GENTECH archive 8.96-97

[Index][Thread]

Fwd: Mother Jones: Paid Protection




---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	namofo@pacific.net (Epstein)
To:	Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com
Date: 97-02-01 12:03:56 EST

Mother Jones, Jan-Feb 1997

Paid Protection

 Why Monsanto and other industry giants love EPA regulations. 

 By Rachel Burstein 

 Back in 1995, Rep. James Walsh (R-N.Y.) introduced a rider to the
 Environmental Protection Agency's funding bill that would have
 stopped the agency from regulating Bt plants -- plants genetically
 engineered to contain a natural protein from the bacterium Bacillus
 thuringiensis, which is toxic to some pests. At the height of the
 GOP revolution, Walsh figured he was on target: Not only did his
 provision chip away at big government, it removed a regulatory
 hurdle for the biotechnology industry. Walsh assumed it would
 appeal to fellow Republicans on the House Appropriations
 Committee, as well as to Monsanto and biotech industry lobbyists.
 In fact, the opposite was true. 

 Contrary to conventional wisdom, Monsanto and other industry
 giants love EPA regulation. It adds another stamp of approval to
 their products, and it squeezes out smaller companies that can't
 afford the time and money the regulatory process demands. The big
 firms will spend whatever it takes to topple the competition, and
 Monsanto's lobbying is so masterful that once regulation is in place,
 manipulating the process is a breeze. According to one
 Appropriations Committee aide, Monsanto lobbyists called Walsh's
 office several times a day to complain about the provision, and even
 threatened to bring environmentalists into the fray: "They told us, 'If
 the perception gets out that what you're doing here is harmful to the
 environment, the greens will come out.'" 

 Industry lobbyists say they didn't single out Walsh -- they contacted
 every other member of the Appropriations Committee as well. By
 the time the rider reached the full committee, it was attacked by
 Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "Durbin intervened on Monsanto's behalf,"
 says a congressional aide, who added that all of the committee's
 members are friendly to Monsanto. "If we can help, we will.
 Monsanto can obviously provide you with money for fundraising."
 Of course, EPA regulations already favor industry. The Federal
 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) directs the
 EPA to take the economic impact of a product into consideration
 during the approval process. Moreover, the agency relies on data
 and analyses supplied by the very companies it regulates. Because
 of the time and cost involved, the more strict the data requirements,
 the harder it is for smaller firms to compete. Henry Miller of the
 Hoover Institution says that raising the regulatory stakes is a
 long-standing strategy. "Since the 1980s, Monsanto has had a
 policy of trying to keep regulatory barriers high so seed companies
 wouldn't be comfortable doing the research," he says. 

 Monsanto also makes a point of cultivating friends in the EPA.
 Linda Fisher, who heads Monsanto's Washington office, used to run
 the EPA division responsible for regulating plant pesticides. "Fisher
 knows everybody," says one EPA staffer. But he adds, "There's
 nothing sinister about it. It's Washington 101." Kathleen Merrigan,
 a senior policy analyst for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for
 Alternative Agriculture, agrees. "Monsanto hires lobbyists to try to
 get the legislative language it wants. I do the same thing," Merrigan
 says. "But there's such a disparity in resources that my message can't
 get out." Merrigan, who served for five years as a Senate Agriculture
 Committee staffer, says she'd like to see "an even playing field." 

 This desire to even the playing field led scientists and smaller firms
 to support the Walsh rider freeing Bt from EPA regulations. But,
 presumably, the EPA's regulatory jurisdiction protects consumers
 and preserves valuable pesticides such as the topically sprayed Bt --
 the effectiveness of which may now be threatened by Bt plants. 

 For now -- as Monsanto's bottom line influences the EPA's
 decision-making process and smaller firms push to weaken the
 EPA's regulatory powers -- farmers and consumers, according to
 Jane Rissler, a scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, can
 only "plant and pray."



Dr Ron Epstein				
Philosophy Department			
College of Humanities			
San Francisco State University		
San Francisco, CA 94132					
(415) 338-3140							
office e-mail: epstein@athena.sfsu.edu               
home e-mail: namofo@pacific.net