extremists kills off GM tests/Green groups 'deceive'/REAL EXTREMISTS EXPOSED

[Guest guest]

GMW: extremists kills off GM tests/Green groups

'deceive'/REAL EXTREMISTS EXPOSED

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:29:01 GMT

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

extremists kills off GM tests/Green groups 'deceive'/REAL EXTREMISTS

EXPOSED

 

With the final farm-scale evaluation of GM crops to be published

tomorrow, the GM lobby is in full cry in the Sunday papers painting

critics

as " extremists " , " fundamentalists " etc. Some are from the biotech

industry backed institutes, or like Chris Lamb have biotech industry

interests of their own. Taverne , of course, has a team at Sense About

Science

of truly repugnant political extremists, writing his scripts.

 

And item 3 confirms just how extreme the GM lobby is. The people

mentioned as driving the support for reproductive cloning are Ian

Gibson, who

has been shown to be merely a mouthpiece for GM Godfather Derek Burke,

and Evan Harris who works hand in glove with Susan Greenfield, the

Science Media Centre etc. As Dr David King, director of Human Genetics

Alert, rightly says: " The kind of ethics we see in this report, which is

incapable of saying a clear 'no' to anything, is no ethics at all. The

extreme bias discredits the committee and the political cause it is

espousing. "

 

Find out more about the individuals and institutions mentioned here in

the BIOTECH BRIGADE directory at www.gmwatch.org

 

1.Fear of extremists kills off GM tests

2.Green groups 'deceive public to stop GM crops'

3.MPs say lift ban on reproductive human cloning

------

1.Fear of extremists kills off GM tests

Threat to dig up experimental crops drives British research overseas

Robin McKie, science editor

Sunday March 20, 2005

The Observer

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1442075,00.html

 

Research on crops that can withstand climate change, provide

allergy-free foods and give consumers cheap sources of nutrition have

been

abandoned by British scientists.

 

This country's leading plant scientists have told The Observer that the

threat of 'field-trashing' by environmental activists is now so high,

they had given up all attempts to grow new varieties of genetically

modified crops here.

 

In some cases, trials are being carried out in eastern Europe and

China. In others, crop varieties designed to help British farmers

withstand

global warming have simply been abandoned.

 

'Environmentalists have complained that scientists keep promising to

deliver a new generation of GM crops but have failed to do so,' said

Professor Ian Crute, director of Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire.

'But

every time we attempt a field trial of a new laboratory-created

variety, extremists come along and dig up our plants.'

 

It is a point backed by Chris Lamb, head of the John Innes research

centre in Norwich. 'Every trial we carry out has to be published on a

website on which the site's six-digit grid reference is given. You may as

well put up an illuminated sign and invite campaigners to dig it up.'

 

No field trials of new GM crops have been attempted by Rothamsted

scientists in the past 18 months. 'We have had to export our

experiments to

other countries and they are the ones who will reap the benefits,'

added Crute.

 

Among the varieties being studied at Rothamsted are those designed to

create wheats that would contain no gluten, a protein linked to cases of

severe allergic reactions in some individuals, particularly among

children.

 

Rothamsted scientists have also been working on varieties of GM rape

that would provide oils whose make-up would mimic those of fish oils.

 

'These are particularly rich in nutrients that help brain and eyesight

development in children,' said Crute. 'We are overfishing our oceans

and these plants could be crucial in providing us with cheap sources of

key nutrients.'

 

However, in both cases scientists have had simply stopped field trials

and given their work to researchers who are now working on field trials

in East Europe and China.

 

'These are likely to become valuable crops and our farmers, who would

have been first in line to grow them, will now be pushed to the back of

the queue of those seeking to grow them,' added Crute.

 

The revelations come as the final farm-scale evaluation of GM crops is

to be published tomorrow. This will focus on the environmental impact

of GM winter oil seed rape. The trial results are expected to be

ambiguous.

 

This generation of crops was designed to be tolerant to certain forms

of pesticides. The next generation was intended to be far more exciting,

added Lamb.

 

'We have learnt a great deal about the genes that control when a plant

comes into flower,' he said. 'As global warming begins to have a major

impact on crop growing, this knowledge will become extremely

important.'

------

2.Green groups 'deceive public to stop GM crops'

By David Harrison

Sunday Telegraph, 20 March 2005

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/20/ngm20.xml & sSheet\

=/portal/2005/03/20/ixportal.html

 

Aid agencies and environmentalists have deceived the public over

genetically modified crops by deliberately ignoring scientific

evidence that

supports the technology, according to a new book.

 

The March of Unreason, by Dick Taverne, the Liberal Democrat peer,

accuses Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other green groups of

turning

their opposition to GM plants into a " religious crusade " , based on

" blind faith and deep bias " rather than serious research.

 

Lord Taverne, a member of the House of Lords science and technology

committee, accuses environmentalists and aid agencies of ignoring " solid

science " , citing each others' reports, and using discredited studies to

push the case against GM crops.

 

He also argues that the green lobby has whipped up public hysteria with

scare stories and emotive terms such as Frankenstein foods when the

science shows overwhelmingly that GM crops will help to ease world hunger

and poverty, help the environment and improve public health.

 

The peer, who is also the founder-chairman of the charity Sense about

Science, said that the green lobby's activities had done enormous damage

to Britain's biotechnology industry, a field in which it was a world

leader.

 

As a result of the opposition, the Government imposed a five-year

moratorium on GM crops - from 1999 until last year - and has still to

approve their full-scale commercial production.

 

In the book, which has been published ahead of tomorrow's announcement

by the Government of the results of its latest field-scale evaluation

of GM crops, Lord Taverne gives many examples of the green lobby's

" misuse " of evidence and research.

 

He highlights how a report by the charity Action Aid in 2003 quoted

studies by Greenpeace, other green pressure groups and its own " branches "

before concluding that GM crops would not benefit the Third World.

 

Lord Taverne said, however, that the study ignored the findings of

independent experts, the National Academy of Sciences USA, several other

national academies of science, the Third World Academy of Sciences, four

Royal Society reports and two reports by the Nuffield Council. " But

because it is published by an aid agency and relies on reports by green

lobbies to which most newspapers are sympathetic, the press treats it

with deference, " he said.

 

The book also refers to the case of the Monarch butterfly (Danaus

plexippus), a species said by one study to be at risk from GM crops. Its

cause was adopted by green groups and received widespread media attention.

 

Soon afterwards, however, eminent plant biologists rejected the

research when field studies found that the impact on the butterfly was

negligible. Despite this, green groups still say that GM crops kill the

Monarch.

 

Another report, Feeding or Fooling the World - Can GM crops really feed

the hungry? - published in 2002 by the Genetic Engineering Alliance, a

coalition of 120 British-based organisations calling for a ban on GM

crops, applies " a similar lack of rigour " , according to Lord Taverne.

 

" Every possible quotation that supports or might appear to support the

case for a freeze is cited, irrespective of its academic worth; no

evidence against is mentioned, however eminent and independent the

source... in places this report seems almost deliberately designed to

mislead, "

the author said.

 

Lord Taverne mentions another report by Action Aid, this time on the

Golden Rice project. This involved genetically modifying rice to produce

Vitamin A in the body - a breakthrough hailed by scientists as an

important step towards helping 14 million children under five years

old who

suffer from Vitamin A deficiency, which can lead to measles and

blindness.

 

The charity's report dismissed the project as worthless and cited a

" finding " by Greenpeace that a child would have to eat about 7kg of

cooked

Golden Rice to obtain the required amount of Vitamin A.

 

The report failed, however, to quote the conclusions of the project's

original researchers, who said that a child would benefit by consuming

200g of rice a day.

 

Lord Taverne said that to dismiss the project on the basis of

Greenpeace's claims was " like quoting the Pope as an unbiased

authority on

contraception " .

 

Most of the media have swallowed the green lobby's line, he said. A

genetically modified tomato puree was popular until the press began a

campaign against Frankenstein foods in 1999, prompted by publicity

given to

a study in The Lancet.

 

The research highlighted the adverse effect of GM potatoes on rats, but

was discredited as " flawed " by the Royal Society.

 

It said that no conclusions should be drawn from it, but Greenpeace,

Friends of the Earth and their allies, continued to stress health hazards

from GM crops, Lord Taverne said.

 

To illustrate the green lobby's " eco-fundamentalism " Lord Taverne cites

the response of Lord Melchett, then the director of Greenpeace, to a

question asked by the Lords select committee on GM crops, which reported

in 1999.

 

Asked about his opposition to GM plants Lord Melchett replied: " It is a

permanent and definite and complete opposition based on a view that

there will always be major uncertainties. It is the nature of the

technology, indeed it is the nature of science that there will not be any

absolute proof. "

 

The European Commission encourages GM crops, which it has declared to

be safe, but EU member states, except Spain, are reluctant to license

them.

 

Lord Taverne's book says, however, that GM technology will lead to more

efficient land use and produce more nutritional, varied and cheaper

food. The crops will be able to grow in arid and saline areas, survive

drought, eliminate the need for pesticides and free land for wildlife.

 

He highlights the widespread use and success of GM crops in countries

including the US, China, South Africa, India and Argentina and expresses

puzzlement that the public accepts biotechnology for medicines such as

insulin, but not plants.

 

Green groups rejected the peer's accusations. Tony Juniper, the

executive director of Friends of the Earth, said that the green lobby

took

science " very seriously " and studies so far had failed to prove the

long-term safety of GM crops.

 

" Science has its limits. We have concerns about the social, economic,

environmental and ethical impact of this technology, " he said.

 

Action Aid also denied that it had ignored scientific evidence, while

Pete Riley, the spokesman for the Five-Year Freeze Campaign, another

anti-GM lobby group, said.

 

" Dick Taverne and his friends should get out and find real solutions to

the world's problems, and not just help those who want to profit from

new technology. "

 

The March of Unreason, Oxford University Press, £18.99

------

3.MPs say lift ban on reproductive human cloning

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor

Sunday March 20, 2005

The Observer

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1442059,00.html

 

The creation of a creature that is half-man/half-animal may be thought

to be the stuff of a science fiction novel, but this week an

influential group of MPs will recommend that the government considers

overturning

its ban on such experiments.

 

In a report into human embryo research in Britain, the commons science

and technology committee will suggest that human embryos could be

implanted into animals for research purposes. It will also say parents

should be allowed to chose the sex of their child for 'social reasons'

and

that the cloning of human embryos should be allowed for medical

purposes.

 

The report is so controversial that it has split the MPs who sat on the

committee and is likely to see a number of them condemn its findings as

too 'pro-science'.

 

A leaked copy of the report has been obtained by The Observer. It

concludes that 'chimeric' experiments - a mixture of genetic material

in one

animal or human - could produce 'valuable and highly ethical research

in the future'. It states that the current Human Fertilisation and

Embryology Act's prohibition of such research is 'largely symbolic'.

 

'Beyond animal welfare arguments, it is not clear why this should be

any more unacceptable than flushing the embryo down the sink, which is

its likely alternative fate,' the report states.

 

The report quotes embryologist Professor Henry Leese, suggesting that

little is known about the development of the human embryo in a living

organism as opposed to a test tube. 'Such research could yield valuable

insights into the causes of infertility and miscarriage,' the report

says.

 

Experiments creating human hybrids are gathering pace. Molecular

biologist Irving Weissman at Stanford University, California, injected

human

brain cells into mouse foetuses, creating a strain of mice

approximately 1 per cent human. He is considering producing mice whose

brains, in

genetic material at least, are 100 per cent human.

 

Scientists believe that the more 'human' research animals become the

better able they will be to develop drugs and produce organs for

transplantation. The National Academy of Sciences in the US is about

to issue

guidelines for chimeric research that is expected to lead to several new

experiments in this field.

 

The committee's suggestion that research should be allowed in this

contentious area is just one of several likely to create heated

debate. The

report suggests a radical rethink of existing law. 'Parents, rather

than the state, must be assumed to be the right decision-makers for their

families,' it argues.

 

The idea that scientists should be allowed to clone human embryos will

anger religious groups which lobbied for the ban in the first place.

 

But the committee goes even further by suggesting they should be free

to 'genetically modify' human embryos to allow couples to create

designer babies, and in some cases be allowed to choose the sex of their

child. The report suggests that choosing a baby's sex for social

reasons may

be acceptable and that there is no evidence it harms individuals or

society. It says couples should be allowed to undergo fertility treatment

which includes selection of embryos that are disease-free and for

tissue type, as long as they remain within the law.

 

According to sources familiar with the inquiry, the committee has been

completely divided with five MPs rejecting the report's conclusion. It

is understood the 'pro-science' tone has been driven by the Labour

chairman, Dr Ian Gibson, a former dean of biology at the University of

East

Anglia, and Dr Evan Harris, former health spokesman for the Liberal

Democrats.

 

Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, said: 'The kind of

ethics we see in this report, which is incapable of saying a clear

" no " to

anything, is no ethics at all. The extreme bias discredits the

committee and the political cause it is espousing.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------