Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 > WEEKLY_WATCH_number_80 > " GM_WATCH " <info > Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:13:46 +0100 > ============================================================ > WEEKLY WATCH number 80 > ============================================================ > > --------------------------- > from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor > --------------------------- > > Last week we reported our new Pants on Fire award > for the incendiary Sense About Science. > http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=60 & page=1 & op=2 > > This week we're focusing on their report on peer > review which comes complete with the usual lies and > distortions. There is obviously a lot wrong with > science these days, shackled as it so often is to > the kind of corporate interests to which sense About > Science connect, but peer review is not at the heart > of that problem. > > But let's humour Sense About Science for a moment > and suppose that the science issue that must be > tackled *is* one of media " scares " about non-peer > reviewed science of dubious origin. In that case why > isn't SAS hammering the countless examples of > opinion pieces, " reviews " based on no data, and even > internal company memos which are so frequently cited > by the GM industry as " proof " of its products' > safety. > > The hypocrisy of this lobby group is almost beyond > belief. Indeed, one of the contributors to this > report - Sir Peter Lachmann - even stands accused of > trying to suppress an important piece of peer > reviewed research. See our LOBBYWATCH section for > the whole story. > > Look out too for our FOCUS ON AFRICA section and how > you can support the campaign there over Nestle's > double-standards. For UK readers, please don't miss > our CAMPAIGN-UK section focussing on getting > Sainsbury's to remove GM feed from its meat/dairy > production line (UK: SAINSBURY'S CAMPAIGN LATEST). > Sainsbury's do not seem to know about the latest > research findings that GM DNA has been found in > milk; I hope a number of you will enlighten them! > > Claire claire > www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org > > --------------------------- > CONTENTS > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON AFRICA > LOBBYWATCH > CORPORATE CRIMES > US > OTHER GLOBAL NEWS > CAMPAIGN-UK: SAINSBURY'S LATEST > GLOBAL ACTIONS > GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES > DONATIONS > ARCHIVE > > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON AFRICA > http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=37 & page=1 > --------------------------- > > + GRAIN SA AGAINST IMPORT PERMIT FOR UNTESTED GM > MAIZE > South Africa's leading grain farmers' organisation > Grain SA has opposed in writing the application for > an import permit by Monsanto to import genetically > modified maize for human and animal consumption. > Concern centres around the fact that the imported > maize could also be used for domestic production > purposes, considering that the importers cannot > guarantee that the prospective maize will be > immediately milled. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4073 > > + NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT URGED TO CANCEL GM AGREEMENT > WITH UNITED STATES > Nigeria's Federal Government has been urged to > cancel the newly signed Memorandum of Understanding > (MOU) between the US and Nigeria on promotion of > Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Products in > the country. Describing the memorandum as > ill-advised, the secretary of the All-Nigerian > Consumer Movement Union (Ancomu), Lanre Oginni > called on government to adopt a precautionary > attitude towards GM products, which it said are not > safe for human consumption. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4066 > > + AFRICABIO EXPOSED AS INDUSTRY LOBBY GROUP > Until now AfricaBio, which presents itself as a > civil society organisation - " The NGO taking > biotechnology to the people of Africa " - has > remained vague about who it represents and who funds > it. It describes itself as " a non-political, > non-profit biotechnology association " and claims a > " wide spectrum " of support. > > Some, however, have questioned its claims to be a > disinterested part of civil society. At the World > Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in > late August 2002, AfricaBio unsuccessfully sought to > gain formal access to civil society sessions at the > Summit. > > AfricaBio complained that " despite repeated > requests " to be included in the programme, its > " participation was refused " on the grounds that it > was an industry body seeking to dilute the impact of > genuine NGOs. Despite the refusal, AfricaBio's > supporters did attend the Civil Society Forum and > worked with others to try and undermine it, by first > expressing dissent from the floor and then staging a > walkout. AfricaBio was also respresented at a > carefully staged pro-GM protest rally at the Summit. > > But disputing AfricaBio's claim to a broad-based > civil-society style membership has been difficult in > the absence of precise details about that membership > - details AfricaBio has consistently refused to > furnish. However, Mariam Mayet, a lawyer with the > African Centre for Biosafety, was present at > AfricaBio's launch on 27 October 1999. At that > launch a list of " founding members " of AfricaBio was > on a sheet in the folder given out to participants. > > They include AgrEvo South Africa; Carnia Seed > [Note: this has been bought by Monsanto]; Delta and > Pine Lands SA. Inc; Monsanto SA Ltd (Monsanto has > voting rights in AfricaBio); Novartis South Africa > Ltd; Pioneer Hi-Bred RSA Ltd; Sensako [note: this is > a seed company and has been bought by Monsanto]; > Innovation Biotechnology [Note: company owned by > Muffy Koch who is on a sub-committee of the Advisory > Committee which provides expert technical advice on > South Africa's regulatory decisions on GM]; > University of Cape Town, Dept of Microbiology [Note: > the Dept is headed by Jennifer Thompson, see below]. > > Note that under AfricaBio's membership and voting > rights , business members have 5 votes, while > research organisations and non-business members > have, respectively, 2 votes and 1 vote. > > See the full list at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4031 > > + HOW THEY FIXED SOUTH AFRICA > The above item shows the stranglehold of corporate > interests that shaped AfricaBio -- interests which > the lobby group has done its very best to conceal. > http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=41 & page=1 > > Leading members of AfricaBio have been at the heart > of South Africa's regulatory system from the > beginning, helping to shape a biosafety regime that > is now promoted as a model for the rest of Africa. > > For instance, a leading member of AfricaBio's board > is Jennifer Thompson, a Professor at the Department > of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of > Cape Town. Thompson is also an advisor to the > biotech-industry funded Council for Biotechnology > Information in the US, a Board Member of the > biotech-industry backed ISAAA,as well as Chair of > the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, > which receives backing from the industry, the US and > USAID to introduce GM crops into Africa. > > Thompson was involved in the drafting of the South > African Biotechnology Strategy and was a Chair of > SAGENE, South Africa's original regulatory body for > GM crops. She is also a member of South Africa's > current Advisory Committee, which provides expert > technical advice on regulatory decisions. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4064 > > A profile of SAGENE, the key body in shaping a > regulatory regime that has made possible one of the > most rapid introductions of GM crops anywhere in the > world, is at > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=282 & page=S > > + CHALLENGING NESTLE SOUTH AFRICA > The South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic > Engineering (SAFeAGE) which networks the interests > of over 130 organisations and millions of South > African consumers, is calling for a powerful > response to the behavious of Nestle South Africa > (SA). > > Nestle has removed all GM ingredients from their > products in Europe, Australasia and in the Far East > according to their corporate press releases, yet > appear happy to justify the inclusion of GM > ingredients in South Africa. > > Nestle's Corporate Affairs Manager in South Africa, > Heather Robinson, does this by referring to > AfricaBio as some sort of objective arbiter on the > safety of GM, and to South Africa's regulatory > system as providing " stringent biosafety risk > assessments and tests " . > > Please write to Nestle (in a polite way!) -- > Heather.Robinson -- setting out your > concerns (Please copy your mails to Nestle to > safeage) > > You may wish to mention that you are planning a > boycott of Nestle's products by you and yours if > Nestle does not take immediate action to treat its > South African consumers with the same respect it > does those in Europe and elsewhere (see above). > > For a brilliant response to Nestle from Glenn Ashton > of SAFeAGE see: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4078 > > Keep an eye on the SAFeAGE website: www.safeage.org > > + SENDING GMOS TO STARVING PEOPLE IS 'INHUMAN AID' > Vandana Shiva tells how food aid is increasingly > being used as a weapon to create markets for the > biotechnology industry and GM foods. > > Excerpt: > " More than 300,000 people now face starvation and > the policy of sending them food aid containing GMOs > is now a major issue. In the closing plenary of the > 2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit, for instance, US > Secretary of State Colin Powell was heckled by both > NGOs and governments when he insisted that African > countries import GM food from the US. Hundreds of > African farmers and government representatives also > condemned the US pressure to distribute GM > contaminated food aid. Instead, they proposed small > scale, indigenous solutions based on farmers rights > to land, water and seed. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4065 > > --------------------------- > LOBBYWATCH > --------------------------- > > + NEW SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE REPORT MAKES BOGUS CLAIMS > At the end of June the lobby group Sense About > Science issued the report of its Working Party on > peer review. The report and a press release can be > found here: > http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/peerreview/index.htm > > An article about the report from the Education > Guardian states, " The public and the media could > expose wild and bogus scientific claims if they > asked tougher questions about the status of > research, a working party of leading scientists said > today. " > > Early press comment suggested that this report and a > parallel report expected from the Royal Society > would be aimed at issues like GM and the work of > researchers like Dr Arpard Pusztai. The report does > not disappoint in this respect, containing multiple > general references to GM along with MMR, mobile > phone radiation, BSE and other " scares " , as examples > of concerns supposedly not based on rigorous peer > reviewed research. > > The report also contains a specific, though > indirect, reference to Stanley Ewen and Arpad > Pusztai's research on feeding GM potatoes to rats. > It claims that at the time of submission to The > Lancet, the paper already " had been turned down by > another leading journal. " The report also gives the > impression that because Ewen and Pusztai's research > had been rejected by this other " leading journal " , > Lancet editor Richard Horton was forced to defend > his own publication of the research by attacking the > value of peer review and suggesting publication was > in the interest of public debate, i.e. the issue of > scientific merit had been set aside. > > The clear inference of this is that the Lancet's > publication of Ewen and Pusztai's research wasn't > based on normal peer review criteria. This, however, > is a pack of lies: > > 1. Far from being rejected by " another leading > journal " , the Pusztai research was only submitted to > The Lancet. > > 2. The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, not > only subjected the research to peer review, he > subjected it to an especially stringent version, > sending it to double the normal number of referees. > > 3. In an article by Horton to which the Working > Party's report specifically refers, Horton > explicitly states that, " five out of six of The > Lancet's reviewers judged that Ewen and Pusztai's > work should be published " . > > 4. Although Horton has spoken of the importance of > the Pusztai paper's publication in relation to open > public debate, he has also made it clear that, > " Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai's research letter > was published on grounds of scientific merit, as > well as public interest " . > > (For more about the three ideologically extreme > Living Marxism-derived members of Sense About > Science's Working Party on peer review: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4074) > > + For GM WATCH editor Jonathan Matthews's response > to a Danish scientist who sees merit in the report, > see: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4077 > For Arpad Pusztai's comments on the report: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4079 > > + ROYAL SOCIETY LIES ABOUT ITS INVOLVEMENT IN SAS > PEER REVIEW REPORT > The Royal Society has been keen to insist it is not > involved in the Sense About Science report nor in > any " sort of shenanigans going on within the > scientific community " , as the following letter to > The Guardian from Stephen Cox of the Society put it: > > " Contrary to George Monbiot's claims, the Royal > Society is not chairing or hosting the working party > on peer review set up by Sense About Science. " > > However, the agenda and other details of a meeting > of the Sense about Science Working Party were leaked > to us. This shows that the SAS meeting in question > was hosted by the Royal Society in its Council Room, > and gives the impression this location was a > permanent fixture. > > Also in the leaked details of the meeting, beneath > the list of members of the Working Party meeting > under the chairmanship of the Royal Society's former > Vice President, it states: " The Royal Society - > Patrick Bateson/Bob Ward liaison with internal > committee " . > > Yet in the final report where input from people > additional to the Working Party is listed, there is > no mention of Patrick Bateson, the Society's > Biological Secretary, involvement. Bateson has also > made misleading public statements about Pusztai and > peer review. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1880 > > + WHY THE WELLCOME TRUST REFUSED TO SUPPORT THE SAS > PEER REVIEW REPORT > The full text of a letter (leaked to GM WATCH) sent > to Tracey Brown, the Director of Sense About Science > (SAS), from Clare Matterson of the Wellcome Trust, > is at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4072 > It concerns the Sense About Science Working Party on > peer review, which has just published its report, > and explains why the Wellcome Trust refused either > to participate in the Working Party or to support it > financially. > > Note, in particular, this telling point: " The key > issue being addressed by the [sense About Science] > study is the erosion of trust by the public in > authority. The peer review process is only a part > of this problem - much of the confusion is about > risk and probability, compounded by Government using > scientific information as if it were a definitive > truth (for example in the case of BSE) to make > policy; " > > This raises very different issues to the complacent > picture painted by Sense About Science of everything > in the garden being lovely if only an ignorant > public weren't being misled by the media's credulous > promotion of the bogus claims of maverick > scientists. > > Other criticisms made by the Wellcome Trust were > that: " The proposed make-up of the [sense About > Science] Working Party is extremely narrow. It runs > the risk of being seen as a closed and defensive > strategy without opening the debate to a wider group > of parties that may have differing definitions and > views. " > and > " Concerns were expressed that the background > commentary was based on many assumptions about > behaviours rather than direct evidence. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4072 > > + ROYAL SOCIETY COUP AT DFID > The Royal Society is celebrating the appointment of > a chief scientific advisor in the Department for > International Development (DfID). The Society has > lobbied strongly for this increased input of > " science " into UK international development policy. > Lord May, President of the Royal Society, says > science's " massive contribution " will include > developing " drought resistant crops " , confirming > that the aim is one of further mining overseas > development in the interests of publicly subsidising > UK researchers, ie more expensive top-down > development generated out of British labs. DfiD has > already funded a 13 million pound plus programme to > create a new generation of GM animals, crops and > drugs throughout the Third World. > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175 > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4073 > > + LOBBY ASSAULT ON UK PARLIAMENT - LATEST > Details have been released on the pro-GM briefing in > the House of Commons on the evening of 13 July, > organised by Dr Ian Gibson MP with Sense about > Science and the Scientific Alliance, which may be > open to the public. Should you like to attend, > please email the Scientific Alliance at > info (put " GM Question Time " > in the subject line), or call 020 7484 5355. > > Anyone in the UK may like to alert their Member of > Parliament to the dubious character of the > Scientific Alliance - see the LOBBYWATCH profile at > http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136 & page=S > > For more info on the " leading scientists and > respected experts " on the panel: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4004 > > Note that: " GM Question Time will also include the > launch of the Scientific Alliance's expert report on > the various strands of the Government's GM Review. " > Presumably, this will be another attempt to make out > that the Women's Institute was behind all the public > hostility! > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4029 > > + GIBSON ADMITS COLLUSION WITH BURKE > Dr Ian Gibson MP's local paper has picked up on his > exposure in a GM WATCH bulletin as " a parrot in the > House of Commons " > [http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822 ] > and has wrung an admission out of him about his > speech's extraordinary similarity to a paper written > by his former employer, Derek Burke - a paper which > the MP was presumably provided with in advance as it > wasn't published until the day of Gibson's speech. > > According to journalist Alex Gore, 'When pressed Dr > Gibson admitted: " We [ie Gibson and Burke] are > working together to try and erode the anti-GM > debate. " ' > > This admission is revealing. In May 1999, beginning > the day after the British Medical Association called > for a GM moratorium, no less than four apparently > independent reports on GM were published in the > space of just two days. All asserted the safety of > GM foods and crops, and all criticised the research > of Dr Arpad Pusztai, which showed GM food damaged > rats. > > The reports appeared to come from four separate > sources. One was the May/Donaldson report - > co-author, Robert May was then the Government's > Chief Scientific Advisor; one was from Royal > Society, which Robert May now heads and of which he > was at the time a leading Fellow; one was from the > Nuffield Council, amongst whose leading lights were > Derek Burke and Brian Heap, then Vice President of > the Royal Society; and one was from the House of > Commons Science and Technology Committee, which Ian > Gibson now heads. > > The whole point of the House of Commons Science and > Technology Committee is that it should provide > scrutiny of scientific issues independent of > government and of vested interests. Gibson's > collusion with Burke, who in turn has worked hand in > glove with leading Fellows of the Royal Society, > makes a complete nonsense of this. > > Recently, the Gibson-led Science and Technology > Committee issued a report on the UK's public funding > body for the bio-sciences, the BBSRC. The only > serious criticism it made of this > highly-industrially aligned body was that it was not > being pro-active enough in promoting communication > with the public on issues like GM crops where public > trust needed to be built. > > The conclusions of this " independent " report take on > an entirely different character with the Select > Committee chairman's admission that he is working > hand in glove with Britain's leading pro-GM > campaigner " to try and erode the anti-GM debate. " > > At the time of the Pusztai report, the specialist > adviser to the Select Committee on Science and > Technology was Derek Burke, although he stood down > for that report to avoid the perception of a > conflict of interest. Burke has written of his time > with the Committee, " Everyone knows what goes on in > the chamber. ... But the real work of the House of > Commons is done, I think, elsewhere - in Committee > Rooms... or in the Select Committees. And, at a time > when people are becoming increasingly disillusioned > about the effectiveness of an individual MP, it's > been splendid to see how much influence an > individual can have in a Select Committee. " [ > http://www.iob.org/downloads/In%20my%20view.pdf ] > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4068 > > + GM RESEARCH COLLAPSES IN UK - OR DOES IT? > According to an article in the Independent on > Sunday, in view of the biotech industry's pull -out > from the UK, there is doubt that " the [british] > Government would continue to plough public money > into research that had no application in Britain " . > > However enjoyable the wailing and gnashing of teeth > by the GM propagandists quoted in the article (Prof > Anthony Trewavas and Prof Mike Wilson) may be, don't > be fooled. The UK's GM lobby have been working > flat-out for some time on increasing public > investment in GM research. They aim to achieve this > by making sure that Third World countries continue > to be targeted with the crops that nobody else > wants. > > And this strategy has a strong track record of > success. Don't forget that the British government > has already quietly sunk over GBP13m of public money > into such projects via DfID during the period of > public disquiet over GM. It has also sunk further > money, along with USAID, into The Nairobi-based > African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) > project to push GM crops into Africa. > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=204 & page=D > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=163 & page=A > > The recent update of the Nuffield Council's report > on GM crops, courtesy of the UK's GM godfather Derek > Burke, the John Innes Centre's Mike Gale etc. - was > in part designed to establish a " moral imperative " > in the mind of the British government and public > institutions for *far greater* public investment in > this area. > http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=98 & page=N > > And since early 2003 the pro-GM lobby group Sense > About Science, seeing which way the wind is blowing, > has been running a campaign called " Public-Good > Plant Breeding: what are the international > priorities? " . > > Nobody should be in any doubt that the GM lobby's > real aim has precious little to do with feeding the > hungry. It is to shore up GM research in the UK in > the face of industry's current retreat, to associate > the technology in the official mind with the public > interest, and to give GM a charitable face via > targeting it at developing countries. This also has > the effect of providing industry with a highly > desirable PR lever for the technology. > More at: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4030 > > --------------------------- > CORPORATE CRIMES > --------------------------- > > + CHILD LABOUR AND CORPORATE SEED FARM SCANDAL > CONTINUES > Multinational companies like Unilever, Bayer, > Monsanto and Syngenta are perpetuating the terrible > problem of child labour on cottonseed farms in > India. These children get no education, earn less > than 40 Cents a day and are exposed to poisonous > pesticides during their work. Please read the > articles published in the Indian daily " The Hindu " > on the issue: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4027 > > Excerpt: > A 13-year-old Dalit child labourer, Mallesh, of > Dudekonda in Pathikonda mandal in Kurnool district, > lost his life while spraying pesticide in a cotton > farm on Tuesday. The death comes at a time when the > district is preparing for the Prime Minister, > Manmohan Singh's visit. ... Mallesh's death from > exposure to pesticide is not the first of its kind; > scores have fallen victim in the past few years. > > --------------------------- > US > --------------------------- > > + STARLINK SAGA CONTINUES > Corn farmers who filed claims last year as part of > the class action lawsuit against StarLink corn > (which was never approved for human consumption but > got into corn supplies) may soon receive > compensation for their losses, according to the > National Corn Growers Association. > > Thousands of growers who grew corn between 1998 and > 2002 were eligible to receive a recovery from the > " Non-StarLink Farmer Actions " settlement. After > repeated inquiries by the Nebraska Corn Board, the > Garden City Group, a New York-based law firm, > revealed that more than 150,000 claims were filed > and just 6% of those claims were deficient, NCGA > reported, adding that growers who filed deficient > claims should have received a letter explaining how > to correct the claim. > > " The StarLink dilemma was an unfortunate situation > for all corn growers, not just those who used the > StarLink product, " NCGA said. " Corn prices dropped > significantly as a result of the situation and that > impacted the entire industry. We're glad to see > that qualified corn growers will finally be recouped > for some of the lost market opportunities they > experienced. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4016 > > " In Iowa, StarLink corn represented 1 percent of the > total crop, only 1 percent. It has tainted 50 > percent of the harvest. " ABC NEWS, November 28, 2000 > > ------- > OTHER GLOBAL NEWS > ------- > > + AGRO-IMPERIALISM: GREEN REVOLUTION TO BIOTECH > The Green Revolution, which exported " high-yield " > hybrid seeds to the third world and converted farms > to monocultured cash crops, is being hyped in the UK > as a great boon to the poor - witness the eulogies > in the media of 'father of the Green Revolution' > Norman Borlaug. > > An interesting article from Bangladesh looks at the > Green Revolution from another perspective, asking > whether it is a blessing or a curse. > > Excerpt: > The hybrid seeds, which were termed as High Yielding > Variety or HYV, are in the real sense not high > yielding. We could, more accurately, call them 'High > Responsive Variety' as these seeds have the capacity > to withstand high doses of chemical fertilizer, > pesticide, and water. Not only do they withstand > high doses, without application of high doses of > inputs, not a single grain will come from hybrid > seeds. On the other hand, the traditional seeds > cannot withstand high doses of these inputs. As a > result, the western countries arranged all means to > give with one hand and take away with other. They > sold fertilizer, pesticide, irrigation appliances, > etc. We had to set up fertilizer factories, but the > machinery, technology, and technologists were > theirs. That's not the end, fuel being used in > irrigation is imported from foreign countries. We > have to use our precious natural gas for producing > fertilizer and electricity. A sizable quantity of > electricity is being used for irrigation purpose. > The power plant machinery was also imported from > their countries. If you calculate the multiplier > effects of all these inputs being used in > cultivating HYV, you would find that the benefit is > zero. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4028 > > + GREEN REVOLUTION BLAMED FOR FARMER SUICIDES IN > INDIA > An article by Devinder Sharma reveals the ongoing > horror of farmer suicides in India and places the > responsibility firmly on 'Green Revolution' > high-input farming systems: > > " No one has the political courage to point a finger > at the clear verdict against the industrial farming > model being forced down the throat of small and > marginal farmers... With the high-chemical input > based technology that mined the soils and ultimately > led to the lands gasping for breath, with the > water-guzzling crops (hybrids and Bt cotton) sucking > the groundwater acquifer dry, and with the failure > of the markets to rescue the farmers from a collapse > of the farming systems, the tragedy is that the > human cost is entirely being borne by the farmers. > The fundamental issue of destruction of sustainable > livelihoods is not at all being addressed. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4070 > > + CATHOLIC BODY REFUTES CLAIMS THAT GM CROPS COULD > REDUCE WORLD HUNGER > The Catholic Institute for International Relations > (CIIR) has co-signed a letter criticising a recent > report from the Food and Agricultural Association of > the UN (FAO) for promoting genetic engineering of > seeds as the answer to world hunger and poverty. > > Christine Allen, CIIR executive director, said, " It > is incredibly worrying that an organisation with > such authority as FAO is espousing an argument that > is, in essence, legitimising the agenda of > transnational corporations. Our partners tell us > that the introduction of GM crops in these countries > will endanger small farmers' livelihoods, undermine > poor people's ability to feed themselves and > increase the pressures on already damaged and > vulnerable environments. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4033 > > + PHILIPPINES: RESISTANCE TO GM GROWS > Resistance to GM among Filipino farmers and NGOs is > growing, according to Elizabeth Cruzada, the > national coordinator for MASIPAG, a Filipino NGO > that works with small farmers and that was part of > the group that wrote the report on golden rice. This > year's MASIPAG general assembly will include a mock > trial of Monsanto, seen as a key player in the GM > battle in the Philippines. > > As explained in a book on MASIPAG published in 2003 > by the Catholic Institute for International > Relations, " Regaining the Land: lessons from small > farmers in the Philippines " , MASIPAG's work is based > on farmer-to-farmer training, recognising that the > real farming experts are the farmers themselves, not > the NGOs or scientists. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4033 > > --------------------------- > UK: SAINSBURY'S CAMPAIGN LATEST > --------------------------- > > + SAINSBURY'S BLOCKADED NATIONALLY > Sainsbury's five biggest distribution centres were > blockaded and shut down on 2 July in protest against > GM feed being fed to dairy cows. Environmentalists > and consumers simultaneously blockaded the > supermarket chain's chilled-goods depots in London, > Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol and Sheffield. > > The action was intended to halt distribution of > Sainsbury's dairy products that come from cows fed > GM animal feed. The protest follows Sainsbury's > failure to provide non-GM fed milk as standard, > despite rivals like Marks and Spencer and the Co-op > doing so. The action was taken in solidarity with > farmers, demanding they get a fair deal of 2p on the > pound for non-GM milk. Removing GM animal feed is > the last step necessary to make Britain entirely > GM-free. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4026 > > + CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK: ASK SAINSBURY'S TO TAKE GM > OUT OF THEIR ANIMAL FEED > http://www.geneticsaction.org.uk/resources/alliancesainsburys.pdf > Please: > *Boycott Sainsbury's Own Brand Milk,Cheese, > Yoghurt,Cream and Ice Cream. > *Complain to the Manager or at the Customer Services > Desk. > *Or ring the customer care line on 0800 63 62 62. > *Tell Sainsbury's National Director to pay farmers a > fair price for their milk. > *Demand that they give a final phase-out date for > all GM feed. > Write to: Justin King, Group Chief Executive, > J Sainsbury plc, 33 Holborn, London EC1N 2HT > Please read the following item before writing and > address point no 2 in your letter. > > + SAINSBURY'S MISLEADING THE MEDIA > A statement sent out by Sainsbury's to the media > about the protest by Parveen Johal > [Parveen.Johal] (see below) on 5 > July is misleading for two reasons. > 1. Johal claims this is a Greenpeace campaign, when > in fact it is being waged by many other groups, > listed at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4071 > > 2. Johal relies on a discredited claim by the Food > Standards Agency that " there is no evidence that > milk from animals fed on GM crops contains any GM > material " . In fact, Greenpeace has published results > of a study done by the Research Center for Milk and > Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria, showing that > GM DNA has been detected in milk from cows fed GM > feed. The FSA has not investigated these findings. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3878 > > Parveen Johal's statement for Sainsbury's: We're > disappointed that Greenpeace has chosen to target us > when this is clearly an industry issue. Overall all > of our depots have responded very well in ensuring > minimum disruption to service. Our milk does not > contain GM ingredients. Milk is highly regulated and > like all supermarkets, we are subject to stringent > food safety controls. Our milk is sourced from > British dairy farms that supply other UK > supermarkets, like Tesco and Asda - as well as > hotels, schools and hospitals. The Food Standards > Agency has categorically stated that there is no > evidence that milk from animals fed on GM crops > contains any GM material. > > To offer choice to our customers, we have launched a > new milk from cows fed on non-GM feed which is now > in over 100 stores. > > ------- > GLOBAL ACTIONS > ------- > > + GM WHEAT DESTROYED IN SPAIN > For pictures and a description in Spanish of an > action on 3 July, in which a field of GM wheat was > destroyed by La Plataforma Transgenics Fora! see: > http://www.biotechimc.org/or/2004/07/3147.shtml > > La Plataforma Transgenics Fora! is made up of a > large number of groups and people from Catalonia who > use direct action in order to stop the imposition of > GM technologies. They are calling for: - an end to > GM research; - the location of GM fields to be made > public; - Catalonia to be declared a GMO-free area. > More info: www.agrariamanresa.org/transgenics or > www.barcelonaindymedia.org or www.canmasdeu.net > > ------- > GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES > ------- > > + GM CROPS IN GERMANY UNINSURABLE SO NO ONE WILL > PLANT THEM > Fearing unpredictable damages resulting from the > contamination of conventional or organic crops by > gene plants, the Association of the German Insurance > Industry has refused coverage for farmers growing GM > crops. > > As a consequence, the German Farmers' Association > has demanded that suppliers of GM seed assume > liability for possible damages. Since > cross-contamination cannot be avoided, " we will not > run a risk " , said a spokesman for Germany's largest > seed supplier, KWS Saat. In light of the stringent > liability regulations in Germany the Farmer's Assoc > believes that " nobody will plant genetically > modified plants in Germany " . > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4034 > > ------- > DONATIONS > ------- > > Our thanks to all of you who have donated to GM > WATCH. 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.