Monsanto and its insidious influence is no laughing matter

From The Canberra Times on Tuesday:

THE food authority responsible for approving genetically modified products has been accused of pandering to agrochemical giants at the expense of consumer health, in a report set to be released today analysing the authority's recent decisions.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand is gambling with the health of consumers, the director of the University of Canterbury's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, Professor Jack Heinemann has warned, and is one of only a few regulators to have approved every application for genetically engineered food products.

"Many other regulators have at least stood up once where FSANZ appears to have cowered under industry or political pressure," Professor Heinemann said, describing the authority as the victim of "flawed legislation that mixes the goals of trade and public health".

Over the past 12 years the authority has approved more than 50 varieties of genetically engineered crops, from corn and soy to potato and sugar beet, the report, compiled by Greenpeace, found. Among the products approved despite what the organisation described as a weight of harmful evidence were:

- A strain of corn (MON863) by Monsanto found to cause liver and kidney toxicity when fed to rats in a peer-reviewed French scientific study last year.

- A Syngenta-manufactured corn (GE alpha-amylase) specifically designed to be used in bioethanol production and not intended for human consumption, yet with the potential to enter the human food chain through unchecked US imports.

- Another Syngenta corn (GE Bt10) approved by the authority despite being banned by the European Union and Japan because no safety assessments have yet been conducted.

- A Monsanto canola, still the subject of debate in the European Union and banned outright in Austria, after Monsanto's own testing found increases in liver sizes in rats by up to 16 per cent.

Endorsing the report, Professor Heinemann said many of the authority's decisions on genetically engineered food were based on assumptions, and "picking and choosing only the science [the authority] wants to believe". Moreover, while in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South Africa more stringent food labelling laws are being passed, in Australia genetically engineered products such as oils, starches and sugars as well as meat, milk, cheese and eggs produced by animals that have been fed genetically engineered crops still require no labelling. Food from restaurants and takeaway outlets is also exempt.

The report notes that current labelling legislation is at odds with the ALP's national platform and constitution published last year, which stated that the party supported comprehensive labelling of genetically modified food.

The minister responsible for food labelling, Senator Jan McLucas, has not responded to the Herald's queries.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Ageing defended the authority, saying all decisions on genetically engineered food were the result of "careful assessment of human health and environmental risks".

Kay McNiece said: "The safety assessment process �c is based on internationally accepted methods and approaches." This was endorsed by the World Health Organisation.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/20/1224351155224.

Is it any wonder then that Monsanto, with such obvious clout, resisted these 2007 calls:

** Napa, California -- Harrington Investments, Inc., (HII) a socially responsible investment advisory firm, has introduced a binding by-law amendment that would limit Monsanto Corporation's ability to protect directors when they violate their fiduciary duty in cases resulting in 'harm to the natural environment, public health, or human rights.'

"Monsanto has a long history of selling potentially dangerous chemicals and genetically engineered products that may negatively impact human health and the global environment, as well as impair shareholder value," said John Harrington, President and CEO of Harrington Investments. "Corporate directors need to take personal responsibility in overseeing management to insure that the corporation's actions speak louder than the CEO's words."

** The new vehicle for improving corporate governance will be on the proxy for the January 16, 2008 shareholder meeting at Monsanto (MON).

"We chose Monsanto as our target for this new approach, because we view this company as facing significant legal and reputational liabilities that might have been prevented with better board oversight. These include allegations of selling potentially dangerous products abroad, bribing foreign government officials, and releasing genetically engineered products that have not been proven safe for human consumption or the natural environment. Such activities are bad for our company's reputation, and could lead to substantial liabilities," said Harrington.

As recent legal actions against the company demonstrate, failure of the management to oversee these issues can lead to significant liabilities. In 2005, Monsanto was forced to pay a $1.5 million fine to settle allegations that employees bribed Indonesian officials to bypass environmental laws. In January of this year, a French court fined Monsanto Agriculture France SAS and Monsanto's French distributor, Scotts France, after a former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising. Then, in February of this year, it was reported that the British Environment Agency had begun an investigation into "one of the most contaminated sites in Wales" - a former Monsanto dump that could cost more than $200 million to clean up according to a reported estimate. In October of this year, Monsanto was sued by dozens of West Virginians alleging that pollution from a now-defunct Monsanto factory caused them to contract various types of cancer; they are seeking $5 million each in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages. This lawsuit is particularly worrisome to investors because it is reminiscent of a 2002 settlement in which the company agreed to pay the preponderance of a $700 million settlement to offset damages to human health and the natural environment in Anniston, Alabama.