from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Following his death on Wednesday, there's a lot of attention on Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA and arguably the father of molecular biology. For many around the world, though, Crick's remarkable scientific insights have been overtaken by a corporate juggernaut intent on pushing products based on the crude unproven technology of genetic engineering.

The consequences echo around the globe. There is growing controversy, for instance, in South Africa over its lax biosafety system, constructed with the 'help' of industry figures. This system has been fast-tracking in a succession of GM crops and now seems set to allow the growing of GM potatoes similar to those that bombed in the US, as well as crops engineered to contain an HIV/AIDS drug. (see FOCUS ON AFRICA)

In India a massive industry campaign is underway to weaken its regulatory system so that GMOs can be fast-tracked in in a similar way. The latest part of this industry campaign is a big GM promotional conference, "Ushering in the Second Green Revolution". And who will pay the price? As we noted last week, 900 farmers have killed themselves in India in just the last 2 months - victims of the first green revolution. (see FOCUS ON ASIA)

In Europe, all eyes are on the unelected European Commission, which has a habit of approving GM crops rejected by the member countries! Given the duplicity and unaccountability of this body, it's no accident that the UK's new Euro Commissioner will be Peter Mandelsohn, a man famous only for spin and for having to resign twice from the UK government in discreditable circumstances.

For those in the UK, don't miss an important CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK, an attempt to restore some level of honesty to the government's consultation on GM "co-existence". Please take action. Campaigners focusing on such consultations enjoy a strong history of success in shaming the government into doing the right thing.

And finally, there have been two important reports this week questioning GM food safety - one from the US National Academy of Sciences and the other from India's premier medical research body, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). As one commentator has pointed out, these type of safety reviews should have been conducted in the early 1990s, before we were all turned into guinea pigs! (see FOOD SAFETY)

Claire This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.lobbywatch.org / www.gmwatch.org

------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------
FOCUS ON ASIA
FOCUS ON AFRICA
FOOD SAFETY
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
EURO-NEWS
US
OTHER GLOBAL NEWS
LOBBYWATCH
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE
PATENTS ON LIFE
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK - UK
DONATIONS

------------------------------------------------------------
FOCUS ON ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ INDUSTRY ASSAULT ON INDIA - FAST-TRACKING CAMPAIGN CONTINUES, BIG PRO-GM CONFERENCE COMING
PV Satheesh of the Deccan Development Society has warned how, unperturbed by the problems already inflicted on the country by GM cotton, "the powerful industrial lobby in India has been instrumental in a process that might completely dismantle the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and hand over the control to an industry dominated committee in the name of a fast track approval".

As part of the biotech industry's campaign to weaken India's regulatory system, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) will hold a big GM promotional - an "International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology" entitled "Ushering in the Second Green Revolution" at Federation House, New Delhi, Aug 10-12, 2004.

FICCI is operating in partnership with:
(1) The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA) - a U.S.-based, GM promotion and 'transfer' agency whose board has contained leading biotech industry executives and which enjoys multi-million dollar funding from Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer, Syngenta, in addition to funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and Western governmental funding agencies.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=66&page=I
and
(2) The MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) headed by the green revolution scientist, MS Swaminathan, who has been in charge of a government task force set up to revise India's regulatory system. Swaminathan has a disturbing talent for dressing up the industry's agenda in the rhetoric of village India, women's empowerment, etc.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4179

The main conference organisers, FICCI, has already stated that it wants to see the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee's powers curtailed by "changes in rules relating to production and handling of micro-organisms, cells and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)." The conference is intended to deliberate on such changes as well as being a GM promotional.

The biotech lobby's main concern is over what they see as stagnation in the GM crop sector in India. Shantu Shantaram spells it out with his complaint, "all we have is one stupid Bt cotton to talk about." India's prominence within the developing world makes what the biotech lobby sees as the slow introduction of GM crops into India particularly frustrating.

Significantly, Shantaram, who is a frequent spokesman on these issues, presents himself simply as "Dr Shantu Shantaram, Biologistics International USA". In fact, Dr Shantaram is an employee of GM giant Syngenta.

Go to a Syngenta website like that of Syngenta Canada and the message is loud and clear:

"Welcome! We're Syngenta. Syngenta is the world's leading agribusiness company".
http://www.syngenta.ca/

But when it comes to Syngenta's man Shantharam, the message is non-existent!

At Syngenta, Shantaram developed the corporation's PR strategies for biotech projects, including Golden Rice. Prior to that he worked for the US Department of Agriculture. Biologistics International is Shantaram's "consulting firm" on biosafety. No doubt he will be putting that expertise to good use to help India usher in its "Second Green Revolution".

Much of the drive to reform India's regulatory system has its roots in a forum on regulatory development set up by Syngenta, in which MS Swaminathan took a prominent part. Syngenta's forum established many of the principles behind the proposals for regulatory reform now being brought forward.

The aim seems clear: to weaken India's regulatory system and then use it as a blueprint to sell to other Asian countries - just as South Africa's fast-track system is now being promoted as a model for the entire continent.

See:
Ushering in the Second Green Revolution - International conference in New Delhi
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4179
Clipping the wings of India's regulators
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4183
Industry asault on India
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4193

+ THAILAND: GM PAPAYA SCANDAL - MAJOR FOOD CROP CONTAMINATED
Packages of papaya seeds being sold by the Department of Agriculture's research station in the province of Khon Kaen have tested positive for GM seeds. "This is potentially one of the worst cases of genetic contamination of a major food crop in Asia as this station is one of the largest suppliers of papaya seeds in the country," said Varoonvarn Svangsopakul, Greenpeace's GE campaigner in Southeast Asia.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4182

Greenpeace Southeast Asia identified one of the fields at the research station as the source of the GE seeds. The group said the experimental field was only segregated from the other papaya by barbed wire and banana trees.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia raided and sealed off the research station, accusing the government of breaking a ban on GMOs. Greenpeace executive director Jiraporn Gajaseni said lab checks from Hong Kong confirm the research station distributed GMO papaya seeds to farmers. "This is a huge violation of the GMO ban," she said.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4184

------------------------------------------------------------
FOCUS ON AFRICA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ GM WATCH INTERVIEWED IN AFRICAN REGULATORY SCANDAL
An article in South Africa's Mail & Guardian reports growing concern that some experts advising the government on permits for GM products have serious conflicts of interest. Particular concern, the paper notes, is focused on a state official, Muffy Koch, who advises the government on whether to grant permits to companies to test GMOs, while consulting for the companies during the subsequent trials.

Koch's company, Golden Genomics, is consulting on biosafety standards in field trials of potatoes that are genetically modified to resist attack by tuber moth. She is also a member of the pro-GM "stakeholder group", AfricaBio, and helped draft South Africa's GMO Act.

According to the Mail & Guardian, "International GM pressure group GM Watch, together with other groups such as Biowatch and the African Centre for Biosafety, view the GMO Act as deeply flawed. 'Shoddy research was done in the drafting, while the experts involved were not independent,' said Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Centre for Biosafety.'"

Jonathan Matthews of GM Watch is quoted as saying that many South African advisers are too close to the GM industry to rule objectively on trials. "Koch's career raises important questions about where the lines are drawn between regulation, lobbying and private companies," Matthews said.

He also complained that owing to lax biosafety controls South Africa's intake of GM crops was more rapid than that of any country besides the US. "The fact that our biosafety controls readily allow GM imports and GM crop releases into the environment is no accident. It is the result of its having been shaped from an early stage by influential proponents of GM like Koch."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4178

+ AFRICA FORGES AHEAD WITH GM POTATOES
The South African government has approved a US-funded project to grow GM potatoes in six secret locations. Similar potatoes were first grown in the US but were withdrawn from the market due to consumer resistance.

(See http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=2405 for more on the dismal story of the rise and fall of Monsanto's New Leaf GM spuds)

The announcement of South Africa's authorisation for the project was made on Monday through a press release issued by the USAID and US Department of Agriculture-funded International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISAAA also receives funds from a who's-who of multinational chemical and seed companies: Bayer, CropScience, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, Cargill, Dow AgroSciences and KWS SAAT AG.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4185

The GM potato project is being hyped by Muffy Koch (see previous item). Koch said that the country has shrinking farmland and an expanding population. To address this problem, "smarter farming methods" need to be used. South Africa has been conducting field trials with tuber moth resistant potatoes for the last three years.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4176

For more on Muffy Koch:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271&page=K

+ WHY GM IS A HARD SELL IN AFRICA - WAMBUGU
Africa Harvest CEO, Dr Florence Wambugu, told global leaders attending the World Economic Forum (WEF) Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that GM crops were a hard sell in Africa because private sector players were not dealing with other factors affecting hunger, poverty and malnutrition: "Although Africa supports biotechnology, there is increasing concern, especially from political leaders, that private companies merely view it as a market."

Wambugu said African leaders would support biotech, hence speeding up its adoption, if major industry players began to look holistically at the problems facing the continent.

GM WATCH comment: Since GM is the least holistic technology in history and would count for nothing in any holistic approach to Africa's problems, the industry will not be able to change its practice without self-destructing - though it may well change its tune in PR blitzes.

Wambugu, whose lobby group Africa Harvest is supported by industry federation CropLife International, was on sparkling form at the World Economic Forum in Davos, claiming, "Our focus as Africa Harvest has been to provide factual information to Africans. Our experience is that they are not as gullible as the anti-GM lobby groups make them out to be."

This Pants on Fire award winner (2003-2004) wouldn't know factual information if it bit her. Her lies are legendary, not least those she used in promoting the failed GM sweet potato project to the media as the saviour of hungry Africans.

Note especially here how she just slips in the line: "Africa supports biotechnology". And like the industry as a whole, Wambugu is adept at confusing biotechnology in general, which is often uncontroversial and so has wide acceptance, with genetic engineering.

For more on Wambugu:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131&page=W
For her PANTS award:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
For CropLife International
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=159&page=C

+ KENYA EMBRACES GM TREES FROM SOUTH AFRICA
Under severe pressure to increase its forest cover from less than 2% of total land area to the internationally accepted canopy minimum of 10%, Kenya has embraced what are described as "clonal trees" first introduced in the country from South Africa.

Africa Harvest CEO, Dr Florence Wambugu apparently brokered the technology.

The Minister for Environmental, Natural Resources and Wildlife, Dr Newton Kulundu thanked ISAAA AfriCenter, and Lord Sainsbury's Gatsby Charitable Foundation, as well as Mondi Forest of South Africa, for their commitment and determination to ensure that Tree Biotechnology Project succeeds. (The Project was started under the leadership of Wambugu when she was a director of the ISAAA AfriCenter).

GM WATCH comment: Funny how the biotech industry doesn't give a damn about deforestation - see, for example, "ARGENTINA FOREST PROTEST BEGINS", below, on the destruction of Argentina's forest for GM soy - until they have some GM trees to flog (if these "clonal trees" actually are GM trees). What a brilliant market strategy: deforest a country with GM herbicide resistant crops and then 'solve' the problem of deforestation by selling it GM trees! We wonder whether the obvious question of genetic impoverishment inherent in cloning ever arises in the minds of the *idiots savants* of biotech. But doubtless they stand ready to clone a few more varieties of GM trees.

For more on:
Lord Sainsbury's Gatsby Charitable Foundation
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=116
Florence Wambugu and A Harvest
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
ISAAA
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=66

http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4169

+ ROW OVER MUTANT AIDS DRUG
South Africa is to become the guinea pig for the production and testing of an HIV/Aids vaccine that will be grown in GM plants. But local environmental activists have warned they will fight the project, for which the European Union has granted 12 million euro (about R80-million) over five years.

The first field trial of the GM vaccine is likely to be carried out in South Africa because there are fears that crops might be vandalised in the United Kingdom, Britain's Independent newspaper reported. The trial will be carried out by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), based in Pretoria. Possible host plants for the drug include maize and tobacco.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4185

The irony of this proposal to genetically engineer an anti-HIV drug into plants will not be lost on those who have read Leonard Horowitz's seminal book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola - Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron, 1996). Horowitz follows a scientific paper trail which concludes that the HIV virus was either accidentally or deliberately created through genetic engineering in US laboratories.

------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
------------------------------------------------------------

+ MAJOR US REPORT RAISES CONCERNS
The following comments come from Craig Winters,
Executive Director of The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, in the US:

A major new report from the National Academy of Sciences was released this week titled "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects."

This project was funded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council are the divisions of the National Academy of Sciences that released the report. The report was conducted by the "Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health."

This report from the nation's leading scientific organization raises many red flags about the safety of genetically engineered foods.

You can read and/or purchase the entire 254-page report online at the National Academies Press web site. There is also a 16-page executive summary. Here is a link to the web site:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html

[When reading about the report] please allow me to point out a few things to keep in mind:

1) Most of the people who served on this committee are very pro-biotech. Many earn their living in this field and stand to profit significantly if this technology is adopted on a larger scale.

2) This type of safety review should have been conducted in the early 1990's, before we made guinea pigs out of the American public.

3) Since genetically engineered foods are currently being eaten on a daily basis by millions of U.S. citizens, there was great pressure on the committee to not alarm the public by suggesting that the current foods are in any way not safe.

4) The biotech industry is trying to say that this report indicates genetically engineered crops are safe when the findings clearly raise many significant safety concerns.

5) The report emphasizes the value and importance of post market tracking of genetically engineered foods that have been approved for human consumption. The easiest way to facilitate post market tracking would be to label the genetically engineered foods. Yet the committee chairwoman is downplaying the need for post market tracking, undermining this important safety review that the report emphasizes.

6) As the report points out, the technology does not even currently exist that is necessary to adequately safety test genetically engineered foods. It could cost many millions, if not billions, of dollars to develop such technology, and take many years. In the meantime, people are being fed these risky foods that have never been adequately tested.

7) Based on the track record of the government agencies that commissioned this report, it is unlikely they will suddenly change the way they have been dealing with genetically engineered foods. So, the status quo will likely remain. And under the current regulations, if a biotech company has a new genetically engineered product to bring to market, they are not even required to inform the FDA they are bringing it out.

Again, this type of analysis on the safety of genetically engineered foods should have been done BEFORE allowing the American public to be made guinea pigs.

Now that this report has been released indicating the potential for health problems is real, will the government agencies finally start adequately regulating genetically engineered foods? Probably not. Most likely it will take Congressional action to force the agencies to act. This report provides compelling evidence on why such action from Congress is needed.

Safety testing and labeling should be required for ALL genetically engineered foods. As the report points out, the current system is inadequate to assure safety.

+ COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH RAISES QUESTIONS OVER GM FOOD SAFETY
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has raised concerns over the safety of GM food and has urged overhaul of the existing regulatory mechanism. The ICMR study, "Regulatory Regime for Genetically Modified Foods: The Way Ahead", said "the case of GM potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin gene for insecticidal properties is an example of the potential of GM foods to cause toxicity. In a group of rats fed with GM potato damage to immune system and stunted growth was observed and the experiment had generated considerable controversy."

In case of the GM rice, soyabean and rapeseed the study said "currently developed plants with improved nutritive value include GM rice with enriched vitamin A and GM soyabean and rapeseed with modified fatty acid. The impact of such intended modification in nutrient level in a crop plants can affect nutritional status of the individual. There is also the potential for unexpected alteration in nutrients as was observed in the case of GM rice (accumulation of xanthophylls, increase in prolamines). Such changes can affect nutrient profiles resulting in nutritional imbalances in the consumer."

The ICMR study has been circulated among concerned ministries and departments of the government. The study noted that 73 per cent of the GM crops are developed for herbicide tolerance while 18 per cent are developed for resistance to insects and 8 per cent developed contain both traits. Only 0.1 per cent of GM crops are for the traits that are the most hyped: yield improvement and vitamin enrichment.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4177

+ MALAWI EXPERTS BLAME GM FOODS FOR RISE IN CANCER
The Malawi National Cancer Registry (MNCR) has warned that consumption of GM foods can contribute to cancer cases. MNCR reports that cancer is dramatically increasing in Malawi, recording up to 2,900 cases annually. MNCR director, Dr Charles Dzamalala said there might be a linkage between the increasing cancer cases and the proliferation of GM foods on the local market.

Controversy over GM food flared in 2001/2002 farming season when Malawi was severely hit by famine that inflicted several countries of southern Africa due to prolonged dry spells.
Donor states, notably the US, ferried tonnes of biotech maize to the starved region. But Zimbabwean and Zambian governments refused to distribute the maize to hungry populations for fear of its dangers. Malawi, however, accepted the GM maize. But former agriculture minister Aleke Banda expressed fears in Parliament that some farmers were planting the GM food. He dispatched officials from his ministry to uproot such maize crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4190

Only time will tell if the experts of the Malawi National Cancer Registry are right about this. That's the nature of a "massive human experiment":

"[UK Prime Minister] Blair's chief scientific adviser denounced the United States' attempts to force the technology [GM] into Africa as a 'massive human experiment'. In a scathing attack on President Bush's administration, Professor David King also questioned the morality of the US's desire to flood genetically modified foods into African countries, where people are already facing starvation in the coming months."
- The Observer, UK, Sep 1, 2002
http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ GM IS THE THREAT
"First, we were told we had to eat GM whether we liked it or not, because soon there would be nothing else on the supermarket shelves.

"When it became clear we wouldn't eat it, we were told starvation in the third world would only be solved if Europe agreed to eat GM.

"When the main overseas aid organisations scotched that myth, we were called anti-science Luddites.

"When we proved thick-skinned, we were told GM was good for the environment.

"Now that reports of increasing pesticide use on GM crops with time and the results of the farm scale evaluations have put that idea into a different perspective, we are told we will all be in the "grip of a food crisis in as little as 15 years, perhaps even ten" unless we embrace GM.

"We have moved from coercion, through moral imperative, insults and environmental concern, to a direct personal threat.

"In 1996, pro-Natural Food Scotland forecast global famine within 30 years if our staple crops were allowed to be progressively weakened by artificial genetic intrusions. Since then, revelations about the molecular instability of the DNA in transfected plants, plus the ease with which our staple crops are being contaminated with genes which generate toxins, have served to strengthen this opinion.

"We will wake up one day to find entire sections of our food supply have failed or become unfit for human consumption."
- Joanna Clarke of Glasgow, Scotland, in a letter to The Scotsman, July 26, 2004, in response to Prof Mike Gale's claims in that newspaper that we'll all starve without GM food.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4189

------------------------------------------------------------
EURO-NEWS
------------------------------------------------------------

+ EUROPE IN STALEMATE OVER GM WHILE SPAIN RECONSIDERS
When EU agriculture ministers gathered 19 July, they were again unable to come to a decision about whether to authorize imports of Monsanto's GM "NK603" maize for human consumption. However, on the same day, the European Commission (EC) approved the marketing of the product for animal feed.

The corn received a safety approval by the European Food Safety Authority last year. Even though the EC approved the import of this corn for animal feed, implementation of this decision must wait until approval has been granted for human consumption.

That decision is now in the hands of the EC. According to the EU's decision-making process, if the ministers of member states fail to agree on allowing a new GMO, then the EC may decide on an authorization. The commission wants to approve the corn for sale.

Not everyone is happy with this process. "This pattern of decision making by default is starting to expose the lack of credibility of [EU] authorization procedures," said Greenpeace's Eric Gall. "Most consumers don't want [GM crops], and member states have not agreed to approve them. The commission is defying democracy by pushing through these approvals to satisfy the biotech lobby and its US backers."

Spain, which had charged ahead with GM crops, is now reconsidering its position. Spain is the only EU country to have planted significant numbers of GM crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4173

+ FRANCE: PROTESTORS DESTROY GM CROP
Hundreds of protesters, including a Mayor and other public officials, have destroyed a field of GM maize in a field owned by Pioneer Hi-Bred International at Menville, near Toulouse in south-west France. The activists were led by French farmer Jose Bove, who said the protest was made in the interests of consumers. About 15 policemen watched the destruction and took photographs of those involved, but did not intervene.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4175

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
US
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ MONSANTO AGAIN SUES RIVAL SYNGENTA
Broadening its legal feud with Syngenta, Monsanto has filed two new lawsuits accusing its Swiss agribusiness rival of breach of contract and patent infringement - its third such action in less than three months.

The St Louis-based company asked a federal court in Rockford, Ill., to block Syngenta from developing, using and selling Roundup Ready corn seed, including Monsanto's GA21 Roundup Ready variety. The filing in US District Court in Rockford, Ill., alleges Syngenta infringed patents held by Monsanto's DeKalb Genetics Corp.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4193

+ CALL FOR BAN ON PHARMA CROPS
Consumer and environmental organizations called on California state agencies to conduct a rigorous investigation of the potential hazards posed by a biotechnology firm's plan to produce pharmaceutical drugs from GM rice. The groups say such novel crops inevitably will contaminate the food supply.

A new 22-page report describes some of the serious health and environmental concerns in relation to one such crop proposed for cultivation in California. According to Dr Michael Hansen, senior research associate with Consumers Union, "Californians cannot rely on the federal government to protect the state's consumers, farmers, and environment from the potential harms of this experimental and unproven pharmaceutical rice".

The EU-based Pharma-Planta group plans to grow these crops in South Africa - a country which has a biosafety system every bit as weak as that of the US.
View Full Report
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CARiceReport7.2004.pdf
View Executive Summary
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CARiceReportExecSumm7.2004.pdf
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4171

+ LAWSUIT THREATENS GM DRUG CROPS' FUTURE IN HAWAII
Even though they are far from winning in court, opponents of GM drug crops have succeeded in shutting down the industry in Hawaii. Experiments to alter sugar cane and corn to produce drugs began last year in Hawaii at eight mostly-secret sites.

All drug crop field tests in Hawaii stopped within months of lawsuits claiming the crops threatened the environment and food supply. The companies said their crops are harmless, but fear what would happen if the lawsuits revealed their locations. "Whether there are going to be demonstrations; whether people are going to attempt to pull out the existing plants; that means millions of dollars in research could be lost," attorney for biological agriculture companies, Margery Bronster, said.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4188

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER GLOBAL NEWS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ ARGENTINA FOREST PROTEST BEGINS
Greenpeace launched a protest this week in Argentina's north western forests, in response to Monsanto using the land to plant GM soya. The activists found bulldozers in Salta, by the Great Chaco and Yungas forests. They chained the bulldozers, immobilising them.

Combined, the two forests are largest in South America, behind the Amazon. Millions of people live in the Great Chaco and Yungas, and rely on the forest's natural biodiversity for their livelihoods. The forests are also home to numerous vulnerable animal species such as jaguars, and contain rich plant life.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4192

+ HOW THE US HELPED BIO TO LOBBY THE VATICAN
An interesting snippet from the Biotech Industry Organisation's website shows that the US Government organised a meeting between the Vatican and BIO! "Global outreach included a visit to the Vatican to discuss agricultural biotech issues, such as the potential of biotechnology to lift food production and ease hunger in developing countries. In a trip arranged by the U.S. Department of State, BIO's vice president for food and agriculture, Val Giddings, met with Vatican officials and gave public lectures to the Vatican diplomatic corps and the local community."
http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/milestone04/foodandag.asp

The US Government previously got pro-GM Archbishop Martino to attend its big "feed the world" GM promotional in Sacramento, California - an event boycotted by all EU countries.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/agriculture/story/6907586p-7857123chtml

One of the official speakers at the US Dept of Agriculture event in Sacramento was CS Prakash of pro-GM listserv AgBioView. Recently Prakash's group of pro-GM "Scientists and Scholars" denounced the Catholic Institute for International Relations for raising questions about GM crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4151

This is part of a sustained campaign. Three years ago Prakash met one of the Vatican's leading experts on bioethics Bishop Elio Sgreccia to try and head off concerns over safeguards on GM foods.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/briefs/20010706.htm
More on Prakash's lobby assault on the Catholic Church:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4180

+ LORD ROBERT WINSTON SAYS GM IS AS SAFE AS NUKES!
During a recent tour of New Zealand, TV fertility boffin Lord Robert Winston, who has warned the scientific community against over-confidence, exaggeration and a black and white denial of uncertainty in science, has been telling his audience: "we've been using nuclear power with *complete safety* for 50 years" and "There's *not the slightest evidence* that GM food is dangerous" (emphasis added).

This is an extraordinary faux pas in a country that has always proudly proclaimed itself nuclear-free. Dr Robert Anderson challenged Winston's comments in a letter to SCOOP news service:

ON NUKES: "Quite apart from the Chernobyl disaster which killed tens of thousands and crippled many more, or the narrowly averted melt-down at Three Mile Island, I have before me a calendar of - not yearly, nor even monthly but - daily accidents in the virtually world-wide nuclear power industry. One also wonders if he is familiar with the latest environmental pollution figures, from the vast nuclear waste storage containers, as leakage occurs into ground water and surrounding soils.

ON GM FOOD: "He may well have expertise in human fertility matters, but he is certainly not an expert in every field of genetics. .. An enormous number of eminent scientists making up the Union of Concerned Scientists, PSRG, and the UK Independent Science Panel, among others, have all condemned it as untested and dangerous, quite apart from exposing fatal flaws in the regulatory process.

"Only recently, the French newspaper Le Monde, revealed secret documents showing health impacts of GM corn described as 'very disturbing' by French scientists. These included kidney malformations, increases in white blood cells in male rats and high blood sugar and reduced immature red blood cells in female rats. Last year, up to 100 Philippine villagers suffered debilitating illnesses when nearby GE corn came into flower. Professor Terje Traavik found antibodies produced by the GM corn in the blood of 39 villagers. Reports have come in of the same illnesses this year."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4186

+ SCIENTISTS SUPPORT PRINCE ON NANOTECH
The Independent has an article on a new report by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering which says tough new rules must be brought in to guard against dangers to health and the environment from nanotechnology. The report also urges ministers and scientists to adopt a more open approach to the public over the technology than it has over GM.

The report marks an abrupt change of attitude by the Royal Society, which has been one of the principal cheerleaders for GM crops and foods, and demonstrates how severely the scientific establishment has been shaken by successful public resistance to them [GM WATCH: Hmmm... or is it just that the nanotech firms haven't yet co-opted the RS in the same way as GM firms seem to have done?].

It vindicates Prince Charles who has warned of the risks of the technology - which manipulates microscopic materials 80,000 times smaller than the thickness of a human hair. Particles of normally harmless materials such as latex become toxic when produced in such minute form.

The report also wrong-foots leading scientists such as Lord Winston who accused the prince of raising "science scares" and of being "a classic woolly thinker".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4186

------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
------------------------------------------------------------

+ GM HAS "HUGE POTENTIAL" FOR MANKIND, SAYS BULLSH*T AWARDEE
Claiming that scientists should be neither for nor against GM technology, but instead for "scientific methodology", the Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST) asserted in a statement that GM has a "huge potential for mankind in medicine, agriculture and food".

"Genetic modification will not solve poverty or wars but with 30,000 people dying from diet deficiency diseases every day, foods of the future will not be solved without GM," Prof. J Ralph Blanchfield, chair of external affairs at the IFST, said to FoodNavigator.com.

Back in 2000 Blanchfield was the recipient of Prof Bullsh*t's 'Best Bull' award for the following statement: "IFST is neither root-and-branch pro-GM or anti-GM, indeed as an independent objective scientific professional body it cannot be "root-and-branch" about anything... The development of GM technology holds out such valuable, indeed indispensable, prospects for the future of humanity that any other approach would be indefensible."
http://ngin.tripod.com/fav.htm

In making the award, one of the panel offered the following comment on Blanchfield's statement:

Doctor Halftruth: "A classic of its kind and a model one can confidently recommend for training purposes. Start by making it absolutely clear that as a wholly independent objective scientist you are very far from being unequivocal about this technology. Having emphasised your avoidance of any overcommitment, you are then at liberty to sell biotech for all it's worth, saying any other approach isn't even worthy of consideration! A useful variant on this popular strategy is to say you wish to escape from an unnecessarily polarised debate. You can then happily give over the rest of your time to the usual GM promotional, confident that your remarks will be reported as a plea for greater balance in the GM debate!"
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4191

------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF SCIENCE
------------------------------------------------------------

+ US: USDA HIJACKED BY AGRIBIZ, SAYS REPORT
A new report finds that regulatory policy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been "hijacked" by the agribusiness industry, which has seen to it that many key policymaking positions at the agency are now held by individuals who previously worked for the industry.

The report, titled USDA INC., was commissioned by the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative (AAI), a network of family farm and public interest groups. The report can be found online at www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1

"In its early days, USDA was known as the People's Department," said Fred Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets, which first proposed the paper. "Today, it is, in effect, the Agribusiness Industry's Department, since its policies on issues such as food safety and fair market competition have been shaped to serve the interests of the giant corporations that now dominate food production and distribution."

In addition to working for agribusiness companies such as ConAgra and Campbell Soup, top USDA officials came to the Department from industry trade associations (such as the Food Marketing Institute) and producer groups (such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council), which are closely aligned with big processing companies and are partially funded by them. Even Secretary Ann Veneman, who has spent most of her career as a public official, served on the board of directors of Calgene Inc., a biotech company later taken over by Monsanto.

The report illustrates the hijacking of USDA policymaking through five case studies:
*USDA's refusal to adopt strict safety and testing measures for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), despite the appearance of a case in Washington State last year.
*USDA's refusal to vigorously enforce rules against anti-competitive practices in the cattle industry, despite the growing tendency of the big meatpacking companies to force independent ranchers into so-called captive supply arrangements.
*USDA's promotion of weakened slaughterhouse inspection practices in the face of a resurgence of health hazards such as E.coli bacteria and listeria. The Department also continues to promote dubious "solutions" such as irradiation.
*USDA's continuing boosterism for agricultural biotech, despite a lack of consumer acceptance and the plunge in exports due to international resistance.
*USDA's support for concentrated animal feeding operations, despite the growing evidence of serious public health effects of these factory farms.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4172

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATENTS ON LIFE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ NATURALLY SELF-REPLICATING GM CROPS NOT PATENTABLE - JUDGE
CropChoice editor, Robert Schubert, notes how a US federal judge has finally taken note of the issues surrounding the self-replication of patented processes in nature - and has decided that such organisms are not patentable. This is a concern that farmers and scientists have observed with the spread of GMOs in crops.

Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa gave his opinion on April 23 in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of SmithKline Beecham Corp. vs. Apotex Corp. Gajarsa said concerning the company's synthetic compound paroxetine hemihydrate, which can reproduce itself by natural processes, "...patent claims drawn broadly enough to encompass products that spread, appear, and 'reproduce' through natural processes cover subject matter unpatentable under Section 101 - and are therefore invalid."

Gajarsa referred to a distinction in patent law: Products or processes that humans create are patentable, while those of nature are not. The Supreme Court affirmed this in two cases - Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, and Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v. J.E.M. Agric. Supply, Inc. in 2001.

But even if more judges at the district and appellate court level were to consider Gajarsa's reasoning, that wouldn't do much in the short term to help farmers who are having to defend themselves against a biotech or seed company.

"Does this [decision] mean that American farmers are protected from accusations of patent infringement for plants containing patented genes from stray pollen?" said Peter DiMauro, director of the PatentWatch Project at the International Center for Technology Assessment. "Heck no! We are not even close to such a just situation. However, the Gajarsa opinion ought to inform other judges and policy makers that the problem can exist, and that the solution is not a strict literal enforcement of draconian patent laws, but, rather, an equitable application of flexible patent laws, either the laws we have now or ones legislated in the future."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4181

------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK - UK ONLY
------------------------------------------------------------

+ ASK DEFRA TO BROADEN CONSULTATION BEYOND 'THE USUAL SUSPECTS'
The UK government is trying to restrict its latest consultation on GM crops to a narrow range of "stakeholders". Please write to DEFRA, the government's dept of environment and agricultrure, now to make sure they also listen to your views.

BACKGROUND:
In March, when Margaret Beckett announced the Government's policy on growing GM crops in the UK, she promised further consulation on:
* How to ensure the co-existence of other crops with GM crops;
* A liability regime to compensate non-GM farmers whose crops become contaminated;
* How to establish GM-free zones.

This consultation is beginning now and will include workshops in the summer and autumn. However, the Government plans to limit it to a narrow range of "stakeholders". Unless the consultation is widened now, there is a danger that:
* a high threshold for GM contamination could be set;
* biotech companies will not be made liable for compensation, and liability will not extend to environmental damage;
* GM free zones could become unworkable.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Please write to DEFRA saying you want to be consulted about the proposed new co-existence and liability regime for GM crops. Include some reasons why you will be affected by the decision that they make (e.g. you are a farmer, beekeeper, gardener, you want to eat GM-free food). Ask to be sent information about the consultation process and any documents they produce and to be invited to any meetings or workshops that they hold. Please ask other individuals or organisations to write to DEFRA too.

ADDRESS TO SEND YOUR LETTER:
GM Crops Policy Team
DEFRA
Ashdown House
123 Victoria St
London
SW1E 6DE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DONATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our thanks to all of you who have donated to GM WATCH. 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.