December, 1999
headlines and summaries

Return to December article index

Monsanto: GM protesters file lawsuit

December 16
Financial Times (London)

Monsanto, the US biotech group, is facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit over claims that it introduced potentially dangerous genetically modified seeds to world markets without adequate testing.

The lawsuit, although filed on Tuesday in US federal court, targets worldwide operations of Monsanto, making it the first global legal challenge to the spread of GM crops.

The suit, which says the company formed a worldwide cartel to monopolize the market for the seeds, aims to capitalize on the mounting international backlash against such crops and anxiety over social and economic changes from globalization.

Monsanto on Tuesday dismissed the suit as groundless, and part of a political campaign against genetically modified foods. "Efforts to block technology should not be undertaken in the courts but in the regulatory context," the company said, stressing it had met all US and overseas regulatory requirements for testing its products.

Monsanto is the target defendant in the suit, which also names other agricultural biotech companies, including DuPont, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Dow Chemical, Novartis and AstraZeneca, as "co-conspirators".

The plaintiffs, who seek class action status, are individual farmers from the US and France, named as representatives of farmers worldwide. The suit was drawn up by the leading US class action firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll on behalf of a consortium of other firms, who have taken the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.

It makes a combination of public health and antitrust claims.

On the public health front, Monsanto is accused of violating international human rights by rushing genetically modified seeds to market "before sufficient testing of the environmental and human health effects ... have proven the seeds and crops grown therefrom to be safe".

The suit does not allege the seeds have caused public harm, merely that they might do so.

The antitrust claim is that Monsanto created a cartel to monopolize genetically modified corn and soyabean seed markets, to restrain trade in those markets and fix prices.

The suit claims an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of farmers worldwide, seeking action under, among other things, little-known United Nations guidelines set up in 1980 to control "restrictive business practices".

Legal experts said the case was based on novel legal theories in US and international law, and compared it with recent "social issue" litigation aimed at the tobacco and gun industries, where the chief goal is to force a settlement.

The driving force behind the suit, US biotech activist Jeremy Rifkin, says the goal is to change worldwide regulatory policy.

Genetically modified plants may still need pesticides

December 16
New Scientist

FARMERS may need to douse their fields with yet more pesticides to get the best out of genetically modified plants. At least, that's the implication of patent applications filed by Novartis of Basle in Switzerland, one of the leading companies in the field.

The applications (WO 99/35910 and WO 99/35913) were filed after scientists at Novartis realized that a wide spectrum of insect pests was attacking Bt maize, its major GM crop. Genes inserted into the maize enable it to make the Bt toxin, a bacterial protein that kills European corn borer larvae. These larvae chew their way into the stems of young maize plants and can kill them before they get established.

But many GM plants that saw off the borer larvae were later attacked by sap-sucking insects. "Bt toxin has a rather narrow spectrum of activity, so you don't get control of all pests," says Walter Smolders, head of patents at Novartis Seeds.

To find a way round the problem, Novartis scientists tried applying different combinations of the company's pesticides to the Bt maize. Their patents identify combinations of pesticides that could raise yields of the maize by 20 per cent.

The same pesticides appear to increase the yields of other GM plants, including those engineered to resist the effects of herbicides. So Novartis has extended its patents to cover use of the pesticides on a long list of transgenic crops including maize, cereals, soya beans, potatoes, rice, cotton and mustard. If the patents are granted, this means they will also apply to crops from competitors such as Monsanto of St Louis, Missouri. 

Heinz Hammann, head of patents in Novartis's crop protection division, claims the pesticides mentioned in the patents are mostly environmentally benign, killing only the pests which attack the plants. Maize, for example, is vulnerable to sapsuckers such as the flea beetle (Phyllotreta agriotes) and various aphids. "Non-target species don't suck the plants, so they're not harmed," he says.

But some of the pesticides are less friendly. Carbamates, for example, act on the nervous system of pests and are known to affect birds, fish, game, bees, mammals and other farmland wildlife. And given that agribiotech firms have consistently argued that GM crops will reduce pesticide use, Novartis's patent applications are sure to be seized upon by groups that oppose the technology.

Brian Johnson, head of the biotechnology advisory unit at English Nature, a conservation watchdog, says he wants to see evidence confirming Novartis's suggestion that the use of pesticides on GM crops outlined in its patent applications will be less environmentally damaging than conventional chemical treatment of ordinary maize. "It's the impact of the whole process on biodiversity that counts," he says. "But the impacts of what they are proposing are not known."

European Union plans review of new GMO food labeling rules

December 16
Reuters

Brussels -- The European Commission said on Thursday it planned to review in a year's time proposed labeling laws for foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), following pressure from the European Parliament.

EU governments voted in October to force food producers to label their products as containing GMOs if they cannot guarantee that each of the ingredients contains less than one percent GM material.

On Wednesday, the parliament backed by 510 votes to 25 a resolution calling for a review clause to be included in the rules to allow the one percent threshold to be reconsidered in 12 months.

While the assembly has no formal decision-making powers on the issue, EU Industry Commissioner Erkki Liikanen pledged to review the situation in a year to see whether new testing methods were available to allow the one percent figure to be reduced.

``We've given a political commitment that after a year the Commission will review the situation to see if there's scope for the threshold to be reduced if tests are developed which can feasibly quantify the presence of GMOs at below one percent,'' said Liikanen's spokesman Per Haugaard.

The commitment comes as public concern grows about the safety of foods derived from GM crops and as the EU attempts to design clear labeling rules to ensure consumers know exactly what they are buying.

Haugaard said the parliament would have until January 10 to give its formal reaction to the new law. If it said the Commission exceeded its legal powers in its proposals, ``the Commission will have to seek further advice,'' Haugaard said.

Otherwise, the rule would become law in the 15 EU states at the end of January.

Biotech crop allegations against Monsanto detailed

December 16
Reuters

WASHINGTON - Six corn and soybean farmers from Indiana, Iowa and France filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto Co , accusing the company of trying to monopolize genetically modified crops and failing to thoroughly test the products for safety. 

Monsanto denied the charges and said it would fight the lawsuit. 

Also named in the court case as co-conspirators were Novartis AG , DuPont Co , Dow Chemical Co , and AstraZeneca Plc . Lawyers for the farmers said the companies were not formally charged as defendants in the case, but could be added to the lawsuit in the future.

Monsanto was named as the defendant because it is the "hub of the genetically modified industry and the other companies are the spokes," attorney Michael Hausfeld said.

The following are allegations made by the farmers in a 62-page lawsuit filed in U.S. district court in Washington:

Antitrust allegations

- In 1996, Monsanto tried to "neutralize competition" and control prices and restrain trade in genetically modified corn and soybean seed markets by licensing its Yieldgard and Roundup Ready technologies to competitors. An internal Monsanto document described a plan aiming to eventually control 90 percent of the U.S. corn seed market;

- Monsanto and its co-conspirators formed a cartel with nearly identical licensing agreements required of farmers who wanted to purchase Monsanto's biotech seeds. The agreements included expensive technology fees, high prices for the seeds, and user agreements prohibiting farmers from replanting their own harvested seeds. The technology fees collected from U.S. farmers by the companies will total an estimated $454 million this year;

- Monsanto tried to force farmers buying its Roundup Ready soybeans to also buy Roundup herbicide to maintain the profitability of the herbicide. The herbicide has generated an estimated $1.6 billion in annual sales but has a patent due to expire next year;

- Monsanto and other cartel members failed to carry out adequate human health and environmental safety testing; 

- Monsanto attempted to acquire water rights in countries with water shortages in a move to control the "basic means of production of the global food supply";

- Monsanto manipulated the conventional seed market by "restricting research and development" into new varieties, and "restricting the availability" of the traditional seeds;

- Monsanto and its co-conspirators have intimidated farmers by filing more than 475 lawsuits for allegedly saving genetically modified seeds or sharing it with other farmers;

- Monsanto hired Pinkerton guards to investigate farmers with conventional crops suspected of improperly obtaining the genetically altered seeds.

Deceptive business practice allegations

- Monsanto told farmers and the public that genetically altered seeds and crops were rigorously tested for health and environmental risks but did not adequately test them;

- Monsanto's inadequate testing is harmful to farmers using conventional seeds because their crops are "at risk from intermixing" with genetically modified commodities and rejected by overseas buyers.

Scientists sequence first complete plant chromosomes

December 15
AP

Scientists have decoded the DNA of a complete plant chromosome for the first time, a milestone in understanding the deepest secrets of the plant kingdom and a step toward developing improved crops.

Researchers unraveled the genetic structure of two chromosomes from Arabidopsis thaliana, a member of the mustard family. That meant identifying millions of building blocks that make up the chromosomes.

Arabidopsis has long been a favorite subject for the study of plant genetics, because its genome -- the complete collection of its DNA -- is relatively small. It is also an ideal model for gaining insights into 180,000 other flowering plants, including corn, wheat and rice. Two research teams, one in the United States and the other in Europe, published the results of their work in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Earlier this month other scientists announced the first sequencing of a human chromosome.

Researchers are working to sequence the entire Arabidopsis genome, which consists of five chromosomes.

"By sequencing Arabidopsis, you can use that information to infer the basic set of genes that make up any plant," said Michael Bevan of the John Innes Center in Norwich, England. He is coordinator of the European Union team that sequenced Arabidopsis chromosome 4.

Arabidopsis chromosome 2 was sequenced by a team at the Institute of Genomic Research in Rockville, Maryland.

Scientists expect to sequence all five Arabidopsis chromosomes by next summer. That will be an important trial run for the sequencing of bigger plant genomes, like those of corn and rice, which should contain many of the same genes.

"It is not only a trial run, it has almost the same list of parts," said Elliot Meyerowitz, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved in the newly reported Arabidopsis work. Deciphering the genome of agricultural plants could lead to new genetically engineered strains with improved nutritional value and resistance to disease and pests. The issue of genetically altered food has sparked controversy in Europe and elsewhere.

For both Arabidopsis chromosomes, about half the genes uncovered during sequencing have no known function. That is about the same percentage of mystery genes being found in human and animal genomes, said J. Craig Venter, chairman of the Rockville-based institute.

Venter said the large number of Arabidopsis genes with unknown jobs means "we know only a small portion" of plant biology.

Genes governing such basic processes as cell division are almost identical in plants and animals, strongly suggesting that both descended from the same ancient one-celled organism that lived about 1.5 billion years ago, Venter said.

"Some people like to think of evolution as a theory, but all you have to do is look at the DNA level to see that these are real events that took place," he said.

NGFA corrects American Corn Growers press release on biotech contract issues

December 15
National Grain and Feed Association press release

The National Grain and Feed Association today corrected inaccuracies and mischaracterizations contained in a press release issued earlier today by the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) concerning the NGFA's stance on contract issues involving biotechnology-enhanced crops.

NGFA President Kendell W. Keith said the ACGA's release apparently was based on a 20-minute presentation made by NGFA Counsel for Public Affairs David C. Barrett Jr. that was part of a four-hour public session on biotechnology-enhanced commodities conducted during the NGFA's Country Elevator Council/Feed Industry Council conference on Dec. 6 in St. Louis, Mo. 

"During his remarks, Mr. Barrett presented a series of possible alternatives concerning different contract provisions that country elevators and other grain handlers could consider if they operate in a market area where their customers may encourage segregation or seek to originate grains and oilseeds that are substantially free of biotechnology-enhanced events during the coming crop year," Keith said. 

"Importantly, contrary to ACGA's statement, Mr. Barrett expressly stated that the NGFA was not recommending the inclusion of one -- or any -- of the potential contract provisions, and stressed that this is a business and legal decision that country elevator managers need to make on their own based on their market area and the customers and buyers they serve."

In addition, Mr. Barrett stressed that food produced from biotechnology- enhanced seeds and ingredients is considered to be safe under U.S. law," Keith said. "Moreover, Mr. Barrett reminded buyers that neither party to a contract can unilaterally amend it through correspondence or certifications once the contract is consummated."

The NGFA is the U.S.-based nonprofit trade association of about 1,000 grain, feed, processing and grain-related firms comprising 5,000 facilities that handle more than two-thirds of all U.S. grains and oilseeds. 

The NGFA noted that the potential contract language alternatives included several different possible approaches, including: 1) producer disclosure of the varieties of grains planted to assist the manager in marketing both biotechnology-enhanced and conventional commodities; 2) producer delivery of biotechnology-enhanced commodities that have been approved for importation by the European Union; 3) specifying in advance the varieties of commodities deliverable under a contract; 4) a provision that premiums and/or discounts may apply to certain biotechnology-enhanced varieties at delivery; and 5) the right of the buyer to test for genetic traits for commodities delivered under a contract.

Further, Keith said that contrary to the inference contained in the ACGA's release, the NGFA is not calling for legislation to address legal issues surrounding biotechnology-enhanced commodities. 

He also said the NGFA supports biotechnology and other scientific and technological innovations that contribute to the availability of a safe, adequate and high-quality food supply. "We do encourage farmer-customers to consider the economics of both production and marketing of grains and oilseeds, and encourage them to seek marketing information from their customers -- the buyers of grains and oilseeds to whom they intend to sell their crops," Keith said.

British green groups welcome Monsanto lawsuit

December 15
Reuters

London - British environmental groups on Wednesday welcomed a lawsuit launched in the United States against life sciences company Monsanto by a group of farmers opposed to its handling of genetically modified crops.

But SCIMAC, the British group which represents farmers and the seed trade over gene technology, felt that Britain's approach to testing made the circumstances different here.

``We're very pleased that this action has been filed,'' said Harry Hadaway, campaigner on GM issues at the Soil Association, the leading organic farming group. ``We're hoping that where government regulators have failed the courts will succeed.''

Governments had been too keen to support the companies involved in developing genetically modified crops, he said.

``Governments have continuously failed to protect consumer health and the environment due to their support of the biotechnology industry,'' Hadaway said.

Peter Roderick, legal officer of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, also welcomed the lawsuit. ``We think it's a good thing,'' he said. ``We're supportive of what they're doing.''

There was a concern about increased concentration. ``The restructuring the industry is already doing is giving us fewer, more centralised companies,'' Roderick said.

Britain "building consensus"

Daniel Pearsall of SCIMAC, the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Crops, said British testing of GM crops was being done in a way designed to develop consensus.

``We are moving forward with the technology in a way which is bringing all the interests together,'' he said. SCIMAC represents farmers, plant breeders, the seed trade and the biotechnology companies.

``We have a platform to take forward the assessment, evaluation and adoption of this technology in a way which brings togther the different concerns and interests,'' he said.

Britain is carrying out farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops.

There will be no unrestricted cultivation of GM crops in the UK until the farm-scale evaluations are complete, the government has said. Environment minister Michael Meacher said in November that the trials would last until the harvesting of crops planted in 2002.

Six corn and soybean farmers from Indiana, Iowa and France filed a class action lawsuit on Tuesday against Monsanto Co, accusing the company of trying to monopolize genetically modified crops and failing to thoroughly test the products for safety.

Monsanto denied the charges and said it would fight the lawsuit.

Also named in the court case as alleged co-conspirators were Novartis AG, DuPont Co, Dow Chemical Co, and AstraZeneca Plc. Lawyers for the farmers said the companies were not formally charged as defendants in the case, but could be added to the lawsuit in the future.

French farmer blames Monsanto for GM woes

December 15
Reuters

Paris - A French farmer named in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto Co said he blames the life-sciences giant's involvement in genetically modified (GM) crops for miring him in a legal dispute dating back to 1997.

Patrick de Kochko, an organic farmer in southwest France and the only non-American named plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the lawyers who filed the landmark antitrust suit against Monsanto on Tuesday asked him to join as a plaintiff because of legal problems over his 1996 soybean crop. 

De Kochko said he believes a unit of Monsanto sold him soybean seeds containing GM material, which then contaminated his crop and made it difficult for him to market his soybeans.

``The lawyers were looking for someone who had experienced damages because of GM seeds, and that's what happened to me,'' de Kochko said in a telephone interview with Reuters.

``I'm just a modest peasant...(but) the principle that disturbs me is that people create these things which then escape into the environment and then they don't care what happens with them,'' he said.

De Kochko, who farms some 45 hectares, said he bought seeds for his 1996 organic soybean crop from Asgrow, a seed company that now belongs to Monsanto.

He said he had no reason to think the seeds used to produce the soybean crop were contaminated with GM substances.

Organic crops are grown without the use of chemicals and are not supposed to contain any GM products.

Demand for organic soybeans has soared as consumers in Europe and Japan look for alternatives to GM crops amid consumer concerns about their possible effects on human health.

Indeed, organic farmers believe bioengineered food poses a threat to their lifestyle, partly amid fears it could weaken the natural techniques organic farmers use to produce their crops.

GM surprise

De Kochko said he was surprised when a tofu manufacturer in Germany who had bought some of his crop from a cooperative contacted him in 1997 to say that consumer fraud officials had found traces of GM material in the beans.

De Kochko said the German authorities traced the contaminated soybeans back to his crop, although he believes the contamination could have come from imported soybeans used by the German manufacturer which were mixed with his own.

``The problem is it's difficult to know the origin of the contamination. It's not definitive that the pollution came from France,'' de Kochko said. But he also said he has since learned that Asgrow only guaranteed the purity of its seeds to 99 percent, meaning there was a possibility some of the seeds he bought may have been contaminated.

De Kochko said he has filed a separate lawsuit in France against as yet unnamed parties to find out why his soybeans may have contained GM material. He said that while he is currently the only named non-U.S. plaintiff in the lawsuit against Monsanto, more could emerge.

``There are other international producers who have suffered similar damages,'' de Kochko said.

The lawsuit filed on Tuesday in Washington accuses Monsanto of trying to monopolize GM crops and failing to thoroughly test the products for safety. Also named in the court case as alleged co-conspirators were Novartis AG, DuPont Co, Dow Chemical Co, and AstraZeneca Plc. Lawyers for the farmers said the companies were not formally charged as defendants in the case, but could be added to the lawsuit in the future.