sign in sign up
<<
Home , BASF Plant Science, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Danisco, Syngenta

112008

Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodi!cation of Life

November 2008

Communiqué

November 2008 Issue #100

Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodi!cation of Life

ETC Group www.etcgroup.org

November 2008

Publication Design by Wordsmith Services and yellowDog : creative

Original Artwork by Stig Table of Contents Problems, Fascinations and Opportunities: A Preface 3 Who Owns Nature? 4 Graphic: Top 10 Corporations: Global Market Share by Sector 4 The Context 5 Chart: Value of Global Mergers & Acquisitions 7 Section 1: Corporate Farm Inputs: , , Fertilizers 11 Industry 11 World’s Top 10 Seed Companies 11 Chart: Global Commercial Seed Market 11 Chart: Top 10 Share of Global Proprietary Seed Market 12 Chart: Global Proprietary Seed Market, 2007 12 Industry 15 World’s Top 10 Firms 15 Chart: Global Agrochemical Market, 2007 sales 15 Fertilizer Industry 17 World’s Biggest Fertilizer Companies 17 Chart: Corporate Food Chain At-a-Glance 18 Section 2: Corporate Food Outputs: Food & Beverage , Global Grocery Retailers 21 Food & Beverage Manufacturing Industry 21 World’s Top 10 Food & Beverage Corporations 21 Grocery Retailing Industry 22 World’s Top 10 Global Food Retailers 22 Chart: Global Food Retailers: Top 10 Account for 40% of Groceries Sold by Top 100 22 Chart: Global Food & Beverage Companies: Top 10 Account for 35% of Packaged Food Sold by Top 100 23 Cartoon by Tom Toles 23 Section 3: Corporate Medicine & Health: Big Pharma, Biotech, Animal Pharmaceutical, Bioinformatics 25 Corporate Medicine & Health At-a-Glance 25 25 World’s Top 10 Pharmaceutical Companies 25 Chart: Top 10’s Market Share of Top 100 Companies 26 Cartoon by Paul Noth 27 Industry 28 World’s Top 10 Publicly-Traded Biotechnology Companies 28 Biotech’s Top 10 Blockbuster Drugs, 2007 29 Veterinary Pharmaceutical Industry 30 World’s Top 10 Animal Pharma Companies 30 The BioInformation Industry 31 Major Players In DNA Data Generation 32 Major Players In Software, Hardware, DNA Data Processing, Storing and Analyzing 33 Section 4: Commodifying Nature’s Last Straw? Extreme and the Post-Petroleum Economy 35 Cartoon by Stig 38 Synthetic Players and Corporate Partners 40 The New Biomas(s)ters: Converging Technologies Crystallize Corporate Power 41 Leading Commercial Gene Synthesis Companies 42 Petroleum Refining: Top 10 42 : Top 10 42 Forest, Paper & Packaging Corporations: Top 10 43 Companies Involved in Oilseed, Grain and Sugar Processing/Trading: Top 11 43 Conclusion 45 The Global Economy: Who’s Got the Power 48 Problems, Fascinations and Opportunities: A Preface

Three decades ago, humanity had a Industry got what it wanted. From thou- sil fuels can be made from the carbon problem; science had a fascination; sands of seed companies and public found in plants. The oceans’ algae, the and industry had an opportunity. Our breeding institutions three decades Amazon’s trees and savanna grasses problem was injustice. The ranks of the ago, ten companies now control more can provide the (purportedly) renew- hungry were expanding while the ranks than two-thirds of global proprietary able raw materials to feed people, of farmers were thinning. Meanwhile, seed sales. From dozens of pesticide fuel cars, manufacture widgets, and science was fascinated by biotechnol- companies three decades ago, ten now cure diseases while fending off global ogy – the idea that we could genetically control almost 90% of agrochemical warming. In order for industry to realize engineer and livestock (and sales worldwide. From almost a thou- this vision, governments must accept people) with traits that could overcome sand biotech startups 15 years ago, ten that this technology is too expensive. all our problems. saw an companies now have three-quarters of Competitors must be convinced it is opportunity to extract the enormous industry revenue. And, six of the lead- too risky. Regulations need to be dis- surplus value that was laced throughout ers in seeds are also six of the leaders mantled and monopoly patents need to the food chain. The hugely-decentral- in and biotech. Over the past be approved. ized food system held pockets of profit three decades, a handful of companies just crying out to be centralized. All has gained control of that one-quarter New technologies don’t industry had to do was convince gov- of the world’s annual biomass (crops, ernments that biotech’s gene revolution livestock, fisheries, etc.) that has have to be socially useful could end hunger without harming the been integrated into the world market or technically superior in environment. Biotechnology was pre- economy. order to be profitable. sented as too risky for small companies and too expensive for public research- Today, humanity has a problem; sci- ers. In order to bring this technology to ence has a fascination; and industry the world, public breeders would have has an opportunity. Our problem is And, as it was with biotechnology, the to stop competing with private breed- hunger and injustice in a world of cli- new technologies don’t need to be ers, regulators would have to look the mate chaos. Science’s fascination is socially useful or technically superior other way when pesticide companies with convergence at the nano-scale (i.e., they don’t have to work) in order bought seed companies which, in turn, – including the potential to design new to be profitable. All they have to do is bought other seed companies. Govern- life forms from the bottom-up. Industry’s chase away the competition and coerce ments would have to protect industry’s opportunity lies in the three-quarters of governments into surrendering control. investments by offering patents first on the world’s biomass that (although used Once the market is monopolized, how plants and then on genes. Consumer and useful) remains outside the global the technology performs is irrelevant. safety regulations, hard-won over the market economy. With the aid of new course of a century, would have to yield technologies, industry believes that any to genetically modified foods and drugs. chemical made from the carbon in fos-

Large Numbers: How Many Zeros?

In this report, ETC Group uses the following number-naming system: One million = 1,000,000 = 1 million One billion = 1,000,000,000 = 1,000 million One trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 million $20 trillion is the same as $20,000 billion, which is the same as $20,000,000 million, or $20,000,000,000,000

3 Who Owns Nature?

In this 100th issue of the ETC Communiqué we update Oligopoly, Inc. – our ongoing series tracking corporate concentration in the life industry. We also analyze the past three decades of agribusiness efforts to monopolize the 24% of living nature that has been commodified, and expose a new strategy to capture the remaining three-quarters that has, until now, remained beyond the market economy.

Top 10 Corporations Global Market Share by Sector

ACEUT RM IC A A H L S P

ED HEM SE S OC ICA R L G S 55% Market Share A

BEV D & ER O A 67% of Proprietary O G 89% Market Share F E Market Share

ERY RE IOTECH OC TA B R I P L R S G O R CESSO 26% Market Share

L PH A AR 40% of groceries IM M 66% Market Share N A sold by top 100 A

63% Market Share Source: ETC Group

4 The Context The 100th issue of ETC Group’s Com- Amidst a world food crisis, collapsing sequester carbon, or blast sulfate parti- muniqué provides an update on corpo- ecosystems and climate chaos, new cles into the stratosphere to screen out rate concentration in the life sciences technologies are once again being sunlight and lower temperatures, etc.). industry. We have been monitoring cor- promoted by international institutions, porate power in commercial food, farm- governments and Big Business as the Promoted in the name of fighting hun- ing, and health for three decades. Ten magic bullet for boosting food produc- ger, increasing production and arresting years ago, ETC Group monitored con- tion and saving the planet. The idea of climate change, technologies that rein- trol and ownership of biotech. Today, a technological fix for agricultural de- force corporate power are deepening biotech is becoming “extreme genetic velopment is nothing new, but govern- existing inequalities, accelerating envi- engineering.” Technology convergence ments are stepping aside and inviting ronmental degradation and introducing is re-defining life sciences. We’ve corporations to cast themselves as the new societal risks. reached the point where it’s difficult to key players in the fight against hunger Things Fall Apart: For the millions talk about biotechnology without talking and poverty. Instead of challenging of people who spend 60-80 percent about nanotechnology and synthetic bi- or changing structures that generate of their income on food, the impacts ology. All of the biosciences are fueled poverty and exacerbate inequality, of spiralling food and fuel prices in by information technology or bioinfor- governments are working hand-in-hand 2006-2008 are “unprecedented in scale matics – the computer-based analysis with corporations to reinforce the very and brutality.”1 In 2006-2007, the num- of biological materials. As a result, we institutions and policies that are the ber of food-insecure people rose from root causes of today’s agro-industrial 849 million to 982 million. The U.S. food crisis. …We can’t understand Department of ’s July 2008 corporate power if we Concentration in the life industry has assessment predicts that the number of allowed a handful of powerful corpora- hungry people in 70 South countries will 2 don’t understand the tions to seize the research agenda, increase to 1.2 billion by 2017. In other concept of convergence – dictate national and international trade words, rather than halving the number of hungry people by 2015 (the goal that converging technologies agreements and agricultural policies, and engineer the acceptance of new governments have repeatedly pledged and converging capital. technologies as the “science-based” to meet) their ranks are projected to solution to increase yields, feed increase by 50%. The food import bill the hungry and save the planet. The of 82 poor countries (designated Low- Income Food-Deficit Countries) is ex- can’t understand corporate power if Gene Giants tell us that if agriculture pected to reach US$169 billion in 2008, we don’t understand the concept of is threatened by climate extremes, we 40 per cent more than in 2007.3 (To convergence – converging technologies need “climate-ready” genes (patented put that in perspective, governments and converging capital. Convergence ones) to engineer crops to withstand meeting at the FAO Food Summit in is driving new and unprecedented cor- drought, heat and saline soils. When June 2008 pledged just $12.3 billion to porate alliances across all industry sec- hunger is viewed through the nar- help countries in the South – and most tors and setting the stage for a dramatic row lens of science and technology, of that has vaporized with the colossal transformation of the global economy genetically engineered foods are the corporate bailouts.) into what some call the “sugar econo- corporate quick-fix. When Peak Oil is approached as a technical challenge, my” or “carbohydrate economy.” Bio- According to Planet Retail, global food industrial agrofuels are the obvious logical manufacturing platforms fueled spending reached $7.0 trillion in 2007 answer. When technology is promoted by plant-derived will provide the and shot up 14% to $8.0 trillion in as a painless solution to tackle global incentive for industry to capture and 2008. Global expenditures of food are warming, radical geo-engineering commodify the earth’s remaining plant expected to reach $8.5 trillion in 2009 schemes become a rational idea (e.g., biomass on a colossal scale. – a projected increase of 21% between let’s brew vast phytoplankton farms on 2007-2009.4 the ocean’s surface to [supposedly]

5 The food emergency didn’t emerge ! The very institutions and policies a corporate food chain broken to bits. overnight, and it didn’t begin with responsible for creating the disaster are Recent examples include: record-high prices. For decades, U.S. first in line to benefit from the crisis. and European policies have favoured corporate agribusiness by keeping ! Governments are working hand- Unhealthy and hazardous commodity prices low, dismantling trade in-hand with industry to ignore the root food products and related barriers and marginalizing millions causes of the disaster and sidestep of small-scale farmers who couldn’t structural reforms. environmental disasters compete with a deluge of subsidized Yet, the political reaction to the financial are constant reminders food imports. Trends in world food trade crisis is to call for a return to regulation, of a corporate food chain shifted radically over the past 40 years. while the political response to the food According to FAO’s 2004 report on broken to bits. crisis is to press for further deregula- commodity markets, in the early 1960s tion. When the food crisis is defined as developing countries had an overall ag- food scarcity and hungry people, the ricultural trade surplus approaching US ! Food (un)safety scandals: market-based prescription is to further $7 billion per year.5 By the end of the In September/October 2008 infant liberalize markets and boost agricultural 1980s, the surplus had disappeared. milk powder laced with an industrial production with heavy doses of new Countries in the South reversed course chemical, melamine, sickened 53,000 technology. The real disaster is the cor- in the almost two decades since then to Chinese infants and killed four. The porate controlled agro-industrial food become net importers of food. In coun- scandal involved every major Chinese system. This system has entrenched tries categorized as “least developed,” dairy company and spread to global corporate power while undermining the imports of agricultural commodities brands of food products (chocolates, ability of small-scale producers to pro- grew to more than twice the level of cheese, biscuits, etc.) around the duce food for their own communities. exports. The current tragedy stems world – resulting in massive recalls No matter how much new technology is from decades of depressed commodity involving billions of dollars. After being employed in the name of boosting food prices, trade liberalization, withering discovered in animal feed, the scandal production, the agro-industrial food investments in national agricultural pro- has grown to include unknown quanti- system is incapable of feeding hungry grams, and the ever-increasing domi- ties of melamine-tainted eggs and meat people. And that’s because hunger and nation of the corporate agro-industrial products. poverty are the consequences of ineq- food system. uitable systems – not food scarcity or By October 2008 contaminated cold In the second half of 2008, global finan- inadequate technologies. cuts in Canada had killed 20 and sick- cial markets are imploding and headline ened hundreds more, exposing the fact news is shifting from food crisis to The real disaster is the that virtually all of Canada’s cold cuts financial crisis. There are striking simi- come from a single processing plant larities between the market meltdown corporate-controlled owned by a single company, regardless and the food crisis: agro-industrial food of brand name or destination. system. ! Both the financial system and In February 2008 a record 143 mil- the food system have suffered from de- lion pounds of hazardous hamburger Broken to Bits: Deregulation of the cades of deregulation. The difference is were recalled in the U.S. According to corporate-controlled food system has that bankrupt banks are getting plenty the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, resulted in a cornucopia of calamities: of attention from politicians; lengthening every year in the U.S. 76 million people It is making us sicker, fatter and more lineups at food banks are not. get sick, 325,000 are hospitalized and vulnerable. Unhealthy and hazardous 5,000 die from foodborne hazards. The food products and related environmen- economic costs of serious illness and tal disasters are constant reminders of

6 death from the five most common food- Value of Global Mergers & Acquisitions (US$ trillions) borne pathogens reached almost $7 billion in 2000.7 5 4.5 Plastic Peril: In October 2008 Can- ! 4 ada confirmed that bisphenol A (BPA) 3.5 – a chemical used to make plastic baby 3 bottles and water bottles (and found in 2.5 the lining of nearly every soft drink can 2 and canned food product) – is a toxic substance, particularly dangerous for 1.5 infants. In the U.S. alone, more than 6 1 million pounds of products containing 0.5 BPA are produced per annum. 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

! Obesity Burden: The global Year obesity epidemic is one of the world’s greatest public health challenges. A new study reveals that almost one-third Corporate Excess, Disparity and Inequality of the world’s adult population is over- According to labor economist Tom Pizzigati, the combined net worth of today’s weight or obese.8 In 2005, an estimated 1,125 billionaires ($4.4 trillion) is likely to exceed the combined wealth of half 23% of the world’s adult population of the world’s adult population.16 Put in another way, the combined worth of the was overweight (937 million), and world’s wealthiest 1,125 individuals exceeds Germany’s 2007 gross national nearly 10% were obese (396 million).9 income. Of the 396 million obese people, 53% lived in developing countries. If trends According to the Institute for Policy Studies, CEOs of the top 500 U.S.-based continue, there will be 1.2 billion obese corporations averaged $10.5 million in pay in 2007, 344 times the pay of typi- people by 2030 and 62-68% of them cal American workers. The top 50 hedge and private equity fund managers will live in the global South.10 In the averaged $588 million each in 2007, more than 19,000 times the amount U.S. alone, the economic cost of obe- earned by the typical U.S. worker.17 Even as government coffers are bailing out sity was about $117 billion per annum investment banks, corporate CEOs continue to cash prodigious paychecks. in 2000.11 The CEO of now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, took home $17,000 per hour in 2007 – about $45 million – for driving his company into the ground.18 ! Dead Zones: Chemical fertilizer In August 2008 ExxonMobil, the world’s second largest corporation, was gush- pollution is the primary cause of 400 ing record-breaking profits at the rate of $90,000 per minute.19 Referring to coastal “dead zones” that now cover the CEO of Exxon and other oil industry giants, NASA climatologist Dr. James an area of 245,000 km2 (the size of the Hansen told a U.S. Congressional committee that these executives “should be U.K. or Ghana). Oxygen-depleted ma- tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” for engineering doubt about rine waters have increased by one-third global warming and obstructing corrective measures.20 since 1995. In 2007, Wal-Mart’s revenues were higher than gross national income in ! Engineering Taste: The corporate Greece or Denmark. BP’s 2007 revenues exceeded South Africa’s gross na- food system has redefined the notion of tional income; Toyota’s 2007 earnings topped Venezuela’s. fresh food by overcoming barriers that In 2004, America’s wealthiest 1% of the population held 35% of the nation’s were once imposed by nature (or by total wealth – over $2.5 trillion more in net worth than the entire bottom 90%.21 regulators). Dutch author Jan Douwe van der Ploeg describes how the ten- A 2008 OECD report reveals that the U.S. has the highest inequality and pov- derness and taste of industrial chicken, erty rates in 20 OECD countries after Mexico, Turkey and Portugal.22 for example, is not necessarily related

7 to breed, feed or treatment, but may be the result of “the injection of water, ad- Power to the people... or, power to the bottom? ditional proteins, softeners and flavours In the globalized marketplace, to be on top, you need to control the bottom. into any breed of chicken.”12 Dark The greatest power resides at the most fundamental level. From the perspec- chicken meat, adds van der Ploeg, “is tive of agribusiness over the past three decades, power has moved from the milled, mixed with water into a meat seed to the gene to the atom. Tomorrow, power may flow to those who control ooze, centrifuged and cooked, after genomic databases. We used to say that if you controlled the seed, you con- which a whitish chicken filet…is ob- trolled the first link in the food chain. Then, gene patents in the 1990s under- tained.”13 He estimates that 80 percent mined the plant variety patents of the 1970s. Now, nanobiotechnology patents of food industry R&D is oriented to- threaten to usurp control to the atomic level. Power follows gravity, it seems. wards the manufacturing of these kinds of “boundary shifts.” But, not really. Sow a bag of atoms and the chances of a bumper crop are dis- mal. Throw a mess of genes into a pot and dinner will be delayed. Plant seed Consolidation Trends: and feed the family. Over the last three decades we have learned that genes play only a bit part in creation and atoms are a long way from the bottom of According to industry analysts, in 2007 the physical universe. But, seeds (mixed in soil, water and sunlight) are, in the aggregate value of global food truth, the first link in the food chain. Seed is the fundamental source of political industry power that governments must not forget and farmers need to protect. (including food processors, distribu- tors and retailers) was roughly $200 billion, compared to half that amount in 2005.14 The mergers in this sector controlled and socially just food sys- edge and innovation that rivals all the mirror the global trend in mergers and tems (“Food Sovereignty,” as defined patent offices in the world. While the acquisitions. by Via Campesina, what others have global struggle for land, food and jus- called a global repeasantization move- tice is playing out on a lopsided playing In 2003, the worldwide value of merg- ment).24 Peasant farmers, civil society field, it’s also true that our view of cor- ers and acquisitions totaled a record- and social movements are actively porate power is often a distorted one. A breaking $1.38 trillion. By 2005 it bal- creating alternative food and health lot depends on perspective: looned to $2.7 trillion – and then spiked systems built on resilience, sustainabil- 27% to reach $4.48 trillion in 2007. ity and sovereignty. Although Wal-Mart is the largest buyer and seller of food on the planet, it ac- In the global struggle for Food Sov- counts for only 3.5% of the $5.1 trillion “Our world is ereignty, the playing field isn’t level, dollars spent on retail food worldwide in 23 but the scope and scale of resistance 2007. An estimated 85% of the world’s not for sale.” is massive, extending from the local food is still produced relatively close to the international level. For all their to where it is consumed25 – much of The Global Food Fight power and might, corporations do not it outside the formal market system. have a monopoly on innovation and Of the world’s 450 million farms, 85% The statistics and analysis in this report knowledge. Even after decades of mar- are smallholder farms of less than 2 provide a snapshot of technology con- ginalization by corporate food systems, hectares.26 vergence and corporate concentration the vast majority of the world’s food is in the industrial life sciences. It is diffi- produced in local food economies by While the proprietary seed market ac- cult to exaggerate the power and reach peasant farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists counts for over 80% of the commercial of corporate actors in the global food and indigenous peoples. They are the seed supply, approximately three- and health arena. At the same time, backbone of the world’s food system. quarters of the world’s farmers routinely there is vast and growing resistance to Peasant farmers conduct more scien- save seeds from their harvest and grow the dislocation and devastation caused tific research and breed far more plant locally-bred varieties. At least 1.4 bil- by the agro-industrial food system. Mil- varieties than corporations. Collectively, lion people depend upon farmer-saved lions of people are struggling for locally they constitute a repository of knowl- seed. In 2007, institutional breeders

8 held monopoly claims (plant variety The top 10 drug companies account for Notes protection) on over 72,000 plant variet- 55% of global pharmaceutical sales, 1 Olivier De Schutter, “Building resil- ies worldwide (many of them flowers but approximately 70% of the world’s ience: a human rights framework for and ornamentals). But small farmers population depends on traditional, world food and security,” have created and are using millions herbal-based medicines for the majority Report of the Special Rapporteur on of farmer-bred varieties, mostly food of its health care. the right to food, Gen- crops.27 eral Assembly, 8 September 2008. For most of the world’s population, 2 Stacey Rosen, et al., “Food Security Half of the world’s population now lives farmer-bred crops and traditional medi- Assessment 2007,” USDA, Economic in cities, and problems associated with cines are vastly more accessible and Research Service, July 2008. urban poverty are profound. However, affordable. They are diverse, patent- 3 FAO, “Food Outlook: Global Market it is conservatively estimated that free, decentralized, and adapted to Analysis,” June 2008. http://www.fao. 15-20% of the world’s food is produced thousands of cultural, environmental, org/docrep/010/ai466e/ai466e00.htm in urban areas, and 800 million urban climate and geographical conditions. residents are involved in some form of Peasant farming communities are 4 Personal communication with Boris Planer and Sarah Herriein, Planet agriculture.28 Sixty-four per cent of the those that have the labor, resources, Retail, May 2008. residents of Nairobi grow at least some knowledge and resilience to sustain of their own food.29 In Kathmandu 37% agro-ecological farming practices – 5 FAO, The State of Agricultural Com- of food producers grow all the veg- and these are the people who will be modity Markets 2004, p. 14. This etables consumed in their households, responsible for adapting agriculture to statistic is not adjusted for inflation. On the Internet: http://www.fao.org/ and 11% of animal products.30 In Hanoi, extreme climate conditions. They are docrep/007/y5419e/y5419e03.htm 80% of fresh vegetables, 50% of pork, the true experts in “life sciences,” and poultry and fresh water fish, as well it’s their science and technologies that 6 Caroline S. DeWaal, and David W. as 40% of eggs, originate from urban deserve support and recognition. Read- Plunkett, “Building a Modern Food Safety System: For FDA Regulated areas.31 In Accra, 90% of the city’s ers of Who Owns Nature? should keep Foods,” Center for Science in the fresh vegetables are produced within in mind that the global food fight isn’t Public Interest White Paper, October 32 the city. over. 2007. On the Internet: http://www. cspinet.org/new/pdf/fswhitepaper.pdf 7 Ibid. 8 T. Kelly, et al., “Global burden of obesity in 2005 and projections to 2030,” International Journal of Obe- “ The largest corporation sity (2008) 32, 1431–1437; published online 8 July 2008. is not Wal-Mart or 9 Ibid. 10 Personal communication with Tanika General Motors; the Kelly, Tulane University. October 29, 2008. largest corporation 11 U.S. Department of Health and Hu- man Services, Office of the Surgeon General. “Overweight & Obesity: At a is nature.” Glance.” On the Internet: http://www. surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/ - Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the U.N. calltoaction/fact_glance.htm Convention on Biological Diversity, 18 May 2008

9 12 Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, The New 23 “Our World Is Not for Sale” is a world- 31 RUAF Resource Centres on Urban Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy wide network of organizations (includ- Agriculture and Food Security: http:// and Sustainability in an Era of Empire ing ETC Group), activists and social www.ruaf.org/node/513 and Globalization, Earthscan: Lon- movements committed to challenging 32 Ibid. don, 2008. trade and investment agreements that advance the interests of the world’s 13 Ibid. most powerful corporations at the ex- 14 Grant Thornton Corporate Finance. pense of people and the environment. Personal communication with Brian 24 See website of La Via Campesina, Basil, October 24, 2008. For more the international peasant movement: information, see Grant Thornton’s http://viacampesina.org/ See also, “Food Industry Snapshot,” Summer, Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, The New 2008. Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy 15 Statistics on worldwide value of merg- and Sustainability in an Era of Empire ers and acquisitions are from Thom- and Globalization, Earthscan: Lon- son Financial Securities. don, 2008. 16 See “Too Much” – a website that 25 Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, The New explores excess and inequality in the Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy U.S. and the world, edited by Tom and Sustainability in an Era of Empire Pizzigati. http://www.toomuchonline. and Globalization, Earthscan: Lon- org/inequality.html don, 2008. 17 Institute for Policy Studies, “Corpo- 26 Joachim von Braun, Director General, rate Excess 2008,” http://www.ips-dc. International Food Policy Research org/reports/#623 Institute, “High and Rising Food 18 Nicholas Kristof, “Need a Job? Prices,” presentation made to U.S. $17,000 an Hour. No Success Re- A.I.D., Washington, D.C., April 11, quired,” New York Times, September 2008. http://www.ifpri.org/presentation 17, 2008. s/20080411jvbfoodprices.pdf 19 Clifford Kraus, “Exxon’s Second- 27 International Union for the Protec- Quarter Earnings Set a Record,” New tion of New Varieties of Plants York Times, August 1, 2008. (UPOV), “PVP Statistics for the period 2003-2007,” Document prepared by 20 Robert Weissman, editor of Multina- the office of UPOV, October 19, 2008. tional Monitor, “Crime, Punishment http://www.upov.int and ExxonMobil. On the Internet: http://multinationalmonitor.org/editors- 28 See website of the RUAF Resource blog/index.php?/archives/90-Crime,- Centres on Urban Agriculture and Punishment-and-ExxonMobil.html Food Security: http://www.ruaf.org/ node/513 21 See “Too Much” – a website that explores excess and inequality in the 29 William Rees, “Why Urban Agricul- U.S. and the world, edited by Tom ture,” Notes for the IDRC Develop- Pizzigati. http://www.toomuchonline. ment Forum on Cities Feeding Peo- org/inequality.html ple: A Growth Industry, Vancouver, BC, 20 May, 1997. Published by City 22 Andrew Taylor and Chris Giles, “Rich- Farmer, Canada’s Office of Urban poor divide widens, says OECD,” Agriculture. Financial Times, October 21, 2008. 30 Ibid.

10 SECTION 1

Corporate Farm Inputs: Seeds, Agrochemicals, Fertilizers

Seed Industry

Company 2007 seed sales % of global World’s Top 10 (US$ millions) proprietary Seed Companies seed market 1. (US) $4,964 23% 2. DuPont (US) $3,300 15% 3. () $2,018 9% 4. Groupe Limagrain (France) $1,226 6% 5. Land O’ Lakes (US) $917 4% 6. KWS AG (Germany) $702 3% 7. Crop Science (Germany) $524 2% 8. Sakata (Japan) $396 <2% 9. DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) $391 <2% 10.Takii (Japan) $347 <2% Top 10 Total $14,785 67% Source: ETC Group

Commercial Seed Market: In the first According to Context Network, the the global proprietary seed market was half of the 20th century, seeds were proprietary seed market (that is, brand- US$22,000 million. (The total commer- overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers name seed that is subject to exclusive cial seed market was valued at $26,700 and public-sector plant breeders. In monopoly – i.e., intellectual property), million in 2007.)1 The commercial seed the decades since then, Gene Giants now accounts for 82% of the commer- market, of course, does not include have used intellectual property laws cial seed market worldwide. In 2007, farmer-saved seed. to commodify the world seed supply – a strategy that aims to control plant Global Commercial Seed Market germplasm and maximize profits by Global      eliminating Farmers’ Rights. Today, the Non-Proprietary proprietary seed market accounts for Seed Market a staggering share of the world’s com- 18% mercial seed supply. In less than three decades, a handful of multinational cor- porations have engineered a fast and furious corporate enclosure of the first ! link in the food chain. "

Global Proprietary Seed Market 82%

11 According to ETC Group’s ranking: Top 10 Share of Global Proprietary Seed Market

The top 10 seed companies Takii <2% ! DLF-Triflium <2% account for $14,785 million – or Sakata <2% two-thirds (67%) of the global Bayer Crop Science 2% 2 proprietary seed market. KWS 3% Other Land ‘O Lakes 4% 33% ! The world’s largest seed Groupe company, Monsanto, accounts for Limagrain almost one-quarter (23%) of the 9% global proprietary seed market. Syngenta 9% ! The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont DuPont, Syngenta) together account 15% Monsanto 23% for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market. ETC Group conservatively estimates that the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed The top 10 seed companies account for 67% of the global proprietary seed market. market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market.3 In 2008, as the global food crisis deep- raising seed prices “to capitalize on the ens, the world’s largest seed compa- planting boom it expects next year.”4 nies are awash in profits. Record-high In less than three commodity prices and depleted grain Global Proprietary Seed Market: reserves translate to soaring demand Overview decades, a handful of for seeds and other farm inputs (fertil- For the top 3 companies, genetically multinational corporations izers, pesticides, farm equipment, etc.). engineered seeds account for a steadi- ly growing proportion of revenues. has engineered a fast and Monsanto’s 3rd quarter profits jumped 42% in June 2008. The Wall St. Journal Based on industry statistics, ETC furious corporate enclosure noted that the seed giant is already Group estimates that Monsanto’s bio- of the first link in the food chain. Global Proprietary Seed Market, 2007 Grass & Forage Legumes Seed Industry Trends: Vegetable & 4% Flower Seeds ! Windfall Profits Amid World Food 17% Emergency

! Tech Cartel: Gene Giants Forge “Cross-Enabling” Agreements

! Maximizing Monopoly: GE Seed Trait stacking Field Crops 79% ! Mantra du jour: GE crops are es- sential technology to combat food emergency and cure-all for climate chaos.

12 tech seeds and traits (including those Sample Tech Cartel Agreements licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted Monsanto (the world’s largest seed company) and BASF (the world’s #3 agro- to genetically engineered seeds in chemical firm) announce colossal $1.5 billion R&D collaboration involving 60/40 2007.5 The company claims that it profit-sharing, respectively. “This is a great step forward in bringing to farmers licenses its biotech traits to an addition- higher yielding crops…”11 BASF & Monsanto, joint news release (March 2007) al 250 companies. In 2007, almost half (48%) of DuPont’s seed revenue came Monsanto & Dow Agrochemicals join forces to develop the first-ever geneti- from products that carried a biotech cally engineered maize loaded with eight genetic traits, for release in 2010. trait.6 UK consultancy firm, Cropnosis, “Farmers will have more product choices to optimize performance and protec- 12 puts the global value of GM crops in tion…” – Dow news release (Sept. 2007) 2007 at $6.9 billion.7 Monsanto and Syngenta agree to call a truce on outstanding litigation related Gene Giant’s Tech Cartel: Cross- to global maize and soybean interests, and forge new cross-licensing agree- Enabling Agreements: Anti-trust regu- ments. “We’re pleased … to put farmer customers first and reach an agreement 13 lators (anyone out there?) in Brussels that offers them tremendous benefits and choice in the seasons ahead.” – and Washington take note: The Gene Monsanto news release (May 2008) Giants are forging unprecedented alli- Syngenta & DuPont announce an agreement that will broaden each com- ances that render competitive markets pany’s pesticide product portfolios. “These products, which are highly comple- a thing of the past. By agreeing to mentary to our portfolio and pipeline, will provide additional options for grow- cross-license proprietary germplasm ers...”14 – DuPont & Syngenta, joint news release (June 2008) and technologies, consolidate R&D efforts and terminate costly IP litiga- tion, the world’s largest agrochemical and seed firms are reinforcing top-tier stunningly obvious: “The GM business contains two insecticidal genes (one to market power for mutual benefit. The looks like it’s turning into a battle for resist corn borer and another to resist trend isn’t new, but the tech cartel giants only.”10 root worm) and tolerance deals are getting bigger and bolder. In (to withstand spraying of March 2007 the world’s largest seed Maximizing Monopoly – Genetic – brand name: Round Up). From indus- company (Monsanto) and the world’s Trait-Stacking: Agbiotech has al- try’s point of view, two or three biotech largest chemical corporation (BASF) ways been a package deal: Delivery traits are a lot better than one because announced a $1.5 billion R&D collabo- of a seed’s proprietary biotech traits double and triple stacked traits gener- ration to increase yields and drought depends on sales of the company’s ate nearly twice the profitability.16 tolerance in maize, , canola and companion chemical. Biotech’s most soybeans. ETC Group refers to this lucrative technical achievement is the Monsanto introduced its first double- kind of partnership as a “non-merger engineering of crops to withstand a stack trait variety in 1998, and its first merger”8 – all the benefits of consolida- shower of chemical weed killers. Today, triple-stack trait hit the market in 2005.17 tion and oligopoly markets without the over 80% of the worldwide area de- A Monsanto spokesman told Progres- anti-trust constraints. Industry analysts voted to genetically engineered crops sive Farmer that 76% of the maize expect the agreements to have “lasting carries at least one genetic trait for seed it sells in the U.S. in 2009 will be repercussions throughout the seed, herbicide tolerance.15 triple-stack varieties.18 Syngenta aims biotech and crop protection industries.”9 to make triple-stack maize account for Although the Gene Giants insist that After a dozen years on the market, 85% of its portfolio by 2011.19 In the farmers will benefit from the tech cartel biotech has delivered only two genetic U.S. – where half of the world’s GE agreements (see box below), there’s traits to market – herbicide tolerance crops are grown – 37% of all trans- no doubt that customers will pay higher and insect resistance. But some GE va- genic crops contained two or three prices for fewer options and less in- rieties combine more than one of these biotech traits in 2007. Whether farmers novation in the marketplace. Last year, traits in a single seed. For example, want the premium-priced, fully-loaded even Nature Biotechnology opined the Monsanto’s “triple-stack” biotech maize stacked traits or not, they may have

13 little choice in the future. Monsanto ect, which began in 2008, is especially Patented gene technologies will not and Dow Agrosciences joined forces in specious because the U.S. government help small farmers survive climate 2007 to develop maize seeds with up to relied on data from Monsanto to sub- change, but they will concentrate 24 eight genetic traits (two kinds of herbi- stantiate the claim. corporate power, drive up costs, cide tolerance and six genes for insect inhibit public sector research and resistance) for release in 2010. Corporate Grab on Climate Genes: further undermine the rights of farm- Agbiotech’s newest public relations ers to save and exchange seeds. campaign puts a fresh twist on a stale “The lack of competition theme: GE crops as the cure-all tech- and innovation in the nology that will increase production and corporations (BASF, Monsanto, Bayer, feed the world. This time, GE crops are Syngenta, DuPont and Dow) account marketplace has reduced touted as the solution to the current for 42 of the 55 patent families (79%). farmers’ choices and food crisis and climate change (and These six companies collectively con- peak oil). (The Biotechnology Industry trol around half of the proprietary seed enabled Monsanto to raise Organization’s current slogan is “Heal, market, and 75% percent of the global prices unencumbered.” fuel, feed the world.”) The Gene Giants agrochemical market. are stockpiling hundreds of monopoly – Keith Mudd, Organization for Com- patents on genes in plants that the The Gene Giants aim to convince petitive Markets, following Monsanto’s companies will market as crops geneti- governments, farmers and reluctant decision to raise some GE maize seed cally engineered to withstand environ- consumers that genetic engineering prices by 35%, July 2008 22 mental stresses such as drought, heat, is the essential adaptation strategy to cold, floods, saline soils and more. ETC insure agricultural productivity in the Group’s May 2008 report, “Patenting midst of climate change. According to At a July 2008 meeting, Monsanto of- the Climate Genes,” reveals that Mon- Monsanto, “everyone recognizes that ficials announced plans to raise the santo, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer the old traditional ways just aren’t able average price of some of the com- and Dow (and their biotech partners) to address these new challenges” – so pany’s triple-stack maize varieties a have filed 532 patent documents on the only hope is “climate ready” GM whopping 35 percent.20 Fred Stokes so-called “climate ready” genes at pat- crops.26 of the U.S.-based Organization for ent offices around the world.25 The 532 A decade ago, ETC Group noted that Competitive Markets (OCM) describes documents represent 55 patent families seed industry giants were turning to the implications for farmers: “A $100 (corresponding to a single “invention” “advanced genomics” to identify and price increase is a tremendous drain submitted for patent monopoly in more control key crop genes and their link on rural America. Let’s say a farmer in than one country). Together, six of the to agronomically important traits. “The Iowa who farms 1,000 acres plants one world’s largest agrochemical and seed danger,” we wrote, “is that a handful of of these expensive corn varieties next companies will secure a virtual high- year. The gross increased cost is more tech stranglehold on plant germplasm than $40,000. Yet there’s no scientific at the molecular level.”27 Unfortunately, basis to justify this price hike. How can we got that right. we let companies get away with this?”21 Bottom line: So-called climate-ready The U.S. government is currently sub- genes are a false solution to climate sidizing sales of Monsanto’s triple-stack change. Patented gene technologies maize seed by offering lower crop in- will not help small farmers survive cli- surance premiums to farmers who plant mate change, but they will concentrate it on non-irrigated land –because the corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit biotech maize reportedly provides lower public sector research and further un- risk of reduced yields when compared dermine the rights of farmers to save to conventional hybrids.23 The pilot proj- and exchange seeds.

14 Agrochemical Industry

Company Agrochemical % Market World’s Top 10 Sales 2007 Share Pesticide Firms (US$ millions) 1. Bayer (Germany) $7,458 19% 2. Syngenta (Switzerland) $7,285 19% 3. BASF (Germany) $4,297 11% 4. Dow AgroSciences (USA) $3,779 10% 5. Monsanto (USA) $3,599 9% 6. DuPont (USA) $2,369 6% 7. Makhteshim Agan () $1,895 5% 8. Nufarm (Australia) $1,470 4% 9. Sumitomo Chemical (Japan) $1,209 3% 10. Arysta Lifescience (Japan) $1,035 3% Total $34,396 89% Source: Agrow World Crop Protection News, August 2008

The top 10 companies control 89% of Symbiotic Sales: The world’s six larg- companies rebounded last year – in the global agrochemical market. est agrochemical manufacturers are large part due to the subsidy-driven also seed industry giants. Despite sky- boom in agrofuel crops. The worldwide market for agrochemi- rocketing fuel and fertilizer costs, high cals was US$38.6 billion in 2007 – up grain prices created soaring demand In 2007 the four largest pesticide 8.4% over the previous year. The top 6 for commercial seeds and pesticides companies (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, companies accounted for $28.8 billion, in 2007. After two decades of sagging Dow) reported double-digit sales jumps. or 75% of the total market. sales, the world’s largest pesticide Pesticide revenues are up in nearly all

Global Agrochemical Market 2007 Sales

Arysta Lifescience 3% Other Sumitomo Chemical 3% 11% Bayer 19% Nufarm 4%

Makhteshim Agan 5% Syngenta 19%

DuPont BASF 6% 11%

Monsanto 9% Dow AgroSciences 10%

15 regions, but Latin America (particularly Some suspect that -based nents have developed resistance due Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) and East- pesticides could be a potential trigger to massive applications of glyphosate.36 ern Europe were the key growth mar- for viral infection in honeybees or re- As a result, farmers must employ more kets. Still glowing from his company’s sponsible for impairing the honeybee’s toxic chemicals to kill the resistant stellar performance in 2007, the CEO of immune defenses. In August 2008 the weeds.37 Commonly known as the BASF Plant Science estimates that by Natural Resources Defense Council “pesticide treadmill,” it’s a classic case 2025 the global agrochemical market filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environ- of chasing a new techno-fix to mop up will be worth $US50 billion.32 mental Protection Agency for its failure the mess of an older, failed technology. to release records on clothianidin’s Agrochemical giants prefer to describe Exterminating the Pollinators: In toxicity to bees. the resistance problem as a business recent years, beekeepers around the opportunity: In the words of Syngenta’s world have seen massive die-offs of In response to the German suspension, Crop Science CEO, John Atkin: honeybees, a phenomenon dubbed Bayer is quick to point the finger at ap- “Resistance is actually quite healthy “.” The demise plicators who are misusing its products. for our market, because we have to of honeybees and wild pollinators The company said that it is developing innovate.”38 has been blamed on cell phones, ge- standards to “avoid incorrect use of netic uniformity of honeybees, mites, seed treatment products in the future.”34 pathogens, nutrition deficit, genetically engineered crops, and, of course, pesticides. The world’s six largest agrochemical Although a combination of factors may be involved, one of the chief culprits manufacturers are also is a family of pesticides known as seed industry giants. – a neurotoxin that impacts the central nervous system of insects. Bayer CropScience markets a number of chemicals in this family Mind the Gap: Weed killers account for – including clothianidin and imidaclo- about one-third of the global pesticide prid – which are widely used as seed market, and agrochemical giants are coatings to protect maize and canola ratcheting up R&D on new seedlings from pests. In 1999, France and herbicide-tolerant genes. Mon- first banned sales of some of Bayer’s santo’s glyphosate-resistant (Roundup neonicotinoid-based pesticides after Ready) crops have reigned supreme they were linked to honeybee deaths. on the biotech scene for over a decade In May 2008 Germany suspended sales – creating a near-monopoly for the of the same chemical family. Slovenia company’s Roundup Ready herbicide and Italy have since followed suit. Ac- – which is now off patent. According to cording to German authorities: “It can Chemical & Engineering News, BASF, unequivocally be concluded that a poi- Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont are soning of the bees is due to the rub-off competing to fill “the glyphosate gap”35 of the pesticide ingredient clothianidin – a gap that’s growing fast because at from corn seeds.”33 least 14 weed species on five conti-

16 Fertilizer Industry

World’s Biggest Company 2007 Fertilizer Companies (US$ millions) 1. PotashCorp (Canada) 1,104 2. Yara (Norway) 1,027 3. Mosaic (USA) 944 ( has 55% stake) 4. Israel Chemicals Ltd. (Israel) 461 5. Agrium (Canada) 441 6. K+S Group (Germany) 303 7. Sociedad Quimica y Minera (Chile) 165 Source: PotashCorp, 2007 .

Fertile Ground for Profit: Recent cows, for example, ends up in their phosphate and potassium. Supplies of increases in grain plantings – to feed meat – the remainder seeps into air phosphate, a “finite and irreplaceable” livestock and cars – means increased or water supplies.42 Only 35 percent mineral, are highly concentrated in a consumption of chemical fertilizers – of the fertilizers used to produce milk, handful of countries.44 Analysts who are and that means higher energy use. Fer- eggs and grain are absorbed in the tracking supplies of phosphate rock are tilizer production and use accounts for final product. The environmental costs now predicting “potentially catastrophic about 30 percent of energy use in U.S. of fertilizer run-off are staggering. A future shortage of phosphorus.”45 Ac- agriculture, where nearly half the fertil- recent study identifies approximately cording to the Global Phosphorus izer consumed is applied to maize. 400 coastal “dead zones” around the Research Initiative (GPRI) supplies globe, covering an area of 245,000 of high-quality phosphate are already Globally, consumption of industrial fer- km2.43 These are marine waters that are decreasing and known reserves of tilizers increased by 31% from 1996 to so oxygen-depleted they can no longer phosphate will be depleted in 50-100 2008 due to increases in livestock pro- sustain life. The main culprit: chemical years. The price of phosphate rock rose duction and agrofuel crop plantings.39 fertilizer runoff. seven-fold in a 14 month period be- Prices are skyrocketing: The cost of tween January 2006 and April 2008.46 fertilizer increased from $245 per ton Peak Phosphate? The three primary Morocco and Western Sahara account in January 2007 to $1,600 per ton in ingredients (macro-nutrients) contained for 32% of global phosphate reserves; August 2008.40 in industrial fertilizers are nitrogen, accounts for 37% of world re- serves. In April 2008 China imposed According to Canada-based Potash- a 135 percent tariff on phosphate rock Corp, the largest fertilizer company Fertilizer production exports in an attempt to secure domes- in the world, it takes 7 kilograms (kg) and use accounts for tic supplies. The move alarmed the fer- of feed grain to produce every 1 kg of about 30% of energy use tilizer industry, as well as Western Eu- beef and 4 kg of grain to produce 1 kg rope and India, which are both entirely of pork. One kg of poultry represents 2 in U.S. agriculture, dependent on phosphorus imports.47 41 kg of grain. But fertilizer use is highly where nearly half the inefficient and wasteful. Only about 6 percent of nitrogen used in raising fertilizer consumed is applied to maize.

17 Corporate Food Chain At-a-Glance: Top 10 Revenue Share ($US billions)

2002

Food Retailers 501 Seeds and Food Agrochemicals Processors 29 259

2007

Food Retailers 720

Seeds and Food Agrochemicals Processors 49 339

Source: ETC Group. Note: In 2002, Wal-Mart did not report grocery sales separate from total revenues. For purposed of comparison, we estimate that 40% of Wal-Mart’s 2002 revenues were derived from grocery sales. In 2007, grocery sales accounted for 46% of Wal-Mart’s sales.

“Whilst there is not enough reliable data today to predict the exact year peak phosphorus will occur, what is clear is that discussion on alternative phosphorus sources and governance models is required now to ensure that the world’s farmers have sufficient access to phosphorus fertilizers in the long-term to feed humanity, without compromising the environment, livelihoods and economies.”

– Global Phosphorous Research Initiative

18 Notes org/en/materials/publications. 24 Ibid. html?pub_id=215 1 According to estimates provided by 25 ETC Group Communiqué, “Patenting industry analysts, Context Network, 9 “Context Network, “Thinking in Con- the ‘Climate Genes’...and Captur- the value of the overall commercial text..” April 2008. www.contextnet. ing the Climate Agenda,” May/ seed market was $26,700 million in com June 2008, http://www.etcgroup. org/en/materials/publications. 2007, (including seeds purchased 10 Peter Mitchell, “GM giants pair up to html?pub_id=687 from public breeding programs). do battle,” Nature Biotechnology 25, That’s a 14% increase ($3.8 billion) 695 - 696 (2007) 26 Rick Weiss, “Firms Seek Patents over 2006 seed industry revenues. on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops,” 11 http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/ We estimate that top 10 companies Washington Post, 13 May 2008, p. index.php?s=43&item=470 account for 55.4% of the overall A04. commercial seed market. Accord- 12 http://www.dowagro.com/newsroom/ 27 ETC Group Communiqué, “Seed ing to the Context Network, the corporatenews/2007/20070914a.htm global proprietary seed market was Industry Consolidation: Who Owns 13 http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/ US$22,000 million in 2007, a 10% Whom?” July/August 1998. http:// index.php?s=43&item=604 increase over 2006. www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publi- 14 http://tinyurl.com/59nrmx cations.html?pub_id=404 2 ETC Group assumes that virtually all of the seed revenues from the top 15 www.isaaa.com This statistic in- 28 Phillips McDougall cited in Agrow 10 seed companies are derived from cludes GE varieties that may contain World Crop Protection News, proprietary seed products. more than one engineered trait. Wednesday, 12 December 2007. http://www.agrow.com/news154. 3 Estimate based on Syngenta’s 2005 16 http://seekingalpha.com/ shtml report, using Context Network data, article/28652-syngenta-planting-the- 2005. seeds-of-growth 29 BASF has only minor seed interests, but its $1.5 billion R&D agreement 4 Scott Kilman, “Monsanto Posts 42% 17 http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/ with Monsanto means that it is part Jump in Net Grain Rally Boosts 3rd- investors/2006/02-14-06a.pdf of this group. Dow is not a top 10 Quarter,” Wall Street Journal, June 18 Marcia Zarley Taylor, “Minding Ag’s seed company – but it is a significant 26, 2008. Business,” DTN Progressive Farmer, player. 5 The statistic is based on Monsanto’s July 3, 2008. http://www.dtnprogres- 30 Melody Voith. “BASF Is Betting On Preliminary Biotechnology Trait sivefarmer.com The Farm,” Chemical & Engineering Acreage: FY 1996-2008F, www.mon- 19 AGROW, “Syngenta Interview: John News, May 26, 2008, Vol. 86, No. santo.com and ISAAA’s calculation Atkin,” May 30, 2008. http://www. 21, pp. 24-25. of total biotech crop area of 114.3 agropages.com/resources/feature/ 31 Patricia Short, “An Agchem Re- million hectares in 2007. February featureinfo.aspx?News_id=1213 13, 2008. www.isaaa.org bound,” Chemical & Engineering 20 Marcia Zarley Taylor, “Minding Ag’s News, October 1, 2007. Vol. 85, No. 6 Personal communication with Business,” DTN Progressive Farmer, 40, pp. 23-25. Pioneer/DuPont. July 3, 2008. http://www.dtnprogres- 32 Agropages.com, “Crop Protection in 7 According to Context Network, sivefarmer.com 2008,” June 30, 2008. http://www. the global value of the proprietary 21 Organization for Competitive Mar- agropages.com/resources/feature/ seed+trait market was $8.8 billion kets, News Release, “Monsanto featureinfo.aspx?News_id=1285 in 2007 – or 40% of the proprietary Corn Seed Price Hikes a Threat to seed market worldwide. Note that 33 Sarah Everts, “Honeybee Loss: Ger- Agriculture,” July 24, 2008. http:// many suspends use of clothianidin Context Network’s estimate includes www.competitivemarkets.com farm-saved GM seeds in Argentina/ after the pesticide is linked to honey- Brazil and India. It also includes non- 22 Ibid. bee deaths,” Chemical & Engineer- ing News, May 21, 2008. GM trait+seed (e.g. Clearfield). 23 See USDA website, frequently asked 8 ETC Group, “The Five Gene Gi- questions about Biotech Yield En- 34 Bayer News Release, May 20, ants are Becoming Four – Dupont dorsement, October 9, 2007. http:// 2008. http://www.bayercropscience. & Monsanto: Living in Sinergy?” 9 www.rma.usda.gov/help/faq/bye.html com/BCSWeb/CropProtection.nsf/ April 2002. http://www.etcgroup. id/20080520_EN_1

19 35 Melody Voith, “BASF Is Betting On 45 Leo Lewis, “Scientists warn of lack The Farm,” Chemical & Engineering of vital phosphorus as raise News, May 26, 2008, Vol. 86, No. demand,” Times (UK), June 23, 21, pp. 24-25. 2008. 36 Weed Science Society of America 46 See website of the Global Phospho- monitors the evolution of herbicide- rus Research Initiative (GPRI): http:// resistant weeds and assesses their phosphorusfutures.net impact. Database of resistant weeds: 47 Leo Lewis, “Scientists warn of lack http://www.weedscience.org/Summa- of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise ry/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=12 demand,” Times (UK), June 23, 37 Instead of using glyphosate (Round- 2008. Up), farmers are being advised to 48 Stuart White and Dana Cordell, use far more dangerous weedkill- “Peak Phosphorous: The Sequel to ers such as paraquat, 2-4-D and Peak Oil,” The Story of P Information . Sheet, 2008. http://phosphorus- 38 Agropages.com, “Syngenta Inter- futures.net/files/2_Peak%20P_ view: John Atkin,” May 30, 2008. SWhite_DCordell.pdf http://www.agropages.com/ resources/feature/featureinfo. aspx?News_id=1213 39 Keith Bradsher and Andrew Martin, Shortages Threaten Farmers’ Key Tool: Fertilizer,” The New York Times, 30 April 2008. 40 “Multi-billion Dollar Fertilizer Facility For Ghana,” Daily Guide, August 18, 2008. http://dailyguideghana. com/portal/modules/news/article. php?storyid=6720 41 PotashCorp, Overview of Potash- Corp and its Industry 2008, p. 13. 42 Richard Morgan, “Beyond Carbon: Scientists Worry About Nitrogen’s Ef- fects,” New York Times, September 2, 2008. 43 Robert J. Diazl and Rutger Rosen- berg, “Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosys- tems,” Science, 15 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5891, pp. 926 – 929. Ab- stract available at: www.sciencemag. org. See also, Bina Venkataraman, “Ocean ‘Dead Zones’ on the Rise, The New York Times, 14 August 2008. 44 Mario Osava, “Farming Faces Phos- phate Shortfall,” Energy Bulletin, October 15, 2007. http://www.ener- gybulletin.net/node/35851

20 SECTION 2

Corporate Food Outputs: Food & Beverage Manufacturing; Global Grocery Retailers

Food & Beverage Manufacturing Industry

World’s Top 10 Company 2007 Food Food & & Beverage Total Sales Bev as % Food & Beverage Sales (US$ of Total Corporations (US$ millions) millions) Sales 1. Nestle (Switzerland) 83,600 89,700 93 2. PepsiCo, Inc. (USA) 39,474 39,474 100 3. Kraft Foods (USA) 37,241 37,241 100 4. The Coca-Cola Company (USA) 28,857 28,857 100 5. Unilever (The Netherlands) 26,985 50,235 54 6. Tyson Foods (USA) 26,900 26,900 100 7. Cargill (USA) 26,500 88,266 30 8. Mars (USA) 25,000 25,000 100 9. Archer Daniels Midland 24,219 44,018 55 Company (USA) 10. Danone (France) 19,975 19,975 100 Total Top 10 338,751 449,666 Source: Leatherhead Food International, 2008

The top 10 food and beverage firms Food Institute tracked 413 food process- 2008 – and now controls a quarter of control 26% of the global market for ing industry mergers and acquisitions the global market. The merger follows packaged food products – a 14% in- in 2007 – up from 392 deals in 2006. SABMiller’s 2007 merger of its U.S. crease since 2004.1 Leatherhead Food Recent mega-mergers include: operations with MolsonCoors – to create estimates that global sales of packaged Miller/Coors. Beef Barons: The world’s largest beef foods reached $1.3 trillion in 2007.2 packer, Brazil’s JBS S.A., is acquiring Baby Food Barons: In 2007, Group The top 10 account for 35% of the U.S.-based Smithfield Foods’ beef unit Danone paid $17 billion to buy Dutch revenue earned by the world’s top 100 for $565 million – a move that would give baby-food maker, Numico; Nestlé ac- food & beverage companies. According five corporations 85% of the U.S. beef quired Gerber, the baby food business to Leatherhead Food, the top 100 food processing market. But just when we owned by , for $5.5 billion. and beverage firms had combined food thought markets couldn’t get more con- Biscuit Barons: In 2007, Kraft Foods revenues of $966 billion in 2007. solidated, JBS is making a $560 million (USA) acquired the global biscuit busi- bid to takeover U.S.-based National Beef The top 100 food and beverage compa- ness of Groupe Danone (France) for for $560 million, positioning just three nies accounted for three-quarters (74%) $7.2 billion. major companies to control the market. of all packaged food products sold world- U.S. anti-trust regulators announced in Candy Kings: Mars Incorporated (mak- wide in 2007 – a 17% increase in market October 2008 that they will try to block er of Snickers and Skittles and M&Ms) share since 2004. the deal. purchased Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. (chewing Even in a sputtering economy, the ap- gum) for $23 billion knocking the UK’s Beer Barons: Belgian-Brazilian brewer, petite for food industry mergers and Cadbury PLC from the top candy-making InBev, swallowed U.S. beer giant acquisitions continues. The U.S.-based slot. Anheuser-Busch for $52 billion in July

21 Grocery Retailing Industry

World’s Top 10 Company 2007 Food 2007 Grocery Sales Total Sales as % Global Food (US$ millions) (US$ of Total Retailers millions) Sales 1. Wal-Mart (US) 180,621 391,135 46 2. Carrefour (France) 104,151 141,087 74 3. Tesco (UK) 72,970 100,200 73 4. Schwarz Group (Germany) 58,753 70,943 83 5. Aldi (Germany) 55,966 65,251 86 6. Kroger (US) 52,082 73,053 71 7. Ahold (UK) 50,556 62,614 81 8. Rewe Group (Germany) 49,651 56,324 88 9. Metro Group (Germany) 49,483 73,538 71 10. Edeka (Germany) 45,397 51,272 89 Total Top 10 719,630 1,085,417 Source: Planet Retail

The top 100 global food retailers tracked top 10. The top 3 mega-grocery retailers grocery retailer; it’s the planet’s largest by Planet Retail had combined grocery – Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco – ac- corporation. Operating in 13 countries, retail sales of $1.8 trillion in 2007 – 35% count for 50% of the Top 10’s revenues. with revenues of $379 billion and over of all grocery retail sales worldwide. 2 million employees, Wal-Mart clings to After decades of consolidation, giant Wal-Mart accounts for 10% of the gro- the top spot on the global Fortune 500 – grocery retailers occupy the most power- cery revenues earned by the top 100, surpassing oil and auto behemoths like ful position in the agro-industrial food and 25% of the revenues earned by the ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Toyota. chain. Wal-Mart isn’t simply the largest

Global Food & Beverage Companies: Top 10 Account for 35% of Packaged Food Sold by Top 100

Nestle 8% Pepsico, Inc 4% Kraft Foods 4% The Coca-Cola Company 3% Unilever 3% Tyson Foods 3%

Remaining 90 Cargill 3% Food & Beverage Companies 64% Mars 3% Archer Daniels Midland 3% Danone 2%

Food Sales by top 100 food and beverage firms in 2007 = $966 billion

22 Global Food Retailers: Top 10 Account for 40% of Groceries Sold by Top 100

Wal-Mart 10%

Carrefour 6%

Tesco 4% Schwarz Group 3% Aldi 3%

Remaining 90 Retailers Kroger 3% 60%

Ahold 3% Rewe Group 3% Metro 3% Edeka 2% Grocery sales of top 100 retailers in 2007= US$1.8 trillion

Wal-Mart’s purchasing power is so vast than 20% in the USA, for example.) to a 22-year high due to record prices of that it has been able to call the shots livestock feed (soybean and corn).5 Kraft But even Wal-Mart and the other titans with suppliers and squeeze producers Foods will reportedly raise food prices atop the global food chain can’t muscle until they conform to the company’s 12-13 percent in 2008.6 Even retailers their way out of higher grain and energy standards. As one Wal-Mart executive are beginning to feel the pinch: Safeway, costs. In mid-2008, meat prices surged told Fortune, “When our grocery suppli- ers bring price increases, we don’t just accept them.”4 Chain Reaction: When the top of the food chain starts yanking, it’s labor that suffers the biggest squeeze. When gi- ant food retailers dictate lower prices, suppliers are forced to trim costs. That typically means lower wages and declin- ing labor standards further down the food chain. Although farm commodities reached record-high prices in the first half of 2008, farmers also spent far more for seed, fertilizers and agrochemicals. Corporate concentration in farm inputs (seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) is far greater than in food processing and grocery retail markets, but the push for profits at the top drives down wages and working standards throughout the industrial food system – affecting farm- ers, farmworkers, processing plant work- ers as well as big-box retail employees (Squeezed on all sides, farmers receive TOLES © 2008 The Washington Post. Reprinted with permission a steadily shrinking share of every su- permarket food dollar – averaging less of UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. All rights reserved.

23 After decades of Notes consolidation, giant 1 In Oligopoly, Inc. 2005, ETC Group reported that global sales of pack- grocery retailers occupy the aged foods in 2004 was $829 billion, an estimate provided by Leatherhead most powerful position on Foods. In 2007, Leatherhead esti- the agro-industrial food mates that global sales of packaged chain. Wal-Mart isn’t foods reached $1,310 billion. 2 Personal communication with Leath- simply the largest grocery erhead Foods International. retailer, it’s the planet’s 3 ETC Group gratefully acknowledges data provided by analysts at Planet largest corporation. Retail. According to Planet Retail, grocery retail sales worldwide in 2007 were $5,143,000 million (more than Supervalu, Delhaize and Costco – all $5.1 trillion). http://www.planetretail. among the top 25 biggest grocery retail- com ers – expect to bring in less revenue in 4 Suzanne Kapner, “Wal-Mart puts the 2008 than they projected at the end of squeeze on food costs,” Fortune, last year.7 May 29, 2008. http://money.cnn. Kinks in the Chain: A tough economy com/2008/05/28/magazines/fortune/ also means heightened competition for kapner_walmart.fortune/index.htm turf on the moral high ground. 2008 has 5 Elizabeth Rigby and Hal Weitzman, seen the Grocery Manufacturers Asso- “US food groups plan hefty price ciation, a lobby group representing the rises,” Financial Times, 20 July 2008. world’s biggest food, beverage and con- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c245dc2c- sumer products companies – including 5673-11dd-8686-000077b07658.html Unilever, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Nestle 6 Ibid. and PepsiCo – pleading on behalf of the environment and hungry people. The 7 David Orgel, “Economic Storm Fi- Association blames record food price nally Crashes into Supermarkets,” inflation on the diversion of food crops to Supermarket News, 4 Aug 2008. production. Agribusiness giants http://supermarketnews.com/view- (e.g., Monsanto, DuPont, Archer Daniels points/0804_economic_storm_finally/ Midland) are teaming up to counter such 8 USAgNet, “Alliance for Abundant claims, forming a group whose name Food and Energy Established,” 31 sounds like a bedtime story set in Uto- July 2008, http://www.wisconsinag- pia – “Alliance for Abundant Food and connection.com/story-national. Energy.” The alliance argues that, in the php?Id=1788&yr=2008. See also, face of peak oil and peak soil, “we can Doug Cameron, “Agribusiness Group grow our way to a solution” with new Forms to Protect Subsidies,” technologies, including genetically modi- Wall Street Journal, 25 July 2008. fied crops.8

24 SECTION 3

Corporate Medicine & Health: Big Pharma, Biotech, Animal Pharmaceutical, Bioinformatics

Pharmaceutical Industry

World’s Top 10 Company 2006 Sales Pharma % share of total (US$ millions) sales as % sales of top 100 Pharmaceutical of total sales companies Companies 1. Pfizer 45,083 95.9 8.9 2. GlaxoSmithKline 40,156 86.5 8.0 3. -Aventis 38,555 100 7.6 4. Roche 27,290 79.2 5.4 5. AstraZeneca 26,475 100 5.3 6. Johnson & Johnson 23,267 43.6 4.6 7. Novartis 22,576 62.7 4.5 8. Merck & Co. 20,375 90 4.0 9. Wyeth 16,884 83 3.4 10. Lilly 15,691 100 3.1 Total 276,352 54.8 Source: Scrip 100, 2007/2008

Corporate Medicine & Health At-A-Glance: Top 10 Revenue Share (US$ billions) 2002 2007

Pharma Pharma 276 181

Biotech Animal Pharma Biotech Animal Pharma 23 8 43 12

25 The top 100 drug companies tracked by equivalents are flying off Wal-Mart’s includes heavy doses of job cuts, market analyst firm Scrip had combined shelves; and regulators are yanking that’s not the only profit-booster in Big pharmaceutical sales of $504 billion in top-selling brands off the market for Pharma’s pill bottle: 2006. The top 10 companies account safety reasons. for 55% of total sales. If You Can’t Beat ‘em, Join ‘em: No surprise – workers are taking the Historically, Big Pharma has taken an For decades, big pharma’s blockbuster biggest hit. In 2007 alone, almost arms-length approach to biotech, but business plan was to get bigger and 45,000 pharma jobs were eliminated. a shift was already underway when we bigger through major mergers and Pfizer, the world’s biggest pharmaceuti- published Oligopoly, Inc. 2005. In light acquisitions – because two or three cal company, rang in the new year by of the industry-wide drug development big-selling drugs were enough to sus- announcing the biggest layoffs – 10,000 drought, Big Pharma is particularly tain a large international workforce, pay people.1 In the same period – 2007 attracted to companies with biotech obscene CEO salaries and still guaran- – salaries of the top suit at the top 10 products (referred to generally as “bio- tee huge profits. But this year’s top-10 pharmaceutical companies averaged logics” because they are derived from list doesn’t look much different from our $13 million.2 2008 began with Pfizer living organisms rather than produced 2005 list – the only recent mega-merg- announcing another 660 job cuts. Then via chemistry) nearing regulatory ap- er was Bayer’s late 2006 acquisition of Wyeth announced 1,200 of its sales proval. There were 23 pharma/biotech Schering AG to form Bayer Schering reps would be sent packing. Schering- mergers and acquisitions in 2005; 24 Pharma AG (#15). Analysts speculate Plough will let go of 10% of its world- deals in 2006; and 19 in 2007, including that Bristol-Myers Squibb (#11) is now wide workforce (that’s 5,500 people Schering-Plough’s !11 billion purchase a prime takeover target. out of a job). During the first 10 months of Organon Biosciences and AstraZen- of 2008, GlaxoSmithKline announced eca’s $15.6 billion buyout of MedIm- Although most of the corporate names plans to cull over 1,500 workers in the mune.3 In April 2008, Japan’s Takeda on this year’s top 10 list are the same, U.S. and UK. Pharmaceutical bought U. S. biotech these are turbulent times for Big firm Millennium for $8.8 billion. In July, Pharma: The drug development pipe- The pharmaceutical industry is ail- Novartis bought a majority stake in bio- line is still clogged; blockbusters are ing, but it’s following an aggressive tech Speedel Holding; Eli Lilly bought coming off-patent as fast as generic treatment plan. While the prescription SGX Pharmaceuticals; Bristol Myer’s made a bid to acquire ImClone. In late July, Roche offered to buy the 44% of Genentech it doesn’t already own for Big Pharma: Top 10’s Market Share of Top 100 Companies $43.7 billion.

If You Can’t Beat ‘em, Stall ‘em: It’s GlaxoSmithKline inevitable that even the biggest block- buster will eventually lose exclusive monopoly patent protection – at least 10 top-selling drugs go off-patent in 20084 – despite Big Pharma’s dem- onstrated mastery at staving off the Roche inevitable. The industry is notorious for tweaking drug formulations and win- ning patents on the “new” drug, taking AstraZeneca generic manufacturers to court and/or paying them to delay bringing generic Johnson & Johnson versions to market. Pfizer’s attorneys, Novartis for example, reached a settlement with Lilly Merck & Co. India’s largest pharmaceutical com- Wyeth

26 pany and major generic manufacturer If You Can’t Cure ‘em, Vaccinate ‘em: producers control 91.5% of the market. Ranbaxy Laboratories over patents on Vaccines represent one category of bio- Industry analysts predict that the next Lipitor – the world’s top-selling drug. logics getting lots of attention from Big blockbuster drug will be a new adult As a result, most countries won’t see a Pharma. With modest annual growth in vaccine. cheaper version of the cholesterol-low- sales of conventional pharmaceuticals If You Can’t Cure ‘em, Sequence ‘em: ering drug until more than a year and (5%-6 %), industry is shifting focus to 5 Big Pharma’s growing interest in bio- a half after its patent expires in 2010. the vaccine market, which is growing tech is related to the rise of genomics Pfizer raked in $12.7 billion from Lipitor at 20% per year.9 The number of vac- 6 and the hype surrounding “personalized sales in 2007. Another strategy to cope cines in development tripled from 1996 medicine” – based on the belief that to 2006.10 2007 marked the first year one day, not too far in the future, it will in which revenues from adult vaccines The four largest vaccine be possible to detect and treat disease surpassed revenues from pediatric vac- according to an individual’s genetic producers control 91.5% cines (good news for business since profile. The idea is that variations in our of the worldwide vaccine adults have more disposable cash than DNA determine our disease-susceptibil- kids do).11 The surge can be attributed market. ity or -resilience, as well as how likely largely to Merck’s heavily promoted we are to benefit from (or be harmed HPV vaccine called Gardasil,12 which by) a particular drug. With no block- with monopoly’s end is to make deals costs between $300 and $500. Influ- busters on-deck and recent experience with generic makers to sell “authorized” enza vaccines and vaccines against of unexpected losses when golden generics: Big Pharma licenses a drug tick-borne encephalitis are also strong eggs turn out to be ticking bombs (e.g., formulation to a generic manufacturer sellers. The world vaccine market, Merck’s Vioxx was taken off the market who gets rights to use the branded estimated at $16.3 billion in 2007, is in 2004; the development of Pfizer’s label – it’s pure marketing (chemically, now controlled by five companies, in torcetrapib, the company’s best hope the branded generic is the same as a order of market share: Merck, GlaxoS- for post-Lipitor era profits, was stopped non-branded generic), but the industry mithKline, Sanofi Pasteur (the vaccines in late 2006 when a clinical trial showed will try just about anything to hold on to division of Sanofi-Aventis), Wyeth, and it raised, instead of lowered, the risk blockbuster revenues, and the generic Novartis.13 The four largest vaccine maker benefits by charging a higher price. Historically, sales of a proprietary drug drop 80% in the first six months to a year after a generic version becomes available.7 In an effort to stem revenue losses, Merck made a deal with Watson Pharmaceuticals in January 2008 to produce an authorized generic version of Fosamax, Merck’s osteoporosis drug with global sales of $3 billion in 20078 and a patent expiration date of Febru- ary 2008. Other big players are taking a more decisive approach: buying ge- neric companies outright. That’s what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo (#22) did in June 2008 when it bought a controlling stake in generic giant Ranbaxy (#64). In the same month Sanofi-Aventis bid $2.6 billion for Czech generic drug maker Zentiva (Sanofi-Aventis already owns a 25% share).

27 of heart attacks), the industry is ready er, fine-tuned markets, Roche hopes to China rather than production in China to try a different approach. Roche (#4) lower development costs and charge will have the biggest impact on Big is diving in with a high-profile plan to a lot to those very select patients and Pharma’s bottom line. In June, The focus on personalized medicine.14 Over their insurers.”15 Wall Street Journal reported on the cur- the course of a few months in 2007, rent “arms race” in China where phar- Roche bought five companies related If You Can’t Develop New Drugs, maceutical companies draw up battle to biologics or gene-based diagnostics, Find New People to Buy the Old plans and send out legions of sales including 454 Life Sciences, a DNA Ones: China’s pharma industry has reps to take control of the country’s sequencing and analysis company, for made headlines recently due to a con- growing market for prescription drugs – $140 million. At the beginning of 2008, taminated blood thinner (heparin, sold a market expected to reach $46 billion Roche bought another diagnostics by Baxter International [#22]), originat- by 2012 (up from $8.4 billion in 2003).17 company, Ventana Medical Systems, ing from a Chinese manufacturing AstraZeneca has taken the early lead, for $3.4 billion. One industry analyst de- plant, which showed up in 11 countries increasing its sales force in China five- scribes Roche’s strategy this way: “Of and has been connected to 81 deaths fold since 2002 and its prescription 16 course, by eschewing one-size-fits-all in the U.S. In the long run, however, sales from $85 million in 2001 to $423 drugs in favor of finding meds for small- industry is hoping that prescriptions in million in 2007.18

Biotechnology Industry

World’s Top 10 Company 2007 Sales % change (US$ millions) from 2006 Publicly-Traded 1. Amgen (USA) 14,771 4 Biotechnology 2. Genentech (USA) 9,443 24 Companies (Roche acquisition pending) 3. Monsanto (USA) 8,563 17 4. Gilead Sciences (USA) 4,230 40 5. Genzyme (USA) 3,784 19 6. Biogen Idec (USA) 3,171 18 7. Applied Biosystems Applera 2,089 10 (USA) 8. PerkinElmer 1,787 16 9. Cephalon 1,727 0 10. Biomerieux 1,645 2 Source: Nature Biotechnology, July 2008

The top 10 publicly-traded biotech Pharma in a biotech shopping spree: along with the rest of the economy companies account for two-thirds of the Novartis bought vaccine-maker Chiron (e.g., Biogen Idec [#6] put itself up for sector’s $78 billion revenues in 2007. for $5.1 billion (2006); Merck bought sale in 2007, but there were no takers), Serono for $13.9 billion (2007); and As- it’s clear that the pharmaceutical indus- Three of the top 10 biotech compa- traZeneca snapped up MedImmune for try sees biotech as a knight in shining nies on our 2005 list didn’t make it to $15.6 billion (2007). Though Pharma’s armour – and it’s ready to make a long- 2008, having been snatched up by Big biotech buys appear be slowing down term commitment. The biggest sign of

28 pharma’s affection for biotech came in in 2007 – that’s just 17% – with by far dropped out of sight of Nature Biotech’s late July 2008 when Roche made a bid the greatest profit going to the largest 2008 survey, as did its revenues. As the to buy the 44% of Genentech it doesn’t firms. pharma and biotech industries become already own for $43.7 billion. Genen- less and less distinct – after all, Roche, tech rejected Roche’s offer in mid-Au- Five years ago, we reported that the the world’s fourth largest pharmaceuti- gust, saying it undervalued Genentech; Top 10 public biotech companies ac- cal company, calls itself the “world’s Roche was still “totally committed” to counted for 54% of the sector’s total biggest biotech company,”22 – industry the purchase by late October. Analysts revenue; three years ago, the Top 10 analysts will have to reevaluate how predict that a deal will eventually go accounted for 72% of total revenues. they track the sector’s performance. through. In 2008, the sector split the difference, This may be the last time we con- with the Top 10 accounting for 66% of sider pharma and biotech as separate 20 Long-time biotech investors were $78 billion in total revenues. sectors, though agrochemical giant cheered by the news that after 32 years Monsanto will continue to make things These calculations are derived from in the red, publicly-traded companies, difficult – should we be surprised? – as Nature Biotechnology’s annual survey taken as a whole, finished out 2007 in the only non human health related com- of the biotech sector, which “purpose- the black for the first time – though just pany in the Top 10. barely. The 429 publicly-traded biotech fully exclude[s]” pharmaceutical compa- 21 firms tracked by Nature Biotechnol- nies. That means that when biotech The table below shows the Top 10 best- ogy managed to eke out $1.1 billion in companies are bought by pharmaceuti- selling biotech drugs in 2007. Of the 10 profit on $78 billion in total revenue, a cal companies, revenues from their blockbusters, 4 are made by Amgen; significant improvement on the sector’s biotech products fall outside the frame 3 by Genentech and the remaining 3 losses of $2.6 billion in 2006.19 But of the journal’s industry snapshot. For by pharma giants Johnson & Johnson, profits were highly concentrated: Only example, when AstraZeneca bought Abbot Laboratories and Novartis. 72 of the 429 companies turned a profit MedImmune in 2007, MedImmune

Biotech’s Top Drug/Company 2007 Sales 10 Blockbuster (US$ millions) 1. Enbrel / Amgen 5,275 Drugs, 2007 2. Remicade / Johnson & Johnson (subsidiary Centocor) 4,975 3. Rituxan / Genentech and Biogen Idec partnership 4,869 4. Herceptin / Genentech 4,282 5. Avastin / Genentech 3,624 6. Aranesp / Amgen 3,614 7. Humira / Abbot Laboratories 3,064 8. Gleevec / Novartis 3,050 9. Neulasta / Amgen 3,000 10. Procrit / Amgen (marketed by Ortho Biotech) 2,885 Source: Signals Magazine, ETC Group

29 Veterinary Pharmaceutical Industry

Company 2006 Revenues World’s Top 10 (US$ millions) Animal Pharma 1. Schering-Plough 2,322 pro forma Companies (includes Intervet) (USA) 2. Pfizer (USA) 2,311 3. Merial (UK) 2,195 (joint venture: Merck & Sanofi Aventis) 4. Bayer Animal Health (Germany) 1,136 5. Novartis Animal Health (Switzerland) 940 6. Fort Dodge Animal Health (USA) 936 7. (USA) 876 8. Virbac (USA) 504 9. Boehringer Ingelheim 469 (Germany) 10. Ceva (USA) 378 Source: ETC Group and Animal Pharm Reports, September 2007

The worldwide animal health market plagued by concerns about adverse pharma firm, Pfizer, makes almost 40% (which includes veterinary pharmaceu- health effects in cows and people, anti- of its revenue from companion animal ticals, biologicals and medicated feed BGH consumer campaigns, national drug sales. The company sells canine additives) was valued at $19,160 in bans in Japan, Australia, Canada, New anti-obesity (Slentrol) as 2006. The top 10 companies accounted Zealand, and most European countries. well as a pill, called Anipryl, to treat for 63% of the total market.23 Wal-Mart’s commitment to go rBGH- cognitive dysfunction syndrome (CDS). free may have been the last straw. Pfizer urges owners of senior dogs to In November 2007, Schering-Plough be on the lookout for signs of CDS such acquired Organon Biosciences for The represents the larg- as “decreased greeting behavior” and $14,430 million – including its animal est regional market in the animal health pharma subsidiary, Intervet, a vaccine sector – by a factor of five.25 Though and antiparisitic manufacturer with sales in China and Brazil are expected Companion animals 2006 sales of $1,412 million. The take- to increase at rates of 8% and 6% per (e.g., cats and dogs) now over temporarily made Schering-Plough year, respectively, analysts predict the receive more the biggest animal pharma company U.S. will remain the largest market (5% – at least on paper.24 In August 2008, annual growth), accounting for almost in the United States than Monsanto announced that it would off- 37% of worldwide animal health sales farm animals do. load one of its most controversial prod- estimated to reach $21,700 million in ucts – a recombinant bovine growth 2010.26 hormone (rBGH) marketed as Posilac cautions: “Above all, resist the urge to A sizeable chunk of animal health sales – to Elanco, Eli Lilly’s animal health tell yourself that your dog ‘is just get- go to “companion animals” – we used division, for more than $300 million. ting old.’”28 (Could Pfizer’s antidepres- to call them pets (e.g., cats and dogs) BGH, or bovine somatotropin (BST), sant Zoloft help dog-owners resist the – which now receive more medications is a hormone designed to increase urge?) Novartis markets Chomicalm in the United States than farm animals milk production in dairy cattle. For the to treat separation anxiety in dogs; Eli do.27 The world’s second largest animal past dozen years the product has been Lilly’s version is called Reconcile.

30 But doting (or daft) dog owners aren’t producer, followed by the United quarters of the world’s chicken, two- the only contributors to growth in the States.31 Increased meat production thirds of its milk, half of its eggs and animal pharma sector. World meat means concomitant increases in fresh- one-third of its pigs are produced from consumption doubled between 1950 water shortages, land degradation and industrial breeding lines (i.e. genetically and 200529 and is expected to double greenhouse gas emissions, as well as similar animals bred for industrial farm- again by 2050, with the global South industrial feedlots that depend on drugs ing).” 32 accounting for the biggest increases.30 and feed supplements. According to China is now the world’s largest meat the League of Pastoral Peoples, “three-

The BioInformation Industry

Just about every player in the life show. We can throw the numbers on its surface in a specific order and sciences sector is increasingly into the biggest computing clusters then a DNA sample (specially pre- dependent on technologies that the world has ever seen and let pared in the lab) is placed onto the generate, store, process and analyze statistical algorithms find patterns chip. A scanner equipped with lasers, information. This includes Big Pharma, where science cannot.”33 microscope and camera can “read” the Gene Giants and biotech companies, chip and detect how the sample DNA as well as start-ups involved in drug For Anderson, Google provides the interacted with the chip’s synthetic DNA discovery and development, disease best model for advancing the bioscienc- and, from that, generate information diagnostics, personalized and genomic es and J. Craig Venter, data lover par about the sample. One microarray can medicine and . excellence, exemplifies the new breed produce thousands and thousands of Bioinformatics – using computers to of researchers that need never again pieces of data. Making sense of the crunch large amounts of biologically- ask (or answer) what if or why. data is the job of bioinformatics. People derived data – is the life industry’s working with microarrays wear lab Google may be the archetype, but it lynchpin. coats: They’re handling and preparing was Microsoft that launched the BioIT Chris Anderson, Wired’s editor-in-chief, biological samples. Bioinformatics folks Alliance in 2006 uniting “the pharma- recently claimed that huge amounts of work with computers and data. ceutical, biotech, hardware, and soft- data (on the scale of petabytes – 1000 ware industries to explore new ways trillion bytes), combined with computers to share complex biomedical data and Bioinformatics is the life powerful enough to process the data, collaborate among multi-disciplinary signal no less than the end of the scien- industry’s lynchpin. teams to speed the pace of discovery tific method: in the life sciences.”34 The life science “The scientific method is built industry’s data-needs fall roughly into Personalized medicine, genomics, ag- around testable hypotheses… two categories: data generation and biotech and synthetic biology couldn’t The models are then tested, and data processing. The industry widely exist without the products sold by mi- experiments confirm or falsify theo- uses microarray technology (also called croarray and scanning technology com- retical models of how the world bioarray, DNA chip or gene chip) to panies, which are generally specialized works. This is the way science has generate information from DNA via and keep a low public profile – compa- worked for hundreds of years…But biological samples – human, plant or nies like Affymetrix, Illumina, Applied faced with massive data, this ap- microbial cells. Processing, storing and Biosystems and Nanogen. Microar- proach to science — hypothesize, analyzing data requires specialized ray technology is young – less than model, test — is becoming obso- computer hardware and software. two decades old – but its long-term lete…We can stop looking for mod- dominance as the preferred research A microarray is a thin, coin-sized chip. els. We can analyze the data with- tool in the life sciences is uncertain as Strands of synthetic DNA are arranged out hypotheses about what it might gene-sequencing technologies, which

31 Microarray companies tend to serve the Roche Rushing in All Directions: The Swiss pharma giant has been on a life industry through licensing deals and shopping spree, adding at least five diagnostics and genomics-related compa- partnerships, though Roche’s recent nies to its cart since 2007. Already the world’s fourth largest pharmaceutical acquisitions of NimbleGen (a microar- company, Roche made a bid for the world’s second largest biotech company ray company) and 454 Life Sciences (Genentech), plus another big-ticket biotech company in April 2008 (UK’s (a gene sequencing company) mark a privately-owned Piramed for $175 million). Roche is already a key player in bold move toward controlling the entire disease diagnostics – its Diagnostics Division hauled in $7.8 billion in 2007. “information chain.” Companies that provide bioinformatics hardware and produce even more data, become less detailed data that have emerged from software tend to be household names expensive and easier to use. Microar- sequencing technologies. The com- – computing giants in other areas, like ray companies are scrambling to keep panies are also diversifying – buying Microsoft and IBM. their technology relevant by designing a stakes in or merging with sequencing new generation of chips based on more companies (see table below).

Major Players in DNA Data Generation

Company 2007 Sales What they do, etc. (US$ millions) 1. Roche Diagnostics Division 7,800 In 2007, Roche bought 454 Life Sciences (2006 sales, $18.7 million) for $154.9 million; NimbleGen (2006 sales, $13.5 million sales) for $272.5 million; and BioVeris (FY2006 revenues, $20.6 million) for $600 million. 2. Agilent Technologies 5,420 Gene expression microarray technology 3. Invitrogen / Applied 3,375 Invitrogen ($1,282 million, 2007 sales), a DNA Biosystems, Inc. pro forma sequencing company, will buy ABI, a microarray company ($2,093.5 million, 2007 sales). 4. Beckman Coulter 2,761 Manufactures biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and supplies 5. Bio-Rad Laboratories (life 1,447 Manufactures bioassays, including protein chips and science and clinical clinical diagnostic kits diagnostics segments only) 6. PerkinElmer (life and 1,327 Sells microarrays & microarray scanners, genomics analytical science segments analysis software, disease diagnostic kits only) 7. Affymetrix 371 Microarrays, owns ~22% stake in Perlegen Sciences (genome sequencing co.) 8. Illumina 367 Genechip maker. Merged with Solexa, a gene sequencing company, early in 2007. Paying $90 million to settle patent infringement suits with Affymetrix 9. MDS Analytical Technologies 352 Acquired Molecular Devices Corp. in 2007. Scanners and analysis software for microarrays 10. Caliper Life Sciences 141 Sells RNA, DNA and protein expression chips – mainly to pharmaceutical companies for drug discovery Sources: ETC Group, company information, Bio-IT World

32 Major Players in Drug/Company FY2007 Revenue Software, Hardware, (US$ millions) 1. Hewlett-Packard (USA) 104,286 DNA Data 2. IBM (USA) 98,786 Processing, Storing (IBM Global Technology Services 2007 and Analyzing revenues = $36,103 million) 3. Microsoft (USA) 51,122 4. Fujitsu Limited (Japan) 43,249 5. Apple (USA) 24,006 6. Oracle (USA) 22,430 7. Google (USA) 16,594 8. GE Healthcare (USA) 16,562 9. Sun Microsystems (USA) 13,873 10. Infosys Technologies (India) 3,090 Source: ETC Group, based on company information

Notes 6 Ibid. heart attack and strokes and subse- quently taken off the market. In addi- 1 Andrew Pollack, “Pfizer to Lay Off 7 Catherine Arnst, “Big Pharma’s Pat- tion, Merck faced 7,000 lawsuits. 10,000 Workers,” The New York ent Headache,” BusinessWeek, 6 Times, 22 January 2007, www.ny- Feb. 2008, www.businessweek.com 13 According to Kalorama Informa- tion as reported in Bruce Carlson, times.com For stats on other layoffs, 8 Anon., “Merck Announces 2007 Fi- “Adults Now Drive Growth of Vac- see Maureen Martino, “Top 5 layoffs nancial Results Reflecting Revenue cine Market,” Genetic Engineering of 2007,” www.fiercepharma.com Growth from Key Products,” Busi- & Biotechnology News, 1 June 2 Tracy Staton and Maureen Martino, ness Wire, 30 Jan. 2008. 2008, http://www.genengnews.com/ “Top 17 Paychecks in Big Pharma,” 9 Kerry Capell, “Vaccines: Back on the articles/chitem.aspx?aid=2490. The 19 May 2008, www.fiercepharma. Front Burner,” BusinessWeek, 30 full report from Kalorama Information com Johnson & Johnson’s CEO May 2006, www.businessweek.com costs more than $4,000. took home $25.1 million; The CEO of Sanofi-Aventis scraped by with 10 Ibid. 14 Ed Silverman, “Roche’s New CEO $3.27 million. 11 Bruce Carlson, “Adults Now Drive Talks Up Personalized Medicine,” 7 March 2008, Pharma Blog, www. 3 Jennifer Van Brunt, “Much Ado about Growth of Vaccine Market,” Ge- pharmalot.com Biologics,” Signals, 2 April 2008; netic Engineering & Biotechnology http://www.signalsmag.com/signals- News, 1 June 2008, http://www. 15 Ibid. genengnews.com/articles/chitem. mag.nsf/0/B14FA6C0967844478825 16 Gardiner Harris, “U.S. Identifies aspx?aid=2490. 741E005F1B19 Tainted Heparin in 11 Countries,” 4 Catherine Arnst, “Big Pharma’s Pat- 12 The vaccine targets human papil- New York Times, 22 April 2008. lomavirus (HPV), which in rare ent Headache,” BusinessWeek, 6 17 The prediction is from IMS Health cases leads to cervical cancer. Feb. 2008, www.businessweek.com and reported in Nicholas Zamiska, Some Merck critics argue that HPV “AstraZeneca Looks Beyond Bei- 5 Stephanie Saul, “Release of Generic really stands for Help Pay for Vioxx, jing,” The Wall Street Journal, 13 Lipitor is Delayed,” New York Times, the $2.5 billion blockbuster anti-in- June 2008; Page B1. 19 June 2008. flammatory that was found to cause

33 18 Nicholas Zamiska, “AstraZeneca 30 Steinfeld H. et al., Livestock’s long Looks Beyond Beijing,” The Wall shadow: environmental issues and Street Journal, 13 June 2008; Page options, Food and Agriculture Orga- B1. nization of the United Nations, 2006. p. iii. 19 Stacy Lawrence and Riku Lähteen- mäki, “Public biotech 2007 – the 31 Animal Pharm Reports, Livestock numbers,” Nature Biotechnology, Performance Products & Markets, Vol. 26, No. 7, July 2008, pp. 754. Chapter 1, April 2007. 20 Ibid., pp. 753-762. 32 Susanne Gura, “Industrial Livestock Production and its Impact on Small- 21 Ibid., p. 753. holders in Developing Countries,” 22 Jennifer Van Brunt, “Much Ado April 2008, www.pastoralpeoples.org about Biologics,” Signals, 2 April 33 Chris Anderson, “The End of Theory: 2008; http://www.signalsmag.com/ The Data Deluge Makes the Scien- signalsmag.nsf/0/B14FA6C096784 tific Method Obsolete,” Wired, 23 4478825741E005F1B19 See also, June 2008. On the Internet: http:// Roche press release for its self- www.wired.com/science/discoveries/ presentation as “the world’s biggest magazine/16-07/pb_theory biotech company:” http://www.roche. com/inv-update-2008-01-25 34 http://bioitalliance.org/ 23 Animal Pharm Reports, Animal Pharm Top 20: 2007 edition, Sep- tember 2007, executive summary. 24 Actual 2007 sales put Pfizer back on top with revenue of $2,639 million followed by Merial (almost $2,500 million). In 2007, Schering-Plough came in third with $1,251 million in sales. 25 Animal Pharm Reports, “World Animal Health Markets,” September 2006. Executive summary available at http://www.pjbpubs.com/cms. asp?pageid=2467 26 Ibid. 27 James Vlahos, “Pill-Popping Pets,” The New York Times, 13 July 2008. 28 http://www.cdsindogs.com/ content_o.asp (emphasis added) 29 Animal Pharm Reports, Livestock Performance Products & Markets, Chapter 1, April 2007; available on the Internet: http://www.animalp- harmnews.com/magnoliaPublic/ ap/reports/2007/chapter1/SR254- livestock-performance-products- markets

34 SECTION 4

Commodifying Nature’s Last Straw? Extreme Genetic Engineering and the Post-Petroleum Sugar Economy

Peak oil, skyrocketing fuel costs and climate crisis are driving corporate enthusiasm for a “biological engineering revolution” that some predict will dramatically transform industrial production of food, energy, materials, medicine and all of nature. Advocates of converging technologies promise a greener, cleaner post-petroleum future where the production of eco- nomically important compounds depends not on fossil fuels – but on biological manufacturing platforms fueled by plant sugars. It may sound sweet and clean, but the so-called “sugar economy” will also be the catalyst for a corporate grab on all plant matter – and destruction of biodiversity on a massive scale.

The future bio-economy will rely on The 21st century’s bio-based future is plastics, paints, cosmetics, adhesives, “extreme genetic engineering” – a suite called the “sugar economy,” or the “car- carpets, textiles and thousands more of technologies that are still in early bohydrate economy,” because industrial consumer products. Advocates assure stages of development: cheap and production will be based on biological us that the “food vs. fuel” debate will be fast gene sequencing; made-to-order feedstocks (agricultural crops, grasses, irrelevant in the future sugar economy, biological parts; genome engineer- forest residues, plant oils, algae, etc.) because feedstocks will come from ing and design; nano-scale materials whose sugars are extracted, fermented fabrication and operating systems. The and converted into high-value chemi- “Biology can make certain common denominator is that all these cals, polymers or other molecular build- things better than technologies – biotech, nanotech, ing blocks. The director of Cargill’s synthetic biology – involve engineering industrial bio-products division explains: traditional chemistry can.” of living organisms at the nano-scale. “With advances in biotechnology, any – Charles O. Holliday, Jr., This technology convergence is driv- chemical made from the carbon in oil CEO, DuPont ing a convergence of corporate power. could be made from the carbon found cheap and plentiful “cellulosic bio- New bioengineering technologies are in plants.” 1 mass”– plant matter composed of cel- attracting billions of dollars in corporate lulose fibers (including crop residues funding from energy, chemical and agri- Biological engineering has the potential such as straw, corn stalks, wheat business giants – including DuPont, BP, to affect virtually every sector of the straw, wood chips, and dedicated Shell, Chevron, Cargill – among others. economy that relies on fossil fuels – not only transportation fuels, but also “energy crops” such as switchgrass, fast-growing trees, algae, even mu- What is the sugar economy? nicipal waste). The giant stumbling Syn Bio enthusiasts envision a post-petroleum era in which industrial produc- block is that it currently requires a lot of tion is fueled by sugars extracted from biological feedstocks (biomass). The energy to break down some biological biotech industry’s bioeconomy vision includes a network of biorefineries, where feedstocks into sugar, and traditional extracted plant sugars are fermented in vats filled with genetically engineered chemistry has failed to provide an eco- – and one day, fully synthetic – microbes. The microbes function as “living nomical process. Proponents insist that chemical factories,” converting sugars into high-value molecules – the build- “next generation” feedstocks will use ing blocks for fuels, energy, plastic, chemicals and more. Theoretically, any old and new , as well product made from petrochemicals could also be made from sugar using this as break-through fermentation tech- biological manufacturing approach. nologies, to succeed where chemistry failed.

35 world’s largest corporations are begin- The company’s biorefinery will produce What is biomass? ning to shift some production away from 110 million pounds of plastic resin per Material derived from living or petrochemicals to bio-based processes. year starting in late 2008. recently living biological organ- The quest for the sugar economy is isms. Sources of biomass include ! DuPont partnered with sugar giant fueling high-dollar deals in the univer- all plants and trees, as well as Tate & Lyle (recently sold to agribusi- sity-industry complex, most notably the by-products such as organic waste ness giant Bunge) and Genencor to $500 million alliance between BP and from livestock, food processing and develop a commercial bio-based prod- University of California Berkeley.2 We’re garbage. uct – a fiber called “.” also seeing unprecedented corporate alliances involving synthetic biology ! BP is partnering with Mendel Bio- Converging Technologies start-ups and some of the world’s larg- technologies to develop genetically Crystallize Corporate Power est corporations – including Big Oil, Big engineered perennial grass for fuel. Eschewing fossil fuels as the planet’s Pharma, chemical firms, agribusiness ! ConocoPhillips and Archer Dan- economic fulcrum won’t happen giants, automobile manufacturers, for- iels Midland forged an alliance on cel- overnight. It’s too soon to tell if sugar- est product companies and more (see lulosic biofuel production. coated visions of the carbohydrate table). For example: economy are mostly technological hype ! BP has a joint venture with DuPont ! Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels and hubris, or if bio-based production to develop biobutanol. Midland Co. and Metabolix formed a processes can compete with their pet- joint venture (Telles Co.) to commercial- ! Shell is equity investor in cellulosic rochemical counterparts. Some of the ize bioplastics made from corn sugar. ethanol producer Iogen.

36 General Motors and Marathon Another Late Lesson ! What is Synthetic Biology? Oil are equity investors in Mascoma, a from Early Warnings Inspired by the convergence of company that is engineering microbes to molecular biology, computing and Recent experience with industrial agro- break down biomass and digest sugars. engineering, synthetic biology refers fuels offers a modern day parable about ! Codexis is developing biocatalytic to the creation of designer organ- the dangers of techno-fixes that are chemical processes to reduce manufac- isms built from synthetic DNA. Sci- promoted as green and sustainable so- turing costs of pharmaceuticals, trans- entists have already used synthetic lutions to peak oil and climate change. portation fuels, and industrial chemi- DNA to construct working viruses By mid-2008, even some OECD coun- cals. Shell, Merck, Schering-Plough, and re-engineer existing microbes; tries were admitting that industrial agro- Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer are they are also attempting to build fuels have been a tragic boondoggle among its corporate partners. human-made life forms that perform that can’t be remotely described as a specific tasks. socially or ecologically sustainable re- BP is an equity investor in Synthetic ! sponse to climate change.8 Not only are Genomics, a synbio company that aims industrial agrofuels driving the world’s to commercialize synthetic genomic pro- Today’s industrial bio-economy focuses poorest farmers off their land and into cesses for alternative energy. primarily on agrofuels (biofuels) – es- deeper poverty, 9 they are the single pecially ethanol and . Nature Chevron and Weyerhaeuser have greatest factor contributing to soaring ! Biotechnology’s Emily Waltz explains: a 50-50 joint venture to develop tech- food prices10 and have pushed over “The market for fuels swamps that of nology for converting cellulose-based 30 million additional people (so far) chemical and material markets, and the biomass into biofuels. from subsistence to hunger.11 Recent prospect of commanding just a piece scientific papers conclude that indus- ! Chevron has an agreement with of it is a draw that many entrepreneurs, trial agrofuels are not arresting climate synthetic biology startup Solazyme to governments and investors cannot re- change but accelerating it.12 develop an industrial process to trans- sist.”3 Since the 1970s, 70% of all U.S. form algae into diesel fuel. government funding for R&D in bio- mass has gone to biofuels.4 In the U.S., “[Synthetic organisms] will ! France’s Industrial Innovation Agen- energy applications account for 94% of cy is financing a !90 million initiative replace the petrochemical fossil fuel consumption; petrochemicals to develop biomaterials from renewable account for the rest. industry, most food, sources. clean energy and Bio-Economic Research Associates ! The U.S. Department of Energy is bioremediation.” investing $385 million in six commercial- (Cambridge, MA) predicts that bio- – J. Craig Venter, CEO, scale cellulosic ethanol biorefineries. based chemical processes could cap- Synthetic Genomics, Inc.13 Corporate partners include: Cargill, ture more than $70 billion in revenues Dow, DuPont, Shell, Iogen, among by 2010 – more than 10% of the global others. chemical industry total. (One analyst predicts that the market for bio-plastics Synthetic Biology to the will expand from $1 billion in 2007 to Rescue? over $10 billion by 2020.6) The biofuels But techno-optimists aren’t worried – “… any chemical made sector could reach $40 billion by 2010 because there are plenty more techno- from the carbon in oil and $110-150 billion by 2020. Revenues fixes on the launching pad. Venture from vaccines developed with next gen- could be made from the capitalists, corporate titans and the eration DNA technologies could reach U.S. Department of Energy are betting carbon found in plants.” $20 billion by 2010.7 that advances in synthetic biology will – John Stoppert, Cargill overcome the technological bottle- necks that threaten to delay the sugar economy. Synthetic biology, they tell us,

37 will enable next generation cellulosic In the name of moving lulosic plant material instead of milled feedstocks to be far more efficient and corn. DuPont predicts that Sorona, sustainable, and won’t compete with “beyond petroleum” we’re which can be turned into anything from land and resources that are used to seeing a new convergence underwear to carpeting, will eventually grow conventional food crops. replace . Although Sorona fiber is of corporate power that neither compostable nor biodegradable, Today, synthetic biologists are pursuing is poised to appropriate DuPont boasts that it’s environmentally a variety of methods to efficiently ex- and further commodify friendly because its production requires tract sugars from biomass feedstocks. 40 percent less energy and reduces For example, they are trying to use syn- biological resources in greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per- thetic microbes to break down cellulosic every part of the globe cent compared to petroleum-based pro- biomass, and they are also converting panediol. But it takes six million bushels microbial cells into “living chemical fac- – while keeping the root of corn to produce 100 million pounds tories” that manufacture new bio-based causes of climate change of Bio-PDO – the estimated annual products. output of DuPont’s Tennessee-based intact. (USA) bio-refinery.20 And that’s just one Jump-started by U.S. government sub- example of one biorefinery producing sidies,14 venture capitalists and corpo- just one bio-based material for a single rations are supporting R&D (in-house) In September 2008 California-based year. In other words, synthetic biology’s as well as alliances with synthetic biol- synthetic biology company, Solazyme, state-of-the-art, sugar-dependent biore- ogy start-ups (see table, page 5). Inc., announced that it has successfully fineries will create a massive demand produced the world’s first microbial- Amyris Biotechnologies, a California- for agricultural feedstocks. According to derived jet fuel by engineering algae based synthetic biology start-up, aims biotech industry estimates, a minimum to produce oil in fermentation tanks.17 to engineer new metabolic pathways in of 500,000 acres of cropland (that is, The company describes it as the first microbes so they will produce novel or the crop residues or “wastes” from that step towards achieving fuel alternatives rare compounds. Although best known area) would be required to sustain a on a large scale, and claims that its for its high-profile efforts to coax engi- moderately-sized, commercial-scale production process can employ a va- 21 neered cells to produce an anti-malarial biorefinery. riety of non-food feedstocks, including compound, the company’s primary cellulosic materials such as agricultural Synthetic biology’s grand vision of a goal is to modify the genetic pathways residues and high-productivity grasses post-petroleum era depends on bio- of yeast so that it efficiently ferments (bagasse and switchgrass). mass – whether derived from “energy sugars to produce longer chain mol- crops,” trees (including GE trees), ecules of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. DuPont already manufactures a sugar- agricultural “wastes,” crop residues or In 2007, Amyris raised $70 million in based biomaterial via engineered algae. If the vision of a sugar economy venture capital to develop synthetic 18 microbes. Using a proprietary process advances, will all plant matter become fuel technology.15 In April 2008 Amyris developed through partnerships with a potential feedstock? Who decides announced a joint venture with Brazil’s Genentech and Tate & Lyle, the com- what qualifies as agricultural waste Crystalsev to commercialize “advanced pany engineers the cellular machinery or residue? Whose land will grow the renewable fuels” made from sugarcane of an E. coli bacterium so that it can feedstocks? An article in the February in 2010 – including diesel, jet fuel and ferment corn sugar to produce the main gasoline.16 In the longer term, Amyris ingredient in the company’s Sorona wants to create new production path- fiber, 1,3-propanediol (trademarked ways in engineered microbes to churn name Bio-PDO).19 Dupont’s goal is to out pharmaceuticals, flavors, fragranc- one day produce Bio-PDO from cel- es and nutraceuticals.

38 one knows the answers to these ques- Breaking the Biomass Bank: Limits to (plant) Growth tions, but that’s not curbing corporate “Almost all of the arable land on Earth would need to be covered with the fast- enthusiasm. In the current social and est-growing known energy crops, such as switchgrass, to produce the amount economic context, the global grab for of energy currently consumed from fossil fuels annually.” – U.S. Department of next generation cellulosic feedstocks Energy, 200525 threatens to repeat the mistakes of first-generation agrofuels on a more The earth’s plant biomass is rapidly dwindling. Forests and grasslands, in massive scale. particular, are disappearing at an alarming rate. Researchers estimate that humans already consume almost a quarter of global biomass (24%). Of that The pattern is familiar. Once again, amount, more than half (53%) is harvested for food, fuel, heating and lumber. land, labour and biological resources 40% is lost through land use changes and 7% is burned in human induced in the global South are in danger of fires.26 being exploited to satisfy the North’s voracious consumption and reckless The United States currently consumes 190 million dry tonnes of biomass annu- waste. In the name of moving “beyond ally for energy, and the government wants to increase that figure to one billion petroleum” we’re seeing a new conver- tonnes. Researchers conclude that the goal is technically feasible, but only gence of corporate power that is poised by increasing yields of energy crops by 50% and by removing large quantities to appropriate and further commodify (~75%) of agricultural residues from cropland. Impacts of increased residue biological resources in every part of the removal will include impoverished soils (requiring more industrial fertilizers) globe – while keeping the root causes and dangerous increases in soil erosion.27 of climate change intact.24

An upcoming report by ETC Group and the Global Justice Ecology Project will 2008 issue of Nature suggests that “there’s plenty of biomass to go around” examine the far-reaching implications synthetic biology approaches “might and that “the world’s hitherto impover- of the sugar economy, especially for be tailored to marginal lands where ished tropics may find themselves in marginalized communities in the global the soil wouldn’t support food crops.” the middle of an unexpected and wel- South. (emphasis added)22 The implications, come industrial revolution.”23 especially for marginalized farming communities and poor people in the Advocates of synthetic biology and the South, are profound. At a May 2006 bio-based sugar economy assume that meeting of synthetic biologists, Nobel unlimited supplies of cellulosic biomass laureate Dr. Steven Chu pointed out will be available. But can massive that there is “quite a bit” of arable land quantities of biomass be harvested suitable for rain-fed energy crops, and sustainably without eroding/degrading that Latin America and Sub-Saharan soils, destroying biodiversity, increas- Africa are areas best suited for biomass ing food insecurity and displacing generation. Failing to learn from the marginalized peoples? Can synthetic first-generation agrofuel train wreck, microbes work predictably? Can they The Economist naively suggests that be safely contained and controlled? No

39 Synthetic Biology Players and Corporate Partners

COMPANY CORPORATE PARTNERS/INVESTORS COMPANY FOCUS Amyris Biotechnology Partnership with CrystalSev (one of Brazil’s largest Using synthetic biology to commercialize Emeryville, CA, USA sugar and ethanol manufacturer); Sanofi-Aventis; biofuels, pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, and Khosla Ventures; Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; nutraceuticals. TPG Ventures (TPGV); Amyris CEO is John Melo, previously president of U.S. Fuels Operations for BP Athenix Syngenta; Monsanto; Iowa Corn Promotion Board Developing genes and enzymes to enable Research Triangle Park, processes to release sugars from biological NC, USA feedstocks. Codexis Shell; Merck; Schering-Plough; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Developing biocatalytic chemical processes to Redwood City, CA, USA Pfizer; Chevron; Maxygen; Pequot Ventures; CMEA reduce manufacturing costs of pharmaceuticals, Ventures; Bio*One Capital transportation fuels, and industrial chemicals. Coskata General Motors; ICM Biology-based renewable energy company. Warrenville, IL, USA Using proprietary microorganisms and bioreactor designs, aims to produce ethanol for under US$1.00 per gallon. Genencor ( Goodyear Tire & Rubber; DuPont; Procter & Gamble; Engineering protein (enzyme) products for subsidiary) Cargill; Dow; Eastman Chemical industrial applications (i.e., grain processing, Rochester, NY, USA cleaning, textiles, biofuels). Genomatica Iceland Genomic Ventures; Mohr Davidow Ventures Engineering microorganisms to make an industrial San Diego, CA, USA (MDV); Alloy Ventures; Draper Fisher Jurvetson chemical used in plastic, rubber and fiber products. Gevo Virgin Group; Khosla Ventures; Burrill & Company; Developing large-scale production of advanced Englewood, CO, USA Malaysian Life Sciences Capital Fund biofuels, including butanol (higher-energy biofuel than ethanol). LS9 Diversa; Khosla Ventures; Flagship Ventures; Using synthetic biology to develop petroleum and S. San Francisco, CA, USA Lightspeed Ventures Partners other oil-based industrial products. Mascoma General Motors and Marathon Oil are equity Employing engineered microbes to break down Boston, MA, USA investors; Khosla Ventures; Kleiner Perkins Caufield biomass and digest sugars. & Byers; Pinnacle Ventures; Vantage Point Venture Partners, U.S. Dept. of Energy Metabolix Archer Daniels Midland; U.S. Department of Energy Developing proprietary platform technology for Cambridge, MA, USA co-producing plastics, chemicals and energy from switchgrass, oilseeds and sugarcane. Novozymes (Novo Center for Sustainable and Green Chemistry and Dept. Engineering enzyme genes using a technique Nordisk Foundation) of Chemical Engineering at The Technical University called artificial evolution for industrial applications. Bagsvaerd, Denmark of Denmark (DTU); Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation; Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Solazyme Chevron; Imperium Renewables, Inc.,;Blue Crest Engineering marine microbes to create renewable S. San Francisco, CA, USA Capital Finance, L.P. energy, industrial chemicals. Synthetic Genomics BP; Asiatic Centre for Genome Technology (ACGT, Using synthetic genomic processes and naturally La Jolla, CA, USA Malaysia) subsidiary of the Genting Group; Biotech- occurring processes for alternative energy. onomy LLC; Draper Fisher Jurvetson; Desarrollo Consolidado de Negocios; Meteor Group LLC Verenium Marubeni Corp.;Tsukishima Kikai Co.; BASF; Created by 2007 merger of Diversa & Celunol. Cambridge, MA, USA DuPont; Danisco; Cargill; Bunge; Syngenta Developing cellulosic ethanol.

40

The New Biomas(s)ters: Crystallizing Corporate Power

L

A T

I V P A E A C N C A I A T U R E D E M YNBIOT G S E CE T C A UT O M I N H R C V E A A E H L M S R N P 15 PAPER 11 T, 16 S E R

O 2 F 7 6 HEMICA C LS 3 14 12 13 9 8 1 10

5

S S

E

B 4 N I I G S O U I L A G R I B

Sample Alliances 9. Chevron + Solazyme 1. ADM + Metabolix 10. Chevron + Weyerhaeuser 2. DuPont + Tate & Lyle + Genencor 11. International Paper / MeadWestvaco / 3. BP + Mendel Biotechnologies Rubicon Limited + Arborgen 4. ADM + ConocoPhillips 12. Royal Dutch Shell + Codexis 5. BP + DuPont 13. Royal Nedalco + Mascoma 6. General Motors + Marathon Oil + Mascoma 14. Crystalsev + Amyris 7. Shell + Codexis 15. Pfizer + Codexis 8. BP + Synthetic Genomics 16. Merck & Co. + Codexis

41 Leading Commercial Gene Company Synthesis Companies GeneArt (Germany) Blue Heron Biotech (USA) DNA 2.0 (USA) GenScript (USA) Integrated DNA Technologies (USA) Bio S&T (Canada) Epoch Biolabs (USA) Bio Basic, Inc. (Canada) BaseClear (Netherlands) Source: ETC Group

Note: Synthetic DNA is the raw material for creating artificial life. Our list includes the leading companies involved in commercial gene synthesis (companies that specialize in synthesizing long pieces of double-stranded DNA). Only one, GeneArt, is publicly traded.

Company 2007 Revenues Petroleum Re!ning: Top 10 (US$ millions) 1. ExxonMobil (USA) 372,824 2. Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands) 355,782 3. BP (UK) 291,438 4. Chevron (USA) 210,783 5. Total (France) 187,280 6. ConocoPhillips (USA) 178,558 7. China Petroleum & Chemical (China) 159,260 8. China National Petroleum (China) 129,798 9. ENI (Italy) 120,565 10. Valero Energy (USA) 96,758 Source: CNN/Global Fortune 500 2008

The world’s 39 largest petroleum refiners had combined revenues of $3.3 trillion in 2007. The top 10 petroleum companies account for 64% of the revenues earned by the 39 largest refiners.

Company 2007 Chemical Revenues Chemical Industry: Top 10 (US$ millions) 1. BASF (Germany) 65,037 2. Dow Chemical (USA) 53,513 3. Shell (UK) 45,911 4. Ineos Group (UK) 37,686 5. ExxonMobil (USA) 36,826 6. China Petroleum & Chemical (China) 30,676 7. SABIC (Saudi Arabia) 29,276 8. DuPont (USA) 29,218 9. Total (France) 28,786 10. Formosa Plastics Group (Taiwan) 26,541 Source: Chemical & Engineering News, 28 July 2008 .

42 Forest, Paper & Packaging Company 2007 Revenues Corporations: Top 10 (US$ millions) 1. International Paper (USA) 21,890 2. Stora Enso (Finland) 18,322 3. Kimberly-Clark (USA) 18,266 4. Svenska Cellulosa (Sweden) 15,675 5. Weyerhaeuser (USA) 13,949 6. UPM (Finland) 13,748 7. Oji Paper (Japan) 10,758 8. Metsaliitto (Finland) 10,507 9. Nippon Unipac (Japan) 9,990 10. Smurfit Kappa (Ireland) 9,963 Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008

Sales of the top 100 forestry and paper companies totaled US $343,300 million in 2007.30 The 10 largest companies account for 42% of total sales. The 20 largest account for nearly 60% of total sales.

Companies involved in Company FY2007 Revenues (US$ millions) Oilseed, Grain and Sugar 1. Cargill (USA) 88,300 Processing/Trading: Top 11 2. Bunge Ltd. (Bermuda) 44,804 3. Archer Daniels Midland (USA) 44,018 4. Marubeni (Japan) (includes Columbia 36,481 Grain International) 5. The Noble Group (UK) 23,497 6. Itochu Intl. (Japan) 22,424 7. China National Cereals, Oils & 21,202 Foodstuffs (China) 8. Louis Dreyfus Commodities (France) >20,00028 9. Wilmar International Ltd. (Singapore) 16,466 10. Associated British Foods (UK) 13,355 (3,610 sugar)29 11. ConAgra Foods (USA) 12,755 Sources: ETC Group, GRAIN, company information, CNN/Global Fortune 500 2008

Notes 1 Bio-era, “Genome Synthesis and De- Communiqué, November/December mean business,” Nature Biotechnol- sign Futures: Implications for the U.S. 2007. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/ma- ogy, Vol. 26, Number 8, August 2008. Economy,” A Special Bio-era Report terials/publications.html?pub_id=668 6 http://www.hkc22.com/bioplastics.html Sponsored by the U.S. Department of 3 Emily Waltz, “Do biomaterials really Energy, February 2007, p. 89. 7 Bio-era, “Genome Synthesis and De- mean business,” Nature Biotechnol- sign Futures: Implications for the U.S. 2 For extensive examples of university- ogy, Vol. 26, Number 8, August 2008. Economy,” A Special Bio-era Report industry alliances, see: ETC Group, 4 Emily Waltz, “Do biomaterials really Sponsored by the U.S. Department of “Peak Soil + Peak Oil = Peak Spoils,” Energy, February 2007

43 8 The title of one OECD working paper 18 According to DuPont, Sorona con- April 2005. http://www1.eere.energy. on biofuels said it all: “Is the cure tains “37% renewably sourced material gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vi- worse than the disease?” (by weight) derived from corn.” Sorona sion_report2.pdf is neither compostable nor biode- 9 http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev. 28 Louis Dreyfus Commodities is part of gradable. See: http://www2.dupont. Biofuels.FAO.pdf Louis Dreyfus Group, a privately-held com/Renewably_Sourced_Materials/ company headquartered in France. 10 According to leaked World Bank en_US/sorona.html According to its website: “Aggregate document (April 2008). http://image. 19 Dave Nilles, “Tate & Lyle and DuPont average annual gross sales in recent guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/ ship propanediol from Tennessee years have exceeded $20 billion.” LD- documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF plant,” Ethanol Producer Magazine, Commodities is “consistently ranked 11 A June 2008 report from Oxfam November 2006. On the Internet: among the largest merchandisers of claims that biofuel policies in OECD http://www.ethanolproducer.com/ar- grains…[and] oilseeds…ranks as one countries have already plunged more ticle.jsp?article_id=2488 of the top three sugar merchants and than 30 million additional people into traders in the world, handling both raw 20 Peg Zenk, “Biotech’s Third Wave,” poverty. Source: http://www.oxfam.org. and white sugar and handling more Farm Industry News, 1 February 2007. uk/resources/policy/climate_change/ than 2.5 million tons of sugar annually. bp114_inconvenient_truth.html 21 Biotechnology Industry Organization, The company owns three Brazilian “Achieving Sustainable Production of 12 When total carbon costs of biofuel sugar mills that produce 450,000 tons Agricultural Biomass for Biorefinery production are taken into account, of sugar and 150,000 cubic meters of Feedstock,” on the Internet: www.bio. all the major agrofuels increase alcohol annually.” http://www.ldcom- org/ind/biofuel/SustainableBiomass- greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. modities.com/index.php?id=1410 Report.pdf (Corn-based ethanol nearly doubles 29 ABF’s fiscal year ends 15 Septem- GHG emissions over 30 years and 22 “Not your father’s biofuels,” Nature, ber. September 2007 ABF reported increases GHG for 167 years).Timothy Vol. 451, 21 Feb. 2008. global sales of GBP 6,800 million Searchinger, et al. “Use of U.S. Crop- 23 Anonymous, “Grow Your Own,” (US$13,355.2) and GBP 1,838 mil- lands for Biofuels Increases Green- Economist, June 19, 2009. lion (US$3,610 million) from its sugar house Gases Through Emissions from and agriculture business. Average Land-Use Change,” Science 319, 24 ETC Group, “Peak Soil + Peak Oil exchange rate from 16 Sept. 2006-15 1238 (2008). = Peak Spoils,” Communiqué, No- Sept. 2007: 1 GBP = US$1.96400 vember/December 2007. http://www. 13 http://www.newsweek.com/id/34406 www.oanda.com etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications. 14 By 2022, U.S. energy policy dictates html?pub_id=668 30 PricewaterhouseCoopers, Global that 44% of U.S. production of biofuels Forest, Paper & Packaging Industry 25 U. S. Department of Energy, “Basic must come from cellulosic feedstocks. Survey, 2008 edition, p. 7. Research Needs for Solar Energy 15 Amyris News Release, “Amyris Bio- Utilization: Report on the Basic Energy technologies Announces $70 Million Sciences Workshop on Solar Energy Series B Round,” September 19, Utilization,” 2005. 2007. http://www.amyrisbiotech.com http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/ 16 Amyris News Release, “Amyris and files/SEU_rpt.pdf Crystalsev Join to Launch Innovative 26 Helmut Haberl et al., “Quantifying Renewable Diesel from Sugarcane and mapping the human appropriation by 2010,” April 23, 2008. http://www. of net primary production in earth’s amyrisbiotech.com terrestrial ecosystems,” Proceedings 17 Solazyme, Inc., News Release, of the National Academy of Sciences, “Solazyme Produces World’s First vol. 104, no. 31, July 31, 2007 http:// Algal-Based Jet Fuel - Fuel Passes www.pnas.org/content/104/31/12942 All Tested Specifications including the 27 US Department of Energy and US Most Critical ASTM D1655 Specifica- department of Agriculture, Biomass as tions, September 9, 2008.” http://www. Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bio- solazyme.com/news090908.shtml products Industry: the Technical Fea- sibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply,

44 Conclusion

Challenges to corporate hegemony as well as strategies for social control of technology are being led by peasant farmers, social movements and civil society at all levels in every region of the world. And support in challenging the status quo is emerging in unlikely places.

The first-ever independent global assessment of agri- that small-scale, low-impact farming contributes crucial cultural science and technology, approved by 58 gov- ecological and social functions that must be protected, ernments in April 2008, warns that the world can’t rely and that nations and peoples have the right to demo- on technological fixes – such as transgenic crops – to cratically determine their own food and agricultural solve systemic problems of persistent poverty, hunger policies.”1 and environmental crises. The International Assessment The IAASTD Report should be an important reference of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for for continued debate and action in the intergovernmental Development (IAASTD), sponsored by the World Bank, arena on issues related to agricultural development and the Food and Agriculture Organization and other U.N. technology. The participation of peasants, small farmers, agencies – with participation from civil society throughout fisherfolk, pastoralists and indigenous peoples is cru- the 3-year process – recognizes the undue influence cial. At the national level, ETC Group recommends that of transnational agribusiness on trade and agricultural every country undertake a “Peoples’ Food Commission” policies that have destroyed and disadvantaged farm- involving peasants and marginalized peoples that will ing communities around the world. According to Marcia investigate the food crisis, hold hearings and report on Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Net- how to implement a national plan for food sovereignty. work North America, and one of the lead authors of the IAASTD global report, “[the assessment] acknowledges

Decisions made in the next few years regarding powerful new technologies have the potential to affect jobs, justice and the environment on a planetary scale. Despite the implications for democracy and human rights, no international body exists to monitor global corporate activity, and no U.N. body has the capacity to monitor and evaluate global technologies.

45 A Tale of Two Realities

The Corporate Economy The Local Economy

The top 10 seed companies control 67% of Three-quarters of the world’s farmers either the global proprietary seed market and 82% grow locally-bred varieties and/or save their of the world’s commercial seed sales are seed. At least 1.4 billion people depend upon proprietary. farmer-saved seed.

80% of agribusiness research is devoted to 100% of farmer-based research is devoted to shipping, storage and market-maximization environmental sustainability, productivity and technologies. nutrition.

The top 100 grocery retail enterprises account 85% of global food production is consumed for 35% of global grocery retail sales. close to where it is grown – much of it outside the formal market system.

The top 10 pharmaceutical companies control Approximately 70% of the world’s population 55% of global drug sales. is cared for by community health specialists using local medicines.

Vacuum in Global Governance: In gies have the potential to affect jobs, rights implications of industrial agrofu- 2005 the United Nations Conference justice and the environment on a plan- els. Instead of calling for a moratorium on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) etary scale. Despite the implications of and dismantling targets and subsidies, issued a report on corporate concen- these trends for democracy and human many governments are ducking for tration that cites the need to improve rights, no international body exists to cover and calling for “next generation” world governance on questions of cor- monitor global corporate activity, and no liquid biofuels that will purportedly rely porate conduct and competition. Unfor- U.N. body has the capacity to monitor on non-edible cellulosic biomass – all tunately, UNCTAD’s report concludes and evaluate global technologies. The of it made possible by future advances with the strikingly impotent observa- current food emergency and imploding in biotechnology that may or may not tion that “no international competition global economy testify to the glaring come to pass. standards exist to effectively regulate need for monitoring and oversight of In late 2008, for example, FAO will host corporate activity from one continent to corporations. a forum to examine the role of agricul- another.”2 Addressing Synthetic Biology’s tural biotechnologies for second gen- Today, corporations are the dominant Sugar Economy and Technology eration production of bioenergy in the power shaping social, economic and Convergence: In recent years, mul- South. This approach is dangerously trade policy worldwide. At the same tilateral institutions involved in food, short-sighted. With the specter of biore- time, decisions made in the next few agriculture and biodiversity have been fineries fueled by plant-derived sugars, years regarding powerful new technolo- forced to examine the disastrous socio- corporations are gearing up to capture economic, environmental and human and commodify plant biomass. The

46 goal is not just bioenergy, but industrial- Notes scale production of chemicals, plastics, Reforming the Multilateral 1 Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, “New Era for drugs, textiles, flavors, fragrances and Food System: Agriculture?” Food First Background- more. The issue must be expanded er, Summer 2008. In 2008 ETC Group published a beyond biotech to include synthetic series of reports on the governance biology and technology convergence. 2 UNCTAD, “Tracking the Trend To- crisis afflicting the world’s major The FAO and CBD must urgently exam- wards Market Concentration: The multilateral food and agriculture ine the implications of extreme genetic Case of the Agricultural Input Indus- institutions: engineering for biodiversity, agriculture try,” Prepared by the UNCTAD Secre- and the livelihoods of farming commu- tariat, UNCTAD/DITC/COM/2005/16, Communiqué No. 97: “Food’s nities worldwide. 2005. Failed Estates = Paris’s Hot Cuisine, Food Sovereignty – ETC Group and other civil society à la Cartel?” January 2008 organizations have put forth proposals for establishing an intergovernmental Translator: “Ciao FAO: Another framework that would allow the moni- ‘Failure-as-Usual’ Food Summit,” toring and evaluation of new technolo- June 2008 gies as they evolve from initial scientific discovery through to possible com- In the absence of decisive inter- mercialization (International Convention governmental action, and in hopes on the Evaluation of New Technologies of stimulating further debate, ETC -ICENT). A transparent and participa- Group’s forthcoming Communiqué tory process for early warning/early No. 101, offers specific proposals listening to monitor significant new for reforming the multilateral food technologies is needed now more than system. Low-Visionaries at High- ever. Level Fora Overlook Governance – Multilateral System’s Failed Estates Among other regional and international Exacerbate Food Crisis will be meetings devoted to social control of available at www.etcgroup.org technology, ETC Group and civil society partners will convene in late November in Montpellier, France to discuss long- term strategic planning on global tech- nopolies. Discussions will continue on a larger scale at the 2009 World Social Forum in Belém, Brazil (January 2009) during special sessions on science, society and democracy.

47 !"#$%&'()&$*+','-./$0"'12$%'3$3"#$4'5#67$ ! !"#$"#%&'()'*'+,'(*-.(/%&0"+%1(2+3"4'( !"#$%&'%"()''%#*+&),*-%$,.)/0%

,-./(0112( ,-./(0112( ,-./(0112( 34"*&+)5678(")( 34"*&+)5678(")( 34"*&+)5678(")(0112( 0112(96:6&*6( 0112(96:6&*6( 96:6&*6( !"#$%&'(")( 3!"#$%&5678( !"#$%&'(")( 3!"#$%&5678( !"#$%&'(")( 3!"#$%&5678( %% !"*&+)'( ;<=#5>>5"&7( ! !! !"*&+)'( ;<=#5>>5"&7( ! !! !"*&+)'( ;<=#5>>5"&7( "! #$%&'(!)&*&'+! ",-../-012! ! ,0! 345'$&%$*! 2,.-.6,! ! /.! 784&%+! "2"-292! >5?;&-!34*@! 2! :*;*$! 0-.",-,0"! ! ,6! 7%$<*$(! 2,0-.,,! ! /=! A';B@<%C! ""=-096!

#0+%1)(+2%)3%+20%1)(-45'% D8$5!E8$5-! 10*-+2&0'+%67689%:0):-0% ;<7<==7===% ! ,/! FG%$*! 2".-="9! ! 19! #H4*%$'! "".-006! ,! I'4J*$?! ,-"=1-92=! ! ,1! KG*%<*$(! 2"1-,0.! ! 1"! L*$H!8M!3J'4%C*! ""1-9"1! 0! FG%$*! ,-"29-.="! ! ,.! N4'<*$(! 2"9-"/.! ! 12! DB$5*4?! ""/-,9,! 6! #$%&'(!E%$5(8J! 2-/9.-6",! ! ,=! I'$'4*SN! "9=-9"0! "9! L4*R%<'C&4%C! "/.-,91! ! .2! FG*+'!Y!F8W! ==-=1,! "6! 3B+&4*<%*! 166-1=6! ! 0=! 784(!O8&84! "/9-"2/! ! .,! F*44'M8B4! ==-9"6! L'4H+G%4'! "/! S'&G'4<*$(+! 169-62/! ! 69! NSI!I48B;! "6.-210! ! .0! D*&G*Z*?! =.-6,=! "1! KB4H'?! 6=2-.69! ! 6"! N+4*'XX8$O8@%$'45?! ="-96"! 2.! I4''C'! ,,"-/6.! ! /2! Q8<'C&4%C! .=-01/! !"# LT! 210-,"/! ! /6! F4^(%&!354%C8<'! "2.-0."! ! ==! F4'(%&!)B%++'! .=-,60! !$# )8B&G!3M4%C*! 210-99=! ! //! 3<<%*$R! "26-,0/! ! "99! D%&*CG%! .1-/"6! !!# N4*$-!N+<*J%C!A';W! 20/-600! ! /1! S'Z!_'*<*$(! "2"-19.! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources: World Bank (World Development Indicators database, 1 July 2008), Fortune Global 500, 2008

48

ETC Group is an international civil society organization based in Canada. We are dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. ETC group supports socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized and we address international governance issues affecting the international community. We also monitor the ownership and control of technologies and the consolidation of corporate power.

www.etcgroup.org

ETC Group publications are available free-of-charge on ETC Group’s website.