Comment on SPICe briefing on GM crops - Revision history

Claire Robinson at 15:33, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T15:33:22Z

Claire Robinson: /* Framing the debate */

2008-11-22T15:32:38Z

Framing the debate

Claire Robinson at 15:30, 22 November 2008

2008-11-22T15:30:55Z

Claire Robinson at 20:40, 12 November 2008

2008-11-12T20:40:08Z

Claire Robinson at 20:39, 12 November 2008

2008-11-12T20:39:22Z

Claire Robinson: /* What’s wrong with the Introduction? */

2008-11-12T20:35:21Z

What’s wrong with the Introduction?

Claire Robinson: /* Scientists raise the alarm over genetic engineering */

2008-11-12T20:13:46Z

Scientists raise the alarm over genetic engineering

Claire Robinson: /* Conclusion */

2008-11-12T20:10:00Z

Conclusion

Claire Robinson: /* Exodus of genetic engineering scientists? */

2008-11-12T20:06:24Z

Exodus of genetic engineering scientists?

Claire Robinson: /* Exodus of genetic engineering scientists? */

2008-11-12T20:06:01Z

Exodus of genetic engineering scientists?

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 The pro-GM lobby, on the other hand, is described as comprising “scientists” who depend on “substantiated evidence”. The practice of releasing GM crops into Scotland’s environment is described as “a very precautionary approach”, with crops “considered” by regulators “on a case-by-case basis, with very strict controls on their management”.
-The impression given is that GM technology is carefully controlled, precise, and well-managed by cool-headed scientists. This ignores the tradition of regulators in many countries of rubber-stamping GMO release applications in spite of scientific objections.<ref>Freese, W. and D. Schubert, “Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods”, Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004</ref> It also ignores the catastrophic and expensive history of GM contamination events, which shows clearly that GM genes, once released, cannot be recalled. The Genewatch/Greenpeace “GM Contamination Register” has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GM crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996<ref>”[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208 Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread]”, Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008, accessed November 2008</ref>.
+The impression given is that GM technology is carefully controlled, precise, and well-managed by cool-headed scientists. This ignores the tradition of regulators in many countries of rubber-stamping GMO release applications in spite of scientific objections.<ref>Freese, W. and D. Schubert, “Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods”, Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004</ref> It also ignores the catastrophic and expensive history of GM contamination events, which shows clearly that GM genes, once released, cannot be recalled. The Genewatch/Greenpeace “GM Contamination Register” has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GM crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996<ref>”[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208 Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread]”, Genewatch and Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008, accessed November 2008</ref>.
 Thus SPICe, in common with government and industry sources on the GM issue, frames the GM debate as being between pro-GM rational scientists on one side, and an irrational, fearful and ignorant public, inflamed by “vocal” activists, on the other. SPICe ignores the fact that scientists were among the very first people to raise the alarm over the genetic engineering of our food supply.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 The pervading impression given by the SPICe paper’s authors is that the pro-GM side of the argument is owned by scientists, whereas the anti-GM side is owned by “GM protestors” and “the public”.
-One way that the paper tries to frame the debate is by selective use of language. Those who oppose GM are described as “certain vocal groups” and the “anti-GM lobby”. These phrases attempt to marginalize anti-GM people by implying that their views are not representative of the general, less vocal population. This is in spite of the fact that polls over many years in different countries consistently show that the majority of people do not want to eat GM foods.<ref>For example, ”[http://ngin.tripod.com/010403b.htm Discovery Channel announces results of global poll revealing what people really think about genetics]”, Yahoo News, 31 March 2003, accessed November 2008</ref> What is more, anti-GM views cannot be equated with ignorance. A 2005 Gallup poll showing that 54% of Britons oppose the use of GM in food production also found that people who follow the GM issue closely are more opposed to it than those who do not.<ref>Shelley Mika, “[http://www.gallup.com/poll/19261/Britons-Show-Distaste-Biotech-Foods.aspx Britons Show Distaste for Biotech Foods]”, Gallup Poll, 18 October 2005, accessed November 2008</ref> This contradicts repeated claims by pro-GM UK Members of Parliament (MPs) that ignorance and Luddism are to blame for anti-GM views.<ref>For example, see Jon Swaine, “[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3349405/Prince-Charles-sparks-debate-over-GM-crops-claims.html Prince Charles sparks debate over GM crops claims]”, The (UK) Telegraph, 13 August 2008, accessed November 2008</ref>
+One way that the paper tries to frame the debate is by selective use of language. Those who oppose GM are described as “certain vocal groups” and the “anti-GM lobby”. These phrases attempt to marginalize anti-GM people by implying that their views are not representative of the general, less vocal population. This is in spite of the fact that polls over many years in different countries consistently show that the majority of people do not want to eat GM foods.<ref>For example, ”[http://ngin.tripod.com/010403b.htm Discovery Channel announces results of global poll revealing what people really think about genetics]”, Yahoo News, 31 March 2003, accessed November 2008</ref>
 Words and phrases used in the SPICe paper to describe the anti-GM public include “concern”, “outcry”, “worried”, “confusion”, “fear”, and “fears”. These people, we are told, “invoke phrases such as ‘Frankenstein crops’”. The accumulation of such terms suggests that those who oppose GM are irrational, neurotic, and given to primitive superstitions and wild fantasy.
@@ Line 39: / Line 41: @@
 The pro-GM lobby, on the other hand, is described as comprising “scientists” who depend on “substantiated evidence”. The practice of releasing GM crops into Scotland’s environment is described as “a very precautionary approach”, with crops “considered” by regulators “on a case-by-case basis, with very strict controls on their management”.
-The impression given is that GM technology is carefully controlled, precise, and well-managed by cool-headed scientists. This ignores the tradition of regulators in many countries of rubber-stamping GMO release applications in spite of scientific objections.<ref>Freese, W. and D. Schubert, “Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods”, Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004</ref> It also ignores the catastrophic and expensive history of GM contamination events, which shows clearly that GM genes, once released, cannot be recalled. Greenpeace’s “GM Contamination Register” has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GM crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996<ref>”[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208 Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread]”, Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008, accessed November 2008</ref>.
+The impression given is that GM technology is carefully controlled, precise, and well-managed by cool-headed scientists. This ignores the tradition of regulators in many countries of rubber-stamping GMO release applications in spite of scientific objections.<ref>Freese, W. and D. Schubert, “Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods”, Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004</ref> It also ignores the catastrophic and expensive history of GM contamination events, which shows clearly that GM genes, once released, cannot be recalled. The Genewatch/Greenpeace “GM Contamination Register” has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GM crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996<ref>”[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208 Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread]”, Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008, accessed November 2008</ref>.
 Thus SPICe, in common with government and industry sources on the GM issue, frames the GM debate as being between pro-GM rational scientists on one side, and an irrational, fearful and ignorant public, inflamed by “vocal” activists, on the other. SPICe ignores the fact that scientists were among the very first people to raise the alarm over the genetic engineering of our food supply.

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 The impression given is that GM technology is carefully controlled, precise, and well-managed by cool-headed scientists. This ignores the tradition of regulators in many countries of rubber-stamping GMO release applications in spite of scientific objections.<ref>Freese, W. and D. Schubert, “Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods”, Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004</ref> It also ignores the catastrophic and expensive history of GM contamination events, which shows clearly that GM genes, once released, cannot be recalled. Greenpeace’s “GM Contamination Register” has recorded 216 contamination events in 57 countries since GM crops were first grown commercially on a large scale in 1996<ref>”[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208 Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread]”, Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008, accessed November 2008</ref>.
-Thus SPICe, in common with government and industry sources on the GM issue, frames the GM debate as being between pro-GM rational scientists on one side, and an irrational, fearful and ignorant public, inflamed by “vocal” activists, on the other. SPICe ignores the fact that the alarm over the genetic engineering of our food supply was first raised not by the major environmental groups, but by scientists.
+Thus SPICe, in common with government and industry sources on the GM issue, frames the GM debate as being between pro-GM rational scientists on one side, and an irrational, fearful and ignorant public, inflamed by “vocal” activists, on the other. SPICe ignores the fact that scientists were among the very first people to raise the alarm over the genetic engineering of our food supply.
 ==Scientists raise the alarm over genetic engineering==
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Fifteen years later, in 1994, an American molecular biologist involved in genetic engineering research, Dr John Fagan, shocked the scientific community by returning nearly $614,000 in grant money from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Fagan intended the action, according to The Washington Post, “to protest what he sees as rampant and unwise genetic tinkering with plants and animals and the release of these novel organisms into the environment”.<ref>Rick Weiss, “[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-919482.html Genetic Engineering Breeds Costly Protest]”, The Washington Post, 17 November 1994 (full article accessed by subscription only)</ref>
 Scientists have continued to speak out about the dangers of GMOs in our food and environment.<ref>See just a few examples of quotes from scientists at “[http://ngin.tripod.com/foodstatements.htm Statements on the dangers of GM by scientists]”, Norfolk Genetic Information Network website, accessed November 2008</ref> In addition, independent scientists have found many unexpected and harmful effects of GM foods and crops on the health of laboratory animals in a number of studies, some of which predate the SPICe paper and should have been considered by its authors<ref>Here is just a small selection of these papers: “The effect of glufosinate resistant corn on growth of male broiler chickens”, Leeson, S., Dept of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379, 12 July 1996; “Genetically modified soya leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality rate of rat pups of the first generation”, Ermakova I.V., EcosInform, Vol. 1, 2006, pp. 4-9; “Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean”, Malatesta, M. et al., Eur. J. Histochem., Vol. 47, 2003, pp. 385–388; “Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean”, Malatesta, M. et al., Cell Struct Funct., Vol. 27, 2002, pp. 173-180; “Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean”, Vecchio L. et al., Eur. J. Histochem., Vol. 48, pp. 448-454, 2004; “A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing”, Malatesta M. et al., Histochem Cell Biol.,  Vol. 130, 2008, pp. 967-977; “Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine”, Ewen S.W. and A. Pusztai, The Lancet, Vol. 354, 1999, pp. 1353–1354; “New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity”, Séralini, G.-E. et al., Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., Vol. 52, 2007, pp. 596-602.</ref>. While SPICe is keen to point out the “concerns”, “fears” and “worries” of the public, it is strangely deaf to the concerns that originate from scientists.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The SPICe [http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/6/69/Science_Briefing_-_GM_Crops.doc briefing on GM crops] is extraordinarily one-sided. SPICe claims to provide “independent, expert viewpoints” and “rapid, reliable and factual information on science, engineering and technology-related issues” to Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs).<ref>“[http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/6/69/Science_Briefing_-_GM_Crops.doc SPICe science briefing: GM crops in Scotland]”, Scottish Parliament Science Information Service, December 2003</ref> But its briefing reads as if it were written by a GM industry lobbyist. It is not possible to check the credentials and affiliations of the authors, however, as they choose to remain anonymous.
-Dr Sue Mayer of Genewatch, which campaigns on the ethics and risks of GM crops, and a member of the UK Government's Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, describes the SPICe briefing as “highly biased and pro-GM”<ref>”[http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/5116/GREENS_CALL_FOR_INVESTIGATION_INTO_039_IMPARTIAL_039_SCIENCE_INFORMATION_SCHEME.html Greens call for investigation into ‘Impartial’ Science Information Scheme]”, press release, Scottish Green Party, 14 April 2006, accessed November 2008</ref>.
+Dr Sue Mayer, director of campaign group Genewatch and a member of the UK Government's Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, describes the SPICe briefing as “highly biased and pro-GM”<ref>”[http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/5116/GREENS_CALL_FOR_INVESTIGATION_INTO_039_IMPARTIAL_039_SCIENCE_INFORMATION_SCHEME.html Greens call for investigation into ‘Impartial’ Science Information Scheme]”, press release, Scottish Green Party, 14 April 2006, accessed November 2008</ref>.
 The tone of the SPICe paper is set by its Introduction. SPICe calls GM “the latest in a long series of technological developments for producing higher yielding, more easily managed cultivars”. In one hype-laden sentence, SPICe

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 A report from the pro-GM US Department of Agriculture confirms the poor yield performance of GM crops, saying, “GE [GM] crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.”<ref>The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002</ref>
-The failure of GM to increase yield potential was emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report on the future of agriculture for developing countries<ref>International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008. http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713
+The failure of GM to increase yield potential was emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report on the future of agriculture for developing countries<ref>International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008. http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713</ref>. This 2500-page report, authored by over 400 international scientists and experts, and based on peer reviewed publications, concluded that the yield gains in GM crops "were highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined". It added that uncertainty about GM's "possible benefits and damage is unavoidable". Instead, the report champions “agroecological” methods as the best route to food security.
 ==Framing the debate==

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 :Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors.
-:It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargai. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."<ref>George Wald, "The Case Against Genetic Engineering", in ''The Recombinant DNA Debate'', Jackson and Stich, eds. p. 127, 128. (Reprinted from ''The Sciences'', Sept./Oct. 1979</ref>
+:It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."<ref>George Wald, "The Case Against Genetic Engineering", in ''The Recombinant DNA Debate'', Jackson and Stich, eds. p. 127, 128. (Reprinted from ''The Sciences'', Sept./Oct. 1979</ref>
 Fifteen years later, in 1994, an American molecular biologist involved in genetic engineering research, Dr John Fagan, shocked the scientific community by returning nearly $614,000 in grant money from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Fagan intended the action, according to The Washington Post, “to protest what he sees as rampant and unwise genetic tinkering with plants and animals and the release of these novel organisms into the environment”.<ref>Rick Weiss, “[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-919482.html Genetic Engineering Breeds Costly Protest]”, The Washington Post, 17 November 1994 (full article accessed by subscription only)</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 12 November 2008
Line 126:		Line 126:
	==Conclusion==		==Conclusion==

−	The authors of the SPICe paper ~~are guilty either of ignorance of~~ the scientific research~~, case studies,~~ and ~~media reports on~~ GM crops and foods~~, or of willfully misleading Members of~~ the Scottish Parliament. ~~Whatever the truth of the matter, the~~ SPICe paper stands as an argument for mandating that all ‘advice’ to politicians must be in writing and immediately made public. The authors of such advice and advisors to the project must be disclosed to establish accountability, and their interests in biotechnology groups and corporations must be declared. The declarations of interest must be comprehensive, including frequently left-out items such as past affiliations, travel funding, ~~both~~ monetary and non-monetary benefits, consulting for biotechnology companies, and research relationships with companies or groups that obtain funding from companies.	+	The authors of the SPICe paper have failed to consider the relevant scientific concerns and related scientific research on GM. They have used spin to undermine valid concerns and to promote GM crops and foods to the Scottish Parliament. The SPICe paper stands as an argument for mandating that all ‘advice’ to politicians must be in writing and immediately made public. The authors of such advice and advisors to the project must be disclosed to establish accountability, and their interests in biotechnology groups and corporations must be declared. The declarations of interest must be comprehensive, including frequently left-out items such as past affiliations, travel funding, monetary and non-monetary benefits, consulting for biotechnology companies, and research relationships with companies or groups that obtain funding from companies.

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 Dr Sue Mayer of Genewatch comments, “I don’t know where the evidence is that scientists are relocating and of course there may be clear advantages in terms of going GM free – allowing the fastest growing sector of agriculture (organic) to flourish and Scottish produce to have the market value of GM-free for a start!”<ref>”[http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/5116/GREENS_CALL_FOR_INVESTIGATION_INTO_039_IMPARTIAL_039_SCIENCE_INFORMATION_SCHEME.html Greens call for investigation into ‘Impartial’ Science Information Scheme]”, press release, Scottish Green Party, 14 April 2006, accessed November 2008</ref>
-Even if SPICe's claim about the supposed exodus of scientists were true, it is worth questioning assumptions about the value that investing in biotechnology can bring to the economy of a region or country (see [[Scottish Enterprise]]).
+Even if SPICe's claim about the supposed exodus of scientists were true, it is worth questioning assumptions about the value that investing in biotechnology can bring to Scotland's economy (see [[Scottish Enterprise]]).
 ==Conclusion==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 12 November 2008
Line 121:		Line 121:

	Dr Sue Mayer of Genewatch comments, “I don’t know where the evidence is that scientists are relocating and of course there may be clear advantages in terms of going GM free – allowing the fastest growing sector of agriculture (organic) to flourish and Scottish produce to have the market value of GM-free for a start!”<ref>”[http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/5116/GREENS_CALL_FOR_INVESTIGATION_INTO_039_IMPARTIAL_039_SCIENCE_INFORMATION_SCHEME.html Greens call for investigation into ‘Impartial’ Science Information Scheme]”, press release, Scottish Green Party, 14 April 2006, accessed November 2008</ref>		Dr Sue Mayer of Genewatch comments, “I don’t know where the evidence is that scientists are relocating and of course there may be clear advantages in terms of going GM free – allowing the fastest growing sector of agriculture (organic) to flourish and Scottish produce to have the market value of GM-free for a start!”<ref>”[http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/5116/GREENS_CALL_FOR_INVESTIGATION_INTO_039_IMPARTIAL_039_SCIENCE_INFORMATION_SCHEME.html Greens call for investigation into ‘Impartial’ Science Information Scheme]”, press release, Scottish Green Party, 14 April 2006, accessed November 2008</ref>
		+
		+	Even if SPICe's claim about the supposed exodus of scientists were true, it is worth questioning assumptions about the value that investing in biotechnology can bring to the economy of a region or country (see [[Scottish Enterprise]]).

	==Conclusion==		==Conclusion==