 |
|||
 |
" I heard it |
||
August 18, 2009
· Monsanto chief accuses rival DuPont of deceit
· Analysis: Who’s in charge of GM seed research?
· Dogs sniff out agriculture pests and diseases
· Missouri ag techniques working in Afghanistan
· Forget acai berry – Superfruits have cheaper equals
Monsanto chief accuses rival DuPont of deceit
(The Washington Times) – The chairman of agribusiness giant Monsanto demanded Monday that his counterpart at DuPont - his firm's leading competitor in the seed business - appoint a special committee to investigate what he said was a pattern of covert attacks on Monsanto's business practices by DuPont.
Hugh Grant, chairman of Monsanto Co., accused DuPont of using third parties to attack Monsanto, activities which he said "were misleading to the public and a serious breach of business ethics far beyond honest competitor behavior."
He made the request for an investigation by a committee of DuPont's independent directors in a letter to Charles O. Holliday Jr., chairman of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
He accused DuPont of being "dishonest, disingenuous and downright deceitful."
An attorney for Monsanto said the tactics used against his company included forged letters to Congress, misinformation, attempts to improperly influence public officials and support for a special interest group which opposed Monsanto.
A DuPont spokesman said the company had not received the letter.
"We fully expect Monsanto to continue the campaign of diversion for as long as they feel things are not going their way on the merits," said Anthony Farina.
He said DuPont is not alone in its concern that Monsanto's business practices are reducing competition in agriculture.
"DuPont along with other companies, farmers, nonprofit groups and government authorities are all active participants in the important public discussion about competition in agriculture," said Mr. Farina.
The Monsanto letter is the latest skirmish in a battle between Monsanto and DuPont for control of the seed business.
In 2006 and 2007, DuPont tried unsuccessfully to block Monsanto from buying the nation's largest cotton seed supplier, Delta & Pine Land Co.
In May, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against DuPont for patent infringement and DuPont countersued, accusing Monsanto of being anti-competitive.
"Our response to Monsanto's latest lawsuit speaks for itself," said Mr. Farina. "It makes clear why Monsanto's business practices are illegal and why Monsanto's anti-competitive business practices hurt farmers, consumers and independent seed companies. We look forward to having these issues decided in court, where Monsanto initiated this."
Mr. Farina accused Monsanto of running "a very aggressive and misleading campaign" against DuPont since the lawsuit and that DuPont wanted "to set the record straight."
He said DuPont would not debate the issue in the media.
Monsanto officials claim that DuPont has waged a war of dirty tricks on Monsanto to maintain its market share in the crop biotechnology business.
"What is going on now is a very well organized covert campaign by DuPont to hurt us," Scott Partridge, Monsanto's chief deputy general counsel, said in an interview with The Washington Times. "They attack us any way they can."
He accused DuPont of running a "campaign to damage us with former customers and policymakers."
Mr. Partridge said that Monsanto had hired the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to "uncover and shed light on the depth and extent of DuPont's covert attacks on our business through third parties."
Lanny J. Davis, one of the Orrick partners involved in assisting Monsanto, is a specialist in crisis management and served as a special counsel to President Clinton on campaign-finance investigations and other legal matters. Mr. Davis also writes a weekly column for The Times.
Monsanto and Orrick provided a set of documents to The Times.
The current dust-up between Monsanto and DuPont goes back to
DuPont's efforts to stop Monsanto's purchase of
DuPont wanted the Justice Department, which was reviewing
the purchase, to reject it on the grounds that it would give Monsanto, their
main competitor, an unfair advantage in selling genetically engineered traits
to seed companies like
In its efforts to block the purchase, DuPont used former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, Arkansas Republican, and the law firm where he works, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, to lobby.
As part of the lobbying campaign, Mr. Hutchinson forwarded a batch of seven letters opposing the deal to his former colleague, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, who was a leader of the Senate Agriculture Committee, according to documents provided by Monsanto.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in 2007 that three of the letters turned out to be fake: In two cases, the people whose names appeared on the letters said they knew nothing about them. A state representative, whose name was on the third letter, said a staffer had mistakenly sent it without his knowledge.
A Chambliss spokesman said he never took any action as a
result of the letters, either for or against Monsanto's purchase of
Ultimately, the Justice Department approved the sale but made Monsanto divest itself of a smaller seed company it owned. Mr. Hutchinson and a spokesman for the Dickstein firm did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.
Mr. Partridge said the Dickstein firm told him they did not know the letters were forged.
Another Dickstein partner, Bernard Nash, also used his connections to try to help DuPont in its fight with Monsanto. Mr. Nash runs what his firm boasts is the nation's largest and premier practice dealing with state attorneys general.
Mr. Nash's biography on the firm Web site says: "Most recently, he has led DuPont's efforts to combat increased agricultural concentration and anticompetitive business practices with respect to critical farm chemicals and biotechnology. This strategy involved engaging State Attorneys General, Congress, federal agencies, farmers, and grassroots organizations on the harmful impact of anticompetitive mergers and monopolistic conduct."
Records show that 13 state attorneys generals wrote the
Justice Department opposing the Monsanto purchase of
One of the states that objected was
Mr. Nash has donated to eight of the other state attorneys general who objected to the purchase. His donations ranged from $500 to $2,500.
About the time Monsanto concluded its purchase of
Mr. Partridge said he thought the investigation began after DuPont complained about Monsanto. He said Monsanto cooperated with the investigation and has been told that the state attorneys general have no further questions but the probe remains open.
Mr. Farina said that "many other organizations and individuals share our concerns, including a large group of state attorneys general that continues to investigate Monsanto's business practices today. Monsanto has been unable to persuade state AGs to drop the investigation during the last year."
A spokesman for the
Mr. Farina said the Obama administration may also be concerned about competition in the seed industry.
"Just last week, the U.S. Attorney General [Eric H. Holder Jr.] and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture [Tom Vilsack] announced unprecedented joint hearings to study competition in agriculture, including seed traits," he said.
Mr. Partridge said the campaign against Monsanto is
continuing, pointing to a conference held earlier this
month in
In his letter to DuPont, the Monsanto chairman cited a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that reported that DuPont had helped fund the group. He said the report illustrated "DuPont's covert use of a special interest group to attack Monsanto's seed business."
Fred Stokes, OCM's executive director, would not say whether DuPont was a donor to his group, which has annual budget of about $100,000. He said they get money from members and from donors who share their concerns. Mr. Farina confirmed that DuPont had supported the group, as it does for a number of organizations that share its views.
"We don't like monopolies," said Mr. Stokes. He said that Monsanto had a "virtual monopoly" in the seed business.
He said his group was formed 11 year ago and that "we have fought every big agribusiness."
Mr. Stokes said the conference, called "Confronting the threats to Market Competition," spent about a quarter of the time focusing on Monsanto and concentration in the seed business. He said the rest of the time was spent on other issues such as food retailing.
The speakers at the conference included a number of federal government officials such as Philip J. Weiser, deputy assistant attorney general for the antitrust division of the Justice Department. Mr. Weiser's speech dealt with the administration's approach to antitrust issues and historic cases.
"We accepted the invitation to speak at the conference as we saw this as an opportunity to highlight the Department of Justice and USDA's recent announcement to hold unprecedented joint workshops about competition and regulatory issues in the agriculture industry," Justice spokeswoman Gina Talamona said.
"We want to hear from every interested party, including farmers, ranchers, consumers and agribusinesses about the important issues in this industry. We look forward to the open dialogue the workshops will provide."
The OCM, which describes itself as a "think tank"
has started a Seed Concentration Project to "bring fairness and
competition back to the
It points out on its Web site that Monsanto "controls a high percentage of the global seed market and continues to increase its dominance by acquiring or merging with a significant number of companies in its industry."
Analysis: Who’s in charge of GM seed research?
(Scientific American) – Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.
Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."
Dogs used to sniff out ag pests and diseases
(fresnobee.com) – On the front lines of Fresno County's battle against agricultural pests and diseases are two four-legged inspectors with a knack for finding bad bugs.
With their own gold-plated badges, Chelsea and Bella are members of the increasingly important Fresno County Department of Agriculture's canine team.
One of the dogs, Chelsea, a 2-year-old Labrador retriever,
recently helped uncover about 10 Asian citrus psyllids
on some curry leaves tucked inside a duffel bag at the FedEx facility in
The psyllid is one of the most destructive pests in the citrus industry and has the potential to carry a fatal plant disease known as Huanglongbing, or citrus greening.
To prevent the bug from becoming established, state
agricultural crews have placed about 100 insects traps
in a northwest
Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner Carol Hafner was proud of the work of her dog team.
"This really brought to the forefront the work that these teams do in protecting agriculture," Hafner said.
The county has used dog teams for a decade, checking
packages at about half a dozen facilities, including FedEx, UPS, Golden State
Overnight, DHL and Greyhound. A federal team from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection checks
The county's dogs are trained to sniff out fruits and plant material that may be hosts for any of a number of insects that could damage the county's $5.6 billion agriculture industry.
"You get pretty excited when your dog hits on something," said LeBarron. "It also reinforces that you are doing your job and it's an important one."
The other members of the dog squad are Jo Harper, also an agricultural standards specialist, and Bella, a 4-year-old beagle.
Each weekday in the early morning hours, the dogs and their
handlers check thousands of packages as they move through the routing centers
of
While the dogs sniff, the handlers also "profile" packages that might contain potential problems. The inspectors pull packages that are heavily taped, leaking or smell.
LeBarron and Harper, who are also biologists and carry badges, have the authority to open and inspect any package they believe may contain a potential problem.
"She is pretty high energy, and when she really wants to get at something, she will put all of her 67 pounds into her front claws," LeBarron said.
State and local agriculture officials discourage domestic and foreign travelers from shipping any fruits, vegetables or plant material, especially from a backyard.
Beth Grafton-Cardwell, a University of California entomologist and director of the Lindcove Research & Extension Center near Exeter, said the dogs and their handlers are a key part of helping to root out any potential pest that may be hitchhiking on a piece of fruit or plant.
The risk is that under the right conditions, a pest or disease can easily become established.
"All it takes is someone bringing in a snippet of a diseased plant, say from Asia or India, graft it on to a tree, and boom, we are off and running with a disease," Grafton-Cardwell said.
Along with the psyllid, the dog teams recently found plant material with red wax scale, a destructive citrus pest, and a white-footed ant of a species that has caused problems for farmers in several regions of the world.
Inspectors also have found less threatening items, including a dead squirrel, dehydrated frogs and foot-long blood worms.
Statewide there are four other dog teams, in Contra Costa,
Missouri ag
techniques working in Afghanistan
(Sedalia
Democrat) – An Afghan agriculture leader and U.S. Sen. Christopher “Kit”
Bond credited the Missouri National Guard’s work to bring modern agriculture
practices to
Safi Mohammad Hussein, the director of Agriculture,
Irrigation and Livestock in
Poppy growing in Nangarhar has
been largely replaced with the production of wheat, rice, corn and barley in
that time.
“With the help of the ADT, we have almost got rid of the
poppy growing problem,”
Maj. Denise Wilkinson, who returned from
One of the biggest challenges remaining for
“Right now, we have 97 different projects we are working on,
and most of them are completed,”
With the success of the ADT in Nangarhar,
10 other states have developed plans to send reserve teams to different
provinces across
Bond said the initiative is an example of “smart power,” as the program focuses on education to help foster peace in the country.
“Smart power recognizes that before a person can choose his politics, he has to have enough to eat and a stable community in which to live, and the Missouri National Guard is doing just that,” Bond said.
Combining military strength with economic, educational and
diplomatic strategies will be vital in the long-term stability and prosperity
in
Bond added that National Guard soldiers are ideally equipped
to support the agricultural development in
“When they go in, they provide security and provide a means of making a better living,” Bond said.
After the forum,
Kruse said the tour demonstrated the final product of the
techniques that are still in the developing stages in
“It’s one thing to work on a concept, but it’s another to see absolute proof that it is working,” Kruse said.
The roots of a strong, agrarian-based economy already exist
in
“I’m hoping this (program) is the beginning ... that it will
grow and go on until we can stand on our own feet,”
Forget acai berry – Superfruits have far cheaper equals
(The London Free Press) – Exotic foods rich in polyphenol antioxidants, such as goji berries, noni and acai berries are often considered superfoods, since they possess a range of qualities beneficial to human health.
But products containing the organic properties of these foods may not actually be worth the often sky-high prices charged by their manufacturers.
Of all the "superfruits" to hit the North American market in recent months, acai berries have likely garnered the most attention.
The fruit comes from the Euterpe oleracea, a palm tree species that grows mostly in the
Amazon rainforest of northern
It has a long history of use by the local population, as much for its fruit as for the subtle taste of the young palm shoots, known as palm hearts.
The fruit's popularity has soared, across the rest of
The interest in acai berries is due in large part to their high levels of anthocyanins and proanthocyanidins, two plant molecules which act as very strong antioxidants.
Laboratory studies have shown acai extract is potentially a good antioxidant which could help reduce damage to blood vessels caused by free radicals as well as inflammation, two processes involved in the development of chronic disease.
Despite the high interest in its potential as an antioxidant, it's important to note that there are other beverages containing similar, if not higher, levels of antioxidants than acai.
Pomegranate juice, red wine and grape juice can all boast higher antioxidant levels than acai berries, and comparable are the juice of blueberries and cranberries.
End Transmission