GMWATCH number 12 - monthly review (2/8/2003)

==================================
GMWATCH number 12
==================================
------------------------------------------------------------
From Claire Robinson, GMWATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,

Welcome to our review of the last month, sent to you on the day Jose Bove walked free from prison after serving just 5 weeks of a 10-month jail sentence for destroying GM crops. His release follows high-profile protests across France. (see RESISTANCE TO GM)

In the UK in July we saw the conclusion of the government's 'GM Nation?' public debate. Around 40,000 individual responses are said to have been received, despite only 12,000 forms originally being printed!

An Internet Marketing Research Services poll, posing the same questions as those on the official form, reported 83% of the public did not think enough was known about the long-term effects of GM foods, 75% were worried that GM Crops would compromise the integrity of non-GM crops, and 71% were concerned about the negative impact of GM crops on the environment.
http://www.i-sis.org/PublicSayNo.php

At about 500 meetings held around the country as part of the debate the views expressed seem to have been overwhelmingly in accord with those of the Prince of Wales who, during a visit to Cardiff this week, said: "We need a GM-free Wales - and a GM-free Britain, for that matter." (see RESISTANCE TO GM)

Supermarket bosses, during a recent meeting with the government, hammered home a similar message. Richard Ali, director of food policy at the British Retail Consortium, has commented, "We provide what customers demand and they do not want GM food." The communications director for Safeway, Kevin Hawkins, reported: "We have certainly seen no change in what people think about GM." And Kate O'Sullivan of Sainsbury's said: "Customers have made it clear they do not want GM ingredients." (see ECONOMICS below)

That meeting followed publication of the government's economic review. The Downing Street Strategy Unit's report admitted there was little economic value in the current generation of GM crops and warned the government that if it pressed ahead with commercialisation regardless, it faced the prospect of civil unrest (see ECONOMICS). The report's realism suggested No.10 had had its fill of "dodgy dossiers" for the moment.

But then came the science review (see TOPIC OF THE MONTH). Predictably, given the way the panel of 25 experts had been stacked, the report was in many respects a whitewash, though it still failed to provide the ringing endorsement that the industry had hoped for.

"GM Fails to Win Official Backing", ran the headline in The Daily Telegraph, reporting that the review dealt, "a further blow to GM supporters" by sounding a "much more cautious note than expected". The review even warned of a series of significant "gaps in our knowledge" and that "uncertainties will become more complex" in the future.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml%2Fnews%2F2003%2F07%2F22%2Fngm22.xml

Still more revealing were the forces that helped to shape publication. Biotech industry scientists and their supporters were said to have dominated the panel's work, with the report's key safety section being written by an employee of Monsanto!

Of the two experts on the panel nominated by groups critical of GM crops, one - Prof Carlo Leifert - resigned after receiving confirmation from an industry source that he was a target, while the other - Dr Andrew Stirling - learned of a clandestine attack on his reputation and his funding.

What's so revealing about this is that Leifert is an expert on organic farming while Stirling's work, on the risks and management of technological innovation, is funded via a social sciences research board. Yet both experienced career/funding pressures over raising questions about GM. Try and imagine the pressures on, say, a molecular biologist whose public funding comes via a research council so industrially aligned that its Chairman is a director of Syngenta! Such a scientist, and/or his employer, will often have a still more direct financial relationship with the biotech industry. (see CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE)

News of Dr Stirling's treatment emerged only after the science review had been published, despite the fact that Stirling had reported it in a letter to the panel's chairman back in June. His silence had been bought by a promise his letter would be published. It never was.

Only after a press enquiry to the government, asking for a copy of the minutes covering Dr Stirling's allegations, was he suddenly informed that "legal reasons" prevented the publication of his letter. Two days later the minutes were finally published minus the letter. (see TOPIC OF THE MONTH)

As well as seeking to manipulate the science review, GM lobbyists have also been busy trying to undermine the public debate. The President of the Royal Society began claiming the debate would be "hijacked by fundamentalist lobby groups" even before it had got started. And low and behold, now that it has finshed, up pops an editorial in the current edition of the journal Nature without a word to say about the treatment of Dr Stirling but claiming, "open meetings in the public debate have been subjected to campaigning tactics by anti-GM lobbyists, leading to complaints from other members of the public that discussions have been compromised." Nature's editor, who attracted scorn for the craven way in which he gave in to biotech industry pressure over the journal's paper on Mexican maize contamination, produces not a jot of evidence in support of this claim. (see CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE)

Meanwhile, the publication is still awaited of the report on the government's farm scale trials on three varieties of GM crops: beet, fodder maize and rape. Saturday's Independent claims, "Whitehall experts believe ministers will give the green light to grow one variety of GM crop in Britain, possibly maize, to send a signal to the Americans that they are not anti-GM. But two other varieties are expected to be rejected because they may damage the environment."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=429820

Don't forget our new archive at: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive.asp

And please don't miss an important CAMPAIGN OF THE MONTH on a subject that's close to my heart. This could save an immense amount of suffering in the years to come.

Claire Robinson <[email protected]>
www.ngin.org.uk

-----------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC OF THE MONTH
ECONOMICS
FOOD SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EUROPE
THIRD WORLD
RESISTANCE TO GM
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE
QUOTES OF THE MONTH
JOKE OF THE MONTH
CAMPAIGN OF THE MONTH
SUBSCRIPTIONS

------------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC OF THE MONTH: GM Science Review - IRAQ MARK 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Even before its publication, the GM Science Review was mired in controversy. But no one was quite prepared for the bombshells that started exploding as the Science Review Panel reported.

Former Environment Minister Michael Meacher called the report a "public scandal". He said, "This is just a rehash of existing reports and includes no data of systematic trials


Print

Back to the Archive