[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

ORGANIC COTTON MONITOR 12-2-96



ORGANIC COTTON MONITOR
Produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade 
Policy
December 2, 1996
Volume 2, Number 2
_____________________________________
Headlines:
- U.S. GROWERS CONCERNED ABOUT ORGANIC COTTON MARKET
- Bt COTTON UPDATE
- MISSISSIPPI HOMES ACCIDENTALLY SPRAYED WITH COTTON 
PESTICIDE 
- ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD RULES ON GENETICALLY 
ENGINEERED FOOD
- USDA CREATES NEW POSITIONS TO FOCUS ON SUSTAINABLE 
AGRICULTURE
U.S. GROWERS CONCERNED ABOUT ORGANIC COTTON MARKET

Anxious over the ability to secure contracts for their 
product, organic cotton growers have cut acres harvested 
to about half the peak 36,000 in 1994.  Organic cotton 
production in the United States shrank from 7,500 tons 
in 1995 to an estimated 3,500 in 1996.  With the shrink 
in the demand for organic cotton,  many growers are not 
seeing a great enough return on their investments -- 
machinery, extra labor -- to justify planting the crop 
again next year without an improvement in the market 
price. California's largest growers of organic cotton, 
Claude and Linda Sheppard, told the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 
MONITOR this month that they will go back to using 
herbicides and defoliants on their 1,070 acres of cotton 
if the market does not improve next year.

There is reason to hope, however, that the market for 
organic cotton will improve in the coming years.  
Patagonia's switch to organic cotton in their clothing 
line this year holds great possibility for expanded use 
of the good in the huge retail clothing market.  
Patagonia is currently the largest purchaser of organic 
cotton fabric, passing along the increased cost of using 
organic cotton to consumers at a $2 to $10 increase for 
items previously made with conventional cotton.  The 
company also lowered its profit margin on those same 
items.  According to Patagonia's founder and owner, Yvon 
Chouinard, the switch to organic cotton has so far had 
no effect -- positive or negative -- on sales.

Other clothing manufacturers are less eager to venture 
into using organic cotton in their products.  Levi 
Strauss and Esprit saw their organic clothing lines 
quickly fade after some initial interest.  Levi Strauss 
has expressed concern over organic cotton lines, saying 
that the company had invested millions of dollars in 
marketing and development on their line of organic 
clothing (Elements) but consumers "were simply not 
interested in purchasing these products."  Further, the 
company maintains that there is not enough supply of 
organic cotton to make using it a feasible option for 
them in large scale production, and that current prices 
are prohibitive (about $0.30/lb U.S. above conventional 
cotton prices).

The Gap is currently looking into a cost-effective way 
of integrating organic cotton into their clothing 
manufacturing.  The company recently commissioned a 
study examining pesticide reduction in cotton production 
and the ability of the industry to increase the supply 
of organic cotton and subsequently bring the price down.  
The goal is to structure an expansion of the organic 
cotton market so that no one entity (farmer, miller, 
manufacturer) pays the price for their pesticide 
reduction efforts.

Brenda Biondo, "Tough Terrain for Organic Cotton 
Growers," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, November 5, 1996.

Bt COTTON UPDATE

Bollgard cotton users in five southern states were 
forced to apply pesticides to their fields despite their 
hopes that Monsanto's product would hold up against 
bollworm infestation.  In an effort to reduce pesticide 
use on their fields, farmers had planted 648,000 
hectares of Monsanto's Bollgard cotton, genetically 
engineered with DNA from the soil microbe Bacillus 
thuringiensis to produce toxins poisonous to the 
bollworm.  Bollgard is billed by the company as a 
substitute for using in-season sprays.  In some areas, 
bollworm levels this year were especially severe, 
proving too much for the transgenic cotton to withstand 
and thus forcing farmers to spray pesticides.

Monsanto stated that "You can never guarantee 100% 
control 100% of the time," and that the cotton "is 
performing as well as we expected...this year." The 
company claims that only a small portion of the total 
acres planted of the product required spraying.  
Additionally, Monsanto maintains that bollworm levels in 
some areas were higher than they have been in 20 years, 
and that testing of Bollgard before release was 
conducted at a lower level.  The company claims that the 
product is probably killing the same proportion of 
bollworms as it did during testing but that given the 
extremely severe bollworm problem this year, surviving 
bollworms are more noticeable.  The company also pointed 
out that Bollgard is still highly effective against the 
tobacco budworm and so farmers who planted Bt cotton are 
likely to come out ahead.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has asked the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend sales 
of Bollgard cotton.  Saying that the bollworms invasion 
into Bollgard cotton fields shows that Monsanto's 
resistance management plan, which it accepted as a 
condition for approval of the product by the EPA, has 
failed.  The EPA has indicated that they don't see 
suspension of Bollgard cotton as necessary, although the 
EPA has suspended sales of a new high Bt-producing corn 
to states that do not produce cotton, hoping to stem Bt 
resistance among migrating pests.  The suspension 
prohibits sales of the Bt corn, distributed by Northup-
King, in nine southern states and parts of four others.

Farmers who planted Bollgard this year paid a 
$79/hectare licensing or "technology" fee for the right 
to plant Bollgard.  Lest farmers  think they might 
replant Bollgard cotton seed and recoup their losses 
>from  also having to apply expensive pesticides,  
Monsanto is clear in its licensing agreement that the 
company "is only licensing growers to use seed 
containing the patented Bollgard gene for one crop.  
Saving or selling the seed for replanting will violate 
the limited license and infringe upon the patent rights 
of Monsanto.  This may subject you to prosecution under 
federal law."

In a related story, Australian cotton growers threatened 
to boycott Monsanto products amid the company's decision 
to charge $245 Australian ($196 U.S.)/hectare for its 
insect resistant transgenic cotton, Ingard.  Growers 
protested that the price was two and a half times what 
U.S. growers were charged.  Monsanto has agreed to 
rebate the farmers $25 Australian ($20 U.S.)/hectare if 
they have to spray their crops more than twice.

Tim Beardsley, "Picking on Cotton," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 
October 1996; Rural Advancement Foundation 
International-USA Communique, July/August 1996; 
"Monsanto Offers Aussie Growers Rebate on Ingard," DAILY 
NEWS RECORD, October 10, 1996.

MISSISSIPPI HOMES ACCIDENTALLY SPRAYED WITH COTTON 
PESTICIDE

Hundreds of homes in southeastern Mississippi were 
accidentally sprayed with the highly toxic cotton 
pesticide methyl parathion. Several people have reported 
becoming ill after their homes were sprayed by an 
unlicensed extermination company. The pesticide stays 
toxic for months or years when applied indoors. No 
deaths or hospitalizations have been reported.

The exterminator had used methyl parathion as a long-
term pest killer in local Pascagoula homes and 
businesses.  The co-operators of the firm were arrested 
in mid-November on misdemeanor charges of operating an 
unlicensed pest-control business, with additional 
charges pending.  In a statement made after his arrest, 
one of the operators commented that "If I had known 
[that the chemical was deadly], I wouldn't have sprayed 
my house."  There is no word yet as to the extent of 
contamination.

"Some Mississippi Houses Sprayed With Highly Toxic 
Cotton Pesticide," MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE, November 
21, 1996.

ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD RULES ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
FOOD

The National Organics Standards Board (NOSB) ruled in 
late September that genetically engineered food cannot 
be labeled as organic.  Specifically, the NOSB 
unanimously approved a statement declaring that "The 
National Organics Standards Board recommends that 
genetically engineered organisms and their  derivatives 
be prohibited in organic production and handling 
systems.  Genetically engineered is defined as: Made 
with techniques that alter the molecular or cell biology 
of an organism by means that are not possible under 
normal conditions or processes. Genetic engineering 
includes recumbent DNA, cell fusion, micro- and macro-
encapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introducing a 
foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes.  It 
shall not include breeding, conjugation, fermentation, 
hybridization, in-vitro fertilization and tissue 
culture."

The National Organics Standards Board is a 15 member 
body established by the 1990 Farm Bill to develop a 
single national organic standard to replace varying 
state organic accreditation programs.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY & BIODIVERSITY NEWS, October 10, 1996.

USDA CREATES NEW POSITIONS TO FOCUS ON SUSTAINABLE 
AGRICULTURE

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary 
Dan Glickman announced at the end of October that new 
positions would be created effective immediately to help 
forward the department's sustainable agriculture goals.  
The appointments stem from recommendations made by the 
President's Council on Sustainable Development in its 
March 1996 report "Sustainable America -- A New 
Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy 
Environment for the Future."  The report recommended 
that the USDA step up its sustainable development 
initiatives.  To wit, the USDA created the position of 
Director of Sustainable Development, reporting to the 
Chief Economist, who will represent the USDA both 
domestically and internationally regarding matters of 
sustainable development. The Director of Sustainable 
Development will also chair the newly created USDA 
Council on Sustainable Development.  The Director and 
Council are charged with incorporating principles and 
concepts of sustainable development into USDA 
regulations, policies and programs -- emphasizing the  
balancing of environmental quality, economic development 
and vitality of rural communities.

Secretary's Memorandum on Sustainable Development, 
November 1, 1996.

RESOURCES/EVENTS

Proceedings of the Second International IFOAM Conference 
on Organic Textiles, 1996. Contains 180 pages of 
presentations on organic fiber production, 
manufacturing, marketing, labeling and certification 
>from  the 1996 conference.  IFOAM is also offering the 
International Organic Textile Directory, an 
international listing of participants in the organic 
textile sector.  Both publications are available for $50 
U.S. ($75 DM), plus postage. Order from the 
International Federation of Organic Agriculture 
Movements (IFOAM), Okozentrum Imsbach, D66636 Tholey-
Theley (FRG). Phone: 49/6853/5190, Fax: 49/6853/30110.

The 12th IFOAM International Scientific and Technical 
Conference will be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 
November 15-19, 1998.  The theme will be "Organic 
Agriculture Credibility for the 21st Century," focusing 
on four central topics:  Organic agriculture 
credibility, productive systems credibility, guarantees 
credibility and trade credibility.  For more information 
contact the Argentina Movement for Organic Agriculture 
(MAPO), Diagonal Roque Pena 1110, 5th Floor, Of. 5 
(1035), Buenos Aires, Argentina.  Phone/fax: 
54/1/382/3221.

Proceedings of the European Seminar on Organic Farming 
in the European Union, June 1996. The seminar covered 
policies, marketing and farm conversion case studies.  
The proceedings include information on the current 
situation of organic farming in Europe. Order from 
CEPFAR, Rue de la Science 23-25 (Box 10), B-1040 
Brussels, Belgium. Phone: 32/0/2/230/32/63, Fax: 
32/0/2/231/18/45.

1996 National Organic Directory. Contains 1000+ cross-
listed references of commodities bought and sold, 
contact information for growers, wholesalers, and 
suppliers.  Includes updated summary on state and 
federal organic laws. Order from Community Alliance with 
Family Farmers, PO Box 464, Davis, CA  95617. Phone: 1-
800-852-3832.  $34.95 (U.S.) plus $6 postage and 
handling.
_______________________________________________________

Produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade 
Policy, Mark Ritchie, President.  Editor: Judy Brienza.
E-mail versions are available electronically free of charge. For 
information about fax or mail subscriptions or for a list 
of other IATP publications, contact the Institute for 
Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2105 1st Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 
55404; 612-870-0453; fax: 612-870-4846, e-mail <iatp@iatp.org>.  
For information about IATP's contract research services, contact Dale 
Wiehoff at IATP <dwiehoff@iatp.org>.