from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH guest editor
Dear all

Welcome to WW33, bringing you all the latest news in brief on the GM issue.

I'm a strong believer in the old saying, "Forewarned is forearmed", so as the UK's official public debate draws to a close, do take a look at the FSA/Government's looming scam in HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK, "FSA AT IT AGAIN!"

If you share my indignation, please write to environment secretary Margaret Beckett to make your views known (CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK). It will also be interesting to see whether the UK's GM Science Review, due to be published on Monday, follows the same strategy of underplaying health concerns on GM while allowing for some environmental and other "uncertainties".

HIGHLIGHTS this week kicks off with an extraordinary scandal. While there's no shortage of reasons to oppose GM, animal cruelty is a major one. GM has led to a massive growth in the number of experiments involving animals, something which had previously been in decline. Some argue that animal suffering in the name of research is justified by benefits to humans, but there are clearly none in these appalling experiments. Moreover, we have a choice of systems of healthcare and research, many of which have never involved animals. So it's undoubtedly time for a review of exactly what benefits animal experimentation has brought us, and whether we can continue to accept such large-scale suffering and waste of life.

This scandal highlights other vital issues. The British Government seems to have intentionally turned a blind eye to the extreme nature of the experimentation. The Novartis subsidiary which undertook the research made misleading claims of scientific breakthroughs. Scientific papers appear to have excluded deaths and abnormalities. The company even claimed it was ready to start trials on humans. And the whole grotesque scandal might never have been exposed if it weren't for leaked documents - documents whose publication Novartis fought to suppress.

Finally, following Andy Rowell's article last week on the sacking of Arpad Pusztai, don't miss the web address where you can read 'HOT POTATO' - excerpts from Rowell's new book giving more of the inside story of the whole Pusztai affair (HIGHLIGHTS).

Please circulate far and wide.

Claire <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK - Animal cruelty / France / Italy / FSA lies / US lies / Pusztai. Incorporates CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK
TOPIC OF THE WEEK: "Independent" government science advisors are corporate-owned - but still claim they're impartial!
REPORT OF THE WEEK: Still no health data

British Members of Parliament are demanding to know how the Government allowed shocking experiments involving the transplant of genetically modified piglets' hearts into the necks of wild baboons to be classed as "moderate". The GM-organ experiments were undertaken by a company owned by gene giant Novartis. The experiments involved thousands of pigs and hundreds of higher primates, including wild-caught baboons which were transported from the African savannahs to die in steel cages the size of toilet cubicles

What has also emerged is the misleading nature of claims of scientific progress made by the Novartis subsidiary. Since 1995 it has said that it is now ready to start human clinical trials [The Sunday Times, Aug 6 2000]. But scientific papers declaring new breakthroughs, which claimed to make the successful transplant of GM animal organs into humans possible, have been shown to be dangerously misleading. The publication of leaked documents shows that a quarter of the dozens of baboons involved in the experiments died from "technical failures", often in extreme agony.,6903,940033,00.html

The leaked papers also show that while one scientific paper claimed no baboons died from "hyperacute" reaction - two baboons excluded from the published study did. A second study described a baboon which survived for 39 days with a GM pig heart as healthy throughout. But records show its heart had grown in weight by three times, a fact not mentioned in the published data.

Novartis took out a High Court injunction to try and prevent the dissemination of the leaked papers exposing the scandal, and it subsequently moved its animal testing operations to the United States. But the recipient of the documents, the UK animal charity Uncaged Campaigns, argued successfully that it was in the public interest to reveal the truth behind one of Britain's most extreme programmes of animal experimentation.

The Government originally promised an investigation but in a subsequent announcement the then Home Secretary Jack Straw quashed the inquiry. But the Home Office's own role in the affair has increasingly come under question.
Also: Exposed: secrets of the animal organ lab
The Observer, April 20, 2003,6903,940033,00.html
For Uncaged Campaign's detailed report, see the Diaries of Despair:

More animal suffering in the name of GM: PPL Therapeutics, the Scottish biotech company involved in the creation of Dolly the sheep carried out a mass slaughter of up to 3,000 GM sheep at two farms in East Lothian as it struggles to survive after Bayer, the German pharma/GM giant, pulled the plug on joint drug trials. The animals must be slaughtered and incinerated on the same day under Home Office regulations to avoid environmental risks. Meat from the animals cannot be sold as food. A similar programme of mass slaughter is expected soon in New Zealand.

Supporters of French farmer Jose Bove, jailed for destroying GM crops, have been staging demonstrations throughout France to protest President Chirac's decision to only cut Bove's jail sentence instead of granting him a full pardon. Around 1,000 protesters beat sticks on security barriers around Bove's prison in Herault, southern France, while 50 people draped banners across the glass pyramid entrance to Paris's Louvre museum. Another 300 supporters held a protest picnic beneath the Eiffel Tower. Protesters were also arrested during France's Bastille Day parade while others disrupted the Tour de France. Meanwhile, GM maize fields in southwest France were ransacked following Chirac's decision. Monsanto has said that attackers also damaged one of its GM maize fields. Bove's arrest in June for destroying GM crops prompted an outcry after 80 armed police smashed into his Montpellier home and bundled him into a helicopter.

Northern Italy's Piedmont region has ordered the destruction of 381 hectares of maize fields found to contain GM material. Under Italian law, the sowing of GM crops in open fields is banned under a so-called "zero tolerance" policy.

Monsanto Co and Pioneer Hi-Bred urged farmers to oppose demands by the Piedmont regional authority that they destroy the GM crops.
"Representatives of the two companies are contacting farmers one by one to convince them not to destroy the fields," said Giorgio Ferrero, from the Coldiretti farmers' organisation. In exchange, they are offering free legal assistance and asking them to sign a mandate to appeal the order that obliges them to destroy the crop."
According to an official with Italy's largest farmer's organisation, "Anyone who does not obey the order [to destroy the GM crops] will be breaking the law." Corporate involvement in illegality may be nothing new however. According to the Italian press piece, the "criminal authorities" are already "investigating Pioneer Hi-Bred Italia's chief executive Giuseppe Manara for breaching a 1971 seed law".

A court has rejected an attempt by the Italian unit of Dupont subsidiary, Pioneer Hi-Bred, to halt the order to destroy maize thought to contain GM material, a local government source said. "The order to destroy the maize remains in force following the decision by the regional court in Turin in response to Pioneer's request for an immediate suspension of the order," the source, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

A new ABCN EWS poll with a sample of 1,024 adults has found that 92% of consumers in the United States favour the mandatory labelling of GM food products, and a majority (51%) of the respondents say that they are attracted to food with labels stating that they were not genetically modified. 54% of US women regard GM foods as unsafe to eat. Men were evenly divided on the issue.
Similarly, some 30 percent of shoppers surveyed by the Food Marketing Institute in 2003 said that GM food posed a "serious health risk," compared to just 15 percent in 1997. Another recent study, from the Pew Research Center, also found that 55 percent of Americans think GM foods are a "bad thing."

88% of Canadians perceive "food safety" as the top consumer issue and 68% are unsure that GM food is safe. This was the major finding of a survey by the Consumers Council of Canada. For more:

A non-GM policy becoming strong trend in the word's largest food market with thirty-two food producers operating in China announcing they are now officially committed to not selling GM food in China. This is the first time food producers have publicly committed to such a policy in the largest food market in the world. The commitment from the 32 companies appears in sharp contrast to the record of Nestle - a multinational caught in selling GM products in China last year and by now famous for its double- standards. The scandal alerted the consumers about the problem of unknown GE in  their food and made them return Nestle products back to retailers.

In Britain, the Food Standards Agency is telling the Government, that the public's "worries about GM foods have decreased" and their concerns are most focused on the environment and the safety of GM food is "less of an issue". Compare the FSA's claims with the big supermarkets' recent assertions that their customers' attitudes to GM have not softened. Tesco said: "We are guided by our customers. We have been tracking customer opinion regularly and *nothing has changed*."

The FSA's claim that food safety is not an issue but doubts remain about the environment just happens to tally exactly with new environment minister Elliot Morley's statement, "I am not as convinced as [former environment minister] Michael [Meacher] about the health threats. The greater risk is environmental cross-contamination, and that's the focus of the field scale evaluations." In other words, there are no health issues, and any remaining doubts about environmental effects will be cleared up by the field scale evaluations. So that's all right then.
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK: If it's not all right with you, and you feel that the FSA is not representing your interests as a consumer, please write to Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, who is on the receiving end of the FSA's lies, at House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
She has no public email address but the House of Commons fax number (mark it for attn Margaret Beckett) is: 0207 219 4780

Herbicide resistance is increasing around the US and that includes resistance to glyphosate, says Bob Hartzler, extension weed management specialist at Iowa State University. Hartzler suggested Monsanto take another look at its oft-stated assurance to customers that resistance is not an issue. "If it's a dead weed, it won't produce seed," Monsanto's David Heering told the Farm Industry News. But Hartzler said more weeds are developing a resistance to glyphosate.
Glyphosate-resistant superweeds are spreading across Pennsylvania

Nearly one-fifth of farmers in the US midwest are ignoring federal rules about how much transgenic maize (corn) they can plant, according to government figures. Experts fear that this non-compliance could encourage insects to develop resistance to the insecticide produced by the crop.

In the US, organic farmers are having trouble keeping biotech contamination out of their crops. Food companies and livestock producers are increasingly forcing farmers and grain elevators to test organic commodities to detect biotech material. Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain Co. Inc. of Cerro Gordo, Ill., a major supplier of biotech-free grain to U.S. and foreign companies, said, "The trend for difficulty is going up and will continue to get worse if the planting trends for GMOs continues as they've been in the last several years."
A recent survey of U.S. organic farmers by the Organic Farming Research Foundation found more than half of the 990 respondents said the government wasn't doing enough to protect them from biotech contamination and 18 farmers in the survey said their crops had tested positive for biotech material. The financial stakes for farmers are large: Organic soybeans that can be sold for food go for $12.50 to $14.50 a bushel. Feed-grade soybeans sell for about $9 a bushel, still about $3 more than conventional soybeans.- Des Moines Register, Iowa, July 14, 2003

While the US opposes, as burdensome and uneconomic, traceability requirements in the EU's new regime for authorising and labelling GM crops, it is moving to place equally stringent requirements on companies exporting food and drink products to the US. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working on implementation proposals for US bioterrorism legislation which would force European companies to register their facilities with the FDA, give prior notice of any shipment to the US and provide elaborate records of products used during manufacturing. "Does anyone really think we have a greater chance of tracking down bioterrorism by tracking down whether a cucumber comes from Sicily or France?" one EU official remarked. - Financial Times, Jul 15 2003

Materials that US public interest lawyer Steven Druker is delivering to the European press and to government officials are available at:
Druker exposes how the US attack against EU policy on GM foods is based on systematic deception and reveals how EU regulators are themselves misleading the public about GM food and have never truly upheld the "precautionary principle".
Points explained include:
*Although the Bush Administration attacks the "precautionary principle" as an illegitimate restraint on trade, it is actually the cornerstone of US Food Safety Law. US law clearly mandates that the precautionary principle be applied to GM food - and to an even stricter degree than does EU law
*GM foods gained approval in the EU only because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) covered up extensive warnings of its own experts, blatantly misrepresented the facts, and violated its own laws
*The EU regulatory process disregards sound scientific practices and has approved GM foods based on data that is grossly deficient and that in some cases even indicates potential health hazards

In Western Australia, a new report has found the state should maintain its moratorium on genetically modified crops until 2006 and investigate the possibility of remaining GM free into the future.

MUST-READ: An excerpt from 'Don't Worry It Is Safe To Eat - The True Story Of GM Food, BSE, And Foot And Mouth' by Andrew Rowell covering the shocking treatment of Arpad story is at
The Western Morning News, which campaigned for enlightened management of the foot and mouth outbreak, as well as independent inquiries into government mismanagement of the epidemic, has published a good article on Rowell's book. It has the following quotes from Rowell:
"If anyone says GM is safe, they are lying because the testing simply hasn't been done."
"People compare GM crops with nuclear waste but at least that has a half life. If we release this technology, it will be there forever."

"Independent" government science advisors are corporate-owned - but still claim they're impartial!
A leaked dossier of Whitehall documents reveals the vested interests of the government's "independent" science advisors. The advisors are shown to have close links to biotech and drug corporations, reports the article below, from The Observer.

Perhaps the most surprising element of this story and the one that follows, about biotech brigade frontliner Rick Roush, is the disingenuous claims of the scientists involved that their financial interests are irrelevant.

In January 1998 a ground breaking scientific study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 338, No.2) on the impact of conflicts of interest on scientific judgements. The study showed a strong association between authors' published positions on product safety and their financial relationships with the relevant industry.

Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists: Henry Thomas Stelfox, Grace Chua, Keith O'Rourke, Allan S. Detsky: Abstract available at
or via contents page at
Dossier reveals Ministers' worries over connections between science experts and leading drugs firms
Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend
The Observer, Sunday July 13, 2003,6903,997205,00.html

Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer.

Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them. 

Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists' commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.

A key member of the committee advising Ministers on the safety of GM products has received research funding from biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta. Professor Phil Mullineaux also works for the John Innes Centre - the GM research centre funded by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury;

More than three-quarters of the members of the committee which advises Ministers on food safety have direct links to major food companies and drug giants including Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Syngenta. Its chair, Professor Ieuan Hughes, has personal interests in Pharmacia - which in April was bought by Pfizer to create the biggest drugs company in the world - and owns shares in BP Amoco where his daughter works.

A former deputy chairman of the committee which examines the safety of pesticides, Professor Alan Boobis, received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline for his department at Imperial College but never declared it. Other members of this committee have links to agrochemical firms like Aventis, Astra Zeneca and Monsanto. The current head of the body, Professor David Coggon, was a close friend of Esso's chief medical officer and received a gift from the oil giant.

The chair of a group examining air quality in Britain,   Professor Stephen Holgate, is a consultant to drug giant Merck. His university department has received grants from Glaxo and Astra Zeneca. Others work for biotech and drug giants like Novartis and Schering-Plough.

Almost three out of four members of the committee advising Ministers on the cancer risks of chemicals in food and other consumer products either own shares in or work for major biotech and drug corporations;

While the scientists openly declare their interests,   Meacher was so exasperated by the structure of committees advising him that he personally intervened on a number of occasions in an attempt to get more environmentally friendly members on them.

Last week it emerged that Whitty was so alarmed about the industry links on the committee advising him on the safety of farming chemicals that he broke official rules and hired a toxicologist, Dr Vyvyan Howard, who is known to be more sensitive to environmental issues.

In one internal Defra document, Meacher scribbled his concerns in the margins: 'I do not agree with this. No member of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides should have current commercial considerations because this fundamentally undermines their integrity and judgement.'

Alongside his comments, a government official admits that Whitty shares his concerns and will be writing to the relevant parties to make his concerns clear. 

Last night Meacher told  The Observer: 'These committees are absolutely critical. They give definitive advice which Ministers at their peril seek to overturn. I constantly argued that nobody with significant commercial links should be allowed to sit on these bodies. It is vital they are truly independent.'

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry.'

A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.

He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'

The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of their advice. 

Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any scientists of international repute will have some current or past links with industry. 

'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few shares in a company is ridiculous.'
Professor Rick Roush is a former chief executive officer of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Australian Weed Management in Adelaide. He's also a former member of Australia's Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee as well as being a pro-GM activist who has left his mark on many listservs, from several of which he has been banned or has 'retired' in the face of complaint.

Last year a study by Roush and his CRC colleagues was published in the American journal Science. The team had studied canola (OSR) pollen drift on trial fields in southern Australia and claimed to have found that unwanted gene transfer occurred in such minute quantities, at 0.07 per cent, that they believed non-GM crops were "not in any danger".

An article in Nature casts further light on the study, and others where funding is not being disclosed. It includes the following, "one contributor didn't feel that his position as chief scientist of a firm that was supporting his academic work needed to be mentioned as he didn't think the paper would affect the company's stock price."

The scientific evidence, in fact, shows that any financial relationship with a relevant industry is likely to be associated with the expression of a more positive attitude towards the safety of that industry's products.
Earlier this year, Australian activists noticed that a 2002 paper on the spread of herbicide resistance from transgenic canola to nearby fields (M. A. Rieger, M. Lamond, C. Preston, S. B. Powles and R. T. Roush Science 296, 2386-2388; 2002) did not mention that two biotechnology firms - Monsanto and Aventis Crop Sciences (now owned by Bayer) - paid nearly 20% of the costs of the trials.

Alerted to the fact by a reporter for an Australian television programme in early May, Science contacted the authors for an explanation. Science requires contributors to declare financial ties that might be construed as influencing the outcome of their research.

Although Science concluded that the funding did not amount to a conflict of interest, it has now revised its disclosure policy as a direct result of the incident, according to a statement provided to Nature on 23 June. Now, all funding sources must be revealed in the paper's reference section, Science says.
Private industry contributes 10 percent of Texas A&M's whopping $41 million annual agricultural research budget, and [Texas A&M University entomologist, John] Benedict says he knew Monsanto was contributing money to his research. "All of these companies have a piece of me," Benedict says. "I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it all."

REPORT OF THE WEEK: Still no health data
As we wait for the UK Government's Science Review Panel (SRP) to report on Monday, it's interesting to note who are the reviewers and what is the evidence.

The majority of scientists on the SRP are well-known GM supporters, including not only scientists from institutes that have received significant funding from the GM industry (Gale and Dale at the JIC), or have acted as its paid consultants (Chris Leaver - Syngenta, Rhone Poulenc), but also scientists directly in the employ of Monsanto and Syngenta.

One of these is Dr Andrew Cockburn of Monsanto UK. Unsurprisingly, Cockburn is a staunch defender of the current safety assessments of GM crops and food and of the highly controversial concept of "substantial equivalence".

According to a published review of these issues by Cockburn, "genetically modified crops are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops." In support of this he points to, "The lack of any adverse effects resulting from the production and consumption of GM crops grown on more than 300 million cumulative acres over the last 5 years supports these safety conclusions."

But given there have been no epidemiological studies on the consumption of GM foods, where is the evidence for Cockburn's claims?

Gundula Azeez of the Soil Association writes of an important new review of food safety data on GM foods:

"In view of the forthcoming report of the GM Science Review on Monday, I would like to draw your attention to an important paper which has been passed to me by a Danish colleague and I think few people are aware of in the UK.

"It says that there have only been ten published studies of the health effects of GM food /feed.  From my reading of the paper, the researchers found that the quality of some of these was inadequate.  Over half were done in collaboration with companies (fully or partially), and these found no negative effects on body organs.  The others were done independently and looked more closely at the effects on the gut lining. Several of these found potentially negative changes which have not been explained.

"As we know, similar effects on the gut lining were found in the unpublished animal feeding study on the Flavr Savr tomato.  In addition, there is the unpublished human feeding trial by Newcastle University which found that the transgenes transfer out of GM food into gut bacteria at detectable levels after only one GM meal.  The biotechnology companies often refer to c.100 animal feeding studies (which they sent us) as proof of safety. However, these were designed to test the commercial value of the animal feed, not safety.  Anyway, many of these studies were duplicates and not all were published.

"Science is about testing and proving a hypothesis.  With only ten studies, many of which were inadequate, the hypothesis of the biotechnology companies and the FSA that GM foods are safe has actually not been proven, because the science to prove it simply does not exist. Moreover, the limited available evidence indicates that there could be negative effects."

An abstract of the paper: Pryme IF, Lembcke R., "In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed--with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials", Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Bergen, Arstadveien 19, NO-5009 Bergen, Norway, is at

"A company should not be able to come in and wreck a livelihood. If they do here with wheat what they've already down with canola, then we are lost." Canadian farmer Reg Stow, who has seen the bottom fall out of the canola market since contamination by GM, on the proposed introduction of GM wheat

"The U.S. legal challenge against the European Union [for banning GM foods and thereby allegedly contributing to African famine] and the condition, contained in the recently passed U.S. Leadership Against HIV/Aids Act that countries seeking aid to fight the virus must accept genetically modified food, is an affront to Africa's right to choose its own economic path."
- Irungu Houghton and Shehnilla Mohamed, "Bush's Goody Basket For Africa Filled With Holes", Sacramento Observer, California

"Claims that GMOs are necessary for the food security of poor people in developing countries should not be used to promote public acceptance of GM by the UK public. We believe such claims are misleading and fail to acknowledge the complexities of poverty reduction and household food security in developing countries."
- Directors of the British Overseas Aid Group - BOAG - organisations, all members of the UK Food Group include Action Aid, CAFOD, Christian Aid, OXFAM GB and Save the Children UK
See the UK Food Group's latest Briefing on GM Crops, "GM Crops are irrelevant to hunger eradication"

".access to oil from Nigeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon is taking on an increasingly military character with the proposed deployment of American troops."
- Irungu Houghton and Shehnilla Mohamed, "Bush's Goody Basket For Africa Filled With Holes", Sacramento Observer, California

The [US] dumping of subsidized cotton has led to the loss of earnings of up to $250 million to West African economies. These subsidies enable Mississippi cotton farmers to produce cotton at 82 cents a ton, 59 cents more than their Malian counterparts, and still sell this product more cheaply on the world's markets.

It's worth noting that the subsidies to only 25,000 U.S. farmers equal the total amount of foreign aid to more than 500 million Africans. A slight re-allocation of this expenditure to meet the 0.7 percent target of aid allocation could lift millions of Africans out of poverty.
- Irungu Houghton and Shehnilla Mohamed, "Bush's Goody Basket For Africa Filled With Holes", Sacramento Observer, California

HEADLINES OF THE WEEK: from the archive
Home Office under renewed fire over GM animal experiments

Italian region orders GM maize fields destroyed


Anger at advisers' biotech links

Are we standing on the edge of GM abyss?

Biotech products inherently variable and unpredictable, says BIO

Failure to disclose funding by Roush et al leads Science to change its
policy on disclosure

Monsanto, Pioneer urge Italian farmers to fight GM crop cull

More weeds developing a resistance to glyphosate

A third of Americans trying to avoid buying foods that have been
genetically modified

Biotech industry orchestrating law breaking in Italy

Bush's goody basket for Africa filled with holes

Dolly creators begin mass slaughter/Organic farmers sing biotech blues/&
other tales

French protests over Bove

MPs get overseas advice on GMs

Mulvany on Strategy Unit/Can India benefit from Cartagena Protocol?

Most in U.S. Would Shun Labeled Biotech Foods/Protest disrupts Tour de
France/EU Takes Member States to Court Over GMOs

Shops 'unlikely to stock GM food'

US attack on EU policy based on systematic deception

FSA says public lines up with government opinion!

GM Science Review and lack of GM health studies

Hot Potato - Pusztai: The True Story - excerpts from Rowell's new book

Italian court rejects company bid to save GM maize

Organic Bytes #17

New blow to Government on GM/More GM Fields Are Destroyed In France


To subscribe to the 'GMW daily' list
send an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the message:
'subscribe GMW daily'
You'll receive up to 30 mails a week

To subscribe to the 'WEEKLY WATCH'
send an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the message:
'subscribe WEEKLY WATCH'
You'll receive 1 mail a week with a news roundup
Those subscribed to the daily list will receive the WEEKLY WATCH

To subscribe to 'GMWATCH' (monthly)
send an e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the message:
'subscribe GMWATCH'
You'll receive 1 mail a month with a news roundup
Those subscribed to the daily bulletins and WEEKLY WATCH will receive
GMWATCH automatically

To unsubscribe to any of the these lists:
just mail us saying 'unsubscribe' and specifying which list

archived at:

GMWATCH website:

Donations made out to 'NGIN':
NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, United Kingdom
or e-mail for details: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.