December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

Monsanto sued over its seeds

December 15
Washington Post

Environmental activists yesterday opened a new front in their fight against genetically modified foods: the courts.

At the urging of anti-biotechnology groups, farmers in the United States and other nations filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington against Monsanto Co., the largest producer of genetically modified seeds and the focus of anger by those who oppose the technology.

The 55-page complaint claims that St. Louis-based Monsanto defrauded farmers when it told them the seeds were safe and that the public would accept genetically modified crops, because – according to the plaintiffs – the company should have known that no nation's standards of testing are adequate to guarantee such safety. The suit also alleges that Monsanto tried to illegally control the market for genetically modified agriculture and violates U.S. antitrust law with policies that require farmers to "license" its seeds instead of buying them outright.

The lawsuit does not allege that the crops themselves are unsafe, only that the company did not undertake the necessary testing to ensure safety.

Jack H. Watson, Monsanto's chief legal strategist, said the safety of the company's products and the antitrust implications of the company's business acquisitions had been thoroughly reviewed and approved by U.S. antitrust authorities.

Watson said that he had not had time to thoroughly review the court papers because the company was only served yesterday afternoon, but said that the industry had spent "billions of dollars" ensuring the safety of genetically modified foods.

"We are ready, willing, able and eager to answer any and all questions, and any and all challenges to the safety of these products, period," Watson said.

The activists say they hope that the suit – filed during the crucial time when farmers are deciding whether to buy genetically modified seeds for next year's harvest – will reshape regulation of genetic engineering around the world.

The court filing "refocuses the discussion" of genetic modification, said Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and an outspoken critic of gene-altered food. "The focus is no longer on trade," he said, but will become a broader discussion of the future of agriculture.

"I believe we are at the cusp of a global populist political movement," Rifkin said.

Companies such as Monsanto genetically modify foods by inserting genes from one organism into another in order to confer a useful characteristic. Monsanto, for example, sells corn and soybeans that produce BT, a natural insecticide favored by organic farmers. Another Monsanto product line is not killed by the company's popular and relatively safe Roundup herbicide, which allows farmers to spray for weeds without killing the plants. Both products, the company says, allow farmers to save money and time, and to use less pesticides.

There is no control exerted over the market, Watson insisted: "All the farmers ever have to do, any time, is to say 'no.' "

lawsuit comes at a critical time for Monsanto: the season in which North American farmers decide which seeds to buy for the coming year's harvests. The company released a survey yesterday showing that about 26 percent of U.S. soybean growers said they planned not to buy genetically modified seeds, about the same amount as last year's 25 percent.

Watson said that genetically modified seeds make up about 35 percent of the nation's corn crop and 55 percent of the nation's soybean harvest. American farmers, he said, "have taken this technology up in no less than a phenomenal way – because it works."

The Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the genetically modified foods are equivalent to garden-variety crops – but those suing Monsanto claim that even if the company complied with the regulatory requirements of every nation in which it sells its seeds, that it still should have known that it had not done enough to truly ensure that the crops would harm neither humans nor the environment.

Rifkin approached the National Family Farm Coalition to round up plaintiffs, and found ready agreement, said Bill Christison, president of the coalition. Farmers only bought biotech seeds, he insisted, because "agricultural policy is so bad in the U.S. that a drowning man will grab at a straw – and the farmers have been sold a bill of goods."

The 11 law firms involved are led by Washington lawyer Michael D. Hausfeld, who successfully sued the Swiss over Holocaust bank accounts. The suit names other major biotech firms as "co-conspirators," but does not include them in the suit. The ultimate goal, Hausfeld said, is to effect social change through the courts.

"This is no different from what courts were asked to do in Brown versus Board of Education," the Supreme Court case that ended legal race discrimination, Hausfeld said. "It fits my pattern – dealing with cases that involve fundamental human rights."

A longtime critic of the growing role of trial lawyers as policymakers ridiculed the new suit – especially the claim that the company should have done more to warn farmers about health concerns. "Rifkin and company disparaged the product – and now they're saying since it was disparaged that the company engaged in fraud because they didn't warn them about Jeremy Rifkin?" asked Washington lawyer Victor Schwartz, a leading proponent of tort reform. "This is a new perpetual motion machine for the plaintiffs' bar."

Monsanto stock, long depressed because of the continuing biotechnology controversy, dropped slightly on the news of the lawsuit, falling 25 cents to close at $41.87½.

Dutch corn gluten market on hold on GMO worries

December 15
Reuters World Report

AMSTERDAM  - The Dutch market in U.S. corn gluten, a major feed ingredient, has been thrown into confusion after environmental group Greenpeace charged that shipments contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) not approved by the European Union.

The Dutch feed industry has agreed with the Dutch Dairy Industry Association not to use material from the recently arrived Flag Diamond vessel after analysis by Greenpeace showed presence of banned GMOs in corn gluten on the ship, spokesman Tim Browers of the dairy group told Reuters..

Greenpeace campaigner Miriam Van Gool told Reuters that the analysis showed at least two banned GMOs in the shipment of corn gluten and it was logical to assume that most gluten arriving in Europe also had such GMOs.

Greenpeace said the Flag Diamond departed from New Orleans and the group was able to take samples during the ship's stopover in Spain ahead of its arrival in Amsterdam.

The European Union has frozen approval of new GMOs and only a handful have made it through the lengthy approval process.

The feed industry will also undertake a detailed investigation of the wider implications of the issue, including whether corn is being properly segregated in the United States before being processed into gluten, a by-product of corn sweetener.

The issue of GMOs in corn gluten had come up over the past two years, and previously the Dutch government had taken the position that since the gluten is processed at a high temperature, no live genetic organisms remain.

But Greenpeace says that corn kernels with live GMOs are also present in the corn gluten.

After the previous scare, the Dutch feed industry agreed with the dairy association not to use any material with banned GMOs. Browers said the dairy association was only asking the feed industry to uphold this previous undertaking.

Traders said feed market conditions were slow in any case, but trade in corn gluten was on hold following the latest incident. If worse came to worse, compound feed makers would substitute citrus pulp, rapemeal or sunmeal in place of corn gluten, they said. 

Biotech foes vocal in U.S. but still a minority

December 15
Reuters Business Report

CHICAGO - A recent lawsuit and protests against genetically modified foods suggest growing opposition in the United States, but those high-profile examples overshadow a silent majority of ambivalent U.S. consumers, agribusiness analysts said Wednesday.

"I think the average consumer still doesn't have this (biotechnology) on their radar screen," said Leonard Gianessi, a senior researcher with the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington.

"Consumers in the U.S., unlike the Europeans, trust their regulatory agencies," he said, citing the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency. "FDA says it's safe. USDA says it's safe. EPA says it's safe. This is not like other health issues where you have people getting sick."

U.S. and French farmers sue Monsanto

On Tuesday, a group of antitrust lawyers representing U.S. and French farmers sued life sciences firm Monsanto Co., alleging that it sold genetically altered crops without first ensuring they were safe for consumers and the environment. 

Monsanto said the claims were unfounded.

The suit names as "co-conspirators" Novartis AG, DuPont Co., AstraZeneca Plc. and Dow Chemical Co. 

The crops in question were modified to resist crop-eating pests or to withstand powerful herbicides. U.S. farmers have embraced the technology, which can reduce herbicide and pesticide costs, and planted the genetically modified seeds for more than half of the 1999 soybean crop and a third of the corn crop, according to U.S. Agriculture Department figures.

However, biotechnology has met with fierce resistance in Britain, and opposition has spread to other parts of Europe, Asia and to some degree the United States. Critics contend there has not been enough long-term research to conclude the crops are safe.

Seattle protests highlighted concern

Protests during World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle last month, where activists carrying an anti-biotech banner attacked a fast food restaurant, also highlighted concern in the United States.

Still, analysts said U.S. consumers are not very worried about the technology, which is already showing up in staples ranging from breakfast cereal to ice cream.

A Gallup poll in October found 27 percent of Americans believed biotechnology posed a health hazard, while 53 percent thought it was safe and 20 percent were unsure.

"Most people think of food on basic terms like, 'What can I eat that is going to taste good,"' said Thomas Hoban, a sociologist at North Carolina State University who tracks consumer attitudes about biotechnology. The recent protests as well as FDA hearings on biotechnology in three U.S. cities "elevated the visibility somewhat," he said.

Hoban said his research shows that two-thirds to three-fourths of U.S. consumers have a positive or neutral opinion toward genetically modified foods. About 10 to 15 percent were opposed to it and the rest didn't know or hadn't formed an opinion.

Biotech awareness grows, concern does not

Biotech backlash in the United States "has probably grown to the extent that more people are aware of it, but I don't think the issue is of any greater concern (among consumers) than it was before," said Dean Cavey, an analyst with Verdant Partners, a consulting firm that advises agribusinesses.

"I think a very large number of consumers are still either unaware of or unconcerned about this concept of GMO (genetically modified) foods," he said.

Analysts pointed to the fact that this country has been spared food scares such as mad cow disease that swept through Britain, and consumers trust regulatory agencies to ensure a safe food supply.

"The average U.S. consumer has a lot of faith in the testing that products have to go through before they hit the market," said Christine McCracken, an agribusiness analyst with Midwest Research. "I don't think consumers are going to be swayed by this (lawsuit)."

Farmers to sue Monsanto

December 15
ABC News

Opponents of genetically engineered food are trying a new tactic in their battle to curb the spread of biotech crops—a lawsuit that accuses Monsanto Co. of conspiring to control the world’s seed trade.

The class-action suit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Washington on behalf of six farmers, also accuses Monsanto and other seed companies of rushing the crops to market without adequately studying their effects on health and the environment.

Jeremy Rifkin, a prominent anti-biotech activist who recruited a team of nine law firms to handle the suit, said he wants to “refocus the global debate” over genetic engineering to “corporate abuse of power” by the companies that developed the crops.

Price fixing alleged

Corn and soybeans genetically designed to kill pests or withstand herbicides have become widely popular in the United States, but have met consumer resistance in Europe and Asia. Genetic engineering involves splicing a single gene from one organism to another.

Until now, biotech opponents have focused their efforts on persuading food manufacturers not to buy genetically modified crops and getting governments to require the labeling of altered foods. 

The suit alleges that Monsanto, using its biotechnology patents, coordinated with other biotech companies such as DuPont to fix prices and force farmers into using genetically engineered seed. The lawsuit also alleges there is “substantial uncertainty” as to whether the crops are safe.

The companies control the spread of the technology by patenting the seeds and then leasing them to growers, rather than selling them, to prevent the farmers from reproducing the seeds. Farmers are charged a special fee to cover the cost of developing the technology. 

Five farmers in Indiana and Iowa, including a husband and wife, and one in France are listed as plaintiffs, but the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all farmers who have bought biotech seed. The National Farm Coalition, a left-leaning group opposed to biotechnology, helped develop the suit.

Monsanto defends benefits

Monsanto officials denounced the lawsuit as a political stunt and predicted it would be thrown out of court.

“This technology has been tested for many years and it’s subject to intense regulation. ...We would not put into commerce anything that we’re not absolutely confident is safe and effective,” Monsanto attorney Dan Snively said.

An estimated 57 percent of the soybeans grown this year contain a gene that allows it to tolerate use of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weed killer. And 30  percent of the corn grown this year was engineered to make it toxic to the European corn borer, a chronic problem for farmers.

The government insists that the crops are essentially the same as conventionally bred varieties and pose no threat to humans or the environment.

Advocates say biotechnology has vast potential for developing crops that are more nutritious, need less water and have a variety of new uses, such as bananas that would inoculate children in developing countries against diseases.

For example, a new variety of corn feed under development would cut down on pollution from hog farms by reducing the phosphorus content of manure.

Farmers support biotechnology

Critics of the technology say there isn’t enough known about possible allergens and its impact on the environment, including the emergence of “superweeds”  from genetically engineered crops.

Major farm organizations have been strong defenders of the technology. If anything, Monsanto has been too timid in trying to build public support for the crops, said Nathan Johnson, president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.

“I still see them advertising for the farmers’ business a lot. If they would put some of that money toward educating the public, we’d be a lot better off,” said Johnson, who says the crops have saved him time and money. Farmers “like the product or they wouldn’t spend the money for it,” said Bob Callanan, a spokesman for the American Soybean Association.

Companion lawsuits are being considered in several foreign countries, including Britain and India, said Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney in the case. 

Sowing seeds of fear

December 13
Detroit News editorial

Yet another environmental scare campaign is underway, this one casting biotechnology as a threat to the world’s food supply. Macomb County’s own U.S. Rep. David Bonior is among the principal provocateurs, pitching to Congress regulatory curbs advocated by Greenpeace and like groups. But there’s more politics than science behind this attack on progress.

Genetically modified crops make up a growing share of agricultural output. Re-engineered soybeans debuted in 1995 and now constitute more than half of the U.S. harvest. And the ability to breed desirable traits — or eliminate problematic ones — is yielding spectacular benefits. Altering cotton genes has cut insecticide use by 80 percent, and new plant varieties are greatly reducing soil erosion and water usage. Researchers, meanwhile, are exploring the genetic transfer of vaccines to crops, a development that would protect millions of Third World children from disease and death at an affordable cost.

But any manipulation of “nature,” no matter how advantageous, is anathema to environmental extremists who evidently prefer malnutrition and pestilence to technology. Here and in Europe, opponents have taken to destroying entire fields of bioengineered crops — despite the lack of scientific evidence that biotechnology poses any threat to man or Mother Nature. And activists are using a willing media to float scare stories to which politicians must then respond.

Federal policy established by the Bush administration requires genetically modified commodities to meet the same health and environmental standards applied to conventional crops, including oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

But critics are demanding tighter controls, including mandatory labeling of all products containing any bioengineered ingredient. (Labels already are required if genetic modification changes the composition of food or its nutrition content, or if potential allergens are introduced.)

As biotech opponents well know, a generalized warning label would sound a disquieting alarm. And once consumers are convinced that biotechnology poses a threat, strict regulation is all the easier to impose. Indeed, the modern environmental movement has perfected regulation by fear.

The Clinton administration recently legitimized the scare campaign by prominently featuring advocates of labeling in a series of public hearings on biotech regulation. And Rep. Bonior, the Democratic whip, is pushing legislation in the House to require stricter labeling.

All of which has clearly unnerved the agriculture industry. Archer Daniels Midland recently asked growers to segregate biotech crops — a huge financial burden. Analysts are predicting the first decline in the sale of genetically modified seeds next year. Yet these same seeds could ease the uncertainties that can bankrupt a farmer in a single season.

Farmers have cross-bred crop varieties for centuries. That opponents object to the very same outcome when achieved by splicing DNA simply exposes their loathing of technology. Should Rep. Bonior and his band of technophobes actually succeed in restricting biotechnology, America, indeed the world, would be robbed of incalculable benefits.

Our view

There is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any threat that requires stricter regulatory action.

Opposing view

New regulation of biotechnology is needed as a precautionary measure.