Ain’t Gonna Study War No More July 17, 2008
Posted by JennieB in Activism, Corporate Structures, Corporate Technology.1 comment so far
Study War No More: Military involvement in UK Universities is a report produced in collaboration between Campaign Against Arms Trade and the Fellowship of Reconciliation. The Study War No More project has been touring UK universities with authors Tim Street, Jo Wittams, and Martha Beale. Corporate Watch caught up with Martha after an event organised by the Oxford Peace Research Trust.
Martha is Education and Campaigns Officer at the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FoR) and works with 16 to 30(ish) year olds trying to get them interested and active in issues of peace and conflict resolution. As the Fellowship of Reconciliation is an international pacifist Christian peace charity, Martha focuses on providing opportunities for education on a range of peace and conflict issues.
Martha told Corporate Watch how over the years, people have become increasingly concerned, and vocal in their concern, about the level of international conflict occurring in the world. Young people, especially students have played a key role in this movement: voicing their opinions, taking action and seeing where they can apply pressure.
FoR and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) were already supporting students campaigning against repression and conflict. Both organisations found that they were increasingly frustrated about the lack of information on universities’ involvement with arms companies. Moreover, they found that students were incredibly concerned the extent to which universities were influenced by money from military companies and organisations such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The Study War No More report was established to address this concern directly.
The report examines military involvement in 26 universities from across the UK, looking at the grants and contracts these universities receive from military organisations, and the effect this is having upon:
- universities as ‘independent’ institutions;
- academics who are working within them; and
- university education as a whole.
In 2005, Chris Langley of Scientists for Global Responsibility published ‘Soldiers in the Laboratory’ this looked at military involvement in science, engineering and technology[1]. Martha enthused that this study was fantastic and that, “Study War no More builds on [Langley’s research] by examining the wider implications on 26 individual universities.”
Twenty of the universities covered in the report were chosen because they are members of the prestigious Russell Group. As well as representing most of the UK’s oldest higher education institutions, the Russell Group is also an association of the most research-intensive. To illustrate this, between 2006 to 2007 it boasted that Russell Group universities “accounted for 66% (over £2.2 billion) of UK Universities’ research grant and contract income, 68% of total Research Council income, 56% of all doctorates awarded in the United Kingdom, and over 30% of all students studying in the United Kingdom from outside the EU”[2]. The remaining six universities in the report were included to provide a geographical spread across the United Kingdom. Cranfield and Loughborough were also included as they are higher education institutions known to have strong connections to the military sector[3].
Martha lamented that, “due constraints of time, and limited resources, the report does not cover all military projects at all UK universities. However, the report seeks to examine many of those universities most likely to have conducted the greatest number of projects.”
Study War No More is one of the first studies to use the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act extensively. As Corporate Watch uses FoI for writing reports and articles, we talked a bit about how the authors found the process. As well as being able to uncover the extent to which military institutions are embedded in research and development undertaken in universities, Martha described the report as “an important test of how transparent, accountable and democratic UK universities are, as well as how useful the Freedom of Information Act can be in assisting independent research”. However, the report’s authors found a huge disparity in the amount and quality of data in the FoI replies received from universities responding to the same original request. Much of the data provided under FoI was incomplete due to limitations on the amount of information universities were prepared to provide free of charge; while other times data was inaccessible due to system updates, institutional takeovers and storage facilities.
Martha also noted that as well as genuine problems with bureaucracy and poor data storage, universities also had different attitudes when responding to requests. Many universities were unfamiliar with, and had inadequate provisions for, FoI. Certain institutions omitted funding details, these were later revealed by other sources (such as the university’s own website!), or led the authors to believe they had provided all relevant information when they later found this wasn’t the case. Some took a hostile attitude to the FoI requests taking them as personal criticisms rather than legitimate appeals for information and transparency. Martha told Corporate Watch that some universities responded by applying exemptions such as commercial confidentiality and that some information could not be revealed to ‘military secrecy’.
Martha spoke of the various ways military companies and government departments are involved in UK universities. This included providing funding for research and development (R&D); student grants and sponsorship, especially PhD and MA/MSc/MRes funding; prizes and awards to universities, departments and students; attendance at careers fairs; sponsoring specific projects carried out by university spin-off companies; and, collaborative work through industrial or governmental advisory boards.
The Study War No More report looks at the way military organisations are involved, examining public organisations, such as the Ministry of Defence, and private organisations, such as Rolls Royce and BAE Systems. Some key findings were also: of the 26 UK universities, those conducting the largest number of military projects were: Cambridge, Loughborough, Oxford, Southampton and University College, London. And identified the top three corporations involved as sponsors or partners of over two thirds of military projects in universities as being: Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ.
The report makes copious recommendations for universities to be transparent about dealings with military companies and organisations, as Martha optimistically puts it,
“When I am challenged on whether ridding university education of arms trade funding is realistic, I always freely admit it is pie in the sky optimism. We want the life we experience to be radically different. We cannot change history, but we can shape the future. Surely it is better to have an ideal and strive towards it, rather than be pessimistic and never try!”
For more information, and to get involved, check out studywarnomore.org.uk
References
[1] Langley, C (2005), ‘Soldiers in the Laboratory: Military involvement in science and technology – and some alternatives’, Scientists for Global Responsibility, Kent: SGR. The report can be accessed on http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/Soldiers_in_Lab_Report.pdf
[2] Author unknown, ‘Front page’, The Russell Group, accessed 08/07/08
[3] Page 10. Beale M., Street T., & Wittams J. (2007), Study War No More, London: CAAT & FoR. The report can be accessed on http://www.studywarnomore.org.uk/documents/studywarnomore.pdf
Surrounding the Bomb Base: AWE Aldermaston 25.03.08 March 28, 2008
Posted by JennieB in Activism, Corporate Technology, Privatisation.1 comment so far
It rained, hailed, snowed, breezed, sunshined and was generally freezing on Easter Monday at AWE Aldermaston in Berkshire. Nevertheless, an estimated 5,000 anti-nukes protestors braved the weather to celebrate 50 years on from the first march to the nuclear weapons factory on Easter Monday 1958.
The crowd was definitely mixed; there were Quakers, peaceniks, hippies, anarcho-types, families, Greenham veterans, clowns, locals, choirs, politicians… Not to mention coppers.
Conveniently, the draconian SOCPA byelaws were dropped for the day. These bye-laws have been the bane of the 23 year old Aldermaston women’s campaign (see here and here for past CW reports on AWE Aldermaston and the Women’s Camp).
Speeches for the cause were provided by a travelling platform featuring, as you might expect, Labour lefties Jeremy Corbyn MP and John McDonnell MP (McDonnell in surprisingly radical mood), and Green MEP, Dr. Caroline Lucas. Other speakers included: Walter Wolfgang (you may recall that he was thrown out of the Labour party conference for being outspokenly anti-war three years ago) and Vivienne Westwood (clothes designer and one-time self-professed anarchist) and a Hiroshima survivor. This travelling platform visited each gate and was generally welcomed by the crowds.
We were at Construction Gate where – after the speakers’ float had passed – we were entertained by: a battery-powered recording of an account of the first march to Aldermaston, Bristol’s Red Notes choir and Côr Cochion Caerdydd (Cardiff’s Red Choir), and, of course, the Clandestine Insurrectionary Rebel Clown Army. The cacophany of clowns’caterwauling mixing with the choirs’ song made for nice atonal harmony(!)
At 2pm, we went to position ourselves around the base.
Once in position, at 2.30pm, much noise was heard from the crowd surrounding the 5 mile perimeter.
The bomb didn’t exactly stop on Easter Monday and still continues to reap big fat rewards for the consortium that own AWE Aldermaston (AWE ml: a consortium of Lockheed Martin, BNFL and Serco). So until the bomb *does* stop, there are the monthly Block the Builders blockades and, of course, the Women’s Camp will continue; check out their websites for more information.
And there is a big blockade planned for the 27th October too.
More reports about the day
- ‘Thousands say “knickers to the byelaws”‘, Aldermaston Women’s Peace Camp
- Aldermaston 2008: Easter Monday pics
- Charlie Harvey: 2008 The Bomb Stops Here
- CND UK
- ‘Aldermaston Anniversary’, Indymedia
- ‘AWE Aldermaston, the view from Construction Gate. 25.03.08′, Indymedia
- ‘Nottingham, Leicester and Lougborough Join Aldermaston Blockade – an audio piece’, Indymedia
- ‘Rochdale doves descend on Aldermaston’, Indymedia.
- ‘The Stopping Non Stop Walk Aldermaston to London’, Indymedia
Videos
INTERNATIONAL ANTI-NUCLEAR FESTIVAL March 18, 2008
Posted by mwali in Activism, Climate Change, Corporate Technology, Ecological Destruction.add a comment
INTERNATIONAL ANTI-NUCLEAR FESTIVAL
23-28 JUNE 2008
EURAJOKI, FINLAND
GATHERING FOR POSITIVE ENERGY ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, ACTIONS, FUN AND GAMES
A RADIANT MIDNIGHT SUN PARTY
IN CLOSE VICINITY OF OLKILUOTO, NUKE PLANT AND BUILDING SITE OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST NUCLEAR REACTOR, A FAULT RIDDEN PROTOTYPE.
Come expose nuclear madness – come create better alternatives – come party
SPREAD THE WORD IN YOUR NETWORKS
BRING YOUR SKILLS AND RESOURCES TO MAKE THE CAMP HAPPEN
WE ARE LOOKING FOR HELP WITH LOGISTICS, FUNDING, COMMUNICATIONS, FEEDING, WORKSHOPS AND OTHER PROGRAMS
To register & ask for more info: camp@olkiluoto.info
WWW.NUCLEARMADNESS.INFO
They’re Watching You! October 24, 2007
Posted by JennieB in Corporate Technology, Oxford News.4 comments
A new campaign has started in Oxford – not on the gentrification by big name chains – but against a proposal to spend £150,000 on sprinkling CCTV cameras along the short length of the Cowley Road.
Beginning with with the blandishing of the road by businesses such as Costa Coffee and Subway, this clone-town gentrification still hasn’t stopped accusations that Cowley Road is the most dangerous in Oxford. The police want to put eight CCTV cameras along the road in a bid to stop the – mostly drunken – street brawls. The ridiculously named ‘Operation Bratwurst’ currently has officers out in force; the idea is that CCTV would free up police time
In August, residents voted ‘no’ to CCTV as they feared it would ‘push crime into the side streets’. Even the BBC argued back in 2003 that, “CCTV is no answer to street violence“. This is no deterrant to Superintendent Brendan O’Dowda, local Thames Valley Police Area Commander East Oxford MP Andrew Smith, and the University of Oxford Students’ Union who are on a mission to get the cameras installed.
New pressure group, No CCTV on Cowley Road argue that, “Britain is the most spied upon nation in the world, yet we don’t have the lowest crime rate. CCTV simply does not work and it is a waste of money. It goes against Britain’s common law value of ‘innocent until proven guilty’…”. The group also reports that many studies have found CCTV to be ineffective in fighting crime. A recent news article from London’s Evening Standard also questioned the expense versus the effectiveness of CCTV and in a home office report from 2002 it was found that, “…CCTV had no effect on violent crimes (from five studies),” and that it only “…reduces crime to a small degree”.
For more information check out:
New Money for Nuke Power October 11, 2007
Posted by JennieB in Climate Change, Corporate Technology, Greenwash, News.1 comment so far
The European Investment Bank (EIB), no stranger to investing in pernicious projects, have finally decided to put their money into nuclear power.
According to Bankwatch, the European Investment Bank has started to get interested in nukes again, after long avoiding the subject, and has recently financed URENCO, an Anglo-Dutch uranium enrichment company.
The EIB also invests in other controversial projects including:
- the gas pipeline that will carve up areas of South Wales including the Brecon Beacons national park.
- renewable energy for an aluminium plant(!) in Iceland
- a 71,134,998(EUR) loan for electricity for London underground’s ill-fated Public-Private partnership
And there’s airport expansions, motorway extensions and the list goes on.
Recently, the bank was targeted by protestors at its annual conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia. It’s only a matter of time before the EIB’s London branch is visited…
Links:
No, we’re still not Bayer… September 25, 2007
Posted by JennieB in Corporate Technology, News.2 comments
Here at Corporate Watch we’re used to receiving random calls intended for other companies. I like to call this syndrome “Lazy Googling”. Usually, after explaining for the umpteenth time that we’re not a department of *insert-name-of-company-we’ve-reported-on-here*, they go. But a call I received at 12.10pm today was so interesting I thought I’d share it with you.
This afternoon Corporate Watch was mistaken as part of Bayer, a German chemical and pharmaceutical company. I gently explained to the man on the phone that we weren’t Bayer; that we are a research group who have reported on them. Normally this leads to a “sorry, wrong number” elicited from the caller then a hasty hang-up. Oh no, not this guy. He told me he was calling from Canada, from the Department of National Defence (DND) based in Ottawa. Even after directing him to our website, he still wanted to tell me what they were trying to source.
DND are looking for a product Bayer makes called Eulan SPA. The man from the DND told me it was “mildew resistant and used as a coating on army sweaters and socks”. A bit of dirt digging on my side – and a modicum of Not-So-Lazy Googling – found that the active agent in Eulan is permethrin which is a synthetic chemical (more technically, a synthetic pyrethroid).
According to SGS, a ‘quality-control’ company based in Geneva, permethrin has been commonly used in the wool industry as an insect repellant since 1980[1]. Construction Resources, an ecological-building focussed company, reported that, “[p]yrethroids act as nerve poisons, and their use in carpets has been banned in the USA for 15 years.[2]. In laboratory tests, permethrin was found to “dramatically [reduce] testosterone levels and sperm counts in adult mice” and is considered carcinogenic to humans[3].
Permethrin is also used as a pesticide in agriculture, and has been found to be incredibly toxic to fish[4], mice, and beneficial insects such as bees[5]. However, non-beneficial insects, such as mosquitoes, are building up resistance to the chemical; this is becoming a major health issue in West Africa[6].
In 1997, the Environment Agency (EA) reported that levels of permethrin exceeded Environmental Quality Standards mostly in the North East and Midlands[7], it is classed as a ‘dangerous substance’ by the EA[8]. In 2001, Eulan SPA was banned in Australia[9].
Our caller lamented that he tried to get hold of Bayer in the States but to no avail. He pondered on whether the the market for Eulan SPA had gone down, and that the textile mills “could have been moved to Asia”. If he’d looked a little bit harder, he would have discovered that you can buy it in from a company based in Mumbai. It’s probably for the best that he doesn’t.
More information from: Corporate Watch (2002) Bayer AG: A Corporate Profile
References
[1] Author unknown, ‘Wool Testing Services Info-bulletin’, SGS, Volume 5.11, http://www.sgs.com/info-bulletin_5_11-2.pdf viewed 25/09/07
[2] Author unknown, ‘Natural flooring’, Construction Resources, http://www.constructionresources.com/products/pdfs/interiors/Natural%20flooring.pdf viewed 25/09/07
[3] S-Y Zhang et al (April 2007, updated August 2007), ‘Permethrin may disrupt testosterone biosynthesis via mitochondrial membrane damage of leydig cells in adult male mouse’, Endocrinology, doi:10.1210/en.2006-1497/Endocrinology Vol. 148, No. 8 3941-3949 , http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/en.2006-1497v1 viewed 25/09/07 For a more indepth description, see ‘Data Sheet on Pesticides No. 51: Permethrin’ International Programme on Chemical Safety report for the World Health Organisation, http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest51_e.htm
[4] ‘Wool Testing Services Info-bulletin’ as above
[5] Ole Hertz, ‘Bees & pesticides’, Bees for Development, http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/info/info/pesticides/bees-pesticides.shtml viewed 25/09/07
[6] I.S. Adams, K.M. Laila, Z. Tukur (2006), ‘SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOME SPECIES OF MOSQUITOES TO PERMETHRIN PYRETHROID IN ZARIA NIGERIA’, Science World Journal 1(1), http://www.scienceworldjournal.com/article/viewFile/645/524 viewed 25/09/07
[7] Author unknown, ‘Carpets – toxic accumulation’, Pesticide Action Network UK, http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/homepest/carpets.htm viewed 25/09/07
[8] Author unknown, ‘North East. Dangerous Substances Factsheet’, Environment Agency, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/ne_dangerous_879349.pdf viewed 25/09/07
[9] Author unknown, ‘List of non-renewed registrations’, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, Agricultural and veterinary Chemical Codes Act 1994, No. 9, 4th September 2001, http://www.apvma.gov.au/archive/0109downloads/gazette0109p27.pdf viewed 25/09/07
Norwegian Nickel Mine Challenged September 24, 2007
Posted by JennieB in Corporate Technology, Ecological Destruction, News.add a comment
Crew Minerals ASA, a Norwegian subsidiary of Canadian mining company Crew Gold, is being challenged in court over a proposed mining project in the Phillipines. If built, this nickel mine would displace the indigenous population, trashing their lush, ancient forest home.
Full story available from Norwatch, an independent news service reporting on Norwegian businesses’ behaviour in developing countries.
To the Barrick-ades! April 27, 2007
Posted by JennieB in Corporate Technology, Ecological Destruction, News.add a comment
On the 2nd May there is a call out for a global day of action targeting Barrick Gold. This is part of the continuing struggle against exploitation by international mining corporations.
Barrick Gold classifies itself as ‘the world’s largest gold producer’[1] and has ‘27 operating mines…in North America, South America, Australia-Pacific and Africa’[2].
Barrick has been accused of the following:
- Chile: ‘the Pascua Lama gold project…It has been confirmed that the company is responsible for the destruction of important parts of the glaciers Toro 1, Toro 2, and Esperanza, as Chilean General Office of Waters (DGA) has determined that these glaciers have diminished between 50%-70% due to actions carried out directly by Barrick Gold’[3]
- Tanzania: the North Mara mine, the company is alledged to have direct links with a series of violent deaths. It has been alleged that local people who are in opposition to the mine are being targeted and murdered by police protecting the mine[4].
- Western Shoshone Nation: the companies Barrick, Newmont and Placer Dome were given contracts from the US government to mine the gold-soaked lands of the indigenous nation. ‘The ancestral territory of this native American people encompasses an area stretching from southern Idaho, through eastern Nevada, to the Mojave Desert of California. Underneath this swath of over 240 thousand square kilometers (over 60 million acres) lie billions of dollars worth of gold. Nearly 10 percent of the world’s gold production — and 64 percent of US production — comes from Western Shoshone land’[5].
On the 2nd May 2, communities around the world affected by Big Mining will carry out simultaneous demonstrations against the Barrick Gold Corporation[6] any support and solidarity actions are strongly encouraged!
For more information on Barrick Gold Corporation and other big mining companies, check out the Mines and Communities website on: www.minesandcommunities.org.
References
[1]Barrick Gold: Profile. Viewed 28/04/07
[2]Barrick Gold: Company Overview. Viewed 28/04/07
[3] Harvey Beltrán, ‘OLCA:”The other inconvenient truth: Al Gore’s visit to Chile financed by Barrick Gold’, BNAmericas, 30th March 2007. Re-published on MinesandCommunities.org. Viewed 28/04/07. See also, Beatrice Karol Burks, ‘Al Gore dumps Barrick Gold sponsorship for Chile visit’, The Santiago Times, 12/04/07. Re-published on MinesandCommunities.org. Viewed 28/04/07.
[4] Tracy Glynn, ‘There is death in them thar’ pits!’, The Dominion, Canada, 5th July 2006. Re-published on MinesandCommunities.org. Viewed 28/04/07
[5]Author Unknown, ‘Western Shoshone Nation, USA: Indigenous Peoples Unite to Oppose Destructive Mining Practices across North America ‘, NoDirtyGold.org. Viewed 28/04/07
[6] david modersbach, ‘Anti Gold Mining Conflicts Spreading’, 25/04/07, UK Indymedia. Viewed 28/04/07
Haha. We told you so! (updated) December 19, 2006
Posted by JennieB in Corporate Technology.1 comment so far
At the beginning of this year, Corporate Watch produced a report on the ID cards – Corporate Identity: A critical analysis of private companies’ engagement with the identity cards scheme. We end the year in gloating at the government taking a U-turn on the dodgy National Identity Register (NIR).
The BBC reported today how the government now plan to scrap the NIR database (which would have been one system that recorded everyone’s biometric details) and now host the information across three existing IT systems. Read the BBC report here: ‘Rethink on ID card computer plan‘.
Whilst this is not yet a halt to the ID cards scheme – the launch for ID cards still planned to begin in 2009 – the decision to bin the National Identity Register is definitely a start in chipping away a future ‘database state’.
Edit at 5.58pm. According to The Guardian, the NIR is still going ahead and will be spread over three databases (as previously reported) rather than just one. People will be expected to provide biometric data from next year. However, it is still feared that the system will not be impenetrable- even with the threat of a ten year prison sentence for hackers. The Guardian story, updated at 4pm today, is here: ‘ID card plan sparks fears over data security’.
More information: no2id.net
Monsanto buys yet another large seed company and with it key terminator patents August 17, 2006
Posted by nanonano in Corporate Technology, Food & Agriculture.3 comments
repost of ETC group press release
Monsanto Announces Takeover of Delta & Pine Land and Terminator Seed
Technology (again) News Release
ETC Group, 16 August 2006
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=572
In a quest to expand its corporate seed empire – Monsanto, the world’s
largest seed enterprise – announced yesterday that it will buy the world’s
leading cotton seed company, Mississippi-based (USA) Delta & Pine Land, for
US$1.5 billion. Monsanto and Delta & Pine Land (D&PL) together account for
over 57% of the US cotton seed market. With D&PL subsidiaries in 13
countries – including major markets such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico,
Turkey and Pakistan – the takeover means that Monsanto will command a
dominant position in one of the world’s most important agricultural trade
commodities and that millions of cotton farmers will be under increased
pressure to accept genetically modified (GM) cottonseed.
“This merger,” says Ibrahim Coulibaly, President of the National Coordination
of Peasants’ Organizations of Mali, “guarantees an intensification of the
already immense political pressure on West African governments to accept
genetically modified seeds. Delta & Pine Land couldn’t exercise the kind of
clout Monsanto can. This deal is a major threat to our farmers and food
sovereignty. African farmers’ groups and civil society organizations need
international support to resist the pressure of multinational corporations
and USAID on African governments to adopt GMOs.”
Sterile Cotton Bolls: Delta & Pine Land is notorious for its early
development, with the US Department of Agriculture, of Terminator technology
- plants that are genetically modified to produce sterile seeds at harvest.
Despite massive opposition from farmers, civil society and many governments,
Delta & Pine Land has repeatedly vowed to commercialize the technology and
declared that their primary market would be in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. The company claims that it is already growing genetically modified
cotton and tobacco containing Terminator genes in greenhouses.
Over 500 organizations worldwide have called for a global ban on Terminator
Technology, asserting that sterile seeds will destroy the livelihoods and
cultures of the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed. In March
2006, governments at the biennial meeting of the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity unanimously re-affirmed and strengthened the international
moratorium on field testing and commercialization of Terminator seeds.
“With the takeover of Delta & Pine Land, Monsanto acquires a research program
devoted to commercializing Terminator seeds, as well as US, European and
Canadian patents on genetic seed sterilization technology,” said Hope Shand
of ETC Group. “We demand that Monsanto make a public commitment to shut down
the Terminator research program it will acquire from D&PL and abandon its
Terminator patents once and for all,” said Shand.
Monsanto’s Boll Weasel: Monsanto’s 1998 bid to buy Delta & Pine Land for $1.8
billion collapsed in 1999 amid global controversy over Terminator
technology. In response to massive opposition, Monsanto’s former CEO, Robert
Shapiro, publicly pledged in 1999 that his company would not commercialize
sterile-seed technology. But the company’s revised 2005 pledge states that
the company will not “commercialise sterile-seed technologies in food crops”
- suggesting that it would use Terminator seeds in non-food crops (e.g.
cotton?) and does not rule out other uses of Terminator in the future.
In an email communication to ETC Group today, Monsanto spokesperson, Lori
Fisher wrote that Monsanto does not intend to use technologies that render
seeds sterile, and stands by its 2005 pledge “not to commercialize
sterile-seed technologies in food crops.” [available here] The pledge also
states that “Monsanto people constantly reevaluate this stance as technology
develops.”
ETC Group notes that the company’s pledge leaves the door open and does not
rule out future development of the technology. (1) Monsanto’s pledge allows
the company to change its position on any aspect of its pledge at any time.
Cotton is one of the world’s most lucrative non-food commercial crops. Will
it become Monsanto’s first target crop for Terminator genes?
Feeding Frenzy: Monsanto’s acquisition of D&PL is just the latest in a
decade-long series of seed company takeovers. Monsanto became the world’s
largest vegetable seed company with its January 2005 takeover of Seminis. In
April 2005 Monsanto acquired Emergent Genetics (including Stoneville) – the
3rd largest US cotton seed company. Over the past year Monsanto took control
of more than a dozen US-based corn and soybean seed companies. Just three
months ago, D&PL acquired Syngenta’s global cotton seed business – including
operations in India, Brazil, Europe and some cotton germplasm in the US.
Global Cotton King: With the takeover of Delta & Pine Land, Monsanto aims to
insert biotech traits into cotton germplasm worldwide. Despite growing
resistance in West Africa, D&PL initiated tests on GM cotton in Burkina
Faso, Mali and Egypt in 2004. (2) Monsanto and D&PL already control an
estimated one-third of the Indian hybrid cotton seed market. According to
Monsanto, D&PL now controls one-third of the Brazilian cotton seed market,
and almost one-fourth of the Australian market.
Monsanto’s bid for D&PL comes on the heels of the collapse of the Doha Round
in Geneva on July 24. West African cotton exporting states, in particular,
were banking on the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations to rollback
cotton subsidies in the USA and on increased market access in the EU for
finished cotton goods. With the WTO failure, the $4 billion US cotton
subsidy remains in place and prospects for African and Asian cotton growers
look dim. This is bad news for D&PL which lacks Monsanto’s deep pockets and
long-term market opportunities. Monsanto is buying its major cotton
competitor for $1.5 billion – one third less than it offered in 1998(3)
before the WTO trade talks began. From Monsanto’s perspective, it’s
inevitable that the US will have to drop its subsidy to large US cotton
operations and, when it does, the cotton seed business in the US will all
but disappear with the market shifting to Africa and Asia. Monsanto can
afford to wait – as long as it is the cotton seed provider and all the seed
available uses the company’s genetically modified traits.
Monopoly challenge: With control of almost 60% of the US cotton seed market
after the buyout, Monsanto anticipates anti-trust scrutiny in the US, and
the company’s president says it will divest its US cotton seed company
Stoneville, which controls about 14% of the US market. “If the EU is serious
about helping Africa’s cotton farmers and improving Africa’s cotton export
earnings, it can begin by rejecting the Monsanto/D&PL merger in Brussels as
an attack on anti-competition policy,” said Pat Mooney of ETC Group. “The
merger of these two US companies will make the removal of cotton subsidies
much more difficult and will keep cotton and cotton clothing prices
unnaturally high for European consumers. A barrier thrown up in Brussels
will even be seen inside the Beltway in Washington, DC. The boll is in the
EU’s court!” said Mooney.
US Cotton Seed Market — % Market Share 2005
Delta & Pine Land (to be acquired by Monsanto) 43.37
Stoneville (Monsanto) 13.93
Bayer Cropscience 25.32
Phytogen (Dow AgroSciences) 2.64
Others 14.74
Source: USDA; figures are for upland cotton.
If the buyout is approved, Monsanto’s Stoneville and Delta & Pine Land will
together account for more than 57% of the total US cotton market. According
to the USDA 83% of the cotton acreage planted in the US in 2005 was
transgenic.
Delta & Pine Land has subsidiaries in 13 countries, including companies in
North, South and Central America, Europe, China, South Africa, Turkey and
India.
Delta & Pine Land Subsidiaries (as of November 2005)
ATLED
D&M INTERNATIONAL, LLC
D&M PARTNERS
D&PL ARGENTINA, INC.
D&PL CHINA, INC.
D&PL CHINA PTE, LTD.
D&PL INVESTING CORP.
D&PL INVESTMENTS, INC.
DELTAPINE PARAGUAY, INC.
D&PL SOUTH AFRICA, INC.
D&PL INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORP.
DELTA PINE DE MEXICO S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
DELTAPINE AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
GREENFIELD SEED COMPANY, LLC
HEBEI JI DAI COTTONSEED TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD. (CHINA)
PAYMASTER TECHNOLOGY CORP.
TURK DELTAPINE, INC. (TURKEY)
D&PL SEMILLAS LTDA. (COSTA RICA)
CDM MANDIYU S.R.L. (ARGENTINA)
DELTA AND PINE LAND HELLAS MONOPROSOPI, E.P.E. (GREECE)
D&PL BRASIL, LTDA.
ANHUI AN DAI COTTONSEED TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD. (CHINA)
D&PL TECHNOLOGY HOLDING COMPANY LLC.
D&M BRASIL ALGODAO, LTDA
MDM SEMENTES DE ALGODAO LTDA (BRAZIL)
SURE GROW, LLC
D&PL INDIA, LLC
DELTAPINE INDIA SEED PRIVATE LTD. (INDIA)
D&PL MAURITIUS LIMITED
Source: Delta & Pine Land, SEC Filing 10-K, November 14, 2005
For more information, please contact:
Hope Shand, ETC Group (USA) email: hope@etcgroup.org tel: +1 919 960-5767
Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) email: mooney@etcgroup.org tel: +1 613
241-2267 Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group (USA) email: kjo@etcgroup.org tel: +1
919 960-5223 Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) email: silvia@etcgroup.org
tel: +52 5555 6326 64 Jim Thomas, ETC Group (Canada) email: jim@etcgroup.org
Ibrahim Coulibaly
Président de la coordination nationale des organisations paysannes du MALI
CNOP /MALI
tel: +223-228-6781
mobile: +223-676-1126
email: i_ibracoul@yahoo.fr
Notes:
(1) In February 2006 the international Ban Terminator Campaign
(www.banterminator.org) revealed that Monsanto’s revised pledge no longer
rejected commercialization of Terminator technology in all food crops. [see
correspondence here] In response, Monsanto’s Director of Public Policy,
Diane Herndon, wrote: “We apologize for any confusion caused by the added
language ‘in food crops’ that appeared in the discussion of Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies (GURTs) in our last Pledge Report. We stand by our
commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile
seeds. Period.” Monsanto’s Herndon also wrote: “we are in the process of
reworking our Web site and will be able to remove the confusing language as
part of the redesign.” But a half-year later, Monsanto has not corrected or
removed the confusing language. (2) Monsanto, “Delta and Pine Land
Acquisition: Investor Conference Call,” August 15, 2006. www.monsanto.com
(3) Accounting for inflation, Monsanto’s 1998 offer of $1.8 billion converts
to $2.25 billion in 2006. Monsanto’s current offer of $1.5 billion for DPL
is, therefore, in 2006 terms, $750 million below its 1998 offer. (US Bureau
of Labor Statistics: www.BLS.GO/CPI .)
