S U M M E R 2 0 0 7 VOLUME 1 / NUMBER 4

P O L I C Y B R I E F

how food became a casualty of biotechnology’s promise

By Michael Heimbinder Fellow, Oakland Institute

There was something deeply mystifying about the GE crops have little to do with growing food rush of big biotech and chemical companies into the and feeding people. The developers of GE crops are seed business, ’s headfirst dive in particular not concerned with nourishing human life, but with . . .. It is not, in the lingo of Wall Street, a high margin commodifying human life. The pharmaceutical industry business. is investing in agriculture because plants and animals -Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big can be genetically engineered to produce human proteins Money, and the Future of Food 1 and human organs – “products” that promise profits The first genetically engineered (GE) crops were approved far exceeding any imaginable from high yielding crops for human consumption in the mid-1990’s. Now, millions bearing vitamin-fortified food. of genetically modified meals later, the clamor over GE foods has become a fixture of food policy debate. The The Financial Failures parties to the argument generally fall into one of two of Biotechnology camps: those who support agricultural biotechnology as a solution to world hunger and the scarcity of Monsanto, having launched their agricultural environmental resources and those who warn that GE biotechnology program in the early 1980’s, finally crops are jeopardizing food security and threatening the managed to release their first GE product in 1996. environment.2 This paper aims to establish new ground That is, the company spent approximately 15 years in the controversy and contribute to the groundswell of and billions of dollars before they saw any return on opposition against claims that “GE crops will allow us to their investment in genetic science. This is a pattern grow more food and feed more people.” that continues to this day: in 2006 Monsanto spent $725 million on research and development 2005 alone, the global biotechnology industry while earning a net profit of $689 million.3 racked up a collective loss of $4.3 billion.12 This is the product development Agricultural biotechnology is hemorrhaging model that has become institutionalized in the money because they have invested enormous pharmaceutical industry. Companies spend big sums in cheap commodities – seeds – whose for several years in the hopes of coming up genetically engineered, value-added components with a single blockbuster drug that will generate offer negligible advantages over conventional enough revenue to cover all their sunk costs while varieties. Agriculture is an industry marked by delivering a handsome profit.4 This may be a low-margin products, high development costs, sustainable business model for the pharmaceutical and long lead times.13 It is not a blockbuster industry considering the huge size of the market business and never will be because investing in – the world spent $550 billion on drugs in 20045 products that augment farm production results in – but it hardly makes sense when addressing the an inescapable contradiction: the demand for food traditionally low margin seed business. “Compare is inelastic; fluctuations in price are unlikely to be agriculture to pharmaceuticals; any new drug that met by changes in the frequency of consumption. improves a patient’s health, This phenomenon, often no matter how slight Agricultural biotechnology has simply referred to as the effect, can be worth been financed by the promise the “fixed stomach,” billions. In agriculture, a means that when supplies new gene has to have the of future profits from products increase and food prices effect of a sledgehammer or unrelated to food. fall, consumers do not no one will notice.”6 Pfizer, necessarily buy more Monsanto’s parent company, made $12.9 billion in groceries and eat more food.14 2006 from a single drug, Lipitor,7 an amount double Decades of agricultural innovation the revenue of the entire market for GE seeds.8 have resulted in a long decline in international Agricultural biotechnology has been food prices as production has grown faster than financed by the promise of future profits from demand.15 In the United States, between 1913 products unrelated to food. As Daniel Charles and 1996 the real cost of food at retail level notes in Lords of the Harvest, “Few, if any, declined 35 percent.16 The food processing companies that heavily invested in biotechnology industry is enormously profitable but they are for agriculture have recovered that investment not directly engaged in agriculture. The industry through sales of genetically engineered simply exploits their market position as the product.”9 And this observation extends to middle man between farmers and consumers, the biotechnology industry as a whole. In its buying cheap and selling dear.17 But the value almost 30 year history, the industry has never of seeds is capped by the value of the foods they been profitable.10 During this time, the biotech will become. Farmers will not spend more on industry has sustained cumulative net losses seeds than they expect to recoup from the sale of of more than $40 billion while investors their crops. bought close to $100 billion in stock.11 In

2 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 3 Seed R&D as a Means to as the major players jockey for position. To take Monopolizing Genetic Science but one example, in the early 90’s Agracetus was granted a patent covering all transgenic cotton. The meager returns from seed sales hardly matter Since then, anyone making any kind of genetic to the giant pharmaceutical conglomerates. Food modifications to cotton must seek permission from is merely a conduit through which they hope to and pay royalties to Agracetus.24 develop and monopolize the basic technologies The pharmaceutical conglomerates that will then be used to create more valuable are investing disproportionately large sums in products. As David Goodman et al. note in agricultural biotechnology because recent findings their groundbreaking work From Farming to indicate that different species share similar gene Biotechnology, “The ultimate prize is domination constructs. For example, we share 99 percent of and proprietary ownership of the scientific our genome with chimpanzees and 31 percent of knowledge and process engineering technology our genes are interchangeable with those of yeast.25 required to control the complex biological reactions This discovery has given birth to projects such 18 and microbial activities.” These “proprietary as the National Plant Genome Initiative which technology platforms . . . have become the end introduced the term “reference species” to suggest 19 products themselves” because controlling the that the genomic map of a single plant species enabling technology is more important than might serve as a “reference” for decoding the 20 owning the genetic material itself. In the words genomes of other plant species and maybe even of the former CEO of Monsanto, Robert Shapiro, humans.26 As William Boyd explains in his book “We are learning about biology at a level and at chapter “Wonderful Potencies: Deep Structure a rate that is absolutely unprecedented in human and the Problem of Monopoly in Agricultural history. There is an enormous space to be filled, Biotechnology,” and the stakes are very high. We want to be able to occupy and hold the most valuable territory.”21 The sequences of model organisms . . . are Leading firms such as Monsanto, Novartis, intended to provide the Rosetta stone of sorts and DuPont have sought to “develop and amass for interpreting the genomes of more complex patent portfolios that are broad enough to bar organisms. Genomics thus holds out the promise of a grand unification in biology, providing the entry by new players and deep enough in terms of key to the basic processes of gene function and their control over basic technologies to give them protein synthesis common to all organisms.27 substantial economic power in key markets.”22 In a study entitled Impact of Industry Concentration Biotechnology’s Promise on Innovation in the U.S. Plant Biotech Industry published in 2000, the authors found that the Biotechnology’s promise began to pay out in largest firms have been enormously successful 1978, a landmark year for the industry. Genentech in pursuit of these goals. Analysis shows that announced that it had, for the first time in history, new firm entry in the “innovation market” is manufactured a human protein outside of the declining, and research and investment is falling human body. The company had successfully 23 in all but the top four firms. Entry into the field of managed to coax insulin from an E. coli bacterium biotechnology is becoming increasingly difficult,

2 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 3 by splicing human genetic instructions into its unknown number of animals, estimated to be in intracellular workings. the thousands, were pharmed. The pharmaceutical Today there are over 30 protein-based conglomerates are investing in pharming because medicines on the market and an additional 371 they anticipate that products that they cannot in the research and development phase. 28 Every physically or affordably engineer mechanically one of these new drugs has been made possible may become feasible when the task is delegated by advances in recombinant DNA processes and to genetically engineered plants and animals.31 techniques. The only problem for the industry is For example, Mich Hein, the president of Epicyte, that using single cells to produce biotech drugs, claims that his company’s plant-based production also known as biologics, is a complicated and technology can make the same annual quantity of time-consuming process.29 These hybrid cells drugs with 200 acres of corn and a few million must be fermented or cultured in enormous dollars in expenses that a $400 million factory can 10,000 liter “bioreactor” stainless steel tanks. produce using a mammalian cell-based system.32 This presents difficulties Pharming is for the smooth circulation Soon, a few animals in a the ultimate pursuit of capital through the laboratory will be more valuable for those companies production process. A performing research biotech production facility then all the livestock in all the and development in can cost upwards of $400 coops, pens, and stockyards of the field of agricultural million and take three to the world. Think genetically biotechnology. Billions five years to complete. In of dollars have been addition, the genetically engineered pigs incubating invested in agricultural engineered cells will only human hearts.34 biotechnology, not to produce the target proteins ensure more food or if precise conditions are maintained. If the more nutritious food for the hungry, but to sell temperature, oxygen, acidity, or other variables in longer lives to the wealthy. Because as Robert the bioreactor are not stable, the culture will fail. Fraley, the executive vice president and chief And finally, certain compounds are too complex technology officer at Monsanto, observes: to be manufactured using single cells. The complications of biologics have There’s a limit to the genes that simply help farmers grow the same old commodities . . . pushed the pharmaceutical industry to pursue They’re limited by the value of those crops. But the promise of biotechnology in the figure of think of genes that actually make the harvest more “pharming”. Pharming, a coined term combining valuable! What if plants could be engineered to “farming” and “pharmaceutical,” is the practice produce new products: oils, nutrients, or even whereby genetic material from a foreign species pharmaceuticals for which consumers would pay is inserted into a plant or animal with the express high prices?33 intent of extracting novel pharmaceutical products from the resulting tissues, fluids, and organs. From 1991 to 2004 over 300 field sites  The FDA does not make this information publicly encompassing hundreds of acres of land30 and an available.

4 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 5 Soon, a few animals in a laboratory will GE ingredients because single-trait genetic be more valuable then all the livestock in all the manipulations of corn and soybean plants are coops, pens, and stockyards of the world. Think the foundations from which more significant genetically engineered pigs incubating human interventions in human genetics are being hearts.34 In fact, flocks of sheep with partially launched. human hearts, livers, and brains are already a reality on a farm operated by the University of Propping up the Biotech Market Nevada just miles outside Reno.35 Ancient alchemists dreamed of Food has become a casualty of biotechnology’s transmuting base metals into gold, discovering promise because the agricultural sector a universal cure for disease, and indefinitely offers pharmaceutical conglomerates unique prolonging life. Biotechnologists have inherited opportunities to pursue the development and this dream, promising to convert soil and monopolization of proprietary biotechnology sunlight into the building blocks of human life. platforms while reducing their financial risks. The Disturbingly, our food has become a casualty of enormous public resources invested in agriculture this promise. Seventy percent of the groceries have benefited these companies by promoting the on US supermarket shelves now contain GE sale of GE seeds over and above their actual value ingredients36 not because GE seeds are higher and by allowing them to multiply their research yielding or bear more nutritious crops then their efforts at minimal cost through collaborations with conventional counterparts (under many growing public institutions. conditions GE crops actually exhibit yield drag  I am specifically referring to herbicide-tolerant and and are less nutritious).37 Our food contains insect-resistant GE seeds. Together these two traits constitute nearly the entire market for GE seeds.

4 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 5 Over the course of the last century, farming the cost of capital.41 These policies are then has become increasingly capital intensive. Discrete complemented by government-backed financial elements of the agricultural production process institutions such as the Farm Credit System and have continually been displaced from farm fields, the Farmers Home Administration that lend to deconstructed in laboratories, reconstructed in farmers at highly subsidized interest rates, thereby manufacturing facilities, and reincorporated back encouraging excessive capital investment for into agriculture as purchased inputs.38 Resources operating inputs.42 that were formerly sourced and supplied by the The bottom line is that industry has the farm have been replaced by industrial equivalents. government to thank for its sales. Government These changes in the structure and operation of supported commodity prices, tax breaks on American farms did not occur entirely of their capital goods, and cheap credit translate into own accord. Rather, they are the consequence of greater demand for manufactured inputs. These government policies that have promoted capital interventions have made it possible for agribusiness accumulation in the agricultural sector. to sell products to farmers that actually increase In 2000, nearly 50 percent of U.S. farms their losses. (If it costs $2.72 to raise a bushel received payments for income or price support. of corn for which you receive $1.77, the more These payments, comprising almost one-half of you produce the more you lose). But so long as net farm income, reached a historic high of $20 taxpayer funds can be used to foot the bill for billion that year.39 Most of the payments farmers these technologies and purchase the excess they receive from the government are compensation generate at premium prices, farmers will continue for the difference between their high costs of to demand them. production and the low market price. For example, Unfortunately, farmers are not the primary in 2000 it cost farmers an average of $2.72 to grow beneficiaries of federal largesse. For as Jeanne- a bushel of corn, while the market price was only Pierre Berlan calls to our attention, the “idea $1.77.40 Government payments largely covered upon which modern agricultural policies were the difference, helping to maintain farm solvency founded never intended to defend the family in the face of massive overproduction and rock farm but to foster capital accumulation in the bottom prices. As a result, farmers continue to push emerging agribusiness complex increasingly their yields, increasing both the absolute volume dominated by large corporations.”43 Farm receipts of inputs and the technological sophistication of as a percentage of total farm household income those inputs, knowing that the expenses they incur continue to fall and most farmers are forced to find will be covered by the generosity of Uncle Sam. off-farm work to make ends meet.44 The fact of That is, government support for commodity prices the matter is, the money we fork over as taxpayers ultimately translates into government support for eventually ends up in the pockets of agribusiness industrial inputs. (strangely enough agribusiness now includes the Industry sales are then further reinforced by pharmaceutical industry). It is with this in mind tax policies: tax credits, accelerated depreciation, that we should evaluate the success of GE seeds, the special treatment of capital gains, all of which an invention whose adoption is largely attributable stimulate investment in agriculture by lowering to government subsidies.

6 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 7 Priming the Biotech Pipeline contributions throughout the university or institute, thereby capturing within their orbit human and The government essentially promotes the sale of laboratory resources that are primarily sustained GE seeds; that is, so to speak, the demand side of through public funding. A strategy reinforced the equation. On the supply side, universities and by tax deductions: in California, the center of public research institutions enter into the analysis. the biotechnology industry in the United States The Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin sums it and home to the expansive and well-endowed up best when he notes: University of California educational system,there is a 24 percent tax credit for business investments the costs of long-range research are socialized by 49 changing the locus of the work from individual in university research. enterprises [i.e. pharmaceutical companies] to Federal legislation encouraging public- public institutions such as universities and national private partnerships and the patenting of university institutes. In this way, by tax subsidization, no generated knowledge also serves to discipline individual firm need risk an investment and the public research to the pursuit of private profits. total costs are spread over the entire tax base. In 1974, prompted by Stanford University’s [Then, when] such socialized research comes petition to patent the Cohen-Boyer recombinant close to producing a marketable product, the final DNA process, the National Institutes of Health development stages are taken back into private decided to allow “universities to patent and hands to realize an exclusive property. 45 license in the field of ” greatly Through their collaborations with public research simplifying “the privatization of university institutions, the biotechnology industry has research by removing any claims on behalf of the managed to reorient science, affecting what public regarding ownership of government-funded 50 questions will be asked, which problems will be research.” Most large research universities now investigated, what solutions will be sought, and have Offices of Technology Transfer (OTT) what conclusions will be drawn.46 As research to facilitate cooperation between corporations 51 funding from federal and state sources continues and university researchers. A development to stagnate while universities seek to expand encouraged by the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act which their research facilities,47 they have progressively officially made it legal for public universities become more and more willing to entertain the to patent inventions, established frameworks to designs of industry. facilitate technology transfer from the public to the At State Agricultural Experiment Stations private sector, and made it possible for universities and Land-Grant Universities, the “lure of large to go into business for themselves. Since then, sums of private money for biotechnology research universities have formed hundreds of startup have led to a change in disciplines,” as staff companies “based on technology they developed 52 conducting agricultural biotechnology research and licensed” – companies wherein faculty have increased substantially at the expense of members frequently sit on the board serving as conventional breeding programs.48 Through “advisers, recruiters of trained personnel, and monetary enticements, private firms have managed information sources on current developments 53 to leverage their relatively minor financial in academic science”. A development which

6 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 7 offers these companies a foothold in the academy plant biotechnologies . . . they have taken longer to and assures that university research will be come to fruition because of greater scientific and commercialized on industry’s terms. regulatory challenges.”55 Transgenic pigs were developed as early as 1986 but as of this writing Normalizing Biotechnology not a single biotech animal has been approved for commercial sale. But with corn, cotton, and In addition to the financial advantages the soybeans, the pharmaceutical industry found agricultural sector offers the pharmaceutical a secure space within the regulatory networks conglomerates, there are ethical advantages of agriculture that grants them carte blanche to transforming the farm into biotechnology’s to genetically manipulate and commercialize frontier. The commercialization of genetically complex organisms. This is a crucial next step, engineered corn, cotton, and soybeans introduces after the microbe and the single cell, in the quest the world to biotechnology, yet these products for proprietary technology platforms that will be insinuate themselves into our lives largely used to develop the next generation of health care unnoticed because they are not primarily for products: plant and animal derived human proteins  human consumption and are not animate in ways and human organs. that normally invite anthropomorphism. Contrast Thus, a clear pattern emerges: the taxes we society’s general acceptance of GE corn, cotton, pay have supported the failures of biotechnology, and soybeans with GE wheat: Monsanto’s plans increasing the demand for GE seeds through to introduce Roundup Ready wheat have been government supports, subsidizing their supply repeatedly delayed as farmers continue to express through public research, and helping to create a concern over consumer acceptance of a product that regulatory framework in which these products 54 is largely for human consumption. Consider also might receive society’s stamp of approval. All the reaction to GE animals: although the animal this has been done in the name of creating a more biotechnologies were “developed as early as the  Although GE animals have not been approved for  Only a tiny fraction of the millions of bushels of commercial sale, due to negligence hundreds have corn and soybeans grown in the United States are ended up in the food supply. For one instance among consumed by humans. Most is fed to livestock and many see: FDA. “FDA investigates improper disposal much of the remainder is incorporated into industrial of bioengineered pigs”. February 5, 2005. (Available products. The corn and soybeans we do consume is at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ usually a fractionated component of the whole food, ANS01197.html) i.e. high fructose corn syrup, lecithin, vegetable oil etc.

8 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 9 productive agriculture. These claims are a smoke a revolution in the power of laboratories over the screen for the development and monopolization independence of farmers. This power emanates of proprietary biotechnology platforms, which from the laboratory’s ability to bind together actors ultimately will be deployed toward more profitable situated beyond the laboratory into networks that ends than making more corn. employ and deploy the scientific facts and artifacts that they have generated.57 When farmers adopted Epilogue the technologies of the Green Revolution, they became part of this laboratory network. However, In the 1940’s, when grain yields per acre started as dictated by the structure of the network, they to increase dramatically in the United States and did not share equally in its reward. Rather, they continued to rise for decades, observers labeled became dependent on technologies that they could the phenomenon the “Green Revolution.” The not reproduce, that replaced their own resources, increased productivity of the Green Revolution and that emanated from a remote center over was based on the breeding efforts of scientists who which they had little control. scoured the world for plant traits that would benefit The so called “Gene Revolution,” a term farmers – stiffer stalks, bulkier heads, resistance used to encompass the impact of biotechnology on to disease, etc. These traits were discovered in agriculture, simply represents the latest frontier farmers’ fields but were not collectively present in the laboratory’s struggle to subject farms and in any one single plant, so breeders took up the farming to the logic of capital. The space wherein task of incorporating them into new seeds. These the productivity of agriculture will be enhanced seeds promised higher yields, but something was – the genome – is inaccessible to farmers even lost along the way. Plants grown from these seeds though it exists in their fields and sheds. were not as well adapted to their environment. This is a dangerous development, for They would fail to perform as expected unless biotechnology is subject to tunnel vision. “Modern supported by insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, biology attempts to reduce nature to small, and irrigation – technologies which recreated definable pieces, subject to human manipulation, the controlled environmental conditions of the and separated from broader questions of value. laboratory. From this perspective, scientists control, measure, The Green Revolution sent a message reduce and divide nature in order to generate to farmers: “If you want to increase your yields knowledge.”58 But these methods alone are not you must recreate our laboratory in your fields; conducive to a healthy and productive agriculture. you must replace your seeds with our seeds and Agricultural biotechnology is based on the premise institute our methods in place of your own.”56 that More than anything else the Green Revolution was farming brings the farmer annually, over and  At any one point in time the United States has more over again, to the same series of problems, corn in storage than the 450 million people who make to each one of which there is always the same up the European Union consume, for all purposes, in an entire year. In total, the US has more corn sitting generalized solution . . .. But that is false . . .. in silos than the next 10 countries combined. (Foreign neither the annual series of problems nor any of Agricultural Service, USDA. “World Corn Production: the problems individually is ever quite the same Consumption and Stocks”) two years running.”59

8 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 9 The inherent variability of farming from one Online Action place and time to another necessarily frustrates a To learn more and get involved check out these 60 one size fits all approach. Yet with each passing online resources: year, the institutions we rely on for innovative agricultural solutions are more tightly yoked to • www.eraction.org: Environmental Rights Action a reductionist science whose frames of reference (ERA), the Nigerian chapter of Friends of the Earth International, is challenging the biotech diminish the importance of holistic methods of push to promote “Medicine Rice” in Africa. inquiry. “As a consequence whole-plant- and whole-animal-level research (such as traditional • www.ucsusa.org: The Union of Concerned breeding), systems-level research programs Scientists, a science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment, is campaigning to (such as agroecology, farming systems and social ban the outdoor use of food crops to produce assessments), and indigenous knowledge . . . lack pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. adequate support.”61 • To honestly address the problems facing www.biosafety-info.net: The Biosafety Infor- mation Center, run by the Third World Network, agriculture today this trend must be reversed. We provides up to date information regarding cannot stand inert while the agricultural research biosafety policies, laws, and practices at the agenda is perverted by biotechnology’s promise, international, regional, and national levels. while resources earmarked for agriculture are • www.centerforfoodsafety.org: The Center for diverted and deployed to shore up the finances of Food safety works to protect human health and the pharmaceutical industry. Public universities the environment by curbing the proliferation of and government institutions are financially and harmful food production technologies. morally obligated to serve the public interest. • www.etcgroup.org: The ETC Group is a They are accountable to us and we must hold them watchdog organization whose hard hitting to it. Collaborations between public institutions reports on genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and private companies should be scrutinized to agriculture, and the environment unveil the ensure that the public interest comes before private machinations behind our meals. profits. Federal farm subsidies that encourage • www.organicconsumers.org: The Organic farmers to adopt capital-intensive production Consumers Association campaigns in support technologies that displace their own skills and of food safety, children’s health, corporate local resources must be disassembled. Our current accountability, fair trade, and environmental sustainability. Join their “Million Against model of farm support that distorts the market for Monsanto” campaign today. farm commodities, bankrupts farmers, fouls the environment, and offers the consumer pesticide- • www.calgefree.org: Californians for GE Free laced produce must be abandoned. A brighter Agriculture supports the rights of farmers and communities to evaluate and address the future for farming is possible. environmental, human health, and economic risks of genetic engineering in agriculture. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Anuradha Mittal, Melissa Moore, and Becky Tarbotton for their conceptual and editorial support and to Daniel Heimbinder whose ink and watercolor illustrations grace these pages.

10 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 11 NOTES 15 Watts, Michael, and David Goodman. “Agrarian Questions: Global Appetite, Local Metabolism: Nature, Culture, and 1 Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, Industry in Fin-De-Siecle Agro-Food Systems.” Globalising and the Future of Food Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring. Ed. 2001. p. xv. David Goodman and Michael Watts. London ; New York: Routledge, 1997. p. 12. 2 Stone, Glen Davis. “Both Sides Now: Fallacies in the Genetic Modification Wars, Implications for Developing Countries, 16 Gardner, Bruce L. American Agriculture in the Twentieth and Anthropological Perspectives.” Current Anthropology. Century: How it Flourished and What it Cost. Cambridge, 43(2002): 611-630. MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. p. 141-142.

3 Monsanto. “Monsanto Company 2006 Annual Report.” 2006. 17 Magdoff, Fred, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. p. 74. (Available at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ Buttel. “An Overview.” Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness content/investor/financial/reports/2006/2006AnnualReport. Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment. Ed. Fred pdf) Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. Buttel. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000. p. 11. 4 Bergeron, Bryan P., and Paul Chan. Biotech Industry: A Global, Economic, and Financing Overview. Hoboken, NJ: 18 Goodman, David, John Wilkinson, and Bernardo Sorj. J. Wiley, 2004. p. 175. From Farming to Biotechnology: A Theory of Agro-Industrial Development. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987. p. 138. 5 The Economist. “An Overdose of Bad News.” March 17, 2005. (Available at http://www.economist.com/printedition/ 19 Scholz, Astrid J. “From Molecules to Medicines: The displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3764524) use of Genetic Resources in Pharmaceutical Research.” Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and its Discontents. Ed. 6 Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, Rachel Schurman and Dennis D. Kelso. Berkeley: University and the Future of Food. p. 297. of California Press, 2003. p. 201. 20 Gaisford, James D. The Economics of Biotechnology. 7 Pollack, Andrew. “Pfizer, Hurt by Rival Generic Drugs, Will Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2001. Lay Off 7,800.” The New York Times. January 23, 2007. p. 41. 8 Davoudi, Salamander. “Monsanto: giant of the 6.15 bn GM 21 Quoted in Boyd, William. “Wonderful Potencies: Deep market.” Financial Times. November 16, 2006. Structure and the Problem of Monopoly in Agricultural Biotechnology.” Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and 9 Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, its Discontents. Ed. Rachel Schurman and Dennis D. Kelso. and the Future of Food. p. 295. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. p. 52. 10 Ernst & Young. “Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report 2006.” Ernst & Young. (Available at 22 Ibid., p. 44. http://www.ey.com/global/Content.nsf/International/Media_- _Press_Release_-_Beyond_Borders_2006) 23 Brennan, Margaret F., Carl E. Pray and Ann Courtmanche. “Impact of Industry Concentration on Innovation in the U.S. 11 Agres, Ted. “US Biotech may Leap into the Black.” Drug Plant Biotech Industry.” Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics Discovery and Development. (Available at http://www. of Strategy and Policy. Washington, D.C., June 24-25, 1999. dddmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=016&ACCT=1600 p. 153. 000100&ISSUE=0407&RELTYPE=PR&ORIGRELTYPE= PNP&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=X) 24 Boyd, William. “Wonderful Potencies: Deep Structure and the Problem of Monopoly in Agricultural Biotechnology.” p. 12 Ernst & Young. “Beyond Borders: The Global 43. Biotechnology Report 2006.” 25 Shreeve, Jamie. “The Other Stem-Cell Debate.” The New 13 Jefferson, Richard A. “Transcending Transgenics: Are York Times Magazine. April 10, 2005. there ‘Babies in the Bathwater’ Or is that a Dorsal Fin?” 26 Gardner, John C., and Thomas L. Payne. “A Soybean The Future of Food: Biotechnology Markets and Policies in Biotechnology Outlook.” AgBioForum 6.1&2 (2003): 1-3. p. an International Setting. Ed. Philip G. Pardey. Washington, 1. D.C.: International Food Policy Research: distributed by the Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. p. 95. 27 Boyd, William. “Wonderful Potencies: Deep Structure and the Problem of Monopoly in Agricultural Biotechnology.” p. 14 Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural 43 History of Four Meals. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006. p. 94. 28 Information in this paragraph was gathered from www. bio.org. The specific pages include “Advantages of Plants

10 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 11 to Produce Therapeutic Proteins” (Available at http://www. 40 Benbrook, Charles. “A Bill of Goods: Agricultural Policy, bio.org/healthcare/pharmaceutical/pmp/factsheet3.asp) and Trade and Technology Innovation since the Mid-1990’s.” “A Brief Primer on ManufacturingTherapeutic Proteins” Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference. LaCrosse, (Available at http://www.bio.org/healthcare/pharmaceutical/ Wisconsin, February26-28, p. 13-14. (Available at http:// pmp/factsheet1.asp) www.biotech-info.net/MOSES.pdf)

29 Ibid. 41 Atwood, Joseph A. “Implications of Tax Policy for Farm Structure.” Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of 30 Information Systems for Biotechnology. 2005. “Field test American Agriculture. Ed. Arne Hallam. Boulder: Westview releases in the U.S.” (Available at http://www.isb.vt.edu/ Press, 1993. p. 365. cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm) 42 Gardner, B. Delworth. Plowing Ground in Washington: 31 Elbehri, Aziz. 2005. “Biopharming and the food system: The Political Economy of U.S. Agriculture. San Francisco, Examining the potential benefits and risks.” AgBioForum. Calif.: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1995. p. 8(1), 18-25. (Available at http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n1/ 107. v8n1a03-elbehri.htm) 43 “The Historical Roots of the Present Agricultural Crisis.” 32 Van Brunt, Jennifer. “Molecular Farming’s Factories.” Towards a New Political Economy of Agriculture. Ed. Signals: the online magazine of biotechnology industry Friedland, William H. et al. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, analysis. February 19, 2002. (Available at http://www. 1991. p. 127-128. signalsmag.com/signalsmag.3764d93a977219f888256b6400 69e224?OpenDocument) 44 Economic Research Service, USDA. “Farm Income and Costs: Farm Household Income.” (Available at http://www. 33 Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/forenew.htm) and the Future of Food. p. 193-194; Paraphrasing . 45 Levins, Richard, and Richard C. Lewontin. The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1985. 34 For information concerning the race to develop genetically p. 201. engineered animal organs for xenotransplanation to humans, see: BBC. “Pig Cloning Race Hots Up.” January 46 Noble, David F. America by Design: Science, Technology, 3, 2002. (Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/ and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. 1st ed. New York: nature/1740879.stm) Knopf, 1977. p. 147.

35 Associated Press. “Studies Mix Animal, Human organs.” 47 Fuglie, Keith O. “Trends in Agricultural Research April 30, 2005. (Available at http://www.foxnews.com/ Expenditures in the United States.” Public-Private story/0,2933,155123,00.html) Collaboration in Agricultural Research: New Institutional Arrangements and Economic Implications. Ed. Keith Owen Fuglie and David Schimmelpfennig. 1st ed. Ames, IA: Iowa 36 Wilson, William, Edward Janzen, and Bruce Dahl. “Issues State University Press, 2000. p. 12. in Development and Adoption of Genetically Modified Wheats.” AgBioForum 6.3 (2003): 101-12. p. 104. 48 Busch, Lawrence, Jeffrey Burkhardt, and William B. Lacy. Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical 37 For information on yield drag in GE Soybeans see: Bohner, Consequences of the New Biotechnologies. Cambridge, MA, Horst. “What about Yield Drag on Roundup Ready Soybeans.” USA: B. Blackwell, 1991. p. 193. News Releases. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. March 2003. (Available at http://www.omafra. 49 Rausser, Gordon. “Public/Private Alliances.” AgBioForum gov.on.ca/english/crops/field/news/croptalk/2003/ct_0303a9. 2.1 (1999): 5-10. p. 9. htm) For information on the reduced nutrient content of GE soybeans see: Lappé, Marc A., et al. “Alterations in Clinically 50 Kenney, Martin. “Biotechnology and the Creation of a Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide New Economic Space.” Private Science: Biotechnology and Tolerant Soybeans.” Journal of Medicinal Food. 1.4 (1999). the Rise of the Molecular Sciences. Ed. Arnold Thackray. (Available at http://www.cetos.org/articles/abstract.html) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. p. 134. 38 Goodman, David, et al. From Farming to Biotechnology: A Theory of Agro-Industrial Development. p. 2. 51 Caswell, Margriet F., Keith Owen Fuglie, and Cassandra A. Klotz. Agricultural Biotechnology : An Economic Perspective. 39 Government Accountability Office. Farm Programs: New York: Novinka Books, 2003. p. 14. Information on Recipients of Federal Payments. Vol. GAO- 01-606. Washinton, D.C.: GAO, 2001. p. 1.

12 w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 52 Lacy, William. “Generation and Commercialization of Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Ed. K. Knorr- Knowledge: Trends, Implications, and Models for Public and Cetina and M. J. Mulkay. London: Sage Publications, 1983. Private Agricultural Research and Education.” Knowledge p. 147. Generation and Technical Change : Institutional Innovation in Agriculture. Ed. Steven A. Wolf and David Zilberman. 57 Murdoch, Jonathan. “Inhuman/nonhuman/human: Actor- Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. p. 34. Network Theory and the Prospects for a Nondualistic and Symmetrical Perspective on Nature and Society.” Environment 53 Kenney, Martin. “Biotechnology and the Creation of a and Planning D: Society and Space. 15 (1997): 731-56. p. New Economic Space.” p. 137. 737. 54 Pollack, Andrew. “Monsanto Shelves Plans for Modified 58 Lacy, William. “Generation and Commercialization of Wheat.” The New York Times. May 11 2004. Knowledge: Trends, Implications, and Models for Public and Private Agricultural Research and Education.” p. 36. 55 Schurman, Rachel A. “Introduction: Biotechnology in 59 Wendell Berry quoted in Scott, James C. Seeing Like a the New Millennium: Technological Change, Institutional State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Change, and Political Struggle.” Engineering Trouble: Have Failed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1998. Biotechnology and its Discontents. Ed. Rachel Schurman p. 296. and Dennis D. Kelso. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. p. 21. 60 Lewontin, Richard C. “The Maturing of Capitalist Agriculture: Farmer as Proletarian.” Hungry for Profit: The 56 I am reformulating Bruno Latour to make my point. The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment. original reads as follows: “‘If you wish to solve your anthrax Ed. Fred Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. problem, come to my laboratory, because that’s where the Buttel. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000. p. 93-106. forces are reversed. If you don’t (veterinarians and farmers) you will be eliminated’.” From: Latour, Bruno. “Give Me a 61 Lacy, William. “Generation and Commercialization of Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” Science Observed: Knowledge: Trends, Implications, and Models for Public and Private Agricultural Research and Education.” p. 36.

The Oakland Institute is a policy think tank whose mission is to promote public participation and fair debate on critical economic, social, and foreign policy issues.

TO ORDER FROM THE OAKLAND INSTITUTE: SHIPPING: Visit our wesbite at www.oaklandinstitute.org or send Domestic: $2.50 for the first copy of the an email to [email protected] report, $1.00 for each additional report. $______OR TO ORDER BY MAIL: Foreign: $10.00 for the first copy, $5.00 The Oakland Institute • PO Box 18978, Oakland, CA, 94619 for each additional report $______

Please send me ____ copies of Sahel: Prisoner of Starvation? A Case MEMBERSHIP / Study of the 2006 Food Crisis in Niger Report, $10.00 each: $______TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION $35/$50/$100/$250/$500/$1,000 Please send me ____ copies of Food Aid or Food Sovereignty: Ending $______Hunger in Our Time Report, $10.00 each: $______SPECIAL GIFT $______Please send me ____ copies of Playing Politics With Aid: The Unholy Trinity of Defense, Diplomacy, and Development Policy Brief TOTAL ENCLOSED 4/$3.00 20/$15.00 50/$25.00 100/$45.00 Check Enclosed Name:______Please send me ___ copies of Facing Goliath: Challenging the Impacts Address:______of Supermarket Consolidation on our Local Economies, Communities, City/State/Zip:______/___/______and Food Security Phone:( ____ ) ______- ______4/$3.00 20/$15.00 50/$25.00 100/$45.00 Email:______

w w w . O A K L A N D I N S T I T U T E . o r g 13