John Edwards campaign manager lobbied on behalf of...Monsanto...

Monsanto Continues to Block Federal Legislation on Labeling & Safety Testing of GE Foods & Crops

Monsanto lobbies to keep the status quo for gene-altered crops Monday, September 12, 2005
By Bill Lambrecht and Deirdre Shesgreen http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=11204&start=1&control=198&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1

Sometimes a company's Iobbying success is best measured by what doesn't happen: tighter regulations kept 0ff the books, tax Ioopholes left open, hot-bulon issues never debated or investigated.

Take, for example, Monsanto Co., the agricultural and biotech giant based in Creve Coeur. Despite years of controversy over Monsanto's genetically modified seeds, there hasn't been a single congressional hearing on legislation calling for labeling genetically modified foods, even as much of Europe, Japan and several other nations adopted labeling Iaws.

Monsanto Iobbyists have worked hard to preserve the current system in which its gene-altered products are treated as essentially equivalent to regular crops -- and therefore don't need any additional labeling.

Among area companies, Monsanto was by far the biggest spender an Iobbying, dishing out more than $18.5 million from 1999 through 2004. In 2005, Monsanto had nine in-house Washington Iobbyists on its payroll, along with another 13 at private firms.

Over the years, Monsanto has become known for its connections in Washington, hiring high-ranking government officials and a former member of Congress,_Rep. Toby Moffett, D-Conn. Among those Iobbying for Monsanto last year were Peter Scher, who served in the administration of President Bill Clinton as the top negotiator and troubleshooter on global agriculture trade deals in which Monsanto had a huge stake.

Monsanto has generally deployed its phalanx of lobbyists on three fronts: shaping regulations that apply to its genetically modified crops; prying open European and other foreign markets for genetically modified foods; and winning Legislative battles to tailor the federal agriculture budget critical to its business. More than other St. Louis companies, Monsanto and its lobbyists have to navigate Washington's regulatory maze because three federal agencies regulate its gene-altered farm products. Michael Dykes, a top Monsanto in-house advocate, said the compare's lobbyists didn't try to influence the scientific review process (their scientists dc that). But they do try to shape the policies that dictate how those reviews unfold -- what steps are necessary to get a new biotech product to market, for example. Even as European nations continue to maintain a ban on most genetically modified crops, Monsanto has pressed for more government-approved uses of its technology in the United States. In June, the company won approval from the Agricuiture Department for its latest product -- alfalfa that is genetically engineered to tolerate a Monsanto-developed herbicide that kills weeds but not the alfalfa.

The agriculture giant is now in the midst of a controversial battle to commercialize a herbicide-tolerant grass that could be a big seller to golf courses. Monsanto is working with another company, Scotts Co., on that issue, and they have already run into opposition. Because grasses are wind-pollinating perennial paints, they are difficult to contain and could pose a contamination threat, critics say.

Bill Freese, a research analyst for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, said the grass could produce "Super weeds" that are resistant to herbicides.

Monsanto lobbyists exercise considerable influence over the regulatory process, Freese said, even though the rule-making might appear to be more driven by facts and less by politics.

"They have tremendous clout with the government," Freese said.