The "NGO LETTER TO THE FAO" below brings a whole new meaning to "NGO"! For instance, one of the NGO signatories listed below is:

Horacio R. Marquez
Partner
The Latin America Finance Group, Inc.
Princeton, NJ
USA

The Latin America Finance Group is a boutique investment banking firm that at one time headed a group planning to take over Chiquita, the controversial multinational (formerly United Fruit)
http://www.cincypost.com/2002/mar/12/chiq031202.html

A number of the other "NGO" signatories are simply individual pro-GM scientists, often keen CS Prakash supporters. Several work for institutes or universities with major (sometimes notorious!) biotech-funding connections, eg UC Davis, Donald Darnforth, CSIRO.

Most of the actual organisations which have signed on are free market libertarian groups who campaign against restrictions on almost anything, i.e. they're anti-Kyoto, pro-GM, pro-smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking etc.). Several receive funding from biotech corporations like Monsanto, as well as other corporate sponsors. For instance one signatory, the Free Market Foundation in South Africa, acknowledges funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto South Africa, Eli Lilly, British American Tobacco, Exxon Mobil, etc.

At the end of the letter, we've put links below many of the signatories to GM WATCH or other profiles where you can find out more about the background of the signatories and the kind of "NGOs" they represent.
------

NGO LETTER TO THE FAO

NGOs in support of FAO report, "Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?"
An open letter to Mr. Jacques Diouf, Director General of UN Food and Agriculture Organization

July 16, 2004

Mr. Jacques Diouf
Director General
UN Food and Agriculture Organization
Geneva, Switzerland

Dear Mr. Diouf,

We, the undersigned NGOs and civil society stakeholders involved in farming and agricultural issues, wish to express our support and agreement with the FAO report released Monday, May 17 ("Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?").

We applaud the FAO for moving the discussion about agricultural biotechnology away from polarizing political rhetoric and either/or debates toward how best to utilize and apply agricultural biotechnology to the needs of the world's poor and undernourished. This is a most welcome advancement of the international discussion.

The FAO is to be commended for its balanced, well-reasoned approach. The report acknowledges that while there are potential risks from the use of agricultural biotechnology, the potential benefits are both large and greatly needed given the challenges humanity faces in feeding a larger, more affluent population from an already limited land and resource base.

Far from proposing a "technological fix" to food security problems, the report acknowledges that biotechnology alone cannot solve the problems of the poor and that a multifaceted approach is needed to address systemic poverty and malnutrition in developing regions. The report also stresses the need to carefully assess the socio-economic, food safety, and environmental impacts of biotechnology on a case-by-case basis, considering both the opportunities and risks.

Importantly, the report acknowledges that biotechnology offers tremendous promise in increasing food security, food safety, and economic opportunities for smallholder farmers in developing countries. Biotechnology can speed up conventional breeding, address intractable disease problems, create crops that resist disease and insect pests and displace toxic chemicals that harm the environment and human health, help combat difficult endemic livestock diseases, and improve the nutritional quality of dietary staples heavily relied upon by the poor. Because the technology is embodied in the seed, these may be easier for small-scale, resource-poor farmers to utilize than the technologies of the previous and successful Green Revolution.

While currently led by the private sector and focused on developed countries in the West, the report notes that there are critical opportunities ahead for biotechnology to address the particular needs of the poor and that cooperation and adequate funding are needed to ensure that the needs of the poor are not neglected and barriers to access are overcome.

Noted in the report are public-private partnerships, increased funding for public-sector transgenic crop research, and technical and regulatory capacity-building in developing countries to ensure they have the skills and knowledge necessary to make their own decisions about the use of biotechnology.

The report notes that the emerging evidence on the economic impacts of transgenic crops for smallholders is positive, with enhanced incomes and reduced pesticide exposure.

Finally, the report highlights some of the difficult agricultural and nutritional problems faced by smallholders in developing countries, and the unique and powerful ways that agricultural biotechnology can address these issues.

Perhaps most importantly, this FAO report acknowledges the food safety of transgenic products currently on the market. The report stresses that regulation should be science-based and noted the critical role of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and International Plant Protection Convention in easing international tensions in trade and food aid.

We commend the FAO and your office for weighing in on this important yet still contentious area and offering reasoned optimism about the role that agricultural biotechnology should play in meeting the needs of the poor and humanity in the 21st century.

Sincerely,

Alex Avery, Director of Research
Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues
USA
[GM WATCH profile of Alex Avery
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=14&page=A
GM WATCH profile of Hudson Institute
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=59&page=H ]

Frances B. Smith, Executive Director
Consumer Alert and
Coordinator, ICCS
Washington, DC
USA
[GM WATCH profile of Consumer Alert http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=173&page=C ]

Dr. Richard A. Herrett
Consultant, Formerly head of the non-profit Agriculture Research Institute
USA

Prof. Jaroslav Drobnik, President
Biotrin
Non-profit Biotech Education Organization
Czech Republic

Dr. Alena Gajdosova, Deputy Director
Institute of Plant Genetics and Biotechnology
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Nitra, Slovak Republic

Dr. Michael A. Wilson
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Warwick
(Formerly CEO Horticulture Research International 1999-2004)
England
[GM WATCH profile of Mike Wilson
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=150&page=W
GM WATCH profile of Horticulture Research International http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=190 ]

Dr. Peter Langelyddeke
Hofheim, Germany

Dr. Narpat S. Shekhawat
Biotech unit, JNV University
Jodhpur, India

Dr. Vivek Damle
SAVIDA AGRI-COM Pvt. Ltd.
Mumbai, India

Dr. Robert Wager
Malaspina University College
Nanaimo, Canada

Farzana Panhwar, President
The Sindh Rural Women's Up-lift Group
Hyderabad, Pakistan

Dr. Phil Larkin
Senior Principal Research Scientist
CSIRO Plant Industry
Canberra, Australia
[GM WATCH profile of CSIRO
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187&page=C ]

Dr. Thomas R. DeGregori
Professor of Economics
University of Houston
USA
[GM WATCH profile of Thomas R. DeGregori http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=35&page=D ]

Waldemar Ingdahl, Director
Tankesmedjan Eudoxa
Sweden

Deroy Murdock, Senior Fe