Genetic Engineering

In a move that has angered biotech opponents, the United Nations Development Programme says that many developing countries may reap great benefits from genetically modified foodstuffs. Grassroots groups, development charities and environmentalists in more than 50 countries described the UNDP's report as "simplistic," "pandering to the GM industry" and "failing to take into account the views of the poor."

In San Diego the annual meeting of BIO, the official trade and lobby association of the genetic engineering industry, is facing huge demonstrations from family farmers, consumers, environmentalist and others outraged at US policies that have forced untested, unlabeled GE foods onto the market. Industry front groups including the American Council on Science and Health and the Guest Choice Network are viciously attacking the real citizens groups in news releases and on websites such as www.guestchoice.com.

The industry-funded American Council on Science and Health is warning journalists to beware of accepting misleading information presented by activists protesting the Bio 2001 conference being held in San Diego June 24-27. ACSH wants journalists to report on what it views as the sound science used by the biotech industry to demonstrate the safety of biofoods.

Supporters of genetically modified foods frequently claim that their position is based on "sound science," in contrast to the "junk science" practiced by anti-GM activists. Their definition of "sound science" is rooted in a set of norms for appropriate scientific behavior. A true scientist, the GM defenders say, would only argue his case with great care on the basis of sound, peer-reviewed data open to critical scrutiny. In reality, however, these standards of scientific probity are only demanded from perceived critics, while anything goes with scientists who support GM foods.