Bayer Modified Rice Trial Jury Told of Crop Mystery

ST. LOUIS, Mo.-(Bloomberg)--A Bayer CropScience executive who oversaw tests of genetically modified rice told jurors about the discovery of one variety of the grain where another was thought to have been planted five years before it was learned that U.S. crops had been tainted.

Dr. Kirk Johnson described the surprise appearance of the rice strain in a videotaped deposition played today for the federal court jury on the second day of a trial in which two Missouri farmers seek compensation for the company’s alleged negligence.

The farmers, and more than 1,000 others, sued the company and its corporate parent, Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer AG, alleging that mismanagement of the testing program allowed the rice to contaminate crops in Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry in St. Louis is the first of a series of bellwether cases intended to allow each side to assess the strength of their positions for possible settlement negotiations.

Asked if the detection of one strain of rice approved for human consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration meant that a then-unapproved strain was planted elsewhere, Bayer’s Johnson said, “No.”

“If there was a flip-flop, we would have saw that flip- flop in the other location,” Johnson said. He said he wasn’t certain why a small quantity of the unexpected strain was found growing among other Bayer test plantings.

Appropriately Cautious

Bayer’s lead defense lawyer, Mark Ferguson, told jurors in his opening statement yesterday that the company had been appropriately cautious in its handling of the modified seeds.

The U.S. Agriculture Department, in August 2006, said the rice, engineered to survive being sprayed with Bayer’s Liberty- brand herbicide, was found in commercial rice stores.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing the long-grain variety of the rice. Within four days of the USDA announcement, a decline in rice futures cost U.S. growers about $150 million, according to a consolidated complaint filed by the farmers.

Exports also fell, the growers said, as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas markets slowed for testing or stopped their imports of the U.S.-grown long-grain rice.

‘Regrets This Happened’

“Everyone at Bayer regrets that this happened. Farmers are Bayer’s customers,” Ferguson told jurors during his opening remarks. “The one thing that they were trying to avoid, happened.”

The Bayer unit said biotech rice, called LibertyLink, posed no food safety issues.

During his two days of deposition testimony, which was edited for presentation to the jury, Johnson also told about his prior experience working as a rice breeder for the St. Louis beer brewer now known as Anheuser Busch InBev NV.

Johnson told attorneys questioning him that he was at times frustrated with the administration of the Bayer genetically modified rice testing program by Louisiana State University agronomist Dr. Steven Linscombe.

Linscombe, who was in charge of the on-site testing at LSU’s Crowley, Louisiana, testing site, “did not fully follow” protocols for breeding of the rice and once allowed genetically engineered samples to be shipped without papers required by the USDA, Johnson said.

Work Continued

Still, Johnson said, Bayer CropScience continued to work with Linscombe and relied on his expertise.

In a telephone interview today, the LSU scientist rejected the assertion he had been incautious with the Bayer test materials.

“We did everything that was called for” in standards set by the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, he said. “Our whole business is to be careful in handling seeds.

Linscombe also said Bayer asked him to send one shipment to a private research facility about 40 minutes away, which sent the rice out of state. “I was not aware that rice was being shipped out of state. I did not ship it out of state,” he said.

The rice strain’s later appearance at private farms “had nothing to do with paperwork or rice shipped out of state without a label,” he said.

Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey today declined to comment on the LSU scientist’s role, if any, in the spread of its genetically modified rice.

Linscombe has also given videotaped deposition testimony which may be shown to the jury later in the trial, Ferguson said outside court.

The trial may last until early December, Perry has said.

The case is In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, 06- md-01811, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).

House Republicans Want More Ag Committee Hearings on Climate Change Legislation

WASHINGTON-(Farm Futures)--The Senate Finance Committee resumed discussion of climate change legislation Tuesday. The day's topic was the allocation of emissions allowances under a proposed cap and trade tax system. In his opening statement Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reminded members that the Congressional Budget Office has made clear that these allowances hold value and therefore represent federal revenues.

Some say there will be no net cost to the American people because the federal government is creating a commodity that holds value and can be sold to recoup the costs or even make money. According to Grassley this makes it sound as though we've stumbled upon the economic equivalent of the mythical philosopher's stone that can turn lead into gold. He was quick to point out there is no such thing as a free lunch and the government cannot create wealth through regulation.

Grassley cautioned this is not free money, rather he says it is a national energy tax on all Americans, one that will exacerbate the negative impact of other taxes on economic growth and jobs. The challenge, according to Grassley, is to mitigate as much as possible those painful effects on the American people.

Meanwhile in the House, 18 Ag Committee Republicans sent a letter to Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., requesting additional hearings on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The legislation received a favorable House vote on June 26, but the 18 Republicans want it reviewed. In their letter they state the Speaker's accelerated schedule did not give the Committee sufficient time to properly consider the complex proposal.

The letter continues that there are a number of different analyses on cap and trade that show reductions in farm income reaching all the way up to 94% by 2035. And it is being reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is projecting this legislation would take 56 million crop acres out of production due to forestation. The Representatives believe as new information about H.R. 2454 continues to become available this legislation continues to warrant the Ag Committee's consideration as it will have far reaching effects on the agriculture community for generations to come.

VIDEO: Former U.S. Ag Secretary John Block Weighs in on Cuba Trade Policy

Secretary John Block on Cuba Policy @ Yahoo! Video

VIDEO: AFBF President Bob Stallman Testifies Before Senate Committee

AFBF President Bob Stallman said that the House-passed climate legislation will have little to no impact on global temperatures.

AUDIO: U.S. Ag Secretary Speaks on Climate Control Legislation

WASHINGTON-(AgWatch)--U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack says the offsets of the climate change legislation will outweigh the negatives and benefit ag producers.




Vilsack says he sees three basic purposes of the climate control legislation.

AUDIO: U.S. Ag Secretary Addresses Rural Issues, '08 Farm Bill

JONESBORO, Ark.-(AgWatch)--U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack was in Harrodsburg, Ky. this week addressing USDA's plans to help revitalize Kentucky's rural economy and infrastructure. AgWatch Network's Rick Crawford had a chance to discuss these rural issues with Vilsack along with some of the controversy surrounding the 2008 Farm Bill.

Political Environment Clouds Climate Legislation

JONESBORO, Ark.-(AgWatch)--This week on our homepage, we ran two separate stories on soybeans and global warming. The first of the two ran in STL Today with the headline, "Global Warming Policies Make It Harder on Soybean Farmers".

This article said many soybean growers have concerns toward the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. One of the article's main sources, Joe Jobe of the National Biodiesel Board, said "They're (EPA) trying to hold us accountable in the United States not only for our own carbon dioxide emissions, but for hypothetical international emissions decades into the future, based on decisions by millions of people around the world. It's extraordinary."

The second article, posted on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's homepage, had the headline, "Ozone Damage Hurts Soybean Yields". In this article, NASA claims its scientists have data that proves global warming costs U.S. soybean growers $2 billion annually.

This article's lead source, Elizabeth Ainsworth, a professor of crop biology at the University of Illinois, was quoted as saying, "Yields across the country are lower than they otherwise would be. We are losing a very significant chunk of the potential yield."

Now, I fully support maximizing crop yields and certainly do not buy into conspiracy theories, but I find it odd that scientists have released this data during the debate over climate legislation.

It seems as if the study's supporters want to say, "You might as well back our regulations because you'll end up losing your crop if you don't."

Still, I find it ironic and almost funny this study comes out when soybean yields are near record highs. In 2008, the average soybean producer harvested 39.6 bu./acre. That figure certainly falls below 2005's 43.0 bu./acre, but it shines when compared with previous decades.

For example, between 1983-2000, only one year (1994's 41.4 bu./acre) had a yield that surpassed or even matched 2008. In fact, the average yield didn't pass 35 bu./acre until 1992.

This data suggests the climate legislation's supporting studies have a politically motivated basis. They may or may not have a scientific backbone and should be reviewed and critiqued carefully before arriving at any conclusions.

Let me know what any of you think!