GMWatch News Review archive

------------------------------------------------------------
from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH guest editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all

Welcome to WW36 bringing you the latest news in brief on the GM issue. Please circulate widely!

Apologies, by the way, to anyone who has written to me in recent months at the email address This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and not received a reply. I thought you'd all suddenly gone quiet but it turns out I haven't been receiving emails sent to this address. While we try to find out what's gone wrong, please feel free to re-send any emails to me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Thank you for your patience!

Claire
www.ngin.org.uk

------------------------------------------------------------
WEEKLY WATCH number 36 - CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
SETBACKS TO THE GM LOBBY
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK
TOPIC OF THE WEEK 
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
FACTS OF THE WEEK
HEADLINES OF THE WEEK
SUBSCRIPTIONS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SETBACKS TO THE GM LOBBY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*MONSANTO'S ROUNDUP MAY ENCOURAGE BLIGHT - NEW SCIENTIST* Evidence builds that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, may be linked to a devastating toxic fungal disease that has caused tens of millions of dollars of losses for wheat growers in the eastern Prairies in recent years.

New Scientist reports that laboratory studies by scientists working for the Canadian government show glyphosate increases the risk of the fungal infection fusarium, which can kill humans and animals. If the studies are confirmed by field studies, farmers might be advised to use it less. That could be a major blow for backers of GM wheat in Canada, because the first GM variety up for approval in Canada is modified to be glyphosate-resistant. If it gets the go-ahead, there is likely to be an overall increase in glyphosate use.

- New Scientist, 16 August 2003
Read the complete article at:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1286
See also, 'Scientists eye glyphosate-fusarium link'.
http://www.producer.com/articles/20030703/production/20030703prod02.html

*CONSUMERS WILLING TO PAY BIG NON-GM PREMIUMS - MULTIPLE COUNTRY STUDY*
A study by The Ohio State University; Agricultural University of Norway; University of Tsukuba, Japan; and Academia Sinica, Taiwan shows consumers are willing to pay substantial premiums for non-GM foods (vegetable oil and salmon were the examples used in the syrveys) in order to avoid GM counterparts. These premiums may exceed 50% of the discounted prices of GM foods. American consumers also showed strong support for mandatory labeling of GM foods. The researchers say, "This finding is useful for the producers and manufacturers of GM foods for assessing their potential markets."
Full paper: http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n3/v5n3a05-chern.htm

*CATHOLIC BISHOPS SPEAK OUT AGAINST GM*
The US/Monsanto lobby of the Vatican and its good friend, Italian Archbishop Renato Martino, are reported to be trying to extract a statement of support for GM crops from the Vatican and the blessing of the Pope.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1285

But the Martino lobby is meeting stiff opposition from Catholic clergy especially in the developing world:
 
...POOR NATIONS ARE BETTER OFF WITHOUT GM...
Catholic clerics working in the developing world reacted angrily to Martino's words. Father Giulio Albanese, head of the missionary news agency, MISNA, described them as a "provocation". In a statement, Fr Albanese said GM seeds "cannot but accentuate the dependence of the poor nations on the rich ones."

... AFRICAN BISHOPS DON'T WANT IT ...
Opposition to GM technology is growing rapidly within the Catholic church. "We do not believe that agro-companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century," said bishops from Botswana, South Africa and Swaziland in a statement.

The bishops said it was morally irresponsible to produce GM food and warned of damage to the environment and human health. "We think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems and that it will undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."

... NEITHER DO PHILIPPINE BISHOPS...
In the Philippines, the Catholic Bishops Conference has urged the government to postpone the authorisation of GM corn until comprehensive studies have been made. "We have to be careful, because once it is there, how can we remedy its consequences?" said Cardinal Rocardo Vidal.

... NOR BRAZILIAN BISHOPS
The Bishops of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB in Portuguese), accompanied by the Pastoral Land Commission Brazilian bishops, have written to the President of the House, Joao Paulo Cunha, describing the damage to health caused by GM foods. They call attention also to the loss of food sovereignty implied by the use of GM seeds.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1259

IS MARTINO FEELING THE HEAT FROM THE BISHOPS?
More recently, however, Archbishop Martino has contradicted reports that Vatican authorities were working on a policy paper that would support the use of GM crops. He stated that the Vatican is simply planning to convene a round-table discussion in the fall to study the ethical and scientific implications of using GM crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1284

Guardian journalist John Vidal predicts that this is the issue that will split the Catholic church. Read his article co-written with the Guardian's Rome correspondent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1018256,00.html

For Catholic voices opposing GM from around the world:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1245
For the background:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1241

*BIOTECH INDUSTRY BASED ON 40-YEAR-OLD SCIENCE*
GRAIN has reprinted an article, "Unravelling the DNA myth", by Barry Commoner in which he points out that the Human Genome Project only identified 1/3 of the genes it would theoretically require to generate the number of proteins in the human body if a single gene encoded the amino acid sequence of a single protein.

In other words, we now know that there is not a one to one equivalence between genes and proteins which means GE is far more complicated than has ever been assumed (i.e. one cannot just insert a transgene and have a precisely predictable effect).

Commoner writes, "the biotechnology industry is based on science that is forty years old and conveniently devoid of more recent results, which show that there are strong reasons to fear the potential consequences of transferring a DNA gene between species."

The full article is at:
http://www.grain.org/seedling/seed-03-07-2-en.cfm

*PHILIPPINES TRIBESMEN BLAME BT CORN FOR ILLNESS*
More than 100 tribesmen turned themselves in for a medical examination after they were hit by illnesses allegedly caused by Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn planted in their village. The Justice and Peace Desk of the Diocese of Marbel mobilized the medical mission after receiving health complaints from 50 B'laan residents of Kalyong, arising allegedly from reactions caused by the flowering of the Bt corn produced by seed-giant Monsanto.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1284

------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
*ROYAL SOCIETY DUST OFF THEIR BOVVER BOOTS - AGAIN!* The Royal Society has announced an inquiry into "whether the public is being dangerously misled by the way new research is carried out and publicised". An article in the Guardian says, "The initiative stems from growing anxiety over complaints about unreliable research findings which are given huge media coverage."

But this inquiry was already being touted to the press back in January, in terms that made all too clear the RS's intent - the headline in The Independent was "Scientists blame media and fraud for fall in public trust" - and which explicitly tied the inquiry into concerns about the GM debate in particular.

The RS has also been coordinating their work with a parallel inquiry run by a lobby group called Sense about Science, in which senior Fellows of the RS and well known GM supporters are very much to the fore - see Strange Bedfellows, http://ngin.tripod.com/190303d.htm.

We asked journalist Andy Rowell, author of DON'T WORRY IT IS SAFE TO EAT, for his comments (below).

Incidentally, the "consumer representative" that Andy refers to, Nick Partridge, has been a controversial figure within the gay community over his highly-paid role at the Terrence Higgins Trust and, in particular, THT's perceived over-cosiness with the drug company Wellcome. Another source of disquiet has been Partridge's cosiness with parts of the medical establishment and his involvement in what some have labelled "Gay McCarthyism" - the hounding of those with views not regarded as medically orthodox (see Dirty Medicine: Science, big business and the assault on natural health care, Martin J Walker, 1993).

- ROWELL ON RS LATEST

...Rather than being a genuine critique of peer review, the danger is that the Working Party will represent a hatchet job by the RS on its critics, once again attacking scientists who have been critical of GM and other technologies.

When the Independent first wrote about the story in January, the article said the RS would examine the work of both Pusztai and Chapela and Quist. From today's Guardian it seems the review will definitely attack Pusztai.

Alarm bells ring because the RS Working Group is certainly stacked with RS supporters and members of the scientific establishment, rather than being a truly representative body of all groups interested in science and peer review. The RS Press Release reads:

"A working group, chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, Vice- President of the Royal Society, and including members from the fields of consumer affairs, journalism, scientific publishing and academic and industrial science, has today issued a call for evidence to encourage submissions by the end of September about the strengths and weaknesses of current practices by researchers in communicating their results, and possible alternatives".

From this, with the emphasis implied by placing consumer affairs at the top of the list, you would expect consumer organisations to be strongly represented on the panel. Not so. Out of a panel of 14 there is just one consumer representative.

Sir Patrick Bateson FRS (Chair), Vice President, Royal Society.
Dr Phillip Campbell, Editor, Nature
Dr Linda Cummings, Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow, Dept of
Mathematics, University of Nottingham
Professor John Enderby FRS, Chair, Royal Society Publishing Board
Andrew Greene, Merlin Biosciences
Professor Paul Harvey FRS, Head, Dept of Zoology, University of Oxford
Professor Justin Lewis, School of Journalism, Cardiff University
Dr Alan McNaught, Royal Society of Chemistry
Dr Mike Owen, Senior Vice-President, GlaxoSmithKline
Nick Partridge OBE, Chair, Consumers in NHS Research
Dr Andrew Sugden, Senior Editor, Science
Professor Kathy Sykes, Professor of Public Understanding of Science and
Technology, University of Bristol
John von Radowitz, Science Correspondent, Press Association
Ms Alex Williamson, Publishing Director, BMJ Specialist Journals
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1258

- SCOTSMAN EXPOSES RS AGENDA
A piece in the Scotsman, The truth behind those mad scientist stories, crafted around comments from members of the RS Working Party, exposes the RS agenda, cleverly blending coverage of a ludicrous UFO-cult cloning story in The Sun with the MMR vaccine scare and a loose tabloid piece about the Pusztai affair - all in the name of examining science reporting by the news media as a whole!

The implication is clear - Pusztai's findings and concerns are as credible as UFO-cult cloned baby claims.

Excepts from these stories are combined with Fellow of the Royal Society and RS Working Party member Professor Paul Harvey's expert comments, such as, "This story... says Pusztai was right, when in fact he was wrong"! In classic RS fashion, Harvey tells the paper, "[Pusztai] After being immediately dumped on and nobody being able to replicate his result, this [Daily Mail] article claims that an independent panel has legitimised those spurious results."

So, in the name of a call for accurate reporting of science from the RS, we get a straightforward fabrication by a leading Fellow and member of its Working Party. Scientists didn't fail to replicate Pusztai's results - there was no attempt to replicate them, while Pusztai's own research team was closed down, preventing the continuation of the research.

And since when exactly is being "immediately dumped on" - something that the RS had more than a little to do with - a sign that a scientist's results are invalid?

Isn't science supposed to be about a careful weighing up of evidence involving a questioning, uncertain and sceptical attitude? Instead we get Harvey dismissing out of hand Pusztai's "spurious results" - results that were successfully peer reviewed and published in The Lancet.
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=888932003

*ORGANIC FOOD MAY BE BETTER FOR YOU, SAY STUDIES*
A good article in the New York Times announces the setting up by the Organic Trade Association of "the nonprofit Center for Organic Education and Promotion to finance research that could verify what small-scale research may suggest: organic food may provide greater health benefits than conventional food."

The article presents some of the existing research suggesting that organic food is healthier, including
* A recent study suggesting that the levels of certain nutrients, especially vitamin C, some minerals and some polyphenols - naturally occurring antioxidants that may help bolster the immune system - are higher in organically grown crops
* A study in the January 2003 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry which found 52 percent more vitamin C in frozen organic corn than in conventional corn, and 67 percent more in corn raised by sustainable methods - a combination of organic and conventional farming. Polyphenols were significantly higher in organic and sustainable marionberries compared to conventionally farmed ones.
* A three-year study in Italy, reported in the August 2002 issue of the same journal, found higher levels of polyphenols in organic peaches and pears, and about 8 percent more vitamin C in organic peaches.
*A study in the February 2002 European Journal of Nutrition found more salicylic acid in organic vegetable soup than in nonorganic soup. Salicylic acid is responsible for the anti-inflammatory properties of aspirin, and bolsters the immune system.
*In 2001, the Soil Association of England, which sets organic standards, asked Shane Heaton, a nutritionist, to analyse available studies on nutrient differences between organically and conventionally grown food. He looked at 99 studies and discarded 70 because they examined growers who did not use certified organic practices, did not make relevant comparisons or were of insufficient duration. He found that in 14 studies of minerals, 7 showed a "trend toward mineral contents" in organic foods, while 6 showed inconclusive or inconsistent results and 1 showed a higher mineral content for non-organics. For vitamin C, 7 of 13 studies showed significantly higher levels in organics; they ranged from 6 percent to 100 percent. Six of the studies showed inconsistent or insignificant differences.

In the article, arch-enemy of organic farming Alex Avery of the corporate-funded Hudson Institute is interviewed and attempts to debunk the studies, but thanks to a well-informed reporter, he falls flat on his face.

For example, Avery says of the differences between organic and non-organic foods found in the studies: "A number of research trials time and time again have not found any significant differences. You need very large, carefully designed and carefully controlled studies to prove that there is a difference because of large natural variability."

But the reporter is not fooled, and continues, "Pressed to be more specific, Mr. Avery whose organization has received financing from Monsanto, DowElanco and the Ag-Chem Equipment Company, which are involved in conventional agriculture and biotechnology, did not offer further criticism."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1261

*MELCHETT REPLIES TO NATURE'S ATTACK ON ORGANICS*
Here's Peter Melchett's reply to the recent Nature editorial which advanced the view that "A scientific review, farm-scale trials and extensive public consultations on genetically modified crops should pave the way for greater benefits and choice for consumers - provided that the organic movement abandons self-damaging dogmas."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1233

Dear Editor,

The organic movement will be grateful for Nature's interest in our well-being ('Diversity in food technology', Nature424, 473 (31 July 2003)), but when you urge us to abandon "self-damaging dogmas", I hope you'll forgive us for looking at your advice a little sceptically.  In practice, you are advising one of the few sectors of UK agriculture that has a real and growing market, strongly supported by consumers, to introduce a radical change in our product. You don't claim to be doing this to further the interests of organic farmers, organic food manufacturers, organic retailers or the millions of people who now consume organic food in the UK.

In your editorial you say that the Soil Association 'will resist seemingly to their dying breath the idea' that GM technology 'could be as ethical' as conventional plant breeding. Ultimately it's up to consumers, not those who grow or sell food, to make this decision. Given that people who buy non-organic food don't want GM in it, it's hardly surprising that organic consumers are even more determined that GM should be kept out of organic food. The significant areas of uncertainty described in the Government's scientific assessment of GM crops suggest that these consumers know what they're talking about. You say that our determination to keep GM out of organic is 'artificial, arbitrary and self-defeating". No doubt you would have said the same when the organic sector banned the feeding of ground-up animal remains to ruminants ten years before the discovery of BSE.

Thankfully the Government has learnt some lessons from past food disasters and, in particular, they seem willing to listen to the market and consumers in a way that the overwhelmingly pro-GM scientific establishment in the UK finds completely impossible.

The Government have promised to protect organic farming from GM contamination, in line with consumers wishes (and incidentally the EU regulation defining organic production). As you say, there is now increasing recognition of what organic farmers and environmentalists have been saying for nearly a decade: namely that co-existence of GM and organic farming may not be possible in the UK.  We shall have to make a choice.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Melchett, Policy Director, The Soil Association
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1256

*ORGANIC FARMER FIGHTS GM CONTAMINATION*
Read how Iowan farmer Laura Krouse is struggling to keep her open-pollinated organic corn free from GM contamination by such measures as preserving a 1/8 mile planting distance from nearby GM crops and timing the planting so that her crop pollinates later than the GM crop. Most of Krouse's customers are organic farmers who want to grow non-GM corn. Livestock producers, especially organic dairies, like the higher protein and oil content of many open-pollinated corn varieties.
"Genetically modified mystery",
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1256

*BRAZIL MAY LIFT GM BAN*
A federal judge has lifted a ban preventing U.S. agricultural giant Monsanto Co. from selling genetically modified soybean seeds in Brazil. Monsanto welcomed the ruling by Judge Selene Maria de Almeida, but the company's victory could be short-lived. Two other judges who serve on her appeals panel could reverse the decision, effectively putting back in place the ban approved in 2000.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1262

*US LAUNCHES CASE AGAINST EU AT WTO*
The US said it will launch its formal challenge to the EU's ban on GM foods at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). US trade representative Robert Zoellick and agriculture secretary Ann Veneman confirmed they would combat the European policy by asking the WTO to set up a dispute settlement panel. Last month the EU moderated its stance by accepting two new labelling directives on GM foods, but the US felt the new rules changed little.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1257

*NZ GOVERNMENT MUST QUIT UNETHICAL ATTACK ON EU AT WTO*
It is unethical for the New Zealand government to be backing the US administration's case against the European Union aimed at forcing consumers to accept GM foods, says campaign group GE Free NZ. "This attack on EU standards is unethical given the lack of food safety-testing and Europe's cultural values around food," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ. "Most New Zealanders share these values and want to protect the supply of GE-Free food here and overseas."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1257

------------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
FARMERS WHO GROW GM WILL END UP CORPORATE SERFS
As the UK government approaches decision-time over GM commercialisation, details are emerging of the bleak future faced by any British farmers who grow GM crops.

They will not only pay over 40-60% more for their seed but will also end up as corporate serfs.

With last year's fall in profits, and the company share price taking a hammering again - this time over possible litigation liabilities, Monsanto is struggling to regain favour in the investment community with a price hike on their GM "Roundup Ready" seed in the US. This is where the lion's share of the company's GM seed business is conducted. But there are warnings that Monsanto could face a farmer backlash.

According to a Reuters article, "Not only are some buyers reluctant to take biotech corn, farm leaders said, but use of Roundup Ready corn seed is prompting herbicide-resistant "volunteer" corn -- from seeds left over from the previous year -- to sprout in fields where farmers are trying to grow soybeans. And, farmers said, the seeds already are priced at a big premium over conventional varieties. A bag of Roundup Ready corn seed in the Plains costs $140 to $150, compared with about $90 for a bag of conventional corn seed."

Meanwhile, GM soybeans face a 10% price rise yet are already priced more than 30 percent higher than conventional seeds, according to seed dealers.
http://reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=324793
9

So will US farmers still go on buying them? If they don't they will have to have the courage to buck the company/USDA/US farm bureau clamour for biotechnology. Donald White, a University of Illinois plant pathologist, explains why US farmers have gone for GM corn in the past: "what happens is there is a herd mentality. Everyone has to have a biotech program." White's view chimes in with a University of Iowa study on why farmers grew GM soya. A poll of approximately 800 farmers in Iowa, carried out by the Leopold Centre at Iowa State University, revealed that most chose [GM] Roundup Ready beans because they thought they produced higher yields than non-GM varieties. But when actual data from their farms was analysed the opposite was found. "It is interesting to note....that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GMO soybeans, yet yields were actually lower".
http://ngin.tripod.com/farming.htm

There's also the question of how confident farmers would feel to stop growing these crops given the power of the companies and the extraordinary contractual obligations placed upon them. Read the following article in full (excerpts below) at
<http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1254> :

GM crop farmers 'will end up serfs'
Western Morning News, 9 August 2003
Excerpts from the article:
Farmers who choose to grow GM crops will put their entire livelihoods at risk, a staunch West country critic of the technology claimed. Michael Hart, chairman of the Small and Family Farms Alliance, has obtained copies of agreements which Canadian and American farmers have to sign when deciding to grow the genetically engineered plants - and he believes that the terms and conditions of the contracts are "enslaving".

Now he has warned West country farmers that adopting the technology would transform growers into "serfs" working for big biotech companies. It is stated in both documents that growers who choose to adopt the plants will not be allowed to keep the seeds for the purpose of replanting, selling, giving or transferring. The Canadian agreement further states: "The grower shall purchase and use only Roundup branded herbicide labelled for use on all Roundup Ready canola (oilseed rape) seed purchased."

Another condition stipulates that any farmer who grows GM crops for a year but then decides to switch to conventional farming must have his fields inspected by experts working for the biotechnology company. Over a three-year period they will check to see if any GM plants have inadvertently grown amongst the conventional crop. If they have, the farmer faces being sued by the companies for using the gene without paying for the royalty.

...Mr Hart added: "I would warn all farmers in Britain to go with a fine-tooth comb and ask thousands of questions before really deciding to grow GM plants. Both the American and the Canadian experiences have shown that small farmers who'd already grown these crops could not revert to conventional farming because they were afraid of being prosecuted. Once you've signed a contract it's difficult to get out.

"Biotech companies don't take any risks and there are no insurers who wish to cover you in case of any losses. If for instance, after a few years, GM crops prove to have side effects, the companies won't take any responsibilities. It will be the farmer."

The American contract states: "The exclusive remedy of the grower and the limit of the liability of any seller for any and all losses, injury or damages resulting from the use or handling of a product containing the company's gene technology (including claims based in contract, negligence, product liability, strict liability, other tort or otherwise) shall be paid by the grower for the quantity of such product [...] in no event shall the seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages."

The Canadian document also stipulates that growers will pay the seller a sum "equal to 15 (approximately £10) for each acre capable of being planted using the seed."

Mr Hart added: "These conditions are extremely strict and binding, particularly those included in the Canadian document. There is an element of fear with North American farmers who are growing GM. They're scared for their livelihoods. Even to obtain the copies of the two contracts it was extremely difficult and I had to wait nearly a year to get hold of them. Everybody made sure that names or identification numbers were deleted."
***
Corporate control of farmers
In some cases, according to North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."

"After reviewing Monsanto's 2001 Technology Agreement, I would discourage any farmer from signing this document. Not only does this contract severely limit the options of the producer, it also limits Monsanto's liability. Marketing agreements and contracts are only effective if they serve to protect the interests of all parties involved. The protection of the Monsanto contract is strictly one-sided and I would encourage producers to carefully consider this before entering into this agreement." - Oklahoma's Secretary of Agriculture
Quotes taken from: http://ngin.tripod.com/farming.htm

Read the restrictive Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1254

------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
"... cassava is the staple food for over 300 million people in Africa. But all these years, none of the multinational seed companies ventured to develop an improved variety of cassava knowing well that the Africans would not be able to buy the costly but improved seed. In other words it was not profitable for these companies to develop improved varieties of cassava.

"And then, research showed that cassava could be a very useful ingredient for pig feed. Four multinational companies immediately pumped in US $1 billion for research on cassava for feeding the pigs. For the seed industry, the ten billion dollar pig industry in the United States was more lucrative than the food security of over 300 million humans in Africa. When it came to the question of food security and/or profits, even the pigs take precedence over the human beings."
- Indian food policy analyst Devinder Sharma
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1255

"It is incredible that our [New Zealand] government is engaged in a process to force people to eat and grow food that is culturally offensive and scientifically unsound. It is like New Zealand forcing nuclear waste onto Pacific nations."
- Jon Carapiet of GE-free NZ, of the NZ government's plan to support the US in its World Trade Organization case against the EU for banning GM imports

"I don't think there is any question that as more research is done, it is going to become increasingly apparent that organic food is healthier."
- Dr Marion Nestle, chair, department of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1261

-----------------------------------------------------------
FACT OF THE WEEK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Research across several countries shows that while perceptions of GM foods vary, all consumers, including Americans, are willing to pay substantial premiums to avoid GM foods. These premiums may exceed 50% of the discounted prices of GM foods.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1263

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEADLINES OF THE WEEK:  from the GM WATCH archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/8/2003 GM crop farmers will pay more and "end up serfs"
10/8/2003 Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement
10/8/2003 Man and cow - Devinder Sharma
11/8/2003 Melchett replies to Nature editorial
11/8/2003 WTO, US, NZ, EU & Africa
12/8/2003 Brazilian Catholic Bishops on GMOs
12/8/2003 Is Organic Food Provably Better?
12/8/2003 Royal Society study media coverage
12/8/2003 Soil Association response to post-market monitoring plans
13/8/2003 Are you alternatively spliced? biotech science 40 years old
13/8/2003 Brazil Lifts Ban on Modified Seeds?
13/8/2003 Consumers willing to pay substantial premiums for non-GM foods
13/8/2003 Vatican backing sparks GM row - Report set to anger Catholics
13/8/2003 Who's pulling Il Papa's strings?
14/8/2003 Monsanto's Roundup may encourage blight - New Scientist

FOR THE COMPLETE GM WATCH ARCHIVE: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIPTIONS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the 'GMW daily' list
send an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the message:
'subscribe GMW daily'
You'll receive up to 30 mails a week

To subscribe to the 'WEEKLY WATCH'
send an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the message:
'subscribe WEEKLY WATCH'
You'll receive 1 mail a week with a news roundup
Those subscribed to the daily list will receive the WEEKLY WATCH
automatically

To subscribe to 'GMWATCH' (monthly)
send an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the message:
'subscribe GMWATCH'
You'll receive 1 mail a month with a news roundup
Those subscribed to the daily bulletins and WEEKLY WATCH will receive
GMWATCH automatically

To unsubscribe to any of the these lists:
just mail us saying 'unsubscribe' and specifying which list

archived at:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

GMWATCH website:
http://www.ngin.org.uk

Donations made out to 'NGIN':
NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, United Kingdom
or e-mail for details: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.