CS Prakash in his recent AgBioWorld press release attacking Sri Lanka over its GM foods ban devoted a whole paragraph to the UNDP report. Here's more evidence of how it is being used by biotech proponents.
---
From: "Robert Vint" This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Dennis Avery says UNDP Report May Help The Third World
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:42:23 +0100
The following article on the UNDP Human Development Report 2001 is by DENNIS AVERY (author of Saving the Planet Through Pesticides and Plastics ) - who runs two of America's leading corporate lobby groups - The Hudson Institute www.hudson.org (a global free trade lobby group) and its Center for Global Food Issues www.cgfi.com (a biotech industry lobby group). These groups oppose organic farming and pesticide regulation and are biotech industry funded. [Top donors include Dow Agrosciences, Novartis Crop Protection Inc., the Global Crop Protection Federation, (an international group of six agrochemical trade associations), AgrEvo, Monsanto, Zeneca, Burson-Marsteller, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland www.hudson.org/futurecast/donors.htm ]. He also campaigns against the Kyoto treaty, regulation of CO2 emissions and the regulation of DDT. These organisations are members of two corporate capitalism lobby associations - the National Consumer Coalition www.foodstuff.org and International Consumers for a Civil Society www.icfcs.org ) They share, together with President Bush, a common philosophy that generally includes:
a. Support for unregulated global free trade and the World Trade Organisation.
b. Opposition to environmental, gun, health and safety, and food labelling regulations and to the Precautionary Principle.
c. Denial of environmental problems such as global warming, rainforest destruction, DDT and agrochemicals.
d. Support for the oil and nuclear industries and for the unregulated use of fossil fuels.
e. Support of biotechnology and transnational corporations.
f. Belief that environmental and safety concerns as mere marketing stunts by organic and green businesses.
Through these alliances he is closely linked to several other far-right pro-biotech anti-organic corporate lobby groups, including:
1. Steven J. Milloy's "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" www.junkscience.com and www.nomorescares.com
2. Frances B Smith's "Consumer Alert" www.consumeralert.org (A "consumer" group opposing consumer safety and rights)
3. Gregory Conko's "Competitive Enterprise Institute" www.cei.org/ceimain.asp
4. John Carlisle's "National Center for Public Policy Research" www.nationalcenter.org
For more on Avery see:
*NY Times Exposes "Anti-Organic" Propagandist Dennis Avery www.sproutpeople.net/organicbasher.html
*Monsanto and Burson-Marsteller Hire a Consumer Organizer http://199.45.69.176/tony/Corner/G/0325.html
*Hudson Institute: Who ARE These Guys? www.ncat.org/nutrients/hypoxia/whoare.htm
*Chemical Missionary Wages War Against Organic Food www.pmac.net/PP_avery.html
*Dennis Avery and the War on Organics http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dcandmkw/ge/avery.htm
*Who's Spinning the Pro-GM Story? www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmspin.html
*A Nasty Campaign Against Organic Food www.monitor.net/monitor/0003a/copyright/averyorganic.html
*Saving the Planet With Pestilent Statistics www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html
*Scientists Flacking for Corporations www.tompaine.com/features/2001/01/30/2.html
Avery and all the abovementioned groups are key contributors to AgBioView [ www.agbioworld.org ] - a key forum for campaigners for GM crop companies which is run by C.S.Prakash, the US Department of Agriculture's GM crop "ambassador". [To subscribe to the AgBioView email list and monitor what the GM industry are saying about its critics go to this URL, enter your email address and click on submit: http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/manage/subscriberprefs?email=&customerid=12796 (make sure you use the complete URL)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.N. Report That May Help The Third World
Dennis T. Avery, Grand Forks Herald August 13, 2001 (Excerpts here)
Edited article as posted on AgBioView email list 18/08/01
"The United Nation's Human Development Report 2001 sharply criticizes First World governments for pandering to affluent young dissidents instead of worrying about the real and urgent needs of the world's poor. The current debate in Europe and the U.S. over genetically modified crops mostly ignores the concerns and needs of the developing world, says the report, and tends to be driven by the views of Western consumers, who do not face food shortages or nutritional deficiencies, or work in the fields."
"The activists claim private corporations will patent biotech crops, freezing out low-income farmers and countries. The United Nations says there 's an easy solution: more public funding for biotech crop research. Washington Post editorial writer Sebastian Mallaby calls opposition to biotech farming murderous nonsense. He writes, Over the next two decades, world population is projected to grow by between 2 billion and 2.5 billion. This increase, together with rising incomes, means that crops will have to grow by about one-third. ... We could do that by chopping down forests and planting marginal lands, which would be environmentally awful. Or we could do it by boosting yields with new technology.
Yes!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Full version from Grand Forks Herald (AgWeek Online section) http://web.northscape.com/content/gfherald/2001/08/13/agweek/813OPIN1.htm
A U.N. report that may help the Third WorldU.N. points out the developed world's hypocrisy on proposed bans of GM foods By Dennis T. Avery
CHURCHVILLE, Va.-A new U.N. report could persuade The New York Times and other major media into presenting balanced coverage of biotech crops. The United Nation's "Human Development Report 2001" sharply criticizes First World governments for pandering to affluent young dissidents instead of worrying about the real and urgent needs of the world's poor. "The current debate in Europe and the U.S. over genetically modified crops mostly ignores the concerns and needs of the developing world," says the report, and "tends to be driven by the views of Western consumers, who do not face food shortages or nutritional deficiencies, or work in the fields."
Under attack
Opposition in richer countries to genetically modified crops may set back the ability of the poorest nations to feed growing populations, according to a new United Nations survey," opened the July 8 Times story on the report.
"The world's richest nations must get over their fear of genetically engineered food if they want to help eradicate poverty in the world's poorest, a United Nations report says," The Associated Press reported. From Reuters: "Genetically modified crops, under attack in the West, may provide an answer to cutting malnutrition in poor nations by developing seeds resistant to drought, a new U.N report says." The United Nations says Western media have publicized the threats of new allergies from modified food, instead of its potential to feed the malnourished or save millions of acres of wildlands from being plowed for food production. The report says 30,000 kids die every day in the Third World from preventable causes because their countries cannot afford existing technologies, let alone research on ways to improve health and food security. Thus First World research investments are vital to the poor.
Potential
The new U.N. report agrees with biotech opponents that biotechnology's potential environmental and health risks need to be carefully addressed, but asserts that biotech crops have unique potential for helping the poor of the Third World.
Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations' Development Program, pointed to successful rice research sponsored by the UNDP and the Japanese government.
The new rice varieties will "have 50 percent higher yields, mature 30 to 50 days earlier, are substantially richer in protein; are far more disease and drought tolerant, resist insect pests and can even out-compete weeds. And they will be especially useful because they can be grown without fertilizer or herbicides, which many poor farmers can't afford anyway. This initiative shows the enormous potential of biotech to improve food security in Africa, Asia and Latin America."
The U.N. report also points up the First World's hypocrisy on the pesticide DDT. Europe and North America were able to wipe out malaria, which once ranged as far north as Chicago, using low-cost, continuous DDT sprays and window screens.
After the First World's safety from malaria was assured, it put enormous pressure on the Third World to abandon DDT despite millions of deaths a year from resurging malaria. The activists have even tried to prevent DDT use in treating the interior walls of homes, where it is a cheap way to kill mosquitoes and a highly effective mosquito repellant and no threat to wildlife.
Trying to survive
Without the aid of new technologies, the United Nations says most of the world has little chance of meeting the optimistic development goals world leaders pledged at last year's U.N. Millennium Summit. Worldwide, 1.2 billion people still try to survive on less than $1 a day, according to the report. More than one-third of the world population is not on track to cut poverty in half by the 2015 target. Meanwhile, the worst sin activists have pinned on biotech crops is the potential for new food allergens. To date, no such allergens have been found, and both researchers and regulators are fully alert to that danger.
The activists claim private corporations will patent biotech crops, freezing out low-income farmers and countries. The United Nations says there's an easy solution: more public funding for biotech crop research. Washington Post editorial writer Sebastian Mallaby calls opposition to biotech farming "murderous nonsense." He writes, "Over the next two decades, world population is projected to grow by between 2 billion and 2.5 billion. This increase, together with rising incomes, means that crops will have to grow by about one-third. .€.€. We could do that by chopping down forests and planting marginal lands, which would be environmentally awful. Or we could do it by boosting yields with new technology."
Yes!
Editor's Note: Avery is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis.
---
"There is a consensus within the scientific community that genetic modification is a safe method for improving food production." - CS Prakash
'A survey measuring attitudes toward biotechnology among Cornell University agricultural and nutrition-science faculty and extension staff (who advise farmers) found that nearly half have reservations about the health, safety, and environmental impacts of genetically engineered food crops and doubt they are the answer to global hunger... Though their numbers were fewer, the biotech promoters said they felt very comfortable publicly voicing their views, while the concerned majority did not express that sentiment.' - SPINNING SCIENCE INTO GOLD <http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/08/02/index.html>