WEEKLY WATCH number 132

Print
Details

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

Dear all:

There's a whole heap of craziness this week along with an iota of sanity. Dealing with the craziness first, an ancient GM WATCH prediction has come true: Monsanto is now charging royalties on GM contamination (THE AMERICAS). Such a great idea - making money on a product even if nobody wants to buy it. And Ventria BioScience found it didn't have to flee to the third world after all to plant its pharma rice. After being run out of California and Missouri, Ventria was welcomed by North Carolina, which now has 75 acres of the stuff.

Back in the world of the sane, the environment section of the EU Commission has blocked all new GM crop applications for Europe. And a 22-year study at the remarkable Rodale Institute has shown that organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soy as conventional farming, but using less energy and no pesticides! Why has this study been utterly ignored by the media (as if we didn't know)?

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
G8/AFRICA/IRAQ/LONDON BOMBINGS
OTHER AFRICA NEWS
EUROPE
ASIA
THE AMERICAS
AUSTRALASIA
LOBBYWATCH
FOOD SAFETY
ORGANICS
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
G8/AFRICA/IRAQ/LONDON BOMBINGS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ G8 CREATES "DISASTER FOR THE WORLD'S POOR
Responding to the outcome of the G8 summit, World Development Movement (WDM) Head of Policy, Peter Hardstaff said:

"The final communique is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of campaigners who listened in good faith to the world leaders' claim that they were willing to seriously address poverty in Africa. More importantly it is a disaster for the world's poor. The agreements on trade, debt, aid and climate change are nowhere near sufficient to tackle the global poverty and environmental crisis we face.

"We are furious, but not surprised. Calling on the G8 to Make Poverty History this year was always a brave attempt to put aside 30 years of knowledge of G8 failures and suspend our disbelief at the notion that the countries responsible for causing so much poverty could become the solution.

"A historic breakthrough was promised, instead we saw a tiny step. The deals on debt and aid fall way short of what is needed to achieve global poverty reduction targets and on trade it's business as usual as the G8 attempt to bulldoze more liberalisation out of the poor. These tiny sums of money are nothing more than a sticking plaster over the deep wounds the G8 are inflicting by forcing failed economic policies such as privatisation, free trade and corporate deregulation, on Africa."
***
"...not a word about the agricultural subsidies in the European Union and the United States that make competition so tough they are crippling African farmers and their produce in their own land."
- Sunjay Sury, Inter Press Service
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5476
***
"...nothing changed, absolutely nothing changed [from the initial proposals made by the G8 leaders.] The G8, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have once again left the poor countries in the dirt. It's yet another crime against these countries."
- Lawyer Amadou Tieoule Diarra, president of Mali's Justice and Human Rights League
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5486
***
"We can't blame only the Americans. While Bush's team has been as obstructive as possible [at the G8 on climate change], the UK has scarcely been doing the work of angels. Like Bush, Blair will contemplate anything except restraining the people who are killing the planet."
- George Monbiot
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5486

+ KEY GM FOOD ADVOCATES OPPOSE THE KYOTO TREATY
The key promoters of GM food also have websites that attack the Kyoto treaty on global warming. Robert Vint's analysis, though written 5 years ago, continues to be remarkably relevant, as is shown by the recent G8 meeting where Bush was happy to promote GMOs but opposed taking action on climate change.

An interesting point is that when it comes to GM crops these lobbyists accuse their critics of not kowtowing to what they claim is the scientific consensus. When it comes to climate change, they reverse this and attack people as cowardly for not daring to challenge the scientific consensus!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5473

+ GM AND IRAQ
Superficially, Iraq and GMOs may seem a world apart. But consider what Professor Guy Cook has to say in his brilliant book on the arguments, metaphors, word choices and analogies deployed to promote GM - 'Genetically Modified Language':

"Both for opponents and proponents [of GM], issues relating to these wars ['against terrorism'/Iraq] and the GM debate often seem to be part and parcel of the same thing. An obvious reason is that both campaigns - for GM food and against Iraq and terrorism - were launched in the USA, both were the occasion for bitter disagreements with Europe, and both gave rise to concern about US policy and motives. Opponents of US policy in the Gulf saw the campaign as an attempt to control oil supplies; opponents of GM food saw its development as an attempt to control the world's food supply. The report on the government-funded 'GM nation?' debate in Britain notes that: 'Comments on the debate were often coloured by the suspicion over the motives for holding it. People attacked the debate as "window dressing", cover for a decision already made. This was often compared to the government's attitudes to protests against the Iraq war."

Cook notes that in the divisions between the largely anti-GM EU nations and the resolutely pro-GM Bush administration, "the British government defied both the EU majority and public opinion at home to express support for the US line. It was a scenario that uncannily mirrored UN divisions in the build-up to the war in Iraq.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5482

+ FROM IRAQ TO THE G8: THE POLITE CRUSHING OF DISSENT AND TRUTH
In a New Statesman article, John Pilger contrasts two related 'global' events: the World Tribunal on Iraq - ignored by the world's media - and the G8 meeting in Scotland/Live8 etc. which has had almost saturation media coverage. Pilger points to the connection that is not being made:

"No one in the 'mainstream' - from the embedded media to the Make Poverty History organisers and the accredited, acceptable celebrities - made the obvious connection of Bush's and Blair's enduring crime in Iraq. No one stood and said that Blair's smoke-and-mirrors 'debt cancellation' at best amounted to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalising Iraq, where British and American violence was the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown (Unicef)."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5475

+ PILGER ON THE LONDON BOMBINGS: THESE WERE BLAIR'S BOMBS
"While not doubting the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs (as if anyone could), no one should doubt that these were 'Blair's bombs'; and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous Bush-inspired speech about 'our way of life'. The bombers struck because he and Bush attacked Iraq, having been warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that the 'by far the greatest terrorist threat' to this country would be 'heightened by military action against Iraq'.

... Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5482

+ LETTER IN THE UK GUARDIAN: THE SOURCE OF HATRED
"...the distinction between explosions caused by "a tiny minority of fanatical extremists" leaving bombs on the underground, and distinguished international statesmen ordering them to be dropped on a city from 30,000 feet, is a fine one."
- Edward Pearce
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5486

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER AFRICA NEWS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ AFRICA MISSING OUT ON GM CROPS!
You might have thought the US government via multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements and high-level diplomatic pressure was doing a brilliant job of pushing African countries to adopt corporate-friendly regulations for GM crops. Not least, when this external pressure has been effectively complimented by lobbying and funding from USAID's networks working within Africa and by other corporate-friendly groups and scientists who are targeting the continent. (see, for instance, USAID: Making the World Hungry for GM Crops)
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191

But this week an article appeared claiming "a team of international food scientists" are complaining that "regulatory hurdles are preventing African farmers from reaping the benefits of genetically modified foods". The article does not say who exactly this "team" is. However, the main scientist quoted is the former USAID man, Joel Cohen, who is a keen supporter of the recently formed lobby group, the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), so it would be no surprise if they were lurking somewhere in the background.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=316

Cohen knows all about Africa reaping the benfits of GM crops. While with USAID, Cohen worked with Monsanto to select and provide the funding for Florence Wambugu to head their GM sweet potato project - a project which over more than a decade generated fantastic PR for GM crops while producing absolutely nothing useful for farmers in Africa (at a cost of millions!)
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

Revealingly, Wambugu, who is another keen PRRI supporter, has claimed the failed GM sweet potato project as a great success. Why? Mainly because it helped Kenya ready itself for the introduction of GM crops!!

A consortium headed by Wambugu has just won a multi-million dollar grant from Bill Gates' foundation, to genetically modify sorghum for Africa with the help of Pioneer Hi-bred. Tellingly, an article headlined "Chutzpah Science" reports that, "Wambugu has created a network of allies in Africa that will develop new crops as well as coax governments to okay the use of bioengineered seeds."

That larger goal is also relevant to another Gates' grant-recipient - the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200

It was at a meeting at this Monsanto-backed Center that the PRRI lobby group launched itself. Interestingly, in USAID's biotech configuration, the Danforth Center is responsible for "assistance with regulatory packages".
http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191

The Center's founding president, Dr Roger Beachy, was on hand recently at the Biotechnology Industry Organisation's annual get-together in Philadelphia to sing the praises of PRRI to the industry delegates. Doubtless they were very grateful to know that "public researchers" had found yet another way of assisting them with "regulatory packages" to overcome their "regulatory hurdles".

It's certainly a goal shared by Monsanto. Monsanto's Robert Horsch, who with Joel Cohen helped select Wambugu for the GM sweet potato project, has openly said that his role at Monsanto is to "create goodwill and help open future markets". Wambugu reinforces the point: "it [the GM sweet potato] has no commercial value to Monsanto, except as PR."
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

Unfortunately, the project also had no value for poor African farmers. This illustrates a point that Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies is not alone in making, "the excitement over certain genetic engineering procedures can divert financial, human, and intellectual resources from focusing on productive research that meets the needs of poor farmers."

In fact, exploiting poor farmers and taking risks with their livelihoods for reasons of self-interest and for PR purposes, particularly when done so brazenly and without any sense of guilt, does truly qualify as "Chutzpah Science".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5497

+ AFRICA NEEDS NON-GM AGRICULTURE
A typically incisive article by Dr Colin Tudge says the right support for traditional farming could help Africa more effectively than any amount of "development" and GMOs. This article is well worth reading in full.

EXCERPT: Biotech companies such as Syngenta are lauded for providing modern crops in the form of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - perceived in high places to be both profitable and necessary. Governments such as Zambia's that have turned them down are seen as backward, if not downright wicked. But, in truth, the ignorance is all on the reformers' side.

The notion that countries such as Angola actually need GMOs to provide sufficient yields is simply a misunderstanding, or a straightforward lie... their introduction suppresses local production and increases the dependency of poor countries on those who supply the new technologies. The argument in favour of GMOs, supported not least by Tony Blair, rests on the assumption that they are necessary. If they are not needed, there is no point in taking any risk at all.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5466

------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------

+ NEW EU MORATORIUM ON GM CULTIVATION
The EU Environment Commissioner has blocked all new applications for growing GM crops in Europe. Stavros Dimas has ordered all to be halted until the issues of co-existence and the contamination of seeds are addressed at a European level. The new moratorium is likely to be a big set back for the biotech companies; they were hoping this year would see the first approval to grow GM crops for seven years.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5487

+ MORLEY'S EXCUSES
UK 'environment minister' Elliot Morley tells why Britain was the only country to vote against all the EU member state national GM bans ("the scientific evidence provided does not justify taking such action"):
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5487

+ STRICT GM BILL FAILS IN GERMAN PARLIAMENT
Germany's Union Party has blocked in Parliament the second part of a bill on GM. The Union Party objected to the first part, which assigned liability for damages from GM contamination to GM producers and growers, but which has passed into law. The second part would have defined rules on GM research. If the Union Party win the upcoming general election, they plan to liberalize laws on GM, giving Blair a significant ally in Europe - or so the GM lobby hopes!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5485

------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ PUBLIC INTEREST LAWSUIT CALLS FOR MORATORIUM IN INDIA
On July 13 India's Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Ministries of Agriculture, Science and Technology and Environment and Forests in the light of the public interest petition calling for a moratorium on the release of GMOs into the Indian environment. The so-called 'PIL' also calls for proper biosafety testing and challenges the import of soya oil from countries like Argentina and Brazil.

Those bringing the case, like Aruna Rodrigues, have noted, "independent scientists have been threatened, gagged or fired; regulatory authorities round the world have been compromised. In India, as the media knows, Monsanto has doctored reports on Bt cotton. It is a story of skulduggery, dodgy science and shaky ethics. It is all there in the evidence before the Supreme Court."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5490

+ JAPAN LOOKS ELSEWHERE FOR CORN AFTER 6th CONTAMINATED CARGO
Japan has discovered a sixth cargo of US feed grain containing Syngenta's unapproved GM corn (Bt10) and refused to accept it. Even before this, Reuters reported, "fears of Bt10 contamination in US corn have led Japanese buyers to look elsewhere". It cites a Japanese company which has bought 100,000 tonnes of corn from South Africa instead of the US. Japan appears to be doing its own checking and not just leaving it to the Americans.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5493

+ TOXIC CITRUS FRUIT, ANYONE?
Farmers in the Philippines have been intercropping food crops such as citrus fruits with Bt cotton and growing the two crops in close proximity. This is banned with conventional cotton because of the toxicity of the pesticides applied. But no one,says this article in the Philippines press, has told farmers to avoid the practice with Bt cotton, which produces a pesticide in its cells and has been shown to leave toxic residues in soils.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5471

+ EUROPEAN AND ASIAN CONSUMERS MAY BE EATING THAI GM CONTAMINATED PAPAYA
Greenpeace activists on 7 July dumped thousands of papayas at the offices of Thailand's Department of Agriculture, Bangkok in a protest against the government's utter disregard for consumer and environmental protection from threats caused by the spread of illegal GM papaya in Thailand. The threat also concerns many European countries that import papaya from Thailand; it is possible that GM contaminated papaya is already on European markets.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5465

+ PHILIPPINES: BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN BT CORN
While Bt corn is meant to address the perennial problem of corn borer, it appears to be an expensive remedy. Greenpeace says the National Crop Protection Center has been developing biological controls against the corn borer and other pests. These biological control agents are not only much cheaper but environment-friendly. And it is a local technology.

Greenpeace reports that "the corn borer has been reduced to the status of a secondary pest [in Cagayan Valley] because of the success of the Department of Agricultures's Trichogramma program, which has reached about 60 percent to 70 percent of corn farmers in [Cagayan Valley]," quoting the Regional Crop Protection Center in Region II. The occurrence of corn borer in Isabela has reportedly been reduced by 80 percent to 85 percent.

Trichogramma is a wasp that attacks the eggs of moths and butterflies. It is one of several biological controls being promoted by government agencies including the Farmer-Scientist Training Program. These programs actively involve the farmers in developing farming practices and technologies, including plant varieties and pest controls, that will improve productivity, yield and income.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5489

+ ENSURING FOOD SAFETY IN THE GM AGE
India's proposed Food Safety Bill must ensure labelling and traceability of GM foods, says an article in The Hindu. India depends on voluntary declaration/labelling but has no visible guidelines or code of practice or even accessible equipment for testing.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5471

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ MONSANTO TO GET ROYALTIES FOR CONTAMINATION
If Monsanto's genes contaminate Brazilian farmers' soybeans over 2%, the farmers will have to pay royalties on the whole crop, says Rita Froes of IQS-Genlab. This is a blank cheque to Monsanto as their test can detect contamination to 0.5% and contamination will not be able to be avoided (particularly as farmers are supposed to tolerate 0.5% contamination in our non-GM seed).
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5483

+ WATCH OUT FOR PEOPLE AGAINST BIOTECH, SAYS FBI
If your neighbor hates GM corn, and he experiments with explosives in the backyard, you probably should report him to local police, an FBI agent told farmers. Jerry Lyons, an FBI special agent who serves in the weapons of mass destruction countermeasures unit, addressed farmers at the annual convention of the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation.

When asked for clues that someone might be interested in engaging in terrorism, Lyons said a potential bioterrorist might strongly oppose the consumption of milk or the use of GM crops.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5496

+ MONSANTO CORRUPTING BRAZIL'S OFFICIALS?
Helena Paul - co-author of Hungry Corporations - has sent us a bulletin of the movement for a GM-free Brazil, with the comment, "They go on about corrupt governments in the G8 discourse, never mentioning corrupt corporations."

The bulletin points out what happened in Indonesia between 1997 and 2002 when Monsanto corrupted around 140 government officials with the help of about 700,000 USD. The main aim was to suppress the legal requirement for environmental impact assessments on GM crops. Monsanto has been fined 1.5 million USD for its corrupt behaviour. The trouble is, says the bulletin, the damage is done and the fine means nothing.

The bulletin says that biotech company may have been engaging in similar behaviour in Brazil - certainly there are serious conflicts of interest surounding the drafting of Brazil's biosafety regulations. Lobbyists who advise biotech companies have pushed the laws through the approvals process. Details at:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5477

+ VENTRIA PLANTS ITS PHARMA RICE IN NORTH CAROLINA
Ventria Bioscience has planted 75 acres of GM pharma rice near Plymouth, North Carolina. Said Hope Shand, the research director at the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration in Carrboro, "They were run out of California, run out of Missouri, and then welcomed with open arms in Eastern North Carolina. I just can't see this as a viable rural-development strategy for North Carolina."

The company claims that the proteins it will extract from the rice could be used in granola bars, sports drinks or rehydration formula to help infants in the Third World avoid death from diarrhea.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5479

+ IT PAYS TO GROW NON-GM CROPS
Dan Heffelmire, President of H&B Specialities Inc that deals with food quality grain products, says his problems have increased with more farmers in the US taking to cultivation of GM crops.

"We export corn grown traditionally to Japan and South Korea. Both these countries do not accept GM crops. As a result, we are now left doing more paperwork to ensure that our products are accepted by our buyers," Heffelmire said.

The paperwork for those exporting corn or soyabean to countries such as the European Union, Japan and Korea begins from the farmgate. First, the farmer has to sign papers saying the crop has not been contaminated with any GM material. Then, the silo owner who buys the crop has to give a similar undertaking before the shipper gives his.

But it's worth it. Segregated crops command a premium of between 5 and 25 percent, Heffelmire said.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5483

+ DAIRY INDUSTRY DOESN'T WANT CLONED COWS
As the US Food and Drug Administration considers whether to lift a voluntary ban on selling food from cloned animals, the agency is getting resistance from the dairy industry.

Trade groups for farmers and companies that use dairy products are not enthusiastic about introducing milk from cloned cows into the marketplace, fearing consumers would be leery about the products.

"There's a strong general feeling among our members that consumers are not receptive to milk from cloned cows," said Susan Ruland, a spokeswoman for the International Dairy Foods Association. "This seems to be one of the things where technology seems to drop something in the lap of the food companies. It's not driven by the market or any benefit to the consumer."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5480

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ FARM GROUP RAISES DOUBTS OVER GM CROPS IN DROUGHT
GM crops are unsuitable for Australian conditions says Julie Newman from the Network of Concerned Farmers. Experience around the world shows GM crops need more water and do not perform well in drier conditions.

In dry conditions yields from GM crops have been up to 25 per cent less than conventional crops. "There's been significant failures for GM cotton in India, South Africa, Indonesia, soy in the United States and Brazil and there's also some farmers complaining about GM canola in Canada - when it was a little drier it performed far worse," she said.

New Scientist has reported on research in the USA which confirmed that GM soya is much more prone to yield losses in drought conditions compared to conventional varieties, due the splitting of the stems in conditions of excessive heat.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5481

+ FARMERS SLAM BAYER FOR CONTAMINATION
Farmers are outraged at the report that there was GM contamination found in an Australian Barley Board non-GM canola consignment destined for Japan.

"If Bayer Cropscience think that farmers are going to accept losses in markets or additional costs because of these unwanted GM genes, they can think again," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. "We don't want liability for a product we do not want and do not need, yet farmers sign guarantees that we have no GM in our produce," she explained. "Liability should be on Bayer Cropscience's shoulders, not on farmers."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5495

+ GM PLANTS NOT SEGREGATED IN NZ GREENHOUSE
GM and non-GM plants could have mingled during a breach of containment rules at a New Zealand research facility. The problem was discovered during a routine inspection of a HortResearch glasshouse in Palmerston North. The Crown research institute has been reprimanded.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5495

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

+ ANOTHER SCIENTIST UNDER ATTACK
Biochemist Dr Robert Mann has sent a letter to NZ Farmers' Weekly responding to an attack made on the scientist, Dr Elvira Dommisse, by Dr Tony Conner of New Zealand's Crop and Food Research institute.

In his attack, Dr Conner castigates Dr Dommisse as "oblivious to a basic understanding of scientific methodology, plant genetics and plant breeding." This seems curious, as Dr Dommisse is herself a former GM researcher - a fact Dr Conner is likely to be aware of as Dr Dommisse did her GM research at Crop & Food Research, the institute where Dr Conner works!

Conner, of course, does not make clear that they were once colleagues, which isn't surprising as otherwise people might reasonably conclude that GM scientists like Dr Conner were people who were "oblivious to a basic understanding of scientific methodology, plant genetics and plant breeding."

Dr Mann replies in forthright style to Conner's insult: "If gene-tampering were so scientifically sound as claimed by its promotors such as Dr Tony Conner, wouldn't a more accurate and well-mannered style be forthcoming from them? Instead, the letters you print from enthusiasts for genetic manipulation are usually intemperate raves, often on the level of mere personal insults... [Conner] offers no evidence in support of this insult, yet you print this rant which is arguably libellous and certainly untrue."

In a recent review of Prof Guy Cook's book, Genetically Modified Language, we noted the pattern of attack on scientists who raise questions about genetic engineering:

"The language of attack... is clearly intended to exclude the offending scientists from the category of those capable of impartial and rational assessment of scientific evidence, and to relocate them in the category of pseudo-science and irrational opposition. This serves both to scapegoat the scientists concerned and to remove the need to deal with them and their findings on equal terms."
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=68&page=1

+ NUFFIELD COUNCIL TRIES TO SHAKE DOWN PUBLIC CASH FOR GM - AGAIN
A study by a group of hard-line GM proponents, "The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries", has been given another outing in the Indian press in an attempt to both force the EU to relax its stance on GM and to garner more public funding for the technology.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said that freedom of choice of farmers in developing countries is being severely challenged by the agricultural policy of the EU. It also called for funding of public research by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the European Commission and national governments for developing GM crops which are considered staple foods in tropical and sub-tropical regions.

Like the 'public-good plant breeding' campaign launched in autumn 2003 by the John Innes Centre with the controversial lobby group Sense About Science, the January 2004 Nuffield (updated) report called for a massive increase in public investment in GM crops.

That kind of investment would notably benefit one of the five-member working party who drew up the report - Mike Gale. Corporate investors in Gale's institute - the John Innes Centre - have been in retreat with principal corporate investor Syngenta abandoning a GBP50m investment. The JIC is an institute with which another of the report's authors, Derek Burke, also has strong associations (as former chair of the JIC's governing council). Derek Burke has expressed worries about what the financial effect would be on the economic future of scientists in the UK "if this technology is lost".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5478

+ REPUBLICANS PROBE GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS
In the US, Congressional Republicans are investigating the work and funding sources of scientists who have sounded the alarm about global warming, requesting reams of documentation about their work. Democrats and some scientists questioned their motivation, saying it could be politically motivated and suggesting it's a smear campaign.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5474

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

+ TRANSPARENT SYSTEM NEEDED FOR ASSESSING GM FOODS
Excerpt from a guest editorial in Chemistry & Industry by Dr Arpad Pusztai:

"It is... not unreasonable to suggest that it is not only the biotech companies that should carry out the risk or safety assessments of GM crops/foods, but it must also be verified by independent scientists through an open and transparent funding system. The basic rule must be that, because we all eat GM foods, we are all entitled to scrutinise the evidence relating to their safety. Therefore, secrecy is against the public interest and unjustified. Similarly, all ethical concerns raised by GM organisms must be settled inclusively by society."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5492

+ REGULATING GM FOOD "SENSIBLY" - PROF DAVID SCHUBERT
David Schubert, a professor in the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at The Salk Institute, has published an article in Nature Biotechnology in response to an article by Bradford et al titled "Regulating transgenic crops sensibly". Bradford et al argue that GM crops face a "daunting" array of regulatory requirements which should be relaxed, at least in some cases, to reduce the costs of commercialization.

The unedited version of Prof Schubert's article concludes, "Because of the high mutagenicity of the transformation procedures used in GE, the assumptions made by Bradford et al. and also the FDA about the precision and specificity of plant GE are incorrect. Nonetheless, it appears that the positions of Bradford et al. and the biotech industry, as well as the current regulatory framework [in the US] for the labeling and safety testing of GE food crops, is to maintain the status quo and hope for the best.

"The problem is that there are no mandatory safety testing requirements for unintended effects and that it may take many years before any symptoms of a GE-caused disease appear. In the absence of strong epidemiology or clinical trials, any health problem associated with an illness caused by a GE food is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to detect unless it is a disease that is unique or normally very rare."
- "Regulatory Regimes for Transgenic Crops", Nature Biotechnology (23, 785 - 787; July 2005)
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n7/full/nbt0705-785b.html
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5488

Another published response to Bradford et al comes from Allison Wilson, Jonathan Latham & Ricarda Steinbrecher. It notes that transgene insertions cause extensive rearrangements or loss of host DNA as well as insertion of superfluous DNA. Yet these type of extensive mutations "would almost certainly pass unnoticed through both the molecular and phenotypic characterization stages of the regulatory systems of both the European Union and the United States." The full response is at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5491

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORGANICS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ ORGANIC FARMING YIELDS SAME AS CONVENTIONAL BUT USES LESS ENERGY, NO PESTICIDES - STUDY
Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.

David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, concludes, "Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans." Pimentel is the lead author of a study that is published in the July issue of Bioscience (Vol. 55:7) analyzing the environmental, energy and economic costs and benefits of growing soybeans and corn organically versus conventionally. The study is a review of the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest running comparison of organic vs. conventional farming in the United States.

"Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does," Pimentel added.

Although organic corn yields were about one-third lower during the first four years of the study, over time the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. The reason was that wind and water erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved in organic matter, moisture, microbial activity and other soil quality indicators.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5494

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ E-MAIL THE UK SUPERMARKETS
As a follow up to the Sainsbury's extravaganza on GM animal feed, FoE is doing a new email action to the big 4 supermarkets. It's important they feel the pressure now - please take action and forward to friends:
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/press_for_change/gm_labelling/index.html