

David Dechant wasn't always opposed to transgenic crops. But when

reports

of lost markets, consumer rejection, and possible safety issues appeared

in the media, he began to change his mind. He saw it as part of the

corporatization of agriculture and the associated loss of family

farmers.

 

" They say gmos are going to be another revolution like tractors were, "

he

says. " But as far as I know, no one was rejecting food grown by use of

tractors. "

END.  

 

more at www.cropchoice.com