Times Higher Education earlier this year:
A charity has come under fire for failing to declare all industry affiliations of the experts it enlisted to compile a booklet explaining genetic modification to the public.
The pamphlet was produced by Sense About Science (SAS), a charity that claims to promote scientific reasoning in public discussions.
According to anti-genetic modification campaigners and academics, it failed to mention links between some of the experts who wrote the booklet and GM firms.
For example, the guide's biography of Vivian Moses, emeritus professor of microbiology at Queen Mary, University of London, and visiting professor of biotechnology at King's College London, does not mention that he is also chairman of CropGen, a GM lobby group that receives funding from the biotechnology industry.
It says only that he has been "a full-time researcher in biochemistry and microbiology" and is now "primarily concerned with communicating science to the public".
Critics also argued that the guide should have noted that the John Innes Centre, where eight of its 28 contributors are based, received funding from biotechnology companies.
Michael Antoniou, a geneticist at King's College London, described the omissions as "outrageous".
He said: "GM is a sensitive issue. People have been extremely suspicious because of its industrial connections. So it is imperative that they declare these in this context, as in a journal publication."
Dr Antoniou, who himself provides technical advice to anti-GM campaign group GM Watch, speculated that SAS had not disclosed Professor Moses' directorship because it was afraid of arousing public suspicion.
GM Watch tells us that there are even more 'scientists' hidden in the woodpile:
The pro-GM lobby group Sense About Science (SAS) has been caught with its pants down by Private Eye. The famous satirical magazine has obtained a confidential draft copy of SAS's recently published GM guide which shows it had a "ghost writer" that SAS failed to declare. Here's the article.
Private Eye No. 1232, 20 March - 2 April 2009, Books and Bookmen (p.26)
A spat has broken out over a Times Higher Education article highlighting the failure of a new guide to GM food, 'Making Sense of GM', to disclose its industry connections. Tracey Brown of Sense About Science, publisher of the guide, condemned the T.H.E. article as "mischievous" and "rude" and claimed it relied on "tortuously indirect links" between the authors and the GM industry.
But the Eye has a copy of an unpublished draft of the guide - and it seems it wasn't just the industry links of some of its authors that didn't appear in the final published version. One of the guide's listed authors, Andrew Cockburn, is also missing. Who he? None other than GM giant, Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs, and a figure so controversial that when former PM Tony Blair invited him to author part of the government's official GM Science Review, it led to questions being raised in the House and the resignation of one of the expert panellists. No wonder Sense About Science felt erasure was the better form of valour.
*Sense about Science issued a statement to the effect that in the end Cockburn did not review its GM guide.
In addition,this month MADGE blew the whistle on Graincorp:
AUSTRALIANS will soon be eating genetically modified food whether they like it or not.
The nation's major grain handler, Graincorp, announced this week that genetically modified canola will be mixed in with the main crop in this year's harvest.
Anti-GM groups say the decision means canola oil and a large amount of commonly bought processed food made with canola will now be genetically modified.
They say staples that will become genetically modified include baby food, potato chips, biscuits, frozen vegetables, crackers and pre-prepared meals.
They claim the move is premature because GM food has yet to be tested properly.
"All GM food has been created randomly. The DNA of these plants has been altered and no one really knows where it will go," said Madeleine Love, spokeswoman for Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering (MADGE).....
Graincorp corporate affairs manager David Ginn confirmed the two streams of canola will be mixed together this year after the October harvest.
Meanwhile, GMO bananas are being trialled in Queensland and can be now added to North Coast Voices' March 2009 GMO watch list.
* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.
5 comments:
Although I agree that full disclosure about contributors and authors should have been made in abovementioned post, my question is re: MADGE's following comments:
"They claim the move is premature because GM food has yet to be tested properly.
"All GM food has been created randomly. The DNA of these plants has been altered and no one really knows where it will go," said Madeleine Love, MADGE.
This may be true, depending on one's perspective of "tested properly", but would MADGE also consider that the same should apply to foods bred through the conventional techniques known as mutageneis, or even embryo rescue? Mutagenesis, at least, leads to as many, or more random genetic changes of which the consequences are unknown and untested - see a PNAS paper in 2 Jan 2008 (I can provide paper, if needed)
I only ask this as nearly all people I talk to about GM foods will raise this issue of lack of testing and knowledge about the long-term consequences of eating GM foods. But equally they have never heard of mutatgenesis or embryo rescue and are horrified to learn that we have been eating food bred via these techniques for more than 60 years and equally concerned that it is not tested.
My job as manager of the Gene and NanoTechnology Information Service is to help people make informed choices about how we should apply such emerging technologies. The GM foods issue is one of the more interesting community tech-related debates, but one of the harder ones to find balanced and rational discussion on.
I chat about various ethical aspects of GM foods on the GNTIS web site and blog - which is now 99% functional at www.gntis.edu.au
We operate in partnership with the Uni of Melbourne and yes they do research into GM crops. But I don't tell them what research they should do and they don't tell me how to do my job - Full disclosure on the web site
Jason Major
Manager
GNTIS
In reply to Jason Major's post:
MADGE has concerns about many novel techniques used to alter foods in the absence of the parallel development of adequate technology to adequately test for its safety. Our focus on genetically engineered food plants at this time is more the result of where we entered the discussion.
Looking forwards, at this time MADGE has very deep concerns about the use of nanotechnology in all aspects of food production and packaging, as well as in other in-use products such as sunscreens.
Our concerns have been heightened by our presence at an industry nanotech conference where speakers demonstrated not only a disregard for human safety and but a lack of respect for public concern.
They have appear to have given more thought to overcoming public resistance through the use of manipulative marketing techniques (by employing an esteemed advocate for example to 'sell' the products), than they have to producing scientifically valid demonstrations of product safety. This may not apply to your group though.
With respect to mutagenesis... At this time the only detailed material I've read on a food produced using mutagenesis was that provided by Monsanto in respect of it's GM RR canola. Mutagenesis PLUS genetic engineering!
Monsanto offered a detailed description of the alteration of the synthesised GOX gene to the mutated variant GOX v247. From memory they intended to alter 1 codon but made do with an alteration in 3.
We don't know what our children may be eating though because Monsanto was not able to identify the actual protein produced in the plant! This presents an avenue for a rather obvious objection.
But I think mutagenesis is a technique we should be looking at. We just haven't gone there yet.
However, notwithstanding that we may at a later date come to a conclusion about the safety of mutagenesis (or embryo rescue), our findings will not in any way imply the safety of genetically engineered food, for which no evidence whatsoever has been produced.
To learn more about MADGE's preferred approach to food and agriculture we suggest you sign up to receive MADGE's ~weekly digest. Go to www.madge.org.au and hit the "Click here to receive our weekly digest" link on the right hand side.
I agree with MADGE on one aspect re: companies or research groups using slick PR to try and overcome public resistance. People see through that and if they don’t it will eventually come back to bite you. Monsanto’s introduction of GM foods is a classic example of how not to communicate.
But, I guess, the main point I was trying to make to readers in general is that people have different levels of risk acceptability: what one person is prepared to accept another will not. People generally find conventional foods – everything from apples to carrots - acceptable because they think we have been eating them for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. But once you explain to them the process of how modern crops are bred via non-gm techniques they are often horrified. That is, they are horrified about GM foods because of all the information that hits the media (factual or otherwise), but context is absent and there is minimal understanding of how GM technology compares to modern, but non-gm technology used in plant breeding. So their level of acceptability might and sometimes does change about conventional food as well, if they have good information. Hence my comment re: the difficulty in finding balanced arguments and rational arguments that could help people make an informed choice about how we use this technology. I am not an advocate for GM crops, but I am an advocate for factual and balanced information.
And GNTIS doesn’t do any scientific research. We are, as the name suggests, an information service. We engage the public on everything from recent cancer treatments to biofuels, stem cells and, of course, GM foods.
Jason Major
Manager
GNTIS
www.gntis.edu.au
Mr. Major has very carefully not pointed out two significant differences between 'mutagenesis' and GMO -
1) mutagenesis can occur naturally; and
2) historically, induced mutagenisis has not resulted in plant varieties to which a perpetual copyright was attached.
In the past most mutagenic plant varieties were absorbed into the wide pool of hybrid plant material, much of which had initially occurred naturally.
The fight over GMO food is as much about control of food sources as it is about food safety.
Pointing to mutagenesis and embyro rescue in a discussion of GMO is like pointing to alcohol consumption as an excuse for continued nicotine use.
A classic piece of misdiretion.
GM technology, mutatgenesis and embryo rescue are all plant breeding technologies. So in the context of trying to judge if GM technology can produce a food that is safe, I would have thought comparing it to how other technologies produce food is apt and in no way misdirection, not even classically. The point is people have no idea how food is produced and have no context in which to make a decision about GM or any other technology.
You are right in your inference that GM is a complex debate - the issue of ownership of the technology, patents and monolpolisation of food supply are other legitmate concerns in this debate - among many others - and, although obviously an important part of the whole debate, they are distinct from whether the technology can produce food that is safe. Eg, I have come across people that do not mind eating GM food, but have big issues with the technology when it comes to its use to help corporitise the food supply. There have been people with the opposite view as well - ie concerned about eating GM food but see the coporatisation of the technology as part of the way capitalism works - ie that such an issue isn't confined to GM. And I don't consider either view to be right of wrong.
I am happy to chat with you about the GNTIS role in this and other emerging technologies
Jason Major
GNTIS
Post a Comment