Although originally written 5 years ago, Robert Vint's piece below continues to be remarkably relevant, not least given the current G8 meeting where Bush is happy to promote an agenda that includes GMOs but seems intractably opposed to taking any meaningful action on climate chgange.

One point to add is that there are many others who could be added to Robert's list of GM advocates and climate change attackers. For instance, in the UK, obvious candidates include the Scientific Alliance and the various lobby groups associated with, on the one hand, Julian Morris and Roger Bate, and, on the other, the LM network. [details at ]

In the US, an obvious addition would be Monsanto's "corporate partner", the Congress of Racial Equality, who as well as taking money from Monsanto get big bucks from ExxonMobil to attack action on climate change.

An interesting point, of course, is that when it comes to GM crops these lobbyists accuse their critics of not kow towing to what they claim is the scientific consensus. When it comes to climate change, they reverse this and attack people as cowardly for not daring to challenge the scientific consensus.


Subscribers to Dr C.S.Prakash's pro-biotech 'AgBioView' email list will be familiar with the names of some of the key global promoters of GM food and crops, most of whom are based in the USA, such as those named below. [website at ]

Interestingly they all have websites that not only defend GM food but also attack the Kyoto Treaty on global warming:

1. Philip Stott, ProBiotech (Organiser of the UK 'Seeds of Opportunity Conference' in May)

2. Steven J. Milloy, Citizens for the Integrity of Science and

3. Alex Avery, Center for Global Food Issues & his father, Dennis Avery, The Hudson Institute

4. Frances B Smith, Consumer Alert (A "consumer" group opposing consumer safety and rights)

5. Gregory Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute [who co-founded Prakash's AgBioWorld campaign]

6. John Carlisle, National Center for Public Policy Research

How, one might ask, are GM and CO2 connected - other than that they both have implications for the regulation of big business? Is it possible that these people are called in whenever such businesses run into trouble? The issues addressed on these websites do suggest this:

1,2,3,4,5,6 oppose the Kyoto treaty and CO2 emission regulations

1,2,3,4,5,6 oppose organic farming & labels [Alex & Dennis Avery are the leading opponents of organic farming]

1,2,5,6 oppose concern about rainforest destruction.

2,5,6 oppose tobacco taxes & regulation. [Milloy is a former tobacco industry lobbyist and CEI is tobacco industry funded]

2,6 oppose gun control laws

Stephen Milloy (2) is a former tobacco industry lobbyist as well as a former executive director of TASSC, a front organisation created by tobacco giant Philip Morris. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (5) and Consumer Alert (4) are also recipients of Big Tobacco funding. [PRWatch investigates 'No More Scares' ] The Hudson Institute (3) which opposes organic farming and pesticide regulation, is biotech industry funded. (Donors include: AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca).

These groups are closely linked to one another (see their link pages and two fake 'consumer' alliances that they have jointly created: National Consumer

Coalition and International Consumers for a Civil Society ) They share a common philosophy that generally includes:

a. Support for unregulated global free trade and the World Trade Organisation.

b. Opposition to environmental, gun, health and safety, and food labelling regulations and to the Precautionary Principle.

c. Denial of environmental problems such as global warming, rainforest destruction, DDT and agrochemicals.

d. Support for the oil and nuclear industries and for the unregulated use of fossil fuels.

e. Support of biotechnology and transnational corporations.

f. Belief that environmental and safety concerns as mere marketing stunts by organic and green businesses.


1. Philip Stott, ProBiotech:
*Hot Air + Flawed Science = Dangerous Emissions
*Tropical Rain Forests: Exposing the Myths (click on 'rainforest' left link) "Over the years, a series of 'little green lies' has been insidiously applied to tropical rain forests with the aim of persuading Governments, and all of us, that we do not simply 'like' or 'want' to keep these forests, but that we 'need' them scientifically for sound ecology "
*Critical 'Global Warming' Reports (click on 'Climate 3' left link)

2. Steven J. Milloy, Citizens for the Integrity of Science:
*Gun Control Science Misfires,2933,7217,00.html
*Organic Industry Groups Spread Fear for Profit
*100 things you should know about DDT
*Biotech foods

3. Alex Avery, Center for Global Food Issues & Dennis Avery, The Hudson Institute:
*American Outlook Contradicts Environmentalists on the Effects of "Global Warming"
*Global Warming-Boon for Mankind?
*The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food
*New Organic Food Standards Could Use Warning Labels
*Another Dubious Link Between Pesticides And Cancer
*Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic

4. Frances B Smith, Consumer Alert:
*Consumer group relieved at announcement on CO2
*The Biosafety Protocol: The Real Losers Are Developing Countries [PDF]

5. Gregory Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute:
*Organic Food Standards May Violate First Amendment
*"Precautionary Principle" Stalls Advances in Food Technology
*CEI Applauds End of US Support for Kyoto Protocol
*The Costs of Kyoto
*Public Interest Group Hails Supreme Court Snuff-Out of FDA Tobacco Regs

6. John Carlisle, National Center for Public Policy Research:
*U.S.D.A. Organic Food Labels Are Misleading - 5/00
*Biotechnology: Putting an End to World Hunger - June 2000
*Bush Must Kill Kyoto Global Warming Treaty & Stop Congressional Efforts to Regulate CO2
*The Federal Tobacco Lawsuit is Bad Economics, Bad Law & Bad Governing

April 2001