[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[SANET-MG] corruption in GM policy



The false and misleading claim that it has been scientifically proven
that GM foods have never injured anyone is illustrated as below. The
refusal to label GM foods in North America has blocked any effort to
study the impact of GM food.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/CCIGMPFull.phpISIS Press Release 16/07/04
Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
Claire Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable truths about the
machinations of the pro-GM establishment in Britain

In a recent debate on genetically modified (GM) foods at the House of
Commons, Dr. Ian Gibson, who chairs the all-party Parliamentary Science
and Technology Committee, dismissed concerns over GM food safety.

As a scientist, he said, he could wipe the floor with his opponents.
Gibson, MP for Norwich North, said: "The epidemiology studies carried
out in every major centre, including in the universities in the States
and elsewhere, into the effects of [GM] food ... have shown no effects
whatever that correlate with the food - although I understand how
difficult that is to prove."

Unfortunately for Gibson, one of the few scientists to have done GM food
safety tests, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, responded to his comments in an open
letter. Pusztai pointed out that "there have been no epidemiology
studies, and certainly none published. This is obvious from the fact
that, apart from this generalisation, you could not refer to a single
such study. It is not surprising because in the absence of labelling of
GM food in the USA such studies could not be carried out! However, it is
known from official statistics that in less than ten years food-related
illnesses have practically doubled in the USA since the introduction of
GM food into the American diet." He went on to add that while the reason
for this is unknown, it is blatant bluster to declare that everything is
well in the USA and that none of these ill effects correlate with food,
including GM food.

Gibson went on to claim that "the evidence is piling up to say that the
[GM] food is, indeed safe." But when Pusztai asked Gibson to elaborate
on this evidence, Gibson’s reply was less confident. He gave just three
examples to support his case, including a Monsanto study. Pusztai
commented, "I expect what constitutes a pile is a matter of definition.
One can reverse this argument by saying that the evidence is in fact
piling up to show the health problems of GM foods reported in the
published science literature… However, these you and other pro-GM
supporters conveniently ignore."

Indeed, Gibson has ignored other recent evidence that further casts
doubt on the safety of GM foods. These were raised at an Independent
Science Panel (ISP) briefing in Parliament organised by ISIS and
Gibson’s fellow MP, Alan Simpson. The evidence includes reported
illnesses in villagers living near Bt maize fields in the Philippines,
recent disclosure in Le Monde of kidney abnormalities and changes in
blood sugar and blood cell numbers in rats fed Bt maize resistant to
corn rootworm, published scientific papers documenting problems with Bt
toxins and transgenic instability in commercial GM lines. Gibson had
pointedly declined the invitation to attend the briefing.

The evidence should, at the very least, set alarm bells ringing and
prompt scientists and policy makers to take appropriate action. Surely
this should mean not approving GM foods unless they can be unequivocally
proven safe; and at the same time, conducting serious, independent
research into GM food safety. In ignoring all of the evidence, Gibson is
adopting an extreme anti-precautionary approach, one that is totally
unacceptable and irresponsible, considering that it is human health that
is at stake.

In contrast, former environment minister Michael Meacher had, at the
briefing, demanded a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK, in
light of the lack of good research into the long-term effects of GM
foods on human health and the rubbishing and lack of follow-up on
research that turns up evidence of potentially adverse impacts (see
"Meacher calls for enquiry into GM safety", SiS 22).

Duplicity galore
What forces could bring Gibson, a former Dean of Biology at the
University of East Anglia, who is proud of his independent-mindedness,
to join the chorus of spin with which GM technology is promoted? After
all, this is the same man who, just a few years ago, warned against the
inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot
unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully
tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young
children."

A clue to the source of Gibson’s apparent conversion lies in the
introduction to his speech to the House of Commons: "The point has often
been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown
extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in
Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those
places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the
fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any
ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including
people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse consequences."

Compare Gibson’s words to the following introduction to an article:
"Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in
North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food produced
from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North and South
America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention continues
despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya without any
ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans have eaten
GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences."

Gibson’s introduction is copied almost word for word from this article,
which, it turns out, was published in May as an EMBO Report - intended
to provide short papers on molecular biology - by Nature Publishing. It
was written by Derek Burke, a former Vice Chancellor of the University
of East Anglia - where Gibson also worked. Burke is known among
campaigners as the ‘GM godfather’ for his aggressive protection of
biotech interests and his alleged tendency to influence so-called
"independent" reports and government policy.

Analysis by campaign group GM WATCH of Gibson’s speech revealed that
whole sections were lifted from Burke’s article (see
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822). It became clear from
this comparison that the politician who boasted he had the scientific
knowledge to wipe the floor with his adversaries is in reality nothing
but a parrot.

For the record, ISIS has invited the Royal Society to debate the
scientific evidence in public more than once; but it has never accepted
the invitation. The ISP is now happy to extend the same open invitation
to Ian Gibson.

Gibson also, at the behest of the pro-GM lobby group Sense About
Science, asked Tony Blair in the House of Commons to respond to Derek
Burke’s letter calling for more government support for GM. It
subsequently emerged that this letter, too, was the work of the
industry-funded group (see box).

Who is Derek Burke?
Prof. Derek Burke was chair of the UK regulatory committee on GM foods
(Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes - ACNFP) for almost a
decade (1988-97), during which time the first GM foods were approved for
the UK. In the 1980s he worked for a biotech company (Allelix Inc of
Toronto) and until 1998 was a director of Genome Research Ltd.

During much of his time at ACNFP, Burke was also Vice Chancellor of the
University of East Anglia (1987-1995) and a member of the governing
council of the John Innes Centre (JIC). Both institutions have benefited
from investment in GM research, with the JIC subsequently enjoying
multi-million pound investments from biotechnology corporations like
Syngenta and Dupont. Burke participated in the UK government’s
"Technology Foresight" exercise to decide how science could best
contribute to the UK’s economic competitiveness. He was then charged
with incorporating the Foresight proposal to build businesses from
genetics into the corporate plan of the UK’s public funding body, the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). As a
result, BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific
opportunity with the needs of industry, which left it heavily aligned
with industry.

Burke was a member of the Royal Society working group on GM foods whose
report, "Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use", is said to have
reassured ministers on the GM issue. He was also a member of the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics group that produced the report
"Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical issues". This pro-GM
report emphasising the "moral imperative" to push GM crops into the
Third World was described by Guardian columnist George Monbiot as
"perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The
stain it leaves on the Nuffield Council’s excellent reputation will last
for years." Burke was also a member of a small Nuffield working group
who produced a follow-up report along the same lines in 2003.

Burke has been revealed as having a hand in initiatives coordinated by
the prominent industry-backed lobby group Sense About Science. In
October 2003 he sent a letter together with 113 other scientists to Tony
Blair complaining about the government’s failure to intervene in the GM
Public Debate in the UK. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)
initially reported the letter as "written and coordinated by Professor
Derek Burke". But a THES article of 7 November said, "The letter was
coordinated by Sense About Science", while a THES Leader on the same
topic did not even mention Burke, referring instead to, "The new
organisation behind the letter, Sense About Science". Burke is on the
Advisory Council of Sense About Science.

Why the Gibson-Burke collusion matters
So Gibson plagiarised Burke and made false statements about the state of
GM science. Does it matter? Just why it does can be seen from what
emerged following Gibson’s exposure as "a parrot".

Gibson’s local newspaper picked up the story and wrung an important
admission out of him about his speech’s similarity to the words of his
former employer, Derek Burke: "When pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: ‘We are
working together to try and erode the anti-GM debate.’"

The whole point of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which
Gibson chairs, is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of science issues
independent not only of government but of the vested interests that can
impact on government policies and public bodies. When the UK Science
Minister is a known enthusiast for GM crops and biotech entrepreneur,
independent scrutiny is vital

The Select Committee has issued reports critical of Arpad Pusztai and,
more recently, supportive of the BBSRC - the public body that Derek
Burke did so much to align with industry. Indeed, the only serious
criticism the Gibson-led Committee made of this corporate-friendly body
was that it was not pro-active enough in promoting communication with
the public on issues like GM crops where public trust needed to be achieved.

At a time when the biotech industry is retreating from the UK in despair
at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson appears to be stepping up his
activities on its behalf. In collaboration with the industry-friendly
lobby group The Scientific Alliance, he arranged a lobby assault on
Parliament called "GM Question Time" on 13 July. The panel was
uncompromisingly pro-GM (see a full rundown, with industry affiliations,
at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid =4004). Naturally, the
speakers’ links with industry and its associated lobby groups are
undisclosed in the press releases announcing the event.

Sources
Articles and speeches

1. Derek Burke’s article: "GM Food and Crops: What Went Wrong in the
UK?" EMBO Report, May 2000. Text at
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=1859

2. Ian Gibson's speech: Hansard for May 5, 2004. Text at
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040505/debtext/40505-33.htm


3. "Ian Gibson making a Burke of himself", GM WATCH comparison of
Burke’s article and Gibson’s speech, 14 June 2004,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822

4. Arpad Pusztai’s letter in response to Gibson’s speech:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3741

5. Derek Burke, "Working with a House of Commons Select Committee",
Biologist, 2002, 49 (1), http://www.iob.org/downloads/In%20my%20view.pdf

6. "Lobby alert - Lobby assault on House of Commons", GM WATCH comment,
29 June 2004, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4004

7. "More Burke-Gibson duplicity", GM WATCH comment, 5 July 2004,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4035

8. "More on GM Question Time and those behind it", GM WATCH comment, 2
July 2004, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4029

9. "Gibson admits collusion with Burke", GM WATCH comment, 5 July 2004,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4068

10. Alex Gore, "Corridors of Power", Evening News, Norwich, UK, 24 June
2004
http://www.en24.co.uk/Content/Search/nfdetail.asp?datetime=24%20Jun%202004%2012:00&Brand=ENOnline&Category=News&ItemId=NOED23+Jun+2004+14%3A31%3A18%3A043&archive=0,
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4068

11. "Statements on the dangers of GM by scientists", NGIN comment,
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/foodstatements.htm

12. George Monbiot, "Invasion of the Entryists", The Guardian, 9 Dec
2003, http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/

13. GM WATCH ‘PANTS ON FIRE’ award to Sense About Science,
http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=60&page=1&op=2

GM Watch Profiles (www.gmwatch.org)

1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC),
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=21&page=B

2. Derek Burke, http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=26

3. Nuffield Council on Bioethics,
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=98&page=N

4. The Royal Society. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113&page=R

5. The Scientific Alliance,
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136&page=S

6. Sense About Science, http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=151&page=S

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION,
ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.