[pf] 'GMOs Are Dead' by Brewster Kneen, in -The Ram's Horn- (BC, Canada)

· Ann, via Julie Priddle <.-.-.@learningmedia.co.nz>, sent to GreenNews-NZ,
with Subject: [GN]"GMOs Are Dead" by Brewster Kneen :-

Friends:  if you have not seen this publication/website, you should go
there and subscribe.  This is a major watershed commentary, from someone
who has made GM and corporatization issues a significant part of his life's
work.  Be sure it is seen by the RC.  Ann
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_

http://www.ramshorn.bc.ca/current.html
  is (currently) :-

The Ram's Horn;
A monthly journal of food system analysis.      - CURRENT ISSUE -

Each month, we will publish a selected article from a recent issue of The
Ram's Horn, and past months' lead articles will appear on our Back Issues
page, along with a Table of Contents for each issue. To see the whole of
each issue, please subscribe! The sidebar on each page has full
subscription information. 


"GMOs Are Dead" by Brewster Kneen

The biotech corporations that just three years ago started calling
themselves the "life sciences" companies are in the midst of a major
makeover, as the promised synergies between pharmaceuticals and
agricultural biotechnology have not panned out. At the same time, they
continue their deliberate strategy of fatalization: to induce public
fatalism and despair so that we will believe that the onward march of GE
cannot be stopped.

A year and a half ago (12/7/99), the Deutsche Bank issued a report to
investors titled "DuPont - Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks." Without a
crystal ball it is hard to tell whether that was just sound analysis or if
it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. In any case, it was a sound prediction.
The report contained an appendix dated May 21 entitled "GMOs Are Dead."
Among other things, it said, "GMOs have just crossed the line. Thirty days
ago, the investment community accorded only positive attributes . . . to
GMO corn and soybeans. . . Today, the term GMO has become a liability. We
predict that GMOs . . . will now be perceived as a pariah. . .
Increasingly, GMOs are, in our opinion, becoming a liability to farmers. .
. 'Don't expect us to take a bullet for your GMO products.' So said a
representative of Nestlé."

Today it seems that only die-hards like the Canola Council will say that
GMO crops have not become a pariah. All the major corporations, with the
apparent exception of Bayer, are restructuring and refocusing their
businesses and trying, as politely as possible, to usher agbiotech and ag
chemicals out the door or into the back room so the companies can
concentrate on pharmaceuticals, where the real money (double-digit return
on investment) is.

"People today want to have a pure pharma focus, which is why Novartis and
Aventis are getting out of chemicals," said a Scottish fund manager. He was
commenting on the future of Bayer, which has stuck to a conglomerate model
while other European chemical-pharmaceutical firms have broken themselves
up. -GM, 9/12/00 

The attempt of the biotech industry to clothe itself in the mantle of "life
sciences" began in March, 1997, when Novartis ran a series of full-page ads
in major media promoting its skills and products in "the science of life".
In January, 1998, Monsanto announced in full-page ads, "Life begins at 97"
and explained, "After a 97-year history of success, we have a new business
focus: life sciences." The same ads introduced its nifty little vine logo
and its blasphemous motto, "Food.Health.Hope." 

By the summer of 1999, Monsanto was on the ropes, with a debt of $8.1
billion. It tried to sell itself to American Home Products, which owned
Cyanamid (agrotoxins) at the time but that foundered, apparently on the
rocks of big egos. Finally, at the very end of 1999, Pharmacia rescued
Monsanto, sort of. What Pharmacia was after, however, was not the ag
biotech for which Monsanto is notorious, but rather its drug division,
Searle, with its blockbuster arthritis drug Celebrex - notwithstanding the
very serious "side effects" of the drug. This became apparent when
Pharmacia announced that it would set Monsanto up as a public company while
retaining ('for now', in fine print) 80% ownership. 

By this time, Searle had been absorbed by Pharmacia and Monsanto was a
stripped down business consisting of seeds, ag biotech and Roundup. Part of
the stripping down was the disposal of its CEO, Robert Shapiro, who was
replaced by long-time Monsanto executive Henry Verfaillie. In mid November,
Pharmacia made an initial public offering (IPO) of Monsanto stock.
Apparently it did not go over very well with investors. Pharmacia still
owns 85% of the company, and the other 15% went entirely to senior Monsanto
employees on some kind of stock option deal. (Verfaillie himself bought $7
million worth.) In other words, Deutsche Bank's analysis remains sound. And
if you go to the totally revamped website www.monsanto.com you will find
the vine, but not "Food.Health.Hope."

"Monsanto manages its business in two segments: Agricultural Productivity,
and Seeds and Genomics. The Agricultural Productivity segment consists
primarily of crop protection products and animal agriculture businesses.
The Seeds and Genomics segment is comprised of global seeds and related
biotechnology traits businesses, and genetic technology platforms." 

"Year-to-date, sales in the Agricultural Productivity segment increased by
8% to $3.1 billion compared with sales in the first nine months of 1999.
The increase was led by a 5% increase in the sales of Roundup and other
glyphosate products to $2.1 billion. . . Worldwide volumes of Roundup have
grown 18 % year-to-date." 

"The company continues to strategically shift more of its seed offerings to
those with biotechnology traits." 

- Monsanto third quarter 2000 report, 30/10/00 

The Pharmacia-Monsanto split off is not unique. In fact, it typifies what
is taking place across the board with the big "life sciences" corporations. 

The giants Novartis and AstraZeneca have gotten together to create
Syngenta, to carry on Novartis' agrotoxin and seeds businesses and
AstraZeneca's agrotoxin business (a 61%-39% partnership) while the mother
companies focus on drugs and human 'health' activities. (Advanta's seed
business was already a 50/50 partnership with Dutch co-op Cosun so it was
not included in Syngenta.) 

Aventis, so much in the news over StarLink corn, is the product of the
merger of Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc in 1998, but it also included, in some
way, the Hoechst-Schering partnership, AgrEvo. Now the agbiotech and
agrotoxin activites of Aventis and AgrEvo are being hived off as Agreva. 

"I welcome the move. We don't want to buy conglomerates anymore," said Eric
Bernhardt, a fund manager with Clariden private bank in Zurich. . .
"Agriculture is a low growth area and has been dragging down the rest of
the company. The market growing only 2% to 3% a year against the 11% or so
revenue growth expected from pharmaceuticals." -Reuters, 15/11/00

The right-wing business weekly The Economist (18/11/00) described recent
events candidly: 

"Aventis announced it will sell its agricultural business by the end of
next year. . . Other nervous companies include AstraZeneca and Novartis,
which agreed to merge their agribusiness last year. Their bio-tech baby
Syngenta was a stock market flop, capitalising at just over half of the
expected $10 billion when it was floated on November. GE drug company
Pharmacia bought the infamous bio-tech food group Monsanto, and is now
expected to sell it within two years. Smaller company DuPont is also
expected to sell its GE drug-making business, as is German company BASF
whose drug division is small and unsuccessful. Bayer is the only company
soldiering on with both GE agricultural and drug divisions, as the farm
side is more profitable than its pharmaceuticals."

Since Aventis has been much in the news, here are more details about the
company to illustrate the troubled history of biotechnology:

Aventis was launched in December 1999 through the merger of Hoechst AG of
Germany and Rhône-Poulenc SA of France. 

Rhône Poulenc was founded in 1858 as an apothecary shop in Paris. By the
early 1900s the company had developed a synthetic drug to combat previously
untreatable syphilis. Hoechst also traces its roots to the mid-19th
century, when it started making chemicals in Germany. In 1925, it joined
with drugmaker Bayer A.G. and chemical manufacturer BASF to become part of
I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G. I.G. Farben, as that company was known, was
broken up by Allied forces after World War II because of its involvement in
producing gases used in Hitler's death camps. Its 'gases' were the
forerunners of modern-day agro-toxins. Neither Hoechst, Bayer nor BASF were
held responsible for I.G. Farben's wartime activities and the three were
allowed to maintain their businesses. 

75% of Aventis' $17 billion in sales in 1999 came from its drugs business.
The rest was from its agrotoxins sector. Kuwait's government-run petroleum
company is the largest single shareholder of Aventis.

-Agribusiness Examiner # 95, from a profile of Aventis by S.P. Dinen in the
Des Moines (Iowa) Register, 5/11/00 

"Aventis CropScience (the crop protection and crop production unit of
Aventis), brought together the crop protection business of Rhône-Poulenc
with the crop protection, seeds and crop improvement activities of Hoechst
Schering AgrEvo. Schering AG, Hoechst's partner in AgrEvo, owns a 24
percent interest." www.aventis.com 

The Aventis website also provides the following insights into its current -
ambitious, can we say? - corporate philosophy: 

"Our challenge is life." 

"We've developed innovative pharmaceuticals for the treatment of allergies
- so that everyone can have pleasant feelings about nature." [photo of boy
and girl smirking against leafy background] 

"We develop innovative crop protection and improved plants - so tomorrow we
can all live better." [photo of woman in wheat field] 

"As we begin the new millennium, dramatic advances in science and
technology are unravelling the very secrets of the processes of life.
Important scientific discoveries are being made, and the potential gain in
knowledge is our key to massive advancements in the quality of everyday
living."

"Our extensive commitment to R&D, powerful global marketing network and
comprehensive product portfolio, are providing us with the necessary tools
to skillfully confront and alleviate the complex problems facing biological
life today." 

Meanwhile, the company is being taken apart, according to an Aventis press
release (15/11/00) also on their website. Could this have anything to do
with the still-to-be-concluded StarLink episode? 

"The Supervisory Board of Aventis approved a strategic focus on
pharmaceuticals on 15 November. The agricultural business unit, Aventis
CropScience, which has been operating as an independent legal entity since
Aventis was founded a year ago, is to be divested . . . under the name
"Agreva". The divestment process is expected to be implemented by the end
of 2001." 

"Since the creation of Aventis, market consolidation in both the pharma and
agriculture sector has accelerated. By effecting the separation, Aventis
will achieve strategic flexibility, clarity and enhanced performance focus
for both businesses." 

"The Animal Nutrition business is also in the process of being sold. The 50
percent stake in the animal health joint venture Merial will be retained.
The divestments of the remaining industrial activities, namely the
interests in Messer and Wacker, are expected to progress as previously
communicated."

Our family doctor, Warren Bell, reports that he perused the list of
advertisers in a recent issue of the Canadian Family Physician, and found:
AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer Inc., and Novartis Pharma Canada Inc. Then he
looked on the inside cover of the brochure of the Crop Protection
Institute, which he had just received. The names seemed familiar: Zeneca
Agro, Aventis CropScience Canada Co., Bayer Inc. and Novartis Crop
Protection Inc./Novartis Seeds Inc. 

 

How do we interpret all this? 
First of all, one has to ask serious questions about the intelligence of
the drug/biotech/agrotoxin industry. They apparently fell for their own
line of wishful thinking that combining pharmaceuticals and agbiotech, and
christening them "life sciences," would produce magical synergies and
fantastic profits. Perhaps they were overly influenced by the apparent
nonchalance with which the public appears to accept high-tech drugs. They
failed to take notice (as Deutsche Bank did) of the changing public
consciousness against GE foods - and, indeed, the "medical model" of
high-tech and drug-dependent therapies for treatment of illness - in favour
of organic food and alternate therapies which emphasise health promotion. 

Second, if these companies seem all-powerful, look at the changes taking
place in the past three years. Consider carefully the case of Monsanto. It
is not dead and buried - unfortunately; but it is taking a great deal more
public money to keep all this going than the capitalists are willing to
provide by way of public investment. One has to ask, where would agbiotech
be without the Rockefeller Foundation? 

Third, observe the current corporate strategy of shifting both business
activity and public appeal away from GE foods to the human 'health'
business. The corporate emphasis now is on selling the public on the
personal, individual 'benefits' of tailor-made drugs, selected and improved
human embryos, and organ transplants from GE pigs (zenotransplants). This
appeal to individual 'benefit' has its obvious corollary in the ethic of
capitalist greed: more for me. Hence the hiving off of the agbiotech and
agrotoxin subsidiaries.

Fourth, the pernicious and anti-social character of the corporate strategy
should not be underestimated. It is deliberate, and it is accompanied by a
parallel government strategy of gaining support for the drug and biotech
industry by appealing to individual and special interest group benefits,
while building the appearance of public support through a highly
manipulative process of 'consultation' with 'stakeholder' groups and
carefully selected individuals-who may have a tendency to be flattered by
being fingered by the government as 'important' people to be consulted. The
way the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee was formed more than a
year ago is a good example, as is its current manoeuver to form an advisory
body to the advisory committee. In other words, what we are witnessing is
another dimension of privatization, accompanied by the further
marginalization of Parliament and other institutions that are supposed to
serve the public, in the interests of increasing corporate control and
profit, or 'shareholder value.' 

Fifth, we need to recognize the strategy of fatalization: the attempt by
the biotech industry to convince us all that it is too late to halt the
advance of biotechnology. This has been an important aspect of the industry
strategy for years. As I wrote in Farmageddon, senior AgrEvo and Monsanto
executives confirmed this for me in 1997; and if you think about the
StarLink episode, one can be sure that Aventis knew exactly what it was
doing in 1998 when StarLink was grown on 10,000 acres in the U.S. No one
was looking for contamination that year, nor the next when 250,000 acres of
StarLink were grown without approval for human food use. Clearly Aventis
was hoping to pollute the food system so significantly that by the time it
was discovered it would be impossible to clean it out of the system. Then
Aventis could just say, 'sorry about that folks, but it's too late to turn
back.' When it did become public, Aventis' first move was to ask EPA to
declare the presence of StarLink corn an "unavoidable contaminant" - just
as Aventis intended it to be. (The suspicious mind also has to wonder
whether USDA and EPA officials did not know about it or were willing
participants in Aventis' scheme all along.) 

Yes, what I am suggesting is that there has been a conspiracy between the
biotech industry and government agencies in Canada and the US to fatalize
the public into throwing up our hands in despair. That is why the industry
and its government agents have been adamantly opposed to labelling. That is
why AgCanada and the CFIA pushed the GE crops through the regulatory
process as fast as possible. That is why AgCanada ten years ago decided to
base biotech regulation on the existing legislation rather than setting up
a proper regulatory regime. They did not want one. 

I am suggesting that Monsanto and everyone else knew GE corn pollen would
wander and that buffer zones were inadequate. They knew there would be
transgenic canola everywhere - and they wanted it to be everywhere. 

It has all been part of a carefully thought out plot to engender public
fatalism. 

But it didn't work. 

Why would anyone want to be impressed with an industry that has such a poor
grasp of reality that all the major players have to make a radical course
change after less that three years of proclaiming themselves the source of
life? Little wonder that Deutsche Bank said, two years ago, "GMOs are dead." 

So let's carry on with the burial. -B.K. 

 
And when they make a long blast on the ram's horn, then all the people
shall shout with a great shout: and the walls of the city will fall down
flat. 
-Joshua 6:5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Ram's Horn;        Who We Are

Brewster Kneen is Canada's foremost analyst and critic of the food system,
and the author of From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System,
Trading Up: How Cargill, the World's Largest Grain Company, Is Changing
Canadian Agriculture, The Rape of Canola (the history of the development of
canola), and Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies.
Brewster's new book, Farmageddon, Food and the Culture of Biotechnology is
published by New Society Publishers. Brewster is an activist, theologian
and economist, actively involved in building sustainable communities around
the globe and at home. The Kneen family farmed in Nova Scotia from 1971 to
1986, building up one of the largest sheep farms in Eastern Canada and
being very active in farm politics and organizing.

Cathleen Kneen is a feminist and social activist, and has helped to found
many important community groups from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. She
was a founding member of the Pictou County Women's Centre and Transition
House, Executive Director of the Assaulted Women's Help Line in Toronto,
and founding member of the Mission Farmers' Market. Cathleen is also the
editor, co-writer, illustrator and designer of The Ram's Horn and editor of
BC Organic Grower, the quarterly magazine of the Certified Organic
Associations of BC. She is currently involved in creating local food policy
groups around BC.

The Kneens live in Sorrento, British Columbia, on a ten-acre organic farm
with their daughter and son-in-law. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_

sent on to the Positive Futures list:
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001I/
 by David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davdd.geo/index.html#top
*************************************************

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01