Palaces For The People
Thursday, January 08, 2004
 
SANET-MG Archives -- January 2004 (

From: Lion Kuntz
Subject: Part 3 The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI,
Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewavas
In-Reply-To: <20040109002942.11615.qmail@web11208.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Part 3 The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI, Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewavas

Looking at the Praksh-Trewavas connections... [Next installment: the "Nature Magazine" disgrace]

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0401&L=sanet-mg&F=&S=&P=27984 The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI, Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0401&L=sanet-mg&F=&S=&P=28145 Part 2, The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI, Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas

http://ngin.tripod.com/061001b.htm THE TREWAVAS LETTERS - 'DEAR PRAKASH'

no prizes for guessing the latest winner of the Pants on Fire award!

http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit2.html Monsanto's World Wide Web of deceit MONSANTO - UP TO ITS DIRTY OLD TRICKS AGAIN ...Chapela and Quist came under immediate attack in a furious volley of e-mails published on the AgBioView listserv. AgBioView correspondents calling themselves 'Mary Murphy' and 'Andura Smetacek' claimed Chapela and Quist's research was a product of a conspiracy with "fear-mongering activists". The conspirators' aim, apparently, was to attack "biotechnology, free-trade, intellectual property rights and other politically motivated agenda items."

These claims prompted a series of further attacks from others. Prof Anthony Trewavas, for example, denounced scientists like Chapela who had "political axes to grind". Trewavas demanded Chapela be fired unless he handed over his maize samples for checking.

This was not Trewavas's first controversial intervention in the GM debate in response to material put into circulation on AgBioView. Last October, for instance, Trewavas was named in the High Court as the source of an anti-Greenpeace letter at the centre of a libel case. Trewavas subsequently claimed that the letter originated on AgBioView. ...

http://ngin.tripod.com/JM077.htm As well as being a GM zealot, TT has a bee or two in his bonnet about organic farming against which he keeps mounting attacks. For his latest, put out on Prakash’s AgBioWorld pro-GM list: http://agbioview.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list_id=agbioview&msg_num=876&start_num= Trewavas has repeatedly drawn on Dennis Avery’s more than dubious claims.

In an article published in Nature (Nature 402, 231 [1999] Much Food, Many Problems) there are multiple citations from Avery’s chapter in the ‘Fearing Food’ [Fearing Food. Risk, Health and Environment, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999] edited by Morris and Bate of the extreme right-wing libertarian Institute of Economic Affairs which has co-ordinated many of the attacks on organic farming on this side of the Atlantic (TT also appeared in Roger Bate’s Counterblast TV programme attacking organic food).

However, anyone who actually follows up the references to ‘Fearing Food’ discovers that all Avery’s highly partisan claims about organic agriculture lack specific references. In other words, this particular Trewavas’ trail of supporting evidence leads nowhere but to Avery’s assertions! [For more on IEA etc and organic attacks see: http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/organic.htm ]

http://ngin.tripod.com/140802e.htm TREWAVAS'S NATURE ARTICLE DEMOLISHED

As the editors of Nature in their Syngenta funded 'Nature Insight' on the "Food and the Future"[http://www.nature.com/nature/food/index.html] have seen fit to reproduce Trewavas's anti-organic, "Urban Myths of Organic Agriculture," as one of their three Trewavas opinion pieces, published without any balancing comment, we thought we'd reproduce Angela Ryan's brilliant expose of how his propagandist claims are contradicted by the scientific literature.

for more on Trewavas: http://ngin.tripod.com/trewavas.htm

http://ngin.tripod.com/110802a.htm ...Another prominent Chapela-critic was a member of the JIC's governing council. Prof Anthony Trewavas posted an attack on Chapela on the internet, suggesting he was politically motivated and calling for his dismissal from Berkeley if he didn't hand over his samples for independent checking.

To date, however, there has been little exploration of any connection between Nature and Syngenta. The current issue of the journal has now brought that sharply into focus. It contains a special Nature Insight feature on "Food and the Future". This can be accessed free on the web: http://www.nature.com/nature/food/index.html

But you don't have to be aware of this url to come across the feature. Do a Google search on "GM food" and an advertisement linking to Nature's "Food and the Future" will appear with your search results. If you click on the link, then on reaching the "Future of Food" index page, you are greeted with a special message, "Hello Google user, welcome to this free Food and the Future Insight, which we hope you enjoy reading. A special subscription offer for Google users offering an extra free 6 months on top of a personal 12 month subscription is accessible via the banner below". In other words, the "Future of Food" is part of a package that includes not only free web access to all the articles in the special Nature Insight feature, but a big advertising promotion and membership drive for the journal.

Clearly, Nature is splashing out. Except that it isn't only Nature's publishers who are funding the package, as is made clear to anyone who reads right to the end of the "Food and the Future" editorial. The final paragraph notes, "We are pleased to acknowledge the financial support of Syngenta in producing this Insight." [http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01012_fs.html]

Naturally, the funding acknowledgement is accompanied by the following, "As always, Nature carries sole responsibility for all editorial content and peer review." Opinion pieces, however, not being based on any primary research, are not subject to peer review - just editorial approval. The lead opinion piece for the "Food and the Future" was clearly commissioned to give an overview for this special Insight feature. The piece is all about how GM crops are going to defeat the predictions of Malthus. It's author, Prof Anthony Trewavas. [http://www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/nature01013]

The well-promoted web version of the Syngenta-funded feature doesn't stop there, though. There are two more opinion pieces included as classic commentaries. These are:

Much food, many problems ANTHONY TREWAVAS A new agriculture, combining genetic modification technology with sustainable farming, is our best hope for the future. Nature 402, 231ˆ232 (1999); doi:10.1038/46157 Full Text: http://www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/46157

...These points are all highly contentious [see: http://ngin.tripod.com/trewavas.htm]. Note too the reference given by Trewavas for the three points above, "15. Avery, D. in Fearing Food. Risk, Health and Environment (eds Morris, J. & Bate, R.) 3-18 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999)". Anyone who follows up this reference discovers that it's simply to another opinion piece, this time by Dennis Avery. The piece lacks any specific references to supporting evidence. In other words, Trewavas' trail of evidence for this series of damaging assertions leads nowhere but to the claims of a highly controversial commentator employed by the biotech industry funded Hudson Institute!

Nature's inclusion in its special feature of *3* opinion pieces, including the "Food and the Future" overview, authored by a highly partisan molecular biologist with no especial scientific expertise relating to organic agriculture or sustainable development, almost beggars belief. Not least, given that Nature and its editor have allowed no space in the feature for any alternative views, eg looking at the successes of alternatives to GMOs in agriculture, the extent of the risks that genetic engineering poses, the diversity of goals in development, etc.

But could Nature in giving such unquestioning prominence to the views of Prof Trewavas have been in any doubt that it was party to a crude propaganda exercise? Evn leaving aside his notorious attack on Ignacio Chapela, that would seem more than surprising given Trewavas's well-known track record as a cras propagandist for genetic engineering.

One might have thought alarm bells might have rung at Nature given that in October 2001, for instance, "Professor Trewavas, Professor of Plant Biochemistry at the University of Edinburgh" was named in the High Court in London as the source of a letter making libellous allegations against Lord Melchett and Greenpeace in relation to organic farming and GM foods. [Greenpeace wins damages over professor's 'unfounded' allegations - Education Guardian, Monday October 8, 2001]

http://ngin.tripod.com/041102d.htm SYNGENTA WORKSHOP SETS GUIDELINES FOR BIOTECH REGULATORS

Even by the prevailing standards of 'the corporate take over of everything', this is almost beyond belief.

Not so long ago Syngenta sponsored a special supplement on the future of food in the journal Nature that contained 3 opinion pieces by Prof Anthony Trewavas promoting GM crops and rubbishing organic farming. Now Syngenta has set up a conference in India which has come up with proposals which are "expected to serve as a guideline for biotechnology regulators in developing and developed countries". Syngenta has described its approach to GM crop regulation as one of "latch lifting" - trying to find creative means with which to undermine the resistance to approval of their products. Clearly more than a little "latch lifting" has been going on in India.

Syngenta's workshop also proposed "organic farming" with inputs from modern biotechnology as the best way to help small farmers! The latter idea came from M.S. Swaminathan who unlike, say, Norman Borlaug or CS Prakash, is not a crude propagandist for GM crops but has a far more sophisticated stance, combining biotech with the rhetoric of village india, women's empowerment etc. Swaminathan creates the facade of an unthreatening, ecologically sensitive biotech "domesticated" to local conditions - a far more acceptable face for the introduction of GMOs into the Third World.

However, his record is controversial with his "green revolution" standing accused of neglecting high yielding indigenous rice varieties in favour of chemical dependent varieties, leading to adverse effects on rice productivity (see, for instance, Bharat Dogra's analyis, http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001016/agro.htm#2 ; and also http://www.cseindia.org/html/dte/dte20011015/dte_analy.htm). Swaminathan also claimed to have created a new variety of high-yielding rice that led to accusations of fraud - including by New Scientist - and there were several suicides in his institute as investigations proceeded.

cache of http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=153 Andura Smetacek

On 5th October 2001 Prof Anthony Trewavas FRS was named in the High Court in London as the source of a letter at the centre of a libel case involving Lord Melchett, Greenpeace and the Glasgow Herald. (Greenpeace wins damages over professor's 'unfounded' allegations, Education Guardian, Monday October 8, 2001)

According to an agreed apology published by the Herald on the 6th October:

'On 3 November 2000 the Herald published a letter it had received from Anthony Trewavas, Professor in Plant Biochemistry at the University of Edinburgh. The letter alleged that Greenpeace campaigns had deliberately spread unfounded fears about GM Foods, so as to further the financial interests of Lord Melchett and Greenpeace, that Greenpeace accepted donations from companies and had inappropriate links with commercial organisations. The Herald acknowledges that there is no foundation in any of these allegations.'

When the letter was originally published in the Herald, it was widely publicised by way of the Internet, eg on Monsanto's Knowledge Centre website.

In response to a critical comment following the case, Prof Trewavas repeatedly denied being the original author of the libel letter. He claimed, 'The letter in question was posted on agbioview and was written by a lady in London.' (Reply by Prof Trewavas) In correspondence with the Ecologist Prof Trewavas further identified the author as an Andura Smetacek.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/rogues050202.cfm Frankenfoods Propagandists- A Rogue's Gallery Trewavas, Anthony (trewavas@ed.ac.uk) Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh Author of : Is Organic Food Really Safe? - published on the Monsanto UK website. This article attempts to continue the myths of E.Coli contamination and allegedly higher levels of mycotoxin in Organic food. See also the following articles on gmfoodnews.com for information about the successful libel case brought by Greenpeace against the Glasgow Herald, which published a letter by Anthony Trewavas : 2 November 2001 - More on Anthony Trewavas and the Glasgow Herald (Private Eye) 11 October 2001 - Pro-GM Royal Society Fellow named as source of libel case allegations (ISIS) 6 October 2001 - Greenpeace victory over GM food claims (The Scotsman UK) Trewavas is a fellow of the Royal Society and is recommended as a press contact for stories relating to GM food and GM crops. Tribe, David (d.tribe@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au) University of Melbourne, Department of Microbiology and Immunology Waites, William (William.Waites@nottingham.ac.uk) University of Nottingham Advisor to CropGen

http://131.104.232.9/agnet/2003/5-2003/agnet_may_8.htm ...Prakash said scientists at Britain¹s leading plant science institute, the John Innes Research institute in Norwich, and individuals like molecular geneticist Professor Anthony Trewavas, of the University of Edinburgh¹s Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, had been influential, by continuously engaging anti-GM activists and debunking their claims for health and environmental risks associated with GM crops. Europe remains the biggest stumbling block to global adoption of GM agriculture ­ even though many of its policies standards on GM foods and crops are not based in science, or are glaringly inconsistent. Zambia¹s recent refusal to accept food-aid shipments of unsegregated maize from the US had been directly attributable to Europe¹s attitude towards GM food imports....

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:PoPaBLSTtCUJ:www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2465/1_31/70910933/p7/article.jhtml%3Fterm%3D+Trewavas+Prakash&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

ORGANICISED CRIME.(anti-organic farming analysis)(Column) The Ecologist, Feb, 2001, by Andy Rowell ...You can also read Trewavas and Alex Avery's anti-organic views on another pro-biotech web discussion site, run by Dr. Prakash, the Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in the USA, at www.agbioview.listbot.com.

SAVING SCIENCE

Understanding Trewavas' and Krebs' attack on organic agriculture is key to the understanding of why apparently independent scientists have taken issue with this form of agriculture. Many of its opponents see the organic movement as standing 'against science', and specifically high tech science, a significant proportion of which is now funded by agrochemical or biotech companies. 'There is a mindset that is wedded to this high tech approach and 'scientism', that science is the answer to everything', says Dr. Ben Mepham, from the Food Ethics Council. For the FSA, this modus operandi is not to be challenged, but to be embraced.

http://www.bcpcbookshop.co.uk/acatalog/downloads/Bawden2001formatted.doc ...What is even more worrying is that yield improvements by conventional breeding appear to be reaching their limits and in recent years there has been a progressive decline in the annual rate of increase in cereal yield, particularly in developing countries, so that at present the annual rate of increase is below the rate of population increase (Trewavas 2001; Prakash 2001)

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Jul/msg00126.html Play GM QUEST 2000: Find The Missing GM Research

...BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS AND INSTITUTIONS --USA-- American Dietetic Association govaffairs@eatright.org Dr C S Prakash (America's GM Ambassador to Europe) prakash@tusk.edu American Society for Microbiology. -Janet Shoemaker, Media Information Contact jshoemaker@asmusa.org

--UK-- The Nuffield Foundation Yvonne Melia ymelia@nuffieldfoundation.org Professor Conrad Lichtenstein c.p.lichtenstein@qmw.ac.uk Professor Antony Trewavas, FRS trewavas@ed.ac.uk Meredith Lloyd-Evans mlloydevans@biobridge.co.uk

**Don't forget to ask anyone else who declares that there has been lots of research and monitoring - they just might know where the data has gone.**

***************************************** I'VE FOUND IT!!!!!!! When you are really really sure you have found the missing data send it to: GMQUEST2000@geneticfoodalert.org.uk with the header "I've Found It!!". If the information you have recovered is likely to encourage world citizens to eat up their genetically enhanced dinner and stop asking awkward questions we will send you your personalised "Saviour of the Planet" Certificate. Good luck - and May The Force Be With You :-)

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/80256ad800554549802568ef00326a66?OpenDocument Organic farming and biotechnology debate at Cirencester

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 31 MAY 2000

The Royal College of Agriculture, Cirencester, hosts a debate this Friday (2 June) entitled 'Can agricultural biotechnology live with organic farming?'

Contributors:

Professor C S Prakash - Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research, Tukegee University, Alabama, USA. Member of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology

Patrick Holden - Director of the Soil Association

Professor Anthony Trewavas - Director of the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh

Mark Griffiths - Chartered surveyor, anti-GM campaigner and environment spokesman for the Natural Law Party

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Survey-Scientists-Government.htm Survey of scientists and government ministers exposes complete lack of independent safety testing of GM foods Independent safety tests of Genetically Modified foods have never been carried out ...

...A sample of the scientists, UK government and EU ministers contacted includes (in alphabetical order) :

Dr Channapatna S. Prakash Professor, Plant Molecular Genetics Tuskegee University, Alabama, USA. prakash@tusk.edu ...

Professor Tony Trewavas Edinburgh University, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, UK. Trewavas@ed.ac.uk

=====

 
SANET-MG Archives -- January 2004 (

From: Lion Kuntz
Subject: The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI,
Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI, Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas

--- Joel Gruver wrote: > Hello to all, > > I have pasted below the final section of a letter to > the editor by Anthony > Trewavas that was published in this week's issue of > Nature. > > This letter and its captious statements is clearly > part of an effort to > manipulate public opinion through "full use of > letters to the press". > > See "http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Trewavas.php" for info > about Trewavas. > > A quick review of any data base of agricultural > literature reveals that the > preponderance of scientific evidence does not > support Trewavas' assertions > that "nitrate leaching from well-managed organic and > conventional farms is > effectively identical" or that full adoption of > no-till agriculture is > likely to reduce nitrate leaching by 75%. > > Why do the editors of Nature repeatedly provide > Trewavas with a platform for > his punditry ? > > BTW This weeks issue of Nature also includes a much > more informative letter > to the editor by a group of American agronomists. >

The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI, Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas

The following link has Prof. Anthony Trewavas passing the buck to AgBioWorld for his instigation of Libel, which caused a conviction, fine, and public apology/retraction... http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Trewavas.php

This following link details AgBioView's Prakash's collaboration in the corrupt scheme... http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=106

Addition posts made previously on SANET (in the ARCHIVES) and http://p4p.blogspot.com add further details: http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&P=R17887&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0204&L=sanet-mg&P=R31663&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&P=R16179&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0311&L=sanet-mg&P=R9388&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0311&L=sanet-mg&P=R7119&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0207&L=sanet-mg&P=R14077&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0206&L=sanet-mg&P=R6718&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0202&L=sanet-mg&P=R2178&I=-3

...[Dr C. S.] Prakash is best known for his AgBioWorld campaign, which was launched in January 2000, involving the agbioworld.org website and the heavily-subscribed AgBioView e-mail list, which Prakash personally edits. ...

...As with other aspects of Prakash's campaigning, however, serious questions have been raised over his collaborators, his tactics and, not least, the accuracy of the information that Prakash puts into circulation.

For instance, Prakash is reported as having told a Tanzanian audience that GM 'doubles production' (The Express, Tanzania, Aug 21, 2002). In fact, as University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan has noted: 'Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops'. There is also some evidence for yield losses rather than gains, particularly with the main GM crop in global production.

As with other aspects of Prakash's campaigning, however, serious questions have been raised over his collaborators, his tactics and, not least, the accuracy of the information that Prakash puts into circulation.

For instance, Prakash is reported as having told a Tanzanian audience that GM 'doubles production' (The Express, Tanzania, Aug 21, 2002). In fact, as University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan has noted: 'Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops'. There is also some evidence for yield losses rather than gains, particularly with the main GM crop in global production. ... Aaron deGrassi at the Institute of Development Studies, at the University of Sussex, provides another striking example of the unscientific nature of some Prakash claims. In his report Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa deGrassi notes, 'Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is C.S. Prakash, the influential biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade Representative. Prakash has repeatedly cited [GM] sweet potatoes [in Kenya] as a positive example of the benefits of GM for African countries, but has confessed to having no knowledge of the results of scientific trials in Kenya.'

Prakash told the press in the Philipinnes that GM crops can help reduce farmers' post-harvest losses because 'most genetically-modified crops have longer shelf life'. This is simply untrue. It is possible that Prakash was misreported, but if so he appears to have made no effort to correct the misleading impression created.

Dubious claims are not the only aspect of Prakash's campaign which have led to questions. AgBioWorld presents itself as a mainstream science campaign 'that has emerged from academic roots and values' and which carefully eschews corporate support. Yet according to the annual report (2000) of the Washington-based Competitive Enterpise Institute (CEI), the centre piece of AgBioWorld's campaign - Prakash's declaration supporting the use of GM crops in the developing world - was part of CEI's much wider campaign against 'death by regulation'. The same anti-regulatory CEI campaign has been directed against U.S. government efforts to discourage smoking because, according to the CEI, 'there are things more valuable than health'...

...Recently Prakash has been more open about the fact that Greg Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy at CEI, is a 'co-founder' of AgBioWorld. Conko appears to have a high level of involvement in AgBioWorld. He was at the U.S. government's press conference as an invited guest when it announced its WTO action against the EU. Prakash was the principal orator. He co-authored a Prakash op-ed article supporting the WTO action that appeared in the European Wall Street Journal the same day. On AgBioWorld press releases Conko at the CEI is often a media contact.

CEI has a multi-million dollar budget that comes from corporate sponsors and the Center for Media and Democracy describes it as 'a well funded corporate front'. All of which makes Conko's role in the birth of AgBioWorld somewhat at odds with claims of 'academic roots and values'. ...

...Prakash also shares the antipathy of the extreme right towards those with environmental concerns. Some of the material he has posted on his AgBioView list has accused critics of GM crops of fascism, communism, imperialism, nihilism, murder, corruption, terrorism, and even genocide; as well as of being worse than Hitler and on a par with the mass murderers who destroyed the World Trade Centre.

As the list's editor Prakash has control over what items are included and the prominence each item is given. It is perhaps symptomatic of his editorial approach that on one occasion he headed an AgBioView bulletin with a 'letter' from the Daily Telegraph which had been intended as a satire on strident support for GM crops. Despite the letter proclaiming profit and the public interest to be identical, and labelling the majority of the British people 'instinctive Luddites, sunk in the darkness of medieval superstition', Prakash seems to have been unaware that it was anything other than a commendable letter of support for GM crops (see Paul Ohm).

AgBioWorld's press releases have often aroused controversy. In one instance, a press release issued by Prakash and Conko appeared to imply anti-GM activists had killed 10,000 people in the Indian state of Orissa through their opposition to GM contamination of food aid, when, in fact, those who died were victims of a cyclone. Although the Indian trade and policy analyst Devinder Sharma publicly remonstrated with Prakash over 'the obviously fabricated and mischievous' implications of his press release, no attempt was made to correct the impression it created. (GM food and Orissa - the real story)...

...In April 2002 the Washington Post broke the news that the journal Nature, in an unprecedented move, had apparently disowned the research of UC Berkeley scientists, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, which it had earlier published. Their research had demonstrated the contamination of traditional maize landraces in a remote part of Mexico by GM maize. Prakash has admitted that AgBioWorld 'played a fairly important role in putting public pressure on Nature' (Seeds of dissent). In a fund-raising message put out on his list he went further and claimed AgBioWorld's campaign led directly to the disavowal of the research.

The AgBioView list had taken the lead in promoting and coordinating attacks on the two scientists. The inflammatory series of e-mail attacks that kicked off AgBioView's campaign came from a Mary Murphy and an Andura Smetacek . These e-mails claimed Dr Chapela was politically motivated and that his research could only be understood in the light of his collusion with 'fear-mongering activists' with whom, it was insinuated, he had designed the research. And just how much money was he getting in 'expenses' from the anti-biotech 'industry', Smetacek asked.

Mary Murphy has subsequently been shown to be an e-mail front for Monsanto's PR company, Bivings, while the postings of Andura Smetacek have been traced back directly to Monsanto in St Louis (Monsanto's web of deceit ). In all Prakash posted over 60 of their attacks on his list, and their attacks on Chapela were all placed at the top of his AgBioView bulletins.

Although Prakash claims to have no connections with PR firms or biotech companies, his connections with Monsanto and its PR people have turned out to be much more direct than even the Murphy/Smetacek mails might suggest. An error message received while we were searching the messages in Prakash's AgBioView archive indicated that the AgBioView database was held at the time on Monsanto's PR company's main apollo server. A technical audit which we commissioned of the AgBioWorld.org website also indicated it showed the technical hallmarks of having been designed by Bivings .

The Monsanto fake persona, 'Andura Smetacek', felt able to act in AgBioWorld's name. An online petition, calling for the jailing of the French GM crop protester Jose Bove, stated it had been created by Those who oppose terrorists and support science - this statement was directly linked to agbioworld.org. The writer of the peition was identified as Smetacek. There is no indication that Prakash was not party to this collaboration with a 'corporate phantom'. He was one of the petition's earliest signatories (no. 18 of nearly 300), writing 'Good job! Let Jailbird Jose serve his time and help the humanity!' nterestingly, Jay Byrne, while Monsanto's chief Internet strategist, told a PR publication that he offered advice and information to the AgBioWorld campaign to help the company make its case. There is evidence suggestive of Byrne's involvement in an aggressive Internet strategy that included use of AgBioWorld for corporate PR purposes.

There is much to suggest that CS Prakash's AgBioWorld campaign has since its inception been the product of close collaboration with ideological extremists and others who are paid to promote corporate interests.

 
SANET-MG Archives -- January 2004 (

From: Lion Kuntz
Subject: Part 2, The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI,
Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas
In-Reply-To: <20040109002942.11615.qmail@web11208.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The Enemy Never Sleeps: AgBioView, Prakash, CEI, Corporate Serial Murderers, and Trewas

When I use the term "Corporate Serial Murderers", I am specifically thinking about ANNISTON, ALABAMA, as just one specific example:

http://www.annistonstar.com/news/2002/as-calhoun-0223-ebluemink-2b22u2533.htm Jury rules against Monsanto

By Elizabeth Bluemink Star Environmental Correspondent 02-23-2002

GADSDEN

Plaintiffs in the Monsanto trial achieved an initial victory against the company and its spinoff, Solutia, Friday.

After five hours of deliberation in two days, the Monsanto trial jury reached a verdict shortly after 9 a.m. Friday that Monsanto and Solutia are legally responsible for polluting the Anniston area and people's blood with PCBs.

The Bowie v. Monsanto case, begun in 1996, is far from over, with approximately 3,500 individual claims left to be presented to the Gadsden jury. Several hundred plaintiffs say they are sick from Monsanto's PCBs, but their injury claims will not be presented for at least a month. Moreover, the jury will not award monetary damages to the plaintiffs until the entire trial is over, and that could be several months from now, Calhoun County Circuit Judge Joel Laird told The Star Friday afternoon.

http://www.communityagainstpollution.org/fr_index.html?/monsanto_pfizer.htm Monsanto/Pfizer* and PCBs History

1929 to 2003 - Pfizer's* PCB Tar Baby Trail to Anniston

Through mergers and acquisitions, this history traces the trail of how Pfizer*, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, acquired what the Washington Post describes as "one of the most polluted patches of America," saturated with PCB liability. ...

...Fall 1966 Monsanto hires Mississippi State University biologist Denzel Ferguson to conduct studies around its Anniston plant. Dr. Ferguson arrives with tanks of bluegill fish, caged in cloth containers and submerged at various points along nearby Snow Creek, which runs through the neighborhood. HE REPORTS TO MONSANTO THAT ALL FISH TURNED BELLY-UP WITHIN 10-SECONDS, SPURTING BLOOD AND SHEDDING SKIN AS IF DUNKED INTO BOILING WATER AND THAT "ALL WERE DEAD IN 3 1/2 MINUTES." Mack Finley, a former Ferguson grad student, now an aquatic biologist, said "Their skin would literally slough off, like a blood blister on the bottom of your foot."

Ferguson concludes that the problem is the "extremely toxic" wastewater flowing directly from the Monsanto plant into Snow Creek, and then into the larger Choccolocco Creek, where he noted similar "die-offs." The outflow, he calculated, "would probably kill fish when diluted 1,000 times or so." He warned Monsanto: "Since this is a surface stream that passes through residential areas, it may represent a potential source of danger to children." He urged Monsanto to clean up Snow Creek, and stop dumping untreated waste there. MONSANTO DOES NOT RELEASE THE STUDY FINDINGS.

...1969 Monsanto officials found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. THEY DECIDED IN A WRITTEN MEMO,"THERE IS LITTLE OBJECT IN GOING TO EXPENSIVE EXTREMES IN LIMITING DISCHARGES."

...February 22, 2002 The state court jury rules against Solutia/Monsanto Co./ Pharmacia on 6 counts: negligence, wantonness, trespass, nuisance, suppression and outrage, all stemming from allowing PCBs made at a chemical plant in Anniston, Ala., to get into surrounding land and water and for concealing that fact. See the St. Louis Post Dispatch article.

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/intro.asp The story of Anniston is a cautionary tale. Monsanto's internal documents, many of which are being posted here for the first time for the world to finally see, uncover a shocking story of corporate deception and dangerous secrets. As The Washington Post revealed [Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution" (front page, Jan. 1, 2002) and "In Dirt, Water and Hogs, Town Got Its Fill of PCBs" (Jan. 1, 2002).], Monsanto hid its advanced knowledge of the health effects and vast PCB pollution problems from the public and - most importantly - from its closest neighbors, the people of Anniston. While the documents provide a glimpse into Monsanto's corporate culture, a spokesperson for a Monsanto spin-off corporation, Solutia, has repeatedly asserted that the company is "really pretty proud of what we did" and that Monsanto "did what any company would do, even today."

The Monsanto-Solutia public relations propaganda being used to counter these revelations is replete with assertions that press coverage has been unfair, based on comments from its documents "taken out of context."

Now, the world can read the story of Anniston, in context, and in Monsanto's own words.

The Monsanto documents posted on this website surfaced from a series of lawsuits brought by Anniston residents, including Owens v. Monsanto, 96-CV-440, (N.D. Ala.). The Owens case settled in April 2001 for $43 million dollars. The current case Abernathy v. Monsanto, CV-2001-832 (now called Bowie v. Monsanto), Etowah County Circuit Court, is in trial now. Besides questions of who will pay to clean up Anniston, these court cases, and the documents emerging from them, raise a more contemporary question:

If Monsanto hid what it knew about its toxic pollution for decades, what is the company hiding from the public now?

This question seems particularly important to us as this powerful company asks the world to trust it with a worldwide, high-stakes gamble with the environmental and human health consequences of its genetically modified foods. ...

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/anniston.htm Environmental Justice Case Study:

The People of Anniston, Alabama vs Monsanto

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm Published on Tuesday, January 1, 2002 in the Washington Post Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0106-03.htm Published on Sunday, January 6, 2002 in the St Louis Post-Dispatch Corporate Ethics The Story of Anniston Editorial

THE story of Anniston, Alabama, provides a chilling glimpse of the dark side of corporate culture. Decades ago, the St. Louis-based Monsanto company -- now known as Solutia Inc. -- reaped the benefits of a 40-year monopoly on the production of PCBs, an industrial coolant since outlawed as a pollutant and human health hazard. The Monsanto factory in Anniston discharged so much toxic waste into a nearby creek that fish turned belly-up within 10 seconds. As early as 1970, PCB contamination was also found in wastewater and creeks in Sauget.

Millions of pounds of PCBs were dumped into open-pit landfills. The Washington Post describes what remains of Anniston as "one of the most polluted patches of America."...

http://www.ewg.org/reports/anniston/shelbyletter.html Anniston, Alabama: In-Depth Pollution, Contamination, Betrayal...

http://www.ewg.org/reports/whitman/index.php Groups Want Whitman to Explain How Monsanto Escaped Crackdown for Decades of PCB Pollution

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So, what does this have to do with CEI, for example? Or AgBioWorld/AgBioView? Review these links...

http://www.ecosyn.us/scum02.html "Killer Koch Brothers" and "Competitive Enterprise Institute" google linkages

Addition posts made previously on SANET (in the ARCHIVES) and http://p4p.blogspot.com add further details: http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&P=R17887&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0204&L=sanet-mg&P=R31663&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&P=R16179&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0311&L=sanet-mg&P=R9388&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0311&L=sanet-mg&P=R7119&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0207&L=sanet-mg&P=R14077&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0206&L=sanet-mg&P=R6718&I=-3 http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0202&L=sanet-mg&P=R2178&I=-3

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=81 Competitive Enterprise Institute ... postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. In fact, it is an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business. (PR Watch) ... $100,000 General Operating Support. David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 50,000 General Operating Support David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 50,000 General Operating Support David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 50,000 General Operating Support David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 25,000 General Operating Support David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 10,000 General Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 10,000 General David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 10,000 General David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 10,000 General David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ... $ 10,000 General David H. Koch Charitable Foundation

... $ 25,000 General Operating Support. Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ... $ 95,000 Educational Programs Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ... $ 40,000 Educational Programs Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ... $ 20,000 Educational Programs Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ... $ 35,000 General Program Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ... $ 10,000 General Program Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation



Powered by Blogger