2003 articles

"The general feeling - including some of those people who are pro-GM - is that the review is clearly designed to archive something other than an objective assessment of the issues." - Professor Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University (item 2)

"Carlo complained about biotech companies being on the science panel because of the risk they would intimidate the others. They have dominated the panel." (item 1)

Download the GM science review first report (pdf)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/07/21/gmsci-re
port1-full.pdf
                  
---
GM inquiry exposed as top scientist quits
by SEAN POULTER
Daily Mail, 22 July 2003
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=189293&in_page_id=169
 
A key member of the Government's GM Science Review has dramatically quit. Dr Carlo Leifert, professor of ecological agriculture at the University of Newcastle, resigned amid claims that the panel was hijacked by biotech supporters.

It is dominated by scientists either employed by biotech giants such as Monsanto and Syngenta or dependent on them for goodwill or funds.

An insider said Dr Leifert was frustrated by the pro-GM bias and quit after an executive of a biotech giant was asked to draw up the panel's conclusions.
                  
An insider said Dr Leifert was frustrated by the pro-GM bias and quit after an executive of a biotech giant was asked to draw up the panel's conclusions.

Dr Andrew Cockburn, a director of Monsanto, was asked to write the first draft of the report.  The GM Science Review was set up by Tony Blair to tell the British public whether or not biotech crops and food were safe.

It is chaired by Mr Blair's scientific adviser, Professor David King. But there are concerns that its conclusions, to be published today, cannot be trusted.

The insider said: "The panel refused to critically evaluate what the problems with GM might be. Whenever issues arose, they were brushed aside. The pro-GM people would get up and say those who make these criticisms are not proper scientists.

"Carlo was put under an awful lot of pressure for pointing out gaps in the GM food and crop safety approvals process  -  for example, failure to check for certain types of allergens.

"Whenever the information being examined appeared critical of GM, it was just rubbished. When the man from Monsanto was chosen to write the first science panel draft, that was too much for Carlo."

Dr Leifert, head of the Tesco Centre for Agriculture, has refused to discuss his resignation.

But the insider said: "The panel had made up its mind before it sat down. They were trying to find reasons to say to the public, 'You don't need to be worried about GM'. When Carlo realised that, he decided it was impossible to put his name to its report."

The revelations are highly embarrassing for the Government. The source said the problem was that the scientists who understand GM are too close to the biotech companies who fund research.

"Too many molecular biologists depend directly on biotech companies for their funding or goodwill. Consequently, it is very difficult for those scientists who really understand the issues to be critical.

"Carlo complained about biotech companies being on the science panel because of the risk they would intimidate the others. They have dominated the panel."

As well as Dr Cockburn, the panel included Dr Simon Bright, head of European genomics at Syngenta. Other GM enthusiasts included Professor Chris Leaver, head of plant sciences at Oxford University, Dr Mike Gale and Professor Philip Dale, both of the John Innes Research Centre in Norwich, and Professor Mike Gasson, of the Institute of Food Research in Norwich.
---
Excerpt from Fury over spin on GM crops
Protesters claim review is meaningless
The Observer, March 9, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,910628,00.html

Concern also continues to escalate over the Government's GM science review. Its panel of experts have met only twice since last October, amid accusations it has sidestepped topics such as potential health effects.

...Of the 25 experts involved in the process, at least a third are known to have strong pro-GM views. These include consultants to Lord Sainsbury's biotech investment company Diatech Ltd, employees of Monsanto and Syngenta, and  those who have attacked organic food - the nemesis of the GM lobby - as poisonous.

Professor Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University said: 'The general feeling - including some of those people who are pro-GM - is that the review is clearly designed to archive something other than an objective assessment of the issues.'