Going to Seed - More Corporate Drama in the Fields

Following on from the story in "Seeded Players" (18 August 2009), Monsanto is again in the news over alleged anti-competitive behaviour. The New York Times reports today that DuPont and Monsanto are locked in a battle, with DuPont accusing Monsanto of anti-competitive practices, while Monsanto has retaliated saying DuPont has committed a "serious breach of business ethics."

In a letter obtained by Reuters, Monsanto chief executive, Hugh Grant (pictured at right), requests DuPont chairman, Charles O. Holliday Jr. (pictured below left), to establish a special committee of DuPont's independent directors to investigate the matter. Meanwhile, Monsanto has released a statement in response to the increased negative press. The claims of corporate misconduct include allegations that DuPont provided financial support to critics of Monsanto and forged documents. But DuPont has stood fast saying that Monsanto has conducted itself anti-competitively to the detriment of farmers and others.

And in May this year, Monsanto sued DuPont for patent infringement; in June DuPont retaliated with a countersuit in antitrust: "This case involves a scheme by Monsanto to monopolize agricultural biotech traits in corn and soybeans, and emerging combinations of such traits." Trait-stacking is where more than one trait (such as herbicide and insect resistance) is transferred to a crop, and so more than one gene. Cross-breeding of GM plants can achieve this as well as genetic engineering. The litigation follows a breakdown in a licensing arrangement between the two companies. DuPont claims it was entitled to combine the traits from Optimum GAT (DuPont) and Roundup Ready (Monsanto) under the terms of its licence. However, Monsanto argues that this is infringement of its patent and that "DuPont’s unauthorized use of our technology and patents is simply unacceptable."

However, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division appears to have a different position. Indeed, investigations into several recent mergers in the industry have required significant divestitures, including that required of Monsanto and Delta & Pine Land, where a significant seed company and other assets had to be divested before the companies could proceed with their merger. The companies were also required to amend licensing agreements to respond to concerns with trait-stacking. Philip J Weiser, the Deputy Assistant Attorney-General, explains, "because DPL had had a license allowing it to "stack" a rival's trait with a Monsanto trait, Monsanto was also required to amend certain terms in its current trait license agreements with other cottonseed companies to allow them, without penalty, to stack non-Monsanto traits with Monsanto traits. As a result, producers of genetically modified traits gained greater ability to work with these seed companies."

Notably, the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Justice has announced that they will investigate antitrust concerns in the seed industry through a series of public workshops in 2010. In an address to the Organization for Competitive Markets two weeks ago, Weiser said, "Over the last twenty years, changes in technology and the marketplace have revolutionized agriculture markets, producing some substantial efficiencies as well as concerns about concentration. Notably, farmers today increasingly turn to patented biotechnology ... At the same time, this technological revolution and accompanying market developments have facilitated the emergence of large firms that produce these products, along with challenges for new firms to enter the market."

A lawyer for DuPont, Donald L Flexner, spoke to Reuters, "This is not just a DuPont problem. This is a competition problem. They've gained illegal monopoly power."

Monsanto strikes back - Company takes action against the ban of its transgenic maize by the German government

After last week´s sowing ban of MON 180, a genetically modified maize strain by the German Federal Minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner ("Patenting lives" reported), the patent holder Monsanto launched a legal action against this decision yesterday. A representative of Monsanto stated that the ban was contradictory and not in accordance with EU-rules. Hence, along with filing an action at the administrative court of Braunschweig, Monsanto is also seeking injunctive relief by the court. The haste in which these steps are taken is grounded on the fact that maize would need to be sown in May. According to Monasanto´s speaker the company is expecting a decision by the court by mid May.

MON 180 is genetically modified strain of maize which includes a gene from the bacillus thuringiensis and produces a poison which repels the parasitic larvae of the European Corn borer, a butterfly. By declaring the sowing ban, Ms Aigner applied the Safeguard Clause by which the competent authority may suspend the permission to dispose genetically altered organisms if new or additional information becomes available which may lead to a new risk assessment. The Minister based her decision on new studies which apparently have provided reasonable evidence that the genetically modified strain of maize would present a hazard to the environment - specifically for butterflies, lady birds and creature od the water.

Meanwhile, evidence is given that the German Federal Government has not yet reached a common consensus on its position on green genetical engineering. The Federal Minister of Education and Research, Annette Schavan, is critizising her colleague´s decision to mandate a sowing ban on MON 180. Ms. Schavan refers to green genetic engineering as one of the technologies of the future. Additionally she announced that fundings for such technologies will be expanded.

The Minister has announced that she is scheduling a roundtable in Berlin for the 20th of May on genetical engineering. Hereby all stakeholders would be invited. This would include associations, companies, scientists, non-governmental organisations as well as churches.

The outcome of this roundtable might shed some light on what direction green genetical engineering might be heading to in Germany. This will most certainly have an impact on the wider, namely the European scale.

"Pig patent" and ban of genetically modified crops - The week on biotech patents in Germany

Last week has been a noteworthy one in Germany for biotechnological patents for agricultural applications and has received wide interest, nationally as well as internationally.

Hundreds of farmers, environmentalists and others gathered outside of Munich´s Erhardtstrasse 27, the principal seat of the European Patent Office (EPO) last Wednesday to protest against the so-called „Pig patent“ EP 1651777 B1 (above; 30 pigs "accompanied" the protests). The protesters used this opportunity to file a notice of opposition backed by more than 5000 individuals and more than 50 associations against the patent at the EPO which was granted on the 16th of July 2008 to Newsham Choice Genetics.

The protesters criticized the practice of patenting biological processes since “they have nothing to do with inventions”, as Hubert Weiger, the head of the “Bund Naturschutz Bayern”, an environmental group in Bavaria, stated. The farmers were specifically concerned that the continuing patenting of life stock would seriously aggravate their work by being threatened to pay excessive royalty fees to patentees which usually are multinational corporations in this area.

Initially the patent application contained 30 claims, from which some were related to animals as such, DNA sequences and the test kit. However the examination of the EPO has limited the claims to the screening method, whereas the claims to animals (pigs), the gene sequences and the test kit were rejected. The patent now solely relates to a “breeding method whereby a genetic analysis is carried out to screen for a variation (polymorphism) occurring naturally in some pigs, with a view to identifying those animals suitable for improving pork production and to selection appropriate breeding pairs” (see the press release of the EPO).

The main motto of the protest however was: “Stoppt das Patent auf die arme Sau” which stands for “No patents on the poor pig” and hereby – deliberately or negligently - wishes to render the patent as granted to a patent on pigs as such and hence being misleading. This may be excused due to the fact that this slogan is in its German meaning quite catchy and therefore serves the purpose of the protests. The press release of the EPO however clearly highlights that no patent on animals or gene sequences has been granted. The claims as they were initially filed may have lead to the realisation of such fears as expressed by the protesters but the examiners at the EPO did their job well in applying the rules of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

However, the protests and the hereby created public interest actually do highlight a major deficiency in the IP system and its public perception. It has not been achieved to thoroughly inform society as a whole what IP, and specifically patents is all about, how it operates and where its limitations are. IP has lately had a bad press whereas its benefits are often overseen. This needs to be addressed, bearing in mind its possible negative effects as well as to further explore how these may be overcome.

The press release by the EPO has highlighted in its last paragraph another rather more legal deficiency, which remains a hot topic and warrants determined action by policy makers. The EPO ceases to have jurisdiction totally 9 months after grant and the patent then falls within the jurisdiction of the nominated Member States. Post grant “quality control” by litigation on what should be patented is therefore seriously being hampered. In case of the “pig patent” (18 of the 35 Member States of the European Patent Organisation have been nominated for patent protection) this could mean multiple - and therefore expensive - litigation in all nominated jurisdictions.

Earlier this week the German Federal Minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner, has proclaimed a ban on the use of the genetically modified maize strain MON 810, which has been patented by Monsanto. The Minister was not hesitant to state that the decision was not a political one but was solely based on the facts of the case. Therefore, the decision should not be regarded as a fundamental verdict on the use of genetically modified crops in Germany, as Ms. Aigner affirmed. However, the political pressure is constantly growing. The Minister of Environment of the Federal State of Bavaria, Marcus Söder, has expressed the wish to make Germany a „genecrop-free zone“ and has reaffirmed this goal in a speech at Wednesdays´ protests against the “pig patent”. He joins the Ministry of Environment of the Federal State of Hessen, which is about to launch a legislative initiative in the „Bundesrat“, the 2nd chamber of parliament in Germany which consists of representatives from the 16 federal governments, to ban the patenting of newly bred animals and plants. By doing this, the Ministry wishes to call upon the German Federal Government to lobby the European Council and the European Commission to tighten Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

It now remains to be seen what impact the incidents of last week in Germany will have on the patenting of biotechnology. Mon 810 is currently banned in 6 countries of the European Union, including Germany. And it appears that the European Commission is willing to reconsider certain issues on patenting biotechnology.

Wikipedia for Agriculture

Scientists in India have launched Agropedia, an "agricultural Wikipedia."

The project was first devised around 3 years ago by project lead, T V Prabhakar. Prabhakar, of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, saw a need for the equivalent of Wikipedia to be created for global agriculture. The project was revised to focus on information specific to India.

The 85 million rupee project will be implemented over 30 months to provide on-line access to agricultural information and knowledge throughout the country. Funded by the Indian government (the National Agriculture Innovation Project (NAIP)) and World Bank, resources will include information on crops and practices, regional knowledge and relevant research. Its primary objective is to provide an effective dissemination mechanism not only for researchers and students, but also farmers and agricultural extension workers.

The website launched with information on 9 crops - rice, wheat, sugarcane, lychee, groundnut, sorghum, chickpea, vegetable pea and pigeon pea - but the objective is to expand the resource so as to include all information related to agriculture and agricultural practice.

In true wiki-style, Agropedia is a dynamic resource to which content is constantly added and reviewed. Agricultural researchers are invited to validate information through the "open source" wiki model, but additional review will no doubt emerge through user feedback and contributions. Blogs and user forum facilities enhance and broaden the kind of knowledge provided and exchanged through the project.

The 7 consortium partners in the project include the International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IITK); Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IITB); G B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology (GBPUAT); Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management, Kerala (IIITM-K); National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM); and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UASD).

The first stage of the project involved refining the mechanism to manage the knowledge, with the next phase to concentrate on dissemination, with trials to commence in 6 locations around the country.

Dissemination is not a straightforward exercise. While access to the necessary communication technology may be difficult for some, the resource will nevertheless improve the infrastructure to deliver information to all farmers. With the cooperation of agricultural extension workers and the establishment of around 12000 information technology-enabled rural information centres, the introduction of Agropedia should improve the accessibility of agricultural information whether directly or through farming networks. Innovative approaches to innovation are therefore very important. For example, V Balaji, head of knowledgment management and sharing at ICRISAT, has suggested that Agropedia resources might be used in various ways to disseminate information, including radio plays.

As one of the agricultural centres of the world and in a region rich with traditional agricultural practices and knowledge, India possesses unique resources for its ongoing development. This kind of enterprise has the potential to provide a significant facility for detailing and sustaining that development.

GM Wars

Last week's announcement that UK Minister for the Environment, Jeff Rooker, was leaving government and Hilary Benn was appointed Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs led many to consider this a strong shift in the politics of GM food in the UK.

At a fringe meeting of the Labour Party Conference in Manchester, the then Minister (pictured at right) was credited with describing opponents of GM as being "... on a messianic mission. It is almost a religion where there isn’t any science base to it." However, a Jay Rayner writing in Sunday's Observer disagrees: "Benn has hardly been a friend of those who have been calling for an end to all GM experiments."

As the April report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) explains there are new liability concerns for farmers with the advent of GM: "Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of market certification and income to neighboring organic farmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops." In other words, the revolutionary changes in farming include not only influences upon traditional methods but also a revolution in the way in which farmers interact with their resources as patented materials.

As Rayner's article explains, the debate over GM is a debate not only in science, but also in politics and indeed commercial law. As a consumer issue, it is also a competition issue when intellectual property rights might interfere with access not only for consumers but for the farmers themselves. Noting Monsanto's practices of conscientious pursuit of litigation and the creation of seed "technology packages," the article raises the links between competition and intellectual property. Such packages (or bundling) as discussed earlier in Patenting Lives, are considered by the article to "force farms into a dependence on the company." It is this constraint upon ordinary farming practice that is credited with a breakdown in trust, not only for the technology but also for the commercial re-structuring of traditional farming practices.

Poland to Commence Public Consultations on GM Foods

Poland has remained one of the strongest opponents to the introduction of GM foods since the WTO Panel Decision on the approval and marketing of biotech products in the EU. The panel was assembled in response to complaints from the US, Canada and Argentina regarding the de facto moratorium on GM foods.

Nevertheless, opposition to GM persists throughout Europe and Poland in particular has continued to block approvals. In January this year, in the face of the deadline to comply with the Panel Decision, the Commission was expected to take legal action in the ECJ. In April this year, the Commission brought an action against Poland (C165/08) seeking a declaration that Poland was failing to comply with its obligations under Directive 2001/18/EC (on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms) by introducing a ban on the movement of genetically-modified seed.

The case is yet to be heard, but meanwhile the Polish government will launch public consultations this week on the draft of new Polish Act on Genetically Modified Organisms, prepared by the Ministry of Environment. Among other things, the new Act introduces criminal penalties for unauthorised introductions and will give authorities the power to establish GMO-free areas, without necessarily imposing a blanket ban. Therefore, the new Act is proposed to take account of European obligations towards the introduction of GMO while at the same time inviting public consultations to take account of the widespread opposition in Poland to the introduction of GMO.

The consultation comes after an earlier survey, conducted for Gazeta Wyborcza by the PBS DGA market research company.

Poland is just one of several European countries opposed to GM, including the United Kingdom. The Environmental News Network reported this week that British opposition to genetically modified crops has increased with nearly all 54 trials over the last 8 years being attacked.

Monsanto's Blooms and Booms

In the current climate of recessions and dwindling sales figures, agricultural companies are enjoying a bumper crop.

According to yesterday's Financial Times, Monsanto is the top seller of corn seeds in US and Brazil, where there is huge demand for Roundup-Ready soybean in particular. The corollary of this is that there was a 25% increase in the volume of herbicide in Brazil last quarter. According to the FT, "High food prices are inspiring some farmers to plant extra acreage and drench valuable plants in even more Roundup than usual to avoid crop losses.

Concerns, from both farmers and from consumers, over the risks of contamination are well-known. Indeed, these risks are part of the background to Europe's stance on GM, the subject of a complaint to the WTO by the US, Canada and Argentina.

One problem for farmers is that classical patent protection of GM seeds can lead to costly infringement proceedings, either through drift or through the usual practices of saving and re-using seed. In other words, the business models of patented seed industries are contrary to established farming practices, as the recent case of Homan McFarling v Monsanto Co shows. On the question of saving seed, McFarling's lawyers argued that patent law does not allow Monsanto to control the natural products (future seeds) from the seeds legitimately purchased and planted by McFarling. But the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and let stand the lower court ruling that second-generation seeds were copies, the saving of which amounted to unlicensed use of the patented invention.

The intrusion of multinational corporations upon local farming practices and communities was the subject of a 25th anniversary Pesticide Action Network (PAN) meeting in Penang, Malaysia in December. At the meeting, food security campaigners raised concerns over the concentration of sales within a small number of MNCs, including Monsanto.

Anil Netto reports that vertical integration, where the corporatisation and propertisation of agriculture dominates all stages in the food production cycle: "from the development of proprietary strains of DN and the sales of seeds to farmers right down to the distribution and retail sales of food products in supermarkets and hypermarkets." Monsanto recently purchased Agroeste Sementes, a Brazilian corn seed company.

Javier Souza Casadinho, Centre for Studies on Appropriate Technologies in Argentina, has been raised concerns that such activity leads to a concentration of market control in those MNCs: "The transnational corporations are buying up companies that have the potential to create added value ... [and] entering into contracts with food producers that will determine what is produced, how it is produced, for whom it is produced and at what price and quality."

In the same article, Antonio A Tujan Jr, International Director of the Ibon Foundation Inc, describes vertical integration as turning the market into a sellers' market, compromising the choice for consumers. This is very similar to the concerns raised in the GM debate in Europe, where the risk of contamination is conceptualised as a serious risk to the conditions for consumer choice of organic, conventional or GM products.

What is at stake is not only the limits of the product but also the limits of the markets that preserve consumer choice. And in technologies in living organisms, those limits are sometimes difficult to define.

GM and Europe

Last Friday the deadline by which the European Communities were to comply with the WTO Panel Decision on the approval and marketing of biotech products, including an end to national bans on GM products otherwise approved by the EU as a whole, came and went.

The de facto moratorium ended in 2004 and so this was not ultimately an issue in the final panel decision. However, with ongoing national bans, the original complainants (United States, Canada and Argentina) may request WTO sanctions for noncompliance.



France is one country in the European Communities that is considering a long term ban following the temporary measure put in place by President Sarkozy last October, which is due to expire next month. French activist and one of the 12 candidates for the French Presidency 2007, Jose Bove (pictured at left), was joined by 15 people on a hunger strike last year to campaign for the year long ban.



Other countries, including Germany, advocate a temporary halt to all authorisations until an effective mechanism is in place for such approvals. Minister of Agriculture, Horst Seehofer, has described the procedure as "questionable" for its failure to take adequate account of public opinion and concerns.

And the European Commission's environment minister, Stavros Dimas (pictured at right at the Climate Change Conference, Bali, December 2007), in plans to reject applications from Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred International to grow GM maize, demonstrates the emphasis in Europe on the ability to exercise the fundamental precautionary principle, presuming the environmental will be damaged without adequate evidence to the contrary (rather than placing the burden on the decision not to introduce). Dimas's stance has attracted criticism as a political rather than a scientific decision. However, perhaps it is better science to demand the evidence that the environment will not be harmed (that is, that markets can be protected through containment), rather than trying to delimit a perhaps less well-defined risk that the environment will be harmed (where markets and consumer choice are perhaps more vulnerable). Or is it simply misunderstanding the consumer stakes to expect the possibility of the separation of science and politics?

Arguably such criticism should take account of not only the market in GM, but also the market in organic foods and the potential costs to organic farmers if contamination should occur. The question is whether certain standards in handling and the mechanisms and procedures for approval, are sufficient to protect these markets such that they may co-exist in a genuine way both for consumers and for farmers.

The Blots on the "Copy" Books - Copy Cats and Hokey Holsteins

Best wishes for 2007 from Patenting Lives. I hope everyone enjoyed the holidays!

Intellectual property news has a strange propensity for the "copy" - not only in copyright but also in patents. However, what is of particular interest in recent news is where the copy itself becomes the item of enhanced value - the case of cloned animals. For biotechnology, the "copy" is the original value in itself. But the technology aside, the general "mis-trust" of the copy is an interesting aspect of debates, ranging from the welfare of pets to the safety of steak trays in the supermarket.

Copy Cat

In the recent news, the birth of kittens to the world's first cloned cat, CC (pictured at right), and the news of Dundee Paradise, born to the clone of a champion dairy cow, has generated substantial debate concerning food safety and animal welfare.

CC, short for reportedly both Copy Cat and Carbon Copy (not even copies are accurate?), was born 5 years ago in December 2001 at the Texas A&M University, being a copy of the calico domestic shorthair cat, Rainbow (pictured at left).

The CC was then born to and raised by Allie, the tabby surrogate mother (pictured at right) meeting with both acclaim and controversy.

And in fact, on the "inaccuracy" of cloning, CC grew up neither to look nor to act like her mother, showing that environmental and non-genetic factors continue to be significant in determining the ultimate phenotype. In fact, fur patterning might have more to do with Allie's womb. A predisposition, in other words, should not be made a pathology.


And now CC has had 3 kittens of her own (pictured at left). However, CC achieved motherhood "old school" with Smokey, a male tabby bought as a partner for CC by Duane Kraemer (pictured at right), match-maker and professor of veterinary medicine at Texas A&M and member of the original cloning team. Mother and kittens are reportedly doing fine.


Hokey Holsteins

Before Christmas, the Holstein calf, Dundee Paradise, was born. Dundee Paradise is the daughter of a clone produced by US company Cyagra Clone, using cells from a champion Holstein cow (Holsteins are bred for their milk production).

But copies are inherently valuable, Dundee Paradise is reported to have been sold for £14 700 (although elsewhere the figure is reported to be much higher) to Princess Noora bint Isa al-Khalifa, of the Bahrain royal family. It is reported that the calf is being raised at a farm in Wales.

Reports, including the Guardian and Food Production Daily, have described the urgent concerns for the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA met with European Officials Friday to decide whether tests would be required before marketing milk and meat from cloned animals. The European Regulation EC No 258/97 sets out the rules for authorising novel foods and novel food ingredients for marketing and consumption. The review of this Regulation is underway, with an online Consultation launched in June 2006, with a legislative proposal to be prepared this year. The earlier evaluation report of 2004 recommended further work to determine whether food from cloned animals should be treated as novel. At present, there is no specific regulatory framework for dealing with food and food ingredients from cloned animals.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of cloned meat in US supermarkets late last year. The Independent reports that the draft rule allows the sale of meat and milk without requirements to state the origin on the labels. According to The Times, is thought it will be in supermarkets within months. However, the Telegraph suggests that most of the cloned animals will be reserved for breeding, with the offspring going to market. While welcomed by some groups, including the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), the approval has provoked significant criticism from consumer groups as well as experts in food safety. Furthermore, concerns for the welfare of cloned animals have been raised since the heady days of Dolly the Sheep (Dolly, pictured at right with her foster mum).

It is notable that the debate focuses attention on the relevance of consumer confidence and choice. Peter Melchett (pictured at left, photo courtesy of the Soil Association), policy director of the Soil Association, was quoted in Daily Telegraph as saying that the lack of regulation was "inexcusable," and "will undermine trust in British farming and British food." Calling for a moratorium on cloned animals, he described the current situation as "irresponsible and bad for the industry."

The Guardian reports that the FDA's approval has not translated into consumer confidence, and notes that the FDA plans to continue public consultations until April this year. In particular, the absence of obligations to disclose the origin of the food product has generated objections among activists both in food safety and the environment.

In an article in Nature, 8 January, US and Japanese researchers claim that cloned meat should not be treated differently, and advocate somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) as the only means by which ensure survival of the genetic characteristics of the highest value animal. However, the lessons from Copy Cat make clear that not all desirable traits are necessarily guaranteed by the duplication of genotype.

Further, the "economic" interests of high value animals captures neither the consumer interests identified by Melchett, nor the ethical concerns for the welfare of the animals involved. As the GM debate in Europe has shown, many developments in the organic market reflect specific cultural and social concerns of Europeans. Despite the WTO Panel Decision on the complaints by the US, Canada and Argentina concerning the so-called moratorium on GM food in Europe, Austria has been allowed to maintain its ban on genetically modified crops, Austria has recently retained its right to ban GM corn by relying on the Biosafety Protocol. The Protocol allows such a ban where there is a lack of scientific certainty over the safety of the crop. The US has not signed the Protocol, and Canada and Argentina, although signatories, have not ratified the Protocol (signatures and ratifications).

It is this dimension of the market for organic food that was missed by David Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when he told the Sunday Times recently that organic produce is "no better." The outcry was such that Miliband responded with praise for the "entrepreneurship" of organic farming in his blog. But again, to characterise the success of the organic food industry this simplistically dismisses the activity of consumers as nothing more than a "lifestyle choice." With respect to the environment, consumers are acting as citizens rather than making choices simply from the perspective of cost or prestige. As The Independent points out, David Miliband is surely "playing to the gallery" of the many farmers not using organic methods: "Instead of mocking this trend as unscientific, or jeering at it as a 'lifestyle' choice, which makes it sound like a slightly silly, magazine fashion, Mr Miliband would do better to praise it."



(Guest consultant on feline aspects: Roman the Cat)