You Are What You Eat: 93% of Americans Test positive For BPA

Just When You Thought It MIGHT Be Safe To Drink From Plastic....

Disputed chemical bisphenol-A found in paper receipts

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 27, 2010; A13

As lawmakers and health experts wrestle over whether a controversial chemical, bisphenol-A, should be banned from food and beverage containers, a new analysis by an environmental group suggests Americans are being exposed to BPA through another, surprising route: paper receipts.

The Environmental Working Group found BPA on 40 percent of the receipts it collected from supermarkets, automated teller machines, gas stations and chain stores. In some cases, the total amount of BPA on the receipt was 1,000 times the amount found in the epoxy lining of a can of food, another controversial use of the chemical.

Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the environmental group, says BPA's prevalence on receipts could help explain why the chemical can be detected in the urine of an estimated 93 percent of Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"We've come across potentially major sources of BPA right here in our daily lives," Lunder said. "When you're carrying around a receipt in your wallet for months while you intend to return something, you could be shedding BPA into your home, into your environment. If you throw a receipt into a bag of food, and it's lying there against an apple, or you shove a receipt into your bag next to a baby pacifier, you could be getting all kinds of exposure and not realize it."

What remains unknown is how much of the chemical that may rub off onto the hands is absorbed through the skin or whether people then ingest BPA by handling food or touching their mouths.

Among those surveyed, receipts from Safeway supermarkets contained the highest concentration of BPA. A receipt taken from a store in the District contained 41 milligrams of the chemical. If the equivalent amount of BPA was ingested by a 155-pound adult, that would exceed EPA's decades-old safe exposure limit for BPA by 12 times.

Brian Dowling, a Safeway spokesman, said the company is researching the issue and consulting with its suppliers of receipt paper.

First synthesized in 1891 and developed in the 1930s as a synthetic form of estrogen, bisphenol-A has been widely used in commercial products including plastic bottles, compact discs and dental sealants. While it was regarded as safe for decades, recent research using sophisticated analytic techniques suggests that low doses of the compound can interfere with the endocrine system and cause a range of health effects, including reproductive problems and cancer.

Federal regulators have been focused on BPA and whether it leaches from containers into foods and beverages at levels that may cause health problems. Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration expressed "some concern" about BPA and joined several agencies in conducting $30 million in studies to try to answer questions about its safety. Lawmakers on the local, state and federal levels have moved to ban BPA from food and beverage containers made for infants and children.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, said that while BPA can transfer from paper receipts to the skin, the level of absorption is low. "Available data suggests that BPA is not readily absorbed through the skin," a spokeswoman said. "Biomonitoring data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control shows that exposure to BPA from all sources, which would include typical exposure from receipts, is extremely low."

The Environmental Protection Agency, however, recognizing that paper coated in BPA may be a significant route of exposure, launched an effort this month to work with paper manufacturers, the chemical industry and environmental groups to encourage companies to find alternatives to BPA in receipts.

Appleton Papers, the nation's largest manufacturer of "thermal papers," the type often used for receipts, dropped BPA from its formulation in 2006 out of growing concerns about the safety of the chemical, said Kent Willetts, the company's vice president of strategic development. "We just realized we'd rather move away from it sooner than later," Willetts said.

The Environmental Working Group's report can be found

online at http://www.ewg.org/bpa-in-store-receipts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072605001.html

Good Hot Sauces

Jamaican Espresso

Fair Trade Cacoa Marketing - Rasta In Italy

From Italy, summer 2009, I bought this Cacao - Fair Trade, organic...... While the man on the box is not clearly Rasta, the implication is Rasta - the tam, red, gold and green (with shades).... I made hot chocolate with it - good stuff.




Packaged as Cacao, Amaro in Polvere, it is farmed according to principles of biological agriculture in the Dominican Republic and Bolivia (neither with large Rasta representation). It is sold by the Green Spirit label.

Less Plastic

Moving forward -

Monday, June 7, 2010, 10:43am EDT | Modified: Monday, June 7, 2010, 2:44pm

MOM's Organic Market dumps bottled water

Washington Business Journal - by Jeff Clabaugh

Rockville-based MOM's Organic Market will no longer sell bottled water as part of a campaign to reduce the use of plastic.

The organic grocer, with six locations in the D.C. and Baltimore area, will instead install water filtration machines at its stores so customers can rely on reusable containers for water. It is also giving customers their first gallon of water free every visit, it said.

"Not only does plastic damage our environment, but it increases our dependence on oil," founder and CEO Scott Nash said in a statement. "The tragic part of our addition is that, by and large, petroleum-based plastics are not necessary for consumer products and packaging as we have the technology and innovation to use plastic products that biodegrade."

MOM's is also eliminating bagged potatoes, onions, oranges and bagged salad mixes, while replacing other plastic products with biodegradable packaging.

MOM's already recycles plastic containers and, in 2005, was among the first grocers to eliminate plastic bags.

jclabaugh@bizjournals.com

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/06/07/daily3.html

Monsanto, GMOs, Anti-Trust

U.S. to Enforce Antitrust in Farming, Holder Says (Update3)

By Jack Kaskey

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration will probe consolidation in the agriculture industry and enforce antitrust laws where it finds excessive market power hurting competition, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke today in Ankeny, Iowa, at the first of five workshops on competition and regulation in the agriculture industry. Holder said they have already received 15,000 comments on the subject.

“Is today’s agriculture industry suffering from a lack of free and fair competition in the marketplace?” Holder said to a crowd of about 700 people at a community college. “That is the central question.”

Consolidation in meat, packing and seed markets have lowered food prices while pressuring growers and threatening the life of rural economies, Vilsack said. Companies that abuse their dominant market position to hurt competition will face Justice Department action, said Christine Varney, head of the antitrust division.

“Big is not illegal,” Varney told reporters outside the workshop, when asked whether the administration plans to break up large companies. “We are not looking to restructure the economy. We are looking to enforce the law wherever the facts take us.”

Seed Patents

The department is investigating whether patents on biotech seeds are being abused to extend or maintain companies’ dominance in the industry, Varney said. The department is looking broadly at the intersection of patent and antitrust laws, she said.

“There is a very robust patent system in this country and if you are abusing a patent to extend or maintain a monopoly, that is not legal,” Varney said. “We are looking at those very important issues.”

Monsanto Co. has begun switching seedmakers and growers from soybeans with the Roundup Ready gene, which was in 93 percent of U.S. soybean seeds last year, to the newer Roundup Ready 2 Yield version in advance of the original’s patent expiration in 2014. DuPont Co., the second-biggest seed company after Monsanto, says Monsanto is using incentives and penalties to switch the industry to the new product in a way that unlawfully extends the Roundup Ready monopoly.

Ray Gaesser, vice president of the American Soybean Association, said growers are worried that if they grow generic biotech seeds, export markets may be unavailable if approvals to import biotech grains in countries outside the U.S. aren’t maintained.

Import Approvals

Monsanto will maintain foreign import approvals for generic Roundup Ready soybeans through 2017 and is willing to provide an industry group with the necessary health and safety data to maintain foreign registrations beyond then, said Jim Tobin, a company vice president. Monsanto pays as much as $2 million a year to maintain approvals in the seven countries that require periodic renewals, he said.

Dermot Hayes, an agribusiness professor at Iowa State University, said the industry should take advantage of Monsanto’s offer with a new group or an existing one managing stewardship of generic biotech seeds.

Varney declined to comment more specifically on the focus of the seed industry probe.

“Monsanto’s place in seed is something that is a competitive issue that is before all of us,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said. Iowa also is investigating the St. Louis-based company, he said.

Agriculture Mergers

Holder said he will aggressively review mergers in the agriculture industry. He highlighted the Justice Department’s Jan. 22 lawsuit against Dean Foods Co. over its acquisition of Foremost Farms USA’s consumer-products division, saying the deal hurts competition in the sale of milk to schools and stores in several states.

The partnership with the Department of Agriculture is meant to also address competition through regulation, Holder said. Vilsack highlighted concerns about increased concentration and integration in meat-packing and rapidly shrinking spot markets.

“Are farmers and ranchers in this country currently getting a fair shake? Is there sufficient transparency?” Vilsack said. “Seed companies in some cases control the lion’s share of market. Is that good or bad for farmers?”

The Justice Department may form a task force with the Department of Agriculture to pursue potential abuses by the meatpacking industry of the Packers and Stockyards Act, Varney said today.

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said he will explore legislative remedies to boost competition. The cooperation between the Justice and Agriculture departments is unprecedented and “fills a big void,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in New York at jkaskey@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 12, 2010 16:24 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=atQcOOEUTeOY

Monsanto’s Seed Patents May Trump Antitrust Claims (Update2)

March 12, 2010, 4:34 PM EST


Adds Monsanto comment in 25th paragraph.)

By Jack Kaskey and William McQuillen

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- Monsanto Co., facing antitrust probes into its genetically modified seeds, may benefit from previous court rulings in which intellectual property rights trumped competition concerns, antitrust lawyers say.

The Department of Justice and seven state attorneys general are investigating whether the world’s largest seed company is using gene licenses to keep competing technologies off the market. At issue is how the St. Louis-based company sells and licenses its patented trait that allows farmers to kill weeds with Roundup herbicide while leaving crops unharmed. The company’s Roundup Ready gene was in 93 percent of U.S. soybeans last year.

“Justice is clearly trying every way it can to see whether Monsanto is exceeding its rights under the patent,” said James Weiss, a Washington-based attorney at K&L Gates LLP who helped defend Microsoft Corp. against a federal antitrust probe. “At the end of the day, they may not be able to do much with it because of the scope of those patents. In almost all the cases, the courts come out on the side of intellectual property.”

Yet Monsanto’s seeds are so ubiquitous that they have become like AT&T’s telephone lines before the company’s 1984 breakup or Microsoft Corp.’s Windows operating system in the 1990s, said James P. Denvir, an attorney who represents rival seedmaker DuPont Co. and led the government’s AT&T case.

“Both cases involve what I think of as a classic platform monopoly,” Denvir said. “It’s a facility that competitors need access to, to compete against the monopolist.”

Monsanto and DuPont, which are suing each other over a biotech seed license, both hired former Justice Department lawyers who have handled high-profile cases.

‘Revolutionizing the Marketplace’

Monsanto’s attorney, Dan Webb, defended Microsoft in 2002 against government antitrust claims. A former U.S. Attorney in Chicago, he also prosecuted Admiral John Poindexter in the Iran- Contra affair.

Webb credits Monsanto with “revolutionizing the agriculture marketplace” and said antitrust claims such as those in DuPont’s suit aren’t an uncommon response to patent infringement cases such as Monsanto’s.

“The perception among farmers is that DuPont’s complaints about exclusivity are without merit,” said Webb, a Chicago- based Winston & Strawn LLP partner.

Denvir, who represents DuPont, said farmers are among the victims.

“Clearly, we are too,” he said. “The bigger harm, the more important harm, is to farmers in denying them the best seeds they can get at the lowest possible prices.”

Legal Monopoly

While patents provide some protection from antitrust claims, giving a company a legal monopoly for a specified time, patent rights can be abused, DuPont lawyers and others said.

“The question becomes whether or not somebody in that position has engaged in some bad acts that either got it in that position or are designed to maintain that position or to extend that position to other markets,” said Charles “Rick” Rule, a lawyer at Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP who ran the Justice Department’s antitrust unit under President Ronald Reagan.

Christine Varney, who heads the antitrust division in President Barack Obama’s administration, has signaled she’ll be more aggressive than the Bush administration, Rule said.

Varney said today that the Justice Department is investigating whether biotech-seed patents are being abused to extend or maintain companies’ dominance in the industry. She is in Ankeny, Iowa, for a workshop on agriculture-market competition that was organized by the Justice Department and the Department of Agriculture.

‘Robust Patent System’

“There is a very robust patent system in this country and if you are abusing a patent to extend or maintain a monopoly, that is not legal,” Varney said. “We are looking at those very important issues.”

The department probably is reviewing whether Monsanto’s licensing restrictions on seeds have a legitimate business justification, said Rule, who occasionally advises Monsanto and isn’t working with Webb on the antitrust case.

“When you have that sort of monopoly power, it can lead to abuse, which is what we’ve been experiencing over the past several years,” said Thomas L. Sager, DuPont’s general counsel.

Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont claims Monsanto protects its lead in biotech seeds, including the Roundup Ready seeds sold since 1996, by controlling whether competitors can add their own genetics.

Roundup Ready 2 Yield

Monsanto also has begun switching seedmakers and growers from Roundup Ready soybeans to the newer Roundup Ready 2 Yield version in advance of the original’s patent expiration in 2014. DuPont says Monsanto is using incentives and penalties to switch the industry to the new product in a way that unlawfully extends the Roundup Ready monopoly.

“This is about trying to obtain a level playing field so innovators can introduce combinations of choices to the farmer that increase yield and of course feed the world,” Sager said.

At least seven states are investigating many of the same claims, as well as whether Monsanto illegally offered rebates to distributors who limit sales of competing seed, according to one person involved in the probe who asked not to be named because he isn’t authorized to discuss it.

3M Co.’s use of rebates to induce retailers to buy more transparent tape and curtail purchases from a smaller supplier was ruled anticompetitive by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003.

Addressing Criticisms

Monsanto has amended its practices to address some criticisms. The company will help the introduction of generic Roundup Ready soybeans by maintaining foreign import approvals during the transition, a process that will be followed for off- patent biotech seeds in the future, Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant said in a January interview. Monsanto last year stopped giving rebates to dealers who limited competing seeds’ sales, said Kelli Powers, a spokeswoman.

Monsanto will maintain foreign import approvals for generic Roundup Ready soybeans through 2017 and is willing to provide an industry group with the necessary health and safety data to maintain foreign registrations beyond then, Jim Tobin, a company vice president said today.

Monsanto pays as much as $2 million a year to maintain approvals in the seven countries that require periodic renewals, he said.

DuPont filed its federal antitrust case last year after Monsanto sued to block its rival from adding the Roundup Ready trait to seeds already modified to tolerate Roundup weed killer.

Trait Development ‘Stunted’

“Trait development has been stunted by the inability to get access to the Roundup Ready platform,” Denvir, an attorney with Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, said in an interview in his Washington office. The firm was founded by David Boies, who led the government’s successful antitrust suit against Microsoft. Roundup Ready is “licensed so broadly that if you want to offer any trait, it has to be somehow combined with that trait.”

While Monsanto has promised to allow generic versions of its products to emerge, Denvir said he is unconvinced that will happen without government intervention.

Monsanto got its lead in seed biotechnology because it invested in research long before DuPont and other competitors, said Webb, Monsanto’s counsel. The company spent $6 billion on seed research in the 10 years through 2008 and $1 billion a year since then, said Powers, the company spokeswoman.

Among the cases relevant to the claims against Monsanto is a 2004 Supreme Court decision that Verizon Communications Inc. and other phone companies didn’t break laws by doing too little to encourage competition, said Rule, the former antitrust division head.

Xerox Ruling

A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in February 2000 that Xerox Corp. can’t be sued for using patents to establish or entrench a monopoly also may apply to the Monsanto disputes, he said.

The cases reflect how U.S. courts have given intellectual property owners leeway to control licensing to make the property more valuable, encourage the owner to widely license the technology and support further investment, he said.

Greg Neppl, with Foley & Lardner, agreed that intellectual property rights often trump antitrust concerns.

“The patent concerns are well protected in the law,” said Neppl. “Where the patent rights are clear, the antitrust issues are secondary. The antitrust concerns must respect the patent owner.”

Monsanto persuaded U.S. District Judge Richard Webber in September to separate the licensing case from DuPont’s antitrust counterclaim. The seedmaker won an additional incremental victory in January when Webber ruled that DuPont violated the companies’ licensing agreement by combining Monsanto’s Roundup- tolerance gene with a DuPont gene that does the same thing.

Counterclaim ‘Clutter’

Patent infringement is “a fair and proper case,” Webb said. “Monsanto will have its day in court and it will not be cluttered with the antitrust counterclaim.”

Monsanto shares climbed 1 percent to $72.35 at 4:01 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, paring the decrease since DuPont filed its antitrust case in mid-June to 15 percent. DuPont rose 14 cents to $35.49.

Justice Department probes typically move in tandem with related civil litigation because plaintiffs share information with the government, Neppl said.

“The antitrust division today is more willing to look at assertions” of anticompetitive behavior, Rule said. “This is something they have a right to look at. Once they get into an investigation, they are pretty good at making up their own mind.”

The case is Monsanto Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 09cv686, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).

--With reporting by Alison Fitzgerald in Washington and Carlyn Kolker in New York. Editors: James Langford, Peter Blumberg, Jeffrey Taylor

To contact the reporters on this story: Jack Kaskey in New York at jkaskey@bloomberg.net; William McQuillen in Washington at bmcquillen@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kevin Miller at kmiller@bloomberg.net; David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-12/monsanto-s-seed-patents-may-trump-antitrust-claims-lawyers-say.html

Monsanto ‘Warrior’ Grant Fights Antitrust Accusations, Critics

March 04, 2010, 12:22 AM EST

By Jack Kaskey

March 4 (Bloomberg) -- For a man trying to feed the world, Monsanto Co.’s Hugh Grant has no shortage of people trying to disrupt his dinner plans, from activists fighting genetically modified crops to the U.S. Department of Justice probing his company’s sales practices.

Grant, a salesman who became chief executive officer in 2003, says Monsanto will be vindicated on all fronts because it has licensed genetics to hundreds of rivals since the dawn of the biotech seed industry in the mid-1980s. That strategy, and billions of dollars of research, got the company’s genes into 93 percent of U.S. soybeans and 82 percent of corn last year.

“We have made the technology accessible to all comers,” Grant, 51, said in an interview. “The fact that we went for an open-architecture, broad licensing system at the very beginning rather than holding the technology ourselves, I feel very good about that approach.”

Grant’s argument will get a public hearing when the Justice Department and Department of Agriculture hold a workshop on seed-industry competition in Iowa next week. The meeting will include more than two dozen panelists, including Justice Department antitrust chief Christine Varney and Monsanto Vice President Jim Tobin.

DuPont Co. has led the charge against Monsanto, arguing in a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis that the company uses its dominance in modified seeds to stifle competition.

“Monsanto is not allowing the best seed to get to the market and is imposing unjustified pricing that hits American farmers and independent seed producers throughout the United States,” Paul Schickler, president of DuPont’s Pioneer seed unit, said in an interview.

‘Over the Line’

David Kruse, president of commodities brokerage CommStock Investments Inc., said he’s planting Monsanto’s new Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans this year on his 640-acre farm near Royal, Iowa. Still, he thinks Monsanto uses its genetic licenses to keep seed companies from offering competing varieties.

“It’s OK to have a good product, but it is not OK to control competitors’ access to the market,” Kruse said by telephone. “Monsanto has stepped over the line. If you can control what can come to market, that is anticompetitive.”

Monsanto, the world’s largest seedmaker, already has begun trying to counteract the criticism from farmers like Kruse and the movie Food Inc., which argued the St. Louis-based company bullies growers who save patented soybeans to replant the following year.

Generic Seeds

Grant said in January that he won’t block generic versions of Monsanto’s modified seeds as they come off patent. The company said it’s working to help double food production by 2050 as the planet’s population reaches 9 billion and portrays itself as a friend of farmers with its americasfarmers.com Web site.

The legal and public relations fights are the latest battles for the Scotland native who rose from demonstrating weed killer in barley fields to the company’s top executive in his 29 years with Monsanto.

Grant solved intellectual property disputes early in his tenure as CEO, settling patent lawsuits with Bayer AG, Syngenta AG and Dow Chemical Co. by agreeing to cross-license technologies. The U.S. abandoned an antitrust probe focused on its herbicide in 2004.

“Hugh is a very shrewd operator and a tough warrior,” said Michael Pragnell, who squared off against Grant as CEO of Syngenta from 2000 through 2007. “He’s also a realist. You don’t fight battles you are not going to win.”

DuPont Lawsuit

The allegations the Justice Department is investigating include those at the center of the legal dispute with DuPont, the world’s second-largest seedmaker. Monsanto sued DuPont in May, seeking to prevent it from producing soybean seeds that combine DuPont’s genes with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready traits, which allow farmers to kill weeds with Roundup herbicide while leaving the crops unharmed.

DuPont countersued, claiming that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patent is invalid and that the company abuses its control over seed technology. Monsanto won an incremental victory in January, when U.S. District Judge Richard Webber ruled that DuPont violated the companies’ licensing agreement by combining Monsanto’s Roundup-tolerance gene with a DuPont trait that does the same thing.

DuPont has hired James Denvir, an attorney with Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP who led the Justice Department’s antitrust suit against AT&T in the 1980s. Monsanto’s lead attorney is Dan Webb, the Winston & Strawn LLP partner who defended Microsoft Corp. against antitrust claims.

Justice Department Inquiry

Monsanto said in October that it received questions from the Justice Department about DuPont’s complaints. The questions weren’t a formal request, and DuPont and other companies were receiving similar inquiries as the department examines competition in farming markets.

While Grant said he takes the federal inquiry “seriously,” the company faced bigger challenges in 2003, his first year as CEO. The company had lost $1.7 billion the previous year and the seed business had yet to turn a profit. He focused the company on corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, a plan that led to seven straight profitable years and boosted Monsanto’s shares 14-fold through their June 2008 peak.

“The turnaround, frankly, is the story of a big piece of my career,” Grant said in the interview. “We had a very simple plan. It doesn’t make it easy, but it was very simple, and we executed.”

Now, the Roundup herbicide business is in decline as cheap generics from China erode sales, and the company has forecast that profit this year will drop by as much as $1.21 a share to $3.20. Monsanto shares have slumped 50 percent from their peak.

Profit Rebound

Profit will rebound as farmers upgrade to Monsanto’s new SmartStax corn, developed with Dow, and Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans, Grant said. Long-term growth will be driven by demand for crops that resist herbicides, bugs and drought, he said. Corn that uses less nitrogen fertilizer, soybeans with healthier oils and tastier vegetables also are on the horizon, he said.

“One piece of this is the world is going to eat more; the other piece is the Western world is going to eat healthier,” Grant said. “We have taken long-term bets on macro trends: water, fertilizer, nitrogen, nutritional planes, growth in China.”

Grant’s plan to sell higher-priced seeds may begin to falter this year, said Paul Christopherson, a Morristown, New Jersey-based analyst at Gilford Securities. Farmers may not upgrade to SmartStax corn, which has eight genetic changes, if they are happy with seeds offering similar benefits, he said.

‘Overkill’

“I question whether farmers will always pay up for more traits,” said Christopherson, the only analyst of the 19 tracked by Bloomberg who rates Monsanto’s shares “sell.” “If you have seeds with eight traits, isn’t that overkill?”

Plantings of SmartStax corn and Roundup Ready 2 soybeans may fall 20 percent short of plans this year, Monsanto said last week. Grant is counting on the two new varieties to help boost seed earnings to as much as $7.5 billion in 2012 from $4.5 billion in 2009.

Grant grew up the older of two boys in Larkhall, Scotland, an industrial town separated from Glasgow by dairy lands. As the local coal mines and steel mills closed, Grant developed a taste for the outdoors, leading him to study agriculture. He hadn’t heard of Monsanto when he responded to a company help-wanted advertisement during a year of post-graduate work at the University of Edinburgh.

That first job had him demonstrating Roundup weed control in barley fields for growers who supplied makers of Scotch whisky.

‘Lived in the Field’

“My criteria for working outdoors was massively satisfied,” recalled Grant, who stands more than 6 feet tall and sports a clean-shaven head. “I kind of lived in the field.”

He soon was promoted, helping Monsanto expand Roundup sales to European homeowners, before moving to St. Louis and then Singapore as global brand manager for Roundup. In 1998, he returned to the U.S. as head of agriculture just before the company was acquired by Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. Grant was chief operating officer when Pharmacia spun off the agriculture business into the current incarnation of Monsanto.

After losing money in 2002, the newly independent company’s board ousted CEO Hendrik Verfaillie and was looking only at external candidates for the top spot. Grant threw his name into the ring.

“That he was clearly bright and strategic was clear on first impression,” said Robert Shapiro, Monsanto CEO from 1995 to 2000. “But what I found really impressive about Hugh is that he is thoughtful. He reflects on situations and decisions carefully before coming to a conclusion.”

Strategy Sessions

Grant starts his week with a Monday morning meeting of his 12-person executive team. He supplements those meetings with strategy sessions every six weeks that bring together biologists, regulatory specialists, regional leaders, sales and marketing executives and his top lieutenants, enabling him to make decisions on the spot.

Farmers pay a premium for Monsanto seeds because they increase yields and reduce expenses for pesticides, water and nitrogen fertilizer, Grant said. That premium will rise as the world strives to feed a growing population on limited farm land, he said.

Agricultural companies are under scrutiny because they are key actors in issues such as food availability and quality, corn-based ethanol production, water scarcity and climate change, Grant said. Monsanto can help mitigate those problems by enabling farmers to double crop yields by 2030, he said.

The success of Monsanto, which devoted $1 billion to seed research last year, has prompted competitors to develop their own technologies, Grant said. Many of those seeds are set to reach the market later this decade.

“A competitive market is getting increasingly competitive,” Grant said. “And that’s OK.”

--Editors: Kevin Orland, James Langford, Jeffrey Taylor.

-0- Mar/04/2010 05:01 GMT

To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in New York at jkaskey@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kevin Miller at kmiller@bloomberg.net.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-04/monsanto-warrior-grant-fights-antitrust-accusations-critics.html

The Sky Is Blue

Cracks in the empire........... small cracks but cracks still.......


Reversing itself, FDA expresses concerns over health risks from BPA

By Lyndsey Layton
Saturday, January 16, 2010; A01

The Food and Drug Administration has reversed its position on the safety of Bisphenol A, a chemical found in plastic bottles, soda cans, food containers and thousands of consumer goods, saying it now has concerns about health risks.

Growing scientific evidence has linked the chemical to a host of problems, including cancer, sexual dysfunction and heart disease. Federal officials said they are particularly concerned about BPA's effect on the development of fetuses, infants and young children.

"We have some concern, which leads us to recommend reasonable steps the public can take to reduce exposure to BPA," said Joshua Sharfstein, FDA's deputy commissioner, in a conference call to reporters Friday.

Regulators stopped short of banning the compound or even requiring manufacturers to label products containing BPA, saying that current data are not clear enough to support a legal crackdown. FDA officials also said they were hamstrung from dealing quickly with BPA by an outdated regulatory framework.

Sharfstein said the agency is conducting "targeted" studies of BPA, part of a two-year, $30 million effort by the administration to answer key questions about the chemical that will help determine what action, if any, is necessary to protect public health. The Obama administration pledged to take a "fresh look" at the chemical.

BPA, used to harden plastics, is so prevalent that more than 90 percent of the U.S. population has traces of it in its urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers have found that BPA leaches from containers into food and beverages, even at cold temperatures.

The FDA's announcement came after extensive talks between federal agencies and the White House about the best approach to an issue that has become a significant concern for consumers and the chemical industry.

One administration official privy to the talks said the FDA is in a quandary. "They have new evidence that makes them worried, but they don't have enough proof to justify pulling the stuff, so what do you do?" said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "You want to warn people, but you don't want to create panic."

The FDA had long maintained that BPA is safe, relying largely on two studies funded by the chemical industry. The agency was faulted by its own panel of independent science advisers in 2008, which said its position on BPA was scientifically flawed because it ignored more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that raised health concerns about BPA. Recent data found health effects even at low doses of BPA -- lower than the levels considered safe by the FDA.

The chemical industry, which produces more than 6 billion tons of BPA annually and has been fighting restrictions on its use, said Friday's announcement was good news because the agency did not tell people to stop using products containing the chemical.

"The science continues to support the safety of BPA," said Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council.

In a statement, the industry group said: "Plastics made with BPA contribute safety and convenience to our daily lives because of their durability, clarity and shatter-resistance. Can liners and food-storage containers made with BPA are essential components to helping protect the safety of packaged foods. . . . ACC remains committed to consumer safety, and will continue to review new scientific studies concerning the safety of BPA."

Bisphenol A was discovered to be a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. By the 1950s, chemists found BPA could be used to make polycarbonate plastics, giving them a "shatterproof" quality, and the uses for the chemical exploded.

But recently, consumers have placed increasing pressure on manufacturers and retailers to migrate away from BPA. In 2008, Babies R Us and other major retailers told suppliers they would no longer stock baby bottles made with BPA. Last year, the six largest manufacturers of baby bottles announced they would voluntarily stop selling bottles made with bisphenol A to consumers in the United States.

But BPA remains in the epoxy linings of most canned goods, including baby formula. Research has shown that it leaches from the linings into liquid formula, but not powered formula.

Environmental groups, public health advocates and consumer organizations applauded the FDA for recognizing concern about BPA, but some said the agency didn't go far enough.

"It's really a shame after all of the studies out there that they didn't do anything to protect the public health," said Urvashi Rangan, director of technical policy at Consumers Union. "How many pieces of evidence do we need before we have enough to act?"

Canada declared BPA a toxin and banned it from baby bottles in 2008. Similar restrictions have taken root in Chicago, Minnesota, Connecticut and Suffolk County in New York. In Congress, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) have filed a bill that would block BPA from all food and drink packaging.

As it awaits additional research results, the FDA plans to change the way it classifies BPA so that it can exercise tighter controls over the chemical, Sharfstein said. Currently, BPA is approved as a "food additive," which means manufacturers are not required to tell the government which products contain BPA and in what amounts. The agency wants to reclassify it as a "food contact material," which would require greater disclosure from manufacturers and would allow the FDA to take fast action if it determined that the material posed a health risk.

The Department of Health and Human Services has released recommended ways for the public to reduce exposure to BPA. It can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011504070.html

Street Food In Washington, DC

At the corner of hip and red tape
As street food rolls in new ways, jurisdictions are hard-pressed to keep up with trends and demands

By Jane Black
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The line forms fast wherever Derek Luhowiak pulls up his food truck, Local SixFortySeven. At farmers markets and wineries, customers swoon over the chicken and biscuits, grass-fed beef burgers and apple cardamom pie. There's one constituency, however, that he just can't seem to win over: Virginia regulators.

The former chef and his wife, Amanda, launched Local SixFortySeven -- the name combines a fondness for the unions of Luhowiak's native Pittsburgh and the road the couple lives on -- on April 21, Earth Day. Their plan: to serve reasonably priced plates made with ingredients from their garden and the farmers markets where they set up shop. By operating out of a truck, Luhowiak kept start-up costs low. A restaurant on wheels also let Luhowiak follow the crowds in less densely populated areas, such as Virginia's Rappahannock and Frederick counties.

Luhowiak, 33, submitted his mobile kitchen for a health inspection and bought a business license, which he believed covered him anywhere in Virginia within a day's drive of his home base. But bureaucratic woes have plagued Local SixFortySeven at almost every stop.

At a weekly farmers market at George Mason University, he was kicked out after food service giant Sodexo, which has a catering contract with the school, complained. At Barrel Oak Winery in Delaplane, where Local SixFortySeven earns almost 50 percent of its revenue, concern that the truck violated rural agricultural zoning rules threatened to halt its operation there in October. In Winchester, where Luhowiak had successfully set up at the weekly farmers market since June, a local official suddenly informed him on Nov. 17 that he was required to obtain another license from the city and pay tax on his income.

That was Luhowiak's last week at the Winchester market.

Street carts are the year's hottest food trend. Good, cheap food sates appetites in a recession. And low start-up costs are a magnet for entrepreneurs. Hip trucks such as Kogi barbecue in Los Angeles, New York's Big Gay Ice Cream Truck and Washington's Sweetflow Mobile and Fojol Bros. of Merlindia have captured local fans -- and dollars. But the renaissance in American street food is being taxed, and in some cases hindered, by a maze of local regulations that either don't accommodate innovative food businesses or can't keep up with them. "We are constantly battling these people. Everyone talks about how the recovery is going to be based on young entrepreneurs," Luhowiak said. "But if we use all our time to fight everybody, who's going to cook the food?"

Some cities have confronted the situation by issuing strict rules for food carts. Singapore has famously established hawker centers for its thousands of street vendors. Toronto created a three-year pilot project that required aspiring operators to prepare business plans, demonstrate their food's nutritional value and submit to a taste test by a panel of local judges. (Only eight vendors made the cut.) But in many cities, mobile vendors face vague, sometimes contradictory rules; hence many trucks' creative, if convoluted, decision to inform customers of their location via Twitter. The District had an eight-year moratorium on new food vending licenses. Politics surrounding regulations are so fierce that the District's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) has been at work on rules for three years.

The holdup and a temporary patchwork of directives have thwarted Washington vendor Kristin Rider, 28. In July, says Rider, whose father owns the popular Pedro and Vinny's burrito cart at 15th and K streets NW, she bought a vending license and launched her own cart a few blocks away, at 19th and L.

Within weeks, Rider says, an investigator from DCRA told her she was in violation of District rules and needed to obtain a location permit from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). In the middle of the lunch rush, with customers waiting, she was forced to close. Rider says she called DDOT the next day and was informed that the agency no longer issued location permits and that one was not required.

Rider returned to her cart. But within a week, another agent arrived. First, Rider says, he told her she needed the DDOT permit. She explained that she did not. About a month later, he returned and demanded to see receipts for food purchased. Furious and in tears, "I marched myself up to DCRA and showed them my vending permit. And they said, 'You shouldn't have got that,' " Rider said. "Well, that's not my problem. The fourth floor doesn't know what the fifth floor is doing."

The city has made some concessions to vendors. In 2004, it created a 32-block demonstration zone downtown that suspended some rules to allow competition to flourish. Since 2006, the agency has issued hundreds of licenses to new vendors, such as the eye-catching, bug-shaped On the Fly carts. But DCRA acknowledges that its rules are in desperate need of an update. An agency survey reported in 2006 that 66 percent of consumers rated the variety of Washington street food as poor. Eighty-two percent said they would probably spend more money at food vending stands if they could buy something other than hot dogs, chips and soda.

DCRA declined to comment on Rider's case, but an official said it is working with her to overcome bureaucratic hurdles. Rider said she expects to reopen next week near Metro Center.

In other cities, the web of rules is even more complex, as the owners of Los Angeles cult truck Kogi BBQ quickly discovered. Their first truck -- they now have four -- hit the streets in November 2008 with a license to vend in the city.

Los Angeles, however, is a jumble of independent towns and neighborhoods, each with its own rules. On Kogi's first night out, the truck headed for West Hollywood and was immediately stopped by the police, who said the operation needed additional business and catering licenses from West Hollywood, said Caroline Shin-Manguera, 29, one of Kogi's three founders. Rather than fight, the driver moved on to Hollywood, where no additional paperwork was required.

Kogi fast turned into a phenomenon. After announcing its location on Twitter, the truck would roll up to find mobs of people awaiting its Korean-Mexican fusion food. Fans wrote in, begging the truck to come to their neighborhood.

Expanding proved difficult, said Shin-Manguera. In Pasadena, trucks are not permitted to park for more than 30 minutes, after which time they must move to a spot at least 500 feet away -- a rule not easy to comply with when customers have lined up for an hour for pork tacos with sesame-chili salsa roja. Beverly Hills has the same rule and also requires any vendor to have a Beverly Hills vending license. There is also a law requiring that all employees working on the truck have fingerprints on file. On the Kogi truck's first day in Beverly Hills, it racked up $800 in fines.

In total, Kogi has spent $1,360 for business and vending licenses and paid $3,132 in tickets and fines. "There are a million rules on the books. Some are enforced, and some are enforced sometimes," said Shin-Manguera. "Mobile vending is still cheaper than a restaurant. But the costs are a lot higher than we thought."

The hodgepodge of regulations is a nuisance to city vendors. But it is a real threat to food entrepreneurs such as the Luhowiaks. Unlike Los Angeles, Fauquier County has no tradition of street vendors; if anything, a few funnel cake trucks might show up for the county fair. Local SixFortySeven has to persuade local regulators to create rules to define street food and protect it. "Derek and Amanda are absolutely right that their food cart concept is different than what we're used to seeing from a regulatory perspective," said Peter Schwartz, a member of the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors. "They don't fit into any appropriate box."

Witness the trouble at Barrel Oak Winery. The vineyard is zoned for rural agriculture, a category that prohibits a commercial kitchen on the property. If the truck shows up only twice a month, is it really a restaurant? What kind of license would it need?

Luhowiak was nearly ready to give up his truck. Then last month Local SixFortySeven was named one of four finalists in the "Good Morning America" search for the best American food truck. The Luhowiaks lost to Marination, a Seattle truck that serves Korean-Hawaiian fusion food. But the national recognition changed their minds, at least for now. The couple is working with county regulators to find profitable and legal locations for next season. They also are considering a bricks-and-mortar restaurant in Rappahannock County.

For street carts to be successful, clear rules are needed, said chef Charles Phan. Fourteen years ago, Phan tried, and failed, to navigate the tricky permit system and open a Vietnamese food truck in Oakland, Calif. Instead, he opened the Slanted Door, which today is one of San Francisco's most popular restaurants. "Right now, it's a cat-and-mouse game. I don't think it should be a free-for-all," he said. "Someone might get sick. Someone might create a fire hazard by blocking parts of the street."

Instead, Phan said, food trucks and property owners should work together. A truck might arrange to park in front of an office that would provide electricity and water in exchange for the convenience of a new food outlet for employees. Phan said he is in talks with San Francisco city officials about turning empty lots into street-food hubs similar to the popular Singapore hawker centers.

Others say that mobility is essential and that the rules should accommodate the new fad. Nicolas Jammet, co-founder of Washington's Sweetgreen salad and frozen yogurt chain, says his Sweetflow Mobile, which debuted in June, helps the company develop a following and test new markets. For example, Sweetgreen recently has been sending the truck to Reston Town Center, where it plans to open its next location.

"I'm all for making sure it doesn't get out of hand," he said. "Right now it's mayhem. If this food truck thing blows up even more, it could get really messy."

Correction to This Article
The article incorrectly said that the mobile restaurant Local SixFortySeven opened on April 21, Earth Day. Earth Day was April 22, and Local SixFortySeven opened that day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120100847.html