Guest guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 > WEEKLY_WATCH_82 > " GM_WATCH " <info > Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:17:43 +0100 > --------------------------- > WEEKLY WATCH number 82 > --------------------------- > from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor > --------------------------- > > We've just heard that in India in just the past two > months 90 farmers have committed suicide. It's a > stark reminder of Devinder Sharma's recent warning > that to talk of the need to usher in the " second > Green Revolution " without first ascertaining where > the equation has gone wrong with the first " will be > mankind's greatest folly " . The tragedy is, says > Devinder, that while the scientific community and > the policy makers will escape scot free, it is > farmers in the years to come who will continue to be > sacrificed on the altar of agricultural development. > > Devinder is calling for an end to the obscene > diversion of public funds into hugely expensive GM > crops while millions are going hungry. He points out > that in India nutritious food containing on average > around 9 per cent in protein is being left to rot in > the countryside, while biotechnologists are > celebrating the production of GM potatoes containing > a mere 2.5 per cent of protein. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4070 > > Meanwhile, there have been some serious developments > this week at Health Canada, where three scientists > who raised doubts over the safety of certain > vetinary drugs (including Monsanto's GM cattle > growth hormone rBGH) have been fired, almost > certainly for their commitment to the public > interest. > > But it's encouraging to see that the pro-corporate > bias of much of what passes for science these days > is being challenged in such respectable arenas as > the British Medical Journal. An excellent report > from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, > following a conference on the subject, confronts the > problem head-on. And don't miss the report on > professor of medicine Dr David Egilman's > contribution to the conference, " SUPPRESSION OF > SCIENCE IS NOT AN ANOMALY - IT'S THE SYSTEM " . (Read > all the above and more in our CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF > SCIENCE section.) > > Finally, if you think you've heard it all, watch out > for how Monsanto's PR firm was a key player in > shaping the UK Food Standards Agency's public > consultations on GM! > > Claire claire > www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org > > --------------------------- > CONTENTS > --------------------------- > LOBBYWATCH > CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE > FOCUS ON AFRICA > EURO-NEWS > OTHER GLOBAL NEWS > PATENTS ON LIFE > GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES > QUOTE OF THE WEEK > DONATIONS > > --------------------------- > LOBBYWATCH > --------------------------- > > + THE TRUTH ABOUT THE " NGOs " BEHIND THE LETTER TO > THE FAO > A letter from representatives of " NGOs " to the UN > Food and Ag Organisation in support of that body's > recent report hyping GM crops for the third world, > brings a whole new meaning to the word " NGO " . > > Most of the signatory organisations are free-market > libertarian groups who campaign against restrictions > on almost anything, i.e. they're anti-Kyoto, pro-GM, > pro-smokers' rights, etc. Several receive funding > from biotech corporations like Monsanto, plus other > corporate sponsors. For instance, one signatory, the > Free Market Foundation in South Africa, acknowledges > funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto South Africa, > Eli Lilly, British American Tobacco, and Exxon > Mobil. > > And then there's signatory Horacio Marquez, a > Partner in The Latin America Finance Group, Inc. > of Princeton, New Jersey. If you think they don't > sound much like your your normal NGO, you're right. > They're investment bankers! LAFG at one time headed > a group planning to take over Chiquita, the > controversial multinational (formerly United Fruit). > One can imagine what a commitment such an " NGO " must > have to safeguarding the future of small farmers! > > You can read the letter at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4165 > We've provided links below many of the signatories > to GM WATCH or other profiles where you can find out > more about the background of the signatories and > what kind of " NGOs " they represent. > > + NEW LOBBY GROUP IN US HYPES GM WHEAT > Predictably, in the wake of the widespread rejection > of GM wheat, a new lobby group, " Growers for Wheat > Biotechnology " has sprung up in the US. > > GWB has been hyping a study by North Dakota State > University which said that nearly 80 percent of > respondents would choose a hypothetical pasta > genetically modified with added vitamins and > minerals over regular pasta that didn't have this > benefit. > > This study, said GWB, " sends an important signal > that consumers are ready to accept the positive > attributes biotechnology can bring to a safe and > abundant food supply. " > > But GENET's Hartmut Meyer comments, " It is > interesting to find out what the GWB group does not > quote from the study: > *62.6% disagreed with 'Scientists know what they are > doing so only moderate regulations on GM are > necessary'; > *61.1 % agreed to 'Companies involved in creating GM > crops believe profits are more important than > safety'. > > Hartmut also notes that the internet domain > www.growersforwheatbiotechnology.org is registered > by Morgan & Myers, a US PR company which numbers > Monsanto among its clients. > > + GM-ORGANIC COEXISTENCE PAPER SKEWS FACTS > An article for CropChoice reveals how UK > agricultural researchers PG Economics Ltd. > misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' > survey in order to support the premise that GM and > organic crops successfully coexist in the US. > > The recently released paper, " Coexistence in North > American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with > Conventional and Organic Crops? " , states that claims > by " anti-GM groups " that GM and non-GM crops cannot > coexist in North America are " greatly exaggerated " > and that coexistence measures have " been delivering > effective coexistence for nearly nine years " . > > However, a closer look reveals that the paper's > conclusions are heavily based on a 2002 survey by > the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) that > shows the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting > to cause economic and operational hardships to > organic farmers. > > The main problem with PG Economics' findings is that > they ignored the fact that the OFRF survey was > included organic farmers in areas where GM corn and > soybeans are not grown. In fact, the survey had > 1,034 respondents, but only 100 to 150 (ie a maximum > of about 15%) produced corn or soybeans and were > at-risk from GM crops. > > Farmers who live in Midwestern states, where the > majority of GM corn and soybeans are grown, reported > significant impacts. In these states, 70 to 80% of > respondents reported negative impacts from GMOs. In > addition, up to 88% of organic farmers in Midwestern > states said they had to take some measures to > protect their farms from GMO contamination. By > quoting only the nationwide statistics the PG > Economics authors, Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, > are able to minimise the problems caused to non-GM > and organic growers. > Read on at: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4146 > > GM WATCH comment: > What's so disturbing about the bias that has been > revealed is that this same research company, PG > Economics, were commissioned to provide a report on > the impact of GM crops on UK farm profitability by > the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit to inform its > report, " Field work: weighing up the costs and > benefits of GM crops " . PG Economics' report was even > made publicly available by the Strategy Unit in > tandem with its own report. > http://agrifor.ac.uk/browse/cabi/51fa0266cf12af4379ffa8dbe06e614d.html > > + " SCIENTISTS AND SCHOLARS " DENOUNCE CATHOLIC GROUP > OVER GM CROPS > A group of " scientists and scholars " released a > statement via the pro-GM listserv AgBioView > denouncing the Catholic Institute for International > Relations for saying that " GM crops won't solve > world hunger. " > > But some of the signatories to this attack on the > CIIR are far from being what anyone might normally > imagine by the term " scientists and scholars " . Greg > Conko, for instance, works for the Competitive > Enterprise Institute - a pro-corporate lobby group > sponsored by Monsanto, Dow Chemicals and US tobacco > and food giant, Philip Morris. > > Another of the " scientists and scholars " is Andrew > Apel, editor of a biotech industry newsletter, who > during the southern African food-aid crisis called > on the US to bomb Zambia with GM grain if it > continued to reject it. On a discussion list Apel > wrote of the crisis, " I can almost picture the > darkies laying down their lives for the vacuous > ideals... their death throes, how picturesque, among > the baobab trees and the lions! " > http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm > Apel is given as one of the 2 media contacts on the > " scientists and scholars " attack on the CIIR. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4151 > > + COLLUSION & CORRUPTION IN GM POLICY > In an article for ISIS, GM WATCH editor Claire > Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable truths about > the machinations of the pro-GM establishment in > Britain. Singled out for particular attention is the > collusion between Dr Ian Gibson, the chairman of the > supposedly independent parliamentary Science and > Technology Committee, and GM 'godfather' Derek > Burke. > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CCIGMP.php > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4142 > > + WORLD WILL NEED GM FOOD SAYS USUAL SUSPECT > Prof Mike Gale claims in The Scotsman that GM is > essential to increase food production and meet huge > projected rises in the world's population. The paper > reports breathlessly, " If the advances made in > creating genetically modified foods are not used to > increase food output the world could find itself in > the grip of a food crisis in as little as 15 years, > perhaps even ten, said Professor Mike Gale of the > John Innes Centre... " > > Gale has spoken about this necessity before, though > from a different angle - the necessity of avoiding > damage to the institute which he ONCE headed and > where he has spent the majority of his working life. > Gale warned then that any serious slowdown on GM > would be a huge blow for the John Innes Centre, > hitting its industry grants: " It would be very, very > serious for us. " > > Gale is a perfect example of the enormous influence > of the small self-interested clique campaigning for > this technology. Gale has contributed in different > ways to 3 Royal Society reports on GM; he was a > member of the UK government's science review panel > on GM; he served on the government's Advisory > Committee on GM; he is a Consultant to the > Rockefeller Foundation; he is a Member of the Board > of Trustees of the International Rice Research > Institute and he is on the CGIAR's Central Advisory > Services Steering Committee. He has also > contributed, with Derek Burke who also connects to > the JIC, to both Nuffield reports on GM (1999 and > 2003). He is also one of the GM 'experts' in a > directory compiled by the Royal Society to help > journalists get their science stories right. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4160 > > + THE SOUND OF MANY HANDS CLAPPING > If anyone's in any doubt over why there has been so > much delight over the news of the planned departure > of Sir John Krebs from the UK Food Standards Agency, > they need only consider the extraordinary lengths to > which the FSA under Krebs has gone to betray the > interests of consumers which it is supposed to > protect. See a rundown at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4162 > > Notably, the FSA's citizens' jury on GM, which asked > a single leading question, " Should GM foods be > available to buy in the UK? " , was orchestrated by PR > firm Bell Pottinger, which works for Monsanto. Bell > Pottinger has links that go to the very heart of the > Blair Government. In contravention of standard > practice for citizens' juries, no panel of > stakeholders was assembled to oversee balance and > fairness in the jury process. Staff at the FSA > stated that it was itself an independent agency and > had been advised by Bell Pottinger that no such > oversight panel would be necessary. Needless to say, > the jury was said to have come up with a positive > answer to the question, which was touted by the FSA > as evidence that, in spite of the overwhelmingly > anti-GM conclusions of the public debate, the UK > public were happy about GM foods! Find out more > about how the jury was fixed: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4162 > > + CITIZENS' JURY WANTS HALT TO GM > In contrast to the FSA citizens' jury, an > independently overseen pair of citizens' juries run > by the Policy Ethics And Life Sciences Research > Institute (PEALS) of the University of Newcastle, > UK, turned up some decidedly GM-sceptical verdicts. > The juries wanted: > *A halt to the sale of GM foods currently available, > and to the proposed commercial growing of GM crops. > This conclusion was based on the lack of evidence of > benefit and the precautionary principle. > *Long-term research into the risks of damage to the > environment and the potential for harm. > *An end to blanket assertions that the GM crops are > necessary to feed the starving in the Third World, > given the complex social and economic factors that > lie behind such hunger. > > Among the wider concerns raised by the juries were: > *A concern that the gradual privatisation of > scientific research is threatening the independent > regulatory assessment of GM technologies, together > with a call for future research to be more > accountable to the population. > > Read the testimonies of expert witnesses Prof Tim > Lang and farmer Michael Hart at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4163 > > Excerpts: > Lang: A most interesting split has just emerged over > GM. ... I refer to the split between government and > the big retailers. ... the top bosses of Tesco, > Sainsbury and Asda went to No. 10 Downing Street for > a discussion about GM. The Prime Minister wants them > to be more enthusiastic about GM. They were > reluctant and said so. " Listen to the science which > gives GM the all-clear, " was the Prime Minister's > line. " We listen to our customers, " was the reply. > > Hart: Farmers have been told that this technology > holds great promises: that it will help feed the > world; that it will reduce pesticide use; that it > will reduce cost of growing crops; that it will > provide environmental benefits; that it can co-exist > with conventional and organic crops; that it is safe > to eat and grow. Having spent time talking with > farmers in the USA and talking to Canadian farmers > on a trip to the UK as one farmer talking to other > farmers most if not all of the above claims are not > working. The only benefit I have heard US and > Canadian farmers claim, is that " it makes farming > very big farms easy " . > > + BAYER TRIES TO TOUCH OUR HEARTS > The Financial Times reports that chemicals giant > Bayer is holding 'Kids' Labs' in German and Asian > schools in order " to bring chemistry closer to the > public, and improve the image of an industry that > for many people conjures up only thoughts of > periodic tables and sulphurous smells or accidents > and pollution " . > > " You need to be much more emotional, " says Jurgen > Hambrecht, who became chief executive of gene and > chemical giant BASF last year. " You can't just work > via the brain, you need to get to people's > hearts... " > > Bayer evidently hopes that children will learn to > put logic aside sufficiently to take the risks with > GMOs that BASF's native Germany is currently > rejecting. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4144 > > --------------------------- > CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE > --------------------------- > > + Health Canada fires 3 scientists > Three senior Health Canada scientists known for > questioning the department's commitment to > veterinary drug safety have been fired. Health > Canada claims the reason for the termination of Shiv > Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert has > nothing to do with their outspokenness. > > But Steve Hindle, president of the Professional > Institute of the Public Service of Canada, > disagrees: " This is retribution for having spoken > out about what's going on at Health Canada and the > concerns they have around the safety of drugs for > veterinary use, " he said. > > Chopra and Haydon protested against the approval in > Canada of Monsanto's GE bovine growth hormone, > variously known as rBGH, BGH or by its brand name > Posilac. In the wake of Chopra's and Haydon's > revelations, the drug was not approved in Canada and > is now quietly being withdrawn from sale in the US > by Monsanto. It's also banned in the EU. > > Excerpts from earlier articles by Dr Richard Wolfson > give some background: > > After BGH was approved in the Human Safety Division > in Canada, against the advice of the scientists who > got vetoed by their boss, it was passed onto the > Animal Safety Division. In the Animal Safety > Division it wound up in the hands of another > scientist, Margaret Haydon, and the people who > passed it along to her didn't realize she had a > conscience. So she started looking at the results of > the research that was given to her (industry does > the research, and they pass it along to Health > Canada). She found problems such as mastitis or > inflammation of the udder, joint problems, deformed > offspring, and a decrease in lifespan of up to two > years. So Dr Margaret Haydon recommended it not be > approved. What do you think happened to Dr Margaret > Haydon, after she made this recommendation? She got > dropped. She was never allowed to study BGH again. > > Margaret Haydon was one of the scientists who were > at a meeting with Monsanto officials when they > offered Health Canada one to two million dollars to > approve BGH without any further studies. Fifth > Estate, Canada AM, and several other TV stations > have confirmed this by talking to other people > present at the meeting. Len Ritter, the Director of > the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs tried to pressure > Margaret Haydon to approve BGH conditionally, and > subsequently keep records of the effects of the > hormone on the cows and the humans. Margaret > responded that it's illegal to approve a drug, and > allow it on the market before it is shown to be > safe. Then what happened to Margaret was very scary, > to say the least. A few weeks later, Margaret came > in Monday morning and realized someone had stolen > all her records on Bovine Growth Hormone, research > showing that it produced lameness in animals and > increased mastitis, as well as the notes she had > taken at the meetings when Monsanto offered one to > two million dollars to Health Canada. > --- > The battle [at Health Canada] erupted in 1998 with > the evaluation of rBGH. When rBGH is injected into > dairy cattle, cows produce more milk. Chopra and > other scientists uncovered research showing rBGH > causes safety problems for animals and humans. > Sparks flew when they would not approve the drug and > the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and > Forestry investigated the resulting commotion. The > Committee called the scientists to testify. After > hearing about the dangers of rBGH, the senators > recommended that the drug not be approved - a > decision Health Canada eventually agreed to. > > The Health Canada scientists also told the Committee > about other drugs of questionable safety that had > been approved against their advice including growth > hormones for animals that had been allowed even > though the drugs were known to produce deformities > in animals and were linked to cancer! > > Health Canada officials were frantic! Corruption in > its drug approval process was exposed. How could it > silence the dissenting scientists? > > On July 23, 1999, two months after Chopra spoke > before the Senate his supervisor, Dr AndrŽ Lachance, > suspended him for five days without pay. But at the > end of the same year another Senate committee began > investigating whether the suspension was retaliation > against Chopra for testifying before the Senate. > Such retaliation is against the law. This > investigation was stalled due to various events, > including the disappearance of Dr Lachance, Director > of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs - a key witness. > > Shortly before Lachance was to testify, his lawyer > sent a letter stating that he was on stress leave > and couldn't appear for questioning! > > At about the same time, the Federal Court of Canada > investigated and removed a gag order that Health > Canada imposed on Chopra in 1998 forbidding him from > speaking to the press or in public about concerns > regarding the health of Canadians being risked. The > court ruled Chopra was justified in speaking to the > public because he had first exhausted all possible > government channels for voicing his very serious > concerns. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4143 > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4153 > > + CANADIAN FARMERS UNION CALLS FOR INQUIRY > Canada's National Farmers Union President Stewart > Wells commented (see above item), " The Canadian > government must launch an immediate judicial inquiry > into the firing of three senior Health Canada > scientists. An inquiry would serve two vital > purposes: to gain justice for the scientists, and, > even more important, to investigate allegations of > political interference, bribery, industry meddling, > and improper drug approvals within Health Canada. > > " The firing of these scientists is certainly tied to > their years of speaking out in the public interest. > It appears that a government that prides itself on > making decisions based on 'sound science' has > decided that it needs to get itself more submissive > scientists. " > > Margaret Haydon and Shiv Chopra won a September 2000 > Federal Court of Canada case they brought after they > were reprimanded for speaking publicly about risks > posed by certain veterinary drugs. In its ruling, > the court ruled: " Where a matter is of legitimate > public concern requiring a public debate, the duty > of loyalty cannot be absolute to the extent of > preventing public disclosure by a government > official. The common law of duty does not impose > unquestioning silence. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4157 > > + FUNDING AND BIASES NEED TO BE EXPOSED BY MEDIA AND > SCIENCE JOURNALS > Two articles from the Center for Science in the > Public Interest address the vital need to disclose > possible conflicts of interest on the part of > sources of reports in the media and science > journals. For the full articles, see > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4137 > Summaries follow: > > (1) News Articles Often Silent on Scientists' and > Groups' Funding & Biases > How a reporter describes an expert source determines > how much credibility a reader gives to the expert's > assertion, according to a new survey by the Center > for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Most > respondents say that news media should disclose > whether information in their articles comes from > scientists or organizations who receive grants or > funding from corporations. Often, however, such > disclosure is absent. > > According to the poll, 59 percent had confidence in > a hypothetical statement asserting a drug is safe > when the statement was attributed to a " Harvard > professor whose research is government supported. " > When the statement was simply attributed to " a > Harvard professor, " 48 percent had confidence. 41 > percent had confidence in the statement when it was > attributed to a " Harvard professor whose research is > supported by drug companies. " Only 24 percent of > those surveyed had confidence when the statement was > attributed to a " Harvard professor who owns stock in > drug companies. " > > " These findings are particularly salient at a time > when so many researchers are funded by the very > companies whose products they are studying or > commenting on, " said CSPI executive director Michael > F. Jacobson. " Regrettably, the news media do an > uneven job of disclosing potentially biasing sources > of funding when quoting scientific researchers or > reporting their findings. Readers, therefore, can't > put various reports about medicine or health into > context. " > > .. According to CSPI, news accounts often fail to > identify the funding sources of ostensibly > independent nonprofit organizations that are quoted > on health and medical issues. For instance, a group > called the American Council on Science and Health is > largely funded by chemical, food, and agribusiness > companies and is widely quoted downplaying various > risks to public health or discrediting studies > indicating risks to health. In the pages of The New > York Times it is sometimes blandly cited as a > " science advocacy group, " a " private health > education group, " or a " group that describes itself > as 400 doctors and scientists who release position > statements on science and the environment. " > Elsewhere, the Times more helpfully has described > the group as a " consumer foundation in Manhattan > that is in part financed by industry, " or as a group > that is " financed in part by the food industry. " > > " If a reporter is going to quote a group like the > American Council on Science and Health, the Center > for Consumer Freedom, or other nonprofit groups > funded by corporations, that reporter should be sure > to identify the corporations that fund it, " Jacobson > said. " If a group refuses to disclose its corporate > funding, journalists should say so. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4137 > > (2) Report Faults Scientific Journals on Financial > Disclosure > Several leading medical and science journals fail to > enforce their own policies for disclosing financial > conflicts of interest among contributing authors, > according to a study by the nonprofit Center for > Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The study > examined 163 articles in the New England Journal of > Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical > Association (JAMA), Environmental Health > Perspectives (EHP), and Toxicology and Applied > Pharmacology (TAP). > > It identified at least 13 articles where authors did > not disclose relevant conflicts of interest that > should have been disclosed according to the > journals' policies. CSPI found another 11 articles > where there were undisclosed conflicts of interest > that might not have directly related to the subject > at hand, but should have been disclosed > nevertheless. > > CSPI recommends that journal editors require authors > to disclose any financial arrangements they have had > with private firms within the past three years, > regardless of whether those arrangements relate to > the subject of the article, and that the conflicts > be published if they are in any way related to the > article's subject. CSPI also says that authors > should be required to disclose any patent > applications, or intentions to apply for any > patents. To encourage authors to comply with > journals' policies, CSPI also recommends that > editors adopt strong sanctions for failing to > disclose conflicts of interest, such as a three-year > ban on publication imposed on authors who fail to > make complete disclosures. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4137 > > + SCIENTIST CALLS FOR END TO STUDY BIAS > A letter to the editor of the British Medical > Journal says GlaxoSmithKline's recent legal troubles > resulting from not publishing negative results of > clinical trials on the antidepressant Paroxetine are > just part of a larger problem of publication bias in > modern research. JAC Delaney, a clinical > statistician of epidemiology, says the solution is > to track all clinical trials so as to ensure that > the results of such trials are properly reported. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4164 > > + SUPPRESSION OF SCIENCE IS NOT AN ANOMALY - IT'S > THE SYSTEM > " Suppression of science is not an anomaly but is > typical of and produced by, the current economic, > political, and social situation, and that is - money > talks. It is the system; it is not just a few bad > apples. " This point was made by Dr David Egilman, a > professor of medicine at Brown University, > Providence, Rhode Island, at a conference, > " Conflicted Science: Corporate and Political > Influence on Science-based Policymaking " , held in > Washington, DC in mid-July, and sponsored by the > Center for Science in the Public Interest. > > Although money was important, there were also other > forces at work, Egilman said: " It is broader than > money, it's ideology and power. Ideology is a much > larger bias than money much harder to ferret out and > think through. " > Source: British Medical Journal, 2004; 329:132 (17 > July) > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4164 > > --------------------------- > FOCUS ON AFRICA > --------------------------- > > + US BIOTECH CORPORATIONS PROFIT FROM HUNGER AND > AIDS IN AFRICA > Read African biosafety lawyer Mariam Mayet's > brilliant expose of how the US and the biotech > corporations are working to profit from hunger in > Africa, at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4155 > > As Mariam shows, areas like agricultural research, > technical assistance, food aid, and the funding of > biosafety initiatives, have all been drawn into the > frame, with the Bush administration channeling big > money to agencies like USAID and USDA to promote > projects to " integrate biotechnology into local food > systems and spread the technology through regions in > Africa, " as USAID's remit explicitly states. > > Mariam's native South Africa has played a pivotal > role in this industry marketing campaign, which is > aimed at removing regulatory hurdles and trade > restrictions. This is because South Africa's > introduction of GM crops has been amongst the most > rapid anywhere outside the US. The aim is to take > the biosafety system that permitted this and make it > the model for the rest of Africa. > > What is so depressing about this is that while GM > crops introduce novel risks and uncertainties, the > benefits from GM, as Aaron deGrassi of the Institute > of Development Studies has shown, are much lower > than can be obtained with alternatives for a tiny > fraction of the cost (see: > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2561). > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4155 > > The US has been working through the WTO to ensure > that its industries with patents on antiretroviral > AIDS drugs do not lose out and to ensure that > developing countries cannot use their own cheap > generic versions. The US government poured USD15 > billion into its own HIV campaign, outside the > control of the Global Aids Fund. A huge proportion > of this money will be spent to purchase US patented > drugs, thereby circumventing the use of US dollars > to purchase the generic drugs promoted by WHO and > the Global Fund for Aids. > > And at the recent Aids conference in Bangkok, > France's President Jacques Chirac accused America of > blackmailing developing countries into giving up > their right to produce cheap drugs for AIDS victims. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4155 > > NEW BRIEFING ON GM IN AFRICA: A useful briefing from > Mariam Mayet, " African agriculture under genetic > engineering onslaught " , is at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4166 > > + SOUTH AFRICA MUST REJECT BEING PHARM TEST GROUND > Glenn Ashton has published a letter in the Cape > Times protesting against plans to use South Africa > as a test ground for plants genetically engineered > to produce drugs: > > Excerpt: > The suggestion ... that pharmaceutical compounds > would be engineered into food crops, is something > that would be strongly opposed by most rational > South Africans, scientists and citizens alike. Even > were these to be grown in strictly contained > conditions, the risks remain excessive. Two cases of > contamination of food crops by pharmed products in > the US last year nearly allowed the release of an > untested pig vaccine into the food supply, according > to the journal Nature Biotechnology. Spurious > internet adverts have been posted looking for > growers for such crops and responses have reportedly > been received from South African farmers. > > .. This appears to be yet another case of shifting > another dirty industry to a developing nation so > that we bear all of the risks, while the northern > developers reap the genetically engineered fruits. > As we have cast off colonialism, so too must we > reject its latest iteration; bio-colonialism. Not > only does bio-colonialism hold direct threats to our > biodiversity but it equally exposes that very > diversity to exploitation by wealthy individuals, > nations and corporations, leaving us, yet again, to > pick up the pieces. Remember; genetic engineering > gives pollution a life of its own! > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4139 > > + GMOs will not solve hunger, but will make it > worse! > A coalition of international mainstream > environmental, consumer and farmer groups condemned > the aggressive promotion of GMOs as a solution to > hunger in the world. The condemnation was made > following an international conference held 15-16 > July in Maputo, Mozambique on hunger, food aid and > GMOs. > > The coalition was critical of the UN body on Food > and Agriculture (FAO) for its report presenting GMOs > as a key to ending hunger in Africa and the rest of > the world: " Not only GMOs will not solve the problem > of hunger, but they will worsen and complicate the > hunger issue even further. FAO, through the > publication of its biased report has betrayed the > interest of farmers and consumers worldwide " . > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4145 > > + MOUNTAINS OF FOOD, OCEANS OF HUNGER > A poem with this title by Nnimmo Bassey of FOE > Nigeria, following an apparently successful food > security conference in Maputo, Mozambique, is at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4147 > > --------------------------- > EURO-NEWS > --------------------------- > > + EU HALTS GM AGAIN > The EU's 25 national governments failed to back a > European Commission proposal to open Europe's door > to imports of Monsanto's NK603 maize. > > Adrian Bebb of FoE Europe said, " The European > Commission has now failed seven times in a row to > get enough support to approve new genetically > modified foods. Their position is increasingly > untenable and clearly incompatible with the wishes > of the citizens and Governments of Europe. It is > time that they put the welfare of the European > public before the business interests of the > biotechnology industry. " > > US officials said that the decision raises a > " serious " question mark over an EU commitment to end > a five-year moratorium on biotech crops. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4150 > > ------- > OTHER GLOBAL NEWS > ------- > > + PUERTO RICO'S MASSIVE UNREGULATED BIOTECH HARVEST > Puerto Rico has more GM experiments per square mile > than any state, with the possible exception of > Hawaii. According to data from the US Department of > Agriculture, between 1987 and 2002, the island > hosted 2,957 such experiments. This figure was > surpassed only by Iowa (3,831), Illinois (4,104) and > Hawaii (4,566). > > ... A spokeswoman [at the Puerto Rico Environmental > Quality Board] said that since Puerto Rico has no > laws or regulations for GM crops, it has no mandate > to intervene or investigate. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4148 > > For more on how Puerto Ricans have long been > subjected by US administrations to 'environmental > racism', see Dr Peter Montague's analyses at > http://www.rachel.org/search/index.cfm?St=1 > http://www.rachel.org/search/index.cfm?St=1 > http://www.rachel.org/search/index.cfm?St=1 > > + PHILIPPINES: GMO-free legislation launched > The provincial government of Bohol in the > Philippines launched an ordinance July 21 > prohibiting the entry of GMOs into the province. The > ordinance aims to protect human health and the > environment from the adverse effects of GMOs. > Bohol's legislation is the first of its kind in the > Philippines and comes amid growing worldwide > concerns about the environmental and health impact > of GMOs. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4156 > > + " BIOTECH IS A CANCER IN ARGENTINA " > After the approval of Roundup Ready maize in > Argentina, here are some reflections on the > destruction of the country's ecology and economy by > GM model: > > " ....no other third world country must follow the > Argentine path. Argentina could feed itself even in > the worst periods of our history. We produced > varied, cheap and healthy food for our own > population... But since the no-tillage/GM > crop/pesticide package agro-export model was forced > on us, through the neoliberal government of Carlos > Menem during the 90's .. the consequences were > catastrophic. > > " Argentina does not know how to get free from the > model. We have had GM agriculture since the 90's and > now the Argentinian people are starving for the > first time in our history. ... we should stop this > from happening in Africa, Asia and other Latin > American countries. They do not have the right to go > on starving more people, just to make a quick > profit. Once the industry is there, they become a > cancer. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4140 > > + PIONEER ILLEGALLY DISTRIBUTES GM SEED IN CROATIA > After recent lab analyses of food products from > Croatia revealed GMO contamination in one sample, > Croatian NGO Osijek Greens reports that another GMO > scandal is shaking the country. The Croatian branch > of Pioneer Hi-Bred International illegally > distributed unapproved GM seed to farmers and > companies in the country, the Ministry of > Agriculture and Water Management has announced. Two > thousand hectares of maize will be destroyed to > prevent contamination of other crops. According to > the minister of agriculture Mr Petar Cobankovic, > Pioneer will pay a fine of around 150,000 EUR and > compensate farmers and companies who bought its > seed. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4138 > > + ILLEGAL BT COTTON CROP IN PAKISTAN PERFORMS BADLY > The approval of Bt cotton for the south of India, > following the hype created by Monsanto and the > resultant spread of illegal seeds by seed merchants > cashing in on the expectations created, is > triggering problems in north India and in > neighboring Pakistan, where there is no Bt cotton > approval. > > This " viral marketing " then creates pressure for the > regulatory systems to catch up and legitimise an > undesirable situation in which farmers are the > victims. > > In 2001-02, cultivation of Bt cotton was undertaken > illegally in lower and upper Sindh, probably with > seeds smuggled from India. The performance of this > Bt cotton in Pakistan, observed over 2 years, was > " erratic " , according to a report in the newspaper > The Dawn: " Under no rain and hot and dry weather > conditions it was found highly susceptible to Jassid > and CLCV disease, whereas under heavy monsoon rain > of 2003 it was found susceptible also to armyworm. > Besides, cultivation with mixture of Bt cotton and > non-Bt cottonseeds was found harboring more > bollworms as compared to cultivation undertaken with > pure non-Bt cotton seeds. " > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4145 > > ------- > PATENTS ON LIFE > ------- > > + LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SCHMEISER RULING > Two articles on the Percy Schmeiser vs Monsanto > ruling of Canada's Supreme Court, one from The > Nation and the other (by Lim Li Ching) from ISIS, > are at > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4149 > > Excerpt from Ching's article: > The court, while confirming the validity of > Monsanto's patent on the transgene and modified > cells, did not rule on the validity of patents on > life forms, or whether it is right or wise to > genetically modify plants. Neither did it answer the > difficult questions about how GMOs can be controlled > once released. These issues will have to be > addressed by Parliament. > > The 2002 Supreme Court decision that higher life > forms, such as plants, are unpatentable still > stands. Monsanto did not claim patent protection > over a GM plant, only the modified genes and cells > and the process for making them. However, the effect > of this judgment is that Monsanto's rights on a > patented gene and cells extend to the (unpatentable) > plant in which it is found, if the alleged infringer > is judged to have used the patent; in Schmeiser's > case, by saving, planting, harvesting and selling in > a commercial context. > > ------- > GM MELTDOWN CONTINUES > ------- > > + Bayer to Pay USD66 Mln to Settle Price Fixing > Charge > Bayer AG, Germany's second-biggest drug, chemical > and biotech company, has agreed to pay USD66 million > to settle a US charge it participated in a global > conspiracy to fix prices of chemicals used to make > rubber. Bayer agreed to assist the government's > investigation that has already netted the guilty > plea of Crompton Corp., which was fined $50 million > for its role in the cartel, the Justice Department > said. European Union and Canadian authorities are > also investigating the cartel. > http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4138 > > --------------------------- > QUOTE OF THE WEEK > --------------------------- > > " Seeds will be our only recourse if the prevailing > belief in the safety of genetic engineering proves > wrong, " warns UCS. " Heedlessly allowing the > contamination of traditional plant varieties with > genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge > wager on our ability to understand a complicated > technology that manipulates life at the most > elemental level. " - Union of Concerned Scientists, > February 2004 > > ------- > 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. > 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.