GMW:_Monsanto:_it's_all_coming_home_to_roost

[Guest guest]

GMW:_Monsanto:_it's_all_coming_home_to_roost

" GM_WATCH "

Fri, 14 May 2004 09:13:21 +0100

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

Monsanto's difficulties don't stop with its massive wasted investment in GM

wheat globally, GM beet in Europe and GM anola in Australia, nor in its main

rival moving against its US corn market...

---

Monsanto: it's all coming home to roost

The Business Times, May 13, 2004

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,116550,00.html

 

THE giant American corporation spearheading the development of genetically

modified (GM) food and growth hormones is suddenly under fire in several

countries.

 

First, Monsanto announced a 50 per cent cutback in the sales of its GM bovine

growth hormone in late February. The cuts followed a rare admission by the US

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug, branded as Posilac, had

violated sterility standards. The FDA's admission comes on top of the fact that

Posilac has been one of the biggest-ever consumer food safety issues. The

controversy over Posilac has raged in the US since the mid-1980s. Posilac has

been on the market since 1994. More than 20 per cent of American dairy cows

receive Posilac injections every two weeks in order to get them to yield more

milk.

 

Monsanto's rbGH hormone, the key ingredient in Posilac, was the first major

artificial method of enhancing food output to win FDA approval. But the hormone

raised concerns in three areas: was it safe for human consumption?; was it safe

for animal consumption?; and was it subjected to strict quality control?

 

The controversy was stirred up last November when, during a routine FDA

inspection at the plant in Austria where the hormone is produced, violations of

sterility codes were discovered. Monsanto admitted that a small number of the

product was contaminated with bacteria. It also appears that the FDA erred in

the mid-1980s when it did not impose a mandatory test for rbGH. In spite of the

lack of such a test, Monsanto and US government officials have claimed that

there is no difference in milk from untreated cows from that produced by

rbGH-injected cows.

 

A few years ago, the FDA launched a defence of its policy through a 10-page

document underlining that rbGH was safe. In time, it became apparent that the

greatest human safety issue stemming from the consumption of milk from rbGH

injected cows centred on a secondary hormone called IGF-1. The danger is that an

increased dosage of growth hormones results in proliferation of IGF-1, spurring

higher levels of metabolism in the body.

 

Medical journals have published research on the link between IGF-1 and the

appearance of cancer. Some IGF-1 occurs naturally in cows, but data reveals that

higher IGF-1 levels are found in rbGH-injected cow's milk than in normal milk.

It is against this background that Monsanto's cuts in production of Posilac took

place. Finally, some caution is being exercised, but the controversial drug

continues to be widely used.

 

In a second blow to Monsanto, a court hearing is under way in Chicago centering

on alleged price-fixing by Monsanto, but the case has wider ramifications than

that, and recent events reveal that Monsanto's links run far deeper. On Jan 10,

a judge in a Monsanto price-fixing trial in Chicago was asked to remove himself

from the case owing to conflict of interest arising from the fact that he

previously worked for a law firm that represented Monsanto and had been listed

as a lawyer for the company. The class action suit alleges that Monsanto held

frequent meetings with its key competitors and persuaded them to raise the price

of GM seeds. Monsanto has admitted having meetings with executives of one big

firm but insists these were legal discussions about seed-licensing agreements.

Monsanto denies the claims made in the class action suit.

 

In a third setback, Monsanto has stopped selling soybean seeds in a major

agricultural-producing nation, Argentina, because it cannot turn a profit. In

mid-January, the company made the announcement, citing a massive black market

for GM seeds that made it impossible for it to recover its investments. The

reverses suffered in Argentina, the world's third-largest soybean producer, have

forced the company to abandon research in new varieties for the local market.

 

A fourth blow was delivered when one of Monsanto's prized projects to develop GM

crops for Africa failed. Three years of experiments have revealed that GM sweet

potatoes, engineered to resist a virus, were just as vulnerable as ordinary

varieties. In a major embarrassment for Monsanto, conventional breeding has

produced a high-yielding variety both quickly and more cheaply than its GM

counterpart championed by Monsanto. Moreover, the GM field trials have cost

Monsanto, the World Bank and the US government about US$6 million over the last

10 years.

 

The failed project was touted as an instance of how GM crops would revolutionise

agriculture in Africa. One of the causes of the failure was identified by Aaron

de Grassi of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex,

who said: 'There was too much rhetoric and not enough good research.'

 

Toronto-based Harish Mehta contributed this article to BT and writes on

environmental and IPR issues.

---

GM canola backs out of Australia

By Richard Black

BBC science correspondent

 

The biotechnology company Monsanto is withdrawing

plans to grow genetically modified canola (oilseed rape) in Australia.

 

The company says that recent legislation prohibiting the use of GM crops means

further investment is unjustified.

 

The news comes just two days after Monsanto announced it was withdrawing its GM

wheat globally.

 

read on at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3712241.stm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBC - Internet access at a great low price.