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.