from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

We've just heard that in India in just the past two months 900 farmers have committed suicide. It's a stark reminder of Devinder Sharma's recent warning that to talk of the need to usher in the "second Green Revolution" without first ascertaining where the equation has gone wrong with the first "will be mankind's greatest folly". The tragedy is, says Devinder, that while the scientific community and the policy makers will escape scot-free, it is farmers in the years to come who will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of agricultural development.

Devinder is calling for an end to the obscene diversion of public funds into hugely expensive GM crops while millions are going hungry. He points out that in India nutritious food containing on average around 9 per cent in protein is being left to rot in the countryside, while biotechnologists are celebrating the production of GM potatoes containing a mere 2.5 per cent of protein.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4070

Meanwhile, there have been some serious developments this week at Health Canada, where three scientists who raised doubts over the safety of certain vetinary drugs (including Monsanto's GM cattle growth hormone rBGH) have been fired, almost certainly for their commitment to the public interest.

But it's encouraging to see that the pro-corporate bias of much of what passes for science these days is being challenged in such respectable arenas as the British Medical Journal. An excellent report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, following a conference on the subject, confronts the problem head-on. And don't miss the report on professor of medicine Dr David Egilman's contribution to the conference, "SUPPRESSION OF SCIENCE IS NOT AN ANOMALY - IT'S THE SYSTEM". (Read all the above and more in our CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE section.)

Finally, if you think you've heard it all, watch out for how Monsanto's PR firm was a key player in shaping the UK Food Standards Agency's public consultations on GM!

Claire [email protected]
www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org

------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE
FOCUS ON AFRICA
EURO-NEWS
OTHER GLOBAL NEWS
PATENTS ON LIFE
GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
DONATIONS

------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
------------------------------------------------------------

+ THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "NGOs" BEHIND THE LETTER TO THE FAO
A letter from representatives of "NGOs" to the UN Food and Ag Organisation in support of that body's recent report hyping GM crops for the third world, brings a whole new meaning to the word "NGO".

Most of the signatory organisations are free-market libertarian groups who campaign against restrictions on almost anything, i.e. they're anti-Kyoto, pro-GM, pro-smokers' rights, etc. Several receive funding from biotech corporations like Monsanto, plus 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, and Exxon Mobil.

And then there's signatory Horacio Marquez, a Partner in The Latin America Finance Group, Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey. If you think they don't sound much like your your normal NGO, you're right. They're investment bankers! LAFG at one time headed a group planning to take over Chiquita, the controversial multinational (formerly United Fruit). One can imagine what a commitment such an "NGO" must have to safeguarding the future of small farmers!

You can read the letter at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4165
We've provided 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 what kind of "NGOs" they represent.

+ NEW LOBBY GROUP IN US HYPES GM WHEAT
Predictably, in the wake of the widespread rejection of GM wheat, a new lobby group, "Growers for Wheat Biotechnology" has sprung up in the US.

GWB has been hyping a study by North Dakota State University which said that nearly 80 percent of respondents would choose a hypothetical pasta genetically modified with added vitamins and minerals over regular pasta that didn't have this benefit.

This study, said GWB, "sends an important signal that consumers are ready to accept the positive attributes biotechnology can bring to a safe and abundant food supply."

But GENET's Hartmut Meyer comments, "It is interesting to find out what the GWB group does not quote from the study:
*62.6% disagreed with 'Scientists know what they are doing so only moderate regulations on GM are necessary';
*61.1 % agreed to 'Companies involved in creating GM crops believe profits are more important than safety'.

Hartmut also notes that the internet domain www.growersforwheatbiotechnology.org is registered by Morgan & Myers, a US PR company which numbers Monsanto among its clients.

+ GM-ORGANIC COEXISTENCE PAPER SKEWS FACTS
An article for CropChoice reveals how UK agricultural researchers PG Economics Ltd. misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support the premise that GM and organic crops successfully coexist in the US.

The recently released paper, "Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?", states that claims by "anti-GM groups" that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America are "greatly exaggerated" and that coexistence measures have "been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years".

However, a closer look reveals that the paper's conclusions are heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) that shows the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers.

The main problem with PG Economics' findings is that they ignored the fact that the OFRF survey was included organic farmers in areas where GM corn and soybeans are not grown. In fact, the survey had 1,034 respondents, but only 100 to 150 (ie a maximum of about 15%) produced corn or soybeans and were at-risk from GM crops.

Farmers who live in Midwestern states, where the majority of GM corn and soybeans are grown, reported significant impacts. In these states, 70 to 80% of respondents reported negative impacts from GMOs. In addition, up to 88% of organic farmers in Midwestern states said they had to take some measures to protect their farms from GMO contamination. By quoting only the nationwide statistics the PG Economics authors, Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, are able to minimise the problems caused to non-GM and organic growers.
Read on at:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4146

GM WATCH comment:
What's so disturbing about the bias that has been revealed is that this same research company, PG Economics, were commissioned to provide a report on the impact of GM crops on UK farm profitability by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit to inform its report, "Field work: weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops". PG Economics' report was even made publicly available by the Strategy Unit in tandem with its own report.
http://agrifor.ac.uk/browse/cabi/51fa0266cf12af4379ffa8dbe06e614d.html

+ "SCIENTISTS AND SCHOLARS" DENOUNCE CATHOLIC GROUP OVER GM CROPS
A group of "scientists and scholars" released a statement via the pro-GM listserv AgBioView denouncing the Catholic Institute for International Relations