------------------------------------------------------------
from Prof Bullsh*t, WEEKLY WATCH guest editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Have I got a treat for you! It's the latest winner of my very special award given to the smelters of the choicest lies, disinformation, PR chicanery and unfounded abuse - the prestigious PANTS ON FIRE AWARD.
But first, as Claire has let me loose on this week's Weekly Watch, let's put it all in a meaningful context.
The front-page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal said it all, 'Biotech's dismal bottom line: more than $40 billion in losses'. The WSJ noted, 'not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year...' http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Biotech-$40B-Losses20may04.htm
Still it's good to be aboard the gravy-train before it hits the buffers! Or as George Rathmann, the first chief executive of biotech firm Amgen likes to put it, 'Take the hors d'oeuvres while they're passing the tray, not just when you're hungry.'
Of course, no part of the industry is more in the doldrums than plant genetic engineering. On the same day that 'Biotech's dismal bottom line' was splashed across the WSJ, the New York Times ran the headline: 'For biotech foods, a dwindling appetite'. http://www.iht.com/articles/520925.htm
The NYT notes that it's not just a case of 'the small number of crops' - just 4 - that have won any significant market acceptance, but that even these are only hanging in there because they are largely invisible - as fibre or animal feed. The NYT also notes that such crops are still limited to just two main GM traits.
The article also points to: the small number of countries involved in growing these crops, the 'sharp drop in efforts to develop genetically engineered fruit and vegetables', and how 'the pace of new product introductions has fallen sharply'. The piece also provides some interesting figures to back all this up. http://www.iht.com/articles/520925.htm
Still, it's not all been bad news for shareholders this week. Monsanto has just managed to scrape home with a 5 to 4 Canadian Supreme Court decision in favour of its being allowed to carry on persecuting farmers for 'violating its patents' on its GM crops like canola (oilseed rape). However, the court has not upheld Percy Schmeiser having to pay damages to Monsanto, and Monsanto will also have to pay its own court costs.
If, however, you're one of those rather old fashioned folks who think it a bit of an outrage that Monsanto can claim rights on anything its genes happen to contaminate, then see the online CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK - 'Tell Monsanto where to go.'
And so to my pants. Just a couple of weeks ago, you may remember, we had the US-dominated World Food Programme of the UN actually pretending that USAID never forced GM food aid on countries with food shortages. Now this week we've had the USAID dominated Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN issuing a 200 page report, 'AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR?', which has led to media claims, especially in the US, of the UN being gung-ho for GMOs.
Some of this (mis)reporting is down to carefully spun industry press releases but the FAO report itself also contains its share of good old biotech-bubble propagandising. For instance, it lists the totally failed GM sweet potato project in Kenya in a section headed, 'Examples of successful technology development'!! (p.97)
This may of course not be unconnected with the fact that one of those acknowledged as a key background researcher for the report is Joel Cohen. It was JC, as he's known to his friends, who while at USAID helped Monsanto get the GM sweet potato project off the ground, using USAID money to have Florence Wambugu trained by Monsanto for the purpose. JC's principal collaborator at Monsanto, Robert Horsch has said his role there is to 'create goodwill and help open future markets'. Wambugu reinforces the point: 'it [the GM sweet potato] has no commercial value to Monsanto, except as PR.'
Over the years Monsanto and USAID, which has introducing GM into developing countries as part of its remit, have more than recouped their PR investment with the help of Florence Wambugu. It's therefore a very great pleasure, in association with the Weekly Watch, to see that Dr Wambugu's remarkable track record properly acknowledged. I refer of course to that most coveted of awards for corporate deception: the PANTS ON FIRE AWARD!
By the way, it may be of interest to note that among the other 'background researchers' acknowledged in the FAO report, is Norman Borlaug. It was Big Norm, of course, who once described Rachel Carsen, the scientist whose book 'Silent Spring' gave birth to the environmental movement, as 'a force for evil'. There are also several other strong Prakash supporters whose background work for the FAO report is acknowledged, including Thomas Hoban. We've therefore included PR WATCH's delightful profile of Tom - THE PROFESSOR WHO CAN READ YOUR MIND.
Some may of course think it apt that the FAO report's author previously worked as an agricultural economic researcher for the US on NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Agreement. The agreement was touted as an economic boon for Mexico. The reality, however, for Mexico's rural poor has been very different. Heavily subsidised US farm products have helped drive millions of Mexicans off the land. Now, as Devinder Sharma notes, the FAO seems willing to let the GM industry 'drive out the majority of farmers in the developing countries from their meager land holdings'. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3586 For more of the rebuttals of the FAO report see http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3594
And now for my Smouldering Smalls!
Prof B This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://ngin.tripod.com/pb.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
PANTS ON FIRE AWARD - THE BIG ONE!
THE PROFESSOR WHO CAN READ YOUR MIND
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK
HEADLINES OF THE WEEK
DONATIONS
SUBSCRIPTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------
PANTS ON FIRE AWARD
------------------------------------------------------------
'The Pants on Fire award is the prize offered for scientists' services to lying and deception by Professor Bullsh*t, a friendly bloke in a white coat who works in a virtual laboratory on the web.' - Education Guardian
PANTS ON FIRE HOT SHOT OF 2003-4
Wham, Bam Boozle!
How to WAMBUZLE the world!
Wambugu's Whoppers earn her Smouldering (not so!) Smalls award
[for all the links + pics of the lovely Flo in all her pantalooned splendour: http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=59&page=1&op=2]
THE AWARD CITATION
'Nobody has ever claimed that GM is the answer to world hunger,' ventured Tony Combes, Monsanto UK's director of Corporate Affairs. But the same weekend Combes' comment was published, Kenyan scientist Florence Wambugu claimed in the Canadian press that GM crops were 'the key to eradicating poverty and hunger in the Third World.'
Pantie pyrotechnics
This kind of inflammatory claim is far from a one-off with media-friendly Flo, who told the New Scientist, 'In Africa GM food could almost literally weed out poverty'. In the journal Nature she claimed GM could not just solve 'poverty' but could take care of 'famine', not to mention 'environmental degradation'. Warming to her theme, Flo told a Canadian newspaper GM was not just the answer to hunger but could pull the entire 'African continent out of decades of economic and social despair'.
High-flying Flo - the industry's HOT SHOT!
'If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not,' the former head of Novartis Seeds in the UK once remarked. But nobody from the biotech industry has tried telling that to Flo. Indeed, far from being embarrassed by the Monsanto-trained scientist's extravagant vapour trail, Flo is considered one of the industry's hottest properties.
'I wish we could clone her,' says Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation. Fiery Flo has certainly not gone unrewarded. A two-time winner of the coveted Monsanto Company Outstanding Performance Award, Flo is also a luminary of DuPont's Biotech Advisory Panel. She has also been appointed to the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative.
The US magazine Forbes went so far as to name Flo one of fifteen people around the globe who will 'reinvent the future', telling us, 'While the West debates the ethics of GM food, Florence Wambugu is using it to feed her country'. ('Millions served; Florence Wambugu feeds her country with food others have the luxury to avoid').
Wham, Yam -- thank you Ma'am... Spinning the spud as a stud!
Wambugu's meteoric career has been launched off the back of a Monsanto-initiated project to create a genetically engineered virus-resistant sweet potato -- a showcase product intended to hype GM as the saviour of Africa.
Trialled in Kenya, the results of sub-Saharan Africa's first GM crop were 'astonishing', according to the article in Forbes magazine. Yields were 'double that of the regular plant', with 'potatoes bigger and richer in colour', indicating they’d retained more nutritional value. For hungry Africa, we were told, 'Wambugu's modified sweet potato offers tangible hope'.
Better yet, a piece in the Toronto Globe & Mail in July 2003 claimed that the yields were actually more that doubled: 'Dr Wambugu’s modified sweet potato”¦ can increase yields from 4 tonnes per hectare to 10 tonnes.'
In May 2004 the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN listed the sweet potato project in its section 'Examples of successful technology development' in its report AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR? (p.97).
In a report published in January 2004, the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics said of the project that 'it is expected that yields will increase by 18-25%' and, where sold, 'the increased income will be between 28-39%' (p.39). Overall, the report said, Wambugu's project showed 'the use of GM virus-resistant sweet potatoes could prevent dramatic and frequent reductions in yield of one of the major food crops of many poor people in Africa.' (p.43) ('The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: a follow up discussion paper'
Not so sweet potato
Contrast such claims with the actual results of the 3-year trials -- quietly published at the end of January 2004. Under the headline 'GM technology fails local potatoes', Kenya's Daily Nation reported, 'Trials to develop a virus resistant sweet potato through biotechnology have failed. US biotechnology, imported three years ago, has failed to improve Kenya’s sweet potato'.
In fact, far from dramatically out-yielding the non-GM sweet potatoes, the exact opposite was the case: 'The report indicates that during the trials *non-transgenic crops used as a control yielded much more tuber* compared to the transgenic'. The GM crop was also found to be susceptible to viral attack -- the very thing it had been created to resist.
New Scientist also reported the GM crop's failure (Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails - Vol 181, 7 Feb 2004), as did an article in the British daily paper, The Guardian. But then in mid-March, some two months after the original report first appeared, Wambugu suddenly issued a puzzling press release.
Flo flames the critics
All the adverse publicity was based on a foolish misunderstanding, according to Fiery Flo. Far from Flo's spud being a dud, she claimed her hot potato was 'a resounding scientific success'. The 3 years of field trials weren't really testing the GM sweet potato at all, Flo explained -- they were merely a way of testing the extent of the problems faced at a very early stage in the project. Of course!
Strange though that Kenyan farmers were originally promised a finished GM sweet potato by 2002. Equally curious is the fact that neither the wily Wambugu, Monsanto, nor anyone else, ever challenged the New Scientist, Guardian or Kenyan articles at the time they were published. And Fiery Flo's determination to correct any misconceptions over her super-spud has somehow never extended to correcting any of those previous tall tales of yields more than doubled, of GM 'potatoes bigger and richer in colour', and of heroic Flo already using the dud spud to feed millions.
Take care! Beware! Flo's underwear!
Even before the real results were announced, Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies had set off the smoke detectors on a couple more Wambugu whoppers. DeGrassi drew attention to the contrast between the unproven GM sweet potato variety and a successful conventional breeding programme in Uganda which had already produced a new high-yielding variety which was virus-resistant and 'raised yields by roughly 100%'.
Yet Smoky Flo had claimed ‘Conventional breeding research had proved powerless to develop varieties resistant to these viruses'. She had also claimed, ‘'the time and money spent actually developing GM varieties are less than for conventional varieties'. The Ugandan project achieved success at a small cost and in just a few years. By contrast, in its over-12-years-in-the-making, Smoky Flo's GM Spud-u-don't-like has so-far consumed funding from Monsanto, the World Bank and USAID to the tune of 6 million dollars.
If the pants fit...
Smoky Flo has been hailed as an African heroine on the strength of her potato porkies. Pants on Fire Fighter in Chief, Jean de Bris had this to say, 'The lingerie conflagration set off by this pyrotechnic sweet potato project has not only fueled Wambugu's own career but generated biotech PR worth its weight in gold. Yet far from "reshaping the future" or "serving millions", as is claimed, Wambugu's project has actually wasted millions and helped feed precisely nobody! Flo's blazing bloomers have been a gigantic and shameful distraction from the real task of assisting the poor and hungry in Africa.'
------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROF WHO CAN READ YOUR MIND
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/hoban.html The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind by Karen Charman
Tom Hoban [background researcher for the FAO report] is a man with a mission: to convince people to embrace genetically engineered food. I had the opportunity to experience this firsthand at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) annual conference in New York City in June 1998 while we were lining up for lunch. Seeing the press pass dangling around my neck, he made a beeline for me and proceeded to attempt to educate me about the wonders of food biotechnology.
That might not seem strange--plenty of people push biotech--but Hoban is not a public relations flack or salesman at a company peddling biotech food. He is a professor in the sociology department at North Carolina State University (NCSU). Hoban specializes in consumer behavior and the psychology of conflict, a position that gives him a veneer (but only a thin veneer) of objectivity.
Industry promoters widely regard Hoban as the pre-eminent expert in consumer attitudes on gene-altered food, and he is listed in several industry source guides for journalists. Over the last ten years, he has conducted a number of government- and industry-funded surveys, which he says consistently show "two-thirds to three-quarters of U.S. consumers are positive about food biotechnology." Considering the controversy swirling around biotech food overseas and the likelihood that it will erupt on these shores, such a finding must be comforting to industry. His data, however, is questionable.
Hoban says he helped design the questions in a much-touted consumer survey conducted for the International Food Information Council (IFIC) but carried out by the Republican political and polling firm, the Wirthlin Group. The survey was first done in March 1997 and then repeated in February 1999, ostensibly so that a trend could be established. Besides trumpeting strong support for genetically engineered food, the nine-question survey indicates that consumer awareness of biotech food is low. It also claims there is little support for labeling biotech foods.
The problem with the survey, however, is that the questions it asked are loaded with language designed to bias the answers. Examples include: "How likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?"
"How likely would you be to buy a variety of produce . . . if it had been modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and required fewer pesticide applications?" "Biotechnology has also been used to enhance plants that yield foods like cooking oils. . . . Would this have a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect on your purchase decision?"
"Some critics . . . say that any food produced through biotechnology should be labeled even if the food has the same safety and nutritional content as other foods. However, others, including the FDA, believe such a labeling requirement has no scientific basis, and would be costly and confusing to consumers. Are you more likely to agree with the labeling position of the FDA or with its critics?"
James Beniger, a communications professor at the University of Southern California and past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, reviewed the IFIC survey and said it is so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless. UCLA communications professor Michael Suman agreed, adding that the questions "only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. It's like saying 'Here's biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?'" The results might be different, Suman offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as: "Some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. If that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision?"
Ignorance is bliss
Hoban's rap, either while presenting a paper at a biotech industry conference or in a one-on-one interview, is equally questionable. It goes something like this (my paraphrase): "The public is much more positive about food biotechnology than the activists would have you believe. Most people don't know much about biotechnology, but that's because it is not important to them. Americans--unlike Europeans who have been through traumatizing food scares--have great trust in the public agencies that regulate our food supply.
Since the FDA says genetically modified food is safe, that is good enough for most. The FDA position on labeling is sensible because a label for biotech food would only confuse consumers and hike the cost. Activist types are suspicious of biotechnology, but they are probably technophobic and only represent a minority view. Biotechnology is no different than what crop breeders have been doing all along--it's just more sophisticated and more precise, so what's the big deal? People support biotechnology in food because it will benefit them. People's views on food are based on whether they think it will bring them a tangible benefit--fresher, better taste, convenience, higher nutrition, and price. Environmental and food safety concerns only surface if there is irresponsible and sensational media attention that stirs up fear. Besides, biotechnology is good for farmers, and Americans--unlike Europeans--like to support their farmers."
At industry gatherings, Hoban emphasizes--and pokes fun at--the scientific illiteracy of the general public. At the BIO meeting, after telling his audience that consumers decide what food to buy based on taste, value, and convenience, not on how the seed was produced, he quipped: "Lots of American consumers probably don't know seeds are involved in agriculture--they don't even know farms are involved in agriculture."
In a recent telephone interview, he said that when he asks people about concerns critics have been raising about the technology, most respondents only express a vague sense that biotech may result in some unwanted and unanticipated consequences somewhere down the line. But again, ignorance shapes their response. "People tend to think the positive is going to outweigh the negative when we describe it for them. In general, they don't know enough about it to get into all the details--that a plant is going to somehow have its genes transferred to another plant," he said. "When you present that to people in a focus group, they will scratch their head and not really know what you are talking about."
Comfort Food
Hoban sees such public ignorance as a great opportunity for industry to "proactively educate" consumers to gain trust in biotechnology. At the BIO meeting, he complimented biotech companies and industry groups like IFIC and BIO for "paving the way for biotechnology in the U.S." and making the public "comfortable" to the point that he predicted genetically engineered food "will not be an issue for the vast majority of consumers."
Hoban miscalculated the extent to which genetically engineered food has become an issue in Europe. At the June 1998 BIO meeting, he said activist groups like Greenpeace had gotten all the media attention but they didn't really represent the average European consumer. Today he concedes the biotech industry made some mistakes in being too aggressive about pushing the technology and not labeling the products so that European consumers could make their own choices. However, he blames most of Europe's reaction on an out-of-control media that "terrorized" European citizens with daily headlines of Frankenfood, combined with the aftershocks of betrayal over mad cow disease in England and dioxin contamination in Belgium.
European controversy or not, Hoban doesn't seem to be too worried about the future prospects of the industry. He says non-GMO products are becoming difficult to find, and "everybody's going to be using biotech foods pretty soon, so there won't be a lot of alternatives."
Expert for Hire--Attorney Included
A short biography of Hoban precedes an interview with him that appeared in the May 1996 issue of PBI Bulletin, a publication of the Canadian National Research Council. It describes him as an Associate Professor and Extension Sociology Specialist at NCSU whose "main responsibilities involve working with government agencies, industry and others to improve the assessment and transfer of new technologies." Much of his work "focuses on how people accept new products and respond to change," including "ethical and educational implications of biotechnology." Besides a PhD in rural sociology, Hoban has master's degrees in agricultural journalism and water resource management, plus a BS in biology.
Hoban advertises his social research consultant services on his own web page (http://sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/~tom/). The page says he has "unique and interdisciplinary perspectives" and "provides a practical focus for managing change." It also says, "Dr. Hoban provides timely advice and expert assistance in a number of areas including: consumer response to new products; public perceptions of food biotechnology; management of innovation and change; public opinion about technology and the environment; and issue and crisis management." Specific skills listed include: "survey and focus group research; team building and partnering; strategic planning; policy analysis; needs assessment; and technology forecasting."
Hoban was out of the country when I called to ask who his clients are, so I called NCSU to request the "External Professional Activities For Pay" forms that the university requires its faculty to file when they take on outside work. The university replied that the forms were "confidential personnel information" and refused to provide them. When I called Hoban later to request the information, he refused and was furious that I had contacted the university. He added that he had checked out PR Watch, found it to be very biased, and threatened that his attorney would look closely at anything we wrote.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ETC. Group (formerly known as RAFI) are launching a letter-writing campaign to Monsanto ridiculing their claim that anyone who finds patented GM seed on their property must notify Monsanto.
The hope is that thousands of people around the world will send the letters to Monsanto declaring their land may be contaminated and so effectively nullifying Monsanto's position since the company will not be able - and not want to - follow-up on each warning letter.
Please support this campaign and...
Tell Monsanto Where To Go!
http://www.etcgroup.org/action4.asp Take immediate action in a global letter writing campaign to Monsanto regarding GM contamination and the Supreme Court decision. Follow this link to take action now!
http://www.etcgroup.org/takeaction.asp Tell Monsanto Where To Go!
Saskatchewan farmers Percy and Louise Schmeiser fought Monsanto all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court when the Gene Giant accused them of violating Monsanto's patent on GM canola (oilseed rape).
Percy and Louise did not want GM seeds on their property and they did not try to benefit from the herbicide-tolerant trait in the GM seed (that is, they didn't spray Roundup weedkiller). Yet, Monsanto came onto their land without permission, dug around to establish that GM canola had contaminated the Schmeisers' farm, and then blamed the family for the company's failure to control its own technology.
GM canola pollen has been shown to travel as much as 26 kilometers (16.2 miles). Monsanto has been selling GM canola since 1996. Canola seed can survive in the soil for eight or more years. GM contamination can spread from fields to boulevards to cemeteries and home gardens. With the help of prairie winds and bees, GM seed planted in a field eight years ago could have hitchhiked more than 208 km.
Today, GM canola is a major weed pest on the Canadian prairies. Monsanto thinks that if you have their GM seeds on your farm or in your flowerpot and you haven't told them or signed a "technology user agreement," you are violating their patent.
If you think your property may have GM canola lurking somewhere (or GM maize or soy or cotton), tell Monsanto where to go!
[Follow the link] below to send a letter to Monsanto warning them that their GM seeds may be trespassing on your land.
The letter sets out how this might have happened and what you expect Monsanto to do to make amends.
You can send the letter yourself or you can leave it with us.
We will compile all of the letters we receive and deliver them by registered mail to the company.
This will provide a record of your notification to Monsanto.
Then, Monsanto's balls are in your court!
Take Action!
Readers are invited to join the international protest by demanding action.
Tell Monsanto Where To Go! http://www.etcgroup.org/action4.asp Please follow the link to send a letter to Monsanto PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND ASK THEM TO HELP WITH THIS ONLINE ACTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DONATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our thanks to all of you who have donated to GM WATCH. For those who have not yet contributed, you can donate online in any one of five currencies via PayPal, at http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp OR by cheque or postal order payable to 'NGIN', to be sent to: NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK. We appreciate your support.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEADLINES OF THE WEEK: from the GMWATCH archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
20/5/2004 End to ban fails to sway stores / Protests after Europe ends GM food freeze
20/5/2004 UN hunger message spun off course - Genetic Engineering is NOT meeting the needs of the poor!
20/5/2004 Victory in GM battle with McDonald's
19/5/2004 Bt cotton fails again
19/5/2004 Corn wars - Syngenta goes for the jugular
19/5/2004 GM actions worldwide/Protestors dump a thousand pints of GM milk on supermarket bosses
19/5/2004 Monsanto defies German government / Bureaucrats say yes public says no!
19/5/2004 Protests at Berkeley graduation ceremony / The walking spreadsheet narrates
18/5/2004 Sharma on FAO / Monbiot on Andhra Pradesh
17/5/2004 The Fraud of 'Sound Science'
16/5/2004 Biotech food fizzles out in USA and farmers challenge Monsanto's contracts
16/5/2004 Exposing Corporate and Government Lies About The Safety Of GE Food
14/5/2004 Monsanto: it's all coming home to roost
FOR THE COMPLETE GMWATCH ARCHIVE: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp