Subject: Article in Financial Times...
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:39:01 -0800 (PST)


Financial Times
Copyright Financial Times Limited 1997
Saturday, November 8, 1997

Perspectives

THE NATURE OF THINGS

The huge unstoppable experiment
By Clive Cookson

Genetically engineered plants are spreading rapidly over the fields of North America. This year farmers in the US and Canada planted an estimated 10m hectares with crops -- maize, cotton, soyabeans and oilseed rape -- that have added genes to make them resistant to insect pests or herbicide sprays.

In Europe, the equivalent transgenic crops have not got beyond small-scale trials, as environmentalists and politicians argue whether the risks of plant genetic engineering outweigh the promised benefits of improved agricultural yields and quality. The debate has generated much emotional heat but little scientific light. What, then, are the real risks?

For many consumers, the main concern is a selfish one: that eating genetically engineered foods will damage their health. Hence the campaign for all products containing genetically modified ingredients to be labelled, so people can avoid them if they want to.

Most scientists, on the other hand, are not worried by the direct health risks. They say the products of the newly inserted genes are harmless to humans -- and any unforeseen problems caused by genetic engineering can be picked up by stringent testing.

A recent example was the transfer of a gene from Brazil nuts to soyabeans. This was intended to improve the beans' nutritional quality by adding an essential amino acid, but it had the unexpected effect of triggering an allergic reaction in some people who ate them during research tests. The project was therefore dropped.

The environmental hazards of crop genetic engineering are potentially more worrying. One big risk is that terrible new weeds could be created inadvertently.

It is unlikely that many crop plants could be turned directly into weeds, simply through the addition of one or two new genes, because they are too highly bred for human purposes to thrive in the wild. But scientists are worried by the danger of the added genes spreading from crops into existing weeds and giving these a new selective advantage, through added resistance to pests, chemical sprays or bad weather.

The genes could leap into weeds through the formation of hybrids between crops and related wild plants. Just last week, French scientists reported in the journal Nature the results of experiments to test this hypothesis. They confirmed that herbicide resistance genes, added to oilseed rape, could move into hybrids between rape plants and wild radish -- and persist in the field through several generations.

Although the French experiments do not prove that this would be a problem in agricultural practice, they do give cause for concern.

Another environmental concern is the effect on insects of adding insecticidal genes to crops. Several of the first-generation transgenic crops produce a bacterial toxin, known as Bt, which kills insect pests. Biologists fear that evolutionary pressures may soon make the pests resistant to the toxin, which is also applied as a bio-pesticide. In that case, farmers would have to resume spraying chemical insecticides.

Crop engineering companies believe they can control the resistance problem by requiring farmers to plant "refuges" of conventional crops alongside transgenic Bt crops. For example, as a condition of buying Monsanto's Bt cotton seeds, US farmers must plant one acre of ordinary cotton for every 25 acres of transgenic crop. The idea is that non-resistant pests can thrive in the refuges and constantly replenish the insects' gene pool with vulnerability to Bt. But it remains to be seen whether such refuges will be large enough to work.

Then there is concern about possible knock-on damage to beneficial insects. Although insecticidal genes are aimed specifically at pests, such as the cotton bollworm, they may cause secondary damage to other insects.

A three-year project, sponsored by the EU, is now underway to study the impact of transgenic plants on bees and other pollinating insects. Preliminary results suggest that genetic engineering of rape plants slightly changes the chemical composition of nectar and pollen collected by bees -- changing their foraging pattern and increasing mortality.

Campaigners against crop engineering, such as Greenpeace, point to other specific hazards -- for example, from the "marker genes" for antibiotic resistance that are inserted into some transgenic plants for technical reasons. But their loudest alarm is about unforeseen dangers that may come from the sheer unpredictability of genetic engineering.

On the other side of the argument, the big ag-bio companies such as Monsanto, AgrEvo and Novartis point to the "risks" of abandoning crop engineering. They say it offers the only route to increasing agricultural yields enough to feed the world's growing population in the next century, without ploughing up the remaining wild parts of the planet or using unacceptable levels of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides.

In fact, it is probably already too late to stop. The agricultural and industrial momentum behind genetically engineered crops is irresistible. Too many American farmers are already convinced of their benefits. And their European counterparts will not stand being left out for long. A huge experiment in environmental genetics is under way.
=======-=-=-=-=


Subject: Monsanto Bulletin 12/10/97

Monsanto Completes Successful Season for Agricultural Biotechnology Products and Sets Stage for 1998 Growing Season

ST. LOUIS, Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MTC) has completed its second successful year of commercializing new agricultural products created from biotechnology and is setting the stage for additional growth from these products in 1998, it told growers and seed companies at the American Seed Trade Association meeting in Chicago this week.

In 1997, Monsanto had YieldGard insect-protected corn, Bollgard insect- protected cotton, NewLeaf and NewLeaf Plus insect-protected potatoes, and Roundup Ready canola, cotton and soybeans on the market. Limited quantities of a cotton product with both Bollgard insect protection and Roundup Ready herbicide tolerance also were available this year, and were sold out.

YieldGard Outperforms Competition Preliminary results of this year's harvests show strong results for all of Monsanto's products. YieldGard, which is in its first year of commercialization, was exceptionally strong based on studies at 200 locations in the U.S. Corn Belt. Comparisons conducted by several leading seed companies showed that corn with the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene produced higher yields than unprotected corn. However, Monsanto's YieldGard corn provided significantly higher yields than other Bt brands.

YieldGard hybrids outperformed corn without the Bt gene by an average of 15.7 bushels per acre (a 9.7 percent increase) and outperformed other Bt brands by 9.8 bushels per acre (a 5.7 percent increase). YieldGard is the only product on the market that expresses the Bt gene throughout the plant with season-long protection against multiple generations of corn borers. In Iowa, where infestation was high, YieldGard hybrids outperformed the same hybrids without the Bt trait by 21.6 bushels per acre. Even in areas with light infestations of corn borers, Bt protection resulted in improved yields of six or more bushels per acre compared with the same hybrid without the Bt gene.

Collaboration Agreement With Stine Seed and Asgrow Announced Monsanto also announced this week a non-exclusive collaboration between it, its Asgrow subsidiary and Stine Seed Company to further improve and develop soybean genetics and technology owned by the companies. Stine is the leading supplier of soybean genetics in early maturing varieties, and Asgrow is a leader in worldwide soybean research and seeds.

"This collaboration builds on our commitment to broadly license our technologies and make sure that farmers have access to the very best technology, in the best germplasm and in the brands of their choice," said Robert T. Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector.

Surveys conducted earlier this year of soybean farmers who planted Roundup Ready soybeans in 1997 indicate that more than 90 percent of those growers intend to reuse the product in 1998. More than 95 percent of those surveyed were satisfied with the product and said it met or exceeded their expectations.

Global Commercialization Monsanto is rapidly commercializing its biotechnology products around the world. To date, its new traits for crops have been commercialized or have received regulatory approvals in the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Canada and Australia. Regulatory clearances are being sought simultaneously in these and other countries, such as China and India. The global potential for these products is large: Roundup Ready soybeans alone could be used on more than 30 million acres outside the United States, almost 10 times the acreage planted in 1997 in Argentina and more than three times that planted in the United States this year.

In addition to the products currently being sold, Monsanto has more than 30 agriculture biotechnology products in its product pipeline, including those that provide agronomic traits, such as insect- and disease-resistance, and those that provide quality traits, such as improved oils or foods enriched with vitamins through biotechnology.

As a life sciences company, Monsanto is committed to finding solutions to the growing global needs for food and health by sharing common forms of science and technology among agriculture, nutrition and health. The company's 20,000 employees worldwide make and market high-value agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and food ingredients.

CO: Monsanto Company

ST: Missouri, Iowa

IN: MTC AGR

SU: ECO

====================================================-=-=-=-=


Date: Wed, 10 Dec 97 17:08:45 -0500
Subject: New concern on GE sugar beets in Ireland

NEW CONCERNS ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SUGAR BEETS IN IRELAND
by Beth Burrows

**********************************************************

December 8, 1997 (Ireland). New concerns about industry relations with regulatory agencies and the quality of testing of genetically engineered crops emerge just two days before the Irish High Court is scheduled to review the decision to allow testing of Monsanto Corporation's genetically engineered sugar beet in Ireland.

European Parliament member (MEP) Nuala Ahern, reviewing material from the public files at the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), today pointed to evidence that two representatives of Monsanto, Mr. Sydney Reid and Dr. Cathy Webb, met with EPA November 24th, to discuss further plans for field-testing genetically-engineered crops in Ireland next year. According to documents in the file, Monsanto had requested that the names of all farmers involved be kept secret.

"I am appalled at the typical multi-national arrogance towards the legal system in a sovereign state, " Ahern said. "It's insulting. They don't even have the decency to wait until after the judicial review takes place. I am astonished that the EPA, who professed themselves constrained by the court case to the extent of postponing their own public conference, should have even consented to meet with the company."

Earlier this year, EPA had cancelled its own public debate on genetic engineering "on the advice of counsel" in anticipation of the judicial review.

Adding to Ahern's concern about EPA administrative procedures were revelations about the crop actually being tested in Ireland. Looking at a crop inspection report from July 7, she noted that "35-45% of the beet plants treated with Round-Up Biactive were dying. According to the report, this was due to Line 77 (one of the cultivars of the genetically-engineered sugar beet) being only 47% transgenic and line 203 (another strain of sugar beet) being only 58% transgenic."

The phenomenon of dying plants in a crop publicly touted to be resistant to the herbicide Round-Up evidently came as quite a surprise. Learning that almost half the crop was not transgenic to begin with, Ahern commented, "And they tell us this is a precise science! What's going on here? Did this occur in other European tests?"

Noel and Paula Giles, the research consultants who had unearthed the material from EPA files, noted that the files contained many revealing documents. "Even the omissions were fascinating," said Paula Giles. "We did not see, for example, any scientific references to testing effects on soil or insect life or water, but perhaps that will be in the raw data which we have not had a chance to analyze thoroughly yet." MEP Ahern added, "My concern is more for the effect on farmers. I am quite troubled by what appears to be a complete lack of testing of the sugar content of these new beets to be grown in Irish soil. Sugar content is the most important factor in the price farmers get paid for the crop."

Wednesday, 10th December, the Irish High Court begins review of the Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow Monsanto Corporation to test genetically engineered sugar beet at a research center on government-owned land in Carlow. The judicial review was sought last May by Clare Watson, a founder member of Genetic Concern, the campaign group created to highlight the potential dangers of genetic engineering in food and agriculture.

* * *



==================================================



Date: Sun, 21 Dec 97 23:16:23 -0500
Subject: GE-tobacco in Brazil

Brazil's Secret: Crazy Tobacco

Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of the Associated Press.

By TODD LEWAN
AP National Writer

SANTA CRUZ DO SUL, Brazil (AP) -- Freakish tobacco plants that explode from the soil in this remote river valley grow huge leaves on stalks as thick as Louisville Sluggers. The growers here call it fumo louco -Crazy tobacco.

Crazy not just because it grows so big and so fast. Crazy because it has been genetically altered by one of the world's largest tobacco companies to pack twice the nicotine of other commercially grown leaf.

The farmers of Brazil's southernmost state are growing it by the ton for the world market, The Associated Press has found, though it could not be learned for certain which countries are importing the nicotine-rich leaf.

Fumo louco -- the farmers' generic term for several related strains of high- nicotine tobacco -- is the offspring of a genetically altered plant created in U.S. laboratories for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., the third largest U.S. cigarette maker. The seed was then secretly shipped to Brazil in violation of U.S. export law.

Over the past year, the AP has observed its cultivation and harvest on small farms all over the state of Rio Grande do Sul, from Paulo Berganthal's 10-acre, table-flat plantation, to Neury de Oliveira's 20 mist-shrouded acres in the high country.

Some of these varieties are so high in nicotine that smokers might get sick smoking them in their pure form, but they can be blended with cheaper, weaker tobaccos to make cigarettes with nicotine levels that satisfy smokers.

Fumo louco blends give cigarette makers a new tool for adjusting nicotine levels in their products. They may also provide the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with a new argument for the assertion that the tobacco industry intentionally manipulates nicotine levels to "hook" smokers. At stake is the question of whether the FDA should have the power to regulate nicotine as a drug.

The FDA has been aware that a high-nicotine tobacco had been developed but did not know that it is being cultivated in large commercial quantities, said Mitch Zeller, an FDA deputy associate commissioner.

However, 18 Brazilian farmers openly acknowledged they are growing the high- nicotine leaf by the ton, and many said they have been growing it for more than five years.

"It's weird stuff," Oliveira said in his native Portuguese. The nicotine content is so high that "just the crazy smell of it gets you dizzy. But sir, it comes up like nothing you've ever seen."

Farmers estimated that half of the roughly 40,000 acres under tobacco cultivation in the region are devoted to the high-nicotine leaf. That means an area about one-and-a-half times the size of the island of Manhattan is covered in fumo louco.

The farmers said they sell their high-nicotine tobacco to Souza Cruz, a Brazilian company owned by B.A.T. Industries, the same British conglomerate that controls Brown & Williamson.

Souza Cruz did not respond to questions. Brown & Williamson spokesman Mark Smith said that "it would be inappropriate for us to comment" because of pending government investigations. The U.S. Justice Department has convened grand juries in Washington, D.C., and New York state to investigate whether tobacco companies and their officials lied to the government about manipulating nicotine levels in their products.

After farmers sell their fumo louco to Souza Cruz, it goes to the company's processing plant in Santa Cruz do Sul. Souza Cruz boasts it is the world's biggest. About a third of the tobacco processed at the plant is high-nicotine leaf, according to Louis Radaelli, a company genetics researcher, and several former Souza Cruz technical experts.

Once the leaf enters the plant, it is difficult to learn where it goes. Souza Cruz mixes it with other tobaccos to form some of its blends, and the recipes are trade secrets.

Souza Cruz is among the world's biggest exporters of tobacco, and about a fifth of its production goes to cigarette makers in the United States. Britain, Japan and Germany are also major customers. The company does not use high- nicotine leaf in cigarettes marketed in Brazil, but declined to explain why.

The FDA learned in 1994 that Brown & Williamson had developed a nicotine-rich plant code-named Y-1 and that limited quantities had been grown in Brazil in the early 1990s. Some of it was imported by Brown & Williamson, which used it as an ingredient in five cigarette brands sold in the United States in 1993 and 1994.

Although this was legal, the FDA was concerned enough about the implications to disclose its findings to Congress in July of 1994. Brown & Williamson executives responded by assuring the agency that they had dropped the project and stopped using Y-1 in their Raleigh Lights, Richland Lights King Size, Viceroy King Size, Viceroy Lights King Size and Richland King Size cigarettes.

That appeared to be the end of the story. It wasn't.

The AP has learned:

--Y-1 cultivation began in Brazil in 1983 -- years earlier than the FDA realized.

--Souza Cruz, according to its own figures, shipped nearly 8 million pounds of Y-1 to the United States for Brown & Williamson between 1990 and 1994 -- nearly double the amount the FDA knew had been imported.

--Souza Cruz's own experiments with Y-1 have produced hundreds of new strains of high-nicotine tobacco, some of which are being grown commercially in Brazil.

Months after the FDA's Y-1 disclosure to Congress, growers and Souza Cruz agronomists said, the company ordered farmers to stop cultivating high-nicotine strains.

But the growers have kept planting it and, they say, Souza Cruz keeps buying it, praising its quality and paying top prices.

The commercial production of genetically altered, nicotine-enhanced tobacco may have implications for the pending $368.5 billion tobacco settlement between cigarette makers and attorneys general of 40 states.

The biggest stumbling block to the settlement is whether the FDA should regulate tobacco as a drug. Tobacco companies contend that nicotine isn't addictive and insist that they vary nicotine levels in cigarettes solely for taste. The FDA views nicotine-enhanced tobacco as a tool for deliberately controlling the dosages of an addictive substance.

The story of how fumo louco leaped from a laboratory experiment in the United States to a cash crop in Brazil also raises questions about government efforts to regulate the biotech industry's use of genetically altered material.

------

It began in, of all places, a U.S. government lab. It was 1976, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture was trying to develop a "safer" cigarette.

Specifically, the USDA wanted to create a tobacco that would be low in tar, a sticky residue linked to cancer. Cigarette companies knew how to reduce tar by chemically treating the tobacco, but this also removed much of the nicotine, the substance smokers crave.

Dr. James F. Chaplin, a breeder at the USDA's Tobacco Research Laboratory in Oxford, N.C., thought the answer was to create a strain abnormally high in nicotine. That way, he said in a 1977 paper, the removal of the tar would still leave plenty of nicotine behind.

At a cost of about $2 million in USDA money, Chaplin crossbred several wild and commercial tobacco varieties in an effort to boost nicotine levels. He developed five new varieties, field-testing them at the Wilson, N.C., farm of Hubert Hardison, who worked for an affiliate of Brown & Williamson.

Hardison said his only involvement was to plant the seed. "I was the farm boy, I guess. Somebody to do the work. You send me some tobacco seed and I grow them."

After the field testing, Chaplin discarded all but two varieties, code named Y-1 and Y-2, said Dr. Vernon Sisson, a longtime colleague of Chaplin's at the USDA in Oxford.

"They had the best aroma, and the highest nicotine -- between 4 and 5 percent," he said. "That's what they were looking for."

According to Sisson, Hardison brought Y-1 and Y-2 seed to Brown & Williamson. Chaplin, who resigned from the USDA in 1986 to work for Brown & Williamson, declined to comment.

In the early 1980s, Brown & Williamson took Y-1 to DNA Plant Technology, a biotechnology company founded that year in Cinnaminson, N.J. At DNAP, the company later told the FDA, scientists used state-of-the-art breeding techniques, including processes known as protoplast fusion and hybrid sorting, to genetically alter the Y-1 strain.

David Evans, DNAP's project manager, did not respond to requests for interviews. The company did not respond to a list of questions.

When Y-1 emerged from DNAP's laboratory, it had a nicotine level of 6.2 percent -- double the amount of any tobacco commercially grown in America.

"What they had done was unheard of," said the FDA's Zeller. "All of a sudden, you had tobacco that was twice as powerful as anything out there."

Nothing in U.S. law would have prohibited Brown & Williamson from growing this new tobacco in America. However, a quality-control agreement between growers, cigarette makers and the government stipulates that tobacco with nicotine levels lower than 2 percent or greater than 4 percent is not eligible for federal price support. That means American farmers would have little interest in growing it.

Besides, Brown & Williamson CEO Thomas Sandefur would say in 1994, growing Y- 1 in the United States would make it too easy for competitors to get the seed.

But in a remote region of Brazil, Brown & Williamson had a corporate sister.

------

Y-1 and Y-2 seed first arrived in Brazil in 1983, according to Arcangelo Mondardo, a former Souza Cruz soil expert and tobacco researcher who worked on the project from 1983 to 1992. Mondardo is now a professor of agronomy at Unisul, a university in Santa Rosa do Sul, Brazil.

Seed was shipped to Souza Cruz in boxes marked "samples." More was stuffed in plain envelopes and sent by air mail, said Mondardo and two other Souza Cruz agronomists who worked on the project.

According to Zeller, Janis Bravo, a former DNAP scientist, told FDA investigators that she personally shipped more than 10 pounds of Y-1 seed to Brazil in one calendar year prior to 1991. Bravo declined to comment.

Jefferey S. Wigand, a former Brown & Williamson vice president for research (and the highest-ranking executive to turn against the industry), has testified that Phil Fisher, who was in charge of tobacco blending and testing for Brown & Williamson in Louisville, Ky., flew to Brazil "several times" with Y-1 seed hidden in cigarette packs. Fisher -- now retired, though he continues to work as a part-time consultant for the company -- declined to comment.

At the time, U.S. law prohibited export of tobacco seed, pollen or live plants without a special USDA permit. Permits could be granted only for quantities of a half-gram or less, and only for experimental use.

Neither Brown & Williamson nor DNAP ever sought such permits, said William Coats, an administrator at the USDA's tobacco division. The permit requirement was eliminated by legislation signed on Dec. 13, 1991, after tobacco companies lobbied for the change.

In late 1983, the growing began in Brazil.

That first year, Souza Cruz distributed Y-1 and Y-2 seed to 100 plantations and harvested more than a ton of the leaf, Mondardo said. Over the next several years, Souza Cruz distributed seed to hundreds more farms, most of them in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.

Production increased steadily, Mondardo said. One former company official, who asked not to be identified, said production reached 4.5 million pounds by 1990. Since it takes a pound of tobacco to make 20 cartons of cigarettes, 4.5 million pounds of high nicotine leaf, blended with weaker tobaccos in a 1-to-5 ratio, would be enough to make 450 million cartons.

By 1987, the company dropped Y-2 in favor of Y-1, according to Mondardo. Y- 1, he said, "had a stronger stalk and lost fewer leaves in the wind and rain. It matured better, had a better aroma. Most important, it was higher in nicotine."

In the early years of production, Brown & Williamson employees came to Brazil to observe the progress, Mondardo said.

"I test-smoked Y-1. Phil Fisher smoked it, too," in cigarettes blended with other tobaccos, Mondardo said. "It not only satisfied you, it gave you, well, a sort of pleasant high."

But there were bugs to be worked out.

Y-1 was too susceptible to some plant diseases. Worse, it produced fertile seeds that could be easily stolen and used by competitors. The company couldn't get patent protection for the plant because U.S. law permitted patents only for species altered by recombinant DNA -- a technique that had not been used to develop Y-1.

Souza Cruz and DNAP, the biotechnology company in New Jersey, both went to work on the problems.

In Brazil, Souza Cruz used crossbreeding on plantations to create hardier versions of Y-1, and created hundreds of new lines of tobacco from the breed. "Each one had a secret code number," said the source who worked on the project for about 10 years.

"We weren't just working for Brown & Williamson," said Volnei B. Sens, the agricultural operations manager for Souza Cruz in Rio Negro from 1987 to 1990. "An objective was to improve our own lines."

Mondardo said that by the time he left the company in 1992, "they had created about 1,000 new lines, and selected the best for commercial purposes."

Eloy Roque Sterz, a Souza Cruz field technician from 1991 to 1993, said he saw company reports showing the nicotine level of one hybrid at 8 percent -- nearly three times pre-Y-1 levels.

"The way it looked, grew, smelled," he said, "you couldn't NOT see Y-1's blood in it."

In the early 1990s, world demand for quality tobacco outpaced production. Souza Cruz saw the hybrids as an answer, said Adelar Fochezatto, a supervisor in Souza Cruz's tobacco experimentation department from 1986 to 1990. Cigarette companies could buy cheaper, weaker tobacco and blend it with the hybrids "to keep nicotine levels up where they needed them," he said.

By 1990, both farmers and former Souza Cruz agronomists said, the company was handing out seed from some of these new hybrids for farmers to grow in their fields.

The following year, both Souza Cruz and DNAP had succeeded in producing sterile varieties of Y-1 -- plants that could not reproduce without the artificial addition of special pollen. That September, Brown & Williamson applied for a U.S. patent. A basis for the patent, as stated in the application papers, was that DNAP had used recombinant DNA techniques to map the genes of Y- 1.

Pollen and seed for the sterile Y-1 created at DNAP were soon shipped to Brazil. Seventy grams of pollen were sent in three shipments in 1990, according to export certificates obtained by the AP. Fifty pounds of seed were legally shipped in 1993, another export certificate showed.

"With all of that pollen and seed, you could blanket all of Europe in tobacco," said Dr. Sebastiao Pinheiro, a leading Brazilian agronomist at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.

A 1981 Brazilian law forbids growing of foreign plants capable of "causing irreversible damage to genetic banks, ecosystems or humans." A 1995 law prohibits the cultivation of imported, genetically altered plants or hybrids made from them without government permission.

Growing large quantities of Y-1 and its hybrid cousins may have violated those laws, said Paulo Afonso Leme Machado, a law professor and President of the Brazilian Society of Environmental Law, and Dr. Eliana Fontes, a member of Brazil's biosafety commission.

Pinheiro and Machado said that large-scale growing of the genetically altered plants "could change the gene pool of our native tobacco species," and might pose unknown health risks to farmers. Fontes said Souza Cruz never applied for permission to grow those varieties. Souza Cruz declined to comment.

Once Y-1 was made sterile, several farmers said, Souza Cruz attempted to destroy all fertile, high-nicotine varieties to protect itself from competitors. But it was too late; the company had lost control of the varieties.

Farmers, who had taken a liking to Y-1 and its offspring because they brought high prices and cut about six weeks off the growing season, already had begun producing their own Y-1 seed and were swapping it among themselves.

They are still doing that today.

"Souza told us to stop planting louco," said Laury de Oliveira, 33, who owns a 10-acre farm. "But I don't listen. Look at it. In just two months it's up over your head. Now why am I going to stop? Nicotine?"

Enoir Mueller, a former Souza Cruz field instructor who grows fumo louco on an 8-acre farm, said: "The company line is that what we're planting today is different tobacco, but anyone who works with the stuff knows that's just a story."

Fumo louco brings the best price from the company's buyers, said David Moraes, another small farmer.

He led a reporter to his sorting barn. Lighting a match, he threw open the door.

Bitter air buffeted the senses. A sting in the back of the throat tightened into a knot. Lips tightened. Eyes tingled, itched, watered. A queasiness spread from the pit of the stomach up through the chest.

"That," said Moraes, turning up a kerosene lamp, "is the bite of fumo louco." ------ EDITOR'S NOTE -- Randy Herschaft, AP investigative researcher, contributed to this report.


=====================================



Date: Wed, 07 Jan 98 10:48:47 -0500
Subject: Hightower show on transgenics

Jim Hightower's New Year's Eve show was on transgenic food; the transcript follows:

A SURPRISE IN YOUR DINNER: "TRANSGENICS"

Wednesday, December 31, 1997

"What's for dinner?" is no longer the relevant question. "What's in dinner?" is a much more important question.

In addition to old-fashioned, cyclospora and salmonella, there are virulent, new, mutant bacteria like E.Coli 0157:H7, not to mention the unknown and untreatable prions that cause Mad Cow Disease.

As if this is not plenty to have on our plates, along come the corporate food technologists to add some nasty surprises to our daily rations. These engineers are taking the DNA from one organism and inserting it into another. The result are altered organisms that these Dr. Frankensteins call "Transgenics."

Transgenics are already in the supermarkets. Among the genetically engineered food you might be serving to your family tonight are tomatoes, corn, salmon, potatoes, cheese products and soy products.

I say "might be serving" because there's no way for you to know. Our government "watchdogs" have allowed Monsanto and other corporate manipulators to mess with the DNA of dinner without bothering to tell us. The altered products do not even have to be labeled!

Does it matter? Is a pig's butt pork? If you have a serious food allergy, eating the tampered bag of Fritos could kill you. The FDA says transgenics are safe, but -- get this -- there have been NO HUMAN TESTS! These corporate technologists are making foods never before eaten by humans -- we are their guinea pigs!

Even your baby might be part of their genetic experiments. The New York Times commissioned a test of soy-based baby formulas and found that Alsoy, Similac, Neocare, Isomil and Enfamil all contained genetically-altered soy ingredients -- which are going right into your babies.

This is Jim Hightower saying . . . If you think it's time to require all transgenics to be clearly labeled call Mothers For Natural Law on 515-472-2809.
For more information:

Mothers for Natural Law: 515-472-2809

Source: "Eating Well" by Marian Burros. New York Times: May 21, 1997.

Contact us directly at: hightower@essential.org

Hightower Home Copyright 1997 - Hightower and Associates, Inc.

Hightower's shows are available in audio at:
http://www.webactive.com/webactive/content/hightower.html


=================================================-=-=-=-=



Date: Mon, 08 Dec 97 19:02:36 -0500
Subject: NYTimes on "Bioserfdom" 12/8/97

Editorial: Biotechnology and the Future of Agriculture

by Verlyn Klinkenborg

Not long ago a cotton crop failed in the Mississippi Delta. In some fields planted with a new, genetically altered strain called Roundup Ready cotton, most of the bolls, from which the fiber is harvested, simply dropped away. For the farmers, it was an economic disaster. For Monsanto and the Delta and Pine Land Company, the developers of Roundup Ready cotton, it was a local public relations disaster -- the result, they allege, of bad weather, insects and human error. Roundup Ready cotton incorporates a gene that is supposed to allow a cotton plant to withstand the effects of a widely used weed killer called Roundup -- Monsanto's brand of a glyphosate herbicide. Monsanto has also developed strains of Roundup Ready soybeans and corn.

Nearly 14 million acres of cotton were planted in the United States this year, 3 million with Roundup Ready cotton. The failure of even a fragment of this country's genetically altered cotton is worrying because major agricultural corporations like Monsanto have committed themselves, and America's farmers, to the belief that biotechnology is the future of agriculture. This cotton failure, small as it is in national terms, dramatically demonstrates why that belief needs serious, continued scrutiny.

For thousands of years, farmers have looked for better varieties of the crops they plant, and for all but the last half century or so, farmers have been the principal means of improving crops. My grandfather, who farmed in northwestern Iowa before World War II, is a good example. He set aside some of each autumn's corn harvest, tested the ears of corn he saved and planted seeds from the best ones the following spring. He and many thousands of farmers like him controlled the genetic material on which their livelihoods, as well as America's food supply, depended. It wasn't necessarily the most efficient means of crop improvement, but it had the virtue of being broadly based -- genetically and politically -- and locally controlled. Steady observation and experimentation by farmers, after all, is how we got from the ancestral form of maize -- a thumb- sized nubbin of seeds -- to a modern ear of corn, which is as big as a man's forearm.

The genome of corn or soybeans or cotton is literally the common inheritance of humanity. Biotechnology manipulates that genome only fractionally -- inserting, say, a gene for pesticide resistance. But that is enough to allow a corporation to patent a manipulated version of the genome. Even if a patentable gene manipulation appears fairly benign, its use has an important impact on the diversity and control of agricultural genetics. A farmer who chooses to use Roundup Ready soybeans, for instance, must pay an additional "technology fee" of $5 per 50-pound bag of seed. He must also sign a licensing agreement that requires him to let Monsanto agents inspect his fields, prohibits him from using any glyphosate herbicide but Roundup and prevents him from saving seed for future planting. He also consents, implicitly, to the further centralization of agricultural control.

Certainly, Monsanto has a right to profit on its investment in this technology and to protect it. But the past half century in American agriculture has witnessed not only the flow of people from farms to cities but also the flow of information -- and with it economic and technological power -- from farmers to agricultural corporations. The introduction of gene-altered crops, and the licensing used to protect them, is one of the final steps in the reduction of farmers to what one agricultural foundation calls "bioserfdom" -- becoming mere suppliers of labor.

What is worse, Roundup Ready cotton offers exactly the wrong solution to the needs of farmers, who grasp at any economic advantage. There has been a boom in the production of organic cotton in recent years, driven in part by consumer demand. Roundup Ready cotton leads in exactly the opposite direction. Monsanto has created a Monsanto-brand cotton that tolerates a Monsanto-brand herbicide. In other words, the use of one Monsanto product thus guarantees the use of another. This may make sense in terms of corporate profits, but it makes no sense at all in terms of the resources that really matter -- the health of the land and the people who live upon it.

Monday, December 8, 1997
Copyright 1997 The New York Times


====================================



Subject: Herbicide Buctril ban
Herbicide Ban 01/07

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) Some Mississippi cotton growers say they will be hurt by a federal agency's decision not to allow continued production of a herbicide that has been teamed with genetically engineered cotton. But O.A. Cleveland Jr., an extension marketing specialist at Mississippi State University in Starkville, said it's too early to draw such a conclusion. "I think it's probably much ado about nothing at this stage," Cleveland said of the recent Environmental Protection Agency ruling.

Citing possible cancer risks, EPA announced it will not renew the temporary federal food tolerances granted during last year's growing season for the herbicide Buctril, specifically targeting an ingredient known as bromoxynil and a chemical byproduct called DBHA. The temporary use provisions ended Jan. 1. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. of North Carolina, which makes Buctril, has promised a vigorous challenge of the EPA decision.

Genetically altered cotton seed is resistant to Buctril, allowing growers to spray fields for weeds once the cotton begins growing without killing their crop.

The combination of special seeds and the herbicide is promoted as a way to save money. Farmers would not have to spray for weeds before the cotton emerges from the ground but could still spray later, depending on the weed growth.

Allowing the temporary tolerances for Buctril to expire will likely cut into the sale of the more expensive genetically altered seeds, officials said.

Continued cultivation of the new cotton poses "serious concerns about developmental risks to infants and children," said Lynn Goldman, an assistant EPA administrator.

"In particular, we are concerned that the data show significant and irreversible human health effects," Goldman informed U.S. cotton growers in a letter.

In allowing the temporary use provision to expire, EPA applied new pesticide rules that provide more health protection for infants and children. It applied an additional tenfold safety factor for assessing health risks under the federal Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which emphasized that children are exposed to more pesticides in food or can be more sensitive to them.

Private scientists and state officials said the risk of unspecified birth defects was at issue in the Buctril decision.

The chemicals enter diets through various foods cooked in or made with products derived from cottonseed, such as mayonnaise or corn chips fried in cottonseed oil. The EPA said unacceptable health risks also may arise from eating such things as beef and poultry from animals fed cottonseed meal. The agency said it is concerned about unacceptable cancer risks of continued use of the herbicide on cotton. A recent laboratory study showed bromoxynil produces liver tumors in mice.

"We don't think it is a decision based on sound science," said Rhone-Poulenc spokesman Rick Rountree. "We think the dietary risk is absolutely minuscule."

====================================



Date: Tue, 10 Mar 98 20:19:27 -0500
Subject: Food Fascism

The [London] Guardian March 5 1998

US plans would banish genuine organic produce

FOOD FASCISM

George Monbiot

OPRAH WINFREY is an unlikely hero of the battle against big business. Yet the case she won last week, in which she established her right to express an opinion about the merits of eating beefburgers, ranks with the McDonald's libel trial as one of the few serious setbacks suffered by the agro-industrial combines seeking to monopolise world food production.

She had been sued, by a syndicate of monster cattle ranchers, under the surreal "food disparagement" laws introduced in 14 American states to prevent people from questioning such practices as feeding bovine offal to cows.

These laws are a compelling demonstration of the lengths to which US legislators will go to defend the interests of corporations against the interests of the citizen. We can only be thankful that there's an ocean between us and American plutocracy.

Our happy state won't last, however. Winfrey might have won her battle, but the war waged by an industry that can tolerate no dissent has only just begun. Its latest attempt to silence criticism and eliminate good practice is already well- advanced, and this time the consequences for Britain are just as profound as the consequences for America.

ON MARCH 16, the US Department of Agriculture will close its consultations on a new national standard for organic farming. Its proposals have horrified small farmers, consumer groups and animal welfare campaigners. If adopted and implemented as protesters predict, they will outlaw genuine organic production all over the world.

The USDA would allow fruit and vegetables to be labelled "organic" in the United States which have been genetically engineered, irradiated, treated with additives and raised on contaminated sewage sludge. Under the new proposals, "organic" livestock can be housed in batteries, fed with the offal of other animals and injected with biotics. "Organic" produce, in the brave new world of American oligopoly, will be virtually indistinguishable from conventionally- toxic food.

The solution would seem to be obvious: genuine organic producers should call their food something else. But the USDA is nothing if not far-sighted. The new proposals prohibit the setting of standards higher than those established by the department. Farmers will, in other words, be forbidden by law from producing and selling good food.

The next step, if these standards are adopted in the United States, is not hard to anticipate. American manufacturers will complain to their government that the European Union is erecting unfair barriers to trade, by refusing to allow them to label the poisonous produce they sell here as organic food. The US Government will take the case to the World Trade Organization. The WTO will refer it to Codex Alimentarius, the food standards body dominated by corporate scientists. The Codex panel will decide that they cannot see -any difference between American organic produce and European organic produce, and the WTO will threaten Europe with punitive sanctions if it continues to maintain the higher trading standard. This is precisely the means by which European consumers are being forced to eat beef and drink milk contaminated with injectable growth hormones.

There's no mystery about why US agribusiness wants its Washington subsidiary, the USDA, to set these new standards. The consumption of organic food is rising by 20-30 per cent a year and, in some countries, is likely to become the dominant land use. Organic farming is labour intensive. It responds best to small-scale production, matched to the peculiarities of the land.

Big business simply can't operate in an environment like this. There is no potential for hegemony. What it can't control, it must destroy. The United States government claims to be the champion of free trade, but it is, in truth, emphatically opposed to it. It seeks instead to exercise a coercive power of central control and legislative diktat, on a scale which makes the command economies of the old Soviet Union look like a village paper-round.

I've long believed that we should be allowed to vote in US elections, as their outcome affects us almost as much as it affects the Americans. British people now have a brief opportunity to do the next best thing, and demand of the USDA that it drops this attempt to smother the seeds of rehabilitation. There are no second chances. Once the new standards come into force, our own Government will be powerless to protect us from the consequences.

============================================================-




Date: Sat, 11 Apr 98 09:26:00 -0500
Subject: Monsanto's RRS vs Am. Cyanamid

Tuesday March 24, 4:23 pm Eastern Time
Company Press Release
SOURCE: American Cyanamid Company

2) Field Trial Results Show Economics of Weed Control in Roundup Ready and Elite Soybeans

PARSIPPANY, N.J., March 24 /PRNewswire/ -- America's farmers could experience yield losses up to $43 per acre when choosing to use Monsanto's (NYSE: MTC - news) Roundup Ready(R)* soybean program. The yield differential is shown when growers plant Roundup Ready soybeans and rely on a single application of Monsanto's Roundup Ultra(TM)* herbicide, rather than use a residual control herbicide program or plant ``elite'' soybean varieties. These findings are based on a series of field trials conducted for American Cyanamid Company in 1997 by growers across U.S. soybean-producing regions and assume a soybean market price of $6.50 per bushel.

``These trials demonstrate that many growers are seeing a different economic picture than was anticipated from the Roundup Ready soybean program,'' says Howard Minigh, president, global agricultural products for American Cyanamid, the leader in the U.S. soybean herbicide market. Cyanamid's portfolio of soybean herbicides provides farmers season-long, residual control of weeds, protecting the crop from planting to harvest, and can be used on all soybean varieties.

``The grower trials confirm what we have been saying for years and what university researchers have already found: weed pressure in the first four weeks of the growing season negatively affects yields,'' Minigh adds. ``Roundup on Roundup Ready soybeans is one weed control option, but it is not the only solution for U.S. farmers. We believe growers should choose seed varieties that have the best all-around genetic package and then plan their weed control to optimize yields.''

Early-season residual weed control in Roundup Ready soybeans is not possible when based solely on Roundup Ultra, which may call for leaving weeds untreated for up to four-and-a-half weeks. During those crucial weeks, the field trials show, there can be significant yield loss as the soybeans compete with the vigorously growing weeds for light, water and nutrients. Residual control herbicides such as Cyanamid's IMI(TM) imidazolinone herbicides protect the crop against this early competition.

Large-Scale Field Trials Show Range of Yield Advantage with Residual Control

Results from three different series of field trials totaling nearly 300 across the United States show that farmers will want to consider seed genetics and the best agronomic advice to fit their farming operation, soil conditions and weather.

The most significant difference in yields was seen in the trials that compared Roundup Ready soybeans to elite, i.e., superior, varieties, which are not tolerant to Roundup Ultra. In more than 100 comparisons on growers' fields, elite varieties treated with a Cyanamid imidazolinone product had a 20-percent average yield advantage over Roundup Ready soybean varieties that were treated with only a single application of Roundup Ultra. The fact that the Roundup Ready gene currently is not available in many top-yielding varieties could cost the grower at harvest about $43 per acre in yield loss, based on a soybean price of $6.50 per bushel.

Another 86 field trials showed that residual weed control programs based on a Cyanamid imidazolinone herbicide outyielded a single application of Roundup Ultra in identical Roundup Ready soybean varieties by an average of 18 percent, or 4.7 bushels per acre. These fields were weed-free from the start. That means choosing to plant Roundup Ready soybeans and following a standard Roundup Ready program could potentially cost soybean producers nearly $30 per acre in yield loss.

In the third series, Cyanamid's residual-based herbicide program on Roundup Ready soybeans followed by or tank-mixed with Roundup Ultra as needed outperformed the same soybean varieties grown with only a single application of Roundup Ultra by an average of 11.8 percent. This finding was based on 200 trials that were weed-free from the start.

``The importance of these findings cannot be overstated because of the impact on U.S. growers' profitability,'' says Stephen Briggs, who heads Cyanamid's field force of agronomy specialists. ``Without early-season residual control, the soybean crop does not have the ability to withstand the weed competition and produce to its maximum yield potential.''

Residual Weed Control Protects Crop and Profits

A soybean herbicide program with residual properties, such as Cyanamid's Squadron(R), Pursuit(R) Plus, Steel,(R) or Prowl(R) followed by Pursuit(R) herbicide, will control weeds that compete with the crop for nutrients, moisture and sunlight during the critical first few weeks of a plant's growth, Briggs adds. IMI(TM) herbicides will control weeds that are already growing, as well as those that have yet to emerge through the soil surface.

Conversely, a herbicide such as Roundup Ultra will only control those weeds that are actively growing above the soil surface. Since not all weeds germinate at the same time, weeds that emerge after the first treatment in a Roundup program must be resprayed, meaning multiple applications of Roundup and multiple trips across the field. This further reduces profit because of increased cost of additional herbicide, fuel and time spent treating the crop.

American Cyanamid is an early innovator in developing herbicide-tolerant crops, launching the first of these crops nearly six years ago. In 1992, it introduced IMI-CORN(R) hybrids, a nontransgenic biotechnology discovery that allows farmers to use imidazolinone herbicides on their corn. Through advanced plant breeding techniques and collaboration with seed industry partners, Cyanamid has now brought more than 200 IMI-CORN hybrids to farmers.

In 1997, LIGHTNING(R) herbicide was launched and applied to almost one million acres of IMI-CORN because of its outstanding performance in controlling weeds.

Cyanamid is working with universities and seed company partners to extend its imidazolinone tolerant technology to other crops. In Canada, canola farmers use ODYSSEY(TM) herbicide on SMART(TM) canola. Breeding programs and research and development are underway to expand the IMI herbicide-tolerant trait to other major agronomic crops, including wheat and rice.

Soybeans are naturally tolerant to many imidazolinone herbicides, which were introduced in 1985. This class of chemistry was discovered by Cyanamid scientist Dr. Marinus Los who was awarded the presidential National Medal of Technology in 1993 for his contribution to the protection and production of commercial crops. The IMI herbicides are especially notable for their low use rates and favorable environmental profile.

American Cyanamid Company is a subsidiary of American Home Products Corporation (AHP) (NYSE: AHP - news), which is one of the world's largest research- based pharmaceutical and health care products companies. AHP is a leader in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications. It is also a global leader in vaccines, biotechnology, agricultural products and animal health care.

The statements in this press release that are not historical facts are forward- looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties including those detailed from time to time in AHP's periodic reports, including quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and the annual report on Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Actual results may differ from the forward-looking statements.
Always read and follow label directions.

a.. (R)/(TM) Trademarks, American Cyanamid Company (C)1998.
b.. Roundup Ready(R) and Roundup Ultra(TM) are trademarks of Monsanto
Company
SOURCE: American Cyanamid Company


=============================================-=-=-=-=


Date: Sun, 12 Apr 98 15:47:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Hormonal [rBGH] rage

RIVERFRONT TIMES, APRIL 8, 1998

HORMONAL RAGE: Monsanto spikes a Florida TV story about its bovine growth hormone. Reporters refused to be cowed.

BY JEANNETTE BATZ

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife team of investigative reporters for Tampa Bay's WTVT (Channel 13), were proud of their four-part series on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (BGH). The station, a new Fox affiliate, was proud, too -- it bought radio ads to promote the series. They'd already begun to air when a Monsanto attorney sent a warning letter to the CEO of Fox News.

Nine months of postponements, bitter arguments and 73 rewrites followed. The "facts" at issue were as slippery as a just-milked cow. Monsanto's BGH is a genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows to boost milk production. The reporters' initial script was full of lively criticism, punctuated by briefer clips of Monsanto denying, correcting, explaining. The science in question is fairly subjective; how you weight the various explanations is also a judgment call. Akre and Wilson leaned toward a handful of renegade critics, not the official regulatory agencies that have approved BGH without long-term testing.

But they never expected to lose their jobs over it. Last Thursday, they filed suit against the station, charging that their December firing violated Florida's whistle-blower law.

Akre, who once worked here at KTVI (Channel 2), has nearly 20 years of broadcast experience; Wilson has 25. Both have won awards for their reporting. For their BGH script, the pair had plenty of videotaped interviews and a binder of background material on the genetically engineered hormone's unexplored health risks, its prevalence on Florida dairy farms, the effects on dairy cows and the large grocers who had quietly reneged on a promise not to sell milk from treated cows until BGH won widespread acceptance.

The reporters say the series' script had been approved by the local station's news director and scheduled for Feb. 24, 1997, when a letter arrived at the office of Fox News chief Roger Ailes on Feb. 21 from John J. Walsh of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, a New York law firm retained by Monsanto. Walsh wanted to notify Ailes that Monsanto officials had sensed bias in the WTVT reporters and doubted their ability to be fair. He suggested that Fox senior executives proceed with caution. "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida," he concluded, "not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner."

Walsh never suggested censoring the story, of course; he simply urged "a more level playing field" and a more leisurely pace. "While Akre and Wilson spoke of a 'deadline' for submission of these materials," he wrote, "it is inconceivable that treatment of this important subject, which is not a breaking news story, be rushed to fill some pre-designated news programming slot."

The series was postponed one week; Akre and Wilson were notified that very afternoon. WTVT fine-combed the story, but, according to the reporters, could find no inaccuracies. It was decided that Akre would offer Monsanto a second interview. When a Monsanto official requested a list of the questions in advance, however, Akre offered a list of topics instead. (It is not standard practice for journalists to provide specific questions.)

Walsh fired back a letter saying, "It simply defies credulity that an experienced journalist would expect a representative of any company to go on camera and respond to the vague, undetailed -- and for the most part accusatory -- points listed by Ms. Akre. Indeed, some of the points clearly contain the elements of defamatory statements which, if repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News." He ended by reminding Ailes that the development of the series "requires close, continuing attention from you and/or other senior news executives of Fox."

Next came a hellish period of rewriting, documentation, argument. According to the reporters' lawsuit, they were told to include information they knew to be false or misleading. In an April 10, 1997, letter, Fox's legal vice president, Carolyn Y. Forrest, informed Akre and Wilson that they were writing "combative, contentious memoranda" about a story that was being handled no differently than any other. "I am sure you can appreciate that the application of neutral principles will yield different results," she wrote, "depending on the subject matter to which the principles are applied." She tacitly conceded that the Monsanto letter had begun the discussion, but said "subsequent scrutiny of the BGH script has been inspired by the unnecessary risk caused by the lack of fairness and the deficiencies we have found in the story."

What deficiencies did the requested rewrite correct? If you compare the scripts posted on the reporters' Web site, the requested version made more deletions than additions, omitting credentials of controversial experts and deleting such quotes as, "We're going to save some lives if we review this now," from a scientist critical of Monsanto's product. The rewrite also deleted the University of Florida's role in the research, promotion and approval of BGH; deleted specific mention of IGF-1, a growth factor that increases in milk from treated cows; and substituted "human health implications" for "cancer." The Florida grocers who had originally pledged not to sell the milk until it won widespread acceptance (they later reneged) were credited with responding to consumer wishes, not protecting their sales.

The reporters say they were told to withhold information about Monsanto's previous behavior so it wouldn't look as if they were "building a case" against Monsanto. Meanwhile, they had to fight to keep a colorful "crack for cows" description of BGH first uttered eight years ago by the Massachusetts agricultural commissioner and since quoted by more than a dozen publications. WTVT made their reporters track down the former commissioner and confirm the quote.

There were a few additions, though: Akre and Wilson say they were required to include the assertion, "This is the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," which they believed to be untrue. At one point they suggested simply killing the story rather than doing something they considered misleading. "We will not 'kill' the story," Forrest assured them, "but we will review and edit it until it meets our standards.... If you are chafing under the editorial and legal scrutiny, you may find it more useful to actively cooperate in producing a fair and balanced report." If they couldn't live with that, she suggested they say so, "without rancor or bombast, and we will release you from your contract with us. Although we want you to remain a part of our team, please be advised that your failure to adhere to and cooperate with our procedures and directions constitute insubordination and are a breach of your employment agreement."

According to the lawsuit, the new WTVT general manager, David Boylan, told Akre and Wilson that he "wasn't interested" in looking at the story himself and pressured them to follow the company lawyer's directions, adding, "Are you sure this is a hill you're willing to die on?" On April 16, they say, he told them, "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." He then notified them they would be fired for insubordination within 48 hours and another reporter would make the requested changes. "When we said we'd file a formal complaint with the FCC if that happened," notes Wilson, "we were not fired but were each offered very large cash settlements to go away and keep quiet about the story and how it was handled."

They did not accept. But on May 6, they received a separation agreement that would bind them to silence about "Monsanto's pre-broadcast objections to the News Report, the Station's legal review of the News Report and the Station's response to Monsanto's objections." They refused to sign -- but kept a copy.

On May 29, according to the lawsuit, Forrest told them she didn't think their story was "worth going to court and to trial spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." The reporters say she made it clear that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was whether the station could quickly and easily defend itself from a possible lawsuit by Monsanto.

By June 19, the reporters say they had rewritten the script as directed. They still contended that the changes were misleading or inaccurate. Akre says she was told to be available for other work starting June 23 and was assigned to report on the vandalism of a vacant house, a "news story" not covered by any other station. The BGH series, meanwhile, was rescheduled to air July 28. The reporters met with the new vice president for news, Philip Metlin, and say he agreed that some of the changes didn't work. They modified the changes, but Fox lawyers didn't like their modifications. The broadcast was rescheduled, then rescheduled again.

The couple left on a long-planned vacation -- and returned in September to a letter notifying Wilson of possible termination three months hence. (Akre's letter apparently went astray in the mail.) In October, they say, they were suspended without pay ("as an act to evidence good faith and to evidence willingness to continue to work on the BGH story") and locked out of their offices, where computers contained much of their research. During their suspension, they were told to complete two versions of the script, theirs and the requested one.

On Dec. 2, Akre and Wilson were fired. On April 2 of this year, they filed a civil suit against the station. (If they win, they plan to give whatever's left after legal fees to a journalism organization to fund journalists in similar predicaments.) When we called Boylan, the station manager, for comment, we were furnished with an official statement blaming "journalistic differences": "The reporters were not willing to be objective in the story nor accept editorial oversight and news counsel.... The station stood by its standards of fairness and balance in its reporting despite the reporters' threats of retaliation." The station also says its rejected offer to pay Wilson and Akre to work as "consultants" in exchange for their silence "can in no way be characterized as 'hush' money."

The "science" of BGH milk is a muddle of corporate interests, subjective interpretations, blithe approvals and persistent accusations first addressed by the RFT four years ago ("Udder Madness," Jan. 19, 1994). Critics of BGH cite higher levels of antibiotic residue in milk from treated cows, because superproducers are vulnerable to mastitis (udder infections). Monsanto biotech spokesman Gary Barton points to a two-year study that Monsanto contracted six months after BGH hit the market, which showed no increase in antibiotic sales or residues. But, according to Wilson, the sampling and screening process is inadequate for a wide array of antibiotics. "The lab director for the Tampa Independent Dairy co-op is the only man who routinely tests every single load of raw milk that comes from farms in this area," notes Wilson. "In an on-camera interview, he admits he tests for dangerous and illegal antibiotic drug residue only in the penicillin family."

Another point of contention is IGF-1, a substance that increases in milk from treated cows and has been shown to speed tumor growth in other contexts. Monsanto attorney Walsh wrote that "there is no increase in the level of IGF-1 in the milk," but Barton says the potential exists for a slight increase that still falls within a "normal" range. (Some estimate a 25 percent increase, some say 2-20 times as much, some say roughly 10-fold.) Barton says the levels occurring naturally in the human body are far higher than the negligible increase in the milk, and he groans over a recent flurry of calls about a January report in Science linking high IGF-1 levels to prostate cancer. "That's interesting," he says, "but it had nothing to do with milk."

Dr. Michael Hansen, a research biologist at the Consumer Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., who was one of the reporters' sources, says "what is important is the hormones' local concentration. You don't measure globally throughout the body. Hormones are often active at incredibly low levels, and there is often an exquisite balance." Hansen agrees that normally, "IGF-1 would degrade fairly rapidly," but he says "the presence of casein, the major protein in milk, appears to help it survive digestion."

These issues are still new enough, and complex enough, that what you believe is ultimately a matter of whose research and interpretation you trust. Most regulatory groups have agreed with Monsanto. But economics play a part in the emerging consensus, too. And Akre feels justified in her skepticism about official reassurances of safety: "Monsanto owned the studies they contracted out with universities."

Akre and Wilson are convinced that, despite repeated assurances that the story was important, the station never wanted to air it after that first Monsanto letter. The station claimed that the problem was one of insubordination, yet even after they fired the reporters, "they did nothing to get the story on the air with a reporter they could trust," observes Wilson. "Their local reporter was out trying to find out which pizza parlor put the least cheese on their pizza."

The recipient of the initial letter, Ailes, was unavailable for comment after undergoing hip surgery. Pat Anderson, the attorney representing WTVT, says all Ailes did was "pass the letter down the food chain," because the station is owned by Fox Television Stations Inc., not Fox News. "I don't exactly understand the corporate structure -- it is truly complicated," she adds. "But eventually it filtered its way down to the station."

Fast filtering: The reporters say they were notified of the postponement the afternoon of the day Ailes received the letter. Still, Anderson says the real problem was that the series couldn't pass the company lawyers' libel review. "Prepublication review is a normal thing," she points out. "What was not normal about this was the reporters' refusal to include Monsanto's side of the story. I think what happened is, the reporters became convinced; they became advocates."

And the lines between advocacy, truth, integrity and insubordination thin to pencil width when an expensive lawsuit's in the offing.

Meanwhile, back at corporate headquarters, Barton says it's not Monsanto's fault the story was never broadcast. "I don't know why they couldn't get their story on the air," he remarks lightly. "All we've ever asked from journalists is to be as fair as possible. We never stopped answering their questions. All of a sudden, they just stopped calling. I always wondered what happened."

The reporters' allegations are posted on their Web site: www.foxBGHsuit.com. n

===================================================-=-=-=-=



Date: Mon, 04 May 98 13:20:33 -0500
Subject: Monsanto article, NYTimes, May 2, 1998

2 May 1998 New York Times

Getting Biotechnology Set to Hatch

By BARNABY J. FEDER

T. LOUIS -- As biotechnology pioneers like Monsanto Co. see it, the moment is arriving when science can give business the power to put the clock of evolution on fast forward.

To date, the tinkering has already produced products like Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes, which come armed with a bacterial gene that produces a protein deadly to the pesky Colorado potato beetle. But New Leaf springs from research in the 1980s when the available technology limited Monsanto to moving just 60 foreign genes a year into potatoes. Now, Monsanto can create 10,000 new combinations annually.

The more fundamental "genomics" research, which identifies genes and various combinations that might prove useful, is also accelerating. Monsanto's cost to figure out the sequence of amino acids that make up a gene -- the basic control unit of life -- has been slashed to $150 from $2.5 million in 1974. As a result, Monsanto estimates, its library of genetic information and the libraries of all other major drug and agricultural players in the biotechnology field are doubling every 12 to 24 months.

Sound familiar? In the world of electronics, that same rate of explosive growth is known as Moore's Law, after Gordon Moore, the cofounder of Intel Corp. who projected in 1965 that the number of transistors on a microchip would multiply at that clip, fueling a computer revolution.

"It means we are going to have the tools to address big and historically intractable problems with life as we know it, things like how to make plants grow in dry climates and how to live well with heart disease," said Robert Shapiro, Monsanto's chairman and chief executive.

There remain formidable political, marketing and technical risks to, as critics put it, "playing God." But with biotechnology's knowledge engine now running at Silicon Valley speed, Wall Street and many in the biotechnology business are convinced that their industry will produce "life science" giants as prosperous as Intel and Microsoft and that the next few years are likely to sort out many of the eventual winners -- and losers.

For now, Monsanto, based in St. Louis, is seen as the biotechnology front-runner. Sure, the company, which had $7.5 billion in revenues last year, is more than biotechnology alone. Moreover, the new products have a long way to go before Monsanto recoups the more than $1 billion it has invested in biotechnology research. But Monsanto is already raking in profits from having placed a lot of heavy biotechnology bets early in the agricultural sector and is now moving into other sectors, like pharmaceuticals.

"They have the best strategy in biotech and they are executing it better than anyone else," said Jerry Caulder, who recently retired as chairman of Mycogen Corp., a biotechnology pioneer now controlled by Dow Agrosciences, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co.

Shapiro says he owes the "fabulous hand" he is playing to Richard Mahoney, his predecessor at Monsanto, who began pouring money into biotechnology in the 1970s after scientists reported key breakthroughs in cloning and techniques to move genes between species. "He had a sense that the fundamental technology would succeed and the rest would fall into place," Shapiro said.

But Monsanto's coronation is hardly a done deal. For one thing, it has rivals that dwarf it, led by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in this country and Novartis of Switzerland. DuPont, which retains huge interests in oil and industrial chemicals, aims to quadruple its sales of agricultural products alone to more than $40 billion within 15 years.

The high-stakes scramble for an advantage made billion-dollar takeover prizes last year out of obscure companies like Holden's Foundation Seeds Inc. (Monsanto) and Protein Technologies International (DuPont). All the major biotechnology players in drugs, food and farm products are constantly seeking alliances and partners. (In its 1997 annual report, Monsanto listed 16 deals over 14 months.) And there have been mega-mergers, such as the 1996 marriage of Sandoz and Ciba Geigy of Switzerland to create Novartis, a farm-to- drugs giant nearly four times the size of Monsanto.

Currently, all eyes are on DeKalb Genetics Corp., a leading seed company that has put itself up for sale. The quickest way to move biotechnology into the food chain is to genetically alter the seeds of the best-selling strains of major crops that companies like DeKalb have developed through traditional breeding. Although it is a distant No. 2 to Pioneer Hi-Bred International in the domestic seed business, analysts predict that DeKalb will be worth more than $2 billion.

Monsanto is thought to have an edge in the bidding, which is expected to be decided as early as next week. It already owns 45 percent of DeKalb's nonvoting shares and 10 percent of the voting shares. DuPont is on the sidelines after having shelled out $1.7 billion last year for 20 percent of Pioneer HiBred. But Novartis, Hoechst of Germany, Dow Chemical and Cargill are seen as potential deep-pocketed bidders who may need DeKalb even more than Monsanto does.

It would be a great final exam question for an MBA: At what price is Monsanto better off losing DeKalb and pocketing a huge cash gain on its shares that could be used for other acquisitions? Whatever the outcome, Shapiro disagrees with analysts who say the showdown comes at a bad time for his company because it has been financially strained by its other investments.

"On the whole, it's in our interest for things to happen as fast as possible," he said.

That was not the attitude of Monsanto a generation ago, when it was known for plastics, synthetic fibers, industrial chemicals and its somewhat defensive slogan, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

Thanks to years of pruning and grafting, Monsanto now sells itself on Wall Street as the prototype "life sciences" company for the next century. To drive home the point, Monsanto spun off most of its chemical operations last summer into a new company called Solutia.

Although the future belongs to biotechnology, the current ace in the hole in Monsanto's life-sciences strategy is Roundup, the world's best- selling herbicide. It is widely used even by farmers who are not growing soybeans, cotton or corn that has been altered to tolerate spraying with it. And Monsanto's drug subsidiary, G.D. Searle, has a strong portfolio of products developed through conventional methods, including a potential blockbuster in a new arthritis treatment.

Still, Monsanto says all its operations -- from Searle to its food ingredient business (best known for Nutrasweet) to its herbicide and seed divisions -- will increasingly be linked to biotechnology. "Life begins at 97," say the signs posted here, referring to both the Solutia spinoff and the company's founding in 1901.

Wall Street is impressed. Monsanto's stock, adjusted for splits, soared from $13.75 in 1995 to a peak of $56.1875 on April 9, and that is not counting the value of the spunoff Solutia shares.

1/8Monsanto closed at $54.375 Friday, up $1.50, and Solutia at $28.50, up 12.5 cents.)

It helps that Shapiro and other senior managers have compensation packages heavily tied to the stock's performance, including requirements that they invest in options that will be worthless unless the stock increases 60 percent in the next five years. But the most telling endorsement of Monsanto's strategy is that analysts have been pestering broader-based companies with strong life sciences businesses, like DuPont and Hoechst, to divest their other operations.

DuPont, for one, doesn't see the need. It contends that biotechnology will eventually contribute to its industrial business -- plants could be altered to produce nylon and other oil-based products, for example. DuPont also says it is ahead of Monsanto in achieving breakthroughs in the genetics of food and animal feed. Monsanto's high-profile success, it contends, has been largely confined to inserting traits in crops that affect how much insecticide or herbicide farmers use, instead of actually changing what is grown.

Bragging rights are valuable, but each also has a lot to gain from the other's successes. The industry needs hit products to knock down the barriers to faster commercialization of biotechnology.

But the specter that is haunting biotechnology, particularly in Europe, is the specter of what British tabloids like to call "Frankenstein food." Polls show that Europeans are more worried than Americans about genetically modified products.

Agrevo, the joint venture of Hoechst and Schering AG, recently postponed the introduction in the United States of soybeans it has altered to tolerate its Liberty herbicide because of doubts that American farmers would be able to sell their harvests to Europe, a major export market.

Here in the United States, the latest sign of tensions is the fierce opposition of consumer and organic farming groups to a proposal by the Department of Agriculture to label genetically altered crops as organic if grown without synthetic chemicals. The regulatory issues could become even more complicated as Monsanto and others home in on altered crops to promote human health. DuPont this year began contracting with farmers to grow a strain of soybeans that produces less fatty oil. Monsanto is aiming for cornflakes that reduce cholesterol and crops that stimulate the production of hormones to fend off osteoporosis.

"We will need to clarify the difference between drugs and nutrients, decide whether these products have to prove safety and efficacy, and figure out what kind of patent protection they will get," said Ganesh Kishore, co-president of Monsanto's nutrition operations, who is also in charge of integrating biotechnology research across Monsanto's businesses.

The uncertainty and the fast pace of change have led Shapiro to introduce some alien management genes into his company. Monsanto has adopted Silicon Valley's casual dress code, for instance. To mix technical and business skills, most operations are now headed by co-managers. Monsanto was an early adopter of the concept of using temporary teams from several departments to attack problems.

"There's some confusion now over who should make decisions," Shapiro conceded. "But the energy level is good, and people are thinking more broadly."

Shapiro is a New York City native and former law professor who freely admits to interest in management ideas he sees others laughing off as "too New Age." Monsanto, he said, may even one day experiment with having employees choose their own managers and with shaping budgets by how many people want to work on a project.

But Monsanto has to be careful about evolving a culture that is hard for outsiders to fathom. "Building a network of companies we can work with around the world is a key job for us," said Hendrik Verfaillie, Monsanto's president and the heir apparent to the 59-year-old Shapiro.

Shapiro suggests that biotechnology is developing so rapidly that the biggest cultural challenge of all may lie ahead: merging Monsanto with a major rival, even if that means the other company's chief executive emerges on top.

"The economic logic is there for more consolidation, although emotion gets in the way," Shapiro said. "I was very impressed with the creation of Novartis."

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company


========================================-=-=-=-=


Date: Mon, 04 May 98 19:07:27 -0500
Subject: Organic ruled out for biotech, irradiated food


'Organic' Label Ruled Out For Biotech, Irradiated Food


By Rick Weiss
The Washington Post
Friday, May 1, 1998; Page A02

Intense pressure and criticism from tens of thousands of citizens have pushed Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to decide that genetically engineered and irradiated food, and crops fertilized with sewage sludge, should not be allowed to be labeled "organic," according to an administration official.

That decision, still not formalized but described by the official as all but inevitable, would remove three of the more contentious issues threatening to derail an effort to codify for the first time a federal definition of organic food.

But several other elements of the USDA proposal remain controversial, including the rule's relatively liberal allowance for the use of antibiotics, nonorganic feed and long-term confinement of animals in the production of organic meat.

An estimated 150,000 people flooded the Agriculture Department with cards and letters during the four-month comment period on the proposal that ended yesterday -- more comments than the department had ever received on any single rule.

The proposed rule had left open the question of whether gene-modified, irradiated or sludge-fertilized crops could be deemed organic. The vast majority of comments opposed those ideas. Moreover, most were personal and passionate, as opposed to mass-produced form letters from interest groups -- an indication of the American public's increasingly fervent hunger for "natural" foods.

In the end, Glickman didn't have "much choice" but to rule out the three most contentious categories of food, at least for now, said the official, who is close to the decision-making process and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He's a realist," the source said. "It has to be a rule that everyone is able to embrace. And the other side has been too compelling."

Representatives of the organic industry said yesterday that even those concessions would be insufficient. Indeed, given the large gap between what they had envisioned and what the USDA had proposed, they already have begun to create an alternative, independent national system for certifying organic farms and food. That system, they said, would be more in keeping with the stricter standards now in place in several states and European countries.

"We see at least 66 major deal breakers in this proposed rule," said Michael Sligh, who until last year chaired the National Organic Standards Board, created by Congress in 1990 to oversee the creation and implementation of an organic food rule.

"USDA must rewrite this rule," Sligh said at a news conference. "That's the only way to regain public trust."

Glickman said he could not comment specifically on how the department would respond to what he called the "extraordinary" wave of public opinion generated by the proposed rule, but he did promise "significant modifications" in a final rule that he hoped would be approved by the end of this year after allowing for additional comments.

He said he had never considered the proposal perfect, but given the enormous delays that had plagued the rule-making process since Congress demanded standards in 1990, he was proud to get the process going.

"We knew there were areas that were not complete and there would be controversy," he said. "But rather than work on it for another seven years, we said, 'Let's get the rule out and get started.' "

Pressure on Glickman rose this week when dozens of members of Congress signed letters criticizing the proposal. Even agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. declared in a letter to Glickman last week that it favored delaying any effort to include genetically engineered foods on a national list of approved organic products -- a move some saw as a defensive effort to preclude a permanent ban.

Philip Angell, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based Monsanto, said the company decided to press for a delay in consideration of genetically engineered foods so the company could examine the issue more closely. "We are in the process of developing extensive data showing the sustainable agriculture benefits and the other benefits of some biotech crops . . . that are in keeping with the concept of organic," he said.

Beyond clarifying the meaning of organic for consumers, a federal definition could have significant economic implications domestically and internationally. The $4 billion U.S. organic industry is growing by more than 20 percent a year, spurring many of the nation's bigger food conglomerates to try to cash in on the word's cachet. But the lack of federal standards for the term organic -- which generally means "free of synthetic chemicals and pesticides" but also encompasses broader concepts of environmentally sound food production -- has threatened to undermine consumer confidence and sales.

Sligh and others representing the organic food industry said they were especially troubled by a provision in the proposed rule that gives the agriculture secretary authority to add products to a national list of approved organic foods. Organic industry advocates argue that Congress granted those powers only to the National Organic Standards Board.

If Glickman insists on retaining that authority in a final rule, advocates said, a lawsuit is likely to follow.



Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

===============================-=-=-=-=



Date: Tue, 05 May 98 14:14:04 -0500
Subject: Novartis corn harms lacewings

London Times 4 May 1998 SCIENCE BRIEFING

THE FUTURE of maize (US corn) which has been gene-modified could be put in jeopardy by Swiss research that shows it can kill beneficial insects as well as pests. The new results may reopen the argument over European Union authorisation for the crop, which came despite British objections and which has been challenged by two EU states, Austria and Luxembourg.

The maize is made by Novartis (formerly Ciba Seeds) and incorporates a gene from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that makes a protein poisonous to the larvae of the corn-borer. The B. thuringiensis protein was used as a spray against the pest, but that required application at the time the larvae emerged and before they bored into plant stems. Novartis put the gene into the plant itself.

A team at the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture in Zurich, led by Dr Angelika Hilbeck, has found evidence that the poisonous effects of the protein can spread further. It raised plant-eating insects on B. thuringiensis maize plants and fed them to the larvae of lacewings - which eat crop pests.

They report in Environmental Entomology that the death rates of the lacewings nearly doubled, and this happened whether or not the plant-eating insects were susceptible to B. thuringiensis.

This means that an insect could nibble the plant, then fly off and be eaten by a lacewing, which would die. Far from the protein killing only corn-borers, as Novartis intended, it would also damage other species. Using B. thuringiensis as a spray would be less likely to have such effects.

The finding is another strike against a crop that has been criticised because it contains, as well as the B. thuringiensis gene, genes conferring antibiotic and pesticide resistance. They were put in to simplify seed production, a process described by a Ministry of Agriculture official as "sloppy genetic modification". Britain's expert committee turned down the maize, worried that the antibiotic-resistant gene would get into bacteria and make those antibiotic- resistant.

After much argument, and despite objections from the European Parliament, the B. thuringiensis maize was approved by the European Commission. Michael Meacher, the Minister for the Environment, has said that he is "totally dissatisfied". The Commission, however, says that approval can be withdrawn only if new scientific evidence raises questions of safety. But Dr Ian Taylor, of Greenpeace, says that is what the Swiss scientists have provided. "The UK should ask the Commission to suspend authorisation immediately." he says. "If it won't, then the UK should follow Austria and Luxembourg and impose a national ban."

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **


=======================================================




Date: Thu, 28 May 98 17:02:11 -0500
Subject: FYI: SPEECH FROM JULIAN EDWARDS AT CODEX

Note: Below is the CI intervention on the labelling of genetically engineered foods issue before the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. These comments are excellent and received strong applause from the audience (and not just from the NGOs!).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

STATEMENT DELIVERED BY JULIAN EDWARDS, DIRECTOR GENERAL, CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL BEFORE THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING TWENTY-SIXTH SESSION OTTAWA, CANADA

26 -29 MAY 1998

Consumers International urges the Committee to recommend the mandatory labelling of all Genetically Engineered Foods. There are three principal reasons why it should do so, but before I summarise these, I would observe that this Committee not only has the opportunity to ensure that full and proper information is given to consumers, but a mandate to provide leadership on this important issue. Why should comprehensive, mandatory labelling be required?

1. CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW what is in their food and how it has been produced. The fundamental rights of consumers to information and choice have been recognised around the world ever since President Kennedy drew attention to them in 1963 and they are enshrined in the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection, adopted by the General Assembly in 1985. Applying these rights to Genetically Engineered Foods, we draw the Committee's attention to the fact that numerous surveys of public opinion worldwide have shown that consumers want them to be labelled. For some, there are health- related reasons for this. But many consumers have cultural, religious or ethical views on genetic engineering--by no means all hostile to the technology, particularly where it may alter flavour or storage life--and unless comprehensive labelling is adopted, they are prevented from exercising choice in relation to these fundamental values when buying food. We also note that the biggest barrier to the effective operation of competitive markets is lack of transparency; for this reason too, consumers need full information.

2. HEALTH PROTECTIONS. We all know that allergenicity is an important problem. The most effective method of prevention is to ensure that those who are at risk have the information to allow them to avoid foods which may affect them. In addition, unanticipated allergenicity or other health problems could be created by the new technology of genetic engineering and labelling is an important tool in allowing the rapid tracing and correction of such events. We welcome the confirmation by Professor Taylor yesterday morning that the list of allergenic foods is incomplete, covers a wide range of product types and that 'every protein is a potential allergen.' Since genetic modification generally involves the transfer of proteins, the case for compulsory labelling is surely overwhelming. Selective labelling will not do. We note that, in 1996, a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation concluded that reliable animal models do not exist for assessing the allergenicity of genetically engineered foods.

3. THERE IS NOT SOUND BASIS FOR A SELECTIVE LABELLING APPROACH. We are strongly opposed to limited labelling based on the concept of 'SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE.' This is an ill-defined idea which will inevitably require value judgements to be made; this in turn will lead to endless scientific and legal disputes, principally as a result of efforts to limit the information given to consumers. It is not acceptable that the value judgements of Codex officials or of this meeting, or of a court or dispute resolution procedure should take precedence over the right of ordinary people to be properly informed and make their own choices based on their own values.

One of the ironies of the development of this issue is the contrast between the enthusiasm of food producers to claim that their biologically engineered products are different and unique when they seek to patent them and their similar enthusiasm for claiming that they are just the same as other foods when asked to label them.

The principle that process is a legitimate reason for labelling has already been accepted by this very Committee in relation to irradiation, halal, and organic foods. Where people want to buy genetically modified foods for the benefits claimed--and we believe that many will want to do so--or do not want to buy them for whatever reason, they must be given the information to allow them to make this choice.

SUMMARY

Our views are set out in detail in the paper circulated to this meeting, but I will just repeat the recommendations:

--Allergenicity. In recognising the risks of known allergens, it must also be acknowledged that, as a result of the very process of genetic engineering, unknown and uncommon allergens may occur, thereby increasing the risk of further allergies and deeming labelling a necessity for all genetically engineered foods.

--Substantial equivalence cannot be used as a basis for labelling since it is an arbitrary concept and of no significance to consumers for the labelling of genetically engineered foods.

--Genetic engineering is recognized by consumers as the most fundamental of food processing and, like food irradiation, requires labelling to identify this process has taken place.

--Denial of the labelling of genetically engineered foods on the basis of lack of traceability and process control is not acceptable when this can be achieved and regulated by Codex for organic and halal food production processes.

--CCFL has a responsibility to address the issue of providing consumers with information on genetically engineering as a matter of urgency since these foods are already being traded internationally.

FINALLY, I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the strength of feeling on this issue. Consumers International itself is a worldwide organisation bringing together more than 230 organisations in more then 100 countries and counting their membership in tens of millions. On this issue there is wide agreement to the policies I have outlined among a broad range of other non-government organisations, each with its own constituency. Then there is the evidence of many consumer surveys. This is a fundamental issue of the role of and the importance you attach to civil society and the institutions which represent it. They are near-unanimous in their views. This is confirmed and reinforced by developments in the United States, where today a major lawsuit will be launched against the US government by a broad coalition of public interest groups, including scientists, food professionals, and consumer groups. The purpose of this lawsuit is to force the US government to introduce mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. The argument that ordinary people are not--or should not be--concerned about this issue is completely wrong.

Last night, Laurie Currie, speaking as our host at the splendid reception, said --and I quote--"Codex's business is making standards which meet consumers' expectations." Today you have an ideal opportunity to show your commitment to this principle. We urge the Committee to progress this item by requiring mandatory labelling for all foods produced through genetic engineering.

Thank you.



===============================-=-=-=-=




Date: Wed, 03 Jun 98 11:14:36 -0500
Subject: Some bad news for BT

-----------------------------------
https://www.hortnet.co.nz/hn/news/n2061.htm

---------------------------------

<Picture: HomeHortNewsNatural Pesticide Turns Nasty In People - Magazine

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- LONDON 28/5/98 - A bacterium used as a natural pesticide on food and feed crops could cause serious infections in people, according to a report on Wednesday.

Bacillus thuringiensis helps plants naturally resist agricultural pests, but New Scientist magazine said French doctors had discovered it could harm humans after a soldier wounded in Bosnia developed a serious infection from a sub-type of the bacterium.

Scientists at the World Health Organisation and the Pasteur Institute in Paris identified the harmful sample of the bacterium as H34.

When Eric Hernandez, a microbiologist at a military hospital near Paris, injected the strain into mice with weakened immune systems he found the bacteria became dangerous when exposed to blood.

"We think they destroy the walls of blood cells," Hernandez told the magazine.

Most farmers spray their crops with different strains of the bacteria but French scientists have identified another strain used in commercial farm sprays that is also dangerous.

Ecogen Inc, the US company that markets the sprays, insists they are safe because the bacteria are not exposed to blood and not primed to infect wounds.

"There's such a long history of safe use since the 1960s," Ecogen's research director Jim Baum told the magazine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- NZPA



================================



Date: Wed, 03 Jun 98 11:14:50 -0500
Subject: Swiss To Vote on Genetic Engineering Ban (Please Post)


Financial Times (London) May 23, 1998 LONDON EDITION 1 COMMENT & ANALYSIS; Pg. 094) Genetic code of conduct: Swiss people will vote on June 7 in a referendum asking whether they want to "protect life and the environment against genetic manipulation". It is the first time any country has had a chance to vote directly on this most contentious of modern scientific issues.

The vote could have a big impact. If a majority of voters and more than half of the 26 cantons into which the country is divided vote Yes, research projects using transgenic animals will be made illegal, the patenting of plants and animals forbidden and the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms prevented.

That would be a lot more than just a gesture. Switzerland contains two of the world's most successful pharmaceutical companies, Roche and Novartis. Their new product pipeline depends heavily on genetic research into plants and animals. The vote has set alarm bells ringing in their Basle headquarters.

The debate has also split Switzerland's political establishment, with the socialists, the biggest party, supporting the ban, while Ruth Dreifuss and Moritz Leuenberger, two socialist ministers and most of the trade unions oppose it. It is dividing some of Basle's most powerful families. Florianne Koechlin, 50, who comes from the Geigy pharmaceutical empire, now part of Novartis, is one of the leading campaigners for a ban.

In some ways, Switzerland is a surprising battleground for a debate festering in many European countries. It has always been at the forefront of

scientific progress. The country has produced a long line of world-class boffins, ranging from Albert Einstein to Friedrich Miescher, who discovered the existence of DNA. More than 20 Swiss scientists have won Nobel Prizes for research into natural sciences and in Science magazine's 1997 review of citations the Swiss were top in terms of research in areas such as immunology, neurobiology and microbiology.

According to Interpharma, the pharmaceutical industry's trade association, a ban would prevent 2,100 scientists at Swiss universities from continuing their research and could jeopardise 25,000 to 30,000 jobs.

So why are the Swiss threatening to destroy their most successful growth industry? And what arguments are they using in this first formal national debate on genetic engineering?

For Ms Koechlin, the dangers of the unknown are too great. It is a high- risk technology that is "influencing our lives in an unbelievable way and it

will be even more so in 10 years' time". She says 95 per cent of genetic research will be untouched if the referendum is passed, but she likens genetic engineering to "a jumbo jet with bicycle brakes".

In the past, she helped win a moratorium on nuclear power and believes "the increasingly tight bonds between research and industry should concern us all".

Her arguments have struck a chord, especially among women and the German- speaking Swiss, who make up two-thirds of the population. Nevertheless, there may be other reasons why Switzerland, along with its German-speaking neighbours, is so suspicious about genetic engineering.

Some observers link it to the traditional German romantic belief in unspoiled nature. Others cite darker fears that genetic tampering could eventually lead to a rerun of the racist eugenics experiments conducted by Adolf Hitler's doctors more than 50 years ago.

Switzerland's pharmaceutical industry refuses to say how much it is spending to head off the ban, but it seems set to be the most costly referendum in Swiss history. If the Yes campaign wins, it will strengthen the growing disillusion of many business leaders with Switzerland's cumbersome system of direct democracy.

Fritz Gerber, chairman of Roche, says it could paralyse crucial areas of biomedical research: "The most serious and long-lasting damage would be done to universities. However, the pharmaceutical industry too would be seriously affected, since biotechnology is likely to be involved at some stage or other in research and development of most new medicines.

"Unlike the universities, however, industry would have the option of shifting its research and development activities to other countries that carefully nurture rather than hinder modern research."

Fritz Melchers, director of the Roche-financed Basle institute for immunology, says if the referendum is accepted his institute will have to close.

Switzerland is not alone in its concerns about genetic engineering. In Austria, Greenpeace activists have mounted "Genetic Hazard Patrols" to disrupt imports of genetically engineered soya oil. The French government is waiting until after a public debate next month to decide whether to approve imports of new strains of genetically modified maize.

In the UK, frozen food chain, Iceland, has begun selling products guaranteed not to contain genetically modified ingredients, questioning whether its customers want to be "guinea pigs in the largest food experiment of all time".

However, Switzerland is the only country where the population has the right to vote on a highly complex and emotive issue.

Nature magazine ran a recent editorial, called: "How not to run a scientifically successful country." It noted that a country's science base could be weakened by lack of investment (UK), institutional sclerosis (France), or political upheaval (Russia). But it concluded: "For a country voluntarily to remove itself from a lively scientific arena in which it is highly successful is a unique phenomenon."

Ms Koechlin sees the issues differently. "There is increasing scepticism everywhere in the world. The more arrogant large concerns become, the more resistance there will be."

William Hall



=====================================



Date: Sun, 07 Jun 98 17:12:50 -0500
Subject: Direct action against GE crops in UK

Immediate Press Release.. June 4 1998

Direct Action Stops the Gene-Crops - 7 Fields in One Night Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Worcestershire.

Last night, in an escalation of popular action against 'frankenstein food', at least seven separate crops of genetically engineered rapeseed were destroyed across the UK. The Genetic Engineering Network was informed of these peaceful direct actions this morning by a reliable anonymous source. They appear to have been strategically chosen and brings the total number of known genetic field 'decontaminations' in the UK to 19. It may be that these nightime activities could prevent this particular controversial crop coming to market.

The deliberate release sites, part of at least 300 nationwide, were being trialed by the following transnational companies: Agrevo, Monsanto, Pioneer Genetique and Plant Genetics Systems. The crops which together cover approximately 10,000 sq metres were cut down using common gardening tools and bare hands. It is likely that hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage will have been sustained. This is a significant blow to companies already feeling the effects of public distrust and crop failures. It may be that the commercialisation process for genetically engineered oilseed rape has been slowed down because necessary data is now destroyed.

The seven sites are listed at the end of this release.

In a telephone statement to GEN, a 'cropper' calling herself 'Miss Jean' explained:

"If ever there was a clear case of agrochemical companies placing their profits before the safety of our food and our environment, genetic engineering is it. Nobody has asked for these Frankenstein foods, most people actively dislike them and yet we are not even being consulted on what goes in our mouths. Four government conservation agencies have called for these fields to be halted yet Jeff Rooker [UK food minister] recently stated that he was not in the driving seat on this issue. Well, if the government can't act to protect our interests then we've got to. This morning, due to responsible and peaceful direct actions, we are seven fields closer to a safer world."

These seven actions have occurred in the context of mounting public unease. On Tuesday a 'citizens jury' organised by Sainsbury, Genetics Forum and the Consumers Association concluded that genetically engineered organisms should be banned in the UK. Thursday a Guardian ICM poll showed only 14% were happy with genetically engineered foods. On Saturday the Swiss people follow the Austrian, Luxembourg and Norwegians into a referendum to ban genetic engineering.

Ends

For further information - call the Genetic Engineering Network on 0181 374 9516 or page 07666 750473. Photos, taken by the activists responsible, may be available soon through national picture agencies.

Notes to editor -

1. Opponents of genetically engineered crops have long argued that they are dangerously unpredictable, uncontrollable and as yet untested when released into our environment and our bodies. They are also unnecessary and unwanted.

2. The sites visited were -

* Thorn Farm, Inkberrow, Worcstershire 95/R24/2. Pioneer Genetique.

* Dryleaze Farm, Siddington, Cirencester, Gloucester 97/R15/22. Plant Genetics Systems

* Hall Farm, Kneeton, Nottinghamshire 97/R19/17. Agrevo.

* Nickerson Farm, Rothwell, Lincolnshire 97/R27/1. Perryhall Holdings.

* East Lodge Farm, Kings Newton, Derby - 3 sites: 98/R22/13, 97/R22/9 plus one 'fast-track site' not listed on GMO public register of deliberate releases. Monsanto.

Note: The codes refer to the GMO public register of deliberate releases available from the Dept of Environment Transport and the Regions Biotechnology Unit.

3. A new report and briefing exposing new dangers of Genetically Engineered Rape and calling for a moratorium on its development is due to be released next week by Genewatch. For more information on this contact Dr Sue Mayer on 01298 871558.

4. This weekend one of the companies hit, Monsanto, is launching a Europewide advertising campaign to falsely persuade consumers that resistance to Genetic Engineering will starve the third world. For more information on this outrageous PR offensive call The Gaia Foundation on 0171 435 5000.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GENETICS LISTS
*The rts genetics lists now have their own address <genetics@gn.apc.org>. If you would like to be a list (and are not already) reply to <genetics@gn.apc.org> putting 'Subscribe Genetics' in the subject box. There is a very busy list (list 1) & a less 'full-on' (list 2) that only receives Genetix Update newsletter & occasional action alerts - please specify.

OTHER NON GE LISTS
*We also run the very busy 'Allsorts list' from here <allsorts@gn.apc.org> as well as the 'rts info only list' (please specify) when subscribing. *If you have anything to contribute to any of these lists then send it in and it will be forwarded - unedited wherever possible. Please do not send attachments instead just add text to emails main body.

You will see that <allsorts@gn.apc.org> will be the return address for all emails both genetics and otherwise until we can afford new software. Hope this does not cause too much confusion!

Genetic Engineering Network
PO BOX 9656
London
N4 4JY
0181 374 9516 (this no is for Genetics info)

For genetics action info on the web check out:
http://www.dmac.co.uk/gen.html
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/shag/genetix.html



==================================================



Date: Mon, 15 Jun 98 18:55:46 -0500
Subject: Monsanto Ads Target European Market

Headline: Monsanto Ads Target European Market
Wire Service: APO (AP Online)
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 1998

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of the Associated Press.

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Biotechnology company Monsanto Co. has launched a multimillion-dollar ad campaign aimed at allaying European concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods.

The St. Louis-based company kicked off the campaign in France and the United Kingdom with a barrage of ads that promote genetic engineering. They present a gentler, more open Monsanto in contrast to the hard-driving company at the center of a controversy across Europe.

Monsanto opened a new Internet site that includes some of the news reports that have been critical of genetic engineering in foods. One story told of Monsanto's apology to Europeans for "heavy-handed" attempts to promote genetic altered products. Another reported a new poll showing that 95 percent of Britons interviewed wanted modified foods labeled.

The efforts speak of the stark difference between attitudes in Europe and the United States, where people exhibit few concerns about modified food products like Monsanto's artificial sweetener NutraSweet.

Monsanto makes agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and food ingredients. Monsanto spun off its chemical business last year, and is being acquired by American Home Products Corp. for $33.5 billion.

European acceptance is critical to Monsanto and its rivals, as a market for genetically modified foods as a gateway to the rest of the world. Europe also is important to U.S. farmers, who are moving steadily to modified soybeans and corn and have no mechanisms to separate them from nonmodified varieties for export.

Part of Europe's cautious, sometimes hostile attitude has to do with European attentiveness to food and its sources. There is also a perception that European governments and scientists failed to protect people from mad cow disease.

Toby Moffett, Monsanto vice president of for international governmental affairs, said Monsanto recognizes that it failed to pay sufficient attention to public opinion.

"We barged in, like someone barging in on someone's private party," Moffett said. "We weren't European enough."
=============================================================-=-=-=-=




Date: Tue, 16 Jun 98 18:55:49 -0500
Subject: Monsanto ad from Sun Observer, 6/7/98

Copy of Monsanto's Double page spread in the Sun Observer 7th June.

=====================-=-=-=-=

FIRST PAGE.

FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY IS A MATTER OF OPINIONS. MONSANTO BELIEVES ALL OF THEM.

GENETICALLY modified food is the subject of much heated debate.

As a biotechnology company, at Monsanto we firmly believe in it. Of course, we're a business and aim for our shareholders to profit from this technology. However, our excitement and commitment to food biotechnology stems from the real benefits it provides for both consumers and the environment.

There are others with less supportive views. Some are openly hostile. It is only fair that you appreciate the spectrum of opinions before making an informed decision.

We're about to run an advertising campaign presenting the benefits of food biotechnology. As well as our views, we will be publishing the addresses and phone numbers of those with different views, including some of our most vocal critics, encouraging you to contact them.

This may sound unusual, but we believe that food is so fundamentally important everyone should know all they want to about it.

Besides the advertising, there are leaflets in many supermarkets and you can call us free on 0800 092 0401 if you have any questions or would like further literature. Alternatively visit our website at bla bla bla.

Clearly our aim is to encourage a positive understanding of food biotechnology.

And the truth is, we know it will take more than our words to convince you.

SECOND PAGE.

The world grows it's food at great cost to the environment.

Insecticides, fertilisers and herbicides used in Agriculture require scarce resources processed in eco-taxing industrial plants. As an example, the insecticide for just one species of pest affecting Russet Burbank potatoes in the USA generates 2,500,000 pounds of waste by-product from it's manufacture, transport and application.

At Monsanto, we believe plant biotechnology can limit industrial and chemical impact on the earth. For instance, we have developed crops that are insect resistant, in some cases eliminating the need to apply insecticides altogether. (We also want you to know that we produce the world's top selling herbicide, Roundup.)

Our potato, soybean and corn seeds have been thoroughly tested to assess their safety. Far more rigorously in fact, than conventionally produced crops. Our confidence in them is matched by the government regulatory agencies of 20 countries, including Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, the USA and Great Britain. All have approved seeds.

To find out more about this subject, please ask for a leaflet at your local supermarket, call us free on 0800 092 0401 or visit our website at bla bla bla...
MONSANTO
Food.Health.Hope

And folks get your glasses out to read this (situated at the bottom of the page in a box reminiscent of the smallest tobacco warning.)

There are many views of biotech. For another opinion call Friends of the Earth on 0171 865 8222 or visit their website at www.foe.co.uk, or try contracting Food for our future . Their website is www.foodfuture.org.uk.




==================================================



Date: Tue, 16 Jun 98 19:49:11 -0500
Subject: more from Prince Charles

2 items from the (London) Guardian and 1 from London Times from June 9, 1998

"....the biotech companies can no longer treat the British as they have treated the Americans: as a nation of co-opted dupes. Genetically-engineered food has become even less palatable than it was before."

=========================

Prince 'over-reacting' to genetic engineering

Monsanto accuses Charles of pandering to green lobby, while opponents of gene-modified food say his views reflect public concern

By Nick Hopkins
Tuesday June 9, 1998

The Prince of Wales came under attack yesterday for "over-reacting" to the dangers of genetically modified food.

Monsanto, the multi-national company at the forefront of agricultural bio-engineering, accused him of pandering to the green lobby and refusing to acknowledge advances in the field.

But the prince received the full support of consumer and environmental groups, who believe his views reflect widespread public concern.

Buckingham Palace said he stood by everything he had written in an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph.

Warning that genetic engineering was taking mankind "into realms that belong to God and God alone", the prince wrote: "If something does go badly wrong we will be faced with the problem of clearing up a kind of pollution which is self-perpetuating. I am not convinced that anyone has the first idea of how this could be done, or indeed who would have to pay."

Genetically modified (GM) plant breeding raised crucial ethical and practical considerations, he said, calling for a wide public debate. Choice backed by comprehensive labelling was needed so people knew what they were eating.

The prince was particularly concerned that some companies wanted approval to grow pesticide-tolerant GM crops in Britain. He called for a moratorium on their introduction, claiming that they would devastate local wildlife.

Although he did not mention Monsanto by name, it was clear that his broadside was aimed at the US-based company. Last weekend it launched a media campaign to raise awareness in the UK of the benefits of GM crops.

The article's timing was not lost on the company's senior executives, who defended its work yesterday.

Monsanto was careful not to show disrespect for the prince, but there was barely concealed frustration over his views.

Colin Merritt, its technical director, said: "The prince believes in organic farming, and he is closely associated with people from the organic movement and green pressure groups. His arguments are the ones we are familiar with from the green lobby.

"He does not have much information coming from people on the other side of the debate. I think some of his views are out of touch."

Dr Merritt said a huge amount of research had been done in recent years, and it all pointed to the practical advantages of using GM crops. "The risks that he talks about are not based in science. We now understand the chemistry and the genetics far more than we did."

The prince's questioning of the need for GM farming was "a complete over-reaction". There was no way that organic farming could meet the world's food demands.

The National Consumer Council said the prince was in tune with public concerns. It criticised a recent European Union edict that food which had been genetically tampered with did not have to be kept separate from normal crops and clearly labelled.

GM foods already on the market include maize, tomatoes and soya, which have been changed to make them pest-resistant or stay fresh longer. About 60 per cent of processed foods contain soya.

A spokesman for the Consumers' Association said: "The process needs to be slowed down. It is possible that GM foods might prove to be a 'good thing', but our concern is that customers are not ready to see them on the shelves yet, and they must be given the choice of whether or not to eat them."

Jeff Rooker, Food Safety Minister, said in launching National Food Safety Week that the prince was entitled to his views but insisted there were strict controls in place to ensure that GM foods on the market were safe.

He said breeders of new plant varieties had always "messed about with nature".



London Times June 9 1998

Prince is backed in attack on modified foodstuffs

BY MICHAEL HORNSBY AGRICULTURE CORRESPONDENT

MILLIONS of people in Britain are eating products derived from genetically engineered crops and have little choice about it, consumer and environmental groups said yesterday.

They praised the Prince of Wales for calling for segregation of such crops at source and for clear and comprehensive labelling of products made from them. Farmers and manufacturers of genetically modified (GM) crops, while agreeing on the need to inform consumers, said unwarranted fears must not lead to unreasonable restrictions on a technology with potentially huge benefits.

Ruth Evans, director of the National Consumer Council, said: "Consumers want to know how their food has been produced because many do not wish to eat produce from GM sources." Robin Maynard, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "We are delighted that Prince Charles has publicly expressed his concerns."

Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers' Union, said: "Some of the concerns raised by the Prince of Wales are valid but to suggest that the whole technology is wrong is not right. The potential benefits for food production in the Third World alone are immense."

This year American farmers have planted about 20 million acres with soya beans - 30 per cent of the total crop - genetically modified to be resistant to a weedkiller manufactured by Monsanto, the US company that developed the new bean. Soya is present in about three fifths of all processed foods, including products as diverse as chocolate, bread, baby foods and beer.

US suppliers have refused to separate GM soya from the conventional varieties, saying that to do so would be impractical and so costly as to make the growing of modified crops unviable.


==========================================================



Date: Fri, 19 Jun 98 11:52:40 -0500
Subject: Monsanto GEF ads/Prince Charles

(London) Guardian

Gene Prince

As big business tightens its grip on the food-chain, an unlikely opponent steps into the fray

By George Monbiot
Tuesday June 9, 1998

Those of us who have been grumbling about genetically manipulated food for the past four or five years could be forgiven for occasionally succumbing to the sin of despair. While pressure groups have used every imaginable ruse to alert consumers and ministers to the hazards of the biotech companies' control of the food-chain, the Guardian was the only national newspaper consistently to have taken these dangers seriously.

This is a doubly difficult subject to cover, as it demands a degree of understanding of both economics and biology: most journalists were simply not prepared to tackle it. In the absence of concerted media scrutiny, the biotech companies seemed, until yesterday, to be winning almost every battle they fought. Substantial public disquiet had done little to obstruct their feverish progress towards the worldwide ownership of our most indispensable commodities. In just three years, for example, the biotech company Monsanto has secured 30 per cent of the American soya crop and 15 per cent of the maize crop. A series of gigantic acquisitions has culminated in its merger with American Home Products, to create a corporation worth $96 billion, one of the largest firms on earth.

Such financial muscle enables the biotech companies to exert a remarkable degree of control over elected authorities. In the US, there's a regular exchange of personnel between Monsanto, the government's Food and Drug Administration and the Oval Office. The FDA has been described by campaigners as "Monsanto's Washington branch office".

In Europe, the biggest lobby of parliament ever conducted persuaded MEPs to adopt a new directive granting the biotech firms exclusive rights over genetic material: patents, in other words, on life. When four British government conservation agencies, alarmed by the potential ecological hazards of genetically engineered crops, called for a moratorium, Jeff Rooker, the agriculture minister, told them that there was nothing he could do. "I am not sure," he complained, "we are in the driving seat."

As Monsanto prepared to launch its #163#1 million advertising campaign last weekend, campaigners had the sinking feeling that the battle was all over bar the shouting. British people would continue to be fed genetically engineered food, whether we wanted it or not.

The Monsanto campaign is a masterpiece of Machiavellian subterfuge. Instead of simply trumpeting the virtues of its products, its advertisements claim that the company wants to stimulate a public debate on the issue, "to e