PG Economics - Revision history

Claire Robinson: /* Reports suit clients' interests */

2010-05-18T21:15:19Z

Reports suit clients' interests

Claire Robinson: /* Reports suit clients' interests */

2010-05-18T21:14:40Z

Reports suit clients' interests

Claire Robinson: /* Reports suit clients' interests */

2010-05-18T21:13:00Z

Reports suit clients' interests

Claire Robinson: /* Reports suit clients' interests */

2010-05-18T21:07:57Z

Reports suit clients' interests

Claire Robinson: /* Reports suit clients' interests */

2010-05-18T20:55:54Z

Reports suit clients' interests

Claire Robinson: /* "Peer review" claim */

2010-05-18T20:43:45Z

"Peer review" claim

Claire Robinson: /* Peter Barfoot's background */

2010-05-18T20:42:51Z

Peter Barfoot's background

Claire Robinson: /* Peter Barfoot's background */

2010-05-18T20:40:39Z

Peter Barfoot's background

Claire Robinson: /* Peter Barfoot's background */

2010-05-18T20:38:12Z

Peter Barfoot's background

Claire Robinson: /* Peter Barfoot's background */

2010-05-18T20:36:34Z

Peter Barfoot's background

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 In terms of biotech industry PR, the findings of the PG Economics' report read like a dream come true. Its carefully argued conclusions are, in fact, indistinguishable from the industry's own promotional claims.
-The key findings of the report, press released as "Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems, says new research paper",<ref>[http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=7564 Co-Existence Of GM And Non GM Crops In The UK Can Occur Without Problems, Says New Research Paper], PG Economics, 24 Nov 2003, archived on Monsanto website, acc 18 May 2010</ref> were also music to the ears of the customer that commissioned it - the [[Agricultural Biotechnology Council]], which is made up of biotechnology companies anxious to see the early introduction of GM crops into the UK. The ABC's member companies are [[BASF]], [[Bayer CropScience]], [[Dow AgroSciences]], [[DuPont]], [[Monsanto]] and [[Syngenta]].<ref>[http://www.abcinformation.org/index.php?page=about About Us], ABC website, acc 18 May 2010</ref>
+The key findings of the report, press released as "Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems, says new research paper",<ref>[http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=7564 Co-Existence Of GM And Non GM Crops In The UK Can Occur Without Problems, Says New Research Paper], PG Economics, 24 Nov 2003, archived on Monsanto website, acc 18 May 2010</ref> were also music to the ears of the customer that commissioned it - the [[Agricultural Biotechnology Council]], which is made up of biotechnology companies anxious to see the early introduction of GM crops into the UK. The ABC's member companies are [[BASF]], [[Bayer]] CropScience, [[Dow AgroSciences]], [[DuPont]], [[Monsanto]] and [[Syngenta]].<ref>[http://www.abcinformation.org/index.php?page=about About Us], ABC website, acc 18 May 2010</ref>
 Once again PG Economics' press release failed to mention who had commissioned the report,<ref>[http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/crop_coexistence_uk.htm Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems], PG Economics website, 24 November 2003, acc 18 May 2010</ref> while the report itself failed to make clear that the ABC, whose initials are remarkably similar to those of the AEBC - the Government's [[Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission]], is a biotech industry body.

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Once again PG Economics' press release failed to mention who had commissioned the report,<ref>[http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/crop_coexistence_uk.htm Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems], PG Economics website, 24 November 2003, acc 18 May 2010</ref> while the report itself failed to make clear that the ABC, whose initials are remarkably similar to those of the AEBC - the Government's [[Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission]], is a biotech industry body.
-Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper said that coexistence between GM and organic had been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers.<ref>Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, [http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/CoexistencereportNAmericafinalJune2004.pdf Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops?], PG Economics, 7 Jun 2004, acc 18 May 2010</ref><ref>Ken Roseboro, [http://web.archive.org/web/20060326104642/http://www.ofrf.org/press/Press+Clippings/CropChoice.071804.Roseboro.BiotechandOrganic.2pg.pdf Biotech, organic coexistence research paper skews facts to support dubious conclusion], CropChoice, Jul 18 2004, version placed in web archive 26 Mar 2006, acc in web archive 18 May 2010</ref>
+Another PG Economics report, which argued that coexistence between GM and organic had been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"<ref>Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, [http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/CoexistencereportNAmericafinalJune2004.pdf Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops?], PG Economics, 7 Jun 2004, acc 18 May 2010</ref>), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise.<ref>Ken Roseboro, [http://web.archive.org/web/20060326104642/http://www.ofrf.org/press/Press+Clippings/CropChoice.071804.Roseboro.BiotechandOrganic.2pg.pdf Biotech, organic coexistence research paper skews facts to support dubious conclusion], CropChoice, Jul 18 2004, version placed in web archive 26 Mar 2006, acc in web archive 18 May 2010</ref>
-The paper's conclusions were heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). According to Ken Roseboro, the OFRF survey, in fact, showed  'the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers'.
+The paper's conclusions were heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). According to Ken Roseboro, the OFRF survey, in fact, showed 'the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers'.
 Roseboro writes:

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Once again PG Economics' press release failed to mention who had commissioned the report,<ref>[http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/crop_coexistence_uk.htm Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems], PG Economics website, 24 November 2003, acc 18 May 2010</ref> while the report itself failed to make clear that the ABC, whose initials are remarkably similar to those of the AEBC - the Government's [[Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission]], is a biotech industry body.
-Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper said that coexistence between GM and organic had been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers. The
+Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper said that coexistence between GM and organic had been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers.<ref>Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, [http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/CoexistencereportNAmericafinalJune2004.pdf Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops?], PG Economics, 7 Jun 2004, acc 18 May 2010</ref><ref>Ken Roseboro, [http://web.archive.org/web/20060326104642/http://www.ofrf.org/press/Press+Clippings/CropChoice.071804.Roseboro.BiotechandOrganic.2pg.pdf Biotech, organic coexistence research paper skews facts to support dubious conclusion], CropChoice, Jul 18 2004, version placed in web archive 26 Mar 2006, acc in web archive 18 May 2010</ref>
 The paper's conclusions were heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). According to Ken Roseboro, the OFRF survey, in fact, showed  'the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers'.

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Once again PG Economics' press release failed to mention who had commissioned the report,<ref>[http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/crop_coexistence_uk.htm Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems], PG Economics website, 24 November 2003, acc 18 May 2010</ref> while the report itself failed to make clear that the ABC, whose initials are remarkably similar to those of the AEBC - the Government's [[Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission]], is a biotech industry body.
-Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper stated that claims by 'anti-GM groups' that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America were 'greatly exaggerated' and that coexistence measures had 'been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years'.
+Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper said that coexistence between GM and organic had been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers. The
 The paper's conclusions were heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). According to Ken Roseboro, the OFRF survey, in fact, showed  'the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers'.

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Once again PG Economics' press release failed to mention who had commissioned the report,<ref>[http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/crop_coexistence_uk.htm Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems], PG Economics website, 24 November 2003, acc 18 May 2010</ref> while the report itself failed to make clear that the ABC, whose initials are remarkably similar to those of the AEBC - the Government's [[Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission]], is a biotech industry body.
-Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States, led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper stated that claims by 'anti-GM groups' that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America were 'greatly exaggerated' and that coexistence measures had 'been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years'.
+Another PG Economics report, which argued that GM crops coexisted successfully with conventional and organic crops in the United States ("Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?"), led to accusations that the company had misrepresented findings of an organic farmers' survey in order to support its premise. The paper stated that claims by 'anti-GM groups' that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America were 'greatly exaggerated' and that coexistence measures had 'been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years'.
 The paper's conclusions were heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). According to Ken Roseboro, the OFRF survey, in fact, showed  'the exact opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers'.

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 [[Image:PGEconomicsscreengrab2.jpg|400px|thumb|right|PG Economics screengrab taken 18 May 2010, showing "peer reviewed" claim for a PG Economics paper published in AgBioForum]]
-IMBA is has been funded by the [[USDA]] since the mid 1990s. It got its USDA grant-funded status with the help of then [[Monsanto]] CEO, [[Richard Mahoney]].<ref>[http://www.imba.missouri.edu/index.php?region=3 History], IMBA website, acc 18 May 2010</ref>
+IMBA has been funded by the [[USDA]] since the mid 1990s. It got its USDA grant-funded status with the help of then [[Monsanto]] CEO, [[Richard Mahoney]].<ref>[http://www.imba.missouri.edu/index.php?region=3 History], IMBA website, acc 18 May 2010</ref>
 ==PG Economics used to rebut report showing higher pesticide use with GM crops==

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 During the mid-1990s Barfoot was also involved with [[Meredith Lloyd-Evans]] of [[BioBridge Associates]] - a biotechnology business development consultancy. Barfoot and Lloyd-Evans also jointly authored a paper, "EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology".<ref>Lloyd-Evans, L. P. M., and P. Barfoot. 1996. "EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology." Gen. Eng. News. 16(13): 16.</ref>
-Lloyd-Evans is a fervent supporter of 'crop biotechnology', describing Greenpeace's opposition to GM crops as having 'no science behind it' and having 'much more of the flavour of a sustained witch-hunt, based on the same kind of doctrinaire and destructive propaganda that underpinned Lysenko's diatribes against rational plant and animal genetics in the US (mainly aimed at his scientific and political rivals and doubly devastating because of the support he obtained from Stalin), Goebbels's and Goering's campaigns against non-Aryan activities, including science and other pursuits that might lead to national progress, and Pol Pot's dehumanisation of his invented ideological opponents'. ([[AgBioView]]) Lloyd-Evans has also attacked the 'organic movements' as being 'more like extremist religious cults than logical realists'.<ref>[http://www.monsanto.co.uk/discussion/archives/discussion_sust2.html What Role Can The Combination Of GM Technology And Organic Farming Methods Have In Sustainable Agriculture And Protecting The Environment?], Online Discussion archives, Monsanto website, November 2000 - February 2001, acc 18 May 2010</ref> On the role of GM critics in relation to the refusal by some African countries of GM-contaminated food aid, Lloyd-Evans [http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Aug/msg00049.html says], 'their eco-imperialism is the closest that we in the Western world are now getting to supporting genocide in the third world'.
+Lloyd-Evans is a fervent supporter of 'crop biotechnology', describing Greenpeace's opposition to GM crops as having 'no science behind it' and having 'much more of the flavour of a sustained witch-hunt, based on the same kind of doctrinaire and destructive propaganda that underpinned Lysenko's diatribes against rational plant and animal genetics in the US (mainly aimed at his scientific and political rivals and doubly devastating because of the support he obtained from Stalin), Goebbels's and Goering's campaigns against non-Aryan activities, including science and other pursuits that might lead to national progress, and Pol Pot's dehumanisation of his invented ideological opponents' ([[AgBioView]]). Lloyd-Evans has also attacked the 'organic movements' as being 'more like extremist religious cults than logical realists'.<ref>[http://www.monsanto.co.uk/discussion/archives/discussion_sust2.html What Role Can The Combination Of GM Technology And Organic Farming Methods Have In Sustainable Agriculture And Protecting The Environment?], Online Discussion archives, Monsanto website, November 2000 - February 2001, acc 18 May 2010</ref> On the role of GM critics in relation to the refusal by some African countries of GM-contaminated food aid, Lloyd-Evans says, 'their eco-imperialism is the closest that we in the Western world are now getting to supporting genocide in the third world'.<ref>Meredith Lloyd-Evans, [http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Aug/msg00049.html Fear Mongering the Food Aid], Unpublished Letter to the Editor of The Guardian (UK), 14 Aug 2002, accessed 18 May 2010</ref>
-Prior to working with Lloyd-Evans, Barfoot had a 12 year stint (1985-1995) with the Agricultural Genetics Company, which eventually led onto Axis Genetics. The aim was to produce pharmaceuticals from GM plants and insect resistant GM plants but both projects floundered as a result of the anti-GM backlash of the late 1990s. Axis Genetics was at the centre of that storm as its products included the GM potatoes researched by Dr [[Arpad Pusztai]] and colleagues. Pusztai's research showed that Axis's GM potatoes had damaging effects on rats fed on them.
+Prior to working with Lloyd-Evans, Barfoot had a 12-year stint (1985-1995) with the Agricultural Genetics Company, which eventually led onto Axis Genetics. The aim was to produce pharmaceuticals from GM plants and insect resistant GM plants but both projects floundered as a result of the anti-GM backlash of the late 1990s. Axis Genetics was at the centre of that storm as its products included the GM potatoes researched by Dr [[Arpad Pusztai]] and colleagues. Pusztai's research showed that Axis's GM potatoes had damaging effects on rats fed on them.
 Axis was co-founded by Paul Rodgers. As well as working for Rodgers' company, Barfoot produced a report on GM for another company co-founded by Rodgers - Pestax Ltd. Pestax, like Axis, failed amidst the public backlash against GM. Paul Rodgers' partner, Dr Geraldine Rodgers, has made public statements every bit as extreme and unsubstantiated as those of Lloyd-Evans. Rodgers warns, "Eating organically grown food puts consumers at risk of the following diseases: Food poisoning from: Salmonella, E.coli 0157 and Cryptosporidiosis, mycotoxin poisoning, liver cancer and other cancers (e.g oesophageal) and probably new variant CJD... While everyone's peering at GM foods down an electron microscope we could be in for the much heralded epidemics of cancer courtesy of the organic farming lobby."<ref>Dr Geraldine Rodgers, [http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=5871 Eating Organically Grown Food Puts Consumers at Risk of Diseases], BWG Online, 10th October, 2001, archived on Monsanto website, acc 18 May 2010</ref>

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 Prior to working with Lloyd-Evans, Barfoot had a 12 year stint (1985-1995) with the Agricultural Genetics Company, which eventually led onto Axis Genetics. The aim was to produce pharmaceuticals from GM plants and insect resistant GM plants but both projects floundered as a result of the anti-GM backlash of the late 1990s. Axis Genetics was at the centre of that storm as its products included the GM potatoes researched by Dr [[Arpad Pusztai]] and colleagues. Pusztai's research showed that Axis's GM potatoes had damaging effects on rats fed on them.
-Axis was co-founded by Paul Rodgers. As well as working for Rodgers' company, Barfoot produced a report on GM for another company co-founded by Rodgers - Pestax Ltd. Pestax, like Axis, failed amidst the public backlash against GM. Paul Rodgers' partner, Dr Geraldine Rodgers, has made public statements every bit as extreme and unsubstantiated as those of Lloyd-Evans. Rodgers warns, "Eating organically grown food puts consumers at risk of the following diseases: Food poisoning from: Salmonella, E.coli 0157 and Cryptosporidiosis, mycotoxin poisoning, liver cancer and other cancers (e.g oesophageal) and probably new variant CJD... While everyone's peering at GM foods down an electron microscope we could be in for the much heralded epidemics of cancer courtesy of the organic farming lobby." ([http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=5871 Eating Organically Grown Food Puts Consumers at Risk of Diseases])
+Axis was co-founded by Paul Rodgers. As well as working for Rodgers' company, Barfoot produced a report on GM for another company co-founded by Rodgers - Pestax Ltd. Pestax, like Axis, failed amidst the public backlash against GM. Paul Rodgers' partner, Dr Geraldine Rodgers, has made public statements every bit as extreme and unsubstantiated as those of Lloyd-Evans. Rodgers warns, "Eating organically grown food puts consumers at risk of the following diseases: Food poisoning from: Salmonella, E.coli 0157 and Cryptosporidiosis, mycotoxin poisoning, liver cancer and other cancers (e.g oesophageal) and probably new variant CJD... While everyone's peering at GM foods down an electron microscope we could be in for the much heralded epidemics of cancer courtesy of the organic farming lobby."<ref>Dr Geraldine Rodgers, [http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=5871 Eating Organically Grown Food Puts Consumers at Risk of Diseases], BWG Online, 10th October, 2001, archived on Monsanto website, acc 18 May 2010</ref>
 ==Independent and objective?==

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 :a leading provider of business information products and solutions to the biotechnology sector.  The company serves millions of clients across pharmaceutical, life science and biotechnology markets with information to help generate competitive advantage.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030207211418/http://www.bioportfolio.com/bioport/about_us.htm About BioPortfolio], BioPortfolio website, archived version of Feb 7 2003, accessed in web archive 18 May 2010</ref>
-During the mid-1990s Barfoot was also involved with [[Meredith Lloyd-Evans]] of [[BioBridge Associates]] - a biotechnology business development consultancy. Barfoot and Lloyd-Evans also jointly authored a paper, "EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology"<ref>Lloyd-Evans, L. P. M., and P. Barfoot. 1996. "EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology." Gen. Eng. News. 16(13): 16.</ref>
+During the mid-1990s Barfoot was also involved with [[Meredith Lloyd-Evans]] of [[BioBridge Associates]] - a biotechnology business development consultancy. Barfoot and Lloyd-Evans also jointly authored a paper, "EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology".<ref>Lloyd-Evans, L. P. M., and P. Barfoot. 1996. "EU Boasts Good Science Base and Economic Prospects for Crop Biotechnology." Gen. Eng. News. 16(13): 16.</ref>
 Lloyd-Evans is a fervent supporter of 'crop biotechnology', describing Greenpeace's opposition to GM crops as having 'no science behind it' and having 'much more of the flavour of a sustained witch-hunt, based on the same kind of doctrinaire and destructive propaganda that underpinned Lysenko's diatribes against rational plant and animal genetics in the US (mainly aimed at his scientific and political rivals and doubly devastating because of the support he obtained from Stalin), Goebbels's and Goering's campaigns against non-Aryan activities, including science and other pursuits that might lead to national progress, and Pol Pot's dehumanisation of his invented ideological opponents'. ([[AgBioView]]) Lloyd-Evans has also [http://www.monsanto.co.uk/discussion/archives/discussion_sust2.html attacked] the 'organic movements' as being 'more like extremist religious cults than logical realists'. On the role of GM critics in relation to the refusal by some african countries of GM-contaminated food aid, Lloyd-Evans [http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Aug/msg00049.html says], 'their eco-imperialism is the closest that we in the Western world are now getting to supporting genocide in the third world'.