THE WEEKLY WATCH number 28 (29/5/2003)

from Andy Rees, the WEEKLY WATCH editor
Dear all

Welcome to WW28 bringing you all the latest news in brief in the week in which Egypt -- Uncle Sam's token African country in his Coalition of the Unwilling assembled to help him wage his GM trade war against the EU -- withdrew its support for the U.S. complaint to the WTO.  Still more embarrassing for the U.S., Egypt gave as its reason, "the need to preserve adequate and effective consumer and environmental protection." - see TOPIC OF THE WEEK 1

"They did not care about the lives in Asia ...It was racial discrimination." Find out the latest damning revelations about Bayer's manslaughter in the South - REPORT OF THE WEEK 2 - and what it tells us about the corporate giants who their products will transform the lives of the poor.
By the way, Corporate Watch's 'Biotech Family Tree 2003' is now available online  at http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/genetics/familytree.htm There are 2 versions, a clickable online version and 2 downloadable PDF files if you want to print your own.
Please circulate widely!
Andy <[email protected]>

TOPIC OF THE WEEK 1 - Bush's bellicose food fight
TOPIC OF THE WEEK 2 - (More) corruption in India
REPORT OF THE WEEK 1 - Damning new ActionAid Report:
GM crops will not feed the world.
REPORT OF THE WEEK 2 - More corporate crimes committed in the South
LIES FROM THE GM LOBBY - A few things CropGen forgot to say.

Long-term monitoring of the environmental impact of GM crops must be introduced if commercial planting goes ahead in the UK, the Royal Society has said.  It wants the government to outline how it plans to do this. Vice-president Professor Patrick Bateson said: "It will not be enough to make best estimates at the start and then assume that everything will turn out as expected."  The Society said members of the review panel should also be given the chance to properly consider the results of GM farm trials, expected to be published later this year.  But Friends of the Earth said: "If the Royal Society has concerns about the potential environmental impacts of GM crops it should oppose their commercial development.  Long-term monitoring will not prevent damage that has already been caused.  Biotech companies must not be allowed to turn our countryside into one huge outdoor experiment." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2939318.stm http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/royal_society_raises_gm_cr.html

The Cartagena Protocol, which was drawn up in 2000, needs to be ratified by just one more country, after Colombia ratified it last week, to become legally binding.  Ninety days later it enters into force.  The agreement forces exporters to provide detailed information about the contents and potential environmental risks of any GM shipments before a destination country is required to accept it.  The protocol's provisions, however, conflict sharply with WTO rules, which allow imports to be restricted only when clear scientific evidence shows that a crop could harm human health or the environment.  Lawyers, environmentalists and industry groups are agreed that a clash between the two sets of rules is inevitable. Britain has signed but has yet to ratify the protocol, although this is due to take place shortly. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-694416,00.html see also:  www.biodiv.org/biosafety
"Bush, like King Knut, cannot stem this tide, but, as the US has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity and hence cannot and will not be party to the Biosafety Protocol, he will use every possible weapon to force GMOs and US technology on the world, such as the GM Food Aid, WTO and the Sacramento Ministerial meeting on biotechnology in late June, peppered with a bit of cajoling and even bribery of key policy and decision makers." -  Patrick Mulvany, Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) [email protected]

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto Canada to withdraw its application of Roundup Ready Wheat (RRW), which is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.  In a May 22 letter to Monsanto, the CWB detailed the "devastating economic impact" the introduction of RRW will have on western Canadian farmers. "Monsanto has said in the past it would not introduce RRW unless it was beneficial to farmers," Ritter, CWB's chairman, said. "Well, there are no benefits. So we're asking Monsanto to put the interests of their customers, western Canadian farmers, ahead of their own commercial interests and put the brakes on RRW, before Prairie farmers suffer serious financial consequences." http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?file=AgNewsArticle_20035271055_2512&articleID=98129&newscat=GN

Two South African groups - Environmental Justice Networking Forum and the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE) - picketed a biotech conference in Johannesburg.  Sister Angelica Loub said, "GM technology has not been tested.  It damages the health of our people...  It destroys the livelihoods of small farmers because it makes them dependent on US seed."  Sister Angelica said the forum was lobbying for greater consultation by the SA government with the public on the issue of GM crops and seed.  The Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering said, "The cost of over R5,000 per person effectively excludes the public and this sort of exclusion has epitomised the introduction of GE crops and biotechnology in South Africa.  There has been no public consultation or input on the need or desirability of the technology and these types of conferences only serve to further this exclusivity." http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1354439-6078-0,00.html

The Senate is willing to give critics of Bt corn another chance to rebut Malacanang's decision to commercialize GM crops, Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr. said.  Magsaysay, chair of the Senate committee on agriculture, scheduled another public hearing next week to accommodate new materials that a group of hunger strikers said would prove that the Bureau of Plant Industry had failed to examine the negative impact of  GMOs.

Fischler gung-ho on GM, dismissive on organic crop fears
If the use of GM seeds contaminates organic crops, are big biotech companies like Monsanto to pay, or is it up to famers?  A question not settled during a meeting of EU farm ministers, in Brussels this week, to discuss coexistence.  EU agriculture commissioner Franz Fischler, announced that recommendations on co-existence would be presented by the Commission in July.  The task is to ensure "freedom for production", whether farmers want to use GM seeds or organic, Fischler explained. Which sounds like freedom for GM production to go ahead and destroy organic production.  Especially when you consider a nine-page strategy paper presented earlier this year by Mr Fischler, stating that the burden of proof will be on organic farmers to prove their products are not contaminated with GMOs. http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=11388

Peter Melchett shoots down Krebs
Peter Melchett told it like it is in a Letter to the Guardian.  'Sir John's anti-organic prejudice is matched by his love of GMOs. The FSA's own consumer committee has described the FSA's GM literature as "biased" in favour of GM, and the FSA has been caught out deliberately suppressing a verdict of its own "citizens' jury" opposing commercial growing of GM crops in the UK." 'Sir John says the FSA only represents consumers' interests - in which case it seems a little careless to have lost the confidence of both the Consumers' Association and the National Consumers' Council over his pro-GM campaigns. And what about the interests of consumers who want to avoid pesticide residues, animals routinely treated with antibiotics and poultry adulterated with pork and beef DNA? Do they count, Sir John?' http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,965267,00.html

Zambia stops distribution of relief food ahead of harvest
The Zambian government has stopped the distribution of relief food, as from this week, in expectation of a bumper harvest, President Levy Mwanawasa said.  The decision was made to protect the interests of farmers and to encourage the development of agriculture.  Mwanawasa said he is glad that Zambia has survived the drought, despite the government's refusal to accept GM maize aid from the US, a matter that has caused tense relations between the two countries.  "They had talked of 2.9 million people dying from the hunger. I'm glad we are still soldiering on. No one has died," he said.

Geldof's astonishing claims strongly refuted
Former pop star Bob Geldof's recent claim that the weirdest politicians sometimes gave the necessary support to Africa, and that Bush was the best US president in this regard since Kennedy, was greeted with astonishment by aid experts.

A report from two Washington-based economic think-tanks shows that not only will Bush's promised aid increases be far more modest than announced, but that US aid remains well below historical standards and far below other donor countries.  For the next years, aid as a share of the economy is likely to be lower than it ever was from 1946-1996, at 0.124%, and well below half the level of the typical donor country, estimated at around 0.30%.  "The United States would still be at the bottom of the barrel among all donors in its spending on development aid (excluding military aid) as a share of the economy," concludes the report.  According to the OECD, in 2002 Washington contributed 0.12% of its economy to development aid.  This was the lowest share among 22 nations examined, with the second lowest country, Italy, contributing 0.20% of its economy. "The administration's budget proposes funding the Millennium Challenge Account at levels far less than it has announced," says the report.  There is a huge disparity between Bush's rhetoric and reality. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030522/wl_oneworld
Meanwhile Louise Richards, Chief executive of War on Want, tells it like it is over AIDS in a letter to The Guardian: 'If the US administration was serious about battling the appalling impact of infectious disease, it would not have vetoed a multilateral deal in December last year that would have enabled poor countries such as Ethiopia to waive patent rights for a list of drugs to fight public health emergencies such as HIV/Aids. At the eleventh hour of negotiations, US vice president Dick Cheney sprang to the defence of the powerful US pharmaceutical lobby and vetoed the deal on the grounds that too many drug treatments would be made available to too many countries. If the Bush administration wants to alleviate the plight of those struck down by disease, War on Want believes it should agree to waive drug patents for a meaningful list of treatments for all least developed and middle income countries.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,965933,00.html

Does 20/20s John Stossel Deserve a Promotion?
America's ABC reporter John Stossel has a new job at 20/20 as co-anchor. One source at ABC says that picking Stossel makes sense: "These are conservative times... the network wants somebody to match the times." For years, Stossel's work has been notable for bungled facts and twisted logic, all in service to his conservative "free market" agenda. Stossel's methods have also been called into question - most memorably when he cited research that didn't actually exist, about pesticide residues in organic produce (New York Times, 7/31/00). Until now, ABC has for the most part ignored the thousands of letters pointing out the unreliability of Stossel's reporting; now, it's decided the appropriate response is promotion. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0305/S00241.htm
ACTION: Please ask ABC News to explain how Stossel's journalistic record
justifies his promotion.
CONTACT: ABC News mailto:[email protected]
20/20 mailto:[email protected]
As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [email protected] with your correspondence.
FAIR's recent reports on Stossel are now online:
"Give Us a Break: The world according to John Stossel"
"The Stossel Treatment: Selective editing and other unethical tactics"
For more about John Stossel's work over the years, see:

TOPIC OF THE WEEK 1 - Bush's bellicose food fight
George Bush claimed last week the EU had blocked efforts to use GM crops to fight famine because of "unfounded, unscientific fears".  But the development charity ActionAid's new report found that, far from helping fight famine, the new technology threatens to push poor farmers deeper into debt.  (See 'REPORT OF THE WEEK 1' below for more on this)

EU officials accused President Bush of misrepresenting the facts when he said European hostility to GM food was hurting efforts to fight hunger in Africa. EU officials pointed out that the EU provides far more development assistance to African countries than the US does. In 2001, the EU provided $23.1 billion in development aid, compared to just $8.3 billion from the US. They also accused the US of flooding developing countries with food aid when commodity prices are low and sharply curtailing that assistance when prices rise. 

EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said, "It is one thing not to have the same feeling on the level of precautions one must take over GMOs. We feel the need for more precautions than the Americans."  But "to accuse for example the EU of starving the Third World because we don't stuff them with GMO surpluses or to use this kind of argument, that is clearly going much too far, that is absolutely unacceptable," he said.

A global environmental group hit back at a US policy to export GM food as aid, saying the crops pose potential health and economic risks to developing countries.  Friends of the Earth said the US was exploiting famine-stricken populations by denying them the choice to avoid GM crops in aid shipments.  Friends of the Earth also noted that new US legislation granting $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, ties US assistance to AIDS victims to acceptance of GMOs.

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) condemns the decision by the Canadian government to join the US bid to force GM foods on Europeans.  "How can we take any of our government's assurances on trade issues seriously when we are so obviously ready to ram GM foods down the throats of unwilling Europeans?" asks James Clancy, president of the 325,000-member National Union. "If a European government cannot pass laws to protect public health without facing a WTO challenge, it follows that Canada will end up in the same position. The same would apply to any GM restrictions Canada might pass."  Clancy says the decision to support the US challenge is an affront to European consumers.  "We have seen the US try and use famine in Africa as a means to market GM products to reluctant farmers and citizens. Now Canada is joining the US in an attempt to punish Europeans economically until they accept these products," he says. "Instead of bowing to corporate pressure this government should support the Europeans and implement a mandatory labeling policy as well as imposing a moratorium on GM foods."  The Council of Canadians has called Ottawa's decision to support the challenge "an embarrassment for Canadians." http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n15my03b.htm

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said, "We believe the problem can be resolved and that we will be able to find a  bilateral solution with the European Community without taking recourse to the  WTO."

The only African country the US managed to cajole into supporting its GM trade war just jumped ship in the light of "the need to preserve adequate and effective consumer and environmental protection."  How damaging is that?!  Friends of the Earth Europe's GM campaigner Geert Ritsema said: "We're delighted that Egypt has withdrawn from this US  attempt to force GM food and crops into Europe.  Countries should be allowed to choose what they eat and what they grow in their fields.  The United States should withdraw its WTO challenge, and stop trying to bully Europe over GMOs."  The decision could be a blow to US efforts to win developing country support for the case reported The Financial Times. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/egypt_withdraws_from_wto_g.html http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390402082

A WTO case could last three years, sparking immense bitterness between the two blocs.  With stakes so high some are even saying, "This case could undermine the entire legitimacy of the WTO." http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=183_0_2_0_C

TOPIC OF THE WEEK 2 - (More) corporate corruption in India
The chairperson of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Sushma Choudhary, has been moved on.  Many believe this is because she took a firm line on GM crops and imports.  She did not allow imports of GM corn-soya blend by CARE-India and CRS.  She rejected Monsanto's Bt cotton, Mech 915, which was slated for cultivation in north India, this summer.  And she called for more field trials of GM mustard seeds.  The Indian agriculture minister, Ajit Singh was also forced to quit for taking a pro-farmer stand.  Mr Singh has made a strong case for the farmers of the developing countries at the WTO. http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=34992

The special secretary in the Ministry of Environment & Forests, V.K.Duggal, has been appointed the new chairperson of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).  It couldn't be at a less auspicious time.  In the words of a just-published article in India's national magazine: "The so-called genetic revolution in cotton appears to be coming apart at the seams.  Reports are pouring in from different parts of the country of a "failed" or "unsatisfactory" harvest of the first commercial transgenic Bt cotton crop...   Reports of State governments, farmers' organisations, non-government organisations (NGOs) and scientists appear to be giving the lie to [Mahyco-Monsanto's] claims. 
Bt cotton failed in Madhya Pradesh 'due to wilting and large-scale drying of the crop at the peak bolling stage, accompanied by leaf-dropping and shedding, as also forced bursting of immaculate bolls'.  A six-member panel set up by the Gujarat government under Joint Director, Agriculture (Oilseeds), S.K. Sangami, to evaluate the performance of Bt cotton in the State, said that 'it is unfit for cultivation and should be banned in the State'." http://flonnet.com/fl2011/stories/20030606005912300.htm

REPORT OF THE WEEK 1 - Damning new ActionAid Report:
GM crops will not feed the world.
GM crops will not feed the world and could pose a considerable threat to poor farmers, warns a new report launched today by ActionAid.  The report examines biotech companies' claims that GM crops can tackle world hunger. The report is being submitted to the Government in advance of the UK public debate starting on 3 June.  It reveals that at best GM crops are irrelevant to poor farmers, at worst they threaten to push them deeper into debt, making them more reliant on expensive seeds and chemicals and unable to save seed from one harvest to the next.

"The UK public should not be duped into accepting GM in the name of developing countries. GM does not provide a magic bullet solution to world hunger. What poor people really need is access to land, water, better roads to get their crops to market, education and credit schemes," said Matthew Lockwood, ActionAid's Head of Policy.

Using evidence from ActionAid campaigns in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the report takes a balanced look at the impact of GM crops in developing countries. It concludes that rather than alleviating world hunger, the new technology is likely to exacerbate food insecurity, leading to more hungry people not less.

Key findings from report:
    ·    GM seeds are far more suited to the needs of large-scale commercial farmers rather than poor farmers.
    ·    GM expansion is driven by corporate profit not the needs of poor people. Four multinationals - Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and DuPont - control most of the GM seed market. By linking their chemicals to seeds via GM technologies, these corporations have extended markets for their herbicides and pesticides.
    ·    Farmers are not allowed to trade or save GM seed from one harvest to the next. 'Terminator technology' is also being developed that produces sterile seeds.
    ·    There is no consistent evidence GM crops yield more and require fewer chemicals. In one study, Monsanto's GM soya had 6% lower yields than non-GM soya and 11% less than high-yielding non-GM soya.
    ·    Insecticide use on GM cotton has fallen in some locations, but these gains may be short-lived. Chemical use on herbicide-resistant GM crops has sometimes gone up rather than down.

In Pakistan, poor farmers have been enticed by the hype surrounding GM to buy expensive 'miracle' cotton seeds. The results have been disappointing, with many farmers losing most of their crops and facing ruin.

The report recommends that there should be no further commercialisation of GM crops until more research has been carried out on their impacts, especially in poor countries. Also, poor countries and their farmers must have the right to open public debates before they decide whether to go ahead with GM crops.

Key GM statistics:
·    Only 1% of GM research is aimed at crops used by poor farmers.
·    The US biotech industry spends $250 million a year promoting GM.
·    A small range of useful looking GM crops aimed at the poor are being researched but they stand only a 1 in 250 chance of making it into farmers fields.
·    The four corporations that control most of the GM seed market had a combined turnover from agrochemicals and seeds of $21.6 billion in 2001.
·     91% of all GM crops grown worldwide in 2001 were from Monsanto seeds.

"We know there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. What is causing world hunger is poverty and inequality.  Money would be far better spent tackling these problems than poured into GM technology," said Adriano Campolina Soares from ActionAid Brazil. 'GM Crops - Going Against the Grain' - you can download a copy at: http://www.actionaid.org/resources/pdfs/gatg.pdf

CropGen is a biotech industry-funded lobby run by pro-GM UK academics. Its press release, in response to ActionAid's report, shows the extent to which spin guides CropGen's statements.  Quite apart from only dealing with one GM crop (cotton), almost every element of CropGen's press release, on 'how GM technology is delivering real results in the developing world right now', is a total misrepresentation of facts.

REPORT OF THE WEEK 2 - More corporate crimes in the South - this time it's Bayer
After the recent revelations about the large-scale involvement of corporations like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer and their subsidiaries in child labour in India, here are more revelations about how such corporations treat the Global South.  A division of Bayer, the huge German chemical, pharmaceutical and biotech corporation, sold millions of dollars worth of a medicine that carried a high risk of spreading HIV to customers in Asia and Latin America, while selling a new, safer product in the US and Europe, The New York Times has reported.

After the US Centers for Disease Control warned that blood products appeared responsible for AIDS among hemophiliacs, the company sent a letter to distributors in nearly two dozen nations saying that AIDS was "the center of irrational response in many countries."  After some doctors in Hong Kong wondered whether the comapny was sending "AIDS-tainted" medicine into less-developed nations, the company assured its distributor that it was sending the "same fine product we have supplied for years."

As a result of the company's actions, AIDS was passed along to thousands of hemophiliacs. At least 100 hemophiliacs in Hong Kong and Taiwan alone contracted AIDS after using the older product, and  many have since died.

"They did not care about the lives in Asia.  ...It was racial discrimination," said a mother of one of the Hong Kong victims. For more on Bayer's biotech interests and corporate crimes: http://ngin.tripod.com/agrevodiary.htm
Full Story:

"European governments should join -- not hinder -- the great cause of ending hunger in Africa" - George W. Bush

"U.S. aid remains well below historical standards and far below other donor countries."   http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030522/wl_oneworld /118151053610546

"But this is far more than a food fight. In a very real sense, it's the same struggle recently demonstrated in Iraq" - Dennis Avery in 'Biotechnology, Iraq and the Shape of Tomorrow's World', Center for Global Food Issues, May 23, 2003

"Monsanto has said in the past it would not introduce RRW unless it was beneficial to farmers.  Well, there are no benefits [for farmers].  So we're asking Monsanto to put the interests of their customers, western Canadian farmers, ahead of their own commercial interests and put the brakes on Roundup Ready Wheat, before Prairie farmers suffer serious financial consequences." - Ken Ritter, Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, talking about Monsanto's GM wheat http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?file=AgNewsArticle_200352710 55_2512&articleID=98129&newscat=GN

In 2001, the EU and its 15-member states provided $23.1 billion in development aid, compared to the figure for the US of just $8.3 billion. Key GM statistics:
·    Only 1% of GM research is aimed at crops used by poor farmers.
·    The US biotech industry spends $250 million a year promoting GM.
·    A small range of useful looking GM crops aimed at the poor are being researched but they stand only a 1 in 250 chance of making it into farmers fields.
·    The four corporations that control most of the GM seed market had a combined turnover from agrochemicals and seeds of $21.6 billion in 2001.
·     91% of all GM crops grown worldwide in 2001 were from Monsanto seeds. See ActionAid's report: 'GM Crops - Going Against the Grain' at: http://www.actionaid.org/resources/pdfs/gatg.pdf

It can cost up to £200m and 12 years to develop a GM crop, and that cost has to be recouped by selling to farmers who can pay for it [ie not small, Third World farmers]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,965299,00.html

CropGen is a biotech industry funded lobby run by pro-GM UK academics. Its press release in response to yesterday's Action Aid report shows the extent to which spin guides its statements. Read it here:

Quite apart from only dealing with one GM crop (cotton), almost every element of the press release, on 'how GM technology is delivering real results in the developing world right now', is open to question or provides less than half the story.

The press release claims major benefits from GM cotton for:

*South Africa - BUT recent reports by SAFeAGE and Biowatch suggest:
- that any benefits may have more to do with new resources (educational and financial) being made available to the farmers than GM crops;
- that there may be serious debt problems and even suicides in the area;
- that Monsanto research into GM crop performance in the area was suppressed;
- and that the irrigation system in the area is being manipulated to facilitate cotton growing at the expoense of other famers and with dire consequences for the local and downstream ecology.

*China - BUT a report from the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences released in June last year concluded:
- that GM cotton is permanently damaging the environment
- that it is killing the natural parasitic enemies of the insect it targets
- and that it is encouraging other pests.

*Indonesia - BUT a leaked letter from Monsanto shows:
- its GM cotton operation in Indonesia is totally unprofitable
- it's seeking to wind it down unless and until it can get the removal of regulatory controls by the Indonesian government.
There have also been complaints and demands for compensation from farmers arising from poor harvests and inconsistent seed supply by Monsanto.

*India - HERE's THE BIG LIE - CropGen claims average yield increases with GM cotton of 60% and a 70% reduction in insecticide use 'resulting in environmental, social and economic benefits'. BUT the Qaim and Zilberman research (based on data provided by Monsanto-Mayhco) that CropGen's claims rely on is hugely controversial and has faced serious criticism even from GM supporters.

Even an Indian scientist working for biotech company Syngenta has said of the research CropGen bases its claims on, "This kind of shoddy publication based on meagre and questionable field data... do more harm to science and technology development, perhaps set GMO technology backwards."  http://ngin.tripod.com/260203b.htm

Research and reports by Indian state governments, NGOs and associated scientists and economists all give the lie to CropGen's claims.

They show that the GM Cotton harvest in India in 2002 was a serious failure. There are demands for compensation from farmers and India's regulatory committee has subsequently not allowed GM cotton to be commercialised in the northern states of India. (For a comprehensive account see: http://flonnet.com/fl2011/stories/20030606005912300.htm)

CropGen also refers to "years of field trials" in India but CropGen fails to say that those trials have themselves been a major source of controversy regarding length, adequacy and findings - some of which are said to have been predictors for the problems that have occurred:
Bt Cotton Belies Promises: Research
Economists' Report Card On Bt Cotton

Not one word of any of this is mentioned by CropGen who even claim, "If the success of the Indian experience is projected to South and Southeast Asia and Subsaharan Africa... then the yield effects of GM crops have the potential to be just as high and result in huge environmental, social and economic benefits."

People unable to attend the official GM debate meetings in the UK can make their views known to the Government at http://www.gmnation.org.uk or they can write to GM Nation?  The Public Debate, PO Box 44431, London SE1 7YW or call 020 7215 6508.  Please take this opportunity to tell the Government you do not want GM food and that GM crops must not be commercially grown in the UK.  These crops potentially pose a long-term threat to our food, farming and the environment.   

To subscribe to the 'GMW daily' list
send an e-mail to [email protected] with the message:
'subscribe GMW daily'
You'll receive up to 30 mails a week

To subscribe to the 'WEEKLY WATCH'
send an e-mail to [email protected] with the message:
'subscribe WEEKLY WATCH'
You'll receive 1 mail a week with a news roundup
Those subscribed to the daily list will receive the WEEKLY WATCH

To subscribe to 'GMWATCH' (monthly)
send an e-mail to [email protected] with the message:
'subscribe GMWATCH'
You'll receive 1 mail a month with a news roundup
Those subscribed to the daily bulletins and WEEKLY WATCH will receive
GMWATCH automatically

To unsubscribe to any of the these lists:
just mail us saying 'unsubscribe' and specifying which list

archived at:

GMWATCH website:

Donations made out to 'NGIN':
NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, United Kingdom
or e-mail for details: [email protected]

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive