This came too late to post in time. Did anybody see the first part of this 'drama'?

How did it compare in impact and accuracy with the likes of 'Edge of Darkness'?

Timely, considering Blair's recent comments?

mango
 http://www.environment.org.uk/activist/

'Cherie Blair, to be sure, insists on organic, GM-free food for her children, but her party is happy to slum it when the children of the poor need to be fed.' - Nick Cohen - Sunday September 9, 2001 - The Observer (London)

----------------------

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/tv_and_radio/newsid_2030000/2030297.stm

BBC Friday, 7 June, 2002, 05:00 GMT 06:00 UK

FIELDS OF GOLD: Drama taps into GM debate

A new drama starts on BBC One on Saturday about a genetically modified crop gone wrong.

Fields of Gold was co-written by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger. He explains what intrigued him about the issue and how the programme provoked a backlash even before being screened.

ALAN RUSBRIDGER -- Unprepared for opposition to script
You probably know that antibiotic resistance in humans and animals is causing great concern in the scientific, veterinary and medical communities.

Some doctors fear we're one drug away from a public health disaster.

But did you also know that biotech companies have been in the widespread habit of using antibiotic resistance marker genes in plant trials? Reassured? Alarmed? Interested?

Most of us do not spend our lives reading scientific journals or the reports of parliamentary select committees on such matters.

PANDORA'S BOX

The latest advances in biotechnology are way beyond our comprehension.

The speed at which things have moved since the first genetically modified plant was approved for marketing in May 1994 is bewildering.

Most people, I suspect, have very mixed feelings about it all.

Some may hope, or believe, that these developments have the potential to feed the world and, perhaps, save the world.

Others may feel that it is all happening without proper debate or democratic scrutiny and that there is at least the possibility that we are opening a Pandora's box which may greatly harm the world.

ANNA FRIEL : Actress Anna Friel plays a press photographer
Some may even hold both these thoughts in their heads simultaneously. I'm certainly in that camp.

One day (coincidentally while reading the Day of the Triffids to one of my
daughters) it occurred to me that between those two polarities - saving
the world and harming the world - there is great dramatic potential.

What would happen if something went seriously wrong with a GM crop trial?

We have in this country a prime minister who dismisses sceptics about the
new technologies as Luddites and a science minister with an extensive
personal and financial interest (held in trust) in biotechnology.

OPPOSING VIEWS

The big biotech and pharmaceutical companies are notoriously rich and
powerful and, say their critics, increasingly sophisticated in
discrediting those who threaten their vested interests.

On the other side you have a green movement which, in the view of many
scientists and businessmen, plays fast and loose with the facts and which
will never concede the benefits of the new technologies.

They may not have the resources of the big companies and governments, but
environmental pressure groups have much credibility with the public and
have learned to make formidable use of the internet and e-mail in order to
get their point of view across.

In the middle you have the media, trying to make sense of a tidal wave of
information and disinformation.

MAX BEESLEY: Max Beesley plays the farmer at the centre of the drama
All this struck us - my co-writer, Ronan Bennett, and me - as
being fertile ground for a television drama.

We pitched the idea to the BBC and some 18 months later - holidays,
weekends and the odd late night of research and writing - the scripts were
ready.

Nothing quite prepared us for the orchestrated pre-emptive strike on the
series from some scientists.

It is not often that such a concerted effort is made to destroy the
credibility of a drama in advance.

The question is, why?

One answer is contained in the script itself.

An awful lot hangs on the outcome of the current trials in Britain and
elsewhere of genetically modified crops.

It is difficult to think of any other period in science when so much was
at stake.

'FRANKENFOOD'

At the most elevated level, pro-GM scientists and not a few politicians
would argue that the entire future of the human race depends on this
technology.

They sincerely believe that, without biotechnology, the human race will be
incapable of feeding itself within a generation or two.

At a more pragmatic level, billions upon billions of dollars stand to be
made or lost on this technology.

The last thing some of these businesses want is a searching public debate.

Since this is one of the themes of the drama it is not without irony that
some people have gone to such lengths to rubbish it in advance.

The second answer lies in the nature of drama itself.

Because these issues are so complex to grasp they are difficult to project
journalistically.

Viewers will make up their own minds after seeing both programmes

ALAN RUSBRIDGER
Some editors chart an easy course in dubbing anything to do with
GM produce "Frakenfood".

But the nitty gritty business of trying to produce balanced and detailed
coverage of the science is often rather dull.

It does not often produce heated discussion around the water cooler.

A peak time drama on BBC One is entirely different.

If FIELDS OF GOLD is making some people nervous it will be because it has
taken the bare bones of the scientific predicament and projected it
dramatically in a way which will - if it succeeds - engage a mass audience
and make them question the issues behind it.

That is an alarming prospect for those who would rather have restricted
this debate to a small elite.

It explains why Monsanto was offered early copies of the drama and why
people at the highest levels of government are known to be anxious about
the fall-out.

X-FILES

And it explains why the Science Media Centre, extensively backed by the
biotech and pharmaceutical industries, mimicked some of the clumsiest spin
techniques of New Labour in trying to discredit it in advance.

Viewers will make up their own minds after seeing both programmes.

As a journalist straying for the first time from the printed word, it has
been a fascinating illustration of the power of drama, even in prospect.

And also a slightly dispiriting view of the willingness of one or two
fellow journalists to pursue their own agendas, or simply fall for the
easy lure of spin.

Still, it would be churlish not to be grateful for the publicity,
including 3,000 words so far in the Telegraph alone.

To be compared with Star Wars, John Wyndham and the X Files may not be quite what we had in mind, but it may have the unintended consequence of making people actually tune in.

----------------------------------------------------------
If only!! Now hear this:-

-------
Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin),
 http://www.ngin.org.uk


1. Monsanto's PR firm admits involvement in e-mail campaign

2. EXCERPT from BBC2's Newsnight programme broadcast 7th
June


1. Monsanto's PR firm admits involvement in e-mail campaign

The Bivings Group, a Washington DC-based PR firm contracted to Monsanto,
has admitted involvement in an internet campaign involving smears against
scientists and other biotech industry critics.

Up till now The Bivings Group has always responded with total denial to
any media enquiries about its role in the dirty tricks campaign detailed
in a series of recent articles (see below).

This was only official comment the company had made to journalists:

"Statement on the Ecologist story entitled "Amaizing Disgrace"

This author and publication have a long history of making these types of
baseless claims. The claims made in the Ecologist story, and the
subsequent story that appeared in the Guardian, are false. From our
perspective, this piece merits no further discussion."

However, under pressure from the BBC's news and current affairs programme,
Nesnight, Bivings has now admitted for the first time that at least one of
the emails in question 'did come from someone "working for Bivings" or
"clients using our services"'.

The vaguely worded admission as well as destroying Bivings already damaged
credibility on this issue, is certain to raise yet more questions.

For example, the statement totally fails to explain how the e-mail could
have been sent from the accounts in question without the person concerned
having any responsibility for more than 60 other e-mails known to have
been sent from the same accounts.

The Bivings' admission also offers no explanation of its relatiponship
with agbioworld.org or of its involvement in other aspects of the internet
dirty tricks campaign that have been exposed, such as the fake Center for
Food and agricultural Research (cffar.org), which labels Monsanto's
critics "terrorists" and contains fabricated claims.

Finally, by including the phrase "clients using our services" in the
admission, Bivings appears to be directly implicating the one client most
directly relevant to the e-mails in question - biotech giant Monsanto. Up
till now Monsanto, like Bivings, has issued flat denials in response to
media enquiries about the dirty tricks campaign against its critics.
Clarification from Monsanto of its precise role in the affair is now
urgently needed.

You can read more about the dirty tricks campaign in the following:

CORPORATE GHOSTS
There's a web of deceit over GM food, says George Monbiot
-The Guardian, 29 May 2002
 http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit7.html

THE FAKE PERSUADERS
Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the
internet, says George Monbiot -The Guardian, 14 May 2002
 http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit4.html

KERNELS OF TRUTH
Virulent criticisms were anything but academic
- The East Bay Express, 29 May 2002
 http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit8.html

AMAIZING DISGRACE
A dirty tricks campaign leads straight to Monsanto's PR company
- The Ecologist, May 2002
 http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit2.html

SEEDS OF DISSENT
Anti-GM scientists are facing widespread assualts on their
credibility. Andy Rowell investigates who is behind the attacks - Big
Issue, 15-21 April 2002  http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit3.html

SCIENTISTS IN A SPIN
How scientists have become embroiled in a PR dirty tricks campaign -
letter to The Guardian, 16 May 2002
 http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit5.html

ALTERING NATURE
Exchange of letters with the editor of the science journal Nature -
The Guardian, 15, 20 & 24 May 2002  http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit6.html
--- EXCERPT from BBC2's Newsnight programme broadcast last night (7th
June):

As soon as Chapela's paper was published attacks on him started to appear
on the Internet. His supporters suspected a PR company called the Bivings
group - which helps Monsanto with its Internet work - was using a new
technique called viral marketing. On its website, Biving advised: "there
are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let
the audience know that your organisation is directly involved".

Chapela's supporters claim to have tracked down examples of messages that purport to have come from concerned individuals but appear to originate from Bivings computers. Bivings told us one email did come from someone "working for Bivings" or "clients using our services", but they deny running a secret campaign.