GMWatch News Review archive

------------------------------------------------------------
From Claire Robinson, GMWATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,

At times it might seem that the GM companies have bought and now own our governments, scientific institutions and even the Catholic Church, and there's plenty of news this month to support that view. However, we only have to lift biotech's costly veneer an inch or so to reveal the crumbling rot beneath - see, for instance, our FARMING section for the GM farming crisis brewing in the biotech heartlands of Canada.

It's increasingly obvious too that the chief political proponents of GM - Bush, his 'gofer' Blair in the UK and his patsy in New Zealand, Helen Clark - are on the back foot as their destructive policies rebound on them. Even while they are legislating to force-feed us GM, resistance is growing ever stronger (RESISTANCE TO GM).

Does that mean there's nothing to worry about and that the battle is won? No. It's amazing how much harm a few bozos in leadership can do before they finally bow out, and this lot look set to contaminate the world's food supply in a remarkably short time.

We have to stop this madness unleashed at the behest of a few giant corporations and at the expense of our land, our health, our rights, and of justice for the poor.

Our new archive is at: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

Claire Robinson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
www.ngin.org.uk

-----------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------
THIRD WORLD
FOOD SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
FARMING
EUROPE
RESISTANCE TO GM
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF THE VATICAN
GM ANIMALS
COMPANY NEWS
QUOTES OF THE MONTH
SUBSCRIPTIONS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD WORLD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

US CHALLENGE ON GMOS THREATENS AFRICA
(article from South Africa's Business Day, 6th September 2003)

The United States' challenge to the European Union in the WTO courts over Genetically Modified Organisms primarily presents a threat to African and developing countries' food sovereignty and the Biosafety Protocol, the director-general of the Ethiopian-headquartered Environmental Protection Authority, Dr Tewolde Egziabher, said.

He said those in African countries who had fought long and hard for the agreement and ratification of the Biosafety Protocol, felt that the US actions were intended to send a strong and aggressive message to them: "that should we choose to implement the Protocol and reject the import of GM foods, we may also face the possibility of a WTO challenge."

"We cannot help but perceive that (the) US actions are a pre- emptive strike on the Biosafety Protocol and developing country interests," Tewolde added.

The Protocol is due to come into effect on September 11, coinciding with the WTO's 5th Ministerial Meeting IN Cancun, Mexico.

At Cancun, the US/EU GM debate is expected to be high on the agenda.

Part of the US argument for forcing the EU to accept GM without any kind of labelling restrictions, is that the EU rejection creates hunger in the developing world.

"Supposedly, we would willingly grow GM crops if we weren't afraid of losing our lucrative European markets.

"But this premise is untrue. The only African country to support the WTO challenge was Egypt, who soon retracted support on the grounds of consumer and environmental concerns.

"Developing countries, and African countries in particular, do not want to grow GM crops uncritically and without the due process of their regulatory systems approving them.

"They will not have their crops contaminated by GM crops, for many reasons other than market access to Europe.

"The one important consideration is safety to human health, domestic animals and the environment.

"This can only be assured, as provided by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, only through informed risk assessments and decisions based on the Precautionary Principle," Tewolde asserted.   "Secondly, we reject the patenting of living things, as had been made clear by our negotiations in the WTO.

"Otherwise, Article 34 of TRIPs would, in combination with the natural processes of cross pollination, not only contaminate our crops, but also turn our farmers into patent infringers.

"This would remove control of food production into the hands of multinational corporations, thereby wresting away food sovereignty into the hands of these companies.

"Besides paying royalties, we would lose food sovereignty," Tewolde stated.

He added that developing world agriculture systems were adapted to their geography, economy and culture, and GM farming systems that required capital and chemicals threatened the continent's agriculture and food security.

"Ethiopia is strongly against the hasty introduction of GM crops, for, as a centre of origin and diversity of crops, we recognise the assets that come from a biologically diverse, locally adapted, small- scale agriculture.

"This is why African nations have fought so hard for the Biosafety Protocol, which can provide us with a legal basis on which to protect our own food sovereignty.

"We suspect that Africa is high on the agenda for the US' next push for GM acceptance. And we resent the way that the stereotyped image of the hungry in developing countries has been used to force a style of agriculture that will only exacerbate problems of hunger and poverty.

"The arguments that the EU must give up its right to label, or even reject GM, because of the developing countries must stop.

"We have the right to implement the Biosafety Protocol, and we must do so without delay."

Tewolde was one of the architects of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1426361-6078-0,00.html

CARTER CALLS AFRICA'S LEADERS "GULLIBLE AND ILL-INFORMED"
A Reuters article called "Ex-US President Carter Says Africa Needs GM Crops", reports how Jimmy Carter used a speech in Tokyo to attack African leaders who question GM crop acceptance as "sometimes gullible and ill-informed".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1397

According to another media report, Carter also 'said there was nothing wrong with using GM food with "a reasonable precaution and proper labelling".
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030905053725.szq6e36l

But none of the GM food delivered to Africa as food aid had labelling and America does not label any GM food.

US STATE PROPAGANDA ON GM AND FOOD AID
The latest issue of the U.S. Department of State's electronic journal 'Economic Perspectives' is entirely given over to statements of support for GM foods: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0903/ijee/toc.htm

The articles include ones on the GM food aid issue. One is by Tony Hall, the US ambassador to the FAO, who last year suggested the leaders of any African country that rejected GM food aid should be charged "for the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts of the world."

Although Hall's article is more moderately worded than his earlier inflammatory attack on African leaders like Zambian President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, note how the title, 'A GREEN FAMINE IN AFRICA?' implies Africans are merely the victims and dupes of environmentalists.

Hall says that "there is no justification for countries to avoid food that people in the United States eat every day and that has undergone rigorous testing". Hall fails to mention that the GM maize provided by the U.S. to southern Africa was only ever approved in the US on the basis it would be used primarily for animal feed and food-processing purposes. It was never assessed on the basis that it would form the bulk of someone's diet without processing, as it would with food aid recipients in countries like Zambia.

For more on the food aid issue see 'Force-feeding the hungry: a primer on the food aid crisis'
http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm

GM 'ASSISTANCE' FOR AFRICA
Amadou Kanoute,Africa regional director for Consumers International, has written an excellent article on the message he has delivered on Capitol Hill and elsewhere about why the Bush Administration is so keen to push GM crops into Africa. He writes, "Although North Americans have been eating GM foods for years, even with a well-funded scientific establishment the United States has not been able to test or measure their impact. There is no research on the potential health consequences of biotechnology in Africa, where grains are a major part of people's diet and where regulatory testing regimes are still in their infancy."  Recommended reading.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1390

WTO: THE GREAT TRADE ROBBERY
The World Trade Organization's next meeting is in Cancun, Mexico, September 10-14. Food policy analyst Devinder Sharma warns that it promises to be yet another piratical onslaught by the wealthy countries on Third World food self-sufficiency, markets and biodiversity.

"The shocking levels of food dumping and its little understood but horrendous impact on the farming sector in the developing countries is the result of clever manipulations at the WTO."

Read the rest of Devinder Sharma's powerful article http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1382

WTO: THIRD WORLD FIGHTS BACK
"The Africa Group is asking for an outright ban on patents on all life forms... a proposal very much in the interest of developing countries," writes Suman Sahai in an excellent article on agriculture and the intellectual property issues relevant to Cancun.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1382

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN
"The uninhibited flow of information is a long human tradition. It has been crucial to seed, drug and computer companies, among others... People risk being hunted down as pirates when they share music files, save seed from patented crops or bring back a suitcase full of medicines from Mexico. But, whatever their legal status, these are strictly small-time activities. You'll find the big-time pirates operating openly starting Sept. 10 along the coast at Cancun."
- Stan Cox, a former plant geneticist for the US Department of Agriculture
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1382

INDIA: BT COTTON INEFFECTIVE AGAINST INCREASING PINK BOLLWORM
Pink bollworm is emerging as a major pest in the cotton belt, especially in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat according to field observations so far. The toxin in Bt cotton is proving to be ineffective against pink bollworm and does not kill it, it kills only the green bollworm said Dr Suman Sahai, Director of Gene Campaign on her return from consultations in Hyderabad. This consultation was held with scientists, farmers, NGOs, representatives of the seed industry and cotton traders, to take stock of the current scenario with respect to Bt cotton.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1371

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE ON MONSANTO LAWSUIT AGAINST DAIRY ADVERTISING GM HORMONE-FREE MILK
An article from Monsanto's home-town rag details the company's lawsuit against family-owned Oakhurst Dairy, Maine, for labelling its milk with a pledge from farmers that they do not use Monsanto's GM hormone that makes cows produce more milk. Europe and Canada have banned the hormone, which is suspected of making cows ill and of increasing levels of a growth factor, IGF-1, that has been linked to cancer, but it's approved by the FDA in the US.

Oakhurst's controversial label reads: "Our Farmers Pledge: No artificial growth hormones." Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said Oakhurst's label strays from the FDA's guidance, duping consumers into thinking milk from non-rBST-treated cows is healthier. It's a bizarre piece of logic, since the label doesn't mention health, and surely leaves us free to believe that rBST is the elixir of life itself. Monsanto has previously sued two other dairies for the same "crime", but the cases did not reach the justice system as the dairies settled out of court. But Oakhurst say they have no intention of settling, so we'll see what the courts make of Monsanto's oddly paranoid interpretation of the label.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1391   

WHY "MAGIC MOLECULE" NO "MAGIC BULLET"
Dr Patricia Elliott published a letter on GM food safety in the Financial Times responding to a piece in that paper by Greg Conko and Henry I Miller. In her letter, Dr Elliott accused Conko and Miller, who had claimed the safety of GM foods was more than proven and their benefits were 'legion', of 'bad science' - making claims unsupported by credible research - and she challenged them to identify any research regarding the effects on human health of any GM product. Read her letter at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1338

Alan Malcolm of the Institute of Biology subsequently replied to Dr Elliott's challenge (GM products can be the best option, Financial Times, Aug 21, 2003), using the examples of GM insulin and Factor IX.

In her reply to Malcolm, Dr Elliott contrasted how such GM products are regulated in the medical field with the safety testing, or lack of it, for agricultural products.

However, a recent article by Richard Lewontin, the evolutionary geneticist and Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University, makes clear how the approval of products like GM insulin itself raises questions about the safety of genetically engineered products.

Prof Lewontin's article is worth reading in full. He shows how DNA has been mythologised. Properties are attributed to it (principally, those of making proteins and of self-replication) that biologists know to be false. DNA, Lewontin shows, has been turned into a "magic molecule" but only by divorcing it from all the complexity of its actual context - biological, environmental, social, and economic.

Ignoring these complexities is a dangerous game - one that guarantees results other than the ones predicted. This is why, says Lewontin, we do not have a single case of a successful cure for a disease by means of gene therapy. And even if at some point in the future that is achieved, it is likely to be of very limited value. The claim that the manipulation of DNA is the path to general health is totally unfounded. It is actually irrelevant to the majority of instances of human ill health.

On the other hand, the possibility of using GMOs for the commercial production of biologically useful molecules has been realised, notably in the case of GE human insulin. But, says Lewontin, when we begin to look at the complexity of this product's clinical, biological and economic context, we discover that it is far removed from a magic bullet. For some, in fact, it is life threatening.

Lewontin's article available in full here:
http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/16-4lewontin.html
An excerpt of Lewontin's article is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1373
Worth reading in conjunction with Barry Commoner's article on DNA replication, Unraveling the Secret of Life
http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/16-3commoner.html

Dr Elliot pointed out, following our posting of Lewontin's article, that at least we know about the GM insulin problems because there is some testing and monitoring of medical drugs, which is NOT the case with GM food:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1380

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

GM CROPS DO HARM WILDLIFE, FARM TRIALS LIKELY TO REVEAL?
According to an article in The Independent on Sunday, the Government's farm trials have shown GM crops can be more damaging to neighbouring flora and fauna than ordinary strains of sugar beet, maize and oilseed rape. In particular, the impact on insects, weeds and hedgerow plants has proved radically different, the trial results have revealed.  One senior source close to the trials said: "The null hypothesis is wrong, that's what's come out of the trials clearly. What is consistent is there are differences in the impact of GM crops and conventional crops."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=429820

GM CROP WEED KILLER LINKED TO POWERFUL FUNGUS
Alarm continues to mount about the relationship between Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, used on many food crops and on all GM Roundup Ready crops, and the proliferation of potentially toxic fungal moulds in the harvest. Roundup, which contains a chemical called glyphosate, is alleged to increase the size of colonies of the fungus Fusarium, a genus of toxic moulds that occurs naturally in soils and occasionally invades crops, but is usually held in check by other microbes. The link not only calls into question the world's number one weed killer, but also jeopardizes global acceptance of Monsanto's flagship line of GM Roundup Ready crops.

Glyphosate-treated wheat appeared to have higher levels of Fusarium head blight (a toxic fungal disease) than wheat fields where no glyphosate had been applied, said scientist Myriam Fernandez of the Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre in Swift Current, Saskatchewan.

Just under 50 scientific papers now point to an increase in Fusarium or other microbes after the application of glyphosate. In a recent article titled 'GM cotton blamed for disease' the Farm Weekly, an Australian publication, predicted that 'up to 90 percent of Australia's cotton belt could be inundated by the soil borne pathogen Fusarium wilt within the next decade' due to Roundup Ready cotton. Fusarium contamination of cereals has been responsible for serious crop losses. In Michigan during 2002 it was estimated that 30-40% of the crops were destroyed by the infestation.

The Fusarium fungus can produce a range of toxins, that are not destroyed in the cooking process, which range from vomitoxin to more lethal compounds which include fumonisin, which can cause cancer and birth defects, to the very lethal chemical warfare agent fusariotoxin, more often referred to as T2 toxin. A Fusarium epidemic of cereals was considered responsible for thousands of deaths in Russia during the 1940s. More recently, in 2001, it caused a series of deadly birth defects among tortilla-eating Mexican-Americans in Brownsville, Texas.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1353

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARMING
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRET REPORTS AND DAMNING PROOF
A great article has just been published in the Daily Mail (London), packed with pithy quotes, on the grim reality of GM farming in Canada. Interesting to read this alongside the Canadian government's own "secret" report on how GM is placing their whole multibillion-dollar agri-food industry at risk, making the Canada brand
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1368

Frankenfoods: The damning proof
Daily Mail, Sep 5, 2003
Canada was the cradle of the GM food revolution promising farmers vast crops and untold profits. Seven years on, that dream has become a nightmare from which there is now no escape
 
The soft blue fields of flax that bloom only early in the morning, spread out like a lake against the vast prairies of Saskatchewan in Canada. Neighbouring crops of yellow oilseed rape dazzle in the early light and an eagle glides across the pristine sky. Nature could not appear more peacefully at work - and few images could be more misleading.
 
These vast plains have been used as nothing short of a giant laboratory by international biotechnology companies. For it is here that the corporate 'scientists' have sown the seeds of their farming revolution in a bid to create a multi-billion-dollar global industry pushing genetically modified (GM) food to the world.
 
At first, Canada's farmers embraced the new technology. They were told it would bring crop yields that were bigger and cheaper to produce than ever before. Times were hard, and they were eager for a miracle. But less than a decade later, they are reaping a terrible legacy.
 
Their produce is rejected in the global marketplace, costs are rising, and the livelihood of organic farmers and those who use conventional techniques is threatened by the spectre of GM contamination. GM seed is now spilling across 60 million acres of prime farmland.
 
At the same time, highly toxic chemicals - also sold at a huge profit by the biotech giants - have had to be reintroduced to contain the growth of 'superweeds'. These are the result of wild plants becoming infected with herbicide-resistant genes from GM crops.
 
This week, such a nightmare moved a step closer to Britain following a landmark ruling by Brussels in which the European Commission said governments that tried to ban GM crops would be in breach of EU law. I went to Canada to see what Britain might learn from the farms of Saskatchewan.
READ ON: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1394
 
CANADA: SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT OPPOSES GM WHEAT
As the federal government considers letting Monsanto sell its GM wheat to Canadian farmers, the Saskatchewan government is adding its voice to the growing chorus of opposition. Officials worry about the potentially devastating impact GM wheat could have on the Prairie farm economy. Canadian wheat exports total nearly $3 billion per year. In an interview with the Saskatchewan News Network, Jim Stalwick of Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization said, "The (Saskatchewan) government has a view that it should not be approved until the market concerns are addressed and the agronomic environmental concerns as well."
http://www.checkbiotech.org/blocks/dsp_document.cfm?doc_id=5900

WHY MIGHT CANADA JUMP OVER THE GM CLIFF?
An article in the Globe and Mail comments, "Is it possible that Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) and the Minister of Agriculture are fully aware of the potential harm that their acceptance of GM wheat could cause wheat producers, but have nevertheless opted to do whatever could benefit the biotech companies? Given the importance of future research investment to the overall Canadian economy, as well as the political support that the corporate sector can offer, the government may have decided it is desirable to let GM registration proceed. There are strong corporate links among biotech industries, the AAFC, provincial research programs, and a variety of farm groups. The result may be that corporate interests come before producer interests in the federal agenda."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1362

CANADIAN FARMERS DON'T WANT GM WHEAT
Nearly 90 per cent of Canadian farmers say they would not grow GM wheat if they had the option, according to a survey conducted by University of Manitoba researchers earlier this year. One of the researchers, Ian Mauro, said, "There is a very small group that thinks this crop would be good to grow now. But all it takes is a small minority to introduce GM wheat into the system." The wheat board, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, and other farm and rural groups have taken out large newspaper ads urging Monsanto to withdraw its federal GM wheat application. The organic-food industry fears GM wheat will contaminate their fields and make it impossible to grow organic wheat. Saskatchewan's organic canola industry disappeared after the introduction of GM canola several years ago.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1362

DIRTY TRICKS ASSIST IN GETTING GM WHEAT INTO CANADA
Former UK environment minister Michael Meacher writes about his fact-finding tour of GM in Canada, where the government is planning to introduce GM wheat against the wishes of consumers, most farmers, and the food/grain industry: 'One other highly relevant piece of evidence shown to me by the Canadian NFU about the current battleground in Canada concerns the tactics adopted by Monsanto to get the unpopular idea of GM wheat accepted.  A draft letter, to be signed by prominent farmers in key positions, details the "mutual understanding and agreement" between each of them and Monsanto about how they will assist, secretly, in "ensuring the positive introduction of Roundup Ready Wheat in Canada".  We have to ask: is the same happening here...'
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=430971

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

EUROPE WINNING US/EU FOOD FIGHT WITH LABELLING
A Canadian food lawyer points out that even if Europe lifts its moratorium on GM foods, "European consumers won't buy products labeled as containing GMOs, supermarkets won't stock them, and food manufacturers will re-formulate to avoid biotech derived ingredients altogether before they will ever label food as containing GMOs." He also notes, "This is roughly what would happen in Canada and U.S., as well, if labelling is ever made mandatory".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1399

AUSTRIA GMO FREE ZONE DENIED - BUT UK CAMPAIGN NOT AFFECTED
The European Commission has rejected a request from Austria to ban the use of GMOs in the region of Upper Austria for a three-year period. The request was notified in March 2003, under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty. This Article allows Member States to derogate from European Union harmonisation measures, under certain strict conditions. These include the emergence of new scientific evidence as well as the existence of particular country-specific conditions. But after examination of the Austrian request, the Commission concluded today that these conditions were not met in this case.

Friends of the Earth say this does not affect the GM-free Britain campaign, which relies on a different route for areas to become GM-free, using Article 19 of the Deliberate Release Directive, so this decision should not cause alarm. The Austrian request sought a blanket ban on all GMOs, whereas FoE recognises that it would only be possible to ban GM crops on a case-by-case basis under current EU law.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1387

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESISTANCE TO GM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHINA'S FOOD PRODUCERS GO GM-FREE
Thirty-two food producers operating in China, the largest food market in the world, announced their official commitment not to sell GM food. The 32 companies, with 53 brand names, sent formal statements to Greenpeace in July, confirming that they do not use GM ingredients in their products sold in China. Companies committed to eliminating GM ingredients include large soy sauce producers in the Southern China region, such as Pearl River Bridge, Lee Kum Kee and Amoy, as well as a major soymilk brand, Vitasoy. Internationally known brands such as Wyeth, Mead Johnson, Wrigley and Lipton, which already have non-GM policies in other countries, made similar commitments for China.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FPICGGMF.php
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1379

PROTESTORS WRECK BAYER STAND AT EXHIBITION
Biotech company Bayer CropScience has come under attack for its work in GM crops at the British Potato 2003 event in Newark, Nottinghamshire. Anti-GM protestors wrecked displays and overturned exhibits on the company's stand before they were overpowered by security staff. The campaigners say that Bayer is now "public enemy no. 1" after it acquired the GM interests of Aventis.

"We can't have multi-national companies in control of our food - GM crops are destroying our world," said a protestor called Jenny. With 75% of the GM trials in the UK growing Bayer seed, she said that the company was most likely to be the first to introduce commercial transgenic crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1389

for more on the UK's public enemy no. 1:
http://ngin.tripod.com/agrevodiary.htm

GM CONCERN HIGH AMONGST U.S. LOW INCOME CONSUMERS
A peer-reviewed study from the US on the awareness and attitudes to GM foods of low-income consumers challenges claims that Americans are confidently consuming GM foods or that consumer concerns are a luxury of the affluent: "Over 80% of the participants indicate no prior knowledge or awareness of GM foods...  Their awareness of GM foods was low, but ethical and safety concerns were fairly high; and they wanted GM foods to be labeled."  The study is published in the University of California's journal 'California Agriculture' (July-September 2003 issue): http://danr.ucop.edu/calag/about.html.
ABSTRACT: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1291
FULL TEXT: http://danr.ucop.edu/calag/0303JAS/pdfs/GM_food.pdf
Interesting to view these findings alongside the recent multi-country study, undertaken by university researchers in the US, Norway, Japan and Taiwan, showing consumers, including American consumers, are willing to pay substantial premiums for non-GM foods.  That study also found strong support among American consumers for mandatory labelling of GM foods.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1263
Many polls over the years have shown Americans, by a huge margin, want GM foods to be labelled. According to a July 2003 ABC News telephone poll, 92 percent of Americans support labelling.

AUSTRALIAN FARMERS SAY NO TO GM CROPS:
In the first public survey of farmers' attitudes across Australia toward GM crops, Biotechnology Australia found 74% of 500 people quizzed said they would not consider growing GM crops at this stage.  49% said they were generally opposed to GM crops, while only 23% said they were supportive.  This position is in stark contrast with the pro-GM line of the National Farmers' Federation and federal Agriculture Minister Warren Truss.  Australia's first GM food crop, a GM canola, was approved for commercial use last month.  A series of state moratoriums on GM crops means a widescale planting is unlikely for several years.  Australian Democrats agriculture spokesman John Cherry said the poll was a wake-up call for GM supporters.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_35883.asp

AUSTRALIA'S BIGGEST CANOLA BUYER WILL NOT BUY GM:
Australian food company Goodman Fielder, Australia's biggest buyer of canola (oilseed rape) oil, has said it will not buy products made from GM canola, because its consumers don't want GM products, reported ABC News.
http://www.just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=55122

BRAZIL NOT EXPECTED TO LEGALIZE GMOS:
Brazil's government will not authorize the planting of GM soybeans for the coming crop season, which starts in October, said Chief of Staff Jose Dirceu.
http://www.cropdecisions.com/show_story.php?id=20886

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF GOVERNMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEADING GM SCIENTIST ATTACKS MONSANTO'S CONTROL OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT
A leading Indian scientist has launched a devastating attack on the corrupt links between multinational corporations like Monsanto and India's politicians and bureaucrats. Dr Pushpa Bhargava, who has been described as "one of the leaders of the biotechnology movement in India", tells the hidden story of American efforts to control India's agricultural sector. Dr Bhargava asks why India continues "permitting foreign seed companies blindly and without adequate checks and controls, to exploit our trusting farmers and dominate our seed business even when numerous other better local alternatives exist". Dr Bhargava says roadblocks have been deliberately placed in the way of those alternatives while farmers have been fooled into buying expensive GM seeds that have failed to fulfil the claims made for them, and for which there is "no evidence that any reasonable risk assessment was ever done".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1378

CAMPBELL SUCCESSOR IN A SPIN ON SHARES
The successor to Tony Blair's spin doctor Alastair Campbell was up to his chin in a row over his financial interests within 24 hours of his appointment. It emerged that David Hill, Blair's new director of communications, owns about 95,000 share options in a lobbying and public relations firm that numbers GM giant Monsanto among its clients. Hill was granted the options by his current employer, Chime Communications, and cannot cash them in for several years. The options give Hill a continuing financial interest in the company and its clients.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1377
In an attempt to head off the row, Hill subsequently renounced his share options.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1381

HILL'S HISTORY
David Hill was at one time chief media spokesman for Blair's party but he has spent the past five years as boss of a PR firm which advises Monsanto on public relations. Hill's firm, Good Relations - part of Bell Pottinger - is known to have organised meetings between Monsanto and government ministers. A former special adviser to one of those ministers was also recruited by Bell Pottinger. Hill's successor as Labour's chief media spokesman, Mike Craven, went on to found Lexington Communications which represents Monsanto and the other biotech corporations who run the industry group, the ABC.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1243

NEW ACNFP CHAIR - FROM BAD TO WORSE
The UK's Food Standards Agency announced the appointment of a new Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) the UK's key regulatory committee for GM foods. Prof Mike Gasson succeeds Prof Janet Bainbridge.
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/acnfpchair
The new ACNFP chairman is a close associate of Derek Burke, the first head of the ACNFP who has openly campaigned for GM foods, even offering advice to other scientists on how to run such a campaign. Together they co-wrote an article that was highly misleading on the issue of the extent credible research had been undertaken into GM food safety.
For more on Burke: http://ngin.tripod.com/articleBurke.htm
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1246

LORD SAINSBURY PULLS OUT OF GM FOOD LAUNCH
Science Minister Lord Sainsbury pulled out of an engagement to open a research facility because of a potential conflict of interest. Students and university chiefs were left disappointed when the minister decided not to turn up at the GBP6.5 million centre in Edinburgh because of its research into GM foods. The supermarket billionaire has been strident in his support for the biotech industry, in which he retains substantial financial interests.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1398

NEW ZEALAND: SYNGENTA DECLINES TO FRONT CORNGATE INQUIRY
An inquiry has been launched following allegations by author Nicky Hager in his book Seeds of Distrust that Prime Minister Helen Clark and key ministers knew there had been an accidental release of GM corn but kept quiet under pressure from GM giant Syngenta.

Politicians hoped Syngenta would attend the inquiry to provide the answer to whether Corngate seeds were contaminated but the company has refused. Syngenta managing director Peter Gerner said it was impossible to gather all the experts needed to attend the parliamentary inquiry so he had sent written answers instead. Nor would he let Melbourne laboratory Genescan give evidence about its tests on the corn, saying that was inappropriate. Syngenta imported the corn in October 2000 and while Genescan reported initial results positive for GM, it did not complete the tests or report a final result. MPs want to know why. The opposition party's Nick Smith said no laboratory would stop doing tests without being instructed to do so by their client and he "strongly suspected Genescan was told not to complete the tests".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2639749a7693,00.html
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1366

NZ PRIME MINISTER "DESPERATE" OVER PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO GM
The row between New Zealand's Labour government and their former allies the Green Party continues to escalate. Labour prime minister Helen Clark fired the first shots, accusing the Greens' Jeannette Fitzsimons of colluding with National (Opposition) MP Nick Smith on the Corngate inquiry committee she chairs to stir up dust before the moratorium ends. Dr Smith has led Opposition attacks on Helen Clark's integrity by questioning how much she knew about the government's management of the discovery in late 2000 of possible GM corn, citing memos kept secret before the last election by head of her department Dr Mark Prebble. The Greens have accused the prime minister of "desperate" attempts to divert attention from mounting national concern about GM. The Greens have abandoned support for Clark's government since Clark made clear her intention of lifting NZ's moratorium on GM plantings on October 29.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1384

NZ GOVERNMENT BACKING OFF GM?
The Green Party now believes the government may be backing off on releasing GMOs for food production after comments by environment minister Marian Hobbs in Parliament. Asked if there were likely to be applications for release of GM crops or herds for human consumption, Ms Hobbs said: "Not for many years, and if such an application were made its first-time nature might well provoke a call-in response from the minister."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1388

MAORI OPPOSE GM RELEASES
Maori are trying to block the lifting of the GM moratorium through the Waitangi Tribunal.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1388

MEACHER WARNS NZ SELECT COMMITTEE AND GOVT MINISTERS OF GM RISKS:
Michael Meacher, the UK's Environment Minister from 1997 till earlier this year, gave evidence to the New Zealand Education and Science Select committee, warning that co-existence of GM and conventional crops is impossible.  The news was not well received. Meacher's appearance came to an abrupt end when committee chairman Brian Donnelly labelled it a political stunt although he apologised as Mr Meacher left.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2603936a6160,00.html
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1247

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JOURNALS REVIEW EDITORIAL POLICIES ON AUTHORS' VESTED INTERESTS
The scientific journals Science and Nature are reviewing their editorial policies after complaints that they published multiple items involving researchers with relevant financial interests that were not disclosed.

One of the examples given by the complainants concerns Roger Beachy, the director of the Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St. Louis, who published an editorial in Science and co-signed a letter published in the journal Nature Biotechnology, supporting GM crops. Readers weren't told that Monsanto had contributed over $11M of land and a large chunk of the $146 million startup money that made the Danforth Plant Science Center, and Beachy's role in it, possible. Beachy has also received substantial research funding from Monsanto and serves as a consultant to Akkadix, an agricultural-gene-discovery company, as well as being a core team member of the United Soybean Board.

Beachy's 17 co-signatories of the letter to Nature Biotechnology ("Divergent perspectives on GM food," December 2002), attacking an article critical of GM crops, included at least 11 with ties to companies that directly profit from the promotion of GM crops.

For example, Bruce Chassy has received research grants from major food companies and has conducted seminars for Monsanto, Genencor, Amgen, Connaught Labs and Transgene. Chris Lamb is a co-founder of and science advisor to Akkadix, which also funds the John Innes Centre, of which he is the director. Akkadix has also acquired exclusive rights to a gene-discovery technology developed by signer Martin Yanofsky, who, with his colleague and fellow-signer, Julian Schroeder, has exclusive consulting agreements with Akkadix. Charles Santerre was funded by Monsanto to study how training on food biotechnology can change consumer attitudes favourably toward GM foods.

Another flagrant example of the lack of disclosure concerns an article in Science by Steven H. Strauss, "Genomics, Genetic Engineering, and Domestication of Crops" (April 4, 2003, p. 61-2). The article contains no disclosure of interest, even though Strauss has received research grants from Monsanto and other industry sources.

Editors at Science, located in Washington, and London-based Nature tried to downplay their change in policy, saying none of the articles involving possible conflicts of interest dealt with results of experiments. Instead, the articles in question fall into a secondary category of editorials, commentaries and data reviews of other scientists' work.

However, contrary to this claim, this lack of disclosure does not just affect editorials, reviews, opinion pieces, news items and letters. It is also relevant to the publication of primary research.

Indeed, a change of policy on disclosure was recently forced on the journal Science following its publication of a 2002 study authored by Rick Roush and his colleagues at the Cooperative Research Centre in Adelaide. It was published without the authors disclosing that the study, with its reassuring findings about pollen flow from GM crops, had been part-funded by Monsanto and Aventis Crop Sciences (now owned by Bayer). The journal has consequently had to revise its disclosure policy so that researchers are asked to reveal all funding sources in the paper's reference section.

Charles Jennings, executive editor of Nature publications, has been quoted as reassuring scientists, "Nobody should be embarrassed about commercializing their work. It's a tremendous engine for economic growth." But it's also a tremendous engine for bias and one which many commercially-minded scientists are unscientifically failing to either explore or acknowledge.

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (J. E. Bekelman, Y. Li & C. P. Gross, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 289, 454-465; 2003) concluded that **industry-sponsored studies are nearly four times more likely to reach pro-industry conclusions** than are studies that are not industry-sponsored. (see Nature 424, 369 (24 July 2003); doi:10.1038/424369c)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1383
For a copy of the letter to Science:
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/letter_to_science.pdf
For a copy of the letter to Nature:
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/letter_to_nature.pdf
For the CSPI press release:
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200308211.html

STUDENTS PROMOTE GM IN THE CLASSROOM
A group of University of Maryland students are promoting GM in classrooms by giving out GM kits enabling children to genetically modify a plant to resist a herbicide. The students, under the guidance of Prof Anne E Simon, originally meant to show third world people how GM could improve their lives, but decided instead to focus on US schoolchildren (a more receptive target, perhaps?). The article in the Washington Post that reports this story does not mention whether the schoolchildren will be exposed to the herbicide to be used in the experiment or how the GM plants created will be managed and disposed of. The project, titled the Gemstone Genetics Project, is funded by a $8,000 grant of taxpayers' money awarded by the National Science Foundation.

The quality of "science" practised by these students is already clear in their comments on the results of a survey they conducted: "More than 14 percent [of people], for example, said they believed that human genes could be altered by eating genetically engineered foods - an assertion research has disproved." In fact, this assertion has never been disproved or, indeed, investigated.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1385

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF THE POPE?!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF POPE
Here are some of this month's dodgiest headlines:
Vatican hails GM food as a saviour
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-766369,00.html
Vatican says GM food is a blessing
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6866967%255E27
03,00.html
Vatican believes GM food could solve world hunger
http://www.cathnews.com/news/308/18.php

This may have come as a surprise to Catholics who'd become accustomed to such previous headlines as:
Pope expresses opposition to GMOs
Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference wants moratorium on GM
Canada's Catholic Church concerned about GMOs, etc.

Why all the favourable headlines? The answer lies with the source - Archbishop Renato Martino. He gave an interview to an Italian newspaper, the Turin-based daily La Stampa, telling them the Vatican would soon endorse the use of GM food although the following day Martino had to issue a denial.

To understand the many Catholic voices that the US/Monsanto lobby of the Vatican, and its good friend Archbishop Renato Martino, are seeking to silence, see: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1245
For a great graphic:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Vatican-GM-Saviour4aug03.htm

BISHOPS FIGHTING BACK
Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez, chair of the National Secretariat for Social Action-Justice and Peace (Nassa) in the Philippines is among those who have expressed alarm and opposition to any endorsement of GMOs.

"The Nassa [the National Secretariat for Social Action] is registering its strong opposition to any decision from the Holy See endorsing the use of genetically modified crops and foods; precautionary principle should be adopted," Gutierrez told the press.

The Bishops in the Philippines have called for a moratorium on the commercial release of GM Corn in the Philippines.   Gutierrez said a technology such as genetic engineering, whose long-term effects on human health and the environment are really unknown, should be applied with extreme caution following the precautionary principle.

The Nassa believes that genetically modified food is not the answer to the problem of world hunger which is due to poverty brought about by inequality and injustice.   He stressed that the approval of the use of GMOs in the country would further plunge Filipino farmers into the depths of poverty.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/sept/05/top_stories/20030905top12.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GM ANIMALS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CLONES IN SUDDEN DEATH SHOCK
New fears have been raised about the health of cloned animals after three cloned adult pigs dropped dead from heart attacks. The pigs were created by the Taiwan-based team using a variation on the technique that made Dolly the sheep. Of four piglets born, one died within days. The remaining three have now collapsed and expired of heart failure at less than six months of age, team leader Jerry Yang of the University of Connecticut in revealed. "It was totally shocking," says Yang. He has dubbed the fatalities 'adult clone sudden death syndrome'.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1365

BAN ON GM FISH OFF CALIFORNIA
California plans to ban ocean farming of salmon, exotic and genetically modified fish off its coast.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1365

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY NEWS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MONSANTO IN $700 MILLION POLLUTION SETTLEMENT:
Monsanto has agreed to pay a share of $700m to settle claims that it contaminated an Alabama town.  Monsanto had been accused of pumping the local river with PCBs, which were banned by the US government in the 1970s as a possible carcinogen.  It had also buried waste in a landfill. Lawyers claimed Monsanto had covered up evidence that the PCBs were harmful, including evidence of fish dying in nearby creeks. Internal memos were produced that insisted they should put protection of the image of the corporation first.  One said: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."  Residents say thousands of children developed cancer and cerebral palsy after being exposed to the chemicals.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1026376,00.html

VECTOR DELAYS NATIONAL LAUNCH OF GM-TOBACCO CIGARETTES:
Vector Group Ltd has delayed the national launch of its Quest low- and no-nicotine cigarettes made with GM tobacco.  Vector has already spent about $15 million on the project. Vector Group lost $4.9 million, in the quarter ended June 30, compared with the second quarter of 2002, when it lost $3.3 million. Revenues were down $9 million.
http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2003/08/21/biz-2-smoke21-4145.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTES OF THE MONTH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GM DEMOCRACY - NATIONAL FARMERS UNION SPOKESPERSON IN CANADA
"In a real democracy, the government would say in the interests of the citizens that we don't want this. The fact is, GM technology has nothing to offer. It's like a doctor saying, "Here's a pill. It won't make you feel any better, and it might be bad for you." Who wants to swallow that? But Monsanto want it, and we don't have a real democracy."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1394

CANADIAN FARMER ARNOLD TAYLOR ON GM
"The land forgives a lot. But this is a step too far. We play with nature at our peril. And Nature always bats last. She'll have the final say. We think we've got it sorted - but we've really no idea what we are doing."

"They tell us that GM food isn't bad for our health, but the jury may be out on that for years. And why should we believe them anyway? They told us GM would help farming, and it has brought nothing but trouble."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1394

NEW ZEALAND MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: 'GM industry falling apart worldwide'
"How many polls, protests and warning signs does it take...? The Government is not listening to science, to its own voters or to our overseas markets. Countries that embraced GM food in the mid-1990s were ignorant and careless. Countries that voluntarily give up their coveted GM-free status now are being deliberately and obstinately foolish."  - 
                               http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3519881&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

BARRY COMMONER ON THE SCIENCE BEHIND GM
"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."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1264

PROF NORMAN ELLSTRAND ON BIO-PHARMING
"...it might make sense to create pharm products from [genetically engineered] plants that are not food or feed plants. Regrettably, that is not now the case. Recently, approximately 75% of the pharm field test applications filed in the United States were for a single crop, corn, a major source of both food and feed in both the United States and worldwide.... Science can estimate the probabilities of human harm caused by a toxic compound to which people are exposed. Likewise, it can estimate the human benefits of a new drug that was impossible to create in the past. However, natural science cannot necessarily estimate the social and economic costs associated with the presence of a compound that people just don't want in their food... Natural scientists have begun to recognize that the technologies that spring from their research can have an array of impacts, good and bad, downstream from discovery in the laboratory."
- Norman C. Ellstrand, Department of Genetics and Biotechnology Impacts Center, University of California, "Going to 'Great Lengths' to Prevent the Escape of Genes That Produce Specialty Chemicals?", Plant Physiology, August 2003, Vol. 132, pp. 1770-1774
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/132/4/1770

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.