国際環境NGO(グリーンピース)から、先月、次の記事が発表されている。「モンサントの遺伝子組み換え作物、EUから“ほぼ”撤退!」(2013-07-19 13:32)。米国とEUの環境農業政策の違いが浮き彫りになった形だ。この先は、後述の記事(BusinessWeek)が指摘しているように、アジアとアフリカの採用動向だろう。
<解説>は後程。以下は、記事からの転載です。
「モンサントの遺伝子組み換え作物、EUから“ほぼ”撤退!」(2013-07-19 13:32)
あの多国籍バイオ化学メーカーのモンサント社が、EUにおいて新規の遺伝子組み換え作物の承認申請を撤回すると発表したのです。
その理由は、「実際に栽培される見込みが少ない」とのこと。グリーンピースも世界各地で、遺伝子組み換え作物をなくすキャンペーンを続けていますが、今回のニュースは消費者、生産者、NGOなどが反対の意思表示を続けた成果です。
EUで遺伝子組み換え作物の商業栽培が行われているのは、同じモンサント社の遺伝子組み換えトウモロコシMON810のみ。
このMON810についても、10年間の栽培許可期間が終了すれば再び安全審査となるもので、現在スペインが11万ヘクタール(2012年)を栽培しているにすぎません。
(チェコ、ポルトガルなども栽培していますが少量です。)
(後略)
なお、この記事に関連して、以下のコラムはモンサントの戦略を考える上で、重要な資料文献である。オランダの友人によると、ヒンド・ブライアン氏は、この分野では有名な記者らしい。
ふたつの署名記事が発表されてから5年が経過している。ゼミの授業内でも(7月中)、遺伝子組み換え食品の普及について、その是非をグループ討論してみた。
わたしの予想に反して、学生たちは、プロビジネス(モンサントのGMO容認)が多数派を占めた。つまり、遺伝子組み換え作物は、農業の生産性向上に寄与するから、地球環境や人体・健康への危険(未確認)を補って余りあるという見解だった。
こうした議論は、原発の容認・反対論と相通じるところがある。環境NGOのグリーンピースは、「反原発・アンチGMO」である。両方の争点には共通した軸(価値観、世界観)がある。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
“MONSANTO: WINNING THE GROUND WAR”
By Brian Hindo
How the company turned the tide in the battle over genetically modified crops
When Hugh Grand took the top job at Monsanto in May, 2003, the company’s nickname in some quarters was “Mutanto.” A growing chorus of critics warned that Monsanto’s genetically modified plant seeds would wipe out the monarch butterfly, give people virulent new allergies, and reduce the planet’s agricultural diversity. Author Jeremy Rifkin predicted that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would turn out to be “the single greatest failure in the history of capitalism.” Paul McCartney urged the world to “say no to GMO.” Prince Charles wrote an editorial arguing that genetic engineering takes “mankind into realms that belong to God and to God alone.”
During the 12 months preceding Grant’s elevation, Monsanto’s stock price fell nearly 50% to $8 a share. In 2002, the prior fiscal year, the company lost $1.7 billion. “We were pretty financially fragile,” recalls Grant, 49, who speaks with the lilt of his native Scotland.
Fewer than five years later, Monsanto is thriving. The St. Louis company’s net income leaped 44% last year, to $993 million, on $8.5 billion in revenue. Monsanto shares, which closed at $104.81 on Dec. 5, have risen more than 1,000% during Grant’s tenure. At 58.6, the company’s price-to-earnings ratio is about two points higher than Google’s. These numbers reflect a broader story: that Monsanto has quietly turned the tide in the war over genetically modified foods.
While a vocal band of opponents is still protesting biotech crops, a growing multitude of farmers around the world is planting them. The reason is no mystery: Monsanto seeds contain genes that kill bugs and tolerate weed-killing pesticides. So they are much easier and cheaper to grow than traditional seeds. More than half the crops grown in the U.S., including nearly all the soybeans and 70% of the corn, are genetically modified. Just five years ago, China, India, and Brazil planted virtually no genetically engineered crops. Now Brazil can barely build roads fast enough to get all of its biotech soybeans from the fertile interior Mato Grosso state out to ports. Farmers in China and India, meanwhile, planted more than 17million acres of biotech crops last year. These three countries are now three of the six largest GMO-planting nations in the world, as measured by area planted. At a time when organic food is more popular than ever, about 7% of the world’s entire farmland acreage is now planted with genetically modified crops-the ultimate anti-organic food. “When you’re more than 1 billion acres planted, “says Grant, “I think the conversation moves from ‘what if’ to ‘what is’.”
The battle over genetically modified food is being won not in scientific journals but on the ground. Global demand for food and fuel have made farmers ever eager to squeeze more yield from an acre of dirt. And the undeniable fact is that during the 12 years since the first biotech seeds were planted, the most dire predictions of Monsanto’s opponents have so far failed to come true. That’s prompted some swaggering at company headquarters. In interviews with Business Week, Monsanto executives variously described the safety objections of adversaries as “scare tactics,” “Chicken Little” theatrics, “mischief,” and “misinformation.”
Managers at the company display a near-religious conviction about the GMO cause. In the days when fear of so-called Frankenfoods was at its peak, Grant and his team made a risky decision to stand firm. They insisted on holding research and development spending to 10% of sales. Grant also made a crucial strategic decision to pare down the products Monsanto sold. No longer would Monsanto sell seeds for produce destined directly for the dinner plate. Instead Grant focused exclusively on seeds for agribusiness, ones that produced such goods as animal feed, ethanol, and corn syrup. That has helped deflate the opposition.
But if the fears of GMO opponents ever do come true, Monsanto will take a far bigger fall than any of its more diversified rivals. Today, Monsanto gets 60% of its revenue from biotech seeds, in contrast to about 20% at Syngenta, for example, and less than 10% at diverse chemicals company Dow. The company’s confident leaders are essentially making an enormous unhedged bet on their technology.
While Monsanto executives don’t believe they are gambling, there are still plenty of doubters. In August, Kroger became the latest U.S. grocery chain to stop selling milk with a GMO bovine growth hormone that increases production, which Monsanto first started selling in 1994. All summer, activists in France trampled fields of biotech crops. Hostility toward GMO foods continues to be widespread in Africa and parts of Asia and Western Europe. This type of persistent opposition is one reason why the investment research firm Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, which gives companies a type of credit rating based on their strategic risk profile, assigns Monsanto a “CCC” grade-its lowest possible mark. “Monsanto is basically saying that its products are very well regulated and therefore safe,” says Heather Langsner, director of research for Innovest. “It’s a lot more murky than that.”
Magazine
Monsanto on the Menu
By Brian Hindo June 10, 2008
It’s betting the food crisis will create new markets for genetically modified products.
Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically modified seeds, has spent years trying to shed its image as a purveyor of Frankenfood. The political battles over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the 1990s left the company bruised, profitless, and with scaled-back ambitions on the consumer-food front. Out were promises of GMO wheat, rice, and tomatoes. In was a focus on corn, soy, and cotton—big-volume crops destined for industrial uses such as animal feed, ethanol, and textiles. The gambit worked. Since 2003, Monsanto (MON) has transformed itself from a money-losing pariah into a $5 billion agribusiness titan with 20% profit margins and a stock price that is up 1,200%.
Flush with success, Monsanto this month has launched a new push to feed the world. Amid food shortages and rampant inflation, the St. Louis company now wants to reassert its position in the global food chain. On June 5, during a U.N. food summit in Rome, Monsanto announced ambitious goals to boost global food production, funneling millions into public research on wheat and rice—areas the company had abandoned in recent years—while pledging to double yields on corn and soy by 2030. The company says it will also distribute seeds to African farmers royalty-free. “That isn’t a feel-good thing,” says Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant. “Satisfying the demand curve is a great business opportunity.”
Indeed, a number of agribusiness giants see a new opportunity for biotech crops. And they downplay fears of a backlash this time around: “I think the world has moved on,” says Grant. Executives at rivals such as Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta (SYT) have also spoken out in recent weeks. Europe’s food safety chief, Androulla Vassiliou, has talked about being more flexible while Columbia University Earth Institute Director Jeffrey D. Sachs and World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick have noted that GMOs could fight global hunger. In particular, many point to new lines of drought-tolerant corn, due out in 2012, that have been engineered to use water more efficiently.
How such products will alleviate hunger in developing nations is another issue. Monsanto’s corn, for instance, isn’t meant to be eaten off the cob. Its most common use, as with soy, is to produce animal feed. So doubling yields is most likely to benefit affluent meat-eaters but is of little use to the malnourished. Monsanto says it’s working with African aid groups to develop drought-tolerant white corn to help local farmers, but CEO Grant says such crops are “eight years down the road.”
”Muscle Power” Monsanto critics worry that the company will use its financial heft to pry open new markets in Africa and Asia for patented, transgenic crops. “They are trying to exploit the food crisis as a means to win acceptance for their products,” says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, a Washington group that opposes GMOs. Pat Roy Mooney, executive director of Ottawa-based ETC Group, which monitors global agriculture policy, says the fear is that Monsanto “will use its muscle power to force governments—often fragile ones—to do what they want.”
The moves, including any progress in rice or wheat, won’t have an impact on Monsanto’s financial picture. The company says it can double gross profits by 2012 just with existing products. Yet Monsanto clearly wants a seat at the table in addressing the food crisis, even at risk of reigniting the GMO wars.