More Biotech Industry Deception & Disinformation

March 3, 2005
GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here - press article
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
*Steering Commitee.
*Organisation, coordination and further contacts
------
1.Public Research & Regulation Fraud - GM Watch

The article below describes a new initiative - The Public Research Sector
Initiative executed by a foundation called "Public Research and Regulation".
The initiative is based on deceit.

The biotech scientists involved, who are meeting today anjd tomorrow, are
saying that they represent a third non-aligned group between civil society
and industry who should "weigh in" at meetings of the Cartagena Protocol
that help determine biosafety rules. They claim "the public research sector
has been not able to provide scientific input for the benefit of the
negotiations nor to express its views about the effectiveness and
workability of the provisions of the Protocol."

Their call for increased leverage for "nonprofit" "public sector" players
belies the heavy industrial-alignment of most public sector agricultural
biotechnology where there is a long history of involvement with intensive
agricultural R&D and of collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, not
to mention dependence on industry funding. The effect of this is to generate
convergence between private sector and public sector operators.

This convergence means that the "third" group would not be non-aligned but
would have interests and an agenda that would all too often be
indistinguishable from that of the industry - in other words biotech
proponents would get two bites of the cherry to the rest of society's one.

The problem is apparent as soon as one looks at the detail of this
initiative and those that are driving it forward. Although the biotech
scientists claim it is a "misconception that modern biotechnology, and in
particular its agricultural application, is the exclusive domain of a
handful of big, western multinationals", they are actually holding their
meeting today at the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St Louis,
Missouri ­ the home town of Monsanto.

This is no coincidence. The Danforth Center was established by Monsanto
Corporation "and academic partners" with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto.
The company also donated the 40-acre tract of land, valued at $11.4 million,
on which the Center is built.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=200

And don't be fooled when a scientist turned political lobbyist is quoted at
the end of the article as saying, "My career would be much better served if
I wasn't doing this," and "My dream is to win this battle and go back to the
lab full time". For many of the scientists involved in this initiative,
their labs, their research and their current careers would simply not exist
if it were not for the largesse of the biotech industry.

Take, for instance, Roger Beachy, the Danforth Center President, who is
helping to drive forward this initiative and who is quoted in the article.
Monsanto and other biotech companies have helped to fund Beachy's research,
quite apart from the massive corporate support underlying the Center he
heads.

One of the 2 key contacts for the group, and a member of the Steering
Committee, is Willy de Greef of the Institute for Plant Biotechnology for
Developing Countries (IPBO). Prior to that de Greef was a leading light of
Syngenta ­ the world's biggest biotech corporation. And Beachy and de Greef
are very far from alone - see the list below.

And when the article asks, "Can public-sector scientists become better
salesmen?", it misses the point that many of those involved are "salesmman"
and often their lobbying is underwritten directly or indirectly by the
biotech industry.

Here are more of those who "support the initiative and wish to be actively
involved in its activities":

Prof. Klaus Ammann, Botanical Garden, University of Bern, Switzerland
-ardent supporter and lobbyist for GM crops and co-editor of the Bio-Scope,
supported by GM industry lobby group Europabio.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=8
Dr. Gerard Barry, The International Rice Research Institute, Philippines
-former Director of Research, Production and Technical Cooperation at
Monsanto
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=294
Dr. Andrew Bennett, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture,
Switzerland
-Syngenta directors occupy 3 of the 5 seats on the Syngenta Foundation's
board.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=175
Dr. Joel Cohen, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
United States
-when at USAID Cohen worked with Monsanto to establish the notorious GM
sweet potato project
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131
Prof. Philip J. Dale, Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group,
John Innes Centre, United Kingdom
-Dale is on the advisory council of the controversial lobby group Sense
About Science which the John Innes Centre also helps to fund. JIC has been
involved in multi-million pound research alliances with Syngenta, Dupont and
others.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=34
Dr Roger Kalla, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Australia
-active in lobby group AusBiotech
Prof. Drew L. Kershen, University of Oklahoma College of Law, United States
-Well known Prakash supporter
Dr. Muffy Koch, AgBios, Canada
-highly controversial lobbyist. Part of biotech industry-funded AfricaBio
lobby group
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=271
Piet van der Meer, HORIZONS sprl, Belgium
-regarded as "having let the industry in" to biosafety development in the
developing world
Dr. James Peacock, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organisation, Australia
-collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first
major GM commercial crop. According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief
executive, "Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense, in the
context of market accessŠ Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy
to get into bed with these companies. "
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187
Prof. Ingo Potrykus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute
of Plant Science, Switzerland
-golden rice originator who has happily used it for PR purposes for genetic
engineering. Accuses Greenpeace of 'crimes against humanity'
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105
Prof. Jennifer Thompson, Department of Microbiology University of Cape Town,
South-Africa
-board member of the biotech industry-funded lobby groups AfricaBio and
ISAAA
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170
Dr. Florence Wambugu, A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, Kenya
-notorious GM propagandist, trained by Monsanto. A Harvest is backed by
CropLife International.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

------
2.Biotechnolgy meeting convenes here
By Eric Hand
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/sciencemedicine/story/9C9E
EC401D3450EA86256FB9001A6BF2?OpenDocument

Can public-sector scientists become better salesmen?

Nearly 50 university, nonprofit and government biotechnologists from around
the globe will try at a two-day conference beginning today at the Donald
Danforth Plant Sciences Center in Creve Coeur.

Center president Roger Beachy wants them to talk up the benefits of public
research into genetically modified foods and crops, an industry where debate
so far has largely been between for-profit companies like St. Louis-based
Monsanto and environmental activists.

"We think the absence of the voice of public-sector scientists skews the
discussion," he said.

Beachy hopes to encourage public-sector scientists to weigh in by attending
a meeting in June for the Cartagena Protocol, a treaty that governs
biosafety rules.

With Washington University researchers advocating on the stem cell research
issue before the Missouri Legislature, some scientists are finding
themselves in an unusual position: To get public money or permission, they
have to join the political fray.

The Cartagena Protocol took effect Sept. 11, 2003, after 50 nations ratified
the treaty. It was named for the Colombian city in which it was primarily
negotiated in 1999. The treaty contains safety rules for genetically
modified organisms, specifying, for example, that food products must be
labeled and that the international transport of any modified organisms must
be declared.

To date, 114 nations have ratified the treaty. The United States has not.

The treaty is mute about the benefits of biotechnology, said Joel Cohen, a
researcher with the International Food Policy Research Institute, which is
based in Washington. He says that's because treaty negotiations included
for-profit scientists, representatives from the environmental ministries and
non-governmental organization activists, but didn't include public-sector
scientists.

"Nobody has mobilized these scientists before," he said. "The
meeting in St. Louis is intended to address that void"

Public-sector scientists in 15 countries have genetically engineered 45
crops, according to a paper Cohen published January in the journal Nature
Biotechnology.

All but one of the crops - an insect-resistant cotton in China - are stuck
in a regulatory pipeline and have not been released commercially. For-profit
companies are good at navigating regulatory agencies, but the public
researchers need more money for that, Cohen said.

Cohen, who will present his work at the Danforth Center today, says that
some environmental organizations have unjustly ignored the potential
benefits of public-sector engineered products, which would be freely
available.

"They prefer this black-and-white split between right and wrong" he said.

That's not true, said Kristin Dawkins, vice president of the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group in Minneapolis that opposes
genetically engineered foods. She says the goals of public-sector
biotechnologists are well-intentioned and sincere, but perhaps too hurried.

Dawkins calls for more research into the health and ecological effects of
genetically modified organisms before they are released commercially.

Two conference attendees, a regulator from Tanzania and a researcher from
Colombia, said that farmers in their countries were less concerned with
possible hazards of modified products and more concerned with their
potential price tags.

Beachy said that this is where the scientists need to be better salesmen and
let people know about products that would eventually be free

He understands the risks of scientists venturing into a political arena.

"There will be accusations, that public scientists are dupes of the big
companies and pushing a profit motive" he said.

Washington University professor Steve Teitelbaum knows about becoming an
advocate. The bone doctor became the university spokesman on the issue of
stem cell research. He has spent many nights dining with state legislators
and debating opponents

"My career would be much better served if I wasn't doing this" he said. "My
dream is to win this battle and go back to the lab full time."

The Cartagena Protocol

Sets up a biosafety clearinghouse where information about genetically
modified organisms is filed and shared after commercial approval.

Requires products to be accompanied by labels and documents that identify
the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified ingredients

Operates under the "precautionary principle" meaning that worst-case
scenarios for a genetically modified product can justify banning it, even if
no scientific evidence exists of it causing harm

Source: United Nations Environment Programme Convention on Biological
Diversity
Reporter Eric Hand
E-mail: ehand@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8250
------
3.Public Research & Regulation Foundation
www.pubresreg.org

Countries and organisations throughout the world have invested considerably
in public sector research, and are continuing to do, so in order to develop
biotechnological applications that meet a variety of crucial needs...

The extent to which modern biotechnology will be able to achieve these goals
will depend to a large extent on the regulatory regimes that apply to
biotechnology and on the way in which they are implemented. These national
regulations in turn are strongly influenced by international agreements,
particularly the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

This Protocol was negotiated between 1995 and 2000, adopted in January 2000,
and came into force in September 2003. The first Meeting of the Parties
(MOP1) took place in February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and MOP2 is scheduled for
May - June 2005.

A central aim of the negotiations was to involve all stakeholders. Records
of the negotiations show that NGOs and the private sector were indeed well
represented.

However, the public research sector involved in developing biotechnological
applications, which includes over a hundred thousand researchers of
thousands governmental, academic and international research institutions in
developing and developed countries, was not represented in any significant
or organised way during the negotiations or during MOP1.

As a result, the public research sector has been not able to provide
scientific input for the benefit of the negotiations nor to express its
views about the effectiveness and workability of the provisions of the
Protocol. Another consequence of the absence of the public research sector
during the negotiations is the persistence of the misconception that modern
biotechnology, and in particular its agricultural application, is the
exclusive domain of a handful of big, western multinationals.

The initiative described below proposes to offer a forum for the public
research sector to be involved in the forthcoming Meetings of the Parties to
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in May 2005 and related meetings.

Approach of the initiative.

The initiative consists of three phases:
Phase 1: Raising awareness among the public research community about the
issue.
Phase 2: Involvement of the public research sector in MOP2 ( 31 May ­ 3 June
2005)
Phase 3: Organised involvement of the public research sector in subsequent
MOPs.

*Organisation, coordination and further contacts

This initiative is coordinated by a Steering Committee, of which currently
the members are:
- Prof. Philip J Dale, former Leader of the Genetic Modification and
Biosafety Research
Group, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom (chairman of the Steering
Committee)
- Prof. Atanas Atanassov, Director of the AgriBiotech Institute of Bulgaria.
- Dr. Roger Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St-Louis, USA
- Willy de Greef, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries
(IPBO) and International Biotech Regulatory Services (IBRS), Belgium
(vice-chair)
- Prof. Calestous Juma, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
USA
- Drs. Piet van der Meer, esq., Horizons sprl, Belgium (vice-chair)
- Prof. Marc van Montagu, Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing
Countries (IPBO), Belgium.
- Prof. Paul S. Teng, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute
of Education,
Singapore.

The Steering Committee will be further expanded to include public research
sector scientists from all regions of the world.

Contact persons for the Steering Committee are Willy de Greef
(ibsr@telenet.be) and Piet van der Meer (pietvandermeer@cs.com).

For the execution of this initiative, a foundation has been established in
the Netherlands with the name Public Research and Regulation, and with the
objective to involve the public research sector in regulations relevant to
the development and application of biotechnology.

Administrative and logistical support for this initiative is provided,
through Delft University of Technology, by Dr. David Bennett and Mrs. Kim
Meulenbroeks. Contact references: kim.meulenbroeks@pubresreg.org, Phone:
+31-15-212-7800, Fax:+31-15-212-7111.

Updates of this initiative, including the list of people who endorse it,
will be made available on www.pubresreg.org.

****************************************************************************
****************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's
Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the
Ecological Farming Association www.eco-farm.org <http://www.eco-farm.org/>
****************************************************************************
****************************