|
The GM National Debate Farce
“What debate?” Asks Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.
The great ‘GM National Debate’ in the UK, perfunctory,
severely under-funded and poorly publicised, lasted just six weeks from 3 June
to 16 July, with simultaneous events in local communities spread across the
country. It was supposed to provoke real public debate on whether GM crops
should be commercialised.
Several of us at the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) attended
some of the public meetings, or was a speaker in local debates. Our
overwhelming experience is that the public were asked to debate in an
information vacuum, and worse.
No critical, relevant scientific evidence on the problems and hazards of
GM crops was presented, as opposed to the potential benefits was presented; nor
the many health, environmental and social benefits of sustainable non-GM
agriculture, as opposed to GM agriculture. Nor was there any attempt to provide
honest answers to public concerns over the safety of GM crops for health and
the environment or the social and economic impacts from the commercialisation
of GM crops, which have already hit farmers in the United States, Canada, India
and elsewhere.
On the contrary, pro-GM scientists, many supported by the biotech
corporations, were out in force to spread confusion and disinformation. The
ever-present pro-GM scientists were at hand to brush aside any serious concern
on the safety of GM crops. And the same individuals were not above using
debating tactics to obfuscate and mislead the public, and to intimidate and
discredit critical scientists.
On one occasion, I debated Conrad Lichtenstein, who introduced himself
as Professor of molecular biology, Queen Mary College, London University, and
presumably supported by the taxpayer. But he is actually a member of CropGen, a
group funded by Monsanto and other biotech corporations. Just so there could be
no mistake, two representatives from Monsanto accompanied Lichtenstein and
stayed by his side the whole day, and at a press interview, answered questions
on his behalf.
The Monsanto reps had arrived early to demand repeatedly that the
organisers of the debate remove a quote from me posted on their website, on
grounds that it was “inaccurate”. During question time, Lichtenstein,
unable to defend his position, tried to launch a personal attack accusing me
falsely of not being able to provide scientific references proving transgenic
lines are unstable.
At the end, one Monsanto rep congratulated Lichtenstein, “You were
very good to-day!”
We boarded the same train back to London, Lichtenstein and Monsanto reps
in first class, I in economy.
Why had Lichtenstein allowed Monsanto to be so intimately associated
with him in public? And why had Monsanto allowed itself to be so publicly
visible as a controlling influence on a scientist, thus severely undermining
his credibility?
Was it intended to intimidate the opponents? If so, it failed.
In another debate, I encountered Paul Mullineaux, ex-member of ACRE and
also funded by the biotech industry. He told the audience during summing up
– so I was not given the chance to come back - that “DNA is DNA is
DNA”, a typical obfuscation intended to perpetrate the lie that GM DNA is
no different from natural DNA. He also exclaimed: “DNA is taken into cells
because it is very nutritious!” omitting to say that it is transgenic DNA
integrating into the cell’s genome that’s at issue, not simply taken
up into the cell. And personal attacks on scientists critical of GM are now
routine.
For more on the dirty science of the GM debate and the worldwide
uprising against GM, read the latest issue of Science in Society. Details here.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis19.php
| |
|
