Advanta: Corporate Crimes

Advanta shrouded in secrecy

It's hard to identify the real nature and extent of corporate influence and control in agriculture because of the rapid changes taking place. The names and ownership of corporations change frequently due to a unprecedented level of (de)mergers and acquisitions. Since the 1970s there has been an intense monopolisation of the seed industry worldwide, with big corporations (e.g., pharmaceutical, chemical and agribusiness companies) taking over small and medium sized seed companies. Cross-linkages between companies complicate the picture further. Biotech and seed companies make cross-licensing agreements to be able to supply a full technology 'package' to clients. Even at the basic level of sales, it is difficult to get a clear picture. Advanta adds to the confusion. The company does not produce an annual report, but only a few sheets with figures. And the company does not reveal any specific data about seed sales. (At time of writing, the Advanta website has been under construction for at least two months)

GM contamination of UK and European landscape

Last year (2000), Advanta made headlines in Europe when oilseed rape seeds it had sold were found to contain small amounts of genetically modified material unapproved in the EU [47]. On April 17, Advanta Seeds UK told the UK Government that GM contaminated oilseed rape seed had been sold to farmers across the country. It claimed that the GM contamination happened in Canada, when pollen from a GM 'Roundup' resistant crop was blown onto conventional oilseed rape being grown for seed.

The seed was also used in Sweden, France and Germany. Dominique Voynet, France's Environment Minister, immediately called for the destruction of the crop. Sweden's government also considered this. But British Agriculture Secretary Nick Brown -- in the face of similar demands from environmental groups -- said the government had no plans to destroy the contaminated crops. In addition, the government was accused of sweeping the scandal under the carpet.

After the food scandal had come to light, Conservative MPs claimed that the planting of GM seeds in the UK was covered-up by the government. When Advanta went to the government to make a clean breast of their blunder --one month before the information was eventually made public-- they were asked not to say a word about it. Conservative agriculture spokesman Tim Yeo said Advanta had told him that they would have liked to warn their customers about the contaminated oilseed rape. 'The only reason they did not do so is that they were asked by Ministry of Agriculture officials to keep the whole matter secret', Tim Yeo said [48].

Agriculture Minister Nick Brown denied the allegations, 'Advanta had no advice from government not to tell their customers what had happened.' Mr Brown then sought to reassure the public over the crops, some of which were planted in 2000 and some in 1999. 'There is no risk to public health in this accident. There is no risk to the environment in this accident.'[49] However, there seem to be little support for this statement. The GM seeds have been released over thousands of acres of the UK countryside, and it is impossible to guarantee that there are no risks involved.

It remains unclear whether the UK government tried to keep things in the dark. It is clear though that it took a long time before the UK government used the information Advanta had given them to inform farmers and the public - a gap long enough to allow seeds to planted which might otherwise had been destroyed prior to planting.

The newly established Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued a press release stating that there was no risk to public health. However, no consultation with consumer or producer groups preceded this [50] and their detailed advice to ministers on the issue was not made publicly available, despite a pledge that this would happen. The release also made no reference to consumer choice [51].

Bryan Johnson, English Nature's top GM expert, has said: 'None of the statutory consultation agencies knew anything about this until the story broke on Radio 4. We were not asked for our advice in advance of the decision being made and were not consulted at all, I am afraid. We are not very happy about it, as you can imagine.'[52]

The UK government was obviously greatly inconvenienced by the scandal, which meant bad publicity and a blow to the its ambitious biotechnology project. The government tried hard to trivialise the contamination and its consequences. Initially both Advanta Seeds (claiming the GM contamination was not their fault) and the government said they were not willing to help or compensate the affected farmers.

But before the farmers could undertake legal action -the only option open to them-Advanta decided to deliver the goods and prevent any more bad publicity, although the company still does not admit legal liability.

Advanta plays down contamination scandal, and blames external factors, such as lack of regulations, the media hysteria and the wind!

'Lack of guidance'

Instead of putting on the hair shirt themselves, Advanta probably thought it was more convenient to blame external factors (like the regulatory authorities in the UK and EU, journalists, and the wind!) for the contamination fiasco (see above). Advanta Seeds UK criticised British and European authorities for failing to set legal guidelines on seed purity. The company stated:

'Early political action to create a comprehensive regulatory framework would have at best prevented this incident from occurring or at worst managed public expectations about seed purity and averted further media hysteria.' [53]

Advanta urged the government to 'create a regulatory framework with no further delay'. 'At a minimum, thresholds for accidental GM impurity need to be set, standard testing methods need to be stipulated and results should be analysed by an approved and consistent statistical method'[54].

'Whatever the standards, they need to be reasonable,' says Klaas van der Woude, senior sugarbeet breeder at Advanta. 'If standards are reasonable, we can work on it, and at least we know what we're up against. But we cannot guarantee zero risk. Seed companies cannot guarantee GMO pollen is not flying around in the air' [55].

Advanta blames journalists

Advanta not only criticised the British and European authorities, the company also lashed out at the media and pressure groups.

'From our perspective, the incident serves to demonstrate that communication of the facts, allowing individuals to make informed decisions, is virtually impossible in our society today. This is especially true where the subject matter is highly technical. Advanta believes that a lack of understanding of the basics of agriculture existed in some quarters of the Ministry and most quarters of the media (...). In addition, pressure groups deliberately sought to distort the facts in order to boost their position against GM'[56].

Advanta has its facts straight: 'the contaminated seeds pose no threat to the environment or health'. People who think otherwise, and bring up evidence to support their views, are seemingly 'distorting the facts'.[57]

Control of the Seed Market

Advanta, currently the world's fifth biggest seed company, is a major player in the game of dividing the world seed market amongst big multinational corporations. Since the 1970s there has been an intense monopolisation and consolidation of the seed industry worldwide. This process has taken place through the acquisition of small and medium sized seed companies, regionally or locally based, in various countries by huge pharmaceutical, chemical and agribusiness companies. Consolidation of the seed market (and consequently the strengthening of corporate control of the entire food chain) has many harmful consequences [58].

Advanta possesses life (through ownership of patents)

Consolidation in the agrochemical and seed industry continues to reduce the list of owners of the important 'enabling' intellectual property for plant genetic modification and plant molecular genetics.

There are now six major industrial groups that between them control most of the technology that gives freedom to undertake commercial R&D in the area of GM crops [59]. These are: AgrEvo/Plant Genetic Systems (PGS) (subsequently Aventis CropScience, now Bayer CropScience); DuPont/Pioneer; ELM/DNAP/Asgrow/Seminis; Monsanto/Calgene/Dekalb/Agracetus/PBI/Hybritech/Delta, Pine Co; Novartis; and Zeneca/Mogen/Advanta [60]

A technical and profit-driven approach to nature

Advanta thinks of seeds as 'technology carriers'. 'Accept no limits', is their credo, referring to the elimination of limits on technological interventions in the genetic make-up of nature. Advanta aims to produce seeds which lead to 'stable and increasingly uniform' yields.

Advanta is eager to use biotechnology in order to create 'seed that sells'. 'Seed that excels is seed that sell'[61] says the company.

'GMOs of vital importance to secure global food safety'

Advanta is among the first to promote biotechnology in agriculture, since they expect to benefit from it enormously. Ad Huige, president of Advanta, spreads the familiar but seriously flawed story that, 'GMOs will help food production capabilities in a world with limits of land and water resources and an ever-increasing population', says Huige. 'The unfortunate and ironic point about biotech is that it results in less inputs and chemicals, making it environmental friendly. It's a real pity that the argument against biotechnology is based on emotional fear and not scientific facts' (Vanderhave Seed Facts [62]).

Because this story is repeatedly being spread around by the biotech stakeholders (and the industry is very well able to reach the public through their multi-billion PR machines and the corporate controlled media), the danger exists that this reasoning becomes part of public consciousness. In other words, that it becomes a myth hard to discredit, in spite of all the solid arguments against it. Comprehensive critiques can be found on the Internet [63].

Giving Inadequate Details of GM Field Trial Locations

A survey of trial licenses (Vergunningenoverzicht, 07/05/2001) showed that Advanta had obtained more than a quarter of all licenses being issued by the Dutch government. However, in June 2001 the Ministry of the Environment cancelled six trial permits. Consent for the trials was withdrawn after a legal challenge was mounted by Greenpeace Netherlands claiming that the location details given by Advanta for each of the trials were too vague [64].

The six trial permits, already suspended in November 2000, would have involved 40-50 GM field trials. This has reduced the number of Dutch GM field trials taking place in summer 2001 to only 11 [65].

Ignoring the public, intimidation and lying.

In July 1998, the DETR and Sharpes International Seeds (then recently acquired by Advanta) were taken to the UK High Court by an organic farmer, Guy Watson. He was seeking a Judicial Review of the decision to allow a National Seed List trial of GM maize to be grown adjacent to his farm in Devon. The crop line being trialed was T25 (glufosinate ammonium tolerant or 'Liberty Link') maize developed by AgrEvo (subsequently known as Aventis CropScience and now Bayer CropScience), and grown under licence by Sharpes International Seeds Ltd (now Advanta Seeds Ltd). The trial was conducted by NIAB at their field trial station at Hood Barton near Dartington. Guy Watson was concerned that the growing of GM maize on land adjoining his property would lead to cross-pollination with his organic sweetcorn thus threatening the organic status and accreditation of this crop. There had also been massive outcry from local people opposing the trail. A rally at the trial site immediately prior to planting had attracted over 600 people calling on NIAB and Sharpes/Advanta to call off the trial. The central issue raised in the Judicial Review was whether the continuation of the trial was contrary to law and the remedy sought was the destruction of the crop before flowering.

On 15th July the High Court found against Guy Watson, and the trial was allowed to continue. On the night of 8th August 1998 the trial was decontaminated, just days before pollination, by members of the public [66]. This was one of the first high profile GM crop decontaminations to take place in the UK. Both the GM industry and the UK government seem have been keen to make examples of those arrested in connection with the decontamination. Of the 12 people arrested, 2 women who were actually arrested on the trial site were charged with committing £605,000 of criminal damage and were placed under stringent bail conditions including a curfew, daily signing at a local police station and restrictions on their movements. These draconian conditions lasted for over 6 months. The reason for these bail conditions being that Sharpes/Advanta claimed that a substantial proportion of their research data had been destroyed and that consequently not only should the physical value of the crop destroyed be taken into account when estimating the amount of damage caused but also a proportion of their research costs for that crop line. The implication for the two women arrested was that they now faced trial in a Crown court and, if convicted, a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

Both Sharpes/Advanta and NIAB claimed that the GM portion of the trial had been totally destroyed. On the basis of this information the Soil Association (the UK organic certification body) allowed Guy Watson to retain the organic status on his sweetcorn.

In April 1999, just days before the case was due to begin in the Crown court, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), eager to limit the amount of anti-GM publicity the case was attracting, dropped all charges. Mike Schwartz, barrister for the two women, commented on the CPS withdrawal "This was a political, and, in my experience, unprecedented, decision...By withdrawing the case from the jury, the Crown have accepted there was compelling evidence that the defendants had a lawful excuse to remove the genetically modified maize........The last thing the Crown wanted was to see a jury ... acquit people who took direct action against genetically modified organisms."[67]

In the Crown court when the case was being officially withdrawn it was revealed that the value of the 'criminal damage' caused by the decontamination was close to £5,000 - significantly less than the £605,000 first initially claimed by Sharpes/Advanta. This amount would have been likely to have resulted in lesser bail conditions, as well as trial in a magistrates court and the prospect of lesser sentences had the case ended in convictions.

Data from the summer 1998 National Seed Listing trial at Hood Barton formed part of the submission made by Aventis CropScience in September 2000 in support of their application to have Chardon LL (or T25/Liberty Link) GM maize added to the UK National Seed List. However, rather than ending in early August 1998 when the entire GM trial had supposedly been destroyed by members of the public (costing Sharpes/ Advanta and Aventis £10,000s in lost research) Aventis' submission included data from the trial dated late August 1998 and September 1998 [68]. This suggests that either the GM crop had not been entirely destroyed, as had been stated at the time by Shapes/Advanta and NIAB to both the Crown Court and the Soil Association, or that the data submitted as part of the application had been falsified. Peter Roderick legal advisor to Friends of the Earth UK commented

"Let me give a flavour of some of the questions that need to be answered. What went on at Dartington? How many trials were planted? One or two? What about the other trial centres? And if there's two, how do you decide which one's the real National List Trial, and which one's the 'decoy'? And if the 'decoy' doesn't get damaged, how do you decide which one to accept for decision-making purposes? Is there any valid consent for these secret trials ? Or has there been a criminal offence in planting secretly? How come a company employee told the High Court on oath in 1998 that one of that year's trials was being discontinued, but now we see no such thing?"[69]

References

[47] www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/contaminated_gm_crops.html [48] BBC News, 08/06/2000, 'GM seeds cover-up denied' ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_783000/783269.stm ) [49] Ibidem [50] Nick Brown did not consult the Government's own statutory nature bodies - English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Countryside Council for Wales or the Joint Nature Conservation Committee [51] www.fiveyearfreeze.org/news5.htm (source: Five Year Freeze, campaign on genetic engineering, date viewed: 11/9/01) [52] The Independent on Sunday, 21/05/2000 ( www.envoy.dircon.co.uk/dig-it-up/detail.htm ) [53] (Reuters, July 18, 2000). [54] (Advanta Statement) [55] (Vanderhave Seed Facts). [56] (Advanta Statement). [57] (Advanta Statement) [58] See, for example, the article by Dave Brian Butvill about corporate control of the food chain, Food First, Summer 2000 ( www.foodfirst.org/media/news/2001/corpcontrol.html ). Or take a look at: www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn44/pn44p7.htm (a report by Barbare Dinham on the life sciences take-over of agriculture and its implications. Source web site: Pesticide Action Network (PAN), date viewed: 11/9/01) [59] Journal of Commercial Biotech, January 2000 figures [60] Again, be aware that corporations change name and ownership frequently! [61] VanderHave Sugar Beet Seed, 'Proof. Not Promises', March 2000 PDF: www.vdhbeets.com/2001/Vanderhave%202000%20NL.pdf Source: VanderHave sugar beet seed. Date viewed: 20/8/2001 [62] VanderHave Sugar Beet Seed, 'Proof. Not Promises', March 2000 PDF: www.vdhbeets.com/2001/Vanderhave%202000%20NL.pdf Source: VanderHave sugar beet seed. Date viewed: 20/8/2001 [63] Among good sources are, for example, RAFI (the Rural Advancement Foundation International) and GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International). At www.fiveyearfreeze.org/news5.htm, [source: Five Year Freeze, campaign on genetic engineering, date viewed: 11/9/01] you can find some interesting statistics and quotes challenging the industries' push that GE will feed the world and that more sustainable methods will not. [64] www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/geneng/2000nov16.html [65] www.connectotel.com/gmfood/w1180601.txt [66] www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980804.htm [67] Crown drops case against two 'who wrecked GM crop' by Geoffrey Gibbs (The Guardian - 29 March 1999) http://www.bindmans.com/data/29_3_99_gua.htm [68] www.thecampaign.org/newsupdates/oct00h.htm [69] www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2000/20001003150048.html