ISIS Press Release 16/07/04
Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
Claire Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable truths about the
machinations of the pro-GM establishment in Britain
Sources for this article
are posted on ISIS members’ website.
Details here.
In a recent debate on genetically modified (GM) foods at the House of
Commons, Dr. Ian Gibson, who chairs the all-party Parliamentary Science and
Technology Committee, dismissed concerns over GM food safety.
As a scientist, he said, he could wipe the floor with his opponents.
Gibson, MP for Norwich North, said: "The epidemiology studies carried out in
every major centre, including in the universities in the States and elsewhere,
into the effects of [GM] food ... have shown no effects whatever that correlate
with the food - although I understand how difficult that is to prove."
Unfortunately for Gibson, one of the few scientists to have done GM food
safety tests, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, responded to his comments in an open letter.
Pusztai pointed out that "there have been no epidemiology studies, and
certainly none published. This is obvious from the fact that, apart from this
generalisation, you could not refer to a single such study. It is not
surprising because in the absence of labelling of GM food in the USA such
studies could not be carried out! However, it is known from official statistics
that in less than ten years food-related illnesses have practically doubled in
the USA since the introduction of GM food into the American diet." He went on
to add that while the reason for this is unknown, it is blatant bluster to
declare that everything is well in the USA and that none of these ill effects
correlate with food, including GM food.
Gibson went on to claim that "the evidence is piling up to say that the
[GM] food is, indeed safe." But when Pusztai asked Gibson to elaborate on this
evidence, Gibson’s reply was less confident. He gave just three examples
to support his case, including a Monsanto study. Pusztai commented, "I expect
what constitutes a pile is a matter of definition. One can reverse this
argument by saying that the evidence is in fact piling up to show the health
problems of GM foods reported in the published science literature…
However, these you and other pro-GM supporters conveniently ignore."
Indeed, Gibson has ignored other recent evidence that further casts
doubt on the safety of GM foods. These were raised at an Independent Science
Panel (ISP) briefing in Parliament organised by ISIS and Gibson’s fellow
MP, Alan Simpson. The evidence includes reported illnesses in villagers living
near Bt maize fields in the Philippines, recent disclosure in Le Monde
of kidney abnormalities and changes in blood sugar and blood cell numbers in
rats fed Bt maize resistant to corn rootworm, published scientific papers
documenting problems with Bt toxins and transgenic instability in commercial GM
lines. Gibson had pointedly declined the invitation to attend the briefing.
The evidence should, at the very least, set alarm bells ringing and
prompt scientists and policy makers to take appropriate action. Surely this
should mean not approving GM foods unless they can be unequivocally proven
safe; and at the same time, conducting serious, independent research into GM
food safety. In ignoring all of the evidence, Gibson is adopting an extreme
anti-precautionary approach, one that is totally unacceptable and
irresponsible, considering that it is human health that is at stake.
In contrast, former environment minister Michael Meacher had, at the
briefing, demanded a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK, in light of
the lack of good research into the long-term effects of GM foods on human
health and the rubbishing and lack of follow-up on research that turns up
evidence of potentially adverse impacts (see "Meacher calls for enquiry into GM
safety", SiS
22).
Duplicity galore
What forces could bring Gibson, a former Dean of Biology at the
University of East Anglia, who is proud of his independent-mindedness, to join
the chorus of spin with which GM technology is promoted? After all, this is the
same man who, just a few years ago, warned against the inclusion of GM
ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot unknown about hazards of
new [GM food] crops and until it is fully tested we should not be subjecting
people to risks, least of all young children."
A clue to the source of Gibson’s apparent conversion lies in the
introduction to his speech to the House of Commons: "The point has often been
made here that genetically modified crops are being grown extensively in north
and south America and in China, although not in Europe. They have in a sense
become part of the normal diet in those places, if not in Europe, where there
is still contention, despite the fact that 300 million US citizens continue to
eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many
Europeans, including people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no
adverse consequences."
Compare Gibson’s words to the following introduction to an article:
"Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in North and
South America and China, although not in Europe. Food produced from these crops
has become a part of the normal diet in North and South America and in China,
but not in Europe, where contention continues despite the fact that millions of
US citizens eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society,
and many Europeans have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse
consequences."
Gibson’s introduction is copied almost word for word from this
article, which, it turns out, was published in May as an EMBO Report - intended
to provide short papers on molecular biology - by Nature Publishing. It was
written by Derek Burke, a former Vice Chancellor of the University of East
Anglia - where Gibson also worked. Burke is known among campaigners as the
‘GM godfather’ for his aggressive protection of biotech interests and
his alleged tendency to influence so-called "independent" reports and
government policy.
Analysis by campaign group GM WATCH of Gibson’s speech revealed
that whole sections were lifted from Burke’s article (see
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822).
It became clear from this comparison that the politician who boasted he had the
scientific knowledge to wipe the floor with his adversaries is in reality
nothing but a parrot.
For the record, ISIS has invited the Royal Society to debate the
scientific evidence in public more than once; but it has never accepted the
invitation. The ISP is now happy to extend the same open invitation to Ian
Gibson.
Gibson also, at the behest of the pro-GM lobby group Sense About
Science, asked Tony Blair in the House of Commons to respond to Derek
Burke’s letter calling for more government support for GM. It subsequently
emerged that this letter, too, was the work of the industry-funded group (see
box).
Who is Derek Burke?
Prof. Derek Burke was chair of the UK regulatory committee on GM foods
(Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes - ACNFP) for almost a decade
(1988-97), during which time the first GM foods were approved for the UK. In
the 1980s he worked for a biotech company (Allelix Inc of Toronto) and until
1998 was a director of Genome Research Ltd.
During much of his time at ACNFP, Burke was also Vice Chancellor of the
University of East Anglia (1987-1995) and a member of the governing council of
the John Innes Centre (JIC). Both institutions have benefited from investment
in GM research, with the JIC subsequently enjoying multi-million pound
investments from biotechnology corporations like Syngenta and Dupont. Burke
participated in the UK government’s "Technology Foresight" exercise to
decide how science could best contribute to the UK’s economic
competitiveness. He was then charged with incorporating the Foresight proposal
to build businesses from genetics into the corporate plan of the UK’s
public funding body, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC). As a result, BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific
opportunity with the needs of industry, which left it heavily aligned with
industry.
Burke was a member of the Royal Society working group on GM foods whose
report, "Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use", is said to have reassured
ministers on the GM issue. He was also a member of the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics group that produced the report "Genetically modified crops: the
social and ethical issues". This pro-GM report emphasising the "moral
imperative" to push GM crops into the Third World was described by
Guardian columnist George Monbiot as "perhaps the most asinine report on
biotechnology ever written. The stain it leaves on the Nuffield Council’s
excellent reputation will last for years." Burke was also a member of a small
Nuffield working group who produced a follow-up report along the same lines in
2003.
Burke has been revealed as having a hand in initiatives coordinated by
the prominent industry-backed lobby group Sense About Science. In October 2003
he sent a letter together with 113 other scientists to Tony Blair complaining
about the government’s failure to intervene in the GM Public Debate in the
UK. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) initially
reported the letter as "written and coordinated by Professor Derek Burke". But
a THES article of 7 November said, "The letter was coordinated by Sense
About Science", while a THES Leader on the same topic did not even
mention Burke, referring instead to, "The new organisation behind the letter,
Sense About Science". Burke is on the Advisory Council of Sense About
Science.
Why the Gibson-Burke collusion matters
So Gibson plagiarised Burke and made false statements about the state of
GM science. Does it matter? Just why it does can be seen from what emerged
following Gibson’s exposure as "a parrot".
Gibson’s local newspaper picked up the story and wrung an important
admission out of him about his speech’s similarity to the words of his
former employer, Derek Burke: "When pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: ‘We are
working together to try and erode the anti-GM debate.’"
The whole point of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which
Gibson chairs, is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of science issues
independent not only of government but of the vested interests that can impact
on government policies and public bodies. When the UK Science Minister is a
known enthusiast for GM crops and biotech entrepreneur, independent scrutiny is
vital
The Select Committee has issued reports critical of Arpad Pusztai and,
more recently, supportive of the BBSRC - the public body that Derek Burke did
so much to align with industry. Indeed, the only serious criticism the
Gibson-led Committee made of this corporate-friendly body was that it was not
pro-active enough in promoting communication with the public on issues like GM
crops where public trust needed to be achieved.
At a time when the biotech industry is retreating from the UK in despair
at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson appears to be stepping up his activities on
its behalf. In collaboration with the industry-friendly lobby group The
Scientific Alliance, he arranged a lobby assault on Parliament called "GM
Question Time" on 13 July. The panel was uncompromisingly pro-GM (see a full
rundown, with industry affiliations, at
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid
=4004). Naturally, the speakers’ links with industry and its
associated lobby groups are undisclosed in the press releases announcing the
event.
| 
