from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH guest editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all
Welcome to WW42 bringing you all the latest news in brief on the GM issue.
This week has seen all the major insurance companies saying they will not insure farmers against GM-related risks on the grounds that it could be another thalidomide. With impeccable timing, the National Farmers' Union has come up with the brilliant idea that the best way for farmers to protect themselves in the era of "co-existence" of GM with conventional and organic crops is.... Insurance. (See SETBACKS)
Yet more research has shown that GM oilseed rape easily crosses with wild plants. (see REPORT OF THE WEEK). We also have campaign group FARM's and journalist George Monbiot's reports on the science funding scam that ties a massive chunk of public money into unwanted GM research (ARTICLES).
And don't miss some telling JOKES OF THE WEEK and some great QUOTES on the impact of GM crops on the poor.
Finally, Monday the Brits will be on parade with tractors and trollies.
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/press_for_change/tractor_and_trolley/index.html
While if you're a kiwi, shine up your marching shoes, and tell all your friends - Saturday's the big one! http://www.thebigmarch.net/
Consumers and farmers are uniting for a GM-free world.
Claire <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
www.ngin.org.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
SETBACKS TO THE GM LOBBY
REPORT OF THE WEEK: GM rape cross-breeds with wild relatives
OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK
ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
JOKES OF THE WEEK
FRENCH FACTS OF THE WEEK
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
HEADLINES OF THE WEEK
SUBSCRIPTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------
SETBACKS TO THE GM LOBBY
------------------------------------------------------------
GM CROPS UNINSURABLE - "LIKE THALIDOMIDE"
A survey of the principal insurance underwriters in the UK, carried out by the new campaigning group FARM, found that neither farmers considering growing GM crops or non-GM farmers seeking to protect their businesses from contamination by GM crops would be able to find anyone willing to give them insurance.
Insurance company spokespeople compared GM crops to 'Thalidomide', 'Asbestos' and 'Acts of Terrorism'. All the companies surveyed felt that too little was known about the long term effects of growing these crops on human health and the environment to be able to offer any form of cover:
"50 years ago insurers were writing policies for asbestos without a care in the world - now they are facing claims of hundreds of millions of pounds. The insurance industry has learned to be wary of new things, and there is a real feeling that GM could come back and bite you in 5 years time", said one company spokesperson.
Another company spokesperson said, "The worry is that GM could be like Thalidomide - only after some time would the full extent of the problems be seen."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1566
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1573
NFU'S ANSWER TO GM CONTAMINATION IS - INSURANCE! The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has agreed its policy on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic crops. It should shortly be available at www.nfuonline.com
The NFU's solution to the problem of economic loss due to GM contamination is insurance. But no company will offer insurance to farmers on GM crops - and among those who said they would not is the National Farmers' Union's own sister organisation, NFU Mutual!
Robin Maynard, national coordinator of campaign group FARM, said: "It beggars belief that the self-styled leading farming organisation is recommending insurance as a possible compensation measure to its members to facilitate the commercialisation of GM crops into the UK when not one single company will offer such insurance. Either the NFU Council has been asleep over the past day or two or it is deliberately ignoring the realities facing farmers in the UK. If the latter, it is hard not to conclude that the NFU at the HQ level is overtly pro-GM and content to see not co-existence, but GM contamination throughout UK farming."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1574
See the Evening Standard's article on the insurance topic at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1572
------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH SHOWS GM OILSEED RAPE CROSS-BREEDS WITH WILD RELATIVES
New evidence reveals that GM oilseed rape is prone to widespread cross breeding with wild flowers. The paper, published in Science, presents research into the hybridisation of oilseed rape and its relative wild turnip or bargeman's cabbage. The researchers found that cross breeding between the crop and its relatives continued for at least 3,000 metres from the nearest oilseed rape field and the rate of hybridisation declined very slowly. They estimate that more than 3,2000 hybrids would be created every year along rivers and 17,000 in arable areas (where the wild turnip is less common). Riverbanks where bargeman's cabbage is most common are the main place for the hybrids.
The government-funded scientists said the latest findings "contrast" with previous assessments of gene flow between farm crops and weeds. They had suggested that the danger of hybridisation - where two types of plant cross-pollinate to create another, for example a superweed - was limited. Superweeds are considered to be a threat because, in some cases, they might absorb resistance to weedkillers from GM crops engineered to be herbicide-tolerant.
But the results of the research, which involved analysing satellite images of the British countryside and patrolling 180 miles of river banks, reveal that hybridisation is more widespread and frequent than previously anticipated.
Mike Wilkinson of Reading University, who led the study, said physical barriers such as isolation distances - buffer zones designed to stop pollen spreading from GM crops into the wild - would have only a limited impact on preventing hybridisation.
"This [study] shows that isolation distances will reduce hybrid numbers but not prevent hybridisation. It depends on what level of hybridisation you deem acceptable but if you want to absolutely prevent hybrids then isolation distances will not do so," Dr Wilkinson said. "Hybridisation is more or less inevitable in the UK context," he added.
Far from giving the gene-bashers an excuse for caution, however, the new findings have galvanised them to push ahead with the hated Terminator Technology. Science correspondent Steve Connor of the Independent spells it out: "An important outcome of the work is that it will allow scientists to assess what needs to be done to limit the spread of genes and pollen from GM crops. One possibility is to make the male plants sterile so they do not produce pollen."
Full reference: M.J.Wilkinson et al, 2003. Hybridisation between Brassica napus and B.rapa on a National Scale in the United Kingdom, Science 9 October 2003
See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1088200v1
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1582
------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT MINISTER STANDS BY PLEDGE ON ORGANIC AND GM
UK environment minister Elliot Morley thinks the government can protect organic farmers from the GM threat by a "robust regime". From a recent interview with Elliot Morley for Organic Farming:
"Organic Farming showed Mr Morley statements by Lord Jeff Rooker, the former food safety Minister, in the House of Commons on July 30, 1998. Mr Rooker said 'I want to make it absolutely clear that MAFF will be working with the farming community and representatives of organic farming to ensure that the expansion of organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of genetically modified crops... It would be stupid for the Government to push more money into converting to organic farming while allowing the farmers who take that brave step to be damaged by other actions within the process (of introducing GM crops on a trial of full crop basis).'
"Elliot Morley: 'I absolutely stand by that. We are putting even more money in now because under the organic action plan, for the first time, there are maintenance payments to reflect the environmental benefits of organic farming. I do not want to see our organic sector damaged. It doesn't make sense us putting all that money in if organic farming is compromised to such an extent that it cannot function. So we must protect the organic sector and we must have a robust regime. Organic farmers' needs in relation to any future cultivation proposals must be taken into account. We will do that.'"
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1559
ATRAZINE AXED, FARM SCALE EVALUATIONS OBSOLETE
The weedkiller atrazine has been axed in the European pesticide review. Atrazine was used on the control part of the GM Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs). So its being axed renders the FSE results still more meaningless in terms of providing any prediction as to how the impact of GM crops will compare with conventional agricultural practice.
Atrazine, manufactured mainly by Syngenta, can cause heart, lung and kidney damage as well as cancer, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. It is also a persistent contaminator of groundwater. However, Syngenta's profits shouldn't suffer that much, since the EU has added the mad, bad old weedkiller paraquat (also manufactured by Syngenta) to its approved list. Paraquat has been criticized for adverse impacts on farm workers since the 1960s, and has been banned or severely restricted in 11 countries, some in the EU.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1581
For more information on the toxic effects of pesticides, go to
http://www.panna.org/
GREENS PRESSURE BELGIUM OVER GMO RAPESEED APPROVAL
Green groups called on Belgium to halt the authorisation process for Bayer's GM rapeseed which could lead to its cultivation in Europe's fields. Friends of the Earth wants the Belgian Biosafety Council to defer its assessment until the results of British field trials on biotech rapeseed are published on October 16.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1572
US AND GERMANY CLASH OVER GM POLICY IN AFRICA
The US and Germany appear headed on a collision course over the future of GM crops in Africa following plans by Germany to approve a Euros 2 million grant to help African nations develop laws to ensure that GMOs are safe. The move potentially conflicts with a parallel Africa biosafety plan funded by the US and led by members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
The five-year US project was announced in May by the US Agency for International Development. The US-backed scheme takes as its premise the idea that GM crops are safe - unless proven otherwise. In contrast, the German-funded project assumes that evidence is required that GM crops are safe for human health and the environment before such products are commercialised. The German-funded project is the only one to have the endorsement of member states of the African Union.
Sources close to the German government argue that the US-funded project will have difficulty establishing credibility in African countries, as the US is not a party to the Cartagena biosafety protocol - an international agreement allowing countries to ban the import or cultivation of GM crops on health or environmental safety grounds.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1568
UGANDA GIVES GO-AHEAD FOR GM
The government of Uganda has given the green light for GM foods to gain access into the Ugandan market. Critics of the move say Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is allowing dumping of unwanted GMOs onto the country.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1578
UGANDA'S ORGANIC EXPORTERS IN DANGER
Exporters of organic-grown foods in Uganda fear that the introduction of GMOs to Uganda could endanger their business. The market for organic food in the US alone is worth about $20million per year.
The recent decision to introduce GMOs to Uganda could mean that American buyers distrust Ugandan organic produce. "We are worried. We (Ugandans) are trying to accept the GMO. If Uganda goes GMO it will be very hard to keep in business," said Mr Amin Shivji, managing director of AMFRI Farms Ltd, a leading Ugandan exporter of organic produce.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1559
INDIA: BT COTTON FIASCO DEEPENS
India, which used to be an exporter of cotton, is now the third major importer. Highly subsidised cotton from the US and China (much of it GM Bt cotton) is flooding the market in India, putting the cotton farmer out of business and driving him to suicide. Adding to Indian farmers' problems is the fact that the government has failed to provide compensation for the failed Bt cotton crop. Read the full story in an excellent article by Gene Campaign's Suman Sahai at:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1579
ROYAL SOCIETY IS GM-FREE
The restaurant at the Royal Society is GM-free, according to a report in The Guardian. A catering manager at the bastion of the scientific establishment, which was upset last week when the Guardian revealed the results of the government's field trials before they had been published, was refreshingly candid: "We try to make sure that everything that comes into our kitchen is GM-free."
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1057722,00.html
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1573
US FARMERS' GM NIGHTMARE CONTINUES
The following are excerpts from an excellent article detailing US farmers' GM woes. The article, from the US-based E Magazine, can be read in full at
http://www.emagazine.com/july-august_2003/0703feat1.html
EXCERPTS: "I can tell you stories that go on forever. It goes beyond bullying tactics," said Rodney Nelson... He says his family has spent more than $200,000 in attorney fees and other costs fighting Monsanto after it accused the family farm of saving Roundup Ready soybean seeds... Even after the independent North Dakota State Seed Arbitration Board found that the Nelsons did nothing wrong, Monsanto continued its lawsuit, but finally dropped it in autumn 2001.
"Emotionally, it's taken a huge toll," Nelson said. "It soured me a lot. I certainly despise big corporations now, and I no longer see Greenpeace as a radical or nut group."
Oddly enough, Nelson didn't even like the results of his GE plantings. He says he had decided by harvest time in 1999 to quit growing them. He grew his first GE seeds on 65 acres of weedy pastureland in 1998. The yields were "a lot less than the field next to it, which was conventional," he said.
Thinking he didn't give GE seeds a good enough try, he grew Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans on 1,450 of his family's 4,000 acres of soybeans the next year.
"The yields were horse***t," Nelson said. "And we didn't save anything in our chemical costs."
...It may give a consumer pause to realize that several years after genetically engineered ingredients became available on store shelves, only now is a committee of the respected National Academy of Sciences (NAS) outlining a process to identify hazards and assess any unintended effects of GE foods on human health. And only now is another subcommittee of the respected NAS-affiliated National Research Council evaluating how to confine transgenic plants, grasses, trees, fish, and shellfish to keep them from escaping into the environment. Its recommendations are expected by April of 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
FARMERS WANT REVIEW OF PUBLICLY FUNDED SCIENCE
FARM, an independent and family farmers' group in the UK, has called for a new body to oversee publicly-funded science in place of the current funding council, to set priority for sustainable farming for Britain.
FARM points to the current debate on GM crops, which is marred by an alarming lack of independent scientific understanding of the implications on human health, animals and the environment.
"Instead of objective, rigorous testing, we are presented with assumptions, projections and mathematical models, many of which have been produced directly or indirectly by the very companies seeking to introduce these crops," FARM says.
FARM is critical of the fact that government-appointed bodies responsible for allocating research funding for food and farming are made up largely of scientists from the very same research establishments that receive much of the funding. Full article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FARM.php
GEORGE MONBIOT ON THE SCIENCE FUNDING SCAM
FARM's views tie in well with George Monbiot's recent article (highly recommended reading), "The Enemies of Science - Nothing damages science more than forcing researchers to develop GM". Published in the Guardian 6th October 2003. The version of the article on George's website is referenced: http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=611
EXCERPTS: The best way of gauging [government's] intentions is to examine the research it is funding, as this reveals its long-term strategy for both farming and science. It seems that the strategy is to destroy them both.
The principal funding body for the life sciences in Britain is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). It is currently funding 255 food and farming research projects; 26 are concerned with growing GM crops, just one with organic production.
We're not talking about blue-sky science here, but research with likely commercial applications. We should expect it to respond to what the market wants. The demand for organic food in Britain has been growing by 30% a year. We import 70% of it, partly because organic yields in Britain are low and research is desperately needed to find ways of raising them. Genetically modified food, by contrast, is about as popular with consumers as BSE or salmonella.
This misallocation of funds should surprise us only until we see who sits on the committees that control the BBSRC. They are stuffed with executives from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and Unilever. Even the council's new "advisory group on public concerns" contains a representative of United Biscuits but no one from a consumer or environmental group. What "the market" (which means you and I) wants is very different from what those who seek to control the market want.
READ THE WHOLE OF THIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE, WITH REFERENCES:
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=611
------------------------------------------------------------
JOKES OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
1. AGBIOVIEW AND ITS CAST OF GROTESQUES
So full of hype and fraud are the utterances of the pro-GM brigade that they themselves can no longer tell the difference between their own brand of truth and an outrageous piece of anti-GM satire!
The lead item in a recent AgBioView, the list of Prof CS Prakash and his pro-GM AgBioWorld campaign, was a piece headed "Disgusted". It took the form of a letter by Paul Ohm, taken from Britain's Daily Telegraph. It lambasted the "popular ignorance and prejudice" displayed by "a large majority of people" who do not want GM crops grown commercially in Britain. Here's the letter in full:
"Disgusted
- Paul Ohm (Edgbaston), Telegraph (UK), Oct 2, 2003
"Sir - According to a government consultative paper, a large majority of people do not want genetically modified crops to be grown commercially in Britain. As a keen amateur technologist, I have never felt so disgusted by popular ignorance and prejudice.
"These instinctive Luddites, sunk in the darkness of medieval superstition, are always aghast when exposed to the light of scientific reason. Why do they oppose GM crops? Apparently they are concerned about the risk of contaminating conventional crops, particularly "organic" crops, which would deny freedom of choice for consumers. They believe GM technology is driven more by profit than by public interest.
"Needless to say, their arguments are pure organic rubbish. Profit and public interest, as most people know, are identical. There is no future in the long run for so-called "conventional" or so-called "organic" plants. Like everything that stands in the way of technological progress, they are going to disappear, however much whining sentimentalists, forever worrying about buttercups and daisies, try to protect them.
"But the Government cannot simply ignore prejudices that belong, like slavery, bear-baiting and homophobia, to a past age. It must strive, through intensive, compulsory education, to eradicate them for good."
That this tirade should be given such prominence in an AgBioView bulletin is not surprising. It articulates opinions that can be found in AgBioView almost every day of the week. This is a list, after all, that has labelled critics of GM as worse than Hitler and on a par with the mass murderers who destroyed the World Trade Centre.
http://ngin.tripod.com/pantsoftheyearaward.htm
This may be why it escaped Prakash's attention that the piece with which he topped his bulletin had been extracted from the Telegraph's eponymous 'Peter Simple' column, in which Michael Wharton satirises the inanity, cliches and humbug with which supposed "improvements" to the modern world are at times supported.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/10/03/do0304.xml
To this end, Wharton deploys a cast of grotesques, including Dr. Llewellyn Goth-Jones, the head of Malebolge pharmaceuticals - a division of the mammoth Nadirco Consortium; and Paul Ohm, 47, keen amateur technologist and simulated Concorde pilot, of Edgbaston.
There is an obvious parallel here. AgBioview deploys its own cast of grotesques - Prof Anthony Trewavas FRS, Dennis and Alex Avery, and Andrew Apel, all spring to mind - whose ludicrous rants and cliches are quite indistinguishable from those put into the mouth of Wharton's "disgusted" amateur technologist. Indeed, some Prakash/Monsanto grotesques - like 'Andura Smetacek' and 'Mary Murphy' - have proven just as fictitious as Wharton's 'Paul Ohm'.
http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit_index.html
It's small wonder Prakash missed the joke. The domain he inhabits resonates happily with the deranged world of Peter Simple. *** "You know that people are being fed day in and day out on a diet of paper and shadows, a thin and wretched soup of cliches and stereotypes, boiled up from the sweepings of the human mind." - PETER SIMPLE ***
For more on Prakash and AgBioView:
http://ngin.tripod.com/pantsoftheyearaward.htm
2. LAWNMOWER IS THREAT TO BIODIVERSITY, MONSANTO SAYS
Monsanto employs classic industry diversionary tactics in a letter to the Guardian urging us not to worry about the threat to biodiversity from GM crops since lawnmowers destroy more weeds. (Other examples: Worried about GM food? Think instead about E.coli and germs in organic manure! Concerned about dioxin emissions from factories and incinerators? Garden bonfires give off more dioxins!!)
Here's the letter, from Dr Colin Merritt, Biotechnology development manager, Monsanto UK:
October 7, 2003
Letters, The Guardian
"Mark Avery says (Letters, October 6) that control of weeds in farmers' fields is sufficient reason to ban GM crops. Surely then, the RSPB must also call for a ban on ploughing and gas burners used in organic farming, which destroy millions of plants and insects. Indeed, for that matter, should it not be calling for a ban on mowing lawns?
"Or is it perhaps time we stopped this line of argument in favour of a balanced scientific assessment? Independent [???part-funded by Monsanto!!] research at the Brooms Barn centre has already shown that GM sugar beet is a management tool which can be used to increase plant and insect numbers; so could it not be argued that farmers be encouraged to grow this crop?"
Monsanto's "lawnmower threat" is reminiscent of their previous attempt to blame the decline of farmland birds in the UK not on agrochemicals but on cats, prompting the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) to retort, "The fact that Monsanto has now resorted to blaming cats for the decline in farmland birds simply adds to the impression that it is only the environmental groups who are putting forward arguments based on science."
------------------------------------------------------------
FRENCH FACTS OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
In June, 700 French researchers opposed to GM crop trials signed a petition in support of José Bové. Now an equal number of French public sector researchers have called for a public debate on GMOs, saying the recent destruction of 25 GM field trials in France is a useful warning, and should lead to the implementation of the precautionary principle.
They also contest the potential of this form of biotechnology for developing countries, saying that it 'traps farmers into dependence on certain seed companies and pharmaceutical products'.
All of France's public research institutions are represented in this latest petition.
from 'French public sector researchers call for open debate on GMOs'
http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=EN_RCN_ID:20993
------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE WEEK 1: Professor Tim Flowers
"Biotechnologists have reasons for exaggerating their abilities to manipulate plants." - Professor Tim Flowers, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/confforum.html
QUOTE(S) OF THE WEEK 2: Rodney Nelson
""I can tell you stories that go on forever. It goes beyond bullying tactics" - US farmer Rodney Nelson who was wrongly sued by Monsanto
"The yields were horse***t. And we didn't save anything in our chemical costs." - US farmer Rodney Nelson on Monsanto's GM crops
MORE QUOTES OF THE WEEK
"Modern agri-biotechnology has produced significant benefits for commercial companies but not for small farmers in China." - Prof. Dayuan XUE, Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science, China
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/confforum.html
"Trying to incorporate transgenic crops by force into the foodstuffs of poor people in Argentina, (who know nothing about soybean, having never eaten it before), as has been done by big companies and their local representatives (through the 'Solidarity Soybean Campaign') is a serious situation, affecting both food security and issues of culture, identity and choice about what to eat." - Dr. Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/confforum.html
"Biotech's potential to benefit poor farmers is being misused (used?) to convince the European consumers that opposition to GMOs is unethical." Dr. Kees Jansen, Wageningen University, Netherlands
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/confforum.html
"Evaluation of claims that biotechnology can produce salt-tolerant crops reveals that, after ten years of research using transgenic plants to alter salt tolerance, the value of this approach has yet to be established in the field. Biotechnologists have reasons for exaggerating their abilities to manipulate plants. If 'biotechnology' is to contribute salt-tolerant crops, these crops may still be decades from commercial availability. The generation of drought-tolerant crops is likely to have a similar period of development." - Professor Tim Flowers, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/confforum.html
"Hunger can only be addressed by tackling poverty and inequality. GM's expansion is more likely to benefit rich corporations than poor people. Poor people really need better access to land and water, improved storage and better roads, agricultural training and affordable credit schemes. Money would be better spent tackling these problems than poured into GM technology." - Alex Wijeratna, ActionAid
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/confforum.html
"Those of us who oppose the commercialisation of GM crops have often been accused of being anti-science, just as opponents of George Bush are labelled anti-American, and critics of Ariel Sharon anti-semitic. But no one threatens science more than the government departments which distort the research agenda in order to develop something we have already rejected." - George Monbiot on 'The Enemies of Science'
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=611
------------------------------------------------------------
HEADLINES OF THE WEEK: from the GMWATCH archive
------------------------------------------------------------
5/10/2003 AgBioView and its cast of grotesques
5/10/2003 Can Agricultural Biotechnology be Pro-Poor?
5/10/2003 GMWATCH number 14 - monthly review
5/10/2003 Government Minister stands by pledge on organic and GM/Organic Exporters Fear GMO Threat
5/10/2003 Government prepares to back down over GM crops/Supreme Court asked to consider soy case/Researchers call for open debate on GMOs
6/10/2003 Bt cotton fiasco - Turning a Blind Eye
6/10/2003 GM crop technology on trial
6/10/2003 Re: A Disgusted Brit - more from AgBioView
7/10/2003 George Monbiot on GM and its government friends
7/10/2003 Government accused of fixing GM maize trials
7/10/2003 Monsanto warns of lawnmower threat!
7/10/2003 No-one will insure GM crops
7/10/2003 US and Germany clash over GM policy in Africa
8/10/2003 Assembly will take toughest line on GM
8/10/2003 FARM on NFU position on GM coexistence including insurance
8/10/2003 GM 'another Thalidomide'/Greens pressure Belgium over GM rape
8/10/2003 Royal Society is GM-free/Blair & co's thinking revealed
9/10/2003 GE vs organics: the good, the bad, and the ugly
9/10/2003 GM & Arnie
FOR THE COMPLETE GMWATCH 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.