Food Fight
VIKKI KRATZ / Capital Eye 9jul03
[See tables below]
Major food companies have worked side by side with biotech to promote genetically modified foods. How long will the alliance last?
July 09, 2003—Last fall, an Oregon housewife spearheaded a ballot initiative that would have forced the nation's food companies to label products sold in the state that were made with genetically modified ingredients. She was concerned about the safety of crops that had been engineered to produce their own pesticides. Oregon's Measure 27 would have been the first law of its kind in the country. But a $5 million campaign, financed by an alliance of biotech and food companies, easily defeated the measure—and demonstrated the power of the industries' partnership.
The flood of out-of-state money into Oregon's ballot battle came from the agriculture industry's top biotech companies: BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical's Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. [See spending of each below] These six companies have spent big bucks in the past to defeat similar laws and to influence the regulations governing their industry. From 1998-2002, the companies spent more than $53 million to lobby the federal government. Since 1989, the companies have contributed more than $12 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations, 77 percent to Republicans. Dow Chemical is the industry's top contributor, donating more than $4.5 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations since 1989, 80 percent to Republicans.
But while agriculture's biotech companies have plenty of clout in their own right, they have never had to act alone. Major food companies including General Mills, Nestle and PepsiCo contributed to the $5 million campaign to defeat Oregon's Measure 27. The food companies oppose labeling genetically modified (GM) foods, citing the impracticality and expense of labeling GM ingredients that appear in 70 percent of the country's processed food. The industry was also worried that passage of Oregon's law would set off a chain reaction of similar laws in other states.
It wasn't the first time that the food industry had teamed up with biotech companies. Back in 1999, when the Food and Drug Administration first began to pay serious attention to the issue, more than three dozen food and agriculture trade associations formed the Alliance for Better Foods to promote biotech crops to Congress and the American public. They were trying to counteract a campaign by consumer groups and environmentalists questioning the safety of the foods. The anti-biotech campaign had worked so successfully abroad that the European Union had banned GM foods, while Japan and Australia required them to be labeled.
At the time, the food and biotech industries spoke confidently about their partnership. A spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America told a Senate panel, "Major food and beverage companies—who are strongly supportive of food biotechnology and the farmers who utilize it—are part of this coalition dedicated to educating the public about its benefits. … Acting together, food companies, lawmakers, scientists, farmers and regulators must work to ensure that activists with a political agenda do not kill the promise of biotech foods."
But now the once strong alliance between the biotech and food industries has begun to show some cracks.
Although the food companies still support genetically modified crops, the latest advance in food biotechnology has them suddenly wary. Biotech companies are now altering plants to produce medicines, a practice called "biopharming." The crops can make the proteins and other substances needed for medicines at a lower cost than pharmaceutical factories can. But food companies worry that crops containing vaccines, hormones and antibodies could mix with food crops, with disastrous results.
A newly created medicinal plant almost got into the food supply last year. A small biotech company called ProdiGene was attempting to genetically modify corn to produce a diarrhea drug. When the company completed its research trials, a farmer re-planted the test fields with soybeans. Some of the modified corn, however, was still present in the field and mixed with the soybeans during harvesting. The U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered ProdiGene to pay a $250,000 fine and spend another $3 million to buy the contaminated soybeans, which were destroyed.
The scare convinced Kraft CEO Betsy Holden of the need for increased government oversight of biotechnology. "Right now, public acceptance of biotechnology in America is relatively high," she told an agricultural forum in April. "But how many more times can we test the public's trust before we begin to lose it?" Kraft has been burned before. In 2000, Aventis' Starlink corn, which had not been approved for human consumption, somehow ended up in Kraft taco shells and the company was forced to recall them. Now, food companies worry that they could be held liable if biopharm crops were to contaminate the food supply.
But getting stricter regulations may be an uphill battle, especially considering biotech's growing power in Washington.
"They worship biotechnology in the Bush administration," said Bill Freese of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group. "A company like ProdiGene doesn't have to lobby because it's considered the golden boy of a cutting-edge industry."
Indeed, biotech's cachet may work against the food companies, which for years had a stake in making sure the government maintained a laissez-faire attitude toward the industry.
At first, the biotech industry appeared to be responsive to the food companies' concerns. After the ProdiGene incident last fall, the industry's trade association, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, imposed a temporary ban on planting biopharm crops in the Midwest. But BIO soon retracted the ban, reportedly under pressure from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Grassley supports biopharming as another way to help boost his state's agriculture economy. A top recipient of money from the biotech industry, Grassley has received more than $100,000 in individual and PAC donations from biotech companies since 1989.
Not being able to count on BIO's support—or Grassley's—the food companies have struck out on their own. Earlier this year, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, along with nine other food and restaurant trade groups, asked the FDA for greater oversight of pharma crops. If the FDA doesn't respond with new guidelines, the food companies may take their problem to Congress. If they do, they'll be well prepared. During the 2002 election cycle, food processing companies gave $11.5 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations. That's three times the $3.4 million the biotech companies gave during the same period.
source: http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=92 22jul03
Biotech Industry Campaign Contributions, 1989-2003*
(includes pharmaceutical and agriculture biotech companies)
% to % to
Company 1990 cycle 1992 cycle 1994 cycle 1996 cycle 1998 cycle 2000 cycle 2002 cycle 2004 cycle¶ Total Dems Reps
Dow Chemical $583,649 $722,530 $702,900 $615,003 $531,550 $679,780 $680,739 $8,605 $4,524,756 20.1% 79.8%
Aventis $209,100 $288,400 $335,300 $669,250 $734,061 $996,790 $1,102,549 $750 $4,336,200 26.5% 73.4%
Monsanto‡ $124,530 $201,450 $268,732 $335,507 $198,955 $1,176,970 $1,533,936 $21,750 $3,861,830 25.1% 74.8%
Johnson & Johnson $109,075 $188,500 $208,650 $245,240 $253,250 $505,650 $1,078,771 $121,120 $2,710,256 34.9% 65.1%
Amgen $20,800 $17,050 $107,670 $251,547 $260,150 $668,333 $1,021,692 $1,300 $2,348,542 20.2% 79.6%
Genentech (Roche)† $105,650 $193,000 $270,629 $412,597 $322,143 $498,749 $500,740 $23,470 $2,326,978 46.8% 53.1%
Pioneer Hi-Bred
(DuPont)† $29,635 $124,561 $153,489 $303,869 $393,671 $394,431 $279,532 $6,850 $1,686,038 30.5% 69.4%
Bayer $3,500 $2,750 $1,000 $139,604 $256,847 $362,459 $324,771 $2,000 $1,092,931 20.5% 79.2%
BASF $4,125 $12,270 $23,900 $40,650 $61,450 $272,090 $283,387 $9,450 $707,322 15.4% 84.3%
Syngenta $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $299,918 $0 $299,918 37.3% 62.7%
Biogen $0 $6,000 $17,695 $11,200 $6,700 $72,650 $182,400 $0 $296,645 40.5% 59.5%
Andrx $0 $0 $5,000 $2,250 $8,700 $178,067 $27,900 $0 $221,917 37.1% 62.9%
Biotechnology Industry
Organization $0 $0 $2,300 $2,750 $4,450 $30,200 $166,443 $5,200 $211,343 30.6% 69.4%
Serono $8,100 $9,050 $7,450 $15,600 $48,157 $44,850 $41,175 $500 $174,882 37.8% 62.5%
Quest Diagnostics $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,750 $69,451 $58,200 $1,300 $153,701 32.1% 66.0%
ImClone Systems $3,500 $2,000 $1,000 $22,800 $20,000 $90,000 $13,000 $0 $152,300 100.0% 0.0%
Sepracor $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $31,750 $71,000 $38,415 $0 $143,665 38.5% 61.5%
Genzyme $250 $0 $1,450 $24,478 $20,255 $88,800 $0 $0 $135,233 45.8% 54.2%
Human Genome
Sciences $0 $0 $27,000 $18,750 $15,000 $11,000 $6,800 $1,000 $79,550 92.1% 7.9%
Cephalon $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $7,101 $21,500 $0 $31,901 0.6% 99.4%
Applera § $200 $1,665 $700 $2,600 $2,100 $12,051 $11,850 $300 $31,466 44.5% 53.9%
Diagnostic Products $4,350 $8,200 $4,062 $7,550 $500 $0 $3,000 $1,000 $28,662 95.6% 4.4%
Chiron $0 $450 $2,500 $7,900 $5,000 $10,201 $0 $0 $26,051 37.2% 62.8%
Elan $0 $0 $0 $1,200 $1,250 $15,750 $7,300 $0 $25,500 24.5% 75.5%
Affymetrix $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $5,000 $16,250 $2,300 $0 $25,050 86.8% 13.2%
Invitrogen $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 100.0% 0.0%
Millennium
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $3,700 $7,000 $2,500 $15,200 100.0% 0.0%
Idexx Laboratories $0 $0 $850 $3,200 $500 $5,700 $1,500 $0 $11,750 18.3% 81.7%
Quintiles
Transnational $0 $0 $0 $5,750 $4,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $10,750 20.9% 79.1%
IDEC
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $1,500 $250 $1,000 $2,250 $5,250 $0 $10,250 68.3% 31.7%
Gilead Sciences $900 $3,250 $0 $3,000 $0 $1,900 $0 $0 $9,050 26.5% 73.5%
Charles River
Laboratories $1,500 $0 $0 $1,800 $900 $0 $3,500 $0 $7,700 74.0% 26.0%
Medimmune $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $5,000 $2,000 $0 $7,500 16.7% 83.3%
Covance $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $3,450 $1,250 $0 $5,200 76.0% 24.0%
Amylin
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $950 $0 $1,500 $2,001 $0 $4,451 0.0% 100.0%
Vertex
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $400 $0 $2,450 $1,000 $0 $3,850 100.0% 0.0%
Neurocrine
Biosciences $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $2,750 $0 $3,750 0.0% 100.0%
Enzon
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $250 $500 $2,000 $500 $0 $3,250 0.0% 100.0%
Igenex $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $700 $2,450 $0 $3,150 0.0% 100.0%
Large Scale Biology $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $3,000 0.0% 100.0%
Trimeris $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $250 $300 $300 $0 $2,850 78.9% 21.1%
Eden Bioscience $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $500 $0 $2,500 100.0% 0.0%
Sicor $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,500 80.0% 20.0%
Envirogen $0 $0 $250 $1,000 $0 $750 $250 $0 $2,250 31.1% 68.9%
Medicines Co. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,250 $0 $2,250 0.0% 100.0%
Bio-Nova $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,250 $250 $0 $1,500 83.3% 16.7%
Techne $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,450 $0 $1,450 100.0% 0.0%
Celgene $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,150 $0 $0 $1,150 56.5% 43.5%
NPS Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 100.0% 0.0%
Celltech Group $0 $0 $0 $300 $0 $0 $250 $0 $550 45.5% 54.5%
Biovail
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 100.0% 0.0%
Intermune
Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $0 $0 $250 100.0% 0.0%
Protein Design Labs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $250 100.0% 0.0%
Ribapharm $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $0 $250 100.0% 0.0%
TOTAL $1,208,864 $1,781,126 $2,144,027 $3,154,245 $3,219,639 $6,332,973 $7,726,019 $208,595 $25,775,488 28.6% 71.3%
* Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on May27, 2003. Totals include PAC, soft money and
individual contributions to federal candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, 1989-2003.
¶ So far.
‡ Includes Pharmacia contributions for the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles. Pharmacia acquired Monsanto in 2000.
† Parent companies appear in the parentheses Parent company campaign contributions are included in the totals
§ Includes campaign contributions from Applera subsidiaries Celera Genomics and Applied Biosystems.
source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-contributions.asp 22jul03
Biotech Industry Lobbying Expenditures, 1998-2002*
(includes pharmaceutical and agriculture biotech companies)
Company 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL Monsanto‡ $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $7,782,960 $2,539,840 $3,548,580 $21,871,380 Genentech (Roche)¶ $2,738,000 $2,951,620 $3,662,095 $4,257,938 $3,929,810 $17,539,463 Amgen $2,360,000 $3,440,600 $2,680,000 $3,080,000 $2,940,000 $14,500,600 BIO § $1,704,000 $2,559,000 $2,857,000 $3,506,000 $3,540,000 $14,166,000 Aventis $3,155,220 $1,710,000 $2,190,000 $3,540,000 $3,570,000 $14,165,220 Johnson & Johnson $1,580,000 $1,560,000 $2,780,000 $3,240,000 $3,760,000 $12,920,000 Dow Chemical $2,440,000 $2,120,000 $2,130,000 $2,800,000 $2,720,000 $12,210,000 Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont)¶ $1,520,000 $1,620,000 $1,200,000 $1,320,000 $800,000 $6,460,000 Bayer $540,000 $1,109,918 $1,336,775 $1,418,125 $1,396,767 $5,801,585 Genzyme $589,000 $760,000 $1,000,000 $920,000 $1,120,000 $4,389,000 BASF $260,000 $1,120,000 $1,300,000 $520,000 $240,000 $3,440,000 Syngenta $0 $0 $360,000 $1,560,000 $1,420,000 $3,340,000 Millennium Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $2,240,000 Serono $580,000 $280,000 $805,000 $230,000 $340,000 $2,235,000 Biogen $100,000 $166,000 $460,000 $595,000 $705,000 $2,026,000 Sepracor $0 $80,000 $520,000 $60,000 $220,000 $880,000 Cephalon $140,000 $100,000 $100,000 $180,000 $220,000 $740,000 Human Genome Sciences $0 $0 $150,000 $240,000 $300,000 $690,000 Applera† $0 $0 $340,000 $160,000 $140,000 $660,000 Quest Diagnostics $80,000 $80,000 $40,000 $110,000 $120,000 $430,000 Chiron $0 $0 $260,000 $138,000 $0 $398,000 Andrx $0 $40,000 $120,000 $120,000 $60,000 $340,000 Biovail $200,000 $50,000 $0 $40,000 $20,000 $310,000 Affymetrix $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Gilead Sciences $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $200,000 $260,000 Celgene $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $100,000 $180,000 Quintiles Transnational $0 $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $170,000 Abgenix $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 IDEC Pharmaceuticals $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $80,000 ImClone Systems $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000 TOTAL $21,986,220 $23,797,138 $32,113,830 $31,914,903 $33,070,157 $142,902,248 * According to federal lobbying reports filed with Congress. § Biotechnology Industry Organization ¶ Parent companies appear in the parentheses Parent company lobbying expenditures are included in the total ‡ Includes 2000, 2001 and 2002 lobbying expenditures for Pharmacia Corp., which acquired Monsanto in 2000. † Includes lobbying expenditures from Applera subsidiaries Celera Genomics and Applied Biosystems.
source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-lobbying.asp 22jul03
BASF
Total Contributions: $707,322 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $3,440,000
Chemical giant BASF is not your everyday biotech company. The company focuses mainly on using biotechnology to produce amino acids, vitamins and enzymes. Although BASF typically takes a back seat to other companies when it comes to lobbying, the company is a founding member of the Council for Biotechnology Information. The group, which was created three years ago with contributions from BASF and other biotech companies, runs television and print ads touting the benefits of biotech. BASF also contributed to the $5.2 million campaign to block Oregon’s proposed food labeling law in 2002. —Kristin Gribben
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2003*
% to % to
Cycle Total Ind PACs Soft Money To Dems To Reps Dems Reps
1990 $4,125 $4,125 $0 $0 $2,900 $1,225 70.3% 29.7%
1992 $12,270 $12,270 $0 $0 $5,650 $6,620 46.0% 54.0%
1994 $23,900 $13,900 $0 $10,000 $12,700 $11,200 53.1% 46.9%
1996 $40,650 $25,650 $0 $15,000 $1,500 $39,150 3.7% 96.3%
1998 $61,450 $10,950 $0 $50,500 $4,750 $56,700 7.7% 92.3%
2000 $272,090 $13,740 $219,250 $39,100 $35,300 $234,790 13.0% 86.3%
2002 $283,387 $10,240 $222,500 $50,647 $43,750 $239,637 15.4% 84.6%
2004** $9,450 $450 $9,000 $0 $2,450 $7,000 25.9% 74.1%
Total $707,322 $91,325 $450,750 $165,247 $109,000 $596,322 15.4% 84.3%
Ind Individuals
* Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on May 27, 2003.
Totals include PAC, soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates, party
committees and leadership PACs, 1989-2003.
** So far.
Lobbying Expenditures, 1998-2002°
Year Amount 1998 $260,000 1999 $1,120,000 2000 $1,300,000 2001 $520,000 2002 $240,000 Total $3,440,000 °According to federal lobbying reports filed with Congress.source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-basf.asp 23jul03
BAYER
Total Contributions: $1,092,931 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $5,801,585
Aspirin-maker Bayer has expanded into the world of biotechnology. Although the company sells a few biotech drugs, its main interest is in genetically modified crops. Bayer acquired its crop science division from Aventis, which sold it shortly after some of its genetically modified corn, not approved for human consumption, somehow got into the food supply. Bayer CropScience produces genetically modified corn and canola, and plans to have biotech rice on the market within the next few years. The company contributed to the campaign to block Oregon's proposed food labeling law in 2002 and has lobbied the Bush administration to pressure the European Union to accept biotech foods. —Kristin Gribben
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2003*
% to % to
Cycle Total Ind PACs Soft Money To Dems To Reps Dems Reps
1990 $3,500 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 0.0% 100.0%
1992 $2,750 $2,750 $0 $0 $0 $2,750 0.0% 100.0%
1994 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 0.0% 100.0%
1996 $139,604 $4,204 $104,000 $31,400 $18,500 $120,400 13.3% 86.2%
1998 $256,847 $5,197 $186,500 $65,150 $51,547 $205,300 20.1% 79.9%
2000 $362,459 $23,729 $245,500 $93,230 $63,150 $297,109 17.4% 82.0%
2002 $324,771 $26,376 $298,000 $395 $90,700 $234,071 27.9% 72.1%
2004† $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 0.0% 100.0%
Total $1,092,931 $68,756 $834,000 $190,175 $223,897 $866,130 20.5% 79.2%
Ind Individuals
* Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on May 27, 2003.
Totals include PAC, soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates,
party committees and leadership PACs, 1989-2003.
† So far.
Lobbying Expenditures, 1998-2002°
Year Amount 1998 $540,000 1999 $1,109,918 2000 $1,336,775 2001 $1,418,125 2002 $1,396,767 Total $5,801,585 °According to federal lobbying reports filed with Congress.source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-bayer.asp 23jul03
DOW CHEMICAL
Total Contributions: $4,524,756 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $12,210,000
The biotech industry's No. 1 campaign contributor, Dow Chemical produces a medley of genetically modified foods. Through its subsidiaries Dow AgroSciences and Mycogen Seeds, the company sells modified corn, canola, soybeans—even sunflowers. Like most biotech companies, Dow is pushing for international acceptance of genetically-modified crops. The company is pressuring the Bush administration to sue the European Union and force it to overturn its ban on biotech crops. Dow also has joined with other biotech companies to create special coalitions and trade groups to persuade consumers abroad that biotech crops are safe. In 2002, Dow contributed to a $5.2 million campaign to block Oregon's proposed food labeling law. —Kristin Gribben
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2003*
% to % to
Cycle Total Ind PACs Soft Money To Dems To Reps Dems Reps
1990 $583,649 $177,174 $406,475 $0 $85,050 $498,599 14.6% 85.4%
1992 $722,530 $165,253 $451,100 $106,177 $161,031 $561,499 22.3% 77.7%
1994 $702,900 $123,850 $348,800 $230,250 $144,950 $557,450 20.6% 79.3%
1996 $615,003 $69,818 $231,700 $313,485 $126,100 $488,353 20.5% 79.4%
1998 $531,550 $62,550 $211,500 $257,500 $124,200 $406,350 23.4% 76.4%
2000 $679,780 $103,755 $218,825 $357,200 $136,195 $542,335 20.0% 79.8%
2002 $680,739 $46,835 $242,250 $391,654 $127,360 $552,379 18.7% 81.1%
2004** $8,605 $1,605 $7,000 $0 $2,405 $5,700 27.9% 66.2%
Total $4,524,756 $750,840 $2,117,650 $1,656,266 $907,291 $3,612,665 20.1% 79.8%
Ind Individuals
* Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on May 27, 2003.
Totals include PAC, soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates,
party committees and leadership PACs, 1989-2003.
** So far.
Lobbying Expenditures, 1998-2002°
Year Amount 1998 $2,440,000 1999 $2,120,000 2000 $2,130,000 2001 $2,800,000 2002 $2,720,000 Total $12,210,000 °According to federal lobbying reports filed with Congress. source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-dow.asp 23jul03
MONSANTO
Total Contributions: $3,861,830 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $21,871,380
A pioneer in the biotech industry, Monsanto was one of the first companies to market genetically modified seeds. The company now dominates 70 percent of the global market for transgenic seeds. Monsanto's high-profile agricultural products—including crops that produce their own pesticide—have made the company the target of anti-biotech protests worldwide. Monsanto is also the subject of a Justice Department probe into allegations of price-fixing. But the company does have some friends in Washington. One of Monsanto's former lobbyists, Linda Fisher, is now the No. 2 official at the Environmental Protection Agency and a candidate to become the agency's new chief. Monsanto has also spent $21 million on lobbying since 1998, more than any other biotech company. Monsanto also plays politics at the state level. In 2002, the company contributed more than $1 million to a campaign to block Oregon's proposed food labeling law. —Kristin Gribben
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2003*
% to % to
Cycle Total Ind PACs Soft Money To Dems To Reps Dems Reps
1990 $124,530 $8,920 $115,610 $0 $38,000 $86,530 30.5% 69.5%
1992 $201,450 $36,495 $144,455 $20,500 $66,050 $135,400 32.8% 67.2%
1994 $268,732 $72,127 $133,705 $62,900 $135,152 $133,580 50.3% 49.7%
1996 $335,507 $88,382 $118,125 $129,000 $121,500 $214,007 36.2% 63.8%
1998 $198,955 $99,110 $74,845 $25,000 $62,620 $136,335 31.5% 68.5%
2000 $1,176,970 $202,895 $89,400 $884,675 $221,060 $953,660 18.8% 81.0%
2002 $1,533,936 $163,136 $46,553 $1,324,247 $322,028 $1,211,908 21.0% 79.0%
2004** $21,750 $4,750 $17,000 $0 $4,000 $17,750 18.4% 81.6%
Total $3,861,830 $675,815 $739,693 $2,446,322 $970,410 $2,889,170 25.1% 74.8%
Ind Individuals
* Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on May 27, 2003. Totals include PAC,
soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates, party committees and leadership
PACs, 1989-2003. Includes Pharmacia contributions for the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles.
Pharmacia acquired Monsanto in 2000.
** So far.
Lobbying Expenditures, 1998-2002‡
Year Amount 1998 $4,000,000 1999 $4,000,000 2000 $7,782,960 2001 $2,539,840 2002 $3,548,580 Total $21,871,380 ‡ According to federal lobbying reports filed with Congress. Includes 2000, 2001 and 2002 lobbying expenditures for Pharmacia, which acquired Monsanto in 2000.source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-monsanto.asp 23jul03
SYNGENTA
Total Contributions: Total Lobbying Expenditures: $299,918 $3,340,000
Created by drug giants Novartis and AstraZeneca in 2000, Syngenta rapidly became as much of a household name in the biotech industry as Monsanto. The company produces genetically modified corn and cotton, and has been working on biotech rice. Last month, the U.S. Agency for International Development requested more money from Congress to help Syngenta develop insect-resistant potatoes to be planted in famine-plagued Africa. A true player in the biotech industry, last year Syngenta contributed to a $5.2 million campaign to defeat a proposition in Oregon—the first of its kind in the country—that would force food manufacturers to label genetically modified foods. —Kristin Gribben
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2003*
% to % to Cycle Total Ind PACs Soft Money To Dems To Reps Dems Reps 1990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1992 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1994 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 2002 $299,918 $3,100 $35,500 $261,318 $112,000 $187,918 37.3% 62.7% 2004** $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% Total $299,918 $3,100 $35,500 $261,318 $112,000 $187,918 37.3% 62.7% * Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on May 27, 2003. Totals include PAC, soft money and individual contributions to federal candidates, party committees and leadership PACs, 1989-2003. ** So far.
Lobbying Expenditures, 1998-2002°
Year Amount 1998 $0 1999 $0 2000 $360,000 2001 $1,560,000 2002 $1,420,000 Total $3,340,000 °According to federal lobbying reports filed with Congress. source: http://www.capitaleye.org/bio-syngenta.asp 23jul03
|
If
you have come to this page from an outside location click
here to get back to mindfully.org |
