Guest guest Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 WEEKLY_WATCH_number_77 " GM_WATCH " Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:59:05 +0100 ----------- WEEKLY WATCH number 77 ----------- ----------- from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor ----------- Dear all, Resistance to GM continues to grow worldwide (GM MELTDOWN), with this week the EU refusing to approve a new Monsanto oilseed rape, while in the US there is growing resentment at how anti-labelling companies have robbed people of the right to know what they're eating (RESISTANCE GROWS IN US ). One unfortunate consequence is that the industry is targeting Africa as its new frontier, with unprecedented assistance from the US government. Both are relentlessly pressurising reluctant governments under the guise of helping the continent increase its food productivity (FOCUS ON AFRICA). Light relief this week comes from a prime piece of plagiarism on the part of Dr Ian Gibson, the UK's Chairman of the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. It seems Gibson, who boasted that, as a scientist, he could wipe the floor with those who held anti-GM views, went on to mouth a speech in support of GM lifted wholesale from an article by GM 'godfather' Derek Burke! (LOBBYWATCH) Few, if any, of Gibson's Burke-derived scientific claims stood up to scrutiny, as Dr Pusztai has shown (http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3741). In my university days, and probably Dr Gibson's too, students were 'failed' or even expelled for passing off others' ideas as their own and/or making false and unsubstantiated claims in their work. Clearly, today's biotech brigade operates in a more forgiving moral climate. Finally, watch out for a telling list of the misadventures of the bioteh industry just in the first few months of this year - GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES. Claire claire www.ngin.org.uk / www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org --------------------------- CONTENTS --------------------------- FOCUS ON AFRICA INDIA: INFECTED BY BAD-IDEA VIRUS RESISTANCE GROWS IN US / INDUSTRY FIGHTS BACK EURO-NEWS FOOD SAFETY BIO CONFERENCE, SAN FRANCISCO PATENTS ON LIFE GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES LOBBYWATCH DONATIONS HEADLINES OF THE WEEK SUBSCRIPTIONS --------------------------- FOCUS ON AFRICA --------------------------- + FARMING INITIATIVE FOR AFRICA LAUNCHED African newspapers report that an initiative was launched on 16 June to increase productivity among Africa's small-scale farmers. The African Agricultural Technological Foundation (AATF) plans to spearhead " transfer of agricultural technology " as a way of addressing Africa's food insecurity. But don't be in any doubt as to what this African Agricultural Technology Foundation initiative to address " Africa's perennial food insecurity " is really about. The Nairobi-based AATF was formed in July 2002 talking about a " public-private partnership designed to remove many of the barriers that have prevented smallholder farmers in Africa from gaining access to existing agricultural technologies that could help relieve food insecurity and alleviate poverty. " However, the rice industry website Oryza.com explained the purpose of AATF more bluntly, " The goal of the AATF will be to work with governments, companies, non-governmental organizations, and research centers to negotiate the sales rights of genetically modified crops and bring new agricultural technologies to the African market. " ( " Africa: Group to Promote GMO Sales " , Oryza.com) Needless to say, as well as getting money from the Rockefeller Foundation AATF gets money from USAID. It also receives support from major biotech corporations, including Monsanto, Dupont, Dow Agro Sciences and Syngenta. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=163 & page=A It is claimed that, " The AATF will be... led, managed and directed by Africans. " However, AATF's board is chaired by Jennifer Thompson, the fervent biotech supporting scientist who came to prominence in South Africa's regulatory circles under its apartheid regime. Thompson is also on the board of the biotech-industry backed lobby groups ISAAA and AfricaBio. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170 & page=A http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3831 + USDA CREATES BORLAUG FELLOWSHIPS AFTER NATIONS REFUSE GM FOODS After several African nations refused shipments of GM US corn, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced a new fellowship, named for the " father of the Green Revolution, " designed to bring junior and mid-ranking scientists and policymakers from African, Asian, and Latin American countries to the US to learn from their US counterparts. But there is " absolutely no connection " between the countries' stance toward GM foods and the Norman Borlaug International Science and Technology Fellows Program, Jocelyn Brown, the USDA's assistant deputy administrator of international cooperation and development, told The Scientist. Yeah, right. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3800 + NON-GM FOOD AVAILABLE FOR ANGOLA The coordinator of the National Centre for Phytogenetics Resources (CNRF), Elizabeth Matus, affirmed that the World Food Programme can acquire natural products from SADC [southern African Development Community] countries instead of GM foods. According to Mrs Matus, last year, the World Food Programme acquired maize from Zimbabwe and South Africa for countries that refuse GM foods and it can also do so for Angola, instead of bringing food from the US. This contradicts earlier claims by the WFP that countries must accept GM food. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3823 + SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES ASKS FOR MORATORIUM The South African Council of Churches has issued a powerful statement calling for the government to admit that GM is a " high risk technology " and to impose a moratorium on further permits being granted for GMOs in South Africa. The statement affirms " Our conviction that there is sufficient food for all our people, but the problem remains inequitable access to and maldistribution of food. " Full statement at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3797 See LOBBYWATCH for DENNIS AVERY on SAVING AFRICA! --------------------------- INDIA: INFECTED BY BAD-IDEA VIRUS --------------------------- + MORE RESEARCH FINDINGS ON BT COTTON IN INDIA A new field study by Gene Campaign confirms another recent study from Andhra Pradesh in finding that, because of the high cost of the Monsanto Bt cotton seed compared to local hybrids, farmers cultivating the Monsanto variety for the 2003-4 season are, like the previous year, losing out economically. This loss holds true despite the excellent growing conditions for cotton in India last year. Excerpt from the Conclusion of the study: We therefore have a rather curious situation when the only people praising the Monsanto variety are Monsanto themselves. Its friends and supporters have ensured... that these questionable data [from Monsanto-connected " studies " ] are circulated widely and enter the record as the authentic data from India. Every other agency is reporting results to the contrary, that Monsanto varieties are the worst performers when compared to good local hybrids and illegal Bt variants. Not just Gene Campaign, but other studies done by Greenpeace, Deccan Development Society, independent researchers, state agriculture departments and media teams report more or less the same picture. The study also points out that it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the performance of Bt and non-Bt cotton because of the high incidence of illegal GM seeds. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3828 + NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BT, NON-BT COTTON OUTPUT According to an Indian government minister, experts have said that there is no difference in the performance of the Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton in the 2003 season. Addressing the national round table on Farmers' Issues and Agriculture Policies, organised by the Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) in New Delhi, tourism minister Renuka Chaudhary hit out hard at the unnecessary hype generated about the performance of Bt cotton. Ms Chaudhary said " in Andhra Pradesh both Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton have equally performed well during 2003 season. There is unnecessary confusion all around. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3826 + NEW REGULATORS SPEEDING UP APPROVAL FOR GM CROPS? The most telling point about a recent article from Science, " Report Says India Needs Stronger, Independent Regulatory Body " [ http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3826 ] is not to be found in the text but in the caption to an accompanying image of an Indian woman picking cotton. The caption reads, " Pick up the pace. A new body might help some GM crops get to farmers more quickly than did Bt cotton. " And that indeed is what, despite all their complexity and careful window dressing, the Swaminathan panel's efforts to rejig the Indian regulatory system for GM crops seem to really have been driven by - a frustration that industry has not been able to commercialise its products more rapidly. The same drive has led to the heads of the current regulatory body, the GEAC, being moved on in rapid succession, after they had shown too great a sense of caution over the commercialisation issue. This brings us back to the " bad-idea virus " , to use the phrase recently coined by an economist to describe the illusion of gaining economic success for one's locality from biotechnology. Infection with the virus leads politicians and bureaucrats to rush around wooing the industry in an effort to receive the magic touch of its blessing. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3772 The true character of the bad idea virus is highlighted as soon as one examines the reality of Bt cotton commercialisation in India. The problem over its introduction does not appear to have stemmed from excessive bureaucratic, political or scientific caution but Bt cotton's inability to deliver. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3772 Bt cotton performed poorly or worse in its first year of commercial production, according to more or less all sources, other than Monsanto and the pro-biotech lobby. In its second year, in excellent growing conditions, according to an Indian Minister, quoted in the second article below, " in Andhra Pradesh both Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton have equally performed well during 2003 season. " So we have a technology that delivers agricultural products whose performance lies somewhere between poor and no better than what is currently available, yet which is highly controversial and carries significant risks beyond the agronomic. How does this argue for speeding up GM crop acceptance? Ominously, however, the bad-idea virus continues to lay waste its victims. According to the first article below, " The new government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should be favorably disposed to key recommendations in the task force, which was set up in 2003 by the previous government. Science minister Kapil Sibal has already talked about the need for regulatory reform to attract greater foreign investment (Science, 28 May, p. 1227), and agriculture minister Sharad Pawar has said that the country's agbiotech policy must ensure food security. That is code for increased productivity through genetic engineering. " India's leaders are clearly infected in the manner of Dubya's bro and Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. Florida, according to the recent Associated Press article on the bad idea virus, has " made one of the biggest - and riskiest - moves to lure biotech " . Jeb says of the economic evidence for biotech being a money-losing venture, " It's always good to have skeptics, but I like to be on the dreaming side. It's a lot more fun on the dreaming side of the road. " A lot more risky too. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3772 --------------------------- FAO REPORT: BACKLASH GROWS --------------------------- + NEW STUDIES CONTRADICT FAO REPORT, SHOW GM BT COTTON FAILS TO BENEFIT FARMERS Following the recent UN Food and Ag Organisation (FAO) report hyping GM crops for the third world, GRAIN has released a report saying, " the FAO report ignores what is actually happening on the ground, as Bt cotton fails to deliver benefits to small-scale farmers around the world. " Excerpt from the GRAIN report: Today, two new studies on Bt cotton in India and West Africa by the Andhra Pradesh (AP) Coalition in Defence of Diversity and GRAIN provide more evidence of Bt cotton's failure in the fields and of the FAO's failure to defend the interests of small-scale farmers. They come at a time when FAO's Director General received a letter signed by over 1500 organisations and individuals, expressing their outrage and disagreement with the FAO report. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3829 For the full GRAIN report: http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=184 GRAIN has developed a website on Bt cotton that provides a more balanced picture of farmer experiences - http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm + FAO ACCUSED OF FAVOURING MONSANTO AND PUSHING GM Through an open letter delivered on 16 June in Rome, hundreds of civil society organisations from across the world denounced the recent report by FAO as a disgraceful public relations tool for the GM industry. The FAO report ( " Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor? " ) was publicly presented on 17 May, and in the space of a few weeks more than 650 civil society organisations and 800 individuals from 120 countries have drafted and supported an open letter which strongly condemns its bias against the poor, against the environment and against food production in general. Amongst them are many peasant organisations, social movements and scientists. The open letter says the 200-plus page FAO document struggles to appear neutral, but is highly biased and ignores available evidence of the adverse ecological, economic, and health impacts of GM crops. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3824 --------------------------- RESISTANCE GROWS IN US / INDUSTRY FIGHTS BACK --------------------------- + US SHOPPERS LACK CHOICE Californian newspaper the Sacramento Bee, in the final part of its excellent 5-part series on GM, " Seeds of Doubt " , points out that US shoppers lack choice because GM products and ingredients are not labelled. Rejecting mandatory labeling sets the United States apart from most of the world's industrial countries. Excerpt: Even the makers of genetically engineered organisms play both sides of the fence. DuPont, a leading developer of biotech crops, is part-owner of a non-engineered soy business called Solae. The reason is simple, said Paul Tebo, corporate vice president of safety, health and environment at DuPont: " Where there's a market demand for products, we produce the products. " It may make perfect business sense, but Corey Nicholl finds it offensive. A stocker at a natural foods grocery in Berkeley who this past year has researched genetic modification and the food industry, Nicholl said the attitude seems to be, " Americans will eat anything, right? (So) they sell their trash here. " British food and drink makers studiously avoid the products of genetic engineering, to the best of their ability. " The UK food and drink manufacturing industry does not (use) GM ingredients for its products, as they would not sell, " said Kate Snowden, a spokeswoman for the British Food and Drink Federation. By contrast, the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that 70 to 75 percent of processed foods sold in the US may contain GM ingredients. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3798 + MENDOCINO'S GMO VOTE SPARKS ACTION The Organic Consumers Association reports the biotech lobby will soon introduce a bill in California to nullify Mendocino County's ban on growing GMOs and make it illegal for other California counties to pass similar laws. Allan Noe, vice president of Crop Life International, a group affiliated with Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, told the San Francisco Chronicle, " We're looking at a number of things to remedy the situation.... a court challenge to Mendocino's ban, an attempt to pass state legislation to prevent counties passing such bans or persuade the federal government, which regulates biotech products, to halt local bans. " The Organic Consumers Association has launched a campaign called the Biodemocracy Alliance to defeat this legislation and spread GE-Free zones across at least a dozen of California's 59 counties as well as counties all over the United States. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3799 --------------------------- EURO-NEWS --------------------------- + NEW EUROPE BLOCKS GM OILSEED RAPE European Member states on 16 June blocked the approval of a GM food from the biotech giant Monsanto. The twenty five member states of Europe, voting together for the first time on a GM food, failed to support the application to import Monsanto's GM oilseed rape into Europe. Remarkably, 6 new EU member states voted against Monsanto's oilseed rape. The GM oilseed rape, called GT73, has been modified to resist the company's own chemical herbicide. The vote was the first test for the newly expanded EU following the European Commission's decision last month to force through the first GM food in over 5 years http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3830 " The Commission will now, in the coming weeks, formally adopt the proposal to be sent to the Council of Ministers, " the EU executive said in its press statement. If the Council of Ministers, the top political body in the EU, fails to take a decision after three months, the issue will return to the Commission, which can then adopt it, the press release said. http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040616171147.jzcpgbq0 + VOTE SEEN AS TEST CASE The vote is seen as a test case for the newly expanded EU following the European Commission's decision last month to force through the first GM food in over 5 years [it was later voluntarily withdrawn by the producer]. The result will be closely watched by the US government which has started a trade dispute in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). US officials recently stated that " the approval of a single product does not affect our WTO challenge, ...[the lifting of the moratorium] does not indicate there is a consistently functioning approval process " . http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3830 + FOE ON DOUBT OVER SAFETY OF THE GM OILSEED RAPE Although the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA) has given GT73 the all-clear some countries are concerned about its health and environmental safety. A Monsanto feeding study on rats that was hidden from the public showed that rats fed the GM oilseed rape had a 15% increase in liver weights. The UK government's scientific advisors, usually known for their pro-GM stance, have demanded " a satisfactory explanation for this potentially adverse response observed in the rat feeding study... " . In addition the French Commission on Genetic Engineering has criticised the design of Monsanto's feeding trials and highlight that the trials were only conducted during a 28 day period instead of the usual 90 days. EFSA verdict: increase in liver weight is " incidental " . Friends of the Earth verdict: further sub-chronic toxicity tests or long term tests are necessary. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3794 --------------------------- FOOD SAFETY --------------------------- + BT TOXICITY (CONTINUED): EPA/MONSANTO COVER-UP? In Weekly Watch 75, we published a query from biologist Dr Colin Leakey pointing out that the naturally occurring Bt bacterium produces a phospholipase enzyme like the one produced by the Listeria bacterium and which accounts for that bacterium's pathogenicity. He wondered about the fate of the gene encoding for phospholipase in GM Bt plants: does it get into the Bt crop genome, posing potential toxicity problems? We had this reply from Bill Freese, research analyst with Friends of the Earth US: " I read Colin Leakey's speculations regarding Bt and anthrax with interest. I have looked closely at some of the molecular characterization studies for several Bt crops (Monsanto's MON810 for instance, one of the most widely planted). There's no indication of any gene for phospholipase in the genetic construct - only a gene fragment for a truncated Bt-corn fusion protein (Cry1Ab in this case) and associated helper sequences - promoter, enhancer, etc. True, these are corporate studies and to be viewed with the utmost suspicion, but I doubt that even Monsanto would slip in a whole extra gene for a potentially harmful substance without sharing this with the regulators, simply from fear of detection. " Bill Freese goes on to warn that quite apart from the phospholipase question, the insecticidal toxins produced by Bt bacteria and crops are far from harmless: " There is good evidence that some may be allergenic. Cry1Ab (differing versions of which are found in MON810 and Bt11) was shown to have structural similarity (technically: amino acid sequence homology) to a known egg yolk allergen in a study done by an FDA scientist. EPA, which in the crazy quilt US " regulatory " (read " rubber-stamp " ) system for GMOs has authority over Bt crops, ignored this study. EPA also accepted without question a digestive stability test by Monsanto which was rigged to obscure the fact that Cry1Ab is in fact resistant to digestion (another characteristic of food allergens, almost as resistant as StarLink's Cry9C, in fact). Finally, Cry1Ab is resistant to heat, a third feature of food allergens. There have also been in vivo studies that demonstrate the Bt toxin's durability. For more on this, see the Bt corn case study in http://www.foe.org/safefood/gapseval.pdf, which also has an in-depth critique of U.S. GM crop regulation and corporate testing practices. " This evidence makes a mockery of [EU 'health and consumer protection' commissioner David] Byrne's claim that Syngenta's Bt11 has been proven safe with the most thorough testing ever. " Dr Leakey also wondered whether, given the close relationship between Bt and anthrax, a test looking for Bt may also be useful in looking for parts of the genome of the anthrax bacterium - thus going some way to explain the FBI's recent over-reaction to the artist Steve Kurtz's possession of GM testing kits. Bill Freese replied, " As to whether a test for Bt could also detect anthrax, most likely not. DNA tests for GMOs usually make use of primers for the promoter (e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus 35S) to detect any of a class of GMOs that make use of it and/or a primer specific for the gene of interest (e.g. Cry1Ab). To select a specific primer that doesn't distinguish between anthrax and Bt would seem to be a very rookie mistake that the testing companies presumably know enough to avoid. " For more on the close relationship between the Bt and anthrax bacteria, see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biopesticide & bioweapons.php For the Guardian's coverage of the FBI harassment of artist Steve Kurtz, " Art becomes the next suspect in America's 9/11 paranoia " , see http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3793 --------------------------- BIO CONFERENCE, SAN FRANCISCO --------------------------- + DEBATE BETWEEN PATRICK MOORE AND ANTI-GM PROTESTORS At the BIO bash in San Francisco, a debate erupted between corporate flak Patrick Moore, British author Luke Anderson and Food First's Dr Raj Patel. According to the New Zealand Herald, Moore claimed nature did not make the world good enough, so we need to genetically modify it to make it better. Anderson said biotech firms had solutions, he said, but only to problems which they created. " Of the list of chemicals known by the state of California to produce cancer, Bayer produces most of them, " he said. " Bayer also produces cancer drugs. Then they turn round and say, 'We don't know why you're protesting'. " Dr Patel said manufacturers put trans-fatty acids into food to prolong its shelf-life, and heavily advertised foods that were full of fat and sugar. Then they wanted to put new genes into crops and animals to reduce the human obesity and diabetes that their owns foods produced. " The corporations that brought the system to its knees then come in and get the profits, " he said. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3796 + MOORE HYPES PROBLEM GM DRUG It's interesting that in his argument with BIO 2004 protesters, Patrick Moore uses " genetically engineered insulin " as the one example of the supposed new medicines that are having us all " living longer than ever " . To quote Stephen Leahy, a writer specializing in technology and the environment, " 20 years later and how many breakthrough products has biotech produced? Gene therapy may actually have harmed more people than it's helped. Genetically engineered (GE) crops haven't aided hard-pressed farmers, improved the quality of our food or fed the hungry. The few drugs derived from GE such as insulin simply replace existing products while creating new risks. " http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/300902b.htm In fact, there is evidence that in Britain alone thousands of diabetics have suffered a deterioration in their health from GM insulin - see. http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Insulin/insul_1.html http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3796 --------------------------- PATENTS ON LIFE --------------------------- + E. ANN CLARK ON LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SCHMEISER DECISION See E. Ann Clark's excellent analysis of the Schmeiser v. Monsanto decision at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3827 She points out that Monsanto's interpretation of the Patent Act (the simple presence of one patented gene conferred ownership over the entire plant) has now been legitimized by 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. Four the judges strongly disagreed that a plant can be patented These four concluded that a reasonable and knowledgeable person could not expect patent protection to be " extended to unpatentable plants and their offspring " . But they were outvoted. Monsanto has chosen to take action against Canadian farmers based on whole plant contamination, despite specifically disclaiming this intent in their actual Canadian patent. Now they can continue to do this legally. Clark believes this decision contradicts the previous decision by the Canadian Supreme Court over the GM 'Oncomouse' ruling that higher life forms cannot be patented in Canada. (It seems that plants are considered higher life forms.) SEE ALSO 'GM MELTDOWN' BELOW --------------------------- GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES --------------------------- + BACKLASH CURBS GM INVESTMENT An article in the New Zealand Herald says investment in GM food is drying up in the world's biggest GM market, the US, because consumers in the rest of the world are not willing to buy its products. Roger Wyse of San Francisco-based Burrill and Company, the biggest investment firm focused on life sciences, said the consumer backlash against GMOs had forced a lull in projects aimed at modifying food. " We are probably looking at three, four or five years before the GMO issue subsides sufficiently that we will feel comfortable investing in it, " he said. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3799 + SOCIETAL REJECTION OF GM CROPS E. ANN CLARK in her excellent analysis of the Schmeiser v. Monsanto decision gives the following examples of societal rejection of GM crops as an unwanted and unwelcome intrusion into the food system - all of which occurred just in the first months of 2004 - include: *the withdrawal of GM sugar beet by both Monsanto and Syngenta in the EU; GM sugar beet as well as GM canola were found to be more environmental damaging than non-GM cultivars in the multi-year, multi-farm Field Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials published in the Philosophical Transactions B of the Royal Society (16 October 2003) *the withdrawal of GM maize by Bayer in the UK this spring; although GM maize was the only crop found in the FSE trials to be less harmful than the atrazine-based non-GM maize system, the regulatory protocols in place for growing GM maize were found to be too onerous to permit commercialization *the March 2004 passage of 'Measure H' by the citizens of Mendocino County, California to ban the growing of GM crops in the county. (http://www.foodfirst.org/media/press/2004/2004-03-03-mendocino.html ) *the unanimous (78-0) March 2004 vote by the Vermont senate to pass the Farmer Protection Act, under which biotech companies will be held liable for contamination of crops with GM traits ( http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/vtlaw031104.cfm ) *the April 2004 signing of the Farmer's Right-to-Know Seed Labeling Bill (H-777) by the governor of Vermont, which defines GM seed as different from conventional seeds in the state of Vermont seed statute, and requires labeling of all GM seeds sold in the state. *the April 2004 decision by Spain - the only EU country allowing commercial production of GM crops - to withdraw approval for Syngenta's Bt176 maize, owing to concerns about transmission of antibiotic resistance (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085 & sid=aTHzBgQCkUvs & refer=europe ) *the April 2004 decision by President Chavez of Venezuela to ban GM soy *the April 2004 decision of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to reject the application of Ventria BioSciences to grow pharmaceutical GM rice in California (Winnick, 2004) *the 27 May 2004 introduction of a bill in Ohio designed to ensure the right to save seed and reduce production costs while compensating companies for reuse of the seed *the May 2004 decision of Monsanto to withdraw from commercializing RR wheat in Canada and the US (Unger, 2004; see also http://www.monsanto.ca/news/news-display.shtml?pfl=news-display-single.param & op2.rf1=23) *the May 2004 withdrawal of Monsanto from GM canola trials in Australia, following decisions by 4 of 7 Australian states - Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania - to ban or restrict commercial GM canola trials *the June 2004 withdrawal of Bayer from GM canola trials in Australia (ABC, 2004) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3827 --------------------------- LOBBYWATCH --------------------------- + IAN GIBSON MAKES A BURKE OF HIMSELF Recently we circulated Dr Arpad Pusztai's letter to Dr Ian Gibson in which Pusztai expertly dismantled a number of claims made by Gibson during the UK parliamentary debate on GM of 5 May. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3741 In his speech Gibson, a biologist and Chairman of the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, authoritatively dismissed concerns over GM. Pusztai's letter showed Gibson could not scientifically support the claims he made and suggested some points were plain invention. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3741 Now, a GM Watch r, Kirsi Komonen, has drawn our attention to another remarkable aspect of the Gibson speech. Kirsi told us that the opening remarks in Gibson's speech are almost word for word the same as those in an article by Derek Burke. This opening similarity Kirsi suggests is no aberration. Many of the other points in Gibson's speech are also strikingly similar to points in Burke's article, in both language and argument. We compare the two at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822 We think you'll agree it is clear from this comparison that the politician who boasted he had the scientific knowledge to wipe the floor of the House of Commons with his adversaries is in reality nothing better than a GM parrot! Here's a sample: *TELL-TALE COPIED INTRO GIBSON: " The point has often been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse consequences. " BURKE: " Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food produced from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North and South America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention continues despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences. " In fact, Gibson's spin is, if anything, even more outragous than Burke's. For instance, here's Gibson: GIBSON: " [The Government] should have taken a much harder line [on promoting GM], rather than listening to 0.00035 per cent of the population [opposed to GM]. " Nobody knew where on earth Dr Gibson had got this extraordinary statistic from until we spotted it - with a difference! - in Burke. BURKE: " In fact, the British public has not been proactive on the GM question... During the 'GM Nation? The Public Debate' (2004), the website received interest from only 0.035% of the population... " [ie they're the tens of thousands of people who knew about this poorly publicised site] Gibson appears to have added a couple of noughts to the Burke figure, presumably to add to the effect! + GM CROPS AID WORLD'S POOR - DENNIS AVERY US newspaper The Star-Tribune has published an article co-authored by (Monsanto-funded) Hudson Institute director Dennis Avery at his rollicking best, on how GM crops are transforming the lives of the world's poor. You can forget all the evidence of the failure of Bt cotton to outperform conventional cotton economically in India, and of emerging Bt pest resistance and other problems in China. According to Dennis: " In China and India, more than 5 million small cotton farmers have doubled their incomes thanks to the lower costs and higher yields of pest-resistant biotech cotton. " And it's not just the farmers whose lives have been transformed: " The benefits of the pest-resistant cotton carry over to the millions of Indian and Chinese textile workers. " Without GM cotton, Avery suggests, they would be out of business! And GM's benefits don't stop there: " There's also a benefit to the farmer who no longer has to carry a backpack sprayer as he sprays in front of himself and walks barelegged through his own pesticide spray patterns 20 times a season. " This compassionate concern over the dangers of pesticides comes from the author of the infamously titled book, " Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic " . In an earlier piece, " Biotech Holds The Solution to Africa's Food Woes: The New Technology, By Delivering Virus-Resistant Crops, Is Starting To Provide Food Security for Africa " , Avery recounts how Florence Wambugu produced African sweet potatoes with the assistance of Monsanto that " resist the feathery mottle virus-thus yielding 20 percent to 80 percent more food. This one breakthrough will improve food security and health for millions of African families. " In fact, as we recently noted in awarding Wambugu a PANTS ON FIRE award, the results of the trials on Monsanto's GM sweet potatoes showed that far from out-yielding the non-GM sweet potatoes by 20-80 per cent, as Avery claims: " non-transgenic crops used as a control yielded much more tuber compared to the transgenic " ! The GM crop was also found to be susceptible to viral attack - the very thing it had been designed to resist. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3801 For Wambugu's pants http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=59 & page=1 & op=2 For more on Avery http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=15 & page=A Bogus Research from Avery http://ngin.tripod.com/averylies.htm Avery's comic highlights / Avery over London http://ngin.tripod.com/291102b.htm ------- DONATIONS ------- Our thanks to all of you who have donated to GM WATCH. For those who have not yet contributed, you can donate online in any one of five currencies via PayPal, at http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp OR by cheque or postal order payable to 'NGIN', to be sent to: NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK. We appreciate your support. ------- FOR THE COMPLETE GMWATCH ARCHIVE ------- http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.