Syngenta: Corporate Crimes

Syngenta and GM crops

Current GM Crops

Despite their widespread rejection by people around the world Syngenta continues to develop and market GM crops. Syngenta currently markets crops that are either herbicide tolerant or insect resistant. The following problems are associated with herbicide tolerant or insect resistant GM crops.

Herbicide Tolerance [37]

• Gene transfer to related wild species may take place, creating herbicide tolerant ‘super weeds’. This depends on the proximity of species with which the crop can successfully hybridise.
• The crop itself may become a problem weed, either by spreading from the field or when seed shed at harvest emerges in the following crop (so-called ‘volunteer’ weeds). This is considered inevitable by many weed specialists.
• The increased use of the specific herbicide a crop is made tolerant to, will encourage the emergence of resistant weeds through selection pressure.
• Neighbouring organic or non-GM crops may be pollinated by the GM crop, leading to genetic contamination with the foreign genes. Levels of acceptable contamination have not been set and organic farming standards are likely to demand zero levels.
• The widespread use of broad spectrum herbicides (like glufosinate or glyphosate) will lead to fields being efficiently cleared of weeds, thus removing some of the remaining food sources for farmland birds and other wildlife. The use of pesticides and herbicides is already thought to have contributed to the dramatic decline in farmland bird species in the UK.
• Herbicide use patterns will change and although amounts may be reduced overall in terms of weight and volume (in large part because broad spectrum herbicides are more potent), the use of the specific herbicides that crops are being made resistant to will increase dramatically.

Insect resistance [38]

• Insects will become resistant to the inbuilt insecticide and cause crop failures. In the USA, ‘refuges’ - where non-insect resistant crops are grown - of up to 40% of the crop area are being recommended to avoid this.
• Knock-on effects on the food web by destroying non-target insects. Studies have shown that lacewings and monarch butterfly larvae can be harmed.
• Gene transfer to related wild species may take place, creating insect resistant ‘super weeds’. This depends on the proximity of species with which the crop can successfully hybridise.
• Neighbouring organic or non-GM crops may be pollinated by the GM crop, leading to genetic contamination with the foreign genes. Levels of acceptable contamination have not been set and organic farming standards are likely to demand zero levels.

The majority of Syngenta’s GM crops are sold in the USA. Syngenta is the only company to commercially market a GM crop within the EU. A single variety of GM insect resistant maize known as Event 176 or Compa CB is the only GM crop variety to have gained approval for commercial growing in the EU prior to the start of the moratorium on new GM crop varieties. In the UK one of the crop lines being grown as part of the government sponsored farmscale trials, a herbicide tolerant (RoundUp Ready) sugar beet known as line #77 or T9100152 is a joint project between Monsanto and Syngenta.[39]

Future GM crops

Whilst Syngenta is actively involved in the introduction of first generation GM crops (see current GM crops above), perhaps the greatest threat they pose is through the development of the next generation of GM crops, crops that have perceived benefits to customers. Many of these new technologies are being developed less because the company has great altruistic intentions than because it sees them as a method for dissipating public and regulatory opposition to GM crops.

Syngenta has been at the forefront of developing crops with altered nutritional characteristics. The company recently announced its intention to seek regulatory approval for the introduction of a new GM rice in Japan. The rice has been modified to remove a protein responsible for allergic reactions and is being aimed at kidney dialysis patients in Asia who cannot eat normal rice because of an intolerance to the cereal's high protein content. Michael Pragnell chief executive of Syngenta talking about the GM rice said ‘It's a niche market, but it's a latch-lifter, the regulators either have to become less fastidious or deny benefits to patients. We are pursuing these markets not because we will make a fortune, but because it will introduce some regulatory tension.’[40] A similar motive is behind Syngenta’s intention to collaborate in a project to give away vitamin A enhanced rice (also known as ‘Golden Rice’) to farmers in the global south.[41] Vitamin A deficiency is a major cause of irreversible blindness in the global south. Critics of the Vitamin A rice point out that it does not address the underlying causes of vitamin A deficiency: mainly poverty and lack of access to a diverse diet. In the short-term, measures such as supplements (pills) and food fortification are cheap, effective and safe alternative sources of vitamin A.[42] Food campaigners the ETC Group describes Golden Rice as a ‘Flag of Convenience’ under which biotech companies are trying to win support for GM crops.[43]

Like many controversial transnational companies, Syngenta has been doing its best to make its name and business activities appear to be inextricably linked to the concept of ‘sustainable development’. This was heightened by the build up to the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002. Syngenta also funds the Syngenta Foundation which ‘devotes its resources to promoting economically and ecologically sustainable agriculture throughout the world. Our work focuses on poverty-oriented agricultural research and development.’[44]

Syngenta and GURTs

Syngenta is a world leader in the development for commercial use of crops incorporating Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, or GURTs. GURTs enable biotech companies to retain control and ownership over their products even after they have been sold to farmers. The best known of these technologies, often known as 'Terminator' technology, is used to make crops that generate sterile seed, forcing farmers to return to the biotech company to buy new seed every year. Another GURTs application - 'Traitor' technology - enables the control of particular plant characteristics. For example, a characteristic such as plant ripening can be switched on and off with the application of a proprietary (or biotech company licensed) chemical. If commercialised, GURTs will lock farmers across the world into a cycle that stops them saving seed and forces them to buy new patented seed and/or switching chemicals from biotech companies every year. In 2000 one of the outcomes of COP 5 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was a call for a ban on the field-testing of GURTs crops and a moratorium on their development until their impact has been fully assessed.

Despite the promises of both of its predecessor companies, Astra-Zeneca and Novartis, to not develop technologies that would prevent farmers from growing second generation seed, Syngenta has continued to patent and develop GURTs. A report compiled for Action Aid in 2000[45] identified that of all the companies involved in agricultural biotechnology Syngenta held the largest number of GURTs patents (36 of 71 patents). Amongst these patents are techniques that control the following characteristics in staple food crops: crop disease susceptibility (unless treated with chemicals), crop fertility, crop flowering, crop sprouting and crop aging. In recent years Syngenta's UK research and development centre at Jealotts Hill near Bracknell, Berkshire has been home to several GURTs field trials.[46]

Pesticides

Whilst Syngenta’s GM crops have attracted lots of attention recently, the majority of their business still comes from the sale of pesticides.

Paraquat [47] ‘The only highly toxic herbicide of the post-war years’ - World Health Organisation on Paraquat [48]

Syngenta has attracted criticism for its continued manufacture and sale of the insecticide Gramoxone or paraquat. A number of countries in Europe and in the global south have banned or resticted the use of the chemical. Workers and farmers regularly exposed to paraquat experience serious problems with their health. The high toxicity of the chemical and the lack of antidote leads to serious ill-health, and even death, from exposure.

‘When I started handling the pesticides I experienced headaches. … When I used Gramoxone in particular my nose bled. I used to get severe pains on the left side of my stomach’. ‘After spraying, I had very bad headaches, felt nausea, giddiness and chest pains.’ - Women sprayers on palm oil estates, Malaysia. [49]

Alongside health risks there are also concerns about the impact of the chemical on the environment. Research indicates that it ‘is persistent and accumulates in soil. Studies indicate that paraquat has adverse effects on mammals, birds, fish and amphibians. In Sweden we believe that, for the environment and for health, the only safe use is no use,’ said Göran Eklöf of SSNC.[50] Despite the concern voiced about the continued use of Paraquat, Syngenta has recently built a new manufacturing facility for the chemical in China and intends to expand the market for it.

Exploiting Pesticide Licensing Loopholes

Syngenta has been discovered exploiting loopholes in European pesticide licensing regulations which have allowed them to import seeds treated with chemicals unlicensed for use in the UK. This came to light when Andrew Lincoln, a courier from Norwich, started suffering ill effects after being exposed to bean seed imported into the UK by Syngenta Seeds Ltd. The exposure occurred when a consignment of seed that he was transporting spilled in the back of his van. In order to receive proper medical treatment Mr Lincoln sought information about the chemical treatment applied to the seeds. The mixture of chemicals in the seed treatment included Dichlofenthion, an organo-phosphate, the active ingredient in the pesticide Aatifon, and a chemical not on the UK list of approved pesticides. It emerged that the chemical was legal for ‘use’ in France where the seed originated and was treated. So long as the chemical was used in France (the application of the chemical as a seed treatment counts as its use) Syngenta was free to import and sell seed treated with it in the UK.[51]

References

[37] text taken from Genewatch website ‘crop traits’ section available on line at http://www.genewatch.org/GeneSrch/Default.htm (viewed 05,11,02) [38] text taken from Genewatch website ‘crop traits’ section available on line at http://www.genewatch.org/GeneSrch/Default.htm (viewed 05,11,02) [39] information from Genewatch web pages on Sugar/Fodder Beet in Farm Scale Trails available online at http://www.genewatch.org/Crop Trials/Beet.htm (viewed 05,11,02) and Genewatch briefing GM crops currently being field trialled in the UK (2001) available on line at http://www.genewatch.org/Crop Trials/Trl2001.pdf (viewed 05,11,02) [40] ’Syngenta tries rice in fight for GM approval’, by David Firn, Financial Times, August 19 2002 available online (but only with FT subscription) at http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1028185876223&p=1012571727189 [41] information from Syngenta press release 16,05,00 available online at http://www.syngenta.com/en/media/article.asp?article_id=38 (viewed 05,11,02) [42] information from Greenpeace ‘GE rice is fool's gold’ available online at http://archive.greenpeace.org/~geneng/ and http://archive.greenpeace.org/~geneng/reports/food/GRice.pdf (viewed 05,11,02) [43]information from ‘Golden Rice and Trojan Trade Reps: A case study in the public sectors mismanagement of intellectual property’ RAFI Communique #66, Sept/Oct 2000 available online at http://www.rafi.org/documents/com_goldenrice.pdf (viewed 05,11,02) [44] information from Syngenta Foundation web site ‘about us’ page available online at http://www.syngentafoundation.com/about_syngenta_foundation.htm (viewed 05,11,02) [45] Syngenta switching off farmers' rights? Hugh Warwick, Genetics Forum, October 2000 http://www.actionaid.org/resources/pdfs/syngenta.pdf [46] DEFRA GMO Public Register Index, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/pdf/exper.pdf, potatoes (00/R1/12 and 01/R34/01), oil seed rape (01/R34/02) [47] ‘Paraquat-Syngenta’s controversial herbicide’ a report by John Madeley for PAN UK, Berne Declaration, PANAP, Swedish Declaration for Nature Conservation and Foro Emanus available online at http://www.panap.net/docs/action/ParaquatReport.pdf (viewed 05,11,02) [48] ‘WHO, Paraquat and Diquat’ 1984, WHO, Geneva quoted in http://www.panap.net/docs/action/ParaquatReport.pdf (viewed 05,11,02) [49] quote from PAN UK press release ‘Time to phase out paraquat - Syngenta’s controversial pesticide’,22,04,2002, available online at http://www.pan-uk.org/press/paraquat.htm (viewed 05,11,02) [50] ibid [51] information from The Mark Thomas Product web site (Channel 4) available online at http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/M/mark_thomas/1/1.html (viewed 05,11,02) and personal correspondence with Andy Lincoln