Corporate Concentration in Food, Agriculture, Drug, & Biotech Sectors

From <www.etcgroup.org>

FYI, a list of Corporate Concentration in Food, Beverage, Agrochemical, Life
Science and Pharmaceutical industries.
Michael
*********************************

Oligopoly, Inc. Concentration in Corporate Power: 2003 Type: Communique
Date: December 5, 2003
Download the PDF (242 kb)
Issue: Over half of the world's 100 largest economic entities are
transnational corporations (TNCs), not nations (see page 14).[1] TNCs have
unprecedented power to shape social, economic and trade policies. Corporate
hegemony is usurping the role and responsibilities of national governments,
threatening democracy and human rights. Over the past two decades ETC Group
(formerly as RAFI) has monitored corporate power and trends in the ³life
sciences.² Consolidation, technological convergence and non-merger corporate
alliances are among the trends examined in this issue of ETC Communiqué.

*

PHARMA: The top 10 companies control an estimated 53% market share of the
world's leading 118 drug firms, p. 3.
*

BIOTECH & GENOMICS: The top 10 firms account for 54% of the biotech sectors'
$42,000 million ($42 billion) revenues, p. 3. (All currency in US$ dollars.)
*

ANIMAL PHARMA: The top 10 companies control 62% of the $13,400 million world
market, p. 5.
*

SEEDS: The top 10 companies control one-third of the $23,300 million
commercial seed market, p. 6.
*

PESTICIDES: The top 10 firms control 80% of the $27,800 million global
pesticide market, p. 9.
*

FOOD RETAIL: The top 10 control 57% of the total sales of the world's
leading 30 food retailers, p. 9.
*

FOOD & BEVERAGE PROCESSING: The top 10 companies account for 37% of the
revenues earned by the world's top 100 food and beverage companies; the top
20 account for 53% of the top 100's total, p. 10.
*

NANOTECH: Public & private sector investment in nanotechnology is an
estimated $5,000-$6,000 million per annum, p. 10.

Impact: Over the past two years, high-profile corporate crimes (e.g., Enron,
WorldCom, Tyco International) have brought to light outrageous examples of
systemic fraud, corruption and greed. The corruption is so widespread that
The Washington Post offers an on-line photo gallery called ³Corporations
Gone Awry² where viewers can see business-suited CEOs on their way to court,
or to jail.[2] In the absence of challenges to corporate hegemony, however,
reform of corporate governance is focused on individual ³bad guys² and
meaningful reform remains a distant mirage. Transnational firms continue to
overwhelm governments and subvert national sovereignty. When governments
serve corporate interests rather than the interests of citizens, democracy
is undermined, diversity is destroyed and human rights are jeopardized.

Players: This Communiqué provides a sector-by-sector analysis of the life
sciences industry, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, genomics, seeds
and agrochemicals. Moving higher up the food chain, we also examine the
world's largest food & beverage processors and the mega-grocery retailers.
This year ETC Group expands its analysis to include nanotechnology, the
newest sector of the life sciences industry.

Policy/Fora: Corporate consolidation and converging technologies are driving
economic, social and political issues that range far beyond the borders of
any single country. The international community through the United Nations
must have the capacity to monitor and regulate corporate governance.
Beyond governance, the international community must create the capacity to
track, evaluate and accept or reject new technologies and their products
through an International Convention on the Evaluation of New Technologies
(ICENT).

Consolidation, Convergence and Cooperation: For the past two decades ETC
Group (as RAFI until mid-2001) has monitored trends in corporate power and
the so-called life sciences industry. In earlier reports we noted that it is
increasingly difficult to distinguish between industry sectors. Today, the
boundaries between seeds and agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, genomics and
biotech continue to blur.

After decades of mergers and acquisitions, extraordinarily powerful
corporations are using new tools to expand geographically and to reinforce
oligopolistic control of markets. In a world where a handful of global
technopolies dominate, patents become less relevant because other tools of
monopoly are cheaper and more far-reaching. Some corporations are eschewing
the merger and acquisition strategy in favor of alliances and ³non-merger
mergers.² As one industry analyst notes: ³Cooperation is becoming as common
as competition among the industry's leading corporations.²[3] In other
words, it can be far more profitable for companies to cross-license
technologies and bury the patent-litigation hatchet in order to create
³global technology cartels² that operate below the radar screen of
anti-trust regulators.[4]

Today we are witnessing not only corporate convergence, but also
technological convergence. In the 1990s, for example, the Gene Giants
combined molecular biology and information technologies to create a new
platform for developing drugs, agrochemicals, plant breeding, food and more
based on genomics research. Today, within the field of nanotechnology, the
quest to integrate science and technology is taking a giant step down from
genomes to atoms.

Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter at the level of atoms
and molecules, the building blocks of the entire natural world. Whereas
biotechnology gave us the tools to break the species barrier (to transfer
DNA to and from unrelated organisms), nanotechnology enables scientists to
shatter the barrier between living and non-living. At the nanoscale the same
atoms can be rearranged to construct a gene (the basic unit of genetic code)
or to construct a bit (the basic unit of digital information) or to
construct a neuron (the basic unit of brain function). Because of this
³material unity at the nano-scale,² the investment in nanotech R&D is not
limited to life industry players and nanotech is attracting more public
funding than any single area of technology.[5] Nanotech blurs the boundaries
between all industry sectors. The world's largest companies from military,
mining and manufact! uring to energy and electronics, to food processing and
chemicals are all major players. (See chart, ³Multinational Matter Moguls²
on p. 12.)

*

Today, transnational corporations often have revenues far exceeding the
total GDP of the countries where they do business. Fifty-one of the world's
100 largest economic entities are transnational corporations. Of the world's
50 largest economies, 14 are corporations (28%). Last year Wal-Mart broke
into the world's top 20 economic entities, a hair behind Belgium, but well
ahead of Sweden. The Home Depot, a hardware and building-supply retail
store, is a bigger economic entity than New Zealand. Of the oil-rich
countries in the Middle East, only Saudi Arabia and Iran made it into the
top 100, but six oil companies appear on the list.
*

Combined sales of the world's 200 largest corporations accounted for 29% of
world economic activity in 2002, but the top 200 corporations provide only a
tiny fraction of the world's jobs.[6] In 2002, the top 200 multinational
firms employed less than 1% (0.9%) of the world's workforce.[7] Combined
sales of the world's top 500 corporations in 2002 were equivalent to 43% of
the world's GDP.[8] These companies collectively employed only 1.6% of the
world's workforce.[9]

Trends in corporate concentration are mirrored by growing disparities
between rich and poor, both within and between OECD nations and the South.

*

Though not an adequate measure of poverty, more than 1.2 billion people‹one
in every five on Earth‹survive on less than $1 a day.[10]
*

Overseas Development Assistance (foreign aid to poor nations) totals
approximately $50,000 million per year worldwide. By contrast, global
military expenditures in 2002 were estimated to be at least $700,000
million.[11]
*

OECD countries provide more than $300,000 million in agricultural subsidies
each year. Subsidies to the US cotton industry equal more than triple the
amount of US government aid to sub-Saharan Africa.[12]
*

At the end of 2002, the number of jobless people in the formal sector
worldwide reached a record high of 180 million, and the situation is
³deteriorating dramatically,² warned Juan Somavia, the Director-General of
the International Labour Organization.[13] The ILO's unemployment statistics
do not include the informal sector and the ³working poor² who live on $1 or
less a day (again, a less than perfect measurement of poverty).

Pharmaceutical Industry

World's Top 10 Pharmaceutical Corporations
Company
2002 Pharma

Sales

US$ millions
% of global pharma
market share
Pharma profit margin
1.Pfizer/Pharmacia (pro forma)
$42,281
12%
46%

(Pfizer only)
2.GlaxoSmithKline
$26,979
8%
29%
3. Merck & Co.
$21,631
6%
47%
4. AstraZeneca
$17,841
5%
22%
5. Johnson & Johnson
$17,151
5%
34%
6. Aventis
$15,705
5%
19%
7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
$14,705
4%
16%
8. Novartis
$13,497
4%
29%
9. F Hoffman-La Roche
$12,630
4%
19%
10. Wyeth
$12,387
4%
28%

Source: ETC Group, based on Scrip's Pharmaceutical League Table 2003.

*

According to Scrip's Pharmaceutical League Table, the world's leading 118
pharmaceutical corporations had combined sales of $342,289 million in
2002.[14] The top 10 companies account for 53% of global drug sales.
*

The top 20 companies account for over 75% of all pharmaceutical sales.
*

The pharma profit margin (calculated as net earnings divided by revenues)
for the top 10 companies in 2002 averages 29%.

Drug Industry Trends:

*

Concentration
*

Patent Expiration Panic

³P² is for Pill Power: Pfizer and Pharmacia officially merged in April 2003,
creating the world's largest drug company.[15] The combined operations give
Pfizer 12% of the world market 50% more than its closest rival
re-shaping the competitive playing field for big pharma. Industry analysts
predict that the Pfizer/Pharmacia merger will spark a new round of industry
consolidation with GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, suddenly a distant number
two and number three, scrambling for new acquisitions. Contrary to
conventional wisdom, one analysis of drug industry mergers suggests that
bigger is not better for the bottom line. According to Datamonitor, no
company has thus far improved return on investment in sales and marketing or
R&D by increasing size.[16]

³The pharmaceutical industry's productivity continues to be dismal,² claimed
Chemical & Engineering News recently.[17] Even with advances in
combinatorial chemistry and more sophisticated gene-sequencing technologies,
the blockbuster-drug pipeline remains sluggish.[18] Patent expiration and
competition from generic drugs are major worries for pharma giants, but loom
especially large during the present drug-discovery drought. Twenty-three of
the world's top drugs are coming off patent by 2008, which will amount to
losses of $46,000 million dollars in annual revenue.[19] As a result,
pharmaceutical companies have been clambering to find ways to extend patent
protection on top-selling drugs. One low-cost strategy is to claim
effectiveness for infants and children, which can buy six extra months of
pa! tent protection.[20] Another route to extended patent protection is to
reduce the ingredients of an existing drug to the nano-scale and claim
increased solubility and bioavailability (see Nanotechnology section
below).[21]

Biotechnology and Genomics

World's Top 10 Biotech Companies
Company
2002 Sales

$US millions
1. Amgen
$5,523
2. Genentech
$2,212
3. Amersham
$2,305
4. Serono
$1,546
5. Genzyme
$1,329
6. Chiron
$1,276
7. Biogen
$1,148
8. MedImmune
$848
9. Invitrogen
$649
10. Cephalon
$507

Source: Scrip's 2003 Pharmaceutical Company League Tables[22]

Biotech Industry Trends:

*

Concentration
*

Militarization of R&D

The biotechnology field is inhabited by a few elephants and a dwindling
number of ants. As one industry survey puts it, ³the ranks are thinning and
profits are shrinking.²[23]

Nature Biotechnology's survey of 416 publicly-traded biotech firms shows
combined 2002 biotech revenues of $41,782 million.[24] The top 10 biotech
companies accounted for 54% of the combined biotech revenues.[25] On the
whole, the biotech sector in 2002 was hemorrhaging red ink, with losses
totaling over $15,000 million for all publicly-traded biotech companies
combined.[26]

Nature Biotechnology's survey of 416 publicly-traded biotech companies
summarizes the industry's 2002 performance:

*

The biotech industry as a whole was unprofitable; the size of the
industry-wide loss tripled in 2002.
*

Worldwide, only 13 biotech companies went public in 2002. (By contrast, in
2000, there were at least 70 biotech initial public offerings [IPOs]).[27]
More IPOs were withdrawn than completed last year.
*

70% of the 416 public biotech companies are US-based.
*

In 2002, European biotech companies saw a downturn in total revenues for the
first time.
*

24 companies were forced out of business since the 2001 survey and there
were five biotech mergers in 2002.
*

There are more biotech products in the pipeline than ever before 370 are
in clinical trials or awaiting regulatory approval.

Industry analysts are optimistic that biotech's outlook is brightening in
2003. Biotech companies (public and private) raised nearly $11,800 million
in new funds in the first three-quarters of the year with prospects that
2003 will turn out to be the second-best fund-raising year ever.[28]

Warbucks: Militarization is also boosting the US biotech industry. George W.
Bush's 2003 budget, for example, included $5,900 million to fight biological
terrorism and approximately $6,000 million will be spent over the next ten
years on the purchase of drugs or vaccines for smallpox, anthrax, botulinum
toxin and other pathogens that could be made into biological weapons.[29]

Biotech's Billion Dollar Best Sellers:

Genetically Modified Drug Products 2002
Product/Company
2002 sales $US millions
Therapeutic use
Procrit/Johnson & Johnson
$4,269
Red blood cell stimulant
Intron-A/Schering-Plough
$2,736
Hepatitis B & C
Epogen/Amgen
$2,300
Kidney failure
Neupogen/Amgen
$1,400
Treat infection in cancer patients
Remicade/Johnson & Johnson (Centocor)
$1,297
Rheumatoid arthritis
Rituxan/Genentech
$1,163
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Avonex/Biogen
$1,034
Multiple Sclerosis
Humulin/Eli Lilly
$1,004
Diabetes

Source: ETC Group, based on sales figures compiled by Signals Magazine,
www.signalsmag.com

Genomics: Speed-Reading Genes From Microbes to Plants, People to Poodles:

Over the past decade, the automation of gene sequencing, new algorithms and
super-computers have drastically reduced the time and money needed for
sequencing the entire genomes of plants, animals, microorganisms and people.
Consider the following examples:

*

It took 12 years and over 250 people to complete the publicly-funded effort
to sequence the Escherichia coli bacterium genome from start to finish. By
contrast, a genomics subsidiary of CuraGen announced in September 2003 that
it had used a novel method to sequence a whole viral genome in under two
hours.[30]

³Any genome center can do a virus, but not in one hour 45 minutes!²
Richard Begley, CEO of 454 Life Sciences, quoted in Bio-IT World, October
2003, p. 20.

*

In 1998, scientists decoded the first animal genome, a nematode worm, with
over 100 million base pairs. The project took over eight years to complete.
In September 2003, Dr. J. Craig Venter of the Center for Advancement of
Genomics announced that researchers had deciphered a rough draft of his
dog's 2.4 billion genetic letters in only a few months. (That Venter would
sequence his own poodle's genes came as little surprise. While at Celera
Genomics, Venter led a commercial venture to decode the human genome using
the DNA of an anonymous donor; he later revealed that it was his own DNA
that was sequenced. It turns out that Venter and his dog have a lot in
common there are dog-gene matches for three-quarters of known human
genes.)[31]
*

It took the publicly-funded Human Genome Project 10 years and $2,700 million
to sequence the 3.12 billion letters of our own genetic code. In October
2003, Affymetrix announced that it is accepting orders for its ³human genome
on a chip² that will cost around $500 each.[32] About the size of a
thumbnail, the whole genome chip will allow scientists to ³speed-read² all
30,000 or so genes in a human tissue sample to determine which genes are
active.

The ultimate goal, of course, is gene-guided drug development, or what the
pharma industry calls ³personalized medicine.² Most drugs available today
have only a 30-40% chance of being effective for a particular patient.
Genetically targeted medicines would, in theory, avert allergic or other
adverse reactions the bane of the pharmaceutical industry.[33] The ability
to scan thousands of human genes and instantly pinpoint DNA variations that
render people genetically different or genetically susceptible to disease
could become a genomics industry goldmine.

Animal Pharmaceutical Industry

Top 10 Animal Pharmaceutical Companies
Company
2002 sales ($US million)
1. Pfizer/Pharmacia (pro forma)
$1,625
2. Merial (joint venture Aventis & Merck)
$1,501
3. Intervet
$1,020
4. Bayer
$802
5. Elanco
$693
6. Schering-Plough
$677
7. Fort Dodge
$653
8. Novartis
$622
9. Virbac
$347
10. Alpharma
$322

Source: ETC Group, based on data from Animal Pharm Research

Trends in Animal Pharmaceutical Industry:

*

Crossover Products
*

Increased Pressure to Reduce Antibiotic Use in Factory Farming
*

Cloning and Glowing Coming to Market?

In 2002, the total ³animal health² market was $13,400 million, including
pharmaceuticals, biologicals, and medicated feed additives.[34] The top ten
companies control 62% of the total worldwide market.

Crossover Products Adapting Human Pharma and Agrochemical Products for
Pets: Over the past decade the dynamic growth sector in the animal
pharmaceutical market was not health care for livestock, but for pets or
³companion animals.² Americans spend over $6,000 million a year on
veterinary bills, and in the US and the UK, household pets account for over
half the total animal health market.[35]

Most of the leading animal veterinary companies are subsidiaries of
pharmaceutical or pesticide firms. To avoid long and costly R&D efforts,
these companies are taking existing products they've developed for humans
and are adapting them for pets.[36] For example, Novartis markets an
antidepressant developed for obsessive-compulsive disorder in humans, which
it now sells under the brand name Clomicalm to treat ³canine separation
anxiety.² (Novartis Animal Health estimates that about seven million dogs in
the US suffer one or more signs of separation anxiety!) Pfizer markets a
drug to treat symptoms of Parkinson's disease in humans; under a different
brand name, the product is being used to treat cognitive dysfunction
syndrome (and other geriatric behaviour problems) in dogs. There's more to
come, including research on a product to treat incontinence in cats and
³thunder phobia² in dogs. One anim! al health researcher told The Scientist,
³With this new attitude toward animals as family members rather than
utilitarian chattels, people will spend more money on them. And now that
there is a recognition of the magnitude of the behavioral problem,
veterinarians are going to want solutions.²[37]

Anti-Antibiotics: Campaigns led by public health and sustainable farming
activists are altering factory farm livestock production and the future sale
of some drug products for animals. There is mounting concern that over-use
of antibiotics in animal agriculture will accelerate the onset of antibiotic
resistant disease in humans. For example:

*

In March 2002 the EU food safety commissioner recommended phasing out all
antibiotics used as growth promoters in livestock by 2006.
*

In June 2003 in response to a civil society campaign,[38] McDonald's
announced that it would require some of its meat suppliers to restrict the
routine use of antibiotics important for human health that are now used to
promote growth production in livestock.
*

In July 2003 two bills were introduced in the US Congress to phase out the
use of medically important antibiotics in agriculture.

The Animal Health Institute, an industry trade association, insists that
decisions to curtail the use of antibiotics are not based on sound
science.[39]

Double Cheeseburger? In the last week of October 2003, the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a draft report, ³Animal Cloning: A Risk
Assessment,² concluding that ³food products derived from animal clones are
likely to be as safe as corresponding products from non-clones, or as safe
as foods that we eat every day.²[40] An advisory committee to the FDA (the
Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee [VMAC]) meeting in early November,
however, concluded that more data are needed. The FDA expects to reach its
final conclusions and will possibly lift the voluntary moratorium on the
sale of cloned animal food products if no food safety risk is found by
mid-2004.[41] With conservative estimates that the semen from one cloned
prize bull could be worth well over $1 million per annum, clone producers
are ³thrilled² by the FDA's draft risk assessment.[42]

Meanwhile, on January 5, 2004, a genetically modified (GM) animal is
scheduled to go on sale in the USA for the first time. Scientists inserted a
gene from the sea anemone into eggs of zebra fish to produce the
vibrantly-colored GloFish. Alan Blake, the CEO of Texas-based Yorktown
Technologies, the company that holds the exclusive US rights to the patented
technology, said the company had consulted with the US FDA, the Department
of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service. None of the agencies expressed ³any regulatory
concerns with an ornamental fluorescent zebra fish.²[43] When genetically
modified animals meet food derived from animal clones, nouvelle cuisine will
get a whole lot newer.

Seed Industry

World's Top 10 (+1) Seed Corporations
Company
2002 Seed

Sales

US millions
1. Dupont (Pioneer) US
$2,000
2. Monsanto (US)
$1,600
3. Syngenta (Switzerland)
$937[44]
4. Seminis[45] (US)
$453[46]
5. Advanta (Netherlands)
$435[47]
6. Groupe Limagrain (Vilmorin Clause) France
$433[48]
7. KWS AG (Germany)
$391[49]
8. Sakata (Japan)
$376[50]
9. Delta & Pine Land (US)
$258[51]
10. Bayer Crop Science (Germany)
$ 250[52]
11. Dow (US)
$200[53]

Source: ETC Group

Seed Industry Trends:

*

Concentration in Market Share
*

Non-Merger Mergers
*

Transgenic Transformation
*

Risky Business

Consolidation: The top 10 firms accounted for combined seed revenues of over
$7,000 million dollars in 2002, or almost one-third (31%) of the world's
commercial seed sales, valued at approximately $23,000 million.[54]

But the global picture obscures a much stronger market concentration in
specific segments. After several decades of voracious mergers and
acquisitions, the crop dust is settling and a handful of companies now hold
a shocking percentage of the total world seed supply, especially in the
commercial sectors of maize and soybeans among the world's largest food
crops.

Corn Kings: According to Monsanto, four companies control over
three-quarters of the world's commercial maize seed market, excluding China.
Seven companies control 86% of commercial maize germplasm worldwide.[55]

Bean Behemoths: Four companies control 49% of commercial soya market
worldwide, excluding China.[56]

Non-Merger Mergers: In April 2002 the world's two largest seed corporations,
DuPont and Monsanto, announced that they would agree to swap their key
patented agricultural technologies and drop all outstanding patent lawsuits.
The deal gives both Gene Giants cross-licenses to technologies for maize,
canola and soybean crops, and mutual access to key gene transformation
technologies and proprietary germplasm. The companies claim that the
non-merger liaison will be a ³win for farmers² and give them more technology
choices.[57] The creation of ³global technology cartels² that run below the
radar screens of anti-trust regulators is likely to mean that farmers will
have less choice, and less innovation for the same or higher prices.[58]
Monsanto has since brokered similar deals with Dow Agrosciences (October
2002) and, more recen! tly, with Bayer CropScience (October 2003).

Transgenic Transformation: DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow
currently derive sales from the biotechnology market worth approximately
$3,000 million in 2001, according to Phillips McDougall AgriService.[59]
Despite public opposition and worldwide controversy over GM seeds, the Gene
Giants are using marketing muscle and biotech-friendly US trade negotiators
to penetrate new markets. A major domino toppled (at least temporarily) in
September 2003 when Brazil's president Lula da Silva overruled popular
opposition to GM crops and legalized the planting of transgenic soybeans
(Lula's decision is being legally challenged in Brazil.) The world's second
largest soybean producer, Brazil represents a vast potential market for
Monsanto, because the company holds an exclusive monopoly on all GM soy
technologies.

Given the level of concentration in major commercial seed markets, farmers
in the three countries where GM crops are widely grown (US, Argentina and
Canada) are already facing fewer non-GM choices for maize and soybeans.

The Gene Giants are continuing to shift their focus from conventional seeds
and pesticides to the faster growing GM seeds and biotech traits market.
According to Chemical Market Reporter, ³aggregate growth of crop protection
chemicals as well as conventional seeds is declining at 2 percent while the
biotech seed and traits sector is growing at 16 percent.²[60] To be clear,
the Gene Giants are not forsaking pesticides for greener pastures, they are
pursuing the more profitable breeding strategy of developing genetically
modified crop varieties that require or depend on the company's chemical. In
others words, GM seeds are engineered to reinforce the sale of proprietary
chemical products. This is the lucrative model pioneered by Monsanto's
RoundUp Ready gene and blockbuster weedkiller RoundUp. The company's trait
for RoundUp tolerance is now grown on over 40 million hectares worldwide
and Monsan! to collects royalties or technology fees on every single seed
(or sues until they do!).

A new study prepared by the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy
Center concludes that the planting of commercial GM crops in the US over an
eight year period (1996-2003) has increased pesticide use by about 50
million pounds, primarily due to increases in the use of chemical
weedkillers sprayed on herbicide tolerant soybeans.[61] The study concludes
that many farmers are spraying incrementally more herbicides on GM soybeans
in order to manage tougher-to-control weed species and the emergence of
resistance in some weed populations.[62]

A handful of multinational firms are engineering a transformation of the
world's seed supply a shift that is well underway. Consider the following
trends at the top three firms:

Dupont (Pioneer), the world's largest seed corporation and the first ever to
top $2,000 million in annual seed sales, does not distinguish between GM
seed sales and sales of conventional varieties in its financial reporting.
But a glance at the company's newest offerings (for the US market) reveals a
steady shift to GM seeds for the company's flagship crops, maize and soya:

*

Dupont released 43 new corn hybrids for the 2003 growing season; 28 of those
new hybrids (or 65% of the total) are genetically modified (insect and/or
herbicide resistance).
*

Dupont released 23 new soybean varieties for the 2003 growing season. Of
those new varieties, 19 (or 82% of the total) had a biotech trait (herbicide
resistance).

Monsanto will allocate 80 percent of its R&D budget for biotech and seeds
this year, and only 20 percent to agrochemicals.[63] CEO Hugh Grant
announced in September 2003 that Monsanto will earn, for the first time
ever, more money from biotech traits and seeds than from sales of RoundUp.
Considering that Monsanto held virtually no interests in seeds before 1996,
this is a dramatic shift from agrochemicals to crop genetics.

Syngenta, the world's third ranking seed firm, allocated $170 million of its
R&D dollars (or 32% of the total) to biotech research in 2002, compared to
$527 million in R&D for agrochemicals.[64] In 2002, Syngenta's sales of
genetically modified seeds accounted for 17% of total seed sales
approximately $160 million.[65]

Risky Business: The Gene Giants are putting more and more of plant breeding
efforts in the biotech basket. Given the opposition and uncertainties
plaguing GM markets worldwide, biotech remains a risky business. The
industry's strategy, of course, is to hold out long enough to develop a
third generation of biotech products that will offer real or perceived
benefits to consumers the key ingredient missing in the first and second
generation of GM products.[66] Among the trends confronting the beleaguered
agbiotech business:

Traveling Transgenes: The Achilles Heel of agbiotech is unwanted gene flow.
Neither the Gene Giants nor government regulators have been able to control
or contain gene flow from GM crops to neighboring plants or related wild
species. GM crop contamination is becoming increasingly widespread even in
regions where it is illegal to grow GM crops and the consequences for
farmers, biodiversity and the environment are largely unknown.[67]

Industry jaw-boning on the future benefits of Generation 3 products was
abruptly silenced late last year when the US Department of Agriculture
announced that 500,000 bushels of soybeans destined for human consumption
had been quarantined due to contamination by maize genetically engineered to
produce a vaccine to control diarrhea in pigs. The obvious concern is that
crops now being engineered to produce drugs, contraceptive gels, industrial
chemicals or plastics will accidentally enter the food supply. The company
growing the experimental pharma crop, Prodigene, was eventually fined over
$3 million. But the incident continues to undermine confidence in the entire
biotech industry. A representative of the Grocery Manufacturers of America,
a trade group for the powerful food retailers, told the New York Times, ³The
incident over all just reaffirms our concerns.² Ten US food industry groups
are asking the US government to halt ³bio-pharm² cro! ps until stricter
regulations can be put in place to prevent accidental contamination of other
crops or the food supply.

Not surprisingly, a recent survey of five major insurance companies in the
United Kingdom found that none would be willing to cover farmers growing GM
crops for potential liability resulting from GM contamination of neighboring
fields.[68] The insurers were also unwilling to insure farmers growing
non-GM crops when GM material finds its way in their fields. The companies
surveyed said that too little was known about GM crops' long-term effects on
health and the environment.

As if to underscore the high-risks of agbiotech, Monsanto made a surprise
announcement in mid-October 2003 that it is pulling out of the European
cereal business, and will abandon efforts to produce pharmaceuticals in GM
crops.[69]

Source: ETC Group, based on data provided by Agrow World Crop Protection
News

Agrochemical Industry

World's Top 10 Agrochemical Firms
Company
2002 Agchem

Sales

US millions
1. Syngenta (Switzerland)
$5,260
2. Bayer (Germany)
$3,775
3. Monsanto (US)
$3,088
4. BASF (Germany)
$2,787
5. Dow (US)
$2,717
6. DuPont (US)
$1,793
7. Sumitomo Chemical (Japan)
$802
8. Makhteshim-Agan (Israel)
$776
9. Arysta LifeScience (Japan)
$662
10. FMC (US)
$615

Source: Agrow World Crop Protection News[70]

*

The global agrochemical market in 2002 was $27,800 million.[71]
*

The top 6 pesticide firms accounted for 70% of the global market, and the
top 10 control 80% of global agrochemical sales. Bayer's acquisition of
Aventis CropScience saw the leading group of seven agrochemical firms
dwindle to six. Bayer leaped from sixth to second place, behind Syngenta.

Global agrochemical sales continued to decline in 2002, falling 1.5%
compared to a 4.1% decline in 2001. Industry analysts blame sagging sales on
poor weather, competitive pricing and greater emphasis on genetically
modified traits (see discussion under seed industry trends).

Food Retail Industry

Top 10 Global Food Retailers
Company
2002 Sales

US millions
1. Wal-Mart (US)
$246,525
2. Carrefour (France)
$64,979
3. Royal Ahold (Netherlands)
$59,455
4. Kroger (US)
$51,759
5. Metro AG (Germany)
$48,714
6. Tesco (UK)
$40,387
7. Costco (US)
$38,762
8. Albertson's (US)
$35,916
9. Safeway (US)
$34,799
10. Ito-Yokado (Japan)
$27,606

Source: ETC Group, based on data provided by IGD

Grocery retailers are solidly on top of the global Food-Chain-Gang, dwarfing
even the food and beverage processors in revenues and market power.

Global Food Retailing Trends:

*

Concentration
*

³Wal-Martization² of the World

The combined revenues of the world's top 30 food retailers exceeded $1
trillion in 2001, according to IGD.[72] The top 10 grocery retailers account
for 57% of the combined revenues for the world's top 30 food retailers.
Wal-Mart alone accounted for 21%.

Store Wars: Wal-Mart is the world's largest industrial corporation and the
world's largest food retailer. (Its revenues reflect total sales of all
products, not just food.) Wal-Mart started selling food in 1988; today it is
the world's biggest grocer, with $50,000 million in food sales in the US
alone. Its revenues are nearly four times the size of its nearest competitor
and bigger than the combined sales of the next four leading grocery
retailers. Canada, Mexico and the UK account for 80% of Wal-Mart's sales
outside of the US. But in 2002 Wal-Mart entered the world's second largest
economy, Japan, with a minority purchase of Seiyu. Industry analysts refer
to Wal-Mart's debut in Japan as the ³most significant event in global
retailing of the last two years.²[73]

Given Wal-Mart's titanic presence in global retailing, its corporate conduct
affects how the entire world does business. In the United States, Wal-Mart
typically sell grocery products at prices 14% lower than competing grocers,
in part because the company is a nonunion, low-wage employer, allowing it to
hire clerks who make below-poverty wages.[74] Since 1995, at least 60
complaints have been filed against Wal-Mart in the US alleging illegal
anti-union activities.[75] The New York Times recently opined that the
³Wal-Martization of the work forceŠthreatens to push many Americans into
poverty.²[76]

Food & Beverage Processing Industry

Top 10 food and beverage companies
Company
2002 food & beverage sales $US millions
1. Nestle S.A.
$54,254
2. Kraft Foods, Inc.
$29,723
3. Unilever plc
$25,670
4. PepsiCo Inc.
$25,112
5. Archer Daniels Midland Co.
$23,454
6. Tyson Foods
$23,367
7. Cargill Inc.
$21,500
8. ConAgra Inc.
$19,839
9. Coca-Cola Co.
$19,564
10. Mars Inc.
$17,000

Source: Food Engineering, November 2003, www.foodengineeringmag.com

Trends in Food & Beverage Industry:

*

Non-merger mergers
*

Obesity backlash

As we've seen in the ag biotech industry, companies are seeking non-merger
alliances as profitable alternatives to competition. In the food and
beverage industry as well, partnerships and strategic deals are replacing
mergers and cash transactions. The November 2003 issue of Food Engineering
mentions the following examples, among others:

*

H.J. Heinz transferred 8 factories and several brands worth $1,100 million
in annual revenues to Del Monte in what the company described as ³a reverse
acquisition.²
*

Proctor & Gamble spun-off its Jif peanut butter and Crisco brands to J.M.
Smucker Co.
*

General Mills is partnering with Nestle to gain a distribution network for
General Mills' breakfast cereals outside of North America.
*

Coca-Cola and Groupe Danone joined forces to launch a new bottled water
business in the US, to compete with Nestle's growing market share.

³Cooperation is becoming as common as competition among the industry's
leading corporations.² Kevin T. Higgins, Senior Editor, Food Engineering
Magazine[77]

Food Industry Choking on Obesity Backlash

Two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese. Over the last twenty
years, obesity rates have doubled in adults and children and tripled in
teens.[78] In December 2001 the US Surgeon General warned that ³obesity may
soon cause as much preventable disease and death as smoking.²[79] The
obesity pandemic is not restricted to OECD countries. In March 2003 the
World Health Organization examined the globalization of obesity:
³Paradoxically coexisting with undernutrition, an escalating global epidemic
of overweight and obesity Œglobesity' is taking over many parts of the
world. If immediate action is not taken, millions will suffer from an array
of serious health disorders.²[80] While neither the US Surgeon General nor
the WHO finger the food industry for its role in promoting
commercially-induced malnutrition, the food industry has become a super-size
target. Over the past year, the fast-food industry and food manufacturers
have faced an outbreak of obesity liability lawsuits. While some of the
high-profile cases have been dismissed, the food industry is feeling the
heat. According to industry analysts cited by Food Engineering magazine,
³Anti-obesity measures will curb (food manufacturers') ability to grow
revenues in the future.²[81] Meanwhile, the food industry is catering to
desperate dieters with new products like low carbohydrate beer and ice
cream.

Nanotechnology

The Gene Giants have been filling up Nanotech's dance card for a few years
now. They're betting that nanotechnology, the science of manipulating matter
at the level of atoms and molecules, will provide a new technology platform
for launching new products and modifying existing ones. Across the board
whether it's developing toxin-sensors for the food and beverage industry or
extending big pharma's IP protection through reformulating existing drugs or
coming up with better, less expensive bio-markers nanotech could be the
antidote to the Gene Giants' every ailment. The US National Science
Foundation predicts that nanotechnology will account for half of all
pharmaceutical sales within a decade.

Nanotech is attracting more public funding than any single area of
technology.[82] Public and private sector nanotech funding combined is
currently between $5,000 million and $6,000 million a year. Venture
capitalists are also eagerly investing in nanotech's colossal potential.[83]
Nanotech is an integral part of corporate R&D across a wide range of
industries.[84] According to an enthusiastic Mike Roco of the US National
Science Foundation, ³If a company does not enter nanotechnology now in
five years it will be too late it will be out of business.²[85]

³In fact, nanotechnology is on course to become the largest
government-funded science initiative since the race to put a man on the
moon.² Mark Veverka, ³The Next Big Thing is Really Amazingly Small,²
Barrons, July 21, 2003.

According to Mark Modzelewski, the executive director of the US-based
NanoBusiness Alliance, it would be hard to name a Fortune 500 company that's
not investing in some area of nanotechnology.[86] ETC Group's survey of
nano-patent activity gives just one indicator of the public and private
sector's investment and commitment to nanotech. The table on the following
page shows the number of patents and patent applications won by
multinational firms, US universities receiving funds from the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, and some branches of the US military.

Militarization and the threat of chemical and biological warfare are helping
to propel nanotech R&D. In FY 2001, the US National Nanotechnology
Initiative budget gave more nanotech funding to the National Science
Foundation than any other government agency and 35% more than the Department
of Defense.[87] For FY 2003 (post 9/11), the Department of Defense was
allotted more nanotech money than any of the ten agencies receiving
government funds and 10% more than the National Science Foundation.[88]

Multinational Matter Moguls
Company or Institution followed by 2003 Global Fortune 500 rank, if
applicable
# of Nano Patents, granted in US and Europe*
# of Nano Patents, granted in US and Europe in last two years**
# of Nano Patent Applications in US and Europe in last two years***
United States Army
28
1
0
United States Navy
72
19
7
United States Air Force
27
2
1
Total: US Armed Forces
127
22
8
IBM (19)
117
28
22
Samsung (115)
23
16
26
Hewlett-Packard (40)
36
20
21
Motorola (156)
26
7
22
BASF (123)
27
6
10
L'Oréal (373)
61
12
4
Dow (145)
50
12
11
Xerox (304)
46
8
16
DuPont (67)
14
2
4
Sony (32)
13
5
24
Toyota (8)
3
0
3
Mitsubishi (10)
9
5
3
Unilever (66)
16
0
0
Procter & Gamble (86)
12
3
26
Degussa
6
2
7
Philips Electronics (124)
25
5
4
Altria Group (30) [Kraft, Philip-Morris, Miller]
1
1
2
Rice University
5
4
49
Northwestern University
13
3
15
Rensselaer Polytechnic University
4
2
9
Cornell University
20
4
3
Columbia University
2
4
7
University of California

(all campuses)
73
15
22
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
33
35
15
Princeton
5
6
5

Source: ETC Group, using Delphion Patent Database

*Patent search on Delphion using search term nano* in abstract and company
name as patent assignee, with duplications eliminated.

**Patent search conducted on October 28, 2003.

***Patent search conducted on October 28, 2003; includes WIPO/PCT
publications, with duplications eliminated.

Follow the Money: Nanobiotechnology often refers to the development of
nano-scale materials with biomedical applications such as drug delivery or
cancer detection. Nanobiotechnology also refers to the merging of the living
and non-living realms to make hybrid materials and organisms. The idea is to
integrate biological building blocks and synthetic matter to create new
materials and devices. Since 1999, 52% of the $900 million in venture
capital funding for nanotech has gone to nanobiotechnology startups.[89]
According to Lux Capital, while the total pool of venture capital declined
from 2001 to 2002, investment in nanobiotechnology increased by 313%.[90]
The merging of biotech and nanotech gives

researchers unprecedented potential to modify existing non-living material
but also to create living organisms that have never existed before.

Nanotech's fundamental principle of material unity at the nano-scale means
that biological molecules such as DNA can be seen as chemical entities with
particular physical and electrical properties that may serve a specific
function better than non-biological molecules. This kind of research is
advancing in a direction that may best be described as the ³coming-to-life²
sciences.

Top 10 Nanobiotechnology Companies

Ranked by Amount of Venture Capital Raised
Company
Funds Raised (US millions)
Description of Company
No. of patents applied for in the last 2 yrs.ÝÝ
1. Immunicon(USA)
$86
Diagnostic screening using nanoparticles
0
2. Quantum Dot (USA)
$44.5
Semiconductor nanocrystals for biological assays
13
3. Surface Logic (USA)
$38
Miniature biological assays for drug discovery
0
4. Genicon Sciences (USA)
$34
Nanoscale signal for diagnostics
9
5. PicoLiter (USA)
$27
Nanoparticle manufacturing
18
6. US Genomics
$27
Single molecule analysis assays for drug discovery
2
7. Nanosphere
$23.5
Diagnostic nanoprobes and image analysis
12
8. Advion Biosciences (USA)
$15
Nanoelectrospray bioanalysis using biochips for drug delivery
13
9. Ferx (USA)
$15
Drug delivery using magnetic forces
4
10. Nanogram Devices
$9
Nanomaterials for biomedical application
16

Source: ETC Group, based on table appearing in Nature Biotechnology,
prepared by Lux Capital

ÝÝUsing Delphion patent database; includes WIPO/PCT, and EPO and US PTO
searches, with duplications eliminated.

Recent Milestones of the ³Coming to Life² Sciences:

*

In 2002, researchers at Stony Brook (the high-tech institute at the State
University of New York) synthesized the poliovirus's genome using published
gene sequence information and off-the-shelf, commercially-available DNA
material. The project took two years and was funded by the US Department of
Defense's (DOD) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)[91]
*

In November 2003, researchers at the Institute of Biological Energy
Alternatives (Craig Venter, of Celera Genomics fame is the Institute's
founder) took just two weeks to build from scratch an artificial virus with
the same genetic code as a virus known to infect and kill bacterial cells.
The project was funded by the US Department of Energy.[92]
*

Also in November 2003, researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute
announced that they had designed and constructed a functional protein that
is not found in nature, which they dubbed ³Top7.² The researchers say that
being able to specify and design artificial proteins will allow them to
engineer artificial protein enzymes for use as medicines or industrial
catalysts.[93]
*

In October 2003, Stanford University researchers reported they had created
an expanded molecule of DNA with a double helix wider than any found in
nature.[94] The new ³xDNA² is more heat-resistant than natural DNA and it
glows in the dark. The researchers hope that ³one day it could be the
genetic material for a new form of life, maybe here or on another
planet.[95]

Conclusion: Reforming corporate governance is a Herculean task. Because the
system works quite nicely for the rich and powerful it's an agenda that is
fervently sidetracked and distorted. We are likely to hear more about
corruption in Third World governments than about systemic corporate crimes
because the executives who pay the bribes are the ones who are reporting on
corruption! It's safer to focus on the scandalous behaviour of a few rotten
executives than to admit that the system is rotten to the core. The first
step in a long process of reform is to document corporate power. That is the
goal of this Communiqué. Meaningful challenges to corporate hegemony will
ultimately require citizen participation and debate at all levels local,
national and international. Because transnational businesses operate beyond
the boundaries of any single country, however, reform will also require
debate, oversight and monitoring at the Unite! d Nations level. In 1974 the
United Nations formally created the Centre on Transnational Corporations
but its programme withered and the Centre ceased operations in 1993.[96] The
international community must re-gain the capacity to monitor and even
regulate the activities of transnational enterprises. Beyond governance, the
international community must also create a new body with the mandate to
track, evaluate and accept or reject new technologies and their products
through an International Convention on the Evaluation of New Technologies
(ICENT). In future issues of the ETC Communiqué we will report on efforts to
bring ICENT before the United Nations.

The Global Economy: Who's Got the Power?

Over half of the biggest 100 global economies (51) are corporations.
Company or Country
2002 GDP (countries) or 2002 Revenue (companies) US$millions
1
United States
10,416,818
2
Japan
3,978,782
3
Germany
1,976,240
4
United Kingdom
1,552,437
5
France
1,409,604
6
China
1,237,145
7
Italy
1,180,921
8
Canada
715,692
9
Spain
649,792
10
Mexico
637,205
11
India
515,012
12
Korea, Rep.
476,690
13
Brazil
452,387
14
Netherlands
413,741
15
Australia
410,590
16
Russian Federation
346,520
17
Switzerland
268,041
18
Belgium
247,634
19
WAL-MART
246,525
20
Sweden
229,772
21
Austria
202,954
22
Norway
189,436
23
Poland
187,680
24
GENERAL MOTORS
186,763
25
Saudi Arabia
186,489
26
Turkey
182,848
27
EXXONMOBIL
182,466
28
ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL
179,431
29
BP p.l.c.
178,721
30
Denmark
174,798
31
Indonesia
172,911
32
FORD MOTOR CO.
163,871
33
Hong Kong, China
161,532
34
DAIMLER CHRYSLER
141,421
35
TOYOTA MOTOR
131,754
36
GENERAL ELECTRIC
131,698
37
Finland
130,797
38
Thailand
126,407
39
Portugal
121,291
40
Ireland
119,916
41
Israel
110,386
42
MITSUBISHI
109,386
43
MITSUI & CO., LTD.
108,631
44
Iran
107,522
45
South Africa
104,235
46
Argentina
102,191
47
ALLIANZ AG
101,930
48
CITIGROUP
100,789
49
TOTAL FINA ELF
96,945
50
Malaysia
95,157
51
Venezuela
94,340
52
CHEVRONTEXACO
92,043
53
Egypt
89,845
54
NIPPON TELEPHONE
89,644
55
ING GROEP N.V.
88,102
56
Singapore
86,969
57
ITOCHU
85,856
58
IBM
83,132
59
VOLKSWAGEN
82,204
60
Colombia
82,194
61
SIEMENS AG
77,205
62
Philippines
77,076
63
SUMITOMO
75,745
64
MARUBENI
72,165
65
Czech Republic
69,590
66
Puerto Rico
67,897
67
VERIZON
67,625
68
AMERICAN INTER. GROUP
67,482
69
HITACHI, LTD.
67,228
70
US POSTAL SERVICE
66,463
71
Hungary
65,843
72
HONDA MOTOR
65,420
73
CARREFOUR SA
64,979
74
Chile
64,154
75
ALTRIA GROUP
62,182
76
AXA
62,051
77
SONY
61,335
78
NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE
61,175
79
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC
60,744
80
Pakistan
60,521
81
ROYAL AHOLD
59,455
82
CONOCOPHILLIPS
58,384
83
HOME DEPOT
58,247
84
New Zealand
58,178
85
NESTLE S.A.
57,279
86
MCKESSON HBOC
57,129
87
Peru
56,901
88
HEWLETT-PACKARD
56,588
89
NISSAN MOTOR
56,041
90
Algeria
55,666
91
VIVENDI UNIV.
54,977
92
BOEING
54,069
93
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI
53,599
94
FANNIE MAE
52,901
95
FIAT S.P.A.
52,613
96
DEUTSCHE BANK
52,133
97
CREDIT SUISSE
52,122
98
MUNICH GROUP
51,980
99
MERCK & CO, INC.
51,790
100
KROGER
51,760

Source: ETC Group, based on World Bank (World Development Indicators
database, July 2003) and on Fortune Global 500 database 2003.

[1] ETC Group, based on World Bank (World Development Indicators database,
July 2003) and on Fortune Global 500 database 2003.

[2] www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/business/G18179-2002Aug14.html

[3] Kevin T. Higgins, ³The World's Top 100 Food & Beverage Companies,² Food
Engineering Magazine, November 1, 2003.

[4] See, for example, ETC Group, News Release, ³Dupont and Monsanto
ŒLiving in Sinergy'?² April 9, 2002. Available on the Internet:
www.etcgroup.org

[5] M.C. Roco and W.S. Bainbridge, Converging Technologies for Improving
Human Performance, June, 2002 p. ix.

[6] According to Fortune's Global 500, combined sales of the world's top 200
corporations in 2002 were $9,312,821 million. Worldwide GDP, according to
the World Bank, was $32,252,480 million.

[7] According to the most recent statistic available, the International
Labour Organization's estimate of the world's work force is 2,957,744,000
or nearly 3 billion. The world's top 200 corporations employed 27,062,417
people in 2002, according to the Fortune Global 500 database.

[8] According to Fortune's Global 500, combined sales of the top 500
corporations in 2002 was $13,729,042 million.

[9] According to the most recent statistic available, the International
Labour Organization's estimate of the world's work force is 2,957,744,000
or nearly 3 billion. The world's top 500 corporations employed 46,492,660
people in 2002, according to the Fortune Global 500 database.

[10] UNDP, ³Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end
human poverty,² Human Development Report 2003. Available on the Internet:
www.undp.org/hdr2003/

[11] Mary Robinson, from a speech given at the International Symposium on
Human Rights, Development and Business in Basel, Switzerland, 27 November
2003. For the full text of her speech, see South Bulletin No. 69, produced
by the South Centre, Geneva, 30 November 2003.

[12] UNDP, ³Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end
human poverty,² Human Development Report 2003. Available on the Internet:
www.undp.org/hdr2003/

[13] International Labour Office, Press Release, ³New ILO Report on Global
Employment Trends 2003,² 24 January 2003.

[14] Scrip's 2003 Pharmaceutical Company League Tables, edited by Daniel
Barry, PJB Publications.

[15] Pfizer News Release, ³Pfizer and Pharmacia Combine Operations, Creating
World's Largest Research Based Pharmaceutical Corporation,² April 16, 2003.
On the Internet:
http://www.pfizer.com/are/investors_releases/mn_2003_0416.cfm

[16] Peter Barfoot, BioPortfolio, Ltd., ³Pfizer/Pharmacia: Moving the
goalposts.² The article summarizes the Datamonitor report, Pharmaceuticals:
Survival of the ŒFittest' Can Competitive Advantage be Sustained Without
M&A in the Wake of Pfizer/Pharmacia? Available on the Internet:
http://www.bioportfolio.com/news/report_8.htm

[17] A. Maureen Rouhi, ³Rediscovering Natural Products,² Chemical &
Engineering News, October 13, 2003. p. 77.

[18] According to FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, new chemical entities
approved by FDA reached an all-time low of 21 in 2002 (42 were registered in
1996); 12 biopharmaceuticals were approved in 2002 (27 were approved in
1998). See Rick Mullin, ³Drug Discovery Perspectives,² Chemical &
Engineering News, Aug. 18, 2003, p. 14.

[19] Robert Paull, Josh Wolfe, Peter Hébert and Michael Sinkula, ³Investing
in Nanotechnology,² Nature Biotechnology, October 2003, p. 1146.

[20] Among others, patents on Merck's Vasotec, Pepcid and Zocor, on Eli
Lilly's Prozac, and on Schering-Plough's Claritin have all been extended in
this way. Rachel Zimmerman, ³Child Play: Pharmaceutical Firms Win Big on
Plan to Test Adult Drugs on Kids --- By Doing Inexpensive Trials, They Gain
6 More Months Free From Generic Rivals --- FDA: Law Does Some Good,² Wall
Street Journal, February 5, 2001.

[21] ³Downsizing² worked to extend Wyeth's patent on Rapamune, an
immunosuppressive drug. See Edd Fleming and Philip Ma, ³From the analyst's
couch: Drug life-cycle technologies,² Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 1,
751-752 (2002); doi:10.1038/nrd926.

[22] Scrip's 2003 Pharmaceutical Company League Tables, edited by Daniel
Barry, PJB Publications, Table 28, pp. 233-237.

[23] Riku Lähteenmäki and Laura DeFrancesco, ³Public biotechnology 2002
the numbers,² Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 21 (no. 6), June 2003, p. 607.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Nature Biotechnology uses a broad definition, and its top 10 list
differs from that of Scrip's Pharmaceutical League Table. Nature Biotech's
top 10: Amgen, Monsanto, Genentech, Quintiles, Celera, Elan, Chiron, Biogen,
Genzyme and Shire.

[26] Riku Lähteenmäki and Laura DeFrancesco, p. 612.

[27] Initial public offering refers to the first time a company raises money
through the sale of public stock in the company. The IPO count changes
slightly depending on how biotech is defined. Nancy Weil, ³Biotech IPOs ŒNot
for the Squeamish,'² IDG News Service, Boston Bureau, November 7, 2003;
available on the Internet: www.bio-itworld.com/news110703_report3694.html

[28] Jennifer Van Brunt, ³Financing on Target for a Stellar Year,² Signals
Magazine, originally published October 2, 2003. Available on the Internet:
www.signalsmag.com

[29] Frank DiLorenzo, Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys: Biotechnology, May
15, 2003, pp. 6-7.

[30] Tony Strattner, ³From Sanger to ŒSequenator,'² Bio-IT World, October
2003, p. 1.

[31] Nicholas Wade, ³Scientific Team Puts Together A Rough Draft Of A Dog
Genome,² New York Times, September 26, 2003. On the Internet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/26/science/26DOG.html

[32] Andrew Pollack, ³Human Genome Placed on Chip; Biotech Rivals Put it Up
for Sale,² New York Times, October 2, 2003.

[33] David Stipp, ³Speed-Reading Your Genes: Using Biochips, Perlegen could
turn our genetic uniqueness into gold,² Fortune, August 11, 2003.

[34] According to the Animal Health Institute, biologicals are products that
work by affecting the immune system to prevent, control or treat disease,
including vaccines, antibodies, immunostimulants, and diagnostic kits
(http://www.ahi.org/animalHealthProducts/index.asp).

[35] ³Companion Animals: A new market for human pharmaceutical and
insecticides,² Animal Pharm Reports, November 7, 2002, published by PJB
Publications. Executive Summary available on the Internet:
http://www.pjbpubs.com/cms.asp?pageid=1332#exec

[36] Ibid.

[37] Steve Bunk, ³Market Emerges for Use of Human Drugs on Pets,² The
Scientist, 13[8]:1, Apr. 12, 1999.

[38] The Keep Antibiotics Working campaign (www.KeepAntibioticsWorking.com)
is a coalition of health, consumer, agricultural, environmental and other
advocacy groups with more than nine million members dedicated to eliminating
a major cause of antibiotic resistance: the inappropriate use of antibiotics
in farm animals.

[39] David Barboza and Sherri Day, ³McDonald's Seeking Cut In Antibiotics In
Its Meat,² New York Times, June 20, 2003, p. C1.

[40] The FDA report is available on the Internet at
www.fda.gov/cvm/index/cloning/CLRAES.doc (accessed December 3, 2003).

[41] Kendall Powell, ³Regulators equivocate on safety of clones,² Nature
Biotechnology, vol. 21 (12), December 2003, pp. 1415-1416.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Quoted in Kenneth R. Weiss, ³From Biogenics Lab to Home Aquariums, It's
the GloFish,² Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2003.

[44]http://www.syngenta.com/en/ar2002/sales_overview.asx

[45] Savia SA sold a 75% share of Seminis to investment group Fox Paine &
Co. in June 2003 for almost $225 million. Alfonso Romo will continue as
Seminis's chairman and chief executive.

[46] Seminis reports fiscal 2002 results, Jan. 16, 2003.

[47]http://www.advantaseeds.com/servlet/nl.gx.advanta.client.http.GetFile?id
=58735 419 million Euros = $435 million dollars (419 x 1.038)

[48] www.hoovers.com/free

[49] KWS annual report 2001/02. In US $. New report due out Dec. 2003.

[50] Hoover's Online, 2002 sales, $375.7 million

[51] Delta &Pine Land, FY end 2002 financial results, press release, Oct.
15, 2002.

[52]
http://www.press.bayer.com/News/News.nsf/id/C65A003D6A59FACAC1256D950044129E
(conversion of 240 million Euros = $249 million dollars)

[53] Personal communication with high-ranking official at Dow Agrosciences,
January 9, 2003.

[54] According to the International Seed Federation, the estimated
commercial seed market for 49 countries worldwide is approximately US$24,000
million. http://www.worldseed.org/statistics.html The ETC Group uses the
lower figure of $US23,000.

[55] http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/investor/monsanto-overview.pdf

[56] Ibid.

[57] Monsanto and DuPont News Release, ³DuPont and Monsanto Reach Agreement
that Brings New Technologies to Farmers Worldwide,² April 2, 2002. Available
on the Internet:
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/02/04-02-02a.asp

[58] ETC Group, News Release, ³Dupont and Monsanto ŒLiving in Sinergy'?²
April 9, 2002. Available on the Internet: www.etcgroup.org

[59] Bill Schmitt, Chemical Week, May 15, 2002, p. 33.

[60] Doris de Guzman, ³Broader acceptance of biotech crops increases despite
skepticism,² Chemical Market Reporter, New York: March 24, 2003, Vol. 263,
No. 12, p. 16.

[61] Charles M. Benbrook, ³Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on
Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years,² Northwest
Science and Environmental Policy Center, November 25, 2003. Available on the
Internet: www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html

[62] Ibid.

[63] http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2003/september/6600.ht

[64] Sean Milmo, ³Syngenta seeks to leverage chemistry and biotech beyond
crop protection,² Chemical Market Reporter, March 3, 2003, Vol. 263, No. 9,
p. 4.

[65] Syngenta News Release, February 5, 2003. Available on the Internet:
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2003/february/5364.htm

[66] For more information, see ETC Communique, ³Biotech's Generation 3,²
Issue #67, November/December 2000. Available on the Internet:
http://www.etcgroup.org

[67] For background information, see documents on Mexican maize
contamination on ETC Group web site, www.etcgroup.org

[68] Victoria Fletcher, ³GM Œcould be another Thalidomide,'² Evening
Standard, 7 October 2003, Available on the Internet:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/7053333?source=Evening%20Standar
d

[69] Andrew Pollack, ³Monsanto Overhauling Businesses,² New York Times,
October 16, 2003.

[70] Anonymous, ³Japanese consolidation impacts top 20 ranking,² Agrow World
Crop Protection News, August 22, 2003, No. 430, p. 1. http://www.agrow.co.uk

[71] According to Allan Woodburn Associates, cited in Kerri Walsh, ³Weather
Rains on Agchem Demand,² Chemical Week, March 5, 2003, p. 23.

[72] IGD is the Institute of Grocery Distribution, based in the UK, the
leading analyst of global grocery retailers. www.igd.com IGD points out that
the true proportion of global market share for the leading 30 food retailers
is likely to be somewhat lower than this given the inclusion of
³non-grocery² turnover for a number of retailers on the list. Source: Global
Retailing 2003, IGD.

[73] IGD, Global Retailing 2003

[74] Anonymous, ³The Wal-Martization of America,² New York Times Editorial,
November 15, 2003.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Anonymous, ³The Wal-Martization of America,² New York Times Editorial,
November 15, 2003.

[77] Kevin T. Higgins, ³The World's Top 100 Food & Beverage Companies,² Food
Engineering Magazine, November 1, 2003.

[78] See Center for Science in the Public Interest (www.cspinet.org) and the
July 31, 2003 news release, ³Everyday Signs that Obesity Rates Are
Increasing,² http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0731-01.htm

[79] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ³The Surgeon General's
call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity,² Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
Office of the Surgeon General; 2001.

[80] Joint WHO/FAO Expert Report On Diet, Nutrition And The Prevention Of
Chronic Diseases, 2002: Geneva, Switzerland. Available on the Internet:
http://www.who.int/nut/documents/trs_916.pdf

[81] Kevin T. Higgins, ³The World's Top 100 Food & Beverage Companies,² Food
Engineering Magazine, November 1, 2003.

[82] Cientifica, ³Nanotechnology Opportunity Report, 2nd Edition: Executive
Summary,² June 2003.

[83] Robert Paull, Josh Wolfe, Peter Hébert and Michael Sinkula, ³Investing
in Nanotechnology,² Nature Biotechnology, October 2003, pp. 1144-1147.

[84] Ibid., p. 1147

[85] Quoted in Ronald Bailey, ³The Smaller the Better The limitless
promise of nanotechnology and the growing peril of a moratorium,² reason
magazine, December 2003. Available on the Internet:
http://reason.com/0312/fe.rb.the.shtml

[86] Presentation by Mark Modzelewski at the Rockefeller Foundation in New
York City, October 6, 2003.

[87] http://www.nano.gov/2002budget.html (accessed November 25, 2003).

[88] http://www.nano.gov/nni04_budget_supplement.pdf

[89] Robert Paull, Josh Wolfe, Peter Hébert and Michael Sinkula, ³Investing
in Nanotechnology,² Nature Biotechnology, October 2003, p. 1146.

[90] Ibid., p. 1146.

[91] Anonymous, Stony Brook News Release, ³First de novo virus synthesis,²
available on the Internet: http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html
(accessed November 25, 2003)

[92] Anonymous, ³Researchers create artificial virus in war against real
thing,² Associated Press, November14, 2003. Available on the Internet:
http://www.redding.com/news/national/stories/20031114nat004.shtml (accessed
November 25, 2003).

[93] Anonymous, ³Researchers Design and Build First Artificial Protein,²
Howard Hughes Medical Institute News Release, November 20, 2003. Available
on the Internet: http://www.hhmi.org/news/baker3.html (accessed November 25,
2003).

[94] Anonymous, ³Researchers Create ŒSupersized' Molecule of DNA,² October
31, 2003. Adapted from a Stanford University news release and available on
the Internet: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031031064709.htm
(accessed November 25, 2003.)

[95] Ibid.

[96] A Commission on Transnational Corporations, to which the Centre on
Transnational Corporations reported, was created at the same time. The
Commission was discontinued in 1993 and its responsibilities were
transferred to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development's
(UNCTAD's) Commission on Investment, Technology, and Enterprise Development.

³When the international human rights framework began to be shaped at the end
of World War II, the responsibility for protecting the rights and welfare of
all citizens was explicitly assumed by national governments. Now, in many
areas, power has shifted from the public to the private, from national
governments to multinational corporations and international organizations.
This has resulted in a gap in accountability for human rights protection and
an absence of transparency and broad public participation in critical policy
decisions. In developing countries in particular, people increasingly
perceive their respective national governments to be unwilling or unable to
stand up to or influence their political and economic conditions, which are
shaped more and more by the policies of rich nations, powerful non-state
actors, and international rules and institutions. Dealing with this
situation is a central challenge of our times.²‹ Mary Robinson, former
President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 27
November 2003.

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is
an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC
group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity
and human rights. www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member of the
Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC). The
CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society
organizations and public research institutions in 14 countries. The CBDC is
dedicated to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen
the conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity. The CBDC
website is www.cbdcprogram.org
ETC group, formerly RAFI - the Rural Advancement Foundation International -
encourages wide dissemination of our publications by any means. We request
only that the author, ETC group, and our web site (http://www.etcgroup.org)
be cited as the source of the information. 478 River Avenue, Suite 200,
Winnipeg, MB R3L 0C8 Canada
Tel: (204) 453-5259, Fax: (204) 284-7871