Why Is the Obama Administration Parroting Monsanto Talking Points?

Something's very wrong when the chief scientist at the USDA says we'll have to start farming parks, forests and golf courses if we don't switch to biotech.

July 19, 2010 |

When key government officials start touting the need for biotechnology there's reason to be concerned. Roger Beachy, the Chief Scientist of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), recently told Smartplanet.com that biotechnology is needed to maximize food production and reduce the use of agrochemicals. "With a greater number of people," he said, "we're going to have to have more crop per acre. If we don't, we'll have to expand [agriculture] to our parks, forests, and golf courses." And at first it might seem strange to hear a top government official parroting talking points from Monsanto's Corporate Responsibility page ... until you read his resume, that is. His last job before joining the USDA was as founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, a non-profit research institute co-founded by Monsanto and the Danforth Foundation.

Now, another explanation why Monsanto and Roger Beachy have similar talking points could be that both are correct and they are simply explaining the facts about the future of food and agriculture. Do we really need biotech to feed a growing population?

Nope, turns out that we don't. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, genetically engineered (GE) seeds, to date, don't translate to more crop yields. And worse, GE seeds have meant the uses of more, not less, chemicals. Jack Heinemann, a professor of genetics and molecular biology, agrees. He points out that no GE crops, to date, were designed with the goal of increasing yield, and while "yield benefits have been observed" they've occurred "sporadically and in a year-, location-, and crop-dependent manner." He does not find evidence for decreased pesticide use in GE crops either.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.alternet.org/story/147582/why_is_the_obama_administration_parroting_monsanto_talking_points/

El Danforth Plant Science Center, institución que dirige el consorcio para el desarrollo de yuca transgénica, del cual la UPR-RUM es miembro, depende económicamente de Monsanto desde que fue fundado. Miren en Google Maps- su sede está literalmente frente al corporate headquarters de Monsanto, al otro lado de la autopista 340 en el suburbio de Creve Coeur en la ciudad de St. Louis, Missouri.

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200

Dr Roger Beachy, is the founding president of the Danforth Plant Science Center, which was established by Monsanto and academic partners, including Peter Raven 's Missouri Botanical Garden. The Center was launched with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto, which also donated the Center’s 40-acre tract of land, near Monsanto's home town of St. Louis, valued at $11.4 million.

Beachy is also Professor in the Department of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis. It was Beachy's work at Washington University which, in collaboration with Monsanto, led to the development of the world’s first genetically modified food crop, a variety of tomato that was modified for virus disease-resistance.

In 2003, in letters to the journals Science and Nature, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, complained that Beachy had published an editorial in Science and co-signed a letter in Nature Biotechnology without either journal disclosing that 'Beachy’s research on agricultural biotechnology has been funded by Monsanto and other biotech companies, even though the subjects of his submissions — the safety of genetically engineered crops and intellectual-property policies — are directly relevant to those companies.'

Interview with Roger Beachy, Obama's pick to head the Natl Inst of Food & Ag

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n1/full/nbt0110-11.html

Plant scientist Roger Beachy has joined the Obama administration to lead the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the new research funding arm of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Beachy, whose research led to the first transgenic crop, was previously the long-time head of the not-for-profit Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis. Emily Waltz talks to Beachy about his plans for the new agency.

******

Do you think that the financial support from Monsanto at the Donald Danforth Plant ScienceCenter will affect how you form relationships with industry at NIFA?

No. As president of the Danforth Center I encouraged relationships with private companies, including Monsanto. But it should be understood that those relationships did not result in significant influences over the mission of the Center. It's unfortunate that some people think that that relationship has tainted me in some way, although I guess it's not unexpected.

******

Why do we see such an emphasis on transgenic strains of major crops rather than other crops that would benefit small-scale farmers and consumers?

There is relatively little profit in minor crops like blueberries and sweet potatoes compared with the large commodity crops. So the major seed companies aren't very interested in developing them; that is left to the public sector and small seed companies. And while public sector science is putting a lot of effort into researching these smaller crops, the cost of navigating the regulatory process is so high that it essentially eliminates public sector participation in commercialization. Noncommercial researchers also lack the expertise and infrastructure to provide regulatory authorities with the necessary documentation for regulatory approval. Without additional support, there will likely be few genetically enhanced crops developed by public sector researchers in the marketplace in the near future.

******

Will NIFA fund research that examines the potential risks of biotech crops?

We've had more than 15 years of successful deployment of biotech crops. That history alone tells us a lot about how safe transgenes are under current regulatory guidelines. I think it's important that we stop talking only about risks and talk more about risk-benefit analyses.

President Obama agriculture picks sow confusion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32812_Page2.html

EXCERPT:

Roger Beachy, the new director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which has a $1.3 billion budget for research grants, comes from the Danforth Plant Science Center, funded through gifts from the Monsanto Fund, among others.

In an interview, Beachy said the institute will support all methods of farming: production, conventional or organic.

But he also said something about food safety that has small farmers quaking: “Scientific standards for food safety regulations should be the same across all farming systems. They should apply to big farms and small farms, including organic farms.”

******

Beachy has also described genetically engineered crops as sustainable. “The science of biotech is extremely important in feeding an ever-growing population around the world,” he said. “I don’t think sustainability should be limited to organic and local.”

Dave Murphy, founder and director of Food Democracy Now, a grass-roots organization that promotes sustainability, is angered by the effort to co-opt the word. “GMOs are not sustainable,” he said. “The problem with GMOs is that they have not provided higher yields and lower pesticide use.”

Another administration appointment, Islam “Isi” Siddiqui, who’s been nominated to become the chief negotiator on agriculture issues in global markets, was a pesticide lobbyist for the nation’s most powerful agrichemical lobby group.

As special assistant for trade to the agriculture secretary in 1999, he told the Japanese he did not want them to label GMOs. “We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none,” he said. “Mandatory labeling could mislead consumers about the safety of these products.”