points out the following:
Whilst they don't have any exact info about who's funding them (to the tune of $4m in 2000!), the "Links to other organisations" and "WLF Clients" includes many of our old friends such as:
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute
National Food Processors Association
Looking at the litigation in which they've been involved shows this:
"J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc On June
15, 2001, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court
to find that genetically modified seed qualifies for patent protection
under federal law. In its brief, WLF argued that the Intellectual
Property Clause of the Constitution contains no mandatory purpose that limits Congressís power to issue patents. WLF also argued that giving federal patent law an artificially narrow reading is the wrong way to ensure a reasonable fit between constitutional limits on Congressís power to issue patents (assuming that any exist) and the actual issuance of patents. WLF further argued that under Supreme Court precedents construing federal patent law, Congress need not expressly classify genetically modified seed as patentable in order to ensure such legal protection. And WLF pointed out that several objections against the patenting of genetically modified seed are irrelevant. WLF filed its brief on behalf of itself and the Allied Educational Foundation."
4. Gimme some relief!
for a bit of light relief why not visit the 'Patrick Moore is a Big Fat Liar' website: http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/
or remind yourself of what Alan Simpson MP had to say recently about the biotech industry
29 November 2001, Report in Hansard of question to Leader of the House, House of Commons from Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South):
"May we have a debate on GM contamination?
My right hon. Friend will be aware of this morning's news that contaminated maize has turned up in a remote area of Mexico that is separated by some 60 miles and several years from the last recorded GM plantings in California.
Given that the UK has paltry separation distances, that UK farmers cannot get insurance against GM contamination and that we have found ourselves consistently blocked from having a GM producer liability regime by the industry that wants to pursue the trials, could we have an urgent debate in order to dispel the public myth and criticism that UK policy is increasingly either in the pay or the pockets of a biotech industry that is currently driven by a bunch of crooks and shysters?"
ngin bulletin archive