GMWatch News Review archive

from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all

We have some high quality stories for you this week, including a cool look by Dr Arpad Pusztai at some unsupported claims on the safety of GM foods (GM SAFETY FLAWS). There's also an update on the extremist 'LM' cult that has been busy taking over the science establishment in the UK (LM WATCHING). And there's a guide to US Ag Secretary Ann Veneman's possible successors (LOBBYWATCH).

The biotech industry continues its global meltdown, with Bayer's spectacular backdown in India (ASIA) and the withdrawal of its only two GM seeds still in the UK commercialisation pipeline. Syngenta also had a bad week - it had to abandon its GM trials in Germany because of the ferocity of the opposition (EUROPE).

Meanwhile, Monsanto, which has been desperately trying to maintain the fiction of consistent benefits and farmer popularity for its GM cotton in India, had the humiliation of actually having one of its officials taken hostage by 200 angry Indian farmers. The farmers would only be appeased by Monsanto's agreement to pay them compensation for the poor performance of its GM crop. This follows on from farmers going on the rampage in Andhra Pradesh over the same issue. (ASIA)

Other news this week supported a new report from Dr Robert Wisner, Professor of Economics at Iowa State University, who stated, "Consumer resistance remains strong in Europe and Asia, and consumers remain the driving force in countries where food labeling allows choice" (THE AMERICAS). Amongst much else, Japan's largest food-producing region is putting in place a GM crop ban (ASIA), new super-tough co-existence laws have been passed in Italy, and there's confirmation of strong consumer rejection of GM in Russia (EUROPE). In the US itself, the first city has adopted an anti-GMO ordinance (THE AMERICAS).

Finally, many thanks to those of you who have donated to GM WATCH. We rely on - and appreciate - your support. For those who haven't yet donated, if you like what we do and want us to continue, please help by going to http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp
For more on the appeal: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4618
We desperately need your support.

Claire This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*COMPANY WATCH - Monsanto goes shopping
*BURKE BASHING - Talking sense to a GM Godfather
*GM SAFETY FLAWS - Pusztai special/New paper
*EUROPE
*ASIA
*THE AMERICAS
*LOBBYWATCH - Veneman goes, Monsanto stays
*LM WATCHING... Elton John, Power of Nightmares
*CAMPAIGN: GM trees

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY WATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ MONSANTO HIDES BEHIND TRUSTED LOCAL SEED COMPANIES
Monsanto is out shopping again, leading to a further concentration of seed ownership but this time it's adoptiung new tactics. It's announced the formation of American Seeds, Inc. (ASI), a new holding company established to support regional seed businesses with capital, genetics and technology investments. Carl Casale, executive vice president for Monsanto explained that this gave them "the brands and approaches that [the local seed companies'] customers know and trust".

ASI has already announced its first venture, acquiring Channel Bio Corp., a leading US seed company based in Kentland, Indiana. Casale said, "We view Channel as a cornerstone investment that will give us more opportunity for growth, accelerating the delivery of important technology advances to customers through the terrific relationships, local brands and quality service for which Channel and its management team are known."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4632

Note how the amiable local fronting of Monsanto's products ties in with the strategy the industry is adopting at a political level in the US, as in the recent Californian county ballots - getting local farming interests and "faces" to provide a persuasive front for the industry's campaign (http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4633).

It's a clever strategy for a company that has acquired more of a name for fleecing, spying on and suing farmers than for customer service!

As an article in the St Louis Post-Dispatch reports:
To the local growers who buy its corn and soybean seeds, Channel Bio largely will look and feel unchanged, said Monsanto spokeswoman Lori Fisher.

"The local customers are used to companies they're familiar with there, in their back yard. They know and trust those companies, and we don't want to destroy that".

In this deal, and future acquisitions envisioned for American Seeds, Monsanto gains the ability to reach farmers at a more granular level than it can with in-house seed brands Asgrow and Dekalb, said Kerry Preete, vice president of US Crop Production, the business unit under which American Seeds was formed. Monsanto expects to make further acquisitions through American Seeds.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4633

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BURKE BASHING
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ TALKING SENSE TO A GM GODFATHER
Drs Andy Stirling and Sue Mayer have written a calm, rational and very persuasive response to the florid claims of pro-GM campaigner-scientists like Derek Burke.

Burke and his ilk present the GM public debate as merely a question of an ignorant public being stirred to hysteria against sound science, with its rigorous risk assessments, by a sensationalist media fuelled by fundamentalist and self-interested NGOs.

The latter is exactly the viewpoint put forward by Prof Burke in an EMBO report "GM foods and crops: what went wrong in the UK?" (Rep 5: 432-436). Burke is far from alone, of course, in holding and promoting such simplistic prejudices.

Here are excerpts from the Stirling/Mayer response in a new EMBO report (full text at http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4634 ):

In the GM field, as elsewhere, it is becoming increasingly clear that the results obtained by 'science-based' risk assessments are highly sensitive to the particular questions that are asked, the way in which they are posed and the assumptions that are made in answering them.

Just as we do not necessarily see someone who opposes a particular policy as being 'anti-policy', it makes little sense to interpret public misgivings about GM as a general anti-technology reflex. The real picture is much more complex, nuanced and diverse, with no shortage of detailed documentary evidence. The 'bottom line' for GM is that the focus and boundaries of the regulatory risk-assessment system offer a poor match to the full range of public values, priorities and concerns.

The problem lies in using scientific procedures as a way to understate persistent uncertainties, to neglect wider issues and so to help 'close down' criticism and debate. We need to recognize and address - rather than deny - the full diversity and subtlety of public aspirations and concerns about our technological future.

'How safe is safe enough?' is not a question for science alone, but depends on a wider judgement of the relative merits of a particular technology compared with its alternatives.

..public attitudes to NGOs should be seen as active and knowing, rather than passive and credulous. Although people might be critical about the details, they tend to share the broader perspectives of NGOs and value their role in raising concerns that are otherwise seen to be largely neglected.

In the end, the remedy for both distrust of science and opposition to GM lies in an entirely different direction. As with science, the social choice of future technological pathways is much more open-ended than is often acknowledged, and is an entirely legitimate matter for political debate. In agriculture and food production, as elsewhere, there is a need for new regulatory procedures, institutions and governance discourses. We need to recognize and include - rather than deny - the full diversity and subtlety of public aspirations and concerns about our technological future. Deciding on the questions to be asked and the comparisons to be made has to be an inclusive process and not the provenance of 'experts' alone.
READ ON AT http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4634
For more on Burke: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=26

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM SAFETY FLAWS - SPECIAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ PUSZTAI ON FOOD SAFETY AND MONSANTO'S 863 CORN
Dr Arpad Pusztai was invited by GM Watch editor Jonathan Matthews to comment on a recent piece published on AgBioView by Dr Christopher Preston of the University of Adelaide, looking at the lack of peer-reviewed publications on the safety of GM foods.

Preston's piece also made reference to the New Zealand Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, who, he implied, was in the business of circulating propaganda rather than having due regard to the science. However, Dr Pusztai finds that Preston's own comments fail to stand up to examination.

Dr Pusztai also takes particular issue with how Preston presents the findings of the research on rats fed the controversial MON 863 GM corn. He comments, "I am sure Dr Preston must have read a different submission on MON 863 to the one that I (officially) read", and he quotes from the submission to show it says the exact opposite to what Dr Preston claims.
...

Dear Jonathan,

No, I have not seen this piece by Dr Christopher Preston of the University of Adelaide before. Perhaps, it is just as well, because it depressed me quite a bit.

You may call me naive but I always thought that scientists were a breed apart and that they did not get carried away with ideologies but that what they saw was what was actually there rather than what they would like to see. I can only hope that as a Senior Lecturer in Weed Management, Dr Preston is more objective when he teaches his students.

I'll explain why I found Chris Preston's piece so depressing by interposing into his comments the reasons I have a problem with his attitude to science.

PRESTON: ...The discussion of the lack of peer-reviewed publications on the safety of GM foods is an interesting one. It originated with a letter to Science in 2000 by Jose Domingo (Science 288: 1748-1749), where on searching Medline he could only find 8 experimental studies on safety of GM foods. Since then others, have published their own analyses. Ian Pryme and Rolf Lembcke published one in 2003 in Nutrition and Health (Nutrition and Health 17, 1-8) that reported 10 peer reviewed studies.

...This latter study has been widely reported by Greenpeace who have taken the added precaution of excluding any studies that have been performed by industry scientists or supported in any way by industry. This is a sure-fire way to keep the number of reported studies small.

[PUSZTAI'S] COMMENT: I have to point out that in the Pryme and Lembcke paper the list of GM papers they have reviewed was restricted only to those which actually dealt with nutritional feeding studies. They included all such studies regardless of whether they had been performed by industry scientists or by researchers supported in some other way by industry. What Greenpeace may have done or may not have done has nothing to do with Pryme and Lembcke. It is disingenuous, therefore, to imply that these authors may have had an anti-industry bias just "to keep the number of reported studies small". They showed no such bias. The reality is that the number of such peer reviewed published studies is genuinely very small.

PRESTON: However, this analysis does not take into account any recognition of how science works. It also conveniently ignores the large number of studies submitted for regulatory approval under the polite fiction that these are not "peer reviewed". They are reviewed by scientists employed by or contracted to the regulatory agencies. On the other hand, Jeannette (and others like her) will be quite happy to cite a large number of "studies" that are published on the internet by anti-GM activists with no peer review, such as the Terje Traavik study on allergies to Bt in the Philippines.

COMMENT: ...in reality, this is not a description of how science works but a bit of PR on behalf of the biotech people.

I am sure, Chris Preston knows all too well that the submissions made by the biotech industry are mostly confidential and therefore cannot be regarded as scientific publications regardless of whether he regards them as "peer-reviewed" or not. He is senior enough that I should not need to lecture him on what is the purpose of publishing scientific papers. Indeed, he has himself amassed some 60 such papers during his career. He cannot, therefore, fail to be aware that confidential and non-retrievable works are absolutely useless for the general scientific community.

It is also disingenuous to refer to what kind of papers Jeanette (or others like her) may cite. Jeanette, to the best of my knowledge, is not a scientist and as such she has the perfect right to quote anything published on the Internet or elsewhere and, of course, we as scientists also have a perfect right to ignore it. This intermingling of references to politicians, etc. with references to the evidence presented by scientists such as Domingo or Pryme and Lembcke, just reinforces my gut feeling that what Chris Preston is engaged in is a PR operation on behalf of the biotech industry, which is funny in view of the first sentence of his next paragraph.

PRESTON: As a practising scientist, I deal with all ends of the peer review exercise... I can tell you that it is difficult to get negative results published. I have published only one paper that reported negative results and that was a close run thing. The only reason it was published was because it addressed failings in an hypothesis being widely expressed at the time... I have lots of other negative results, but they all live in the bottom of my filing cabinet.

COMMENT: I am sad to hear that lots of negative results live in the bottom of Dr Preston's filing cabinet and yet there is something curiously familiar about this argument about the difficulties of publishing negative results. It is an argument I seem to have heard advanced before in defence of the lack of published evidence of safety in the GM field and I am not sure we should buy into it.

Dr Preston himself puts his finger on one problem with this argument when he refers to the fact that his only paper with negative findings that met with success was published precisely "because it addressed failings in an (sic) hypothesis being widely expressed at the time". So here could be the recipe for more success. I suggest if he does experimental work on the safety of GM he may well find quite a few problems. If he addresses these, he may find very definite failings in the hypothesis that there is nothing wrong with the safety of GM crops/foods. As there are still only about a dozen and a half published papers on the effects of GM foods in the peer-reviewed literature (including the papers published by industry scientists), there is a great opportunity opening to him and others to explore what these possible failings may be and to knock down this sacred cow of a hypothesis that GM foods are safe. Meanwhile, and just to whet his appetite, he may read our review on GM safety based on all the published papers in this field (up till end of 2002; the next instalment is coming in 2005) in a book: "Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins, ed. By JPF D'Mello published in 2003 by CAB International Publishing (Wallingford, Oxon, UK; ISBN 0-85199-607-8 pp. 347-372.

There are two other important points to consider in connection with this statement about negative results. The first is the implied suggestion that GM risk assessment studies almost by definition will lead to negative results, i.e. that the GM and non-GM lines will be found to be indistinguishable, i.e. substantially equivalent. And of course, according to the basic tenets of biotechnology, this is an indisputable fact. I do not want to point out again how basically unscientific it is in research to prejudge an issue, particularly if it is so important an issue as the GM debate.

The other point is that the science behind most of the biotech submissions (and I have seen most in my time) is that the research behind them frequently is quite static and based on rather crude analytical or nutritional comparisons. May I suggest that the results of more dynamic studies into the genomic changes and the physiological, immunological, hormonal, etc., consequences resulting from genetic modification, will be quite a surprise to all those who feel discouraged that they will only obtain negative results which will then be unpublishable.

PRESTON: A secondary issue is corporate funding of such research. I am afraid this is a reality of the World. At my University in Australia, if I don't get outside support for work, it just doesn't get done. So it would be impossible for me to set up a study to examine the safety of GM crops unless somebody was going to fund it... Any grant application would also suffer from the perception that the results would be unsurprising (i.e. negative).

COMMENT: I think I have already dealt with Dr Preston's prejudiced assertion of the predictability of negative results, but it is worth commenting on his remark about the difficulties of obtaining grants without a major industrial involvement. This situation is, of course, not very surprising because since Mrs Thatcher "reformed" science and its funding in the UK (and most countries' politicians happily followed her example) most of the granting agencies are led and staffed by industry scientists. Perhaps, we the public and other scientists ought to have put more pressure on our politicians to restore the situation that used to be the norm in research: i.e. to re-establish the principle that the main purpose of science is to find out more about the world and ourselves and not just one of doing applied science to serve the interests of the corporations. However, even in the present day with a little bit of persistence and a lot of great ideas it is possible to get modest funding for fundamental studies even if their results cannot be rendered profitable immediately.

PRESTON: As to the two specific points you raised, there has been a lot of discussion among the anti-GM brigade about the safety of Corn MON 863. I don't know who started it, but it is based on an interpretation of a difference in white blood cell, lymphocyte and basophil counts in male, but not female, rats fed the MON 863 corn. The changes were not considered biologically significant because they fell within the range of the standard deviation of the control group. The European Food Safety Authority recently released a press release on MON 863: (http://www.efsa.eu.int/press_room/press_release/669pr_gmo03_statement_mon863_en1.pdf).

COMMENT: This is again remarkable. I am sure Dr Preston must have read a different submission on MON 863 to the one that I (officially) read. Here are the facts taken from the submission (with no additions or subtractions other than for the purpose of emphasis):

MALES:
There are significant differences in WBC, lymphocyte counts, basophil counts and APPT between rats on 33% GM maize diet vs. control
There are also SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in RBC, haemoglobin, haematocrit (not fully), MCHC, WBC, reticulocytes, lymphocytes, basophils BETWEEN RATS on GM MAIZE DIET vs. REF controls (!!!)

FEMALES:
RBC, haemoglobin, reticulocytes (at both weeks 5 and 14), basophil counts were significantly different in GM maize-fed rats vs control.

MCHC, reticulocytes, basophil counts, prothrombin time and APPT in GM maize-fed rats were ALL SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE in REF CONTROLS (!!!)

How the EFSA and Dr Preston managed to misread the content of the Tables in the submission is beyond me. Surely it couldn't be that what these people often accuse the "greens" of also applies to them, i.e. that they are driven by ideology and not the facts of the case?
[this is a slightly edited version - fill text:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4629 ]

+ GM SAFETY TESTS FLAWED, NEW PAPER SHOWS
A peer-reviewed scientific paper published on 16 November in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews debunks the myth that GM crops are thoroughly tested, regulated and proven safe.

The paper, "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods", includes a comprehensive case study of two types of insecticide-producing GM corn (chiefly the MON810 variety of Monsanto), showing how flawed testing and regulation permitted these varieties onto world markets despite evidence that they could cause food allergies.

The European Commission recently approved 17 corn hybrids derived from MON810. A number of countries including Poland, Austria, Italy, Germany, Greece and Denmark have recently criticised the Commission's approval of the corn.

The scientific paper reveals fundamental flaws in how biotech companies test and the US government regulates GM crops. The paper thus raises serious questions about whether GM foods, which have been on the market since 1994, are in fact safe, as claimed by the biotech industry and US regulators.

Authors Dr David Schubert of California's Salk Institute and William Freese of Friends of the Earth US base their meticulously documented, 25-page paper on nearly 100 sources, including little-known US regulatory documents and unpublished studies by biotech companies.

"One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review," said co-author Schubert.

Added Freese: "In one case, the US Environmental Protection Agency ignored a published study by an Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist suggesting that GM corn could cause food allergies, and instead asked Monsanto and Syngenta to essentially re-do FDA's analysis."

"The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp 'approval process' designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods," said Schubert. "We outline a testing scheme that would be a first step toward putting regulation of GM foods on a scientific footing," he added.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4628

E-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for a copy of the article, which forms part of Volume 21 of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews.

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

+ ITALY: TOUGH COEXISTENCE BAN PASSED IN SPITE OF BERLUSCONI'S OPPOSITION
The Italian Government has just passed a tough bill on coexistence between GM, conventional and organic crops. Berlusconi tried to block the bill as restrictive and illiberal, but in the end he and his ministers had to pass it because of the popular outcry.

Roberto Pinton of Italy's Green Planet told GM Watch, "Only one minister voted against the ban: Mr Castelli (the Attorney General). But he is not a GM-campaigner; on the contrary: 'I am against to the coexistence decree as I am strongly contrary to GMs: no coexistence is possible. My ideal law about this matter has only a short article: 'GMs are not allowed in Italy'. I am a Taliban..."

The decree bans GM crops up to December 31, 2005. Regions are asked to pass their own laws not later than this date. Laws have to set coexistence criteria, aimed to avoid contamination of non-GM crops. Thirteen out of 20 regions have passed laws declaring GM-free status.

The decree bans the cultivation of GMOs in open fields, in a bid to prevent the contamination of traditional crops. But it will not outlaw restricted and protected testing of GMOs.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4620

+ SYNGENTA ABANDONS GM WHEAT TRIALS IN GERMANY
Blaming disruptive efforts from environmentalists, Syngenta has decided to not pursue any further field trials with GM wheat for the time being in Germany. A company representative said, "For the past two years, Syngenta has tried to promote its research projects and step up to its critics. However that did not work. Any further attempt does not make sense right now. In addition, the situation in Germany for field trials is not very conducive. The studies will probably be continued outside of Germany."

Gerhard Ruden of the German CDU Faction in the regional parliament, claimed it was all the, "result of the behaviour of militant environmentalists and an undefined position by the German government". He complained of "rioting and property damage" and warrned that "thousands of future jobs are endangered."

[Isn't it interesting how these people never mention all the jobs in organic farming, which is more labour-intensive than GM or conventional farming?! Or are they just thinking of jobs for corporate-minded boffins?]
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4624

+ BAYER DROPS LAST 2 GM SEEDS IN UK
On 9 November Bayer CropScience removed the last 2 GM crop varieties still in the approval process for the UK national seed list. This is the final nail in the coffin for the commercial growing of the first generation of GM crops in the UK. Since 1994, 58 different GM crop varieties have begun the process to be included on the UK national seed list and thus be available for commercial growing. All 58 applications have now been abandoned.

When Bayer CropScience backed out of commercialising GM fodder maize (Chardon LL) back in spring 2004, they were full of claims about how this wasn't the end of their plans for GM crops in the UK and that they would be commercialising GM oilseed rape by 2008. This now seems to have been empty posturing to avoid losing face, as the 2 varieties of GM oilseed rape that they still had in the commercialisation pipeline (PGS PHW99429 and PGS PH96s452) have now been abandoned.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4627

+ SCOTTISH GENE-JOCKEYS APPEAL TO GATES FOR POTATO CASH
Scottish gene-jockeys are seeking help from Bill Gates, the Microsoft billionaire, to launch a yellow potato for the Third World. They have developed two varieties that contain their own carotenoids, substances believed to protect against cancer, heart disease and deterioration of eyesight in the old. The pigments from carotenoids make veg yellow or orange.

Now researchers at the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie, near Dundee, have developed transgenic versions of two potato varieties, Desiree and Mayan Gold, which they say boast beta-carotene at up to six times the natural level. Scientists at the SCRI used genetic material from a Japanese brewery in the project.
[These claims of a high beta-carotene level, which would produce 6 x the natural level of Vit A, could backfire. A recent report from Finland showed that above a certain vitamin A intake we can expect problems with toxicity. The big Finnish human study attempted to show the beneficial effects of carotene on lung cancer mortality but had to be abandoned because the findings appeared to show the opposite!]
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4627

+ RUSSIAN BAKER CONFIRMS GM-FREE STATUS
Russian consumers are just as concerned about whether they are unwittingly eating GM foods as their counterparts in the rest of Europe, and companies such as baker MBKK Kolomenskoe are increasingly seeing a guaranteed GM-free status as a powerful marketing tool.

MBKK Kolomeskoe, which makes a popular brand of wafer cakes, called in scientists from the Institute of Cytology at the Russian Academy of Sciences to verify the GM status of its ingredients.

"We believe that if you produce food products that are very popular with consumers it is very dangerous indeed to experiment with the way in which those products are made [such as using GM ingredients], as this can clearly have a negative effect on consumer acceptance," said Kolomesnkoe's Albert Mkrtichian.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4630

+CROATIA: PIONEER TRIES TO AVOID LIABILITY FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF GM SEED
A report sent to GM Watch from Croatia says that Pioneer is trying to avoid being convicted for the illegal sale of GM seed, which Croatian farmers unknowingly planted. Pioneer has refused to pay 13 million kuna (around 2 million EURO) in compensation. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, which ordered the destruction of GM corn crops, has compensated farmers. For the rest of the report:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4630

------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ BAYER PULLS OUT OF GM IN INDIA, ADMITS THAT FUTURE IS IN CONVENTIONAL BREEDING
In an admission of immense significance to the entire GE industry, Bayer Crop Science has conceded to Greenpeace India that all its projects on GE crops have been "discontinued".

Greenpeace says this admission is a result of a direct action by Greenpeace at the Bayer headquarters in Mumbai on 30 September 2004. In a letter to Greenpeace last week, Aloke V. Pradhan, head of Corporate Communications, states Bayer's future plans for India, "Overall, Bayer Crop Science India will continue to focus in the coming years on its conventional plant breeding research programme."

"We don't need genetically engineered crops to feed India," said Divya Raghunandan, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace India. "Around the world, in fact, the promises made by the genetic engineering industry have been unfulfilled, whether of increasing crop yields or reducing pesticide use. It doesn't surprise us that Bayer is giving up GE experiments in India. They saw the writing on the wall - the Indian public was not going to accept their manipulated cabbages and cauliflowers - and they cut their losses. It's time for the rest of the industry to give up on this misguided and inappropriate technology."

The significance of this pull-out for Bayer, and indeed the entire genetic engineering industry, cannot be overestimated. In the second largest country in the world, with 80% of the population involved in agriculture, the Indian market for agro-chemical and seed companies is enormous. This retreat follows two decisions that set Bayer back earlier this year. In March 2004, the company announced they would be pulling out of GE crop research in the UK. A few months later, in June, Bayer announced they would not pursue commercialization of GE canola in Australia. Bayer's letter to Greenpeace India concedes that research into engineered cabbage, cauliflower, eggplant, tomato and mustard seed has all been halted.

Bayer's withdrawal from GE research around the world is part of a larger pattern of retreat in the biotechnology industry. For example, Monsanto globally abandoned GE wheat research earlier this year. The company also shelved its Australian work on GE canola one month prior to a similar decision by Bayer.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4626

+ MONSANTO OFFICIAL TAKEN HOSTAGE BY ANGRY INDIAN FARMERS
About 200 cotton farmers took into custody the District Manager of Monsanto, T.V.S. Gupta, and eight Agriculture Department officials on 9 November demanding compensation for the Bt Cotton seed that had failed to germinate properly leading to poor yield.

The next day, the farmers, of Phanidam village in Sattenapalle mandal of Guntur district, released the nine hostages after an assurance from the District Manager of Monsanto Seeds that it would pay compensation. The farmers demanded a compensation of Rs.15,000 per acre for about 20 acres.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4622

+ JAPAN: NEW HOKKAIDO RULES WOULD STOP FARMING OF GM CROPS
Hokkaido, Japan's northernmost prefecture and its largest food-producing region, plans to put in place next spring restrictions that would result in an effective ban on commercial cultivation of GM crops. The new rules are in response to growing consumer interest in food safety and are aimed at maintaining the reputation of products from Hokkaido.

A licensing system would allow commercial cultivation of GM plants, but the conditions would be so strict - for example, constant monitoring to prevent cross-fertilization with other plants - that the rules are expected to effectively halt such activity by ordinary farms. However, experimental cultivation would be allowed if experts agree that steps are being taken to prevent cross-fertilization and contamination.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4623

------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
------------------------------------------------------------

+ BUSINESS AS USUAL IN 2ND BUSH TERM
Biotech regulation in the second Bush term is expected to be a continuation of agency initiatives in the current term, industry sources told Food Chemical News.

Industry body BIO is hopeful that the second Bush term will see an FDA commissioner empowered to push regulatory initiatives sought by the industry. Jeff Barach of the National Food Processors Association expressed hope that US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick would file a second World Trade Organization complaint against the EU, this time addressing new EU rules on labeling and traceability of GM food and feed that took effect last April.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4637

+ GM WHEAT STILL A MARKET RISK
A leading grain market economist says commercial introduction of GM wheat still risks the loss of up to half of US wheat export markets and up to a one-third drop in price. "No new policy changes or trends have significantly lowered the market risk of introducing genetically modified wheat," said Dr Robert Wisner, University Professor of Economics at Iowa State University. "Consumer resistance remains strong in Europe and Asia, and consumers remain the driving force in countries where food labeling allows choice."

Dr Wisner's conclusions are in an update of his October 2003 report, Market Risks of Genetically Modified Wheat, prepared for Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC), a regional network representing farmers and ranchers in Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4636

+ US MAIZE THREAT TO MEXICAN FARMS
The North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) is having a severe effect on rural Mexico, TVE's Earth Report programme claims.

Nafta was set up 10 years ago by Mexico, Canada and the US to promote competition and efficiency. But US maize farmers, propped up by subsidies, are outcompeting their Mexican counterparts. As a result, US maize is flooding Mexican markets, threatening to put traditional farmers out of business. Not only does this create social problems, it also has environmental consequences, among them being GM contamination of indigenous maize from American maize.

Currently, most Mexican farmers use non-intensive, natural methods to grow their crops. Now, because of US competition, they may have to abandon these methods or leave the land altogether.

Leaders who supported Nafta said it would make life better for all Mexicans. But US maize is heavily subsidized. So while Mexicans can buy grain cheaper than ever before from the US, their own production has become economically unviable.

"We believe the free market is a lie, because the United States is subsidizing farmers, and Mexican farmers don't receive subsidies," said farmer Aldo Gonzales. "That's not a free market, that's not free competition, that's not fair competition."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4625

+ CALIFORNIA: ARCATA CITY GOES GM-FREE
On November 17, the Arcata City Council, by a unanimous 4 - 0 vote, became the first city in California to adopt an anti-GMO ordinance. Ordinance 1350 adds a chapter to the Municipal Code to declare the sales, distribution, propagation, cultivation, raising or growing of genetically engineered organisms a public nuisance and subject to criminal enforcement.

"The city council was totally behind this from the start," said Jim Ferguson, former Campaign Manager of Measure M, the Humboldt County anti-GMO initiative. "At the meeting tonight, not only did no one speak against it, but the ones who did thought the council hadn't gone far enough."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4635
All of which must have been less than happy news for Western Farm Press's Harry Cline. The man who compared GM critics to neo-Nazis has now written a piece on GM in California entitled, "Anti-biotech Crowd Takes Behind Woodshed Whipping", presumably a reference to the kind of treatment once handed out to blacks and other people of colour.
http://westernfarmpress.com/news/11-16-04-column-anti-biotech-whipping/

+ CALIFORNIANS FOR GE-FREE AGRICULTURE NEWSLETTER
The latest issue of a newsletter keeping the public abreast of developments in California's movement against GM is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4635
Visit the group's website at www.calgefree.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ FED UP WITH LIES & CORPORATE SPIN?
This week sees the launch of a major new website called SpinWatch, (http://www.spinwatch.org ) that aims to counter corporate PR and government propaganda. It is being launched during an international conference at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow on Spin and Corporate Power.
GM Watch founder, Jonathan Matthews, is a contributing editor to SpinWatch and the site includes the GM/LobbyWatch profiles of front groups, think tanks and corporate friendly scientists. The leading lights of SpinWatch include Prof David Miller and the investigative journalist, Andy Rowell, author of 'Green Backlash' and 'Don't Worry: It's Safe to Eat'.
http://www.spinwatch.org
Check out David Miller's article CAUGHT IN THE MATRIX: http://spinwatch.server101.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=316

+ VENEMAN GOES, MONSANTO STAYS
Ann Veneman, US Agriculture Secretary, has resigned. Veneman had strong biotech and agribiz connections, having served on the board of directors for Calgene Inc., which commercialised the first GM food, the Flavr Savr tomato, and which was bought out by Monsanto.

Here's the rundown on who might replace her. Any which way, it's business as usual! Names that have surfaced include:
1. Farm trade negotiator Allen Johnson of the US Trade Representative's office
2. White House agriculture advisor Chuck Conner
3. Texas Rep. Charles Stenholm, a Democrat.
...
1. More on Allen Johnson

Allen Johnson is the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the USTR, the Office of the US Trade Representative. He negotiates all agriculture trade agreements and policies on behalf of the US government, in venues like the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA. Johnson opposes the biotech labeling rules being developed for EU consumers and regulations to enable the tracing of foods from farm to market. "We think that it's trade restrictive and frankly we think it's unworkable," Johnson said.

Prior to joining the USTR, Ambassador Johnson served as the President, and before that, as the Executive Vice President, of the National Oilseed Processors Association, NOPA. NOPA has only 13 "regular members," some of which are Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge North America, Cargill, and Perdue. Among the 20 "associate members," are ConAgra, Procter & Gamble, Purina, Tyson Foods and Unilever.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm
http://www.saynotogmos.org/umar03a.htm
....
2. More on Chuck Conner

Chuck (Charles F) Conner is president of the Corn Refiners Association, "the national trade association representing the corn refining industry of the United States", which, with such co-signatories as Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Archer Daniels Midland, supported a letter stating support for "food biotechnology as a tool that can improve product quality, increase production efficiency, allow more judicious use of agricultural chemicals and help meet growing domestic and world food demand." http://www.namamillers.org/is_bio_plantbiotech.html

The CRA and the above signatories (and Cargill, American Soybean Assoc, DuPont and ConAgra) also jointly signed a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick thanking him for "for your initiative to advance the Doha Development Agenda negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO)". The letter makes clear what that agenda is: "Agriculture's future continues to lie in expanding foreign markets and eliminating barriers to our exports. The successful conclusion of the WTO negotiations on agriculture remains our top negotiating priority."

The Corn Refiners Association has among its member companies Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill.
http://www.ncga.com/letters/2004/PDFS/ZoellickSupportDohaRound-USAgriculture031904.pdf
...
3. More on Charles Stenholm

In Seattle, arch-conservative Congressman Charles Stenholm, a Democrat from Texas, and a powerful figure on the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives, shaken by the anti-GE, anti-WTO protests in the streets outside his hotel and the delegates' meetings, warned of the dire consequences for US agribusiness if the biotechnology industry loses the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. Stenholm... pleaded with biotech industry representatives to campaign in churches and to "empty your pockets" to fight biotechnology's critics. "We have to take to the streets ourselves. Otherwise, we lose," Stenholm said.

Stenholm "endorses genetically altered food as a way to help feed the world's growing population." "God did not create a world that is totally safe," Stenholm said, adding that risk is inherent in every food.
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/2000/april2000/05042000_farmgate.html
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/jun99/msg02299.html

A look at how many biotech bucks make it into politics (from CropChoice)
Biotechnology companies contributed $633,850 to politicians at the federal level in the current and previous election cycles in the hopes of continued federal support for GM crops.

Monsanto, Aventis Crop Science, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), and Cargill all broke records for donations in 2000, giving a total of $497,850 to politicians, political action committees (PAC), and political parties. Cargill and ADM led the donation pack. Cargill gave out $197,000 in donations - $47,000 to Democrats and $150,000 to Republicans. ADM gave out $202,450 in donations - $95,000 to Democrats and $107,450 to Republicans. Monsanto and Aventis CropScience were not all that far behind with $74,900 and $23,500, respectively.

Members of the agricultural committees in the House and Senate were prime donation targets. One dollar in six went to a member of these committees, totaling $101,450 in the 2000 election cycle. Rep. Charles Stenholm (-TX) was among the top three recipients with $11,500.
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=591
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4631

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM WATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ LM WATCHING
George Monbiot recently noted that GM Watch had "shown how almost the entire infrastructure of communication between science and the public in Britain has been captured by a bizarre ultra-rightwing cult. It's one of the oddest and most alarming stories I've ever come across."

The bizarre ultra-rightwing cult is often referred to as the 'LM network'. It developed out of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which itself was an offshoot of the Revolutionary Communist Tendency. The leading light behind these various metamorphoses is the British sociologist Frank Furedi. His followers appear happy to be under his ideological shadow and tend to worship him as one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

They promote an extreme libertarian ideology - no restrictions on paedophilia, race hate etc. - and they eulogise technologies like nuclear power, genetic engineering and human cloning. They see the GM debate as particularly important: "the terrain upon which society's relationship to science and human endeavour is currently being worked out."

Our lobbywatch.org website has an LM Watch section: http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=39&page=1
Here's a recent addition to that part of the site. To get all the embedded links, go to: http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=52&page=1
.......
LM Watching...
Watching briefs - bits and snips to keep you abreast of the Furediites
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=52&page=1
*Elton meets the RCP!
*Hume uses Times column as promo for Ann Furedi
*Claire Fox was SPUC militant
*Gimme dat ol' time techno-religion
*Durodie and the power of ironies
......
*Elton meets the RCP!*
Blast from the past: Bruno Waterfield, long time Furediite - these days at e-politix - took time off revolutionary communist duties in 1984 to fly out to Sydney for the wedding of his sister Renate Blauel to Elton John. Bruno was under instructions to try to get a contribution to Party funds. With a Furediite shaking his collection tin under the bed, no wonder the marriage didn't last.

*Hume uses Times column as promo for Ann Furedi*
LM and Spiked editor, Mick Hume, has used his Times column as a platform for fellow LM-er Ann Furedi (formerly Ann Bradley, alias Ann Burton) to defend herself against recent revelations in the Telegraph. These showed how the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which Furedi heads, is guiding women more than six months pregnant to a Barcelona Clinic for abortions that are illegal under both British and Spanish law.

In the Hume piece Ann Furedi scoffs at 'any notion that BPAS is run as her personal political crusade'. Furedi tells us she has only been chief executive 'for 16 months, during which there have been no policy changes'. But Furedi didn't come fresh to BPAS, as this suggests, but spent many years as its Director of Communications - quite apart from helping LM place-people like Ellen Raphael gain employment there.

Hume's connections with the Furediites has been a long one. He was recruited into their Revolutionary Communist Tendency as far back as 1981, while a student of American politics at Manchester, during a 'Workers March for Irish Freedom'. Needless to say, this is not something he touched on in his Times piece.

On a deeper level, the championing of abortion right up to the point of birth is part of the underlying callousness that marks out the Furediites. It's also part of their attempt to break the basic bond with human life and nurturing. This, in turn, is necessitated by their extreme anti-nature, anti-humanist position.

*Claire Fox was SPUC militant*
Blast from the past: little known fact - LM co-publisher and Institute of Ideas (IoI) director, Claire Fox, was originally a fierce anti-abortion campaigner. At the time she was recruited into Furedi's Revolutionary Communist Tendency at Warwick University in 1980, she was active with the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC). Fox was drawn in to the RCT by its campaigning work around Irish republicanism. Her devout Catholicism and anti-abortion militancy meant that for some time she was kept at arms length from full membership.

Claire later channelled her fervour into being a Branch Organiser for the RCP, in which role she favoured 'beating the shit' out of new recruits in order to turn them into 'good' part cadres. Her sister Fiona Fox followed in Claire's wake, apparently experiencing no problems in reconciling her active RCP involvement, with working for a Roman Catholic organisation - Cafod. Nowadays, Fiona heads the Science Media Centre while Claire as well as heading up the IoI brings a Furediite spin to the burning moral issues of the day on BBC Radio 4's The Moral Maze.

*Gimmie dat ol' time techno-religion*
A letter in the Times from Doug Parr of Greenpeace responds to a recent Times piece on the debate over nanothechnology. It was written by devoted Furediite, Tracey Brown, in her guise as director of Sense about Science. Predictably, she paints nanotechnology as progressively virtuous while those with concerns are presented as unrepresentative campaigning fundamentalists.

In fact, says Parr, the debate about nanotechnology involves such critical questions as 'how this technology is applied, and for whose benefits and with what risks.' All of which is, of course, a mite subtle for the Furediites who pride themselves on mounting a startlingly uncritical defence of science, technology, 'progress' and the Enlightenment. (see Living Marxism)

*Durodie and the power of ironies*
The final programme in the recent Power of Nightmares BBC TV series was blessed by Bill Durodie, described as 'director of the international centre for security analysis at King's College London'.

This part of the programme argued that the war on terror is an example of the precautionary principle in operation, and akin to the calls for preventive action made by environmentalists in the absence of scientific evidence. Curiously, the programme used climate change as an illustration of this, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is clearly with the environmentalists while Durodie's LM chums, like the neo-cons pursuing the war on terror, are with the nay-sayers!

At what point the maker of Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis, ran across Durodie is anyone's guess, though he seems to have shared an Institute of Ideas platform with him and Frank Furedi in November 2003. Durodie's involvement in the TV series not only damaged its credibility but was somewhat ironic given one of the programme's sub-themes - the insidious influence of elitist political groups who perceive themselves as vanguards and uncompromisingly grind their ideological axes regardless of the truth.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4638

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN: GM TREES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ GLOBAL BAN ON GM TREES SOUGHT
China appears to be the first country to commercialise GM trees, says the Finnish NGO People's Forest Forum. Reports say there are now more than a million insect resistant GM poplars in Southern China. If those GM poplars can cross-pollinate with natural populations then China has already contaminated other countries in breach of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, says Mikko Vartiainen, a lawyer in the People's Biosafety Association in Finland.

Finnish environmental organisations have launched an international campaign for a global ban on GM trees. Their petition to the UN has been signed by more than 200 organisations and 2000 individuals from 70 countries:
http://elonmerkki.net/forestforum/uk/signed1.html

The campaign has protested the UN decision in the climate meeting in Milan which allows nations to set up GM tree plantations and gain carbon dioxide emission credits through them. The next step for the campaign is to present its demand in Buenos Aires in December at the tenth UN Kyoto meeting.
More information: http://elonmerkki.net/forestforum
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4621