GMW: CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER OF IRELAND ACCUSED OF GMO COVER-UP

[Guest guest]

GMW: CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER OF IRELAND ACCUSED OF GMO COVER-UP

" GM WATCH " <info

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:50:07 GMT

 

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

NEWS RELEASE

Dublin, 12 November 2005

GM-free Ireland Network

www.gmfreeireland.org

 

CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER OF IRELAND ACCUSED OF GMO COVER-UP

 

Dr. Barry McSweeney tried to suppress EU report on GMO crop

contamination

 

Time to purge regulatory bodies of biotech industry links

 

Dr. Barry McSweeney, the Chief Scientific Officer of Ireland who used a

fake PhD to obtain his job, attempted to cover-up an official EU study

on the risks of GMO crops in 2002.

 

Before assuming his current post in 2004, Dr. McSweeney was CEO of the

EU Joint Research Centre.

 

While head of that organisation, McSweeney attempted to suppress the

publication of the EC's official " Scenarios for Co-existence " report on

the feasibility of introducing GM crops in EU member states. The

European Commission ordered the study in May 2000 from the Institute for

Prospective Technological Studies, which is a branch of the European

Union

Joint Research Centre.

 

The study concludes that GM crops inevitably contaminate conventional

and organic crops and may cause 40% higher production costs for EU

farmers. It states that all farmers would face high additional, in some

cases unsustainable costs of production if genetically modified crops

were

commercially grown in a large scale in Europe (1).

 

Mr McSweeney wrote to the EC recommending that the report should not be

made public, stating " given the sensitivity of the issue, I would

suggest that the report be kept for internal use within the Commission

only. " (2).

 

According to Greenpeace, the study was delivered to the European

Commission in January 2002. Greenpeace released the leaked document on

May 16

2002.

 

In recent days it emerged that McSweeney bought his PhD from the

so-called Pacific Western University, an online institution which US

authorities describe as a " diploma mill " .

 

McSweeney's ties to the biotech industry include being a former of BioResearch Ireland and Biocon Biochemicals.

 

When McSweeney was head of the EC Joint Research Centre, Ireland played

a leading role in legalising the first GMO crops in Europe, especially

when our country held the EU Presidency in 2004. The Irish EU President

Pat Cox repeatedly denied the existence of any scientific evidence of

GMO health and environmental risks. Just before leaving office in late

2004, the Irish EU Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner David Byrne

ended the de facto moratorium on GM crops by legalising 17 varieties of

Monsanto GM maize, to the fury of other EU governments.

 

Ireland's role as biotech industry stooge continues as the EPA still

denies the evidence that GMO crops will inevitably contaminate related

species if introduced here. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)

claims GMO food is safe, despite the absence of any long-term health

studies (3) to prove that this is so, and mounting scientific evidence to

the contrary, including reports which Monsanto refuses to make public

(4).

 

The CEO of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dr. John O'Brien is a

former Director of a biotech & tobacco industry front organisation

called the International Life Sciences Institute based in Washington, DC

and of its European branch based in Paris. Its corporate donors include

British Sugar Plc, Burger King, Coca-Cola, Interbrew, Mars, Nestle, and

Pepsi-Co. The UK based Corporate Watch organisation reported that this

lobby group infiltrated the scientific committees of the World Health

Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in order to

downgrade tobacco health warnings and downplay the evidence that high

levels of sugar in junk foods cause childhood obesity and diabetes (5).

 

GM-free Ireland Network co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan said " the time

has come to purge the Irish regulatory bodies of people with current or

past links to the biotech industry, in order to salvage our reputation

as the clean green food island " (6).

 

Attribution:

Michael O'Callaghan

Co-ordinator, GM-free Ireland Network - www.gmfreeireland.org

Chairman, Global Vision Consulting Ltd -

www.global-vision-consulting.com

Tel: + 353 (0) 404 43 885

Mobile: + 353 (0) 87 799 4761

 

Notes for editors:

(1) The 133-page " Scenarios for Co-existence " report can be downloaded

as 1.3mb PDF file from:

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/gmcrops_coexistence.pdf.

 

The report predicts that the situation would become particularly

critical for organic farming of oilseed rape as well as for intensive

production of conventional maize. It states that in oilseed rape

production

the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops in a same region, even when

" technically possible " , would be " economically difficult " because of the

additional costs and complexity of changes required in farming practices

in order to avoid genetic contamination. Both organic and conventional

farmers " would probably be forced to stop saving seed and instead buy

certified seed " , because of the increased risk of GM impurity for seeds

that have been exposed to field contamination. The study predicts that

smaller

farms would face relatively higher costs compared to larger entities,

and that cultivation of GM and non-GM crops in the same farm " might be

an unrealistic scenario, even for larger farms " .

 

The main specific findings of the report were:

 

*Commercialisation of GE oilseed rape and maize and to a lesser extent

potatoes will increase costs of farming for conventional and organic

farmers at a range between 10 and 41 per cent of farm prices for oilseed

rape and between one and nine percent for maize and potatoes.

 

*Coexistence of GE farming and organic farming would be actually

impossible in many cases.

 

*Generally, coexistence would only be possible with massive changes in

farming practices, especially for conventional farmers; it would also

require co-operation between farmers in a region and the willingness of

all farmers concerned to participate in such co-operation; it is not

clear who would implement these changes, who would be responsible for

controlling their correct implementation, who would shoulder their costs.

 

*Seed and crop purity from GE at a detection level of 0.1 percent would

be virtually impossible in most cases, i.e. all products and seeds of

oilseed rape and maize would be contaminated with GE to a certain

extent.

 

The study, based on a combination of computer modelling and expert

opinion, analysed the consequences of an increase in the share of GE

crops.

It focused on the three crops of which GE varieties are currently

available: oilseed rape for seed production, maize for feed production

and

potatoes for consumption. The study covered several farm types, both

organic and conventional farming. It also considered three different

threshold levels for genetic contamination: 0.1 percent

(analytical detection level) for all the three crops, 0.3 percent for

oilseed rape and 1 percent for maize and potatoes.

 

(2) The full text of the following related press released may be

downloaded from

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/coexistence/mcsweeney1.pdf:

 

*EU Suppresses Study Showing Genetically Engineered Crops Add High

Costs For All Farmers And Threaten Organic (Greenpeace press release, 16

May 2002).

 

*EU: Genetically Engineered Crops Raise Costs, Says Suppressed Study:

Environmental News Service, 21 May 2002.

 

*Suppressed EC Study Shows GE Crops Will Be Costly For All: Third World

Network press

release, 16 May 2002.

 

(3) In 2000 the Government's Interdepartmental Group on Biotechnology

recommended a thorough investigation of the health risks of GM foods.

But in October 2005 in response to a letter from the Irish Doctors'

Environmental Association, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland stated

that

neither it nor the European Commission have any plans to identify

possible adverse health impacts from these foods on the human population.

 

The report of the Interdepartmental Group on Modern Biotechnology,

published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, October

2000, states:

 

" We recommend that independent generic research (not limited to any

particular product) be conducted in this country into all aspects of GMOs

including human health and safety, animal feed and live crops, and the

effects of GMOs on the environment, including wildlife and

biodiversity, having regard to our distinctive climate and geological

conditions. "

 

Letter from Dr. Pat O'Mahoney, Chief Biotechnology Specialist, Food

Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) to Dr. Elizabeth Cullen, Irish

Doctors'

Environmental Association, 8 August 2005: " In response to your recent

letter, I can inform you that neither the Food Safety Authority of

Ireland, nor the European Commission, as far as I am aware, have any

immediate plans to implement surveillance activity to identify possible

adverse health impacts on the human population from genetically

engineered

foods. "

 

(4) For example, the official UK government advisors on GM foods and

feeds - ACRE and ACAF - have said that they are not satisfied with the

explanation that Monsanto has provided for the observed increased liver

weight in rats fed on its genetically modified oilseed rape GT73, which

can now be legally imported in all EU member states. ACRE and ACAF are

are not convinced by EFSA's assurance that GT73 ''is as safe as

conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals, and in the

context of the proposed uses, for the environment.'' ACAF says it can

only draw such conclusion " on receipt of satisfactory data from a

further rat-feeding study using 15 per cent oilseed rape meal. "

Source: Statement by Mr. Elliot Morely, UK Minister for the Environment

and Agri-Environment. In: minutes of the UK's European Standing

Committee A, Tuesday 2 November 2004.

 

Greenpeace wrote several letters to national authorities to get hold of

the Monsanto data on GT73. After Greenpeace won a court case allowing

it access to Monsanto's confidential data of feeding trials with GM

maize in June 2005, it was expected that the data on the feeding trials

with GT73 would be made public; but so far the documents have not been

published. Contrary to EU law German officials explicitly refuse

access to

the data. Greenpeace is awaiting a reaction from the government of the

Netherlands, where Monsanto originally filed the data.

 

(5) http://www.corporatewatch.org

 

(6) At a Dail Debate on GT73 in December 2004, the Food Safety

Authority of Ireland admitted that it does not have the capacity to

conduct GMO

risk assessments, and that it depends on what it is told by the

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Transcript of the Dail Debate:

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/downloads/GMO-24november2004.pdf

 

But the EFSA has itself been widely criticized for failing to conduct

comprehensive studies of the health risks of GM foods, and for relying

on the risk assessments provided by Monsanto and the other biotech

companies it is supposed to regulate. On 6 October, consumer,

environmental

and health groups across the EU challenged the European Food Safety

Authority to fulfil its legal obligations to take into regard the long

term safety and scientific uncertainties of GM foods, to review it

scientific panels to make them impartial and independent from

industry, and to

improve its transparency.

See:

http://www.efsa.eu.int/stakeholder_stakeholder_consultative_platform

 

Ten demands for the reform of the EFSA are supported by the European

Public Health Alliance, Eurocoop, the European Environmental Bureau,

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The demands can be downloaded from:

http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2005/EFSA_stakeholders_challenge.pdf

 

In November 2004 Friends of the Earth published " Throwing caution to

the wind " , a detailed critique of the EFSA and its work on GM foods. The

report can be downloaded here:

http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

[ENDS]

 

 

-------------------------