Posted on 20-7-2002
Genetic
Engineering Causes Political Engineering
by Nicky Hager, NZ HERALD, 19.07.2002
Frantic Government damage control followed the release last
week of my book
Seeds of Distrust. We were told the book was completely untrue
and that I
was a conspiracy theorist taking part in a Green Party dirty
trick. A
series of Government and industry spokespeople appeared in the
news
dismissing the book.
So fierce were the Government denials that, I admit, I wondered
if I had
missed something crucial. The book is based solidly on official
papers and
interviews with insiders, but ministers waved papers in the
air that they
said would prove me wrong. It is interesting, a week later,
to study the
four elements of the Government's response: Diversions, promised
facts
contradicting the book, statements by supposedly independent
experts and,
late on Friday, the release of documents.
The first three tactics were, in effect, continuations of the
original
cover-up, but fortunately the release of documents gives the
public a
chance to judge for themselves the story told in the book. For
the first
three days, most of the damage control took the form of diversions.
There
was much news about how incandescently angry Helen Clark was,
the rights
and wrongs of TV3 "ambushing" the Prime Minister, and her allegation
that
my book was a Green Party trick. For the record: No one in the
Greens (or
any other party) had any input at any stage into my book. I
do my own work.
The book raises serious issues, but it suited the Government
to propose its
own conspiracy theory. In every interview I had to answer "have
you stopped
beating your wife"-type questions about the Green Party plot.
Next, the Government promised to produce evidence disproving
the book.
Several ministers and officials spoke of "follow-up" GM tests
that showed
the sweetcorn crops were not contaminated after all. This was
when I
seriously wondered if I had got it wrong. Then, at 5pm last
Friday, the
head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, Bas Walker,
contradicted both his earlier statements and the ministers'.
He said there
had been no extra tests done after he had advised Marian Hobbs
on November
24, 2000, of "several positive tests for contamination which
can hardly be
ignored". Surprisingly, many news organisations did not report
that the
widely reported claims of extra tests had been wrong. The other
element of
the damage control at this time was "independent" scientists
supporting the
Government. This is a standard PR tactic by which, if your public
credibility is in doubt, seemingly independent third-party endorsements
are
found to back you up. The most prominent of them was Dr Russell
Poulter,
who first appeared on Linda Clark's Nine to Noon radio programme.
At the
start of the interview, Poulter assured her he was independent.
Then, as
the interview went on, it became clear he had been at the secret
meetings
in 2000 at which the advice to the Government about the sweetcorn
crops was
devised.
The record of a Government-industry meeting on December 1, 2000,
released
by the Government last week, explains Poulter's role in the
crisis. He was
brought to the meeting by Heinz Wattie (a company which had
planted part of
the GM-contaminated seed batch) to dispute the evidence of contamination.
The record of the meeting says Poulter argued that the laboratories
that
had got positive GM results were "unreliable and no credence
can be placed
on them". The Government scientist recording the meeting described
Poulter's "summary dismissal" as "cavalier". Most important,
the meeting
record says that Heinz Wattie wanted "to use his opinion to
revisit the
issue of what should happen to the crop already in the ground".
In other
words, Poulter was appearing for one of the companies to argue
against the
(up until then) Government plan to pull out the contaminated
crops. It is
extraordinary that such an obviously non-independent person
was the main
"independent expert" reported pooh-poohing my book in last week's
news. It
is a reminder to be cautious about apparently independent experts
who pop
up presenting versions of science helpful to commercial interests.
Despite
its earlier claims, the Government produced no evidence to contradict
the
book. I am confident the story is solid.
Fortunately, the fourth part of the damage control involved
the release of
a pile of official papers. Releasing papers on a Friday night
ensured that
few journalists read them (thus the minimal news coverage).
But anyone who
does read the papers will have no doubt that seriously undemocratic
processes were at work. he papers include advice from the Melbourne
GM lab
which says: "Consequently, one may draw the conclusion that
samples
received at GeneScan Australia from Novartis Seeds do contain
trace-contaminating levels of Bt11 [GM sweetcorn]." They show
the industry
people and their PR advisers helping to rewrite policies to
redefine the
scientific results to justify ignoring crops which, until then,
all the
officials accepted were contaminated. They show an industry
PR adviser
recommending burying news about the crops within a routine-sounding
Marian
Hobbs press release about testing seed imports (which is what
later happened).
I wrote a book about the contaminated crops as a case study
to raise issues
about how controversial decisions are really made. The inside
view is
fascinating and worrying. The instant reaction of the Government
when it
was informed about the contaminated crops was secrecy, which
served to shut
the public and any alternative sources of advice out of the
decision-making. In contrast, the big companies involved were
given a huge
influence over the options and advice presented to Government,
highlighting
the way that business-friendly government can be undemocratic
government.
Most Cabinet ministers were misled, the public was misled and
even the
royal commission - which was investigating genetic modification
at that
time - was
misled. These are not idle claims. They are all backed up by
official
documents quoted and reproduced in the book.
But instead of having to answer these allegations, the Government
diverted
attention to attacks on the Greens, TV3 and me. Understanding
and
publicising what went wrong over the sweetcorn crops, and why
it went
wrong, will hopefully help to ensure we get better and more
open decisions
the next time something goes wrong.
|