Posted on 5-11-2003
Chief
Justice Slams Book
by John Eisen
“GE Sellout” in The Listener ? Claims author makes “scandalous
allegations” against the Royal Commission. “I am surprised The
Listener
should associate itself with such deplorable fiction,” says
Royal
Commission head
Sir Thomas Eichelbaum writes:
The GE Sellout, edited by Jonathan Eisen, makes scandalous allegations
against the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, which
I chaired.
Fortunately, no one who knows the commissioners will give Eisen
any
credence. It smacks of desperation to suggest that four thoroughly
independent persons - a bishop, a scientist, a doctor and a
former Chief
Justice - were nobbled by the government and rubber-stamped
its wishes. I
am surprised The Listener should associate itself with such
deplorable
iction by including with the October 18 issue a flyer advertising
this
tract and repeating some of the baseless claims.
For the record, the commission's inquiries were conducted entirely
independently. From the outset we were meticulous in listening
to all
points of view by open processes. We did not allow anyone, government,
industry or the Greens to lobby us privately. Throughout, information
we
received was posted on our website, together with details of
our
procedures. The outcome represented the commission's opinion
based on our
own assessment of the evidence and submissions.
Jonathan Eisen replies:
Are the allegations made in my book The GE Sellout really so
scandalous
as Sir Thomas Eichelbaum maintains in his letter?
Inasmuch as he doesn't detail any of his accusations against
the book, he
makes it difficult to construct a point-by-point rejoinder.
Instead he
chooses the ad hominem argument that "fortunately, no one who
knows
the commissioners will give Eisen any credence." He says that
the
commission was comprised of "four thoroughly independent persons"
and to
suggest that they came under the influence of the government
or anyone
else "smacks of desperation". Well, let's try to sort it out
anyway:
1.The Commission, appointed by the Executive branch of our staunchly
pro-GE government, had only one scientist as a member, Jean
Fleming.
Shewas drawn from the biotech establishment. There were no independent
scientists on board. Had there been an independent scientist
on the
Commission who "balanced" Ms Fleming perhaps there might have
been a
different outcome. But this was not to be.
2. A Royal Commission is the highest court in the land. Yet,
oddly, the
RCGM (as opposed to all other royal commissions) was not held
under oath
and did not subpoena vital evidence. When asked about this,
Margaret
Wilson was either reluctant to say, or did not know, who was
responsible
for seriously degrading the Inquiry in this manner.
3. To the best of our knowledge the Commissioners were never
asked to
disclose their financial interests in any biotech companies.
In some
countries that would be a conflict of interest issue.
4. The bulk of The GE Sellout itemised and detailed how all
too often the
testimony of prestigious scientists who testified on the dangers
of GE
was ignored or misrepresented. Just one example: the entire
testimony of
the scientist who detailed the deaths and permanent injury that
arose
from a supplement (L-tryptophan) manufacturing using GE bacteria
was
distorted. The scientist from Dow shenko, the Japanese company
that
actually made the product that killed the people, stated that
the company
considered the GE to be the problem. His findings were ignored.
5. One of the most prestigious geneticists in the UK, Dr Arpad
Pusztai,
whose experiments showed conclusively that rats fed on GE potatoes
developed pre-cancerous lesions as well as brain and endocrine
damage, was
given all of 20 minutes to present his findings. His testimony
was
dismissed while industry PR agents were allowed inordinate amounts
of time
to belittle the dangers of GE.
Outrageous statements from the Life Sciences Network submitters
were not
questioned. The falsehoods from Dr Cohen that "the virus [CaMV]
had
clearly been part of the human diet in Europe, Asia and Australia
for a
considerable period of time" is seriously misleading, though
the
Commission let it stand without question. (Dr Cohen knows full
well that
the genetically engineered counterpart is different from the
naturally
occurring one. After engineering, it is no longer host-specific.)
6. The conclusions reached regarding liability and "coexistence"
were
nothing short of bizarre. After having had the very real danger
of
contamination fully explained to them by scientists who have
witnessed
this in other countries, the Commission's recommendation that
"for the
time being there be no change in the liability system" is beyond
belief.
The Commission, by touting the lie that there can be coexistence
between
conventional, organics and GE agriculture, revealed itself to
be either
seriously biased or inept in the extreme. NZ beekeepers and
the organics
industry are expected by the Commission to simply accept the
contamination
of their honey and produce, something that betrays in graphic
detail the
bias of the "independent" Commissioners.
7. The Commission's "new" category of conditional release (case
by case
approach) is a cop-out. It is based on the unsupported assumption
that
there is nothing wrong with GE technology in general. NZ’s Physicians
and
Scientists for Responsible Genetics and other independent scientists
from
NZ and overseas repeatedly made it clear to the Commission that
this is a
seriously flawed and highly dangerous new and untested technology.
The
most that ERMA will now investigate is whether any particular
crop
presents specific hazards.
8. At no point in the hearings were the important and fundamental
issues
addressed. The entire scientific basis for GE was shown to be
incomplete
and therefore faulty by several prominent scientists, including
Barry
Commoner, as well as the US scientist whose company first mapped
the human
genome. The Commission refused to hear his testimony, concocting
an ad hoc
reason for doing so.
9. The ‘proceed with caution’ and ‘case by case’ approach recommended
by
the RCGM is nothing more than a slow-but-sure tactic for commercialising
GE crops. It is also a subterfuge for sidestepping fundamental
criticisms
of the GE technology itself, which the Commission failed to
acknowledge.
In other words it has given blanket approval for GE technology,
which can
only be justified by ignoring critical scientific evidence.
This is a
typical PR ruse designed to convey the message of "even handedness"
while
giving the biotech industry everything it wanted. Consequently
we now have
a situation where each application that is approved will serve
as a
precedent for approving later ones, and in the end, ERMA will
claim the
entire technology has been properly investigated and approved
when in fact
it has never been investigated at all.
The RCGM actually telegraphed its real intent on page 2 of its
Report:
“The major theme of the Report is Preserving Opportunities.
Our
recommendations aim to encourage the coexistence of all forms
of
agriculture. The different production systems should not be
seen as being
in opposition to each other, but rather as contributing in their
own ways
to the overall benefit of New Zealand."
In other words, the Report concerns itself with "how" and not
"whether" we
should have the commercial release of GE into our food and environment.
The GE Sellout goes into all the foregoing in detail and questions
whether the Royal Commission was really just a PR exercise in
manufacturing consent.
Jonathan Eisen Auckland
P.S. The book is still available from The Full Court Press,
PO Box 44-128,
Pt Chevalier, Auckland for $12.95 (includes p/h) as well as
your local
health food stores and local booksellers.
|