Part 4: SLAPP suits in biotechnolgy
Article by Prof. Joe Cummins
Emeritus Professor of Genetics
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
22 August 2007.
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defence that they abandon their criticism. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. One marker of a SLAPP suit is whether the costs outweigh the claimed damages by a large amount: for example, damages of a few hundred dollars and costs in the tens of thousands. Lawyers are thought to be particularly conflicted in SLAPP suits, since a marginal case can lead to high legal fees, and lawyers are encouraged to run up costs by their clients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP).
Canada and the United States have had long experience with SLAPP litigation and several states have legislated against the practice. SLAPP suits have been employed all over Canada; and in British Columbia, the Protection of Public Participation Act came into effect in April 2001, but the provincial government enacting the bill was defeated and in August 2001 the bill was repealed by the newly elected pro-corporation government. It was feared that the bill was causing hardship to a large number of lawyers who depended on the fees flowing from SLAPP suits.
Now it appears that the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have employed the SLAPP technique in Ireland and Great Britain to try to silence the opponents of GM food in those countries. Canada has committed to GM crop production and is a major producer of GM crops after the United States. The action by the Canadian Agriculture Ministry should be a lesson for all organizations critical of GM crops. This is the Ministry's way of promoting GM crops by intimidating the critics of the GM crops, a negative promotion device aimed not at their citizens but at citizens of other countries.
The GM-free Ireland Network is the subject of on-going attack by a biotech industry lobbyist called Shane Morris, who is a paid agent of the Canadian Government! Shane Morris is a Senior Consumer Analyst at the Consumer Analysis Section of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He has managed a website that attacked opponents of GM crops in his home country and in great Britain as well as high ranking European Union politicians whom he believes are soft on GM crops.
Morris recently threatened legal action against third party internet service providers who carry comments critical of him. The main issue appears to be an article: "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn", D.A. Powell, K. Blaine, S. Morris and J. Wilson, British Food Journal, Volume 105 Number 10, 2003, pp. 700-713, which won the British Food Journal's Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper in 2004.
Powell et al. reported consumers at a farm store showed a strong preference for GM sweet corn over non-GM corn. In the paper the choice appears straightforward - the bins were "fully labelled" either "genetically engineered Bt sweet corn" or "Regular sweet-corn". The only other written information mentioned that might have influenced the preference of customers was lists of the chemicals used on each type of corn, and pamphlets "with background information on the project." However, according to Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw, when he visited the store on several occasions during the data collection period, the sign above the non-GM corn bin was headed, "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" Above the Bt-corn bin the equivalent sign was headed: "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn". Although Powell et al. describe in some detail the care taken to avoid biasing consumer choice during the research, there is no mention in their paper of the corn being labelled "wormy" or "quality". Laidlaw includes a photograph of the "wormy" corn sign in his book. The photograph has been reproduced online: http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=72&page=1
The signs are not the only instance of methodological bias observed by Laidlaw but not reported by Powell et al. A number of fact sheets promoting genetic engineering were available at the farm store - some authored by industry lobby groups - but there was no balancing information from critics. Laidlaw also reports that on one occasion the lead researcher demonstrated to him his ability to influence a customer's responses in favour of Bt corn. The customer, who had bought non-Bt corn before Powell talked to him, told Laidlaw he would buy GM corn the next time he was at the store. Such interventions are of particular significance.
I objected to the study because its results and methods did not appear to be reported fully and truthfully. The Editor - Prof. Griffith - noted in his Editor's note (British Food Journal Vol : 108 Issue: 8,2006) that "A common misconception is that science and research are about facts" but published my comments and the reply of the senior author of the study who acknowledged the methodology but argued that full reporting was not relevant. He commented "Joe Cummins, and others on the internet, have accused me, and my co-investigators, of academic fraud and bias, because a sign sitting atop the bin of regular sweet corn asked, 'Would you eat wormy sweet corn?'"
I do not recollect using those terms on the internet and they certainly did not appear in my comment published in the British Food Journal. That comment by the senior author appeared aimed at justifying the methodology used in his study by attacking me personally even though his bias is clearly admitted in his defence of the methodology. Even the journal editor seems to believe that bias is just peachy so long as the cause needs to be fought for.
Turning back to Shane Morris and the Canadian SLAPP suite aimed at third party service providers: I commented to GM Free Ireland "I think it is worth reminding people that Shane is a bureaucrat in Agriculture Canada and his views are supported by that Ministry. It is very clear that the Canadian government hired Shane and promote him in the Ministry as a way of promoting GM crops. Shane's attacks may seem like sheer lunacy to most of us but the Canadian bureaucrats think that he is brilliant in damaging the detractors of GM crops. I expect that they will hire other nationals who will attack those opposed to GM crops in their home countries." Using third party SLAPP suits the Canadian Ministry seeks to coerce and intimidate critics of GM around the world.
What should be done about government bureaucracies who wish to influence the world using third party SLAPP suits to beat down critics and prevent them from using the internet?
|
