On Monday, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., announced he would put forward an amendment to the Senate farm bill that would repeal the controversial provision.

Continue Reading...

The justices, in a unanimous vote Monday, rejected the farmer's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide.

Justice Elena Kagan says a farmer who buys patented seeds must have the patent holder's permission. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.

The case had been closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies. But Kagan said the court's holding only "addresses the situation before us."

Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought the expensive, patented seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.

Continue Reading...

Topping the biotech industry’s propaganda playlist will no doubt be this old familiar tune: that requiring retailers to verify non-GMO ingredients in order to label them will be burdensome and costly, and the additional cost will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling to feed their families.

Playing to consumers’ fears of higher food costs makes good strategic sense, especially in tough economic times. But the argument doesn’t hold water, say food manufacturers and retailers who already have systems in place for verifying non-GMO, as well as rBGH-free, trans fat-free, country of origin and fair trade. The system involves using chain-of-custody, legally binding affidavits, not expensive testing.

Continue Reading...

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Continue Reading...

As Mother Jones' Tom Philpott notes, the senator responsible is Missouri Republican Roy Blunt -- famed friend of Big Agrigulture on Capitol Hill. Blunt even told Politico's David Rogers that he "worked with" Monsanto to craft the rider (rendering the moniker "Monsanto Protection Act" all the more appropriate). Philpott notes:

Continue Reading...

The Monsanto Protection Act was signed into law by the president as one small section of the HR 933, approved by Congress to avoid a government shutdown. But many Congress members said they had not even seen the controversial provision (Section 735 in the bill), which protects genetically modified seeds (like those produced by biotech leviathan Monsanto) from litigation in the face of health risks. The biotech rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed, was not subject to appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees, and was reportedly not even seen by many voting Congress members. In response to public outcry over the provision, Mikulski has offered a tepid mea culpa -- a statement of disavowal that does nothing to undo the legislation, which, although temporary, sets dangerous precedent for shielding biotech giants from federal prosecution and intervention. The statement from the senator's office reads:

Continue Reading...

Springfield is one of nearly 40 metro areas where Walmart now captures about half or more of consumer spending on groceries, according to Metro Market Studies. Springfield area residents spend just over $1 billion on groceries each year, and one of every two of those dollars flows into a Walmart cash register. The chain has 20 stores in the area and shows no signs of slowing its growth. Its latest proposal, a store just south of the city's downtown, has provoked widespread protest. Opponents say Walmart already has an overbearing presence in the region and argue that this new store would undermine nearby grocery stores, including a 63-year-old family-owned business which still provides delivery for its elderly customers. A few days before the First Lady's visit, the City Council voted 5-4 to approve what will be Walmart's 21st store in the community.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Original post: Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that's a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act" by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday

Since the act's passing, more than 250,000 people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act's content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed -- little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

Continue Reading...

The lack of attention belies the significance of the decision, both for food consumers around the world and for U.S. businesses. Experts who have examined Monsanto’s conduct say the Justice Department’s decision not to act all but officially establishes the firm’s sovereignty over the U.S. seed industry. Many of them also say the decision ratifies aggressive practices Monsanto used to entrench its dominance and deter competition. This includes highly restrictive contractual agreements that excluded rivals, alongside a multibillion-dollar spree to buy up seed companies.

Continue Reading...

On Tuesday Californians will vote on whether genetically modified food sold in supermarkets will have to be labeled. In an effort to defeat the ballot measure, food and agribusiness giants including Monsanto, Nestle, Dupont and Pepsico have together spent over  $45 million, the Guardian reported Monday.

Although supported by anti-GM and anti-Monsanto activists, Proposition 37 only goes some way to inform Californians about the genetically modified foods on the market. The measure does not cover restaurants and does not require GM labels on meat from animals fed GM corn. However, many pundits believe that if Proposition 37 passes in California, it will lead to national mandatory GM label requirements.

Continue Reading...

Agence France-Presse reports:

Russia’s consumer-rights regulator Rospotrebnadzor asked scientists at the country’s Institute of Nutrition to review the study. The watchdog has also contacted to European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers to explain the EU’s position on GM corn.

As Salon noted last week, the study found that rats fed Monsanto's GMO corn, or exposed to its popular herbicide, developed tumors and organ damage, often dying younger than control group rats. Some experts and commentators have viewed the findings skeptically, noting that the lead researcher has long been an outspoken critic of the biotech giant. Steven Salzberg wrote at Forbes that "the study was designed to fail" and was flawed from methodology through analysis.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Cardinal Peter Turkson told Catholic News Service March 9 that he would urge an attitude of caution and further study of the possible negative effects of genetically engineered organisms.

Under Cardinal Turkson's predecessor, Cardinal Renato Martino, the justice and peace council sponsored several conferences on genetically modified food as a way to alleviate hunger in poor countries.

Agribusinesses and biotech industries that produce genetically modified organisms are justified in wanting to recoup the expenses laid out for research and development, and they have a right to want to make a profit from their work, said Cardinal Turkson, who took over the reins of the council in January.

But the issue becomes problematic when a company that controls the use of genetically modified seeds and crops is motivated more by profit than by "the declared desire to want to help feed humanity," he said.

Continue Reading...

The award, says FoE, is meant to "highlight those business groups and companies that have made the greatest effort to sabotage the climate talks, and other climate measures, while promoting, often profitable, false solutions."

Agriculture giant Monsanto was nominated for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels. The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.... Monsanto also wants GM soy to be funded under the Clean Development Mechanism.

Continue Reading...

Why is this significant? Because after a certain temperature, usually around 86 degrees Fahrenheit, corn yields drop dramatically. And even the most conservative mainstream climate scientist predictions about the effect of global warming include temperature rises that would hammer the corn-growing heartland of the United States.

These insights come from a fascinating new paper, "The Evolution of Heat Tolerance of Corn: Implications for Climate Change" by North Carolina State University's Michael J. Roberts, a professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University. The researchers take advantage of a 100 years of incredibly detailed information on corn yields and temperature records in Indiana, the third-largest corn-growing state in the U.S.

Continue Reading...

In April 2008, the last time HTWW reviewed global herbicide pricing trends, Monsanto was raising RoundUp prices, sticking it to farmers. The reason? Both the cost of production and demand for weedkiller had risen sharply. Industrial production of glyphosate, the key ingredient in RoundUp, is highly energy intensive, and the commodity boom that pushed corn and other grain prices sky-high in 2008 had farmers hungry for as much weed-killer as they could get. Even though Monsanto's patent for RoundUp expired in 2000, paving the way for scores of Chinese generic glyphosate companies to enter the market, demand was still so high that Monsanto could cover its rising energy costs and still reap significant profits.

Continue Reading...

Most of the focus on the newly invigorated antitrust division of the Department of Justice has centered on the possibility that the feds are taking a hard look at Google's domination of the online advertising market. My former colleague Farhad Manjoo does a great job of explaining why that's not a particularly smart idea. But for the foodies, organic and family farmers, and anti-GMO activists of the world, there's a far more provocative target at which to aim the antitrust cannon: the Roundup, GMO-corn and GMO-soybean king, Monsanto.

This is not idle speculation. On Aug. 7, Philip Weiser, a newly appointed deputy assistant attorney general in the antitrust division, gave an important speech in St. Louis, which just happens to be where Monsanto is based. The title of the speech: "Toward a Competition Policy Agenda for Agriculture Markets."

Continue Reading...

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its own "official" count on Friday, but that's little consolation -- the ADP survey has historically come in lower than the government total. And if the BLS declares that the U.S. lost 700,000 jobs in December, reports the Financial Times, that would be the worst number in 59 years.

However, after undershooting the government numbers in November, the ADP changed its methodology, so the past doesn't offer us too much guidance. Still, no wonder the markets are upset this morning, (The Dow was down 185 an hour after opening). On Wednesday, Time Warner announced it was writing off 25 billion worth of losses for the fourth quarter of 2008, citing a decline in advertising revenue for its cable operations, and Intel reported that fourth quarter revenue would decline 23 percent, due to slacking worldwide demand for semiconductors. Two other industrial giants, IBM and Alcoa, both announced imminent job cuts.

Continue Reading...

Make no mistake, the biotechnology industry and big agribusiness corporations are mighty pleased with the prospect of Vilsack as Ag secretary. Grist's Tom Philpott notes that "in 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization named him 'governor of the year' for his 'support of the industry's economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research'" and that Vilsack has supported several measures reducing the power of local governments to regulate agribusiness operations. Philpott also points us to the Des Moines Register, which features a handful of illuminating quotes.

Continue Reading...