| Lobby group's demise raises suspicions (6/5/2004) | |
|
New Zealand's aggressive pro-GM lobby group the Life Sciences Network is being wound down - or is it? NZ's original biotech PR outfit, Gene Pool, became so embroiled in controversy that it too was wound up. It was predicted at the time that a new 'front' would soon be set up in New Zealand by the likes of Monsanto, and not long afterwards up popped the Life Sciences Network. Up until early December 2003, the homepage of its website was attributed to Life Sciences Network (Inc), but this was suddenly changed to BioScience Communications Ltd. And the site is now available only via a new domain www.bioscinews.com while the LSN site has been pulled and the demise of LSN announced - see below. BioScience News appears to have had the same staff and to have been run out of the same office as the Life Sciences Network. It appears, in fact, to be a yet another rebranding of the industry's PR attack. 1.Scaling down of pro-GE group Life Sciences Network draws suspicion 1.Anti-GE group suspicious of opponents' motives GE Free New Zealand is suspicious of a pro-GE group's reasons for folding. The Life Sciences Network is closing down its main activities due to lack of subscribers. It cites its reasons as being because there are no applications for commercial release of GE organisms, the debate had died down and the biotech industry is concerning itself with other things. Life Sciences Network will continue in a much-reduced form. But GE Free New Zealand's Jon Carapiet says that does not make sense. He says laboratory research continues into what he considers ethical uses of the technology, so he does not believe the argument that GE is not happening. Mr Carapiet says the biotech industry is a global network, and the PR will not stop just because there is not an outlet in New Zealand. © 2004 NZCity, IRN 2.The Rise and Demise of Life Sciences Network (LSN) Based in Wellington, New Zealand, the Life Sciences Network (LSN) is a well-heeled pro-biotech PR group which lobbies aggressively for GM food and crops. Founded in May 2000, LSN claims to have been instrumental in subsequently 'shifting the public and policy debate (on GM) onto a much sounder basis' and in achieving what it terms 'balanced' media coverage on GM in New Zealand. The organisation appears highly secretive. Its website provides almost no information about itself - its members, staff, funding etc. This may reflect its origins. Nicky Hager, author of a book on 'corn-gate' - New Zealand's GM sweetcorn scandal, has referred to a link between LSN and Communications Trumps, the PR company for Novartis that was identified during the 'corn-gate' scandal as having played a leading role in shaping NZ Government responses to the contaminated sweetcorn issue. Communications Trumps, now part of 'Four Winds Communications', was co-founded by Norrey Simmons in 1987. The company is no stranger to controversy. It was allegedly involved in telling New Zealand's King Salmon that in relation to its genetic engineering programme, 'issues such as deformities, lumps on heads etc should not be mentioned at any point to any outside' (from a leaked document written by Communications Trumps - see also, Seeds of Distrust, 2002, p.15) At the same time Norrey Simmons' PR firm seems to have been behind New Zealand's orginal GM PR outfit, Gene Technology Information Trust, more commonly known as GenePool. GenePool claimed to be an independent educational trust while being funded by Monsanto and,other pro-GM organisations. According to a parliamentary select committee report, this funding mostly went to Communications Trumps which shared office facilities and staff with GenePool. (Green Party issues details of report on GenePool, October 1999) By 1999 Gene Pool was so embroiled in controversy over its funding that it had outlived its usefulness. When GenePool was being wound up, New Zealand's Green Party predicted a new 'front' would soon be set up in New Zealand by the likes of Monsanto (Taxpayer's money used in Monsanto's PR). According to Nicky Hager, 'Simmons was then involved in confidential meetings at the Wellington offices of the legal firm Russell McVeagh in which the successor lobby group, Life Sciences Network, was devised.' (Seeds of Distrust, 2002, p.34) Up until early December 2003, the homepage of the LSN website at www.lifesciencesnetwork.com was attributed to Life Sciences Network (Inc), but this has now been changed to BioScience Communications Ltd. The website is now titled ' BioScience News and Advocate' and the site can also be found via a new domain www.bioscinews.com. BioScience News appears to have the same staff and to be run out of the same office as the Life Sciences Network. Some of LSN's press releases have been joint with Biotenz - a biotech trade lobby in New Zealand. LSN's chairman, Dr William Rolleston, is an executive member and former president of Biotenz. Some of LSN's press releases have been joint with Biotenz - a biotech trade lobby in NewZealand. LSN's chairman, Dr William Rolleston, is an executive member and former president of Biotenz. LSN was formed just 6 months before New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification began its work. It hired offices in the same building as the Royal Commission from which to run its campaign. It is said to 'have a large budget from undisclosed sources' and to 'have coordinated most of the politcial pressure in favour of genetic engineering in New Zealand'. (Seeds of Distrust, 2002, p.12) In the run up to voting in New Zealand's 2002 general election a big pro-GM advertising campaign was launched by LSN. New Zealand's Green Party called on LSN to come clean on whether multinational corporations were funding its activities. Green Party Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons commented, 'New Zealanders will be subjected to an intensive advertising campaign to influence the outcome of the election by portraying GE as safe and beneficial. Pro-GE interests will trot out their usual litany of bad science, half-truths and misleading information. What they won't be saying is how much this ad campaign costs and who is ultimately footing the bill.A |
|