Assessment on 2,4-D Resistant Crops Activism

I. Overview

Environmental, environmental health and anti-biotechnology activists will likely oppose the widespread use of 2,4- D resistant crops, and much of the opposition from key groups will beis expected to will be coordinated. The opposition appearsThese groups appear are unlikely to be able to result bring about in the withdrawal of registration or in to successfully bring widespread product deselection by farmers. Still, the issues these groups raise have the potential to turn 2,4- D resistant crops into a public battle in which the Dow Agrosciences seeds , serveing as a proxy for a number of disparate battles that activists have been waging for more than a decade.

Anti-corporate opposition critics of to Dow Chemical and its subsidiaries are first, and possibly likely to be the most potent importantsource of opposition to , place where 2,4- D resistant seeds. could serve as a proxy. Activists groups have targeted Dow Chemical on three fronts: – its alleged liabilities as the owner of Union Carbide Corporation for the Bhopal disaster; its liabilities as a manufacturer of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War; and its continued production of chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulativebioaccumulative or toxic (chlorine-based products in particular). The campaign against the company, known broadly as the Dow Accountability Campaign, has links with leading anti-chemicals organizations and it is led by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), which is likely to be among the leading critics of 2,4- D resistant crops. The Dow Accountability Campaign, however, appears to have has lost much of its structure, coordination and funding over the last several years, as it has focused almost entirely on Bhopal-related issues, but it remains to be seen if it can could be spun up again quickly be reinvigorated if conditions activists and funders see a new opportunity to challenge the company. Foundations are already investing in Agent Orange merit.activism in 2011, which will could awaken one of the major nodes of the mostly dormant campaign.

In addition to the three fronts of the Dow Accountability Campaign, opposition to 2,4- D resistant crops will come from opponents of agricultural biotechnology, particularly most effectively from those who have battled Monsanto for the past 15 years on issues relating to herbicide resistance. The 2,4- D issue will provide these activists an opportunity to point out that despite Monsanto’s assurances to the contrary, activists predicted the eventual emergence of herbicide resistance with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops and they will use the introduction of the new Dow Agrosciences products as a chance to reiterate their message, to remind the public they were right about herbicide resistance, and to call for dramatic changes to the agricultural system.

In addition to serving as a proxy for larger arguments about herbicide resistance, Agent Orange, Bhopal and PBTs, some major organizations will oppose the use of 2,4- D resistant crops on the basis that 2,4- D is not safe for widespread application. These groups will appeal to the federal government not to allow the sale of 2,4- D resistant seeds on the basisclaiming that the increased application of 2,4- D will do severe damage to the environment and threaten human health. Though they are the most clearly focused on the product at issue, these activists are the least likely to be successful, as their position requires winning a scientific argument about a substance that has been subject of considerable study.

Therefore, With this in mind, pProduct deselection is appears the most potent activist threat to the successful marketing of 2,4- D resistant seeds in the U.S.. Groups are unlikely to win at the regulatory level, but they may be able to combine selected scientific allegations with arguments about herbicide resistance and allegations about Dow Chemical to convince some farmers that planting DowAgrosciences’ 2,4- D resistant seeds represents a risky endeavor, or that food manufacturers or restaurantsretailers using 2,4-D resistant crops are also subject to rbusiness risk.

II. Key activist groups and issuesplayers

The key groups to watch in tracking the opposition to 2,4-D resistant crops fall into two broad categories: those opposed to biotechnology and those working against against Dow’s reputation and brand.

The groups trying to stop or slow the introduction of new agricultural biotechnology are led by the Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides and often coordinate through the Genetic Engineering Action Network (GEAN). These organizations will be the most strident in opposing the proliferation of 2,4-D resistant crops, but their capabilities are limited due to lack of funding and a historical apathy in the United States on agricultural biotechnology and GMO-related issues (these issues tend to gain more public support in Europe).

The groups that are active against Dow Chemical work on many different issues relevant to the company. They include the Environmental Health Fund (EHF), which manages the Bhopal-related issues; PANNA, which manages theused to lead the larger global Dow Accountability Campaign (and which is also a leading anti-biotechnology group); but still provides support for Students for Bhopal; and the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign. These groups are small but effective at bringing negative publicity to Dow and its subsidiaries. Their work will not in itself have a decisive impact on 2,4-D resistant crops, but they will could provide significant support for the anti-biotechnology organizations that will try to slow or stop the introduction of 2,4-D resistant crops.

Depending on how much attention the anti-biotechnology groups are able to bring to the introduction of 2,4-D resistant crops, the anti-Dow organizations may find common cause and try to find ways to blend 2,4-D into their campaigns. This is a worst-case scenario result in that the complaints about Vietnam or India, which have largely fallen on deaf ears in the U.S., could find new life when tied to a more tangible and local agricultural biotechnology issue. Similarly, the anti-biotechnology activists could see the taint from these long term controversies strengthen their campaigns.

A. Opposition to Biotechnology

Activist groups in the United States have opposed agricultural biotechnology since the late 1980s when the industry was in its formative stages. The groups that opposed theoretical seed manipulations, such as herbicide resistance, Bacillus thuringiensis amplification and other traits, relied primarily on unsubstantiated allegations and an acknowledged fear of the unknown. Over the years, some of the specific fears bore out, while most did not, and fear of the unknown remains a significant justification for opposition to agricultural biotechnology.

For some of the early opponents of agricultural biotechnology, these concerns reflected their primary reasons for opposing new seeds or veterinary drugs. In most

cases, however, the opponents of agricultural biotechnology were longstanding opponents of the agricultural industry, agricultural chemicals industry and the chemicals industry broadly. They viewed the introduction of agricultural biotechnology as another step in the corporate control of agriculture, so-called “Big Ag,” and the empowerment of corporations they historically did not trust. Their opposition to agricultural biotechnology, while sincere, came as an extension of their concern about other issues.

As the global leaders in biotechnologies reconfigured themselves as life sciences companies in the 1990s and began to purchase or build seeds businesses, opposition to agricultural biotechnology heightened. Controversies over the introduction of GMOs erupted in Europe at this time as well.

The late 1990s represent the zenith of opposition to agricultural biotechnology. Every major environmental and consumers organization in the U.S. built a biotechnology-focused practice. Concern dissipated quickly, however, and by the early 2000s opposition to biotechnology was a boutique area of activism led by organics and anti-pesticide groups. Environmental organizations abandoned their biotechnology campaigns, and consumers groups were split on the issues relating to the safety of GMOs.

This boutique group of activist groups is led by Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, ETC Group, Pesticide Action Network North America, Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth. In addition to these organizations, dozens of smaller regional and special interest groups are also active on questions relating to the planting of GMO crops.

The organizations at the core of the opposition to biotechnology are primarily idealistic groups. These organizations tend not to balance the impact on human health and well being from banning GMOs with the benefits they think would come from not planting them. Instead they see planting of GMOs as an inherently negative practice bad thing that must stop.

A few, notably PANNAOrganic Consumers Association and Friends of the Earth, view the issue as an ideological one in which corporations are increasing their power over people via their control over the food supply. These groups do not necessarily argue on the merits of health or ecological merits of the products at question – they oppose the product because large corporations made them and they will use whatever argument they think will be effective.

Contemporary biotechnology activism is missing a key segment: realists. Realists generally are activists who accept trade offs and acknowledge that costs and benefits must be balanced. They tend to pay close attention to scientific argument and fight where the science most strongly supports their view and they tend to compromise where the science is less helpful. Realistic consumer and environmental organizations were the most significant segment of groups that left the anti-biotechnology movement in the early part of the 2000s. This is crucial because it has meant that the organizations fighting the regulatory battles in EPA and at USDA do not have the credibility of groups such as Consumers Union or Natural Resources Defense Council. Instead, the comments are dominated by groups such as Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides whose doctrinaire and absolutist rhetoric has far less effect at the regulatory level than moderate organizations.

B. Opposition to Dow

The roots of the focused opposition to Dow Chemical and its subsidiaries lies in the Vietnam War. The Agent Orange issue is the clearest outgrowth, but the emotion is actually rooted in the stories and pictures of the effects of napalm in Vietnam. (Dow was a considered a “corporate villain” by war protesters long before health allegations about Agent Orange surfaced.) As a chlorine-based chemicals company, it also became the favored target of the anti-chlorine and the endocrine disruption campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s. The 1999 purchase of Union Carbide Corporation added questions surrounding the liability over the 1984 Bhopal gas leakaccident. Anti-chemical industry activist Gary Cohen, the founder of Environmental Health Fund, cobbled these various issue concerns into one campaign in 2002, and he called it theknow as the Dow Accountability Campaign. The campaign began with the publication of a book, Trespass Against Us, by Jack Doyle, and it featured chapters on a long list of complaints, including chapters on Vietnam, Bhopal and 2,4-D.

The campaign was based in part on a previous campaign led by environmental health activists against Shell for its alleged human rights abuses abroad (Nigeria) and its alleged pollution and negative health impact in the Gulf Coast, especially in Norco, Louisiana. Activists launched a multi-pronged campaign against Shell which they claim resulted in Shell offering to buy out residents’ homes in Norco.

While the Shell campaign did succeed in activists’ eyes, tThe Dow Accountability Campaign did not succeed in its objective -- placing enough pressure on the company to accept additional penalties for Bhopal and Agent Orange -- but it did challenge the company’s brand (including various public relations stunts against the company organized by the prank group, the Yes Men) and build a network of grassroots organizations that remain concerned about any product associated with the company.

These grassroots groups and the national movements on the various Dow-related sub-issues remain a vulnerability for any Dow product, but especially those that carry controversy into the marketplace.

1. Vietnam

Activists intend to bring significant attention tohave been campaigning against Dow Chemical’s role in the production of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War for years, however 2011 may mark an uptick in this work. They will focus particularly on the intergenerational impacts of the herbicide. The fact that 2,4-D was a component of Agent Orange -- though not one of the components at issue in litigation or U.S.-Vietnam diplomacy – means that while Agent Orange activists will not likely have much to say on the 2,4-D issue, the anti-biotechnology activists working against 2,4-D resistant crops will likely find the campaign against Agent Orange to be quite helpful.

Activists claim that 2011 marks fifty years since the beginning of what would become Operation Ranch Hand and forty years since Operation Ranch Hand stopped. In 2011, the campaign to win reparations to Vietnamese victims will step up dramatically. The Ford Foundation has given numerous organizations in the U.S. and Vietnam more than $500,000 to bring attention to Vietnamese claims that Agent Orange is having a negative impact on human health on the grandchildren of those exposed to the compound.

They will focus particularly on the intergenerational impacts of the herbicide. The fact that 2,4-D was a component of Agent Orange -- though not one of the components at issue in litigation or U.S.-Vietnam diplomacy – means that while Agent

Orange activists will not likely have much to say on the 2,4-D issue, the anti-biotechnology activists working against 2,4-D resistant crops will likely find the campaign against Agent Orange to be quite helpful.

The Agent Orange victims are led by Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign, which is an Agent Orange victims group based in the U.S. that was founded in 2005. The group co-sponsored a protest at the Dow Live Earth Run for Water in April 2010 along with the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Wetlands Activism Collective/Global Justice for Animals and the Environment and the Yes Men. The group members dressed as Grim Reapers and held “die-ins” at the event in order to draw media attention to their claim Dow is a bad company that is involved in Agent Orange, dioxin pollution in Michigan, the Bhopal gas leak and poisoning drinking water in Seadrift, Texas at the former Union Carbide plant.ich …

In 200910, the Ford Foundation awarded more than a dozen grants totaling $3 million dollars to various media and research groups to work on the Agent Orange issue. Among the important grants Ford awarded are: $50,000 to 1,2,3 for x,y, and z. the Washington, D.C.-based Communications Consortium Media Center to prepare a strategy to lead a coordinated U.S. media campaign against Agent Orange and dioxin. It also made a $250,000 grant to the Vermont-based War Legacies Project, which is the fiscal sponsor of the Truth about Dow website and works to educate the public on the health effects of Agent Orange and dioxin and current government and non profit efforts directed at helping victims.

2. Bhopal

The Bhopal campaign continues at a low boil. The campaign has two major nodes, one in India and one in the U.S. The Indian node of activity is working through the Indian political and court systems to win a new judgment against Union Carbide Company over the Bhopal incident. The U.S. node is dedicated to placing pressure on the Dow brand across the country. The primary activity in the U.S. is maintaining student groups at universities. Students for Bhopal is active at fifteen campuses in the U.S., and is strongest at University of Texas, Indiana University (Bloomington), and Boston University. While the Agent Orange issue may increase in intensity (at least in the amount of attention it receives by the media), the Bhopal issue has been steadily decreasing in importance to both activists and the media. The Bhopal campaign in the U.S. does not have the experienced activists it once had. Diana Ruiz of PANNA used to coordinate the Dow Accountability Campaign (which was housed out of PANNA) but she has moved on and PANNA does not have a direct replacement for her. Ryan Boydani, the founder and head of Students for Bhopal, left the organization several years ago and now works at National Wildlife Federation.

The Bhopal campaign continues to operate in an opportunistic fashion – for instance, demonstrating in India while President Obama visited the country in November 2010.

The campaign has two major nodes, one in India and one in the U.S. The Indian node of activity is working through the Indian political and court systems to win a new judgment against Union Carbide Company over the Bhopal incident. The U.S. node is dedicated to placing pressure on the Dow brand across the country. The primary activity in the U.S. is maintaining student groups at universities, especially engineering and science schools, in an attempt to provide ready activists for Bhopal-

related direct action and also to generate question among students in pursuing a Dow-related career.

Status of Opposition to Biotechnology

Activists groups in the United States have opposed agricultural biotechnology since the late 1980s when the industry was in its formative stages. The groups that opposed theoretical seed manipulations, such as herbicide resistance, Bacillus thuringiensis amplification and other traits, relied primarily on unsubstantiated allegations and an acknowledged fear of the unknown. Over the years, some of the specific fears bore out, while most did not, and fear of the unknown remains a significant justification for opposition to agricultural biotechnology.

For some of the early opponents of agricultural biotechnology, these concerns reflected their primary reasons for opposing new seeds or veterinary drugs. In most cases, however, the opponents of agricultural biotechnology were longstanding opponents of the agricultural industry, agricultural chemicals industry and the chemicals industry broadly. They viewed the introduction of agricultural biotechnology as another step in the corporate control of agriculture and the empowerment of corporations they historically did not trust. Their opposition to agricultural biotechnology, while sincere, came as an extension of their concern about other issues.

As the global leaders in biotechnologies reconfigured themselves as life sciences companies in the 1990s and began to purchase or build seeds businesses, opposition to agricultural biotechnology heightened. Controversies over the introduction of GMOs erupted in Europe at this time as well.

The late 1990s represent the zenith of opposition to agricultural biotechnology. Every major environmental and consumers organization in the U.S. built a biotechnology-focused practice. Concern dissipated quickly, however, and by the early 2000s opposition to biotechnology was a boutique area of activism led by organics and anti-pesticide groups. Environmental organizations abandon their biotechnology campaigns, and consumers groups were split on the issues relating to the safety of GMOs. (The split was forced by repeated announcements by the Center for Science in the Public Interest that they could find no health problems associated with consuming GMOs.)

This small group of activist groups is led by Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, ETC Group, Pesticide Action Network, Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth. In addition to these organizations, dozens of smaller regional and special interest groups are also active on questions relating to the planting of GMO crops.

The organizations at the core of the opposition to biotechnology are primarily idealistic groups. These organizations tend not to balance the impact on human health and well being from banning GMOs with the benefits they think would come from not planting them. Instead they see planting of GMOs as a bad thing that must stop.

A few, notably PANNA, view the issue as an ideological one in which corporations are increasing their power over people via their control over the food supply. These groups do not necessarily argue on the merits of health or ecological merits of the

products at question – they oppose the product because large businesses made them and they will use whatever argument they think will be effective.

Contemporary biotechnology activism is missing a key segment: realists. Realists generally are activists who accept trade offs and acknowledge that costs and benefits must be balanced. They tend to pay close attention to scientific argument and fight where the science most strongly supports their view and they tend to compromise where the science is less helpful. Realistic consumer and environmental organizations were the most significant segment of groups that left the anti-biotechnology movement in the early part of the 2000s. This is crucial because it has mean that the organizations fighting the regulatory battles in EPA and at USDA do not have the credibility of groups such as Consumers Union or NRDC. Instead, the comments are dominated by groups such as Beyond Pesticides whose doctrinaire and absolutist rhetoric has far less effect than moderate organizations.

Broadening the Movement to the Mainstream

For 2,4-D resistant crops to emerge as a major regulatory issue, biotechnology activists will have to add realistic mainstream organizations to their fold.

Recruiting new groups will be easiest through the strengthened case that herbicide-resistant crops over time give rise to weeds that are resistant to the herbicide in question. Groups such as NRDC and National Wildlife Federation are concerned about pesticides and can be brought back into the biotechnology activism. Key to this in the context of 2,4-D is whether these groups are biased against 2,4-D, whether they are biased against Dow products or whether they see an important opportunity in the emerging concern over herbicide resistance.

(Point here is to say they will need some realists if they want to fight in DC. And they won’t find any takers in all likelihood. There’s limited reason, limited funds and other priorities. When they don’t get the realists, they won’t get the regulatory agencies. This will drive them to deselection.)

=======

AlternativesMarket Campaigns

I’ll include stuff like the Future 500 diagram that had the retailers as key to any campaign. Kraft, General Mills, etc. Get them in position using traditional corporate campaign. Use AO and Bhopal to get to the Dow=creepy argument.

Liklihood of success is low, but not to be dismissed.That sounds good and useful(the Future 500 stuff and “downstream” customers)

=======Brand Reputation – Bhopal and Dow Chemical

To do this, do I need to establish the AO and Bhopal stuff earlier on? I think so.The Agent Orange issue is likely to gain more press attention in 2011 because it marks the 40th “anniversary” since the spraying campaign stopped (and the 50th anniversary since it started).

While the Agent Orange issue may increase in intensity (at least in the amount of attention it receives by the media), the Bhopal issue has been steadily decreasing in importance to both activists and the media. The Bhopal campaign in the U.S. does

not have the experienced activists it once had. Diana Ruiz of PANNA used to coordinate the Dow Accountability Campaign (which was housed out of PANNA) but she has moved on and PANNA does not have a direct replacement for her. Ryan Boydani, the founder and head of Students for Bhopal, left the organization several years ago and now works at National Wildlife Federation.

The Bhopal campaign continues to operate in an opportunistic fashion – for instance, demonstration in India while President Obama visited the country in November 2010.=====Biotechnology

Activist groups in the United States have opposed agricultural biotechnology since the late 1980s when the industry was in its formative stages. The groups that opposed theoretical seed manipulations, such as herbicide resistance, Bacillus thuringiensis amplification and other traits, relied primarily on unsubstantiated allegations and an acknowledged fear of the unknown. Over the years, some of the specific fears bore out, while most did not, and fear of the unknown remains a significant justification for opposition to agricultural biotechnology.

For some of the early opponents of agricultural biotechnology, these concerns reflected their primary reasons for opposing new seeds or veterinary drugs. In most cases, however, the opponents of agricultural biotechnology were longstanding opponents of the agricultural industry, agricultural chemicals industry and the chemicals industry broadly. They viewed the introduction of agricultural biotechnology as another step in the corporate control of agriculture, so-called “Big Ag,” and the empowerment of corporations they historically did not trust. Their opposition to agricultural biotechnology, while sincere, came as an extension of their concern about other issues.

As the global leaders in biotechnologies reconfigured themselves as life sciences companies in the 1990s and began to purchase or build seeds businesses, opposition to agricultural biotechnology heightened. Controversies over the introduction of GMOs erupted in Europe at this time as well.

The late 1990s represent the zenith of opposition to agricultural biotechnology. Every major environmental and consumers organization in the U.S. built a biotechnology-focused practice. Concern dissipated quickly, however, and by the early 2000s opposition to biotechnology was a boutique area of activism led by organics and anti-pesticide groups. Environmental organizations abandoned their biotechnology campaigns, and consumers groups were split on the issues relating to the safety of GMOs. (The split was forced by repeated announcements by the Center for Science in the Public Interest that they could find no health problems associated with consuming GMOs.)

This boutique group of activist groups is led by Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, ETC Group, Pesticide Action Network North America, Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth. In addition to these organizations, dozens of smaller regional and special interest groups are also active on questions relating to the planting of GMO crops.

The organizations at the core of the opposition to biotechnology are primarily idealistic groups. These organizations tend not to balance the impact on human health and well being from banning GMOs with the benefits they think would come

from not planting them. Instead they see planting of GMOs as a bad thing that must stop.

A few, notably PANNA, view the issue as an ideological one in which corporations are increasing their power over people via their control over the food supply. These groups do not necessarily argue on the merits of health or ecological merits of the products at question – they oppose the product because large corporations made them and they will use whatever argument they think will be effective.

Contemporary biotechnology activism is missing a key segment: realists. Realists generally are activists who accept trade offs and acknowledge that costs and benefits must be balanced. They tend to pay close attention to scientific argument and fight where the science most strongly supports their view and they tend to compromise where the science is less helpful. Realistic consumer and environmental organizations were the most significant segment of groups that left the anti-biotechnology movement in the early part of the 2000s. This is crucial because it has meant that the organizations fighting the regulatory battles in EPA and at USDA do not have the credibility of groups such as Consumers Union or Natural Resources Defense Council. Instead, the comments are dominated by groups such as Beyond Pesticides whose doctrinaire and absolutist rhetoric has far less effect at the regulatory level than moderate organizations. C. Environmental Health Arguments against 2,4-D

While the anti-Dow and biotechnology groups are probably the most important to watch, environmental health arguments against 2,4-D should also be noted. Natural Resources Defense Council focused on environmental health claims in its 2008 petition to EPA – particularly that it is an endocrine disruptor. NRDC has mentioned 2,4-D in several reports, including the 1997 “Our Children at Risk,” the 1998 “Trouble on the Farm,” and the 1999 “Bottled Water Pure Drink or Pure Hype,” but these reports predate the petition. NRDC would be an important group to monitor, however, as it a realist group that could have influence at the regulatory level against 2,4-D resistant seeds. While the 2008 petition to ban 2,4-D seems to have fizzled out as a priority for the group, the release of 2,4-D resistant seeds could cause the group to reinvigorate its campaign. NRDC is not an anti-biotech group, however, so its main claims would be of an environmental health nature.

NRDC was among the leading chlorpyrifos groups

Besides NRDC, the following are several groups that have made recent environmental health arguments against 2,4-D.

1. PANNA

Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) is both an anti-biotech and environmental health group. Its objective is to reduce demand (either by phase outs or public campaigning efforts) of synthetic pesticides. It is particularly concerned with those pesticides deemed to be persistent, bioaccummulative or toxic. It views pesticides as the “lynchpin” of the current commercial agricultural system and views a change or reduction in pesticide use as a way to change the agricultural industry from large scale, corporate farms to small scale, organic farms. It is anti-corporate and believes “Big Ag” prioritizes profits over the public’s health.

PANNA operates a pesticides database whose information serves a key indicator of activists’ view of chemicals of concern. PANNA’s database focuses on 2,4-D’s potential to cause endocrine disruption and notes that the chemical is on several

notable activist scientist’s list of chemicals of concern relating to endocrine disruption, including lists made by Our Stolen Future co-author, Theo Colborn, as well as the EU endocrine disruption priority list. PANNA says 2,4-D is included in Lawrence Keith’s 1997 book, Environmental Endocrine Disruptors: A Handbook of Property Data, as well as Charles Benbrook’s 1996 report, Growing Doubt: A Primer on Pesticides Identified as Endocrine Disruptors and/or Reproductive Toxicants. The PANNA listing also notes 2,4-D is classified as a “probable” endocrine disruptor on 1997 Illinois EPA list in the “Report on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals” and is listed in a 2000 report by European BKH Consulting Engineers and TNO Nutrition Research, “Towards the Establishment of a Priority List of Substances for Further Evaluation of their Role in Endocrine Disruption.”

Notably, PANNA does not include 2,4-D in its “Dirty Dozen” pesticide list, nor is it noted as a “bad actor.” PANNA defines “bad actor” by possessing at least one of the following traits: highly acutely toxic, cholinesterase inhibitor, known/probable carcinogen, known groundwater pollutant or known reproductive or developmental toxicant. PANNA notes that there are no “authoritative” lists of endocrine disrupting chemicals so those chemicals suspected to disrupt the endocrine system are not classified as “bad actors.” It is also important that 2,4-D is not included in California’s Proposition 65 list, which is a list many activists rely on for their campaign work.

However, 2,4-D receives a “potential” classification for PAN’s Ground Water Contaminant Rating and it is listed as a hazardous air pollutant at U.S. EPA and in California. It also says 2,4-D is a possible IARC carcinogen and listed as moderately hazardous on the WHO Acute Hazard list and slight to moderately toxic according to U.S. National Toxicology Program Acute Toxicity Studies.

It should be noted that while PANNA’s database treats 2,4-D fairly well, PANNA notes that 2,4-D is a top search in its database, potentially indicating growing interest among activists in the chemical.

In 2010, PANNA launched a database of chemicals in food called “What’s On My Food.” It lists 2,4-D as being found in potatoes, untreated water, treated water, groundwater and bottled water. The database appears modeled after the Environmental Working Group’s Chemicals in Cosmetics database, which receives significant media attention and is often held as a key reference document for people concerned about exposure to certain chemicals.

PANNA is a relatively well-connected group. PANNA’s board includes the environmental program officers of the Compton Foundation and the C.S. Mott Foundation. Chemicals consultant, Michael Picker, is also on the board. He has close ties with California chemicals regulators.

PANNA also worked with NRDC to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos. The groups submitted a petition to EPA in 2007 to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos. In July 2010, the groups filed suit with EPA alleging harm by the agency for not following through with the petition request.

2. Beyond Pesticides

Beyond Pesticides has a “Chemical Watch Factsheet” for 2,4-D (2004) in which it says the pesticide is linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, toxicity to dogs, fish, birds, earthworms and beneficial insects such as bees.

Beyond Pesticides notes that it has a low persistence in soil levels but that it has a high potential to leach from soils, potentially contaminating groundwater. Beyond Pesticides says that about 50% of 2,4-D composes Agent Orange but says “it is thought that most of the health problems related to Agent Orange were actually due to dioxin contamination of the other major component, 2,4,5-T.” It says that although 2,4,5-T has been banned, dioxin has been found in 2,4-D. and this is potentially harmful to health.

Beyond Pesticides was instrumental in getting 2,4-D banned in Quebec.

3. Breast Cancer Fund

The San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund is an environmental health group dedicated to promoting science which links environmental exposure to chemicals and breast cancer. The group issues an annual report, “State of the Evidence,” which provides an overview of recent studies that find links between environmental exposures and breast cancer. The 2006, 2008 and 2010 reports include studies, and claims made by Pesticide Action Network, that 2,4-D is an endocrine disruptor and may be linked to breast cancer. The reports, however, mostly rely on one 2005 study of 128 Latina agricultural workers diagnosed with cancer and exposed to chlordane, malathion and 2,4-D (Mills, PK, Yang R. Breast cancer risk in Hispanic agricultural workers in California. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.) While the Breast Cancer Fund did not mention 2,4-D in its press release for the 2010 report, Beyond Pesticides wrote an article on the report in which it called out the various pesticides mentioned in the report, including 2,4-D.

4. Collaborative on Health and the Environment

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment is an initiative founded in 2002 by Bolinas, California-based Commonweal to bring scientific research on chemicals and health effects to the mainstream. CHE operates a database on toxicants and diseases to educate the public, and interested medical professionals, on environmental health issues. It lists 2,4-D has having a “strong” link to chloracne, a “good” link to abnormal sperm, lymphoma, peripheral neuropathy, porphyria, and soft tissue sarcoma. It lists 2,4-D as having a “limited” link to testicular cancer, colorectal cancer, brain cancer, oral clefts, acute hepatocellular injury, neural tube defect, immune suppression and reduced fertility in males.

CHE maintains many disease-specific working groups such as fertility, mental health, learning disabilities and asthma, which are composed of public health and medical professionals, activists and concerned members of the public. The working groups have regular conference calls and coordinate their actions such as releasing reports and developing media campaigns that get the message out that exposure to certain chemicals can lead to certain health conditions. While these working groups have not focused on 2,4-D in the past, groups such as PANNA or potentially NRDC could request CHE’s help in providing “credible” allies to any environmental health-focused arguments against Dow Agrosciences’ 2,4-D resistant seeds.

D. Other Side Issues

Climate Change Activism and Pesticides

Pesticides and GMO activism may begin to be wrapped up in the climate activism debate. Organic Consumers Association President Ronnie Cummins said in a

December 2010 article that “Big Agribusiness” is similar to “Big Coal” and “Big Oil” because they all rely on fossil fuels and contribute to global climate change. He says nitrate-based fertilizes in particular, which he says is often used in conjunction with genetically modified crops, helps contribute to releases of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide and also pollutes water. He also says fertilizers are energy intensive to produce and in the process burns fossil fuels.

Cummins suggests climate activists promote the idea of organic farms developed to sequester carbon and utilize composting for food scraps. He says, “We need to spread the word that corporate agribusiness, factory farms, and the chemical fertilizer industry are climate criminals. We either ‘sunset’ them or they're going to sunset us.”

Cummins says in early 2011, his group and labor and climate groups will launch a 20-city campaign to educate the public on methane and nitrous oxide issues and their linkages to climate change and promote alternative farming methods (he says “take down the methane and nitrous oxide climate criminals”)

GMO Industry “Opportunism” Argument

The environmental news organization and advocacy group, Grist.org, has written several articles mentioning Dow AgroSciences’ 2,4-D resistant crops. In these articles, Grist claims that the company is capitalizing on what the group says is Monsanto’s resistance issues associated with Roundup Ready. In June 2010, Grist’s senior food and agriculture writer, Tom Philpott, wrote an article titled, “How the Agrichemical Industry Turns Failure into Market Opportunity.” In the article, he refers to a June 4, 2010 Wall Street Journal article “Superweed Outbreak Triggers Arms Race,” and mentions that the “superweed” argument has always been a concern of activist groups such as Union of Concerned Scientists. Philpott mistakenly says 2,4-D is listed by PAN as a “bad actor” and says that Dow AgroSciences is using the Roundup Ready situation “as an opportunity to revive use of 2,4-D.”

In October 2010, Grist’s Tom Philpott wrote an article claiming Monsanto was paying farmers to spray multiple pesticides on their RoundUp Ready crop. Philpott mentioned his June article and said, “Companies like Dow Agroscience are dusting off old, highly toxic poisons like 2, 4-D and promoting them as the ‘answer’ to Roundup's problems.” Philpott suggests farmers should be looking for non-chemical ways to control weeds such as crop rotations, mulching and cover crops and that Monsanto’s payments are perpetuating the use of “poisons.” He suggests the Obama Administration is supporting Monsanto’s work because the director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, is what Grist claims a “Monsanto man,” because he worked at the Danforth Center at Washington University in St. Louis and Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant is on the center’s board of directors.

III. Market Campaigns

If a market campaign or deselection of 2,4-D resistant crops were to take place, the following is helpful historical information to begin to game things out.

The basic goal of any market campaign is to pressure a company to come to agreement with activist groups on a specific set of issues. This agreement is then taken to other companies in the industry. The key mechanism of a market campaign is for activists to place pressure on consumer brands. This is effective whether the ultimate target is a consumer product company or not, because the campaigners

have found that major downstream buyers can (and do) exert pressure on their supply chains.

The activist campaign in the EU against GMOs was one of the most successful market campaigns of the past 15 years. Activists from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace targeted major grocery chains and demanded that they not sell products that contained GMOs. Once one major retailer in a market committed to a no-GMO policy, the rest followed quickly as none could afford to have consumers worried about the safety of the food the store sold.

A similar marketplace campaign failed in the United States. Activists from FoE, Greenpeace, Organic Consumers Association and others placed pressure on Kraft, General Mills, Frito Lay and other major consumer product companies. Success with Frito Lay did not cause contagion throughout the processed food industry, and the campaign floundered.

The earlier failures may not be indicative of a new market campaign.However, Tthe practice of market campaigning has become far more sophisticated since the early part of this decade. Campaigns to challenge mining, forest products and industrial fishing operations have tested dozens of theories on how to move companies and industries. Market campaigning has become a valuable tool for activists to make change in public policy as companies have increasingly become more brand-conscious and the green movement has caught on.

The multi-faceted campaign against Wal-Mart, especially, proved a number of lessons to market campaigners. The most important of these lessons was the power of retailers in the supply chain and retailers own sensitivity to their reputation and brand. Since the Wal-Mart campaign began in earnest, almost all major market campaigns have treated retailers as the strategic lynchpin. (This lesson obviously could have been learned from the GMO campaigns in Europe, but it was not.)

In the case of 2,4-D resistant crops, a market campaign against Dow Agrosciences has not been initiated and we have no indication that one is being built. Nonetheless, the activists know they havewould have a low likelihood of success at the regulatory level, and they will also see theand could begin to develop a market campaign to reduce demand for 2,4-D resistant seeds and crops.

IIIV.

Status of 2,4-D Among Groups

PANNA

Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA)’s objective is to reduce demand (either by phase outs or public education efforts) of synthetic pesticides. It is particularly concerned with those pesticides deemed to be persistent, bioaccummulative or toxic. It views pesticides as the “lynchpin” of the current commercial agricultural system and views a change or reduction in pesticide use as a way to change the agricultural industry from large scale, corporate farms to small scale, organic farms. It is anti-corporate and believes “Big Ag” prioritizes profits over the public’s health.

PANNA operates a pesticides database whose information serves a key indicator of activists’ view of chemicals of concern. PANNA’s database

focuses on 2,4-D’s potential to cause endocrine disruption and notes that the chemical is on several notable activist scientist’s list of chemicals of concern relating to endocrine disruption, including lists made by Our Stolen Future co-author, Theo Colborn, as well as the EU endocrine disruption priority list. PANNA says 2,4-D is included in Lawrence Keith’s 1997 book, Environmental Endocrine Disruptors: A Handbook of Property Data as well as Charles Benbrook’s 1996 report, Growing Doubt: A Primer on Pesticides Identified as Endocrine Disruptors and/or Reproductive Toxicants. The PANNA listing also notes 2,4-D is classified as a “probable” endocrine disruptor on 1997 Illinois EPA list in the Report on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and is listed in a 2000 report by European BKH Consulting Engineers and TNO Nutrition Research, Towards the Establishment of a Priority List of Substances for Further Evaluation of their Role in Endocrine Disruption.

Notably, PANNA does not include 2,4-D in its “Dirty Dozen” pesticide list, nor is it noted as a “bad actor.” PANNA defines “bad actor” by possessing at least one of the following traits: highly acutely toxic, cholinesterase inhibitor, known/probable carcinogen, known groundwater pollutant or known reproductive or developmental toxicant. PANNA notes that there are no “authoritative” lists of endocrine disrupting chemicals so those chemicals suspected to disrupt the endocrine system are not classified as “bad actors.” It is also important that 2,4-D is not listed on California’s Proposition 65 list, which is a list many activists rely on for their campaign work.

2,4-D receives a “potential” classification for PAN’s Ground Water Contaminant Rating and that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant at U.S. EPA and in California. It also says 2,4-D is a possible IARC carcinogen and listed as a moderately hazardous on the WHO Acute Hazard list and slight to moderately toxic according to U.S. National Toxicology Program Acute Toxicity Studies.

It should be noted that while PANNA’s database treats 2,4-D fairly well, PANNA notes that 2,4-D is a top search in its database, potentially indicating growing interest among activists in the chemical.

In 2010, PANNA launched a database of chemicals in food called “What’s On My Food.” It lists 2,4-D as being found in potatoes, untreated water, treated water, groundwater and bottled water. The database appears modeled after the Environmental Working Group’s Chemicals in Cosmetics database, which receives significant media attention and is often held as a key reference document for people concerned about exposure to certain chemicals.

PANNA’s board includes the environmental program officers of the Compton Foundation and the C.S. Mott Foundation. Chemicals consultant, Michael Picker, is also on the board. He has close ties with California chemicals regulators.

Beyond Pesticides

Beyond Pesticides

Beyond Pesticides has a “Chemical Watch Factsheet” for 2,4-D (2004) in which it says the pesticide is linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, toxicity to dogs, fish, birds, earthworms and beneficial insects such as bees.

Beyond Pesticides notes that it has a low persistence in soil levels but that it has a high potential to leach from soils, potentially contaminating groundwater. Beyond Pesticides says that about 50% of 2,4-D composes Agent Orange but says “it is thought that most of the health problems related to Agent Orange were actually due to dioxin contamination of the other major component, 2,4,5-T. It says that although 2,4,5-T has been banned, dioxin has been found in 2,4-D. and this is potentially harmful to health.

Beyond Pesticides was instrumental in getting 2,4-D banned in Quebec.

NRDC

Besides the 2008 petition to EPA, NRDC does not focus on 2,4-D as a pesticide of concern.

Collaborative on Health and the Environment

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment is an initiative founded in 2002 by Commonweal’s Michael Lerner to bring scientific research on chemicals and health effects to the mainstream. CHE operates a database on toxicants and diseases. It lists 2,4-D has having a “strong” link to chloracne, a “good” link to abnormal sperm, lymphoma, peripheral neuropathy, porphyria, and soft tissue sarcoma. It lists 2,4-D as having a “limited” link to testicular cancer, colorectal cancer, brain cancer, oral clefts, acute hepatocellular injury, neural tube defect, immune suppression and reduced fertility in males.

Key Issues

Agent Orange

TK

Dow Activism

TK

Climate Activism and Pesticides

Pesticides and GMO activism may begin to be wrapped up in the climate activism debate. Organic Consumers Association President Ronnie Cummins said in a December 2010 article that “Big Agribusiness” is similar to “Big Coal” and “Big Oil” because they all rely on fossil fuels and contribute to global climate change. He says nitrate-based fertilizes in particular, which he says is often used in conjunction with genetically modified crops, helps contribute to releases of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide and also pollutes water. He also says fertilizers are energy intensive to produce and in the process burns fossil fuels.

Cummins suggests climate activists promote the idea of organic farms developed to sequester carbon and utilize composting for food scraps. He says, “We need to spread the word that corporate agribusiness, factory farms, and the chemical fertilizer industry are climate criminals. We either ‘sunset’ them or they're going to sunset us.”

Cummins says in early 2011, his group and labor and climate groups will launch a 20-city campaign to educate the public on methane and nitrous oxide issues and their linkages to climate change and promote alternative farming methods (he says “take down the methane and nitrous oxide climate criminals”)

Organic Consumers Association Profile

TK

GMO Industry “Opportunism” Argument

The environmental news organization and advocacy group, Grist.org, has written several articles mentioning Dow AgroSciences 2,4-D resistant crops. In these articles, Grist claims that the company is capitalizing on what the group says is Monsanto’s resistance issues associated with Roundup Ready. In June 2010, Grist’s senior food and agriculture writer, Tom Philpot, wrote an article titled, “How the Agrichemical Industry Turns Failure into Market Opportunity.” In the article, he refers to a June 4, 2010 Wall Street Journal article “Superweed Outbreak Triggers Arms Race,” and mentions that the “superweed” argument has always been a concern of activist groups such as Union of Concerned Scientists. Philpot mistakenly says 2,4-D is listed by PAN as a “bad actor” and says that Dow AgroSciences is using the Roundup Ready situation “as an opportunity to revive use of 2,4-D.”

In October 2010, Grist’s Tom Philpot wrote an article claiming Monsanto was paying farmers to spray multiple pesticides on their RoundUp Ready crop. Philpot mentioned his June article and said, “Companies like Dow Agroscience are dusting off old, highly toxic poisons like 2, 4-D and promoting them as the ‘answer’ to Roundup's problems.” Philpot suggests farmers should be looking for non-chemical ways to control weeds such as crop rotations, mulching and cover crops and that Monsanto’s payments are perpetuating the use of “poisons.” He suggests the Obama Administration is support Monsanto’s work because it as director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, who Grist claims is a “Monsanto man” because he worked at the Danforth Center at Washington University in St. Louis and Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant is on its board of directors.

Outlook

1) GMO part 2 argument (Roundup Ready is experiencing resistance issues and now other agricultural chemicals companies are moving in to make the next big GMO trait crop. They are prioritizing profit over potential health concerns.

With this asas the above as context, we envision potential campaigns against 2,4-D resistant crops coming from two directions. One is a regulatory channel that will be dominated by claims regarding water pollution, body burdens and endocrine disruption. The other is a campaign in the marketplace. Unless something unforeseen developesdevelops, the latter is likely to be more effective. Broadening the Biotechnology Movement to the Mainstream

For 2,4-D resistant crops to emerge as a major regulatory issue, biotechnology activists will have to add realistic mainstream organizations to their fold. WihtoutWithout realistic organizations the concerns about 2,4-D will come from longstanding radical and idealistic organizations known to USDA and EPA to ideological rather than science based. These campaigns may gain attention, but they are highly unlikely to sway regulators.

Recruiting new groups will be easiest through the strengthened case that herbicide-resistant crops over time give rise to weeds that are resistant to the herbicide in question. Groups such as NRDC and National Wildlife Federation are concerned about pesticides and can be brought back into the biotechnology activism if they come to find a way to justify . Key to this in the context of 2,4-D as a priority concern or if they can be comnvincedconvinced to join a larger anti-Dow effort. is whether these groups are biased against 2,4-D, whether they are biased against Dow products or whether they see an important opportunity in the emerging concern over herbicide resistance.

NRDC is obviously the most likely on both of these counts. The organization has a longstanding animus toward 2,4-D and it has battled Dow Agrosciences at length on the chlorpyriftrifos issue. However, NRDC’s cooperation is not secured at this time, and we do not think the group is likely to put significant resources into a 2,4-D related campaign.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is another potential realistic group that could become active on the issue, but this would require that it temper its longstanding blanket opposition to agricultural biotechnology. UCS walks a fine line between realism and idealism and its work on biotechnology has not been particularly moderate or prone toward compromise.

The market campaign, on the other hand, would be more likely to succeed and it have become a favored tool among activists looking to create change in public policy over the last decade.. While biotechnology-focused market campaigns in the United States have failed in the past, the continued growth of a sustainable consumption, natural-food ethic is challenging retailers and consumer product companies. As more an more consumers come to prefer buying organic food, it will indicate to retailers the market strength of people who shoipshop with sustainable values in mind. This need not be a significant percentage of the population, just one large enough to affect retailers’ market share..

A market campaign that focuses on Dow on one hand, and this element is in place, and on the hazards of biotechnology on the other, could use deselection of 2,4-D resistance crops as a key launching point for a broader campaign to change the food supply through pressure on retailers.

We will continue to monitor to see if this develops. Until then,Our analysis indicates that 2,4-D resistant crops appear to have a relatively clear path to market despite the noise it might make in certain small segments of the activist community. The

threat of a market campaign that would reduce the use of 2,4-D resistant seeds and crops over the long term should not be ignored, however.

(Point here is to say they will need some realists if they want to fight in DC. And they won’t find any takers in all likelihood. There’s limited reason, limited funds and other priorities. When they don’t get the realists, they won’t get the regulatory agencies. This will drive them to deselection.)

Brand Reputation – Bhopal and Dow Chemical

The Agent Orange issue is likely to gain more press attention in 2011 because it marks the 40th “anniversary” since the spraying campaign stopped (and the 50th anniversary since it started).

While the Agent Orange issue may increase in intensity (at least in the amount of attention it receives by the media), the Bhopal issue has been steadily decreasing in importance to both activists and the media. The Bhopal campaign in the U.S. does not have the experienced activists it once had. Diana Ruiz of PANNA used to coordinate the Dow Accountability Campaign (which was housed out of PANNA) but she has moved on and PANNA does not have a direct replacement for her. Ryan Boydani, the founder and head of Students for Bhopal, left the organization several years ago and now works at National Wildlife Federation.

The Bhopal campaign continues to operate in an opportunistic fashion – for instance, demonstration in India while President Obama visited the country in November 2010.

2) Climate and sustainability as issues are taking off and are poised to over the next several years. The idea of GMOs and pesticides as contributors to the climate change issue as well as reliant on fossil fuels