Dr Shantu Shantharam has written to GM Watch asking us to correct our statement that he is an employee of Syngenta and complaining that we have been misleading about his views on Bt cotton and other matters. Below you'll see our response, Dr Shantharam's complaint and the original GM Watch report.

We accept Dr Shantharam's statement that he is no longer employed by Syngenta although it should be clear from our respoinse just why we were under the misapprehension that he was. Regarding the issue of someone writing on an apparently independent basis when they have been an employee of a heavily interested party, please note our comment on ex-Syngenta employee Willy De Greef's recent contribution to Nature Biotechnology (given below - for the full item)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4130

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest recently recommended that "journal editors require authors to disclose any financial arrangements they have had with private firms within the past three years, regardless of whether those arrangements relate to the subject of the article, and that the conflicts be published if they are in any way related to the article's subject." (Report Faults Scientific Journals on Financial Disclosure)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4137
------

Dear Dr Shantharam

Claire has asked me to reply to your recent e-mail. The statement that you are an employee of Syngenta is based on the information made available on the website of your company Biologistics International. I quote:

"Dr. Shanthu Shantharam is the Regulatory Compliance Manager at Plant Sciences Division, Syngenta Basel, Switzerland. Until recently, he was the Head of Stakeholder Relations and Technology Communications in the same company. At the corporate headquarters, Shanthu is leading a project to develop company guidelines and standard operating procedures to ensure highest level of biotechnology regulatory compliance in different parts of the world where Syngenta is conducting biotech business..."
http://www.biologistics.us/profile.htm

The use of the present tense seems unambiguous.

Regarding your comment on Bt cotton, we took it to mean exactly what you state, ie to be a comment reflecting your indignation that GM crop biotechnology is not making faster progress in India or in other developing countries. It was exactly that point that we were seeking to illustrate - that the industry lobby was preoccupied with not being able to introduce GMOs at a faster rate and it is this frustration which lay behind current attempts to speed up the rate of their introduction. I think this should be clear to readers from the context in which we set your remark. I quote:

"The biotech lobby's main concern is over what they see as stagnation in the GM crop sector in India. Shantu Shantaram spells it out with his complaint, 'all we have is one stupid Bt cotton to talk about.' India's prominence within the developing world makes what the biotech lobby sees as the slow introduction of GM crops into India particularly frustrating."

This seems to me entirely clear.

I cannot agree with your statement that only those who "have no scientific training or knowledge of the techniques and technology keep on repeating this non-sense that exisiting food safety analysis is inadequate or insensitive". Even the recent US report, produced by a committee containing many proponents of this technology, did not go so far as to claim existing testing is adequate. Apart from the issue of adequacy there is also, I would add, an important issue of transparency.

Nor do I agree with your comment that "market forces are the only ones that decide the fate of any product or technology". Where a product or technology may present significant risks to health, the environment or society, it is incumbant on government to act in a precautionary manner and to consult its citizenry about its use.

In fact, not only do I not think it should just be left to market forces but neither do I think such decisions should be left just to "the experts", although their advice will inevitably be an important part of the decision making progress. For one thing, there is always the danger of a herd mentality - as with intelligence experts over WMD in Iraq. And in the end it is for society and its leaders to make the judgement as they are likely to be the ones who bear the consequences, whereas many experts stand to gain from adoption. As Churchill once said, "Scientists should be on tap, not on top."

Sincerely
Jonathan Matthews
www.gmwatch.org
***

From: "Sivramiah Shantharam" <[email protected]>
Date: 31 July 2004 08:54:25 BST
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Misreport on my affiliation

Dear Claire:

In your recetn postings, I have been identified as an employee of Syngenta that is totally incorrect. Please put out a correction that  I am not an employee of Syngenta and that I am an independent
conusltant on biotechnology and biosafety and environmental risk assessment of GM crops with my own consulting firm of Biologistics International.

For the record, I was an employee of Syngenta in Basel for two and half years first as a Head of Sakeholder Relations and Technology Communications and then as a Global Head of Regulatory Compliance.

The comment that I called that supid Bt-cotton is the onely crop we have has been quoted out of context. Indeed, I said that but out of indignation that GM crop biotechnology is not making fast progress in
India and other developign countries. That was the sentiment expressed by all other speakers including Dr. Gurdev Khush at Bio2004  in Bangalore, India. By no means, neither I meant nor I intended to denigrate or doubt Bt cotton. In fact, recently I have written a new  commentary on a recently published field data on Bt-cotton by independent scienists in the June issue of Current Science that once and for all demonstrates the overall superior performance of Bt-cotton in more than 33 hectares of farmer's fields.

Also, your editorial preceding my article in BioSPectrum (India) on the ICMR draft paper on GM Food Safety Assessment has been totally mischaracterized. Never have I suggetsed that no one should be concerned about the social and economic impact of GM crops, instead I suggetsed that it should be left to real experts and not the
regulators. At the end of the day, market forces are the only ones that decide the fate of any product or technology. As a sicentist and a former regulator at USDA for over twelve years, I too have a modicum
of knowledge and expertise in the area of food safety. There is a unanimous scientific opinion that existing food safety analysis techniques and technology are sufficient to assess the same of GM
foods. Volumes have been written about it. By nature, science and  technology always strive to improve themsleves and am sure new disoveries and developments in food safety analysis will also improve.
We will adopt those new developments and revaluate our old beliefs and facts. Only those who have no scientific training or knowledge of the
techniques and technology keep on repeating this non-sense that exisiting food safety analysis is inadequate or insensitive. I was upset that a premier research body like ICMR in India should repeat
that nonsense.

Sincerely,

Shanthu Shantharam