Research probes community and scientists
Press Release, Victoria University, December 2, 2004 (New Zealand)

A 'rethink' is needed about the risks of genetic engineering and how the issue is debated in society, say researchers, in a major report.
Karen Cronin, Research Fellow in Environmental Studies and Dr Laurie Jackson, Director of the Environmental Studies Programme in the School of Earth Sciences, interviewed more than 60 scientists and members of community interest groups. They asked them how they saw the risks of GM technology and what they thought about the quality of public debate.
The[y] found some surprising results: Many scientists expressed concern about the potential effects of GM on the environment and society, and the ethical dimensions; Members of community interest groups clearly valued some uses of GM technology, especially in the medical area. But they wanted more science funding to investigate the effects of GM; Both groups showed greater support for keeping GMOs under contained conditions, than for the release into the environment.
Dr Jackson: "We have seen that scientists are strongly motivated to do work that is good for the environment and society, and want to be respected as ethical and responsible people. On the other hand, the public is asking challenging questions about the social usefulness of some forms of biotechnology and wants to see reliable scientific information on its potential effects."
Many scientists said that, ultimately, technology decisions have to be made by society; Both groups expressed concerns about the economic pressures driving science and technology choices in New Zealand, [and] criticism of the news media. They called for better processes for public dialogue and input into government decision-making. Ms Cronin: "People from both sides were looking for a new space in which to engage in debate and take the issue forward."
Research News : http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/01.html

Scientists: gene therapy an expensive myth
Sunday Telegraph, October 31, 2004 (UK)

A study in the journal Trends in Biotechnology, of the impact of biotechnology on medical treatments concludes that the claims surrounding gene therapy have been wildly exaggerated and that it is an expensive myth. It also warns of a "substantial mismatch between the real world and the unrealistic expectations of policy-makers".
It has found that the investment has produced only a handful of useful drugs over the past 20 years, and that despite a 10-fold increase in research spending worldwide, the total number of new drugs has remained virtually unchanged.
Dr Paul Nightingale of the University of Sussex, the leading author of the Government funded study said the outcome is likely to be far less impressive than the rhetoric of advocates of biotechnology suggest.
"What we expected to find was revolutionary levels of change, but when we looked at the evidence, what we found was that there has not been much change taking place, and what there is has been happening very slowly," he said.
Prof Steve Jones, a leading geneticist, said that the scientific insights offered by biotechnology were remarkable, but increasingly suggested that living organisms were far more complex than anyone believed. "We still know very little about genetics. Overall, I suspect genetic medicine will prove to be of crucial importance to a few patients, but irrelevant to the vast majority of us."
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/02.html

EC tries to pressure states to lift GM bans
Bridges Trade Biores, Vol. 4 no. 22, December 3, 2004

The European Commission attempted to pressure Austria, France, Germany, Greece, and Luxembourg to repeal their national bans on specific GM foods at a regulatory committee meeting on November 29 but failed to make a formal decision.
Diplomats suggest that the European Commission is urgently trying to lift the bans owing to a WTO case filed against the EU by the United States, Canada and Argentina which challenges the EU's GM regulations.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/03.html

Farmers release Monsanto official, 8 others
The Hindu, November 11, 2004 (India)

Farmers of Phanidam village in Guntur district released nine hostages in the early hours of Wednesday after an assurance from the District Manager of the Monsanto Seeds that it would pay compensation. About 200 cotton farmers took into custody the District Manager of Monsanto, T.V.S. Gupta, and eight Agriculture Department officials demanding compensation for the Bt Cotton seed that had failed to germinate properly leading to poor yield.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/04.html

NAFTA report calls grain a threat to Mexico
Washington Post, November 10, 2004 (Mexico)

A scientific panel of international experts has concluded that the unintended spread of US GM corn in Mexico poses a potential threat that should be limited or stopped.
The report, written by a group convened under the North American Free Trade Agreement, rejected the US position that the modified corn is no different than conventionally bred corn hybrids [and] concluded that the modified corn does not pose a health risk, but it did say that the environmental consequences are less well understood.
The US specifically criticized one recommendation - that all US corn coming into Mexico be milled at or near the border so it cannot be planted. The Environmental Protection Agency and the US Trade Representative said in a joint statement, "This report is fundamentally flawed and unscientific; key recommendations are not based on sound science and are contradicted by the report's own scientific findings."
The report went on to mak[e] the case that the benefits and dangers of any genetically modified plant can be determined only by testing in the locales where it will be used.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/05.html

GM firms finally give up on planting in Britain
Independent, November 21, 2004 (UK)

Bayer CropScience has withdrawn the only two remaining applications for government permission for the seeds - a winter and a spring oilseed rape, both modified to tolerate one of the firm's herbicides. Industry, ministers and environmentalists agree that the abandonment of the last applications means it will be the end of this decade, at the earliest , before any GM crops can be grown.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/06.html

Germany passes strict rules on GM crops
Reuters News Service, November 29, 2004 (Germany)

The German parliament on Friday passed a controversial law laying down strict rules on the cultivation of GM plants, winning praise from environmental groups but drawing complaints from farmers and biotech companies.
The law includes provisions making farmers using GM plants legally responsible for contamination and obliging them to enter all land used for GM cultivation in a public register.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/07.html

GMOs release blocked at IUCN
Xinhua Online, November 23, 2004 (Thailand)

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has agreed to impose a moratorium on the further release of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in a bid to guard against its possible adverse effect on biological resources.
After discussion among 1,000 plus IUCN members, the congress approved the proposed resolution, which demanded a moratorium on further release of GMOs until it can be demonstrated posing no threat to biodiversity and human and animal health.
According to the resolution, GMO products have been introduced and promoted across the world, especially in developing countries, with inadequate control on their entry into national or regional markets.
Full item: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/08.html

The discourse of the GM food debate: How language choices affect public trust
Eldis, November 19, 2004 (UK)

In 2003 the UK government sponsored a GM National Debate. This report examines how the UK public responded to information about GM food technology. The authors made a qualitative discourse analysis of data from this consultation process.
The four newspapers analysed held consistently to either a pro GM stance (The Times and The Sun) or an anti GM stance (The Guardian and The Daily Mail). This is reflected in their choice of writers and sources, their selection and presentation of stories, and in the language used.
Many articles discussed the issues in a narrow frame as a purely technological issue divorced from a wider historical, political and cultural context. Language choices by journalists and stakeholders reflected an entrenched view of the debate as a conflict.
Pro-GM newspapers and interviewees typically presented the issue as purely scientific, and subscribed to a deficit model of public understanding, attributing opposition to GM to ignorance and fear.
In contrast, the focus groups participants, placed the GM issue in a wider context, linking it to other political events and drawing analogies with past commercial and technological developments. [They] were largely unconvinced by pro GM arguments.
Focus group participants' responses to texts, and to specific wordings within them, revealed a view of press, politicians and stakeholders as manipulative.
Research News: http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/122004/09.html