Swiss GMO study based on industry data
Informationsdienst Gentechnik / Information Service on GMOs (Berlin)
August 29, 2012 

Many media in Switzerland reported yesterday on the newly published results of a publicly funded research programme on genetic engineering. The programme concluded: "Low risks, unused potentials." However, this conclusion is little surprising as first insights into the project show that it is based on data supplied by the industry.

The Swiss Working Group on Genetic Engineering (SAG) criticised the final report of the National Research Programme 59 (NRP) and its recommendations as 'biased'. Existing problems of GMO farming and its risks are played down. As NFP 59 states on its website, long-term risks have not been evaluated: "NFP 59 did not include projects on long-term impacts of GMO on the health of humans and animals due to lack of time and financial means." 

It can also be deduced that much of the data that has been taken into consideration in the NFP 59's 'extensive literature review' come from the GM industry or from organizations close to it. For example, the literature overview on health issues of GMOs quite often cites EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority. This agency has been heavily criticised for its close relationships with GE companies and for its biased evaluations of GMOs. 

Other data apparently stems from the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a lobby organization of the producers of GMOs. The NFP 59 used ILSI data when giving examples of "GM plants with health benefits" such as GM canola, rice and soy.

A second literature review on the costs and benefits of GM farming is just as one-sided. One of its chapters on supposed financial benefits of GM plants for farmers is based almost exclusively on studies conducted by economist Matty Demont of African Rice Center in Senegal. According to his CV, Demont has received over the last years 700,000 USD from GE giants Monsanto and Syngenta alone.

His employer, the African Rice Center, is not only funded by Syngenta Foundation but also by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The latter is known to financially support industrialized farming and genetic engineering with large sums. Moreover, the African Rice Center is part of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) which is also close to the industry. Its board's vice-chair Carl Hausmann is a high-ranking manager at Bunge Limited, one of the biggest traders of food and feeds much of it from genetically modified soy. And CGIAR's CEO Frank Rijsberman serves as a director at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Chief Scientific Officer of the Consortium is Anne-Marie Izac who is also advising the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform (SAI) an umbrella organization of all important food companies including Nestlé, Kraft, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Pepsico and many others. They are the same corporations which are currently pumping millions of dollars into a campaign against the labeling of GMOs in California.

The case of economist Demont is probably only one of many in the "extensive literature review" done by the NFP 59. That the NFP now demands to lift the temporary ban on GM plants in Switzerland thus seems all the more questionable.


Original article by Informationsdienst Gentechnik (German), includes links to sources
http://www.keine-gentechnik.de/news-gentechnik/news/de/26225.html