
		" I heard it through the AgLine"

March 31, 2011

· Lawsuit challenges Monsanto seed patents

· GM food label proposal stirs political battle

· Melons stand out as produce safety problem

· California: Drought over, water wars remain

· Mexico’s AliBio harnesses power of microbes

Lawsuit challenges Monsanto seed patents

(stltoday.com) – Farmers say they have long feared the legal might of Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, and its pursuit of farmers who violate the company's patents on genetically modified seeds.

Now a group of them is making a pre-emptive maneuver of sorts.

The New York-based Public Patent Foundation, a group that describes its mission as representing the public's interest in freedom from unjustified patent restraints, filed suit in a Manhattan district court Tuesday, challenging the company's patents on genetically modified seeds.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 60 farmers, organic agriculture organizations and seed companies, including Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds, based in Mansfield, Mo., about 200 miles southwest of St. Louis.

"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, the group's executive director, in a statement.

"It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interest of our clients."

The lawsuit says the company's claims that genetically modified seeds have increased production and reduced weed killer are false, and, therefore, the company's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the "usefulness" requirement of patent law.

In a news release, Monsanto said it has never sued farmers over inadvertent presence of its patented traits in their fields and has committed to not do so.

"(The foundation's) approach is a publicity stunt designed to confuse the facts about American agriculture and we will vigorously defend ourselves. It is well established that biotech crops have provided significant benefit to farmers and the environment, including increased yields."

The company has said it pursues farmers who violate patents by illegally planting its seed. Most of the cases are settled without going to trial.

The company has filed 144 lawsuits for patent infringement since 1997 through April 2010. Nine of those have gone through a full trial, and in every case a judge or jury decided in the company's favor, according to a company spokeswoman.

In the past two months, regulators have approved the planting of Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa and sugar beets despite ongoing court challenges.

Return to Top

GM food label proposal stirs political battle

(New Haven Advocate) – Letting Connecticut consumers know if the food they're buying has been genetically modified seems like an innocent enough idea. After all, U.S. government experts say it's safe, the agri-industrial giants say it's safe, and so do the food manufacturing conglomerates.

So why do you suppose everyone is expecting an all-out legislative Blitzkrieg to be waged against a little proposal in Connecticut's General Assembly to require labeling of genetically modified foods?

“Anytime you step on somebody's toes, you're going to stir up a hornet's nest,” explains state Rep. Richard Roy, the Milford Democrat who attached the labeling proposal to a bill that came out of the legislature's Environment Committee last week.

The toes in this case belong to some of the biggest, baddest agricultural and food industry players in the world. And the reason they don't want products labeled as “genetically modified” is they know more and more consumers are worried about their food and how it's produced.

“Consumers increasingly want to know what's in their food,” says Colin O'Neil, a policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. “And the companies want to give out less information, not more.”

O'Neil says bills similar to Connecticut's genetically modified (or GM) food labeling measure have been repeatedly introduced in other state legislatures and in Congress, and have been blown away by the combined lobbying power of the food, agricultural and biotechnology industries.

According to O'Neil, agricultural and biotech companies have spent more than $500 million since 1999 on lobbying, and much of the effort was designed to promote GM products and to prevent consumers from being informed about what is being done to create that food.

Estimates of how many of the products purchased every day in American supermarkets that involve some sort of genetic modification range from 40 to 70 percent.

Karen Batra, a spokesperson for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, says 93 percent of all soybeans grown in the U.S. and 86 percent of all corn raised here come from biotech-engineered seeds.

That means that nearly all of the high-fructose corn syrup in sodas and cereals and hundreds of other products comes from genetically modified corn. Most feed eaten by beef cattle, dairy herds, pigs and chickens in this country comes from crops that have been genetically changed to resist weeds and pests and the chemicals sprayed on crops.

Japan and the European Union prohibit the growing and sale of GM crops and their use as feed for animals intended for human consumption. (The one exception in Europe seems to be potatoes that are used in industrial processes. Who knew we even needed industrial potatoes?)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates GM crops and animals, have repeatedly declared there is no real difference between GM foods and conventional foods. (That $500 million in lobbying cash probably had nothing to do with massaging those federal regulators' opinions.)

Batra says her organization “supports the current U.S. labeling system” approved by the federal government, so there's no need to bother telling people their food isn't the same as it used to be.

“Biotech ingredients don't need to be labeled because it's been determined by the government and scientific organizations that there's no compositional difference between biotech foods and their conventional counterparts,” Batra says.

In fact, she adds, putting a GM label on food would be “misleading consumers into believing there is a difference,” and that would be bad.

That argument, according to Bill Duesing, is the equivalent of genetically modified bullshit. “We're in the middle of this great unmonitored experiment,” says Duesing, the executive director of the Connecticut chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association. “You don't know what you're eating, what's genetically modified and what isn't.”

Duesing says the revolving door between agri-conglomerates like Monsanto, which produces most of the GM seed used in the U.S., and the federal government has been spinning for decades, with Monsanto execs becoming regulators and regulators going to work for Monsanto.

(A spokesman for Monsanto declined to comment for this story.)

“It's a really powerful industry,” Duesing says of the combination of agricultural, food and chemical corporations involved in GM crops and food.

O'Neil says the labeling regulations were the result of “backroom discussions” between federal officials and representatives of the agricultural and food industries back in the mid- to late-1990s. “Consumers feel they were left out of those discussions and that decisions were made behind their backs,” he says.

The Food and Drug Administration is now considering allowing genetically engineered salmon (which opponents have tagged as “Frankenfish”) to be marketed without any distinction from other farmed salmon. Two U.S. House members from Washington and Alaska have introduced legislation in Congress to either ban the Frankenfish outright or require it to be labeled as “transgenic” if sold for human consumption.

AquaBounty Technologies, the Waltham, Mass., company that has created the genetically altered salmon, says their fish would grow larger and faster than other salmon and thus help save wild salmon stocks.

All this is happening at a time when the fastest growing sector of the food industry involves organically grown crops and meat. Despite this trend, Batra argues her industry isn't worried about people shying away from GM products.

“I don't think it would necessarily discourage people,” Batra says of labeling GM products. She says most organic food is bought by “an elite social class that has the money to pay a premium” for their food.

Batra points out that GM or biotech food is a lot cheaper to grow than organic crops and animals, which means a better deal for consumers. And genetically engineered products can actually be “made safer and more nutritious” than organic or conventionally grown food, she argues.

Roy, who is co-chair of the environment committee, has a feeling this labeling bill will run into a stone wall of opposition. Another similar measure was shunted into legislative oblivion earlier this year, which led Roy to try the end run of attaching it as an amendment to another bill.

State Rep. Len Greene, a rookie Republican from Seymour, was one of five committee members who voted against the GM labeling measure. “It's going to be a large cost associated with this for business,” he says. “I didn't think this was a necessary or wise policy decision in this economy.”

Even if this proposal goes down to defeat (as Roy and activists like Duesing and O'Neil fully expect) its advocates insist this will at least open a much needed debate about what's in our food.

“I think this is probably the start of a long battle,” says Roy, who adds that he isn't at all discouraged by the prospect.

“This isn't the United States of Monsanto yet,” says Roy.

Return to Top

Melons stand out as produce safety problem

(Food Safety News) – As the result of a recall of about 4,000 cartons of Del Monte melons (about 60,000 melons) in March of 2011, we are again reminded of the risks due to Salmonella associated with melons. At this time, the exposure seems limited, and apparently traceability worked; the reported number of ill stand at a little more than two dozen cases. The source of these melons appears to be a single farm in Guatemala, and we have yet to determine what went wrong. However, in the last several years investigators have learned much about the factors that affect disease transmission through fresh produce.

Investigators have known about the melon's food safety problem since at least the early 90s, when numerous nationwide outbreaks of Salmonella occurred with melons; tens of thousands of cases were reported in these outbreaks. Cantaloupes (musk melons) are most the most frequently identified melons in outbreaks, although watermelon and honeydew (rarely) have also caused outbreaks.

While other pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria can find their way into many crops, Salmonella seems to be the bacterial pathogen of greatest concern with melons. Salmonellosis can be a severe illness and the infection leads to complications with reactive arthritis and other chronic diseases in about 15 percent of cases. It is therefore of utmost importance for public health that only Salmonella-free agricultural products reach the consumer.

Fresh Produce Contamination Sources

The melon supply chain has numerous hazardous points beginning with growing and harvesting and continuing through packing, storage, transport, distribution, processing and final consumption.

Cantaloupe can be contaminated any time the crop is in the ground, but the contamination problem is likely to start when the fruit is ripe and ready to be picked. Animals such as deer, coyotes, raccoons, rodents, feral pigs, and birds are attracted to the crop at this stage. Animal vectors in the growing environment may also include amphibians, reptiles and domestic animals.

Animals can affect the crop directly or through contamination of the water supply used for irrigation and crop protection. Manure may contain animal wastes, and fertilizers pose their own unique threat.

Infected humans are also a risk anywhere in this chain. Fecal matter, especially human waste in the growing or harvesting area, is a very significant risk factor and farmers must strictly control this potential.

Fresh Produce Food Safety Efforts

Current food safety efforts by the produce industry rely upon guidance documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on safe growing and handling of fresh fruits and vegetables; but until recently, industry compliance has been voluntary.

In the absence of government mandates, the private sector has developed its own standards for the safe production of many types of fresh fruits and vegetables. Determining an operation's conformance with the industry prescribed rules is primarily the task of industry auditors who are contracted by the major retailers around the world. Without regulation, there is no legal basis for compliance with food safety requirements. The buyer-driven rules can be circumvented when the supply is low and no alternative source exists. There is little oversight when local producers sell directly to the public or to restaurants. Foreign producers are not necessarily held to the same production standards as those in the U.S., and several U.S. melon outbreaks have involved Mexico and Honduras.

With the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2011, we can soon expect better regulation and better compliance on the part of producers, both foreign and domestic. However, the problem of contaminated melons will likely remain, due to the nature of the agricultural methods used and the nature of the plant itself.

Produce Contamination and the Supply Chain

Once contaminated, a cantaloupe will likely remain contaminated until reaching the consumer. Melons travel through a complex series of supply chain distribution steps involving farmers, growers, harvesters, packers, distributers, wholesalers, retailers, processors and food service operations.

Cantaloupes are not typically washed before packing. If they are packed in a packinghouse, they go through a grading process to remove damaged and diseased fruit; they are then loaded either in bins for further distribution or in retail size boxes. Netted bags bay be used, and packers may also individually wrap melons. Like cantaloupes, watermelon and honey dew may also be packed without a wash step, or even packed for final shipment directly to retailers from the field.

Cantaloupe is protected to an extent by an "inedible" peel and rind. Therefore, one would reason that if contamination occurred on the outside of the fruit, the edible portion would be safe until exposed. Until recently, experts assumed little or no growth of bacteria could occur on the hard outer surfaces of a cantaloupe, but recognized that the netted exterior provided an excellent site for the attachment of bacteria. Thanks to new research, we now know that Salmonella can actually penetrate the exterior of the melon, even when no bruising occurs, and Salmonella may also multiply on the outer portions of a melon after attachment. This means that any spot in the supply chain with extended ambient storage conditions will amplify the Salmonella problem, if it is there.

An explosive situation occurs when the internal portions of the melon are exposed to Salmonella from the external surfaces. Melons provide a rich source of nutrients for bacteria, along with more than adequate moisture. If conditions of temperature are hazardous (above 41° F and below 135° F), bacterial multiplication will occur, and this can be very rapid in the range of 70° F to 120° F. Ingestion of just a few Salmonella may be tolerable to some healthy adults, but many strains are able to infect persons in low numbers. When numbers are high, consumers with underlying medical conditions will experience life-threatening effects, and all exposed persons can become ill to varying degrees if infected.

The Role of the Consumer in Produce Safety

All of us have a role in food safety -- it is often said that "food safety is a shared responsibility." While the fresh produce industry works to control problems in the supply chain, the end user, meaning the final consumer, carries much of the burden. This is unfortunate, as reliance upon the food safety efforts of consumers to protect themselves has many pitfalls.

The exposures begin when consumers physically handle melons at the retail level. In fact, touching, knocking and squeezing melons are the standard methods used by consumers to select a ripe melon. While this seems like an innocent activity, it may be another means by which melons can be cross contaminated. Such handling at the point of sale may even allow Salmonella to infect the consumer directly!

Return to Top

California: Drought over, water wars remain

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – From snowy mountains to flooded highways, it's clear California's three-year drought is over. What's not certain is whether the state will use the breathing room to fix a broken water system.

A batch of late winter storms that dumped snow on ski resorts and turned creeks into rivers unofficially ended the drought for many Californians.

Governor Jerry Brown called an official end to the drought on Wednesday.

The drought has taken a toll on California and its economy. It is blamed for some of the worst wildfires in the state's history, the loss of crops and jobs in some of the most productive agricultural land in the world and greater financial strain on stretched local and state governments.

Automated indicators already show the winter was one of the top 10 snowiest on record, and reservoirs throughout the state are filled to well above average.

"There are only a few that won't reach full up," said the state's part-time chief hydrologist, Maury Roos, although he warned that even a bumper year would not wet California's whistle for much more than one dry winter.

"Two (dry) years in a row gives us trouble," he said. "We've been adding demand to a system that hasn't been added much to in 20 years, or really 30 years."

California's population has exploded in recent decades and it's unimproved water system is now ready to burst. Now state planners fear global warming will make the state even drier.

WATER WARS

Most of California's rain and snow falls in the northern part of the state and gets used in the southern part, including the agricultural Central Valley, one of the nation's biggest food sources, and greater Los Angeles area.

A water war between environmentalists fighting to keep more water in rivers to protect fish and farmers eager to grow food has spilled into courts, satisfying no one.

A 2009 agreement between legislators and then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger set up new state groups to create a cohesive state water plan, but the $11 billion bond measure that glued together the deal was pushed to 2012 in the face of voter skepticism.

"Some of the tough choices were deferred," said Paul Weiland, a lawyer for the Kern County Water Agency, which supplies water to farmers.

The Environmental Defense Fund's director of strategy for land, water and wildlife, Laura Harnish, argued that California's main problem was how it managed water -- not whether it had enough.

"Water is priced as though it's infinite and it's not," she said. She saw the 2009 agreements as moving in the right direction for protecting the environment and people, and predicted new Governor Brown would find time for water despite the pressures of budget negotiations.

But she admitted the wet year could breed complacency. "The wet year takes us out of triage and back into preventative medicine, which has benefits and drawbacks," she said. "A wet year -- it is a little bit of an illusion that things are OK."

Return to Top

Mexico’s AliBio harnesses power of microbes

(World Resources Institute) – A Mexican company uses microbes to reduce chemicals used in agriculture and water treatment.

What do bacteria have to do with clean water and sustainable agriculture? Mexican entrepreneur Alfredo Suárez Rivero has built his business, AliBio, around the ability of bacteria and other microbes to treat wastewater and reduce the use of polluting chemicals in the agriculture and aquaculture industries. AliBio addresses issues such as the overuse of antibiotics in fish farming, a practice which leads to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in both fish and humans.

Suárez, who previously owned construction companies, became interested in environmental issues in 1996 and found his entrepreneurial niche. He went back to university to study environment and management, and discovered the many uses for microbes. “The environmental market was just beginning in Mexico at that time, and I saw great opportunity there,” he says. “Now, sustainable food and clean water are a priority worldwide. There is nothing more forward-looking than this microbe market.”

During his studies, Suárez became fascinated with the ability of microbes to replace chemicals in wastewater treatment, agriculture and aquaculture, and consequently found the focus for his next entrepreneurial venture. These microorganisms can provide nutrients to depleted soils, reducing the need for fertilizer, and protect fish from disease, reducing the need for antibiotics. They can also remove contamination from wastewater.

Suárez initially tried to build his microbe business as an environmental arm of a chemical distribution company, but after several years realized that he needed to spin off his own company. In 2002, he wrote a proposal to purchase the division that he had created and crafted a business plan for AliBio, his new company. He saw in AliBio not only the opportunity to make profits, but also the chance to work on critical environmental issues.

Providing Solutions, Reducing Chemicals

“Water is not renewable unless we take measures to make it so,” says Suárez. “In the last century, we abused chemicals in many industries, and now we have a problem that we need to address.”

•Agriculture: AliBio combines different microbial strains to create products for agriculture that restore the microbial balance of soils and reduce the need for fertilizer by 10-25%.

•Aquaculture: When used in aquaculture, the microbial products degrade organic compounds and toxic bacteria to improve water quality. Improved water quality lessens the need for water pumping, which reduces energy use and water exchange costs. Microbes also control diseases in farmed fish, and increase the quality of harvested aquaculture produce.

•Wastewater Treatment: AliBio biotechnology can also be applied to water treatment by using microbes to eat substances in wastewater.

All of AliBio’s products are non-toxic and non-carcinogenic, unlike some of the fertilizers and chemicals traditionally used in agriculture and water treatment.

A Chilean salmon producer came across AliBio via the Internet in 2008 after losing one third of his salmon production due to overuse of antibiotics. The producer, faced with a collapse of his salmon stock, began to use AliBio products as an alternative to antibiotics to protect his fish from disease, and his salmon production recovered. Suárez expects that many new customers in similar situations will increasingly look to AliBio for solutions.

International Expansion

Biotechnology has become a competitive field, but AliBio holds an advantage over other companies around the world because it works with over 2,000 strains of bacteria, while many of its competitors work with only six to ten strains. Suárez’s next goal is to take AliBio and its many strains of bacteria to a more global market. He has created a business plan to expand AliBio’s presence into six countries, including the United States. In order to enter other markets however, AliBio needs increased investment and exposure in international markets. Suárez will travel to New York City in April for the New Ventures Global Investor Forum, where he will present AliBio’s business model to a group of international investors. Suárez will look to make international contacts and secure investment for his international growth plans. “There is still a large gap in the environmental microbe industry,” says Suárez. “We hope to be the ones to fill that gap, especially now that we are going global.”

Return to Top

End Transmission