Scientific Committees advising the UK government are playing fast and loose with scientific evidence, abusing public trust, and in blatant violation of both good science and the precautionary principle, says Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.
The UK governments science advisors have effectively given the green light to commercial growing of GM crops, ahead of the great national GM debate, in a summary dismissal of mounting evidence that GM crops are hazardous to health and the environment.
The Advisory Committee for Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and the Advisory Committee for Novel Food Products (ACNFP) are still insisting there is "no evidence" GM crops pose greater risks than non-GM counterparts in their response (www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre) to a public hearing that was triggered by wide-spread opposition to the governments proposal to put the GM maize Chardon LL on the national seed list which began more than two years ago.
Over 15 box-files of written material were submitted and months of oral presentations heard, much of which consisting of scientific evidence of GM hazards as well as challenges to the poor, substandard and incomplete scientific research accepted by the committees for approving GM crops and products.
This latest reassurance from our governments science advisors is no news to anyone. No mainstream media bothered to report it. The public is right to suspect the worst as less than a month before, the British Medical Association (BMA), not known for adopting radical positions in scientific matters, has repeated its call for a moratorium on GM crop trials, expressing concerns over the impact of GM foods on long-term health. The BMA has a membership of over 120,000 representing more than 80% of doctors in Britain.
Existing scientific evidence amply supports the BMAs call for a moratorium and other critics who want GM crops stopped altogether. There is, at the very least, reasonable suspicion that GM crops and many of the products are harmful. Even mainstream pro-biotech journals cannot avoid printing articles saying as much, if only so they can throw the honest scientist to the pro-biotech wolf pack afterwards (see accompanying article "Science advisors abusing science").
ACRE and ACNFP have dismissed practically all the evidence by evasive tactics that add up to a serious abuse of science. We at ISIS should know, having wasted countless hours preparing written submissions and presenting oral evidence to these Committees.
Let me briefly summarise the main evidence.
The situation clearly calls for preventative action, even on the most conservative version of the precautionary principle, which requires action thats cost-effective. It costs nothing to stop GM crops, and we have everything to lose if we dont stop.
There is no need for GM crops; no one wants them, not famine-stricken African nations, and very possibly, not even the biotech corporations themselves, judging from the spectacular cutbacks and spin-outs of agricultural biotechnology and major retreats from funding academic research over the past year [10, 11].
Aventis was taken over by Bayer, which spun it out to Bayer CropScience. But Bayer had announced repeated job cuts in crop science in 2002 amounting to a total of 15 000 over the next four years. Monsanto suffered a series of setbacks in write-offs and lost profits after being taken over and spun off by Pharmacia. Pharmacia was taken over by Pfizer on condition that it shed Monsanto. Just before Christmas, Monsantos chief executive and president resigned, citing poor financial performance. In September last year, Syngenta ended a three-year collaboration with UKs John Innes Institute that has hardly begun, abandoning the Syngenta Laboratory, part of a new Genome Centre complex completed eight months previously at the tax-payers expense. Then, less than three months later, the corporation stunned the academic world by announcing the closure of its Torrey Mesa Research Institute (TMRI) by the end of January. TMRI, barely four years old, has led Syngentas efforts to sequence the rice genome. Thats not all; word is out that the controversial partnership between Syngenta and UC Berkeley will probably not be renewed in 2003 when the $25 million deal expires.
The corporations have invested and lost billions and are desperate to recoup some of the losses by forcing GM crops on the unsuspecting public, and at the same time, withdrawing support from the genetic engineering scientists who have led them to this scientific and financial dead end.
So now the truth is out. The genetic engineering scientists, many serving as our governments science advisors, are really the only people who could possibly want to support GM and GM research. There are both financial and non-financial interests at stake: spin-off companies, stocks and shares, high pay, power, prestige, career prospects.
It would be much safer and more cost-effective to retire them all, if necessary, with suitable honours (many already bestowed in any case) and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
ACRE, ACNFP and the Food Standards Agency should all be disbanded. They have betrayed public trust, and are serving no useful function whatsoever.
Article first published 14/01/03
Got something to say about this page? Comment