from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all:
Truth has triumphed over spin on several gratifying occasions this week. First, the Western Australian government has decided to fund food safety tests on GM canola. If the testing goes ahead, it will probably be the first attempt at an independent study funded by government since the British government funded Dr Pusztai's experiments (FOOD SAFETY).
Second, the Swiss people have voted to ban the cultivation of GMOs for five years (EUROPE). Third, the Indian government has finally admitted to the failure of Bt cotton in two states after maintaining an ostrich-like blindness for years (ASIA). And fourth, in response to a complaint from SpinWatch, Reuters has corrected a misleading report on GM in Africa which failed to point out the corporate affiliations of Monsanto-trained lobbyist Florence Wambugu. (LOBBYWATCH).
Claire This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
ASIA
EUROPE
LOBBYWATCH
AFRICA
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK - SOUTH AFRICA
------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
------------------------------------------------------------
+ PLAYING WITH OUR FOOD - SUPERB ARTICLE
An article with the above title by Pat Howard, associate professor of communication at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, looks at the damning evidence of harm caused by GM foods.
EXCERPT:
[In the Pusztai/Ewen study] After only 10 days, a significant number of the rats that ate the GM potatoes showed signs of arrested development of their livers, testicles, and brains. Some suffered damage to the thymus and spleen, which are both crucial to immune system function. The rats' white blood cells also appeared to have been affected. The cells lining their stomachs and intestines had begun to proliferate and undergo structural change, an ominous sign of the possibility of an increased risk of cancer. The feeding continued for 110 days, the equivalent of the first 10 years of a child's life.
... How do genetic engineers manage to get foreign DNA into the genome of a host plant and enable the plant to utilize it to produce proteins that confer the ability to tolerate a particular herbicide or antibiotic, or to kill insect pests? The fact is that they exploit the infectious capacities of viruses and bacteria. One commonly used vector is a soil bacterium, a plant pathogen that causes galls or tumours. Only the DNA coding for proteins involved in inducing tumours is used...
... We are part of one enormous feeding experiment in which none of us have given informed consent.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6005
+ NEW EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GM FOOD TRIGGERS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE BAN
EXCERPT from excellent press release from GM free Cymru:
Three new studies of the health effects of GM foods have triggered fresh demands for GM components in human food and animal feed to be banned immediately, and have also led to accusations of criminal negligence aimed at the UK Government and European Commission.
The first of the studies, conducted by Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, showed that an astounding 55% of the offspring of rats fed on GM soya died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control group. The second, conducted by Manuela Malatesta and colleagues in the Universities of Pavia and Urbino in Italy, showed that mice fed on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism and modifications to liver and pancreas. And the third study, conducted by CSIRO in Australia, showed that the introduction of genes from a bean variety into a GM pea led to the creation of a novel protein which caused inflammation of the lung tissue of mice. So serious was the damage that the research was halted, and stocks of the GM pea have been destroyed. The developers have now made a commitment that the "rogue" variety will never be marketed.
These studies, all revealed in the scientific literature within the past few weeks, have caused widespread alarm throughout the world, since two of them suggest that GM soya (used in a large number of foods) might be very dangerous, and since they appear to confirm the findings of Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Stanley Ewen, whose paper on physiological changes in rats fed on GM potatoes caused a worldwide sensation in 1999.
...Responding to the three new GM studies, and to the avalanche of new work demonstrating that GM foods are actually harmful to human beings and other animals, Dr Michael Antoniou said: "If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the development, endorsement and marketing GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials."
More, and detailed references, at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5989
+ INDEPENDENT TESTS ON GM CANOLA
Genetically modified canola varieties Roundup Ready and Invigor are likely to be assessed under an animal feeding trial to be funded by the Australian state government. Topas 19/2, the Bayer GM variety found in non-GM canola recently, may also be added to the trial.
Agriculture Minister Kim Chance anounced the trial earlier this week, which aims to gain independent data on the safety, or otherwise, of GM food crops.
The government has approved a proposal from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, a not-for-profit research institute. The announcement follows news that a study on a variety of GM pea caused inflammation of the lungs of mice.
IHER director Judy Carman told Countryman that in the initial proposal put to the Government a few months ago, she had recommended two canola varieties - Monsanto's Roundup Ready and Bayer Cropscience's InVigor - and three corn varieties, probably Bt varieties, be investigated. But Dr Carman said she would recommend that now be expanded to three varieties to include Topas 19/2 canola, also produced by Bayer Cropscience.
The study will examine the rats for cancerous or precancerous growths, and assess the potential for GM DNA to enter their bodies.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6009
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5994
GM WATCH comment: The importance of this new research can't be overstated. This may be the first time independent health testing on a GM product has been funded in this way since the British government (via the Scottish Office) funded Dr Pusztai's research.
------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------
+ A DISASTER CALLED BT COTTON - TIMES OF INDIA
The Times of India has published a useful summary by Suman Sahai of the Bt cotton debacle.
Here's an excerpt: "Two days ago the government admitted for the first time that Bt cotton had indeed failed in parts of India. The Agriculture Minister conceded in the Rajya Sabha that Bt cotton had failed in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. He asked state governments in all cotton growing regions to institute an enquiry into the quality of seeds available to farmers and the spread of spurious seeds. At the same time, in Madhya Pradesh, the Governor has asked the state government to find out the causes of the failure of Bt cotton and called for compensation to farmers. The Mahyco-Monsanto and Rasi varieties of Bt cotton have reportedly failed in large parts of Madhya Pradesh causing serious losses to farmers. A report from Nimad district in Madhya Pradesh states that Bt cotton is causing allergic reactions in those coming into contact with it and cattle have perished near Bt cotton fields in another district."
Suman Sahai also points out in the article that Monsanto and its supporters are trying to exploit the failure of existing Bt cotton to push a new two-gene Bt cotton, claiming it is "ten times better"!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6008
+ DEBATE RAGES OVER BT COTTON - INDIAN TV REPORT
A report for NDTV (India) says that in Vidharbha's cotton fields, a row is raging over Bt cotton.
EXCERPTS:
Farmers like Marutrao Admane bought and planted Bt cotton after the cotton department aggressively promoted it, but pests infested their crop.
When Admane called the seed company, they asked him to spray pesticides, but that didn't help either. "The bollworm still attacked the plants. The flowers fell twice, first during Pola festival and then after the unseasonal rains," he said.
... as farmers' suicides cross the 180 mark this year, the debate is getting more and more explosive.
Desperate to reduce some of their debt burden, farmers opted for the Bt cotton variety this time. But they hardly hope to get even 1/4th of their crop.
...[Bt] seed is about four times more expensive than the normal cotton seed
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6003
+ INDIAN GOVT ADMITS FAILURE OF BT COTTON
More on this topic:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5993
+ GOVERNOR ASKS STATE TO INVESTIGATE BT FAILURE
More on how the governor of Madhya Pradesh, Balram Jakhar, has asked the state government to find out the reasons for the failure of Bt cotton. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5993
+ GREENPEACE SEEKS TOTAL BAN ON GM TRIALS IN INDIA
Greenpeace has demanded a ban on all field trials of GM food crops aimed at preventing them from entering the food chains in the country and also unveiled the 'biohazard hotspots map' of India revealing the shocking scale of field trials of GM food crops. The map, a result of Greenpeace investigations, revealed that 21 vegetables including brinjal, cabbage, tomato, cereals including kabuli channa and pigeon peas and fruits like banana, musk melon and water melon are being genetically engineered in at least 26 institutions in 16 cities, she added.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6000
+ GREENPEACE FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST MONSANTO'S "MISLEADING" AD
In New Delhi, Greenpeace and its local partner, Pasumai Thaayagam (Green Motherland), have filed a complaint with the ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) against an ad campaign by seeds company Mahyco Monsanto Biotech, alleging it to be misleading.
They had published an ad titled, 'True Stories of Farmers who have Grown Bt Cotton', in the monthly Tamil magazine, 'Indraya Velaanmai'. The ad showed a farmer standing in front of a tractor. The message conveyed to other farmers was that if a farmer sows Bt cotton, he will be able to afford assets such as a tractor, lorry, etc. But the farmer says he was approached by a company representative and told that if he registered for a contest, he might win a ticket to Mumbai. He was asked to pose for a photograph in front of a tractor, which he had purchased on a loan, and was not informed what his photograph would be used for.
Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace said, "It is unethical for any company to take the route of misleading advertising to reach its target customers. The impact magnifies when the difference is between a lifestyle product and a product that is the base of a livelihood. In the case of Bt cotton, misleading advertising can lead a farmer to the brink of poverty and, sometimes, drive him to commit suicide. In such cases, ethics in advertising becomes of grave concern."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5995
+ MORE ON BAYER, MONSANTO, SYNGENTA CAUSING CHILD LABOUR IN INDIA
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5998
+ CHINA COMMITTEE NOT RECOMMENDING GM RICE
A Chinese government committee has failed to reach a consensus on the safety of GM rice, putting off the world's first large-scale production of the transgenic grain for human consumption.
Committee members said the biosafety committee was asking for more data to prove the safety of GM rice before recommending that Beijing approve its use. Said Lu Baorong of Shanghai Fudan University, who is one of 74 members of the committee, "Next year, if they provide sufficient safety information, we will assess again."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5999
------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------
+ GM OPPOSITION DAY 2006
A worldwide event is to be held on 8th of April 2006, with the twofold aim of informing people and demonstrating the united front of concerned organizations against GMOs (both crops and food).
http://altercampagne.free.fr/
+ SWISS BACK GM MORATORIUM
Switzerland has voted in favour of a 5-year moratorium for commercial cultivation of GM plants and animals on 27 November. The moratorium does not apply for research into GMOs, nor does it stop import of GMO-food or feed.
Campaigners hailed the vote as "a spectacular victory": 55.7% of voters accepted the initiative (people's referendum), as well as all 26 cantons of Switzerland. Even Basel, seat of Syngenta, Novartis and Roche, said Yes to the 5-year moratorium, with 50.8%, while the canton Jura had with 75.9% the highest majority.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6001
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5991
+ GIVE US THE RIGHT TO BAN GM FOODS!
Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on EU environment ministers to allow European countries to ban GM foods and crops, similar to the example of Switzerland.
Helen Holder, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Swiss people are allowed to ban genetically modified food and agriculture, so why can't the rest of us? Virtually no-one in the EU wants GM food, and EU Ministers tomorrow should give Regions and citizens the right to ban these foods. The EU regulatory framework for GMOs is neither democratic nor transparent and the risk assessment does not fulfill legal requirements."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6011
+ AUSTRIA TO LAUNCH EU-WIDE GM DEBATE AFTER SWISS REFERENDUM
Austria is planning to hold a pan-European debate about GM crops, following the Swiss vote for a five-year ban. Vienna will take over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in January and aims to host a conference about GM crops on 4-5 April, the country's agriculture minister Josef Proell has announced.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5997
+ GM CROPS HIGHLY DANGEROUS, WARN AUSTRIAN CAMPAIGNERS
GM crops have the potential to wreak economic havoc on farmers, Austrian campaigners said, warning that the development was the "biggest danger of our time".
One day after a Swiss referendum in which 55 percent of people voted against planting GMOs, Austrian campaigners insisted the rejection rate would have been 70 percent in Austria. "But we're not allowed to vote," protested biological farmers' spokesman Volker Helldorff. "The European Union is forcing us to use gene technology - against the will of the population," he added.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5996
+ 2ND EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON GMO FREE REGIONS
CHECK IT OUT: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/conference-2006/programme.html
+ CONFERNCE - SAFEGUARDING SUSTAINABLE AG
The proceedings of A Conference held in May 2005 by the Assembly of European Regions and Friends of the Earth Europe are now available:
http://www.gmofree-conference.org/Proceedings.htm
+ DENMARK TO TAX FARMERS OF GM CROPS
According to New Scientist, Denmark last week became the first country in Europe to tax farmers who grow GM crops. The money collected will be used to compensate organic or conventional farmers who can't sell produce at its usual price because of contamination from a GM farm nearby. Crops with a GM content above 0.9 per cent cannot be labelled GM free.
"What's good is that the GM farmers are paying, otherwise they'd have no incentive to prevent contamination happening," says Gundula Azeez of the Soil Association, which represents organic farmers in the UK. "It's based on the polluter-pays principle."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6006
+ PUSZTAI REPLIES TO AMMANN
The Syngenta-backed website CheckBiotech has published an article by the well-known Swiss biotechnology supporter, Dr Klaus Ammann, as part of the Swiss debate over the moratorium.
According to CheckBiotech, Ammann, is "calling on heavy scientific ammunition" to attack those supporting the moratorium. Quite a bit of that "ammunition" is aimed at Dr Arpad Pusztai, amongst others, under headings such as "Hysteria without reason".
In reply, Dr Pusztai provides an interesting summary of the multiple health problems that scientific research indicates arise from GM crops. In reponse to Ammann's claim that "all [studies on GM foods] convey the same message: genetically modified foods are harmless", Dr Pusztai writes (EXCERPT):
"As it so happens, I know the scientific literature reasonably well and studied in detail most of the 19 major papers published between 1996 and mid-2004 on the health aspects of GM crops/foods. Indeed, in the last six years we have written three major reviews of the potential health effects of GM crops/foods. In fact, the last one has just been published. Obviously, Dr Amman and I must have read different papers because with the exception of a few papers written by industry-funded scientists I could not find the message in them that 'genetically modified foods are harmless'. If he reads our reviews and has the open mind of a true scientist, he will see what I mean..."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ NEW MONSANTO WEBSITE WITH FARMERS PUNTING GM CROPS
A new multimedia Web site, "Conversations about Plant Biotechnology" at www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo, claims to offer discussions taking place among farmers on the impact of GM crops. The site features video clips with farmers from countries including India, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, the Philippines and the United States. These farmers discuss the benefits that biotech crops have had on their farms, families, communities and the environment.
GM WATCH comment:
Given Monsanto's long history of manufacturing farmer support and making fake claims about its products "successes" for farmers, it's worth checking out any of the farmers from your part of the world who are quoted on Monsanto's new website expressing their support for GMOs.
Here's a reminder some classic examples of manufactured biotech support:
***GROOMED BY MONSANTO
The development expert Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, has reported on Monsanto's use of South African farmers on a global basis for PR purposes:
'these "representative farmers" read statements carefully scripted by Monsanto.. These [relatively well-to-do and unrepresentative] South African farmers - whom representatives of Monsanto and other businesses call "basically representative farmers" and "representatives of the African smallholding community" - are plucked from South Africa, wined and dined, and given scripted statements about the benefits of GM'
***FAKE FARMERS
A recent report on the promotion of GM cotton in India revealed:
'Posters appeared in many places in Madhya Pradesh before sowing time, featuring a person who claimed to have gained great benefits from using Bt Cotton seed. These advertisements urged other farmers to benefit similarly from the use of Bt Cotton.
Investigations revealed that this "farmer" was actually a paan dabbahwala (a vendor of betel leaves and cigarettes) who is not even a farmer, let alone a Bt Cotton farmer.'
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6002
+ SCHUBERT RESPONDS TO BRADFORD
Prof David Schubert of the Salk Institute, California has responded once again to Bradford et al who have been arguing in the journal Nature Biotechnology that the regulation of GM food crops should be reduced or eliminated, based upon the assumption that the products of genetic engineering are no different than those produced by classical plant breeding.
EXCERPTS:
I, and hundreds before me, pointed out that [the claim that GM plants are no different from classically bred plants] is unambiguously not the case. I used specific references to show that many of their statements were misrepresentations of scientific fact. In their reply to my comments they used several new rhetorical techniques in addition to the standard ones such as taking statements out of context and misquoting sources. Of greatest concern is the new lexicon that has been evolving in the plant biotechnology industry over the last decade...
... An excellent book entitled "Genetically Modified Language", written by a linguist, Guy Cook, shows how the plant biotechnology community is misusing language to promote themselves (Cook, 2005)... examples of "genetically modified language" are abundant in the rebuttal by Bradford et al. of my critique.
... Perhaps the most curious aspect of all is that plant biotechnology is complaining about a regulatory system that was written by their lawyers (Eichenwald et al., 2001) and at least with respect to the FDA is voluntary and lacks safety testing requirements altogether (Gurian-Sherman, 2003; Freese & Schubert, 2004). Although they have what they asked for, they are still complaining about it.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6010
+ SPINWATCH CONGRATULATES REUTERS FOR CORRECTIONS TO REPORTING OF GM LOBBY
Reuters, the influential news agency whose wire service stories appear in print, broadcast and web media outlets, has made important corrections to an article on GMOs in Africa, following a complaint from SpinWatch, a public interest organisation that monitors PR and spin.
The article, originally published in October under the headline "Africa seen accepting GMO crops more in future", has now been republished by Reuters with a new headline and changes that are intended to clarify the affiliations of the source of the story - Dr Florence Wambugu and her lobby group Africa Harvest.
The original article reported "a Kenyan biotech expert" as seeing greater acceptance of GMOs emerging in Africa as a result of "homegrown" African GM projects. Resistance to GM in Africa was attributed by the "biotech expert" to the involvement of foreign corporations. The main example given of a "homegrown" project was a GM sorghum project that Dr Wambugu and her Africa Harvest group were developing with various collaborators.
The article as republished by Reuters makes clear that the views that are described are not those of a neutral expert but those of a "GMO advocate" who "promotes biotechnology". It also no longer describes Africa Harvest as a "non-governmental organisation" and it makes plain the organisation's collaboration with a subsidary of the American GM giant DuPont.
Says Prof David Miller, co-founder of SpinWatch, "Wambugu's spin in the original article about 'homegrown' African GM projects, as opposed to ones driven by foreign corporations, appears suspect once one knows the real affiliations of those involved. The GM sorghum project is unimaginable without DuPont's multi-million dollar involvement and yet their involvement was not even mentioned in the original article."
Richard Mably, Reuters' Editor for Commodities and Energy, has thanked Prof Miller for helping Reuters "meet the highest standards of objectivity". He also told Prof Miller that, "as you point out, our story does not make clear those affiliations so we have corrected the story to all our services and removed the previous version from our databases."
Prof Miller congratulated Reuters on having the courage to admit the problem and on acting to remedy it.
SpinWatch has been tracking Wambugu and Africa Harvest for some time and has built up a profile on how their misleading statements and how they hide their affiliations.
Complaints about Dr Wambugu's media work are not new. In July 2003 Rankin McKay wrote in Australia's Herald Sun newspaper, "is it too cynical to suggest that having a black African as the face of a multinational chemical company is a spin doctor's dream? This seems to have lobotomised some journalists who have treated her views like the tablets from the Mount." Academic researchers have also challenged many of Dr Wambugu's statements in support of biotechnology, arguing that the scientific evidence often shows them to be the exact opposite of the real facts.
More, and detailed references, at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ SCIENTISTS, OTHERS CAUTION AGAINST BIOTECH IN AFRICA
On 29 November a workshop was organized by IITA, USAID and the government biotech agencies in Akure, Nigeria. The purpose was to sell agricultural biotechnology to the local people and government officials. They hyped GM maize in Kenya (Syngenta Foundation's GM maize to withstand stem borers) and Monsanto's Bt cotton in South Africa as positive developments.
Environmental Rights Action (ERA) activists were on hand to debunk these myths and to present an alternative viewpoint. At the end of their own one-day workshop, participants concerned about GMOs drawn from Nigeria, Cameroun, Ghana and Togo called for a moratorium on the introduction of GMOs in Nigeria until effective legislative, administrative and infrastrctural framework for the regulation of modern biotechnology was put in place.
In a statement the participants expressed worry over the potential health and environmental hazards associated with modern biotechnology products and non-availability of evidence-based science to allay those fears.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ ACTION ALERT: Complaint v Monsanto South Africa to Competition Commission
The African Centre for Biosafety has prepared a standard letter of complaint to the South African Competition Commission against Monsanto South Africa. The complaint is that Monsanto is conducting itself in a manner that negatively affects competition in terms of the Competition Act by its practise of obliging farmers to purchase only Monsanto's herbicide (Roundp) on its genetically modified (GM) seed products.
The African Centre for Biosafety argues in the complaint letter that this amounts to a vertical practise or abuse of dominance as contemplated in the Competition Act, and thereby justifes investigation by the Competition Commission.
If you wish to support this initiative and view this letter, please go to
http://www.gmwatch.org/proemail1.asp?id=8
All you have to do is type in your name, your email address and press send, and the letter will automatically be sent to the Competition Commission.