Anger at UK advisers’ biotech links
By Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend
July 13-- Dozens of the British government’s most
influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues have
close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier
of Whitehall documents obtained by the Observer.
Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming, and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA) reveal for the first time the extent of the close
connections between big business and scientists hired to give independent
advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms, own shares
in the companies, or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael
Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned
that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on everything
from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of genetically
modified (GM) crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists’
commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.
• A key member of the committee advising Ministers on the safety
of GM products has received research funding from biotech giants Monsanto
and Syngenta. Professor Phil Mullineaux also works for the John Innes
Center- the GM research center funded by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury;
• More than three-quarters of the members of the committee which
advises Ministers on food safety have direct links to major food companies
and drug giants including Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and Syngenta. Its
chair, Professor Ieuan Hughes, has personal interests in Pharmacia --
which in April was bought by Pfizer to create the biggest drugs company
in the world -- and owns shares in BP Amoco where his daughter works.
• A former deputy chairman of the committee which examines the
safety of pesticides, Professor Alan Boobis, received research funding
from GlaxoSmithKline for his department at Imperial College but never
declared it. Other members of this committee have links to agrochemical
firms like Aventis, Astra Zeneca and Monsanto. The current head of the
body, Professor David Coggon, was a close friend of Esso’s chief
medical officer and received a gift from the oil giant.
• The chair of a group examining air quality in Britain, Professor
Stephen Holgate, is a consultant to drug giant Merck. His university
department has received grants from Glaxo and Astra Zeneca. Others work
for biotech and drug giants like Novartis and Schering-Plough.
• Almost three out of four members of the committee advising Ministers
on the cancer risks of chemicals in food and other consumer products
either own shares in or work for major biotech and drug corporations.
While the scientists openly declare their interests, Meacher was so
exasperated by the structure of committees advising him that he personally
intervened on a number of occasions in an attempt to get more environmentally
friendly members on them.
Last week it emerged that Whitty was so alarmed about the industry links
on the committee advising him on the safety of farming chemicals that
he broke official rules and hired a toxicologist, Dr. Vyvyan Howard,
who is known to be more sensitive to environmental issues.
In one internal DEFRA document, Meacher scribbled his concerns in the
margins: ‘I do not agree with this. No member of the Advisory Committee
on Pesticides should have current commercial considerations because
this fundamentally undermines their integrity and judgement.’
Alongside his comments, a government official admits that Whitty shares
his concerns and will be writing to the relevant parties to make his
concerns clear.
Last night Meacher told the Observer: “These committees are absolutely
critical. They give definitive advice which Ministers at their peril
seek to overturn. I constantly argued that nobody with significant commercial
links should be allowed to sit on these bodies. It is vital they are
truly independent.”
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: “It is now
crystal clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart
of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent.
How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice is coming
from those with vested interest in the biotech or pharmaceutical industry?”
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members’ interests.
He went on: “DEFRA has full confidence in the capability of independent
advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals
with to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.”
The Observer contacted many of the Government’s scientific advisers,
who denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality
of their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should
declare, summed up their view: “It is almost inevitable that any
scientists of international repute will have some current or past links
with industry.
“To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own
a few shares in a company is ridiculous.”
Source: Observer (UK)
Windpower for one in six UK homes by
2010
July 14-- A huge expansion of offshore wind farms could
see more than 3 million British households running on green energy by
the end of the decade, the government announced today.
The trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, unveiled plans for
a second round of offshore wind licensing, which could see hundreds
of turbines powering one in six households by 2010.
The government increased its commitment to provide ten percent of Britain’s
energy from renewable sources after a huge amount of interest from companies
three years ago, which led to 17 proposals to develop offshore wind
farms.
The first project -- involving 30 turbines off the north Wales coast
-- is expected to start producing power later this year, but the industry
told ministers it wanted the next generation of wind farms to be ten
times bigger.
The wind farms will all be sited about five miles from the coast, and
will take account of any areas of special interest, such as bird sanctuaries.
They could consist of up to 300 turbines each, but Hewitt said they
would be far enough offshore not to be noticed from the coast.
“This announcement is good for the environment, good for Britain’s
energy needs, and good for jobs,” she said, adding that up to 20,000
positions could be created.
“We are confident that with this new round of offshore wind farms
we will indeed, we may well be able ... to generate electricity for
about one in six of Britain’s households. That is twice the amount
of electricity that Scotland currently uses.”
Firms will have three months to submit tenders, and leases will then
be awarded for new wind farms in three areas -- the north-west from
the Solway Firth to north Wales, Greater Wash off East Anglia, and the
Thames estuary east of Essex.
Construction of the farms is expected to begin in the next few years.
The British Wind Energy Association welcomed the announcement, and published
a new opinion poll showing that three out of four electricity bill payers
supported the increased use of wind power.
Its chairman, Alan Moore, said that the UK had the best offshore wind
resource in Europe.
“This is a truly historic moment for the UK. Cleaner electricity
and tens of thousands of jobs are there to be won,” he said.
Environmental pressure groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth also
praised the announcement.
But the shadow trade secretary, Tim Yeo, criticized the proposals as
“wishful thinking” which had “replaced an energy policy
in the government’s mind.”
“While we all want more electricity to be generated from all forms
of renewable sources, offshore wind requires enormous capital investment
and carries high transmission costs,” he said.
“Claiming that one home in six could be supplied with electricity
generated by offshore wind power sets a new standard of absurdity.”
Source: Guardian (UK)
Endangered Species of the Southern US:
The Wood Stork
A weekly column by Shawn Gaynor
The Wood Stork, like many endangered species, is an indicator
of the overall health of the habitat that it lives in. Once the wood
stork occupied wetlands across the South-eastern US, but by the 1930’s
the population had been drastically reduced and was estimated at 30,000
breeding pairs. By the 1970’s an estimated 5,000 pairs have bred
each year, a population level that the species continues to hover at
today.
The storks need very specific conditions to feed and bred within their
wetland homes, and the human alteration of wetlands, has made it difficult
for the birds to find the right conditions. Additionally, man-made levees,
canals, and floodgates have greatly changed natural water regimes in
south Florida.
Feeding areas in south Florida, where the storks bred, have decreased
by about 35 percent since 19OO due to man’s alteration of wetlands.
The storks feed on fish, and lots of them. During breeding they need
over four hundred pounds of fish per nest. The babies are fed up to
15 times a day for the first eight weeks.
In order to catch this quantity of fish pairs breed when waters are
dropping, isolating fish in high concentrations, making hunting easy.
With flood control in their breeding grounds, what once was a natural
cycle of rising and falling waters in the wetlands of south Florida
has now become an artificially controlled process, and not one that
favors the birds.
As fish populations have also become reduced in wetland areas, the birds
become more hard-pressed.
This presents a challenge for protecting the species. Even in areas
where rookies (colony based nesting sites) are protected, lower then
historic fish population levels can make breeding unsuccessful. This
is particularly true in south Florida where rookeries were repeated
nesting failures have occurred despite protection of the rookeries.
Wood storks hunt by a specialized technique known as grope-feeding or
tacto-location. Feeding occurs in shallow, where a stork probes with
the bill partly open. When a fish touches the bill it quickly snaps
shut. The average response time of this reflex is 25 milliseconds, making
it one of the fastest reflexes known in vertebrates.
In addition to food pressure the birds will only nest where they feel
safe from intrusion. The storks will leave their nests and never return
if they are frightened. For this reason, it is important never to disturb
them.
According to the US Fish and Wildlife service, “At a minimum, for
continued survival of the United States population of wood storks, currently
occupied nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat must be protected from
further loss or degradation.”
DESCRIPTION: Wood storks are large water birds that stand
2-4 feet tall and weigh 7-10 pounds. They have wingspans as wide as
5 1/2 feet. They are mostly white, but have a black tail and many black
feathers under their wings. Storks are related to ibises, herons and
flamingos. They have no feathers on their head and neck, so the black
skin underneath shows up. This makes wood storks the only tall water
birds with black, bald heads. Since they have no muscles attached to
their voice box, they are very quiet birds. Every now and then they
will croak like a bullfrog, or hiss like a snake. Wood storks have long,
skinny legs and a long, curved beak.
