1.Backlash in GM crop row
2.Row over GM crop probe
3.British scientist was smeared for anti-GM stance on government panel
---
1.Backlash in GM crop row
By Amanda Crook, The Journal, Jul 28 2003
The Government's chief scientist has written to The Journal to defend a controversial review of GM science, following a North scientist's allegation that it did not adequately examine crucial evidence.
Last week, speaking exclusively to The Journal, Dr Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University, said he had quit the GM Science Review Panel because he felt it was only set up to rubber-stamp the controversial technique.
He was also concerned that members of the powerful biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta dominated the 24-person panel. The panel - which Prof Leifert left six weeks ago - was set up by Tony Blair to review all existing evidence on genetically modified food technology.
It reported its findings last Tuesday, concluding that no scientific case for ruling out GM crops existed. It also found there was not enough evidence to give the technique blanket approval.
Dr Leifert, who set up and heads the Tesco Centre for Agriculture, based in Stocksfield, Northumberland, said: "From the beginning the panel was very much tilted towards the pro-GM argument. I felt it was set up to reach a foregone conclusion.
"I felt that I was there so that the Government could say this was a balanced panel and I was not happy for my name to be used as if I had had a say in the findings. I did not. I don't agree with the findings.
"I don't think we can have a definitive answer about the safety of GM foods yet. I would have been happy with a detailed risk assessment, but the panel would not agree to that.
"I think there may be a risk from GM food and we should not be progressing down that path without more research."
Now Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, has responded in a letter to The Journal, claiming there was a wide range of expertise on the panel even after Prof Leifert had quit.
Sir David also denies that the panel failed to consider public concerns and the scientific evidence.
He wrote: "No single individual or view was allowed to exert undue influence, or was ignored. Conclusions were reached by valid scientific argument and an evidence-based approach, properly accounting for uncertainties and gaps in knowledge."
Sir David adds that scientists and the public can now comment on the report and reactions will be considered when the panel meets again in the autumn.
---
2.Row over GM crop probe
The Journal, Jul 22 2003
A North scientist quit a high-profile Government genetically modified food panel because he felt it was only set up to rubber stamp the controversial technique.
Dr Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University, is not convinced that GM foods are safe and says he was unhappy the panel did "not adequately" explore evidence of concerns about the technology.
He also felt that members of the powerful biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta dominated the 24-person panel.
Dr Leifert quit the GM Science Review Panel - which reported its findings yesterday - five weeks ago.
He says that, after attending four meetings, he decided he was not prepared to put his name to its conclusions.
Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the expert panel chaired by the Government's chief scientist, Prof David King, to review all existing evidence and summarise their findings.
The Department of Trade and Industry and Prof King last night strenuously denied the professor's allegations.
Dr Leifert, who set up and heads the Tesco Centre for Agriculture, based in Stocksfield, Northumberland, said: "From the beginning the panel was very much tilted towards the pro-GM argument. I felt it was set up to reach a foregone conclusion.
"I felt that I was there so that the Government could say this was a balanced panel and I was not happy for my name to be used as if I had had a say in the findings. I did not."
Dr Leifert added: "I don't agree with the findings. I don't think we can have a definitive answer about the safety of GM foods yet. I would have been happy with a detailed risk assessment but the panel would not agree to that.
"I think there may be a risk from GM food and we should not be progressing down that path without more research."
Launching the results of the review yesterday Prof King said he was disappointed that Dr Liefert had not remained on the panel which said its review of the current scientific knowledge on GM crops and foods does not give them blanket approval.
A spokesman for the department of Trade and Industry said: "The report does not give a green or red light to GM food. That in itself belies Dr Leifert's claims. The panel was balanced.
"When Dr Liefert resigned he gave no reasons and as far as I am aware he did not express any concerns about the panel at any other time."
Dr Leifert said he was particularly concerned about a high-profile study carried out in Aberdeen - which seemed to show that genetically modified potatoes had a detrimental effect on rats.
He said: "Studies that disagreed with the GM experiment were strongly criticised for problems in procedure or gaps in the author's knowledge and then discarded rather than explored further or commissioning more research."
---
3.British scientist was smeared for anti-GM stance on government panel
Agence France-Presse
http://www.terradaily.com/2003/030726150324.mug390vr.html
A British scientist who voiced doubts over the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops was the target of a campaign to sabotage his career and funding, led by a senior pro-GM scientific figure, it emerged on Saturday.
An official government website revealed that an unnamed individual in a "privileged academic or regulatory" position tried to get Andrew Stirling dropped from a research project by approaching its funders and disparaging his work and professional standing.
The approach was made after Stirling, a risk evaluation expert at Sussex University, took part an official GM science review panel set up by the government to advise it on the safety of GM crops and technology, said the website for the government's public debate on GM foods,
www.GMNation.org.uk.
Sterling contacted David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, after he became aware of the smear campaign against him and the attempt to cut off his funding.
King, who also chaired the review panel, decided to make the formal complaint public.
In minutes of the last panel meeting published on the official website, and signed off by King, he is quoted as saying that the panel "depended fundamentally for its success on members being able to contribute in good faith, without fears that clandestine attempts may be made to undermine their research, their professional standing or their funding."
He added: "Ultimately, such behaviour by individuals in privileged academic or regulatory positions threatened seriously to compromise the credibility and proper functioning of the science advice system."
The minutes said the review panel had "strongly endorsed" this statement.
In its final report published last Monday, the committee had found that there was no scientific justification at this stage for a ban on genetically modified crops.
But it said questions remained over the potential effects of GM crops on the soil in which they are grown, as well as other plants and animals, and recommended further research on possible effects on allergies, soil ecology and biodiversity.
---
*Naive, narrow and biased...
Carlo Leifert explains why he resigned from the government's GM science review panel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,12981,1004400,00.html