GENETIC CROSSROADS
NEWSLETTER OF THE CENTER FOR GENETICS AND SOCIETY
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005

NOTABLE QUOTE
"Gene doping…is a more clean form…of creating super human beings. This goes way beyond sports…Imagine an army of a million individuals who can out-think, out-use the environment… That's where we're going… and no one's gonna stop it …"
- Jose Canseco, former baseball player, The Kojo Nnamdi Show, WAMU radio (Sept. 26)

I FEATURE: MENTORING GENDER, SELECTING SEX

II CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM: CONTINUING CONTROVERSY Who gets the profits?
First grants announced but funding sources uncertain
Bill to reform Prop 71 passes State Senate 39-0

III DEVELOPMENTS NY Times pegs human biotech as coming Supreme Court priority
Jose Canseco: "Super humans walking around in 5 to 8 years"

Move to gut UK oversight body

Florida stem cell initiative: Lessons from California's mistakes?
UK's Lord Robert Winston slams stem cell claims

IV RESOURCES Campaign to End Sex Selection
California symposium on eugenics and genetic engineering, Oct. 21

V CGS IN THE NEWS; NEW CGS STAFF

VI NEWSLETTER SUBSCRIPTION AND FORMAT

I FEATURE: MENTORING GENDER, SELECTING SEX

By Osagie Obasogie, JD
Director, CGS Project on Race, Disability, and Eugenics
September 29 update: A recent report by NPR’s Nell Boyce questions the Baby Gender Mentor’s ability to accurately identify embryonic sex as early as five weeks after conception using a sample of maternal blood. Boyce’s investigation has revealed several cases in which the lab results were simply incorrect. Acu-Gen – the company that makes the test – has remained suspiciously quiet in light of these revelations, refusing to substantiate their claims with data because, they say, this would reveal proprietary technology. Diana Bianchi, a fetal DNA expert at Tufts University whose work is cited on Acu-Gen’s website, finds all of this quite troubling: “I think at the present time we need to be concerned whether the test is accurate or not," she told NPR. "I think it’s caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware."

[ Op-ed originally published in the Boston Globe (Aug. ]

It's a boy! It's a girl! Until the 1970s, these words welcomed virtually every child into the world. In less than one generation, however, new reproductive technologies have shifted this announcement from the delivery room to the obstetrician's office; ultrasounds and amniocenteses now allow expecting parents to choose their nursery walls' paint color months before giving birth.
The science and business of sex identification took yet another quantum leap forward this past week with the Pregnancystore.com's release of the Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing Kit. Now, a woman can know her child's sex shortly after she discovers her pregnancy. As soon as five weeks after conception, she can prick her finger, FedEx a blood sample to Acu-Gen Biolab in Lowell, MA, and have the sex of her sprouting embryo emailed to her faster than Netflix can send her next movie.

continue reading...

II CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM: CONTINUING CONTROVERSY

Who gets the profits? The leadership of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is rapidly backpedaling on promises made during the campaign to pass Proposition 71, which created the CIRM to distribute $3 billion of public money to fund human stem cell research. Last fall, the campaign's economic analysis and official talking points asserted that the measure would pay for itself in several ways - one of which would be a share of royalties or license fees. These returns to the state could amount to $1.1 billion, the campaign repeatedly asserted.

But once California Senator Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) proposed a set of reforms that included requiring returns to the state, Robert Klein—who chaired the campaign and now chairs CIRM's governing board (the ICOC)—quickly produced a legal opinion explaining why the promises could not be fulfilled.
The problem, according to CIRM's leadership, is that any bonds issued for activities that will generate returns to the state would be subject to federal tax and carry a higher interest rate. This fact was not publicized during the campaign.

This issue of intellectual property rights recently moved to the forefront when a special committee of the California Council on Science and Technology issued an interim report on intellectual property rights and the CIRM. The report asserted that expectations of significant returns to the state were unjustified, and recommended that the state forego any claims to returns.

This is not surprising, considering that the committee was dominated by representatives of private corporations and university technology transfer offices—groups that would be expected to oppose returns to the state. Furthermore, the report was largely funded by the California Healthcare Institute, a biomedical industry advocacy group.

In response, the Center for Genetics and Society sent aletter to the ICOC, urging them to think creatively and reject the recommendations of the CCST committee. Sen. Ortiz plans to hold hearings on the topic later this fall.

See "Stem cell's shell game?" Capitol Weekly (September 22)

First grants announced, despite no funds. The CIRM continues to operate on a limited budget and is unable to issue bonds, as lawsuits filed by conservative groups have challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 71. Klein has described his continued work on a "bridge financing" plan, in which organizations that support stem cell research would make below-market loans to the CIRM that would be forgiven if the lawsuits should succeed. Despite the lack of funds, the ICOC announced the recipients of the first round of what it calls "training grants" at its September 9 meeting. Reacting to the lack of funds and other irregularities in CIRM's granting process, the Sacramento Beeeditorialized that it is "hard to imagine a system that is more convoluted and opaque."

Research standards: opportunities for input. The Research Standards Working Group of the CIRM is soliciting public comments on its draft interim standards for human embryonic stem cell research. You can submit comments to Guidelines@cirm.ca.gov. CGS outlined its comments at a public session held in Los Angeles on August 31.

Reform bill passes. Part of the reform package introduced by Sen. Ortiz has passed both houses of the state legislature (39 to 0 in the Senate, 74 to 2 in the Assembly) and awaits the governor's signature. SB18 would mandate a performance audit of the CIRM and strengthen the informed consent provisions for women who are considering providing eggs for research. CGS, along with the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, has proposed additional protections for women undergoing egg extraction for research.

Proposition 73 would define embryos as "unborn children." An initiative on California’s November ballot would amend the state’s constitution to require that health care providers notify the parents of young women under the age of 18 before providing abortion services. A coalition of medical experts, teachers, nurses, parents, counselors, and supporters of reproductive rights, including CGS, oppose Proposition 73 because parental notification initiatives threaten teen safety and fail to increase communication between parents and teens about abortion.

A little-noticed statement in the initiative goes much further than parental notification, however. The initiative defines abortion as causing the “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” This clause amounts to an effort to smuggle an assertion that embryos are “unborn children” into the California constitution. Depending on how it is interpreted, it could threaten the legal standing of both abortion and research on stem cells derived from human embryos. CGS supports embryonic stem cell research with meaningful regulatory oversight and safeguards, and opposes research restrictions based on efforts to extend “personhood” to embryos.

III DEVELOPMENTS

New York Times Magazine pegs human biotech as upcoming Supreme Court priority: A cover story by Jeffrey Rosen in the New York Times Magazine, "Roberts v. the Future" (August 25, 2005) explored issues that John Roberts, nominee for the US Supreme Court, might face. "The most divisive issues likely to be argued before the Supreme Count in the coming years have nothing to do with abortion—and everything to do with technology, science and broad societal shifts," Rosen argued. New and emerging human genetic and reproductive technologies are among them. An excerpt from the article is posted on the CGS website.

Sports and gene "doping": On the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C., the Center's Osagie Obasogie joined former all-star baseball player Jose Canseco, World Anti-Doping Agency Chair Richard Pound, and other sports doping experts to talk about genetic enhancement of athletes and its implications for the sports industry and society. Canseco made several statements supporting not just gene doping in athletics, but also the inevitable development of “super human beings.” He also argued that “the government is very much of afraid of seeing these super human beings walking around.” Canseco's explicit advocacy is further demonstration that adopting effective regulation and oversight for the emerging genetic technologies is long overdue.

UK review of oversight agency: The United Kingdom Department of Health has begun an extensive review and public consultation of the role of its Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This includes whether the HFEA should continue to prohibit sex selection for social reasons. This development raises concern that a small group is moving to undermine the HFEA.

The states and stem cell research:

Massachusetts has formed a committee to monitor and regulate human embryonic stem cell research in the state. The Biomedical Advisory Council held its first meeting on September 21.

In Florida, agroup is now gathering signatures to place an initiative on the 2006 ballot that would allocate $200 million to fund embryonic stem cell research. The author of the short constitutional amendment, Louis M. Guenin of Harvard Medical School, said, "The California initiative is a lesson in how not to do this. The California amendment was 30 pages and loaded with all sorts of problems that I've tried to avoid here." The amendment would grant all authority for the $20 million annual appropriation to the state Department of Health. In response, an anti-abortion rights coalition is now gathering signatures for a counter initiative, that would constitutionally prohibit any public funding of research that destroys embryos.

New Jersey has promised hundreds of millions of dollars to support embryonic stem cell research. In August the first appropriation was actually available, and the state Commission on Science and Technology will begin reviewing grant applications for the first $5 million.

In its list of regional stories that received inadequate coverage in mainstream media, the San Francisco Bay Guardian—northern California's largest alternative weekly—places "The real stem cell debate" at number 2: "In the months leading up to last fall's election, virtually all the major media stories portrayed the battle over the stem cell initiative, Proposition 71, as pitting conservative Christians against liberals. In fact, as Tali Woodward reported in the Bay Guardian, there were many liberal, pro-choice critics - and only after the election did the major media start reporting on the issues those critics raised."
Leading fertility scientist accuses researchers of "hype": Lord Robert Winston, a pioneer in fertility research and an opponent of oversight of science, lashed out at senior scientists, for hyping the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research. He singled out James Watson and David Baltimore by name for their dangerous arrogance.

IV RESOURCES

Campaign to End Sex Selection: The Campaign to End Sex Selection moved forward with a successful presentation at the recent Aarohan Conference in New Brunswick, New Jersey from September 9-11. Sunita Puri from CGS, Shamita Das Dasgupta from Manavi, Inc. and Yin Leung from the National Asian Pacific Women's Forum made a presentation on the history and current status of sex selection in the United States, with specific reference to its impact on the issue of violence against women. Discussion guides and fact sheets on sex selection were distributed to representatives of 20 different organizations. The Campaign is currently developing a website and planning additional activities.

New CGS Fact Sheet on Women's Health and Egg Extraction for Stem Cell Research: In the US, the debate about embryonic stem cell research has centered on whether human embryos should be used for research, and left nearly untouched a number of very important social, political and ethical issues that are not related to the moral status of embryos. Among these are protecting the safety and health of women who provide eggs for research, preventing the emergence of a commercial market in eggs, and establishing appropriate oversight and regulation of stem cell research. CGS feels that women's well-being needs to be a central focus to ensure that stem cell research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner, and recently produced a fact sheet and one-page summary on this issue, along with a compilation of background materials.

Exhibition on California Eugenics: Human Plants, Human Harvest: The Hidden History of California Eugenics is on display at the California State University Sacramento Library Gallery from September 27 to October 21. This is the first-ever exhibit exclusively devoted to the history of eugenics in California. Rarely seen images and documents from archival collections throughout the US reveal the history of California's aggressive eugenic sterilization program, its promotion by some of the most powerful institutions and individuals in the state, and its adoption as a model by Hitler's regime. The exhibit is organized by Kathryn Sylva, Associate Professor of Design, UC Davis, with Ralph Brave. An opening reception and gallery talk on October 4 will feature Paul Lombardo, Director of the University of Virginia Center for Law & Medicine, and former California State Senator Art Torres, who legislated the 1979 repeal of California's sterilization law. For more information, contact Kathryn Sylva at ksylva@ucdavis.edu or the CSUS Library Gallery at (916) 278-4189.

Symposium on Eugenics and Genetic Engineering: On October 21, the Center for Science, History, Policy & Ethics at California State University, Sacramento will host a one-day symposium, "From Eugenics to Designer Babies: Engineering the California Dream." This unprecedented event will bring together scholars, reporters, policy makers, artists, and public interest advocates to address the legacy of eugenics in California and the political and ethical issues stemming from innovations in contemporary genetic science and technology. Free and open to the public. More information: http://www.csus.edu/cshpe/symposium05, or contact Chloe Burke at cshpe@csus.edu, 916-278-5631.

More information on eugenics in California: http://www.csus.edu/cshpe/eugenics/
Book: The Dream of the Perfect Child by Joan Rothschild provides a feminist and disability rights critique of bioethics and attitudes toward reproductive technologies. According to one reviewer, "Others have addressed the societal implications of contemplating 'the perfect child' but no one has written about it so poignantly, so compellingly, and so beautifully."

Book: ¿Un Mundo Patentado? La privatización de la vida y del conocimiento (A patented world? The privatization of life and knowledge) Jorge Villarreal, Silke Helfrich, Alejandro Calvillo, eds. This Spanish compilation contains essays from academics and activists from around the world, including a chapter by CGS.
Presentation: "The (mis)use of genetic technologies in the realm of sports: Gene doping," by Rosario M. Isasi, CGS Program Associate for International Affairs and Postdoctoral Fellow at the Public Law Research Center, University of Montréal. Discusses the rationale for and methods of opposing sports doping.
Opinion: "Of baseball and enhancement bondage," San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 26)

Pete Shanks writes that the debate over drugs in sports is a precursor to more profound questions of science and human "enhancement."

Opinion: In "ADA and the new eugenics," Andrew Imparato and Anne Sommers warn in the Washington Examiner against a rising new eugenics, rooted in genetic and reproductive technologies: "As we mark the 15th anniversary of the [Americans with Disabilities Act], let us hope that the ADA's inclusive vision will provide a strong counterbalance to a resurgent eugenics movement that seems to be forgetting the mistakes that led to the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 Americans and a global effort to 'cleanse' the gene pool."

Opinion: In "Sex selection has a eugenic whiff, so let's call it family balancing instead," Anjana Ahuja asserts in the Times of London that "sanctioning sex selection commodifies children, breaches the unwritten but self-evident rule that children should be loved unconditionally, and will, in practice, give more parental rights to the rich."

V THE CENTER IN THE NEWS; NEW CGS STAFF

The Center was cited in media accounts throughout August and September, including:

"Clonacion es una tecnica insegura y peligrosa," Semanario Universidad (August 4)
"The Stem Cell Debate Continues to Heat Up," KPIX CBS 5 Eyewitness News (August 23)
"Federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies gets a boost," American Medical News (August 22)
"Stem cell grants, minus cash, on tap," Sacramento Bee (September
"Stem cell funds awarded," Sacramento Bee (September 10)
"Despite uncertain funding, agency issues first grants," San Diego Union Tribune (September 10)
"Stem Cell Agency Awards $39 Million," Los Angeles Times (September 10)
"Ex-movie chief keeps big role in health care," Sacramento Bee (September 12)
"Stem cell research: cutting-edge science or corporate subsidies, courtesy of voters?," Capitol Weekly (September 15)
"California stem cell ball rolling, sort of," The Scientist (September 15)
"Stem cell's shell game?" Capitol Weekly (September 22)
The Center for Genetics and Society welcomes two new members to our rapidly growing staff. Emily Galpern, Project Director on Reproductive Health and Human Rights, has ten years of experience working to promote community health and well being, primarily through health education, coalition-building, and advocacy with young people, women, and communities of color.
Parita Shah, Communications Director, comes to the Center with experience in politics, policy and communications. She has worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in their Global Health Advocacy group, the Clinton White House and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign.

VI NEWSLETTER SUBSCRIPTION AND FORMAT

For information on subscribing and unsubscribing to the CGS email newsletter Genetic Crossroads, and on changing between enhanced HTML and plain text formats, go to http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsletter.

For information about the Center for Genetics and Society go to http://www.genetics-and-society.org/about.

WORKING MIRACLES IN NEPAL'S NON-GM RICE FIELDS

SciDev.net carries an article expressing amazement at the bumper rice
harvests being obtained in Nepal and other countries using local, non-GM
varieties and no chemicals. Farmers are obtaining harvests of double or
triple the usual size using the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
method, which uses less water and seed. One of the interesting aspects of
this article is the nature of the surprise about the high yields obtained:
"It sounds too good to be true. After all, this is not a high-yielding
variety of genetically modified rice but the normal local variety, mansuli."
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5774

INDIAN MEDICS CALL FOR MANDATORY GM LABELLING

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has called for mandatory
labelling of GM foods. It said that imported foods containing traces of
GMOs should be tested for safety in labs in the country. The call follows a
previous report from The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) that
noted, "Specific safety issues associated with GM foods include direct or
indirect consequences of new gene product or altered levels of existing
gene product due to GM, possibility of gene transfer from ingested GM food
and potential adverse effect like allergenicity and toxic effects."
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5780

AVERY ET AL ATTACK JEFFREY SMITH

Letters attacking the author Jeffrey Smith, who is lecturing in South
Africa on the risks of GM foods, have been published in the South African
newspaper, Business Day. They come from the usual suspects. Alex Avery and
the Hudson Institute need no introduction. The other letter writer, Gurudev
Singh (Khush), is a green revolution plant breeder who acts as an advisor
to Ventria Bioscience - the firm who are having so much trouble getting
American rice farmers and retailers to accept open field trials of their GM
drug-producing rice.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5769

SUSPEND ALL CROP TRIALS - MP

A Kenyan MP has asked the Kenyan government to
suspend all trials on GM crops, pending development of strong biosafety
policies and legal framework. Mr David Nakitare (Saboti) also said further
field trials on GM crops should be stopped until the technology was proved
safe to the environment. He praised the government for ordering the
destruction of GM maize under field trial. The MP added that the same
policy should be implemented against GM cotton, cassava and sweet potatoes.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5772

STRONG OPPOSITION TO GMOs IN WEST ASIA AND NORTH AFRICA

A survey undertaken during 2003 and 2004 showed that the public in West
Asia and North Africa were strongly opposed to GM food. The survey was
carried out in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on 1,000
participants representing the North African and West Asian regions.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5773

NEW STUDY RAISES FEARS OVER LONG TERM IMPACTS OF GM CROPS

A follow-up study to the UK Government's GM crop trials has found that
growing GM oilseed rape crops has negative impacts on farmland biodiversity
in following years. The findings are yet another blow to the biotech
industry. The research, published 28 September in the Royal Society's
journal Biology Letters, found that the immediate impacts on farmland
wildlife found in the Farm Scale Evaluations persisted for at least two
years. Growing GM oilseed rape led to significantly lower weed seedbanks
two years later. Weed seeds are an important source of food for farmland
birds and any reduction is likely to have a negative impact on their
populations.

The results also showed that growing GM beet led to a reduced seedbank in
the following year. Although the results showed that growing GM maize lead
to an increase in the weed seedbanks compared with growing conventional
maize, they are of little value because the weedkiller used on the
conventional maize in the FSE, Atrazine, has now been banned in Europe. GM
maize has not been compared with new conventional maize growing methods.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5778
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5775

SCIENTISTS CONFIRM FAILURES OF BT CROPS

Scientific studies from many countries have now backed up what farmers have
known for years, that Bt crops - genetically engineered with Bt toxin
proteins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis targeted at insect
pests - often fail to protect against pest attacks, and have other problems
as well.

Here's a roundup of some of the studies considered in an excellent and
comprehensive report by Dr Mae-Wan Ho:
*India, China and the United States: scientific studies found the levels
of toxin produced by Bt crops varies substantially and is often
insufficient to kill the targeted pests.
*Australia: pest resistance to a Bt toxin found.
*Canada: scientists found yield and economic disadvantage in Bt maize.
*Germany and Canada: researchers have found Bt maize is more "woody" due
to unintentionally raised lignin.
***Other studies show Bt crops are harmful to health and biodiversity.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5783
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5770

The main academic propaganda machine has promoted embryonic stem cells
without mentioning the main defect - the threat of cancer resulting from
the use of mutated stem cell lines.

Letter
Nature Genetics 37, 1099 - 1103 (2005)
Published online: 4 September 2005; | doi:10.1038/ng1631
Genomic alterations in cultured human embryonic stem cells

Anirban Maitra1, 2, 3, 12, Dan E Arking1, 12, Narayan Shivapurkar4,
Morna Ikeda1, Victor Stastny4, Keyaunoosh Kassauei2, Guoping Sui2, David
J Cutler1, Ying Liu5, Sandii N Brimble6, Karin Noaksson7, Johan
Hyllner7, Thomas C Schulz6, Xianmin Zeng8, William J Freed8, Jeremy
Crook9, Suman Abraham9, Alan Colman9, Peter Sartipy7, Sei-Ichi Matsui10,
Melissa Carpenter11, Adi F Gazdar4, Mahendra Rao5 & Aravinda Chakravarti1

Cultured human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines are an invaluable
resource because they provide a uniform and stable genetic system for
functional analyses and therapeutic applications. Nevertheless, these
dividing cells, like other cells, probably undergo spontaneous mutation
at a rate of 10^-9 per nucleotide. Because each mutant has only a few
progeny, the overall biological properties of the cell culture are not
altered unless a mutation provides a survival or growth advantage.
Clonal evolution that leads to emergence of a dominant mutant genotype
may potentially affect cellular phenotype as well. We assessed the
genomic fidelity of paired early- and late-passage hESC lines in the
course of tissue culture. Relative to early-passage lines, eight of nine
late-passage hESC lines had one or more genomic alterations commonly
observed in human cancers, including aberrations in copy number (45%),
mitochondrial DNA sequence (22%) and gene promoter methylation (90%),
although the latter was essentially restricted to 2 of 14 promoters
examined. The observation that hESC lines maintained in vitro develop
genetic and epigenetic alterations implies that periodic monitoring of
these lines will be required before they are used in in vivo
applications and that some late-passage hESC lines may be unusable for
therapeutic purposes.

The use of GM rootstocks is the first step
towards all-GM wine. California has been silent
about such developments. In the USA it is
unclear which wines and beers contain GM
components. Sweden is the first country in
Europe to market GM beer from GM 'Bt' corn. That
brew is certainly suitable for fattening steers
and swedes!

September 26, 2005 NY Times
A Project to Remodel Grape Genes Yields Mostly Outrage
By CRAIG S. SMITH

COLMAR, France, Sept. 21 - Behind six-foot
fencing, watched by unblinking video eyes, and
guarded by motion detectors that set off bright
halogen lights and a silent police alarm in the
event of nocturnal intruders, there lurks what
some people in this gentle wine-making region
consider an unholy alliance between the noble
grape and "Frankenstem": 70 grapevines grafted
onto genetically modified rootstocks.

The operation here by the National Institute for
Agronomic Research is meant to demonstrate that
transgenic plants can cure one of grape growing's
most nettlesome ills: the fan-leaf virus, which
turns leaves yellow and kills the flowers before
they can form fruit, reducing vineyard yields.
The virus is present in as many as a third of
French vineyards.

But in a land where winemaking is a sacred art
and genetic modification is blasphemy to many
people, selling the idea to the public has been
slow.

"We feel that we don't have the right to alter
nature," said René Muré, glaring behind large
tortoise-shell-rimmed eyeglasses, at a nearby
winery that his family has run since 1648. He
contends that wine should be an expression of the
land and that the tiny worms that carry the virus
and even the virus itself are part of the complex
and wondrous biology that makes for great wine.

Mr. Muré's dismay is part of a growing concern in
Europe about the gradual spread of genetically
modified plants despite popular opposition.
Transgenic corn is growing in more than 2,500
acres in France, up from just over 40 in 2004.

Nowhere is the genetic tinkering more contentious
than in the vineyards, whose richly varied
produce, together with the country's cheese, as
much as anything else define French culture.

The effort to modify grapevines genetically
started in the 1990's with Moët & Chandon, the
venerable Champagne maker, which was trying to
combat the virus.

Gene splicers argue that a transgenic answer is
the only effective way to stop the virus, short
of saturating the soil with pesticides to kill
the worms that carry it, or tearing out infected
vineyards and leaving the land fallow for 10
years.

Moët & Chandon's scientists, working with a
hybrid of the Vitis vinifera and Vitis
berlandieri vines known as 41B, developed a
transgenic fanleaf-resistant plant onto which
grapevines could be grafted. The rootstock is
used primarily for growing white grapes.

The company eventually won approval for a field
test from the Ministry of Agriculture and quietly
planted dozens of the gene-altered grapevines in
1996, only to rip them out three years later when
the French press learned of the project.

Worried about tarnishing its image, the company
turned over the genetic material to the National
Institute for Agronomic Research, which has been
working ever since to win over skeptical
winemakers.

Winemakers worry that someone could steal the
genetically modified grapevines and transplant
them in the neighboring vineyards, "as a kind of
bioterrorism," said Olivier Lemaire, lead
scientist on the project.

French grapevines are already growing on borrowed
roots. The country's vineyards were nearly wiped
out in the late 1800's when an aggressive
ground-borne aphid, the grape phylloxera, arrived
from the United States and spread quickly. Only
American vines were resistant to the sap-sucking
insect, so French vineyards were replanted with
American plants that had European grapevines
grafted onto them. The practice has continued
ever since.

The National Institute is using five transgenic
strains of 41B, each with a gene that produces
virus-killing material implanted in a different
place in the rootstock's DNA, the substance in
the cell nucleus that contains the genetic code.
Mr. Lemaire watches over the young plants on the
institute's grounds.

But local vintners worry that any confusion in
the public's mind could taint their wine.

"We asked that they not use an Alsatian grape,"
said Jean-Paul Goulby, president of the Alsatian
Winemakers Association, adding that any link
between Alsatian wines and genetically modified
grapevines "would be catastrophic for us."

To ease those fears, the institute chose Pinot
Meunier, a variety used in Champagne, to graft
onto the transgenic rootstocks. The vine has
fuzzy leaves that are easily differentiated from
Alsatian varieties.

Mr. Lemaire said the institute has also agreed to
cut off all buds before they can develop into
flowers. Thus, the plants will not be used to
produce wine. He emphasized that there was no
exchange of DNA between the rootstock and the
grapevine grafted onto it. There may, however, be
an exchange of RNA, a nucleic acid present in all
cells, and one of the things the scientists want
to discover is whether the genetically modified
rootstock will send virus-killing RNA into the
grapevine, making the entire plant immune.

The scientists also created a test area to see if
the transgenic rootstock caused the virus itself
to mutate or if the worms migrated toward
unprotected rootstocks planted in clean soil.

It will take at least two years before they have
any results, and the test is scheduled to run
through 2009, when the results will be evaluated
and the plants destroyed.

The careful planning has not assuaged everyone.
Earlier this month, about 40 protesters gathered
outside the institute's gates.

Mr. Muré, looking at a verdant hillside combed by
rows of grape-heavy vines, worries that the
introduction of genetically modified plants would
only create disease-resistant, climate-adapted
vines and increase the volume of mass-produced
wine with a standardized flavor.

"There needs to be a multitude of organisms in
the soil for the land to express itself in the
vine," he said, adding that wine quality eroded
after World War II as more and more chemicals
were applied to the land. His vineyard stopped
using pesticides and herbicides a decade ago,
part of a growing trend in France to produce
organic wines.

He said a carefully tended vineyard could survive
without pesticides, herbicides or transgenic
plants. "The more diversity, the greater the
character of the wine," he said, "but there will
be no diversity if you use a clone."

(Ed. Note: Bush-Bomb Warning...)

The gene-tamperers continue to pose as
exponents & defenders of science, whereas in fact
their 'technology' is based on junk science. The
article below reminds us of the role of the evil
PR trade in such deceit - here, on climate
degradation & IDT® rather than gene-tampering,
but the cases are similar.

R

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/09/14/mooney/print.html

Books

The know-nothings

Pro-business Republicans and the religious right
have joined in a frighteningly successful
campaign to undermine the claims of science.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Andrew O'Hehir

Sept. 14, 2005

It took almost no time for the devastation of
New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, to
become the newest beachhead in the science wars.
On the evening of Sept. 1, when the waters were
still rising and we had no idea how much worse
things were still going to get, Brit Hume devoted
an extended segment of his Fox News program to
interviewing Patrick J. Michaels, an
environmental scientist at the University of
Virginia.

Michaels' purpose, and Hume's, was to rebut a
widely circulated Op-Ed article by Ross Gelbspan
in the Boston Globe arguing that Katrina, and a
host of other natural disasters, had been caused
or exacerbated by the effects of global warming.
A likable, slightly acerbic fellow who refers to
himself as a "weather nerd," Michaels told the
Fox audience in judicious, neutral-sounding
language that there isn't much correlation
between global warming and hurricane strength --
and added, almost as an afterthought, that there
isn't much we can do about global warming anyway.

I don't know whether Chris Mooney, author of the
profoundly discouraging new book "The Republican
War on Science," watched Hume's broadcast.
Probably not -- Mooney grew up in New Orleans,
and one imagines he had other priorities that
night. But if he saw it, or heard about it
later, he could only have rolled his eyes, not in
surprise but in exasperation: Here we go again.
In fairness, Hume told his audience that Michaels
is a fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian
think tank. But he didn't tell them that
Michaels' work at Cato has been extensively
funded by oil and gas companies, or that he's
also affiliated with the George C. Marshall
Institute, an industry-supported, right-wing
think tank almost exclusively devoted to
debunking global warming concerns. Nor did he
mention that Michaels edits World Climate Report,
a newsletter (and now a blog) primarily funded by
the coal industry.

Even more to the point, Hume didn't reveal that
Gelbspan and Michaels are longtime adversaries in
the so-called global warming debate; their feud
goes back at least 10 years, to a Harper's
article in which Gelbspan outed Michaels as one
of the energy industry's favorite mouthpieces.
There are legitimate criticisms one could raise
about Gelbspan's melodramatic Globe Op-Ed: Nobody
can say, with any degree of scientific certainty,
that global warming caused Katrina (or the other
natural disasters he references). But in general
terms, Gelbspan's position reflects the consensus
view of climate scientists all over the world
that human activity is gradually raising global
temperatures and that the consequences may be
catastrophic. Michaels, on the other hand, is an
exceedingly well-compensated scientific
contrarian, a key player in one of the right
wing's biggest industries: the manufacture of
doubt.

"The Republican War on Science" is nothing short
of a landmark in contemporary political
reporting. Mooney compiles and presents an
extraordinary mountain of evidence, from several
different fields, to demonstrate that the
conservative wing of the Republican Party has
launched an unprecedented and highly successful
campaign to sow widespread confusion about the
conclusions of science and its usefulness in
political decision making. Using methods and
strategies pioneered under the Reagan
administration by the tobacco industry and
anti-environmental forces, an alliance of social
conservatives and corporate advocates has
paralyzed or obfuscated public discussion of
science on a whole range of issues. Not just
climate change but also stem cell research,
evolutionary biology, endangered-species
protection, diet and obesity, abortion and
contraception, and the effects of environmental
toxins have all become arenas of systematic and
deliberate bewilderment.

Mooney quotes an internal strategy document from
the tobacco company Brown and Williamson, written
around 1969: "Doubt is our product, since it is
the best means of competing with the 'body of
fact' that exists in the mind of the general
public. It is also the means of establishing a
controversy." B&W and the other tobacco giants
achieved no better than a stalemate in their long
battle against government regulation, but
whatever chain-smoking, skinny-tied executive
wrote that memo ought to be beatified by the
conservative movement. With those two sentences
he became its accidental Karl Marx, launching an
antiscientific counterrevolution that rages
around us today.

No matter how much you think you know about
Republican distortion and misuse of science,
Mooney's account will startle and perhaps terrify
you. Many conservatives, he argues, have stopped
regarding science as an objective search for
truth (conditional as that truth necessarily is).
Instead, they see it as just another realm of
naked power politics or, less cynically but more
ominously, as a contest between a
pseudo-socialistic, tree-hugging worldview and
one that is avowedly pro-Christian and
pro-capitalist. Furthermore, right-wingers have
mystified this conflict almost completely,
cloaking it in self-defined terms of "sound
science" (i.e., science that agrees with them, or
reaches no conclusions at all) versus "junk
science" (anything that might impinge on
corporate profits or conflict with the most
extreme version of Christian morality).

In several respects this book is a companion
piece to Thomas Frank's highly influential
"What's the Matter With Kansas?" Arguably, it
answers one of Frank's conundrums by providing
the philosophical glue that sticks together the
two halves of the GOP's unlikely post-1980
coalition. Affluent big-business conservatives
and pro-life "moral values" conservatives (mostly
middle class or working class) may have opposing
economic interests, as Frank would argue. But
they share an urgent desire to undermine public
confidence in science, if necessary by
manufacturing illegitimate doubt or creating, as
Mooney puts it, "a semblance of controversy where
it doesn't actually exist."

As he further explains, this campaign has been
buttressed by the numerous conservative think
tanks created in the past 30 years, by the
relentless spinning of the Sean Hannity-Rush
Limbaugh wing of the media and by an increasingly
powerful congressional oligarchy of pro-business,
anti-science Republicans. As Mooney documents
extensively, Capitol Hill's worst offenders are
probably Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a
self-anointed climate expert who has declared
global warming "the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people," and
Pennsylvania's pro-creationist Sen. Rick Santorum.

Perhaps most effectively of all, the right's war
on science has exploited the mainstream media's
fetish for journalistic "balance," regardless of
its relevance to reality. Despite the
overwhelming consensus of mainstream science on
global warming, newspaper articles and TV reports
still dutifully call upon the shrinking universe
of contrarians like Michaels. (Like most climate
change skeptics, Michaels has slowly retreated,
along with the polar icecaps. He used to claim
that global warming either wasn't happening or
wasn't caused by human activity; now he admits to
both, but argues that it can't be stopped and
that its potential effects have been exaggerated.)

Similarly, the media has passed along reports
emanating from the right-wing fringe suggesting a
link between abortion and breast cancer, although
virtually no mainstream scientists see any
evidence to support such a connection. News
accounts about the herbicide atrazine, which is
widely used by American corn growers and may be
connected to the worldwide decline of frogs and
other amphibians, have suggested that the issue
is muddled and controversial. If that's true,
it's only because the chemical industry and its
supporters have made it so: Research suggesting
that atrazine interferes with the endocrine
systems of amphibians has been published in major
peer-reviewed scientific journals, while
virtually all the conflicting studies have been
funded by Syngenta, the company that manufactures
atrazine.

If global warming remains the pro-business
conservatives' primary front in the science wars,
religious conservatives are more interested in
two other issues that have received wide
attention: embryonic stem cell research and the
teaching of evolution. As throughout "The
Republican War on Science," Mooney's reporting on
these issues is exemplary and his writing
admirably clear. But there isn't much surprising
new information here; if you've followed these
issues, you already know that the Bush
administration and its allies have managed to
alienate nearly the entire scientific
establishment. On one hand, there is the
substance of the policies: Bush has sharply
restricted federally funded stem cell research
and has endorsed the teaching of the
pseudo-creationist position called "intelligent
design."

Beyond that, the administration has tried to
mislead the public about the nature of its
decisions, pretending to embrace science while
adopting extreme antiscientific positions. George
W. Bush's August 2001 announcement that he would
freeze the number of stem cell lines eligible for
federal research included the claim that there
were more than 60 "genetically diverse" lines
available. That made the decision seem
scientifically palatable, but the number wasn't
real then and is less so now. (Again, this is
something the mainstream media took months to
figure out.) Mooney estimates that 22 stem cell
lines qualify for federal funding, and of those
only seven or eight may be scientifically useful.
Simply put, none of the potential benefits of
stem cell research -- therapies for Parkinson's
and Alzheimer's, transplantable tissues,
cutting-edge disease research -- is likely to be
realized by drawing on such a small pool of
genetic lines.

Bush's recent comment that intelligent design
should be taught in schools, alongside or in
addition to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution,
came after Mooney had finished his manuscript.
Again, he can't have been surprised, since
virtually the entire Christian right, a key
element of Bush's governing coalition, has lined
up behind intelligent design: Donald Wildmon's
American Family Association, James Dobson's Focus
on the Family, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum,
the Concerned Women for America and so on. For
political leaders like Bush and Santorum, that
hasn't quite been enough. They have relied on
the idea that genuine scientific disagreement
exists over the validity of evolutionary theory,
and that schools need to "teach the controversy,"
as intelligent-design supporters put it.

As was recently reported in a New York Times
series on the battle over evolution, intelligent
design has been vigorously supported by the
Discovery Institute, a formerly moderate think
tank that has now become the intellectual home of
antievolutionism. In 2001, Discovery took out a
newspaper ad signed by roughly 70 scientists, who
declared that they were "skeptical of the claims
for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life"
-- in other words, they rejected Darwinism.

This list has become Exhibit A in the argument
that genuine scientific controversy exists over
evolution, and to the layperson it certainly
looked impressive. Bush and Santorum are not
likely, however, to mention the National Center
for Science Education's hilarious response. The
NCSE began gathering names of scientists who
agreed that evolution was "a vital,
well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological sciences" -- but restricted membership
to those whose names were Steve, Stephanie or
some other variation of Stephen. As of Monday,
"Project Steve" -- named in honor of the late
Stephen Jay Gould -- had 600 signatories.

But while scientists, political junkies and lay
readers alike have been understandably mesmerized
by these moral-cum-theological crusades, the
corporate right has embarked on an immense
stealth campaign to undermine science as a
regulatory tool. The details of this clandestine
effort, conducted mainly in Washington backrooms
and the fine print of obscure legislation, are
not sexy or glamorous, but it's here that
Mooney's reporting reaches its most impressive
heights. As he demonstrates, a little-known
lobbyist named Jim J. Tozzi -- a former jazz
musician turned corporate hired gun -- got "two
sentences of legalese" stuck into a 2000
appropriations bill, and thereby handed big
business one of its largest legislative victories
in history.

Tozzi's bill, known as the Data Quality Act, has
done what Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Republican
Revolution" was unable to do: It has reformed the
regulatory process such that big money almost
always has the upper hand. As Mooney puts it,
the Bush administration has interpreted the act
as "an unprecedented and cumbersome process by
which government agencies must field complaints
over the data, studies and reports they release
to the public. It is a science abuser's dream
come true." Essentially, business interests are
now empowered not merely to challenge government
regulations (they could already do that) but to
challenge the value of "scientific information
that could potentially lead to regulation
somewhere down the road."

Any time a scientific study emerges that industry
doesn't like -- on the effects of secondhand
smoke, the link between atrazine and frog deaths,
the near extinction of an endangered fish in a
dammed river -- lawyers and lobbyists can now tie
the science in knots for years to come,
requesting reviews and re-reviews and even
challenging the findings in court. Aided by
friends like Fox News online columnist Steven
Milloy -- who seems to view all claims of
dangerous pollution or species endangerment as
"junk science" -- corporate advocates can
effectively swamp any potential regulation in a
mixture of public confusion and "paralysis by
analysis."

Mooney's litany of conservative assaults on
science goes well beyond a listing of interlinked
but essentially ad hoc right-wing positions.
Rather, this is a well-coordinated campaign,
perhaps most noteworthy for the canny and cynical
way it manipulates contemporary public doubt
about the meaning and value of science. As
Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center,
a bioethics think tank, puts it, "What's
intriguing about the Bush administration, given
their views on most issues, is that they have a
postmodern take on science. It's the first
postmodern science administration we've ever
known."

While Mooney explores this question with his
customary clarity and reasonableness, he doesn't
do quite as much with it as he could. Whether
knowingly or not, the Bush administration and its
allies have cashed in on the findings of the
contemporary academic field known as science and
technology studies (also as the history and/or
philosophy of science). Following such
philosophers as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Michel
Foucault and Paul Feyerabend, this field has
explored science as a cultural phenomenon,
arguing (for instance) that even when scientists
deal with near-certain facts, the understanding
of scientific knowledge and the social uses to
which it is put are always culturally specific.

It's impossible to say how much this arcane field
of inquiry has crept into the public
consciousness, but let's put it this way:
Ordinary people clearly don't trust science the
way they used to. Mooney, like Frank, points to
Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign,
with its contempt for the "pinhead intellectuals"
of the Eastern establishment, as the moment when
this meme was established in right-wing ideology.
At the time, moderate Republicans ridiculed this
tendency, worried that it would doom their party
to know-nothing irrelevance; little did they know
how dominant it would become.

One could argue, however, that the real roots of
science's contemporary dilemma run much deeper.
Conservative contempt for the intellectual and
scientific elite is closely akin to the
left-leaning, postmodernist spirit of science and
technology studies; both reflect the realization
that science is a human endeavor and as such
prone to errors, blind spots and both ideological
and economic manipulation. With Hiroshima, the
Holocaust and Chernobyl in the rear-view mirror,
the planet poisoned by toxic chemicals and a new
frontier of cloning and genetic engineering lying
just ahead, it's reasonable to view the
scientific project in toto as a morally cloudy
exercise.

Furthermore, doubt is an essential element of
scientific inquiry, as any honest scientist will
tell you. The great strength of the scientific
method lies in its production of testable and
falsifiable hypotheses, but it yields absolute
truth only gradually, if at all. If our
certainty about such things as heliocentrism and
the basic laws of earthbound physics now
approaches 100 percent, it's only because they
have survived decades or centuries of ruthless
inquiry and no better explanations have emerged.

Mooney is especially sensible in discussing the
questions that arise here. It is legitimate and
even necessary for scientists to challenge the
consensus views held by their colleagues.
Searching for flaws in widely accepted theories
and flying in the face of contemporary wisdom are
crucial elements in scientific progress. The
germ theory of disease and the idea of
continental drift (known today as plate
tectonics) were viewed as looney-tunes notions
when first proposed; now they are understood as
among the very greatest scientific discoveries.
We can't know right now which current scientific
belief will look stupid in the 22nd century, but
we can be pretty sure something will.

So isn't it legitimate for Michaels and the other
global warming skeptics to poke holes in the
dominant scientific paradigm? Of course it is.
Fewer and fewer scientists believe they're right,
which doesn't say much for their probability of
success -- but Michaels has his own
interpretation of the existing data and there's
no reason to doubt his intellectual honesty.
What isn't legitimate is for politicians like
Inhofe to stage pseudo-scientific show trials,
pitting one lonely contrarian against the
overwhelming weight of scientific opinion, and
then use the scintilla of doubt thereby created
as a reason to do nothing about global warming.

In the words of Rep. George Brown, a California
Democrat who has been a leading science watchdog
on Capitol Hill, congressional Republicans with
little or no scientific background seem to have
convinced themselves that "scientific truth is
more likely to be found at the fringes of science
than at the center." This is an ideological or
perhaps a theological view, but if science is to
have any validity in the formation of public
policy, then political leaders must understand
and respect the scientific consensus.

As historian of science Naomi Oreskes tells
Mooney, "Scientific knowledge is the intellectual
and social consensus of affiliated experts based
on the weight of available empirical evidence,
and evaluated according to accepted
methodologies." As noted above, scientists have
the freedom and indeed the responsibility to
challenge that consensus; with rare exceptions,
politicians and the rest of us lack the
vocabulary or authority to do so. (Inhofe's
self-administered curriculum in climate science
appears to have comprised only authors he already
knew he agreed with.)

That's not the same thing as saying that
politicians are bound to make their decisions
according to scientific consensus, another point
that Mooney makes clear. All we can require from
political leaders is honesty. If President Bush
had simply said he believed stem cell research
was immoral, or Inhofe had said that the economic
costs of responding to global warming were too
high, those would be legitimate pillars on which
to stand. (And others of course would be free to
disagree.) In fact, as Mooney notes, the Clinton
administration admitted that epidemiological
research suggested that needle exchange programs
would slow the spread of HIV, but rejected them
anyway.

But while science may in some ways have fallen
into disrepute, we still live in a scientific and
technological age. Conservatives and liberals
fly on the same aircraft and rely on the same
medical advances to save the lives of their loved
ones. So the right has found it necessary to
cloak its decisions in ever murkier versions of
science, where a more honest conservative
ideology might frame them as moral or economic
imperatives.

As Mooney puts it, the Bush-era right has pushed
the politicization of science to the point of
crisis, and not just political crisis. It's
really more like an epistemological crisis;
consider the legendary anecdote from Ron
Suskind's October 2004 New York Times Magazine
article, in which an unnamed administration
official referred mockingly to "the reality-based
community." Suskind writes: "I nodded and
murmured something about enlightenment principles
and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the
way the world really works anymore,' he
continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we
act, we create our own reality.'"

Mooney offers an epilogue in which he suggests
that a political alliance of Democrats,
independents and moderate Republicans horrified
by their own party's "systematic willingness to
misrepresent or even concoct its own 'science'"
can reverse the current trend. But within his
pages you won't find much reason for optimism. By
turning science into an endlessly fudgeable tool
of politics, and rejecting any notion of
scientific consensus in favor of a landscape
where all science is either liberal ("junk") or
conservative ("sound"), the American right has
fulfilled the darkest prognoses of postmodern
philosophy. In this view, science is indeed just
an artifact of culture; it has no more
objectivity than astrology or dowsing or medieval
Catholic theology.

From the point of view of intellectual history,
this is a fascinating turn of events. Unhappily,
it also has practical consequences. Harvard
physicist Lewis Branscomb has written that
science as an element of democratic governance,
formerly "a strong source of unity in the
electorate," has been fatally eroded.
"Policymaking by ideology requires that reality
be set aside," he goes on; "it can be maintained
only by moving towards ever more authoritarian
forms of government."

More concretely, and far more eerily, Mooney
writes in his introduction that the Bush
administration's refusal to consider mainstream
scientific opinion on global warming "could cost
our children dearly." He continues: "That
includes children not just in low-lying New
Orleans, where I myself grew up, but in low-lying
Bangladesh and other nations across the globe."
One imagines that the awful irony of this
sentence pains Mooney more every day: At least
Bangladeshi children have a government that still
belongs to the reality-based community.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 8, August 2005 Focus

Genetically Modified Foods: Breeding Uncertainty

See: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/113-8/focus.html

Genetically Modified Foods: Breeding Uncertainty

Genetically modified (GM) crops first appeared commercially in the mid-1990s to what seemed a bright and promising future. Resistant to pests and the herbicides used to control weeds, these new crops were so popular with farmers that millions of acres were planted with them by the turn of the millennium. Today, GM crops are grown commercially by 8.25 million farmers on 200 million acres spread throughout 17 countries, reports the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), an international nonprofit that advocates for the technology. The world’s top five producers--the United States, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, and China--account for 96% of global GM cultivation; of this, more than half is in the United States.

Yet these impressive numbers tell only part of the story. Fully as notable as the growth of GM agriculture is the relentless backlash that has developed against it. Although GM supporters insist the technology raises harvest yields, reduces agrochemical use, and will eventually even produce high-nutrition food that can grow in depleted soils, skeptics counter that the risks of GM foods--made with gene splicing methods from biotechnology--are unknown and poorly addressed by current testing methods. They also worry that the spread of GM crops, which are supplied mainly by a handful of multinational companies, fuels corporate ownership of the seed supply and threatens the purity of indigenous crops, with which GM varieties can breed by cross-pollination.

A Growing Backlash

The opposition’s attacks are generating sustained impacts. In April 2004, biotech companies including Novartis Seeds, Aventis CropScience, and Bayer CropScience abandoned GM field trials in England, citing challenges raised by British consumers. The next month, Monsanto dropped its new variety of herbicide-resistant wheat despite hundreds of millions reputedly spent on research and development. The product was shelved in part because of threatened boycotts by Europe and Japan, which together buy 45% of all U.S. wheat
exports, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (UDSA/ERS). And in November 2004, the world’s largest agrochemical company, the Swiss-based Syngenta, moved its European GM field trials to the United States, also citing public resistance.

Europe itself, where commercial GM crops are grown only in Spain--and there in small amounts--is politically gridlocked over the issue, says Geoffrey Lean, environment editor for The Independent on Sunday, a British newspaper. The European Commission lifted a six-year moratorium on GM food in Europe last year, but even so, no new crops have been granted entry, he says. The commission, which favors the technology, wants to allow more GM imports. However, a number of opposing countries--notably Austria, France, Portugal, Greece, Denmark, and Luxembourg--have so far prevented this from happening. “As far as opinions in Europe go, the public is heavily against GM, the scientific community is for it, and governments are split down the middle,” Lean says.

Source: Center for Food Safety. April 2005. Available at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall5.cfm.

Developing countries are also heavily divided, even though they could arguably benefit the most from the technology. Some stakeholders worry that the introduction of GM seed in developing countries could threaten the purity of conventional crops, thus posing a risk to food exports bound for markets that reject the technology.

Meanwhile, a slew of “GM-free zones,” where all transgenic organisms are banned (including fish, other animals, and plants used to make drugs), are cropping up around the world. Three are in the United States, all in California. More than 3,000 are found throughout Europe, with others in Canada, Australia, and the Philippines, says Renata Brillinger, director of the citizens group Californians for GE [genetically engineered]-Free Agriculture.

GM crops also suffer a poor reputation among the general public, in part because they are made in ways that can sound scary when described to consumers. Biotechnology allows scientists to combine genes from totally unrelated species of plants, microbes, and animals. How is this possible? There are several methods. In one, bacteria and viruses--which are naturally able to penetrate cells--are deployed as delivery vehicles to shuttle genes directly into plant cell genomes. In another, tiny particles coated with a gene are propelled at high speeds into cells to deliver the gene. In still another, electric shocks are used to destabilize cell membranes, making them permeable to delivered genes. These and several other methods enable scientists to evade natural barriers that cells use to protect themselves from foreign DNA.

Thus, genes from bacteria can be introduced into a plant--or, as in one instance, a fish gene can be introduced into a tomato. Monsanto has made pest-resistant varieties with a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that kills certain types of insects. The resultant varieties produce the Bt toxin, a protein that is lethal to these insects but safe for humans. DNA Plant Technology of Oakland, California (which has since gone out of business) was the company responsible for inserting a fish gene into a tomato. In that case, an “anti-freeze” gene that helps flounder survive frigid waters was spliced into tomato cells to enhance the plant’s resistance to cold. The fish-tomato didn’t swim, nor did it ever make it to market. But its memory lingers as a quintessential “frankenfood” that GM critics often refer to.

Dwindling Varieties

With growing opposition to GM crops has come a remarkable drop in new varieties being introduced by the agrobiotech industry. A 2 February 2005 report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an environmental group, observes that three-quarters of federal approvals for GM crops in the United States were obtained between 1995 and 1999.

According to Gregory Jaffe, director of the Project on Biotechnology at CSPI, most of the new crops that drive GM agriculture’s growth now are cookie-cutter varieties that merely recycle the same genes for pest and herbicide resistance already used in existing products. Indeed, virtually all the GM crops grown today are different varieties of the same four crops that became available before 2000, mainly pest- or herbicide-resistant varieties of corn, cotton, soybeans, and canola.

These crops were made for and marketed specifically to farmers, who make up the industry’s key buyers. Farmers have embraced GM technology because it saves them time and money. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, for instance, are resistant to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. Farmers can eliminate weeds with one or two sprayings of the wide-spectrum herbicide without harming their crops.

Rob Rose, a spokesman for the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, a nonprofit research facility funded partially by the agrobiotech industry, says companies barely considered the consumers who would buy and eat GM foods in their initial marketing efforts. This proved to be a mistake, he says. When the consumer backlash started, companies were caught off-guard. “Even now, as the backlash intensifies, they haven’t come up with an effective consumer marketing strategy,” Rose says.

Crops and cops. In Lincolnshire, England, a protester from the group Genetix Snowball digs up a GM sugar beet in protest as policemen intervene.
image: Andrew Testa/Panos Pictures

To improve its public image, the agrobiotech industry has more recently begun promoting the concept of extra-nutritious, environmentally resilient crops to fight world hunger. But so far, none of these so-called second-generation crops have entered the marketplace, anywhere in the world.

The second-generation crops that are in the pipeline seem to be stuck there, mainly because of market uncertainties, insiders say. For example, Monsanto is developing grains to make cooking oils with lower saturated fats and higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are thought to protect against heart disease. But Christopher Horner, director of public affairs for Monsanto, acknowledges that these grains have distant and unknown release dates.

Universities and small research centers also develop second-generation GM crops, but they lack the resources necessary to put them on the market. The Danforth Center, for instance, has developed numerous such crops, including grains enriched with vitamin E and vegetables with enhanced folate levels, a nutrient that protects against neural tube defects in newborns as well as cancer and cardiovascular disease in adults. Center scientists have also developed a nutritionally enhanced variety of cassava, a root vegetable that is a dietary staple for hundreds of millions worldwide.

At the University of California, Berkeley, Peggy Lemaux, a faculty member in the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, and her colleague Bob Buchanan recently helped create a type of GM wheat that people with wheat allergies might eat more safely. She and her colleagues at Berkeley are now working on enhancing sorghum, another staple of the world’s poor, to make it more nutritionally complete and calorie-rich.

“I want to help people,” Lemaux says. “I work for a land-grant university, and our charge is to develop varieties that help agriculture and consumers. If I can do this for countries that really need it, then that’s what I want to do.”

But Lemaux and Karel Schubert, a Danforth Center principle investigator, both acknowledge that despite the potential benefits, the commercial value of these crops is limited. Without significant financial backing, universities and research centers can’t fund the extensive regulatory and patent reviews needed to bring the products to market. But as consumers increasingly turn against GM food, Lemaux adds, industry and federal funds for second-generation crop research and development are drying up.

“Second generation crops are developed in universities, and then those projects die,” Lemaux says. “There’s a pall hanging over GM and its products, so many companies have stopped supporting fundamental research.” Her grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development has been cut from a three-year to a one-year commitment.

The Question of Health Risks

Despite public fears, the health risks of eating commercialized GM foods on the market now appear to be negligible, experts say. Nearly 45% of the corn and 85% of the soybeans grown in the United States are transgenic, according to the USDA/ERS. Consumers are eating these foods without any apparent health effects, although some stakeholders caution that greater postmarket surveillance is needed to confirm this.

As part of research and development, GM foods are tested for safety, specifically to ensure they don’t contain compounds that might cause allergic reactions among those who eat them. How might this happen? Consider how biotechnology works: Scientists take genes from one species and incorporate them into the genome of another. The modified genes in the transgenic hybrid are designed to make proteins that ideally will do something useful, like deter pests or boost nutrition. But these same proteins might also be allergenic; in fact, most known allergens are protein molecules.

The only way to confirm that a transgenic protein is or is not an allergen is to test it in large numbers of people. But of course, large-scale human testing isn’t practical or ethically possible. Therefore, scientists resort to surrogate tests to predict whether the transgenic protein will elicit a human allergic response.

These tests have evolved considerably since GM crops were first introduced. In the early 1990s, scientists would test transgenic proteins with serum obtained from people known to be allergic to the gene sources of the modified plant. If a protein reacted with a serum antibody called IgE--which plays a role in nearly all allergies--it was flagged as an allergen. In 1993, scientists using this approach detected allergenicity in a transgenic soybean containing a gene from Brazil nuts. This soybean--created by Pioneer, now a subsidiary of Dupont--was to be used as a nutrition-enhanced poultry feed (Brazil nuts are high in methionine, an essential amino acid that soybeans lack). If commercialized, it could have posed serious health risks to farmers working with the feed: Brazil nuts can be fatal if you’re allergic to them. But the transgenic protein tested positive in the serum assay, so the soybean was pulled during early development and destroyed.

The labeling dilemma. Some stakeholders claim that labeling of GM foods would go a long way toward assuring consumers that they have a choice in whether to consume such products, although studies have shown consumers are likely to avoid GM items labeled as such.

image: Philip Reynaers/Greenpeace

Steve Taylor, codirector of the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program at the University of Nebraska, discovered the soybean/Brazil nut problem while under contract to Pioneer. He says scientists took close note of the incident. Today, he adds, companies reduce the risk of similar problems by avoiding genes from known allergens, 90% of which are attributed to just eight foods (eggs, cow’s milk, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soybeans, and wheat).

The serum test would still be optimal for screening genes from known allergenic sources, Taylor says. But because no one uses genes from these sources anymore, the test is rarely used. Instead, companies now rely largely on initial screens that compare transgenic proteins to the structures and characteristics of known allergens.

In one such method, known as sequence homology, scientists compare a transgenic protein’s amino acid sequence with the sequences of known allergens in a database. If the protein shares a predetermined level of similarity with one or more allergens, then it is flagged for further study. Several databases have emerged to meet this need; one of these, developed by the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, contains nearly 1,200 allergens and is growing steadily.

Another method exploits the fact that most allergens are large and resistant to stomach acids. Called the pepsin digestibility assay, this test exposes proteins to simulated stomach fluids for varying durations. Most allergens survive for up to an hour, whereas nonallergens degrade within 15-30 seconds.

If these initial screens suggest that a transgenic protein is allergenic, companies can use serum testing for further confirmation. If allergenicity is still indicated, then efforts to further develop the GM variety are typically abandoned.

Agronomists have long known that conventional plant breeding can produce allergenic compounds. For instance, the Chinese gooseberry, a small, somewhat bitter fruit, was conventionally modified in New Zealand to make kiwifruits, which produced allergic reactions among some consumers, although the modified fruits remain popular at produce markets. A key question is whether transgenic proteins have more allergenic potential than those produced by conventional plant breeding.

After more than a decade of testing and debate, the emerging consensus among scientists is that they do not. The National Academy of Sciences recently expressed this view in its 2004 report Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects, which stated, “The process of genetic engineering has not been shown to be inherently dangerous but rather, evidence to date shows that any technique, including genetic engineering, carries the potential to result in unintended changes in the composition of the food.”

The U.S. Regulatory System

As far as U.S. regulatory agencies are concerned, agrobiotech companies need only demonstrate that--apart from the transgenic protein--a GM crop shares equivalent composition and nutritional status to its conventional counterpart. If this is shown to be the case, then the crop is said to be as safe as the conventional variety, and companies are free to sell it. Crops that contain a pesticidal protein such as Bt toxin must undergo mandatory allergenicity testing coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency. All other GM traits are evaluated by voluntary consultations with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During these consultations, FDA and company representatives discuss procedures, and the companies disclose data and describe testing methods and results. The FDA recently introduced draft guidance on testing that encourages companies to come in at the very early stages of the process, when they are still in planning stages.

GM opponents have long argued that FDA consultations should be mandatory. But Jason Dietz, a consumer safety officer at the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, says that in the administration’s view, the risks posed by transgenic crop breeding aren’t great enough to warrant mandatory testing. Moreover, he adds, companies are liable for the health risks of GM foods under the safety provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Boon or bane? At the GMO Research Centre in Los Banos, Philippines, a scientist examines GM rice plants. New varieties of GM plants offer the promise of better yields and improved nutritional value; opponents contend that such benefits may come at too high a price. For example, Golden Rice (pictured above in two varieties, along with white conventional rice) could boost daily intakes of vitamin A and fight deficiency-related blindness and death. However, the activist organization Greenpeace protests that the rice hasn’t been adequately tested for potential adverse health and environmental effects.
images: Left to right: Heldur Netocny/Panos Pictures; Syngenta

The best way for companies to ensure their compliance with the act, Dietz says, is to undergo a premarket consultation with the FDA. “To our knowledge, all [GM] foods intended to be commercialized in the United States have been through the consultation procedure,” he says.

An important and unresolved question is whether current testing methods will be adequate for second-generation crops. All the pest- and herbicide-resistance traits used now are found at minute levels in the plants, far below those likely to produce allergic responses, according to Taylor. But in some second-generation varieties, GM traits are intentionally expressed at high levels that change the nature of the food.

Taylor suggests that uncertainties about second-generation crop testing exacerbate the agrobiotech industry’s reluctance to develop these markets further. “Because [the plant’s] composition is significantly altered, and components are expressed at high levels, second-generation crops will probably require more extensive safety evaluation,” he says. “One of the key issues is that there is no international agreement on what will be required. The uncertainty is considerable, and that creates hesitancy on the part of companies. Regulatory approvals will be less certain, consumer acceptance is a hurdle, and scientific uncertainty about how to proceed with safety assessment causes worry.”

The Labeling Scene

In many countries, debates over GM foods have been accompanied by growing demands for an international labeling scheme to segregate transgenic and conventionally grown products. Labeling isn’t required in the United States because regulatory agencies here don’t view commercialized GM food as materially different from conventional varieties. However, the European Union does require it, and countries including Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, among others, have either established labeling systems or are in the process of doing so.

GM labeling is a tricky proposition that U.S. companies would rather avoid. Some surveys have shown that consumers are less likely to buy foods that they know are GM. Not only does labeling threaten markets, it could also be hard to implement, says Alan McHughen, a biotech specialist and geneticist at the University of California, Riverside. With few exceptions, most commodity crops grown in the United States aren’t segregated once they reach the supply chain. Thus, both GM and conventionally grown nonorganic crops can wind up in the same containers as they make their way through distribution channels.

McHughen says the challenge is to somehow guarantee that GM labeling is accurate and credible, which is no easy task. “From the farmer, to the county elevator, to the rail or barge that carries bulked grain to terminals, to the retailers--every step [in the labeling process] would have to be monitored and verified,” he says.

Even so, labeling is necessary because food distribution is increasingly globalized, says Juan Lopez, international coordinator for biosafety with Friends of the Earth, a nongovernmental organization. The problem, he emphasizes, is that without a comprehensive labeling system, GM products can wind up in countries that don’t want them.

Some recent high-profile episodes have heightened these concerns. In late 2004, Syngenta announced it had accidentally put a controversial type of GM corn on the market in the United States and Europe during the previous four years. The corn, known as Bt10, differs from a similar variety called Bt11 by only a few nucleotides. But whereas Bt11 has been approved in Europe, Bt10 never underwent review and thus is considered illegal in Europe. The accident produced no known illnesses, but many seized on it as further justification for labeling. Syngenta’s woes with Bt10 have only continued: in early summer 2005, large commodity corn shipments in Japan were found to be comingled with Bt10, and a similar comingled shipment was intercepted in Ireland.

While Syngenta was grappling with its botched shipments, the 119 signatories of the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (a supplementary agreement of the Convention on Biological Diversity) were deciding whether to create documentation requirements for bulk shipping of “living modified organisms,” which are the live GM organisms such as seeds (rather than milled forms such as flour). But this initiative failed during last-minute negotiations at a meeting in Montréal on 3 June 2005. Protocol rules require consensus for passage, which couldn’t be reached because Brazil and New Zealand refused to sign on, claiming the paperwork would be excessive and costly. (The United States is not a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and therefore cannot be a party to the Cartagena protocol.) The failure means the burden of proof for ensuring GM-free shipments remains with importers, Lopez says.

“This would have been the first time a global system for the identification of [GM organisms] would have been in place,” he adds. “But countries at the national and regional level are working to implement identification and labeling schemes anyway.”

The Future

Today, GM agriculture’s future seems hard to predict. Its growth is undeniable--ISAAA figures indicate that global acreage of GM crops increased by 20% in 2004 with no sign of slowing. But the vast majority of this growth occurred in just a handful of countries planting just a handful of crop varieties. The new second-generation crops that comprise the bulk of the industry’s consumer marketing efforts appear to be largely stalled, held at bay by market uncertainty and the voracious attacks of environmental groups.

Consider the plight of Golden Rice, the product of a largely humanitarian effort led by Syngenta and a consortium of nonprofit research groups. Golden Rice was meant as a means to boost daily intakes of vitamin A; deficiency-related blindness and death currently afflicts nearly 2 million people annually, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund. However, Golden Rice is under sustained assault by Greenpeace, which claims that health effects have not been sufficiently addressed, that the rice could breed with and contaminate wild varieties, and that the whole effort is merely a ploy to gain acceptance for GM food in developing countries. Jorge Mayer, manager of the Golden Rice Project at the University of Freiburg in Germany, as quoted in the 2 April 2005 New Scientist, countered that Greenpeace’s blanket opposition to Golden Rice is impeding the very trials that will provide the answers the group demands. “It’s a catch-22,” he said.

So what is the truth of the matter? A conclusive answer isn’t easy to find. Biotech companies claim GM technology will help feed the world’s poor, but how do they intend to protect intellectual property in developing markets? Despite repeated questioning, sources for this article could not provide a clear answer to that question. Companies have sued farmers for saving seeds from their GM varieties and planting them without payment for intellectual property; Monsanto has more than 100 such lawsuits ongoing in the United States today, says Horner. Will farmers in developing countries also have to pay for GM seeds, year after year? What will that mean for traditional agriculture, which depends on the age-old practice of saving seeds for future planting?

While these questions remain, studies show that GM technology can produce important benefits. Carl Pray, a professor of agriculture, food, and resource economics at Rutgers University, recently concluded a study showing that growing Bt rice in China reduced by half the number of chemical pesticide poisonings among farmers. His research also showed that farmers who planted the rice saved money with increased crop yields and reduced chemical pesticide use. His results are published in the 29 April 2005 issue of Science. “I’m convinced [the crops] are a positive development for China,” Pray says.

Other farmers who grow GM crops echo these sentiments. Given that GM agriculture is here to stay, the optimal scenario for the future--and the likely eventual outcome--is a dual supply chain, one that clearly distinguishes GM from non-GM products. In the meantime, the rhetoric and spin that surrounds this most heated of environmental battles will go on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles W. Schmidt

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article310339.ece

Scientists guilty of 'hyping' benefits of gene research
By Steve Connor Science Editor, in Dublin
Published: 05 September 2005

The leading fertility scientist Lord Winston has hit out at senior
scientists, including two Nobel laureates, for making exaggerated
claims about the supposed benefits of scientific research, warning
they could trigger a public backlash.

Speaking on the eve of his presidential address to the annual
meeting o the British Association for the Advancement of Science
at Trinity College, Dublin, the former head of fertility medicine at the
Hammersmith Hospital in London also criticised the "hype" over
stem cells. He said stem cells are unlikely to be of much use for
many years.

Lord Winston called on his colleagues to use more moderate
language when describing scientific breakthroughs, singling out in
his speech senior scientists and naming two Nobel laureates for
making dangerously arrogant remarks.

"James Watson's assertion about the value of tampering with the
human germ-line are a pretty good example," he said. Professor
Watson, who won a Nobel prize for discovering the DNA double
helix with Francis Crick, has extolled the possibility of altering the
genes of germ-line sperm or egg cells to eradicate inherited
diseases.

Lord Winston also criticised the Nobel laureate David Baltimore for
claiming that the human genome offered the information needed to
create a human being. "We knew what he meant, of course, but
actually the sequencing brings us no nearer to the spectre of creating a human being whatsoever," he said.

He added that scientists risk a public backlash against their work if
their claims were shown to be extravagantly misleading.

For instance, Michael Dexter, the former chief executive of the
Wellcome Trust, said in 2001 that sequencing of the human genome was
an invention more important than the wheel. He also compared it to
the splitting of the atom. "Five years later, genetic medicine based on this work has had little impact on health care and it's unlikely to have much impact
for some years."

Embryonic stem cells offer great potential benefits but many of the
problems were glossed over when describing these benefits to the
public, he said.

"Of course, the study of stem cells is one of the most exciting areas
in biology but I think that it is unlikely that embryonic stem cells
are likely to be useful in health care for a long time," he said.

Stem cells from embryos can produce abnormal numbers of chromosomes
and there is a risk that rogue cells can cause random tumours in a
patient. "All these difficulties and many others may be overcome in
time. But during the political campaign to encourage the UK Parliament to accept
liberal legislation, some parliamentarians were clearly led to
believe that a major clinical application was just around the
corner," Lord Winston said.

"As disappointment sets in ... we can expect a massive backlash by
the right-to-life groups who are always ready to pounce when they
perceive a chink in our arguments," he said.

Lord Winston also criticised the trend towards commercialisation of
science, which he said increases secrecy and undermines its public
role. "Once the pursuit of science becomes heavily geared to profit,
which the public feels it is not sharing in any major way, scientists may be
compromised. They may be perceived as ... not working merely for the
public good," he told the conference.

Lord Winston's targets

JAMES WATSON

Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine in 1962. Discovered
the DNA double helix with Francis Crick.

Lord Winston said: "In recent years we have seen exaggerated claims
made by leading scientists that are sometimes patently fatuous. James
Watson's assertion about the value of tampering with the human
germline are a pretty good example."

DAVID BALTIMORE

Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, 1975. President of Caltech,
won the prize for his work on virology.

On his claims that the human genome offered the information needed to
create a human being, Lord Winston said: "We knew what he meant, but
actually the sequencing brings us no nearer to the spectre of
creating a human being whatsoever."

The leading fertility scientist Lord Winston has hit out at senior
scientists, including two Nobel laureates, for making exaggerated
claims about the supposed benefits of scientific research, warning
they could trigger a public backlash.

Speaking on the eve of his presidential address to the annual meeting
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Trinity
College, Dublin, the former head of fertility medicine at the
Hammersmith Hospital in London also criticised the "hype" over stem
cells. He said stem cells are unlikely to be of much use for many
years.

Lord Winston called on his colleagues to use more moderate language
when describing scientific breakthroughs, singling out in his speech
senior scientists and naming two Nobel laureates for making
dangerously arrogant remarks.

"James Watson's assertion about the value of tampering with the human
germ-line are a pretty good example," he said. Professor Watson, who
won a Nobel prize for discovering the DNA double helix with Francis
Crick, has extolled the possibility of altering the genes of
germ-line sperm or egg cells to eradicate inherited diseases.

Lord Winston also criticised the Nobel laureate David Baltimore for
claiming that the human genome offered the information needed to
create a human being. "We knew what he meant, of course, but actually
the sequencing brings us no nearer to the spectre of creating a human
being whatsoever," he said.

He added that scientists risk a public backlash against their work if
their claims were shown to be extravagantly misleading.

For instance, Michael Dexter, the former chief executive of the
Wellcome Trust, said in 2001 that sequencing of the human genome was
an invention more important than the wheel. He also compared it to
the splitting of the atom. "Five years later, genetic medicine based on this work has had little impact on health care and it's unlikely to have much impact
for some years."

Embryonic stem cells offer great potential benefits but many of the
problems were glossed over when describing these benefits to the
public, he said.

"Of course, the study of stem cells is one of the most exciting areas
in biology but I think that it is unlikely that embryonic stem cells
are likely to be useful in health care for a long time," he said.

Stem cells from embryos can produce abnormal numbers of chromosomes
and there is a risk that rogue cells can cause random tumours in a
patient. "All these difficulties and many others may be overcome in
time. But during the political campaign to encourage the UK
Parliament to accept liberal legislation, some parliamentarians were
clearly led to believe that a major clinical application was just
around the corner," Lord Winston said.

"As disappointment sets in ... we can expect a massive backlash by
the right-to-life groups who are always ready to pounce when they
perceive a chink in our arguments," he said.

Lord Winston also criticised the trend towards commercialisation of
science, which he said increases secrecy and undermines its public
role. "Once the pursuit of science becomes heavily geared to profit,
which the public feels it is not sharing in any major way, scientists
may be compromised. They may be perceived as ... not working merely
for the public good," he told the conference.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/hybridSeed.phpISIS Press Release 02/09/05

Hybrid Seed

Hybrid seed was the first step whereby agribusiness corporations
wrested control of seed away from farmers Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr.
Mae-Wan Ho

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members'
website. Details here

A brief history

Hybrid seed began with maize in the 1920s, and became extended to
vegetables and flowers; and more recently, rice and some forage
crops. Hybrid seeds are produced from naturally out-breeding crops,
from which inbred lines are produced by repeated self-pollination.
The established inbred lines are crossed to produce first generations
(F1) hybrid seeds. The hybrid seeds are prized because they produce
uniform plants benefiting from the effect called heterosis (hybrid
vigor). Heterosis can result in a large increase in yield over the
inbred lines or comparable lines that are out-crossing. The precise
basis of heterosis is still unclear, but epistasis and over-dominance
are thought to be involved. Epistasis is the interaction between
different genes, and over-dominance is a condition where the
heterozygotes (genes represented by two different versions) are
superior to either homozygotes (gene represented by the same
versions). The F1 hybrid seed is heterozygous in many genes.

Hybrid seed is planted to produce a crop that is harvested for use.
Saving seed from the crop and planting it is undesirable because the
two different versions of the genes in the F1 hybrid segregate out in
the offspring, producing an extremely variable progeny. In other
words, the superior qualities of the F1 hybrid will have all
disappeared. The hybrid is obtained by crossing the inbred lines,
which therefore, have to be separately maintained. Thus, only the
seed companies produce hybrid seeds, and farmers must buy those seeds
from the company every year.

Hybrid maize arose through the advocacy of a few influential
Americans. Foremost among the advocates was Henry A. Wallace, who
became vice-president of the United States.

Wallace graduated from University with an agriculture degree, and
studied statistics thereafter on his own. He later taught the subject
at Iowa State University and used his knowledge to develop the first
commercial hybrid maize. In 1926, he founded the Hi-Bred Corn company
(now Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, a subsidiary of Dupont Chemical
Company), and later entered politics. He was made Secretary of
Agriculture before being elected vice-president of the United States.
Wallace was noted for his concern for the common man and envisioned
hybrid corn as a means of providing bountiful food at low prices for
the masses. The detailed history of hybrid corn and Wallace makes
fascinating reading [1-3].

The first corn hybrids were made by detasseling the plants of the
maternal inbred-line by removing the male flowers so that the female
flowers on the plants can only be fertilized by pollen produced from
plants of another, male line. The detasseling operation used to be
performed mainly by young girls employed during the summer months.
Later on, male-sterile lines were developed that did not produce
fertile male flowers or pollen. The male-sterile maternal lines were
fertilized with paternal lines that allowed the hybrid seed to
produce both male and female flowers. The male-sterile lines are most
frequently altered in the mitochondrial genome, leading to the
inhibition of male flower development [4]. A number of such lines are
now available.

Disaster struck

The early development of male-sterile lines led to disaster, however.
The primary line used in the 1960s contained the T (Texas) cytoplasm
male-sterility gene; and by 1970, over 85% of the commercial maize
planted contained that gene. The gene also caused a pleiotropic
(multiple effects due to a single gene) susceptibility to a fungus
disease. During a damp 1970 summer, the disease spread widely
particularly in the summer corn belt. The impact on maize production
was disastrous, leading to a return to hand-detasseling for a number
of years until alternate male-sterility lines could be developed [5].
The lesson that should have been learned was that the absence of
diversity is bound to lead to disastrous epidemics; but that lesson
tends to get ignored in favour of risky but profitable genetic
manipulations.

Hybrids galore

Rice hybrids have been produced using cytoplasmic male-sterility.
Over-dominance and epistatic genes were implicated as the basis for
heterosis (and inbreeding depression, a phenomenon in which inbred
lines suffer decreased yield) [6, 7]. Alfalfa interspecies hybrids
showed heterosis, interspecies hybrids are a little different from
those originating from inbred lines, but in general they act
similarly to inbred lines [8].

A large number of vegetable crops have been hybridized. Hybrid
cucumbers have been produced by hand pollination, removal of male
flowers, or gynoecy (property of producing only female flowers).
There does not seem to be an available male sterility gene (9). Hot
and sweet peppers have been hybridized. Both nuclear and cytoplasmic
sterility are used in some cases. Most hybrid-pepper seed production
is carried out in China, India or Thailand [10]. About two-thirds of
commercial onions are hybrids. These are produced using male
sterility lines [11]. Hybrid cabbage shows strong heterosis, and the
use of such hybrids is expanding. The seed is produced using male
sterile lines [12].

Most of the male sterile lines used commercially contain
mitochondrial genes, but such genes are not readily available in a
number of crops. Genetic engineers have developed a system of
male-sterility based on transformation of the chloroplast with a gene
for beta-ketothiolase that interferes with fatty acid synthesis,
leading to disrupted anther tissue and a failure to produce pollen.
The beta-ketothiolase gene is controlled by a light sensitive
promoter, so that male-fertility can be restored in hybrids using
several days of continual illumination [13, 14]. The system was
developed in tobacco but may be extended to food crops, barring
unforeseen complications.

Genetically modified male-sterility

A number of genetically modified (GM) male-sterile crops have been
developed and tested in the field. In Canada, a male-sterile
transgene was introduced into the nuclear gnome of canola, and that
construction was approved for, and has been in commercial production.
The transgenic construct included a barnase ribonuclease gene
controlled by a tapetum promoter. Barnase kills pollen cells thus
rendering the plant male-sterile. In the hybrid male fertility is
restored using the barstar inhibitor of barnase [15], although
barnase is well known to be toxic to animal cells. Development
continued, and the technology came to be used to protect GM traits
patented by agribusiness corporations such as herbicide tolerance
under the general rubric of genetic use restriction technology
(GURT). Such crops were extensively field tested in Europe; and we
have warned that the F1 hybrid grown in the field will actually
spread the barnase transgene as well as the herbicide tolerance gene
in pollen with potentially harmful ecological impacts ("Chronicle of
an ecological disaster foretold", SiS 1 [16]. Furthermore, the
toxin may well be carried over into the canola press cake used both
for both food and feed.

The development of hybrid seed had left seed production to seed
companies for the practical reason that it is the most economical way
to maintain appropriate inbred lines, and seed production can be
isolated from the food production areas of open pollinating crops.
But it had also prevented farmers from saving and replanting seeds,
making it necessary to purchase seeds every season.

Biotechnology has gone a step further and demanded that seed
production be restricted to companies even when there is no rational
basis for the restriction, other than corporate greed. Goeshl and
Swanson addressed the question of GURT based on the hybrid-crop
experience. They argued that developed countries could benefit from
the additional production supposedly to be gained by the technology,
while developing countries will suffer from their inability to afford
the high extra cost. They predict net deterioration in the developing
countries due to the widening gap in productivity [17]. These
predictions must be taken with a very large grain of salt. There is
at present no evidence that genetic use restriction technologies, or
indeed, any genetic modification technology have led to increase in
crop yield. Furthermore, both hybrids and GM crops lack the diversity
required for sustainability in the complex ecosystems of the
developing world. What is needed is seed production that takes into
account the unique requirements of developing countries, where the
farmers' rights to save, replant and exchange seeds are integral to
food sovereignty and food security ("SOS: Save our seeds", SiS27).

--
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
http://www.kuratrading.com/HTMLArticles/writings.htm

This is good ammunition -- this is a case, or rather thousands of cases, where a genetically engineered product intended as a health supplement caused death and disease.

I will add one note about the eosinophil count -- this is part of the routine "CBC with diff" or complete blood count and is usually presented as a percentage of the total -- normal is under 5%. When counted in absolute numbers, the value is usually given per microliter, not per CC as assumed below, and the normal value is around 100 or 200 per microliter. This correction doesn't alter the arguments presented but may keep a few individuals who read this from worrying about their own lab values.

For those who are interested, I recommend following up the extensive material presented by Crist at the link given in Jeffrey's first paragraph below. And for a more compact presentation, "The Thalidomide of Genetic 'Engineering' " by L R B Mann, D Straton and W E Crist at http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html is excellent.

Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee
jim.diamond@sierraclub.org

Spilling the Beans, August 2005

In my book Seeds of Deception, I bring out new information about the genetically engineered food supplement L-tryptophan, which was responsible for a deadly epidemic in the United States in the 1980s. Much of the research for the chapter came from the work of investigator William Crist. The book cited Crist's report, which was expected to have been posted on a website well in advance of my book's publication. Unfortunately, Crist was unable to update his report at that time. It is now available at www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm and provides important new evidence, including ways in which the U.S. government apparently hid information in order to protect the biotech industry.

A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to Genetic Engineering
By Jeffrey M. Smith

Author of the international bestseller Seeds of Deception

In October, 1989, 44-year old Kathy Lorio arrived in the medical office of Dr. Phil Hertzman in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Lorio, who had been healthy and active, was suddenly struck with severe pain and a host of debilitating symptoms. Blood tests revealed that her eosinophil count had skyrocketed. The normal concentration of this white blood cell is about 10 per CC. Allergies or asthma can make it rise to 500. Lorio's was over 10,000.

In a coincidence that was destined to save lives, Hertzman referred her to Santa Fe rheumatologist James Mayer, who happened to have recently seen another patient, Bonnie Bishop, with similar symptoms. Bishop was in severe pain, her arms and legs were filled with fluid, she had trouble breathing, and her muscles were so weak she couldn't even sit up. "She slumped like a rag doll."[1] And her eosinophil count was extremely high.

Patient histories revealed that both Bishop and Lorio were taking the food supplement L-tryptophan. Although it was the only supplement common to both patients, the doctors were hesitant to blame L-tryptophan for the disease. It is an essential amino acid, naturally found in turkey and milk, and in supplement form had been consumed safely for years as a treatment for stress, insomnia and depression.

Hertzman checked the literature on eosinophils. One author's name kept coming up-Dr. Gerald Gleich of the Mayo Clinic. Hertzman gave him a call. Gleich told him that two cases weren't enough to draw a conclusion about L-tryptophan. Better wait. They didn't wait long. That same day a third case, also linked to L-tryptophan, was reported in New Mexico. Gleich called the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta and told them about the cluster of patients in New Mexico and the possible link to L-tryptophan.

Within two weeks, three other patients checked into the Mayo Clinic with serious symptoms-one needed a respirator to breathe. All had taken L-tryptophan and they were from different parts of the country. Gleich called the CDC again. He told them it's not limited to New Mexico-it's out and it's deadly. An L-tryptophan alert went nationwide.

Articles began circulating about the mysterious disease. The Albuquerque Journal ran a series about it that eventually won the Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times covered it. As more articles appeared, the phone calls started coming in-first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands: individuals with incurable symptoms, doctors with incurable patients, and stories of horrific symptoms. Some had coughs, rashes, physical weakness, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, hardening of the skin, mouth ulcers, nausea, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, visual problems, hair loss, difficulty with concentration or memory, and paralysis. Not everyone had all the symptoms, but everyone seemed to be in pain-greater pain than doctors had seen before. The disease was named eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS-eosinophilia because of the high cell count, myalgia because of the muscle pain. In all, about 5,000 - 10,000 people got sick; some are permanently disabled. About 100 people died.

Disease Traced to Genetic Modification

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported on July 11, 1990 that people only got EMS from pills made by Showa Denko, one of the six manufacturers whose L-tryptophan was imported into the U.S. from Japan. Showa Denko's pills had several unique contaminants that were likely to be responsible for the epidemic. Moreover, the manufacturer was genetically engineering bacteria to produce the L-tryptophan more economically. Genes had been inserted into bacteria's DNA in order to produce high concentrations of several enzymes used in its production.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, who helped track the source of the epidemic, said in a Newsday article on August 14, "This obviously leads to that whole debate about genetic engineering." Two weeks later, FDA spokesperson Sam Page was quoted in Science magazine "blasting" Osterholm for raising the issue of genetic engineering, "especially given the impact on the industry."[2]
Diverting Blame

There are numerous ways in which genetically engineered bacteria might lead to unpredicted contaminants. For example:

1. The process of inserting genes can create significant changes in the expression of natural genes throughout the DNA, causing changes in proteins (including enzymes) and their interactions.
2. Genetic engineering can cause mutations and deletions in the DNA, altering its natural functioning and changing what is produced.
3. The bacteria were engineered to produce ingredients in larger concentrations than were normally part of the process to create L-tryptophan. These higher concentrations might interact in unpredictable ways to create new compounds.
4. The L-tryptophan is toxic to the bacteria that create it. As a means of self-preservation, the bacteria might have modified the L-tryptophan, itself, or its environment.

The press reported that Showa Denko had introduced a GM strain of bacteria at Christmas time in 1988. Soon after, they also reduced the amount of carbon in the filter of the manufacturing process from 20 kilos to 10. This change in the filter was just what the young and vulnerable biotech industry needed to protect its reputation. The alternative story diverted the blame away from genetic engineering. This explanation circulated around the world. "The change in the filter was responsible for the epidemic." Or more simply put, "It was bad manufacturing-not genetic engineering."

In 1996, writer William Crist began what would become an eight-year investigation into the cause of the EMS epidemic. He contacted the FDA's biotechnology coordinator, James Maryanski, who told him "We can not rule [genetic engineering] out. . . . However, we are aware of close to two dozen cases of L-tryptophan-linked EMS that occurred before Showa Denko began using their engineered strain. So, there would have to be a cause other than just the mere engineering of the strains. Now, I can't say that definitively because we don't have a lot of information on these earlier cases." Maryanski asserted that "either L-tryptophan itself, or L-tryptophan in combination with something that was the result of the purification process, was probably the more likely cause."[3]

Crist decided to track down the EMS cases that Maryanski described-those caused by L-tryptophan produced before the genetically altered bacterium was introduced in December 1988. He quickly discovered CDC studies that identified about 100 pre-epidemic cases, not two dozen. And since reported cases of EMS were far less than actual cases, the true number, using the CDC's estimated ratio for unreported incidents, was in the hundreds-all apparently from individuals who had ingested Showa Denko's pills manufactured before December 1988. This fact clearly dismantled the change-in-the-filter theory as the cause of the disease. But it didn't explain how the contaminants got into Showa Denko's L-tryptophan.
Crist spoke with several attorneys who represented EMS victims. They had gathered significant evidence for their lawsuits, which were eventually settled with Showa Denko for about $2 billion. In one company memo obtained by an attorney, Crist discovered a significant fact. The bacterium introduced in December 1988 was called Strain 5. The preceding three strains, introduced starting on October 22, 1984, were all genetically modified. This was a revelation. It countered the FDA's argument that illnesses "that occurred before Showa Denko began using their engineered strain" meant that "there would have to be a cause other than [genetic engineering]." But they were all engineered!

As he looked at the memo, Crist wondered why the FDA didn't know about the earlier GM strains. They had access to a lot more information he did. Then his eyes rose to the top of the document to see a fax imprint: "FDA September 17, 1990." It had been faxed by the FDA! They knew back in 1990 that the earlier strains were modified, but in 1996, the FDA's biotech coordinator James Maryanski was still claiming ignorance.

An even greater omission occurred when Douglas Archer, deputy director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, testified before Congress in July 1991 about the epidemic. Not only did he not discuss the earlier bacterial strains, he never even mentioned genetic engineering. Instead, he blamed the disease on "the dangers inherent in the various health fraud schemes that are being perpetrated upon segments of the American public." The FDA used this logic to take all L-tryptophan, GM or not, off the market.

According to a 2000 article in the Rutgers Law Journal, "Political pressures have played a role in the FDA's decision to ban L-tryptophan as well as its desire to increase its regulatory power over dietary supplements."[4] In its FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force report on June 15, 1993, it states, "The Task Force considered various issues in its deliberations, including ... what steps are necessary to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive to drug development." According the Rutgersarticle, "This is a particularly disturbing issue," as it shows that developing FDA guidelines "has far more to do with eliminating competition in the pharmaceutical industry than preserving the public health." In the case of L-tryptophan, the FDA simultaneously protected prescription drugs for stress, insomnia and depression, as well as the entire biotech industry. In retrospect, when FDA's Sam Page told Science that it was better not to discuss genetic engineering, "especially given the impact on the industry," it turns out he was describing the motivation and strategy that would guide the agency for years.

Sobering Lessons Unheeded

Many studies have verified that the process of genetic engineering can produce unpredicted toxins or allergens. Nevertheless, the FDA does not require any additional safety testing for GM products, whether they are food crops or supplements. Thus, if that same deadly L-tryptophan were first introduced today, it would get on the market.

The EMS epidemic took years to identify and was almost missed. The only reason it was discovered was because the disease had three concurrent characteristics: it was rare, acute, and came on quickly. What would happen if all three characteristics had not been in place? What if it took 20 years for onset or only impacted the next generation? What if it produced only mild symptoms like frequent colds? What if it created serious diseases that were common, like cancer, heart-disease, obesity or diabetes? The epidemic might remain undiscovered for decades.

What then of the thousands of products currently being fed to US citizens that contain ingredients from genetic modification? Might they be creating problems that don't have all three characteristics? Are they contributing to the doubling of food-related illnesses in the United States between 1994 and 2001, corresponding to the time when many of these products were introduced? We don't know, because no one is looking. And even if we were, derivatives from the four major GM crops, soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola, are found in the majority of processed foods. Unlike L-tryptophan, if common food ingredients were creating health problems, identifying the source might be impossible.

In spite of these facts, and ignoring the thousands of victims of GM L-tryptophan, U.S. regulators continue to make the baseless statement that "millions of people have been eating genetically engineered products for years and no one has gotten hurt."

Dissatisfied with the way that the FDA is protecting their health, more and more people have chosen to protect themselves by avoiding GM foods altogether. Here too, the FDA stands in the way. More than 90 percent of Americans want GM foods labeled. Most industrialized nations require labeling. But the FDA has an official mandate to promote biotechnology. They know that more than half of those surveyed say they would avoid GM foods if they were labeled. To protect industry profits, the FDA ignores the desires of nine out of ten Americans.

There is no indication that another EMS epidemic will emerge from another GM food or supplement. But with obesity, diabetes, migraines, allergies, and many other ailments skyrocketing in the U.S., there is no guarantee that another GM-related epidemic is not already upon us.

To learn more about the potential dangers of GM foods, to find out how to shop GM-free, and to read the excellent report by William Crist, visit www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.
References
[1] Barbara Deane, "Anatomy of an Epidemic," Reader's Digest, April 1991
[2] P. Raphals, "Does medical mystery threaten biotech?" Science, vol. 249, no. 619, 1990
[3] William E. Crist, The Toxic L-Tryptophan Epidemic, see www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm.
[4] Joshua H. Beisler, L-tryptophan Section from "Dietary Supplements and Their Discontents: FDA Regulation and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Rutgers Law Journal, Winter 2000, see www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=263.

© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.

I am fwding to Ms Audrey Jarvis' "interchurch commission" the link below to the British 'GM Watch' site, in response to her accusation in her newsletter that my appraisal of xenotransplantation, and (she implies) of gene-tampering, is "wholly scientific" and lacks cultural & religious dimensions - a calculated insult which she will have known to be false.

Ms Jarvis has from early on protected her little sandpit from impingement from my perspective (3 decades of experience in appraisal of dangerous technologies).

Her front-wimp (Richard Davis, still?) will doubtless continue to print anything actually written by me in their Broadsheet .

The largest NZ church is not represented in Ms Jarvis' sandpit, but she has been able to use it to get a big picture of herself in a newspaper, and I expect her to run for political office of some sort. Meanwhile she is wasting time & money - and being insolent.

-----

+ GM BASED ON DUD SCIENCE
A wide range of scientists should speak out for much stricter control of gene-tampering because it is based on dud science, says scientist and Christian Dr Robert Mann.

More: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5637
--

Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
http://www.kuratrading.com/HTMLArticles/writings.htm

Theory behind gene-tampering

L R B Mann
Dec 2003 rev. Aug 2005

Not only practising gene-manipulators but also a much wider range of scientists should speak out for much stricter control of gene-tampering because it is based on dud science.

Prof Richard Strohman has pointed out, in a sporadic small series of articles in Nature Biotechnology, many defects in the Lego model of biology which 'informs' the gene-tampering trade. Dogma long refuted is crucial among the axioms of the gene-jiggerers, e.g
• "one gene one protein",
• "only 4 letters in the DNA code",
• "randomness becomes utmost precision as we slam in synthetic nucleic acids by weapons-grade biolistics",
• "seen one redwood y' seen 'em all - especially once we've patented & cloned lo-lignin™ sequoia";
• etc etc.

The main characteristic of this set of slogans is that they are scientific drivel. The Schubert Letter (Nat Biotech Oct 2002 p. 969) would alone serve to refute them.

The main general scientific answer is that nature is far from random. The idea that slapping in - randomly ! - a few genes by radically unnatural processes will have more predictable effects than offering a whole genome of 104- 105 genes in cross-pollination is wrong for the main reason that it assumes natural crosses to be random or nearly so. A top-level affirmation of this assumption was stated by main Monsanto-connected gene-jockeys Roger Beachy et bulk in their (Nat Biotech Nov 2002) 'enraged' response to the Schubert Letter:-

' The reality is that "unintentional consequences" are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal. '

The immediate response to this furphy is that there's almost nothing random in nature. We know, admittedly, v little about the natural barriers to error in traditional breeding; that does not prove they're unreal or random. A gene-jockey of plants, Prof Patrick Brown, has made this & related points at www.psrast.org.

What is so precise, specific, or rational about GM as done so far? The answer is, very little indeed. Its outcomes are inherently unpredictable. The tiny minority of target cells that both survive and have incorporated somewhere in the genome the desired gene cassette will, in general, also develop other unforeseeable properties, e.g deviant metabolism generating toxins or allergens.

Indeed, the assertion of Beachy et al. is refuted by the known figures on frequency of unexpected mutations in GM-cells compared with mutation rates from breeding.

The fundamental general answer however is that nature is extremely orderly. It is complex, but not like a bowl of alphabet soup; nature - especially life - is systematic. This should be agreed by all scientists, even atheists; of course, us theists ascribe the systematic order to design, but those who resist belief in design will, I hope, agree nature to be systematically orderly. If you think, like Dawkins, that nature is just the result of the outworkings of physics & chemistry, then you could fairly easily assume that even random insertion of 'cassettes' would be no more likely than traditional breeding to cause harm. If on the other hand you believe (to take a specific case) that an apple is not just a random collection of biochemicals but a creation of a benign Creator, and that Grandmother Smith in a Seedknee suburb was a humble agent of that Creator (selecting a new mutant that had arrived according to His rules), then you will contrast such natural processes with the overwhelming of natural barriers to slam in viral promoters joined onto synthetic approximate copies of bacterial genes by biolistics, or modified T-plasmids - violent processes expected to disrupt the target genome. Breeding entails natural protections from error which are overwhelmed by gene-tampering.

I tend to think it is on this level that the issue really turns. For those who think so, re-reading of Genesis 3 may be salutory.

In a culture that has largely turned away from the religion that gave rise to its legal principles, the ethics of gene-tampering is in drastic need of fundamental review. Gene-jiggering has already sucked in $1011, and still only a few corporations have produced anything saleable (except those selling the enzyme kits etc for the gene-tampering expts). The science behind this commercial frenzy is junk; the Lego model of biology never looked promising and is now known to be wrong. Proper biology points to the Schubert Letter, and in response a gaggle of Monsanto stooges intones 'enragedly' the moronic atheistic rubbish quoted above.

Never in the history of science has a family of "technologies" been developed, and deployed in many organisms, based on such junk science as stated by Beachy et al.

But the ethical appraisal of GM is even more backward. The most dangerous technology of all history blunders on, little understood by venture-drongos and by ethicists. The good scientists like Pat Brown and David Schubert are crucially valuable. The Union of Concerned Scientists should emulate its anti-nuclear activism of the golden Kendall era. Go to it, Yanks!

Much more importantly, If the human has no duties to a higher power, how can selfishness & greed be curbed? The religion that gave rise to the code of ethics claimed to be implemented, if imperfectly, in British & USA legal systems had better get involved in renewal of ethics. It is a major embarrassment to Christians that a bishop (of my denomination) contributed scarcely at all to the Royal Commission on GM, flagging away opportunities to discuss ethics in public hearings. A minor powerHarpie has set up tiny sandpits with pompous titles 'Interchurch Commission' etc but has produced nothing significant. As an Anglican I have said for years that the churches are the sleepers in the movement for control of GM. I hope & pray they will take GM much more seriously.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM AND YIELDS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ POOR RECORD ON CROP YIELDS FROM 40 YEARS OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Here's an antidote to the numerous articles in the media claiming that GM will solve food shortages through higher yields. An article by leading researcher Tom Sinclair, published in Trends in Plant Science, points out that very few GM crops show increased yield:

EXCERPTS: Genetic engineering techniques are frequently proposed as ways to increase crop yields, especially in areas of the developing world where the people suffer from malnutrition and agricultural productivity is low. However, despite 40 years of biochemical and physiological research, there have been very few cases that led directly to improved cultivars with better yield.

A target for genetic engineers has been to increase 'nitrogen-use efficiency. However, efforts to improve a plant's nitrogen metabolism by changing its genome are unlikely to succeed because plant biochemistry is already extremely 'efficient' in nitrogen uptake and use. It may be difficult to improve whole plant traits because it seems unlikely that engineering a single or even a few genes can easily manipulate these traits.

Much biochemical and physiological research has focused on drought tolerance, to enable plants to survive long periods of drought. However, for most annual grain crops, a drought severe enough to threaten the plant's survival will inevitably result in such a low yield that survival is a moot point.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5635

and plus you get your bon-bon:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUD SCIENCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ GM BASED ON DUD SCIENCE
A wide range of scientists should speak out for much stricter control of gene-tampering because it is based on dud science, says scientist and Christian Dr Robert Mann.

More: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5637

[Another "precise" technique to genetically engineer plants. It's
supposed to work, "in theory".]

GM plants use carbon nanofibres
August 15, 2005
Azonano.com
http://www.azonano.com/

Researchers are, according to this story, developing new techniques that
use nanoparticles for smuggling foreign DNA into cells.

The story says that, for example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
US Department of Energy lab that played a major role in the production
of enriched uranium for the Manhattan Project, researchers have hit upon
a nano-technique for injecting DNA into millions of cells at once.
Millions of carbon nanofibres are grown sticking out of a silicon chip
with strands of synthetic DNA attached to the nanofibres. Living cells
are then thrown against and pierced by the fibres, injecting the DNA
into the cells in the process.

Timothy McKnight, engineer, Oak Ridge Laboratory, was quoted as saying,
"It's like throwing a bunch of baseballs against a bed of nails ... We
literally throw the cells onto the fibers, and then smash the cells into
the chip to further poke the fibers into the cell."

The story adds that Oak Ridge has entered into collaboration with the
Institute of Paper Science and Technology in a project aimed to use this
technique for genetic manipulation of loblolly pine, the primary source
of pulpwood for the paper industry in the USA.

Unlike existing genetic engineering methods, the technique developed by
Oak Ridge scientists does not pass modified traits on to further
generations because, in theory, the DNA remains attached to the carbon
nanofibre, unable to integrate into the plants' own genome. The
implication is that it would be possible to reprogram cells for one time
only. According to Oak Ridge scientists, this relieves concerns about
gene flow associated with genetically modified plants, where genes are
transferred between unrelated organisms or are removed or rearranged
within a species.

The story asks if the new technique enables researchers to selectively
switch on or off a key trait such as fertility, will seed corporations
use the tiny terminators to prevent farmers from saving and re-using
harvested seed - compelling them to return to the commercial seed market
every year to obtain the activated genetic trait they need?

MannGram®: theory behind gene-tampering
Dec 2003 rev. Aug 2005

Not only practising gene-manipulators but also a much wider range of scientists should speak out for much stricter control of gene-tampering because it is based on dud science.

Prof Richard Strohman has pointed out, in a sporadic small series of articles in Nature Biotech, many defects in the Lego model of biology which 'informs' the gene-tampering trade. Dogma long refuted is crucial among the axioms of the gene-jiggerers, e.g

* "one gene one protein",
* "only 4 letters in the DNA code",
* "randomness becomes utmost precision as we slam in synthetic nucleic acids by weapons-grade biolistics",
* "seen one redwood y' seen 'em all - especially once we've cloned & patented lo-lignin sequoia";
* etc etc.

The main characteristic of this set of slogans is that they are scientific drivel. The Schubert Letter (Nat Biotech Oct 2002 p. 969) would alone serve to refute them.

The main general scientific answer is that nature is far from random. The idea that slapping in - randomly ! - a few genes by radically unnatural processes will have more predictable effects than offering a whole genome of 10^4 - 10^5 genes in cross-pollination is wrong for the main reason that it assumes natural crosses to be random or nearly so. A top-level affirmation of this assumption was stated by main Monsanto-connected gene-jockeys Roger Beachy et bulk in their (Nat Biotech Nov 2002) 'enraged' response to the Schubert Letter:-

'The reality is that "unintentional consequences" are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

'The immediate response to this furphy is that there's almost nothing random in nature. We know, admittedly, v little about the natural barriers to error in traditional breeding; that does not prove they're unreal or random. A gene-jockey of plants, Prof Patrick Brown, has made this & related points at www.psrast.org.

What is so precise, specific, or rational about GM as done so far? The answer is, very little indeed. Its outcomes are inherently unpredictable. The tiny minority of target cells that both survive and have incorporated somewhere in the genome the desired gene cassette will, in general, also develop other unforeseeable properties, e.g deviant metabolism generating toxins or allergens.

Indeed, the assertion of Beachy et al. is refuted by the known figures on frequency of unexpected mutations in GM-cells compared with mutation rates from breeding.

The fundamental general answer however is that nature is extremely orderly. It is complex, but not like a bowl of alphabet soup; nature - especially life - is systematic. This should be agreed by all scientists, even atheists; of course, us theists ascribe the systematic order to design, but those who resist belief in design will, I hope, agree nature to be systematically orderly. If you think, like Dawkins, that nature is just the result of the outworkings of physics & chemistry, then you could fairly easily assume that even random insertion of 'cassettes' would be no more likely than traditional breeding to cause harm. If on the other hand you believe (to take a specific case) that an apple is not just a random collection of biochemicals but a creation of a benign Creator, and that Grandmother Smith in a Seedknee suburb was a humble agent of that Creator (selecting a new mutant that had arrived according to His rules), then you will contrast such natural processes with the overwhelming of natural barriers to slam in viral promoters joined onto synthetic approximate copies of bacterial genes by biolistics, or modified T-plasmids - violent processes expected to disrupt the target genome. Breeding entails natural protections from error which are overwhelmed by gene-tampering.

I tend to think it is on this level that the issue really turns. For those who think so, re-reading of Genesis 3 may be salutory.

In a culture that has largely turned away from the religion that gave rise to its legal principles, the ethics of gene-tampering is in drastic need of fundamental review. Gene-jiggering has already sucked in $10^11, and still only a few corporations have produced anything saleable (except those selling the enzyme kits etc for the gene-tampering expts). The science behind this commercial frenzy is junk; the Lego model of biology never looked promising and is now known to be wrong. Proper biology points to the Schubert Letter, and in response a gaggle of Monsanto stooges intones 'enragedly' the atheistic moronic rubbish quoted above.

Never in the history of science has a family of "technologies" been developed, and deployed in many organisms, based on such junk science as stated by Beachy et al.

But the ethical appraisal of GM is even more backward. The most dangerous technology of all history blunders on, little understood by venture-drongos and by ethicists. The good scientists like Pat Brown and David Schubert are crucially valuable. The Union of Concerned Scientists should emulate its anti-nuclear activism of the golden Kendall era. Go to it, Yanks!

Much more importantly, If the human has no duties to a higher power, how can selfishness & greed be curbed? The religion that gave rise to the code of ethics claimed to be implemented, if imperfectly, in British & USA legal systems had better get involved in renewal of ethics. It is a major embarrassment to Christians that a bishop (of my denomination) contributed scarcely at all to the Royal Commission on GM, flagging away opportunities to discuss ethics in public hearings. A minor powerHarpie has set up tiny sandpits with pompous titles 'Interchurch Commission' etc but has produced nothing significant. As an Anglican I have said for years that the churches are the sleepers in the movement for control of GM. I hope & pray they will take GM much more seriously.

R

Hawaii Reporter
Freedom to Report Real News

State Uses Illegal Tactics to Push Controversial Biotech Project
Board of Agriculture Redefines Own Rules To Avoid Contested Case Hearing

By Haumea Hanakahi, Henry Curtis and Andrew Kimbrell, 8/16/2005

In a controversial case involving 7 strains of newly created mutated alga, the Board of Agriculture's most recent actions, again, seem to support corporate agenda over the public trust. After the 6/28/05 hearing of which over 120 testimonials were submitted urging the denial of permit, the Board stunned the crowd with a cavalier quoting of Wanda Adams, Food Editor of the Honolulu Advertiser "remember when we were all warned microwaves were dangerous, and now we all use them Š" a vote was called, and the Board approved (6-2) the permit to import, grow, and export the mutated algae.

In the aftermath of the decision and amid serious concerns for impact upon agriculture, health and safety, native resources and the environment, a coalition called Na Maka o Hawaii Nei was spontaneously formed to protect and nurture our island wealth. On 7/7/2005 the coalition of over 22 groups and individuals filed an official request for a contested case hearing with the Board of Agriculture to challenge the permit granted the financially troubled Mera Pharmaceuticals to grow the genetically engineered algae at the state's Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) on the Kona coast of Hawaii Island.

On 8/15/05, the coalition Na Maka o Hawaii Nei received a letter from the Dept. of Agriculture stating that only the applicant of a permit can ask for a contested case hearing. The one-paragraph letter reads "Neither statute nor constitutional due process require a contested case hearing in this situation and the Board's rules do not provide for a contested case hearing for persons such as the HUI [coalition]."

"The letter contradicts the clear and obvious intent of the Hawaii Administrative Rules" said Henry Curtis, advocate and party to the petition. Under the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 4-1-36(b): "A person aggrieved by a decision or ruling of the board shall file a request for hearing within ten calendar days after mailing of written notice of board action" and HAR 4-1-2 Definitions: "'Person' means individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, or public or private organizations of any character other than the board [of agriculture] or the department [of agriculture]."

"The coalition is shocked and outraged that the state has denied the public's right to challenge a permit." said Kat Brady of Life of the Land. "Genetically engineered algae have never been grown at this level anywhere in the world and the hui [coalition] is concerned that escape of these algae will cause extensive harm to our fragile ecosystem. This is a great concern since the state currently spends $47 million a year on eradication of invasive species."

Economy

"We don't understand why the State is investing in a failing industry that has losses of over $43 billion." says Haumea Hanakahi of Hui Hoaka, also a party in the petition. The industry she refers to is biotechnology. Overall, airlines accumulated a net loss of $5 billion from 1947 to 2003. Publicly traded biotechnology companies in the U.S. lost $41 billion from 1990 to 2003, according to Ernst & Young LLC. [1] "The State is prostituting our islands. The State gives away massive amounts of tax credits to the industry for biotech business investment, research development, net operating loss, exclusions of royalties from gross income and even tax exemption on stock options. That's plenty in lost tax revenues that could help our schools, our kupuna, our communities. Instead, the irresponsible of these corporations come, take from Hawaii, make plenty opala, and leave state taxpayers with legal liability for the irreversible damage and messes they make. Strange, yeah, Rincon Pharmaceuticals is a new biotech startup and partner in the project but they're never named on the permit. Zero liability to them. Hmmm. It's just a matter of time when these mutant algae become a new invasive species contaminating our water, soils, air and agriculture. Can we afford that? Why is the Board of Agriculture ignoring all the expert testimony that came in from around the world warning of serious consequences?" she asks.

Health

The Na Maka o Hawaii Nei coalition also states strong health concerns. The Board of Agriculture's decision to allow Mera and Rincon Pharmaceuticals to import 7 strains of mutated algae without a comprehensive risk assessment signals profit over people. These companies hope to cash in on creating drugs from the algae. However, these laboratory created algae that contain synthetic human-like antibodies are unlikely to ever be approved for drug manufacture. Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food & Safety, WA DC stated "the State is illegally permitting a Biotech startup to endanger Hawaii's environment and people for a project that is doomed from the start. The federal government has never given commercial approval of a drug to be made from genetically modified or engineered plants or organisms. The chances of success are nil and the risks too great."

In response to Mera and Rincon Pharmaceutical's assurances that their GE algae are "safe", Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, Senior Scientist for the Center for Food Safety, WA DC and currently serving on the FDA's Biotechnology Advisory Subcommittee wrote "those assurances are not based on safety testing, but on conjecture. For example, proteins such as those produced in Mera's algae might cause immune reactions if ingested or inhaled, as may occur from aerosolized or desiccated algae if they escape and reproduce in the environment. And such immune responses can conceivably occur at very low exposures. For example, several years ago expert allergists and immunologists would not allow exposure to as little as 20 parts per billion of genetically engineered StarLink protein after food was contaminated because they could not be sure that allergy would not occurŠDoing the right thing to ensure safety will pay in the long run with increased citizen confidence."

Environment

On 8/2/05 a lawsuit was filed against the Board of Agriculture to comply with Hawaii's Environmental Protection Act. "The law requires the State to fully examine the potential impacts of bringing these alien, drug-laden algae to our islands," said Earthjustice attorney Isaac Moriwake. "The government and public need to understand the potential impacts and available alternatives before this experiment begins."

Dr. R. Malcolm Brown, Jr., Univ. Texas, Professor of Biology wrote "I have identified both native and indigenous strains of Chlamydomonas. So much more needs to be studied. The introduced alga has the potential to hybridize with the native and indigenous strain of this alga. That would mean genetic alteration of yet another pristine species from Hawaii's world renown biodiversity. Not only that, but native strains of this alga are found in air, soils, and fresh and brackish water of Hawaii. This indicates that once introduced into the native population, the genetically modified strains could rapidly spread to all parts of Hawaii. The immense invasive species problem this presents should be addressed".

The coalition Na Maka o Hawaii Nei agrees that "We encourage good business that actually DOES good in Hawaii. We have zero tolerance for any business that would inflict harm upon Hawaii's communities." You can add "zero tolerance for any government behaviors that would inflict harm upon Hawaii's communities." Perhaps the Governor needs to hear from her constituents.

[1] For more information on failed biotech industry see "Biotech's Dismal Bottom Line: More than $40 Billion in Losses," by David P. Hamilton, Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2004, and "States, Cities Court Biotech, But Is It Worth It?," by Paul Elias, AP June 9, 2004.

Na Maka o Hawaii Nei is a coalition protecting and nurturing the islands' wealth. For more information, contact Haumea Hanakahi, Hui Hoaka (808-896-9926); Henry Curtis, Life of the Land (808-927-0709); Andrew Kimbrell, The Center for Food Safety (202-547-9359)

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to: Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

In The Financial Express, India, August 16, 2005
Syngenta bid to monopolise rice patents
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=99412
ASHOK B SHARMA

edited

According to this article, the Swiss biotech giant Syngenta has tightened
its monopoly control over rice by seeking global patents over thousands of
gene sequences.

A single grain of rice contains 37,544 genes, roughly one-fourth more than
the genes in a human body. With the multinational all set to own rice, the
world's most important staple food crop, there may be serious implications
for future research in this crop.

These patents are filed before the European Patent Office, US Patent and
Trademark Office and the World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation
(WIPO).

"If conceded, it will be the beginning of scientific apartheid not only
against India but for all Third World countries," said Devinder Sharma,
chair of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security.

The former director-general of Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) and present vice-chancellor of Banaras Hindu University Dr Punjab
Singh said, "The situation is very serious. All patent applications need
proper scrutiny and India should fight to safeguard its interests, if they
are affected."

Syngenta's patent claims are also aimed at other important food crops like
wheat, corn, sorghum, rye, banana, soyabean, fruits and vegetables besides
others.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMOSandHumanHealth.phpISIS Press Release 16/08/05

GMOs and Human Health

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho told the People's Health Assembly that GM is proving
bad for health because it goes against the grain of the new genetics
science

A GMO or genetically modified organism is one whose natural genetic
material has been modified by having synthetic genetic material
inserted into it. That is how we have GM crops grown for food and
feed, for fibre and for a range of pharmaceuticals and industrial
products in the latest offering, if we don't manage to stop it.

Maybe you have heard the mantra from certain scientists that GM food
is perfectly safe because the technology is so very precise and
wonderful and the regulation the strictest in the world; that GM is
good for biodiversity, increases yield, reduces pesticide use, and so
on. All of the claims have been falsified, with data collected by
the US Department of Agriculture and by independent scientists .

The World Health Organization has just issued a report, Modern food
biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study
(23 June 2005) claiming that although there may be potential risks
involved in the use of GMOs, the GM crops that are grown today are
not likely to present health risks.

Yet there has been a string of incidents indicating GM food and feed
are far from safe. These include studies carried out by biotech
companies producing the GM crops, which they have kept secret under
confidential business information.

Kidney and blood abnormalities in rats fed one of Monsanto's GM maize
in Monsanto's secret dossier.

Villagers in the south of the Philippines who suffered mysterious
illnesses when another GM maize came into flower in a nearby field
two years in a row. Antibodies to the Bt protein inserted into the
GM maize were found in the villagers.

A dozen cows that died after eating a third GM maize made by
Syngenta, and others in the herd had to be slaughtered because of
mysterious illnesses. Autopsies failed to be carried out, which is
why Greenpeace and farmers are demonstrating in front of the Robert
Koch Institute.

Senior scientist Arpad Pusztai and colleagues in Scotland found young
rats fed GM potatoes ended up with damage in every organ system; the
most dramatic being an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to
twice that in controls. Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in
mice fed GM potatoes with another gene.

The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early
1990s that rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their
stomach.

To cut a long story short, different species of GM food and feed
crops with different genes had adversely affected several species of
animals. You don't have to be a scientific genius to see that there
may be something in the genetic engineering process itself that's
harmful .

So what's wrong with GMOs?
First, new genes and combinations of genes made in the laboratory,
which have never existed in billions of years of evolution, are being
introduced into our food chain.

Allergies and other toxicities come to mind. In fact, 22 out of 33
proteins incorporated into GM crops were found to have similarities
to known allergens, and are therefore suspected allergens.

The synthetic genetic material are introduced into the cells of
organisms with invasive methods that are uncontrollable, unreliable
and unpredictable, and far from precise.

It ends up damaging the natural genetic material of the organism with
many unpredictable, unintended effects, including gross abnormalities
that you can see, and metabolic changes that may be toxic that you
can't see.

Many foreign synthetic genes are copies of those from bacteria and
viruses that cause diseases.

They also contain antibiotic resistance marker genes to help track
the movements of the foreign gene inserts and select for cells that
have taken up the foreign genes.

Right from the beginning, in the mid1970s, geneticists themselves
have worried that releasing those synthetic genetic material runs the
risk of creating new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and
spreading antibiotic resistance to make infections untreatable. As
the result of the Asilomar Declaration, a moratorium was imposed.
Unfortunately, the moratorium was short-lived, as geneticists were in
a hurry for commercial exploitation of genetic engineering.

The dangers arise because the genetic material persists long after
the cells or organism is dead, and can be taken up by bacteria and
viruses that are in all environments

This process - called horizontal gene transfer and recombination - is
the main route to creating dangerous pathogens.

Genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly enhanced horizontal
gene transfer and recombination, and nasty surprises have already
been sprung.

Researchers in Australia 'accidentally' transformed a harmless
mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen that killed all the mice, even
those that were supposed to be resistant to the virus. Headlines in
the New Scientist editorial: "The Genie is out, Biotech has just
sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could be catastrophic."

The lead article continued in the same vein: "Disaster in the making.
An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate
bioweapon."

The researchers added a gene coding for an immune signalling molecule
to the virus, which they thought would boost antibody production;
instead, it suppressed immune responses. The researchers had
previously put the same gene into a vaccinia virus and found it
delayed the clearance of virus from the animals, so it may well have
the same immune suppressive effects for all viruses. Imagine what
would happen if this gene ever got into a smallpox virus!

More surprisingly, researchers at the University of California in
Berkeley found that disrupting a set of disease-causing genes in
Mycobacterium tuberculosis , the tuberculosis bacterium, resulted in
a hyper-virulent mutant strain that killed all the mice by 41 weeks,
while all the control mice exposed to the unmodified bacterium
survived.

There is yet another insidious danger.

The synthetic genes created for genetic modification are designed to
cross species barriers and to jump into the natural genetic material
of cells. Such constructs jumping into the natural genetic material
of human cells can trigger cancer .

This is not just a theoretical possibility. It has happened in gene
therapy, which is genetic modification of human cells.

In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France treated
infants with X-linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently
successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients,
applying gene therapy, and then injecting the genetically modified
cells back into the patients. But since 2002, 3 infants have
developed leukaemia. One child has died. The foreign synthetic gene
has inserted near a human gene that controls cell division, making it
overactive, resulting in uncontrollable multiplication of the white
blood cells.

I have only scratched the surface of the problems and hazards of
genetic modification. But you can already see that there has been a
massive campaign of misinformation and disinformation on the part of
the GM proponents.

The greatest danger, I think, is the mindset of the GM proponents.
Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s
under the illusion that the genetic material is constant and static
and the characteristics of organisms are hardwired in their genes.
One gene determines one characteristic. But geneticists soon
discovered to their great surprise that the genetic material is
dynamic and fluid, in that both the expression and structure of genes
are constantly changing under the influence of the environment.
Geneticists have coined the term, "the fluid genome", which
encapsulated this major paradigm change. The genome is the totality
of all the genetic material in an organism.

The processes responsible for the fluid genome are precisely
orchestrated by the organism as a whole in a dance of life that's
necessary for survival. In contrast, genetic engineering in the lab
is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a
genome to make a GMO can land anywhere in any form and has a tendency
to be unstable, basically because these rogue genes do not know the
language of the dance. Genetic engineers haven't learned to dance
with life.

That is why dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries
launched ourselves as the Independent Science Panel, to overcome the
campaign of disinformation from pro-GM scientists who are working to
promote the corporate agenda, and to reclaim science for the public
good. We compiled all the evidence against GM crops as well as the
evidence on the successes and benefits of all forms of sustainable
non-GM agriculture. Based on this evidence, we are calling for a ban
on the environmental releases of GM crops and a comprehensive shift
to sustainable agriculture. I hope the Assembly will support this
call!

Plenary lecture to the People's Health Assembly 2, 17-22 July 2005,
Cuenca, Ecuador. For further information please visit the Institute
of Science in Society website: www.i-sis.org.uk

Green Party PR

16 August 2005
3 out of 4 voters want NZ to stay GE-Free; does National?

The three out of four voters who want New Zealand's food production to remain GE-Free deserve to know where all political parties, particularly National, stand on the GE issue, Green Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says.

The Sustainability Council has today released a new poll that has found 74.5 percent are in favour of New Zealand's food production remaining GE-Free. This is up from 70.3 percent support in answer to the same question in an August 2003 poll. It confirms polls commissioned by the Green Party before the 2002 election, which showed between two thirds, and three quarters of New Zealanders were not in favour of GE release.

"The Sustainability Council has challenged political parties to say where they stand. In case anyone has any doubts, the Green Party's position remains that there must be no release of living Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs, into New Zealand's environment or food production.

"Voters going into the polling booths on 17 September have a right to know particularly where the National Party stands on GE. Given the clear concern in the farming community to the potential damage to our markets from a GE release, they would be wise to also respond to the Sustainability Council's call," Ms Fitzsimons says.

MannGram®: do not fw to Wh Winiata ...

R Mann
Aug 2005

Of the tiny official expenditure toward controlling gene-tampering in NZ, too much has been diverted to racist posturings. ERMA's Meremere Roberts, Leatrice Welch, and a half-dozen other beneficiaries have been accomodated in hotels while critics of GM who aren't primarily motivated by racism are ignored in agencies such as ERMA, Min for Envir, etc.

Vague "spiritual" objections to GM have been humoured while the major scientific objections are ignored. Unfalsifiable "spiritual" burblings delay decisions - to this extent I sympathise with applicants who deserve faster decisions - but then will not prove compatible with a British-type legal system or with a proper status for scientific evidence.

I mention the particular troublemaker Prof Wh Winiata (of my alma mater) because he drafted the "Three Tikanga" constitution for the Anglican church of NZ, and he has advocated that the whole plurry country should have a similar racist constitution. The annotated rave below by a more junior racist of VUW will, I hope, help people to face up to the extremist nonsense that has been hogging far too much of the small official expenditure on technology assessment of GM.

R

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/08/01/featherstone-ej/index.html

E-Raced
EPA says race, income shouldn't be environmental-justice factors

By Liza Featherstone
01 Aug 2005

It may surprise some people to hear that the Bush administration's EPA just drafted a strategic plan on environmental justice. Insidiously, and perhaps less surprisingly, advocates say, the move threatens to redefine that term into irrelevance.

The agency's new plan defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
That sounds uncontroversial enough on the surface, but the trouble lies in the word regardless. The field of environmental justice is based on the idea that some people -- specifically, racial minorities and the poor -- are more affected by environmental problems than others. It's an idea based on substantial evidence, which has been accumulating for decades. For example, in the early 1980s, a landmark U.S. General Accounting Office study found that three out of four landfills in the Southeast were located in communities of color. A 1992 National Law Journal study found that Superfund offenders paid 54 percent lower fines in communities of color than in white communities. And recent studies have found that Latinos and blacks are much more likely to develop -- and die of -- diseases related to pollution, like asthma.

As Diane Takvorian, executive director of the Environmental Health Coalition, a 25-year-old group focusing on border communities in San Diego and Tijuana, explains, "We have always worked in low-income communities of color, because that's where the pollution is the worst." These areas are often ignored by local and state environmental authorities, she says, and activists in her group "have had to take enforcers by the hand into their communities" because the officials were afraid to go into "bad" neighborhoods.

In 1994, after years of pressure from the environmental-justice movement, then-President Clinton issued an executive order decreeing that all relevant federal agencies must work to identify and address "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States." The EPA's new draft plan, by contrast, removes race and income from special consideration.

In the years since Clinton's executive order, says Takvorian, things have improved, "especially at the regional level. The EPA has had a greater sensitivity, and taken approaches more appropriate to our communities." She is not optimistic about the implications of the new plan: "We assume that sensitivity, and the resources now applied to environmental justice, will disappear."

Robert Bullard of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University has called the EPA's draft "a giant step backwards." Other advocates agree. "We think this is the wrong direction for the EPA to go," says Will Rostov, staff attorney for Communities for a Better Environment, a California-based environmental-justice group. "Essentially what they're trying to do is not have an environmental-justice program." Eliminating considerations of race and income, he says, "makes the program meaningless."

This reaction goes beyond the world of environmental-justice activists. Last week, more than 70 legislators, including Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), signed a letter saying that the EPA's draft plan "fails to address the real environmental-justice problems facing our nation's most polluted communities" and lambasting the dismissal of race as "a significant departure from existing environmental-justice policies." In their letter, the legislators also say the draft violates Clinton's 1994 executive order.

EPA spokesperson Stacie Keller denies that. She emailed Grist a statement promising that the agency "has a continuing commitment to environmental justice and the full implementation of the executive order." Asked why consideration of race appeared to have been excised from the agency's definition of environmental justice, Keller said she would check with the program office, but did not respond before deadline.

In addition to being unhappy with the plan itself, environmental-justice activists are troubled by the process surrounding it. The EPA says it welcomes outside comments on the draft, but Rostov criticizes the agency for permitting a "very short time frame" for such feedback. "One of the principles of environmental justice is getting the public to participate," he says, "and they allowed less than 30 days to have people comment, in the summer." Although the original public-input period ended July 16, EPA announced on July 28 that it would hear comments until August 15. The agency expects to issue a final plan by September 2006.

It's not as if there is any doubt that race and income affect a person's likelihood of living in a polluted neighborhood, or suffering from the effects of inadequate environmental policies, observers say. "There is a disparate impact," says Takvorian. "There are 200-plus studies that demonstrate that. So the question isn't, 'Is this true?' We know it's true. The question is, 'What are we going to do about it?'"

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), one of the legislators who signed the letter criticizing the EPA draft, puts it even more bluntly. "It isn't that EPA doesn't know what problems exist," he said. "It's their willingness to do anything about it. Shame on them."

- - - - - - - - - -

Liza Featherstone is a freelance journalist who writes for Salon, Newsday, and many other publications. A contributing editor at The Nation, she is also the author of Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart.

========

I have interspersed some critical comments, and am posting this annotated version to the list whence it reached me.

Briefly, I think this is an example of very confused, obnoxious neoracism.
Connections to Vandi may be inferred.

__________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
http://www.ainfos.ca/
__________

Genetic Modification - Aotearoa - Royal Commission from one
Maori perspective

(see the end for rough translations of some of the indigenous terms
used)

"It's our culture, its our land, its our food, its our children, its our
tipuna" Jessica Hutchings advised the Royal Commission on Genetic
Modification (GM) at a recent hui held in Wellington. A lecturer in the
Science Faculty at Victoria University and also a member of Nga Wahine
Tiaki o Te Ao, Hutchings gave evidence on behalf of Maori women
guardians of the World.

Between juggling her life as a lecturer, a solo mum and an advocator of
environmental justice, Hutchings gave us time to interview her. We
arrived at her home, armed with pen, paper and koha - her piece of
paradise, surrounded by the industrial choke of urban Wellington.

True to a busy schedule, her phone rang constantly while we were there.
Yet, she gave us time.

Q. What are some of your concerns regarding Genetic Modification (GM)?

I have several. GM is one trait of globalisation. The problem is
people are segmenting it into one issue.

>>RM Is this really THE problem? Jessica fails to support this claim.

However, globally it can be
traced as a profiteering tool for multinationals to assist in their
desire to corner the global food market. Presently there are five
multinationals that control the majority of the world's food source. It
is these companies, not governments of countries,

>>RM In reality, BOTH are typically doing it. The NZ govt Dairy Board has committed NZ$150M for gene-tampering in the coming half-decade.

which are accelerating
the experimentation and production of GM foods, food sources (seeds
etc.) and transgenic animals - usually deliberately disguised to gain
uninformed public opinion - but only where public opinion is required.

People seem to think it is a recent issue. Yet this debate has been
happening in Aotearoa for around three decades. Within Government the
discussions on GM in New Zealand have been around since at least the
1970's. Within Maoridom, in the late 1980's a hui was held in Kawhia
recommending all experimentation be halted to allow for discussions.

Men from within a western reductionist paradigm have led the GM debate.

>>RM What a pile of shit. Vandi and Ho have had vastly more attention than genuine reliable experts such as Prof Jonathan King of MIT, or Peter Wills, or myself. Ruth Hubbard has (I'm happy to say, because she is a sensible scientist and not primarily a racist or sexist like Jessica) had some leadership role; and the estimable Dorothy Nelkin . . . but Jessica may not have heard of these women; unless she can read English better than she can utter it, she probably won't have.

Resulting in the exclusion of indigenous peoples knowledge. More
importantly, this has excluded indigenous women globally.

>>RM again, a pile of shit. In NZ, the insolent racist sexist female Meremere has been generously funded by the ERMA to maintain a racist advisory cttee for them, featuring also the incoherent Ms Leatrice Welsh. Male scientists such as myself, Prof R B Elliott, Dr Wills, etc, have been ignored. And what about the ultraMaadi Dr on the Royal Commission? She is dismissed as 'not representing Maadi', in much the same way as Margaret Thatcher was claimed not to count as a female by the PC ravers. They utter doubletalk.

Also, Maori have not been given the opportunity to properly discuss this
issue within their respective Iwi and hapu.

>>RM The Royal Commission gave enormously disproportionate time (and undisclosed money) to such gatherings. Whose fault is it if Maoris didn't show up at those gatherings? Moaning 'we weren't consulted' after refusing to take part in the relevant meetings is a frequent Maadi racket which should not fool anyone.

Consequently some that
accept money from multinationals to purport false messages, spread
mistruths. This deliberate misleading results in miseducation.

GM, a trait of globalisation, its part of the whole process to
extinguish other peoples whakaaro, enforcing their own.
Indigenous people globally are leading the fight against the
globalisation of GM.

>>RM This racist bragging is just too far out. Vandi & Ho issue their error-riddled bullying raves, and insult anyone who tries (even in private) to point out where they're wrong. To the extent that they are leading the fight, it is ill served.

>>RM Notice too how this bold claim contradicts the immediately-above wallowing in the victim role "excluded indigenous women globally". It is a sign of fanaticism that a person can rave on in self-contradicting slogans like these. And it is a sign of a confused, demoralised society that such a raver can go largely uncriticised and can get an academic job.

Maori are failing to link the debate on GM as a
characteristic of globalisation. GM stems from a science that is
derived from a western reductionist paradigm, this form of knowing
excludes and tramples upon a Maori worldview.

Monsanto (voted 2nd worst pro-GM manufacturer in Australia)

>>RM oh really? who beat them out for the title?

has got
patents on hundreds of organisms - novel inventions based on the cultural
and intellectual property of indigenous people. Monsanto essentially
steals traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and patents it within
the global arena - requiring Indigenous people to pay for the use
through loss of livelihood, markets and practices. Monsanto uses the
corporate philosophy of theft and patent - biopiracy. Profits from
these are sent overseas, to offshore multinational investors.

>>RM This is a familiar Vandi line, little related to reality.

Some Maori have been dismal at rejecting globalisation. It seems to be
too difficult for some. Those that have been given
tokenistic standing are being used to further fuel the globalisation
train. If the recent issues regarding GM happened in 1970- and 1980,
this would had been at the top of
the pile. That was the height of Maori awareness and protest - what has
happened to our critical analysis of these events?

Q. I understand the EU has banned all GM food/products from America. What
is that all about?

America is finding it increasingly harder to export GM foods. Greece
has had a total freeze since April 1999. Simply, it's no longer
acceptable. People do not want GM foods.

Parts of the European Union have emphatically rejected GM food from
America. Consequently America has re-routed the GM foods to third
world, under developed countries - disguised as Food Aid. GM Soymilk
infant formula is being purposively sent to Africa. This has caused
the decline in breastfeeding. Mothers, are instead, feeding their
children GM soya formula. An African doctor, who recently visited
Aotearoa advised Africans do not want the GM foods disguised as food
aid. Neither do they want the seeds produced through GM
experimentation. They are calling for resources to reclaim their
traditional methods of land sustenance - repairing the soil, growing
planting traditional crops.

It's like when they try to qualify their argument by asking 'why does
your mauri object to transgenic cows?' is pathetic. They are imposing a
western worldview to make us explain why we disagree with GM.
Fundamentally, they do not understand mauri, its context, its concept.
Their imposition in trying to justify my mauri within a western paradigm is derogatory, inappropriate
and incorrect.

>>RM This is a very clear example of the unfalsifiable raving which has got Meremere and her racist ilk so much money & attention - all to set up a PC charade of objections to GM *on very weak grounds that are bound to fail*. The concepts mentioned are not generally known with any clarity. They are, in social psychology, akin to 'M.E.' and other unfalsifiable pseudo-medical postures. In each case the assertions, made while wallowing in the victim role, are not open to ordinary reasoning.

>>RM Note too the internal illogic of slogans such as "Their imposition in trying to justify my mauri".

>>RM They were not actually trying to justify her mauri, but she has so little command of English that she can't even say what she wants and we can therefore only very dimly make out what she may be driving at. That this is a lecturer in my alma mater embarrasses me. But of course that's where affirmative action has got us.

Q. What has been the role of Maori in this debate?

There has been no equitable participation of Maori involvement in this
debate. Maori have been speaking a long time - but people are not
making the link between the korero. Deliberately segregating the korero
instead of understanding the holistic framework in which it has been
undertaken. This is a trait of colonisation. That is, to separate and
segmentate. You cannot separate out mauri, wairua, tapu - they are all
part of each other.

>>RM Again I point to the extensive, expensive consultations by the racist ERMA cttee of Leatrice & Meremere (mentioned later by Jessica), and the numerous special Maori gatherings funded by the Royal Commission. It is ludicrous for this racist harpie to carp on as if neglected when in fact racism has been so lavishly favoured.

However, there also has been a lack of debate within ourselves. Some
Maori men appear to have deliberately segregated the korero excluding
issues from each other. Maori men purport this segmentation by
enforcing notions of tapu, taboo and called cultural protocol. We need
to speak our views, have open debate. Hui without deliberate cultural
taboos being used to inhibit korero.

>>RM - except, of course, Jessica's particular 'cultural' prejudices, which she implies to carry mysterious racial authority.

It seems that Maori society works within a dualist framework. An
example being, if you speak te reo or you don't speak te reo, urban or
rural, anti globalisation or pro globalisation determines whether you
are Maori. This binary opposition is at the detriment of Maori women.

>>RM well, well - hadn't anyone noticed any such 'dualism' in Jessica's own raving above?!

It detaches Maori women's interaction with the environment. It has been
disappointing that some Maori men purport the binary opposition of
western reductionist science, promoting the false statement that we need
GM.

>>RM GM is not based on science but on a vulgar dishonest caricature of technology.

Last year the Brazilian Government announced that by 2020, the Amazon
will have 80% of its forest destroyed. It is irreversible damage.

>>RM what has that to do with the topic?

Every day, in karakia and on the paepae, we pay homage to Papatuanuku
yet this is a contradiction in terms of what we support and how we
behave. They miss the point. Essentially our culture has been removed
from our kaitiakitanga of Papatuanuku through colonisation and we must
reclaim it.

>>RM what a pathetic pseudo-religious rave. The deity mentioned is a dead letter and no good can come of pretending to revive her. Most Maori tribes made enormous progress, probably unrivalled in the whole world, by embracing Christianity and springboarding themselves - with the crucial help of many well-disposed Brits, and then of the native-born such as myself - out of a Stone Age culture dominated by war, slavery, and cannibalism. Within 150y they had learned to cope with modern life, and volunteered famously to resist the fascist Axis. They were loyal New Zealanders. Racist hatemongers like Jessica are traitors to what was the finest modern nation.

Others see Maori as an emancipated culture. Yet within the GM debate
some Maori supporting this technology are supporting the recolonisation
of other indigenous peoples through advocating GM by life science
companies who are the thieves of intellectual and culture property of
other indigenous peoples. We need to stop and listen to the korero and
not allow others to determine a timeframe for the debate.

>>RM The NZ govt has vaguely defined a timescale; it will not be useful just to sit back chanting 'we were not consulted', an obvious lie.

I believe that this science is reluctant to give credibility to
indigenous women participation. The colonisation of Maori mythology.
Hine Nui te Po is seen as a scorned woman. We need to decolonise the
mythology.

>>RM The mythology, as outlined above, was enthusiastically replaced with Christianity under the leadership of nearly all the important chiefs right from the time of Cook. Nobody bothered to colonise Hinenui; why would one want to? Indeed, what does the phrase 'colonise Hinenui' mean at all?

Q. So who are the Maori in this debate?

Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao (is an advisory committee appointed by the
Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) under clause 42 of the
first schedule to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act)
is seen as the large voice in public arena on Maori and GM issues.
However it's powers is recommendation only. It has no binding
jurisdiction.

>>RM and how, under the rule of law embraced by Ngata, Buck, Reeves, etc etc, could it? It was not contemplated by our Parliament when it created the empowering statute for the ERMA.

Recommendations on applications are only sought when ERMA
rules that it is needed. (re: AgResearch of Ruakura Cows. Nga Kaihautu
had a split decision - equal for and equal against).

There is a push for more Maori scientists. The government has set up
scholarship funding specifically targeted to Maori for science learning.

Ngai Tahu has set up a research arm. The challenge is, what type of
scientists do they want to produce. Western science is based on
reductionism - in which scientists leading the pro GM research are
taught and creating from.

>>RM She seems unaware that the main critics of GM - including Vandi & Ho - are trying to criticise GM as junk science (which it sure is). The fact that those two are, like our own Ms Meremere, not very good scientists is of secondary importance (fingers crossed). The reason why so many people trained in science are doing GM is that they have abandoned good science for a pile of crap. It is utterly incorrect to concede that GM is based in science and that to oppose it one has to abandon science.

We need to create our own scientists from
within a Matauranga Maori paradigm. Therefore we will be able to arrive
at our own analysis from a Maori worldview. Not a western reductionist
paradigm. That is, Maori have our own different realities, our own
cultural taboos.

>>RM This type of 'different realities' talk occurs blatantly in most or all recent PC ideological posturings. It is crap - and dangerous crap at that. See Sokal & Bricmont's book exposing postmodernism!

GM has a huge impact on the environment - impacts include that of
discriminating others forms of knowing such as holistic science, organic
agriculture, food aid, development issues - these are all indigenous
issues.

>>RM There is nothing particularly 'indigenous' about any of those important issues.

The patriarchal framework also stems from colonisation.

>>RM Utter bullshit. Nothing could be more patriarchal than the classical Maori culture outlined above. Women got a far better run when Christianity was adopted.

I add of course that patriarchy has in fact been universal (see S Goldberg 'Why Men Rule').

Where are the
Maori men in this debate?
Most Maori submissions to the Royal Commission appear to come from Maori
men. This furthers the sexist ideology. This makes it harder for Maori
women with learnings to have a say in the debate.

>>RM This is just paranoid raving. No men have had any means of obstructing Maori women from making submissions to the RC. To the extent that Maori men have engaged with the RC, what is wrong with that? It has not been at the expense of Maori women, whose access has certainly been better than that of non-Maori citizens such as myself who have been marginalised as the RC has been very reluctant to hear from informed critics of GM. Submissions critical of GM, even if only a few pages, have been kept off the RCGM website. This has been the real victimisation in the RC procedures - not any racism.

Q. So, why do Maori men let this happen?

Maori men are unwilling to relinquish power - threat to personal power.
This is a result of colonisation (pedagogy of the oppressed).

>>RM It has precious little to do with colonisation. Men have always occupied the main positions in Maori society - ESPECIALLY in the classical culture *before* colonisation.

The colonisation of the Tino Rangatiratanga movement. Crown establishes
positions that perpetuate mana munching - it doesn't create experts, it
provides positions of manipulation by the government. They use brown
faces to show support in western science. The colony deciding where
Maori should be within science.

>>RM Any meaning here?

Q. What has been the role of wahine in this debate?

Women, we have a particular role in the GM debate. Our connection with
the whenua (hapu, whanau). It tenents deeply connected to the land and
environment.

>>RM I hope you can get some meaning from that last sentence.

We have children. It's the same properties globally. We
are kaitiaki and our role is guided through that responsibility, we must
fight to retain this role.

>>RM Doubletalk again. What she wants is new forms of power, based on racism and sexism.
'Retain' in this context takes its place alongside 'reforms' (Rogernomics, Ruthanasia, Thatcherism), 'reclaim' (fill in, of estuaries or wetlands), 'feminism', etc, amongst major Lies In The Language that Goebbels would have loved.

Globally we are participating in the debate. We are asking the hard
questions,

>>RM oh yes? and where can we see them?

looking for answers to problems we know will impact our
children. Indigenous women have been leading the calls against
biodiversity

>>RM here again we see the signs of heated raving - obviously saying the opposite of what is meant. But lately 'enraged' has been a prime term of endearment at sexist gatherings; RAGE was the name of the antiGE group dominated by Susan Kitschley MP (until it was wrested from her by another PowerHarpie); these PC ideologues actually avoid clear intelligible language. They prefer unintelligible ravings.

and the erosion of their respective cultures. Yet, we are
not visible in the debate.

Q. Why is that?

It has been set up to exclude women.

>>RM What about the two women on the RCGM (with two men)? Why is that not a reasonable representation? What does this harpie want - all Maadi women?

Male scientists have led the
debate, research and experimentation of GM in New Zealand.

>>RM Bullshit. Jean Fleming, member of the RCGM, is an actual gene-tamperer. The extravagantly inaccurate Paula Jameson of Massey U, a professor (God help us), is a member of the "Independent" Biotek Advisory Ccl, as is Dr Jan Wright. Joanna Putterill is a main gene-jockey (of plants) in the U of Ak. Karen Cronin manages the PR for ERMA. Ms Meremere has far more money & power than I have. It is seriously false & misleading to claim that women scientists have been a minor influence on GM in NZ.

scientist purport a learning from within a colonial paradigm. This
deliberately excludes indigenous people's worldviews. It also
deliberately excludes indigenous women worldviews. Consequently the
framework is fundamentally flawed.

Women are the kaitiaki.

>>RM It is worth mentioning that this line of talk got going in the 1980s with the deluded lesbians using Ngati Te Ata (Nganeko Minhinnick) as a front for ludicrous claims to the Manukau Harbour etc.

To set oneself up as the 'guardian' of others, trying to rip off pubic property, is an obnoxious way to grab power. Ask the Austrians, Czechs, . . . how they reacted to a previous protection racket in the mid-20th c. With guardians like Jessica, who needs enemies?

We have been marginalised in the debate. Women
have been asking questions which others have not been asking. Questions
include : who owns the work completed through GM? Who gets the profits?

>>RM More ludicrous posturing. These questions are fairly well known, if not well answered, and have certainly been asked around the world by good men. Why misrepresent the truth on this?

The work being undertaken through GM is erosive, irreversible and it
effects those who are of the lowest socio-economic decile.

Q. But what about those that use GM medicines for cures?

Scientist claim GM is contributing to the advancement of human kind.
Majority of the evidence available on GM does not support this claim.
We have choices. The present western orthodox medicine excludes
homeopathy, rongoa and holistic medicine. At least with these we know
implications

>>RM that's a good one

- GM medicines, the implications are not known. It's about
choices, instead of imposing something GM without knowing the potential
damage, which is irreversible.

It appears New Zealand is heading the race to undertake GM
experimentation. The Ruakura Cows, injected with genetically engineered
synthetic human DNA, this research could not be carried out in Europe.
Whereas New Zealand approved the experimental research.

AgResearch advising that MS sufferers will suffer from the high court
decision to halt all experiments regarding the Ruakura cows. Cures for
MS are currently being developed over seas. This research was rejected
overseas. The only reason it is here, is because New Zealand said yes.

Q. In 2000, you participated in a forum of scientific understanding at
Schumaster College in the UK. What was that like?

The learning's advised western science needed to move away from the
controlling paradigm it exists within into a holistic form of
understanding and participation. For example, presently science
undertakes experimentation on organisms by first isolating the exact
area of the organism it will use. it is argued the segmentation cannot
undertake value free experimentation because the organism is a whole,
therefore it operates as a whole. You cannot isolate one area of an
organism and successfully analyse experimentation undertaken because the
organism is only partly being monitored. You need the whole organism to
document total change. Without which, it renders the research invalid.
Everything is interconnected. To isolate one area, breaks the
connection. Therefore any analysis would not be truly accurate.

Personally, I believe our science is inextricably linked to
spirituality. It pulses everywhere, but we don't see it. We need to
reclaim our spirituality. Religion is too restricting. Only 9% of New
Zealanders attend conventional church. We need to challenge our
assumptions, which are usually underpinned by canons of western
framework. We need to look outside and move in the bush and remember
who we are and where we are from - Papatuanuku is a divine source.

>>RM One does not have to be a Christian to see real dangers in this line of babble.

Mind you we need to take responsibility ourselves. We can't wait for
the government to accept responsibility. They won't fix it. So we need
to do something about it.

Q. But, isn't it healthy to have debate? It provides for equitable
discussion.

People have the right to say there is benefits - as an individual.
Maori men purport a pro-GM stance because they have accepted money. It
is morally wrong to accept money, then purport a message as being Maori
when it is the message and intent of the individual making the pro-GM
statement.

>>RM At last something intelligible, and potentially interesting.
Why not name the offenders right here?

Q. The Royal Commission is due to release their findings on 27th July. How
do you think they will fare?

From a Maori perspective, the findings will be null and void because it
is a breach of Te Tiriti O Waitangi. It was undertaken without full
consultation with Maori; also it is in direct breach of article 2 of the
Treaty of Waitangi.

>>RM babbling nonsense

I find it infuriating that Maori concerns are being pigeon holed into
spiritual concerns, therefore having no western scientific validity.

>>RM not far above, Jessica was trying to do just this herself.

Western science

>>RM Is there some other kind?

was created from the crash of the dark ages. The period
of enlightenment challenged assumptions. A quantum leap in knowledge.
That's why the commission will fail to understand the Maori worldview -
because it is seen as spiritual as opposed to fundamental.

>>RM Anyone following by this stage?

Q. In the late 1980's a hui was organised to primarily discuss the
patenting of indigenous flora and fauna by multinationals. This was
held in Kawhia. It was at this hui, the call to halt genetic
modification experimentation was sought. How do you think the GM issue
falls within the Waitangi 262 claim?

>>RM Foreigners may not know that this is a decade-old claim to the Waitangi Tribunal (a govt advisory body) for rights, if not patents, on all indigenous flora & fauna. This is racism writ large - but asserted by Maadi, and therefore OK to PC whites.

The GM decision in Aoteaora should be based on the wai 262 findings.
Without doing so makes a farce of the Waitangi Tribunal treaty process.
It is a tragedy the commissioners did not attend submissions made by the
Wai 262 Maori claimants - allowing themselves to learn from stories,
which tell what they feel. Instead they asked for a half-hour brief
from the tribunal, advising what Maori thought.

Ma te whakama e patu (Let Shame Be Extracted)

Maori and the Royal Commission
NZ has an interesting legal system and I use the term interesting
loosely because it's intriguing that a system that purports to serve
justice has a known history of injustice among Maori. This past history
leads Maori to expect that a fair and just representation of Maori
opinion within a non-Maori system is ludicrous which was affirmed in the
Royal Commission hearings on GM.

This for Maori is a reality, as clinical as many of the western
trained scientists who appeared before the Royal Commission. The Royal
Commission itself descends from the same genealogy as NZ's legal system
and it identified its' affinity by refusing Maori legal practices to
occur in its proceedings (namely the hearing of evidence upon marae)

>>RM This is a lie. Many marae gatherings from one end of the country to the other were arranged for the RCGM. (What was the _per virtual capita_ funding paid from the public purse for these?)

claiming equality was to be provided to all parties which it was able to
grant from its downtown Wellington location. So Maori scepticism of the
Royal Commission hearings were justified as our own traditional
governing practices were rejected.

Te Ao Maori (The Maori World View)
All peoples had governing systems reflecting the cultural, spiritual
and physical needs of those communities. This is supported by the fact
that without these systems that society would cease to exist.

>>RM which they were in the process of doing when Cook got here.
Maori lived here only a millennium, and did not get very far in nutrition, health, safety, etc.

>>RM They then adapted British customs to better advantage (as remarked above) than any other nonliterate people. In all the era of European colonisation, Maoris got the best deal. Not a very good basis for endless moaning today, one might think; one would be wrong, so aimless is New Zealand now.

Prior to
colonisation Maori were no different. Maori governance or legal systems
were robust and proven to represent the needs of our society (refer to
He Whaipainga Hou: Jackson M: 1986). These systems included the
practice of rigorous open debate often conducted upon the marae known as
kanohi ki te kanohi literally face to face or open debate.

Kanohi ki te kanohi is the basic litmus test of evidence in te ao
Maori. Evidence is presented and scrutinised by the collective ensuring
honesty and transparency.

>>RM This should not go unchallenged. The lawcourt system was generally embraced rapidly, e.g. by Te Kooti, and today Maoris use the legal system to strip hundreds of millions of dollars from the public assets. But still this harpie acts exploited.

This in turn was overseen by the practice of
whakama (shame). Honesty was duly maintained for fear of attracting
whakama upon oneself or ones family. These age old practices were
usurped when the Royal Commission was established and in turn denied
Maori the right to present evidence on marae allowing the hearings to be
subjected to dubious proof.

The Royal Commission and Maori
Sadly in environments far removed from our own the appearance of
untested Maori evidence increases of which was seen when Maori
consultants were handsomely rewarded for pro GM evidence. It is
necessary to say the majority of this evidence is openly available to
those with the knowledge of its whereabouts and those with internet
access. Conversely for the majority of Maori awareness and internet
access act as barriers. These barriers in turn provide protection to
unaccountable consultants who provide information (however dubious) to
satisfy their contractual obligations while denigrating cultural
responsibilities.

Another issue of concern regarding Maori submissions to the Royal
Commission was the absence of the wahine Maori voice. Out of
approximately 12 submissions presented by Maori only one submission, Nga
Wahine Tiaki o Te Ao had a specific wahine Maori perspective. Granted
women's opinions were canvassed (and abused) by various submissions but
they were not presented nor subjected to debate by women, which makes a
mockery of the belief Ko te wahine te kaitiaki o te whare tangata (women
are the guardians of the house of mankind). One would surmise that as
guardians of life wahine Maori would be granted the time and space to
participate fully in issues which allegedly enhance quality of life and
mirror our role as guardians of life.

Ki te Ao Marama (Into the world of light)
Examples of evidence that went before the Royal Commission that were not
presented before Maori was The Separation of Earth & Sky
Theory (Royal Commission on GM: Witness Brief: NZ Life Sciences Network
(Inc): Paora Ammunson & Tamati Cairns). In this evidence
it is claimed that the separation of Rangi and Papa was " a lesson about
the need for Tane and his descendants to sometimes take control of the
world around them for the betterment of the people." (sc13: L3)
and goes on to say "In a sense it is also the first significant genetic
modification" (sc14: L1)

In response to these claims by Ammunson & Cairns, Angeline Greensill of
Nga Wahine Tiaki o Te Ao states
"That is an inappropriate explanation because what you are seeing is
like all pregnancies, the off spring must come out sometime. Women are
a whare tangata I think it is appropriate that women look at this from
their angle ... If anything it was probably the first separation or
divorce caused by the children of Ranginui and Papatuanku." (Royal
Commission on GM: Transcript Nga Wahine Tiaki o Te Ao oral evidence, A
Greensill: 04177 L12 - 19)
Greensill also refutes the Ammunson & Cairns claim that Tane and his
descendants needed to take control of the world around them with the
statement in relation to mankind,
"We were the last born, we were the youngest. By what right do we have
to tell our parents what to do" (Nga Wahine Tiaki o Te Ao, 04178 L 2)

Ma te whakama (Let shame be extracted)
The Ammunson & Cairns Separation theory and similar evidence went
untested. Its developers did not test its validity according to tikanga
Maori at the National Hui on GM, Turangawaewae Marae, April 01. If such
evidence had been presented to the National Maori Hui it may have been
granted a position within the debate (it was rejected by the Hui)
however failure to do so supports the criticisms expressed by Greensill
and others. After 2 days of debate the Hui passed 16 various
resolutions soundly rejecting GM including:

- That a moratorium be placed upon all activities related to GM
and GMO's immediately.
- That we outlaw the patenting of any lifeforms.
- That the crown stop free trade negotiations and stop
biotechnology multi-nationals from entering Aotearoa to conduct GM
experiments.

Kei hea tatou e ahu ana? (Where to now)
Aside from the atrocities of GM and the harm caused by the Royal Commission process, the denigration of traditional knowledge for
monetary compensation is a further harm that requires immediate
attention. Restorative processes such as exposure and discussion must
be enacted to negate the harm caused by the creation of inaccurate
knowledge. This will be possible at a National Maori Hui on GM, 7 - 9
Sept, Taiporohenui Marae, Hawera.

>>RM Why should that gathering, presumably organised by political allies of Jessica, be more authoritative than the RCGM's very extensive Maori gatherings???

Will those Maori who were paid to
give evidence on behalf of pro GM supporters appear before the people
kanohi ki te kanohi? Time will tell.

For National Maori Hui Resolutions on GM:
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/he/gm.html

For all GM submissions, witness briefs and oral evidence transcripts:
www.gmcommission.govt.co.nz

Indigenous vocabulary used
(Please note: some Maori concepts and vocabulary are very difficult to
explain in a colonial language, for some concepts the colonial language
is inadequte in explaining the relevant concept so these translations
are a rough guide only)

Maori : Indigenous people of Aotearoa / New Zealand
Nga Wahine Tiaki o Te Ao : Maori women guardians of the World.

whakaaro : thoughts, opinions
Papatuanuku : Earth mother an ancestor of all people, according to Maori
belief
korero: talk, discussion
mauri: lifeforce
wahine: women
whare tangata: the house of people, the womb
wairua: spirit
tapu: sacred, taboo

karakia: prayers, blessings

whenua: land, placenta
hapu: subtribe, to become preganant
iwi: tribe, bones
Ngai Tahu: a southern tribe
kaitiaki : guardian
kaitiakitanga: guardianship
marae: traditional gathering places for Maori
Rangi : Skyfather an ancestor of all people according to Maori belief.
Tiriti o Waitangi : Treaty of Waitangi see
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/quick.htm for more info
Tino Rangatiratanga : see
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/intro.htm

**
** The A-Infos News Service ****

It is embarrassing to see racist, sexist muck promulgated from my country. I hope foreigners will get some glimpse from my comments of why it commands little respect from decent New Zealanders.

Blackberry Fungus Enters U.S., Hits Oregon

A deadly fungus used to control the spread of unwanted varieties of blackberries overseas has landed in the United States, infecting numerous fields in Oregon, the capital of America's blackberry industry.

---

I've not noticed gene-jockeys claiming the properties of GMOs are *more* predictable than those of normal organisms. If invasions such as that reported above can occur - and many have - with normal organisms, it is practically inevitable that GMOs will manifest even less foreseeable behaviour.

R

Blackberry Fungus Enters U.S., Hits Oregon

July 26, 2005 — By Rukmini Callimachi, Associated Press
PORTLAND, Ore. — A deadly fungus used to control the spread of unwanted varieties of blackberries overseas has landed in the United States, infecting numerous fields in Oregon, the capital of America's blackberry industry.

First spotted this spring on the southern Oregon Coast, the rust fungus has spread to seven counties, according to officials with the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Initially, the species was only spotted on the Himalayan blackberry, a weed.

Now it's also been reported in virtually all of the fields of the commercially grown evergreen blackberry, the No. 2 blackberry crop in Oregon, accounting for roughly 9 percent of the state's $30 million blackberry industry.

The fungus -- which prior to its appearance in Oregon had never been detected in North America -- has not attacked the Marionberry, Oregon's state berry and one of the region's most lucrative berry crops, said Bruce Pokarney, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Officials said it was too early to estimate the potential economic damage.

"We're at an early stage with the potential for serious economic damage, but we're not at the stage where that serious damage has happened," said Tom Peerbolt, a researcher with the Oregon Raspberry and Blackberry Commission.

The fungus has been used since at least the 1990s as a biocontrol agent to tame the growth of wild blackberries in Australia, New Zealand and Chile. As recently as last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approached blackberry growers in Oregon to discuss the possibility of introducing the fungus in the United States to control invasive varieties of blackberries -- but the plan did not move beyond the discussion stage, said Pokarney.

Ken Johnson, a professor of botany and plant pathology at Oregon State University, theorizes that because the evergreen blackberry -- which is not grown commercially in those countries -- is native to North America, it might be more susceptible to the foreign pathogen.

While all the evergreen blackberry fields appear to have been infected in Oregon, so far only one grower has reported losing his entire crop.

"It's appeared in all the Oregon evergreen fields, but it is not at the stage where it is causing real damage, except at this one site. Meaning we can find it, it's on the leaves, but the crop is still intact," said Peerbolt.

Agriculture officials are meeting this week to begin discussing possible remedies.

"The remedy is expensive -- spraying," said Johnson.

"It's a huge problem because it's something that can be battled and fought, but it takes a pretty rigorous spray program to do that," said Mark Hurst, owner of Hurst's Berry Farm in Sheridan.

While the disease has so far only been confirmed in Oregon, scientists and growers say it's already crossed into southwestern Washington, where samples taken from several fields are currently being tested for the fungus.

Once infected, the leaves of the blackberry bush become stained with a mosaic of purple spots. Underneath, the foliage is tainted with yellow pustules.

"It was brought to my attention today," said Dan Tsugawa, an employee at his father's Tsugawa Farms in Woodland, Wash. "It's so prolific that my workers have come out covered in yellow dust."

Source: Associated Press

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945092_mz018.htm

AUGUST 1, 2005

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Online Extra: The Side Effects of Drugged Crops

The Union of Concerned Scientists' Dr Margaret Mellon explains the group's
concerns about the dangers genetically altered food poses

Q: Is the Union of Concerned Scientists opposed to genetically
engineering plants to produce human drugs?

A: We're not opposed across the board. It's a technology that should be
examined. And we're enthusiastic about using genetic engineering for
drug production. We're not so enthusiastic about outdoor applications of
genetic engineering to crops.

Q: What exactly is your concern?

A: When you're genetically engineering bioactive molecules -- drugs --
into crops and they're growing outdoors, you must be able to assure
those [engineered traits] don't move to food crops. Otherwise you're
imposing health and environmental risks.

Q: How might this affect trade with foreign countries?

A: Genetically engineered crops have uneven acceptance around the world.
Some people don't want any genetic engineering in their food. If they
found drugs in commodity crops, there would be a huge international
brouhaha. People around the world have choices -- they don't have to buy
from the U.S.

Q: Right now, the U.S. Agriculture Dept. oversees the growing of plants
for pharmaceutical production. What are some of the questions that you
think need to be answered when it comes to regulatory oversight?

A: We need to look at the ways both the USDA and the Food & Drug
Administration are involved. The FDA has authority to oversee drug
production. The question is: When does drug production begin here? Is it
when the genetically engineered crop is delivered to the biotech
manufacturing facility? Or should the FDA's authority extend into the
field?

The FDA needs to get new authority from Congress to allow them to
regulate genetically engineered organisms. There needs to be a
pre-commercial review of the risks inherent in this type of production.

Q: Some companies are developing animals -- such as goats and cows --
that might be able to produce human drugs in their milk. Why hasn't that
stirred up the same amount of controversy as drug-producing plants have?

A: The chances of a [captive] goat passing along a drug-producing gene
to a wild goat aren't very high. But even there, there are concerns.

We have to make sure the drugs don't carry viruses or other infectious
agents. We have to make sure we're not impeding the health and
well-being of the animals. And there could be problems with human error
-- someone selling one of these animals into the food supply, for
example.

Q: It sounds like you're calling for big changes at the federal level.

A: The process we have now just isn't going to do it. People are nervous
about genetic engineering. This is not a trivial issue.

Germs gone wild

Genetically modified food and crops get a lot of attention. But GM microbes
might pose an even greater threat.

By Alex Roslin

Publish Date: 21-Jul-2005

The Georgia Straight

http://www.georgiastraight.com/

It is the end of June, and Catherine Anderson is excited about summer camp.
She won't be playing in the pool or catching butterflies. She is going to
Geneskool®. Anderson is the organizer of the two-week camp that kicked off
for the first time at the University of British Columbia this July. Twenty
students entering Grades 10 and 11 got a chance to sequence DNA and do a
family gene pedigree. And, oh, yes, they will create a new life form:
genetically modified Escherichia coli bacteria, better known as E. coli.

"It's really easy," says Anderson, a UBC instructor in dentistry and
medicine and a consultant at Genome British Columbia, a provincial-federal
agency that gets corporate funding to promote biotechnology.

"We're using a kit that has E. coli. You put in a plasmid with an
antibiotic-resistant gene and a green fluorescent protein from a jellyfish.
The next day, the kids get to see their kit grow green. Plus, the E. coli
will have antibiotic resistance."

Anderson quickly adds, "It's not scary antibiotic resistance. These bacteria
are very safe."

Geneskool, sponsored by UBC and Genome B.C., is just one of dozens of
places-mostly high schools and colleges-where Canadian teenagers are being
encouraged to try their hand at genetic engineering. "It's the perfect
marriage between recreation and science," Anderson says on the phone from
the UBC lab hosting the camp.

It all leaves Joe Cummins stunned. He thinks letting teens create
drug-resistant bacteria is one of the craziest things he has heard. Cummins
is one of Canada's most prominent geneticists. "I think it's spectacularly
stupid," he says over the phone from his home in London, Ontario. "Any way
you cut it, these high-school kids will get it [E. coli] on them. That's
inescapable among these young kids."

Cummins, 72, a professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, is a
walking library of genetics knowledge. Retired for nine years, he still
works at a dizzying pace, dashing off new papers and scouring obscure patent
applications and the latest genetics research.

On hearing about Geneskool, Cummins immediately thinks of a landmark Dutch
study from 1991. It surprised scientists by discovering that their lab coats
were routinely contaminated by genetically modified bacteria, which often
also penetrated to clothes underneath. "The kids could carry this into the
environment on their hands and clothes, and it [the antibiotic-resistant
trait] can persist in their bodies for years," he says.

That's troublesome, according to Cummins, because the students are giving
the E. coli resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin, which is commonly used
to treat bacterial infections and as a last-resort drug against bacterial
meningitis and the deadly strain of E. coli that killed seven people and
made 2,000 sick in Walkerton, Ontario.

The E. coli used at Geneskool is a different, harmless strain. But Cummins
says the risk is that it could pass on its ampicillin resistance to any of
the billions of other bacteria that live in a person's body or into the
environment if it hitches a ride out of the lab on a student.

At the company that makes the genetic engineering kit, Bio-Rad Canada,
life-science manager Tab Meyers says 70 to 100 of the kits have been sold
across the country in the past four years, each good for a class of 32
students or more. He won't name any of the schools that bought kits because
he doesn't want to "give them bad press". But he says the drug-resistant E.
coli is perfectly safe "unless kids ingest it. It's not a biohazard per se.
It's a relatively low dose. The only way they could come into contact with
it is by the hands if they are not wearing gloves," he says on the phone
from his Toronto office.

One of the guest speakers at Geneskool is Julian Davies, a prominent UBC pro
fessor of microbiology and immunology. Davies also defends the E. coli
experiment. He says there is only a "very small" chance that the ampicillin
resistance would spread to an organism in a student's body. "I don't think
people understand risk-benefit ratios. The benefits are high because you are
giving these students knowledge. The risks are extraordinarily small,"
Davies says on the phone from his office. "I'm probably full of
ampicillin-resistant bugs. I never drink any [bacteria] cultures, but I've
spilled it on my hand."

That doesn't reassure Cummins. "There's just no way young kids should be
exposed to that resistance marker [gene]," he says. He says high-school
biotech experiments are an all-too-common example of the lax attitudes of
scientists and public officials toward the horde of genetically modified
bacteria and viruses being engineered in labs around the world. "This is
typical of much of Canadian biotechnology," he says. "They tend to be wildly
careless."

So far in the debate about genetic engineering, tiny germs have mostly
escaped attention. The focus has been on things like GM-food labels and the
ethics of designer babies or cloned pets. Yet the single most genetically
transformed organism isn't canola, sheep, or the glow-in-the-dark pet
GloFish. It is the wee little E. coli bacterium, which lives by the billions
in every person's gut. The E. coli is the love machine of the living world.
It multiplies so fast that a single organism's offspring could weigh as much
as the Earth in two days if they didn't run out of food or space.
Drug-making companies harness the awesome sexual power of the E. coli and
other microbes as their main workhorses on which to experiment with new
drugs. New species of E. coli are created every day after being chopped up
and reshuffled with genes from people, pigs, jellyfish, and viruses like
HIV. The E. coli is so prolific at passing on its genes, in fact, that it
can do so even after it is dead.

That's what keeps Cummins up at night. How are labs making sure that
engineered microbes don't escape into the environment and pass on their
traits in an uncontrollable way? The question may seem like a no-brainer,
but Canada and the United States have virtually no special legal or
regulatory requirements for the safety of labs that work with GM bacteria
and viruses. The main confinement and disposal rules are voluntary
guidelines. The hundreds of Canadian and U.S. labs that make GM microbes are
on the honour system. Regulators in both countries don't even know how many
such labs exist or what they are creating. And neither country requires labs
to report any but the most serious GM lab accidents.

In the foothills of the Rockies, in Denver, Colorado, Suzanne Wuerthele
shares Cummins's worries. She is not just another run-of-the-mill biotech
skeptic. Wuerthele has been a risk-assessment expert at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for 20 years and is its regional
toxicologist for six western states.

"There has been a lot of hype about GM plants and salmon, but microorganisms
have much more potential to do things we would not be happy with and to do
it without us even knowing about it," she says.

Wuerthele had a front-row seat for one near-catastrophe: the case of the
rogue Klebsiella planticola. It all started just over the Rockies from
Wuerthele's office, in Oregon's lush Willamette Valley. There, in Oregon
State University's botany department, professor Elaine Ingham stepped into
her lab one day in 1992, not imagining that she would stumble on a potential
biotech Chernobyl.

Her grad student was in a panic. The Mason jars in which they were growing
wheat were filled with brown mush. Ingham had gotten an EPA grant to test a
genetically engineered strain of Klebsiella, a common soil bacterium. A
European company was planning to commercially market the modified bacterium,
K. planticola, which was being touted as a miracle product for
farmers-engineered to decompose plant stubble and debris left over on fields
after harvest time. The process would create valuable byproducts: fertilizer
sludge and alcohol.

But when Ingham, a soil microbiologist, saw her jars, the flaw in this
intrepid plan became clear. All 15 wheat plants growing in soil with the
engineered K. planticola were dead, while the plants growing with natural K.
planticola were just fine. Ingham repeated the experiment four times in
different soils, with the same results: the GM Klebsiella killed the plants.
If the nasty bacteria got out in the wild, she surmised, it would probably
spread uncontrollably, wiping out crops, forests, and ecosystems in its path
and unleashing an environmental disaster.

"That would have been the end of terrestrial plants," she says in a phone
interview from Corvallis, Oregon, where she now runs an organic-consulting
business. "It would have dispersed any time a bird moved it to another
field."

Alarmed, Ingham contacted the EPA. She was told the agency had already
determined the product was safe and was close to approving it for
experimental field trials in the open air. "You've got to stop that," Ingham
replied.

The EPA shelved the monster germ. And then the episode was promptly
forgotten. The reaction to Ingham's finding was also curious. Scientific
journals refused to publish the results; it took seven years to find one
that would. In the meantime, Ingham and her grad student came under attack
from biotech supporters and both ended up quitting the university. Today,
many scientists have never heard of the near miss.

Wuerthele still finds the episode troubling and says it illustrates the
government's sometimes hands-off approach to overseeing genetic engineering.
"We don't really know what would have happened," she says. "This
microorganism interfered with plant growth. It could have caused serious
agronomic problems and it could have spread, but we don't know how far."

Wuerthele found herself at the centre of yet another GM flap in the
mid-1990s. Becker Underwood, an Iowa-based agrifood giant, wanted the EPA's
approval for a genetically modified strain of a soil bacterium called
Rhizobium meliloti. An EPA colleague asked Wuerthele to look at the agency's
risk assessment. The product was to be the first GM microbe okayed for
commercial sale in North America. Rhizobium is a naturally occurring soil
bacterium that lives on the roots of legumes; it had been engineered to
allow farmers to increase alfalfa yields.

The problem for Wuerthele was that the bacteria were also engineered to
contain marker genes that conferred resistance to two antibiotics used
against tuberculosis, tularemia, and the plague. (Scientists often insert
drug-resistant marker genes into GM microbes and crops so they can later
tell if a particular organism is genetically modified or not.) The drug
resistance could pass on to other organisms in the environment, Wuerthele
thought. Would it spawn a superbug, an antibiotic-resistant pathogen
dangerous to humans?

Wuerthele was flabbergasted when she saw the risk assessment. "It was a
joke, three or four pages, and it didn't ask any questions," she says. "I
got kind of wound up, asking a lot of questions about this." Wuerthele
discovered that 2,000 species of legumes growing in North America also have
Rhizobium on their roots. No one had studied how the product might affect
them. Would they become invasive superweeds? To make matters worse, it wasn'
t even clear that the bacteria really helped alfalfa grow better.

In Washington, EPA officials, under enormous pressure to okay biotech
products, dithered for years about what to do. Finally, the product was
referred to an outside advisory panel. Only one of the six scientists on the
panel gave it the thumbs up. When it became clear the EPA would move to
approve the bacteria anyway, one member, Conrad Istock, resigned in protest.
"It's just good practice not to leave antibiotic resistance in organisms
that you are going to release," Istock, now a visiting fellow at Cornell
University, says in a phone interview from his home in Ithaca, New York.
"According to risk-benefit analysis, if it has no benefit why take the
risk?"

The EPA approved the Rhizobium for sale in 1997. The agency never followed
up to study the impact of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Wuerthele says,
or even to see if it actually helped farmers grow more alfalfa.

In Canada, Joe Cummins was one of the few scientists in the world to take an
interest in the Klebsiella and Rhizobium cases. He had been warning about
biotechnology for years, but this was worse than anything he had imagined.
"Potentially, it was a doomsday scenario," he says of the K. planticola
close call. "The regulators in the U.S. and Canada are very harebrained and
not attuned to the consequences of their actions."

The lack of government oversight, Cummins says, has allowed GM
drug-resistant microbes to escape from labs for many years. And that, he
believes, may be a big reason for the rise of drug-resistant diseases around
the world in the past 30 years.

It is a controversial claim that runs counter to orthodox scientific
opinion, which holds that the main culprit is the overuse of antibiotics in
hospitals and cattle feed. But Cummins says antibiotics have been widespread
since the Second World War, while supergerms started appearing in huge
numbers only in the 1970s-coinciding with the rise of genetic engineering.
Cummins detailed his alternative theory in a 1998 study he coauthored in the
journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease. The stakes, the study said,
are very grave: the World Health Organization had predicted that
drug-resistant bugs would cause a global disease pandemic.

"Biotechnology has effectively opened up highways for horizontal gene
transfer and recombination, where previously, there was only restricted
access through narrow, tortuous footpaths," the study said. "These gene
transfer highways connect species in every Domain and Kingdom with the
microbial populations via the universal mixing vessel, E. coli."

Cummins's study said government regulations on GM bugs were "grossly
inadequate". As an example, it mentioned Novo Nordisk, a Danish biotech
giant that has admitted to routinely discharging genetically modified
microbes into the water and air along with other effluent. (On its Web site,
the company says it discharged 10,000 GM microbes per millilitre of waste
water and 100,000 GM microbes per cubic metre of air emissions. It says the
discharges were safe and okayed by Danish authorities, but it also reports
several accidents that released GM microbes into the sewer system.) The
study concluded by calling for an independent public inquiry into how
biotechnology has contributed to supergerms.

Cummins's concerns are dismissed by many scientists. Although some
acknowledge he may be right about GM bugs contributing to antibiotic
resistance, they suggest it is a hypothetical question that isn't a priority
for action. "I think it is a theoretical possibility and we need to be
vigilant about it, but that's as far as it goes," Robert Burnham, medical
director at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, says in a phone
interview from his Vancouver office.

At UBC, professor Julian Davies has no doubt that the main culprit in the
rise of virulent new diseases is overuse of antibiotics. "I'm more worried
about natural microbes than genetically modified ones," he says. But he
agrees that genetic engineering may have been a factor: "You can never say
it hasn't been."

But other scientists are concerned. Charles Greer, a scientist at the
National Research Council of Canada, got an Environment Canada grant to
study whether or not GM microorganisms could pass their traits to natural
germs. He thinks releasing microbes with antibiotic resistance into the
environment is a bad idea. "Things like antibiotic-resistance genes, which
can be transferred into other organisms, are clearly the types of genes you
do not want to introduce into the wild," he says over the phone from his
office in Montreal.

As for GM microbes escaping from labs, Davies says he isn't too worried. UBC
's microbiology department, where he works, is allowed to police itself. He
has never seen a provincial or federal inspection of the department's labs,
he says, and the university doesn't inspect either. If anything, Davies
believes the system is too cautious. "Most people in the department are
pretty vigilant," he adds.

Canada's top cop for GM labs is Paul Payette. He is director of the Public
Health Agency of Canada's office of laboratory security, where he oversees
3,000 labs-mostly pharmaceutical and other commercial facilities-that import
all manner of microbes. Four employees are available to do on-site
inspections of all the labs. Payette has no breakdown of how many of the
labs are working with biotech organisms versus natural ones.

Maureen Best, a senior biosafety consultant at Payette's office, confesses
that spot checks "do not happen very often" and the safety office doesn't
keep tabs on lab accidents. "Unfortunately, there is no national or
international reporting mechanism," she says.

The federal auditor general's office has expressed concerns about the lax
standards. In a 1998 report, it criticized Canadian biosafety rules as being
weaker than those in the U.S. and called on the lab-security office to do a
review of every lab in the country to verify if the safety guidelines were
being respected. (Payette said he wasn't sure if the review was done; later,
he wrote in an e-mail that the review had not been conducted.)

Meanwhile, university lab technicians across the country are full of horror
stories about the facilities where they work: injuries, fires, explosions,
old and faulty equipment, widely varying safety standards. "There are human
errors all the time," says Hélène Laliberté, a union official at the
University of Montreal who represents 200 lab technicians, on the phone from
her office. "Safety regulations are not a big priority."

Maryann DeFrancis, a union health-and-safety rep for technicians at the
University of Toronto, says: "It's our members' lives at stake. There should
be a more rigorous approach." And Kevin Whittaker, a health-and-safety union
rep at McGill University, says from his office: "Guidelines are fine. The
problem is they are not always adhered to. There is nothing to enforce them.
It's very lax."

At UBC, lab technicians are not organized into a union. The university
responded to a freedom-of-information request for records on lab-safety
policy, inspections, and accidents by demanding a $2,012 processing fee.

Simon Fraser University responded to a freedom-of-information request with a
letter saying it knows of no accidents at its GM labs in the past two years.
It also sent its latest annual biosafety report, which says containment
equipment in the labs is certified annually. The labs dispose of
microorganisms by heating them at high temperature in a machine called an
autoclave, then tossing them in the garbage or having them sent to a
landfill site. The university has no record of inspections of the
autoclaves, and a table for results of such inspections is left blank in the
report.

At the EPA in Denver, Suzanne Wuerthele says lab safety is a big worry for
her. "There are no [government] inspections to my knowledge of the
facilities that do this, and we don't even know who they are," she says from
her office.

Wuerthele is especially concerned about how GM microbes are disposed of by
labs. It is typical, she says, for labs to flush them down the drain or toss
them in the trash after they are autoclaved or sterilized. The goal is,
typically, to kill 99.9999 percent of the microbes, but Wuerthele says it is
normal to have survivors because of the huge numbers of germs created. "If
you make 50 tonnes of something, you may still wind up with a fairly large
number of organisms still alive," she says.

Despite the revolution in biotechnology of the 1990s, the last public debate
about the safety of GM research took place more than 30 years ago. The
setting was the rustic Asilomar Conference Center at the tip of California's
scenic Monterey Peninsula, where 140 biologists and regulators gathered in
February 1975 amid grazing deer and barking seals to debate the safety of
the fledgling technology of genetic engineering.

Known ever since as "Asilomar", the conference was provoked by worries that
Frankenstein-type genetic monsters would wreak havoc if they got into
nature. The participants formulated strict guidelines that were adopted in
1976 by the National Institutes of Health, requiring tight physical
confinement of many biotech experiments and forbidding genetic research with
cancer viruses.

But Asilomar was barely over before the scientific community, eyeing the
lucrative new technology, started lobbying the NIH to loosen its guidelines,
saying they went too far. In the early 1980s, the NIH agreed to gut its
rules, allowing genetic engineering to be done under loose voluntary safety
guidelines and dropping the ban on research on cancer viruses. Canada
adopted similar voluntary guidelines.

Although biotechnology was still in its infancy back then, the rules remain
essentially unchanged today, even though a series of lab accidents has
dramatically highlighted the dangers. Perhaps the worst case was in 1977,
when lab contamination in Russia is believed to have led to the reemergence
of the Spanish influenza virus, which had killed 20 to 50 million people in
1918 and 1919. Two years later, an accidental release of anthrax at a Soviet
military lab in the Ural Mountains killed 64 people. In 2003, SARS escaped
top-security labs in Singapore, Taiwan, and China, prompting a World Health
Organization probe that found few countries have adequate biosafety
practices.

And since 9/11, concerns about biosafety have heightened, thanks,
ironically, to $7.5 billion in new U.S. and Canadian funding for research
into defences against biological terrorism. Biowar experts say even the
high-security labs doing much of this research, a lot of it involving
genetic engineering, have sloppy practices, and the chances of an accident
have shot up with all the new research.

"The controls are pretty lax," says Susan Wright, a leading bioterror expert
at Princeton University who is writing a history of biowar. "The regulations
are not very enforced. I just don't see them regulating with any
regularity."

Last October, the Sunshine Project, an Austin, Texas-based biowar watchdog
group, released a troubling survey of 400 GM labs at universities, private
companies, and government institutions that got U.S. grants for research on
bioterror. It found only four percent fully complied with safety guidelines.
"Disregard for federal recommendations is rampant," the group reported.

In a follow-up study last February, the Sunshine Project found that only
three percent of scientists studying biowar germs had ever gotten a grant to
work with such bugs before. "Too many scientists with too little training
are handling agents that are too dangerous for their experience," the study
noted.

In Winnipeg, Canada's top-security virology lab shows the kind of problems
even the safest facilities can have. Three weeks after it opened in 1999,
the $172-million federal complex, one of only 15 Biosafety Level 4 labs in
the world equipped to handle the deadliest microbes known, accidentally
spilled 2,000 litres of unsterilized waste water into the Winnipeg sewer
system. In a bizarre reminder of Soviet efforts to cover up the Chernobyl
disaster, the lab didn't disclose the accident publicly for two weeks,
prompting angry Winnipeggers to hold a meeting to demand independent
oversight of the sprawling complex, which is located in a mixed
residential-industrial neighbourhood in the city centre.

The outside oversight never happened, but an audit declared the lab was
safe. "We made the appropriate changes to make sure that could never happen
again," spokeswoman Kelly Keith says on the phone from the lab. "We are
really one of the top labs in the world-if not the top lab-in terms of
containment."

But just months later, in January 2000, another spill released 100 litres of
lab waste inside the facility. And in 2003, the lab sparked international
concern after word emerged of a possible SARS contamination accident there.
(Keith says that to this day the lab doesn't know if it experienced a
containment failure at the time or not.) The lab was again in the news last
March when a courier truck crashed in central Winnipeg on the way to the
facility while transporting anthrax, influenza, and tuberculosis. Several
blocks were cordoned off before authorities announced nothing had spilled.

It all makes Cummins wonder. If a Level 4 lab can have so many screw-ups,
what kind of surprises lurk in less secure places? "We have grown very
careless," he notes. "It is as if workers and the public are really
insignificant."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/20/EDG42DQD0T1.DTL

Turning Point for California's Farm Industry
Industry aims to strip local control of food supply

Britt Bailey, Becky Tarbotton

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Environmental and healthy-farming advocates are learning what
tobacco-free campaigners learned in the 1990s: When local governments
step up to protect their community's citizens, industry responds by
taking away the authority of local governments.

In spring 2004, three California counties and two cities passed
ordinances that restricted growing genetically modified organisms. In
response, state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), earlier this
month gutted and then amended Senate Bill 1056 with some of the broadest
and most sweeping pre-emptive language ever written in the Legislature.
Its purpose? To override existing local restrictions, prohibit any
future initiatives that might restrict genetically engineered crops and
eliminate local control of seeds and plants. Essentially, to hijack
control of our food supply.

Just as the tobacco industry acted to restrict local tobacco controls in
20 states, agribusiness corporations and their affiliated associations
are behind the moves to thwart local efforts to restrict the growing of
genetically modified foods. In the 2005 session, 16 state legislatures,
including California, introduced bills prohibiting local control of
seeds and plants. The nearly identical language used in each of the
bills illustrates a systematic and ordered approach to stifling
community decision-making. Agribusiness councils, whose leadership
includes members such as bioengineering firms Monsanto and Syngenta, are
promoting the legislation while the bills' initial language has been
developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative
public-policy organization.

What will such pre-emptive laws do to local control? According to Tom
Campbell, director of the California Department of Finance, "state
pre-emption laws can do two things. They can overturn the will of the
people in the event an initiative has passed, and they can prevent the
introduction of laws on the same subject from being introduced in the
future." Pre-empting local authority stifles citizen participation in
the democratic process and should give pause for any legislator or
citizen. What are voters in Mendocino and Marin counties to think when
their votes to restrict genetically modified crops and protect local
food and farming are worthy of so little respect?

There is no denying that agricultural biotechnology is a complex and
controversial issue. You would think this would be all the more reason
public debate and discussion should be encouraged, not silenced. Yet if
legislators such as Florez have their way, citizens will lose an
opportunity to be part of the discussion to resolve one of the most
challenging issues of our time. Local initiatives and citizen actions
restricting genetically modified crops are a signal to the Legislature
that Californians are concerned about this new technology and, in the
absence of government leadership, are taking matters into their own
hands to protect their environment, economy and health.

Proponents of SB1056 assert that California needs uniformity and
homogeneity with regard to seed laws and that the state could not
possibly handle a patchwork of laws passed by local government. Yet, if
local authority over seeds is taken away by the state, then so is every
farmer's choice not to use genetically engineered seeds and plants. Once
genetically engineered plants are released into the environment,
historically preserved and heirloom seed strains are forever affected,
according to a 2004 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Diverse
agricultural economies may suffer from losses due to this contamination.
For example, if organic crops become contaminated with genetically
engineered pollen, those farmers may lose their organic certification.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison in which he
stated, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society
but the people, and if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy
is not to take the power from them." That critical power is now being
challenged, as state Sen. Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata (Humboldt County),
noted: "Regardless of how you feel about the (genetically modified
organism) issue, taking away local voters' rights is a serious threat to
democracy."

Please voice your opposition to SB1056, which impedes our ability as
community members to protect and create a sustainable food supply.
Contact your legislator (to find out who that is, go to leginfo.ca.gov/
yourleg. html), Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (senator.perata@
sen.ca.gov) and Assembly Speaker Fabian N™Òez
(assemblymember.nunez@assembly.ca.gov). This legislation does not
represent the freedoms our country was founded upon.

Britt Bailey is director of Environmental Commons in Gualala (Mendocino
County) and environmental policy instructor at the College of Marin in
Kentfield. For updated information on the seed and plant pre-emption
bills, visit www.environmentalcommons.org/ gmo-tracker.html. Becky
Tarbotton is campaign coordinator for Californians for GE-Free
Agriculture (www.calgefree.org), a statewide coalition promoting
ecologically and economically viable agriculture.

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

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.gmwatch.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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5491

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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5494

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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5487

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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5490

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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5479

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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5481

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.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5492

Here's a local article on the California preemption battle. California's
constitution explicitly gives local jurisdictions the right to legislate
where the state doesn't, so it's not clear whether, in the absence of state
regulation of genetically engineered crops, a law stripping authority from
counties and municipalities could pass constitutional muster.

Biotech crop bans face 'hijack' threat
Keri Brenner
Marin Independent Journal, July 6 2005

http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_2842594

Marin's biotech crop ban, approved by voters last November, could be
threatened by "hijacking" attempts in the state Legislature that would
pre-empt county ordinances, local activists said.

"They're trying to sneak it in at the end of the legislative session,"
said Mark Squire, leader of GMO Free Marin, which spearheaded the
successful Measure B initiative last year. "The end of the Legislature
(session) is traditionally the way to sneak things in so there's not time
for opposition to build or for the public to make a lot of comment."

Squire, owner of Good Earth Natural Foods in Fairfax, made his comments in
the wake of last week's two attempts by legislators to amend bills in the
state Assembly and Senate.

The process of cutting and pasting bills to insert new language is referred
to as "hijacking." The amended bills, which are slated to be heard again
this week, would remove local government authority over any seed
regulations.

"We feel it's typical of the way the biotech industry has attempted to
market their technology by avoiding public debate," Squire said.

Genetically engineered crops - also called GMOs for genetically modified
organisms, or biotech crops - refer to crops in which the DNA in seeds has
been altered to add a specific quality, such as resistance to pesticides or
disease. Proponents say genetically modified crops - such as some types of
corn, wheat, soy and rice - increase farm production and streamline farming
costs.

Opponents, however, say the biotech industry's interest in the altered
crops is financial. If the companies can control the seed patents, they can
force farmers to pay for new seeds every year, critics say.

Marin is one of three counties, along with Mendocino and Trinity, with a
ban on cultivation of genetically altered crops.

Fairfax Councilman Frank Egger said he will introduce an item at tonight's
Town Council meeting to oppose any "GMO pre-emption legislation." He is
organizing Marin activists to appear in Sacramento this week to request the
Legislature vote "no" on the two bills.

"The sneaky move is similar to the pesticide industry's pre-empting the
right of Mendocino County to prohibit aerial pesticide spraying after the
California Supreme Court upheld their voters' right to that ban,"

Egger said. "That legislative pre-emption then covered all 478 cities and
58 counties in California."

Squire's and Egger's comments come as a new statewide farm group, the
California Healthy Foods Coalition, announced it was forming to provide
more public education and grassroots programs on the benefits of
biotechnology.

"Family farmers understand some people have questions about biotechnology,"
said California Farm Bureau President Bill Pauli. "Our coalition will
provide people with the facts and will support agricultural innovations
that will improve the quality of life for California consumers."

The group has engaged a public relations firm, Sacramento-based River City
Communications, to launch a series of media announcements explaining the
coalition's intent and purpose.

"California's family farmers serve an important role in providing safe and
healthy food to consumers around the world," said River City President
Marko Mlikotin.

At issue in the current campaign is a genetically engineered crop ban
initiative approved for the November ballot in Sonoma County. Sonoma's
ballot measure was withdrawn last year after a technical flaw, but it has
been revamped and reintroduced.

Farm bureaus across the state - including the Marin County Farm Bureau -
opposed the series of biotech crop bans on the California ballot last
November. Marin farm officials said even though Marin does not have any
biotech crops, they wanted to have the flexibility to use any new
technologies they felt could be helpful in their operations.

A ban was approved in Marin by 61 percent of voters, but similar measures
were defeated in Butte and San Luis Obispo counties.

"Measure B won by 61 percent after an open public discourse around the GMO
issue," Squire said. "When people have a chance to hear the story, they do
the right thing."

Renata Brillinger of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture of Occidental
said the legislative attempts in Sacramento were "part of a nationally
coordinated highjacking of local democratic rights by the biotechnology
industry."

Similar laws have been attempted or passed into law in 15 other states, she
said.

"The measure is driven by narrow private interests seeking to protect their
economic stake by convincing members of the Legislature to strip away the
democratic rights of their own constituents," Brillinger said.

The state bills in question are Assembly Bill 1508 and Senate Bill 1056.
Assemblymen Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, and Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, and Sen.
Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, wrote the amendments.

"We feel that Marin does have the right to protect our health, farms and
environment from GMOs that the state and federal governments regulate so
poorly," Squire said. "It is obvious that the federal government, whose job
it is to protect us from such risky technologies, is asleep at the wheel."

I'm not at all sure how the estimate below was arrived at, but if it's
accurate that the EU would lose $79 billion by agreeing to a slightly more
equitable system of sharing benefits from life patents, then the total raid
on the genetic commons is indeed enormous. Add the U.S., Japan and other
developed countries into the equation, then divide by the fractional
difference between the proposed ABS system and full real benefits and the
total valuation of this intellectual property is in the $trillion range.
This is a subsidy to multinationals. The PRI study argues that a partial
reversal of that subsidy would be "equivalent to a long-run tax on
biotechnological and pharmaceutical research." Talk about feeling
"entitled."

- Jim Diamong
Sierra Club GE committee

TITLE: European Union to Lose US$79 Billion if New U.N. Regulatory System
Created
AUTHOR: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
PUBLICATION: press release via PR Newswire
DATE: 25 May 2005
URL:
http://www.mysan.de/article113706.html
NOTE: This follows right on the heels of a report from the Australian APEC
Study Centre, flagged earlier on BIO-IPR, which also tried to argue that
private contracts and unfettered property rights defined by national law
are better than putting conditions on the grant of patents over
biodiversity and traditional knowledge under international law.
____________

PRI News Release | 25 May 2005

EUROPEAN UNION TO LOSE US$79 BILLION IF NEW U.N. REGULATORY SYSTEM CREATED

A newly released study by the California-based Pacific Research Institute
for Public Policy (PRI) reveals startling economic impacts for the European
Union if a proposed international regime to govern access- and
benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources takes effect. The creation of a
patent-based ABS regime will be discussed by world diplomats and policy
experts in Geneva on June 6-10 at a meeting of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO).

BRUSSELS, Belgium, May 25, PRNewswire -- A newly released study by the
California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) reveals
startling economic impacts for the European Union if a proposed
international regime to govern access- and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic
resources takes effect. The creation of a patent-based ABS regime will be
discussed by world diplomats and policy experts in Geneva on June 6-10 at a
meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

"Analytically, the new ABS regime would be equivalent to a long-run tax on
biotechnological and pharmaceutical research," said study co-author
Benjamin Zycher, a Senior Fellow at PRI. "Naturally, such a measure would
have significant economic consequences." In the EU alone, Zycher's findings
predict a loss of US$79 billion.

The ABS regime has been proposed by representatives of nations in the
17-member Like Minded Mega-diverse Countries (LMMC) who argue that the
international patent system needs to be further regulated to prevent
biopiracy and to reach the goals of the U.N. Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), adopted by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The

17 countries, led by Brazil, would also like to see further redistribution
of the profits created when genetic resources are turned into modern
medicine by pharmaceutical and biotech companies located primarily in the
Western world.

"The mega-diverse countries claim that patent regulations are necessary to
protect the world's biodiversity," said Zycher. "The fact is that the new
ABS regime would undermine the current contract-based system that will
protect research and development much more successfully."

Under current international law, governed by the WIPO and the World Trade
Organization (WTO), biotech companies are free to make contracts with
individual countries, obtaining the right to use genetic resources from
such biodiverse areas as the Brazilian rain forest, and to use these
resources in their product development. The LMMC proposal would limit the
freedom to make contracts by making it more difficult to protect patents
and by imposing unpredictable obligations on biotech companies to share
their future profits.

The PRI study predicts that the proposed ABS regime will have significant
economic impacts on countries in the developed world. Using a careful
methodology that transforms biotechnological and pharmaceutical research
and development into capital stocks, the detailed study finds that the
cumulative loss to the EU15 countries would be US$79 billion between now
and year 2025. By comparison the United States stands to lose much less --
US$21.6 billion.

"The bottom line is that the best way to protect the world's biodiversity
is to give research-based biotech companies negotiated property rights to
invest in bio-diverse areas," said the study's other co-author Timothy A.
Wolfe. "Without property rights and contracts enforced under law, the
Brazilian rain forest will be left in the hands of lumberjacks and farmers
who need more open land for their cattle."

ABOUT PRI

For 26 years, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) has
championed freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility by advancing
free-market policy solutions. PRI is a non-profit, non-partisan educational
organization based in San Francisco, California.

Web site: http://www.pacificresearch.org

'Rush to exploit biotechnology' concerns Suzuki
Angela Hall
Saskatchewan News Network
April 26, 2005

REGINA -- High-profile scientist and broadcaster David Suzuki gave a boost
Monday to Saskatchewan organic farmers taking two multinational companies
to court over genetically modified organisms.

Suzuki, speaking before delivering a benefit lecture in Regina on Monday
evening, also raised his concerns over what he called the "rush to exploit
biotechnology" with no idea of the long-term consequences.

"I'm a geneticist so I'm very excited by what's going on in terms of
genetic engineering. I think we're seeing abilities now that I never
dreamed I would live to see in my lifetime," Suzuki told reporters at the
Regina International Airport.

"What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out
for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they're acting like
cheerleaders for this technology, which . . . is in its infancy and we have
no idea what the technology is going to do."

Suzuki said he wanted to help raise money for the Saskatchewan farmers' bid
to launch a class action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science.

"What organic farmers have said is genetically engineered organisms (GMOs)
represent a kind of technology we do not want to incorporate into our food
growing and I support that," Suzuki said.

The farmers, who have formed the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund
(OAPF), were in a Saskatoon courtroom last November to try and have their
case certified as a class action. The judge has yet to release a decision.

They ultimately want the court to rule on whether the companies are liable
for farmers' losses due to GMO contamination of certified organic canola
crops and farms.

The OAPF says the case could set a precedent establishing the liability of
companies for the spread of GMOs.

Suzuki said he thinks the technology is too young to tout "so-called
benefits" for agriculture, and it is also an experiment in food safety.

"Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is
either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying. The reality is we don't
know. The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the
guinea pigs."

Suzuki said that what is being done is "not just a logical extension of
classical breeding" and the kind of agriculture that's been practised for
years.

"There may be benefits down the line, but this is a revolutionary
technology," he said.

Monsanto has called the farmers' lawsuit a platform for advancing the
anti-GMO position of various groups in a public arena.

© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2005

Flesh-eating deaths in Quebec, Manitoba

Last Updated Tue, 26 Apr 2005 CBC News

MONTREAL - Someone has died of flesh-eating disease in both Quebec and
Manitoba this week, health officials said. Quebec has had 61 known cases
of the disease so far this year.

Flesh-eating disease facts

Flesh-eating disease is an infection that works its way
rapidly through the layers of tissue (the fascia) that
surround muscles.

It is estimated that there are between 90 and 200 cases per year
in Canada, and about 20 to 30 per cent of these are fatal.

The symptoms of flesh-eating disease include a high fever, and a
red, severely painful swelling that feels hot and spreads rapidly.

Sometimes the swelling starts at the site of a minor injury,
such as a small cut or bruise, but in other cases there is no
obvious source of infection.

Health Canada emphasizes the disease is very rare.

Source: Health Canada

Flesh-eating disease is the common name for necrotizing fasciitis, a
disease caused by bacteria called group A streptococcus. They are found on
the skin, and are usually harmless.

* INDEPTH - Flesh-eating disease
In rare cases, the bacteria can cause an infection that can harm
flesh or can even kill a person in 12 to 24 hours.

A federal study and provincial data show that necrotizing fasciitis
from group A streptococcus occurs in about three to seven persons per one
million population per year.

While rare, necrotizing fasciitis is fatal in approximately 20 to 30
per cent of cases, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada's
website.

On the weekend, a man in St-Georges-de-Beauce, Que., died of the
disease, after being treated for a group A streptococcus infection.

His condition rapidly deteriorated early in the weekend and he died in
the intensive care ward Saturday.

Dr. Christian Fortin of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
notes that "these are all isolated cases that we have. They appear, here
and there, all over the country.

"And often, because it is a common bacterium, we cannot determine why
certain people get major symptoms from the bacterium, and others don't."

No one knows why cases are on the rise, but officials in Quebec say all
hygienic measures are being taken to ensure the bacterium did not spread
to other patients or hospital staff.

Risk of spreading the disease is considered low.

Meanwhile, doctors in Brandon, Man., have treated two patients for
flesh-eating disease in the past week.

One of them died, but it's not clear if the disease contributed to the
death. The other person is in stable condition.

Both male patients, one in his 40s and one in his 70s, are from the
Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, about 35 kilometres west of Brandon, a health
official said.

Municipal health officials declined to identify the patients or where
they live.

Headlines: Health & Science

* Web index tracks cancer care throughout Ontario
* Explorers match Peary's record time to North Pole
* School nurses to wield pill prescription pads
* Meteor sighting thrills Prairie astronomers
* 'Say no to pop,' Nunavut residents told
* City of Ottawa stymies federal emissions initiative
* Biofeedback therapy tested for kids with ADHD
* Privacy a barrier for residents in psychiatric hospitals
* City turns to goldfish to test water quality
* Canada adds help to contain Marburg virus outbreak

NecrotizingFasciitis/Myositis, PHAC

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content
of external sites - links will open in new window)

This immaculate note from the consistently correct Jim Diamond M.D
is exactly along the lines - esp the final sentence - propounded for the
past half-decade by my colleagues studying the Showa Denko EMS disaster.

R

Monsanto and other ag industry players and their apologists say
that GE foods have been extensively tested, found by the FDA to pose no
dangers to human health, and that years of use in the U.S.A. are an
additional proof of safety.

Against this claim, it's informative to note how many deaths piled up
before the painkiller Vioxx was taken off the market by Merck. To quote,

"Last year, the FDA belatedly faced up to research showing that the
painkiller Vioxx, which it approved in 1999, markedly increases the risk of
heart attacks and strokes. It has been estimated that more than 25,000
people died before Merck pulled the drug from the market in September."

An editorial in Nature comments on how inadequate post-marketing
surveillance is. Under the title, "Drug safety on trial" this leading
science journal starts off by saying:

"The current US system for checking the safety of drugs already on
the market is toothless. Why isn't the government doing more to strengthen
it?

A revealing notice appeared last month in the Federal Register,
the US government compendium of agency rules and notices. The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) was reporting on compliance by pharmaceutical
companies with its requests for studies of the clinical safety and efficacy
of drugs already on the market. Of nearly 1,200 such studies committed to
by drug firms but not completed, some 70% have yet to begin."

It goes on to say that, ". . . the FDA depends on companies for
post-market safety studies but has no legal authority to force firms to do
them."

The full article (subscription required) is online at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v434/n7033/full/
434545a_fs.html or in print in the 31March05 issue. My point in quoting it
here is to ask: if relatively straightforward bad effects like heart
attacks and deaths in the tens of thousands occurring in people who are
currently taking the drugs in question can escape detection for many years,
then how likely is it that the system would find problems associated with
unlabeled genetically engineered products, especially if they are less
dramatic than heart attacks or take longer to become manifest?

Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee

From: "Corner Post"

Corner Post #377

Farm & Countryside Commentary by Elbert van Donkersgoed

The controversy around transgenic modified foods just won't go away.

Riceland Foods, a farmer-owned cooperative and the world's largest rice
miller, has asked U.S. regulators to deny a request from a competitor to
grow about 200 acres of transgenic modified rice in Missouri. Riceland
Foods, as the largest marketer of rice, fears for its world markets. It
believes that transgenic rice has no level of acceptance among consumers.

Almost a year ago the agricultural multinational Monsanto announced that it
had given up on further development or open field trials for its transgenic
"RoundupReady" wheat. That decision was a marketplace decision. Many
overseas wheat buyers do not want transgenic wheat. Many overseas
countries now have mandatory labeling rules for transgenics. Should
consumers choose to buy primarily non-transgenic foods, food wheat will at
great risk of being reduced to livestock feed. As livestock feed it would
compete with corn and drive feed prices -- already at a 25-year low - still
lower.

Also last year Mendocino County in California became the first jurisdiction
in North America to prohibit the "propagation, cultivation, raising and
growing of genetically modified organisms" in a ballot designed to protect
the health, welfare, economy, and private property rights of residents.
The concept of GMO-Free Zones is catching on around the continent -- not
without controversy. There are currently nine US states with new
legislation in various stages of development designed to pre-empt the
rights of local cities and counties. In Iowa a new law blocks "a local
governmental entity from adopting or enforcing legislation which relates to
the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage,
transportation, formulation, packaging, labeling, certification, or
registration of agricultural seed. "

In the UK, farm scale trials of transgenic modified crops have been
completed. Of the four trial crops, three of the conventional crop
varieties tested better for the environment than their transgenic
equivalents.

Closer to home, the Prince Edward Island legislature has asked its Standing
Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment to hold public
hearings on making Canada's smallest province a GMO-Free Zone. PEI is
looking for ways to differentiate its agricultural, fisheries and
aquacultural food products in the marketplace. The committee has already
held eight hearings -- presenters from all over North America are still
waiting in line to have their say. Meanwhile, a Greenpeace-sponsored poll
shows that 62% of PEI residents are in favour of PEI being declared a
GMO-Free Zone. Elsewhere in Canada, 58% of respondents said they want
their province to go GMO-Free.

Finally, I note that the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate
Dictionary has added a new word that means genetically engineered food --
"Frankenfood."
__

For the P.E.I. government's consultation on "biotechnology" visit:
www.assembly.pe.ca/consult/biotech.php

Elbert van Donkersgoed P. Ag. (Hon.) is the Strategic Policy Advisor of
the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Canada. Corner Post is heard
weekly on CFCO Radio, Chatham and CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario. Corner Post
has a complimentary email subscriber list of more than 3,500 and appears
regularly on Agriculture Online/Views at www.agriculture.com/ag/views/ and
as Letter from Ontario  on The New Farm website at www.newfarm.org. CFFO
is supported by 4,300 family farmers across Ontario. Corner Post is
archived on the CFFO website:

www.christianfarmers.org/sub_news_commentaries/sub2_news_com_corner_post/news_com_corner_post.htm.

MannGram®: Cartegena Protocol propaganda
R Mann
Ap 2005

I have just been shocked to find the UN Environment Programme peddling
crude propaganda for GM.

>BIOSAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
>An introduction to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol
>by the UN Environment Programme
>http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/presskits/bs/cpbs-unep-cbd-en.pdf

This took me 5 min to receive. It turns out to have far more dud
characters than I thought a PDF could have, but its gist is still horribly
apparent. I reprint the first 2 pp and then go thru them point by point.

Genetic manipulation is not new. For millennia, farmers have relied on
selective breeding and cross-fertilization to modify plants and animals and
encourage desirable traits that improve food production and satisfy other
human needs. Artisans have exploited traditional fermentation techniques
to transform grains into bread and beer and milk into cheese.
Such intentional modification of the natural world has contributed
enormously to human well-being.

Over the past 30 years, however, our ability to alter life-forms has been
revolutionized by modern biotechnology.

Scientists have learned how to extract and transfer strands of DNA and
entire genes - which contain the biochemical instructions governing how an
organism will develop - from one species to another. Using
sophisticated techniques, they can precisely manipulate the intricate
genetic structure of individual
living cells.

For example, they can insert genes from a coldwater fish into a tomato to
create a frost-resistant
plant, or use bacterial genes to make herbicide-tolerant corn. The results
are known as living modified organisms (LMOs) or, more popularly,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Since the first genetically modified tomato became available in shops in
the United States in 1994, dozens of food crops and animals have been
modified for greater commercial value, higher yield, improved nutrition or
resistance to pests and disease.

While modern biotechnology may have great potential, it must be developed
and used with adequate safety measures, particularly for the environment.

Proponents argue that biotechnology will boost food security for the
world's growing population by raising sustainable food production. It will
benefit the environment by reducing the need for more farmland,
irrigation and pesticides. It will also provide better medical treatments
and vaccines, new industrial products and improved fibres and fuels.

For many people, however, this rapidly advancing science raises a tangle of
ethical, environmental, social and health issues. Because modern
biotechnology is still so new, they say, much is unknown about how its
products may behave and evolve, and how they may interact with other species.
Could an ability to tolerate herbicides, for example, transfer from GM
crops to related wild species? Might plants that have been genetically
modified to repel pests also harm beneficial insects? Could the increased
competitiveness of a GMO cause it to damage biologically-rich ecosystems?
Such concerns have kept GMOs in the headlines. One new scientific study
concludes that modified organisms pose little risk - and then another
raises difficult new questions.

Modified soya is found in export shipments that had been declared GMO free,
or pollen from modified corn is detected in a nearby non-modified field.
Editors fret about potential trade conflicts, and commentators
recite emotional arguments about the pros and cons of modern biotechnology.
Fortunately, this debate has led to a broad consensus that, while modern
biotechnology may have great potential, it must be developed and used with
adequate safety measures, particularly for the enviro-ment.
Countries with strong biotechnology industries do have national legislation
and risk-assessment systems in place. However, many developing countries
interested in modern biotechnology and its products are still in the
process of drafting regulations. And because bio-technology is a global
industry, and
GMOs are traded across borders, international rules are needed as well.
In 1995, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity responded to
this challenge by launching
negotiations on a legally binding agreement that would address potential
risks posed by GMOs.

These discussions culminated in January 2000 with the adoption of the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Named after the Colombian city where the final round of talks was launched,
the Protocol for the first
time sets out a comprehensive regulatory system for ensuring the safe
transfer, handling and use of GMOs subject to transboundary movement.
In this way, the Protocol seeks to meet the needs of consumers, industry
and the environment for many
decades to come. This booklet explains how this system works.

-----

>Genetic manipulation is not new. For millennia, farmers have relied on
>selective breeding and cross-fertilization to modify plants and animals
>and encourage desirable traits that improve food production and satisfy
>other human needs.

This is a GM-industry slogan, calculated to deceive. GM is nothing
like selective breeding. Current GMOs are made by illegitimate
recombination, and any surviving mutant is properly called a GM-bastard.

I disbelieve that the UNO operatives who put out this propaganda
are not well aware of the huge differences.

>Artisans have exploited traditional fermentation techniques to transform
>grains into bread and beer and milk into cheese.

Use of GMOs in food technology is novel - and one of the first
industrial attempts, only 2 decade ago, killed one or two hundred people
and maimed thousands. Do the UN propagandists not know this? Mentioning
ancient trusted foods & drinks like this is deceitful.

>Such intentional modification of the natural world has contributed
>enormously to human well-being.

Credit is thus illegitimately claimed for GM from the
accomplishments of breeders, brewers etc over the centuries who have indeed
benefitted mankind. This type of deceit is morally as low as lying.

>Over the past 30 years, however, our ability to alter life-forms has been
>revolutionized by modern biotechnology.

This term is itself an item of propaganda. The term is genetic
manipulation or gene-splicing.

>Scientists have learned how to extract and transfer strands of DNA and
>entire genes - which contain the biochemical instructions governing how an
>organism will develop - from one species to another.

Actually what they insert is scarcely if ever natural genes. Your
typical genes-cassette features synthetic DNA, often deliberately different
from any natural gene, spliced with synthetic modified parts from the DNA
of viruses, bacteria, etc - all for slamming into illegitimate
recombination to procreate a GM-bastard.

>Using
>sophisticated techniques, they can precisely manipulate the intricate
>genetic structure of individual
>living cells.

The techniques so far have been anything but precise, crassly
blasting cassettes into genomes by 'weapons greed' methods not resembling
natural breeding, with no means of controlling where DNA-insertion will
occur. Most of the target cells are killed, and most of the survivors are
obvious monsters. A tiny minority show the desired trait based on the
transgene e.g resistance to RoundUp®. Defects are liable to emerge later
in any GM-bastards that *apparently* show only the desired trait e.g
producing a modified version of a Bt toxin.

>For example, they can insert genes from a coldwater fish into a tomato to
>create a frost-resistant
>plant, or use bacterial genes to make herbicide-tolerant corn. The
>results are known as living modified organisms (LMOs) or, more popularly,
>genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
>Since the first genetically modified tomato became available in shops in
>the United States in 1994, dozens of food crops and animals have been
>modified for greater commercial value, higher yield, improved nutrition or
>resistance to pests and disease.
>
>While modern biotechnology may have great potential, it must be developed
>and used with
>adequate safety measures, particularly for the environment.
>
>Proponents argue that biotechnology will boost food security for the
>world's growing population by raising sustainable food production.

Cunning - the first 2 words seem to make this PR agent just a
neutral reporter, not a promotor.

>It will benefit the environment by reducing the need for more farmland,
>irrigation and pesticides. It will also provide better medical treatments
>and vaccines, new industrial
>products and improved fibres and fuels.

These are essentially fantasies - but stated as if facts, and no
longer with the 'proponents argue' or equivalent.

So now we are down to barefaced lying.

>For many people, however, this rapidly advancing science raises a tangle
>of ethical, environmental, social and health issues.

'Tangle', eh? = too complicated to explain.

>Because modern biotechnology is still so new, they say, much is unknown
>about how its
>products may behave and evolve, and how they may interact with other species.

That is true; but why not also mention actual known harm? And note
the 'they say'.

>Could an ability to tolerate herbicides, for example, transfer from GM
>crops to related wild species?

So drawbacks are expressed as hypotheses, questions -
speculations. The fact that this type of problem has already emerged on a
serious scale e.g among GM-rape in Canada, is suppressed.

>Might plants that have been genetically modified to repel pests also harm
>beneficial insects?

ditto - Losey's monarch caterpillars aren't mentioned

>Could the increased competitiveness of a GMO cause it to damage
>biologically-rich ecosystems?

ditto

>Such concerns have kept GMOs in the headlines.

There are many other well-founded concerns, not mentioned by UNEP.

>One new scientific study concludes that modified organisms pose little
>risk - and then another raises difficult new questions.

This is a deceitful sentence, designed to imply there's no clear
evidence of harm.

UNEP is also failing to reveal that scarcely any benefits have yet
been manifested by GMOs for farmers or indeed anybody but the GM-bastard
makers and the DNA-kits mfrs.

>Modified soya is found in export shipments that had been declared GMO
>free, or pollen from modified corn is detected in a nearby non-modified
>field.

Still no mention of why any such outcomes should matter.

>Editors fret about potential trade conflicts

Very funny - as if your typical modern editor is anything better
than totally cynical, refusing to fret about anything. This disgusting
document was composed by jaded if clever PR agents.

>, and commentators recite emotional arguments about the pros and cons of
>modern biotechnology.

The UN Environment agency won't link readers to, let alone itself
outline, the very strong scientific and ethical reasons to keep GMOs in
containment (and to get much tougher on the lab containment systems &
personnel).

>Fortunately, this debate has led to a broad consensus that, while modern
>biotechnology may have great potential,

What, PR operatives - some loss of nerve? Or are you wishing to
create wording you could later point to, taken out of context, in case your
bosses ask you in future why you didn't warn them?

Nearly all of the claimed benefits of GM are fantasies stated as if
they're reality

>it must be developed and used with adequate safety measures, particularly
>for the enviroment.

- but be careful not to indicate the main concerns about GMOs in
the environment, won't you?

>Countries with strong biotechnology industries do have national
>legislation and risk-assessment systems in place.

These function almost entirely as rubber stamps.

>However, many developing countries interested in modern biotechnology and
>its products are still in the process of drafting regulations.

There is little hope that most of them will ever create regulatory
charades, let alone effective regulatory regimes. Some will probably
outsource charades to Arthur D Little corp, J Arthur Young, or other
transnational accountancy/PR corporation.

>And because bio-technology is a global industry,

Who says so? It is obnoxious propaganda to assert this slogan.
Most countries have no GM nor any desire for GM crops or for importing
GM-food.

>and
>GMOs are traded across borders, international rules are needed as well.

It remains open to a nation to refuse such international trade.

>In 1995, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity responded
>to this challenge by launching
>negotiations on a legally binding agreement that would address potential
>risks posed by GMOs.
>These discussions culminated in January 2000 with the adoption of the
>Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
>Named after the Colombian city where the final round of talks was
>launched, the Protocol for the first
>time sets out a comprehensive regulatory system for ensuring the safe
>transfer, handling and use of GMOs subject to transboundary movement.
>In this way, the Protocol seeks to meet the needs of consumers, industry
>and the environment for many
>decades to come. This booklet explains how this system works.

The Cartagena Protocol itself is omitted from this corrupt PDF. I
hope some capable lawyers, cooperating with suitable scientists, will
tackle the uninviting prospect of finding out why this treaty is of so
little use in protecting nations (parties or not) from injection of GMOs.
Someone has to do it.

I was asked to review this UNEP propaganda by a very eager if
somewhat sloppy worker for control of GM. She was suggesting NZ may be
functioning in the Cartagena regime to promote GM. She wanted comment on
the notion that a couple Mss in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade
should be advised to work for improvement of the Cartagena regime.
More research, by experts in international agreements, is urgently
needed before we can decide what best to do regarding the performance of
our govts in the Cartagena regime.

R

I'm passing this commentary along. It's interesting that these bills to
pre-empt local regulation of genetically engineered seed are being
introduced all over but not yet in California, and that they don t
actually mention GE seed by name. This is clearly part of a
well-thought-out strategy by the GE seed companies (or perhaps Monsanto
alone).

-Jim Diamond M.D.
Sierra Club GE cttee

9 US states limit local GM regs

Ellinghuysen, 30 March 2005

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=3616

At least nine US states, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Dakota,
Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona, and West Virginia have either
passed or introduced legislation that would preempt local cities and
counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds.

The bills are viewed as a nationally coordinated attempt to block GMO-free
ordinances similar to those approved by citizens in Mendocino and Marin
counties in California in 2004.

In March, Iowa's House of Representative passed a bill, House File 642,
that would preempt "a local governmental entity & from adopting or
enforcing legislation which relates to the production, use, advertising,
sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging,
labeling, certification, or registration of agricultural seed." A similar
bill was introduced into the Iowa Senate.

State Representative Sandy Greiner (R-Keota), who introduced HF 642, argued
the bill is needed to make seed regulations uniform statewide instead of a
"patchwork" of local regulations.

Mona Bond, of the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, which lobbied to
introduce the bill, said, "The bill is not about GMOs, it s about seed.
Farmers shouldn't be prohibited from growing what they want to grow."

"Legislate by and for the biotechnology industry"

However, opponents say HF 642 aims to protect producers of genetically
modified seed. Sate Representative Mark Kuhn, (D-Floyd) called the bill
"an attempt to legislate by and for the biotechnology industry." Kuhn said
the real issue is the economic damage caused to family farmers by market
rejection of GM crops.

State Representative John Whitaker (D-Van Buren) sees the bill as a further
erosion of local control over controversial agricultural practices, such as
genetically modified crops and hog confinement facilities that raise
significant health and environmental concerns.

"Soon, large corporations will be replacing small grain farmers because
they can't compete. This devastates rural communities and Main Streets,"
said Whitaker.

Roger Lansink, an organic farmer, said, "What if some areas want to
establish a GMC free zone for economic advantage? These bills will shout
the door to that possibility."

LaVon Griffieon, a farmer who produces GM seed, worries that the bill would
allow unregulated planting and contamination from crops engineered to
produce pharmaceuticals.

Officials at Vedic City, an Iowa town that has an ordinance requiring the
sale of organic food only, also oppose the bill. "We believe very strongly
in organic because organic does no harm to the environment," said Mayor
Robert Wynne.

Aims to stop GMO-free initiatives

Opponents also charge that the main purpose of the bill is to block
GMO-free ballot measures similar to those passed in Mendocino and Marin
counties in California last year.

Citizens in those counties enacted local bans on cultivation of GM crops.
"What it really is, is an attempt to prevent, in Iowa, what has happened in
California, where counties have banned the growing of genetically
engineered crops," said Jeffrey Smith, director of the Institute for
Responsible Technology, based in Fairfield.

In early March, the House and Senate agricultural committees approved their
respective versions of the seed bill, and the full House passed it by
70-27. If the Senate approves the bill, Governor Tom Vilsack is expected
to sign it into law.

During a House debate, Kuhn introduced an amendment to the bill that would
allow for the creation of "identity preserved" production zones for
producing organic and non-GM crops, but the measure was voted down 62-35.

Bills passed in PA, GA, ND; other states enacting legislation

If passed, the Iowa seed bill would be the fourth such legislation passed
in the United States. Last December, Pennsylvania passed House Bill 2387,
which states, "no ordinance or regulation of political subdivision or home
rule municipality may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter
relating to the registration, labeling, sale, storage, transportation,
distribution, notification of use or use of seeds."

In February, Georgia passed Senate Bill 87 that prohibits local governments
from regulating "seeds." In early March, the North Dakota legislature
passed a similar bill, Senate Bill 2277, by a 69 to 25 vote. Ken Bertsch,
seed commissioner with the North Dakot State Seed Department, acknowledged
that the bill aims to prevent passage of Mendocino-type ordinances. "There
is concern that what happened in California could happen here, and that
absent this type of legislation there could develop a patchwork of
different ordinances that could be difficult to enforce," he said.

Similar seed bills have been introduced and are working their way through
legislatures in Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona, and West Virginia.

"Organized by big industry players"

Language in all the seed bills is similar, containing words such as
"registration, labeling, sale, storage, transportation, use, and
notification of use: of seed". NO bills mention "genetically modified," or
"biotechnology" though Idaho's House Bill 38 states that local regulations
"are often not based on principles or good science," a thinly-veiled
reference to Mendocino County's rejection of GM crops.

Does the similar language indicate a coordinated nation wide effort to pass
such legislation? Joseph Mendelson, legal director at the Center for Food
Safety, thinks so. "I'm sure that it is organized by big industry players
who are fearful that the California strategy (GMO-free initiatives) may
spread," he said.

GENETIC CROSSROADS

NEWSLETTER OF THE CENTER FOR GENETICS AND SOCIETY

JANUARY 24, 2005

NOTABLE QUOTE

"The top two officials of California's new stem cell research agency are multimillionaire entrepreneurs with vast real estate and biotechnology company holdings, according to financial disclosure forms filed Tuesday with the state's political campaign watchdog."

-Associated Press (January 19)

I FEATURE: MOUNTING CONTROVERSY OVER STEM CELL INSTITUTE IN CALIFORNIA
Public interest groups challenge the stem cell committee
Press and media coverage of the controversies
Will other states repeat California's mistakes?

II REPORTS

December 9: "The Next Four Years, the Biotech Agenda, the Human Future: What Direction for Liberals and Progressives?"
December 16: "Babies by Design"

III EVENTS
January 26-31: World Social Forum
February 25-27: Women Coming Together: Claiming the Law for Social Change
March 11-12: Incite! Color of Violence 3: Stopping the War on Women of Color Conference
April 8-13: Biomedicine Within the Limits of Human Existence
October 20-22: Money, Money, Money: Bioethic$ Confront$ Dollar$ and $en$e

IV RESOURCES
Investigative Report: "Technology Allows Choice; Embryo Screening Stirs Ethics Debate"
Organization: Women's Bioethics Project
Study Guide: Human Genetics and Progress: Faithfully Engaging Science, the Possible and the Limits of Human Progress
Report: "Altered Nuclear Transfer Crosses Ethical Boundaries"
Investigative Report: "Law, Heal Thyself: Sex Detection a Pretext to Harass Honest Doctors"

V NEWS
South Korea approves cloning research
China criminalizes sex selection
Italian court approves referendum on parts of ART law

I FEATURE: MOUNTING CONTROVERSY OVER STEM CELL INSTITUTE IN CALIFORNIA

The aftermath of the passage of the $3 billion stem cell initiative in California last November has been one of mounting controversy. Over just the past six weeks:

The California State Attorney General ruled that the agenda for the first meeting of the new stem cell governing board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC), was in violation of California's Open Meeting Act.

Klein
Real estate mogul and Proposition 71 author and chief contributor Robert Klein was elected Chair and interim president of the ICOC without a serious search for other candidates. It was widely presumed that Klein's key role in drafting Prop 71 was a factor in the close fit between the qualifications for Chair written into the initiative and Klein's own resume.

California public interest organizations began raising questions about the ICOC. Public interest lawyer Charles Halpern drew attention to multiple violations of open government laws [first, second letters to ICOC, to Attorney General], as did Californians Aware [letter, news release]. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights called the ICOC "rife with conflicts of interest." Two founders of the Pro-Choice Alliance Against Proposition 71 authored a blistering op-ed in the Los Angeles Times titled "The Stem Cell Chair to the Highest Bidder?" The California Nurses Association reiterated concerns raised during the campaign about using public funds for private biotech and the lack of research safeguards, especially regarding the extraction of women's eggs.

California State Senator Deborah Ortiz, a leading supporter of Proposition 71, introduced Senate Bill 18 to address what she now characterized as the initiative's "flaws," including key areas in which it falls "glaringly short."

Penhoet
The release of financial disclosure statements [PDF] showed that ICOC vice-chair Edward Penhoet is "the ultimate corporate biotech insider," heavily invested in numerous biotech firms, a partner in a major biotech venture capital outfit, and a former director of BIO, the country's leading biotech lobbying organization.
Before the November election press coverage of Proposition 71 tended to reflect its sponsors' portrayal of the measure as an unmitigated blessing. But the post-election coverage has been strikingly different:

"California's New Stem-Cell Initiative Is Already Raising Concerns," New York Times (Nov. 27)
"Editorial: Proposition 71 needs reform," San Francisco Examiner (Dec. 7)
"Prop 71's fine print contains surprises: Tightly written law leaves little room for oversight or changes," San Francisco Chronicle (Dec.
"Controversy embroils stem cell panel," Sacramento Bee (Dec. 17)
"Editorial: Stem cell board must find way to hold open meetings," Oakland Tribune (Dec. 21)
"Editorial: Stem-Cell Reality Check," Wall Street Journal (Dec. 27, 2004)
"Calif. $3 billion stem cell plan draws criticism," Reuters (Jan. 4)
"New Calif. Stem Cell Agency Under Fire," Associated Press, (Jan. 6)
"Stem cell committee urged to slow down," San Diego Union Tribune (Jan. 7)
"Editorial: Stem cell panel must show accountability to the public," San Jose Mercury News, (Jan. 12)
"Stem cell panelists show holdings - Economic reports leave some observers uneasy," San Jose Mercury News (Jan. 19)
"Stem Cell Holdings Criticized," Sacramento Bee (Jan. 21)
The New York Times put it succinctly: "As California moves to begin a lushly financed program of embryonic stem cell research, medical ethicists and other skeptics are concerned that the $3 billion that state voters approved for the endeavor could become a bonanza for private profiteers."

Unfortunately, legislators in other states appear unaware of the growing controversy around California's foray into stem-cell research:

"Stem cell bill tops agenda as [Massachusetts] Legislature convenes," Boston Globe (Jan. 6)
"[Conn. Gov.] Rell announces $20 million for stem cell research," Associated Press (Jan. 21)
"Governor Declares State of the State," (Includes "a $750 million public and private investment in biotechnology and stem cell research") WBAY (Jan. 7)
"New Jersey Plans $380 Million for Stem Cell Research," Reuters (Jan. 12)
"New York Dem. Leaders Want $1 Billion Toward Stem Cell Study" Associated Press (Jan. 16)
The Center for Genetics and Society played an active role in organizing pro-choice and progressive opposition to Proposition 71 and post-election challenges to the ICOC. Reforms needed to ensure that the ICOC operates in accord with the public interest include:

full compliance with California's Open Meetings Act,
meaningful conflict of interest rules for ICOC and working group members,
strong protections for subjects asked to participate in clinical trials and egg extraction procedures,
an open and accountable decision-making process for controversial research proposals,
effective oversight and regulation of any approved research involving human embryos,
ensure that any successfully developed treatments are accessible and affordable,
ensure that the California public receives a fair share of any financial returns, in accordance with campaign promises; limits on profit shares to biotech and facilities development companies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new California state agency that will fund stem cell research, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), is having a troubled launch. The Center for Genetics and Society, along with other progressives who support embryonic stem cell research, opposed Proposition 71, which authorized CIRM's creation. As CIRM's work has gotten underway since the election, the concerns raised during the campaign—lack of accountability to the public and to elected officials, the conflicts of interest inherent in the structure of CIRM, inadequate protection of egg providers and research subjects, the absence of clear standards for returns to the public and the state—have increasingly been voiced by public interest groups, by several state Democratic legislators, and in news stories and editorials in major California newspapers.

The first two meetings of CIRM's governing committee have been held amid controversy about its violations of the state's Open Meetings Act, its existing and potential conflicts of interest, and the consolidation of ever greater powers over its trajectory by Robert Klein. Klein was the chief author of Proposition 71 and its largest contributor, providing upwards of $5 million of his personal funds to the campaign. Since the November election, he has become first the chairperson and then the interim president of the the so-called Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC), which in fact is dominated by representatives of groups who hope to receive grants from the $3 billion of public funding authorized by Proposition 71.

A number of public interest groups are now carefully tracking the activities of the ICOC. Californians Aware has criticized its violations of open government laws. California Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights issued a press release calling the ICOC "rife with conflicts of interest." The California Nurses Association reiterated the concerns it had raised during the campaign about "the allocation of public funds for private biotech and pharmaceutical industry profits, the closed door process of key decision making, and lack of safeguards" and noted that "many Californians are now experiencing buyer's remorse" about the initiative.

These concerns have been echoed in recent editorials in major media outlets, including both some that had endorsed Proposition 71 (such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the Oakland Tribune) and some that had urged a "no" vote (the Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, and Wall Street Journal). And two California legislators—Senator Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento), a prominent supporter of Proposition 17, and Assembly member Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino)—have introduced bills aimed at fixing some of the initiative's flaws.

"The Stem Cell Chair to the Highest Bidder?"

In the weeks after the November election, members of the ICOC were appointed by the top California elected officials specified in Proposition 71. Four officials were given the authority to nominate a chairperson; all of them—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Treasurer Phil Angelides, and Controller Steve Westley—selected Robert Klein.

Klein's longstanding wish to head up the ICOC was clear, since the "mandatory criteria for chairperson" given in the text of Proposition 71 bore a striking resemblance to his own resume. But revelations that he had donated more than $175,000 to three of the four politicians who nominated him raised many eyebrows, and led to editorial characterizations of the first ICOC meeting as a "coronation" (San Diego Union Tribune, Dec 15) and a "consolidat[ion of] too much power (Sacramento Bee, Dec 16).

The ICOC was scheduled to vote on Klein's nomination when it convened for the first time on December 17 in San Francisco, and then to proceed to consider an ambitious agenda. But two days before the meeting, public interest lawyer Charles Halpern sent a letter to the California Attorney General and ICOC members, pointing out that the public had not been given the advance notice of the agenda required by California's Open Meetings Act.

The Attorney General's office concurred, and the meeting was held as an "emergency session," with the ICOC's election of chair and vice-chair as its only agenda items. The committee proceeded to unanimously and ceremoniously approve Klein for chair, and to select the vice-chair nominee who had received Klein's endorsement.

Amid questions about conflicts of interest, Klein pledged not to hold any biomedical stocks or investments in real estate companies that could benefit from Prop 71 monies. To date, neither vice-chair Edward Penhoet, founder of the biotech giant Chiron Corporation, nor other members of the ICOC have followed this lead.

More Power, More Secrecy, More Conflicts of Interest

The ICOC fared poorly as well at its January 6 meeting in Los Angeles. By then, criticism was mounting of the new pro-CIRM non-profit organization, the California Research and Cures Coalition, which Klein chaired. It is essentially the "Yes on 71" campaign under a new name, with largely the same staff, web address, and offices as the original operation, and has announced that its mission is to influence "opinion leaders, elected officials and policy makers, medical professionals, media and the general public." Yet it was granted the responsibility of coordinating the second ICOC meeting, and is holding a series of public forums on CIRM and "best practices" around the state.

At the January meeting, Klein announced his resignation as chair of the Coalition. But he acknowledged that, in his expanded role as the interim President of CIRM, he is likely to hire Coalition staff to help run the stem cell institute. As the Sacramento Bee points out, this "will further ensure Klein isn't challenged by anyone who has a different mind-set." The CIRM, the Bee editorialized, "is developing clone-like characteristics of Klein's nonprofit group."

As for the other members of the ICOC, they have not yet shown any inclination to question Klein's preferences. After unanimously accepting his sole candidacy for chair as legitimate, and then overwhelmingly backing his pick for vice-chair, the ICOC unanimously ceded him the additional powers of interim president. And several ICOC members were quick to defend Klein's stated intention of retaining the ill-advised provisions of Proposition 71 that allow the crucially important "working groups" to meet entirely in secret, and its members to be exempted from disclosing their conflicts of interest. Though some closed sessions to protect confidentiality are appropriate, a blanket exemption from open government rules is unacceptable.

The (Financial) Ties that Bind

As Genetic Crossroads was "going to press," the financial disclosure statements of some ICOC members became available. ICOC vice-chair Edward Penhoet is a salaried partner at a venture capital firm with extensive investments in biotechnology, has millions of dollars in investments in biotech, and has served on the board of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Michael Goldberg is also a partner at a biotech venture capital outfit; he donated $58,000 to the Yes on 71 campaign. David Baltimore, the president of CalTech, sits on the boards of Amgen, the world's largest biotechnology corporation, and a Swiss biotech investment firm. Others, however, were clear of investments and income in areas which may pose conflicts. Philip Pizzo, for example, receives income only from his position as dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Links

New web page on the Institute from the Center for Genetics and Society

Press Advisory: "CGS Calls for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to delay grants until guidelines in place" (January 3, 2005)
Jesse Reynolds, "Stem Cell Cronyism," San Francisco Bay Guardian (December 29, 2004 to January 4, 2005 issue)
"Skepticism and Questions Follow Passage of California's $3 Billion Stem-Cell Initiative," Genetic Crossroads (December 2, 2004)
Editorials: San Jose Mercury News (Jan. 11), Sacramento Bee (Jan. 9), San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 5), Wall Street Journal (Dec. 27), Oakland Tribune (Dec. 21), Sacramento Bee (Dec. 16), San Francisco Chronicle (Dec. 9), San Francisco Examiner (Dec. 7)
Francine Coeytaux and Susan Berke Fogel, "The Stem Cell Chair to the Highest Bidder?," Los Angeles Times (December 17, 2004)
Chris Thompson, "Refereeing the Next Big Boom," East Bay Express (January 19, 2005)
Steve Usdin, "Prop. 71: Promises to Keep," BioCentury (November 8, 2004)
Tali Woodward and Laura M. Allen, "Second-guessing Prop. 71," San Francisco Bay Guardian (December 22, 2004)

II REPORTS

December 9: "The Next Four Years, the Biotech Agenda, the Human Future: What Direction for Liberals and Progressives?"
Over four hundred people gathered at the City University of New York Graduate Center for this post-election symposium. Participants heard Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University, Dorothy Roberts of Northwestern University, William Saletan of Slate, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College, and Marcy Darnovsky of CGS make the case for socially responsible policies governing the new human genetic technologies. Richard Hayes of CGS moderated. The symposium was cosponsored by the Center for Genetics and Society, City University of New York Graduate Center, the Nation Institute, the New York Open Center, and Demos. For more information and an online video of the entire event, see our full report on the symposium. Audio of the symposium will be broadcast on WBAI 99.5 FM, New York City, on Tuesday, January 25, at 6 to 9 PM EST.

Dec. 16: "Babies by Design"
The Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, convened this invitation-only meeting to discuss the prospects for germline genetic modification of human beings (also known as inheritable genetic modification). Representatives of CGS and a number of like-minded groups were present. Although the 80 or so participants reflected a generally fair distribution of concerned constituencies, as did the closing panel, the major presentations were by scientists and bioethicists who voiced little opposition to this eugenic technology. Will Saletan's story on Slate.com, "Homo Respect-us: The Creature that Genetic Engineers Fear Most," captures the tone well.

III EVENTS

Sujatha Jesudason, director of the CGS Program on Gender, Justice and Human Genetics, is speaking at three public events in the next three months:

January 26-31, Porto Alegre, Brazil: World Social Forum
Sujatha will be speaking on "(Re)creating Life: Ethical, Social and Gender Aspects of New Human Genetic Technologies" as part of the Heinrich Böll Foundation workshop on the "The Biopolitics of Life: The Privatization of Life and Knowledge."

February 25-27, Cincinnati: Women Coming Together: Claiming the Law for Social Change
Sujatha is on a panel on "Emerging Issues in Reproductive Health: Impact of Ideology and Technology on Women's Access and Rights" at this University of Cincinnati conference sponsored by the Ford Foundation.

March 11-12, New Orleans: Incite! Color of Violence 3: Stopping the War on Women of Color Conference
Sujatha is giving a workshop on "Gender-Based Violence of Biotechnology and Sex Selection," with collaborative partners Rajani Bhatia from the Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment, Rupsa Mallik of Center for Health and Gender Equity, and Shamita Das Dasgupta of Manavi, a South Asian domestic violence prevention organization.

Please contact Sujatha if you are interested in learning more about any of these events.

April 8-13, Doorn, The Netherlands: Biomedicine Within the Limits of Human Existence
This conference, the second in a series focusing on "Biomedical Technology and Practice Reconsidered," will address morality and the limits of human existence, power, and knowledge. Ethicists as well as researchers from the life sciences and medicine, sociologists, anthropologists and researchers of philosophy of law are invited.

October 20-22, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Money, Money, Money: Bioethic$ Confront$ Dollar$ And $en$e
The annual meeting of the Canadian Bioethics Society, to be held at Dalhousie University, will focus on the role of money and economics in bioethics. In addition, there will be a pre-conference on "Ethical Challenges in Human Development and Genetics." See the flyer [MS Word doc].

IV RESOURCES

Investigative Report: Rob Stein, "Technology Allows Choice; Embryo Screening Stirs Ethics Debate," Washington Post (December 14)
A front-page report describes the rising use of pre-pregnancy social sex selection methods in the United States.

Organization: Women's Bioethics Project
WBP is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy think tank devoted to research, analysis, education, and publication, headquartered in Seattle. It seeks to promote "the thoughtful application of biotechnology to improve the status of women's lives and seeks to protect vulnerable populations by anticipating unintended consequences, safeguarding women's bodies from harm, and ensuring that women's life priorities are recognized." Key issues include stem cell research, cloning, and genetic testing, as well as broader women's health concerns.

Study Guide: Human Genetics and Progress: Faithfully Engaging Science, the Possible and the Limits of Human Progress
In 2002 the National Council of Churches of Christ began studying the implications of the new human genetic technologies from the perspective of mainstream Protestant and Orthodox faith traditions. As part of this effort the NCCC prepared a study guide for congregations, based on the noted book by Bill McKibben, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age.

Report: "Altered Nuclear Transfer Crosses Ethical Boundaries," International Center for Technology Assessment [PDF]
In December the President's Council on Bioethics heard a proposal from one of its religious conservative members that was meant to circumvent opposition to the use of embryos for stem cell research. The basic plan was to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create embryos that had no chance of being viable, and use those "altered" embryos to extract stem cells for research. Few commentators seemed to notice two serious problems with this proposal: first, that it still requires women's eggs, and thus that women undergo risky egg extraction procedures; and second, that the procedure would set dangerous precedents that could further the development of eugenic technologies.

Investigative Report: Ravinder Kaur, "Law, Heal Thyself: Sex Detection a Pretext to Harass Honest Doctors," Times of India (January 13)
The Indian government promulgated the PNDT (Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques) Act in order to prevent sex-selective abortion and "end the unfair treatment of girl children in the womb." Yet, this seemingly positive step has become a source of harassment for radiologists who do not practice sex detection.

V NEWS

South Korea approves cloning research: New South Korean legislation regulating the biotechnology sector became effective at the start of the new year. Among other things, it bans reproductive cloning but allows research cloning, though only under a license. The first license was issued to the laboratory which last year produced the first confirmed human clonal embryos.

China criminalizes sex selection: The Chinese government announced that it will ban sex selective abortions and the use of ultrasound scans to determine the sex of a fetus. The combination of that country's controversial one-child policy, free ultrasounds and abortions, and a strong preference for male children, has resulted in a sex ratio of 119 newborn boys for every 100 newborn girls - and as high as 133 boys in some areas.

Italian Court Approves Referendum on parts of ART law: The Italian constitutional court on Thursday rejected a petition by the country's Radical Party for a referendum to overturn in its entirety a 2004 law that restricts access to assisted reproductive treatments but accepted calls for a referendum on the law's "most controversial parts."

This is from the same AP that just got Natl Geog environmental news to
launder that propaganda in favour of GM-food.

I fear the real story here is a sustained attempt to inculcate defeatism in
the public mind - 'the gene-jiggering bastards have foisted so much of
the muck on us, one way & another, that we may as well give up trying to
control their rorts thru legal procedures. They've got the political
authorities so corrupted that we may as well admit defeat'.

One implication of that strategy is to invite more direct action ...

R

Farmers Inadvertently Receive Biotech Corn

By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer [via Yahoo News]

SAN FRANCISCO - Swiss biotechnology company Syngenta AG said Tuesday it
mistakenly sold to farmers an experimental corn seed genetically engineered
to resist bugs that was never approved by U.S. regulators, bolstering
critics' claims that the industry needs tighter government scrutiny.

Hundreds of tons of the genetically engineered seeds and resulting corn
crop were shipped in the United States and overseas between 2001 and 2004.
Federal investigators said there was no health or environmental risk
because of the seed's similarity to another Syngenta product already
approved for sale and consumption.

"While there are no safety concerns, the regulatory agencies are conducting
investigations to determine the circumstances surrounding and extent of any
violations of relevant laws and regulations," said Cynthia Bergman, an
Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) spokeswoman. "The U.S.
government is also communicating with our major trading partners to ensure
they understand there are no food safety or environmental concerns that
could affect trade."

The Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (news -
web sites) are also investigating, and the company faces a fine of up to
$500,000, USDA spokesman Jim Rogers said.

In trading Tuesday, U.S.-traded Syngenta shares fell 39 cents, or 1.8
percent, to close at $21.45 on the New York Stock Exchange (news - web
sites). The stock has traded in a 52-week range of $13.93 to $23.26.
Biotechnology critics say the fact that hundreds of tons of unapproved corn
were planted in open fields for four years before Syngenta acknowledged the
mistake shows that regulators and the industry can't now be trusted to keep
genetically engineered organisms from contaminating the food supply.
They also complain that current government regulations are particularly lax
once a genetically engineered crop has been approved for consumption.
Nearly half the nation's corn approved for market by the Department of
Agriculture is genetically modified, but many consumers want their
groceries to be biotechnology-free, and are willing to pay a premium for
food they trust to be organic.

Syngenta also acknowledged Tuesday that some of the unapproved corn may
have been shipped overseas to countries that allow imports of either the
genetically engineered seed or of products made with the genetically
modified corn.

The United States and the European Union (news - web sites) are in a bitter
trade dispute over how strictly to regulate U.S. biotechnology imports.
Syngenta spokeswoman Sarah Hull would not say whether EU countries have
received the unapproved corn.

"Instead of building international confidence in genetic engineering, the
industry continues to shoot itself in the foot," said Greg Jaffe, biotech
director for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest in
Washington D.C. "It proves this technology is hard to control and we have
an industry that is not as diligent as we would like."

The corn in question is spliced with bacteria genes to resist bugs without
the need for pesticides. It differs from Syngenta's approved seeds only in
terms of where the foreign genetic material is placed in the plant's
genome, said Jeff Stein, head of Syngenta's U.S. regulatory affairs.
Syngenta also did not say where in the United States the corn was grown,
other than to say it sprouted on a total of 37,000 acres in four states -
representing less than 1 percent of all U.S. corn. Still, the mislabeled
corn amounted to several hundred tons shipped over the last four years.
In 2000, the inadvertent planting and distributing of genetically
engineered corn not approved for human consumption - so-called StarLink -
cost the food industry an estimated $1 billion in recalled products.
No recalls for this wrongly shipped corn are planned, Hull said, because
the government has declared the corn poses no health or environmental
risks. But all unapproved plants and seeds Syngenta still had have been
destroyed, she said. She declined to say how much the incident might cost
the company.

Hull said the Swiss-based company discovered the mistake in mid-December
and reported it immediately as required by law to federal authorities.
Syngenta and the USDA said they didn't publicize the situation because of
the ongoing investigation. The science journal Nature first reported the
mishap on its Web site Tuesday.

-----

From: "Jeanette Fitzsimons"

24 March 2005
Syngenta stuff-up raises troubling GE questions for NZ

Today's revelations about Syngenta, the supplier at the centre of the
Corngate affair, illustrate the pitfalls of a GE-monitoring system that
takes seed manufacturers at their word, the Greens say.

"If seed companies are so careless or dishonest that we can't trust that
the seed they're supplying is what they say it is, then our entire
GE-monitoring system is called into question," Green Co-Leader Jeanette
Fitzsimons said.

Syngenta has admitted to US authorities that for three years it sold
genetically-engineered corn seed that hadn't been approved for sale, and
Ms Fitzsimons said it was time for governments around the world to stand
up to the seed manufacturer and demanded it mend its socially
irresponsible ways.

"Syngenta has developed a reputation for thinking it is above the law, and
for refusing to provide regulatory bodies with information that is needed
to assess whether its activities are in the public interest. It's time
our government told Syngenta that if it doesn't make itself more
transparent, trustworthy and accountable, it is not welcome in New Zealand.

"The select committee inquiry into Corngate failed to get to the bottom of
that matter because Syngenta refused to allow our Parliament to see lab
records or talk to the company who did the testing that showed Bt
contamination. Now, they are similarly refusing information to the US
authorities. They won't say which countries they have exported this
contaminated corn to. Surely the unsuspecting farmers and consumers who
have been misled about what they are planting or eating have a right to
know?"

Ms Fitzsimons said the Syngenta revelations were one more good reason not
to allow the growing of GE crops here.

"It's bad enough if you get the GE crop you think you're ordering, but it
now seems you may get something illegal instead. This case illustrates
how illegal seed, which hasn't gone through proper safety checks, can get
into the food chain. Syngenta did not discover the error itself - a seed
breeder did. It makes you wonder how many other mistakes they have made
which are still undetected.

"The US Government claim that this corn is 'safe' is ridiculous. There
has been no time for any safety testing since the error was discovered.
It is clearly different from the approved corn and no-one has investigated
whether the genetic differences might cause harm to health.

"New Zealand's food safety regulatory body - FSANZ - uses the same
criteria as the US Food and Drug Administration to decide whether a food
is "safe". We must stop relying on slack procedures and false assurances of
safety from the US."

How Bush and Monsanto manufacture black support

------

The Uncle Tom Award
Jonathan Matthews
Freezerbox magazine, 14 March 2005
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=337

*Meet the civil rights group whose rhetoric comes from Wise Use, whose
support comes from Monsanto, and whose agenda coincides precisely with that
of George W. Bush*

A couple of years back I wrote a piece called 'The Fake Parade'. It was
about a march at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg that had been widely reported as a protest by poor Third World
farmers in support of GMOs. A leading light of the Biotechnology Industry
Organisation declared the march "a turning point" because "real, live,
developing-world farmers" had begun "speaking for themselves". What they
had to say seemed pretty unpalatable to the environmental and development
NGOs that have raised concerns over GM crops. A commentary on the march in
The (London) Times was headlined, "I do not need white NGOs to speak for
me" while, during the march itself, a "Bullshit award" was presented to the
Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva for being "a mouthpiece of western
eco-imperialism".

'The Fake Parade' showed the march was a charade. For instance, the main
"developing-world farmer" quoted by the man from BIO turned out never to
have farmed in his life. Instead, Chengal Reddy headed a lobby for big
commercial farmers in Andhra Pradesh that aspired to becoming the
operational arm of the trade association for the agrochemical companies
active in India. Similarly, the "media contact" for the march and for the
"Bullshit award" was the daughter of a US lumber industrialist, who had
worked out of various free market NGOs, such as the Washington-based
Competitive Enterprise Institute. Her specialty was "counter protest".

Of course, such attempts to position biotech's soap box behind a black
man's face neither began nor ended in Johannesburg. In late 1999, for
instance, a street protest against genetic engineering in Washington DC was
disrupted by a group of African-Americans bearing placards such as "Biotech
saves children's lives." A Baptist Church from a poor neighborhood had,
the New York Times revealed, been paid by Monsanto's PR firm to bus in the
counter-demonstrators. But Johannesburg does seem to have been a kind of
watershed. Since then, Monsanto's fake parade has really begun to hit its
stride. And from US administration platforms to UN headquarters, from
Capitol Hill to the European Parliament, we've been treated to a veritable
minstrelsy of lobbying.

Let's pick up the trail amidst the Martin Luther King Day observances in
New York City this January. That was when the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE) invited some 700 diplomats, scientists, journalists, and Gotham
high-school students to come and consider the "implications and reality" of
biotechnology at UN headquarters. CORE's "World Conference" was presided
over by His Excellency, Aminu Bashir Wali, the Ambassador of Nigeria, and
after lunch came the premiere of the film "Voices from Africa", showcasing
the results of "CORE's fact-finding trip to Africa". The film opened and
closed with comments by CORE's National Chairman, Roy Innis, who explained
that it was his concern about hunger in Africa that led him to go there to
see for himself and to investigate the potential for biotechnology. The
film concluded with Innis saying, "We have to do everything possible to
ensure that the African farmer has access to this new technology which
potentially can do so much to improve his quality of life."

In a talk on biotechnology at the Natural History Museum in London in May
2003, the world-renowned American botanist, Dr Peter Raven, noted CORE's
strong concern about the obstruction of technological advancement. "Last
month, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of America's most
venerable and respected civil rights groups, confronted Greenpeace at a
public event and accused it of 'eco-manslaughter' through its support of
international policies limiting development and the expansion of technology
to the developing world's poor."

CORE's national spokesman, Niger Innis, described that counter-protest as
"just the first step in bringing justice to the Third World." And so it
proved. In September 2003, CORE's national spokesman presided over a mock
awards ceremony at the World Trade Organization meeting in the Mexican
resort of Cancun. The ceremony included participants carrying "Save the
Children" placards while the awards went to those Innis termed advocates of
"lethal eco-imperialism." "Their opposition to genetically engineered
foods, pesticides and energy development," Innis explained, "devastates
families and communities and kills millions every year". Cyril Boynes Jr.,
the director of international affairs for CORE, said the ceremony was
important "to draw attention to the destructive and murderous policies of
these eco-terrorists". Four months later CORE organised a "Teach-In" in New
York entitled, "Eco-Imperialism: The global green movement's war on the
developing world's poor". In a press release CORE's Niger Innis said that
after the teach-in "eco-imperialism'" would be a household word, adding,
"We intend to stop this callous eco-manslaughter".

CORE's rhetoric has been shaped by PR man Paul Driessen, CORE's white
Senior Policy Advisor, who moderated two of the panels at its "UN World
Conference" on biotech. Driessen is the author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power - Black Death". The book, which has a foreword by Niger Innis, lays
at the door of the environmental movement "the hunger and suffering of
millions of the world's poor who are denied the benefits of genetically
engineered food." Driessen and Innis are also listed as Directors of the
Economic Human Rights Project - "an initiative of the Center for the
Defense of Free Enterprise, in cooperation with the Congress of Racial
Equality", which aims to "correct prevalent environmental myths and
misguided policies that help perpetuate poverty, misery, disease and early
death in developing countries."

Driessen's book is published by the Free Enterprise Press, the publishing
arm of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, where Driessen is a
Senior Fellow. According to a review of Driessen's book on CDFE's website,
it helps the reader "understand why the environmental movement is engaged
in the most appalling example of genocide the world has ever known!" CDFE
is led by Alan Merril Gottlieb and Ron Arnold, who founded the
anti-environmental Wise Use movement. Arnold was once a consultant for Dow
Chemical, as well as Head of the Washington State chapter of the American
Freedom Coalition, the political arm of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's
Unification Church (which has also shared offices with CDFE). In 1991
Arnold told the New York Times, "We [CDFE] created a sector of public
opinion that didn't used to exist. No one was aware that environmentalism
was a problem until we came along." CDFE's previous main focus had been
opposing gun controls. According to the Times, Gottlieb shifted the
organization?s focus when he realized the fundraising potential of opposing
environmentalism: "For us, the environmental movement has become the
perfect bogeyman." Gottlieb, who describes himself as "the premiere
anti-communist, free-enterprise, laissez-faire capitalist" and who has
spent time in jail for tax-evasion, also says, "Facts don't really matter.
In politics, perception is reality." [this last slogan was also propounded
by NZ Prime Minister Ms Jenny Shipley]

The night before CORE's UN biotech conference this January, the
organisation hosted a reception at the New York Hilton to honor, amongst
others, Karl Rove - the Bush election strategist widely credited with
having overseen black voter disenfranchisment in Florida and Ohio. This
might seem a curious way of marking the MLK holiday, particularly for an
organisation that features on its website images of murdered freedom riders
killed during the drive for black voter registration in the Civil Rights
Summer of 1964. Recently, however, those images were joined by Monsanto?s
logo. The organisation now styles Monsanto, which also sponsored its film
"Voices from Africa", "CORE's corporate partner".

CORE took its "first step in bringing justice to the Third World" on May 8
2003. Just under a fortnight later George W. Bush accused Europe of
undercutting efforts to feed starving Africans by blocking genetically
modified crops because of "unfounded, unscientific fears." Bush also
called on European governments to "join - not hinder - the great cause of
ending hunger in Africa". The following day, the Bush administration
announced plans to sue the European Union at the World Trade Organisation
unless it opened up its markets to American GM products.

The WTO case was filed by the US in the name of Africa, although Egypt -
the only African country which could be persuaded to sign up in support -
promptly disassociated itself from the US action. Egypt's defection
prompted American retaliation: the US withdrew from planned bilateral trade
talks. At the press conference at which the WTO case was announced, the US
Trade Representative, Robert B. Zoellick, introduced a number of people of
color who expressed their support for the lawsuit. One was a South African
farmer, TJ Buthelezi, who is exceptionally well travelled. In the last
couple of years Buthelezi has been brought not just to Washington but to
Brussels, Pretoria, St Louis, Philadelphia and London for GM promotionals.
He was also at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg,
where he took part in the fake parade.

Unlike Chengal Reddy, Buthelezi is a real farmer - just not the kind of
farmer he is made out to be. Buthelezi is exhibited as a "small farmer"
leading a "hand-to-mouth existence", or a "small farmer struggling just at
the subsistence level," as the head of USAID put it when introducing him to
US congressmen. In fact, with two wives and more than 66 acres, Buthelezi
is one of the largest and wealthiest farmers in his area, and Aaron
deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies suggests Buthelezi's
accounts of his experiences with GM cotton might be embellished, since they
are suspiciously similar to Monsanto press releases. "These South African
farmers," DeGrassi says, "are plucked from South Africa, wined and dined,
and given scripted statements about the benefits of GM... Critics have
coined the nickname 'Bt Buthelezi', to illustrate this farmer's
unconditional support to Bt cotton: during a trip to Monsanto's
headquarters in St. Louis, Buthelezi was quoted as saying, '
I
wouldn't care if it were from the devil himself.'"

The "principal orator" at Zoellick's press conference was CS Prakash, a
biotech professor of Indian origin at Tuskegee University in Alabama.
Prakash travels the world promoting GM crops on behalf of the U.S. State
Department. He also serves as the principal investigator of a USAID
project "to promote biotechnology awareness in Africa". But he is best
known for his AgBioWorld campaign, under whose banner he has sent a stream
of petitions and press releases in support of GM crops to international
bodies and meetings, as well as to science journals and the media.
AgBioWorld presents itself as a mainstream science campaign "that has
emerged from academic roots and values" but its co-founder and "Deputy
President" is Greg Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose
multi-million dollar budget comes from corporations like Monsanto, Dow
Chemical and Exxon/Mobil. CEI was among the organisers of the Cancun event
where CORE's Niger Innis handed out awards to the advocates of "lethal
eco-imperialism". Conko was also an invited guest at Zoellick's press
conference.

Conspicuous in its absence from Zoellick's guest list was the corporation
that stood to gain most from the WTO action. But when it came to honoring
Bush's election strategist at CORE's celebratory dinner at the New York
Hilton, Monsanto was certainly no ghost at the feast. Hugh Grant - not the
actor but the CEO of Monsanto - presided as chairman of the occasion. A
little black-washing at an MLK event was a PR opportunity too good to pass
up, particularly in light of other recent events. Only days before Grant's
appearance, news had broken that his company was to pay $1.5 million in
penalties under US anti-bribery laws, for passing $50,000 to a senior
Indonesian environmental official in an unsuccessful bid to amend or repeal
the requirement for an environmental impact statement on new crop
varieties. The bribe in question was just the tip of the iceberg: Monsanto
has admitted to paying over $700,000 in bribes to more than a hundred
officials over a five year period. The Monsanto executive in charge of
Indonesia at the time the bribery got underway was none other than Hugh
Grant.

Grant and Rove were far from the only controversial invitees to CORE's King
Day celebrations. Others have included the Austrian politician and
Nazi-sympathizer Jorg Haider, and the right-wing radio host Bob Grant, who
once called Martin Luther King a "scumbag". But CORE itself has become
increasingly controversial - and in some ways downright strange - since Roy
Innis took its helm. Innis once branded opponents of racial segregation in
the US as "house niggers", and dismissed the struggle against Apartheid as
"a vicarious, romantic adventure" with "no honest base". When asked in
1973 why CORE supported Idi Amin despite the Ugandan president's hatred of
Jewish people and praise of Hitler, Innis is reported to have said, "we
have no records to prove if Hitler was a friend or an enemy of black
people."

Innis has had no corresponding difficulty working out the enemy of black
people when it comes to biotech. At Cancun his son Niger, a protege of
Armstrong Williams, handed out "lethal eco-imperialism" awards to the
European Union and Greenpeace. But there was another award - an "Uncle
Tom" award, presented in front of an audience of grinning corporate
lobbyists and libertarians to the Malaysia-based Pesticide Action Network
Asia and the Pacific. PANAP is an organisation that works with small-scale
and family farmers, peasants' movements, indigenous people, landless
laborers and women in countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Innis
denounced PANAP for "selling out its own people". Their crime? Opposing
pesticides and biotechnology in exchange, Innis claimed, for funding from
wealthy foundations.

CORE, by contrast, supports pesticides and biotechnology in exchange for
funding from its wealthy "corporate partner". As to "selling out" the
people of the developing world, it's worth recalling Monsanto's history in
Indonesia. So strong was the popular opposition to genetically modified
crops in Indonesia that Monsanto decided to bring its GM seed into the
country under armed guard. The farmers who bought into the company's
promises and grew that seed did a lot less well from it than the officials
who took the bribes. The GM cotton crop succumbed to drought and a pest
population explosion that bypassed other cotton varieties. When the crop
failed to produce the results Monsanto had boasted about, the farmers found
that their poor yields had trapped them in a debt cycle, leading one farmer
to comment, "The company didn't give the farmer any choice, they never
intended to improve our well being, they just put us in a debt circle, took
away our independence and made us their slave forever." This is not an
unknown situation: sales of GM seeds, which are more expensive, are often
supported in the developing world with special credit arrangements. In TJ
Buthelezi's South Africa, for instance, farmer indebtedness has sharply
escalated in the area where GM cotton has been introduced. In Indonesia,
Monsanto's GM cotton proved so unsuccessful that within two years the
Indonesian Minister of Agriculture was announcing that the company had
pulled its GM seed out of the country. The company's legacy there is
broken promises and systematic illegality.

That's not, of course, the kind of story detailed in CORE's "Voices from
Africa," where GM crops are presented as the only hope of salvation for
resource poor farmers. Nor is it the kind of story told by CORE's Paul
Driessen in his syndicated op-ed pieces, which were timed to coincide with
CORE's UN "World Conference". Driessen informed his readers that "these
safe, delicious foods" were vital for Africa because they could "replace
staples devastated by disease - including Kenyan sweet potatoes".
Interestingly, just a week or so before Driessen made that claim, the
Kenyan journalist Gatonye Gathura received a Kalam award for journalistic
excellence for his article on the sweet potato project, "GM Technology
fails local potatoes." Gathura's piece blew the whistle on the abject
failure of Monsanto's showcase project in Africa - a project that had
garnered literally thousands of column inches of positive press.

Aaron deGrassi, in a detailed analysis* of such projects, confirms that the
benefits from GM crops are much lower than can be obtained "with either
conventional breeding or agro-ecology-based techniques" - both of which
require just a fraction of the investment in research that GM does. He
notes, for instance, that conventional sweet potato breeding in Uganda was
able - in a much shorter time and with a small budget - to develop a
well-liked, virus-resistant variety that had yield gains of nearly 100
percent. Any excitement over GM crops in the developing world, deGrassi
argues, stems largely from the biotech industry's PR campaign, which is
designed to increase GM's public legitimacy, and to reduce trade
restrictions, biosafety controls, and monopoly regulations.

Near the end of "Voices from Africa" there's a telling moment. Over the
image of a woman menacingly beating a club in the palm of her hand someone
says, "We cannot just harshly or violently oppose this technology". The
film presents no evidence of violent opposition to GMOs in Africa, and in
truth there has been none, only courage and resilience. But then, as Paul
Driessen's boss at CDFE reminds us, "Facts don't really matter. In
politics, perception is reality."

* Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in
Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence by Aaron deGrassi,
published by Third World Network, Africa.
http://www.twnafrica.org/docs/GMCropsAfrica.pdf

MORE BY JONATHAN MATTHEWS
The Fake Parade
Under the banner of populist protest, multinational corporations
manufacture the poor.
ENVIRONMENT 12.3.2002
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=254

NewScrewtape®: PR spin-reversal coup

14-3-05

To: young twisters managing S. Pac. gene-jockeys & GM-PR agents.


Note the main streaks of PR twisting in this classic caper, a model
of its type.

Nigel Kirkpatrick, head of the Crown Research Inst 'Industrial
Research®' and chmn CRIs assn, tells the nation that if New Zealand wants
to get a biotek (he means gene-jiggering) industry established here the
govt should give a further $75M which it has just cruelly withheld from
promising drug developments.

Much more time is given by Radio NZ to this complaint than the
immediate prior news item, viz. a new subsidised $150M consortium, to
follow so many subsidies down the unproductive GM gurgler in attempt to
start a biotek® industry here. The fact is not alluded to that successive
govts over 3 decades have poured hundreds of millions of public dollars
into ill-conceived gene-jiggering capers, some of them dangerous, in
attempt to start a biotek (i.e gene-tampering) industry here. Yet Radio
NZ will convey the 'wounded victim' role for this collossally subsidised
set of rackets. The sheer childish thrill of promulgating deceit is
increasingly ruling the behavior of Radio NZ operatives.

This double-whammy or 'old 1-2' spin-reversal PR stunt must surely
be a contender for 'PR spin of the year'. The bad news of the $150M
further, umpteenth subsidy granted to a grotesquely unproductive set of
'technologies' is immediately followed by a much longer, more emotive
'item' bemoaning govt's withholding of a supposed further $75M. In the
annals of PR this spin-reversal 'pair' must be worth a mention. Score a
huge further subsidy, and then promptly wallow in the victim role. Good
one, twisters! Clear thought, let alone justice, will be hampered by such
mind-buggering stunts.

Mind you, AgResearch® is one entity listed as forming the new $150M
fund, so to try & trace the peas under the walnut shells would be idle.
Indeed, I may do Mr Maharey (new Minister of Research Sc & Tech) an
injustice; perhaps only a little govt money will actually have to go in to
the new consortium. What us devils most desire is the implied endorsement
of dangerous, useless, and sometimes cruel expts on many spp. Somebody has
to produce the awful trials that are to precede the end of history;
Screwtape's promotion to comptroller of GM-PR carries a fair chance of
generating some nasty epidemics of humans & other spp, and is diverting
science into a murky confusion that only us temptors can fully relish. The
code of truthfulness which, even far beyond those scientists who were
Christians, promoted truth is now pretty shattered - and in the service
of not only our old ally Mammon but also, more gratifyingly, human desire
pitted against the Will of the Enemy. Genesis 3 continues to be re-enacted
in novel forms!

I intend to point out to their Depthednesses how it is impressive
style - Him Kill will probably praise this caper as 'good style, good
style'.

Our front-stooges in GM by now take it as likely that disclosure of
a big new subsidy for yet more gene-jiggering will provoke protests in NZ.
(Indeed, formidably low ranks of devils are preparing for the coming
underground, bootleg, gangster era in the deployment of GM, with early
out-of-town tryouts in poor countries already.) Therefore we had to
arrange some distraction from the announcement of the $150M handout. The
'2nd barrel' of the Radio NZ caper made all the deceitful difference and
should serve as a prime example.

At your junior levels of deployment guiding gene-jockeys and media
operatives, your immediate general orders are:
* keep spreading paranoia by overblown pseudo-hazards, using up the
limited wellsprings of credence - 'cry wolf' is your watchword;
* foster assertiveness in the usurper pseudo-experts e.g Ms Claire 'GE
Free NZ' Bleakley, Susan Kitschley list-MP, Jeanette list-MP, etc. Could
Fiddler Bunkum disgraced-MP be encouraged to make a new bid for attention,
now that she's returned from Mongolia? We could supply a 'leaked' fake
scare ...

S. Pac deployment of GM has been especially useful as a vehicle for
some important PR-exercises, e.g 'corngate' where we took in Hager etc
nicely and put everyone on notice that truth is inaccessible, Ministers of
the Crown such as Marian Hobbs are incompetent & unreliable, and GM will
not be explained to ordinary citizens.

Kiwis' advanced embracing of wimminsLib has facilitated deployment
of GM - experts critical of GM have been almost completely shunned by
media publicising instead PowerHarpies Fiddler Bunkum etc. We have
succeeded rather well in protracting the image that GM is supported by
almost all respectable scientists & medicos; our media stooges have been
able to maintain the pretence that only fringe figures think gene-tampering
dangerous. Stupendous lack of product is not counted as a disadvantage.
Unfulfilled promises are the order of the day. We have succeeded in
keeping the picture thoroughly confused.

This last achievement allows us to leverage many other lies in
unrelated dimensions of society. Those who embrace one big lie are from
then on generally much easier to seduce into others.

Do keep those church leaders confused & ignorant - they have been
little problem so far, except a brief period of clarity from Bishop Tom
Brown of Wellington. Media should be encouraged to rely on Bp Randerson of
Auckland - a gratifyingly useless 'ethicist' on that excellently corrupt
Royal Commission.

Good synergism has been developed between our tripartite PC
ideological Axis - wimminsLib, neoRacism, and militant homosexualism -
and the vigorous spreading of lies & dishonesty by the gene-jockey fad.

The Church having largely ceded its position of moral authority,
and science having failed to develop any code of ethics, gene-tampering is
flowering fetidly, its stench attracting venture capital liars, a new order
of lying scientist/PR agents, and even within the churches some keen
advocates. The lust for falsehood festers with gratifying obscenity!

Postmodernism is one of our greatest successes of this past few
decades. Those who pretend there's no such thing as a fact, and no such
thing as right or wrong, usually make out that the values of the PC Axis
are, on the contrary, real. This blatant hypocrisy suits us fine,
undermining public confidence in justice. When its exponents are forcibly
promoted in e.g universities, the status of fact and of morals is handily
degraded. The Enemy's appeals to reason, and incessant attempts to convey
clear ideas, are nicely undermined by this most mischievous PoMo triumph.
In many overdeveloped countries the universities have been largely taken
over by PoMo crusaders, who certainly place a high value on their own
power, while pretending to believe there are no values. This is
wonderfully totalitarian, without attracting the attention and resistance
of our cruder earlier expts in Fascism. It is one mess of
intershambolising ideologies that, for a decade or so, operates with many
foulups to destroy morality. Once a subject embraces the basic Big Lie of
postmodernism, there's no telling which others s/he will soon try also to
obey. The incoherence of PC is a main reason why madness is on the
increase - at least some varieties. In this superbly confused mess,
which even highly educated men refuse to ackn, our forces of evil make
great gains - and in such good style. Fortunately G K Chesterton has no
modern-day counterpart to refute modernism; and postmodernism, going almost
unchallenged, is much more crippling to reason.

R

I respond to the writers of this 'ETC' item, which has been fwd to me.
I am arguing that PR agents have just pulled off a 'draw play' or 'trap play'.

>Last week's massive global response to the news that the Canadian
>government was planning to force acceptance of Terminator seeds seems to
>have worked... for now.
>"Terminator" seeds have been genetically modified to produce crops that are
>sterile.

Now is that right? If such seeds had been procreated, and reported
even from lab-scale tests, don't you think independent scientists critical
of GM would have heard something about it? Do you really think Joe Cummins
could remain ignorant for long if any quasi-scientific paper had reported
Terminator performance? Don't you realise the hairtrigger readiness of
main PowerHarpies such as Mae-Wan Ho, Vandi, and Jeanette list-MP on leave,
to do media splurges if finally some evidence emerges of actual Terminator®
crops in field trials?

> Not only will

Sorry, young propagandists - another whistle stops play.
You illustrate - uninentionally - a distressingly common
blunder, almost subliminal in its harm. What you meant to say was that
Terminator® seeds, if ever they came into existence, *would* { ...etc.}
The tense is future conditional. IF the threat ever emerges in reality -
in that contingency - THEN such & such consequences WOULD be likely.

But instead, you used the simple future - it WILL happen. This
is defeatist, undermining our cause. If you speak against a potential
threat but using verbs implying that the threat will not be prevented from
materialising, you are contradicting yourself and confusing your audience,
weakening your impact. For PR operatives, that's not too shrewd ...

> they create total dependency on GM companies, but
>they can

again - wrong - you mean *could* or *presumably would*

>spread sterility to local crops and wild relatives, and pose a
>huge threat to food security and farmers' rights. Since 1998 an
>international ban has been in place

Now is that right? What kind of ban? Let us have chapter & verse,
and perhaps transcripts of key clauses, would you please?

>, however the GM industry's first
>attempt to push for acceptance took place last week, through the Canadian
>government's delegation at a UN meeting in Bangkok last week.
>
>But according to ETC Group, the NGO that originally alerted the world to
>leaked Canadian documents, the government was forced to soften its position
>after being swamped with emails and letters of protest. The
>New Zealand government, which supported the proposals, was also inundated
>with objections.
>
>Unsurprisingly, the draft text proposed by Canada looked like it had been
>written by the GM industry, and was strongly in favour of Genetic Use
>Restriction Technology (GURTs), known by many as Terminator. But
>objections from Norway, Sweden, Austria, the European Community, Cuba, Peru
>and Liberia, on behalf of the African Group meant that the worst wording
>was removed from the text, keeping the ban in place.

It'd be convenient to learn here how the NZ govt finally voted.
But we're just email fodder for your stunt - don't bother to help us with
any special info in your victory announcement, will youse?

>However, the text has been left in a way that opens the door for future
>debate about the ban. And we can be sure that the GM industry (and its
>friendly governments) will continue to push for Terminator's acceptance
>this year and beyond.
>
>What this means is that African governments considering opening up to GM
>must now realise that Terminator could in future be an unavoidable part of
>that package.

The loathsome threats entailed in the Terminator concepts have been
well enough explicated to justify banning the whole class of organisms.
This is why I'm ashamed that my govt's minister "for" the environment,
drongo Marian Hobbs, said in response to the bait hung out by this 'ETC'
stunt, that her usual mantra 'case by case' would apply. She is thus
needlessly provoked into hardening her govt's stance of tolerating
Terminator®. This is not progress, is it?

>Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) etc@etcgroup.org:
>Hope Shand and Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group (USA) hope@etcgroup.org: 919
>960-5223
>Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) silvia@etcgroup.org: 52 55 55 632 664
>Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org: 44 (0)7752 106806 (mobile)
>
>Note to Editors:
>
>Terminator technology was first developed by the US Department of
>Agriculture and the multinational seed industry to prevent farmers from
>replanting saved seed.

I have tried & tried to tell this RAFI-spinoff group that a patent
is not evidence that the concept(s) in the patent will work. A patent is
just words, and not evidence that "technology was first developed". It is
obnoxious that the kompuwankers, and to a lesser but gross extent the
gene-tamperers, are allowed to confuse fantasy with fact. Please do not
assist them.

>When it came to public light in 1998 massive
>public opposition forced Monsanto and Syngenta to disavow the
>technology.

The fact remains that this Canadian group distracted the anti-GM
world with an empty scare, most likely staged by PR agents working within
or with the Canadian govt delegation to that Bangkok confab, to "leak" an
especially fabricated instruction.

I have previously maintained that the "corngate" flurry about
marginally GM-contaminated corn was staged by "leaking" a suspiciously
complete file to N Hager. The support for the Green party halved in the
rest of that election campaign. It would appear quite easy to overtire the
limited public acceptance of obscure battles about unintelligible arcane
technology. It will therefore be arranged by the GM trade's PR operatives,
who are considerably cleverer than 'ETC', to deplete reserves of public
interest & concern by staging from time to time a flurry of alarm about
some concept the GM trade isn't ready to sell anyway.

Please do keep reading The Man Who Never Was.

Meanwhile perhaps you would at last read the main points of my note
which I copy below for your convenience.

------

MannGram®: latest 'Terminator®' scare
11-1-05

Open Letter to New Zealand cabinet ministers

I refer to the report glimpsed at the bottom of this msg and
ancillary posturings about 'Terminator' images.

The concept of 'mule' Terminator® plants is thoroughly obnoxious,
in principle, and should be strongly opposed.

However, let's not go overboard in assuming that the particular
GURT commonly called The Terminator is real. The Terminator has been
critiqued most thoroughly by Martha Crouch, assoc prof Indiana U. Her
analysis, admittedly several y ago, was of the quality UCS used to provide,
and showed it was far from reality. I too studied the main patent for it
and agreed the complex processes envisaged were far from practicality. I
found her discussion wholly convincing, as did Peter R Wills, one of my
most successful former students and closer to practising mol biol than I
now am. The concept of sterile GE plants exemplified by the 'Terminator'
image has not yet - AFAIK - been realised in practice and will be very
difficult to work.

I'm all for denouncing the immoral intention, but it's a
distraction to behave as if it's about to be deployed - if it still isn't
real.

I fear it's no fluke that the outfit raising this latest fuss is
the same as originally coined the cute name 'Terminator' for this type of
GURT concept. The desire to manipulate minds by PR tricks is not wholly
confined to Burpston Marseller, ERMA, Heather Simpson, etc.

Could this notorious 'Terminator' get anywhere near commercial
deployment without being detected by the many GM-sceptic scientists in many
lands? I don't think so.

I copy here a note I wrote during the penultimate flareup of this
Terminator® furphy.

> 27-11-98 J M Fitzsimons list MP has accused Monsanto and Hon. John
>'Satchmo jr' Luxton (Minister of Food Fibre & Furphies) of trying to import
>Terminator® seed which would cause difficulties for organic growers. Satch
>responds that market forces would allow organic horticulture to prosper
>notwithstanding availability of Terminator® seed. Monsanto Australasian
>PR chief Nik Tydens said two days earlier, but Radio NZ now excerpts the
>tape as if it were a response to Fitzimons' accusation today, that Terminator
>crops will simply be a 'single-use' item which nobody is forced to buy and
>which cannot biologically affect other crops.

>What nobody has mentioned in the media these few days - or any
>other time that I know of - is that the Terminator® patent does not entail
>any evidence that such a seed exists or could exist.

>Patents are granted without regard to whether the invention would work.
>My university classmate more recently the New Zealand Commissioner of
>Patents explained to me in person that, unless the application describes a
>blatant violation of scientific law - e.g. perpetual motion machines -
>a patent may be issued for what the examiner is convinced will not work.
>He showed me a few lulus, and I found a few more - patents for devices
>which, as a practical certainty, could never work. Most people are
>surprised when they learn this fact about patent law, but the reasons for
>it are not hard to see.

>It occurs to me that such criticisms could perhaps be levelled
>against some aspects of the Terminator patent. They may be no more than
>wishful thinking.

>If so, that of course has no bearing on the moral status of the Terminator
>concept.

>It does envisage a racket - but at the moment, so far as we know,
>it is only a vision. Sordid, warped, wicked - yes, all those, but if it
>is not real let us refrain from amplifying the paranoia which is all
>too readily generated around GE.

>To denounce the intention of the Terminator concept is a main
>duty; to warn that it might not work as tidily as claimed is also urgent;
>but to credit anyone with having it incipiently on sale is worse than
>saying Windows 98© really works as claimed. We must not accord power to
>lying creeps when they have not actually achieved what they desire and
>perhaps cannot. Let us not make them look more technically competent than
>they really are!

Today I would only add:-
1. Monsanto's PR image of abandoning The Terminator is not to be believed.
You can safely assume they're still pouring millions into trying to
procreate something commercial, or for a start something "terminating" when
treated with a Monsanto chemical. If they had succeeded, don't you think
we'd have heard of it?
2 The pollen from a "Terminator" tree could well be harmful in a variety
of ways including actively crossing with wild or cultivated relatives to
produce fertile progeny of unknown harmfulness, or novel pathogens. The
prospects for damage are so many, varied, and dismaying that no Minister
for the Environment should condone the notion of field-testing such a
rotten idea. The drongo Hobbs should be ashamed of her ignorant illogical
self.
3 It is tiresome that ignorant attention-cravers can draw attention aside
yet again to this receding monster mirage 'The Terminator' while some real,
genuinely menacing GM field trials, e.g with GM-pines, are actually being
done without proper regulatory oversight.
4 The overdeveloped world has already been largely taken over, for main
crops, by "hybridity" i.e. got hooked on buying annually Pioneer Hi-bred®
or similar corporate hybrid seed which grows into plants bearing seed that,
while not literally sterile, give such enormous variation that nobody tries
to get a crop from those F2 hybrid seed.

This, and much more, is brilliantly expounded by the famous Harvard
geneticist Richard Lewontin, with a French agresearch leader Berlan, in
.

Hobbs should be told to condemn not only The Terminator but also
all uncontained GMOs. New Zealand showed the world a good example in
excluding nuclear reactors; let us not only ban GMOs except in strict
containment, but also show the world again some moral leadership.

R

Tillamook cooperative board of directors
24-2-05

Greetings

I congratulate you on your stand against rBGH. The attached
address to a diary-industry seminar a half-decade ago includes this section:

I excerpt from a recent summary by Samuel S. Epstein M.D., Professor of
Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health:
The GM milk hormone, rBST, is exclusively manufactured in Austria by
Biochemie Kundl, a Novartis plant under license to Monsanto; in 1998, over
100 million doses of the GM hormone were exported to the U.S.A. and also to
16 Third World Countries. While the administration of rBST to cows in
Europe was banned (very recently) on unarguable animal health and welfare
grounds, there are no restrictions yet on the import of GM dairy products,
nor any requirements for their being labelled GM. GM milk, produced by
injecting cows with the hormone rBST, is qualitatively and quantitatively
different from natural milk. These differences include:

contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBST;
contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of
mastitis in rBST injected cows;
contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and
other rBST-induced disease;
increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme
thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase;
increased concentration of long-chain and decreased concentration of
short-chain fatty acids;
reduction in casein levels;
and major excess levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor, IGF-1, including its
highly potent variant, in the milk and, surprisingly, in the blood of
people who drink it. IGF-1 is under strong suspicion of causing cancer,
notably breast and prostate.

-------

I trust you stand strong in your rejection of this awful mistake rBGH.

Kind regards
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

GENETIC MODIFICATION AND THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

Robert Mann
NZ Dairy Expo
Hamilton 00-1-27

Introduction

Genetic modification (GM) or genetic engineering (GE) mean artificial transfer of genes to produce a transgenic organism, e.g. jellyfish genes into sugarcane or human genes into cows. The methods of artificially joining pieces of DNA from different organisms' genes were invented as recently as the mid-1970s and are collectively called recombinant-DNA technology.

The abbreviations are a poor choice between pairs of letters already taken by huge US corporations, but I'll use them interchangeably.

Genetic engineering no more entails a uniform degree of hazard than does nuclear science. As in nuclear technology, so with genetic engineering: the tag 'nuclear' does not necessarily connote any serious degree of hazard, and some versions of GE may well be quite OK.

But some versions are not OK. You do therefore have to perform sceptical analyses of GE proposals if you want to assess their hazards. This is one of many similarities between the two technologies. I wish to point out other similarities - and some differences.

Do not equate GE with the larger category 'biotechnology'. GE is one kind of biotechnology but there are others too.

Genetic engineering's brief two decades of history has been characterised by exaggerated claims of benefit, confusing hope with fact in attempt to allay natural fears (and to stimulate stock-market ramps). I am here to warn you to be very careful before you allow your land, skills and animals to be used in GE projects.

What can it do for you? Here's some typical PR hype:

"Multi-billion dollar new life science industry for the region
It was MAF men Keith Steele and Neil Richardson promoting cows "not as milk producers but as 'biological reactors' producing a vast range of products which could open up multibillion dollar international marketing opportunities for the benefit of the region and the country. Treatment for multiple sclerosis could be only a glass of special milk away. The Waikato is ideally situated as the centre for this unlimited new industry based around the world-famous Ruakura research centre and the excellent University [sic ]. . . . "

Technology using nuclear fission was procured by scientists. It was not requested by elected representatives. The technical enthusiasts procured the funding for A-bombs and the nuclear reactors which were first created for the sole purpose of making plutonium for A-bombs. Similarly, billions of dollars have been procured for gene splicing by enthusiasts who say they are going to produce organisms, improved on commercial criteria, which could not occur in nature. In our little country, around $100M so far - $18M/y lately - has been given by the government to subsidise a wide variety of GE which the public know little of. (This is one glimpse, by the way, of how sincere is the belief in leaving allocation of resources to 'market forces'.)

The monstrous blind alley of nuclear power stations should teach us how far astray society can be led by technical enthusiasts who act something like a priesthood presiding over an arcane speciality which they naturally don't want obstructed by any who don't understand the technical details.

Nuclear fission is scientifically understood, and we have the technology based on that science - nuclear power reactors - commercially mature. Electricity from nuclear power stations will be reliable, clean, and so cheap we often won't bother to meter it. Not one reputable scientist disputes these claims by the enthusiasts for this modern, hi-tech wonder technology.

Such euphoric claims went practically unchallenged for as long as a decade from the late 1950s. Then in the late 1960s a few scientists began to tell the public that nuclear reactors could devastate huge areas, and that even if nothing goes wrong at the reactor the spent fuel poses grave hazards. Fortunately for our little country, other sources of electricity (hydro and geothermal) were obviously cheaper so that it was not until the 1960s that our government's nuclear power programme began. The same New Zealand bureaucrats who in 1966 proudly paraded foreign experts planning a nuclear station at Baring Head (12 miles from Parliament) were by 1974 bitterly defensive when the Campaign for Non-nuclear Futures - a terminating ad hoc coalition - got going. By 1979 a Royal Commission had laid the programme gently to rest; nobody respectable has tried to revive it.

But let us never forget that several hundred nuclear power reactors were foisted on the world, and many thousands of people doomed by the 1986 Chernobyl accident, as a result of that disgraceful decade when sheer lack of interest among scientists, suppression of the few critics, and stunting of alternatives, left the public crucially ignorant.

I need hardly add that the media almost entirely failed to reveal any significant facts about the hazards of nuclear power, at least until the late 1970s. Today the media are failing in their duty, far more culpably in that they can easily find out the arguments for increased caution on GE but are nearly all too lazy &/or too craven to do so.

Today the smug status of genetic engineering eerily recalls that period in the early 1960s when nuclear reactors were "commercialised" on the basis of enthusiasts' claims of understanding & control. New ranks of enthusiastic experts now tell us there's no significant threat from artificial gene transfers: no great harm could result, and any minor mishaps are (they claim) so unlikely that you can forget the hypothetical notion. "The hazards imagined in the mid-'70s have turned out to be unreal" is a typical recent expert quote.

Alongside airy dismissal of the dangers, the promised benefits are wildly exaggerated - for example, millions of venture-capital dollars have been procured by claims of imminent production of "pharmaceutical proteins" which in truth are nowhere near medical use and can in one case be already obtained free! The actual list of real benefits from GE organisms is very short, after a quarter-century of 'jam tomorrow' hype thru the media. In our parliament MPs have given lists of what they believed to be actual accomplishements of GE which are however still not real.

The Doubts
Many scientific and moral leaders have queried GE. The very bases in science upon which GE technology is founded - neo-Darwinism and the 'master molekule' idol status for DNA - are under strenuous criticism from scientific thinkers. Genes are not passive Lego modules which can be blithely slotted into very different organisms free from unintended effects. Rogue diseases are a genuine concern arising from detailed, sceptical appraisal of some GE projects. But global ecological damage is the gravest threat.

One tawdry old argument we have heard since 1974 and can expect to hear again in all its flagrant deceit is the claim that gene transfers occur naturally so GE is only hastening them. This line of talk is a smoke-screen designed to obscure the fact that GE usually performs artificial transfers which are not believed to occur in nature. If we change the rates, or even worse the specificities, with which genes can jump around, we may wreak biological havoc on a global scale. Go back to Ovid's Metamorphoses to glimpse what might go wrong.

But the gene-jockeys claim they can, godlike, foresee the evolutionary results of their artificial transposings of human genes into sheep, bovine genes into tomatoes, etc. This is extreme, deluded arrogance; for the theologically inclined, I commend one chapter: Genesis 3.

The science these gamblers hawk is, on several levels, junk. I have no time today to detail this contention, only to mention one aspect of junkiness. Gene-jockeys often work on the assumption there are only 4 letters in the 'alphabet' of DNA (called for short G, C, T, and A), whereas it has been known for several decades that other 'letters' exist in DNA. The functions of the 'odd' bases are largely unknown, but that does not mean they're equivalent to 'The Big Four'. They are often ignored by genetic engineers. This is junk science.

The Commerce
Doubts have been swept aside by the thrust of transnational corporations funding university and 'crown' GE labs, as well as small groups of academics starting GE firms (a far cheaper image to erect than that of a nuclear reactor manufacturer).

A further subtle commercial lure is the relative difficulty of tracing the offender when the 'one in a million' mishap occurs. The Swedes in April 1986 only briefly thought the unusual radioactivity in one of their nuclear stations was from another of their own - it was traced to Chernobyl within days; but if an epidemic of this or that disease breaks out amongst cows or humans in the Hamilton district, the fact that the nearby government research station at Ruakura has been largely given over to GE for foreign purchasers will not suffice to sheet home any blame. Any ensuing inquiry would elicit much closing of ranks as most of the scientists able to understand such arcane matters covered up for each other. Ronald Reagan's favourite criterion - deniability - is all too easily arranged in the GE business.

How Much Harm; How Often?
In appraising dangerous technologies, it is best to estimate the hazard - the scale of harm in the event of a major mishap - as a separate question, and then analyse if possible the risk - the probability that the major mishap will occur. Much confusion between these two aspects of danger has been created by language-tampering, even in such formal arenas as the Journal of Risk Analysis. Some ERMA staff are trying to organise a pseudo-professional club on Risk Assessment to feed them what they want to hear for their purpose of rubber-stamping; they refused to invite any sceptical speaker for their Dec 13 inaugural meeting.

The hazards of GE rival even nuclear war. Biology is so much more complex than technology that we should not pretend we can imagine all the horror scenarios, but it is suspected that some artificial genetic manipulations create the potential to derange the biosphere for longer than any civilisation could survive. If only enthusiasts are consulted in appraisal of GE proposals, such scenarios will not be thought of.

The nuclear parallel is again cogent. Not until the 'Rasmussen/Levine' report of 1974 were sceptical analysts such as Kendall and Lovins asked for their opinions (and then they were ignored).

The hazard certainly includes some mortality: dozens of people were killed by impurities in tryptophan (a natural amino acid, sold as a 'dietary supplement' to avoid medicine regulations) made by Showa Denko using a GE'd microbial culture. By early 1991, Showa Denko had paid $4.6M in out-of-court settlements amongst lawsuits for over $810M. By now, the totals are roughly U$2,000,000,000 and 80 - 120 deaths. Thousands continue maimed. This actual damage by GE is one basis of the campaign for labelling as such any GE'd foods which may be permitted.

Who should bear the burden of proof in such a context of ignorance? How long must objectors continue to be mocked & marginalised?

The role of emotion is often misrepresented by enthusiasts for dangerous technologies. They decry as 'emotive' any argument or fact inconvenient to their cause, but their own enthusiasm does not count as undesirable emotion; indeed they pretend to be 'objective' - devoid of emotion - when in fact they're ruled by emotion, against reason.

Law
In the late 1970s, the N.Z. Association of Scientists proposed a ban on GE pending a full public inquiry. This policy, which is still regarded as correct for today, was taken up then, two decades ago, by a few politicians. But the genetic engineers had one or two rabid advocates, notably Bill Sutton, in Parliament and avoided hostile scrutiny. Only now, two decades later, the Royal Commission is to be formed next month; but how much GE can proceed during its inquiry remains to be determined.

Some regulations were drafted but stayed stuck on paper, recalling the 8 years of limbo between our Radiation Protection Act 1965 and the regulations required to give that act any real effect.

At last, a form of legal regulation of novel organisms emerged - the ERMA. This turns out to be a biased, secretive, even obstructive agency, which collects a lot of money from both the gene-jockeys and the government to maintain an expensive rubber-stamp. It is chaired by Mr W J Falconer, a main planner of the Mobil/Bechtel synfuels factory (at Motunui) which has not made any petrol for several years and was always a bad bet.

Having taught on environmental health hazards for many years in science & medical faculties, and having served as an adviser to successive Ministers of Health over a decade on the Toxic Substances Board, I know all too well how increasingly overloaded government staff, even when backed by statutory powers, get subverted by not only the specific claims but more importantly the whole value-system of the industries which they are supposed to regulate. The imbalance is particularly severe for such pathetic pretences as have been staged to regulate GE.

GE and the Dairy Industry
What then of the "multi-billion dollar new life science industry for the region" alleged by Keith Steele and Neil Richardson ?

You can reasonably assume that most of the $42B/y mirage projected for the NZ dairy industry relies on GE fantasies which are far from reality and may never be feasible let alone profitable. It is not extremely safe to assume they would all gain legal permission, after the Royal Commission on GE has performed the first sceptical investigation, by public hearings. There have been many flops in GE. Let me give a few examples of how dairy GE can go wrong.

A relatively early example was the mid-1990s attempt to make a human protein in goats' milk by Lincoln University biochemistry professor Bullock, funded by Genzyme Corp of Framingham, Massachusetts. This case came & went entirely within the never-never period when no legal regulatory regime existed in our country but Prof Petersen of Otago presided over a pseudo-regulatory Interim Assessment Group (IAG) administered by the Ministry for the Environment.

The project was to raise and study a herd of goats GEd to contain in their milk the human protein CFTR - cystic fibrosis transmembrane-conductance regulator . The professor's formal proposal was written, and ancillary mass-media propaganda has been slanted, so as to create the impression that the Genzyme/Lincoln work is based on some scientific hypothesis which could well lead to therapy for cystic fibrosis. This is a misleading impression. Even if it proves feasible to insert the gene for the human lung protein CFTR into goat embryos or zygotes, leading to goats' milk containing significant quantities of human CFTR, there will still remain the difficulty that no therapy is in prospect using any concentrated preparation of CFTR. Leading experts in paediatric biochemistry will confirm for you that pure CFTR has no foreseen use. The proposal's phrase "the drug produced" was therefore false and deceptive.

The leading medical experts on cystic fibrosis have found themselves in the unpleasant role of breaking the news to the parents of CF sufferers that, contrary to the Genzyme/Bullock image, no therapy is in prospect. It is cruel to raise hopes which must thus be dashed by others.

The public should also learn that permission was denied for Prof Bullock's conjoint proposal to produce similarly in goats' milk a second human protein, AAT, which has even less prospect of utility or market value but which he termed a "pharmaceutical protein" - of which more soon. The IAG, to its credit, recommended against the inclusion of AAT in this CFTR caper.

The results, reported in a couple of sentences by the Ministry for the Environment, were a complete flop, the goats were destroyed, what was done with their remains is unrecorded, and Prof. Bullock went overseas.

Which media were not too lazy or too craven to report this caper?

A more important and interesting example is the current attempt to genetically engineer that human protein called AAT in N.Z. sheep. A small Scottish company ("Pharmaceutical" Proteins Ltd - the 'Dolly' procreators & impresarios - financed by the large German multi-national Bayer) wanted to field-test in New Zealand ewes GE'd to make in their milk a human protein called by the unhelpful name alpha-1 antitrypsin (abbreviated AAT). The only reason stated for doing such experiments in N.Z. was this country's scrapie-free status. The Ministry for the Environment's Interim Assessment Group (IAG), although devoid of experts on prions (scrapie, BSE {mad cow disease}, etc.) and dominated by GE enthusiasts who appear to think that fears of GE are absurd, advised their Minister to refuse, which he did. Reasons, when reluctantly disclosed, turned out to be mere econobabble; prions were not mentioned.

Prevalent misinformation tending to favour the AAT project, due partly to an anonymous 'news' report in Science , requires correction in at least the following respects.

a) AAT-deficiency is equated with congenital emphysema, an unjustified jump beyond the evidence. Most of those born AAT-deficient do not develop lung disorders. Reports on N.Z. TV and in newspapers have credited AAT as a treatment for emphysema ; the public would take this to mean the common smoking-induced illness, greatly exaggerating the claim of usefulness. The congenital version is very much rarer, if a proper diagnostic category at all.

(b) AAT is asserted to be in use now to treat congenital emphysema, whereas such crude preliminary trials as have been done prove very little. In fact there exists no use, let alone a market, for genuine human AAT which is routinely purified as a by-product and discarded in standard blood-bank fractionations of pooled human plasma.

(c) AAT is implied to be very valuable, which factoid is then used to justify attempted production by genetic engineering ("U$100,000/y per ewe"). All this "future earnings" is intended to stimulate a stock-market ramp before anything saleable has actually been produced. That at least is the intention. But of course such a bubble must burst after enough time without selling anything. This is the fate of nearly all such ramps.

The Minister 'for' the Environment, ex-Rhodes Scholar & lawyer Mr Simon Upton, solicited a modified application, which was approved - on economic grounds.

Now the ERMA, flying in the face of the facts, has approved expansion of PPL's flock to 10,000. Nothing is to go offsite except the milk (for processing by a proposed Tainui enterprise). But then, the ERMA has never rejected a GE project. It stages some dramatic delays - on that I sympathise with the AgResearch would-be bovine gene-jockeys.

This particular caper is only one of many similar. The standards of truthfulness in the GE trade are reminiscent of those prevailing in the computer trade, with which it has intimate links.

That is the context in which the AgResearch group l'Huillier, Wells et al. claim they might make a cow whose milk could simply be drunk to treat the demylinating illness multiple sclerosis. There is some evidence this might work; but it could go badly wrong, in the people and perhaps in the cows. Demyelination can be induced by injecting the protein in question, and we know little about what it will do by mouth. The more likely motive for this project is to get patents on improved cloning techniques, as have just been issued to the 'Dolly' impresarios. The Waikato Times bills these enthusiasts as 'The Geniuses'.

The depraved trade of mercenary deception, commonly called PR, has enormous influence in the suppression and distortion of information about GE. This has come about largely because the NZ media have almost totally failed to tell key facts about GE. The NZ Herald's Yoke Har Lee, for instance, has largely just laundered PR claims from the gene-jockeys, with no balancing comment from critics.

Global Reach
Today New Zealand is reduced to the status of 'the Liberia of genetic engineering' as transnational corporations conduct here some field tests which their home governments would probably not permit. Government, gutted & starved by the ideological hatred of public enterprise (Rogernomics, Ruthanasia, and then Jenocide - our versions of Thatcherism), is largely warped to the commercial service of foreign corporations, and is almost totally unable, so far, to regulate GE. The charade of pseudoregulation - the expensive rubber stamp called ERMA, and the even less regulatory ANZFA - fails to control anything much, even labels.

The gene-jockeys, and ignorant executives, are trying to sell your industry to foreigners who will thus pay for more GE. I advise you to stop the 'megamerger' which is one stage in that plan.

GE Products
A few biochemicals are being made commercially by GE in microbes. The one which most obviously affects you is Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as bovine somatotropin. Canada rejected this, mainly because it is cruel to the cows. But there are other drawbacks.

I excerpt from a recent summary by Samuel S. Epstein M.D., Professor of
Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health:
The GM milk hormone, rBST, is exclusively manufactured in Austria by Biochemie Kundl, a Novartis plant under license to Monsanto; in 1998, over 100 million doses of the GM hormone were exported to the U.S. and also to 16 Third World Countries. While the administration of rBST to cows in Europe was banned (very recently) on unarguable animal health and welfare grounds, there are no restrictions yet on the import of GM dairy products, nor any requirements for their being labelled GM. GM milk, produced by injecting cows with the hormone rBST, is qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk. These differences include:
contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBST;
contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of mastitis in rBST injected cows;
contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBST-induced disease;
increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase;
increased concentration of long-chain and decreased concentration of short-chain fatty acids;
reduction in casein levels;
and major excess levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor, IGF-1, including its highly potent variant, in the milk and, surprisingly, in the blood of people who drink it. IGF-1 is under strong suspicion of causing cancer, notably breast and prostate.

Monsanto have tried to register their Posilac® rBGH in this country, but late last year the impression emerged that this had been rejected. Its exact legal status should be clearly known to you.

Wake Up!
It is now a quarter-century since genetic engineering was identified in the same league as nuclear weapons among major threats to the biosphere. During this period, market forces have prevailed instead of informed democracy.

Genetic engineering is by now more popular - more widely practised - than dangerous versions of nuclear science ever were. But it is in general profoundly wrong.

Misallocation of money, and more importantly of scientific talent seduced by GE, are among the reasons why the duty to care for natural ecosystems is so disgracefully neglected. Greedy nerds applying the hacker mentality to life itself is the ultimate decadent technomania. The prostitution of science is most complete and most dangerous in the selfish commercial gene. When will we muster the ethical power to wake up from this sleepwalking?

What should we advocate? In October 1998 I renewed the NZ Association of Scientists policy from two decades ago: a full public inquiry, rather like the Royal Commission on Nuclear Power which proved so useful and fairly cheap.

That Royal Commission is now being formed by negotiations amongst the peculiar elected structure thrown up by the MMP electoral system. As the Royal Society of NZ fronts for the GE industry, touring Dr Richard Bellamy & Professor Sir John Scott to say there's little to worry about, it is surely obvious that the public will have severe difficulties in discerning right from wrong. Nothing will serve to clarify the issue for the purposes of democracy short of a Royal Commission equipped with its own expert staff. I note the new Prime Minister already talking about the payments for expert advice from outside the government. The word 'consultant' has lost much gloss during this period of sabotaging public enterprise, so I wonder who is to be hired for what.

How much GE should be allowed to continue during this inquiry? I suggest
1 do not permit new field trials
2 shut down existing field trials
3 review laboratory GE precautions
4 of course, receive no applications for release of any GM organisms.
5 abolish the "Independent" Biotechnology Advisory Council which was set up by the previous government with several gung-ho GE advocates but no known critic.

What To Do Instead of GE
We did not just campaign against nuclear power. People want to know what to do instead. The Campaign for Non-nuclear Futures took every opportunity to point out better technology & ideas.

Instead of GE, and agribusiness more generally, the only real hope for feeding the world is organic agriculture. If we can do it with apples, as is being achieved in NZ now, we can do it much more generally. The lower costs more than compensate for the cases of slightly lower yields; in general the yields of organic gardening are several times those achieved in agribusiness.

The Dairy Board chief of PR, Mr Neville Martin, is right to emphasise on National Radio (19-12-99) that organic dairy production is not yet organised in NZ; but it does exist - organic milk is in my supermarket - and can be greatly expanded. Organic intensive dairying may be difficult, but Jamie Tait-Jamieson is doing OK and so are some others. I urge dairy farmers to move in the direction of sustainability. Decreasing inputs, especially exotic chemicals, is a wise trend. Synthetic urea should be much more sparingly used than the Think Big urea factory would imply. All too often an industry can get caught up in an irrational game originated by a technology in search of a use. That is the case, in spades, for the dairy industry today as it tries to grapple with the seductive PR images put forth by the gene-jockeys. I'm here to tell you to be extremely cautious about their claims.

* * * *

The two best websites on GE are:
www.ucsusa.org
www.psrast.org

* Dr Mann was Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry in the University of Auckland and then became its first (and last) Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies. In retirement he works mainly on solar-thermal and motorcycling inventions, as well as helping to bring recombinant DNA under control.

I'm forwarding this from another list. It deals with life patent
issues and, given some attention to all the acronyms, it gives a pretty
clear picture of how the life patents issue is playing out.

I've got to say, it makes me enormously grateful to those few who
haven't been co-opted by this dysesthetic diplomatic process and, at the
same time, angry to see the blades of raw economic power grinding up good
people and good ideas so that they can be spread thin.

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity. The USA never ratified it.
ABS: Access and Benefit Sharing (i.e., of biodiversity and genetic
resources).
TRIPS: Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property (negotiated under
WTO with a very big push from the US).
WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization.
TK: Traditional Knowledge.
UNEP: United Nations Environmental Program.

Jim Diamond, M.D.
chmn Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee

*********

One of the liveliest exchanges that occurred at the recent CBD meeting
on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS-3) in Bangkok had to do with
intellectual property rights. Chee Yoke Ling of the Third World Network
wrote about the exchange for the South-North Monitor and shares below a
special version of her report:

*********

Lively debate on IPRs at UN access and benefit sharing negotiations

by Chee Yoke Ling
Third World Network
22 February 2005

The issue of intellectual property rights became one of the most
controversial and heatedly discussed topics at a meeting on access and
benefit sharing under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
held in Bangkok on 14-18 February.

The relationship between the CBD and the World Trade Organization's
(WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) figured prominently in the intergovernmental discussions
that took place at the meeting of the CBD Working Group on Access and
Benefit Sharing (ABS).

The lengthy and lively debate on this topic was first sparked by an
opening statement of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) that
highlighted "real contradictions" between the CBD and the WTO's TRIPS
agreement. Throughout the rest of the week, there were sharp
differences in positions between developing and developed countries on
this issue and how it should be dealt with.

In the opening plenary session on 14 February, UNEP's representative,
speaking on behalf of the Executive Director, Klaus Topfer, said:
"There are real contradictions in essential points between TRIPS and
the CBD, which must be resolved."

"IPRs applied to life forms under TRIPS runs counter to, and do not
support the objectives of the CBD particularly on such aspects:
* IPRs will prevent the CBD from realising the full and practical
meaning of Article 3 on national sovereignty (which is supposed to
regulate access to genetic resources) and Article 8(j) on the farmers'
Rights;
* Conservation of biological diversity as called for by the CBD is not
possible under a global regime of private monopoly rights. Conservation
of biological resources implies enormous responsibility that TRIPS does not
allocate to those who will benefit from ownership rights to these
resources".

The UNEP executive director's statement went on to say that "the
private property regime established by the TRIPS will undermine the
benefit sharing provisions of the CBD. Private monopoly can only begin
where national or community sovereignty has been effectively suspended.

"Therefore, under TRIPS, the very genetic resources which nations and
communities are supposed to control access to, will be under the
control of IPR holders. Governments and communities will have no means
of regulating access or demanding a share of the benefits because they
will be subject to private ownership, contrary to the objectives of the
CBD."

The UNEP statement pointed out that "many developing countries have not
yet been able to develop national strategies on biotechnology, but must
nonetheless implement new IPR regimes to conform to the terms of the
TRIPS Agreement."

The statement marked the first time that UNEP had taken such a clear
position on the issue of the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPS
agreement, and it set the tone for subsequent discussions.

Throughout the week, a number of developing countries also raised their
concerns about the conflicts between IPRs and the CBD objectives.
However, the UNEP statement displeased developed countries and this was
clearly made known by them at the closing plenary session on the
afternoon of 18 February during the adoption of the Working Group
report.

The Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that
the EU did not agree with the statement of UNEP. As Parties to both the
CBD and TRIPS, mutual supportiveness was ensured and there was no
conflict.

Australia expressed "serious concerns" over the statement and
questioned "the appropriateness of UNEP" in making the statement that
TRIPS will undermine access and benefit sharing under the CBD.
Australia also said that the two agreements are mutually supportive.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the
relevant paragraph in the report of the Working Group described what
had happened: that the two agreements are inherently contradictory, and
"no amount of wishful thinking will make them mutually supportive".

The Ethiopian delegate, Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, who has been a veteran
negotiator at the CBD since its inception, said that this issue was
debated before and will be debated as long as the rules of TRIPS
prevail. "The agreements will be mutually supportive only when the
TRIPS Agreement is amended to take care of the needs of indigenous and
local communities," he said.

Brazil said that the report conveyed the speech by the UNEP Executive
Director and requested the UNEP representative to convey to the
Executive Director that Brazil is looking towards resolving the
contradiction between the TRIPS agreement and the CBD.
Switzerland saw no contradiction between the two agreements.

The United States said that the UNEP statement was "beyond the mandate
of UNEP" and that “UNEP had no competence to deal with IPRs”.

Hartmut Meyer of the German NGO Forum for Environment and Development,
speaking on behalf of a number of NGOs at the meeting, said that for
many years thousands of civil society organizations have come to the
same conclusion: that IPRs and TRIPS are in conflict with the CBD
objectives.

UNEP representative Margaret Oduk stressed that the main message of
UNEP's opening statement was the need for mutual supportiveness between
multilateral environmental agreements. She said that views expressed at
the plenary were duly taken, and reiterated UNEP's role in the access
and benefit-sharing process that had been outlined at the opening
plenary session.

While UNEP unexpectedly gained attention, the issue of "mutual
supportiveness" between the CBD and TRIPS, and between the CBD and
WIPO, was questioned by many developing country delegations throughout
the week's discussions.

The Philippines said that the CBD is the primary framework to address
ABS issues and that it is necessary to address the conflicts between
TRIPS and the CBD.

Ethiopia, on behalf of the African Group, said that while WIPO may be
asked to provide inputs, the CBD Parties have the ultimate say on
issues under the CBD.

South Korea said that the international regime on ABS should be based
on the voluntary Bonn Guidelines and be consistent with developments
under WIPO, TRIPS, the WTO and FAO (the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources).

Many developing country delegates and observers from NGOs and
indigenous peoples’ organizations welcomed the UNEP statement, and said
that it “squarely addressed the fundamental contradiction between TRIPS
and the CBD.”

In a well-attended side event during the week on developments at the
WTO-TRIPS, WIPO and CBD, Egyptian delegate Ahmed Abdel Latif shared his
personal views after 4 years as a negotiator at the WTO TRIPS Council
and WIPO (where he was the African Group coordinator until December
2004).

He underlined that the notion of "mutual supportiveness" between
international for a can lend itself to different interpretations. He d
emphasized, in this regard, that, from the perspective of developing
countries, this notion meant that TRIPS and WIPO should be made
supportive of the CBD objectives and principles. There are important
flaws and contradictions in TRIPS, such as the requirement to patent
some biological resources without requiring compliance with the CBD
obligations of prior informed consent and equitable benefit sharing, he
added.

The detailed proposals by the Africa Group and developing countries
including Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Peru, Thailand and
Venezuela, for amendments to the TRIPS Agreement at the TRIPS Council
reflect the need to address the contradictions of TRIPS in relation to
the CBD.

He added that the trilateral relationship between the CBD, TRIPS, and
WIPO is becoming an integral and critical part of the way that the
misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge are
addressed. Developing countries thus need to coordinate nationally and
internationally to develop a comprehensive approach.

He said that the three institutions have very different mandates. The
TRIPS Council has been instructed by the Doha Ministerial Declaration
to examine the TRIPS-CBD relationship in accordance with Article 7 and
8 of TRIPS (on objectives and principles) and taking full account of
the development dimension, with many developing countries taking a
pro-active role in the last few years.

WIPO's mandate, however, is to promote patents and other IPRs, and thus
normative work in WIPO to ‘protect traditional knowledge’ should be
closely followed in particular in relation to ideas to "protect" TK in
a similar way as for other conventional intellectual property rights.
Indigenous peoples' perspectives and the development dimension, not
just users' interests (i. e. intellectual property holders), should
shape any normative work in this field, said Ahmed Abdel Latif.

The Proposal for establishing a Development Agenda for WIPO that was
submitted by 14 developing countries, and adopted at the 2004 WIPO
General Assembly was a significant step forward in working towards
integrating the development dimension in all aspects of WIPO's work, in
particular standard setting. .

With respect to the 2004 invitation of the 7th meeting of the CBD
Conference of the Parties to WIPO to work on disclosure of
source/country of origin in IPR applications, Ahmed Abdel Latif said
that developing countries at the WIPO General Assembly had initiated a
mechanism that involves more country participation in preparing a
response to the CBD. He stressed that CBD Parties must maintain, assert
and retain the CBD's own distinctive views and perspectives.

In the opening plenary of the Working Group, a representative of the
Third World Network (TWN) said that it is important for the CBD to be
the primary framework in dealing with ABS issues. Thus any move to
ensure "mutual supportiveness" must be guided by the CBD objectives and
principles.

In supporting the statements by UNEP and a number of delegations, TWN
drew attention to an important development in the US where excessively
broad claims or claims that have deficiencies have been accepted in
patent applications, with undesirable effects. The TWN representative
cited a recent article by a US patent lawyer in Nature Biotechnology
(Volume 23 No. 2 February 2005 page 245-247): "In view of the damage
caused by questionable patents and the limited options available for
challenging their validity, there is widespread belief that a better
system is needed".

Three new reports by the US Patents and Trademarks Office, the Federal
Trade Commission and the National Academy of Sciences recommend reforms
to make challenges to patent validity more rapid, effective and less
expensive. A bill (Patent Quality Assurance Act) has been introduced in
the US Congress recently for this purpose.

However, according to TWN, this does not go far enough as the extension
of the scope of patents to cover life forms contradict the CBD
objectives. TWN called for a roll back in patentability, and an ABS
regime under the CBD should be an alternative. Delegates were also
urged to consider the proposals by developing countries at the TRIPS
Council relating to the CBD-TRIPS relationship and the protection of
traditional knowledge.

The adverse impact of patents in particular on biodiversity
conservation and use of biological resources, as well as on the rights
of indigenous peoples and local communities to their resources and
knowledge has increasingly raised concerns among scientists, civil
society and many governments.

These concerns were present already at the time of the CBD negotiations
but developed countries resisted any language that might infer that
IPRs can be negative. Although the CBD compromise language is that
"patents and other IPRs may have an influence on the implementation" of
the CBD, Article 16{5) obliges Parties to ensure that IPRs "are
supportive of and do not run counter" to the objectives of the CBD.

During the Bangkok meeting, some developing countries included, as one
of the elements listed in Annex 1 of the decision on the International
Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing, "Measures to ensure that IPRs do
not undermine the international regime".

At the meeting, while developed countries spoke of mutual
supportiveness, there was strong resistance by many of them to any
substantive link with the work of the TRIPS Council. This took place
when the issue of compliance with prior informed consent and mutually
agreed terms for access and benefit sharing was being discussed at a
sub-working group.

Many developed countries argued that work on disclosure of
origin/source/legal provenance of genetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge in applications for IPRs should primarily be done
by WIPO.

However, many developing countries countered by saying that the ABS
Working Group of the CBD had the mandate to examine this issue, and the
inputs that WIPO and other institutions were invited to provide would
be part of the analysis to be considered by the Working Group.

The developing countries also argued that the work at the TRIPS Council
has an important link to the CBD, since it is specifically addressing
the TRIPS-CBD relationship and there was active discussion and
proposals in the Council on disclosure requirements and patentability
over life forms. In turn, the outputs of the ABS Working Group should
also be transmitted to those institutions and processes.

Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Malaysia, Liberia and Ethiopia, the
Netherlands (EU), Canada, Australia and Switzerland were invited to
form the Friends of the co-Chairs to resolve their differences.

After a long night's work, it was finally agreed that the results of
the examination by the Working Group on this issue are to be
transmitted to "WIPO and other relevant fora such as FAO, UNCTAD, UNEP,
UPOV, WTO".

The listing of so many other international organizations was due to the
desire of the developed countries to not single out the TRIPS Council.

In the compliance decision, the Executive Secretary of the CBD is also
requested to compile pertinent documentation, in particular, recent
proposals submitted by Parties to the CBD "in the following
international organizations listed in alphabetical order: FAO, UNCTAD,
UNEP, UPOV, WIPO and the WTO TRIPS Council". The documentation is to be
made available on the clearing house mechanism of the CBD and to the
next meeting of the ABS Working Group.

The original proposal was submitted by Brazil, and supported by Egypt,
Colombia, Malaysia, and the African Group, to refer to the positions
taken by many developing countries in the TRIPS Council, relating to
the review of the TRIPS agreement on the issue of patenting of life
forms (Article 27.3. b) and the TRIPS-CBD relationship. The advanced
stage of these discussions and the detailed proposals particularly by a
group of developing countries (on disclosure requirements) and the
African Group (on prohibition of patents on life forms) in the TRIPS
Council was seen as mutually supportive of the work of developing
countries in the CBD.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1419841,00.html

A bitter harvest

Europe's bureaucrats have caved in to American pressure over GM, but the
decision can be overturned argue Sue Mayer and Robin Grove-White

Tuesday February 22, 2005
The Guardian

The final act of a controversy over GM crops that sets America against
Europe unfolds today in Geneva. The World Trade Organisation will hear the
closing arguments in a case where the public authority of both the European
commission and the WTO is at stake.

In May 2003 the US, Argentina and Canada, urged on by their industry
lobbies, complained to the WTO about Europe's moratorium on GM approvals,
imposed in October 1998. As the biggest producers of GM crops, they felt the
European position was damaging their trade interests and argued that it
could not be scientifically justified.

Throughout the European Union there has been extensive concern about GM
crops. Among the public's fears is the potential for long-term harm to the
environment - for example through the increased use of herbicides and the
gene flow to wild species - and to human health, should new allergens
appear. In a wider context of uncertainties about the future of agriculture
and of a pervasive lack of confidence in official approaches to the handling
of technological risk, consumer rejection of GM has been widespread.

In response to these worries, the EU revised its regulatory framework to
include wider issues such as traceablility, labelling and impacts on
farmland wildlife. This process is still under way, with countries
developing national plans on how, if GM crops are grown, to limit
contamination of non-GM crops, and how to ascribe liability should harm
result.

The EU's initial submissions to the WTO dispute panel argued that its
approach was necessarily "prudent and precautionary". It emphasised that the
US, Canada and Argentina were challenging the right of countries to
establish levels of protection from the risks of GM appropriate to their
circumstances - and that the risks and uncertainties were complex and
serious. The outcome of the case would be of enormous significance
worldwide.

Last summer, however, while arguments were still being put, the European
commission awarded the first marketing approvals since October 1998. The
awards - for importing two varieties of GM maize, for food and feed - ended
the de facto Europe-wide moratorium, but the commission had to use
provisions designed for when the council of ministers is unable to reach
agreement. In effect, the bureaucracy stepped in and forced through a
particular outcome, despite continuing political disagreement across the EU.
This now looks set to become a growing pattern.

Significantly, the commission has also shifted its defence in the WTO case
in a way that suggests a direct link with this new tactic on GM approvals.
The commission is unwilling to publish its recent submissions to the dispute
panel (despite requests from Friends of the Earth under freedom of
information rules), but it is clear from the US's response, which has been
made public, that the commission now wants the dispute to be ruled "moot"
because GM approvals have started. In other words, it has caved in to US
pressure and is rearranging the pieces.

The commission is playing a dangerous game. Member states and their
populations are divided even on whether the two varieties of GM maize
recently approved satisfy the EU's own regulatory criteria. However, the
commission appears to have decided that satisfying the US is more important
than respecting the continuing concern among the people and governments of
member states. It is a course of action that could have reverberations for
the European project as a whole.

The GM dispute has been unfolding at a time when the future of the EU is a
fraught political question in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Here,
referendums on the currency and EU constitution are looming. A key Euro-
sceptic weapon is to whip up fear of a remote unaccountable bureaucracy.
When the commission acts, as in this case, in a fashion so strongly at odds
with the EU's citizens and their political representatives, the result can
only be further cynicism and hostility.

The new commission, which came into being last November, has a chance to
reconsider the matter anew. Bearing in mind the broader implications of the
case for its own future standing, it should look again at the GM approvals
granted by its predecessor.

It is not only Europe's institutions that are being tested by the GM
dispute. The already tattered credibility of the WTO itself is also at
stake.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the US challenge to Europe's initial stance
has attracted exceptional interest from civil society groups - to the point
where several international coalitions have submitted amicus curiae briefs
directly to the panel. All these point to the need for the WTO to rely on
more enlightened approaches to risk assessment, respecting the different
cultural and environmental circumstances of individual countries. Insistence
on a one-size-fits-all approach tailored to US norms - to which Europe now
risks deferring - is undermining the WTO's authority. If successive crises
of the GM kind are to be avoided, the WTO needs to change - and fast.
Peter Mandelson, the EU's trade commissioner, can play a key role. The
outcome of this dispute will affect the basis on which countries can make
decisions relevant to their particular environmental, social and cultural
needs in today's free-trade world. For the sake of Europe as much as the
WTO, he should move to ensure that the commission stands firm on its initial
position in the dispute and offers no further hostages to fortune.

· Dr Sue Mayer is director of GeneWatch UK; Robin Grove-White is a professor
at the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy at Lancaster
University

from: avkrebs@earthlink.net
WEB SITE:

MONSANTO THREATENS TILLAMOOK,
SEEKS TO "FOREVER PROHIBIT" DAIRY
BOARD FROM "REGULATING ANY
FDA APPROVED PHARMACEUTICAL"

RICK NORTH, OREGON PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: KGW TV reporter
Vince Patton uncovered Monsanto's plans to reverse the Tillamook board's
decision to disallow the use of rBGH, as reported on Friday night's 6:00 pm
news

He discovered that "Two of its (Monsanto's) representatives came to
Tillamook County accompanied by lawyer James Miller from Monsanto's law
firm, King & Spalding in Washington, DC." Farmers reported that Miller
drafted a petition that would go beyond reversing the rBGH decision. It
would "forever prohibit the Tillamook Creamery board from ever regulating
any FDA approved pharmaceutical."

Even with all this evidence, Monsanto Director of Public Affairs Jennifer
Garrett said that Monsanto was not involved in instigating a petition. Even
more incredibly, Patton reported that neither Monsanto nor the farmers said
they paid the lawyer. If not, I have to believe he was paid by King &
Spalding, who receive money from Monsanto, of course, to represent them.
Either that or he was doing this as a volunteer. (No comment)

Early this morning, the Oregonian reported that Tillamook had put out a
news release asserting "Tillamook County Creamery Association is facing an
aggressive intrusion by Monsanto into the association's decision-making
process."

We will fight back.. I'm gathering input now and will be back in touch
with you no later than tomorrow with contact information and suggestions
on how to make your feelings known. Many of you have already signed up as
volunteers, but even if you haven't , the time is now to step forward and
do something directly to stopMonsanto's efforts.

The Tillamook vote may be shaping up as a referendum on which way dairies
across the nation will go. Will they listen to their consumers or be
intimidated by Monsanto? It's up to us to make our voices heard.

Finally, one misconception --- Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
is not asking for a ban on rBGH. Our goal is to discontinue the production
of dairy products in Oregon using rBGH. A ban is an official policy against
doing something. We are not going through the legislature to get a law
passed or anything like it. We are simply doing a public education campaign
to better inform the public and allow them to "vote with their dollars." In
addition, we are actively contacting the dairies to ask them not to use
rBGH. This is all voluntary, which we think is the best way to go. I'm
asking Vince Patton to correct this misconception.
[ February 19, 2005 ]

COMMENTARY by A V Krebs:
IT'S AS YOGI ONCE SAID:
"IT'S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN !!!"

Once again a strong-arm tactic by the Monsanto Co. has shown itself.

After the Great Pacific Northwest' Tillamook Creamery decided to prohibit
any of its147 dairy farmers from using the genetically engineered rBGH
(bovine growth hormone) in its cows (see stories below) Monsanto, the
manufacturer, sought a petition to "forever prohibit the Tillamook Creamery
board from ever regulating any FDA approved pharmaceutical"

Vince Patton, a reporter for the Portland, Oregon station KGW-TV, first
reported the story and in relating the background behind Tillamook's
decision told how one of its dairy farmers Dick Heathershaw decided to try
the synthetic hormone four years ago.

"The biotech giant Monsanto wanted him to add "Posilac" to his cows'
routine: a bi-weekly syringe full of the genetically engineered growth
hormone. Heathershaw says, `They (Monsanto) were just really relentless in
pushing it, you know. They'd visit you continually.'"

Patton told Rick North of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
that he has NEVER had a story in Portland reviewed so thoroughly by station
lawyers --- no surprise there!

But unlike Florida's WTVT/FOX13, the Portland TV station aired its two-part
story on the pros and cons of rBGH and the Tillamook decision. For their
rBGH expose the WTVT/FOX13 husband-wife investigative reporting team Jane
Akre and Steve Wilson were fired from the station.

Later, after a jury trial, Akre was awarded a $425,000 verdict as she
charged she was pressured by FOX Television management and lawyers to air
what she knew and documented to be false information concerning the
widespread use of the Monsanto manufactured hormone.

While the Florida jurors concluded she was pressured by FOX lawyers and
managers to broadcast what the jury agreed was "a false, distorted or
slanted story" and was subsequently fired for threatening to blow the
whistle, that decision was reversed on a legal technicality when a higher
court agreed with FOX that it is technically not against any law, rule or
regulation to air "a false, distorted or slanted story"

In setting the jury verdict aside, the appeals court ruled that in order to
be protected by Florida’s Whistleblower Act, the alleged misconduct must
violate a written law. The court said the Federal Communication's
Commission (FCC) prohibition against news distortion was merely a policy.

In a companion decision the Court also ruled that Akre and her journalist
husband Steve likewise had to pay the legal costs and fees the broadcaster
incurred defending itself in the case. The couple appealed the latter
ruling.

In August, 2004, Florida Judge Vivian Maye denied FOX's motion that would
have forced Akre and Wilson to pay nearly $2 million in legal fees and
court costs the broadcaster spent to defend itself at trial. In her ruling
Judge Maye cited previous court decisions that allow judicial discretion in
deciding whether whistleblowers must reimburse defense costs if they
ultimately lose.

Akre and Wilson had prepared their WTVT/FOX13 documentary on how Florida
dairymen had been secretly injecting the genetically engineered rBGH into
their cows and how Florida supermarkets quietly reneged on promises not to
sell milk from treated cows until the hormone gained widespread acceptance
by consumers.

In their subsequent law suit the reporters charged in detail FOX Television
--- the "fair and balanced" network owned by Rupert Murdoch's
multi-national News Corp, was strongly pressured by Monsanto.

"In essence," Akre points out " FOX argued the First Amendment gives
broadcasters the right to even lie or deliberately distort news reports on
the public airwaves."

Akre recalls: " Prior to our dismissal, Station Manager Dave Boylan, a
career salesman without any roots in journalism and seemingly lacking the
devotion to serve the public interest that motivates all good investigative
reporting, had flaunted the company's wealth in an attempt to make us back
down. `We paid $3 billion for these stations,' he told us on one occasion.
`We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is!'"

Not only did FOX manage to get away with their Florida scam, but they got
an able assist from both the mainstream and liberal media in the fact that
the entire case received nary a mention in this nation's major and
alternative news outlets.

Thus, one can only wonder when Monsanto gets through with the Tillamook
board --- and all the pressure it can muster on the dairy farmers which
supply the creamery to ignore the recent ban --- whether it will then
attempt to intimidate the Oregon media in much the same underhanded way it
made a corporate prostitute of WTVT/FOX 13.

MannGram®: The basic fallacy of GM

Feb 2005

A noted defector from the ranks of the gene-jockeys wrote to me:

>In discussions with colleagues in which I argue along the lines of Dr
>Schubert, I frequently encounter the rebuttal that these same concerns occur
>with traditional breeding only traditional breeding is likely to be more
>disruptive by virtue of the large amount of genetic exchange.
>I certainly recognize that two wrongs don't make a right; nevertheless
>it would be
>informative to know if there is a fundamentally greater risk of inadvertent
>deviant biochemistry with GM than traditionally-bred crops.

to which I replied:

As it happens, exactly this issue arose - again - in my public
debate against a card-carrying gene-jockey (Simon Deroles of 'Crop&Food'
CRI).

To my way of thinking, the main answer is in the fact that nature
is not random. The routine Conner claim that slapping in - randomly ! -
a few genes {what Conner calls "just one gene"} will have more predictable
effects than offering a whole genome of 10^5 genes in cross-pollination is
wrong for the main reason that it furtively assumes natural crosses to be
random or nearly so. The immediate response to this furphy is that there's
almost nothing random in nature. We know, admittedly, v little about the
natural barriers to error in traditional breeding; that does not prove
they're unreal.

The fundamental answer however is that nature is designed. If you
think biology is just the result of the outworkings of the laws of physics
& chemistry, then you could - with considerable sloppiness - assume
that even random insertion of synthetic DNA 'cassettes' to create
GM-bastards by illegitimate recombination would be no more likely than
traditional breeding to cause harm. If on the other hand you think (to
take specific cases) that

* a pear is not just a random collection of biochemicals but a creation of
a benign Creator, and
* Grandmother Smith in a Seedknee suburb was a humble alert agent of that
Creator (selecting a new mutant apple tree that had arrived according to
His rules), then you will contrast such natural processes with the overwhelming of
natural barriers by synthetic modified T-plasmids, biolistics, etc.

I tend to think it is on this basic level that the issue really turns.
For those who think so, re-reading of _Genesis 3_ will be salutory.

In a culture that has largely turned away from theology, this may
of course be a hard msg to get across. But it is not a contradiction of
any science-based reasoning; they reinforce each other.

Having been challenged more than once to avoid 'extremism' in my utterances
on GM, I have at last got around to writing some considered responses to
that challenge. The particular latest challenger is a well known
personage. My reply below is excerpted to prevent his identification.

>Robert, you talk of the "extreme bias" of the 600 who issued in mid-2002
>the PR declaration in general support of GM.

This was on the basis of their own extreme statements which are
contrary to fact and to reason, and have been known for many years to be of
that shocking quality.

>But read yourself: "Never has science been so suddenly, drastically degraded
>as it is in the gene-jiggering racket. The 'science' on which current
>gene-tampering relies is junk. An enormous range of unimagined mutants are
>certain to surprise."

It does not follow that those statements result from bias. They
result from far far more detailed scientific analysis than any of the
Gallant 600 Declarers has ever pubd on the subject.

My friend the late Rev Dr Harold Turner felt called upon to state
from time to time that 'extreme' does not necessarily equal 'false', or
even 'imprudent'. He was right, wasn't he?

As I remarked to John Morton today - I'm extreme about nuclear
power, having explained in sufficient detail the reasons why it's a bad
idea. You can't infer from my statements which you quote that they are
wrong because they are extreme. They are conclusions from analyses which
I've made widely available and which have evoked no purported correction,
even when delivered in the presence of main gene-tamperers. For instance,
ace gene-jockey Dangerous Dan Cohen, main PR man for HortResearch®
gene-tampering, was present when I said what you now quote, in a RSNZ Ak
branch public lecture (attached - with comments inserted on what has
happened since). He said nothing, and has written nothing I know of that
would purport to correct me.

I have to remind you that the internal evidence of a given
utterance can not, generally, suffice to assess its reliability. You
should apply tests along these lines:-

* is the author experienced in the field?
* are the terms used in conventional ways, or if rare defined by refs to
authorities?
* are the facts from identified sources?
* are the conclusions reached by overt, correct reasoning from the facts?
* has the author a good record in accurate analysing of dangerous
technologies ?

Modesty impedes my answering these q's for you regarding myself - but let
me know if you want some reminders of my record.

A major difficulty is that the strands of cultural memory are now
as short as ca. 1 decade. PC media & bureaucracy operatives have
blacklisted me lo, these bulk years, and my status thru the 1970s as the
leading NZ academic analyst of dangerous technologies is now largely
forgotten. Jeanette list-MP and others exult in their replacing me in the
media; but is it too vain of me to believe public policy was better served
when the 'pop' media comments on GM were by experts rather than arts types
such as her, Susan Kitschley list-MP, Fiddler Bunkum list-MP, ignoramus
Claire Bleakley who has brought 2 stupidly-conceived suits against ERMA,
etc?

>This is scarcely dispassionate langauge.

It did not purport to be. It is language of moral suasion. Just
because you can't handle it, don't assume others can't.

>After years I am naturally sceptical of people
>who say there are no risks.

good; and the best reason for that attitude is not the extreme
position of their "reassurances" but the overwhelming evidence that their
claim is false. Not implausible, but positively false on evidence such as
one would love to present to Sir Th McCarthy or similar. In the absence of
that excellent old jurist, I've been exposing my extremism to as many
scientists as I can.

>But I believe you would have much more influence
>if you kept away from langauge of this nature.

How do you reach this prediction? Is it just that you're
discomforted by your failure to act on it while unable to refute it?

>You probably don't want to hear this.

Only in the sense that I've heard it many times before over several
decade.

> Neither do you want to hear this:
>that you are living in a world where the genie is out of its bottle - and if
>it isn't in NZ (yet) you can bet it will be elsewhere - so we will have to
>face its consequences.

I am not at all afraid to face this truth. What to do about it is
a q. you show little sign of tackling.

> I don't have the scientific expertise to say that
>there will be consequences but I'd be respectful of those (like you) who
>claim there will be. I feel much the same way about climate change. However
>much I believe we have a real problem, I have no shadow of doubt that the
>global community will fail to act prudentially

That may be a realistic prediction. It is irrelevant to your
attempt to denigrate my style of exposition & advocacy. That I may not
prevent all the potential damage is a reasonable belief; that I should
cease my version of advocacy does not follow. My assumption is that I can
prevent some of the damage; any objections?

> and that we will run the risks
>whatever they are.

What defeatism or quietism is this? I have no inclination to join
you in it. I've not tackled you about it, realising you have your own
style; why do you assume your way is better than mine, or something like
the only way?

>None of this is palatable, but we have to decide how we behave given the
>inevitability that there will be (as you put it) things that will "surprise".
>Saying shrilly I told you so won't help. There is a moral responsibility to
>cast arguments in terms that will, if not change minds that don't want to be
>changed, at least provide them with the means to think problems through
>should they arise.

I couldn't agree more; you've been doing so regarding GM, have you?
So far from helping people to cope with the potential harm from GM, which
you now assert to be a main duty, you were part of the attempt to make out
that large benefits could result from what (as proven by analysts such as
Prof Elliott, Prof Wills, Dr Lees, etc) are most unlikely to yield any
benefit. And didn't you fail to mention the possibility of harm? Doesn't
sound like a promising start to planning to cope with the harm, which you
now depict as a main duty.

Regarding what terms to cast arguments in, you appear to be unaware
of the definitive research of Prof Ph Zimbardo (L Stanford Jr U) - if you
want to change attitudes, the most powerful types of communication are
those which initially challenge to the biggest change. (This excludes
those which are unintelligible - Chinese characters etc.) You wish to
continue to be heavily paid by the same sorts of bureaucracy that have lied
about GM; I have no such pressure on me. I've not previously criticised
you for cowardice, but since you now tackle me in this patronising way, I
now do so.

More importantly, isn't it a case of "live and let live"? I intend
to continue to speak truth to power, in a style that I have developed over
4 decade. I don't quite know what you're up to; but it has not yet reached
me as a more successful style. Anyhow, you hew to your way. I will
continue to expound & exhort in ways which you are (in more ways than one)
incapable of. Isn't there room for both? I have a long record of success
(nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, 245-T, leaded petrol, etc) as well as
some failures (e.g such GM genies as are already out of their respective
bottles; Maiden's Mobil/Bechtel synfuels factory; etc). What has your
style to show for itself?

But by all means keep trying in your own way which suits your
temperament & talents; and leave me to my different way.

I'm helped in this clarity by visiting this afternoon John E
Morton, 80. We expressed our mutual satisfaction at our expressions in
defence of Ngataringa Bay, Whirinaki forest, etc (some of his successes),
and my role instrumental in stopping the NZED nuclear programme. I hope
you will be able to have a similar session with him. Meanwhile, kindly
leave me to my modus operandi (which does, as you say, from time to time
issue more moderate-toned items such as on the Showa Denko GM-tryptophan.
I at least show versatility, being able to adopt a moderate style when I
deem it suitable. My judgement is that there are enough moderates on GM
and their success is v limited e.g. www.ucsusa.org.

You were wrong in supposing I wouldn't consider your compromises.
I have been considering them for most of my life, and have (I believe) a
more realistic analysis than you have of these v important issues. You are
hardly in a position to condescend to me.

Kind regards

R

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robt Mann [mailto:robtm@maxnet.co.nz]
>Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:13 PM
>Subject: handy copy: know your gallant 600
>
>3-7-2002
>This list is mentioned today by Labour®'s GM PR man Pete
>Hodgson in response to Sir Peter Elworthy's Sustainability Council
>declaration for a 5y moratorium on release of GMOs.

>This LSN list, from a couple y ago, was re-launched yesterday -
>probably they heard the Elworthy announcement was coming. It has apparently
>been updated, e.g J Luxton is listed as an ex-MP.
>
>The 'Communiqué' you can safely assume to have been v carefully spun
>by Wevers + other PR twisters. They say economic, health, environmental and
>social benefits exist - indeed are "identified in the Royal Commission's
>Report" - but they don't allude to any hazards. In this extreme bias they
>join Gluckman's IBAC brochure.

>They "wholeheartedly support the process undertaken by the Royal
>Commission" e.g they're glad that oaths were quietly dispensed with, allowing
>PR agents to lie to the Commission without fear of getting gaoled for
>perjury.

>They are apparently unaware of the significant falsehoods in the RCGM
>report e.g on the GM-tryptophan poisonings.

>I have to admit it's an appalling experience to read this list of
>dupes for the gene-tampering trade.

... [etc etc]

THE SELFISH COMMERCIAL GENE
Robert Mann
invited lecture, RSNZ Auckland branch Auckland Museum 13 Sep 2000

[additions Sep 2004]

Introduction

Genetic manipulation (GM) or genetic engineering (GE) mean artificial transfer of genes - pieces of DNA - to produce a transgenic organism, e.g. jellyfish genes into sugarcane or human genes into cows. The methods of artificially joining pieces of DNA from different organisms' genes were invented as recently as the mid-1970s and are collectively called recombinant-DNA technology.

The abbreviations are Hobson's choice between pairs of letters already taken by huge USA corporations - GM and GE - but I'll use them interchangeably.

Technologies for cloning animals are, wholly or largely, different. But many concepts for cloning mammals involve not merely trying to copy existing animals but also splicing-in recombinant DNA from other species. Often the idea is to produce some foreign protein in milk.

These techniques no more entail a uniform degree of hazard than does nuclear science. As in nuclear technology, so with genetic engineering: the tag 'nuclear' does not necessarily connote any serious degree of hazard, and some versions of GM or of cloning may well be quite OK.

But some versions are not OK. You do therefore have to perform sceptical analyses of GM proposals if you want to assess their hazards. This is one of many similarities between the two technologies. I wish to point out other similarities - and some differences.

Do not equate GM with the larger category 'biotechnology'. GM is one kind of biotechnology but there are others too. Any attempt to equate GM with the yet wider category 'Life Sciences' is PR deceit (and illustrates how unpopular GM has become).

Genetic engineering's brief two-decade history has been characterised by exaggerated claims of benefit, confusing hope with fact in attempt to allay natural fears (and to stimulate stock-market ramps).

What can it do for you? Here's some typical PR hype:

Multi-billion dollar new life science industry for the region
It was MAF men Keith Steele and Neil Richardson promoting cows "not as milk producers but as 'biological reactors' producing a vast range of products which could open up multibillion dollar international marketing opportunities for the benefit of the region and the country. Treatment for multiple sclerosis could be only a glass of special milk away. The Waikato is ideally situated as the centre for this unlimited new industry based around the world-famous Ruakura research centre and the excellent [sic] University . . . . "

Technology using nuclear fission was procured by scientists. It was not initiated by elected representatives. The technical enthusiasts procured the funding for A-bombs and the nuclear reactors which were first created for the sole purpose of making plutonium for A-bombs. Similarly, billions of dollars have been procured for gene splicing by enthusiasts who say they are going to produce organisms, improved on commercial criteria, which could not occur in nature. In our little country, around $120M so far - $18M/y lately - has been procured by gene-manipulators from the government to subsidise a wide variety of GM which the public know little of. (This is one glimpse, by the way, of how sincere is the belief in leaving allocation of resources to 'market forces'.)

The monstrous blind alley of nuclear power stations should teach us how far astray society can be led by technical enthusiasts who act something like a priesthood presiding over an arcane speciality which they naturally don't want obstructed by any who don't understand the technical details. This attitude fits ill with democracy.

Nuclear fission is scientifically understood, and we have the technology based on that science - nuclear power reactors - commercially mature. Electricity from nuclear power stations will be reliable, clean, and so cheap we often won't bother to meter it. Not one reputable scientist disputes these claims by the enthusiasts for this modern, hi-tech wonder technology.

Such euphoric claims went practically unchallenged for as long as a decade from the late 1950s. Then in the late 1960s a few scientists began to tell the public that nuclear reactors could devastate areas about the size of our island, and that even if nothing goes wrong at the reactor the spent fuel poses grave hazards. Fortunately for our little country, other sources of electricity (hydro and geothermal) were obviously cheaper so that it was not until the 1960s that our government's nuclear power programme began. The same New Zealand bureaucrats who in 1966 proudly paraded foreign experts planning a nuclear station at Baring Head (12 miles from Parliament) were by 1974 bitterly defensive when the Campaign for Non-nuclear Futures - a terminating ad hoc coalition - got going. By 1979 a Royal Commission had laid the programme gently to rest; nobody respectable has tried to revive it.

But let us never forget that several hundred nuclear power reactors were foisted on the world, and many thousands of people doomed by the 1986 Chernobyl accident, as a result of that disgraceful decade when sheer lack of interest among scientists, suppression of the few critics, and stunting of alternatives, left the public crucially ignorant.

I need hardly add that the media almost entirely failed to reveal any significant facts about the hazards of nuclear power, at least until the late 1970s. Today the media are failing in their duty, far more culpably in that they can easily find out the arguments for increased caution on GM but are nearly all too lazy &/or too craven to do so. The best website is www.psrast.org.

Today the smug status of genetic engineering eerily recalls that period in the early 1960s when nuclear reactors were "commercialised" on the basis of enthusiasts' claims of understanding & control. New ranks of enthusiastic experts now tell us there's no significant threat from artificial gene transfers: no great harm could result, and any minor mishaps are (they claim) so unlikely that you can forget these hypothetical notions. "The hazards imagined in the mid-'70s have turned out to be unreal" is a typical recent expert quote.

Alongside airy dismissal of the dangers, the promised benefits are wildly exaggerated - for example, millions of venture-capital dollars have been procured by claims of imminent production of "pharmaceutical proteins" which in truth are nowhere near medical use and can in one case be already obtained free! The actual list of real benefits from GE organisms is very short, after a quarter-century of 'jam tomorrow' hype thru the media. In our parliament MPs have given lists of what they believed to be actual accomplishments of GE which are however still not real. [ I have upbraided Rt. Hon. S Upton in person for this.]

The Doubts
Many scientific and moral leaders have queried GE. The science upon which GM technology is founded - neo-Darwinism and the 'master molekule' idol status for DNA - are under strenuous criticism from scientific thinkers. Genes are not Lego modules which can be blithely slotted into very different organisms free from unintended effects. Rogue diseases are a genuine concern arising from detailed, sceptical appraisal of some GE projects. But global ecological damage is the gravest threat.

One tawdry old argument we have heard since 1974 and can expect to hear again in all its flagrant deceit is the claim that gene transfers occur naturally so GM is only hastening them. This line of talk is a smoke-screen designed to obscure the fact that GM usually performs artificial transfers which are not believed to occur in nature. This fact is denied when possible harm is suggested, but is acknowledged, indeed emphasised, for claims of benefit.

If we change the rates, or even worse the specificities, with which genes can jump around in infectious manners, we may wreak biological havoc on a global scale. Go back to Ovid's Metamorphoses to glimpse what might go wrong.

But the gene-jockeys claim they can, godlike, foresee the evolutionary results of their artificial transposings of human genes into sheep, bovine genes into tomatoes, etc. This is extreme, deluded arrogance; for the theologically inclined, I commend one chapter: Genesis 3.

The science these gamblers hawk is, on several levels, junk. I haven't space here to detail this contention, only to mention a few aspects of their junkiness.

* Gene-jockeys often work on the assumption there are only 4 letters in the 'alphabet' of DNA (called for short G, C, T, and A); for example, "DNA is a very long molecule built of only 4 letters" - Dr Andy Shenk, Genesis R&D Corp (Auckland, N.Z.) TV1 'Holmes' show 00-6-27, and Prof Ros Macintosh of Massey U, TV1 this Monday. But it has been known for several decades that other 'letters' exist in DNA. The functions of the 'odd' bases - methyl-C, methyl-G, and others - are largely unknown, but that does not mean they're equivalent to 'The Big Four'. They are often ignored by genetic engineers sequencing DNA "copied" by systems that produce only 'Big 4' polymers. This is junk science.

* They pretend that the effects of genes inserted by radically unnatural methods are predictable, when they are known to be extremely variable (usually lethal).

* They pretend that a cell surviving such genes-insertion processes, and then selected on just one property - resistance to an antibiotic - and then grown into a whole organism, e.g. a potato, will have all properties at least as good as those of a normal organism.

Never since the Nazi attempts to legitimize racism has science been so rapidly & severely degraded. Apologists for GM posing as defenders of true science - e.g. ACT - are taking up an untenable, indeed ludicrous, stance.

The Commerce

Doubts have been swept aside by the thrust of transnational corporations funding university and 'crown' GM labs, as well as small groups of academics starting GE firms (a far cheaper image to erect than that of a nuclear reactor manufacturer).

A further subtle commercial lure is the relative difficulty of tracing the offender when the 'one in a million' mishap occurs. The Swedes in April 1986 only briefly thought the unusual radioactivity in one of their nuclear stations was from another of their own - it was traced to Chernobyl within days; but if an epidemic of this or that disease breaks out amongst cows or humans in the Hamilton district, the fact that the nearby government research station at Ruakura has been largely given over to GM for foreign purchasers will not suffice to sheet home any blame. Any ensuing inquiry would elicit much closing of ranks as most of the scientists able to understand such arcane matters covered up for each other. Ronald Reagan's favourite criterion - deniability - is all too easily arranged in the GM business.

How Much Harm; How Often?

In appraising dangerous technologies, it is best to estimate the hazard - the scale of harm in the event of a major mishap - as a separate question, and then analyse if possible the risk - the probability that the major mishap will occur. Much confusion between these two aspects of danger has been created by language-tampering, even in such formal arenas as the Journal of Risk Analysis. Some ERMA staff are trying to organise a pseudo-professional club on Risk Assessment to feed them what they want to hear for their purpose of rubber-stamping; they did not invite any sceptical speaker for their Dec 13 2000 inaugural meeting.

The hazards of GM rival even nuclear war. Biology is so much more complex than technology that we should not pretend we can imagine all the horror scenarios, but it is suspected that some artificial genetic manipulations create the potential to derange the biosphere for longer than any civilisation could survive. If only enthusiasts are consulted in appraisal of GE proposals, such scenarios will not be thought of.

The nuclear parallel is again cogent. Not until the AEC's 'Rasmussen/Levine' report of 1974 were sceptical analysts such as Kendall and Lovins asked for their opinions (and then they were ignored).

The hazard certainly includes some mortality: dozens of people were killed in the 1980s by impurities in L-tryptophan (a natural amino acid, sold as a 'dietary supplement' to avoid medicine regulations) made by Showa Denko using GE'd bacterial cultures. By early 1991, Showa Denko had paid $4.6M in out-of-court settlements amongst lawsuits for over $810M. By now, the totals are roughly U$2,000,000,000 and 80 - 120 deaths, possibly more. Thousands continue maimed. This actual damage by GE is one basis of the campaign for labelling as such any GE'd foods which may be permitted.

Eating a certain GE potato damaged internal organs of rats in the pioneering test of GE food by Dr Pusztai. He was vilified and sacked.

Damage to non-human organisms is a real concern. Monarch-butterfly caterpillars eating leaves dusted with a GM-maize pollen were - nearly 50% - killed, and the survivors stunted, compared with the identical experiment using ordinary maize pollen.

The role of emotion is often misrepresented by enthusiasts for dangerous technologies. They decry as 'emotive' any argument or fact inconvenient to their cause, but their own enthusiasm does not count as undesirable emotion; indeed they pretend to be 'objective' - devoid of emotion - when in fact they're ruled by emotion, against reason.

A spectacular double standard prevails: benefits of GE are stated as fact when they are no more than fantasies, e.g. AAT treating emphysema,

[ PPL have continued this furphy, unchallenged by the media, only admitting last year that their thousands of transgenic sheep near Whakamaru are a flop. The company has now gone bust. ERMA failed to require autopsies.] whereas any suggestion of harm is ruthlessly rejected, usually by personal vilifications and always by an ultra-stringent standard, e.g. the outrageous purging of Dr Pusztai.

Professor Peter Bergquist coined the term 'the Liberia of GM' in the mid-70s as he feared NZ would be used by foreign gene-technologists for experiments that wouldn't be permitted in their homeland. He assessed the benefits and the hazards at that early stage as "equally speculative". The experiments in the intervening quarter-century have revealed some actual harm; many potential forms of damage have been pointed out, but the gamblers roar on cheerfully; and the benefits - from crops and animals, as distinct from contained microbial cultures - remain speculative (except for Monsanto who sell the cloned seeds resistant to their main herbicide Roundup® and also sell some seeds for crops containing modified Bt insecticide). No benefit to farmers has yet been shown. The yields of RoundupReady® soybeans are 4 -7% lower than those from proper soybeans, except in drought districts where the GE yield is 30% lower. Monsanto's NuLeaf® Bt-potato reached 5% of the USA potato crop but already sales are dropping [and now the brand has been withdrawn from sale]. One of the most respected science reporters, Nicholas Wade, pointed out in the New York Times recently that almost all GM corporations have yet to win a cent of revenue, let alone net a profit.

Law

In 1977 the N.Z. Association of Scientists proposed a moratorium on GE pending a full public inquiry. This policy was taken up then, two decades ago, by a few politicians. But the genetic engineers had one or two rabid advocates in Parliament, notably Jim Sutton's brother Bill, and avoided hostile scrutiny. Only now, two decades later, the Royal Commission has been formed; but how much GM can proceed during its inquiry remains to be determined. [ new permits for field trials were suspended during the RCGM's proceedings. Pre-existing trials were allowed to continue. Special legislation was passed to allow release of GMOs; but none has yet been legally permitted in NZ.]

At last, a form of legal regulation of novel organisms emerged - the ERMA. In its first 22 field-trial decisions, ERMA has issued 22 approvals. This is a biased, secretive, even obstructive agency, which collects a lot of money from both the gene-jockeys and the government to maintain an expensive rubber-stamp. It is chaired by Mr W J Falconer, a main pusher of the Mobil/Bechtel synfuels factory (at Motunui) which has not made any petrol for several years and was always an inferior plan. Several other members have no obvious qualification. It was National Party cronyism at its worst, and these stooges may go on issuing legal permits while the Royal Commission examines for the first time which GM experiments should be permitted. The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. [ ERMA has continued unsatisfactory; some scathing criticisms by G Nahkies' cttee have evoked no clear progress.]

Having taught on environmental health hazards for many years in science & medical faculties, and having served as an adviser to successive Ministers of Health in the first dozen years of the Toxic Substances Board, I know all too well how overloaded government staff, even when backed by statutory powers, get subverted by not only the specific claims but more importantly the whole value-system of the industries which they are supposed to regulate. The imbalance is particularly severe for such pathetic pretences as have been staged to regulate GE. A pro-GM ERMA staff member has been transferred to the Royal Commission staff; she should be removed. [ this operative did go back to ERMA, but not before a lot of harm had been done.]

Laboratory experiments have been approved by local safety committees wielding legal powers completely delegated by the ERMA which however still collects a hefty fee. Over a hundred such GM experiments have been exposed as illegal. No penalties are proposed. [ RCGM recommendation 6.2, for a review of the containment systems, has been ignored by the Clark regime.] Misuse of the legal system for such a pseudo-regulatory charade undermines the rule of law. Little wonder then that direct action has been resorted to, in Britain, the USA, and here, to uproot experimental GM crops.

GE and the Dairy Industry

What then of the "multi-billion dollar new life science industry for the region" alleged by Keith Steele and Neil Richardson ?

The NZ Dairy Board declared its intention to pour $150M into GM experiments over the coming 5y. They said they were spending $60M/y on R&D and GM is taking $30M/y extra. [ Media fail to report on the corporations e.g. Gluckman's ViaLactia® that procured dozens of millions of this budget for dairy-GM after the Dairy Board was abolished. Main proximal procurer Kevin Marshall is down the road.]

You can reasonably assume that most of the $42B/y mirage projected for the NZ dairy industry relies on GE fantasies which are far from reality and may never be feasible let alone profitable. It is not extremely safe to assume they would all gain legal permission, after the Royal Commission on GM has performed the first sceptical investigation, by public hearings. There have been many flops in GM. Let me give a few examples of how dairy GE can go wrong.

A relatively early example was the mid-1990s attempt to make a human protein in goats' milk by Lincoln University biochemistry professor Bullock, funded by Genzyme Corp of Framingham, Massachusetts. This case came & went entirely within the never-never period when no legal regulatory regime existed in our country but Prof Petersen of Otago presided over a pseudo-regulatory Interim Assessment Group (IAG) administered by the Ministry for the Environment.
The project was to raise and study a herd of goats GEd to contain in their milk the human protein CFTR - cystic fibrosis transmembrane-conductance regulator. The professor's formal proposal was written, and ancillary mass-media propaganda was slanted, so as to create the impression that the Genzyme/Lincoln work is based on some scientific hypothesis which could well lead to therapy for cystic fibrosis. This is a misleading impression. Even if it proves feasible to insert the gene for the human lung protein CFTR into goat embryos or zygotes, leading to goats' milk containing significant quantities of human CFTR, there will still remain the difficulty that no therapy is in prospect using any concentrated preparation of CFTR. The proposal's phrase "the drug produced" was therefore false and deceptive.

The leading medical experts on cystic fibrosis have found themselves in the unpleasant role of breaking the news to the parents of CF sufferers that, contrary to the Genzyme/Bullock/NZ Herald image, no therapy is in prospect. It is cruel to raise hopes which must thus be dashed by others.

The public should also learn that permission was denied for Prof Bullock's conjoint proposal to produce similarly in goats' milk a second human protein, AAT, which has even less prospect of utility or market value but which he termed a "pharmaceutical protein" - of which more soon. The IAG, to its credit, recommended against the inclusion of AAT in this CFTR caper.

The results, reported in a couple of sentences by the Ministry for the Environment, were a complete flop, the goats were destroyed, what was done with their remains is unclear, and Prof. Bullock went overseas.

Which media were not too lazy or too craven to report this caper?

A more important and interesting example is the current attempt to genetically engineer that human protein called AAT in N.Z. sheep. A small Scottish company ("Pharmaceutical" Proteins Ltd - the 'Dolly' procreators & impresarios - financed by the large German multi-national Bayer) wanted to field-test in New Zealand ewes GE'd to make in their milk a human protein called by the unhelpful name alpha-1 antitrypsin (abbreviated AAT). The only reason stated for doing such experiments in N.Z. was this country's scrapie-free status. The Ministry for the Environment's Interim Assessment Group (IAG), although devoid of experts on prions (scrapie, mad cow disease, CJD, etc.) and dominated by GE enthusiasts who appear to think that fears of GE are absurd, advised their Minister to refuse - which he did. Reasons, when reluctantly disclosed, turned out to be mere econobabble; prions were not mentioned.

Prevalent misinformation tending to favour the AAT project, due partly to an anonymous 'news' report in Science , requires correction in at least the following respects.

(a) AAT-deficiency is equated with congenital emphysema, an unjustified jump beyond the evidence. Most of those born AAT-deficient do not develop lung disorders. Reports on N.Z. TV and in newspapers have credited AAT as a treatment for emphysema; the public would take this to mean the common smoking-induced illness, greatly exaggerating the claim of usefulness. The congenital version is very much rarer, if a proper diagnostic category at all.

(b) AAT is asserted to be in use now to treat congenital emphysema, whereas such crude preliminary trials as have been done prove very little. In fact there exists no use, let alone a market, for genuine human AAT which is routinely purified as a by-product and discarded in standard blood-bank fractionations of pooled human plasma.

(c) AAT is implied to be very valuable ("U$100,000/y per ewe"), which factoid is then used to justify attempted production by genetic engineering. All this "future earnings" is intended to stimulate a stock-market ramp before anything saleable has actually been produced. That at least is the intention. But of course such a bubble must burst after enough time without selling anything. This is the fate of nearly all such capers.

The then Minister 'for' the Environment, ex-Rhodes Scholar & lawyer Mr Simon Upton, solicited a modified application, which was approved - on economic grounds.

Then the ERMA, flying in the face of the facts, approved expansion of PPL's flock to 10,000. Nothing was to go offsite except the milk (for processing by a Tainui enterprise in Hamilton). But then, the ERMA has never rejected a GE field trial. It stages some dramatic delays - on that I sympathise with applicants.

This PPL caper is only one of many similar. The standards of truthfulness in the GE trade are reminiscent of those prevailing in the computer trade, with which it has intimate links.

That is the context in which the AgResearch® Ruakura group l'Huillier, Wells et al. claim they might make a cow whose milk could simply be drunk to treat the demylinating illness multiple sclerosis. There is some evidence this might work; but it could go badly wrong, in the people and perhaps in the cows. Demyelination can be induced by injecting the protein in question, and we know little about what it will do by mouth. The more likely motive for this project is to get patents on new cloning techniques, as have been issued to the 'Dolly' impresarios. The Waikato Times bills these enthusiasts as 'The Geniuses'. Most cloned mammals to date have aged prematurely and died young, so there's room for improvement in the exactitude of these "exact" copies.

Phil l'Huillier had a go at me in public so I asked him whether he really believed the milk he plans is likely to help MS sufferers. His answer was only that he HOPED it would.

We haven't time today to discuss GM-trees, for which a main world research centre is the corporation called Genesis® in Parnell. Also I must largely leave you to read up on GM-crops, which are the main GE organisms outside containment - mainly in N. Amer. and Argentina. One practitioner of GM-plants, Prof Patrick Brown, has expressed severe misgivings about the current versions, on the PSRAST website.

The depraved trade of mercenary deception, commonly called PR, has enormous influence in the suppression and distortion of information about GM. This has been feasible largely because the NZ media have almost totally failed to tell key facts about GM. The NZ Herald's Yoke Har Lee, for instance, largely just laundered PR claims from the gene-jockeys, with no balancing comment from critics. Radio NZ's 'Eureka' operatives Alan Coukell & Veronika Meduna have promoted GM by very uncritical biased reporting.

Global Reach

Government, gutted & starved by the ideological hatred of public enterprise (Rogernomics, Ruthanasia, and then Jenocide - our versions of Thatcherism), is largely warped to the commercial service of foreign corporations, and is almost totally unable, so far, to regulate GE. The charade of pseudoregulation - the expensive rubber stamp called ERMA, and the even less regulatory ANZFA - fails to control anything much, even labels. [ A 'Food Standards Authority' dominated by Australia appears to represent no progress.]

GE Products

A few biochemicals are being made commercially by GM in microbes. One which looms over New Zealand is recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as bovine somatotropin. Canada rejected this, mainly because it is cruel to the cows. But there are other drawbacks.

I excerpt from a recent summary by Samuel S. Epstein M.D., Professor of
Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health:
The GM milk hormone, rBST, is exclusively manufactured in Austria by Biochemie Kundl, a Novartis plant under license to Monsanto; in 1998, over 100 million doses of the GM hormone were exported to the U.S. and also to 16 Third World Countries. While the administration of rBST to cows in Europe was banned (very recently) on unarguable animal health and welfare grounds, there are no restrictions yet on the import of GM dairy products, nor any requirements for their being labelled GM. GM milk, produced by injecting cows with the hormone rBST, is qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk. These differences include:
contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBST;
contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of mastitis in rBST injected cows;
contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBST-induced disease;
increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase;
increased concentration of long-chain and decreased concentration of short-chain fatty acids;
reduction in casein levels;
and major excess levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor, IGF-1, including its highly potent variant, in the milk and, surprisingly, in the blood of people who drink it. IGF-1 is under strong suspicion of causing cancer, notably breast and prostate.

Monsanto have tried to register their Posilac® rBGH in this country, but late in 2002 the impression emerged that this had been rejected. Its exact legal status could be usefully clarified by a good law student.

Wake Up!
It is now a quarter-century since genetic engineering was identified in the same league as nuclear weapons among major threats to the biosphere. During this period, market forces have prevailed instead of informed democracy.

Genetic engineering is by now more popular - more widely practised - than dangerous versions of nuclear science ever were. But it is in general an imprudent gamble and profoundly wrong.

Corruption of scientific institutions is one of the offences of this gene-tampering fad. The Royal Society of NZ was manipulated by the then president of the NZ PR Institute, Ms Norrie Simmons, in her private trust GenePool, funded partly by Monsanto - a front for the GE trade, touring Dr Richard Bellamy & Professor Sir John Scott to say there's little to worry about. GenePool also maintained an extremely biased website claiming benefits of GM but minimising hazards. Has science ever been so warped by PR? [Simmons features prominently in the corruption documented by Hager in his book on GM corn permitted by Hobbs/Clark. She issued gagging writs on Jeanette Fitzsimons list-MP and RadioNZ for reporting her role in the King Salmon field trial PR. Why has that phoney suit not been brought on for trial while years passed? ]

Biologists are being purged from our universities to make room for gene-manipulators expected to bring in venture capital. The head of the Massey University black suit gang stated in writing and on TV that his "repositioning" is to promote computing and gene-tampering. This is being done by purging proper academics. Some of his darling gene-tamperers have been promoting GM with false claims. [He has now moved back overseas.]

Misallocation of money, and more importantly of scientific talent seduced by GM, are among the reasons why the duty to care for natural ecosystems is so disgracefully neglected. Greedy nerds applying the hacker mentality to life itself is the ultimate decadent technomania. The prostitution of science is most complete and most dangerous in the selfish commercial gene. When will we muster the ethical power to wake up from this sleepwalking?

How much GE should be allowed to continue during the public inquiry?

I suggest
1 do not permit new field trials
2 shut down existing field trials
3 review laboratory GE precautions
4 of course, receive no applications for release of any GM organisms
5 abolish the "Independent" Biotechnology Advisory Council which was set up by the previous government with several gung-ho GM advocates but no known scientific critic. [this Maurice Williamson brainchild was quietly allowed to die, without any condemnation for its uselessness & bias. It has been approximately replaced by new biased qangos.]

What To Do Instead of GE

We did not just campaign against nuclear power. People want to know what to do instead. The Campaign for Non-nuclear Futures took every opportunity to point out better technology & ideas.

Instead of GE, and agribusiness more generally, the only real hope for feeding the world is organic agriculture - as advocated & practised by Prince Charles. If we can do it with apples, as is being achieved very profitably in NZ now, we can do it much more generally. The lower costs more than compensate for the cases of slightly lower yields; in general the yields of organic gardening are several times those achieved in agribusiness.
* * * *
The two best websites on GE are:
http://www.psrast.org
http://www.ucsusa.org
* * *

Dr Mann was Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry in the University of Auckland and then became its first (and last) Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies. In retirement he works mainly on solar-thermal and motorcycling inventions, as well as helping to bring recombinant DNA under control.

This article concludes:

"After Hiroshima, Robert Oppenheimer told an audience at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology that "in some sort of crude sense,
which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the
physicists have known sin." Biologists have yet to taste that knowledge,
and it is not a foregone conclusion that they will. But before the trees
of knowledge in their synthetic garden bear their strange fruit, the
gardeners should heed the lessons of history. They should start talking
to one another, and to the rest of us, about what to do when the serpent
turns up."

Not only do NZ journos not write anything nearly so well informed
or wise as this NYT article, but also they don't reprint such articles from
overseas. As the gene-jockey trade has yet to produce anything that could
bring the media advertising revenue, this bias is difficult to explain.

R

February 11, 2005 ny times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Biology's New Forbidden Fruit
By OLIVER MORTON

Lewes, England

IN the early 19th century, received chemical wisdom held that organic
compounds were beyond the creative powers of the laboratory's furnaces
and alembics - that they could be fashioned only by the vital forces in
living beings. Then, in 1828, while trying to do something else,
Friedrich Wöhler discovered that urea, an organic compound of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, could be made from inorganic ingredients.
His successors found that this new synthetic chemistry could produce not
only all the organic molecules used in nature, but also organic
molecules of which nature had never dreamed. Artificial dyes became a
major industry; in World War I, so did poison gases. From plastics to
detergents to fabrics to fertilizers, synthetic chemistry went on to
change the world.

A similar transition is now under way in biology. Until recently
biologists worked with the components they found in nature. They might
swap genes from creature to creature, but they did it by cutting and
pasting nature's originals, rather as an editor might move bits of prose
with a click and a drag. Now the biologists are getting keyboards to go
with their metaphorical mice - technologies that allow them to write
genes and genomes from scratch, to alter and surpass nature's
vocabulary. The scientific, commercial and destructive possibilities of
this synthetic biology are easily as great as those once offered by the
transformation of chemistry. But they will make themselves felt far more
quickly, raising ethical and moral questions that many biologists have
been poorly trained to handle.

The ability to design genomes and their components holds great practical
promise. Late last year the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $42.6
million to a project at the University of California, Berkeley, that is
rewriting bacterial genomes in an effort to produce the malaria drug
artemisinin at a small fraction of today's costs. Companies that
synthesize genes to order - send them a sequence and a credit card
number and they'll mail you a gene - look to have a rosy future. To keep
things safe, they check the sequences requested against databases of
pathogenic genes, to make sure nobody is building anything nasty. But as
the technology drops in price and spreads in availability, the
possibility that someone, somewhere, will synthesize something like
smallpox will grow ever greater. The genome sequences of pathogens, as
of all sorts of other organisms, are piling up on the Internet.

It's a frightening prospect. But the fear needs some perspective. First,
the ability to make biological weapons with cut-and-paste technologies
is already widespread: diseases can easily have drug resistance
engineered into them, or susceptibility to vaccines engineered out. This
is hardly reassuring, especially since there is still no clear, cohesive
strategy for defending ourselves against such weapons.

But synthetic biology could also make us safer. Last month, shortly
after the journal Nature published an article by Dr. George M. Church of
the Harvard Medical School and Dr. Xiaolian Gao of the University of
Houston on a technique that makes gene synthesis considerably easier,
its sister journal Nature Methods published a paper by Dr. Rob Carlson
at the Molecular Sciences Institute in Berkeley on a new technology
endearingly known as the tadpole. Tadpoles are little bits of protein
with synthetic DNA tails that promise to make the detection of all sorts
of biological molecules much easier, including novel pathogens that
could be used in an attack.

Both Dr. Church and the tadpole team are aware of the security
implications of their work. So is the United States government. The
Pentagon's research shop, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
is supporting various synthetic biology initiatives. There has been some
discussion of how the dangers inherent in this technology can be
contained: Dr. Church, for example, has suggested that it might be
possible to sequester the most powerful genome synthesis programs in a
few research institutions. But the small group of people thinking about
the issue has reached no consensus.

At this stage, the most important thing to do is to widen that
discussion. The best basis for oversight is a concerned citizenry that
wants to keep up with what is possible and discuss what is desirable.
But to spur such debates in the wider public, biologists themselves will
have to become more willing to think and talk about the ever more
powerful technologies that they increasingly take for granted in the lab.

Biologists tend to assume that their studies are inherently, if
indirectly, beneficial; they think that knowing how life works is the
foundation of all medical progress, and thus a pursuit that deserves
more or less unquestioning support from society at large. The dark side
of their force - the potential for interrupting and subverting life that
flows from biological research - rarely receives their attention. Tara
O'Toole, who runs the Center for Biosecurity at the University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center, remembers seeing a room full of Harvard
biologists asked whether they could design a weapon that would kill
people in their thousands. Their looks of bemusement - few had ever
thought of such a thing - turned to looks of calculation, then to
understanding, appreciation and even a touch of shock. That awareness
has to be spread as wide as possible if biologists are to assume the
crucial role they need to take in discussions about the future.

Suggested ways of spreading this awareness range from a Hippocratic oath
for researchers to more and better courses in ethics and history. As in
so much education about danger, though, the best results will come from
intense conversations with peers. These concerns need to be the drivers
of late-night bull sessions as much as they need to be on the syllabus.

After Hiroshima, Robert Oppenheimer told an audience at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology that "in some sort of crude sense,
which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the
physicists have known sin." Biologists have yet to taste that knowledge,
and it is not a foregone conclusion that they will. But before the trees
of knowledge in their synthetic garden bear their strange fruit, the
gardeners should heed the lessons of history. They should start talking
to one another, and to the rest of us, about what to do when the serpent
turns up.

"A day without sunshine is like night.

"On the other hand you have different fingers.

"He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

"Borrow money from a pessimist -- they don't expect it back.

"The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

"No-one is listening until you make a mistake.

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.

-----

This batch of quips - of unknown provenance, as with so much
email - prompts some analysis of language.

I suspect no. 4 has been slipped into the package of quips more
recently than the main set of cynical slogans. This slogan

"The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard"

seems to me dubious. It has been propounded for a decade by Bob Phelps,
who has operated under the umbrella of the Australian Conservation
Foundation .

The depraved trade of PR - mercenary deceit - dominates GM as a
process of business, investment, and marketing. Language-tampering is a
key weapon for the PR trade, and this has spilled over to pollute
GM-science, let alone GM-entrepreneurism, somefink chronic.

I take it the Phelps slogan is meant to say, cutely, "the problem
with the GM trade is that there is no regulatory authority". As a
political slogan, this is near enough to the truth and I've said so myself,
with a small but growing number of scientists & medicos, since GM was
invented.

But please inspect the actual wording. The term 'the gene pool'
may be intended to mean something like 'the commercial game playing with
genes'. But the actual term 'gene pool' is a precious concept -
notwithstanding its glorious vagueness. It is not available for other
meanings.

GM is in general wrong because it threatens to harm the human gene
pool, and the gene pools of many other taxa, and even the ecological
interactions of different kingdoms in biology. It has already killed a
hundred or so, and maimed thousands: deviant metabolism caused novel trace
poisons in a food supplement (>99% pure tryptophan) biosynthesised, at
improved yield, in a series of GM-bacilli. Yet PR agents have been able to
feed into the report of the NZ Royal Commission on GM a pack of lies about
this exceedingly important epidemic. More recently, relevant Australian
agencies of the crown have similarly purveyed PR lies about this notorious
series of GM expts by Showa Denko. These lies are used as an excuse for
not requring proper testing of GMOs - not only chronic toxicity etc but
also ecological implications of the GMO itself. The science-based approach
traceable back to Sinsheimer, Cavalieri, Chargaff, and yes I will even work
in Roy H Curtiss III, put into popular form by Straton in The Ecologist
(1977), has now largely dissipated. UCS lives on, but has low media
profile (at least from the distance of the S. Pac.); Francine Simring's
excellent comparison of GM with nookuluh - as technologies and
subcultures - hasn't been expanded much, has it?

Some varieties of gene-jiggering are very hazardous, and the risk
entailed is poorly estimated if at all. PR has overwhelmed science. Nero
would have loved it.

I therefore insist that the gene pool des have a lifeguard. The
same creator who designed the universe including the one biosphere we know
of, also guides the unfolding of life by evolution. The natural barriers
to gene-transfers (in e.g pollination) are poorly understood, but many
wonderful protective barriers insulate each gene pool from insertions
except as filtered through God-given mechanisms. The gulf between the
reasonable fears of the main GM-critics and the relatively small numbers of
identified damages by GMOs - not negligible, but relatively small
compared with the disasters that could be evoked - is difficult to
explain fully in materialistic terms.

Lewontin remarked a half-decade ago that he'd be very surprised if
GM didn't throw a series of nasty surprises. I fully agree, and I ascribe
the surprisingly small apparent scale of harm from GMOs only partly to the
esteemed Chargaff, Pusztai, Strohman, King, Schubert, Brown, Rissler,
Mellon, Cummins, etc. I also invite respect for The Lifeguard and entreat
those so inclined to pray for continued protection from the harm that can
be done by GMOs.

But we cannot rely purely on providence. J H Newman urged us to
pray as if all depended on God but work as if all depended on man, which is
a far wiser slogan than any of this mysterious set quoted above.

I have worked 3 decade for control of GM, and can claim little
success. PR has white-anted science - some Monsanto PR agents have PhDs
in gene-tampering technology, and many gene-jiggerers apply the standards
of truth from the PR trade in spreading false hopes, under-stating dangers,
and lying about the Showa Denko GM-tryptophan. Language-tampering is so
intimately tied up with gene-tampering that we must redouble our vigilance
against confusing language.

R

'They Want Transgenic Crops, Whether They Are Good or Bad'
Diego Cevallos*
Inter Press Service
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=27393

MEXICO CITY, Feb 10 (IPS) - Ignacio Chapela, a Mexican biologist who
rose to fame in 2001 when he discovered that native Mexican maize had
been contaminated by transgenic corn varieties, announced in a
Tierramerica interview that he is going on the offensive in a war that
he says biotechnology transnational corporations have been waging
against him.

After what he describes as "three years of attacks against my
reputation," which have him on the verge of losing his job as microbial
ecology professor [assistant prof - RM] and researcher at the prestigious
U.S. University of
California-Berkeley, Chapela, 45, says he will turn to the U.S. courts
to protect himself.

Chapela says he has been pressured and threatened by many, including
officials of the Mexican government under President Vicente Fox, in
attempts to convince him not to publish a report in the British magazine
Nature on the contamination of local Mexican corn varieties by
genetically modified varieties of this food crop.

The genetic contamination that he found, and which was later
acknowledged by the Mexican government, occurred despite the fact that
Mexico -- the birthplace of corn -- bans cultivation of transgenic maize.

Chapela says the biotech transnationals that are leading the campaign to
discredit him are the same ones that are lobbying for what he describes
as a weak bill on biosafety that Mexico's lower house of Congress
approved last year, and which could become law in the next few weeks if
it makes it through the Senate.

The biologist, who says he feels like a "persona non grata" in Mexico's
scientific circles, spoke with Tierramerica by phone from his offices at
the University of California-Berkeley.

Q: You claim that because of your stance against transgenics you are on
the verge of losing your job at the university, where you have worked
since 1997. Do you blame the biotech corporations?

A: My job has been on tenterhooks for at least three years, during which
I have suffered many attacks on my reputation. Normally the evaluation
that I requested in order to be granted a tenured professorship would
take six months, but in my case it has taken years, and it is possible
that they'll fire me. All because of pressure from the transnational
corporations and from Mexican researchers who are in favour of genetic
modification, like Luis Herrera (considered one of the founders of
transgenic technology).

Q: All of this happened because you published your findings on the
genetic contamination of Mexican corn?

A: There are really two motives. One is for having denounced the
presence of transgenic corn in Mexico, for which I received threats even
from some officials of the Mexican government, who said my study hurt
the country; the other is that in 1998 I spoke out against the proposals
for the biotech firm Novartis to take control of our department
(Environmental Sciences) at Berkeley.

Q: What will you do to avoid getting dismissed by the university?

A: The battle we are waging is through an internal complaint in the
university, and we are about to file a lawsuit in (U.S.) courts about
the coercion and threats. The lawsuit is against the university regents,
but it will also target the transnationals and some Mexicans. Also, in
November we created the Pulse of Science Foundation, to study the role
of big corporations.

Q: There are several Mexican scientists, among them Luis Herrera, who
don't share your ideas, and who support transgenic research. Do you
think there are shadowy interests behind these scientists?

A: What do exist are obvious reasons like money. Much of the money they
receive comes from those same companies, so it is not convenient that
there are people like me who question what they are doing. Another
reason is that many of these people have been staking their bets on
biotechnology for more than 20 years and they want it to work, good or bad.

Q: Are transgenic crops really that bad?

A: Biotechnology is a series of genetic manipulations that hold great
potential, of that there is no doubt. The problem is the potential
effect of the massive scale release of transgenic organisms, which
should not be allowed as long as their environmental safety is not
clear, and as long as other cheaper and acceptable alternatives have not
been evaluated.

Q: What do you think of the biosafety law on transgenics that could take
effect this year in Mexico?

A: You can see the problem in the name itself. It is a law that is going
to declare these organisms as biologically safe. It is a law that
legalises transgenic contamination and prevents holding anyone
responsible if problems occur, if there are accidents or damages caused
by releasing transgenics into the environment. I hope that in the end
the law is not passed.

(*Originally published Jan. 29 by Latin American newspapers that are
part of the Tierramerica network. Tierramerica is a specialised news
service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations
Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme.)

Open Letter to New Zealand cabinet ministers

I refer to the report glimpsed at the bottom of this msg and
ancillary posturings about 'Terminator' images.

The concept of 'mule' Terminator® plants is thoroughly obnoxious,
in principle, and should be strongly opposed.

However, let's not go overboard in assuming that the particular
GURT commonly called The Terminator is real. The Terminator has been
critiqued most thoroughly by Martha Crouch, assoc prof Indiana U. Her
analysis, admittedly several y ago, was of the quality UCS used to provide,
and showed it was far from reality. I too studied the main patent for it
and agreed the complex processes envisaged were far from practicality. I
found her discussion wholly convincing, as did Peter R Wills, one of my
most successful former students and closer to practising mol biol than I
now am. The concept of sterile GE plants exemplified by the 'Terminator'
image has not yet - AFAIK - been realised in practice and will be very
difficult to work.

I'm all for denouncing the immoral intention, but it's a
distraction to behave as if it's about to be deployed - if it still isn't
real.

I fear it's no fluke that the outfit raising this latest fuss is
the same as originally coined the cute name 'Terminator' for this type of
GURT concept. The desire to manipulate minds by PR tricks is not wholly
confined to Burpston Marseller, ERMA, Heather Simpson, etc.

Could this notorious 'Terminator' get anywhere near commercial
deployment without being detected by the many GM-sceptic scientists in many
lands? I don't think so.

I copy here a note I wrote during the penultimate flareup of this
Terminator® furphy.

> 27-11-98 J M Fitzsimons list MP has accused Monsanto and Hon. John
>'Satchmo jr' Luxton (Minister of Food Fibre & Furphies) of trying to import
>Terminator® seed which would cause difficulties for organic growers. Satch
>responds that market forces would allow organic horticulture to prosper
>notwithstanding availability of Terminator® seed. Monsanto Australasian
>PR chief Nik Tydens said two days earlier, but Radio NZ now excerpts the
>tape as if it were a response to Fitzimons' accusation today, that Terminator
>crops will simply be a 'single-use' item which nobody is forced to buy and
>which cannot biologically affect other crops.

>What nobody has mentioned in the media these few days - or any
>other time that I know of - is that the Terminator® patent does not entail
>any evidence that such a seed exists or could exist.

>Patents are granted without regard to whether the invention would work.
>My university classmate more recently the New Zealand Commissioner of
>Patents explained to me in person that, unless the application describes a
>blatant violation of scientific law - e.g. perpetual motion machines -
>a patent may be issued for what the examiner is convinced will not work.
>He showed me a few lulus, and I found a few more - patents for devices
>which, as a practical certainty, could never work. Most people are
>surprised when they learn this fact about patent law, but the reasons for
>it are not hard to see.

>It occurs to me that such criticisms could perhaps be levelled
>against some aspects of the Terminator patent. They may be no more than
>wishful thinking.

>If so, that of course has no bearing on the moral status of the Terminator
>concept.

>It does envisage a racket - but at the moment, so far as we know,
>it is only a vision. Sordid, warped, wicked - yes, all those, but if it
>is not real let us refrain from amplifying the paranoia which is all
>too readily generated around GE.

>To denounce the intention of the Terminator concept is a main
>duty; to warn that it might not work as tidily as claimed is also urgent;
>but to credit anyone with having it incipiently on sale is worse than
>saying Windows 98© really works as claimed. We must not accord power to
>lying creeps when they have not actually achieved what they desire and
>perhaps cannot. Let us not make them look more technically competent than
>they really are!

Today I would only add:-
1. Monsanto's PR image of abandoning The Terminator is not to be believed.
You can safely assume they're still pouring millions into trying to
procreate something commercial, or for a start something "terminating" when
treated with a Monsanto chemical. If they had succeeded, don't you think
we'd have heard of it?
2 The pollen from a "Terminator" tree could well be harmful in a variety
of ways including actively crossing with wild or cultivated relatives to
produce fertile progeny of unknown harmfulness, or novel pathogens. The
prospects for damage are so many, varied, and dismaying that no Minister
for the Environment should condone the notion of field-testing such a
rotten idea. The drongo Hobbs should be ashamed of her ignorant illogical
self.
3 It is tiresome that ignorant attention-cravers can draw attention aside
yet again to this receding monster mirage 'The Terminator' while some real,
genuinely menacing GM field trials, e.g with GM-pines, are actually being
done without proper regulatory oversight.
4 The overdeveloped world has already been largely taken over, for main
crops, by "hybridity" i.e. got hooked on buying annually Pioneer Hi-bred®
or similar corporate hybrid seed which grows into plants bearing seed that,
while not literally sterile, give such enormous variation that nobody tries
to get a crop from those F2 hybrid seed.

This, and much more, is brilliantly expounded by the famous Harvard
geneticist Richard Lewontin, with a French agresearch leader Berlan, in
.

I hope these clarifications are useful.

I may perhaps be permitted some ruminations on science policy. The
Labour govt 1972-75 used my published analyses verbatim in the World Court,
and I was sometimes startled to hear e.g Mike Moore MP quoting me at length
on health hazards of fallout. No prior permission nor thanks afterwards
attached to these quotes, but I felt useful. The policy excluding nuclear
weapons, and the policy & law excluding power reactors, were perhaps my
'greatest hits' in that antinuclear era. My advice was heeded, even if I
didn't usually get acknowledged.

Today, as NZ's senior scientific critic of gene-tampering, I can't
look fw to any such back-handed compliments as those Kirk-era uses of my
advice. My statement to the Royal Commission on GM was suppressed. I get
no ackn when I proffer advice on GM to the Prime Minister's unelected
lesbian comptroller Heather Simpson who, for all I know, filters out all I
send because of my anti-PC politics. Do I flatter myself too far in
fearing that this trend of biased science-policy channels greatly increases
the dangers of major blunders?

Hobbs should be told to condemn not only The Terminator but also
all uncontained GMOs. New Zealand showed the world a good example in
excluding nuclear reactors; let us not only ban GMOs except in strict
containment, but also show the world again some moral leadership.

R

-----

>l http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=498
>ETC Group
>News Release
>7 February 2005
>www.etcgroup.org
>
>Canadian Government to Unleash Terminator Bombshell at UN Meeting:
>All-out push for commercialisation of Sterile Seed Technology
>
>A confidential document leaked today to ETC Group reveals that the
>Canadian government, at a United Nations meeting in Bangkok (Feb 7-11),
>will attempt to overturn an international moratorium on genetic seed
>sterilisation technology (known universally as Terminator). Even worse,
>the Canadian government has instructed its negotiators to "block
>consensus" on any other option.

One of the most dismal failures by the media in the GM era has been their
consistent non-reporting of the differences between PR claims and actual
performance.

R



Group Claims Biotechs Don't Deliver on Promises

SAN FRANCISCO -- The biotechnology industry has failed to deliver on
promises to revolutionize agriculture with plants genetically engineered to
be healthier, drought resistant and tastier, a consumer interest group said
Wednesday.

Monsanto sues farmer customers over piracy issues
The seed company's efforts to protect its technology often turn farmer
against farmer.

By PAUL ELIAS and ANNE FITZGERALD
Des Moines REGISTER
January 30, 2005
edited

According to this article, Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" caught Bill Quick
in 1998, forcing the Redding, Ia., farmer to settle out of court for a
five-figure sum. Quick's mistake: He saved Roundup Ready soybeans from one
year to plant the next year's crop.

The agribusiness company has won millions in judgments and settlements from
farmers it has accused of technology piracy.

In a case a year ago, Tennessee farmer Kem Ralph was sued by Monsanto and
sentenced to eight months in prison after he was caught lying about a
truckload of cotton seed he had hidden for a friend.

Ralph's prison term is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked
to Monsanto's crackdown. Ralph has also been ordered to pay Monsanto about
$1.7 million.

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times against 147
farmers and 39 agricultural companies from 25 states, according to a report
issued recently by the Center for Food Safety, a Washington, D.C.,
organization that has been critical of biotechnology. Many of the lawsuits
have been settled out of court. The amounts that farmers agreed to pay
Monsanto generally have not been disclosed, although a North Carolina
farmer settled for $1.5 million, the report said.

So far, Monsanto has won more than $15 million in judgments, ranging from
$5,595 to more than $3 million.

Nineteen cases are ongoing, including one filed by Monsanto last summer in
response to a class-action lawsuit brought earlier against the St. Louis
agribusiness by 27 farmers and companies in 13 states, including Iowa.

Monsanto's licensing contracts and litigation tactics are coming under
increased scrutiny as more of the planet's farmland comes under cultivation
for genetically engineered crops.

Many of the farmers Monsanto has sued say that they did not read the
company's technology agreement close enough. Others say they never received
an agreement in the first place. Still others have claimed that their
signatures were forged on agreements with Monsanto, said Joe Mendelson, a
lawyer who works for the Center for Food Safety. "You've got some pretty
angry farmers out there," he said.

... Monsanto's investigative tactics are sowing seeds of fear and mistrust
in some farming communities, company critics say.

AS CHEMICAL POISON MANUFACTURING UNIT DECLINES
MONSANTO BUYS SEMINIS FEED BUSINESS

JERRY HIRSCH, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Seeds are in; pesticides are out.
That's the mantra at agribusiness giant Monsanto Co., which said Monday
that it planned to purchase Oxnard, California-based seed company Seminis
Inc. for $1 billion.

Monsanto, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, has seen its pesticide and
herbicide business decline with the rise of insect- and disease-resistant
strains of crops. So it has been expanding into seeds, especially
genetically modified varieties.

For its part, Seminis has focused on conventional plant breeding to develop
new crop strains.

"The value in the agriculture industry has shifted dramatically away from
chemicals and into seeds," Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant told
analysts and investors in a conference call.

The world's largest vegetable seed company, Seminis is best known for its
top-selling lines of tomatoes, cucumbers and beans. It also has developed
innovative specialty crops, such as red carrots, orange cauliflower and the
Bambino watermelon --- a seedless melon about the size of a cantaloupe.

All told, Seminis sells more than 3,500 fruit and vegetable seed varieties
to farmers under the Seminis, Asgrow, Petoseed and Royal Sluis brand names.
It has 16,000 customers in 150 countries.

"If you have eaten a salad, you have eaten a Seminis product," said company
spokesman Gary Koppenjan.

Seminis also owns the world's largest fruit and vegetable seed bank, which
it uses to crossbreed plants to create strains that require less
agrochemicals, increase crop yield, reduce spoilage, offer longer shelf
life and create better-tasting foods.
Monsanto also does a large seed business but concentrates on canola, corn,
cotton and soy.

Vegetable seeds are a high-margin business, and Monsanto wants Seminis to
complement its growing expertise in genetically engineered crops, CEO Grant
said, though genetically modified vegetables aren't in Monsanto's plans for
Seminis for now.

"This is going to be about breeding," he said. "In the long term, there may
be an opportunity in biotechnology."

In addition to paying $1 billion in cash, Monsanto said it would assume
$400 million in Seminis debt and make a performance-based payment of up to
$125 million payable by the end of the 2007 fiscal year.

If there is no opposition from antitrust regulators, the sale is expected
to close this year. Seminis would operate as an independent subsidiary
headed by Bruno Ferrari, Seminis' president and chief operating officer. He
would report to Brett Begemann, Monsanto's executive vice president.

Monsanto would be wise to let Seminis operate on its own, said Doug Ranno,
managing partner of Colorful Harvest, a Monterey, Calif.-based farm company
that is developing vegetable products, including red and white carrots and
a striped tomato, with Seminis.

"We have invested years of work with their researchers, and you have to
look at those people as a key part of the assets Monsanto is acquiring,"
Ranno said.
Mexican entrepreneur Alfonso Romo put Seminis together about a decade ago
from half a dozen seed concerns. It has 2,900 employees, including 400 at
its Oxnard headquarters and 200 at its research headquarters in Woodland,
California.

After a public stock offering of $15 a share in 1999, Seminis had trouble
integrating acquisitions and foundered, its stock dropping to as low as $1.

In 2003, a group led by private equity firm Fox Paine & Co. of Foster City,
California, purchased the business for $3.40 a share, or about $350 million
in cash and $300 million in debt. The sale to Monsanto would result in a
handsome payday for Fox Paine, which spent about $165 million for its 58%
stake in Seminis --- and will walk away with as much as $577 million if the
deal closes.

A new management team, as well as steady gains in cash flow and market
position, is responsible for the increase in value, said Dexter Paine,
president of the equity firm.

"The idea of selling Seminis to Monsanto came up as part of an ongoing
dialogue between the two companies," Paine said, noting that Seminis has a
technology-sharing agreement with Monsanto, and Fox Paine has been involved
in transactions with Monsanto.

Some on Wall Street think Monsanto would be better off focusing on its
genetically modified crop business rather than making a move into
conventional seed breeding.

"We find it hard to conceive that earnings growth from vegetable seeds can
exceed that of Monsanto's current lineup of genetically modified crops,"
Credit Suisse First Boston analyst William R. Young said in a research
note. He rated the shares "underperform."

Seminis lost $16.3 million on revenue of $525.8 million in its 2004 fiscal
year, which ended September 30.

Monsanto, based in St. Louis, posted sales of $5.5 billion in its fiscal
year ended August 31. Just under $2 billion of that was from sales of
Roundup. Monsanto shares fell $3.62, or 6%, to $54.10 on the New York
Stock Exchange after the purchase announcement was made.

[ January 25, 2005 ]

You may recall this outfit "seminis" were involved a couple y ago
in selling seed in NZ.

R

Monsanto to Acquire Seminis
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
January 24, 2005
edited

Monsanto agreed to acquire seed company Seminis Inc. for $1.4 billion in
cash and assumed debt, as well as up to an additional $125 million, based
on performance.

Seminis supplies more than 3,500 seed varieties to commercial fruit and
vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and wholesalers in more than 150
countries.

Monsanto expects it will benefit from Seminis's advanced plant breeding
techniques in the near term and said it may
apply its own biotechnology processes to Seminis products down the road.

Monsanto to Buy Seminis for $1B in Cash

By JIM SUHR, AP Business Writer

ST. LOUIS - Agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. said Monday it
will buy vegetable and fruit seed company Seminis Inc. for roughly $1
billion in cash, broadening its portfolio of seeds and tapping into the
trend of healthier diets.

Monsanto said it will assume an additional $400 million in debt by Seminis,
the Oxnard, Calif.-based supplier of more than 3,500 seed varieties to
commercial fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and
wholesalers in more than 150 countries.

St. Louis-based Monsanto - already staking more of its future on seeds that
include genetically modified ones able to withstand weeds, insects and
disease - said it also would make a performance-based
payment of up to $125 million by the end of fiscal 2007.

"The addition of Seminis will be an excellent fit for our company as global
production of vegetables and fruits, and the trend toward healthier diets,
has been growing steadily over the past several years," said Hugh Grant,
Monsanto's chairman, president and chief executive.

Grant called 10-year-old Seminis, with sales of $526 million in sales in
its 2004 fiscal year, "uniquely positioned to capitalize on this
fast-growing segment of agriculture, and the acquisition likewise expands
Monsanto's ability to grow."

Citing the pending acquisition, Monsanto pared its estimate for fiscal 2005
earnings to 86 cents to $1.06 per share, down from a previous range of
$1.56 to $1.71.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call were expecting Monsanto's earnings
of $2.05 per share. In trading Monday morning on the New York Stock
Exchange (news - web sites), shares of Monsanto fell $1.62, or 2.8 percent,
to $56.10, near the higher end of their 52-week range of $29.01 to $59.29.
Pending regulatory approvals, Monsanto expects the deal to be closed
sometime between March and May. The company said the deal should be
accretive to earnings per share, cash flow and revenue growth in fiscal
year 2006, its first full year of operation.

The move comes two months after Monsanto's newly formed holding company -
American Seeds Inc. - acquired Indiana-based seed company Channel Bio Corp.
for $120 million cash. Monsanto formed American Seeds to support regional
seed businesses with capital, genetics and technology investments.
Seminis will be as a wholly owned Monsanto subsidiary, headed by its
existing president and chief operating officer. Monsanto said it expects to
continue Seminis' focus on developing products using advanced breeding
techniques, with biotech applications an option well down the road.

That push comes as biotech crops are flourishing in the United States and
taking root overseas, accounting for several tens of billions of dollars in
crops in five leading countries despite European resistance to the
technology.

Alfonso Romo, chairman and chief executive of roughly 10-year-old Seminis,
said "we are bringing a complementary technology base and specialized
expertise that can not only support economic growth for farmers, but
contribute to the health and nutrition of consumers on a global scale."

A good student should be able to comment on this muck. The 'get
it while the going's good' marketing line is cute. Could we ever find out
how many copies actually sell of this dud?

I continue to compare the nookuluh enthusiasts favourably with
these twisters. The moral standards of the PR trade have become much more
widely tolerated lately, and I blame the GM-trade propagandists like Conko
& Miller to a large extent.

R

From: orders@artistotlesbooks.co.nz

I just heard from Greg Conko, who is co-author of the book The
Frankenfood Myth that he can arrange to ship Aristotle's Books copies of
this work. The book had been published by one of the US academic
publsihers. That meant that our wholesale price would have been atrocious.
I checked with our distributer and our retail price, if we purchased the
book from them, would have been $99.95 (actually it would have been $101.50
but we round down when we can).

Of course at that price no one would take it. And I'm told because of the
publisher's pricing none of the major book outlets are stocking the book.
We will be able to offer this book at $69.95. It's still a bit costly by
New Zealand standards (even by US standards) but it's a big improvement
over the publishers prices if we ordered from them. I will add some
information on the book below.

By the way the over-rated Amazon.com would sell the same book to someone
in New Zealand for aroud $79.95 with shipping. They would cost $10 more
and they don't have to share any GST with Nanny. Because the only way to
get this at a reasonable price is through the author it won't be easy to
reorder. It will take longer to arrive than normal as well. So it's
likely we will have a one time only offer on the book. I will get a couple
of spare copies for inventory but unless we have a strong demand it's
unlikely we will be restocking the title. If this is a book that you would
want it's best to tell me before I order so I can make sure we have enough
copies in stock. In fact if you preorder and prepay I'll give you a
discount making the total price $61.95. However if you purchase after the
books arrive the price will be $69.95.

Below you will find some basic information on the book followed by a book
review published in the Wall Street Journal. If you want a copy email
orders@artistotlesbooks.co.nz right away. Once I place the actual order
the special offer price will not be available and you will pay the full
price.

The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution

By Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko

September 20, 2004

Description®: Few topics have inspired as much international furor and
misinformation as the development and distribution of genetically altered
foods. For thousands of years, farmers have bred crops for their
resistance to disease, productivity, and nutritional value; and over the
past century, scientists have used increasingly more sophisticated methods
for modifying them at the genetic level. But only since the 1970s have
advances in biotechnology (or gene-splicing to be more precise) upped the
ante, with the promise of dramatically improved agricultural products--and
public resistance far out of synch with the potential risks.

In this provocative and meticulously researched book, Henry Miller and
Gregory Conko trace the origins of gene-splicing, its applications, and the
backlash from consumer groups and government agencies against so-called
"Frankenfoods"--from America to Zimbabwe. They explain how a "happy
conspiracy" of anti-technology activism, bureaucratic over-reach, and
business lobbying has resulted in a regulatory framework in which there is
an inverse relationship between the degree of product risk and degree of
regulatory scrutiny. The net result, they argue, is a combination of
public confusion, political manipulation, ill-conceived regulation (from
such agencies as the USDA, EPA, and FDA), and ultimately, the obstruction
of one of the safest and most promising technologies ever developed--with
profoundly negative consequences for the environment and starving people
around the world. The authors go on to suggest a way to emerge from this
morass, proposing a variety of business and policy reforms that can unlock
the potential of this cutting-edge science, while ensuring appropriate
safeguards and moving environmentally friendly products into the hands of
farmers and consumers. This book is guaranteed to fuel the ongoing debate
over the future of biotech and its cultural, economic, and political
implications.

Table of Contents:

Foreword by Norman E. Borlaug
Prologue by John H. Moore
Acknowledgments
A Brave New World of Biotechnology? More Like a Brave Old World!
Myths, Mistakes, Misconceptions, and Mendacity
Science, Common Sense, and Nonsense
Caution, Precaution, and the Precautionary Principle
The Vagaries of U.S. Regulation
Legal Liability Issues
The Vagaries of Foreign and International Regulation
European Resistance to Biotechnology
Climbing Out of the Quagmire
Notes
Index

LC Card Number: 2004048059
LCC Class: TP248
Dewey Class: 303

Endorsement From Nick Smith, (R-MI),
Chairman
House Science Subcommittee on Research:

Miller and Conko brilliantly expose the peril of allowing the precautionary
principle to drive risk analysis and policymaking. Their thorough and
articulate deconstruction of the precautionary principle should serve as a
guide to developing regulatory policy, not only for biotechnology, but for
any new idea or technology.

Endorsement From Paul D. Boyer,
Emeritus Professor
University of California, Los Angeles,
Co-Winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:

Misguided public policies have seriously restricted research on, and
applications of, genetic engineering in agriculture. Miller and Conko
analyze why and how this has occurred. They point out the danger that the
present unwarranted regulatory oppression will become the norm, and they
make a strong case for drastic change in present policies. Their call for
policies based on realistic risk-benefit considerations needs to be heard
loudly by those responsible for the present fiasco.

Endorsement From Michael H. Mellon,
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
University of California, San Diego School of Medicine:

This volume simply eclipses anything else on the subject. Miller and Conko
offer a masterful exposé of the flaws in current public policy towards
biotechnology, a lucid discussion of the reasons for them, and innovative
proposals for essential reforms.

Endorsement From Penn Jillette:

Miller and Conko describe biotech's potential to both alleviate human
suffering and improve environmental stewardship, and they offer
science-based models for regulation. This book can help us fight the
short-sighted bureaucrats and emotion-driven activists. It's time for the
rest of us to do our part--read the book, fight the power, and feed the
people. The hard work is done; all we have left to do is get policy-makers
to do the right thing.

Book Review: The Frankenfood Myth

Wall Street Journal
by Eileen Norcross
December 24, 2004

Bookmarks (Book Review)
THE FRANKENFOOD MYTH
By Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko
(Praeger, 290 pages, $39.95)

Imagine A Green Utopia: Overtilled land is returned to the forest.
Waterways are unmenaced by the runoff of pesticides, now rarely used.
Farmers are spared crop-killing frosts and insect plagues.

The Green Utopia is not a fiction. It arrived® in 1973 when Stanley Cohen
and Herbert Boyer spliced the DNA of one species of bacteria into another
and cultivated a new organism. With refinements, recombinant DNA
technology, or gene-splicing, has given us Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs) such as the slow-ripening tomato, vitamin A-enriched rice and
pest-resistant corn. And that is just a glimmer of its potential.

Yet gene-splicing is struggling to survive. The battle over its future is
the subject of "The Frankenfood Myth," by Henry I. Miller and Gregory
Conko. The authors show how foolish policies -- premised on junk science,
media sensationalism and the mixed motives of bureaucrats and corporations
-- are choking off a wonder-technology.

The word "frankenfood" owes a debt to Green activists, who warned early on
that gene-splicing would create a world where superweeds would choke
vegetation and monster tomatoes would sit in fields like ticking
time-bombs. All baselessly, for the verdict of science is clear:
Gene-splicing offers no new risks to man or his environment. Gene-swapping
between unrelated organisms happens often in nature, and conventional plant
breeding can move genes from one organism to another. Gene-splicing does
essentially what hybridization does, but with more precision,
predictability and possibility.

Still, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department
require that biotech companies perform thousands of field experiments and
thousands of hours of data-analysis before marketing their products. The
companies have acceded meekly to such regulatory overkill, hoping that it
will lessen public fear and thwart startup competition. Instead, it has
increased research-and-development costs, diminished the interest of
venture capital and stalled a revolution.

The U.S. biotech industry, once poised to transform agriculture, today
merely putters along in staple crops such as soybeans, canola and corn. It
has not spread to "small market" fruits and vegetables because costly
regulatory requirements outweigh commercial gain.

The state of biotech in Europe is even worse, as Messrs. Miller and Conko
remind us. The European Union lifted its ban on gene-splicing only earlier
this year, replacing it with a "traceability" rule that requires companies
to track all product-ingredients that have gene-spliced origins, however
intricately combined they may be. The label on a bottle of ketchup alone
could run to Gibbon-like lengths.

The trials of the new biotech are a travesty against reason, but not a
human tragedy, at least in the West, where no one will starve if he is
denied cheaper, vitamin-enriched foods. Elsewhere, though, the costs are
high. In 2002, for instance, during the height of a famine, the Zambian and
Zimbabwean governments rejected food aid in the form of gene-spliced corn,
contending that, as the authors put it, "they would rather starve to death
than get something toxic." But of course there was nothing toxic in what
they were being offered.

Such irrational fear need not carry the day. Messrs. Miller and Conko
urge those who know the truth about gene-splicing to tell it -- forcefully.
As for business, it might take note, for once, that appeasement does not
stop fanatics. It only encourages them.