GM-free Scotland

January '08 | Democracy direct

In February, 2006, a new consumer-oriented GM information website, 'GMO Compass', slipped into cyberspace.

Advertising itself as “the work of independent science journalists”, “GMO Compass is not decidedly 'for' or 'against' genetic engineering”. The website stresses it “does not seek to discourage the use of genetic engineering in food and agriculture, nor does it seek to promote it”. It is described as “consumer-oriented”, “providing easily comprehensible”, “science-based information” through a “local network of correspondents”.

The site is being “financially supported” by the EU (i.e. European taxpayers) to the tune of nearly half a million Euros over two years.

An official website giving out reliable and balanced information on GM is always good to have. However, a look at GMO Compass' content set alarm bells ringing because the description 'neither for nor against GM' doesn't seem to apply.

Every kind of GM “good news” story is featured. For example, the “Latest News” headlines on January 3rd 2008 were:

EFB urges Commissioner Dimas to follow scientific advice (29.11.07) (Note. The European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) describes itself as “the non-profit association of Learned Societies, Universities, Institutes, Companies and Individuals interested in the promotion of Biotechnology throughout Europe and beyond. EFB's mission is to enable biotechnology to serve its rightful role in society.”)

During the same period covered by these five good news stories, GM Watch carried more than eight not-so-good news stories from the EU alone: one item pointed out that BASF's GM potatoes contain two antibiotic resistance genes which have been illegal in Europe since 2004; two items reported a proposed EU ban on two varieties of GM maize; two items reported German Government calls for a moratorium and a review of the GM approval procedures; two items reported France's ban on GM seeds and their rejection by the farmer's union there; one item quoted the EU health chief as saying he foresaw no change in the current 'zero tolerance' of illegal GM in Europe.

The “independent science journalists” who produced these articles are worryingly elusive.

Since the livelihood of independent journalists depends on their work being known, their names normally appear on their articles. No author's names are attached to the GM Compass stories.

In four of the five articles above, this may because no journalism was necessary: the BASF story seems to be a company press release, the Australian and German ones seem to be government press releases and the EFB one is an open letter from a biotech lobby group. However, the article on “proof” of the efficiency of Golden Rice describes an unpublished “pre-study” and is linked to an interview with the scientist engaged in the research. This scientist, who is the inventor of the GM vitamin-A spiked 'Golden' rice, stated he “does not wish to publicise details of the findings” “at such an early stage of the study”, and the study is not featured on the www.goldenrice.org website. Clearly, the material for these two Golden Rice good news stories didn't just drop onto the Editor's desk in the form of uninvited press releases. (COMMENT And what better way 'not' to publicise a study than to post it on an official GM-information website? Drs. Pusztai and Ermakova had their science and its embarrassing implications strenuously dismissed for revealing preliminary results.)

Attempts by one concerned NGO to ascertain the identity of the 'independent science journalists' through the 'comments welcome' link on the website failed to elicit any response. However, it was possible to establish that the firm employed to 'coordinate' the site is 'Genius Biotechnologie Gmbh', Germany. This company seems to provide a science communication consultancy service and is used by many well-known organisations, such as, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, EuropaBio (Europe's GM lobby group) and the American Soybean Association. The 'Partners' involved in running GMO Compass seem to consist of a German firm specialising in business data provision and a (German) individual who has his own GM information website and seems to have a long history of involvement in GM and consumer affairs within the German government.

For a site which is run by communications experts and exists to provide easily-comprehensible science-based information, GMO Compass seems to be surprisingly inept. For example, under the headline “GM plants no problem for the honey industry” is a story about a published scientific study which concluded that “the cultivation of Bt-plants does not affect the beekeeping industry”.

The text seems to be a poor translation from the original German which makes it difficult to follow, and the science seems to have been 'simplified' by leaving out details of what was done instead of including explanations of why it was done.

The “GM plants” of the headline which become “Bt-plants” in the conclusion, turn out to be, very specifically, Bt maize, presumably the single strain which can be cultivated legally in the EU. This is an important point, because the experiment carried out doesn't justify such a sweeping headline or the sweeping conclusion stated. COMMENT This can't be put down to an attempt to make the story comprehensible, it looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Since “Bt” in fact refers to an infinite variety of synthetic chemicals which kill insects, the generalisation from “Bt-plants” to “GM plants” (most of which are designed to withstand weedkillers) is clearly misleading.

Assuming that, since the study was published (somewhere unspecified) it was technically sound and scientifically robust, there doesn't seem to have been much GM material for the scientists to measure. One third of the 36 honey bee colonies studied had been placed very close to flowering GM maize, one third were beside conventional maize while the rest were further away but not out of reach of the GM crop. Analyses of the pollen collected and brought back to the hive by the bees revealed all except one sample contained evidence of some maize pollen, so some of the bees were certainly visiting flowering maize. However, only two colonies contained GM pollen levels as high as 5% and majority were below 0.9% (the labelling threshold), suggesting that maize flowers aren't really what bees like best. Put another way, the bees aren't spending much time in maize fields, so GM maize may, indeed, not be a problem for the honey industry, but generalising this to GM plants not being a problem is deception. Especially so, since beekeepers describe another common GM crop, oilseed rape, as 'addictive' to honey bees: an experiment involving this GM crop would have been more meaningful. The study also reported that during the (unspecified) time period of the measurements, the colonies showed no signs of attenuation or harm from the Bt maize. If the bees weren't spending much time in the maize fields, the lack of harm is not surprising but the conclusion as it was presented, that there was no harm from a crop they weren't even exposed to, is also deception. Putting all this in another light, the conclusions given do not appear to be the scientific ones actually reached, but have been distorted into politically useful terms.

Besides the creation of GMO Compass, the EU-style democratic process is using the internet in other questionable ways.

On May 7, 2007, the European Commission launched a public 'consultation on GM seed contamination thresholds' as one of its “Online consultations for “Interactive Policy Making”. This consisted of 8 pages, including 21 statements with which respondents could agree , disagree or declare indecision.

Sounds good, except that:

And finally, a word of caution. Online history can easily be re-written much more easily that by heating computers to 451°F.

The UK Government website which documented the GMNation? debate of 2003 seems to have been 'disappeared' from cyberspace, although the domain name registration doesn't expire until March 2009. The websites covering the other strands of the debate, the 'GM Science Review' and the 'Costs and Benefits' study, which didn't yield embarrassing results, are still online.

OUR COMMENT

YOUR TAXES being used by the European Commission to fund thinly concealed industry-friendly propaganda?

A 'PUBLIC CONSULTATION' no one is told about, or can understand even if they do manage to get hold of it?

A quick AIRBRUSH over inconvenient data?

Have a word with your MEP.

SOURCES:

About Us | Contact Us | 2007 GM-free Scotland