GE Dialogue builds understanding

In honour of a significant recent event in New Zealand, attended by members of the GE Information Service, we have chosen to depart from our usual 'published news' format. Over four days in April a group of about 40 people gathered to converse over the GE issue, using a process called Dialogue. What was unusual was that participants represented viewpoints from across the board and that they didn't just debate with each other. Instead we talked both in large and small groups about motivations, shared values, personal experiences and responsibilities. Technical details were offered, prejudices were confronted. This process of dialogue humanised the concerns of all sides in the issue and wandered through technical, spiritual, metaphysical and political matters. With both quiet reflection and passion, participants focussed on personal responsibilities. A lack of trust was acknowledged around science, business, activism and the media - and trust was built among representatives of these sectors during the four days of dialogue. Participants also acknowledged the roles of both gut instinct and rationality in the way positions are formed. There were no grand resolutions to be passed to, and perhaps ignored by, officials. But important and valuable connections were made, connections which might have previously been regarded as impossible. What changed? What difference will it make? All the participants will be asking that question. Certainly impressions of the 'other' changed. The conversations will no doubt continue among individuals who were there and with their wider communities. How does it change the Bulletin? To be clear, the usual Bulletin format is a compilation of edited versions of published news stories from credible sources, reproducing the stories' words to reduce the possibility of misrepresentation. The website offers the full stories and links so readers can observe the editorial process and catch up on detail that was dropped from the shortened items. The choice of stories of course represents our editorial position, reflecting our concern over the responsible use of genetic engineering. But the Bulletin is not intended to stand alone in media space. We observe that society has access to other editorial positions in other publications. We do not seek to be 'balanced' for we recognise that the Bulletin itself has a role to play in balancing the editorial choices of other publications. For its usual content the Bulletin is reliant on published material. We choose stories which have a factual base and add to the sum of knowledge on the issue. We avoid name-calling and personalisation of the issue. The headlines are those of the original stories, and often have the typical news style of overinterpretation - we accept this as a consequence of our decision to keep editorial change away from the items. Sometimes one story is chosen over another in order to have a less strident headline, or to avoid name-calling. So, with our perspective widened by the GE Dialogue at Tauhara, what can we offer for the Bulletin to do differently? At the least, we offer a commitment to editorial decisions made in a spirit of connection and co-operation rather than conflict. We offer a willingness to be part of a process of positive change. And we issue a warning, film-credit style - "Note that all people occurring in these stories are real. With most of the same bits that you have - with families, problems, successes, values, concerns and desires." Whatever our positions on GE, we share a common humanity.

100 staff await first GM application
NZ Herald, April 30, 2004 (New Zealand)

Environmental Risk Management Authority staff numbers have doubled over the past two years to nearly 100 to cope with new responsibilities, including handling such applications. [But] no application for commercial release of genetically modified organisms has been filed with the Government regulator - and none is on the horizon either. ERMA chairman Neil Walter said "This would be the first-ever release of a GMO in New Zealand and it's going to require a very, very careful consideration and evaluation by the authority. "It won't be quick and it won't be cheap." Mr Walter said Erma's job was to "find the balance point" and its decisions had to take into account issues besides science and technology. "We have got to look at the impact on the economy, on the environment, on people's health, on cultural, ethical and spiritual beliefs."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/01.html

Bt cotton benefits short-lived: study
Financial Express , February 10, 2004 (India)

There is some bad news for Indian farmers who have started growing a type of genetically modified cotton containing the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene. The Bt gene produces a toxin called "cry1ac" that kills bollworms. A study released by entomologists K Chandrasekar and G T Gujar at Indian Agricultural Research Institute in New Delhi has cast doubts on the long-term benefits of Bt cotton. It found that the protection afforded by Bt gene is at best for six years - the bollworm develops "31-fold resistance to the toxin "cry1ac" within six generations." This means that cotton farmers may have to go back to spraying pesticides after six seasons unless scientists come out with Bt cotton hybrids that produce a high dose of the cry1ac toxin. The scientists say their findings "mandate the necessity of Bt resistance management." Development of resistance to Bt cotton is not unknown. In China the expected life of Bt cotton was found to be 7 to 10 years in areas under Bt cotton exceeding 70 per cent.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/02.html

US seeks WTO sanctions for EU over GM ban
Guardian, April 27, 2004 (UK)

The United States has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization demanding the European Union lift its ban on GM crops and pay $1.8 billion in compensation for the loss of exports over the past six years, described as the biggest in WTO history. The case has global implications if the US wins, ensuring that no country will be able to bar GM products without facing trade sanctions. The US is determined to press the case, and intends to bring a second, to prevent the mandatory labeling and tracing of GM crops, which became EU law this month. The feelings of the rest of the WTO nations are unclear. WTO officials are aware that overly severe penalties for adhering to the majority of its people's wishes against GM products will likely make the world body unpopular.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/03.html

Germany: GM restaurant food must be marked
Reuters, March 31, 2004 (Germany)

Restaurant and canteen food containing GMOs must be clearly marked when new rules on GMO labelling take effect in April, the German government said on Wednesday. On April 18 new European Union rules mean food on sale in shops will have to be labelled if it contains GMOs. Animal feed sold to farmers will also have to be labelled. "If canteens or restaurants use GM food this must be clearly marked on the menu or in a notice," Junior German Agriculture and Consumer Protection Minister Alexander Mueller said. "It is now the responsibility of the private sector to fulfil its labelling responsibilities," he added.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/04.html

Biotech rice plans are stalled
LA Times, April 10, 2004 (USA)

The California Department of Food and Agriculture denied Ventria Bioscience's application to grow more than 120 acres of rice engineered with human genetic material for use in medicine in California because federal regulators haven't issued a permit. The Sacramento-based company said it had not yet applied for federal regulatory approval. State officials also said the public needed more time to comment on an issue that had roiled California's $500-million rice industry. Many rice farmers fear consumer perception will turn against their crops and cost them customers in biotechnology-adverse Europe and Japan if Ventria's permit were granted.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/05.html

Wheat Board snuffs GM canola trial
Daily Telegraph, April 1, 2004 (Australia)

The New South Wales Government has ruled out a 3000 hectare trial of genetically modified canola after strong opposition from the Australian Wheat Board. NSW Agricultural Minister Ian Macdonald said three small research trials for GM canola would go ahead to test varieties of GM canola plants against traditional canola. Today's announcement dashes the hopes of agri-business giant Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Australian Oilseeds Federation, which had hoped to trial the 3000 hectares of GM canola this year.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/06.html

Angola bans GM cereal imports
Bridges Trade BioRes, April 2, 2004 (Online)

Angola became the latest African country to ban the import of GM seeds and grain, including in GM food aid, unless they are milled prior to arrival. The country thereby joined Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique and Lesotho, which had set the same conditions for imports in 2002. Zambia continues to ban the import even of milled GM cereals. The Angolan standard setting body has called for the establishment of national biosafety regulations on the sale of transport of GMOs, based on the precautionary approach.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/07.html

Pew Report spurs debate over biotech regulation
Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, April 5, 2004 (USA)

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology released a lengthy report on the US review process for future biotech food products. Th[e ensuing] debate cuts across the usual industry versus consumer lines, with some regulators and industry officials privately conceding that the current system is - if not broken - at least in need of preventive maintenance. The existing regulatory framework was assembled during the Reagan administrations from a patchwork of existing laws and regulations and given to USDA, FDA and EPA to administer in a coordinated fashion. The report acknowledges that current ag biotech products have been widely adopted without evidence of food safety or environmental problems. However, it said "the potential complexity of future products may challenge the ability of the existing Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology to continue to protect public health and the environment and maintain public trust."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/08.html

Venezuela: GM crops to be prohibited
Venezuelanalysis.com, April 21, 2004 (Venezuela)

President Hugo Chavez Frias has announced that the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be prohibited on Venezuelan soil, possibly establishing the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the Western Hemisphere. Though full details of the administration's policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still forthcoming, the statement by President Chavez will lead most immediately to the cancellation of a contract that Venezuela had negotiated with the US-based Monsanto Corporation. Chavez emphasized the importance of food sovereignty and security - required by the Venezuelan Constitution - as the basis of his decision. Instead of allowing Monsanto to grow its transgenic crops, these fields will be used to plant yuca (an indigenous crop), Chavez explained.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/09.html

Bayer deals blow to GM crops
BBC, March 31, 2004 (UK)

GM crop growing has been shelved for the "forseeable future", according to the government. Bayer CropScience was the only firm eligible to grow herbicide resistant maize in the UK. But it has decided not to cultivate the crop, Chardon LL, blaming government constraints for making it "economically non-viable". In a statement, Bayer CropScience said government-imposed conditions would stall GM maize production for too long. "These uncertainties and undefined timelines will make this five-year old variety economically non-viable." But environment minister Elliot Morley defended the government's stance. He said: "We do not apologise for the fact there is a tough EU-wide regulatory regime on GMs. It applies to the whole EU not just the UK. We always said it would be for the market to decide the viability of growing GM once the government assessed safety and risk."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/10.html

Argentina's bitter harvest
New Scientist, April 17, 2004 (UK)

Soya is being blamed for an environmental crisis that is threatening the country's fragile economic recovery. Over the past eight years, GM soya farmers have taken over a huge proportion of Argentina's arable land, leading to regular complaints by peasant families that their crops have been harmed by glyphosate and other herbicides. Driven by the world's demand for soya to feed to cattle, from 1997 to 2002 the area under soya cultivation increased by 75 per cent and yields increased by 173 per cent. In the early years there were also clear environmental benefits. Some years ago, however, a few agronomists started to sound alarm bells, warning that the wholesale and unmonitored shift into Roundup Ready soya was causing unforeseen problems. In a study published in 2001, agricultural economics consultant Charles Benbrook reported that Roundup Ready soya growers in Argentina were using more than twice as much herbicide as conventional soya farmers, largely because of unexpected problems with tolerant weeds. Among his predictions were shifts in the composition of weed species, the emergence of resistant superweeds, and changes in soil microbiology. Many see Argentina's experience as a warning of what can happen when production of a single commodity for the world market takes precedence over concern for food security. When this commodity is produced in a system of near monoculture, with the use of a new and relatively untested technology provided by multinational companies, the vulnerability of the country is compounded.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/11.html

GM soya saved us, says angry Argentina
Daily Telegraph, April 18, 2004 (UK)

The New Scientist article, published in Britain last week, made national headlines when it said that Argentina's pioneering use of GM soya had caused "superweeds" to overrun the country and had led to health problems. New Scientist quoted experts who warned that GM crops could destroy the soil's natural micro-organisms and create "superweeds". Small farmers blamed glyphosate for crop failure and loss of livestock. Many involved directly in Argentine agriculture said last week that they disagreed with that analysis. Gabriela Levitus, executive director of Argenbio [which] led the protests, said her council had studied the environmental consequences of using glyphosate and found it harmless to other plants, livestock and farm workers. She rejected claims that GM crops reduced the levels of bacteria and other micro-organisms in the soil as "a complete lie". Eugenio Cap, co-author of a study [that] found that the expansion in soya growing had helped increase rural employment from 700,000 in 1995 to about 900,000 in the late 1990s and concluded that it had made farmers £4 billion a year richer, said: "It is highly irresponsible to write an article describing the soya programme as a disaster when in effect it saved a society from economic catastrophe."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/12.html

Review: The Dawn of McScience
The New York Review of Books, March 11, 2004
Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?
by Sheldon Krimsky (Rowman and Littlefield)

In a letter to the apostolic nuncio in Poland [in] 2002, John Paul II wrote that the pre-eminence of the profit motive in conducting scientific research ultimately means that science is deprived of its epistemological character, according to which its primary goal is discovery of the truth. Sheldon Krimsky, a physicist, philosopher, and policy analyst now at the Tufts University School of Medicine, puts it more bluntly. In Science in the Private Interest, a strongly argued polemic against the commercial conditions in which scientific research currently operates, he shows how universities have become little more than instruments of wealth. This shift in the mission of academia, Krimsky claims, works against the public interest. These subtle yet insidious changes to the rules of engagement between science and commerce are causing, in Krimsky's view, incalculable injury to society, as well as to science. [He] makes a telling comparison of journalists and public officials, groups for whom monetary conflicts of interest, now endemic in science, are anathema to their professional ethics. American historian Steven Shapin, in his forceful exploration of the basis for scientific knowledge in the seventeenth century, links the origins of English experimental philosophy with the cultural importance of truthfulness - "the gentlemanly constitution of scientific truth". He argues that our personal knowledge of the world depends to a large degree on what others tell us. Our understanding therefore has a moral character, based as it must be on trust. In constructing a body of reliable individual knowledge, trustworthy people are crucial. In the seventeenth century, the concept of the gentleman embodied these notions of trust. Lying was seen as incompatible with a civilized society. A series of social conventions followed from this claim - the importance of face-to-face conversation, the centrality of "epistemological decorum." Secret scientific knowledge and commercial exploitation of discoveries thus have a long and much-abhorred history within science, whatever scientists might claim in order to justify themselves today. Still, most scientists and academic leaders will reject this negative attitude toward collaborations between science and industry. The argument for partnership seems entirely reasonable. Science aims to acquire knowledge but needs money to invest in research. Industry wants to develop products for a profit, but needs a sound base of knowledge on which to do so. Their interests are complementary. But something changed dramatically in the early 1980s to push academia and industry closer together. The emerging biotechnology industry became the driving force behind this marriage of opportunities. The federal government enacted a list of statutes that mandated the National Institutes of Health to cooperate with the private sector. In 1991, William Raub, then acting director, commented that the American body politic traditionally has erupted in anger when publicly financed activities yield undue private gain, when information intended for the many becomes the exclusive possession of the few, when personal goals are advanced at the expense of national ones, or when the prospect of profit breeds dishonest dealing. A decade later, many of these predictions have come true. When scientists ask colleagues to share their data, genetic discoveries, for example, are frequently withheld. This proprietorial approach to new research findings is increasing, especially in commercially sensitive disciplines. Lack of collaboration with other scientists prevents investigators from confirming and extending new discoveries. Not surprisingly, there is a strong association between commercial sponsorship and the conclusions scientists draw from their findings. Scientists who argue in favor of a particular product are more likely than their neutral or critical colleagues to possess a financial stake in the company that is funding their research or the product they are studying. There is the growing view that science must be reclaimed for the public interest. Krimsky argues this case vigorously. For him, public interest science is "research carried out primarily to advance the public good." An alternative view is that a dissolution of the partnership between science and commerce is neither possible nor desirable. Instead of possibly choking off innovation by legislating against the judicious commercial development of scientific research, a better way to proceed, according to John Ziman, a respected philosopher of science, is to let this work proceed unhindered while at the same time protecting the "non-instrumental" functions of science that are currently under threat. Sustaining some form of non-instrumental science - which practically means not routinely applying the litmus test of wealth creation to every new idea or hypothesis - is important not only for inquiry into fundamental theoretical questions but also because society needs a model of independent critical rationality for the proper conduct of democratic debate, judicial inquiry, and consumer protection. But non-instrumental science can only be protected by organizations whose funding decisions are determined by disinterested scientists themselves, whether in university departments, charitable foundations, or government agencies. [This] partial solution poses its own dangers. In a brief and tantalizing epilogue to his social history of truth, Shapin speculates about the way trust and credibility are manipulated in the modern era. He notes that we are told things about the world by people whom we do not know, working in places we have not been. Trust is no longer bestowed on familiar individuals. We trust the truth of specialized scientific knowledge without knowing the authors of its claims. The gentleman has been replaced by the scientific expert, personal virtue by the possession of specialized knowledge, a calling by a job, a nexus of face-to-face intervention by faceless institutions. If expertise is found to be shaped by motives of personal gain and if the reputations of institutions are stained by private advantage (as they increasingly are) then trust will be as vulnerable to commercial corrosion now as it was to ungentlemanly behavior in the salons of seventeenth-century English experimentalists.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/052004/13.html