GMW: Agragen sows a crop of false assertions

[Guest guest]

GMW: Agragen sows a crop of false assertions

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:17:29 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

The US flax industry lets the biotech Agragen Inc. have both barrels

over GM pharma flax. This, of course, is the kind of insane prospect the

New Zealand government seems so keen to attract!

------

VIEWPOINT: Agragen sows a crop of false assertions

By Ernie Hoffert

Grand Forks Herald, 26 June 2005

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/editorial/11987962.htm

 

In response Agragen Inc. executives Sam Huttenbauer Jr., Sam

Huttenbauer III and Eric Murphy, I would say most of it does not need

to be

dignified by my rebuttal.

 

However, some of their assertions are total fabrications or

distortions.

 

The meeting that Ameriflax organized June 9 in Fargo was not a closed

meeting. One of the authors contacted me about this issue, and I told

him that Ameriflax was bound by the North Dakota open meeting law (in

that it is funded by grower check-off funds) and that the meeting was

open

but that he was not welcome and Ann Bailey from Agweek magazine would

be there to report on the discussion.

 

Agragen states that this is just an edible flax industry concern.

Wrong: This is an entire industry concern. In 2004, flax growers produced

about 15 million bushels from 600,000 acres that generated nearly $150

million for our producers. The food industry as well as the feed industry

is at risk with Agragen's concept.

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has a zero tolerance for commingling of plant-made

pharmaceuticals in the food and feed supply, so even the linseed meal

that remains

after the linseed oil is extracted is subject to these regulations.

 

We also have our export market to Europe to consider. I was surprised

when one of the major commercial flax buyers told us that 15 percent of

our flax is exported to Europe - and, contrary to Murphy's assertion

that Europe is softening its stance regarding biotech, it is not.

 

Agragen also claims that this opposition is being promoted by a " small

but profitable sector. " This, too, is false. Ameriflax has hosted two

meetings on this subject, with the first in September 2004, where

Agragen was given the whole day to sell this concept. Virtually all of

the

flax industry leaders - from the big industrial users to organic

interests to North Dakota State University scientists - were there,

including

both major flax organizations from Canada.

 

And yet between the two meetings, not one - I repeat, not one - word of

support for Agragen or their concept was voiced. In fact, the comments

ranged from being very concerned to outright opposition. I think this

is a little more than a " small, but profitable sector. "

 

Again, the entire industry is at risk and not just in North Dakota.

Just this week, a news story from Winnipeg voiced serious concerns from

the Canadian Flax Council about the very real threat of their flax being

contaminated by plant-made pharmaceutical flax from this side of the

border.

 

Opposition to these pharmaceuticals is not limited to flax, but to all

food and feed commodities in this country, including many of the major

processing groups such as the Grocers Manufacturers Association and the

North American Millers Association.

 

The entire plant-made pharmaceuticals concept has been a big

disappointment to the biotech industry. Since 1991, there have been

more than 200

open-air trials involving corn, beans and other crops - and to date,

not one has passed the stringent guidelines of the Food and Drug

Administration.

 

But Agragen officials would have you believe that this is no problem -

even though their only other experience with plant-made pharmacueticals

tried to use tobacco in Kentucky, but for whatever reason did not

succeed.

 

They also would like you to believe that they have all the answers

regarding accidental comingling, be it by pollen drift, seed mixture or

other means. But they fail to talk about disasters such as Prodigene in

Nebraska in 2002, when failure to monitor a plant-made pharmacueticals

test plot from a previous year's trial led to contamination of 500,000

bushels of soybeans at a local elevator and a $3.5 million liability

problem for Prodigene.

 

I wonder how much liability insurance Agragen will have to cover such

disasters? Or will this liability fall back on the farmers involved - or

will it be state, local or federal entities who may help fund this

concept? Or will it be the angel investors or venture capital groups they

hope to attract?

 

" Genetically engineered foods are among the riskiest of all possible

insurance exposures that we have today, " according to Robert Hartwig,

chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute.

 

What about lost markets to foreign or domestic buyers such as in the

Starlink fiasco? Even biotech leader Monsanto has abandoned its

subsidiary, Integrated Protein Technologies, due to " uncertainity of the

longer-term reward from a highly capital-intensive business, " Hartwig

said.

 

And farmers don't buy into the idea that this concept will save many

farms in North Dakota. In a recent Farm Industry News issue, Senior

Editor Wayne Wenzel tells farmers to forget " pharming. "

 

Another thing Agragen failed to mention in its letter has to do with

the Ventria rice debacle. Originally, the company introduced a plant-made

pharmaceutical rice concept in California, but the rice growers mounted

such opposition that they were forced to look elsewhere to try their

experiment.

 

As a friend of mine in Missouri said recently in an e-mail regarding

the Ventria rice situation: " We are faced with a situation where we have

200 acres and one grower and a promise, versus 250,000 acres, 600

growers and an existing industry worth $100 million ... tough trade off ! "

 

This is the exact same scenario we are facing in North Dakota. From

everyone's viewpoint in the flax industry, this is a no-brainer; forget

about it. Try a different nonfood or feed crop, and the opposition will

disappear.

 

No one can stop a company such as Agragen from proceeding as long as

they follow USDA regulations. Our goal is to prevent tax dollars, state

or federal, from helping fund plant-made pharmaceuticals in projects

involving flax.

 

Agragen is free to spend all the money it wants as long as it is

Agragen's own nickel, but I doubt Agragen will continue doing that.

 

Agragen says it will be holding focus group meetings to inform

producers about their plans. The reason for this is that it

desperately needs

farmer support to attract federal and state tax dollars. So, as long as

it is not tarred and feathered at these meetings, Agragen will

interpret them as a sign of support.

 

The first rule in economic development is to do no harm to existing

businesses and industries. Our concern is that harm will happen

eventually, despite all the safeguards that are proposed. Human error

will lead

to a breakdown in the system, and then it will be too late.

 

The flax acres in North Dakota have grown from a low of 100,000 acres

in the late 1980s to maybe as high as 1 million acres in 2005. Flax is

an old crop with exciting new uses. It is probably the fastest-growing

grain commodity in the health-food sector as well as in the feed market

for horses, chickens, dairy and beef cattle. We cannot let these

rapidly expanding markets be jeopardized by high risk concepts such as

plant-made pharmaceuticals.

 

Agragen calls itself " a potential $200 million industry, " referring to

its projected sales. The key word is, " projected. " Everything has

potential, but I prefer to go with what is " actual - such as our existing

markets, which, this year with a good crop, could be $200 million or

more. This is " actual, " not potential.

 

I worked with Agragen for more than a year, thinking perhaps there was

such thing as coexistence, But the more I learned, the more I realized

this was not possible.

 

One of the most damaging factors to Agragen's credibility was the

decision by NDSU's biotech department to not aid the company in its

venture.

This speaks volumes.

 

Hoffert is secretary and treasurer of Ameriflaxˇ

 

 

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