Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 WEEKLY WATCH 103 " GM WATCH " <info Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:21:30 GMT --------------------------- WEEKLY WATCH number 103 --------------------------- --------------------------- from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor --------------------------- Dear all The campaign of protest over UC Berkeley's sacking of Ignacio Chapela, the chief critic of the University's $25m tie-up with GM giant Novartis (now Syngenta), is certainly having an impact. One r told us, " Have faxed and telephoned Chancellor Birgeneau's office to leave message. Spoke to one clerk. Chancellor is swamped. Even at 2 AM it took me almost an hour (3 tries) to fax connect. " A rally in support of Chapela at Berkeley climaxed in a cascading chorus of protest outside Chancellor Birgeneau's office demanding, " Justice Now! Justice Now! Justice Now! " Joe Nielands, emeritus professor of biochemistry, who first came to Berkeley in 1952, told the crowd at the rally, " the chancellor wants to get his hands on that corporate loot. . . Chapela is exactly the kind of person we need around here. He has wisdom, and above all he has courage and integrity. " http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=12-10-04 & storyID=20257 WEEKLY WATCH SAYS - PLEASE TAKE ACTION! Dr Chapela's contract has only days to run: *Please add your voice to the protests being made to UC Berkeley's Chancellor. Just click this link: http://www.gmwatch.org/proemail1.asp?id=7 It only takes a minute. *Please circulate this message as widely as possible to friends, colleagues, relevant lists and any contacts in the media. The attacks on Dr Chapela began with a virulent industry-led dirty tricks campaign on the Internet. It would be great if the Net could now be used to protest the treatment Dr Chapela has suffered at the hands of those self-same interests. OTHER NEWS Here's a science question: when is a significant finding not significant? Answer: when it's a Monsanto finding. This is the latest revelation from France, where brouhaha continues over Monsanto's MON 863 corn, approved in the EU in spite of the company's own findings that it damaged the health of rats. Our FOOD SAFETY section also features Dr Arpad Pusztai's incisive comments on recent industry-generated lists of so-called safety studies on GM foods. Monsanto and co. are claiming there are lots of studies demonstrating GM food safety, but it turns out they've stuffed these lists full of commercial studies with very little scientific value when it comes to the likely biological consequences of long term exposure to GM foods. Dr Pusztai is, of course, among a series of scientists who have been attacked for raising questions about GM crops - see SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK for a major workshop on this, and more. And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, if you haven't already, express your support for Dr Ignacio Chapela. And if you have sent your protest already, why not ask your colleagues, family and friends to do the same? (CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK) If we can't stand up and be counted over this, what can we do? Claire claire www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org ------- CONTENTS ------- AUSTRALASIA ASIA THE AMERICAS AFRICA FOOD SAFETY LOBBYWATCH PHARMING CHRISTIAN AID LATEST SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK 'MEDICAL' BIOTECH CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK ------- AUSTRALASIA ------- + COEXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE, COURT CASE SHOWS Australian farmer Julie Newman of the Network for Concerned Farmers in Australia has drawn our attention to a report about a New Zealand vegetarian food manufacturer who has been fined for " positively promoting the absence of GM content " in a non-GM product that was found to be GM contaminated. " Non-GM " or " GM free " must mean what they say, the court said. The judge during sentencing also noted that " many consumers only bought goods they understood contained no genetically modified products " . Julie points out, " This is a critical bit of news, as coexistence is based around definitions that claim that 0.9% is accepted in non-GM produce (for the EU) when the reality is that 0.9% is merely what triggers a GM label in the EU. " In order to legally sell something as GM-free or as non-GM, the produce can not have any trace of GM contamination. Coexistence is proven to be impossible to maintain at a zero tolerance level, therefore coexistence plans are worthless " . And zero tolerance, Julie points out, is exactly what the market wants. For instance, the Grainpool of Western Australia, the Australian Barley Board, and the Australian Wheat Board have all indicated a zero tolerance requirement is essential for their markets. In other words, there will be problems if any material from GM contaminated canola (oilseed rape), which has been given federal approval in Australia, contaminates their grain shipments. The Australian dairy industry similarly requires a guarantee that stock have not been fed any GM grain. While some dairies have tolerance levels for GM contamination, others do not. Producers of pork, lamb, and beef have also indicated there is no tolerance for their stock being fed GM contaminated grain and contracts will need to be signed to verify this. In Australia markets for hay, clover, wine and honey have also requested a zero tolerance of GM in their produce or in any process used to produce their products. The AUSD 300 million organic industry also require a zero tolerance of GM in any of its produce. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1761 Julie also points out that while farmers are increasingly being asked to sign guarantees of the non-GM status of their produce, they will not in fact know if their products have been contaminated if there are nearby GM trials or there's a commercial release of a GM crop. They do not have to be notified by their GM growing neighbour. Yet if there is a market rejection of their non-GM product, it is the non-GM farmers who may find themselves liable because liability will rest with the person who signed the contractual agreement to declare their product had no GM present in it. On top of this, it is looking increasingly unlikely that farmers will be able to obtain insurance to cover this risk. Julie says that as farmers are already having to sign such non-GM guarantees, it would make far more sense to have a strict liability regime that ensured the GM industry was liable for compensation for any losses. The GM industry, however, while claiming coexistence is easily achievable, refuses to put its money where its mouth is - it opposes bearing any liability for GM contamination and resultant economic loss. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1870 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4724 --------------------------- ASIA --------------------------- + JAPAN: GM CORN AND SOY GROWING AT SHIMIZU PORT GM corn and soybeans have been growing wild at Shimizu port in Shizuoka Prefecture, citizen groups opposing GM foods report. They also said GM rapeseed (canola) has been found growing wild near Hakata port in Fukuoka Prefecture. The discovery of the GM rapeseed follows its detection at ports in six other prefectures - Ibaraki, Chiba, Kanagawa, Aichi, Mie and Hyogo. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4719 + PHILIPPINES: GROUPS CLAIM BT CORN HAS BAD EFFECTS ON HEALTH GM Bt corn, which is widely used by farmers, causes adverse health effects to consumers and planters, according to a science group. " Considering that Bt is a toxin injected to the corn seed to fight certain pests and anything toxic is harmful to our health, it's just like having pesticide inside us, " said Shen Maglinte, deputy director of the NGO, Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya. Sibol, along with other NGOs, are documenting cases of diarrhea, headache, influenza and chest pains possibly brought by the corn pollens from Mindanao. Bt corn breeds are usually yellow corns commonly used as feeds. However, Maglinte said that Bt toxin is also used in white corn, which is used for human consumption. Apart from the illnesses, Maglinte said it was observed that people residing near the field with Bt corn crops experience itchiness when in contact with corn leaves. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4716 + BITTER HARVEST: GM IN INDIA Gene Campaign's Suman Sahai, writing in the Times of India, lambasts India's government for " implementing a full-fledged programme on GM crops and foods in the absence of a national policy and a national consensus. " EXCERPT: It is a matter of shame that the government has been implementing a full-fledged programme on GM crops and foods in the absence of a national policy and a national consensus. Nobody knows the priorities for Indian research on GM crops, how these priorities have been identified, and the criteria by which the crops and traits have been selected and by whom. There are grave doubts about the competence and independence of the structures for regulation, oversight and monitoring of GM crops. And it is regrettable that neither farmers nor the public, who will be consumers of GM foods, have been taken into confidence. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4721 + PEOPLE MUST NOT BE GUINEA PIGS FOR GM RICE In China, authorities are still mulling over a decision about whether to commercialize GM rice in China. The Ministry of Agriculture will not make the decision until early next year. The newspaper The China Daily comments, " Some supporters of GM rice said everything incurs risks when it generates benefits. It is not wise to give up the benefits for the potential risks. But this is true only when the benefits overwhelm the risks. We do not yet know if this applies here. People should not be used as guinea pigs with food they eat every day. The authorities must treat the matter with more caution. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4718 --------------------------- THE AMERICAS --------------------------- + MEXICO PASSES " MONSANTO LAW " Mexican lawmakers have approved a new law to regulate GM crops, but opponents said it catered more to the interests of big business than to the protection of centuries-old biodiversity. Greenpeace has called the new legislation the " Monsanto Law, " claiming it protects the company's economic interests from policies that could cut into profits. " This only benefits multinationals and supports the interests of a tiny elite in Mexico and goes against thousands of farmers, " Greenpeace spokeswoman Cecilia Navarro said. A NAFTA environmental panel from Canada, the United States and Mexico recommended in October that Mexico adopt strict measures to control imports of GM corn. One recommended measure, which could only be carried out at considerable expense to companies like Monsanto, was that corn be milled before entering Mexico in order to prevent contamination of its 7,000-year-old corn gene pool. In recent weeks the report was attacked by US authorities as " fundamentally flawed and unscientific, " and Mexican trade authorities said they had no plans to change import policies. Mexican farmers say they need to stop imported GM corn from mixing with local strains. But the new law has been drawn up under the guidance of US/corporate interests. The drafting of the Mexican legislation involved paying lip service to public consultation but has deliberately excluded any of the amendments to the legislation which were drawn up as a result of these consultation exercises. In a daming open letter, which was reported in the Mexican press, Dr Ignacio Chapela, who first exposed the GM contamination of Mexican maize, compared the report which was presented to the Mexican senate for approval to a document from the time of the Inquisition: " a consummate exercise in obfuscation and pseudoscientific complication designed solely to erase the least opposition to a new and powerful appropriation of resources and the erosion of the rights of farm workers and small landowners " . Dr Chapela has called on his fellow Mexicans to vigorously defend their land, their liberty and their genetic independence. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4726 + US MEDIA BLACKOUT ON STUDY SHOWING GM CROPS INCREASE PESTICIDE USE Two articles from Farmers Weekly interactive - the website of the UK's biggest selling publication for farmers - report on an important US study released this autumn that showed that " the biotech industry's claims that GM crops help reduce the use of pesticides are unfounded " . As Farmers Weekly has it: " Substantial increases in herbicide use on herbicide-tolerant crops, especially soya, accounted for the increase in pesticide use on GM crops compared to conventional varieties, said the report. Many farmers have had to spray incrementally more herbicides to keep up with shifts in weeds towards species that were harder to control. This was coupled with the emergence of genetic resistance in certain weed populations, claimed the report. " Interestingly, the report, which draws on US Dept of Ag data, has received almost no coverage in the US despite the fact that the author is one of America's mostdistinguished independent agronomists. Dr Charles (Chuck) Benbrook served as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality/The White House before moving to Capitol Hill where he was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural issues, and oversight of the USDA. He later served a seven-year stint as Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the US's National Academy of Sciences. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4733 + MANITOBA: PREMIUMS PAID FOR NON-GM SOYBEANS Manitoba growers are receiving premiums for non-GM soybeans from buyers around the world looking for a reliable source of non-GM beans. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4720 + US BECOMES NET FOOD IMPORTER FOR FIRST TIME IN NEARLY 50 YEARS Following nine harvests as the world's biggest adopter of GM crops the US is now running an agricultural trade deficit for the first time in nearly 50 years! Moreover, Brazil recently noted it exported more soy and soy products in the first 10 months of 2004 than the US will export in the entire year - USD9.3 billion for them, USD8.83 billion for us. " Brazil is of course a major supplier of GM-free soya; the US is not. Meanwhile the biotech companies are running round the world trying to persuade other farmers that they need GMOs in order to be competitive! Outgoing Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman has no explanation of how Bush administration economic and trade policies have taken American agriculture from a USD13.6 billion trade surplus in 2001 to a flat line in four short years. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4722 --------------------------- AFRICA --------------------------- + ZAMBIAN GOVT DRAFT BIOSAFETY LEGISLATION The Zambian government has drafted biosafety legislation to ensure the country is not consuming GM food. The bill will make Zambia one of the few African countries to have biosafety legislation in place. " Our intention is to make Zambia GMO-free, but we have not got there yet - we need to build the capacity of our scientists. A substantial portion of our strategy plan will focus on human resource development, " said Paul Zambezi, permanent secretary for the Zambian ministry of science, technology and vocational training. Zambia was among several southern African countries which banned GM food relief in 2002, at a time when it was facing critical food shortages. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4725 + SYNGENTA'S PR CROP IN KENYA DELAYED The introduction of GM maize to Kenya is likely to be delayed for two years until 2010 following revisions to safety regulations for the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA). The revisions are intended to bring the project in line with national and international standards by giving greater attention to threats that the release of GM maize could pose to the environment and human health. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4728 The driving force behind the IRMA project is the Syngenta Foundation which says it aims to provide GM maize for use by resource poor farmers in the context of efficacy and environmental and socio economic effects. However, according to a report by Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies, the Syngenta Foundation's activities have more to do with PR than with delivering real benefits to poor farmers. He writes, " The Syngenta Foundation - has a poor record of supporting client-driven public agricultural research institutes, as illustrated by the Cinzana research station in Mali. The extent of damage by stem borers was repeatedly over-estimated based on ad hoc guesses. No rigorous assessments were done before the project was started of the extent of damage by stem borers, nor of whether farmers felt they were a significant problem. When the project did survey 30 villages throughout the country, none identified stem borers as the most pressing constraint upon maize production... project surveys found that many farmers were already using their own resistant varieties. " Insect Resistant Maize for Africa has been the Foundation's main project with its showcase IRMA project being the one in Kenya. Scientists have genetically engineered several maize varieties to protect against 3 types of stem borers. DeGrassi points out that the IRMA project has yet to engineer protection against the most important stem borer in Kenya - the one which affects 80% of the country's maize crop! In any case, deGrassi reports, stem borers are a relatively insignificant contributing factor to poverty in these areas. Of greater importance are other agronomic constraints - such as " droughts, low soil fertility, and the weed Stiga - as well as other socio-economic and political constraints - such as corruption, HIV/AIDS, poor transport, unequal land tenure, and political repression. " Moreover, other less generously funded projects have used a range of techniques that have already proved capable of protecting against stem borers in farmers fields. These methods, unlike the use of the GM Bt maize, do not face the likelihood of evolved pest resistance. DeGrassi's overall conclusion on the Syngenta Foundation project, and others like it, is that " while genetic modification may constitute a novel tool, in Africa it is a relatively ineffective and expensive one. Cash-strapped scientists working with poor farmers in Africa might well regard genetic modification as a waste of time and money. " http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=179 --------------------------- FOOD SAFETY --------------------------- + PUSZTAI DEMOLISHES PRESTON AND MONSANTO'S SAFETY STUDY CLAIMS Not so long ago Dr Christopher Preston, a Senior Lecturer in Weed Management at the University of Adelaide, told the readers of CS Prakash's listserv, AgBioView, that the reason that there were so few published peer reviewed studies showing the safety of GM crops was simply that nobody was interested in publishing " negative results " (i.e. results showing no differences in GM from conventional foods). http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4629 But now Dr Preston has changed his tune. He's now claiming that there are, in fact, many more such studies than had previously been admitted. Dr Preston's new line of argument has been well received. Preston's list of " Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods " is now prominently promoted on the homepage of Prakash's AgBioWorld website. And Monsanto has joined the chorus of approval, posting its own list of publications on AgBioWorld and at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/literature/techpubs/Safety/Ani\ malFeedPerformance.pdf But neither Preston's list nor Monsanto's bear serious scrutiny. Hartmut Meyer of the GENET listserv writes of Monsanto's " extensive database of feeding studies " : " Please note that most of the cited references in the document Monsanto is posting are abstracts or conference contributions. I found less than 30 references on these impressive 13 pages that appear to be published in 'sound science' journals. " And Dr Arpad Pusztai goes still further in dissecting Preston's claims. Preston says, " The report by Pryme and Lembcke (2003) described 10 such [published peer reviewed] studies. This report and the small number of studies is often quoted by groups opposed to the use of GM crops as justification for banning their use in the food chain... " But Preston says he has uncovered a series of publications that " were not captured by Pryme and Lembcke (2003) " . In total, Preston says, he has found 42 publications, the vast majority of which found no harmful effects from GM crop products. However, Arpad Pusztai, a leading expert in this field, points out that most of these studies are useless when it comes to evaluating food safety. We are reproducing below a shortened version of Dr Pusztai's comments. they can be seen in full at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4729 DR PUSZTAI WRITES: Regarding Christopher Preston's piece, my comment is of course that Pryme & Lembcke's cut-off point was at the end of the first third of 2002, probably somewhere along no 16 on Preston's list (to the best of my knowledge). The next comment is that they looked at academic as opposed to production studies. These latter have very little scientific value; we used to call them at the Rowett Institute: " feed them and weigh them " . .... I think Dr Preston's list is quite revealing in terms of his scientific approach to this topic, particularly as regards the failure to distinguish between a scientific study and an animal production exercise. When I was asked by Professor Mosenthin to write my next review (to be published next year) he emphatically asked me to leave out all production studies from the review as these may be of some value to commercial animal production but have limited scientific value. .... In most of these relatively short term and rather empirical studies the emphasis was on productivity rather than on investigating the biochemical and cell biological interactions between the GM ingredient and the digestive tract, the effect of the GM DNA and protein on the gut epithelial cellular and tissue structure, its immune and endocrine systems and bacterial ecology. This is particularly regrettable because nutritional parameters, though of great commercial interest, are rather crude measures in physiological terms of the effects of GM ingredients and may give science only little guidance on what will be the likely biological consequences of long term and heavy exposure to GM crops. .... So here you have it. Coming back to Dr Preston's list. Actually there were only 41 and not 42 articles as he stated in his list. In his list these are the commercial studies: 2, 10-14, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-33, 38-40; 23 out of 41 leaves us with 18. I have to confess that I cannot read Russian or Chinese (neither can Pryme & Lembcke and I expect Dr Preston) so I could not read articles 7, 15, 36 and 41. So we are now down to 14! Actually, Dr Preston missed two Malatesta papers, perhaps because they both show bad effects on the liver and the pancreas of mice fed RR soya, and quite a few others, but for these he will have to read my new review next year. Finally, may I say that it would be in the interest of science if Dr Preston addressed and cleared up the reasons for the differences that I previously drew attention to between the actual data in the MON 863 study and his account of that study. (for Dr Pusztai's previous comments on Preston's claims, see http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4629 ) http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4729 + CONTROVERSY RAGES OVER MONSANTO'S CORN After having expressed doubts about the safety of Monsanto's GM corn, MON 863, France's Biomolecular Engineering Committee (BEC), approved its importation into the EU on December 14 at a controversial meeting held without a quorum. There would be nothing special about the approval, had not the same body delivered an opinion on October 28, 2003 opposing the introduction of the same GMO! The effect of the controversial decision is that the Committee now sides with French Agency for Food Health Security and the European Agency for Food Security (EAFS) both of which gave favorable opinions on MON 863 six months ago. Unanimity is not, however, the case within the BEC. The Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Caen voted against the approval. The affair began in the spring of 2004, with the publication of the minutes of BEC meetings. Normally, only the opinions are made public, but Crii-Gen [Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering] - an association founded by former Environment Minister Corinne Lepage - obtained publication of the minutes by suing through the Committee for Access to Administrative Documents. In this way the conclusions from the first toxicological study, which Monsanto transmitted to the BEC, cataloging numerous biological effects on rats fed MON 863 for ninety days, were made public. Researchers from Covance Laboratory - commissioned, according to custom, by Monsanto - discovered blood stream anomalies (increase in white blood cell levels and lymphocytes in males, decrease in new red blood cells in females). An increase in female blood sugar levels was also noted. There were also more frequent appearances of renal lesions (inflammations, kidney stones) as well as variations in kidney weight in the animals fed MON 863. These results led the BEC to conclude in its unanimously adopted October 28, 2003 opinion that " the study of low level toxicity conducted with MON 863 corn...raised... numerous questions... relating to the... significant differences observed in blood chemistry, clinical biochemistry, urinary chemistry and the weight of certain organs of tested animals " . The French body for GMO evaluation requested further information from Monsanto. Monsanto got two anatomic pathologists to reexamine the results from the Covance Laboratory. They concluded in September 2004 that the lesions and blood anomalies were within natural variability. In relation to the lower kidney weight in animals fed MON 863, Monsanto commissioned a new study in November 2004, this time using another variety of corn hybridized with MON 863. This new study, conducted by Wil Research Laboratory - once again chosen by Monsanto - did not bring the same anomalies to light. These last conclusions do not satisfy Gilles-Eric Seralini, BEC and Crii-Gen member, who voted against MON 863's importation. " Monsanto contradicts itself, " Seralini says. " The first time around, their studies explain, in a rather amusing manner by the way, that there are 'significant effects without a pathological significance', and the second time around, their studies say that the effects observed are no longer significant. On top of that, the file was sliced up by examining the problems separately and not in their entirety, which is unacceptable. The least fairness demands would have been to do the study over again from the beginning, which was not done. In any case, not with the same variety of corn. " Seralini recalls, moreover, that " no test of the insecticide produced by MON 863 has been effected on the human cell " and that this substance " is not entirely natural because the Bacillus thurigensis sequence - introduced into the corn genome - has been modified. " Crii-Gen has demanded that the industrial secrecy surrounding the study conducted on MON 863 be lifted, so that the scientific controversy can be opened to the public. The association also demands that an independent expert assessment be conducted and paid for with public funds. Crii-Gen considers the studies financed by the companies to be " dependent. " Some BEC members, who are not suspected of being anti-GMO, are not far from making a similar observation. Pascal, who voted in favor of MON 863, considers that the summary of the study on this corn " did not exactly correspond to what was in the detailed study. " According to Pascal, this summary did not mention certain differences between the groups of rats observed in the study. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4731 ------- LOBBYWATCH ------- + FIRED JOURNALISTS STILL FIGHTING FOX TV - FEATURE IN NEW FILM GM WATCH veterans may remember the 1997 firing of two award-winning investigative reporters - Jane Akre and Steve Wilson - by Rupert Murdoch's Fox TV, after they refused to broadcast lies about the safety of a Monsanto product. Fox TV, following pressure from Monsanto, had tried to sweep under the rug much of what the two journalists had discovered, but were never allowed to broadcast, about Monsanto's GM cattle drug - bovine growth hormone (BGH, aka BST). This whole sordid story of media misconduct is a centerpiece of the new independent film " The Corporation " (more at http://www.thecorporation.com/about/) The film, winner of nine audience choice awards including one at Robert Redford's Sundance Festival, is making its debut in Tampa, Florida this weekend. The Seattle Times calls the film " one of the must-see documentaries of the new century. " If you don't live within reach of the sort of cinema that will show this film (see international list at http://www.thecorporation.com/dvd.php), the DVD is due for release in spring 2005. Background on the Akre/Wilson story: Akre and Wilson twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filing their landmark lawsuit in April 1998. They survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed, in the first instance of US journalists using a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired for refusing to distort the news. After a five-week hearing, in August 2000 a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox " acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH. " In that decision, the jury also found that Jane Akre's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), was the sole reason for the termination of her contract and the jury awarded USD425,000 in damages. Fox appealed and prevailed in February 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury's decision, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. The journalists are now said to be considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4715 ------- PHARMING ------- + GROUP SEEKS TO STOP BIOPHARMING IN OREGON A group of doctors and others will ask the Oregon Legislature next month to impose a four-year moratorium on biopharming, crops genetically altered to contain pharmaceuticals. The state chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility is concerned that such crops would infiltrate the environment, exposing residents to drugs they don't need. Rick North, project director of the nonprofit group's Campaign for Safe Food, said biopharming threatens to expose the public to microscopic levels of medicines drifting through the air. " I want to take a drug when I have a need for it, " he said. " I don't want to be exposed to it without knowledge of what it does and what its side effects are. " http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4713 + OVERSIGHT OF PHARM CROPS IS POOR - REPORT Federal oversight of crops genetically engineered to produce medications is inadequate to prevent unwanted contamination of food crops, according to an analysis released 15 December by a scientific advocacy group. As a result, the report concludes, consumers are at risk of inadvertently dosing themselves with prescription drugs while eating a morning bowl of cereal. The report, which biotech executives and regulators denounced as overwrought, raises the specter of accidental contamination of the food supply with blood thinners, hormones or any of the scores of biologically active compounds being made experimentally in plants. The report, " A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food Supply in an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops " , was commissioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists and carried out by independent experts in the fields of agronomy, entomology and ecology. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4732 --------------------------- CHRISTIAN AID LATEST --------------------------- + CHRISTIAN AID REAFFIRMS ITS CONCERNS OVER GM Christian Aid has issued an important updated statement reaffirming its concern about the possible effects of GM crops on developing countries and on the poor - so many of whom depend on agriculture for their livelihoods and an adequate and reliable food supply. EXCERPTS from Christian Aid's latest statement: Too much pressure is being applied and too little time and assistance is being given to developing countries to help them properly debate and decide for themselves whether to use GM crops. Those in favour of GM crops often appear to dismiss the right of others to choose whether or not to grow GM crops or eat GM food by ignoring concerns that the widespread introduction of GM crops will effectively close off other, non-GM options. It is clear that commercial and other interests are in danger of overriding public concern, democratic decision-making and local control. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4727 ------- SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK ------- + SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK - MAJOR WORKSHOP Scientists under attack - reaction to research on the environmental and health impacts of GM crops - a major GM workshop at the Soil Association's annual conference on 8 January 2005 Speakers: Professor Ignacio Chapela, Dr Arpad Pusztai, Dr Terje Traavik and with Dr Andrew Stirling in the chair Saturday, 8 January 2005 4.30pm - 6.00, Slow Food lunch 1.00 - 3.30; Newcastle Civic Centre For the first time ever Dr Arpad Pusztai, Dr Terje Traavik and Ignacio Chapela - the three leading international scientists attacked and undermined by biotech companies and their supporters for raising health or environmental concerns about GM crops or food - are appearing together on a public platform. The meeting will be chaired by Dr Andrew Stirling of Sussex University. SPECIAL OFFER: Attend the Workshop and get a Soil Association Slow Food organic lunch for a combined charge of GBP15.00. To book contact Lisa Jones at LJones or call 0117 9874586 (switchboard 0117 314 5000). Workshop Highlights: The speakers are Dr Arpad Pusztai, Dr Terje Traavik, Scientific, Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, School of Medicine, University of Tromso and Ignacio Chapela, Assistant Professor of Microbial Ecology, University of California, Berkley. All three have felt the backlash when they found evidence that did not suit the GM industry and pro-GM scientists. Arpad Pusztai's notorious treatment by his employers and the Royal Society is well known. Ignacio Chapela's findings of contaminated maize in Mexico led to him being refused tenure (a dispute still firmly in the news) and to the withdrawal of his paper by Nature. Terje Traavik works in a country with a more rational and impartial view on GM than either the UK or the USA, which has reduced the personal impact of his announcement of findings of possible adverse health impacts on people living near a GM crop, but not the world-wide attack that followed. The Chair, Dr. Stirling, was a member of the UK Government GM Science Advisory Panel which was established last year to produce a report on GM scientific issues as part of the 'GM debate'. The Panel was chaired by the Government's Chief Scientist, Sir David King, but consisted mainly of scientists in favour of GM. The Government's official minutes of one of the meetings record that a leading figure in UK science advice system on GM, approached a major funding body urging them to remove Dr. Stirling from an advisory role in which he was then serving The reason was the sceptical position that he was taking in the GM Science Review Panel. The attempt was unsuccessful, and this provides the first instance in the UK of official acknowledgement of the reality of this kind of pressure. + MORE BACKGROUND ON THE CHAPELA CASE " I don't want to be a martyr by any means, but I cannot avoid now realising that this is a very, very well concerted, and coordinated and paid for campaign. " That's what Ignacio Chapela told investigative journalist Andy Rowell during the fall out from the scandal over the GM contamination of native Mexican maize. Rowell who investigated the industry campaign against Chapela with GM Watch founder, Jonathan Matthews, went on to write one of the first articles to reveal how Monsanto's Internet PR company was at the very heart of the campaign to vilify Ignacio Chapela and his research. http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=17 & page=1 & op=2 In his book, " Don't Worry [it's safe to eat] " (Earthscan, 2003), Rowell details not only the direct role played by Monsanto and its PR people in the whole affair but how the principal scientific critics of Chapela's research were all linked to the big corporate tie-up between Berkeley and Novartis. Chapela had been the chief critic of the Novartis deal. More background information on the Chapela case can be found at http://www.tenurejustice.org/ SEND YOUR PROTEST: http://www.gmwatch.org/proemail1.asp?id=7 + COMMERCIAL FOCUS MUDDLES SCIENCE POLICY The uk government's eagerness to profit from science is preventing it from achieving other important objectives, according to a new report from the independent Food Ethics Council. The commercial focus conflicts with a broader government commitment to sustainable development, which places equal weight on economic, social and environmental objectives, recognising that some commercially profitable activities are bad for people and cause environmental problems. It also undermines government efforts to take public concerns more seriously in decisions about science. So, whilst government is promoting public dialogue on issues from stem cell research to nanotechnology, it has only sought advice from business people and from experts, not from the wider public, in setting its overall strategy for science and technology. Technology is often delivered as a fait accompli, but the public outcry over GM crops has convinced policy-makers that it is worth listening to consumers and taxpayers earlier on, when the options are more open. That is not enough, according to the new report. The real challenge is to open up the economic objectives of science policy to public scrutiny. Dr Tom MacMillan, Executive Director of the Food Ethics Council, said, the commercial obsession " seriously reduces capacity for independent and long-term public research, and it threatens public health. We even have a situation where UK regulators compete with agencies in other countries for industry fees, posing the risk that they water down their scientific standards to keep afloat. " The report is being launched at a half-day event in London. Speakers include Sir Donald Curry, who chaired the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming. Registration begins at 9:30 and the event runs from 10:00-13:00. It will take place in The Conference Centre, Royal Horticultural Halls, London SW1P 2PE. Further information: info www.foodethicscouncil.org --------------------------- 'MEDICAL' BIOTECH --------------------------- + GM BUGS TO STOP TOOTH DECAY? Fancy a mouthful of GM bacteria to prevent tooth decay? This is another brilliant idea from the gene bashers, hyped in the UK Sunday Times even before clinical trials have taken place (item 1). Note that, as item 2 points out, the primary cause of tooth decay is not, as the Sunday Times implies, the bacterium Streptococcus mutans in itself, but the interaction between the bacterium and substances ingested in abnormally large amounts in a junk food diet, i.e. refined sugar and the starch in processed foods. The interaction between the bacteria and sugar or starch produces acid, which rots the teeth. A second contributory cause to decay is mineral depletion of soils and diets - another problem that cannot be solved by GM bugs. The aim of this initiative appears to be to enable the continuing consumption of junk food and the continuing depletion of soils. *** 1. 'Good bacteria' can put an end to tooth decay [slightly shortened] The Sunday Times, December 5, 2004 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1389246,00.html Scientists have adapted the " friendly bacteria " idea promoted by the makers of yoghurt to help in the war against dental decay. The GM bacteria will prevent decay by displacing the germs that cause cavities. The company making the bug, Florida-based Oragenics, has just won approval to conduct trials on humans. If it works, a dentist could simply rub the bacteria onto patients' teeth - potentially protecting them from decay for years or even for life. It would also become the first big therapeutic application of GM organisms... [The] approach focuses on streptococcus mutans, one of several hundred bacterial species found in people's mouths, but the one blamed for most tooth decay. The bug produces an acid that eats away the enamel coating that protects teeth. However, Oragenics has created a strain of the germ that has been genetically modified to prevent it producing the damaging acid. It is also better adapted to survive in the mouth, so displaces the original decay-causing strain. Children as young as one could be given the germ as soon as they start growing teeth. However, it must first pass through years of safety testing. It will be at least 2009 before it could go on the market. Approval for the trial follows years of research and delays over fears the GM germ could revert to a decay-causing form. Clinical trials involving GM viruses have already led to at least one death. *** 2. Food Interactions with Streptococcus Mutans http://www.mchoralhealth.org/OpenWide/mod1_4.htm Foods containing fermentable carbohydrates, which include all sugars and cooked starches, interact with S. mutans, producing acids that can cause mineral loss from teeth. * Sucrose, which is highly concentrated in candy, cookies, cake, and sweetened beverages (for example, fruit drinks and soda), is a major contributor to tooth decay. * Fructose, the naturally occurring sugar contained in fruit, contributes to tooth decay, although fruit is more nutritious than candy, cookies, and cake. * Lactose, the sugar contained in milk, contributes to tooth decay, although milk is more nutritious than candy, cookies, and cake. * Starch, contained in processed foods such as bread, crackers, pasta, potato chips, pretzels, sweetened cereal, and French fries breaks down into simpler sugars. Processed foods containing starch produce as much acid in plaque as sucrose alone, but at a slower rate. ------- CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK ------- + SUPPORT GLOBAL PROTEST AT UC BERKELEY'S TREATMENT OF IGNACIO CHAPELA Add your voice to the protests being made from around the world. Just click this link: http://www.gmwatch.org/proemail1.asp?id=7 BACKGROUND: Dr Ignacio Chapela, whose research revealed contamination of native Mexican corn with GM DNA, recently taught his last class at University of California, Berkeley. Chapela was denied tenure at Berkeley, despite overwhelming support from his own department and from his academic peers. Chapela had also been a critic of a $25 million research deal between UC Berkeley and the Swiss biotechnology company Novartis (now Syngenta). Chapela supporters believe he is being retaliated against for his criticism of the biotech industry. ------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.