DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodi!Cation of Life 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: Seeds, Agrochemicals, Fertilizers 11 Seed 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 Agrochemical Industry 15 World’s Top 10 Pesticide 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 Manufacturing, 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 Pharmaceutical Industry 25 World’s Top 10 Pharmaceutical Companies 25 Chart: Top 10’s Market Share of Top 100 Companies 26 Cartoon by Paul Noth 27 Biotechnology 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 Genetic Engineering and the Post-Petroleum Sugar Economy 35 Cartoon by Stig 38 Synthetic Biology 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 Chemical Industry: 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 crops 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. Agribusiness 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 pesticides 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 Agriculture’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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plant Molecular Farming: a Viable Platform for Recombinant Biopharmaceutical Production
    plants Review Plant Molecular Farming: A Viable Platform for Recombinant Biopharmaceutical Production Balamurugan Shanmugaraj 1,2, Christine Joy I. Bulaon 2 and Waranyoo Phoolcharoen 1,2,* 1 Research Unit for Plant-Produced Pharmaceuticals, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; [email protected] 2 Department of Pharmacognosy and Pharmaceutical Botany, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +66-2-218-8359; Fax: +66-2-218-8357 Received: 1 May 2020; Accepted: 30 June 2020; Published: 4 July 2020 Abstract: The demand for recombinant proteins in terms of quality, quantity, and diversity is increasing steadily, which is attracting global attention for the development of new recombinant protein production technologies and the engineering of conventional established expression systems based on bacteria or mammalian cell cultures. Since the advancements of plant genetic engineering in the 1980s, plants have been used for the production of economically valuable, biologically active non-native proteins or biopharmaceuticals, the concept termed as plant molecular farming (PMF). PMF is considered as a cost-effective technology that has grown and advanced tremendously over the past two decades. The development and improvement of the transient expression system has significantly reduced the protein production timeline and greatly improved the protein yield in plants. The major factors that drive the plant-based platform towards potential competitors for the conventional expression system are cost-effectiveness, scalability, flexibility, versatility, and robustness of the system. Many biopharmaceuticals including recombinant vaccine antigens, monoclonal antibodies, and other commercially viable proteins are produced in plants, some of which are in the pre-clinical and clinical pipeline.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, WIDESTRIKE 3 INSECT
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION October 18, 2016 Stephanie L. Burton US Regulatory Manager Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054 Subject: PRIA (Pesticide Registration Improvement Act) Amendment – to update the terms of registration related to gene flow and revise the product label. Product Name: WideStrike® 3 Insect Resistant Cotton EPA Registration Number: 68467-19 Application Date: June 23, 2016 OPP Decision Number: 518794 Dear Ms. Burton: The amendment referred to above, submitted in connection with registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, are acceptable provided you comply with the revised terms of registration as set forth below: 1. Submit/cite all data required for registration of your product under FIFRA § 3(c)(5) when the Agency requires all registrants of similar products to submit such data. 2. Gene Flow The following information regarding commercial production must be included in the grower guide for WideStrike® 3 Insect Resistant Cotton: a) No planting of WideStrike® 3 Insect Resistant Cotton is permitted south of Route 60 (near Tampa) in Florida. b) Commercial culture of WideStrike® 3 Insect Resistant Cotton is prohibited in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. The following information regarding test plots and seed production must appear in contracts or on bags of WideStrike® 3 Insect Resistant Cotton intended for the following purposes: Page 2 of 10 EPA Reg. No. 68467-19 OPP Decision No. 518794 a) Test plots or breeding nurseries, regardless of the plot size, established in Hawaii must not be planted within 3 miles of Gossypium tomentosum.
    [Show full text]
  • Monsanto Company in Microsoft Word Format Together with a Copy of the Transmittal Letter That Accompanies the Filing of Two Paper Copies of the Submission
    From: Letzler, Kenneth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:03 PM To: ATR-Agricultural Workshops Subject: Comment Attached please find a comment submitted on behalf of Monsanto Company in Microsoft Word format together with a copy of the transmittal letter that accompanies the filing of two paper copies of the submission. _____________________________ U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. _____________________________ This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information about Arnold & Porter LLP, click here: http://www.arnoldporter.com Competition and Innovation in American Agriculture A Response to the American Antitrust Institute’s “Transgenic Seed Platforms: Competition Between a Rock and a Hard Place?” Submitted on Behalf of Monsanto Company In Response to the Request for Comments by the United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in Connection with Their Hearings on “Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement Issues in Our 21st Century Economy” Vandy Howell, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Dow Agrosciences
    Dow AgroSciences LLC (Dow AgroSciences) markets crop protection Dow AgroSciences products and seeds for a broad spectrum of crops, including maize, soybean, cotton and forage. The company began in the 1950s as the agricultural unit of The Dow Chemical Company. As a joint venture Corporate Data of The Dow Chemical Company and Eli Lilly & Co., it was known as Headquarters: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA DowElanco from 1989 onwards. In 1997, The Dow Chemical Company Ownership type: Listed Group revenue (2014): USD 729,000,0000 acquired 100% ownership.* Global Index – Commitment Performance Transparency Innovation Field Crop Seed Companies 1.27 1.46 2.05 0.25 Dow AgroSciences ranks in the lower 5 range of the Global Index of Field Crop Seed Companies. It has clear rank out of 7 approaches to Public Policy & Stakeholder A Governance & 1.13 score 1.38 Engagement and existing breeding Strategy B Public Policy & 2.68 programs for resistance to pests and Stakeholder Engagement diseases, abiotic stress tolerance and C Genetic Resources & 1.09 Intellectual Property yield, although it is not clear to what extent these programs D Research & 1.31 specifically target the development of varieties suitable for Development E Marketing & 1.11 Index countries and smallholder farmers. Seed sales were Sales found only in Latin American Index countries. Given the F Capacity 2.08 indications of research and capacity-building activities rel- Building G Local Seed Sector 0.91 evant for improved access to seeds for smallholder farmers in Advancement other regions, the company is encouraged to develop its seed 0 1 2 3 4 5 business serving smallholder farmers on a more global scale.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY Sign Offv7
    Syngenta Event GA21 Page 1 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY Application for import and use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant maize Event GA21 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 PART II: SUMMARY Syngenta Event GA21 Page 2 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY A . GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Details of application a) Member State of application UK b) Application number Not available at the time of submission c) Name of the product (commercial and other names) Maize Event GA21 In the USA, GA21 is marketed under the product name Agrisure GT Advantage (http://www.nk-us.com/infosilo/seedguide/agrisure.asp) d) Date of acknowledgement of valid application Not available at the time of submission Syngenta Event GA21 Page 3 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY 2. Applicant a) Name of applicant Syngenta Seeds S.A.S on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel b) Address of applicant Syngenta Seeds S.A.S. 12, chemin de l'Hobit BP 27 F-31790 Saint-Sauveur On behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel Switzerland and all affiliated companies Schwarzwaldallee 215 CH 4058 Basle Switzerland c) Name and address of the person established in the Community who is responsible for the placing in the market, whether it be the manufacturer, the importer or the distributor, if different from the applicant (Commission Decision 2004/204/EC Art 3(a)(ii)) Event GA21 maize will be imported and used as any other maize in the EU by operators currently involved in these processes. 3. Scope of the application x GM plants for food use x Food containing or consisting of GM plants xFood produced from GM plants or containing ingredients produced from GM plants xGM plants for feed use x Feed containing or consisting of GM plants x Feed produced from GM plants x Import and processing (Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC) o Seeds and plant propagating material for cultivation in Europe (Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC) Syngenta Event GA21 Page 4 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-Dupont, and Chemchina-Syngenta
    Research Brief October 2018 The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, and ChemChina-Syngenta DISRUPT ECOSYSTEM ACCLERATE MONOPOLY THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION UNDERMINE FOOD SECURITY HARM SMALL PRODUCERS HAASINSTITUTE.BERKELEY.EDU This publication is published by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley This research brief is part of the Haas Institute's Shahidi Project from the Global Justice Program. The Shahidi Project (Shahidi is a Swahili word meaning “witness”) intends to demystify the power structures and capacities of transnational food and agricultural corporations within our food system. To that end, researchers have developed a robust database focusing on ten of the largest food and agricultural corporations in the world. See more at haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/shahidi. About the Authors Copyeditor Support Elsadig Elsheikh is the director Marc Abizeid Special thanks to the Food of the Global Justice program and Farm Communications at the Haas Institute for a Infographics Fund, which provided the seed Fair and Inclusive Society at Samir Gambhir funding for the Shahidi project. the University of California- Berkeley, where he oversees Report Citation Contact the program’s projects and Elsadig Elsheikh and Hossein 460 Stephens Hall research on corporate power, Ayazi. “The Era of Corporate Berkeley, CA 94720-2330 food system, forced migration, Consolidation and The End of Tel 510-642-3326 human rights, Islamophobia, Competition: Bayer-Monsanto, haasinstitute.berkeley.edu structural marginality and Dow-DuPont, and ChemChina- inclusion, and trade and Syngenta.” Haas Institute for development. a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California, Hossein Ayazi, PhD, is a Berkeley, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Release Syngenta Group: Growth of Sustainability- Enabling
    Media Release Syngenta Group: Growth of sustainability- enabling products and services drives record H1 2021 Syngenta Group’s focus on helping farmers adapt to climate change and be part of the solution is creating growth opportunities • H1 Group sales at $14.4 billion (+$2.8 billion), +24 percent year-on-year • Q2 Group sales of $7.4 billion (+$1.6 billion), +28 percent year-on-year • H1 EBITDA at $2.7 billion, +22 percent year-on-year • Q2 EBITDA at $1.2 billion, +25 percent year-on-year • First half performance shows strong demand from farmers for sustainable products and services • Growth driven by Group’s innovation in seeds and crop protection products that enable regenerative agricultural practices • The Modern Agriculture Platform (MAP), which provides farmers with access to market-leading products and services, more than tripled sales year-on-year • Syngenta biologicals sales, including Valagro, grew 27 percent in H1, strengthening the Group’s leading position in this high growth segment 26 August 2021, Basel / Switzerland Syngenta Group today reported strong financial results for the second quarter and first half ended June 30, 2021. Group sales in second quarter were $7.4 billion, up 28 percent versus Q2 2020 (+25 percent at CER). EBITDA increased in the second quarter 25 percent (+38 percent at CER) to $1.2 billion. Group sales for the first half of 2021 were $14.4 billion, up 24 percent year-on-year (+18 percent at CER). EBITDA for the first half of the year was $2.7 billion, 22 percent higher year-on-year (+25 percent at CER).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008
    Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008 Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain Submitted by MONSANTO EUROPE S.A. Dept. Regulatory Affairs Avenue de Tervuren 270-272 Tervurenlaan 270-272 B-1150 Brussels BELGIUM VOLUME 1 OF 1 July 2009 Data protection. This application contains scientific data and other information which are protected in accordance with Art. 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. © 2009 Monsanto Company. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected under copyright law. This document is for use only by the regulatory authority to which this has been submitted by Monsanto Company, and only in support of actions requested by Monsanto Company. Any other use of this material, without prior written consent of Monsanto Company, is strictly prohibited. By submitting this document, Monsanto Company does not grant any party or entity any right to license, or to use the information of intellectual property described in this document. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2008, Bt maize was planted in the EU on 107,719 hectares across seven countries (James, 2008). As part of stewardship of the technology, industry has implemented an Insect Resistance Management (IRM) plan to proactively avoid and/or delay the potential development of pest resistance to the Cry protein, as well as a voluntary general surveillance monitoring program. The adherence to these stewardship measures in the context of the cultivation of MON 810 maize in Europe is detailed in the Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008. The planting of MON 810 in the 2008 season was accompanied by a rigorous IRM plan involving three main elements: refuge implementation, monitoring and farmer education.
    [Show full text]
  • Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO Giants Know Something We Don’T by F
    “Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t By F. William Engdahl Global Research 4 December 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503 (PDF at http://dickatlee.com/issues/gmo/doomsday_seed_vault.pdf) One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers. In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization. So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.
    [Show full text]
  • Dow Agrosciences Petitions (09-233- 01P, 09-349-01P, and 11-234-01P) for Determinations of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties
    Dow AgroSciences Petitions (09-233- 01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for Determinations of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D-Resistant Corn and Soybean Varieties Draft Environmental Impact Statement—2013 Agency Contact: Sid Abel Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-6352 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly.
    [Show full text]
  • Octubre De 2008
    Octubre de 2008 1 Cómo volver mercancía hasta la última brizna de hierba Ingeniería genética extrema y la economía post-petrolera del azúcar Octubre de 2008 Debido a la crisis del petróleo, a la escalada en los precios de los combustibles y a la crisis del clima, las corporaciones redirigen su entusiasmo hacia una “revolución de la ingeniería biológica” que algunos auguran transformará dramáticamente la producción industrial de alimentos, energía, materias primas, medicina y la naturaleza entera. Los entusiastas de las tecnologías convergentes prometen una era post-petróleo más verde y limpia, donde la producción de compuestos importantes para la economía no dependerá de los combustibles fósiles, sino de la manufactura de plataformas biológicas alimentadas por azúcares vegetales. Tal vez suene dulce y limpio, pero la llamada “economía del azúcar” también catalizará la voracidad de las corporaciones por toda la materia vegetal — y con ello, la destrucción de la biodiversidad a una escala masiva. La bioeconomía del futuro dependerá de la “ingeniería genética extrema”, un conjunto de tecnologías que aún se encuentran en sus etapas iniciales de desarrollo: secuenciamiento genético barato y rápido; partes biológicas hechas a la orden, ingeniería y diseño de genomas; fabricación de materiales y sistemas operativos en la nanoescala. El denominador común es que todas estas tecnologías —biotecnología, nanotecnología, biología sintética— involucran el diseño de organismos en la nanoescala. Esta convergencia tecnológica promueve la convergencia del poder corporativo. Las nuevas tecnologías de bioingeniería atraen miles de millones de dólares de financiamiento de los gigantes de los químicos y los agronegocios, entre los que se incluyen DuPont, BP, Shell, Chevron, Cargill, entre otros.
    [Show full text]
  • Offer Document
    OFFER DOCUMENT VOLUNTARY RECOMMENDED PUBLIC OFFER TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF Danisco A/S (Companies registration no. (CVR) 11 35 03 56) submitted by DuPont Denmark Holding ApS (Companies registration no. (CVR) 33 38 21 54) a wholly owned and fully controlled subsidiary of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company a Delaware corporation, USA 21 January 2011 Danish Financial Advisor CONTENTS SUMMARY OF THE OFFER ............................................................................................... 6 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 10 1.1 THE OFFER ................................................................................. 10 1.2 IMPORTANT DATES RELATING TO THE OFFER .................................... 11 1.3 THE OFFER PRICE ........................................................................ 12 1.4 THE OFFER PERIOD ...................................................................... 13 2 BACKGROUND FOR THE OFFER AND PLANS FOR DANISCO .................................. 14 2.1 PROCESS LEADING TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE OFFER ..................... 14 2.2 BACKGROUND FOR THE OFFER; STRATEGIC RATIONALE...................... 14 2.3 PLANS FOR DANISCO; INTEGRATION............................................... 15 3 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OFFER ......................................................... 17 3.1 OFFEROR.................................................................................... 17 3.2 OFFER PRICE .............................................................................
    [Show full text]