Germany, Corn, Catangui, Monsanto... Mercenaries?

This is my black helicopter post for the week. Consider it just a reminder for the file cabinet rather than an official brief for the court.

Some Twitter-wandering informs me that Germany banned MON 810, Monsanto's genetically modified Bt corn, in April, 2009. As I understand it, this is the same corn that Dr. Mike Catangui's research connects with pest replacement, specifically the recent spread of western bean cutworm and corn leaf aphids. Dr. Catangui was fired this year by SDSU, which is run by a Monsanto executive board member, for using his research as the basis for his advice to farmers.

The German ban has caught heck from various boards and researchers. Germany's own Central Commission for Biological Safety said the Germany's MON 810 ban is not scientifically grounded. Three French researchers published a pretty hefty meta-study in 2009 coming to the same conclusion. But I see no mention of Catangui's research in either of those critiques.

Would Monsanto squelch research that demonstrates negative impacts from its products? Would they go so far as to persuade a university to violate academic freedom to do so?

Well, remember: we're talking about Monsanto, a corporation that hires Blackwater/Xe to spy on activists who oppose its GM products. Monsanto enlisted operatives from the mercenary company to infiltrate activist groups for the purpose of "protecting the Monsanto name."

I'll keep looking for puzzle pieces....

Catangui Research Shows Monsanto Corn Helps Spread Pests

South Dakota State University's firing of entomologist Mike Catangui has struck me as odd from the beginning. The Extension Service advocates a regional standard for spraying soybeans for aphids. Dr. Catangui declines to advocate that standard, pointing to his research that suggests South Dakota farmers should follow a different standard. SDSU and the Board of Regents decline to continue Dr. Catangui's employment.

Monsanto executive board member and SDSU president David Chicoine has provided no explanation for Catangui's firing or for the university's apparent violation of due process that could get the university in hot water again with the American Association of University Professors.

A professor is fired for expressing views based on his peer-reviewed, published research. It just doesn't add up. That's why I've kept wondering if this case is revealing the fruits of Monsanto's corporate control over our land-grant university. Is there some way in which Catangui's research could be damaging to Monsanto?

Stop right there. I rail against other conspiracy theorists for seeing plots and cabals (and liberal media monsters) where there are none. But we all see what we want. I may be looking for a grand design where there is none. Cantangui's dismissal could well be just what the university said it was: "performance deficiencies" and insubordination. For all we know, Catangui may have mooned the boss.

So let me be clear: I have no documents to prove that Monsanto ordered Catangui's dismissal. I only have some casual Googling and reading well out of my field that establish that Catangui's research includes some findings relevant to a Monsanto product. I have pieces, but no finished puzzle... and not even evidence that there is a puzzle to finish.

But there are pieces. It's a lot of science, so I'll boil it down and then provide you with the bibliography.

Dr. Catangui has done research on the spread of western bean cutworm. This pest used to be no big deal. But since the introduction and widespread planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered Bt corn, western bean cutworm has been cropping up in higher numbers and in new places. Bt corn also appears to be an inviting home for corn leaf aphids. The western bean cutworms and corn leaf aphids appear to be benefiting from pest replacement: the toxins in Bt corn wipe out targeted competitor species, allowing previously minor pests to pig out and flourish. Monsanto and other corporations then trap farmers on a treadmill of new pesticides and seeds engineered to tackle the new pests... and all the while we dine on a revolving smorgasbord of tasty toxins.

Now Catangui isn't the only guy saying these things, so one could argue that Monsanto wouldn't benefit by targeting one professor in South Dakota. But Monsanto does have a history of going after small operators, and corporations do profit by maximizing every marginal percentage. When Monsanto wants 100% control and zero competition, even one less set of critical scientific eyes on their products may be worth the effort. And hey, you don't buy control of a major land-grant university for nothing.
-----------------------------------------
Read more:

• Catangui, M.A., and Berg, R.K. (2006). "Western Bean Cutworm, Striacosta albicosta (Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), as a Potential Pest of Transgenic Cry1Ab Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Hybrids in South Dakota," Environmental Entomology, 35(5): 1439–1452.
• Collins, S. (2003 Aug 3). "Bt Doesn't Control Me," Corn & Soybean Digest.
• Faria, C.A., Wäckers, F.L., Pritchard, J., Barrett, D.A., Turlings, T.C. (2007) "High Susceptibility of Bt Maize to Aphids Enhances the Performance of Parasitoids of Lepidopteran Pests," PLoS ONE, 2(7): e600. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000600
• Schafer, S. (2010 Mar 27). "Insect Outlook," Farm Journal:AgWeb.
• SDSU (2008 Jul 21). "Corn Producers Now Should Scout for Leaf Aphids," Plant Management Network: Plant Health Progress.
• Then, C. (2010 Mar). "New Plant Pest Caused by Genetically Engineered Corn," TestBiotech report.
• Tonneson, L. (2009 Feb). "Corn Leaf Aphids Threaten Corn," DakotaFarmer.com.

VA Links Agent Orange to More Diseases; What's Monsanto University Think?

As the Iraq war "ends", our veterans get some more good news. KELO reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs is adding heart disease, Parkinson's, and hairy-cell leukemia to its list of conditions related to Agent Orange exposure. The VA will review 90,000 previously denied Agent Orange claims and expects 150,000 new claims over the next year and a half. Expected cost: $42 billion over ten years (any teabaggers care to criticize that government spending?)

I have to wonder: since Monsanto produced Agent Orange and continues to deny Agent Orange's health harms, will Monsanto executive board member David Chicoine allow the land-grant university he runs to do any research on the health effects of Agent Orange to support the VA's work to help veterans? Hmm... good thing our medical school is in Vermillion, not Brookings....

Herseth Wrong on Monsanto Alfalfa; Et Tu, Noem?

Sure, I'll let the right-wing occasionally drive my blog coverage. Dakota War College tries to stir up some anti-Herseth Sandlin grumbling among Democrats by pointing out the Congresswoman's wrong-headed support for Monsanto's effort to seize control of the alfalfa market.

On this issue, Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin and 74 colleagues are clearly smoking ditchweed. Their July 19 letter to Secretary Tom Vilsack urges USDA to permit the use of genetically modified Roundup-Ready alfalfa "while the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service completes its final Environmental Impact Study." Wait a minute: use it while the government completes the impact study? What?! Aren't we supposed to study the environmental impact before we turn these seeds loose on the environment?

Dakota War College, of course, doesn't really want anyone to stand against Monsanto. DWC surely isn't standing up for the organic farmers whose crops are threatened by genetic contamination from neighboring Monsanto crops. DWC never says boo about the public university in its backyard being controlled by a Monsanto employee; when South Dakotans protest the corruption of independent public research such corporate infiltration could cause, DWC makes fun of the South Dakotans. DWC will never stand up for the small farmers Monsanto is trying to put out of business with lawyers, lawsuits, and gross intimidation. DWC will never protest Monsanto's efforts to deny that the Agent Orange it produced ever harmed American soldiers or Vietnamese children.

And DWC most certainly does not care about the dangers Pat Trask points out about Monsanto's genetically modified alfala:

The genetically modified forage has the potential to destroy the certified organic and conventional alfalfa industry because it will genetically contaminate and alter those crops, according to Trask.

...When the USDA deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa, [Oregon alfalfa seed producer Phil] Geertson warned Trask that if its planting and production were not stopped, the production of conventional alfalfa seed industry and organic industry would be gone immediately and permanently.

Unlike other Roundup Ready crops, Roundup Ready alfalfa is a perennial plant that emerges every year. In addition, alfalfa relies on cross-pollination usually by bees or the wind to produce seed. Preventing the cross-pollination of Roundup Ready alfalfa with other alfalfa varieties is not realistic, according to Trask.

“Containment of gene flow is virtually impossible,” Trask said [Andrea Cook, "Frankenfood fight: Alfalfa grower opposes genetically engineered crop," Rapid City Journal, 2010.08.11].

(I have yet to meet a Trask I don't like.)

Trask understands that Monsanto's GM alfalfa is just another effort to monopolize the seed market for Big Ag. It will work just like other crops: farmers plant a little Monsanto alfala; it corss-pollinates with neighboring fields growing non-Monsanto alfalfa; then Monsanto sends in the lawyers to sue the pants off neighboring farmers for violating Monsanto's genetic patents—in other words, for committing the crime of growing plants without paying Monsanto for the privilege.

Another important point Herseth Sandlin misses: Monsanto's GM seed is bad for small farms. Farmers who want to protect themselves from genetic contamination and Monsanto's lawyer-goons will have to buy more land to insulate themselves from the GM fields. That's one more pressure that drives small farmers out of business. Gee, thanks, Stephanie.

DWC does at least provide some comment space for occasionally sensible folks like rancher and legislator Charlie Hoffman, who points out that Monsanto's alfalfa is just plain a bad buy: natural alfalfa can already withstand a fair amount of Roundup, so why incur the extra legal obligations of using Monsanto's product?

DWC carefully avoids comment on the actual issue of corporate domination of agriculture, but I won't: Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin is wrong to support Monsanto and genetically modified alfalfa that has not yet been properly assessed for environmental impact. And unlike DWC, if anyone can show me that the candidate from the other party is willing to take the right position on this issue, I will shout it from the rooftops. Candidate Noem, I await your press release on your opposition to authorizing the use of Monsanto's Roundup-Ready alfalfa.
-------------------------
Bonus head count: Signal #1 that Herseth Sandlin is on the wrong side of the alfalfa issue: the 75 Congresspeople urging Vilsack to permit Monsanto's alfalfa include teabaggers Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Their thin letter is all about business costs.

An opposing letter from 56 Congresspeople, including Senator Tester from Montana, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, and Representative Kucinich from Ohio, makes a much more detailed argument about the scientific evidence that shows huge potential for genetic contamination (exactly what Monsanto wants) and harm to small and organic farms.

"Farmers Feed Us": New Big Ag Propaganda

US meaning
Monsanto and Big Ag...

Oh look! More corporate propaganda masquerading as friendly family farmers! A friend directs me toward SD Farmers Feed Us, another in the ongoing series of "tell our story!" marketing campaigns waged by the ag-industrial complex. They have a Twitter account, a Facebook page... and (scroll down to the fine print) lots of money from the Center for Food Integrity, a front group created in 2007 by Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and other food industry heavyweights to "increase consumer trust and confidence in the contemporary U.S. food system."

And the notion that "Farmers Feed Us" isn't wholly accurate: the majority of that corn you see reaching for the sky in the August humidity goes to gas tanks, not your tummy.

But don't let disingenuous corporate mental manipulation stop you from registering to win a year's worth of free groceries... all rich with corn syrup.

Potpourri: Obama vs. Monsanto, Pierre vs. Education, Bloggers vs. Ignorance

Before I spend my morning cussing Democrats for doing silly things, let's post some good news:

• The Obama Administration is likely to take antitrust action against Monsanto by the end of this summer. The Microsoft of agriculture, Monsanto has worked its patented biotech into 90% of the U.S. soybean crop and two thirds of our corn and cotton. The corporation uses lawsuits, intimidiation tactics, and unfair business practices to stifle competition and innovation and drive up seed costs for farmers. (Tell me again, corporate front-man Troy Hadrick, who's the real enemy of agriculture?)
• The University Tech Fellows saved their program before the Appropriations Committee in Pierre yesterday. Members of this valuable program actually changed some minds on the committee and got legislators to cut rather than eliminate the campus service. (But the $500K restored for Tech Fellows still gets whacked elesewhere out of the Board of Regents budget. Education is still absorbing most of the serious blows in this budget. Ugh!)
• Kudos to our Pierre press bureau, David Montgomery and Bob Mercer, for wall-to-wall, post-to-tweet insta-coverage of yesterday's budget-o-rama in the State Capitol. Those intertubes sure come in handy for keeping an eye on our government!
  

Chicoine Earns More from Monsanto than SDSU? No Problem, Says Legislature

So much for speaking truth to power: our Legislature seems to be perfectly willing to let Monsanto run South Dakota State University. Last week the Senate State Affairs Committee killed Senator Kloucek's SB 111, intended to address the sweetheart deal SDSU President David Chicoine currently gets for serving on the Monsanto corporate board.

Please allow me a little disappointment when I see Russell Olson and Scott Heidepriem both vote against a bill I like. Heidepriem at least tried to keep alive SB 113, a less aggressive measure that would have required the Board of Regents to work up a policy on such outside employment as Chicoine snagged. But the Board of Regents already has a conflict of interest policy, one that every employee signs but that the Regents apparently don't apply to university presidents with corporate connections.

There's still some small hope the Monsanto-Chicoine discussion might resume. HB1116, a bill that would cap moonlighting for university honchos at $10,000 a year, was tabled by House State Affairs last week. Not dead, but barely breathing....

HB 1116: Chicoine-Monsanto Bill Filed in SD Legislature

SDSU President David Chicoine caused a fuss last spring when he accepted a high-paying position on Monsanto's corporate board. Senator Frank Kloucek (D-19/Scotland) promised to lead a discussion of this seeming conflict of interest on the floor of the Legislature.

Senator Kloucek has his chance now with House Bill 1116, which would restrict Dr. Chicoine and any other executive officer of any Regental institution making over $100,000 from almost any serious moonlighting. If HB 1116 passes, university execs could only take outside jobs that pay less than $10,000 a year. (Dr. Chicoine's total annual salary and benefits from Monsanto: $400,000.)

Now before you chuckling Republicans start cranking up the ad hominem against Senator Kloucek, take a look at HB 1116's sponsor list. Primary sponsors are Republican Rep. Jacqueline Sly (33/Rapid City) and Democrat Senator Ryan Maher (28/Isabel). Our man Frank has his name on the bill, right next to GOP colleague Senator Gene Abdallah (10/Sioux Falls). Throw in a couple more West River conservatives like Reps. Brunner and Kopp, and Sen. Kloucek has some bipartisan backing for a really interesting discussion of conflict of interest in the highest offices of the Regental system.

Monsanto Monopoly Stifles Seed Innovation

Hey, Dr. Chicoine! Pass this on at the next Monsanto board meeting!

A couple weeks ago, I gave ag-industry propagandist Troy Hadrick grief for a blog post titled "Uniting Agriculture." The Daily Yonder suggests that the problem with agriculture is that the industry is far too united, behind a few corporate players who dominate every part of the market, including seed engineering. The Yonder crew share excerpts of "Out of Hand," a new report from the National Family Farm Coalition's Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering.

Why should you be alarmed? Simple economics—monopolies are bad:

The concentration of economic power in agriculture has led to grave consequences for American farmers and rural communities. Today, reduced competition in agricultural markets means farmers face increasingly high input prices and diminished choice and innovation....

For example, four firms control more than 80 percent of beef packing; three firms control about 70 percent of soybean crushing; and three firms handle 55 percent of flour milling. Farms themselves have quickly consolidated since the 1930s. The number of farms has decreased over the years, while the size of farms and the average age of farmers have steadily increased....

Input industries are included in the trend and in fact demonstrate even higher levels of concentration in some sectors. Six companies account for 75 percent of the agricultural chemical market worldwide.

The seed industry is one of the most concentrated in agriculture. The top four firms account for 43 percent of the global commercial seed market, which includes both public and proprietary varieties sold. They also account for 50 percent of the global proprietary seed market. (The term proprietary refers to branded seed subject to intellectual property protections.)

The prevailing leader, the Monsanto Company, accounts for about 60 percent of both the U.S. corn and soybean seed market through subsidiaries and technology (i.e., genetically engineered traits, such as Roundup Ready and Bt) licensing agreements with smaller companies. When looking specifically at genetically engineered traits in the U.S., more than 90 percent of the soybean and cotton acreage, and more than 80 percent of corn acreage, is planted with one or more of Monsanto’s traits.

Under the hegemony of Monsanto and the ag-industrial complex, life itself becomes a patentable commodity. The intellectual property purists will contend that patents on seed DNA allow biotech companies to protect investment and thus incentivize innovation. But the Farmer to Farmer Campaign finds this privatization of research and consolidation of the seed industry has actually reduced innovation:

Utility patents have not spurred innovation in plants. In fact, the opposite seems true, as evidenced by USDA reports that document a downward trend: “Calculations for corn, soybeans, and cotton indicate that as the seed industry became more concentrated during the late 1990s, private research intensity dropped or slowed.” As opposed to driving innovation, utility patents on plants have provided an incentive to expand control over genetic resources, limit access to them, and make access expensive.

The number of independent seed companies, especially small, family-operated businesses and research firms, has dramatically declined over the last few decades. As mentioned earlier, the Independent Professional Seed Association says there are only about 100 independent seed companies left, compared to more than 300 total (independent and consolidated) thirteen years ago.

But all that genetically engineered seed is feeding the world, right? Monsanto's glyphosate (a.k.a. Round-Up™) is the best thing to happen to farming in the last hundred years, isn't it?

...Glyphosate-resistant weeds are now established in 19 states and deemed a serious economic problem, at times adding more than $20 per acre. Weed specialists refer to resistant weeds as a “train wreck” making their way across the country.

...Some of the worst resistance is found in pigweed (Palmer amaranth). Resistant pigweed now infests hundreds of thousands of acres in the Southeast. For example, 70 to 80 percent of Macon County, Georgia, dubbed the “epicenter” of glyphosate-resistant Pigweed, is infested with the weed, and farmers were forced to abandon 10,000 acres in 2007.

Purdue University weed scientist Bill Johnson explains that, “Farmers do not think resistance is a problem until they actually have it.” Johnson points out that new innovation and choice in herbicides has diminished over the years, so farmers have fewer chemical options. He says farmers “think the chemical companies can turn on the spigots and produce a new herbicide whenever they want.” But with Roundup’s success, money has not been invested in new herbicide research.

Troy Hadrick calls for "uniting agriculture," but you don't hear him uniting with his fellow farmers who issued this report on the dangers of seed consolidation. Hadrick's Farm Bureau party line has no room for real grassroots campaigns to protect independent farming. Hadrick only has blog ink for Ag Inc.

That's the "united agriculture" Troy Hadrick is fronting. That's the "united agriculture" that drives up costs, stifles innovation, and puts more independent family farms out of business.

Monsanto and its monopolists want serfdom. Where's Tsar Alexander II when you need him?

USDA Gives Monsanto Biotech Corn Favored Insurance Rate; How About Organic?

The federal government has added Monsanto's SmartStax corn hybrids to a list of seed breeds eligible for a 5% break on USDA crop insurance rates. Uncle Sam hands this favor to Monsanto and other Big Ag players through its Biotech Endorsement pilot program.

Meanwhile, crop insurance on organic lands averages 5% higher premiums. When organic farmers lose crops, USDA figures their compensation based on lower conventional prices, not organic produce prices. USDA also does not insure organic crops against contamination by the genetically modified organisms its own subsidies are supporting.

Once again, the government favors the rich and powerful over the small, independent farmers.

Regents Sue to Protect SDSU-Patented* Wheat Seeds

AgWeek notes that the South Dakota Board of Regents and South Dakota State University are already acting more like Monsanto (on whose board sits SDSU president Dr. David Chicoine). Evidently the Regents (i.e., us, South Dakota tax- and tuition-payers) are suing five producers for illegally selling or offering for sale the spring wheat varieties Traverse and Briggs. Said wheat varieties were developed by SDSU researchers and remain intellectual property of the university.

The Regents are suing under the Plant Variety Protection Act, the same law Monsanto uses to intimidate farmers to keep them from saving seeds and to protect its profits. SDSU says the suit's primary goal is to "support farmers who rely on the continued development of better wheat varieties for their farming success"—in other words, make sure dealers pay the proper fees that trickle back to SDSU to support more research.

So remember, farmers: those seeds in your field don't really belong to you... well, at least not for 20 years. You're just licensing them, like software from Microsoft.

*patented? Well, not exactly: PVP is an alternative to the official patent system, but it's a similar intellectual property protection mechanism.

Monsanto Loses Roundup Patent and Sales, Axes Employees

No wonder Monsanto picked South Dakota State University President David Chicoine for their corporate board: they need SDSU to whip some new patentable invention to replace Roundup. Monsanto is cutting 900 jobs—4% of its workforce—in response to a 47% drop in quarterly sales of Roundup and its other herbicides.

What happened? I'd like the headline to be "Organic Methods Take Bite out of Big Chemical Ag." But the drop in sales comes more directly from the expiration of Monsanto's patent on Roundup, which has forced the company to lower prices to compete. Cool wet weather has also delayed some application.

Monsanto probably won't be pushing Chicoine and SDSU too hard for new herbicides and pesticides: Monsanto is moving away from its proud tradition of manufacturing chemicals like Agent Orange and focusing on "seeds, traits, and biotechnology," like breeding more buff broccoli. That focus will also likely include further intimidation tactics against organic dairies, regular farmers, canola growers whose fields Monsanto contaminates, and its corporate competitors.

But surely Monsanto will make sure its genetic engineering produces safe food for consumers, right?

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food.... Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job [Phil Angell, Monsanto director of corporate communications, quoted by Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden," New York Times Magazine, 1998.10.25].

Hmmm... so any chance we'll see SDSU doing major research on organic food?

Be careful, Dr. Chicoine: that's not the nicest crowd you're running with. I'm not sure they could pay me enough to associate myself and my public university with a corporate partner like Monsanto.

Kloucek Promises Legislative Discussion of Chicoine-Monsanto Deal

Sibby and the Mitchell Republic bring us this story first; that Sioux Falls paper and DWC come toodling after: State Senator Frank Kloucek (D-19/Scotland) is proposing legislation to put some serious limitations and oversight on the ability of our university presidents to serve as highly paid corporate board members. Senator Kloucek is responding specifically to SDSU president David Chicoine's appointment to the Monsanto corporate board and the mondo bucks he'll get for that gig ($400K in cash and stock options, $80K more than he makes as SDSU president).

Kloucek's concerns sound very much like criticism we've heard from the SDSU Collegian and from this very blog: Big Ag buying influence, threat to public perception of the quality and independence of SDSU research, etc.:

“It’s just totally inappropriate to give that money to an individual rather than to the university for research,” Kloucek said. “It appears pretty clear-cut that they’re trying to buy influence at the university by buying influence with the president.”

...“There will be at least one bill,” Kloucek said. “I just think it’s better … to make it clear the we’re not in that kind of game at South Dakota.”

The appointment of Chicoine to the Monsanto board negatively affects the credibility of the university, Kloucek said, since crop research reports from SDSU could easily be assumed as skewed.

“This research must not be tainted in any way, shape or form and this certainly taints that research,” Kloucek said. “It … jeopardizes the integrity because it makes it look like we’re in the hip pocket of Monsanto” [Austin Kaus, "Senator to Regents: Fix SDSU Conflict," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2009.06.19].

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to reason that if a guy has two bosses, and Boss M pays more than Boss S, then when push comes to shove, Boss M will probably have more pull. (Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.) Of course, Dr. Chicoine, who has a Ph.D. in economics, doesn't see it that way:

"My value to them comes as an economist," [Chicoine] said. "It comes from independence.

"If you don't perform to the criteria that is required for your appointment as an independent member, your appointment is not maintained. If you're not fulfilling your independent director's business, you'd be lacking of integrity, and you're of no value either to the company or to your own profession."

..."I'm in compliance with regents policy," he said. "It is standard for the industry. There is a disclosure process and transparency process in place in this state and every other state for presidents serving in this regard. So I'm comfortable with it" [Steve Young, "College–Corporate Links Targeted," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.06.21].

Kloucek's fellow Democratic Catholic farmer (and my neighbor!) Senator Gerald Lange (D-8/Madison) isn't comfortable with it:

"I see a conflict," Lange said. "So, yes, I think Frank's onto something. I would support any bill he brought on the issue" [Young, 2009.06.21].

Strangely, the main blog voice from the seat of Monsanto's purchased power in South Dakota finds it more important to hurl personal insults at Kloucek (and surely, shortly, at Lange) than to address the actual issue:

Frnak [sic] Kloucek is proposing legislation.

Good for Frank. He can propose. Too bad it’s likely misspelled, and written in crayon... [Pat Powers, "Monsanto Job... Legislation to Be Utterly Ignored, Considering the Source," Dakota War College, 2009.06.20].

(I wonder if the Munsterman campaign Powers manages will be relying on such playground rhetoric. Powers could take a lesson in class from Kloucek, who criticizes the Chicoine–Monsanto deal without any such demeaning and irrelevant personal attacks.)

Should a university president, as Kloucek tells Young, "be living, breathing and eating SDSU 24 hours a day, seven days a week"? I'll grant a guy a sabbath... but I'll also note that DSU expects me to put DSU first, and I'm just a lowly graduate assistant. My contract explicitly forbids me from taking other full-time employment. That doesn't restrict me from serving on a corporate board (and I'll certainly consider offers to attend a few meetings for $400K a year... or even $40K a year!), but it does set a threshold at which DSU would consider me not to be putting sufficient emphasis on my research and teaching.

Public discussion of a similar threshold for our state university presidents is a fine idea. Senator Kloucek is to be commended for his willingness to raise this issue in Pierre.

Collegian Questions Chicoine Monsanto Board Appointment

I'm not the only one wondering about the impact of South Dakota State University President David Chicoine's appointment to the board of ag-industrial giant Monsanto. SDSU Collegian managing editor Amy Poppinga (hey! she worked for the mighty Madison Daily Leader last summer!) reports that some SDSU students and faculty wonder if Chicoine's new corporate obligations will taint SDSU's research and mission:

Chicoine was appointed to the 11-person board as an independent member on April 15. Through that position, SDSU's president will help hire, fire and evaluate Monsanto's management. As an independent board member, he said he will provide objective input.

Still, some students and faculty are concerned his position might create a conflict of interest. Monsanto recently donated $1 million for a plant breeding fellowship at SDSU, and according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report, the seed company has given SDSU $222,000 in research grants thus far in the fiscal year 2009. Between a retainer and benefits package, Chicoine will personally receive about $400,000 for his work with the board this year [Amy Poppinga, "Conflict of Interest?" SDSU Collegian, 2009.04.29].

$400,000 a year, just for coming to board meetings? SDSU pays Dr. Chicoine "just" $300K to be the university's CEO. I don't begrudge a guy for making some extra income—heck, if being a corporate board member pays that well all over, I'll do it! But when your part-time gig pays you more than your main job, you shouldn't be surprised if some of your people wonder where your primary allegiance will be.

(The Rapid City Journal explains that Monsanto is actually paying Chicoine just $195K, plus another $195K in stock options.)

Junior agronomy major Shawn Mohr explained the problem this way:

"He is the face of the university.... What he chooses to do, even in his personal life, may affect the way SDSU is viewed by the general public."

Mohr said SDSU could lose credibility as an independent research institution through Chicoine's affiliation with the seed company.

"We won't become Monsanto-tainted, but our research, to other agricultural companies, producers and counterpart universities, might be seen as Monsanto-tainted," he said.

Concern that Chicoine's appointment would compromise SDSU's status as an independent research facility prompted Mohr and five other members of SDSU's Students' Association, to put forward a resolution opposing the appointment. That resolution failed Monday by one vote.

On concerns the Monsanto might be trying to influence South Dakota's biggest university, Dr. Chicoine responds with the howler of the week:

Despite the university's ties to Monsanto, Chicoine said he was chosen for his background as an agricultural economist, not for his position with the university.

"They didn't choose me because I'm the president of SDSU. I think it was due to my professional background and my experience as an administrator" [Poppinga, 2009.04.29].

Right. I'm sure the "Current Employer" line on Chicoine's résumé never crossed Monsanto's mind.

Chicoine insists Monsanto wouldn't have picked him if there were any conflict of interest; after all, he says, Monsanto wants independent board members who can give objective feedback... which is why Monsanto balances all the big-industry CEOs on its board with representatives from the Sierra Club, Dakota Rural Action, and other groups interested in protecting the environment and small-scale, sustainable, organic agriculture. Again, riiight.

Conscience or Crony? SDSU's Chicoine Joins Monsanto Board

As I catch up with a week's worth of local papers, I read that SDSU president Dr. David Chicoine has been appointed to the Monsanto board of directors. Dr. Chicoine joins executives from such august firms as McDonald's, Edward Jones, and Lockheed Martin.

Oddly missing from the bridge crew of this particular dreadnought of the vast ag-industrial complex: any directors with apparent background in public food policy, local sustainability, or environmental issues.

The Monsanto news release says that Dr. Chicoine will serve on two committees: Science & Technology, and Public Policy & Corporate Resposibility. I'd like to think that Dr. Chicoine could bring a healthy perspective as an academic and a South Dakotan on the importance of supporting small independent farms, organic farming techniques, and crop diversity. However, I suspect you don't get on the Monsanto board without being a believer the family-farm-killing, bigger-is-better corporate mindset. Dr. Chicoine, feel free to surprise me.