Difference between revisions of "Jimmy Doherty"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(Complaints to BBC about Jimmy's GM Food Fight)
 
(25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Jimmy's GM Food Fix===
+
'''Jimmy Doherty''' is a pig farmer who has fronted programmes about farming on BBC TV, becoming a media personality in the process. His documentary series ''Jimmy Doherty's Farming Heroes'' surprised many who remembered his series about his own near-organic pig farm (''Jimmy's Farm''), because of its uncritical enthusiasm in some of the programmes for agribiz-friendly intensive farming and monocultures.  
by Jonathan Matthews
 
The Ecologist, 27 November 2008
 
http://www.theecologist.org:80/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2003
 
  
Reprinted with kind permission of The Ecologist:
+
In November 2008 Jimmy fronted a BBC Horizon programme on genetically modified (GM) crops (''Jimmy's GM Food Fight'') which was broadcast in November 2008. While both the BBC and Horizon try to give the appearance of being fair and balanced in their approach, the programme was seen by many environmental and anti-GM campaigners as extremely biased in favour of GM.<ref>See, for example, [[Comment by GM Freeze on Jimmy's Food Fight]], press release, GM Freeze, 27 November 2008</ref>
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1987
 
  
Last year celebrity pig farmer Jimmy Doherty kept 1000 organically reared pigs, while this year apparently he's raised barely 200. But if Jimmy's farm is on the skids, the same cannot be said of his career as a media celeb.
+
==PAN UK letter to BBC about Jimmy's GM Food Fight==
  
At the end of last month, a glittering star-studded ceremony in London saw Jimmy crowned "[[National Farmers Union]] (NFU) Farming Champion", thanks to his recent TV series: Jimmy Doherty's Farming Heroes. The same series also got cited a couple of weeks later when the star of Jimmy's Farm, picked up an Honorary Doctorate from Anglia Ruskin University.
+
PAN UK [Pesticide Action Network UK] letter to BBC
  
Farming Heroes took many people by surprise, not least in the mainstream farming community. Farmers Weekly noted, "Half pin-up boy, half boffin, Jimmy Doherty is an unlikely ally of farming... Think agricultural college student meets Essex boy. Son of the soil meets surf dude... A lot of farmers, frankly, hated [Jimmy's Farm] because they reckoned, with its emphasis firmly on drama (basically, he lurched from one crisis to another, many seemingly of his own making), it did nothing to improve the perception of an industry already with a PR problem."
+
''Jimmy's GM Food Fight - Horizon'', broadcast BBC2, Tuesday 25 November 2008<ref>"[http://www.pan-uk.org/press/Letter%20to%20BBC.html PAN UK letter to BBC on ''Jimmy's GM Food Fight'' - ''Horizon'', broadcast BBC2, Tuesday 25 November 2008]", PAN UK, publicly released 17 January 2009.</ref>
  
But the first episode of Farming Heroes marked a sea change. Suddenly, the poster boy for rare breeds and sustainable ag was enthusing over mega arable farms and ultra-modern farm machinery, while telling viewers how vital Big Ag was to feed the world. "Big doesn't necessarily mean bad," declared Jimmy. "Acre for acre, we're world beaters and that's something to be proud of." There was no mention of the hidden costs that can accompany this type of intensive farming.
+
PAN UK welcomes informed debate about agriculture, food, the environment and development. Unfortunately in ''Jimmy's GM Food Fight'' the information was unbalanced, and the case against GM unfairly represented. The programme did raise some health and environmental concerns about GM agriculture, but some important strands of the debate were completely omitted. A viewer with no knowledge of these wider issues could easily draw unfounded conclusions about GM technology and its supposed benefits to the environment and development.
  
If, at times, the series seemed to resemble a paid advertisement for the National Farmers Union, there was good reason. Farmers Weekly quoted an NFU spokesperson as saying "mainstream TV ads cost millions of pounds and there is no way we are going to do that," but, "One approach the union has been taking is to work with TV and radio researchers and producers to feed into the production process. An example where this worked well is Jimmy Doherty's Farming Heroes."
+
Opposition to GM was mainly illustrated by footage of activists destroying crops, rather than by a rational exploration of the valid concerns regarding GM agriculture. A very short interview with Peter Melchett of the Soil Association did not allow enough time to redress the balance.
  
Exactly when Michael Lachmann had the inspired idea of getting Jimmy to front this week's Horizon programme on GM (BBC2, November 25) is less clear, but it was a stroke of genius by the director. Once again, someone seen by the public as exemplifying an "organic", "back-to-nature", "free-range" approach to farming was to be found gee-whizzing over a radically different style of agriculture. "Wow!", "Unbelievable!", enthused Jimmy in a GM lab, where among other things he got hands on with genetically modifying barley. We were told how "simple" and "natural" GM was and by the end of the programme, Jamie Oliver's mate was telling us that it would be "madness to turn away from this technology." "The science is absolutely amazing," Jimmy told us. "It offers hope."
+
There were many issues that could have been raised in the programme to present a more rounded debate; two in particular are discussed below.
  
Other up-beat messages the programme pumped out, as it tracked the GM debate from Argentina to Bavaria, from Norwich to Pennsylvania, before rounding up at a research station in Uganda, were: "modifying" plants is "nothing new", GM is both good for the environment and good for farmers, and there are absolutely no health or ecological problems despite a decade of GM crops. Its most cynically telling message was that the public are prejudiced against GM but can easily be reeducated via a few (misleading!) sound bites delivered by the much-loved Jimmy.
+
The programme stated that both herbicide resistant soya, and Bt corn, could be grown with lower levels of pesticide application, and these technologies were thus presented as benefiting the environment. There was no mention of the fact that this is disputed in both cases. Whilst some short term studies show a decrease in pesticide applications, there is also evidence that where GM crops are grown, pesticide use will increase over the long term due to resistant strains of pests arising, and to the arrival of 'secondary pests' when one pest is controlled. GM crops alone cannot lead to an overall reduction in pesticide use in the long term; they could only do so within a good Integrated Pest Management system.
  
As this indicates, much of the programme's content was straightforward disinformation. It was even claimed that GM crops reduce pesticide use, despite official US data showing the exact opposite. And while, in the climax to the programme, Jimmy claimed genetic modification of Ugandan bananas would prevent serious crop losses for poor farmers, Ugandan researchers recently admitted to the press that these GM bananas are failing. That's no great surprise. There's not a single GM showcase project in Africa that's ever succeeded. But while they last, these supposed silver bullets make for a PR bonanza.
+
This leads to the second major omission of the programme, which presents GM as a necessary technological solution to the urgent problem of falling food productivity in Africa. PAN UK cannot comment on the particular example that was shown in the programme. However, in general, there are many tools available to increase agricultural productivity. Improvements in soil, water and pest management – in other words, increasing knowledge, rather than inputs – can massively increase yields for many small-scale farmers throughout the world, and without the farmers becoming reliant on an expensive technology. International research collaborations are beginning to acknowledge the underexploited resource that is knowledge based agriculture. There are many scientists, as well as development experts and NGOs, not only in Europe but also in the developing world, who believe that GM does not benefit the environment, and is not an appropriate solution to solve productivity problems. Yet the programme failed to interview, or represent the views of any of these stakeholders in the developing world.
  
If this all sounds like Jimmy's GM Food Fight was just a one-sided hype fest, then it's important to understand that the production was far more carefully crafted than that. Throughout, Jimmy was used to voice concerns over GM, creating an impression that his approach was not only even-handed but ultra-cautious, while the segments of the programme that followed invariably undercut the very concerns Jimmy had just raised. The concerns expressed by Jimmy were in reality linking devices for each successive sales pitch.
+
It was very disappointing in the BBC's flagship science and technology programme that a wider range of scientific opinion was not sought. PAN UK sincerely hopes the BBC will be taking steps to redress the imbalance of information presented in this programme.
  
The programme's use of experts was equally sly. On the critical side we got two white males. On the pro-GM side we got diversity: two women GM scientists, a Ugandan scientist, and an American entomologist. The critics were not only outnumbered but got just a fraction of the over-all talking time. Peter Melchett of the Soil Association didn't even get the opportunity to justify his arguments.
+
==Complaints to BBC about Jimmy's GM Food Fight==
  
The framing of the critics was equally cynical. Doug Gurian-Sherman was not introduced as a molecular biologist and former Environmental Protection Agency biotech specialist, but as "from the Union of Concerned Scientists which campaigns on GM foods". And while the pro-GM scientists were filmed in research settings, Dr Gurian-Sherman's interview took place in an American diner where most of his time was taken up by Jimmy in analysing how many food items in a giant fry-up might contain GM. With his specialist EPA background, he would have been perfect to deal with the environmental issues, but he was never given the chance. Instead we, once again, had vague environmental concerns voiced by Jimmy, then dismissed by a pro-GM scientist.
+
The producer and director of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, the prime time soft-sell advertisement for GM (see [[Jimmy's GM Food Fix]]), was [[Michael Lachmann]]. After viewer complaints, the BBC investigated whether the programme was biased. For a long time, the BBC refused to answer one viewer's persistent query as to whether the programme's director was in any way related to Sir [[Peter Lachmann]], a notoriously aggressive pro-GM scientist. Eventually, persistence paid off, however, when the BBC finally admitted during the appeal process that: "Sir Peter Lachmann is indeed the father of Michael."<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/28546884/complaintbbc-doherty Background notes to the editorial standards committee: Horizon, Jimmy's GM Food Fight], BBC response to member of the public's complaint about bias of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, Horizon, BBC2, 25 November 2008, p. 31</ref>
  
Finally, there were the many dogs that didn't bark:
+
The information provided by the BBC to its Editorial Standards Committee only identifies Sir Peter as "a Cambridge Professor of Immunology of great eminence", who "chaired the Royal Society expert group which produced the Society's first report on GM crops" which concluded it was a potentially beneficial technology. "Since then," it goes on, "Sir Peter has been involved in several heated debates over GM."<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/28546884/complaintbbc-doherty Background notes to the editorial standards committee: Horizon, Jimmy's GM Food Fight], BBC response to member of the public's complaint about bias of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, Horizon, BBC2, 25 November 2008, p. 31</ref>
  
*No mention at all was made of the alternative solutions for tackling food security and intensive agriculture's environmental problems – solutions found to be far more credible than GM in the recent major UN-backed study: the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).<ref>"[http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD)]"; Beintema, N. et al., 2008.</ref>  
+
This seriously underplays the controversial nature of Sir Peter Lachmann's involvement. A leading GM proponent, Lachmann was at the forefront of the campaign by the [[Royal Society]] to discredit the Hungarian-born scientist [[Arpad Pusztai]], after he warned that his research had found GM potatoes harmed rats. In an astonishing revelation at the time, a Guardian front page article reported the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, as saying he had been threatened by Lachmann over the Lancet's planned publication of Pusztai's research. Towards the end of what was described as a highly aggressive phone call, Lachmann apparently told Horton that if he published Pusztai's paper, this would 'have implications for his personal position' as editor.<ref>Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/01/gm.food Pro-GM food scientist "threatened editor"], The Guardian, 1 Nov 1999, accessed 18 Mar 2010</ref>
  
*No mention either was made of the fact that these innovative low-cost approaches are already proving particularly effective in assisting resource poor farmers in the developing world, sometimes helping them to double or even triple their yields.<ref>"[http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD)]"; Beintema, N. et al., 2008.</ref><ref>Applying Agroecology to Enhance the Productivity of Peasant Farming Systems in Latin America. Altieri M.A. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 197-217, 1999; More Productivity with Fewer External Inputs: Central American Case Studies of Agroecological Development and their Broader Implications. Bunch R. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 219-233, 1999; Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts. Pretty J. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 253-274, 1999; "[http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa]". United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Environment Programme, 2008</ref>  
+
The information provided to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee also failed to note Lachmann's links over the years to commercial companies with biotech interests (see [[Peter Lachmann]]).<ref>Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/01/gm.food Pro-GM food scientist "threatened editor"], The Guardian, 1 Nov 1999, accessed 18 Mar 2010</ref>  
  
*There was absolutely nothing to indicate that many of those most opposed to GM crops are to be found in the developing world, beyond some cynically misleading information about the Zambian government's refusal of GM food aid that falsely implied that Africans may have starved and it was all thanks to European hysteria.
+
According to the BBC, the BBC's head of editorial policy, [[Su Pennington]], was consulted about the possible conflict of interest posed by Michael Lachmann's relationship to Peter Lachmann - though it is not spelled out in the BBC report (1) whether the idea for the programme came from Michael Lachmann or from a commissioning editor at the BBC, or (2) exactly when the conversation about the possible conflict of interest between Pennington and Michael Lachmann took place, i.e. before or after complaints were received. The BBC reports that Pennington said, "it seemed to her in principle clear that just because a relative holds beliefs or has a specific job, that doesn't mean his son would share his beliefs or is conflicted."<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/28546884/complaintbbc-doherty Background notes to the editorial standards committee: Horizon, Jimmy's GM Food Fight], BBC response to member of the public's complaint about bias of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, Horizon, BBC2, 25 November 2008, p. 31</ref>
  
*No mention at all was made of the patents and Intellectual Property Rights that encircle GM crops, giving their developers a stranglehold on the food chain.
+
It is of course true that just because a close relative strongly holds certain beliefs or has particular professional interests, it doesn't mean his son automatically shares those beliefs or interests. But surely the BBC wouldn't put out a programme on, say, the case for the Iraq war that was produced and directed by the son of [[Donald Rumsfeld]], or by Euan Blair, without owning up to the connection? And wouldn't that be still more the case if the programme was attracting controversy even before it was broadcast?<ref>[http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=353&iType= Horizon fails to say GM banana not working – BBC warned in advance of broadcast: Horizon fails to deliver balanced view], GM Freeze, 27 Nov 2008, accessed 18 Mar 2010</ref>
  
*No mention was made of the much less controversial biotechnological approaches to plant breeding, like Marker Assisted Selection, that are already making GM look outdated.
+
Dr Pusztai and his wife (and co-researcher on the GM potatoes study) Dr Susan Bardocz were recently presented with the Stuttgart Peace Prize, in recognition of their "courage and scientific integrity as well as their undaunted insistence on the public's right to know."<ref>[http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize- Pusztai to receive Stuttgart Peace Prize], announcement archived on GM Watch website, 11 Dec 2009, accessed 18 Mar 2010</ref> The BBC, however, does not accept the public's right to know about the Lachmann connection. Its Editorial Standards Committee threw out the complaint.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2009/nov.txt Editorial standards findings], BBC, November 2009 issued December 2009, accessed 18 Mar 2010</ref>
  
And then there was [[Monsanto]] - the invisible ghost at Horizon's GM feast. The M word never once sullied Jimmy's lips. The PR problem created by the toxic legacy and ultra-aggressive behaviour of a giant corporation that controls over 90% of the world's GM crops was simply airbrushed away. Instead, GM was represented by scientists from Uganda and the [[John Innes Centre]] (JIC) - an institute described by Jimmy as "independent" even though it's had tens of millions of pounds in funding out of the GM giants it's jumped into bed with.
+
==Postscript on GM bananas==
 +
In June 2008, the African Science News Service reported on the failure of the GM bananas project in Uganda. The bananas had fallen victim to Black Sigatoka disease, a disease which they had been engineered to resist.<ref>"[http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=1 Uganda GM banana fails to defeat diseases]", ASNS, 18 June 2008, accessed January 2009</ref>
  
Jimmy's GM Food Fight played so much to the JIC's agenda that, like the NFU, I’d guess the JIC fully understands how to "feed into the production process" to create a prime time soft-sell advertisement. Perhaps they too will now be lining Jimmy up for an award. "JIC GM Champion" might make an appropriate accolade for such a compliant PR asset.
+
In April 2009 it was reported in the African press that the GM banana trial had violated biosafety regulations:
 +
:Uganda has violated an international environment convention that prohibits the leaking of confined live Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the environment, a ''Sunday Monitor'' investigation has uncovered.  
  
Jonathan Matthews is an editor at GMWatch.
+
:The leak of potentially hazardous bio-waste is being blamed on careless disposal practices by scientists at the National Agricultural Research Laboratory (NARL) in Kawanda, Wakiso District. The scientists disposed of parts of GMO banana bunches that were still under investigation into the open environment contrary to international regulations.
 +
 
 +
:Birds, cats, rats and other living organisms have been seen on the dumping site, feeding and exposed to the GMOs, whose risk level has still not yet been ascertained as per the requirement of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture (FAO) recommended Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety guidelines.
 +
 
 +
:The immediate risk is possible environmental contamination - with unknown implications for Uganda's banana crop -- if one of the banana suckers was illegally moved out of the institute and planted...
 +
 
 +
:''Sunday Monitor'' was told that the leakage was caused by casual labourers who now essentially conduct most of field monitoring work because the scientists are "busy attending workshops".
 +
 
 +
:"There is a per diem fever here. The scientists are more interested in chasing sitting allowances [payments for attending meetings, seminars, workshops etc.] than doing their work," a source noted.
 +
 
 +
The article says that ultimate responsibility for the biosafety leak lay with the biotechnology supervisor, Dr [[Andrew Kiggundu]], who is "directly in charge of the confinement facility". The article adds, "Dr Kiggundu declined to comment when contacted, saying as he was attending a meeting in Kampala."<ref>Kikonyogo Ngatya, "[http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/sun_news/Biosafety_leak_feared_at_Kawanda_research_station_82252.shtml Biosafety leak feared at Kawanda research station]", Sunday Monitor, March 29 2009, accessed 2 April 2009</ref>
  
 
===Resources===
 
===Resources===
  
Check out the real facts on GM at: http://www.banGMfood.org
+
Check out the facts on GM at: http://www.banGMfood.org
  
 
A report on the science communication activities of the John Innes Centre is available at: http://ngin.tripod.com/biospin.htm
 
A report on the science communication activities of the John Innes Centre is available at: http://ngin.tripod.com/biospin.htm
  
On the failure of the GM bananas: http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=1
+
On the failure of the GM bananas: "[http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=1 Uganda GM banana fails to defeat diseases]", ASNS, 18 June 2008, accessed January 2009
 +
 
 +
===Resources===
 +
 
 +
See [[Comment by GM Freeze on Jimmy's Food Fight]]
 +
 
 +
See [[Jimmy's GM Food Fix]] for a review by Jonathan Matthews, director of GM Watch, of the BBC Horizon programme (broadcast November 2008) Jimmy's GM Food Fight.
  
 
===Notes===
 
===Notes===
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
[[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Farm Lobby]][[Category:Corporate Science (GM)]]
+
[[Category:GM|Doherty, Jimmy]][[Category:GM Farm Lobby|Doherty, Jimmy]][[Category:Corporate Science (GM)|Doherty, Jimmy]]

Latest revision as of 15:04, 18 March 2010

Jimmy Doherty is a pig farmer who has fronted programmes about farming on BBC TV, becoming a media personality in the process. His documentary series Jimmy Doherty's Farming Heroes surprised many who remembered his series about his own near-organic pig farm (Jimmy's Farm), because of its uncritical enthusiasm in some of the programmes for agribiz-friendly intensive farming and monocultures.

In November 2008 Jimmy fronted a BBC Horizon programme on genetically modified (GM) crops (Jimmy's GM Food Fight) which was broadcast in November 2008. While both the BBC and Horizon try to give the appearance of being fair and balanced in their approach, the programme was seen by many environmental and anti-GM campaigners as extremely biased in favour of GM.[1]

PAN UK letter to BBC about Jimmy's GM Food Fight

PAN UK [Pesticide Action Network UK] letter to BBC

Jimmy's GM Food Fight - Horizon, broadcast BBC2, Tuesday 25 November 2008[2]

PAN UK welcomes informed debate about agriculture, food, the environment and development. Unfortunately in Jimmy's GM Food Fight the information was unbalanced, and the case against GM unfairly represented. The programme did raise some health and environmental concerns about GM agriculture, but some important strands of the debate were completely omitted. A viewer with no knowledge of these wider issues could easily draw unfounded conclusions about GM technology and its supposed benefits to the environment and development.

Opposition to GM was mainly illustrated by footage of activists destroying crops, rather than by a rational exploration of the valid concerns regarding GM agriculture. A very short interview with Peter Melchett of the Soil Association did not allow enough time to redress the balance.

There were many issues that could have been raised in the programme to present a more rounded debate; two in particular are discussed below.

The programme stated that both herbicide resistant soya, and Bt corn, could be grown with lower levels of pesticide application, and these technologies were thus presented as benefiting the environment. There was no mention of the fact that this is disputed in both cases. Whilst some short term studies show a decrease in pesticide applications, there is also evidence that where GM crops are grown, pesticide use will increase over the long term due to resistant strains of pests arising, and to the arrival of 'secondary pests' when one pest is controlled. GM crops alone cannot lead to an overall reduction in pesticide use in the long term; they could only do so within a good Integrated Pest Management system.

This leads to the second major omission of the programme, which presents GM as a necessary technological solution to the urgent problem of falling food productivity in Africa. PAN UK cannot comment on the particular example that was shown in the programme. However, in general, there are many tools available to increase agricultural productivity. Improvements in soil, water and pest management – in other words, increasing knowledge, rather than inputs – can massively increase yields for many small-scale farmers throughout the world, and without the farmers becoming reliant on an expensive technology. International research collaborations are beginning to acknowledge the underexploited resource that is knowledge based agriculture. There are many scientists, as well as development experts and NGOs, not only in Europe but also in the developing world, who believe that GM does not benefit the environment, and is not an appropriate solution to solve productivity problems. Yet the programme failed to interview, or represent the views of any of these stakeholders in the developing world.

It was very disappointing in the BBC's flagship science and technology programme that a wider range of scientific opinion was not sought. PAN UK sincerely hopes the BBC will be taking steps to redress the imbalance of information presented in this programme.

Complaints to BBC about Jimmy's GM Food Fight

The producer and director of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, the prime time soft-sell advertisement for GM (see Jimmy's GM Food Fix), was Michael Lachmann. After viewer complaints, the BBC investigated whether the programme was biased. For a long time, the BBC refused to answer one viewer's persistent query as to whether the programme's director was in any way related to Sir Peter Lachmann, a notoriously aggressive pro-GM scientist. Eventually, persistence paid off, however, when the BBC finally admitted during the appeal process that: "Sir Peter Lachmann is indeed the father of Michael."[3]

The information provided by the BBC to its Editorial Standards Committee only identifies Sir Peter as "a Cambridge Professor of Immunology of great eminence", who "chaired the Royal Society expert group which produced the Society's first report on GM crops" which concluded it was a potentially beneficial technology. "Since then," it goes on, "Sir Peter has been involved in several heated debates over GM."[4]

This seriously underplays the controversial nature of Sir Peter Lachmann's involvement. A leading GM proponent, Lachmann was at the forefront of the campaign by the Royal Society to discredit the Hungarian-born scientist Arpad Pusztai, after he warned that his research had found GM potatoes harmed rats. In an astonishing revelation at the time, a Guardian front page article reported the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, as saying he had been threatened by Lachmann over the Lancet's planned publication of Pusztai's research. Towards the end of what was described as a highly aggressive phone call, Lachmann apparently told Horton that if he published Pusztai's paper, this would 'have implications for his personal position' as editor.[5]

The information provided to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee also failed to note Lachmann's links over the years to commercial companies with biotech interests (see Peter Lachmann).[6]

According to the BBC, the BBC's head of editorial policy, Su Pennington, was consulted about the possible conflict of interest posed by Michael Lachmann's relationship to Peter Lachmann - though it is not spelled out in the BBC report (1) whether the idea for the programme came from Michael Lachmann or from a commissioning editor at the BBC, or (2) exactly when the conversation about the possible conflict of interest between Pennington and Michael Lachmann took place, i.e. before or after complaints were received. The BBC reports that Pennington said, "it seemed to her in principle clear that just because a relative holds beliefs or has a specific job, that doesn't mean his son would share his beliefs or is conflicted."[7]

It is of course true that just because a close relative strongly holds certain beliefs or has particular professional interests, it doesn't mean his son automatically shares those beliefs or interests. But surely the BBC wouldn't put out a programme on, say, the case for the Iraq war that was produced and directed by the son of Donald Rumsfeld, or by Euan Blair, without owning up to the connection? And wouldn't that be still more the case if the programme was attracting controversy even before it was broadcast?[8]

Dr Pusztai and his wife (and co-researcher on the GM potatoes study) Dr Susan Bardocz were recently presented with the Stuttgart Peace Prize, in recognition of their "courage and scientific integrity as well as their undaunted insistence on the public's right to know."[9] The BBC, however, does not accept the public's right to know about the Lachmann connection. Its Editorial Standards Committee threw out the complaint.[10]

Postscript on GM bananas

In June 2008, the African Science News Service reported on the failure of the GM bananas project in Uganda. The bananas had fallen victim to Black Sigatoka disease, a disease which they had been engineered to resist.[11]

In April 2009 it was reported in the African press that the GM banana trial had violated biosafety regulations:

Uganda has violated an international environment convention that prohibits the leaking of confined live Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the environment, a Sunday Monitor investigation has uncovered.
The leak of potentially hazardous bio-waste is being blamed on careless disposal practices by scientists at the National Agricultural Research Laboratory (NARL) in Kawanda, Wakiso District. The scientists disposed of parts of GMO banana bunches that were still under investigation into the open environment contrary to international regulations.
Birds, cats, rats and other living organisms have been seen on the dumping site, feeding and exposed to the GMOs, whose risk level has still not yet been ascertained as per the requirement of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture (FAO) recommended Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety guidelines.
The immediate risk is possible environmental contamination - with unknown implications for Uganda's banana crop -- if one of the banana suckers was illegally moved out of the institute and planted...
Sunday Monitor was told that the leakage was caused by casual labourers who now essentially conduct most of field monitoring work because the scientists are "busy attending workshops".
"There is a per diem fever here. The scientists are more interested in chasing sitting allowances [payments for attending meetings, seminars, workshops etc.] than doing their work," a source noted.

The article says that ultimate responsibility for the biosafety leak lay with the biotechnology supervisor, Dr Andrew Kiggundu, who is "directly in charge of the confinement facility". The article adds, "Dr Kiggundu declined to comment when contacted, saying as he was attending a meeting in Kampala."[12]

Resources

Check out the facts on GM at: http://www.banGMfood.org

A report on the science communication activities of the John Innes Centre is available at: http://ngin.tripod.com/biospin.htm

On the failure of the GM bananas: "Uganda GM banana fails to defeat diseases", ASNS, 18 June 2008, accessed January 2009

Resources

See Comment by GM Freeze on Jimmy's Food Fight

See Jimmy's GM Food Fix for a review by Jonathan Matthews, director of GM Watch, of the BBC Horizon programme (broadcast November 2008) Jimmy's GM Food Fight.

Notes

  1. See, for example, Comment by GM Freeze on Jimmy's Food Fight, press release, GM Freeze, 27 November 2008
  2. "PAN UK letter to BBC on Jimmy's GM Food Fight - Horizon, broadcast BBC2, Tuesday 25 November 2008", PAN UK, publicly released 17 January 2009.
  3. Background notes to the editorial standards committee: Horizon, Jimmy's GM Food Fight, BBC response to member of the public's complaint about bias of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, Horizon, BBC2, 25 November 2008, p. 31
  4. Background notes to the editorial standards committee: Horizon, Jimmy's GM Food Fight, BBC response to member of the public's complaint about bias of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, Horizon, BBC2, 25 November 2008, p. 31
  5. Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, Pro-GM food scientist "threatened editor", The Guardian, 1 Nov 1999, accessed 18 Mar 2010
  6. Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, Pro-GM food scientist "threatened editor", The Guardian, 1 Nov 1999, accessed 18 Mar 2010
  7. Background notes to the editorial standards committee: Horizon, Jimmy's GM Food Fight, BBC response to member of the public's complaint about bias of Jimmy's GM Food Fight, Horizon, BBC2, 25 November 2008, p. 31
  8. Horizon fails to say GM banana not working – BBC warned in advance of broadcast: Horizon fails to deliver balanced view, GM Freeze, 27 Nov 2008, accessed 18 Mar 2010
  9. Pusztai to receive Stuttgart Peace Prize, announcement archived on GM Watch website, 11 Dec 2009, accessed 18 Mar 2010
  10. Editorial standards findings, BBC, November 2009 issued December 2009, accessed 18 Mar 2010
  11. "Uganda GM banana fails to defeat diseases", ASNS, 18 June 2008, accessed January 2009
  12. Kikonyogo Ngatya, "Biosafety leak feared at Kawanda research station", Sunday Monitor, March 29 2009, accessed 2 April 2009