On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------

by Claire Robinson
Institute of Science in Society
Friday 16 July 2004


Claire Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable
truths about the machinations of the pro-GM
establishment in Britain


In a recent debate on genetically modified (GM) foods at the House of
Commons, Dr. Ian Gibson, who chairs the all-party Parliamentary Science
and Technology Committee, dismissed concerns over GM food safety.

As a scientist, he said, he could wipe the floor with his opponents.
Gibson, MP for Norwich North, said: "The epidemiology studies carried
out in every major centre, including in the universities in the States
and elsewhere, into the effects of [GM] food ... have shown no effects
whatever that correlate with the food -- although I understand how
difficult that is to prove."

Unfortunately for Gibson, one of the few scientists to have done GM
food safety tests, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, responded to his comments in an
open letter. Pusztai pointed out that "there have been no epidemiology
studies, and certainly none published. This is obvious from the fact
that, apart from this generalisation, you could not refer to a single
such study. It is not surprising because in the absence of labelling of
GM food in the USA such studies could not be carried out! However, it
is known from official statistics that in less than ten years food-
related illnesses have practically doubled in the USA since the
introduction of GM food into the American diet." He went on to add that
while the reason for this is unknown, it is blatant bluster to declare
that everything is well in the USA and that none of these ill effects
correlate with food, including GM food.

Gibson went on to claim that "the evidence is piling up to say that
the [GM] food is, indeed safe." But when Pusztai asked Gibson to
elaborate on this evidence, Gibsons reply was less confident. He gave
just three examples to support his case, including a Monsanto study.
Pusztai commented, "I expect what constitutes a pile is a matter of
definition. One can reverse this argument by saying that the evidence
is in fact piling up to show the health problems of GM foods reported in
the published science literature However, these you and other pro-GM
supporters conveniently ignore."

Indeed, Gibson has ignored other recent evidence that further casts
doubt on the safety of GM foods. These were raised at an Independent
Science Panel (ISP) briefing in Parliament organised by ISIS and Gibsons
fellow MP, Alan Simpson. The evidence includes reported illnesses in
villagers living near Bt maize fields in the Philippines, recent
disclosure in Le Monde of kidney abnormalities and changes in blood
sugar and blood cell numbers in rats fed Bt maize resistant to corn
rootworm, published scientific papers documenting problems with Bt
toxins and transgenic instability in commercial GM lines. Gibson had
pointedly declined the invitation to attend the briefing.

The evidence should, at the very least, set alarm bells ringing and
prompt scientists and policy makers to take appropriate action. Surely
this should mean not approving GM foods unless they can be unequivocally
proven safe; and at the same time, conducting serious, independent
research into GM food safety. In ignoring all of the evidence, Gibson
is adopting an extreme anti-precautionary approach, one that is totally
unacceptable and irresponsible, considering that it is human health that
is at stake.

In contrast, former environment minister Michael Meacher had, at the
briefing, demanded a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK, in
light of the lack of good research into the long-term effects of GM
foods on human health and the rubbishing and lack of follow-up on
research that turns up evidence of potentially adverse impacts (see
"Meacher calls for enquiry into GM safety", SiS 22).


Duplicity galore

What forces could bring Gibson, a former Dean of Biology at the
University of East Anglia, who is proud of his independent-mindedness,
to join the chorus of spin with which GM technology is promoted? After
all, this is the same man who, just a few years ago, warned against the
inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot
unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully
tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young
children."

A clue to the source of Gibsons apparent conversion lies in the
introduction to his speech to the House of Commons: "The point has often
been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown
extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in
Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those
places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the
fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any
ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including
people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse
consequences."

Compare Gibsons words to the following introduction to an article:
"Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in
North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food
produced from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North
and South America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention
continues despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya
without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans
have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences."

Gibsons introduction is copied almost word for word from this
article, which, it turns out, was published in May as an EMBO Report --
intended to provide short papers on molecular biology -- by Nature
Publishing. It was written by Derek Burke, a former Vice Chancellor of
the University of East Anglia -- where Gibson also worked. Burke is
known among campaigners as the GM godfather for his aggressive
protection of biotech interests and his alleged tendency to influence
so-called "independent" reports and government policy.

Analysis by campaign group GM WATCH of Gibsons speech revealed that
whole sections were lifted from Burkes article (see http://
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822). It became clear from this
comparison that the politician who boasted he had the scientific
knowledge to wipe the floor with his adversaries is in reality nothing
but a parrot.

For the record, ISIS has invited the Royal Society to debate the
scientific evidence in public more than once; but it has never accepted
the invitation. The ISP is now happy to extend the same open invitation
to Ian Gibson.

Gibson also, at the behest of the pro-GM lobby group Sense About
Science, asked Tony Blair in the House of Commons to respond to Derek
Burkes letter calling for more government support for GM. It
subsequently emerged that this letter, too, was the work of the
industry-funded group (see box).


Who is Derek Burke?

Prof. Derek Burke was chair of the UK regulatory committee on GM foods
(Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes -- ACNFP) for almost a
decade (1988-97), during which time the first GM foods were approved for
the UK. In the 1980s he worked for a biotech company (Allelix Inc of
Toronto) and until 1998 was a director of Genome Research Ltd.

During much of his time at ACNFP, Burke was also Vice Chancellor of
the University of East Anglia (1987-1995) and a member of the governing
council of the John Innes Centre (JIC). Both institutions have
benefited from investment in GM research, with the JIC subsequently
enjoying multi-million pound investments from biotechnology corporations
like Syngenta and Dupont. Burke participated in the UK governments
"Technology Foresight" exercise to decide how science could best
contribute to the UKs economic competitiveness. He was then charged
with incorporating the Foresight proposal to build businesses from
genetics into the corporate plan of the UKs public funding body, the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). As a
result, BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific
opportunity with the needs of industry, which left it heavily aligned
with industry.

Burke was a member of the Royal Society working group on GM foods
whose report, "Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use", is said to
have reassured ministers on the GM issue. He was also a member of the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics group that produced the report
"Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical issues". This pro-
GM report emphasising the "moral imperative" to push GM crops into the
Third World was described by Guardian columnist George Monbiot as
"perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The
stain it leaves on the Nuffield Councils excellent reputation will last
for years." Burke was also a member of a small Nuffield working group
who produced a follow-up report along the same lines in 2003.

Burke has been revealed as having a hand in initiatives coordinated
by the prominent industry-backed lobby group Sense About Science. In
October 2003 he sent a letter together with 113 other scientists to Tony
Blair complaining about the governments failure to intervene in the GM
Public Debate in the UK. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)
initially reported the letter as "written and coordinated by Professor
Derek Burke". But a THES article of 7 November said, "The letter was
coordinated by Sense About Science", while a THES Leader on the same
topic did not even mention Burke, referring instead to, "The new
organisation behind the letter, Sense About Science". Burke is on the
Advisory Council of Sense About Science.


Why the Gibson-Burke collusion matters

So Gibson plagiarised Burke and made false statements about the state of
GM science. Does it matter? Just why it does can be seen from what
emerged following Gibsons exposure as "a parrot".

Gibsons local newspaper picked up the story and wrung an important
admission out of him about his speechs similarity to the words of his
former employer, Derek Burke: "When pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: We are
working together to try and erode the anti-GM debate."

The whole point of the Select Committee on Science and Technology,
which Gibson chairs, is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of science
issues independent not only of government but of the vested interests
that can impact on government policies and public bodies. When the UK
Science Minister is a known enthusiast for GM crops and biotech
entrepreneur, independent scrutiny is vital

The Select Committee has issued reports critical of Arpad Pusztai
and, more recently, supportive of the BBSRC -- the public body that
Derek Burke did so much to align with industry. Indeed, the only
serious criticism the Gibson-led Committee made of this corporate-
friendly body was that it was not pro-active enough in promoting
communication with the public on issues like GM crops where public trust
needed to be achieved.

At a time when the biotech industry is retreating from the UK in
despair at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson appears to be stepping up
his activities on its behalf. In collaboration with the industry-
friendly lobby group The Scientific Alliance, he arranged a lobby
assault on Parliament called "GM Question Time" on 13 July. The panel
was uncompromisingly pro-GM (see a full rundown, with industry
affiliations, at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4004).
Naturally, the speakers links with industry and its associated lobby
groups are undisclosed in the press releases announcing the event.




http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CCIGMP.php

( Institute of Science in Society )



Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.

Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?

Is that you Mike?
I thought you would have know these prats exist everywhere!!!

Yours Ergo

"Ray" wrote in message ...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.



**** off, stupid git Ray.

On 19 Jul 2004 10:55:32 -0700, (Abner Hale)
wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message ...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.



**** off, stupid git Ray.

****U jonny bald egghead.

"Abner Hale" wrote in message
m...
"Ray" wrote in message
...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:


snip
Miserable old ~~jonnie~~scrawled:

**** off, stupid git Ray.



Why so grumpy ~~jonnie~~ Your holiday next week.

Got your cases packed?

Don't forget
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/buyinpri...jelperlub.html

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------

by Claire Robinson
Institute of Science in Society
Friday 16 July 2004


Claire Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable
truths about the machinations of the pro-GM
establishment in Britain


In a recent debate on genetically modified (GM) foods at the House of
Commons, Dr. Ian Gibson, who chairs the all-party Parliamentary Science
and Technology Committee, dismissed concerns over GM food safety.

As a scientist, he said, he could wipe the floor with his opponents.
Gibson, MP for Norwich North, said: "The epidemiology studies carried
out in every major centre, including in the universities in the States
and elsewhere, into the effects of [GM] food ... have shown no effects
whatever that correlate with the food -- although I understand how
difficult that is to prove."

Unfortunately for Gibson, one of the few scientists to have done GM
food safety tests, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, responded to his comments in an
open letter. Pusztai pointed out that "there have been no epidemiology
studies, and certainly none published. This is obvious from the fact
that, apart from this generalisation, you could not refer to a single
such study. It is not surprising because in the absence of labelling of
GM food in the USA such studies could not be carried out! However, it
is known from official statistics that in less than ten years food-
related illnesses have practically doubled in the USA since the
introduction of GM food into the American diet." He went on to add that
while the reason for this is unknown, it is blatant bluster to declare
that everything is well in the USA and that none of these ill effects
correlate with food, including GM food.

Gibson went on to claim that "the evidence is piling up to say that
the [GM] food is, indeed safe." But when Pusztai asked Gibson to
elaborate on this evidence, Gibsons reply was less confident. He gave
just three examples to support his case, including a Monsanto study.
Pusztai commented, "I expect what constitutes a pile is a matter of
definition. One can reverse this argument by saying that the evidence
is in fact piling up to show the health problems of GM foods reported in
the published science literature However, these you and other pro-GM
supporters conveniently ignore."

Indeed, Gibson has ignored other recent evidence that further casts
doubt on the safety of GM foods. These were raised at an Independent
Science Panel (ISP) briefing in Parliament organised by ISIS and Gibsons
fellow MP, Alan Simpson. The evidence includes reported illnesses in
villagers living near Bt maize fields in the Philippines, recent
disclosure in Le Monde of kidney abnormalities and changes in blood
sugar and blood cell numbers in rats fed Bt maize resistant to corn
rootworm, published scientific papers documenting problems with Bt
toxins and transgenic instability in commercial GM lines. Gibson had
pointedly declined the invitation to attend the briefing.

The evidence should, at the very least, set alarm bells ringing and
prompt scientists and policy makers to take appropriate action. Surely
this should mean not approving GM foods unless they can be unequivocally
proven safe; and at the same time, conducting serious, independent
research into GM food safety. In ignoring all of the evidence, Gibson
is adopting an extreme anti-precautionary approach, one that is totally
unacceptable and irresponsible, considering that it is human health that
is at stake.

In contrast, former environment minister Michael Meacher had, at the
briefing, demanded a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK, in
light of the lack of good research into the long-term effects of GM
foods on human health and the rubbishing and lack of follow-up on
research that turns up evidence of potentially adverse impacts (see
"Meacher calls for enquiry into GM safety", SiS 22).


Duplicity galore

What forces could bring Gibson, a former Dean of Biology at the
University of East Anglia, who is proud of his independent-mindedness,
to join the chorus of spin with which GM technology is promoted? After
all, this is the same man who, just a few years ago, warned against the
inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot
unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully
tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young
children."

A clue to the source of Gibsons apparent conversion lies in the
introduction to his speech to the House of Commons: "The point has often
been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown
extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in
Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those
places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the
fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any
ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including
people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse
consequences."

Compare Gibsons words to the following introduction to an article:
"Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in
North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food
produced from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North
and South America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention
continues despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya
without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans
have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences."

Gibsons introduction is copied almost word for word from this
article, which, it turns out, was published in May as an EMBO Report --
intended to provide short papers on molecular biology -- by Nature
Publishing. It was written by Derek Burke, a former Vice Chancellor of
the University of East Anglia -- where Gibson also worked. Burke is
known among campaigners as the GM godfather for his aggressive
protection of biotech interests and his alleged tendency to influence
so-called "independent" reports and government policy.

Analysis by campaign group GM WATCH of Gibsons speech revealed that
whole sections were lifted from Burkes article (see http://
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822). It became clear from this
comparison that the politician who boasted he had the scientific
knowledge to wipe the floor with his adversaries is in reality nothing
but a parrot.

For the record, ISIS has invited the Royal Society to debate the
scientific evidence in public more than once; but it has never accepted
the invitation. The ISP is now happy to extend the same open invitation
to Ian Gibson.

Gibson also, at the behest of the pro-GM lobby group Sense About
Science, asked Tony Blair in the House of Commons to respond to Derek
Burkes letter calling for more government support for GM. It
subsequently emerged that this letter, too, was the work of the
industry-funded group (see box).


Who is Derek Burke?

Prof. Derek Burke was chair of the UK regulatory committee on GM foods
(Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes -- ACNFP) for almost a
decade (1988-97), during which time the first GM foods were approved for
the UK. In the 1980s he worked for a biotech company (Allelix Inc of
Toronto) and until 1998 was a director of Genome Research Ltd.

During much of his time at ACNFP, Burke was also Vice Chancellor of
the University of East Anglia (1987-1995) and a member of the governing
council of the John Innes Centre (JIC). Both institutions have
benefited from investment in GM research, with the JIC subsequently
enjoying multi-million pound investments from biotechnology corporations
like Syngenta and Dupont. Burke participated in the UK governments
"Technology Foresight" exercise to decide how science could best
contribute to the UKs economic competitiveness. He was then charged
with incorporating the Foresight proposal to build businesses from
genetics into the corporate plan of the UKs public funding body, the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). As a
result, BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific
opportunity with the needs of industry, which left it heavily aligned
with industry.

Burke was a member of the Royal Society working group on GM foods
whose report, "Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use", is said to
have reassured ministers on the GM issue. He was also a member of the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics group that produced the report
"Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical issues". This pro-
GM report emphasising the "moral imperative" to push GM crops into the
Third World was described by Guardian columnist George Monbiot as
"perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The
stain it leaves on the Nuffield Councils excellent reputation will last
for years." Burke was also a member of a small Nuffield working group
who produced a follow-up report along the same lines in 2003.

Burke has been revealed as having a hand in initiatives coordinated
by the prominent industry-backed lobby group Sense About Science. In
October 2003 he sent a letter together with 113 other scientists to Tony
Blair complaining about the governments failure to intervene in the GM
Public Debate in the UK. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)
initially reported the letter as "written and coordinated by Professor
Derek Burke". But a THES article of 7 November said, "The letter was
coordinated by Sense About Science", while a THES Leader on the same
topic did not even mention Burke, referring instead to, "The new
organisation behind the letter, Sense About Science". Burke is on the
Advisory Council of Sense About Science.


Why the Gibson-Burke collusion matters

So Gibson plagiarised Burke and made false statements about the state of
GM science. Does it matter? Just why it does can be seen from what
emerged following Gibsons exposure as "a parrot".

Gibsons local newspaper picked up the story and wrung an important
admission out of him about his speechs similarity to the words of his
former employer, Derek Burke: "When pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: We are
working together to try and erode the anti-GM debate."

The whole point of the Select Committee on Science and Technology,
which Gibson chairs, is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of science
issues independent not only of government but of the vested interests
that can impact on government policies and public bodies. When the UK
Science Minister is a known enthusiast for GM crops and biotech
entrepreneur, independent scrutiny is vital

The Select Committee has issued reports critical of Arpad Pusztai
and, more recently, supportive of the BBSRC -- the public body that
Derek Burke did so much to align with industry. Indeed, the only
serious criticism the Gibson-led Committee made of this corporate-
friendly body was that it was not pro-active enough in promoting
communication with the public on issues like GM crops where public trust
needed to be achieved.

At a time when the biotech industry is retreating from the UK in
despair at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson appears to be stepping up
his activities on its behalf. In collaboration with the industry-
friendly lobby group The Scientific Alliance, he arranged a lobby
assault on Parliament called "GM Question Time" on 13 July. The panel
was uncompromisingly pro-GM (see a full rundown, with industry
affiliations, at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4004).
Naturally, the speakers links with industry and its associated lobby
groups are undisclosed in the press releases announcing the event.




http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CCIGMP.php

( Institute of Science in Society )



Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.

Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?

Is that you Mike?
I thought you would have know these prats exist everywhere!!!

Yours Ergo

"Ray" wrote in message ...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.



**** off, stupid git Ray.

On 19 Jul 2004 10:55:32 -0700, (Abner Hale)
wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message ...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.



**** off, stupid git Ray.

****U jonny bald egghead.

"Abner Hale" wrote in message
m...
"Ray" wrote in message
...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:


snip
Miserable old ~~jonnie~~scrawled:

**** off, stupid git Ray.



Why so grumpy ~~jonnie~~ Your holiday next week.

Got your cases packed?

Don't forget
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/buyinpri...jelperlub.html

On 20 Jul 2004 08:07:10 -0700, (Abner Hale)
wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message ...
"Abner Hale" wrote in message
m...
"Ray" wrote in message
...
"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:


snip
Miserable old ~~jonnie~~scrawled:

**** off, stupid git Ray.



Why so grumpy ~~jonnie~~ Your holiday next week.

Got your cases packed?

Don't forget
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/buyinpri...jelperlub.html

I'm not Jon Ball, stupid illiterate git Ray. **** off.

I.m going to tell the local plod you're on the way jonny. They wont
like blatant perverts turning up, especially the bald, gun freak kind.








SUPPORT ISRAEL

Myths & Facts Online
A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
By Mitchell G. Bard


http://tinyurl.com/ysepr




+------------------------+
| NO PLONKING ZONE |
+------------------------+
| | |
| | | |
..| |.. .| |..
...\| |/.... \| |/..











**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world.
There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

Need a fake diploma for fun? contact my collegues Malcolm Ogilvie
or Michael Saunby who both bought one and got one free, only $15 each,
have as many as you like www.fakediplomas.com

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------

by Claire Robinson
Institute of Science in Society
Friday 16 July 2004


Claire Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable
truths about the machinations of the pro-GM
establishment in Britain


In a recent debate on genetically modified (GM) foods at the House of
Commons, Dr. Ian Gibson, who chairs the all-party Parliamentary Science
and Technology Committee, dismissed concerns over GM food safety.

As a scientist, he said, he could wipe the floor with his opponents.
Gibson, MP for Norwich North, said: "The epidemiology studies carried
out in every major centre, including in the universities in the States
and elsewhere, into the effects of [GM] food ... have shown no effects
whatever that correlate with the food -- although I understand how
difficult that is to prove."

Unfortunately for Gibson, one of the few scientists to have done GM
food safety tests, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, responded to his comments in an
open letter. Pusztai pointed out that "there have been no epidemiology
studies, and certainly none published. This is obvious from the fact
that, apart from this generalisation, you could not refer to a single
such study. It is not surprising because in the absence of labelling of
GM food in the USA such studies could not be carried out! However, it
is known from official statistics that in less than ten years food-
related illnesses have practically doubled in the USA since the
introduction of GM food into the American diet." He went on to add that
while the reason for this is unknown, it is blatant bluster to declare
that everything is well in the USA and that none of these ill effects
correlate with food, including GM food.

Gibson went on to claim that "the evidence is piling up to say that
the [GM] food is, indeed safe." But when Pusztai asked Gibson to
elaborate on this evidence, Gibsons reply was less confident. He gave
just three examples to support his case, including a Monsanto study.
Pusztai commented, "I expect what constitutes a pile is a matter of
definition. One can reverse this argument by saying that the evidence
is in fact piling up to show the health problems of GM foods reported in
the published science literature However, these you and other pro-GM
supporters conveniently ignore."

Indeed, Gibson has ignored other recent evidence that further casts
doubt on the safety of GM foods. These were raised at an Independent
Science Panel (ISP) briefing in Parliament organised by ISIS and Gibsons
fellow MP, Alan Simpson. The evidence includes reported illnesses in
villagers living near Bt maize fields in the Philippines, recent
disclosure in Le Monde of kidney abnormalities and changes in blood
sugar and blood cell numbers in rats fed Bt maize resistant to corn
rootworm, published scientific papers documenting problems with Bt
toxins and transgenic instability in commercial GM lines. Gibson had
pointedly declined the invitation to attend the briefing.

The evidence should, at the very least, set alarm bells ringing and
prompt scientists and policy makers to take appropriate action. Surely
this should mean not approving GM foods unless they can be unequivocally
proven safe; and at the same time, conducting serious, independent
research into GM food safety. In ignoring all of the evidence, Gibson
is adopting an extreme anti-precautionary approach, one that is totally
unacceptable and irresponsible, considering that it is human health that
is at stake.

In contrast, former environment minister Michael Meacher had, at the
briefing, demanded a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK, in
light of the lack of good research into the long-term effects of GM
foods on human health and the rubbishing and lack of follow-up on
research that turns up evidence of potentially adverse impacts (see
"Meacher calls for enquiry into GM safety", SiS 22).


Duplicity galore

What forces could bring Gibson, a former Dean of Biology at the
University of East Anglia, who is proud of his independent-mindedness,
to join the chorus of spin with which GM technology is promoted? After
all, this is the same man who, just a few years ago, warned against the
inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot
unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully
tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young
children."

A clue to the source of Gibsons apparent conversion lies in the
introduction to his speech to the House of Commons: "The point has often
been made here that genetically modified crops are being grown
extensively in north and south America and in China, although not in
Europe. They have in a sense become part of the normal diet in those
places, if not in Europe, where there is still contention, despite the
fact that 300 million US citizens continue to eat GM soya without any
ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans, including
people here, have eaten it while in the US, with no adverse
consequences."

Compare Gibsons words to the following introduction to an article:
"Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in
North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food
produced from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North
and South America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention
continues despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya
without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans
have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences."

Gibsons introduction is copied almost word for word from this
article, which, it turns out, was published in May as an EMBO Report --
intended to provide short papers on molecular biology -- by Nature
Publishing. It was written by Derek Burke, a former Vice Chancellor of
the University of East Anglia -- where Gibson also worked. Burke is
known among campaigners as the GM godfather for his aggressive
protection of biotech interests and his alleged tendency to influence
so-called "independent" reports and government policy.

Analysis by campaign group GM WATCH of Gibsons speech revealed that
whole sections were lifted from Burkes article (see http://
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3822). It became clear from this
comparison that the politician who boasted he had the scientific
knowledge to wipe the floor with his adversaries is in reality nothing
but a parrot.

For the record, ISIS has invited the Royal Society to debate the
scientific evidence in public more than once; but it has never accepted
the invitation. The ISP is now happy to extend the same open invitation
to Ian Gibson.

Gibson also, at the behest of the pro-GM lobby group Sense About
Science, asked Tony Blair in the House of Commons to respond to Derek
Burkes letter calling for more government support for GM. It
subsequently emerged that this letter, too, was the work of the
industry-funded group (see box).


Who is Derek Burke?

Prof. Derek Burke was chair of the UK regulatory committee on GM foods
(Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes -- ACNFP) for almost a
decade (1988-97), during which time the first GM foods were approved for
the UK. In the 1980s he worked for a biotech company (Allelix Inc of
Toronto) and until 1998 was a director of Genome Research Ltd.

During much of his time at ACNFP, Burke was also Vice Chancellor of
the University of East Anglia (1987-1995) and a member of the governing
council of the John Innes Centre (JIC). Both institutions have
benefited from investment in GM research, with the JIC subsequently
enjoying multi-million pound investments from biotechnology corporations
like Syngenta and Dupont. Burke participated in the UK governments
"Technology Foresight" exercise to decide how science could best
contribute to the UKs economic competitiveness. He was then charged
with incorporating the Foresight proposal to build businesses from
genetics into the corporate plan of the UKs public funding body, the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). As a
result, BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific
opportunity with the needs of industry, which left it heavily aligned
with industry.

Burke was a member of the Royal Society working group on GM foods
whose report, "Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use", is said to
have reassured ministers on the GM issue. He was also a member of the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics group that produced the report
"Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical issues". This pro-
GM report emphasising the "moral imperative" to push GM crops into the
Third World was described by Guardian columnist George Monbiot as
"perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The
stain it leaves on the Nuffield Councils excellent reputation will last
for years." Burke was also a member of a small Nuffield working group
who produced a follow-up report along the same lines in 2003.

Burke has been revealed as having a hand in initiatives coordinated
by the prominent industry-backed lobby group Sense About Science. In
October 2003 he sent a letter together with 113 other scientists to Tony
Blair complaining about the governments failure to intervene in the GM
Public Debate in the UK. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES)
initially reported the letter as "written and coordinated by Professor
Derek Burke". But a THES article of 7 November said, "The letter was
coordinated by Sense About Science", while a THES Leader on the same
topic did not even mention Burke, referring instead to, "The new
organisation behind the letter, Sense About Science". Burke is on the
Advisory Council of Sense About Science.


Why the Gibson-Burke collusion matters

So Gibson plagiarised Burke and made false statements about the state of
GM science. Does it matter? Just why it does can be seen from what
emerged following Gibsons exposure as "a parrot".

Gibsons local newspaper picked up the story and wrung an important
admission out of him about his speechs similarity to the words of his
former employer, Derek Burke: "When pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: We are
working together to try and erode the anti-GM debate."

The whole point of the Select Committee on Science and Technology,
which Gibson chairs, is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of science
issues independent not only of government but of the vested interests
that can impact on government policies and public bodies. When the UK
Science Minister is a known enthusiast for GM crops and biotech
entrepreneur, independent scrutiny is vital

The Select Committee has issued reports critical of Arpad Pusztai
and, more recently, supportive of the BBSRC -- the public body that
Derek Burke did so much to align with industry. Indeed, the only
serious criticism the Gibson-led Committee made of this corporate-
friendly body was that it was not pro-active enough in promoting
communication with the public on issues like GM crops where public trust
needed to be achieved.

At a time when the biotech industry is retreating from the UK in
despair at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson appears to be stepping up
his activities on its behalf. In collaboration with the industry-
friendly lobby group The Scientific Alliance, he arranged a lobby
assault on Parliament called "GM Question Time" on 13 July. The panel
was uncompromisingly pro-GM (see a full rundown, with industry
affiliations, at http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4004).
Naturally, the speakers links with industry and its associated lobby
groups are undisclosed in the press releases announcing the event.




http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CCIGMP.php

( Institute of Science in Society )



Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:32:13 +0100, Kelly and Sandy
wrote:

[ Print article using a 'typewriter' font (like Courier) 229 lines ]


Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
-------------------------------------
snip


Tragic that these nuts are even taken seriously. You don't hear many
complaints from British farmers either, you'd have thought by now
they'd have realized that unethical farming has almost buried them
already. Will they never wake up?



Wake up the dead?
Impossible.

In the UK, farming has been based on the philosophy of take, take,take.

They need education.

Michael (sawn off) Saunby is is prime example.

The gravy train is grinding to a halt.