http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4848797-103681,00.html

Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi
Guardian (London) Saturday January 31,

Monsanto, the world's largest genetically modified seed company, has been
awarded patents on the wheat used for making chapati - the flat bread
staple of northern India.

The patents give the US multinational exclusive ownership over Nap Hal, a
strain of wheat whose gene sequence makes it particularly suited to
producing crisp breads.

Another patent, filed in Europe, gives Monsanto rights over the use of Nap
Hal wheat to make chapatis, which consist of flour, water and salt.

Environmentalists say Nap Hal's qualities are the result of generations of
farmers in India who spent years crossbreeding crops and collective, not
corporate, efforts should be recognised.

Monsanto, activists claim, is simply out to make "monopoly profits" from
food on which millions depend. Monsanto inherited a patent application
when it bought the cereals division of the Anglo-Dutch food giant Unilever
in 1998, and the patent has been granted to the new owner.

Unilever acquired Nap Hal seeds from a publicly funded British plant gene
bank. Its scientists identified the wheat's combination of genes and
patented them as an "invention".

Greenpeace is attempting to block Monsanto's patent, accusing the company
of "bio-piracy".

"It is theft of the results of the work in cultivation made by Indian
farmers," said Dr Christoph Then, Greenpeace's patent expert after a
meeting with the European Commission in Delhi.

"We want the European Patent Office to reverse its decision. Under
European law patents cannot be issued on plants that are normally
cultivated, but there are loopholes in the legislation."

A spokesperson for Monsanto in India denied that the company had any plan
to exploit the patent, saying that it was in fact pulling out of cereals
in some markets.

"This patent was Unilever's. We got it when we bought the company.
Really this is all academic as we are exiting from the cereal business in
the UK and Europe," said Ranjana Smetacek, Monsanto's public affairs
director in India.

Campaigners in India say that there are concerns that people might end up
paying royalties to Monsanto for making or selling chapatis.

"The commercial interest is that Monsanto can charge people for using the
wheat or take a cut from its sale," said Devinder Sharma, who runs the
Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in Delhi.

The potential market in developing countries is huge. Rice production in
India alone exceeds that of the American maize market.

The number of patents relating to rice issued every year in the US has
risen from less than 100 in the mid-1990s to more than 600 in 2000.

Mr Sharma says there is little hope of the Indian government intervening
to prevent the chapati being patented by Monsanto.

It simply cannot afford the legal fees, having spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars fighting a US decision to grant a Texan company a patent on
basmati rice in 1997.

That case became a cause celebre for the anti-globalisation protests of
the 1990s, and was only settled when the patent was watered down.

"The ministry of commerce sent a circular out last year which said that
there is no money to fund these cases any more," said Mr Sharma.

http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2004/01/18/rtr1216109.html
Monsanto exits Argentina soy biz despite soy boom
Reuters, 01.18.04,
By Hilary Burke

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - Soy's star may
be rising in Argentina but Monsanto Co., the U.S.
pioneer in agricultural biotechnology, has stopped selling soybean
seeds in the world's No. 3 producer, because it can't make a buck.

The company says a huge black market for the genetically modified
seeds makes it impossible to recoup its investments.

Until that changes, Monsanto Argentina said, it won't sell
new-and-improved soy seeds or carry out research to develop new
varieties tailored to local conditions.

The move has fueled fears that farmers will lose out on biotech
advances and new seed varieties, and that other businesses may pull
out of Argentina -- which has been struggling to recover from an
economic collapse that sparked the world's biggest debt default in
2002.

"The last thing you want to see in your country is
investment in research being cut off. That undermines the future of
the whole agriculture industry," said Arturo Vierheller, a former
agriculture department official.

Monsanto told Reuters it stopped selling the seeds last month.

GM soybeans, which are popular with farmers because they save
money on herbicides, have become Argentina's top crop and biggest source of
foreign currency, despite opposition from consumers and
environmentalists, especially in Europe, who demand more safety tests.

The European Union effectively banned the growth and importation of
biotech foods and crops in 1998, although some GM soybean varieties
had already been approved and can still be imported.

The sale of GM soybean seeds is still illegal in Brazil -- the world's
No. 2 producer after the United States -- but the government is
allowing farmers to plant GM soybeans during this season until a
broader law to regulate GM crops is passed.

Officials say Brazilian farmers are planting seeds
originally smuggled in from Argentina and Paraguay.

Some 50 percent to 60 percent of all soybean seeds in Argentina are
bought on the black market, said Federico Ovejero, a spokesman for
Monsanto Argentina.

Seeds from soybeans, like wheat, can be culled from newly planted
plants and reused without any significant drop in the yields of
soybeans.

Argentine farmers don't have to pay royalties to Monsanto when
replanting its GM Roundup Ready seeds due to a widely exploited
exemption in the law. And many farmers cull the seeds just to sell
them illegally, Ovejero said.

This black market is known as the "bolsa blanca," because farmers and
farm-goods stores sell the saved seeds in large white bags that have
no labels.

Monsanto Argentina said it will concentrate instead on Roundup Ready
corn, which the government has yet to approve, and new varieties of
sunflower seeds and sorghum.

Although these crops have been losing ground to soy, their seeds
cannot be reused without risking wildly variable yields.

That means each year, farmers will have to buy new seeds --
presumably from authorized seed dealers.

"A SHAME"

"It is a shame for us to be putting on hold such technology as Insect
protected soybeans," Monsanto Argentina said, referring to
insect-resistant seeds developed especially for Latin America.

Monsanto had about 15 percent market share in the soybean seed
business, industry sources say. Now that it has withdrawn, just three
major companies remain -- Netherlands-based Nidera and Argentina's
Asociados Don Mario and Relmo.

But Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, Missouri, is still the
world's leader in biotech crop development. All other seed companies
pay Monsanto to sell soy containing its Roundup Ready gene, designed
to resist harm from its top-selling Roundup weed killer.

"The biggest risk is that Argentina loses access not only to
biotechnology but to improved varieties generally ... This will mean
lower yields and could also increase plants' susceptibility to new
diseases," said Gerardo Bartolome, president of the Argentine
Association for the Protection of New Plant Varieties.

Farmers could lose up to $78 million a year due to lower yields if
they are unable to buy new soybean seed varieties, Bartolome said.

Monsanto does not rule out re-entering the market, however, if
government efforts to combat illegal seed sales bear fruit.

The agriculture department said it aims to reduce the number of
farmers saving and replanting seeds by more strictly defining an
exemption in the law, which was originally meant to protect small
farmers.

"I think the government is aware that if this doesn't get solved, the
country and the farm sector are in serious trouble, but no concrete
action has been taken yet," Bartolome said.

Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service

http://truthout.org/docs_04/012704G.shtml
http://truthout.org/docs_04/printer_012704G.shtml

What's the Beef?
By Tim King
The Christian Science Monitor

Tuesday 22 January 2004

The FDA weighs whether to allow meat and milk from cloned animals to enter
the food supply. Opponents fear the impact.

LONG PRAIRIE, MINN. - In the beginning, there was Dolly. Since then, one
by one, beef and dairy cattle, pigs, and goats have joined the Scottish
sheep in a 21st century ark of cloned farm animals.

But while cloned animals have become common in the lab, they have yet to
make it to the dinner table. That could change if the Food and Drug
Administration overturns a ban on the consumption of cloned livestock. In
a few years, their meat or milk could become a regular staple on America's
menu.

The results could be significant: higher-quality meat and dairy
products, foods engineered to be more nutritious, and possibly lower
grocery prices, thanks to the arrival of more productive animals. The
infant farm cloning industry is chomping at the bit to commercialize its
research.

But consumer and animal advocates worry about the impact that cloning
could have on human health, not to mention the animals themselves. There
is no evidence "that food from cloned animals is safe," said Carol Tucker
Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America in a statement. "The FDA has
only limited data on the composition of food from cloned animals, and
there have been no feeding studies to see the impact of long-term
consumption. All of the data come from groups who support animal cloning."

So far, the signs for the industry look positive. Last October, the FDA
said that food products from cloned livestock were essentially the same as
those from conventional animals. It is working on a risk-assessment plan
that, for now, indicates there is little risk to humans who eat cloned
livestock. The release of the final assessment has yet to be scheduled.

Only a few hundred cloned cattle currently live in the United States,
mostly on research farms, so a repeal of the ban would have little
immediate effect on the food supply. However, dropping the barrier would
dismantle a hurdle that has kept the industry in the starting blocks,
proponents say.

"There's no question that the voluntary ban ... is holding the
development of this business back," says Don Coover, a rancher from
Galesburg, Kan., and owner of SEK Genetics, a cattle-genetics company with
cloning partnerships. He has financed several cloning projects, including
six clones of the high-performance bull, Full Flush. Full Flush's calves
are healthy 2-year-olds and have increased in value more than five times
their original production cost of $20,000, he says.

Cloned cattle like them could be used to breed uniform, high-quality
offspring. "You could make animals with less fatty meat or more nutritious
milk," says Lisa Dry, communications director of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization in Washington. "Or they could be more resistant to
diseases, which could make them safer for humans to eat."

Mr. Coover, who sells bull semen for artificial insemination, says there
is a growing demand for that product from top-quality bulls. "There's
quite a lot of interest in buying semen from the clones, but we're telling
people that we're not going to do that," he says. "It's the obligation of
the FDA to make a decision that is in the best interest of ... the
producers and the broader public."

The FDA's preliminary decision, which is part of the formal
risk-assessment process and thus not final, is based on findings from a
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report. Although the NAS study,
commissioned by the FDA, said food from cloned animals was probably safe,
it did express reservations.

"Limited sample size, health and production data, and rapidly changing
cloning protocols make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the
safety of milk, meat, or other products from ... cloned [animals]," the
NAS reported in August 2002.

But with cloning technology clipping along at a thoroughbred's pace, the
FDA decided last fall to release 11 pages of its risk assessment, which
considers cows, sheep, pigs, and goats. "Food products derived from animal
clones and their offspring are likely to be as safe to eat as food from
their non-clone counterparts, based on all the evidence available," FDA
officials reported in October. "These scientific findings also showed that
healthy adult clones are virtually indistinguishable from their
conventional counterparts."

However, the FDA has acknowledged that it will explore animal-welfare
issues. Research has shown that the cloning process severely affects the
genetic makeup of animals and can cause clones to suffer. The Humane
Society of the United States, for one, is deeply concerned about the
ethical implications of cloning.

"Deaths and deformities in cloned animals are the norm, not the
exception, and these studies make plain once again that these creatures
are suffering terribly in the process," says Wayne Pacelle, senior vice
president of HSUS. "There is no societal value to this. This is just
science run amok in the service of the further industrialization of
agriculture."

The main method of cloning involves taking the nucleus from a cell of
the animal to be cloned and placing it in an egg that has had its nucleus
removed. A University of Missouri study on cloned pigs, according to HSUS,
reported that "out of 10 born, 5 died or were destroyed by researchers due
to defects such as heart failure, lameness, and anemia."

Jorge Piedrahita and researchers at North Carolina State University's
College of Veterinary Medicine announced last month that they had cloned
two Duroc pigs. "Certain genes were dis-regulated or damaged," Mr.
Piedrahita reported.

And in 2002 Rudolf Jaenisch, a researcher at MIT, reported that cloned
mice have hundreds of abnormal genes. Some have a genetic tendency toward
obesity.

The NAS has pointed out that ill clones would probably be more stressed
as they reach maturity, and it suggested the animals might shed more
pathogens in their manure. That would increase the potential of
contaminated carcasses entering processing plants and, later, the food
supply.

"While some forms of animal cloning may have inherent benefits, others
are hard to justify," said the Consumer Federation's Ms. Foreman in a
statement. "The FDA needs to make, or ask another government agency to
make, some decisions about appropriate uses of cloning."

We are continually asked to take Monsanto and the FDA's word that genetically modified food is safe to eat - GRAS and 'substantially equivalent'. An article from 1999 on the rBST scandal provides some food for thought:

"possible human health risks associated with oral ingestion of rBGH were not adequately studied by the NADA applicant Monsanto and not thoroughly reviewed by the FDA during its administrative review. As a result, either Monsanto failed to meet the informational burden necessary to garner approval of its rBGH NADA and the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its evaluation of the data used to support its approval of Posilac®"

http://www.greens.org/s-r/18/18-09.html

Seeking the Withdrawal of Approval for Posilac® by Andrew Kimbrell & Joseph Mendelson III, International Center for Technology Assessment


[On December 15, 1998, the Center for Food Safety (a project of the International Center for Technology Assessment) and 20 co-petitioning groups submitted a Citizen Petition before the United States Food and Drug Administration, entitled "Petition Seeking the Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug Application Approval for Posilac®-recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)." The article below is excerpts from the petition. Ed.]

New Evidence of Imminent Human Health Hazard.

1. New Evidence of Oral Activity and Absorption of rBGH.

In 1990, the FDA published a justification for its determination that milk and dairy products derived from rBGH-treated cows was "safe for human consumption." The article contained seven tables of data supporting its conclusion, including two tables of data taken from an unpublished Monsanto study of rats orally fed rBGH at high levels. In its 1990 conclusion, FDA officials state that the this 90 day rat feeding study showed that rBGH "is not orally active in rats" and found that, "No oral activity was found when rBGH was administered to rats at exaggerate doses." The FDA officials summarized this by stating, "No toxicologically significant changes were noted in the clinical chemistry, hematology, or urinalysis parameters determined in rats administered rbGH orally."

On April 21, 1998, however, health officials from Health Canada issued a comprehensive report finding, inter alia, gaps in the scientific data used in FDA's review of human health risks associated with rBGH use. This Health Canada review included a thorough analysis of the comprehensive data reviewed by the FDA during its decisionmaking process.

Contrary to FDA's conclusions, the Health Canada data review found evidence that laboratory rats orally fed high doses of rBGH were absorbing the substance. More specifically, the report details that a Monsanto 90 day rat feeding study actually found that between 20% and 30% of the rats in the study developed primary antibody response to rBGH-an indication that orally administered rBGH was absorbed into the blood stream and it produced a distinct immunological effect. Additionally, the data showed that in the male rats cysts formed in the thyroid and an increase infiltration of rBGH into the prostate.

Health Canada report's found that the publicly released summary of safety and effectiveness data and information supporting Posilac's new animal drug application used during the FDA decisionmaking process on rBGH did not include the 90 day rat study results or a discussion of its findings.

2. New Evidence Concerning IGF-1.

A. New Evidence of IGF-1 Surviving Digestion. Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) is a biochemical that mediates much of the cellular response to human growth hormone in cows and humans. In 1990, the FDA found that IGF-1 does not survive digestion based on oral rat feeding studies. A number of scientists have disputed this finding indicating that the FDA's own data suggests that IGF-1 survives digestion. In addition, several oral rat feeding studies published since the FDA approval of Posilac® (rBGH) have confirmed that IGF-1 survives digestion, particularly when it is in the presence of the milk protein casein. The first study found that IGF-1 survived digestion in rat's stomachs and made its way into the intestine. A more recent study found that considerable amounts of IGF-1 were absorbed into the systematic circulation and was physiologically active in rats. As a result, new evidence contradicts the FDA's previous findings that IGF-1 does not survive digestion.

B. New Evidence of IGF-1 Human Health Risks. FDA has been presented ample data showing the levels of IGF-1 are elevated in milk from rBGH treated cows. The Health Canada report also found that the potential adverse effect of elevated IGF-1 levels were not examined until 1995, significantly after the FDA approved Posilac®. The Canadian report continues that when IGF-1 was discussed, it based upon purely speculative reasoning and the rationale for not requiring chronic toxicity or teratology/reproductive studies was premised upon rBGH not being orally absorbed. The FDA's failure to thoroughly analyze the human health impacts associated with elevated IGF-1 levels is grossly negligent. IGF-I is thought to be important growth factor in breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. Such data mandates the FDA to follow up the results of the 90 day rat study.

3. New Evidence Concerning rBGH and BSE Exposure

Several lines of new evidence suggest that the use of rBGH could increase the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in dairy cows. There are two mechanism whereby rBGH could potentially lead to an increase in BSE. First, increased circulating IGF-1 levels might increase a cow's susceptibility to BSE should an animal be exposed to the infectious agent. Second, rBGH treated cow's increased protein feed needs could magnify the odds of exposure to a BSE-infective agent. This risk should be thoroughly reviewed by the FDA during any new evidentiary investigation concerning Mosanto's Posilac® new animal drug application.

4. Current FDA Response.

In its 1990 human health determination the agency states, "If the initial toxicity study demonstrates that the protein (rBGH) is indeed orally active, additional testing may be required." Such testing has not occurred. Since release of the Health Canada study, FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine official, John Scheid stated, "We do not have data from that study." The FDA has further characterized its failure to review and follow up on the rat study findings as a reliance upon Monsanto's summary of the study as non-pivotal.

As characterized by the Health Canada reviewers, "The human health implications of the immunological findings in rats should have been thoroughly evaluated and dismissed only if adequately justified by evidence at the time." The Health Canada study states, "Definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of rBST or IGF-I upon oral administration were neither conducted or requested." The report also found that "simply not enough is known about how IGF-I functions to properly evaluate the potential health impacts." In sum, the Health Canada report reveals that to date the FDA has failed to fully evaluate the human health risks associated with oral exposure to rBGH.

Argument

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) is to be construed liberally to effectuate its overriding purpose to protect the public health. Under such a mandate, approval for sale of new animal drugs is premised upon applicant demonstrating that it is both safe and effective for its intended use. The burden on a new animal drug application (NADA) petitioner is not light and includes, but is not limited to, the proffering of (1) adequate tests by all methods reasonably applicable to show whether the drug is safe for use under the conditions suggested in the proposed labeling; and (2) evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including field investigation, on the basis of which it could be fairly and reasonably concluded by experts that the drug has the effect it purports to have. If these requirements are not met, the FDA's charge is to reject the new animal drug application.

The new evidence released by Health Canada indicates that FDA failed to ensure that (1) Posilac® (rBGH) was adequately tested to show its safe use and (2) that the evidence supporting Monsanto's original NADA approval consisted of adequate and well-controlled investigations. Moreover, the evidence showing that possible human health risks associated with oral ingestion of rBGH were not adequately studied by the NADA applicant Monsanto and not thoroughly reviewed by the FDA during its administrative review. As a result, either Monsanto failed to meet the informational burden necessary to garner approval of its rBGH NADA and the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its evaluation of the data used to support its approval of Posilac®.

If the FDA did not have the 90 day rat testing information available when it approved Posilac®, then the Health Canada report is new evidence that suggests that oral consumption of rBGH may trigger human health risks. As such, the Commissioner should suspend Posilac's NADA approval and immediately embark on an investigation of the human health risks associated with rBGH exposure. A failure to take such action could be subject to judicial review. In Rhone-Poulenc, Inc v. FDA, the court indicated that the Commissioner must withdraw her approval when new evidence shows an animal drug to be unsafe. Failing to investigate this new scientific evidence concerning possible human health risks would be contrary to the overarching intent of the FFDCA and a clear error in agency
judgment.

Conclusion

Wherefore the reasons contained herein, the petitioner request that the Commissioner:

Immediately suspend the approval of the new animal drug application for Posilac®-recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH); Immediately publish a Notice of Opportunity for an Evidentiary Hearing concerning "new evidence" related to the new animal drug application approval of Posilac® (rBGH) in the Federal Register;
Upon completion of the hearing, issue an order withdrawing the approval of the new animal drug application for Posilac® (rBGH); and Revoke all regulations associated with the approval of Posilac® (rBGH).

References

58 Federal Register 59946, 59947 (November 12, 1993).

Chopra, S., et al., "rBST (Nutrilac) "Gaps Analysis" Report," rBST Internal
Review Team, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada (April 21, 199.

Epstein, S.S. "Unlabeled Milk from Cows Treated with Biosynthetic Growth
Hormones: A Case of Regulatory Abdication," Int. J. Health Serv. 1996.
26(1), 173-85.

Frederick Bever (AP), "Canadian Agency Questions Approval of Cow Drug by
US," Rutland Herald, October 6, 1998.

Health Canada, Minutes of Meeting: Internal RBST Review Team, BVD AD HOC
Advisory Committee (May 6, 1997).

Juskevich, J.C. & Guyer C.G., "Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety
Evaluation," Science 249: 875-884 (August 24, 1990) at 877.

Kimura, T., et al., "Gastrointestinal Absorption of Recombinant Human
Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 in Rats," J. Pharm. & Exper. Therap., 1997,
283, 611-618.

Lamonerie, T., et al., "IGF-2 Autcorine Stimulation in Tumorigenic Clones of
a Human Colon-Carcinoma Line," Int. J. Cancer May 16, 1995, 61(4): 587-92.

Ng EH, et al., "Altered Serum Levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding
proteins in Breast Cancer Patients," Ann. Surg. Oncol. Mar , 1998, 5(2):
194-201.

Wolk, A, et al. "Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 and Cancer Risk," J. Natl.
Cancer Inst. June 17, 1988, 90(12), 911-5.

Xian, CJ, et al., "Degradation of IGF-1 in the Adult Rat Gastrointestinal
Tract is Limited by A Specific Antiserum or Dietary Protein Casein," J.
Endocrinology, 1995, 146, 215-225.

JustPeace

A weekly Green Bulletin of News, Action and Analysis

# 47, 15 January 2004

NEWS

THE PLIGHT OF THE PRISONER, accused of unspecified offences and
unable to seek fair redress, was Keith Locke's main concern over the
Christmas and New Year period. On 23 December he said, "I have personally received an appeal from an 18-year-old Afghan, Hassan
Ali, who has been detained on Nauru for two years. He says 'Our life is in
danger. Please, you help us and take us out of this prison. I have a lot
of hopes to you and I will be thankful to you.'"

####

I dare say; and I dare also say that Messrs Locke & Hannah have
personally received appeals, mainly emanating from Nigeria, asking in
similarly touching language for help in expediting transfer of alleged
millions thru banks ...

Isn't it funny how extremely sceptical - no, make that cynical -
communists are about agencies of the State which they would in fact make
far larger & more vicious, if their ideology gained power.

Lenin repeatedly promised to abolish the police. The regimes of S
Holland, K J Holyoake, J Marshall, etc, as well as those of Nash, Kirk etc,
failed to educate Kiwis in the main facts about how ruthlessly communists
actually crush freedom when they gain power.

It is stupid of crude Tory MPs to keep saying Locke endorsed Pol
Pot, when he can develop a formal rebuttal that sounds OK so the only
advantage they get is the brief period before the listener hears that
denial. At the very least, they should add that his Socialist Action
League, a Trotskyite version of communism, worked hard for the ideology
that gave us colossal secret police crimes, even worse than Naziism and
arguably rivalling in quality of viciousness the Greater E. Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I dare say also that Mr Locke will claim his Trotskyite version of
communism wouid present a new, gentle face, unlike those counter-productive
paranoid Stalinists. But I say those who promote materialism, and deny man
is responsible to his maker, have generally done far, far worse than Locke
so sensitively objects to on behalf of illegal immigrants.

Locke claims in effect to know better than ASIO, and certainly
better than our SIS, about possible terrorists or subversives. Is this
claim at all plausible?

R

A leading activist for control of GM in the Philippines has asked
for any info on the GMOs mentioned in this announcement.

One obvious q is whether the mutants claimed to be approved for NZ
are indeed so.

R

BPI OKAYS IMPORT OF 17 GM PRODUCTS
By Melody M. Aguiba
(Manila Bulletin, 18 January 2004)

The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) has approved the importation of 17
genetically modified (GM) crop varieties which have gone through risk
assessment for their use as food, as feed, and as processing input to
ensure protection from diseases of consumers and livestock alike.

Approved for importation are one canola variety, two potato varieties,
two cotton, 11 corn, and one soybean. Canola RT 73 is genetically
modified to have a glyphosate (herbicide) tolerance as developed by
Monsanto company which has obtained a similar importation acceptance in
the United Kigdom, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

GM crops, although questioned for their safety for human and animal
health (due to the alterations made on plant's genes or the elements
which carry plant's characteristics that are passed on from parents to
offspring) have been receiving increasing acceptance worldwide.

Randy Hautea, global coordinator of the International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), said that area planted
to GM worldwide now total to 67.7 million hectares of which the
Philippines contributed around 20,000 hectares.

The Department of Agriculture indicated that a total of 12,000 bags (of
18 or 20 kilos) was harvested in 2003 from corn-borer resistant Bt corn
area all over the Philippines.

The two potato varieties, both by Monsanto, are Potato Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) 6 which is resistant to the Colorado beetle and Potato
RBMT resistant to both Colorado beetle and potato virus. Both crops are
accepted in the US, Japan, Australia and Canada as developed by
Monsanto.

The two cotton GM have also been developed by Monsanto, one of which
Cotton 1445, is tolerant to Roundup herbicide and the other, Cotton
15985 is tolerant to lepidopterous pests. These GM cotton are being used
as food or feed in South Africa and is commercialized in Argentina,
Mexico, Australia and the US.

The approved GM soybean is resistant to the herbicide Roundup and is
used as feed or food in UK, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, Denmark,
Switzerland, Romania, Russia, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Czech Republic,
Poland, and Australia/ New Zealand.

Among the GM corn approved was that of Syngenta Seeds' Corn Bt 176 which
is insect-protected or resistant to corn borer and is being used as food
or feed in Japan, Switzerland, South Africa, the European Union,
Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, and the US. Bayer Crops Science (BCS)
and Pioneer Hi-Bred (PHB) each had an approval for BCS's glufosinate
(herbicide)-tolerant Corn T25 and PHB's Corn TC 1507 which is resistant
to lepidopterous pests.

Seven of the approved 11 corn varieties have been developed by
Monsanto.

===========================================
P A N U P S
Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
===========================================

GE Crops Use More Pesticides

January 9, 2004

A November 2003 study of levels of pesticide use on genetically engineered
(GE) corn, soybeans and cotton in the U.S. reports that these GE varieties
have resulted in the application of more pesticides. While use of Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic varieties have reduced pesticide use by an
estimated 19.6 million pounds in the past eight years, herbicide tolerant
crops have been responsible for the application of an estimated 70 million
additional pounds of pesticides. Overall, the report concludes that GE
crops have caused 50 million additional pounds of pesticides to be used in
U.S. agriculture.

The first comprehensive study of the impacts of all major commercial GE
crops on pesticide use in the U.S.A, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered
Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years," draws
on official U.S. Department of Agriculture data on pesticide use by crop
and state to calculate the difference between the average pounds of
pesticides applied on the 550 million acres planted to GE crops compared to
the pounds applied to similar conventional crops. The study results
directly contradict industry claims that GE technology has markedly reduced
pesticide use.

In 1996 to 1998, during their first three years of commercial sales, GE
crops appear to have reduced pesticide use by about 25.4 million pounds.
But in the last three years, over 73 million more pounds of pesticides were
applied on GE acres. Substantial increases in herbicide use on herbicide
tolerant (HT) crops, especially soybeans, accounted for the increase.

Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops allow farmers to spray broad-spectrum
herbicides over the top of growing plants, controlling weeds while leaving
crops unharmed. Despite the increased costs of GE seeds, herbicide tolerant
crops have become less expensive as the price of herbicides containing
glyphosate has fallen by half, from around $12.00 per acre when HT crops
were first introduced to less than $6.00 per acre today.

The report finds that many farmers need to spray incrementally more
herbicides on GE acres in order to keep up with shifts in weeds toward
tougher-to-control species, coupled with the emergence of genetic
resistance in certain weed populations. "For years weed scientists have
warned that heavy reliance on herbicide tolerant crops would trigger
ecological changes in farm fields that would incrementally erode the
technology's effectiveness. It now appears that this process began in 2001
in the U.S. in the case of herbicide tolerant crops," said Dr. Charles
Benbrook, author of the report.

The other major category of GE crops, corn and cotton engineered to produce
the natural insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in plant cells, has
reduced insecticide use by 2 million to 2.5 million pounds annually. This
reduction represents 7% of the total U.S. insecticide use on these two
crops. The report notes that the increase in herbicide use on HT crop
acres, however, far exceeds the modest reductions of insecticides on acres
planted to Bt crops, especially since 2001.

Published by the Northwest Science Environmental Policy Center, the report
received support from a number of organizations concerned about the impacts
of GE crops on the environment and human health. Dr. Benbrook, Executive
Director of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center in
Sandpoint, Idaho, was formerly with the National Academy of Sciences Board
on Agriculture.

The full report is available on Ag BioTech InfoNet website at
http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html.

Sources: Press Release, Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center,
November 25, 2003, http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html.

Contact: Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, phone
208-263-5236, email benbrook@hillnet.com; PANNA.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and
reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the
mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America,
a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance
sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and all
contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit
http://www.panna.org/donate.

===========================================
Back issues of PANUPS are available online at:
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html

Please note: responses to this message will not be read.
To comment, send an email to:
panna@panna.org

To subscribe, send a blank email to:
PANUPS-subscribe@topica.email-publisher.com

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA
Phone: (415) 981-1771
Fax: (415) 981-1991
Email: panna@panna.org
Web: http://www.panna.org
===========================================

====================================================================
Update your profile here:
http://panups.u.tep1.com/survey/?aVxh9y.aVx0xx.NzM2NTIu

Unsubscribe here:
http://panups.u.tep1.com/survey/?aVxh9y.aVx0xx.NzM2NTIu.u

TITLE: Biotech firms urge Canada to uphold canola patent
SOURCE: Reuters, by Randall Palmer
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2004/01/20/rtr1218675.html
DATE: Jan 20, 2004

archive: http://www.genet-info.org/

Biotech firms urge Canada to uphold canola patent

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Representatives for scientists and biotech firms
warned Tuesday that companies could abandon Canada unless the
Supreme Court upholds a patent for canola that has been modified to resist a
certain type of weedkiller.

Lawyers opposing Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser in a landmark
Supreme Court case argued that Schmeiser must be accountable for
growing genetically modified canola for which he had no license,
because if that did not happen Canada's Patent Act would prove hollow.

"You'll have this chilling effect, with severe economic and social
costs," Anthony Creber told the high court for his client,
BioteCanada, which represents biotechnology companies and
researchers.

Two lower courts found that Schmeiser had infringed on a patent for a
gene made by Monsanto Co. that enables canola -- which is used for
cooking oil and animal feed -- to withstand its herbicide Roundup.

Schmeiser, 73, argues that patent protection should not be at his
expense and that he was standing up against corporate interests for
the rights of conventional farmers everywhere.

He insists that he is an innocent bystander and that the Roundup Ready
canola seeds must have blown onto his field from neighboring fields or
from passing trucks, and he was within his rights to save and replant
seed from his plants.

But Monsanto says that, regardless of how the seeds came to be on his
field, Schmeiser ignored warnings from its agent not to replant the
seeds in his the next season.

"This case has always been quite simple. It's about somebody who
knowingly and deliberately used a protected technology," Monsanto
spokeswoman Trish Jordan said.

A host of anti-corporate activists and environmentalists have made
Schmeiser their poster boy for a broad fight against genetically
modified food. Monsanto would like to introduce Roundup Ready wheat
into Canada but some farmers fear they would lose markets in Europe
and elsewhere.

Nine out of 10 canola farmers in Canada now use Roundup Ready canola
or competing varieties, despite hefty licensing fees, and Schmeiser
voiced concern about biodiversity.

"If you get down through GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to one
variety of a particular species of plants, what happens if you have a
disease or blight or some disaster? You have nothing to fall back
(on)," he said.

But the head of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, farmer Ross
Ravelli, said that if the patent were not upheld, companies like
Monsanto could well go to other countries and stop developing seeds
that are suitable for Canada.

"What they are trying to develop would not be suited to our area," he
said.

####

PART II

TITLE: Genetic modification needs national debate
SOURCE: Vancouver Sun, Canada
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory.asp?id=f06b8ffd-b39f-475d-85d7-e7855ddeb7c1
DATE: Jan 20, 2004

archive: http://www.genet-info.org/

Genetic modification needs national debate
Courts are not the right place to settle patent laws on genes

Percy Schmeiser blames the wind for the change in his canola fields
that led to the arguments being heard today in the Supreme Court of
Canada.

In a battle that has been seized on around the world by opponents of
genetically modified foods, Mr. Schmeiser is asking Canada's highest
court to overturn a ruling that he should pay Monsanto Canada Inc.
damages for using a herbicide-resistant canola seed without its
permission.

Monsanto genetically engineered the strain of canola found on Mr.
Schmeiser's fields to be resistant to glyphosate, the active
ingredient in Roundup. Until recently Monsanto also held the exclusive
patent to herbicides based on glyphosate.

Mr. Schmeiser is described by his supporters as a traditional farmer
who saves the best of his seed after each harvest for the next year's
crop. After being found with canola in his field that was Roundup
resistant, he argued that it must have blown in from neighbors' fields
or off trucks rolling down the highway.

Monsanto argued successfully in court that he either knew or should
have known that if his canola could survive Roundup, he should have
been paying Monsanto a licensing fee. The judge found Mr. Schmeiser
should have been paying the fee even though he did not make use of
the genetic trait developed by Monsanto, since he did not spray his fields
with herbicides.

Mr. Schmeiser has counter-sued Monsanto for polluting his fields with
genetically modified seed in a case that he says will not be pursued
until after Monsanto's suit is settled.

The 73-year-old farmer's supporters want the Supreme Court to throw
out Monsanto's claim by ruling that the patents are invalid. They base
their hope on the court's 2002 ruling in the case of a genetically
altered mouse that higher forms of life cannot be patented.

There is a lot at stake here. Canola growers, who overwhelmingly
believe in the benefits of the high-tech seed, are backing Monsanto.
The Ontario government has entered the fray on Mr. Schmeiser's side.
The province's interest flows from the case last year involving a
breast-cancer test that uses human genes identified and patented by a
private corporation.

Ontario's health minister at the time was Tony Clement, now a
candidate for the leadership of the Conservative party of Canada. At
the time, he called the patenting of human genes, "abhorrent," a
stance that was echoed by B.C.'s health minister. Monsanto argues this
is a simple case of copyright infringement and that it is acting, as
it must, to protect its property.

There is a legitimate debate over whether and under what conditions
patent protection should be extended to genes.

We have argued that the prospect of patent protection and the
potential for profit encourages research, but we recognize there are
strong arguments against such patents.

This is a debate we should be having in the political arena, not in
the courts.

There are other serious concerns here, issues that will have to be
addressed if we are to reap any benefits from genetically modified
organisms in the future.

For example, we are troubled by the notion that a farmer can be held
responsible for weeding out patented seeds that blow onto his fields.

Organic farmers argue that they have a right to be protected from
genetically modified seeds just as they have a right to insist that
pesticides and herbicides not be allowed to drift over their crops.

None of these issues should be decided by judges. We need a national
debate on what limits there should be, if any, to applying our
existing patent laws to naturally occurring or engineered elements of
life.

These issues are difficult, but if our legislators fail to take them
on, they will be in no position to complain when the courts are forced
to fill the vacuum they create.

####

TITLE: Supreme Court grapples with arguments on patenting of genes and plants
SOURCE: Canadian Press, by Dennis Bueckert
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory.asp?id=37ef097b-6162-41de-8830-6f9afc230e37

DATE: Jan 20, 2004

archive: http://www.genet-info.org/

Supreme Court grapples with arguments on patenting of genes and plants

OTTAWA (CP) - Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser deliberately
planted Roundup Ready canola on his land in 1997 thereby infringing
Monsanto's patent on a gene in the plant, the biotech giant told Supreme Court on
Tuesday.

Robert Hughes, representing Monsanto, dismissed Schmeiser's claims
that the Roundup Ready canola sprouted on his land by accident,
carried by the wind or spilled by passing truck. "This case, we
submit, is a rather simple case of an infringement of a patent by a
knowing use of the patented claimed material," said Hughes.

But Schmeiser's lawyer, Terry Zakreski, said it doesn't matter how the
canola took root on Schmeiser's land because plants are not
patentable.

The Supreme Court has already ruled, in the case of the Harvard
mouse, that higher life forms cannot be patented in Canada.

Zakreski said the plants are higher life forms, like mice, with the
ability to grow and reproduce and wind up in places where they are not
wanted.

"The Patent Act wasn't intended to cover these types of inventions,"
he said.

Hughes said Monsanto does not claim a patent on the canola plant, but
rather on the gene that was inserted to make the plant resistant to
Roundup, a popular herbicide.

Hughes conceded the patented gene is found in every cell of the plant
itself, from the roots to the leaves.

The outcome of the case is likely to have major implications for the
future of Canada's biotechnology industry, for farming practices, and
even in seemingly unrelated fields like health care.

Sara Blake, appearing for the Ontario government, said gene patents
could impede research into genetic disease and drive up costs for
genetic medical tests.

Monsanto's supporters in the case, including the Canadian Canola
Growers Association, say strong patent rights are vital to encourage
research.

Schmeiser's case has attracted global attention, and he is paying
legal costs with donations from around the world. On Tuesday,
anti-biotech farmers and scientists rallied at the World Social Forum
in Mumbai, India to mobilize support for Schmeiser.

They say that recognition of gene patents in plants could prevent
farmers from saving their own seeds from one year to the next, reduce
biodiversity and concentrate power in the hands of biotech companies.

Schmeiser, 72, was sued after Monsanto agents in 1997 found biotech
canola growing in his Saskatchewan fields.

Lower courts have found that Schmeiser probably did plant Roundup
Ready canola on his land, despite his claims that it appeared by
accident. The more important issue before the Supreme Court is the
validity and scope of genetic patents.

####

PART II

TITLE: Canadian farmer takes aim at gene giant Monsanto
SOURCE: Scripps Howard News Service/Abilene Reporter News, USA, by Mike Lee
http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_nation_world/article/0,1874,ABIL_7961_2590476,00.htm

DATE: Jan 20, 2004

archive: http://www.genet-info.org/

Canadian farmer takes aim at gene giant Monsanto

After nearly 50 years farming canola, Canadian grower Percy Schmeiser
had his eye on retirement when a lawsuit from the world's largest
biotech seed company landed on his doorstep, accusing him of gene
theft.

Now, as Canada's top court considers his appeal, Schmeiser has
become an unlikely hero for the growing movement against genetic engineering
of food crops. Instead of retiring in rural Saskatchewan, the wiry
73-year old travels the globe to tell his story of resistance against
gene giant Monsanto Co.

He sums up his sudden celebrity with typical humility: "It's no longer
my case, it's the world's case."

It matters nothing to his audiences that he was found guilty of patent
violations by the Canadian courts, which agree with Monsanto that no
matter how weed killer-tolerant genes entered Schmeiser's seeds, he
re-planted them illegally in 1998.

At Monsanto Canada, spokeswoman Trish Jordan said the past court
decisions against Schmeiser speak for themselves. "When Mr.
Schmeiser told his stories in court, they weren't found to be believable," she
said.

Regardless of the case's outcome, however, environmentalist Kenny
Ausubel said Monsanto "picked the wrong guy" for the first big test of
patent law for biotech seeds - a case critical to the maturing biotech
crop industry.

Check in with Schmeiser most any month and you can find him hailing
crowds in places as far-flung as Japan, Germany or South Africa. Last
fall, he and his wife, Louise, drove 1,900 miles from their home in
the tiny town of Bruno, Saskatchewan, to San Rafael, Calif.

There, Schmeiser greeted 3,000 environmentalists, aging hippies and
counterculture enthusiasts at Bioneers, Ausubel's annual conference
exploring environmental issues.

Outside, longhaired students performed yoga and mystical dances.
Inside, Schmeiser - an unassuming, trim man in glasses, a royal blue
button-down shirt and slacks - stepped to the podium.

"We don't know how many good years we have left, but we are going to
go down fighting," he told the crowd, his eyes tearing up as they
responded with repeated standing ovations.

Schmeiser has grown used to such receptions; it's the way that he
knows it's worth risking the loss of his farm and even his wife's
health to take on a multinational corporation.

At its core, Schmeiser's case is about ownership of genes - developed
by companies at a cost of tens of millions of dollars - that make
crops immune to herbicides. That genetic trick allows farmers to
control weeds without harming their crops.

In addition to charging extra for their biotech seeds, companies
demand that farmers plant them only once, interrupting the age-old
practice of saving seed from year to year and making farmers beholden
to corporations like never before.

Nonetheless, biotech crops have proven popular with farmers around
the world. They were planted on an estimated 167 million acres last year,
up 15 percent from 2002, the New York-based International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications announced last week.

The trouble is, genetically engineered genes disregard boundaries,
traveling widely through North America in pollen, seed and crops. They
regularly end up where they aren't welcome, such as in organic fields,
countries that have banned biotech crops or Schmeiser's canola fields.

Though a decision likely won't be issued for weeks or even months, the
Supreme Court of Canada hearing could clarify at least one fuzzy area:
whether the court accepted Schmeiser's appeal because it wanted to
expand or contract companies' ability to patent life forms. It's the
first time a country's top court is addressing the question of gene
patent infringement, according to legal experts.

Technically, the ruling won't matter in the United States, said Donald
Uchtmann, a professor of agricultural law at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

"Having said that ... it serves as a model of how a nation with a
similar heritage has dealt with this issue and these particular
facts," Uchtmann said. "(It) at least causes Americans to think about
whether such a result is just in the U.S."

The case is being monitored in California, especially by rice farmers
worried about the planned introduction of biotech rice into the state.

But perhaps no one is watching more closely than Arnold Taylor,
president of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. His group has sued
Aventis and Monsanto, alleging that they have ruined the province's
organic canola market by failing to prevent genetic contamination of
canola seed.

Even if Schmeiser loses, the organic growers could get a boost as long
as the Canadian high court maintains that biotech genes in his fields
belong to Monsanto. "We are saying, 'OK, you own it. The flip side is
that you are responsible for the damages,' " Taylor said.

While Monsanto has gone after hundreds of farmers for patent
infringement in the United States and Canada, few have stood up to the
company.

And none has created more of a public-relations problem than
Schmeiser, who motivates his adoring crowds by drawing on public
speaking experience gained during a lifetime of provincial politics.

He even has a Web site - www.percyschmeiser.com - to promote what
he calls a "classic David vs. Goliath struggle" and direct supporters how
to donate to his cause.

A sweet potato genetically engineered for viral resistance was compared
with controls in Africa and turns out not to have been immune and also to
have produced a lower yield.

R

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
One of the most hyped GM projects in the world has failed. It's a
project that has generated thousands of column inches of PR without a
scrap of convincing evidence to support it.

Now that evidence is finally in:

"the report indicates that during the trials non-transgenic crops
used as control yielded much more tuber compared to the trangenics."

For more on the GM sweet potato hype, which includes the
falsification of information on yields and which is still apparent
even in parts of this article, see:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=131

---

GM technology fails local potatoes
The Daily Nation, Kenya, Online, Thursday January 29, 2004
By Gatonye Gathura

Trials to develop a virus resistance sweet potato through
biotechnology have failed. US biotechnology, imported three years
ago, has failed to improve Kenya's sweet potato. This has confirmed
critic's fears that bio-engineered techniques tried elsewhere may not
be replicated in Africa with similar results.

The modified potato was launched in Kenya, in 2001 by US special
envoy, Dr Andrew Young, who had flown into the country for the
occasion. Investigations, on the transgenic crop, by KARI's
Biotechnology Centre, say the technology has failed to produce a
virus resistant strain.

"There is no demonstrated advantage arising from genetic
transformation using the initial gene construct," says a report by
researchers, Dr Francis Nang'ayo, and Dr Ben Odhiambo. The transgenic
potato was imported from Monsanto in the US to Kenya for tests.

The initial genetic engineering work was done at the Monsanto
laboratories, using virus-resistant technologies. In a nine-year
study, Monsanto had developed a coat protein responsible for virus
resistance, and donated it to Kari, royalty free, to use in its sweet
potato improvement programme.

"The transgenic material did not quite withstand virus challenge in
the field," says the report, doubting whether the gene expression was
adequate or it failed to address the diversity of virus in this
region or just that the gene construct was inappropriate. Actually,
the report indicates that during the trials non-transgenic crops used
as control yielded much more tuber compared to the trangenics. "All
lines tested were susceptible to viral attacks."

The Kari results corresponded with an earlier study released by the
Third World Network Africa. The study, titled "Genetically Modified
Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An
Assessment of Current Evidence", by Aaron deGrassi, of the Institute
of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, had warned
that the GM sweet potato introduced in Kenya did not address the
crop's major problem - weevils. The study offered new evidence
against claims of the miracle potential of genetically modified crops
for dealing with famine and poverty in Africa. After examining the
impact of three genetically modified crops, sweet potato, maize and
Bt cotton, on poverty alleviation in Africa it concluded that
biotechnology does not address the real causes of
poverty and hunger in Africa. Now Kari's research on sweet potatoes
has reverted to working with improved gene constructs based on Kenyan
strain of virus. This questions the suitability of wholesale
importation of foreign technologies. It was hoped that the technology
would boast one of the country's most important tubers with the widest
regional distribution. It seems much more needs to be done.

Dr Young while launching the technology had said, "I don't believe
that we live in this world for our crops to be destroyed. We have
been given knowledge for the earth to make sense."

He had then described the continent as being, on the verge of a
tremendous revolution. "With biotechnology, we are going to make a
green revolution in Africa."

The sweet potato project had been approved by the Kenya Biosafety
Council and mock-trials initiated in Kakamega, Kisii, Muguga, Mtwapa
and Embu. But the Kari researchers say all is not lost because the
experiment proves that the country has the capacity to handle
transgenics in the field.

"It proved that KARI and Kenya by extension had the
capacity to try the suitability of sophisticated
biotechnologies," says Dr Odhiambo. Unlike the more
conventional Irish potato, the tuber is not only popular among rural
communities in Kenya, but also lasts much longer after traditional
processing. This makes the root tuber a more ideal crop for storage
for dry seasons. The average harvest of the crop in Kenya, however,
has remained low due to a number of factors, including attacks by
pests and the sweet potato virus disease. The yield losses resulting from
the viral diseases, according to KARI, can be as high as 80 per cent.
Kenya's average sweet potato yield stands at six metric tons per
hectare less than half the world's average 14 metric tons per hectare.

Gene modification is a relatively new technique in Kenya. Other less
high-tech biotech processes such as tissue culture have been widely
commercialized in crops like bananas, macadamia nuts and
strawberries. The transgenic sweet potato is not the only food crop
improvement projects conducted between KARI and Monsanto. Other
projects include
insect-resistant cotton, and maize resistant to striga - a parasitic
weed responsible for destroying up to half of yields in western and
coastal parts of Kenya. KARI is the main institute of agricultural
research and technology transfer, in charge of providing such
appropriate technology aimed at boosting agricultural productivity and
livestock production.

http://www.rsnz.org/news/date/2004/1/21

MAF urged to use new synthetic pheromone to combat apple moth
West Auckland spokesperson Hana Blackmore comments on MAF's suggestion
that further spraying may be necessary

---

This Mrs Blackmore is a main operative within a coven featuring
lesbian politician Meriel Watts, campaigning for years to obstruct control
of the v menacing painted apple moth. It is misleading, and crudely
biased, of the RSNZ to depict her as a "West Auckland spokesperson" -
exactly in line with Watts' purporting within a bad Hunter Wells TV piece
on the moth to speak on behalf of "the people of West Auckland" when in
fact she does not represent more than a tiny fraction of them.

Hanafiah is married to a GP. The media present her as some sort of
expert commentator, while not alleging any relevant qualification.

This twisted coven has obstructed proper pest control on the basis
of silly pseudo-science. Two or three y ago they claimed the Bt spraying
against the painted apple moth should be delayed while they perfected a
proposal to use "peppering", the spreading of ashes of the pest in
accordance with an idea of the 1920s Austrian mystic Rudolf Steiner. The
media of course fail to follow up this claim - where is the coven's
peppering plan, who has appraised it, and similar obvious questions are
ignored.

More recently the coven claimed that a minor proprietary secret
chemical component of the Bt slurry could be dangerous. They were in no
position to form any such judgement - as pointed out by the then chairman
Auckland Museum Institute, a v experienced medical microbiology lab
scientist, whose letter to the Waitakere mayor (below) nailed these
neurotic attention-craving bullshitters who are misusing the painted apple
moth shambles as just another arena for irrational power-plays.

Is it a coincidence that they are mostly political lesbians &
bisexuals lacking relevant qualifications &/or experience? This is similar
to the babbling airhead Susan Kitschley list MP's hogging the media on GM
when she is incapable of discussing the matter. PC bias among media
operatives thus cripples the flow of comment and fact on GM and related
important scientific issues.

I hasten to add that more damage has been done by the ludicrous
powerHarpie Ruth Frampton who has been allowed to control the painted apple
moth response with persistent incompetence but of course cannot be
challenged in the media because she is female.

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003
From: Lawre Taylor

Subject: copy of my letter to Bob Harvey

Dear Bob,

I am a retired microbiologist and although I am not aquainted with what
medium the spray team are using to grow up the organism (to numbers that
can be diluted for spraying) I can say that they will be using a culture
medium specific to that organism that is bought from a commercial firm.
They almost certainly are buying the bacterial suspension all ready for
use from a specialised laboratory.

I know from experience how difficult it is to supply just the correct
formulation to satisfy the nutritional requirements of most organisms
and the subtilties of formulation are highly sensitive commercial info.

In my working life I quickly found that media from different biological
supply houses grew some organisms better than others.
The companies concerned prided themselves on this.

In most media a tiny change in formulation can make a huge difference in
rates of growth, and for a commercial company that makes the difference
in their survival and why it is commercially sensitive.

I would predict that what they would be using will not look to an
untrained eye very different from a dilute solution of something like
Marmite. Another company will be making a similar product for growing
the same organism, and theirs will look like a dilute solution of Vegemite!

The substances they use are not very different from Marmite, or
Vegemite, and will have the same effect as if you used just that.
The other problem is that after the organism has been grown up to usable
amounts, what is left in the broth is what is left after the bugs have
fed, and that to answer the question honestly would require a very
expensive analysis of that solution.

I am convinced that the requirement to know exactly what is being
sprayed is just a ploy to stop the whole spraying exercise.
The people who demand such information would not be able to understand
what the results meant or their significance.

I reiterate, The vocal few who claim personal health problems need to
bear with us as the alternative is horrendous. I recall the outrage of
claims of all sorts of health symptoms when the tussock moth was
originally sprayed, and the red faces when it was admitted that the
first spraying was only plain water.

We had similar problems when they introduced iodine into salt as a
simple combatting of goitre. And again with the introduction of fluoride
to assist in the fight against dental caries.

There is nothing in the spray that almost every market gardener doesn't
use every day on all commercially grown leaf crops. In all the years
since this treatment was developed I am not aware of any real problems
as the organism is a harmless soil bacterium whose toxic effects are
restricted to cold blooded caterpillars.

Sincerely

Lawre Taylor

========

Lawre is wrong about fluoridation - which is however not crucial
to this argument. Otherwise, I commend his remarks, esp.
The people who demand such information would not be able
to understand what the results meant or their significance.

No Foolproof Way Is Seen to Contain Altered Genes

January 21, 2004 ny times
By ANDREW POLLACK

A new report commissioned by the government suggests that
it will be difficult to completely prevent genetically
engineered plants and animals from having unintended
environmental and public health effects.

The report, released yesterday by the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, says that
while there are many techniques being developed to prevent
genetically engineered organisms or their genes from
escaping into the wild, most techniques are still in early
development and none appear to be completely effective.

"One of our big messages throughout the whole report is
that there are very few bioconfinement methods that are
well developed," Anne R. Kapuscinski, a professor of
fisheries, wildlife and conservation biology at the
University of Minnesota and a member of the committee that
wrote the report, said at a news conference in Washington
yesterday.

Companies and scientists are now developing a wide range of
genetically modified organisms: salmon that grow superfast,
mosquitoes engineered not to transmit malaria, corn that
produces pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals.

One concern about these transgenic products is that their
genes or the organisms could spread. Fast-growing fish, if
they were to escape into the wild, might beat out regular
salmon for food or mates, disrupting the ecological
balance. Genes giving crops resistance to herbicides or
insects might spread to weeds, making the weeds harder to
eradicate. Pollen flow from corn engineered to produce a
drug could allow the drug to get into corn destined for the
food supply.

Much of the efforts to prevent these effects have involved
physical containment, like growing fish in tanks rather
than the ocean or growing crops in greenhouses.

But the new report, commissioned by the Department of
Agriculture, looks at biological methods of containment,
which it calls bioconfinement. These include measures like
inducing sterility by giving fish an extra set of
chromosomes or exposing insects to radiation. Bacteria
might be given "suicide genes" that would cause them to
self-destruct if they escaped. Crop scientists are working
on a variety of techniques, including putting the foreign
genes into the chloroplasts rather than the nucleus because
chloroplast genes usually do not get into the pollen.

In many cases, the report says, such bioconfinement will
not be needed because the organisms will pose little risk.
But it says that when it is needed, it might be useful to
use more than one method at a time, since no single method
is likely to be 100 percent effective. The report also says
such bioconfinement methods are best considered early in
the development of a genetically modified plant or animal
rather than as an afterthought.

The panel's report could have some bearing on issues now
before regulators. It recommends, for instance, that
nonfood crops be sought for growing pharmaceuticals or
chemicals that need to be kept out of the food supply.

This position is favored by many environmental and consumer
groups and by food companies, which fear that a
contamination incident would hurt sales and undermine
public confidence in food safety. But the biotechnology
industry has generally argued that it is most economical to
use widely grown crops like corn and that these crops can
be adequately isolated from crops grown for food.

The report also says there are weaknesses in the safeguards
being taken by a company that is seeking Food and Drug
Administration approval to sell salmon genetically
engineered to grow faster.

The company, Aqua Bounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass.,
has said it would sell to fish farms only female fish that
have been sterilized, thereby eliminating the possibility
that the fish could reproduce should they escape into
rivers or the ocean. But the report says those methods
alone might not be sufficient, in part because
sterilization does not always work. It says the fish should
be grown only in special inland facilities, rather than in
cages in the ocean from which they might escape.

Joseph B. McGonigle, vice president of Aqua Bounty, said
there were errors in the report. "They clearly don't have a
full grasp of both what we're proposing and how effective
the technology is," Mr. McGonigle said.

Consumer groups and the biotechnology industry differed on
their interpretation of the report.

Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest said the report's conclusion that there was no
foolproof bioconfinement method suggested "there is a need
to have a better regulatory system that assesses whether
there are any risks to begin with."

But the Biotechnology Industry Organization said in a
statement that the report concluded that "technology
providers have a variety of methods available to ensure
confinement of organisms modified through biotechnology
when risk warrants it."

In another report issued yesterday, the National Research
Council said urgent action was needed to preserve the
Atlantic salmon in Maine, where the fish supply has been
rapidly declining. The fish there constitute most of the
Atlantic salmon population in the United States. A program
of removing dams should start immediately, the report said.

R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F N E W Z E A L A N D

Royal Society Alert 307 29 January, 2004

1. SCIENCE ON THE RUN

Comment by Royal Society CEO Dr Steve Thompson Steve.Thompson@rsnz.org)

I'm sorry to start so early in the year on a downward note, but my eye was
taken by a report from the Bioethics Council (www.bioethics.org.nz/) on
some work with focus groups of New Zealanders which revealed strong
opposition to projects such as AgResearch's plan to make human
proteins in cow's milk to help people suffering from multiple sclerosis.
Comments included "repulsive" and "the product of a sick mind".

That surprised me because I was beginning to conclude, following a
veritable flood of debate in New Zealand, that therapeutic uses for GM were
generally accepted, while views remained polarised on GM food. After all,
we accept insulin produced by GM bacteria. Also, as Lord May told us a
couple of years ago, we share most of our genes with other species. Does
that mean we mind if a uniquely human gene is transplanted, but wouldn't
mind if the gene were also found in some other species?

The Bioethics Council distilled some key views from the survey:

1) There is a potential for damage to humans by using unnatural means.
2) There is a spiritual dimension that science alone does not account for.
3) In the wrong hands the concept could be used to deliberately harm humans.

The Council also found a low understanding about genetic modification, a lack
of trust in governments and scientists and/or a perceived lack of a
suitable watchdog. Overall, the key fear is fear of the unknown, and
providing additional scientific information can actually exacerbate
participants' fears rather than overcome and them.

Psychologists have known for many years that it's easy to prove people
irrational and illogical in an objective sense when they make choices.
Emotion plays a great part in our choices, and our decision may vary
widely, depending on our mindset and intuition. Incoming President, Dr Jim
Watson, recently noted the challenge faced by the Royal Society and
scientists at large in responding to suspicion, scepticism and occasional
hostility towards science.

You and I are simply not doing enough. Whatever views we wish to express,
we must make our voices heard in this debate. We have to dig deeper, beyond
the surface reactions of survey respondents, into why they feel as they do,
and how does their view fit with their views on other developments in
science (such as GM insulin) which they have come to accept?

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004
From: Biotic Baking Brigade
Subject: Biotech Baking Brigade Pies Bayer Biotechnician

On 21st January Paul Rylott - top GM scientist at Bayer Cropscience
delivered a stirring speech on how to manage consumer response to
biotechnology, at a conference on Managing and Predicting Crisis in
the Food Industry. As he took his place in the queue for his buffet
dinner a polite call of "Mr Rylott?" brought him face to face with a
chocolate fudge cake (skipped and stale) covered with the sweaty
rotting whipped cream and the shout "That's for GM!" before the
assaulting party fled.

Some leaflets were given out to the surprised and immobilized crowd
and all those protesting left before the cops arrived.

This is part of a national UK campaign against Bayer and against GM
commercialization. Actions taken place have included junk mailing,
sabotage including lock glueing, spraypainting, window breaking, golf
courses destroyed, office occupations, noise demonstrations and
trespasses.

The biotech baking brigade stated: "GM Technology is the latest
onslaught of a bland and tedious industrial technological society
against the planet. We are against monoculture and for biodiversity,
against the domestication of people and land, and for the wild. There
is no neutral ground: everyone is called upon to choose their side.
Whenever They strike - be they government, corporations or greenwash
quangos - we will strike back. They have declared war on us and our
planet: we will answer it."

####

"O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchersŠ.
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the pies of war."

-William Shakespeare
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biotic Baking Brigade.....coming soon to a pie-o-region near you.

Look for "Pie Any Means Necessary: The BBB Cookbook," to be published by
AK Press in April 2004.

PLEASE NOTE: the BBB has a new email address and website...

bbb@bioticbakingbrigade.org www.bioticbakingbrigade.org

Friends of the BBB: c/o POB 40130, San Francisco, CA 94140, Amerika

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/breaking_news/7754989.htm

Posted on Tue, Jan. 20, 2004
Small Canadian Farmer Fights Monsanto
PAUL ELIAS
Associated Press

OTTAWA - Lawyers for agribusiness titan Monsanto Co. drew pointed questions
from the Canada Supreme Court on Tuesday in a dispute with a Saskatchewan
canola grower that has become a cause for biotechnology opponents and
proponents around the globe.

The court could takes months to rule on the dispute, which began in 1997
when Monsanto discovered its canola plant, genetically engineered to
withstand the company's popular weed killer, growing on Percy Schmeiser's
farm.

The suit alleges Schmeiser obtained Monsanto seeds without paying for them.
Schmeiser contends the company's canola accidentally took root on his farm,
possibly falling from a passing truck or arriving with a gust from a
neighboring farm.

Two lower courts found in Monsanto's favor and ordered Schmeiser to pay the
company about $140,000 in damages and legal costs.

Some farmers, especially those from developing nations, fear that natural
or accidental contamination of their conventional crops with biotech
varieties will give biotech companies licenses to seize their crops.

"This exposes countless farmers to potential liability," argued Steven
Shrybman, who is representing the Washington, D.C.-based International
Center for Technology Assessment and five other activist groups who joined
the Canada Supreme Court case in support of Schmeiser.

Schmeiser's lawyer argued that in light of another court ruling refusing to
patent "a higher life form" - a genetically engineered mouse created by
Harvard University - Monsanto's patent on the engineered gene in canola
does not give it ownership of the entire plant.

Robert Hughes, Monsanto's lawyer, argued that the company wasn't seeking a
patent on the entire canola plant, but rather an "ingredient" of the plant.
He likened the company's patent to that of an inventor who develops a new
kind of steel for automobiles and receives a patent for that component
rather than the whole car.

"According to the Harvard Mouse ruling, I don't think the steel analogy
works," countered Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour.

Though the nine-judge panel's leaning was inscrutable, industry lawyers
were peppered with even sharper questions than the other side.

Justice Ian Binnie appeared skeptical of the damage award, asking what
additional profit Schmeiser made with Monsanto's seeds than conventional
seeds if Schmeiser, as he has testified, didn't spray the company's
herbicide.

Monsanto's lawyers were also rebuffed when arguing that Schmeiser's fields
contained such a high percentage of genetically engineered plants - as much
as 98 percent - that no innocent explanation could explain how Monsanto's
canola ended up in the farmer's field.

"There is no evidence that Mr. Schmeiser bought the seeds," snapped Justice
Louis LeBel, to the delight of Schmeiser's supporters in the packed
courthouse.

Monsanto and its backers who joined the case - an industry lobbyist and two
farm groups - argued that invalidating the company's patent could do it and
the country economic harm and undermine Canada's patent system.

"Patents create a climate that favors new research," argued A. David
Morrow, a lawyer for the Canadian Seed Trade Association, who said his
organization "is in favor of biotechnology research and therefore in favor
of strong Canadian patent protection."

Monsanto and its backers insist Schmeiser must pay every year for seed,
just like 30,000 other canola farmers in Canada, where roughly half the 10
million acres of canola have been converted since 1996 to Monsanto's
variety.

"This patent makes us more profitable and better farmers," argued Mona
Brown, a lawyer with the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

A ruling against Monsanto could boost the anti-biotechnology movement,
which is trying to stop the spread of genetically engineered plants and
animals until more comprehensive scientific studies are conducted to ensure
the technology is safe.

Outside court, Schmeiser said he was relieved his five-year legal battle,
which has cost him more than $230,000 in legal bills, is nearly over.

"It has changed my life," he said. "But I'd do it again."

- i.e. is not real, and may never be.
A main pattern within the gene-jiggering fad has been confusion of
fact with fantasy - to make the fad *seem* productive or useful.
Here's an example - unfortunately promulgated by the USA Natl
Geographic Soc.

R

Flower power could help clear landmines - A Danish biotech company has developed a genetically modified flower that could help detect landmines and it hopes to have a prototype ready for use within a few years.

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-01-28/s_12516.asp

fyi - so far can't get URL to work

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=77

Life Sciences Network (LSN)

Based in Wellington, New Zealand, the Life® Sciences "Network" (LSN) is a
well-heeled pro-biotech PR group which lobbies aggressively for GM food and
crops.

Founded in May 2000, LSN claims to have been instrumental in subsequently
'shifting the public and policy debate (on GM) onto a much sounder basis'
and in achieving what it terms 'balanced' media coverage on GM in New
Zealand.

The organisation appears highly secretive. Its website provides almost no
information about itself - its members, staff, funding etc.

This may reflect its origins. Nicky Hager, author of a book on 'corn-gate' -
New Zealand's GM sweetcorn scandal, has referred to a link between LSN and
Communications Trumps, the PR company for Novartis that played such a
leading role in 'corngate'.

Communications Trumps, now part of Four Winds Communications,was co-founded
by Norrey Simmons in 1987. The companyis no stranger to controversy. It was
allegedly involved intelling New Zealand's King Salmon that in relation to
its genetic engineering programme, 'issues such as deformities, lumps on heads
etc should not be mentioned at any point to any outside' (from a leaked
document written by Communications Trumps - see also, Seeds of Distrust,
2002, p.15)

At the same time Norrey Simmons' PR firm seems to have been behind New
Zealand's orginal GM PR outfit, Gene Technology Information Trust, more
commonly known as GenePool. GenePool claimed to be an independent educational
trust while being funded by Monsanto and other pro-GM organisations.
According to a parliamentary select committee report, this funding mostly went to
Communications Trumps which shared office facilities and staff with
GenePool. (Green Party issues details of report on GenePool, October 1999)

By 1999 Gene Pool was so embroiled in controversy overits funding that
it had outlived its usefulness. When GenePool was being wound up, New
Zealand's Green Party predicted a new 'front' would soon be set up in New
Zealand by the likes of Monsanto (Taxpayer's money used in Monsanto's PR).
According to Nicky Hager, 'Simmons was then involved in confidential meetings at the Wellington offices of the legal firm Russell McVeagh in which the successor lobby group, Life Sciences Network, was devised.' (Seeds of Distrust, 2002, p.34)

Up until early December 2003, the homepage of the LSN website at
www.lifesciencesnetwork.com was attributed to Life Sciences Network (Inc),
but this has now been changed to BioScience Communications Ltd. The website
is now titled 'BioScience News and Advocate' and the site can also be found via a
new domain www.bioscinews.com. BioScience News appears to have the same
staff and to be run out of the same office as the Life Sciences Network.

Some of LSN's press releases have been joint with Biotenz - a biotech trade
lobby in New Zealand. LSN's chairman, William Rolleston M.B, is an executive
memberand former president of Biotenz.

LSN's executive director is Francis Wevers. Wevers is described as 'a former
broadcaster, journalist, union official, PR consultant and businessman'. At
one stage in his career Wevers moved from being a union
official to assisting the corporations on the other side of the negotiating
table via his own industrial relations consultancy. Among those Wevers helped in their battles with the unions was Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation . Wevers is assisted at LSN by Christine Ross.

LSN was formed just 6 months before New Zealand's Royal Commission on
Genetic Modification began its work. It used offices in the same building
as the Royal Commission from which to run its campaign. It is said to 'have a large budget from undisclosed sources' and to 'have coordinated most of the
politcial pressure in favour of genetic engineering in New Zealand'. (Seeds of
Distrust, 2002, p.12)

In the run up to voting in New Zealand's 2002 general election a big pro-GM
advertising campaign was launched by LSN. New Zealand's Green Party called
on LSN to come clean on whether multinational corporations were funding its
activities. Green Party Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons commented, 'New
Zealanders will be subjected to an intensive advertising campaign to
influence the outcome of the election by portraying GE as safe and beneficial. Pro-GE interests will trot out their usual litany of bad science, half-truths and misleading information. What they won't be saying is how much this ad campaign costs and who is ultimately footing the bill. A talented young scientist may be
the image on the front of their ads but New Zealanders might find the faces of the
multinational money men behind the campaign far less attractive.' (Press
Release from the Green Party, 23 July 2002)

Although primarily focused on New Zealand, LSN has been a collaborator in
the wider global PR battle to promote GM and viliofy the critics. A month
pre-publication of the journal Nature's editorial 'retracting' Quist and
Chapela's Mexican maize-contamination paper, the comments of the only peer
reviewer who called for retraction were leaked, thus greatly increasing the critical pressure on Nature, which finally went with this minority position.

They were leaked via the LSN website, with the executive director of LSN,
Francis Wevers, claiming to have received them from an anonymous source:

'This was posted March 1. The anon messsage begins: 'Dr. Wevers, This is
circulating on the internet. The text is below. "It looks like the Quist and
Chapela claims regarding maize in Mexico is junk science and the editors of
Nature know that. Send this on to those you trust, or call Nature for
confirmation first -- I can't tell you how I got this, but I CAN tell you that Nature can't deny the authenticity of the memo." '

If the authorial style seems remarkably similar to Monsanto's PR cyphers
Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, who played such a critical role in the
anti-Chapela campaign, then interestingly Wevers can be found among the
early signatories of Andura Smetacek's petition calling for the jailing of Jose
Bove.

Another early signatory of Smetacek's petition was CS Prakash whose
AgBioWorld organisation is a member of Wevers' LSN. Prakash's AgBioWorld has
been shown to operate hand in glove with Monsanto's PR campaign.

Also a member of LSN is the state funded Crown Research Institute, Crop &
Food Research, which played a significant part in attacks on Nicky Hager's
book. Crop & Food Research issued pro-GM press releases even during the 2002
election campaign. One was headed, GM moratoriums, regulations, may cost
lives.

Crop & Food Research are not the only publicly funded institute that is part
of LSN. HortResearch, AgResearch, and ForestResearch are also listed as
members. As the GM issue was a key issue in the election, the Green Party
demanded to know how, 'How can they justify their involvement in an ad
campaign aimed at influencing voters just days out from an election?' (Press Release from the Green Party , 23 July 2002)

According to the New Zealand Herald, 'AgResearch and Crop and Food Research,
contributed to a $180,000 election fund at the lobby group Life Sciences
Network, which paid for full-page pro-GM advertisements in 21 newspapers...
The group also advertised on television.' The leader of the main opposition
party (National Party) said ' to have Government organisations taking paid
advertising is a gross interference in the democratic process.' The Herald
also reported that New Zealand First leader Winston Peters 'effectively called for the resignations of the heads of the two institutes, saying their actions were
"simply not excusable. The use of taxpayers' money in that way would not be
acceptable in any other democracy." ' (Taxpayer cash in pro-GE adverts)


LSN's predecessor GenePool was at the centre of a similar controversy over
'using public science funds' for promoting GM (Seeds of Distrust, 2002,
p.34). This contributed to GenePool's demise and the emergence of LSN. The
controversy over the public funding of LSN, and the election row it helped
to generate, may in turn have contributed to LSN's recent rebranding as BioScience
Communications.

--> If you pass this comment along to others,
please explain that Commentaries are a premium
sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to
learn more folks can consult ZNet at
http://www.zmag.org

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-01/15sharma.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Ever Heard of Hood Robin
January 15, 2004
By Devinder Sharma

For Sumitra Behera, 35, a resident of Badibahal
village in Angul district of Orissa, selling her
one month old daughter for a paltry sum of Rs 10
(approximately 11 US cents), was perhaps the only
way to feed her two other daughters -- Urbashi,
10, and Banbasi, 2. Her husband had died about
eight months ago. The shocking reflection of the
harsh ground realities that prevail throughout
the countryside -- and Orissa is no exception --
will however soon be buried under denials and
allegations.

Sumitra Behera supreme sacrifice comes at a time
when Ingo Potrykus, the scientist who invented a
rice that has been genetically altered to carry a
miniscule percentage of Vitamin A, demanded that
opponents of genetically engineered crops should
be made to stand trial in an international court.
"I would make them responsible, have them in an
international court and get them to justify the
pain and suffering they are inflicting on so many
people."

The Switzerland-based Dr Potrykus believes that
the "golden rice" that he has produced will save
almost one million children a year from going
blind. This prompted the ever-eager Rockefeller
Foundation, European Union and the Swiss
government to provide US $ 2.6 million
(approximately Rs 125 million) over seven years
to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) with the aim to engineer the pro-Vitamin A
genes into the local varieties of rice.

If only the same amount of research funding had
gone to feed the hungry, over one million
impoverished could have been pulled out of
extreme hunger in the next seven years. In other
words, Dr Potrykus’ infructuous research has
deprived at least one million hungry of their
basic fundamental right -- food. Snatching food
literally from the hands of the hungry is perhaps
the greatest human crime. How will Ingo Potrykus
and his supporters like to be treated for
exploiting even the hungry for the sake of
amassing more profits for the commercial
companies? I leave it to him and his tribe to
provide the answer.

In all fairness, Dr Potrykus is not the only one.
What about the 2,000 scientists, including
several Nobel laureates, who signed the AgBioView
Foundation appeal in 2001, urging the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) not to destroy a mere
3,000 tonnes of genetically modified rice, and
instead export it to the hungry millions? Their
resolve for hunger vanished when told that they
should come and help distribute 45 million tonnes
of surplus foodgrains, much of it rotting in the
open in India. After all, if they had joined
hands, India could have succeeded partially in
removing hunger. With 320 million hungry, India
alone has one-third of the world's hungry.

What about the Royal Society that castigates the
critics of biotechnology, and admonishes the
media for printing anything that goes against the
commercial interests of the biotechnology
companies? What about the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics that unethically appoints a working
group of experts, all known supporters of
biotechnology industry, so as to convince the
British government of its "moral duty" to invest
in GM crops research for the sake of developing
countries? All of them, the so-called
distinguished academic institutions and forums,
swear in the name of hunger and malnutrition, but
only if it adds to the profit of the GM
companies. If it does not bring profit for the
companies, let the hungry go to hell.

Let us hear what Prof Derek Burke, a former vice
chancellor of the East Anglia University (UK) and
a former chairman of the Advisory Committee for
Novel Foods ad Processes, has to say about GM
technology: " ...the consequence of the loss of
this technology for society is the loss of the
ability to create new wealth. It's my
grandchildren that I'm concerned about. How will
they earn their living in 20 years? The answer
may lie partly in your hands."

Prof Burke is one of the authors of the Nuffield
Council on Bioethics recently released
controversial report on the use of genetically
modified crops for the developing countries. The
report tries to create an illusion as if the
interest of the British scientists is the welfare
of the poor and hungry in the developing
countries. In reality, they are worried at the
future of their own scientists, their own
children. And you think these are the Robin
Hood's of the 21st century? You think they feel
compassionately for the hungry and the dying?
Think again.

Gone are the days when the legendary Robin Hood
would rob the rich and give it to the poor. It is
just the opposite now. The rich and elite are
sparing no effort to rob the poor, even building
profits over the starving millions. Worse still,
hungry are being robbed of what ever little they
live with, ironically under the emotional and
scientific cover of eradicating hunger and
starvation. These are the Hood Robins -- always
willing to exploit the poor and hungry for the
sake of the corporate interest.

The Hood Robins change jobs back and forth
between corporate agribusiness and the
Agriculture Department until the two are
indistinguishable. Hood Robins masquerade as
scientists, bureaucrats, as educated entrepreneur
and of course as GM food company. They have
successfully co-opted the public sector
university research system in a way that tax
dollars support research ultimately enhances the
company profits. They help the GM companies spend
US $ 119 million for lobbying in 1998 in the USA
alone. What for? "Educating" the American
politicians about the virtues of genetic
engineering. Not only the American politician,
they even set up an NGO that regularly imparts
orientation courses to the judges from the
developing country.

Scientific research is rigged, alarming evidence
of health dangers is covered up, and intense
political pressure silences the sane voice of the
dissidents. You have probably heard of the four
scientists who dared to stand for the cause of
"good science", their voice was silenced for the
sake of the neoclassic model of "sound science",
another name for corporate controlled science.

Arpad Pusztai - Consultant, Norwegian Food
Sciences Institute, formerly Principal Scientific
Officer, Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Discovery. Cytological and histological damage to
rodents fed with transgenically-modified potatoes.

Suppression. Dr Pusztai was fired from his
position of 30 years as a scientist at the Rowett
Institute in Scotland. His research files were
seized, including in a break-in at his home.
Major campaign of discreditation.

John Losey - Associate Professor, Cornell University.
Discovery. Damage and death in Monarch butterfly
caterpillars fed with pollen from
transgenically-modified corn.

Suppression: Promotion of research targetted
towards discreditation of his discoveries. Media
campaign.

Tyrone Hayes - Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Discovery. Damage to tissues, organs and ecology
of amphibian reproduction due to low levels of
Atrazine, the most widely-used chemical in US
agriculture.

Suppression. Attempts at suppressing, delaying
and derailing research. Targetted research to
discredit his findings. Discreditation campaign.

Ignacio Chapela - Assistant Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Discovery. Genetic contamination of maize by
transgenic (GMO) DNA in its center of origin in
Oaxaca, México.

Suppression. Attempts at suppressing, delaying
and derailing research. Direct threats.
Coordinated, industry-funded international
discreditation campaign. Not granted a research
extension.

Distortions, omissions, cover-ups and bribes are
used to promote an unhealthy and risky
technology, and that too with the ‘pious’
intention of eradicating hunger. Hood Robin’s
exploits surely read like adventure stories.

Meanwhile, Sumitra Behera has already spent the
11 cents (not enough to buy a bottle of mineral
water) that she got for selling her one-month-old
baby. She is probably planning to sell her second
younger daughter, Banbasi, aged 2. That's the
only way she can keep herself alive, fighting her
daily battle with acute hunger and deprivation.
She is in a way lucky that she continues to
survive against all odds. Nearly 24,000 hungry
like her die every day the world over waiting for
food. Not knowing that Hood Robins have siphoned
off the money that was meant to provide them food.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3544052

Sir Peter Elworthy was a self-named 'Tiger Moth aircraft nut'.
Herald file

Obituary: Sir Peter Elworthy

NZ HERALD
17.01.2004
By ARNOLD PICKMERE
Farmer, politician, businessman. Died aged 68.

Sir Peter Elworthy, of Craigmore, South Canterbury, was a man of reserved
demeanour, with a politically astute and analytical brain.

His diverse career ranged from farming endeavours and being founding
chairman of the Ravensdown co-operative fertiliser company, to heading
Federated Farmers in the critical years when farming subsidies were
dismantled in the 1980s.

He was a director of the Reserve Bank for 14 years and held numerous
business directorships.

His other interests were also diverse, from conservation and organic farming
to being, as he put it himself, a Tiger Moth aircraft nut.

Peter Elworthy had an air of assurance, attributed by some to connections
with the South Island landed family tradition of being sent to Christ's
College followed by Lincoln College, from which he graduated in 1953.

His home estate land at Craigmore, inland from Timaru, is part of the
original leasehold run, Pareora Station, secured by Edward Elworthy in 1864.

But Peter Elworthy believed the best education he had for agriculture and
for life was the year he spent working in the Southland high country at
Glanaray Station.

Elworthy never worried about advocating things that were not popular, as
long as he was convinced of their merit.

An early example was deer farming. As the founding president of the Deer
Farmers' Association, he overcame many obstacles and doubters towards a new
farming industry. It was carried out with a professionalism unseen in the
promotion of other farming enthusiasms that have come and gone.

But his biggest contribution was his time as president of Federated Farmers
in the mid-1980s. That was when it became obvious that the substantial
Muldoon-initiated system of Government-subsidised land development, stock
incentive schemes and supplementary minimum prices for farmers was not
sustainable.

Sheep numbers had soared. Markets such as the Soviet Union and Iran were not
slow to notice New Zealand was producing a surplus of sheepmeat that no one
else wanted.

Millions of dollars in subsidies were paid to farmers for meat and wool.

In 1984, the new Labour Government was happy to drop the subsidies. Peter
Elworthy's job of convincing farmers was tough, because even the artificial
payments were not enough to compensate farmers for rampant inflation (some
bank rates for farm finance topped 25 per cent even in 1986).

Elworthy was forced to remind the new Finance Minister, Roger Douglas, that
the supplementary prices had only partly offset the costs imposed on farming
by protected and inefficient monopoly industries, union power and
restrictive trade practices.

He told Douglas' then-deputy, Richard Prebble, who seemed prepared to let
farmers go broke rather than restructure the meat industry, that he was "in
cuckoo land" if he believed the economy could survive without the meat
industry.

But Elworthy, who got farmers to generally agree with the thrust of
eliminating subsidies and exposing farming to market forces, was not the
tub-thumper some would have liked him to be. He was wary of antagonising the
city electorate, and keen to find a balance with the wider community.

In his retirement years Sir Peter achieved prominence with his chairmanship
of the independent Sustainability Council, urging caution and more research
into genetic modification and the attitudes towards it developing in New
Zealand's overseas markets.

Sir Peter is survived by his wife, Lady Fiona McHardy Elworthy, two sons and
two daughters.

He collapsed and died at Wanaka this week, after recently completing medical
tests that cleared him to continue flying his bright yellow Tiger Moth.

Sir Peter won the cup for the Perfect Loop at the Tiger Moth rally in 2002.
He was so proud of this that his wife suggested it might be marked on his
epitaph.

Copyright © 2003 AP Online

Today is Saturday, Jan. 17, the 17th day of 2004. There are 349 days left
in the year.

"I am always ready to learn, but I do not always like to be taught." -
Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965).

Today's Highlight in History:

On Jan. 17, 1961, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned
against the rise of "the military-industrial complex."

Betrayal Behind Israeli Attack On USS Liberty

By Admiral Thomas Moorer

Houston Chronicle
1-14-4

After State Department officials and historians
assembled in Washington, D.C., last week to discuss
the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to
speak out about one of U.S. history's most shocking
cover-ups.

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship
-- the USS Liberty -- killing 34 American servicemen
and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and
left to die by our own government.

U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled, not once,
but twice, through direct intervention by the Johnson
administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's
cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the
Liberty, which I personally confirmed from the
commanders of the aircraft carriers America and
Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in
my entire military career.

To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has
failed to hold formal hearings on Israel's attack on
this American ship. No official investigation of
Israel's attack has ever permitted the testimony of
the surviving crew members.

A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other
reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a
cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in
a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court
was ordered by the White House to cover up the
incident and find that Israel's attack was "a case of
mistaken identity."

Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an
independent commission to investigate the attack on
the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of
previous reports, naval and other military records,
including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we
recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They
include:

… Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the
Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the
attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship.
Weather reports confirm the day was clear with
unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked
American ship in international waters, flying an
American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull
letters and numbers on its bow.

Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they
confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport,
the Liberty was conspicuously different from any
vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most
sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967.
With its massive radio antennae, including a large
satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was
one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.

… Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio
operators from sending a call for help by jamming
American emergency radio channels.

… Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at
close range that had been lowered to rescue the most
seriously wounded.

As a result, our commission concluded that:

… There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack
was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship
and kill her entire crew.

… In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts
of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war
against the United States

… The White House knowingly covered up the facts of
this attack from the American people.

… The truth continues to be concealed to the present
day in what can only be termed a national disgrace.

What was Israel's motive in launching this attack?
Congress must address this question with full
cooperation from the National Security Agency, the
Central Intelligence Agency and the military
intelligence services.

The men of the USS Liberty represented the United
States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70
percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss
of our best intelligence ship.

These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best
defense. We gave them no defense.

Did our government put Israel's interests ahead of our
own? If so, why? Does our government continue to
subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?
These are important questions that should be
investigated by an independent, fully empowered
commission of the American government.

The American people deserve to know the truth about
this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of
the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a
duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS
Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to
wear the uniform of the United States.

Moorer was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff from
1970 to 1974. He is joined in the independent
commission of inquiry by Gen. Ray Davis (recently
deceased); Rear Adm. Merlin Staring; former Judge
Advocate General of the Navy and Ambassador James
Akins.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3617724,00.html

U.S. Says 1967 Attack Act of Negligence

GUARDIAN (London) Tuesday January 13, 2004
By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reviewing documents covering 36
years, amid a lack of consensus, a State Department
official concluded Monday that Israel's attack on the
U.S. spy ship Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War was
an act of Israeli negligence.

The United States also was negligent, the official
maintained, for failing to notify Israel that the
electronic intelligence-gathering ship was cruising
international waters off the Egyptian coast and for
failing to withdraw the Liberty from the war zone.

A daylong conference that studied fresh documents as
well as the established record failed to produce a
consensus for any of three views voiced most often:
Israel intentionally attacked what it knew to be a
ship of the U.S. Navy, the attack was accidental, or
the attack resulted from faulty judgment.

Thirty-four Americans were killed in the June 8, 1967,
attack, and more than 170 were wounded.

Israel long has maintained that the attack was a case
of mistaken identity, an explanation the Johnson
administration did not challenge formally. Israel said
its forces thought the Liberty was an Egyptian horse
carrier, apologized to the United States and paid
almost $13 million in compensation, some to victims or
their families.

Since the United States did not intercept the order to
attack the ship with cannon fire and napalm, precise
facts of the attack remain elusive, the State
Department official said Monday, speaking on condition
of anonymity.

He called the Israeli attack and the U.S. actions a
classic example of Murphy's law: "If anything can go
wrong, it will."

David Hatch, a technical director at the National
Security Agency, said, "The good news is that
information long sought by researchers is now out, and
the bad news is that it does not settle it."

The occasion for the State Department conference was
the release of historical documents about the 1967 war
in which Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt,
Syria, Jordan and other Arab countries in six days.

Charles Smith, a professor at the University of
Arizona, said in his presentation that Israel should
have known the Liberty was an American ship.

"If they didn't know, they didn't try hard enough to
find out," he said.

James Bamford, an investigative journalist who has
written about the incident, demanded further
investigation "instead of people getting up here and
giving their opinions."

"There were cover-ups," Bamford said, citing a signed
affidavit by retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, who was a
leader of a military investigation into the incident.

Boston said in the affidavit in October that
then-President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara had told those heading the Navy's inquiry to
"conclude that the attack was a case of `mistaken
identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary."

Boston, 80, who did not attend Monday's conference,
said the Navy investigators were given only one week
but still were able to amass "a vast amount of
evidence, including heartbreaking testimony from young
survivors."

Accusing Israel of a deliberate effort to sink an
American ship and kill its crew, Boston said in a
legal declaration in Coronado, Calif., that he was
certain the Israel pilots knew the Liberty, which
clearly displayed American flags and had markings in
English instead of Arabic, was a U.S. Navy ship.

Additionally, Boston said, "Israeli torpedo boats
machine-gunned three lifeboats that that had been
launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most
seriously wounded - a war crime."

Jay Cristol, a U.S. bankruptcy court judge who has
written about the incident, cited the finding of the
Navy's inquiry as proof the attack was a mistake.
"There was no indication they had any knowledge they
were attacking a U.S. ship," Cristol told the
conference.

If the attack were deliberate, its motivation remains
uncertain.

Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former chief of naval operations
and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a
memorandum on June 8, 1997, the 30th anniversary of
the attack, that Israel deliberately attacked to hide
its intentions in the war.

"I am confident that Israel knew the Liberty could
intercept radio messages from all parties and
potential parties to the ongoing war, then in its
fourth day, and that Israel was preparing to seize the
Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's
known opposition to such a move," Moorer wrote.

"I believe (then-Israeli Defense Minister) Moshe Dayan
concluded that he could prevent Washington from
becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying
the primary source of acquiring that information, the
USS Liberty." Israel took the strategic Syrian
territory and still holds it 37 years later.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2345393

BIO-IPR docserver
____________

TITLE: US patent likely for new strain of fragrant Pathum Thani rice
AUTHOR: Kultida Samabuddhi
PUBLICATION: Bangkok Post
DATE: 14 January 2004
URL: http://www.bangkokpost.com/140104_News/14Jan2004_news23.html
NOTE FROM GRAIN: The Thai government has filed for a US plant variety
protection certificate (number 200200235, filed 22 August 2002) on Pathum
Thani 1, not a US patent.
____________

Bangkok Post | 14 January 2004

US PATENT LIKELY FOR NEW STRAIN OF FRAGRANT PATHUM THANI RICE
Pest-resistant, can be grown year-round

by Kultida Samabuddhi

The United States has agreed to patent Thailand's Pathum Thani 1 rice strain
under its plant variety protection law, a senior government official said
yesterday.

"The government was aware of the dangers of biopiracy, so we used the World
Trade Organisation's regulations on intellectual property rights to protect
our plant varieties," said Wicha Thitiprasert, director of the Agriculture
Department's Plant Varieties Protection Division.

By obtaining the patent in the US, plant breeders and rice farmers in other
countries, including America, would not be allowed to make use of the rice
strain. "Thailand will now become the only country in the world that can
export Pathum Thani 1 rice to the US," he said.

Prathum Thani 1 was developed from Kao Dok Mali 105 fragrant rice, better
known as Hom Mali rice, by the department in 2000. The new high-grade rice
strain is said to be less fragrant but just as tasty as jasmine rice.

The rice is resistant to pests and diseases and can be grown year-round.

The US Department of Agriculture, he said, was expected to officially grant
the patent in July after a confirmation from their scientists that the
characteristics of Pathum Thani 1 rice variety meet the patent regulations
on new plant varieties.

Newly developed plant varieties that are eligible for patenting must have
novelty, stability, harmonisation and uniformity. Also, the strain must be
in public use for no longer than four years if it is to be patented.

Therefore, Hom Mali rice was ineligible for a US patent because it was not
new and had been distributed for decades.

© The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994558

Pig-human chimeras contain cell surprise

13:42 13 January 04

NewScientist.com news service

Pigs grown from fetuses into which human stem cells were injected have
surprised scientists by having cells in which the DNA from the two species
is mixed at the most intimate level.

It is the first time such fused cells have been seen in living creatures.
The discovery could have serious implications for xenotransplantation - the
use of animal tissue and organs in humans - and even the origin of diseases
such as HIV.

The adult pigs that had received human stem cells as fetuses were found to
have pig cells, human cells and the hybrid cells in their blood and organs.

"What we found was completely unexpected. We found that the human and pig
cells had totally fused in the animals' bodies," said Jeffrey Platt,
director of the Mayo Clinic Transplantation Biology Program.

Nuclear mix

The hybrid cells had both human and pig surface markers. But, most
surprisingly, the hybrid cell nuclei were found to have chromosomal DNA that
contained both human and pig genes. The researchers found that about 60 per
cent of the animals' non-pig cells were hybrids, with the remainder being
fully human.

Importantly, the team also found that porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV),
which is present in almost all pigs, was also present in the hybrid cells.
Previous laboratory work has shown that while PERVs in pig cells cannot
infect human cells, those in hybrid cells can. The discovery therefore
suggests a serious potential problem for xenotransplantation.

The work also suggests a possible route of infection for other viruses that
have crossed from animals to humans.

"Perhaps HIV managed to jump from primates to humans through infected blood
from a bite, which allowed the stem cells from the two species to fuse,"
Platt told New Scientist. "When the genes recombined, perhaps the virus was
reawakened."

Body plan

Chimeric animals containing human cells have been created before. New
Scientist reported in December on the growing of human liver cells in sheep.
The work, by Esmail Zanjani and colleagues at the University of Nevada,
Reno, aims to provide human tissue for transplantation into people.

"The new work is certainly very interesting," Zanjani told New Scientist.
"But the question is how widespread and how many of these hybrid cells were
found? If they are very rare - and we haven't found any in our experiments -
then I don't think it is that important."

Zanjani says it is "possible" that HIV had spread to humans through a type
of human-primate cell fusion, but adds that much more research needs to be
done.

In Platt's experiments, the human stem cells were injected into the pig
fetuses about a third of the way through gestation. In Zanjani's work, the
cells were injected about halfway through.

The injections must be given after the body plan of the fetus has developed,
but before the immune system is active. The former ensures the animals look
like normal pigs and sheep. The latter prevents the human stem cells being
rejected.

Journal reference: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Journal (DOI: 1096/fj.03-00962fje)

Gaia Vince

January 15, 2004 NY Times
Kudos for Designer of Gene Experiment in Lab. Well Done, Robot!
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

British scientists say they have developed a robotic system that for the
first time can design a genetics experiment, carry it out and interpret
the results.

No difference was found between the laboratory bench results generated
by the robot scientist and those gathered by graduate students doing
similar work, the researchers report today in the journal Nature.

While the system remains in its infancy, they hope it will someday
conduct laboratory-intensive work, freeing researchers from drudgery.

"The sort of grunt research can be done this way, and more creative
stuff humans will have more time to do," said the study's author,
Stephen Oliver of the University of Manchester.

Other researchers described the robot as a harbinger of the future but
said more sophisticated reasoning software had to be developed.

Once that happens, laboratories would adopt such advanced artificial
intelligence systems "pretty rapidly and pervasively," said Larry
Hunter, a computational biology expert at the University of Colorado
School of Medicine, who was not involved in the experiment.

The robotic system was designed to determine the function of baker's
yeast genes. About 30 percent of the yeast's 6,000 genes are unknown,
but scientists believe they may be shared in the human genome and might
someday be medically important.

To determine functions of the genes in question, the experiments used
"knockout" varieties in which a specific gene is removed. By determining
how the yeast sample grows, the function of the missing gene can be
determined.

In the automated experiments, the researchers first developed a
mathematical model showing how various genes, proteins and enzymes and
growth mediums interact.

Armed with that knowledge, the robot independently generated hypotheses
about the missing genes, then used equipment to grow yeast strains.

Later the growth of each strain was evaluated against the original
hypothesis.

The process was repeated over and over as the system developed new
hypotheses based on the accumulating data.

"It's like if you have a machine which is broken, the system can
automatically reason to find all the possible ways it can be broken,"
said Ross King of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. "Some
philosophers have thought this is impossible for computers because
that's the imaginative leap."

The robot scientist uses a type of reasoning called abduction. Dr. King
said it was the kind of reasoning the police used to reconcile clues
when investigating a crime.

"If this person committed the crime, all the clues make sense," Dr. King
said.

Dr. Hunter said the new work was the first in which experimental design,
computer control of instruments and analysis of the resulting data had
been "hooked together in a closed loop."

"It is now possible to design artificial intelligence systems that are
able to reason well enough to be effective partners in scientific
research," Dr. Hunter said.

Dr. Oliver said the next step was to see whether the robot could make a
completely novel discovery rather than simply match the graduate
students' results.

It is not yet clear whether Mworvin Minsky was involved in this caper.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Laura Hamburg/cell 621-0906
Email: laura@bullhornrag.com

Jan. 13, 2004

BIO-TECH CONSORTIUM HIDES WHO IS FOOTING THE BILL FOR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEASURE H IN MENDOCINO COUNTY

The first official spending reports show the multinational corporations outspent the local Measure H campaign by more than 50 to 1. Opposition money paid for out-of-county attorneys, unethical push-polling and industry-backed focus groups.

The citizen-led effort to put Mendocino County on the map as the first county in the nation to protect crops against genetically modified organisms is up against a consortium of outside biotech corporations that are attempting to hide how they are bankrolling the opposition, recent reports show.

Official opposition to a GMO-Free Mendocino comes from the Sacramento-based agri-chemical and biotechnology industry group called the California Plant Health Association, according to campaign finance reports released today (Wednesday Jan. 13) by the Mendocino County Clerk and the Secretary of State. The reports detail the money campaigns have spent and raised through the period ending December 31, 2003.

The statements detail each campaign's finance records - the names of individuals and organizations that donate $100 or more to a campaign and how that money was spent.

But in an effort to confuse the voters, the California Plant Health Association failed to record who is paying for the attacks against Measure H. Instead the group recorded all of their expenses as debt - a sneaky campaign trick employed by groups attempting to shield their financing, said Joe Lewis Wildman, a Ukiah campaign consultant who is currently running for Mendocino County Supervisor.

"If they record everything as debt, then they don't have to say where their money is coming from," Wildman said. "It's nothing more than a dishonest tactic, a way of hiding the money so the voters won't learn the truth about the funding."

So far, the industry group reported $59,366.92 in debt to four high-powered polling, lobby and law firms. More than half of that money -- $34,366 -- went to the Sacramento-based law firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, to pay for the industry's failed December lawsuit, attempting to censor ballot language in favor of Measure H.

The industry group also paid $7,650 to a Bay Area research group to conduct one focus group - held in Ukiah in mid December. The firm -- Nichols Research Group -- paid 10 Mendocino County residents more than $100 each in unmarked envelopes for a two-hour "focus" group on the pretense of "reading the temperature of Mendocino County voters."

"Instead, it was a two-hour negative slam against Measure H," said Anna Marie Stenberg, who lives on the Mendocino coast. "They used half-truths, incomplete quotes and blatant lies to sway our opinion against Measure H. The people who talked to us refused to tell use who they were working for and wouldn't even give us their last names."

It is unclear however, from the opposition's reports who exactly is paying for the recent county-wide blitz of negative push-polls on unsuspecting Mendocino County voters. The Houston-based firm that is making the calls - Promark Research - will not divulge whom it is working for and the firm is not listed on the spending reports.

Instead, the opposition lists a $25,000 debt to Woodward & McDowell, a Burlingame political consulting and PR firm. The lobby group is infamous for its work on behalf of the Tobacco Institute and its fights against California propositions to acquire ancient redwoods, clean water initiatives and efforts to tighten up pollution laws.

While it is likely the Burlingame lobbying firm paid the Houston-based Promark Research group to conduct the push-polls, voters may not learn the truth as long as the opposition campaign continues to list expenses as debt.

Meanwhile, Promark's polling tactics -- and the organization footing the bill (the California Plant Health Association) -- are currently under investigation by the American Association of Public Opinion Research for unethical polling practices.

"They led me to believe I was participating in a legitimate and neutral poll. But by the end of the conversation, I was completely offended at the way they twisted information and tried to change my mind with phony statements against Measure H," said Ukiah resident Sharon Kiichli. "I am not surprised the push-poll cost so much money. It was very carefully worded, and obviously conducted by a firm that knew how to sway voters' opinions."

In contrast, the Measure H campaign carefully detailed all expenses and contributions - the majority of which came from Mendocino County residents and businesses contributing $100 or more each. In addition, the campaign received 120 smaller donations from local resident and businesses averaging $25 each.

Two local businesses donated $4,999 each: Frey Vineyards, a family-owned vineyard that has helped put Mendocino County on the international map for outstanding conventional and organic winemaking, and Ukiah Natural Foods, a cooperative grocery store owned and operated by more than 4,000 local residents.

Contributions supporting Measure H that came from outside the county included $200 from the Alice Walker Revocable Trust - a trust headed up by Alice Walker, world-renowned author and poet famous for the novel "The Color Purple."

In total, the citizen's committee supporting Measure H raised $14,407 through Dec. 31st. Spending for the period totaled $1,261 – in contrast to the opposition's $59,366.92

A chunk of that YES on Measure H money -- $311 -- went to pay for court fees after the California Plant Health Association sued the proponents of Measure H in a failed effort to censor the March 2 election ballot before it even went to press. It's interesting to note the California Plant Health Association paid more than $34,000 (compared to $311!) to sue the proponents of Measure H, said campaign treasurer Allen Cooperrider.

The rest of the money raised by the YES on Measure H campaign went to pay for such things as a series of educational guidebooks called "Genetic Engineering, Food, And Our Environment," authored by Philo resident Luke Anderson.

If approved by voters in the March election, Measure H will prohibit the "propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of genetically modified organisms in Mendocino County." It is not a labeling law. And Measure H does not affect food products found in the aisles of grocery stores or livestock feed.

BRIGHT!!

[Editor's Note: The following two articles appeared at almost the same time on opposite sides of the Atlantic. "The Future Looks Bright" by Richard Dawkins was published in The Guardian on June 21st. "The Bright Stuff" by Daniel C. Dennett was published as an Op-Ed Page article in The New York Times on July 12th. They will be printed together in the O October/November issue of Free Inquiry magazine.]

The future looks bright by Richard Dawkins

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright. The website http://www.celebatheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights.

The Bright Stuff By Daniel C. Dennett

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic and life after death.

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group, which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before, could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view. You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity
from its follies.

As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.

####

THE REALITY CLUB: Jaron Lanier responds to Dawkins and Dennett.

If the Bright position is that the public must believe there is no life after death in order to enter into a pact of rationality (in which, say, desperately needed stem cell research can take place unmolested), you are setting yourselves up to be noble, beautiful losers, at least in the eyes of your sympathizers; Ralph Naders of science.

John Brockman, Editor and Publisher
Russell Weinberger, Associate Publisher

Copyright © 2004 by Edge Foundation, Inc

For Immediate Release January 14, 2004

CONTACT: Craig Culp, CTA, 202/547-9359, 301/509-0925, cculp@icta.org

LAWSUIT FILED TO BLOCK SALE OF FIRST GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PET FISH


Washington - The Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) and Center for
Food Safety (CFS) today filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court to block
the sale of the first ever genetically engineered pet, called the GloFish.
The lawsuit seeks a court order stating that the transgenic fish are
subject to Federal regulation and cannot be sold further without proper
approvals. Yorktown Technologies, LLP, of Austin, Texas, began selling the
gene-altered fish nationally this month, claiming that it needs no Federal
permit to do so. The bright red fish was created by adding genes from a
coral species to the genome of the common, black and white zebra danio.

Recent research also has revealed that the GloFish was engineered to
contain animal and human viruses and as well as antibiotic resistance
genes, all of which can pose human and animal health hazards.

"Allowing the unregulated sale of GloFish will provides a gateway for
genetically engineered fish to find their way onto our dinner plates and
into our environment," said Joseph Mendelson, CFS Legal Director. "Not
stepping in to regulate these fish, the FDA and USDA are
establishing a dangerous precedent for all future gene-altered animals,
whether created as food or pet fads. We are suing to prevent the GloFish
from opening the floodgates for all manner of genetically engineered
animals."

The CTA/CFS action seeks a ruling that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has authority over genetically engineered pets. In
November 2003, CFS requested that FDA formally announce its policy on
engineered ornamental fish. So far, FDA has declined to regulate
genetically engineered pet fish or to offer a timetable for issuing the
agency policy.

The California Fish and Game Commission is the only state agency to rule on
the engineered zebra fish. On December 3, the Commission said federal
regulation was needed and cited ethical concerns in refusing to allow the
sale of the genetically engineered fish .in that state.

"The genetic engineering of domesticated and wild animals creates
profound moral and environmental issues for society," said CTA Executive
Director Andrew Kimbrell. "The Bush administration's hands-off approach
to this technology has created a regulatory and ethical free-fall. It is
time for the courts to intervene and force our government agencies to
protect the public, not the just the interests of a few biotech
companies."

The National Academy of Sciences echoed the need for federal regulation in
a 2003 report on transgenic animals that emphasized the risks of
genetically engineered fish.

The complaint in the lawsuit represents the first-ever legal action seeking
to block sale of a genetically engineered animal and can be downloaded at:


For more information, please visit
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

Intel Looks Hard at Nanotechnology
Chip Maker Joins Nanosys To Study the Applications Of Threadlike Structures

By DON CLARK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Intel Corp., facing roadblocks in improving semiconductors, is exploring a
new tack with a high-profile start-up business called Nanosys Inc.

The companies have agreed to collaborate to study the possibility of using
Nanosys's technology in Intel chips. Nanosys, one of many entrants in a
field called nanotechnology, specializes in techniques for making
microscopic structures out of silicon and other materials common to the
semiconductor industry. Nanosys, of Palo Alto, Calif., and other companies
have discussed applying threadlike structures called nanowires to sheets of
plastic that could be churned out on rolls, like paper. Such flexible
circuitry, in theory, could be produced more efficiently than conventional
chips and used in many new ways.

Intel and Nanosys declined to give details about their collaboration. But
Laura Anderson, an Intel spokeswoman, said the agreement focuses on memory
technology and includes arrangements to share patents for a limited time.
"This work is purely investigational," Ms. Anderson said.

Much of Intel's research focuses on squeezing more transistors onto chips.
Packing more circuits in the same amount of space creates chips that are
faster, store more data and consume less power.

Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif., is just beginning to ship chips whose
circuitry has a maximum size of 90 nanometers, or billionths of a meter.
The company has demonstrated some technology with features as small as 22
nanometers, though such chips aren't expected to enter production until
2010 at the earliest.
Those dimensions tax conventional photographic techniques, which chip
makers use to define circuits on silicon wafers. But nanotechnology
companies manufacture in a different way, churning out tiny parts through
chemical processes in the equivalent of flasks.

Nanowires are expected to be used to make transistors just a few nanometers
in size. Computer titan Hewlett-Packard Co., for example, has demonstrated
ways to crisscross the tiny strands and store data with 10 times the
efficiency of conventional memory chips, said Philip Kuekes, an H-P senior
computer architect.

Researchers hope to exploit some more radical ways that materials behave at
tiny sizes. Some tiny crystals can be tuned to emit different light based
on their diameters, for example, and can transfer electrons more
efficiently than materials blended in a chip factory, Nanosys says.

"The fact that companies such as Intel are looking to us has to do with the
ability to engineer the properties of materials in an entirely new way,"
said Stephen Empedocles, a Nanosys co-founder and director of business
development.

Nanosys, a closely held company that employs a number of nanotechnology
pioneers, has raised about $70 million to date. A $38 million funding
round last spring included an undisclosed investment from Intel. A key
target for the company is solar energy; Nanosys and Matsushita Electric
Works Ltd. are working on roofing tiles that can generate electricity and
should be in production in 2006, Mr. Empedocles said.

Intel also is placing multiple bets. In 1999, it invested in a Norwegian
company, Opticom ASA, and a subsidiary that is developing memory chips
based on flexible polymers. In 2000, it invested in Ovonyx Inc., a start-up
business working on memory technology that exploits changes in what are
called amorphous materials.

Write to Don Clark at don.clark@wsj.com

Updated January 14, 2004

*Items Web-mounted on Wednesday, 14 January 2004****


Farming of genetically engineered crops up 15 percent worldwide
Seven million farmers in 18 countries grew GE on 66.8 million hectares
last year, compared to 58 million hectares in 2002, a new report has
found

----------

The Front Page of The Wall Street Journal 14 Jan 04

Genetically engineered crop plantings increased 15% last year despite
widespread consumer resistance in Europe and elsewhere, according to a
group that promotes use of the technology in poor countries.

----------

As it happens, these boasts come to hand just as I'm nearing the
end of C Ryan 'The Last Battle' - Berlin is about to be captured by USSR
& Allied armies, but Hinkler & cronies continue to boast of the impending
triumph. Actually Himmler has been trying secret negotiations with Allies
for a fortnight ... can Ho expect private approaches from Vivian Moses?
...

Note that even the Wall St Jungle is honest enough to mention the
bias of the 'report'ing group, while RSNZ propagandist Owen Watson has no
such scruples.

R

January 06, 2004 scientific american

Scientists Turn DNA Tubes into Nanowires

Scientists have recruited DNA to manufacture minuscule wires that could
be used for nanoscale electronic devices. According to a report
published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, tiny tubes that self-assemble can be coated in metal to form
highly conductive wires.

Thomas LaBean of Duke University and his colleagues first assembled
tiles from synthetic DNA molecules, which they used as building blocks.
Under the right chemical conditions, these tiles arrange themselves into
tubes that measure just 25 nanometers in diameter and up to 20 microns
in length. (The new process improves on previous assembly methods, which
resulted in tubes of greatly varying lengths and some leftover tiles.)
The scientists then created smooth, uniform silver nanowires from the
tubes through a two-step chemical reaction.

The benefit of utilizing DNA to assemble nanotechnology lies in its
specificity. Because DNA bonds according to well-understood base-pairing
rules, the scientists hope to exploit it in order to place nanowires at
precise locations on a relatively large chip without having to directly
manipulate them.

--Sarah Graham

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2779854a11,00.html

Death of Sir Peter Elworthy shock to South Canterbury
12 January 2004

South Canterbury is in shock today after the sudden death in Wanaka of Sir
Peter Elworthy.


Tributes have already begun to flow for one of the region's most
distinguished citizens who also had an international profile in agriculture.
Sir Peter was 68.

He died in Wanaka, where he'd been attending a wedding.

His wife, Lady Fiona Elworthy, speaking from the family home at Craigmore
last night, said that Sir Peter had died suddenly at 5.30am yesterday in a
motel in the lakeside town. They'd been attending the wedding of Jonathan
Wallis, the son of well known aviator Sir Tim Wallis.

Lady Elworthy said the cause of Sir Peter's death was still unknown.

"He'd just passed the very stringent medical to renew his pilot's and
aerobatic licences with a completely clean bill of health."

Three of the Elworthys' four children are overseas but were now on their way
home, Lady Elworthy said. The funeral will be held at St Mary's in Timaru on
Friday to allow all family members to be present.

Sir Peter's death comes as a huge shock to the South Canterbury community.

Timaru District Mayor Wynne Raymond, who went to school with Sir Peter and
has been a close friend ever since, heard the news while on holiday in
Nelson.

"He was a very much loved man in the South Canterbury community and earned
his knighthood many times over. He was generous to a fault - not just
personally but privately in the way that he and Lady Elworthy opened up
their property at Craigmore for so many events.

"He was a rock-solid friend and associate."

Mr Raymond said Sir Peter, throughout his life, had never shied away from
dealing with issues, no matter how contentious.

Former Meat New Zealand chairman John Acland of Mt Peel Station, and his
wife Rosemary, were staying in the same motel where Sir Peter died.

"He was one of New Zealand's most outstanding farming leaders and has served
the nation's farmers extremely well. He was single-minded in pursuing what
has been best for them, even through the most difficult of times," Mr Acland
said.

"He was a fine person, a man of high integrity and a born leader."

Sir Peter was made a Knight Bachelor in 1988 in recognition of his services
to agriculture. He was also a recipient of a distinguished fellow award from
the Institute of Directors in New Zealand in 2001 and received a 1990
Commemoration Medal for services to conservation.

Sir Peter was born in Timaru on March 3, 1935. He attended Christ's College
in Christchurch, and gained an Intensive Course Diploma from Lincoln College
(now Lincoln University) in 1953. He won a Nuffield Travelling Scholarship
Award to Britain in 1970.

In 1984 he became the first resident South Canterbury person to be elected
as president of Federated Farmers. He had already established an impressive
list of achievements in the world of agriculture, pioneering the New Zealand
Deer Farmers' Association and was also founding chairman of Ravensdown
Fertiliser.

Sir Peter held an impressive list of directorships over the past 20 years,
primarily in the agricultural sector, but also covering finance, culture,
education and charitable organisations.

He was chairman of the Independent Directors of the Reserve Bank until 1999,
the New Zealand Rural Trust, New Zealand Farmlands, The Power Company, the
Port of Timaru (now PrimePort Timaru), and Seabil. He also chaired the
Lincoln Foundation, and the Sustainability Council of New Zealand which
fought against the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of
genetically modified crops.

But his interests ranged well beyond farming. He chaired the Alan Duff
Foundation's project Books in Homes and also served on a number of other
boards, including Enerco, Huttons, Skellerup and Sky City.

South Canterbury people, especially, also associated Sir Peter with one of
his other great interests, flying. An easily recognised figure in his bright
yellow Tiger Moth, Sir Peter had been taking to the air as a pilot for about
40 years.

He was also known for his love of horses, and was master of the South
Canterbury Hunt for many years.

A Power In The Land

Editorial, The Press [Christchurch] 13 January 2004

New Zealand has lost an outstanding contributor to its well-being. For
both, the loss is deepened because Sir Peter, comparatively young, at the
height of his influence, fully engaged in important issues , had so much
more to give.

The record suggests his outstanding achievement was his presidency of
Federated Farmers, a post that is seldom filled without contention but
that inevitably is influential. Those characteristics certainly marked Sir
Peter's tenure, but it was his impact behind the scenes that really
distinguished his life. That is attested to by the expressions of shock at
his passing. Many emphasise his wisdom as counsellor. Whether it was
public policy or a personal problem, Sir Peter could be relied on for
sound advice, succinctly expressed and never contrived at avoiding
reality.

This shows in the status commonly accorded him. Every minister of
agriculture for the past quarter century sought his advice; he had access
to all prime ministers; numerous public companies valued his contribution
as a director; many community organisations benefited from his support.

For many New Zealanders it is Sir Peter the trusted confidant who will
live in their memory, but his nearly four years at the top of Federated
Farmers were remarkable and will feature in the histories. He was the man
for the time.

After decades of advocating a deregulated economy, farmers found
themselves the victims of their own advice as the Lange Government withdrew
supports and exposed the industry to the marketplace. The speed of the
change, a rising kiwi dollar and interest rates and falling commodity
prices, mercilessly impacted on the rural community. Many farmers were
forced off the land; survival required better farming and financial
practices and, frequently, a change in what was produced.

Such was the savageness of the change that many farmers sought scapegoats,
and Finance Minister Roger Douglas was not the only focus of their anger.
Sir Peter, presiding over a distressed membership but personally in favour
of the reforms, had to chart a skilful course. He voiced farmer concern
and walked in the protest marches but did not present uncompromising
opposition to change. His objection was to the method and timing of the
reforms' implementation, not to their detail or direction. His confidence
was strong that New Zealand farmers could flourish in a free market, that
their enterprise and talent needed a free rein.

Sir Peter's critics threatened to block his re-election. They are silent
now as farming booms, not just because of healthy export prices but also
because of smarter production and closer attunement to the market, things
directly attributable to the economic changes that he helped bring about.
The benefits to the nation are huge.

That was what Sir Peter wanted because he was able to encompass the whole
country in his sights. It was the good of the community that mattered.
The promotion of one sector or class at the expense of another was
unacceptable, and that included race. He made an effort to build
understanding with Maori.

Sir Peter was expressing the paternalistic conservatism that was his
inheritance. The Elworthys were early South Canterbury runholders who
produced generations of public-spirited citizens. Independent, clever,
free-thinking, the family has a remarkable record that includes a marshal
of the Royal Air Force and a Cabinet minister. Tradition plainly sustains
the Elworthys but not as much as public service.

Sir Peter was lucky to have been a product of such a family but his
achievements were all his own, often hard won and a test of his mettle.
New Zealand is a better place because of his persistence in meeting the
many challenges he accepted.

Tributes flow for Sir Peter Elworthy

Timaru Herald. 13 January 2004. By Staff Reporters

The sudden death of Sir Peter Elworthy was a total shock, Agriculture
Minister Jim Sutton said yesterday.

Mr Sutton said Sir Peter, a constituent in Mr Sutton's Aoraki electorate,
was always completely fair-minded.

"We had got to know each other in Federated Farmers. When I ran for
Parliament against his brother Jonathan in 1981 and again in 1984, it
didn't make any difference to our friendship.

"With Peter, it was always the policies and principles that were
important, not the colour of the party rosettes.

"As Dominion President of Federated Farmers during the period when farm
subsidies were being removed  which, contrary to some revised accounts,
was not wildly popular in the rural community  Peter was able to preserve
a constructive working relationship between the rural industry and the
Government throughout.

"It was certainly not the line of least resistance. In fact, it was a
demonstration of courage under fire, and it was very much in the interests
of New Zealand."

Mr Sutton said Sir Peter's untimely death was a great shock.

"I guess we had all assumed his wise counsel would remain available to us
for many more years. He will be greatly missed."

National leader Don Brash said he was stunned by the death of his
"personal friend and confidant".

Sir Peter was a Reserve Bank director for much of the time that Dr Brash
was its governor.

"Sir Peter was among those who encouraged me to leave the Reserve Bank and
join National Party politics in 2002," he said.

He said Sir Peter was one of few people that he was able to confide in.

Sir Peter was a strong supporter of sensible, commonsense, market policies
and would be greatly missed, Dr Brash said.

Others to express their shock and sadness yesterday were Green Party
co-leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald.

"Sir Peter made an enormous contribution to the GE-free movement," noted
Ms Fitzsimons. "As a practical farmer and as a businessman he could reach
out to those sectors, where his opinions were particularly respected.

"In retirement he was prepared to take on a high-profile position at the
Sustainability Council, knowing how controversial it would be. That
wouldn't have worried Sir Peter  he always worked in the best interest of
the land," she said.

"Not only was Sir Peter a very successful farmer and entrepreneur but he
was also an incredibly generous and kind person," said Mr Donald.

"Our thoughts are with Lady Elworthy and the family."

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/safeseed/sourcebook.html

THE SAFE SEED SOURCEBOOK
Your Resource for GE-Free Seeds

The Safe Seed Pledge:

"Agriculture and seeds provide the basis upon which our lives depend. We
must protect this foundation as a safe and genetically stable source for
future generations. For the benefit of all farmers, gardeners and consumers
who want an alternative,

We pledge that we do not knowingly buy or sell genetically engineered seeds
or plants.

The mechanical transfer of genetic material outside of natural reproductive
methods and between genera, families or kingdoms, poses great biological
risks as well as economic, political, and cultural threats. We feel that
genetically engineered varieties have been insufficiently tested prior to
public release. More research and testing is necessary to further assess the
potential risks of genetically engineered seeds. Further, we wish to support
agricultural progress that leads to healthier soils, genetically diverse
agricultural ecosystems and ultimately healthy people and communities."

The companies listed below (alphabetical, by State, with Canada and Costa
Rica included at the end) have signed the Safe Seed Pledge for 2002. We
encourage you to support them in their efforts to preseve the integrity of
our seed supply.

ARKANSAS :

Horus Botanicals
HCR Rt. 82, Box 29
Salem, AR 72576

ARIZONA:

Native Seeds/SEARCH
526 North 4th Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85705
Tel: 520-622-5561
Fax: 520-622-5591
www.nativeseeds.org

CALIFORNIA :

Bountiful Gardens
18001 Shafer Ranch Rd
Willits , CA 95490
Tel: 707-459-6410
Fax:707-459-1925
Email: bountiful@sonic.net
www.bountifulgardens.org

Environmental Seed Producers
PO Box 2709
Lompoc, CA 93438
Tel: 805-735-8888
Fax: 805-735-8798
www.espseeds.com

Harmony Farm Supply and Nursery
PO Box 460
Graton, CA 95444
Tel: 707-823-9125
Fax: 707-823-1734
Email: info@harmonyfarm.com
www.harmonyfarm.com

Seed Dreams
PO Box 1476
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Tel: 831-234-8668

KUSA Seed Research Foundation
PO Box 761
Ojai , CA 93024

Mountain Rose Herbs
20818 High Street
North San Juan, CA 95960
Tel: 530-292-9138
Fax: 510-217-4012
www.mountainroseherbs.com

Natural Gardening Company
PO Box 750776
Petaluma, CA 94975-0776
Tel: 707-766-9303
Fax: 707-766-9747
www.naturalgardening.com

Peaceful Valley Farm Supply
PO Box 2209
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Tel: 888-784-1722
Fax: 530-272-4769
Email: contact@groworganic.com
www.groworganic.com

Redwood City Seed Company
Box 361
Redwood City, CA 94064
Tel: 650-325-7333
www.redwoodcityseed.com

Renee’s Garden
7359 West Zayante Road
Felton, CA 95018
Tel: 831-335-7228
Fax: 831-335-7227
www.reneesgarden.com

Santa Barbara Heirloom Nursery
PO Box 4235
Santa Barbara, CA 93140
Tel: 805-968-5444
Fax: 805-562-1248
Email: Heirloom@heirloom.com

COLORADO:

Beauty Beyond Belief Wildflower Seeds
1730 So. College Avenue, #104
Fort Collins 80525
Tel: 970-221-3039

Sourcepoint Organic Seeds
1452 2900 Road
Hotchkiss, CO 81419
Tel: 970-250-0951

Sunnyland Seeds
PO Box 385
Paradox, CO 81429
Tel: 970-859-7248

CONNECTICUT:

Butterbrooke Farm
78 Barry Rd
Oxford, CT 06478
Tel: 203-888-2000

Comstock Ferre & Co.
263 Main St.
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Tel: 860-571-6950
Fax: 860-571-6595
www.comstockferre.com

John Scheepers Kitchen Garden Seeds
23 Tulip Drive
Bantam, CT 06750
Tel: 860-567-6086
Fax: 860-567-5323
www.kitchengardenseeds.com

New England Seed Company
3580 Main Street, Bldg 10
Hartford, CT 06120
Tel: 800-783-7891 or 860-724-1240
Fax: 860-724-1273
Email: newenglsee@aol.com
www.neseed.com

Select Seeds Company
180 Stickney Hill Road
Union, CT 06076
Tel: 860-684-9310
Fax: 860-684-9224
Email: info@selectseeds.com
www.selectseeds.com

FLORIDA:

E.O.N.S., Inc.
PO Box 4604
Hallandale, FL 33008
Tel: 954-455-0229
Fax: 954-458-5976
www.eonseed.com

Florida Mycology Research Center
PO Box 18105
Pensacola, FL 32523
Tel: 850-327-4378
www.mushroomsfmrc.com

The Pepper Gal
PO Box 23006
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307
Tel: 954-537-5540
Fax: 954-566-2208
Email: peppergal@mindspring.com

GEORGIA:

Tanager Song Farm
P.O. Box 2143
Toccoa, GA 30577
Tel: 864-647-6434
Email: cindymcdee@aol.com
www.cindymcdee.com

IDAHO:

High Altitude Gardens and Seeds Trust
4150 Black Oak Drive
Hailey, ID 83333
Tel: 208-788-4363
Fax: 208-788-3452
Email: mcdorman@seedsave.org
http://www.seedstrust.com

ILLINOIS:

Borries Open Pollinated Seed Corn Farm
16293 E. 1400th Ave
Teutopolis, IL 62467
Tel: 217 857-3377

Underwood Gardens
1414 Zimmerman Road
Woodstock, IL 60098
Email: info@underwoodgardens.com
www.underwoodgardens.com

INDIANA:

E&R Seed
1356E 200S
Monroe, IN 46772

IOWA:

Sand Hill Preservation Center
1878 230th St
Calamus, IA 52729
Tel: 319-246-2299

Seed Savers Exchange
3076 North Winn Rd
Decorah, IA 52101
Tel: 319-382-5990
Fax: 319-382-5872
www.seedsavers.org

KANSAS:

Skyfire Garden Seeds
1313 23rd Road
Kanopolis, KS 67454
Email: seedsaver@myvine.com
www.grapevine.net/~mctaylor

KENTUCKY:

England's Orchard and Nursery
316 Kentucky Highway 2004
McKee, KY 40447
Tel: 606-965-2228
Fax: 606-965-2270
Email: nuttrees@prtcnet.org
www.nuttrees.net

Ferry Morse Seed Company
600 Stephen Beale Drive
P.O. Box 1620
Fulton, KY 42041
Tel: 800-626-3392
Fax: 502-472-0566

Shooting Star Nursery
444 Bates Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Tel: 502-223-1679
Fax: 502-227-5700

MAINE:

FedCo Seeds
PO Box 520A
Waterville, ME 04903
Tel: 207-873-7333
Fax: 207-872-8317
www.fedcoseeds.com

Johnny's Selected Seeds
184 Foss Hill Road, Box 2580
Albion, ME 04910
Tel: 207-437-9294
Fax: 207-437-2165
Email: info@johnnyseeds.com
www.johnnyseeds.com

Maine Seed Saving Network
PO Box 126
Penobscot, ME 04476
Tel: 207-362-0751

Old Stage Farm
RR2 Box 377
Lovell, ME 04051
Tel: 207-925-1006

Wood Prairie Farm Organic Seed Potatoes
49 Kinney Rd
Bridgewater, ME 04735
Tel: 800-829-9765
Fax: 800-300-6494
www.woodprarie.com

MARYLAND:

Silver Seed Greenhouses
PO Box 62
Bivalve, MD 21814
Tel: 410-873-2942
Fax: 410-873-2728
Email: ubuubok@dmv.com

MASSACHUSETTS:

Eastern Native Seed Conservancy
PO Box 451
Great Barrington, MA 01230
Tel: 413-229-8316
Email: natseeds@aol.com
www.enscseeds.org

Perennial Vegetable Seed Company
PO Box 608
Belchertown, MA 01007
Tel: 413-529-0678

Pioneer Valley Seed Collective
(Formerly: Pioneer Valley Seed Savers)
888 Shelburne Falls Rd
Conway, MA 01341
Tel: 413-369-4269
Fax: 413-369-4299

MINNESOTA:

Melissa's Seeds
PO Box 242
Hastings, MN 55033

MISSOURI:

Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds
2278 Baker Creek Rd
Mansfield, MO 65704
Tel: 417-924-8917
Fax: 417-924-8917
Email: seeds@rareseeds.com
www.rareseeds.com

Barney's Ginseng Patch
433 SSE Highway B
Montgomery City, MO 63361
Tel: 573-564-2575

Elixir Farm
General Delivery
Brixey, MO 65618
Tel: 417-261-2393
Fax: 417-261-2355
Email: info@elixirfarm.com
www.elixirfarm.com

Green Thumb Seeds
17011 West 280th Street
Bethany, MO 64424

Jon's Heirloom Plants
PO Box 54
Mansfield, MO 65704
Email: jon@jonsplants.com

Morgan County Wholesale
18761 Kelsay Road
Barnett, MO 65011
Tel: 573-378-2655

MONTANA:

Swan View Farm LLC
345 Rocky Woods Lane
Bigfork, MT 59911-6324
Tel: 888-845-7623
Fax: 406-837-2817
www.thepowerofgarlic.com

NEBRASKA:

The Fragrant Path
Seeds for Fragrance
PO Box 328
Ft Calhoun, NE 68023

NEW JERSEY:

Garden State Heirloom Seed Society
PO Box 15
Delaware NJ, 07833
Tel: 908-475-4861
Email: njheirloom@earthlink.net
www.gshss.com

NEW MEXICO:

Plants of the Southwest
Aqua Fria Rt 6 Box 11A
Santa Fe, NM 87201
Tel: 505-438-8888
Fax: 505-438-8800
www.plantsofthesouthwest.com

Seeds of Change
PO Box 15700
Santa Fe, NM 87506
Tel: 800-957-3337
Fax: 505-438-7052
Email: gardener@seedsofchange.com
www.seedsofchange.com

NORTH CAROLINA:

Boone’s Native Seed Company
PO Box 10363
Raleigh, NC 27605

Christopher Weeks Peppers
PO Box 3207
Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948
Email: peppers@pinn.net

OHIO:

Companion Plants, Inc.
7247 N. Coolville Ridge
Athens, OH 45701
Tel: 740-592-4643
Fax: 740-593-3092
Email: complants@frognet.net
www.companionplants.com

Mellinger's Inc.
2310 W. South Range Rd
North Lima, OH 44452
Tel: 330-549-9861
Fax: 330-549-3716
Email: mellgarden@aol.com
www.mellingers.com

OREGON:

Goodwin Creek Gardens
PO Box 83
Williams, OR 97544
Tel: 800-846-7359
Fax: 541-846-7357
www.goodwincreekgardens.com

Horizon Herbs
PO Box 69
Williams, OR 97544
Tel: 541-846-6704
Fax: 541-846-6233
Email: herbseed@chatlink.com

Nichol's Garden Nursery
1190 Old Salem Road, NE
Albany, OR 97321
Tel: 541-928-9280 or 800-422-3985
Fax: 541-967-8406
Email: nichols@gardennursery.com
www.nicholsgardennursery.com

Peters Seed and Research
PO Box 1472
Myrtle Creek, OR 97457
Tel: 541-874-2615
Fax: 541-874-3462
Email: psr@pioneer-net.com

Sow Organic Seed
Box 527
1130 Tetherow Road
Williams, OR 97544
www.organicseed.com

Territorial Seed Company
PO Box 158
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
Tel: 541-942-9547
Fax: 541-942-9881
Email: tsc@ordata.com
www.territorial-seed.com

Thyme Garden – Herb Seed Company
20546 Alsea Highway
Alsea, OR 97324
Tel & Fax: 541-487-8671
Email: herbs@thymegarden.com
www.thymegarden.com

Victory Seed Company
PO Box 192
Molalla, OR 97038
Tel/Fax: 503-829-3126
Email: safeseed@victoryseeds.com
www.victoryseeds.com

Wild Garden Seed and Shoulder to Shoulder Farm
PO Box 1509
Philomath, OR 97370
Tel: 541-929-4068

PENNSYLVANIA:

Bethlehem Seed Company
PO Box 1351
Bethlehem, PA 18018
Tel: 610-954-5443

Heirloom Seed Project
Landis Valley Museum
2451 Kissel Hill Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
Tel: 717-569-0401 ext: 202
Fax: 717-560-3545

Heirloom Seeds
PO Box 245
West Elizabeth, PA 15088
Tel/Fax: 415-384-0852
Email: mail@heirloomseeds.com
www.heirloomseeds.com

SOUTH CAROLINA:

Seeds for the South
410 Whaley Pond Rd
Graniteville, SC 29829
Tel: 803-232-1119
Email: seedsout@mindspring.com

TEXAS:

The Herb Cottage
442 CR 233
Hallettsville, TX 77964-4048
Tel & Fax: 979-562-2153
Email: herbs@theherbcottage.com
www.theherbcottage.com

VERMONT:

The Cook's Garden
PO Box 535
Londonderry, VT 05148
Tel: 800-457-9703
Fax: 802-824-9556
Email: catalog@cooksgarden.com
www.cooksgarden.com

Dirt Works
6 Dog Team Road
New Haven, VT 05472
Tel: 802-453-5373
Email: dirtworks@globalnetisp.net
www.dirtworks.net

High Mowing Organic Seed Farm
813 Brook Rd
Wolcott, VT 05680
Tel: 802-888-2480
Fax: 802-888-6634

Ladybug Herbs of Vermont
943 Richard Woolcutt Road
Wolcott, VT 05680
Tel/Fax: 802-888-5940
Email: vtherbs@pover.net
www.ladybugherbsofvermont.com

North Wind Organic Seeds
(Formerly Arethusa Seed Farm)
PO Box 175
Bakersfield, VT 05441
Tel/Fax: 802-827-6580

Vermont Organic Seeds
12 Dudley Street
Randolph VT 05060
Email: cyczapla@yahoo.com
www.sover.net/~subzero/seedlist.html

Weed Farm Herbs
613 Quaker St.
Lincoln, VT 05443
Tel: 802-453-7395
Email: weedfarm@gmavt.net

VIRGINIA:

Garden Medicinals and Culinaries
PO Box 320
Earlysville, VA 22936
Tel: 804-964-9113
Fax: 804-973-8717
www.gardenmedicinals.com

Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic Plants
PO Box 316, Monticello
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Tel: 804-984-9821
Fax: 804-984-0358
www.monticello.org/shop

WASHINGTON:

Abundant Life Seed Foundation
PO Box 772
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360-385-5660
Fax: 360-385-7455
Email: abundant@olypen.com

Filaree Farm
182 Conconully Hwy.
Okanogan, WA 98840
Tel: 509-422-6940
Email: filaree@northcascades.com
www.filareefarm.com

Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Box 53
Langley, WA 98260
Tel: 360-579-2332
Fax: 360-579-4080
Email: wean@whidbey.net

Fungi Perfecti
PO Box 7634
Olympia, WA 98507
Tel: 360-426-9292
Fax: 360-426-9377

Garlicsmiths
967 Mingo Mountain Road
Kettle Falls, WA 99141
Tel: 509-738-4470

Irish Eyes - Garden City Seeds
PO Box 307
Thorpe, WA 98946
Tel: 509-964-7000
Fax: 800-964-9210
Email: potatoes@irish-eyes.com
www.irish-eyes.com

WISCONSIN:

Island Seed and Supply
19370 Highway G
Mineral Point, WI 53565
Tel: 608-776-3414

Superior Organic Grains, Ltd
N7076
Seymour, WI 54165

CANADA:

Alberta Nurseries and Seeds, Ltd.
PO Box 20
Bowden, Alberta T0M 0K0
Tel: 403-224-3544
Fax: 403-224-2455

Aurora
4492 Phillps Road
Creston, BC
Canada V0B1G2
Tel: 250-428-4404
Email: aurora@kootenay.com
www.kootenay.com/~aurora

Ecogenesis, Inc.
#88-2273 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C6
Tel: 416-485-8333

Eternal Seed
657 Pritchard Road
Farrellton, Quebec
Canada J0X 1T0
Tel: 819-827-2795
edecas@travel-net.com

Fish Lake Garlic Man
RR2
Demorestville, Ontario K0K 1WO
Tel: 613-476-8030

Florabunda Seeds
Box 3
Indian River, ON K0L 2B0
Tel: 705-295-6440
Fax: 705-295-4035
Email: contact@florabundaseeds.com
www.florabundaseeds.com

Mapple Farm
129 Beech Hill Road
Weldon, New Brunswick E0A 1X0
Tel: 506-734-3361

Prairie Garden Seeds
PO Box 118
Cochin, Saskatchewan S0M 0L0
Tel: 306-386-2737
Email: prairie.seeds@sk.sympatico.ca

Richter's Herbs
357 Hwy 47
Goodwood, Ontario L0C 1A0
Tel: 905-640-6677
Fax: 905-640-6641
Email: orderdesk@richters.com
www.richters.com

Salt Spring Seeds
PO Box 444, Ganges
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia V8K 2W1
Tel: 250-537-5269
www.saltspring.com/ssseeds

Terra Edibles
Box 164
Foxboro, Ontario K0K 2B0
Tel: 613-968-8238
Fax: 613-968-6369

West Coast Seeds Ltd.
3925 64 Street, RR 1,
Delta, BC, V4K 3N2 Canada
Tel: 604-952-8820
Fax: 604-952-8828
Email: info@westcoastseeds.com
www.westcoastseeds.com

COSTA RICA:

Rainforest Seed Company
Apartado 241
San Jose 1017, COSTA RICA
Tel: 506-231-0980
Fax: 506-232-9260
Email: rainseed@interlog.com
www.interlog.com/~rainseed

FRANCE:

B and T World Seeds
Paguighan
34210 Olonzac, FRANCE
Tel: 0033-468-91-2963
Fax: 0033-4468-91-3039
Email: matt@b-and-t-world-seeds.com
www.b-and-t-world-seeds.com

-----------

PLEASE SUPPORT THE SAFE SEED INITIATIVE

If you would like to support the Safe Seed Initiative, you can make
tax-deductible donations to the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG). The
Council for Responsible Genetics was founded in 1983, and is comprised of
scientists, lawyers, public health advocates and citizens concerned about
the social, ethical and environmental impact of new genetic technologies.
For more information please contact our office.

CRG 5 Upland Road, Suite 3 Cambridge, MA 02140 p: 617.868.0870 f:
617.491.5344 e: crg@gene-watch.org

http://www.gene-watch.org/pages/about.html

The Council for Responsible Genetics fosters public debate about the social,
ethical and environmental implications of genetic technologies.

Founded in 1983, CRG is a non-profit, non- governmental organization based
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

CRG works through the media and concerned citizens to distribute accurate
information and represent the public interest on emerging issues in
biotechnology. CRG also publishes a bimonthly magazine, GeneWatch, the only
publication of its kind in the nation.

Staff

Sujatha Byravan, Ph.D. is Executive Director of CRG. She is a molecular
biologist by training, with a Ph.D. from the University of South Carolina
and post-doctoral experience at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Several years ago, she moved out of basic biological research because of
various ethical concerns. She has since worked as a science writer,
freelance journalist and Director of an international program on environment
and development (LEAD International). She has published a number of
scientific papers and is the author of numerous articles.

Brandon Keim is Director of Communications. He is the editor of GeneWatch,
CRG’s bimonthly magazine. He is also in charge of CRG's web site. He
graduated from Tufts University and received a Ted Shapiro Memorial award in
American Studies. He has worked extensively as a freelance designer and
writer. He is primarily responsible for the recent improvements in GeneWatch
and the web site.

Nicole Magaline is Office Manager. She hails from San Francisco, and
attended Boston College. After working on various campaign fundraising
committees, she graduated in 2002 with a major in Economics. From there
Nicole moved to New York City to work as a paralegal at Paul, Weiss, Rifkin,
Wharton and Garrison. She returned to Boston this year.

Peter Shorett is Director of Programs and graduated in anthropology and
political science from the University of California at Berkeley. He received
the 2002 Theodore R. McCown prize for outstanding scholarship in
anthropology. He is a member of the Berkeley project in Biosciences and
Society, an ongoing investigation into the commercial structure of
biotechnology.

Board of Directors

Paul Billings, MD, PhD, is the Chair of the CRG and an internist and medical
geneticist who, for many years, has conducted investigations on the impact
of genetic information and technology on society. He has been on the
faculties of Harvard, UCSF, and Stanford Universities, and served as the
Chief Medical Officer of the Heart of Texas Veteran’s Integrated Health Care
System. Dr. Billings is on the boards of several not-for-profits, and also
consults on genetic issues for a variety of organizations.

Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, is the Vice Chair of the CRG and Professor of Urban
and Environmental Policy at Tufts University. Dr. Krimsky served on the
National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee from
1978-1981. He authored Genetic Alchemy: the Social History of the
Recombinant DNA Controversy; Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial
Genetics; Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the
Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis. Dr. Krimsky also co-authored
Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment. He recently published
results of a research study documenting growing conflict of interest among
biomedical researchers with a financial interest in the commercial
application of their work.

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, is the Treasurer of the CRG and a pediatric
neurologist and brain development researcher at Massachusetts General
Hospital. Dr. Herbert has written and taught extensively on the sociology
and philosophy of science.

Adrienne Asch, PhD, is the Henry R. Luce Professor in Biology, Ethics, and
the Politics of Human Reproduction at Wellesley College. From 1987 to 1990,
she served as an Associate in Social Science and Policy with the New Jersey
Bioethics Commission, and during 1993 was a member of the Clinton Task Force
on Health Care Reform. Most recently, Dr. Asch’s work has focused on the
ethical, political, psychological, and social implications of human
reproduction and the family.

Evelynn Hammonds, PhD, is a Professor of the History of Science and
Afro-American Studies at Harvard University. Dr. Hammonds is currently
completing a book on the history of scientific and medical concepts of race
in the United States. She is involved in several projects which examine the
contemporary uses of racial categories in genetics research and in
biotechnology.

Debra Harry, MA, is Northern Paiute, from Pyramid Lake, Nevada. She serves
as the Executive Director of the Indigenous Peoples Council on
Biocolonialism. She received a three-year Kellogg Leadership Fellowship in
1994 and studied the field of human genetic research and its implications
for indigenous peoples.

Doreen Stabinsky, PhD, is Professor of Environmental Politics at College of
the Atlantic, and Science Advisor for Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace
International. Her research focuses on the international politics of genetic
engineering in forums such as The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, The World
Trade Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. In her work
with Greenpeace, she is responsible for scientific analysis of new
developments in genetic engineering. Over the last two years, she has
provided scientific testimony on genetic engineering to the Philippine
Senate, the New Zealand Royal Commission Inquiry on Genetic Engineering, and
the Indian Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee.

Lola Vollen, MD, MPH, is a Visiting Scholar at the University of California,
Berkeley, Institute for International Studies. At Berkeley, Laurie is
Director of the DNA Identification Technology and Human Rights Center and is
currently working to develop a public health framework for biodefense
strategy assessment. In recent years, she has developed health care systems
for Save the Children in Somalia; worked with Physicians for Human Rights in
former Yugoslavia; conducted an International Commission of
Jurists-sponsored assessment of the Jenin Refugee Camp in the aftermath of
the Israeli Defense Force’s April 2002 incursion; and worked with the Life
After Exoneration Project, helping the exonerated establish lives outside of
prison.

http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Genetic-Wheat.html
CNEWS CANADA
January 9, 2004

AgCan ends testing of GE wheat developed with Monsanto

OTTAWA (CP) -- Agriculture Canada is abandoning a long-running project
involving genetically engineered wheat it developed in partnership with
biotech giant Monsanto, amid doubts about how well the product would sell.

Regulatory authorities continue to assess the risks and benefits of Roundup
Ready wheat, but the AgCan decision suggests that scientific hopes for the
first strain of biotech wheat may be dimming.

Jim Bole of Agriculture Canada said the department will make no further
investment in the crop it has developed with Monsanto since 1997.

"There's still some testing going on that does involve our scientists . . .
but Ag Canada is not contributing more funds toward it," Bole said in an
interview from Winnipeg.

"We're no longer developing Roundup Ready wheat with Monsanto."
Asked if the department's decision reflects concern about whether Canada's
wheat customers would accept the new strain of wheat, Bole replied: "Yes, I
think it does."'

The AgCan-Monsanto contract is confidential, but Bole said the company
invested $1.3 million while the department invested $500,000.

The department also gave Monsanto access to state-of-the-art genetic
material developed over many years of research.

Monsanto spokeswoman Trish Jordan played down the significance of the AgCan
decision to end the collaboration, saying its purpose had been achieved and
there was no reason to extend it.

Jordan said Monsanto still hopes to commercialize Roundup Ready wheat, but
will not do anything to jeopardize Canada's wheat markets.

"Biotechnology has a lot to offer to wheat production in Western Canada and
we're trying to find ways to make this doable and come up with solutions
rather than just stopping all work altogether.

"Certainly as a company we're not going to do anything to jeopardize the
ability of Western Canadian farmers to market their grain."

Roundup Ready wheat is resistant to Roundup, a popular herbicide. It allows
farmers to easily kill weeds without killing their wheat plants.

But many countries have been reluctant to embrace genetically engineered
foods, and there are concerns that the new wheat plants could turn into
superweeds.

The Canadian Wheat Board has said most of its customers don't want the new
strain and last year it asked Monsanto to withdraw its application for
regulatory approval.

Bole said the Agriculture Canada scientists had learned a lot from working
with Monsanto, and the collaboration seemed promising at the outset in 1997.

Currently, however, "Agriculture Canada would probably no longer anticipate
a return on their investment."

He said the biotech revolution in agriculture has not lived up to
expectations.

"I'm afraid it was oversold. We expected to be growing crops at this time
with many traits that would be of great value to consumers and producers.

"But the regulatory area has been much more stringent than anyone
anticipated and market acceptance hasn't been as positive as we would have
anticipated."

"the risk of getting cancer from the fish was the same as being murdered."
A bizarre reassurance from the food standards agency; it might be
better to say "eating salmon is like being murdered"? Interestingly,
the well founded evidence that PCB-polluted salmon and trout cause
learning, behavior and athletic dysfunction in children is being swept
under the rug.

Evidently the food standards agency in NOT fully and
truthfully reporting on the hazards of consuming polluted fish. The
same may be said for their reports on GM foods.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/
SALMON INDUSTRY HIT BACK AT CANCER CLAIMS
By Dawn Knight

EXPERTS and industry figures hit back yesterday at claims that salmon was a health risk.

And it was revealed that the risk of getting cancer from the fish was the same as being murdered.

There is a one in 100,000 chance of being unlawfully killed - the
same as developing cancer from farmed salmon, according to the
report which warned of the danger.

The American journal Science said toxins in Scottish farmed fish
could lead to the disease if more than two ounces a month was
eaten.

These claims sparked fears for 7,000 jobs in the industry north of
the border.

But yesterday the Food Standards Agency insisted salmon was
safe and fishmongers slammed the warnings as "scaremongering".
The FSA's Dr Andrew Wadge said fears of exposure to cancer-causing
chemicals found in salmon feed were founded on poor evidence.
He said the report assumed any level of exposure to dioxins
carried some cancer risk but the World Health Organisation, whose
recommendations were followed by the FSA, were more precise.
Dr Wadge said: "If exposure to dioxins are kept below the WHO
threshold there will be no adverse effects on health.
"The levels of dioxins in salmon are such that normal exposure via
the diet would not lead to intakes above the safety guidelines."
For this reason, the FSA has advised consumers not to avoid
salmon as the health benefits of eating oily fish outweighed any
possible risk.

Fishmongers dismissed the warnings from America as "this year's
fad".

Francis Comiskey, manager at E Ashton fishmongers in Cardiff,
said: "This warning is nothing for people to worry about. There'll be
a different scare next year. The experts are just getting too fussy."
At Nottingham's Victoria Market fishmonger John Blanchard said:

"It's only 1pm and we're down to our last salmon fillet.

"Years ago all salmon came from America or Canada and it was
more expensive, now it's farmed over here, it's cheaper than cod
and one of our most popular fish." "

Most of the big supermarkets said they plan to continue stocking
farmed salmon under the guidance of the FSA.

A Tesco spokesman said: "It's too early to tell if customers will be
put off.

"It appears to be scare-mongering and the FSA has been very
robust in its view of this report. It says people should continue to
eat the fish once a week, so for us nothing has changed.""
A Sainsburys spokeswoman said; "All our salmon is approved by
the FSA."

As expected, Norrie Simmons withdrew at the last moment this phoney
suit - just before it was to come to court at last. Such gagging writs
are a chronic problem; successive govts have failed to curb this racket. A
simlar rort has been slapped on me.

Since this King Salmon rort, she has been deeply embroiled in the
Seeds of Distrust scandal exposed in Hager's bk.

Dogged investigation by Dr Judy Motion turned out to be required to
discover that King Salmon is owned by Koreans and registered in - wait
for it - yes - Liberia.

I never cease to emphasize the dominant role of PR liars in the
public GM shambles ("debate").

R

6-4-99 Radio NZ Him Kill ca. 0910-0950

summary jottings by R Mann

General intro: Tony Cronin is from the ethics cttee of the PR Institute of
NZ. 'Genepool' is run by the same PR firm 'Communications Trumps' which
has advised secrecy to the King Salmon co.

JF (Greens co-leader of Greens Jeanette Fitzsimons):

They didn't really have permission; before ERMA there was no
statutory power to stop King Salmon, no public ad, no comment mechanism;
still not on ERMA's website.

Trumps warn info could be discoverable thru Official Info Act.
Nobody uses that unless no other way.

HK predict furore will die down in a few years. Trumps declined to
take part this morning because "too hot - will wait to die down".

JF Trumps has been in the business of selling GE for quite a while.
They are the main PR co for the GE industry - FedFmrs, AgResearch, PPL (a
very clever strategy after the approval - anxious father on front p of
Herald - but there's no evidence that AAT will help, and if it does,
freely available from blood fractionation. Not mainly about helping
children with cystic fibrosis.)

HK we tried to get info on King Salmon from Genepool. Mgr is Norrie
Simmons, a partner in Trumps. Can you sort this out?

JF Genepool is called a private trust, and the media have been told
its membership is none of their business. Some funding from Monsanto whose
NZ man Murray Willocks spoke at Genepool seminars. At worst, no contrary
viewpoint; at best, a little bit at the end. Just a promotional roadshow
for GE.

HK Bas Walker - what do you know?

BW We don't know a great deal, because the approval was given by the
Minister on the advice of the Advisory Cttee on Novel Genetic Techniques.
Approvals transferred by regulation which is not secret. This rather
turgid regulatory system is being transferred onto our website.

HK did anyone investigate what was going on in the containment?

BW no ; taking a while to go thru the transferred approvals. The
salmon have caught our eye and we'll have a close look at it over the
coming few weeks.

HK report from Trumps to King recommends asking you down to look at
the programme, with allies who can support you "and Bas can say he's been
there and all looks fine".

BW I've had no such invitation

HK would you go?

BW possibly, but if I decide to reassess I probably wouldn't go.
Important that people have confidence in ERMA NZ. HaSNO Act requires
approval, only after notification; can involve a hearing. Very open. Not
decided whether to reassess. Looking at the whole range of approvals
transferred 29-7-99. Hope to decide within a couple of weeks. Main
question is containment conditions so no fish can get out.

JF I think ERMA is doing the best it can now to catch up; but I ask
Bas how he feels about large open tanks outside a bldg, with no fence,
being classified as research, assigned 'Containment category Zero' which
implies escape wouldn't really matter.

BW conditions more like those for a field trial. Not so much a case
of deciding containment rank but assessing risk.

HK Do you know what's being done to salmon there?

BW involves use of a fish gene to encourage growth of bigger better
juicier salmon. Don't know how many salmon.

HK unnerving?

BE one of the reasons for looking closer; no further comment

JF my knowledge limited. Overseas reading: salmon produces a growth
hormone in the pituitary but not in winter. Have added another fish
-species gene causing production of hormone in liver also; this raises many
questions. A few people in Wgton beavering away at the moment.


HK Trumps asks how can continue to keep wraps on project despite
Official Info Act; when King's scientists want to publish, will need
management.

JF Official Info Act allows a month delay within which spins & PR can
be put over, and the activity itself may get shut down.

If things get out by this route of leaks, it is more damaging than
telling the public directly. Leaks cannot be managed. Openness better.

HK Bas, have you rec'd any salmon delicacies from King?

BW no; if I do, I'd be inclined to send them back. It's extremely
difficult to influence me contrary to the Act. I do visit some facilities,
to get a better appreciation of the job. We're very careful not to be
unduly influenced. I am extremely jealous about our reputation.

HK What is your assessment of Genepool?

BW not sure I should give an assessment

HK has public money

BW yes, but indirectly. I have no connection with Genepool. It's a
private trust. The public are very suspicious about this technology.
There's a lot of seemingly contradictory info flying around. People have
to very careful about their credibility. The same applies to people who
are opposed to GE. There is a need to get rid of the situation in which
everyone is seen to have a vested interest.

HK Genepool claims to "provide authoritative info". Trumps advised
King to use Genepool. Do you think the public is being deliberately misled
by a PR job? I, and you, are the targets. I rang Genepool and got Norrie
Simmons of Trumps. She said "my job is only to answer the phone"; referred
to Howard Bezar who knew nothing.

Now bring in Tony Cronin of ethics cttee for PR Institute of NZ.
Do you think this reflects well on the PR industry?

TC I don't see Genepool as any different than MfrsFed or EmpFed -
developing a technology and needed help getting message across.

HK Trumps saying too much info might get out

TC info could get out in wrong form. Info needs to be presented
logically. Easy to take a view on any particular issue that's extreme.

HK Genepool says "we're simply presenting info to help NZers make
informed choices", whereas Norrie says to King "our message must be that
the only difference is good". Help me on this Tony 'cause I've lost the
plot.

TC many spin doctors in parlt bldgs. Reasonable to minimise the
negatives. That's PR - a fine distinction from information.

HK what does the public do about this?

TC JF is presenting one extreme view. Scientists working on this
particular technology presumably get refereed in the normal scientific
manner.

HK Genepool website says people need accurate info. Now we're being
told only the benefits. How worried should we be?

TC in most cases of this kind you'll find only the good side will be
presented. There must be other educational groupings of this kind.

HK What kind of ethical questions do you deal with? Would you not
regard Trumps as bringing the industry into disrepute?

TC a clause in the PRINZ code of ethics prohibits knowingly
disseminating false info and requires correcting if some gets out. No PR
person that I know, and certainly not Norrie,would try to suppress info
indefinitely. Commercial sensitivity. If King well ahead in this tech,
would like to present in the best poss light.

JF You're putting Tony in a difficult posn because Norrie is president
of PR Inst of NZ.

TC THANK-YOU JEANETTE

HK Jeanette - aren't you spinning too? where is evidence of
anything going wrong?

JF lumps on salmon heads
[immediately afterwards, Radio NZ News attributed toBasW the further anomaly of uneven growth]

HK King say that can occur naturally

JF original Canadian expts, discontinued there but licensed tech to
King to continued here,

[note my tag 'the Liberia of GE]

reported MORE lumps in head cartilage of the GE fish.

HK how do you investigate this story in the best interests of NZ as
opposed to your Party?

JF I've been involved in issues in technology assessment for 25y -
longer than my political career. I have a certain reputation for accuracy
thru my work at the university. Greens have picked up this matter because
nobody else has.

HK how do I know you're not going to another extreme? Misleading to
say NZ GE trial gone wrong.

JF Canadians stopped; and Norrie advocating secrecy

HK interesting debate, mainly about PR. We did invite Norrie but she
declined.

RECORDER'S NOTE: this is of course not verbatim but is indicative
jottings. It represents no institution but only myself.

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

Agence France Presse April 6 1999

WELLINGTON, April 6 (AFP) - A small New Zealand political party Tuesday
exposed a fish farm company developing genetically engineered salmon which
grow faster and bigger than other salmon.

But the company, New Zealand King Salmon, denied it was doing anything
wrong and said it was working to "preserve our clean, green image".

Green Party co-leader and member of parliament Jeanette Fitzsimons
released documents from Communications Trumps, a public relations firm
hired by King Salmon, which it said suggested keeping the trial under
wraps.

Trumps warned that King Salmon's work with genetically modified salmon
could easily turn into a crisis because of the strong campaign against
genetic engineering.

"Whatever protest is made, we can be certain that television and other
media will be extremely interested and will demand access to the
facility."

The paper said the company's messages about its research and objectives
must be clear, and clarify issues including safety, environmental
protections and animal welfare.

"Issues such as deformities, lumps on heads etc. should not be mentioned
at any point to anyone outside -- comments about those would create
ghastly Frankenstein images and would be whipped up into a frenzy by
Greenpeace."

King Salmon operations and contracts manager Mark Gillard said claims by
the Green Party that it was an experiment gone wrong were "completely
false."

He said the salmon involved in the trial looked "perfectly normal," with
the only difference being that they grew faster and bigger than other
salmon.

Gillard said the trial involved taking a chinook salmon gene, rearranging
it and introducing it into a chinook salmon so that the fish had two of
the genes, which promoted growth.

He said the company was closely monitoring the fish, which were kept in
separate containers at its facility south of here.

"We're concerned about risks too. We want to preserve our clean, green
image," he said

Gillard said the experimental fish he had seen were growing fast and
looked fine.

He said there was nothing secret about the firm's work, which had been
known about in the scientific community and the salmon farming industry,
and had been mentioned in overseas publications.

The trial, which started about four years ago, was still in its very early
stages and was unlikely to be applied commercially for at least 10 years,
Gillard said.

Fitzsimons said she was horrified at the extent of the secrecy surrounding
the trial, and worried about risks to health and the environment.

"Because of New Zealand's lax laws on genetic engineering, the company has
managed to carry on this work for several years with official knowledge
and consent, but with no public hearing or debate whatsoever," she said.

She said little was known about the health risks of eating
genetically-engineered salmon, and there was a danger that if they escaped
into the wild they would cross-breed with wild salmon.

New Zealand King Salmon is the country's largest salmon producer, with an
80 percent share of the New Zealand industry.

It rears pacific king salmon from smolt, growing them in sea cages in the
Marlborough Sounds and processing them in Nelson.

An Address by

Hon Lockwood Smith PhD
Minister for International Trade
Associate Minister of Finance

GMFs: A Glimpse of Tomorrow's World

Regional Conference of the
Women's Division of Federated Farmers

Kaipoi Workingmens' Club
Raven Street
Kaipoi

1 March 1999
12 pm

Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's forum on Genetically
Modified Foods (GMFs).

Public interest in GMFs has increased significantly in the past couple of
years.

Unfortunately, the debate has been skewed by some extremist views of
the possible risks associated with GMFs. This has led to a natural
increase in public concern.

As a scientist myself, I am very concerned about the level of confusion,
and in some cases the ignorance, surrounding this issue.

The nature of the current debate on GMFs, which I would describe as
sensationalist, does not cater for the important issues to be addressed.

For example:

* It would be fair to say that in general, our communities are not aware
of the benefits of GMFs.
* Many New Zealanders are not aware of strong regulatory processes
in place to ensure high levels of food safety, or how they operate.
* There is a poor understanding of how consumers can get reliable
information to make sound choices about GMFs.

But all of these issues are central to understanding the Government's
approach on GMFs, and I hope that by discussing this approach, we
can regain some rationality into our consideration of GMFs.

Let's get one thing clear from the outset - genetic modification is not a
new concept.

For thousands of years, humans have been changing the genetic
makeup of animal herds and plant species by selecting or breeding for
desired characteristics.

Now, scientific understanding has advanced to allow more modern
forms of breeding which offer new benefits.

The pioneering work was done in the 1970s mainly with
microorganisms - bacteria and yeasts. For example, insulin and human
growth hormone have been produced for many years using genetically
modified bacteria.

The new techniques provide a cheaper and more certain supply of
these pharmaceuticals, and have greatly improved the lives of people
with diabetes or growth hormone deficiency.

Already being developed today are a range of new products including
edible vaccines (which can be ingested rather than injected). Unique
properties within plants can be enhanced to promote more sustainable
production methods.

A wonderful example is the development of a biodegradable plastic
from oilseed rape, which may be commercially viable within a few
years. Products such as this, which are the direct result of genetic
modification, could significantly reduce the damage we do to our
environment - reduce the size of our "environmental footprint".

There are other benefits. Remember, within the last 20 years, we've
had a strong debate about the use of pesticides and herbicides on food
products.

Through genetic modification, we've seen the development of food
products that do not require the use of potentially harmful chemicals in
the production process.

More recently, the objective has been to improve the quality of
traditional foods.

The potential benefits are significant. Through removing specific toxins
and allergens, improving proteins and vitamin profiles, increasing
storage life and reducing the use of chemicals, genetic modification
offers food that could be safer, cheaper and more nutritious.

Genetic modification offers consumer characteristics for products that
could be produced in a more environmentally sustainable way.

Even more importantly, the benefits don't stop with the developed
agricultural economies, such as Canada, the US or New Zealand.

On Friday night I was in Indonesia, which was one of the hardest hit
economies in the recent economic and financial crisis.

With a population of 210 million and a very poor exchange rate,
Indonesia struggles to provide the most basic food needed for its
people.

During our visit, I was told about an exciting development - Indonesia
is in the process of developing of a genetically modified wheat.

If they succeed, and we hope they do, Indonesia will be able to
produce wheat in its tropical climate.

This will make a real contribution to its economic position, allowing
Indonesia to re-allocate foreign exchange to address other, pressing
needs.

It is exciting developments such as these which have led many
commentators to view the 21st century as century of biotechnology.

We cannot ignore progress such as this. Some opponents of GMFs
have suggested that we should only eat foods produced in New
Zealand. This is plain naive.

Our foods, especially ingredients in manufactured foods, come from all
over the world. We cannot isolate ourselves from these developments.
In 1998, over 50 million acres of genetically modified crops were
grown in the USA.

Although it could be some years before New Zealand commercialises
any GMFs arising from the past decade of our own research
programmes, we have to consider now how we can best capture the
benefits of genetic modification while managing any risks.

I don't need to remind this audience of the reason why, as a food
producing nation, New Zealand needs trade with other countries.

Imagine if we sought to isolate New Zealand from all food produced in
other countries. For a start, our Asian and Pacific Island migrants
would be understandably grumpy at the limits on their diet.

But more importantly, as a food producer, we try to promote world
trade. Not discourage it. Our livelihood depends on it.

The key issues for the Government therefore are safety, and informed
consumer choice.

To be acceptable to New Zealanders, any new technology must be
safe for both people, and the environment.

Based on many years of research, including more than 25,000 field
trials on more than 60 crops with 10 traits in 45 countries, and the 4
years of commercial use to date, there have been no unique risks
identified to a genetically modified crop. That's worth noting - no
unique risks.

There are risks, but they come from the characteristics of the crop as
they do for crops produced by other breeding processes.

The point is that, like all new crops, the long term effects of growing
and using GMFs cannot be completely predicted, and no food can
ever be proven entirely free of risk for all people in all
circumstances.

The real issue is not the presence of risk, which is associated with all
food, but how these risks are assessed and managed.

The Government has put in place two mechanisms to assure high levels
of safety for developing and growing genetically modified crops and the
foods obtained from them.

The safety of GMFs is assessed by the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority (ANZFA). Under ANZFA's standard, GMF's are not
allowed to be sold unless they have been assessed as safe by ANZFA
and approved for sale by the Australia and New Zealand Health
Ministers.

In addition to ANZFA's process, any new organism, including a
genetically modified organism that is also a GMF, such as a genetically
modified whole tomato or potato, must also be assessed by the
Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for risks to the
health and safety of people and the environment before that organism is
used in field trials or released.

Both of these processes are totally open and transparent. ANZFA and
ERMA allow any interested person to make relevant information
available for consideration before any decisions are made.

Further, our regulatory bodies use internationally accepted procedures,
base judgements on the best available scientific and technical
information, and will act cautiously if there are any reasonable
concerns.

This approach ensures high levels of safety for New Zealanders and
their environment.

The next issue of course is consumer choice - how can New
Zealanders make informed choices about GMFs?

In the Government's view, labelling criteria should be considered only if
and when a food is approved as being safe for general consumption.

That is, labelling requirements can only be a consequence of assessing
the safety of a new food, but they are not a substitute.

Under the current ANZFA standard, labelling is required where
genetic modification has significantly changed the nature of the food,
such as its composition, nutritional value or intended use, or where
there are any specific health concerns for some consumers, such as the
presence of a new allergen.

In these cases, the label must specifically state the nature of the change
to ensure that consumers are not deceived and inadvertently purchase
the familiar food with different characteristics.

But the issue becomes more complex when considering how
consumers can best get meaningful information about foods where
genetic modification has altered production traits, but the resulting food
is otherwise of a similar nature to the conventional food.

An example of this so-called "substantially equivalent" food would be
corn that has been modified for pest resistance or soybeans that
tolerate specific herbicides.

These foods are usually derived from commodity crops and are not
routinely segregated from other varieties of the same crops because to
do so would add extra cost and make them less competitive as
commodities.

Notwithstanding this, the 17 December 1998 meeting of the Australian
and New Zealand Health Ministers directed ANZFA, by majority
vote, to develop an amendment to the ANZFA standard to require
labelling of all substantially equivalent GMFs.

Many of you will be aware that New Zealand voted against this
proposal, just as the Government voted earlier in 1998 against the
mandatory labelling bill of Alliance MP Phyllida Bunkle. I'm often
asked why we did this.

The Government is aware of people's wide-ranging needs for
information and choice about all GMFs. These concerns are centred in
a range of ethical, social and cultural issues, as well as the need to have
sufficient information to be able to make informed purchasing
decisions.

The Government acknowledges that these concerns are both valid, and
important. The issue for Government has never been whether or not
people have a need or right to know about GMFs, but how these
needs are best met.

It has been argued that attempting to label all foods that may contain
some ingredient that has been genetically modified is a simplistic
solution that would, by itself, provide little if any information to address
people's specific needs.

There are no general tests to identify genetic modification. We could
simply end up with almost all foods labelled "This May Contain
Genetically Modified Ingredients", which would be meaningless.

More importantly, labelling in this way would do nothing to improve
food safety.

An alternative is to consider more effective ways that better meet
consumers' needs for information.

For example, information could be made available by combinations of
informative voluntary labelling, information brochures in supermarkets,
and toll free telephone information lines. These are all methods that are
already commonly used to meet specific consumer needs in New
Zealand.

An example of this in practice is provided by the experience of
Sainsbury and Safeway, two highly respected food chains, which
successfully marketed the UK's first GMF - a puree produced from
tomatoes that had been genetically modified to reduce wastage.

The puree's genetic modification was clearly labelled voluntarily, the
product was cheaper, and leaflets were provided explaining the
process of genetic modification, and the reasons for implementing the
process.

With such ethical and intelligent marketing, consumers have had no
difficulty accepting this product - Sainsbury report that their modified
paste still outsells their unmodified paste by more than 2:1.

An alternative approach to providing consumer choice, currently being
used by the Iceland frozen food chain in Britain, is to market identified
products certified as containing no genetically modified ingredients.

Organic produce is another example currently on the shelves in New
Zealand. These foods already meet the needs of consumers who, for
whatever reason, do not wish to eat GMFs.

In conclusion, it is my belief that GMFs will have a large and vital role
in meeting the demands to develop more sustainable agricultural
practices in the 21st century.

For both developed and developing economies, genetic modification
provides a glimpse of tomorrow's world.

It offers the opportunity to produce more with less, in a wider variety
of environments, with a reduced environmental impact.

The full potential of GMFs to New Zealand can only be realised if
regulators, producers, and the public all recognise that they have roles
to play in the introduction of new technology.

But industry must also accept that it must be responsive to consumer
demands.

We expect to receive ANZFA's draft amendment on labelling in the
second quarter of this year, and this Government will have to consider
how we approach its implementation.

Finding an approach that addresses the interests of all our communities
will be a fine balancing act, but its an issue that this Government is
totally committed to resolving. We're not burying our heads in the sand.

We mustn't shut the door on genetic modification out of ignorance.
GMFs are not new, and are not something that you should be afraid of.

Our Government has a risk management strategy in place, is fully
aware of consumer concerns, and your need to be able to make
informed choices.

With the right balance of risk management, consumer information and a
sound safety regime, it may be possible to find a way to market GMFs
in a way that satisfies all reasonable concerns.

It's certainly worth trying. Genetic modification may offer the greatest
advance in food production, food safety and environmental protection
in our history.

Let's not deny our children these opportunities.

The Future Of Medicine
TIME January 11, 1999 Vol. 153 No. 1

All for the Good
Why genetic engineering must soldier on
By JAMES D. WATSON

There is lots of zip in DNA-based biology today. With each passing
year it incorporates an ever increasing fraction of the life sciences,
ranging from single-cell organisms, like bacteria and yeast, to the
complexities of the human brain. All this wonderful biological frenzy was
unimaginable when I first entered the world of genetics. In 1948, biology
was an all too descriptive discipline near the bottom of science's totem
pole, with physics at its top. By then Einstein's turn-of-the-century
ideas about the interconversion of matter and energy had been transformed
into the powers of the atom. If not held in check, the weapons they made
possible might well destroy the very fabric of civilized human life. So
physicists of the late 1940s were simultaneously revered for making atoms
relevant to society and feared for what their toys could do if they were to
fall into the hands of evil.

Such ambivalent feelings are now widely held toward biology. The
double-helical structure of DNA, initially admired for its intellectual
simplicity, today represents to many a double-edged sword that can be used
for evil as well as good. No sooner had scientists at Stanford University
in 1973 begun rearranging DNA molecules in test tubes (and, equally
important, reinserting the novel DNA segments back into living cells) than
critics began likening these "recombinant" DNA procedures to the
physicist's power to break apart atoms. Might not some of the
test-tube-rearranged DNA molecules impart to their host cells
disease-causing capacities that, like nuclear weapons, are capable of
seriously disrupting human civilization? Soon there were cries from both
scientists and nonscientists that such research might best be ruled by
stringent regulations--if not laws.

As a result, several years were to pass before the full power of
recombinant-DNA technology got into the hands of working scientists, who by
then were itching to explore previously unattainable secrets of life.
Happily, the proposals to control recombinant-DNA research through
legislation never got close to enactment. And when anti-DNA doomsday
scenarios failed to materialize, even the modestly restrictive governmental
regulations began to wither away. In retrospect, recombinant-DNA may rank
as the safest revolutionary technology ever developed. To my knowledge,
not one fatality, much less illness, has been caused by a genetically
manipulated organism.

The moral I draw from this painful episode is this: Never postpone
experiments that have clearly defined future benefits for fear of dangers
that can't be quantified. Though it may sound at first uncaring, we can
react rationally only to real (as opposed to hypothetical) risks. Yet for
several years we postponed important experiments on the genetic basis of
cancer, for example, because we took much too seriously spurious arguments
that the genes at the root of human cancer might themselves be dangerous to
work with.

Though most forms of DNA manipulation are now effectively unregulated, one
important potential goal remains blocked. Experiments aimed at learning
how to insert functional genetic material into human germ cells--sperm and
eggs--remain off limits to most of the world's scientists. No governmental
body wants to take responsibility for initiating steps that might help
redirect the course of future human evolution. These decisions reflect
widespread concerns that we, as humans, may not have the wisdom to modify
the most precious of all human treasures--our chromosomal "instruction
books." Dare we be entrusted with improving upon the results of the
several million years of Darwinian natural selection? Are human germ cells
Rubicons that geneticists may never cross?

Unlike many of my peers, I'm reluctant to accept such reasoning, again
using the argument that you should never put off doing something useful for
fear of evil that may never arrive. The first germ-line gene manipulations
are unlikely to be attempted for frivolous reasons. Nor does the state of
today's science provide the knowledge that would be needed to generate
"superpersons" whose far-ranging talents would make those who are
genetically unmodified feel redundant and unwanted. Such creations will
remain denizens of science fiction, not the real world, far into the
future. When they are finally attempted, germ-line genetic manipulations
will probably be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict--by
creating children who are resistant to a deadly virus, for example, much
the way we can already protect plants from viruses by inserting antiviral
DNA segments into their genomes.

If appropriate go-ahead signals come, the first resulting gene-bettered
children will in no sense threaten human civilization. They will be seen
as special only by those in their immediate circles, and are likely to pass
as unnoticed in later life as the now grownup "test-tube baby" Louise Brown
does today. If they grow up healthily gene-bettered, more such children
will follow, and they and those whose lives are enriched by their existence
will rejoice that science has again improved human life. If, however, the
added genetic material fails to work, better procedures must be developed
before more couples commit their psyches toward such inherently unsettling
pathways to producing healthy children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1118170,00.html

GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use
John Vidal
Thursday January 8, 2004
The Guardian

...

> when first introduced most of the crops needed up to 25% fewer chemicals
>for the first three years, but afterwards significantly more.

This particular dispute will make better progress if people retain
the useful distinction between *less* and *fewer*.

A typical RoundupResistant GM-soybean crop is sprayed with just
that one chemical, Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate). This number of
chemicals, viz. 1, is *fewer* than the normal chemical regime used by
similar chemicals-fixated agribusiness for proper soybeans. Standard
chemical regimes had featured not 1 but 3 chemicals at various periods
within the season.

However, the amount of chemical sprayed per season is, in the
GM-soy regime, not less but more - in some reports, 5 or 6 times higher.

To say that the GM-mutants require less chemicals is therefore
false. To say that they require fewer is true (compared with the hi-chem
agribusiness approach) - but usually intended to mislead, to convey the
impression of *less* chemical sprayed on the crop.

Those who don't understand this much English quite commonly try to
make out that such distinctions are pedantic. They're wrong.

R

http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i18/18a01001.htm

Berkeley Denies Tenure to Ecologist Who Criticized
University's Ties to the Biotechnology Industry

By SHARON WALSH

The Chronicle of Higher Education:
The Faculty
January 9, 2004

The University of California at Berkeley has denied
tenure to Ignacio H. Chapela, an assistant professor of
ecology and an outspoken critic of the university's
ties to the biotechnology industry.

The professor and other scientists critical of academic
links to corporations and of genetically modified crops
have anxiously awaited the tenure decision for three
years.

"My immediate reaction was extreme disappointment in
the chancellor," said Mr. Chapela, who joined the
university's department of environmental science,
policy, and management in the fall of 1995. "I hoped he
could see the evidence and take his role as a leader,"
he said of Robert M. Berdahl, the chancellor.

The university's decision, which was first reported in
the December 11 issue of the British journal Nature,
overruled recommendations for tenure by a faculty
committee in Mr. Chapela's department and by an ad hoc
panel of specialists in his field. A committee of the
Academic Senate had recommended against tenure.

Mr. Chapela and his research became controversial when
he published an article in Nature in November 2001 that
said that native corn in Mexico had been contaminated
by material from genetically modified corn. (A 1998 law
had made it illegal to plant transgenic corn in Mexico.)

Six months after the article appeared, and after
receiving a number of letters contesting the research,
the journal published an editorial note saying that
"the evidence available is not sufficient to justify
the original paper" and that the editors wanted "to
allow our readers to judge the science for themselves."

Mr. Chapela said at the time that he suspected he was
the target of pro-industry scientists and of the
biotechnology industry itself. He had been a vocal
critic of a deal the university made in 1998 with
Novartis, a Swiss-based biotechnology company, in which
the company paid Berkeley $5-million each year for five
years in exchange for early review of all proposed
publications and presentations by faculty members whose
work the company supported.

George A. Strait Jr., assistant vice chancellor for
public affairs, said he was surprised that the news
media would be interested in Mr. Chapela's case.

"He didn't get tenure, period," Mr. Strait said.
Berkeley's tenure process, he added, "is among the most
strenuous, the most fair, and the toughest in the
country. ... No one person, no one institution, no one
group has any undue influence."

Mr. Chapela's findings, made with a graduate student,
David Quist, and reported in the 2001 article about
Mexican maize, were important -- and controversial --
for several reasons. First, agricultural companies that
have produced genetically modified plants have said
that the engineered material does not travel from one
field to another. Second, Mr. Chapela and Mr. Quist
contended that the transferred genes that appeared in
the genetic material of native Mexican corn were
multiplying and hopping around inside the plant's
genome, which could interfere with the normal
functioning of other genes.

"This opens up the whole question of what happens in
the next generation of transgenics," he said. "The
finding means there is no control ... especially in
plants that are wind pollinated," like corn.


UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION

Mr. Chapela had been unanimously recommended for tenure
by his department's tenure committee. The decision then
went to a committee of the Academic Senate, which
appointed the ad hoc group of specialists to give an
opinion. The ad hoc committee, whose membership is
normally secret, unanimously said tenure should be
granted, according to Wayne M. Getz, a professor of
environmental science who identified himself as a
member of that committee after he found out that Mr.
Chapela was not getting tenure.

"I've been here 24 years, and my understanding is that
if the department and the ad hoc committee recommend
for tenure, you get tenure," he said.

Mr. Getz wrote a letter to the vice chancellor for
academic affairs questioning the process, and sent
copies of the letter to the ad hoc committee members.
The chairman of the ad hoc committee then notified Mr.
Getz that the senate's committee had asked him to
reconvene the ad hoc committee to review Mr. Chapela's
research again.

At that point, Mr. Getz says, the chairman resigned and
disavowed the committee's report, saying he did not
have the expertise to judge Mr. Chapela's research. The
chairman, whose name Mr. Getz declined to reveal, did
not tell any of the members of the committee about his
decision at the time, Mr. Getz said.

The senate's committee then advised the chancellor to
reject Mr.Chapela's tenure bid -- which the chancellor
did.

"I have no direct evidence of anything," Mr. Chapela
said of the chancellor's decision. "But the crown jewel
of Berdahl's chancellorship is a bioengineering
building." "There's still an enormous amount of
animosity against me because of [my criticism of]
Novartis," Mr. Chapela said. "I cannot help but think
that this influenced the decision" on tenure.

Mr. Chapela said the Academic Senate's tenure committee
had recognized him as an excellent teacher, but cited
the serious challenges to his research and an
inadequate publications record.

Mr. Getz said that the ad hoc panel had carefully
considered Mr. Chapela's research record, but after
noting both the Nature controversy and the amount of
research, decided to recommend tenure anyway. "It's
clear that plant geneticists don't contest his
findings, but his methods," he said.

"I believe the [Academic Senate] committee was pushing
to get a different outcome" from the ad hoc committee,
he said. Mr. Getz is in the same department as Mr.
Chapela, but he is not close to him either personally
or professionally, he said. He called the tenure
review's result "disgraceful" and added that he feared
that powerful researchers who benefited from the
Novartis deal had made Mr. Chapela a victim of
politics.

In June, Mr. Chapela staged his own protest, decrying
the length of his tenure process. He moved a small
desk, two chairs, tea, biscuits, and books outside of
California Hall, where the senate's committee meets and
where the chancellor has his office. For five days and
nights, he held a vigil to protest the unusually long
time that the university was making him wait for a
tenure decision.

Now Mr. Chapela says he plans to appeal the decision
within the normal university process. However, he says
he also plans to sue the institution: "In the last few
days, I've had a lot of phone calls from attorneys."

Farmed salmon loaded with chemicals, study confirms

- Farmed salmon contains far more toxic chemicals than wild salmon, high
enough to suggest that fish-eaters limit how much they eat, U.S.
researchers say.

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-01-09/s_11895.asp

GloFish draw suit

the scientist jan 7, 2004

Watchdog groups want FDA to regulate first genetically modified pet in
US | By Charles Q Choi and By Steve Nash

The first genetically modified (GM) pets sold in the United States,
fluorescent red zebrafish called GloFish, are the focus of a lawsuit
against the government from environmental and food safety groups seeking
federal regulation of the animals. A coalition led by the Center for
Food Safety, a national watchdog group in Washington, DC, plans to file
suit this week in a federal district court against the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for not regulating GloFish.

ìIt's clear this sets a precedent for genetically engineered animals. It
opens the dams to a whole host of nonfood genetically engineered
organisms. That's unacceptable to us and runs counter to things the
National Academy of Sciences and other scientific review boards have
said, particularly when it comes to mobile GM organisms like fish and
insects,î Joseph Mendelson, the Center for Food Safety's legal director,
told The Scientist.

Zebrafish (Danio rerio), native to the Ganges River in India, are
normally striped black and grey and are commonplace both in labs and as
pets. Scientists at the National University of Singapore engineered the
fish with the gene for red fluorescent protein from sea anemones and
coral to detect water pollution, initially injecting the gene into one-
or two-cell embryos before they hatched, although GloFish now come from
stable lines bred from the original experimental animals. Research
continues on developing zebrafish that selectively fluoresce when
exposed to contaminants such as estrogen or heavy metals.

The FDA, which holds jurisdiction over the commercial development of GM
animals, announced in December that it found no reason to regulate these
pets. ìBecause tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes,
they pose no threat to the food supply. There is no evidence that these
genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the
environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been
widely sold in the United States,î the FDA stated. By contrast, a
modified ìsuper salmonî that its promoters hope can be used as food has
been under review by the FDA for several years. The FDA says that it
will provide such oversight, for the time being, on a case-by-case basis.

Alan Blake, chief executive officer of GloFish manufacturer Yorktown
Technologies, has told other media outlets that he checked with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Department of Agriculture, and the FDA, and was told that they had no
regulatory interest. Blake declined requests to be interviewed by The
Scientist.

The FDA learned of the planned introduction of the GloFish sometime in
October, said John C. Matheson, senior regulatory review scientist at
the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. ìI think folks are continuing
to consider what's the best way,î Matheson told The Scientist the day
after the statement was released. ìWe would have liked to have heard
>from [Alan Blake] sooner, but I'm not sure there are any legal
obligations on him.î

Yorktown Technologies announced that the GloFish would go on sale in
January. The fish were actually available in Florida retail outlets in
late November and in other states soon after. On the brink of those
first sales, the Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club, Consumers'
Union, Greenpeace, and other environmental groups demanded that the FDA
intervene to forestall the GloFish's retail debut, pending a safety
review. They pointed out that Singapore and Japan had already halted
sales of fluorescing zebrafish and that many similar new bioengineered
products are on the horizon. ìThe floodgates are yours to close,î their
letter stated.

On December 4, California's fish and game commission voted to ban
GloFish sales there, citing ethical concerns about genetic engineering
for trivial uses. Florida's Department of Agriculture has formed a task
force to address future such genetically altered species, but did not
ban the sales of GloFish.

Researchers consulted by Yorktown Technologies and independently by the
California Department of Fish and Game contended the GloFish pose no
greater risk to the environment than wildtype zebrafish. The tropical
fish do not survive in nontropical environments. The researchers added
the fish's fluorescence burdens the fish metabolically and in avoiding
predators, and in lab tests with rats, the fluorescent proteins appeared
nontoxic.

ìYorktown Technologies stands by that these fish are safe for the
environment. They were originally developed to protect the environment,î
a spokesperson for the company said. ìThe distributors have said there's
unprecedented consumer demand.î

Citing the precedent GloFish could set, Mendelson noted that a number of
ornamental fish can also be food fish and that the escape of GM
ornamental food fish could pose a problem to public and environmental
health. ìThere's a chance here organisms can proliferate without any
safety monitoring,î Mendelson said. ìThat's an abdication of what FDA's
role is. They've frankly punted on this GloFish issue, and the
ramifications are going to be significant. That's why we've to go stop it.î

GM fluorescent pet fish first went on sale in July in Taiwan and
elsewhere in Asia, developed at National Taiwan University with
fluorescent proteins from jellyfish and corals and sold by aquarium
company Taikong.

Not all concerns about the GloFish center on their potential
environmental impact. Petsmart, the largest pet supply chain in the
United States, decided not to sell GloFish, citing concerns about the
long-term effects of genetic engineering on the fish themselves. ìWe're
going to continue to study how the fish are produced. Once we understand
more, we will evaluate our position on whether to sell or not,î Petsmart
spokesperson Andrea Davis said.

The suggested retail price of GloFish is $5. Green and yellow fish
should become available later this year, according to a Yorktown
spokesperson.

Links for this article
GloFish
http://www.glofish.com

Center for Food Safety
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

J.P. Roberts, ìHooked by the bait,î The Scientist, 17:22, June 2, 2003.
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/jun/feature8_030602.html

Zebrafish as Pollution Indicators, National University of Singapore
http://www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/research/gallery/research12.htm

ìFDA statement regarding Glofish,î Food and Drug Administration press
release, December 9, 2003.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00994.html

GlowingPets.com: Taikong Corporation Night Pearl Aquarium Fish
http://www.glowingpets.com/tk-1_fish.htm

Petsmart
http://www.petsmart.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,13369,1118282,00.html

An unnatural disaster
· Global warming to kill off 1m species
· Scientists shocked by results of research
· 1 in 10 animals and plants extinct by 2050

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday January 8, 2004
The Guardian

Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of
land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first
comprehensive study into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural
world.

The sheer scale of the disaster facing the planet shocked those involved
in the research. They estimate that more than 1 million species will be
lost by 2050.

The results are described as "terrifying" by Chris Thomas, professor of
conservation biology at Leeds University, who is lead author of the
research from four continents published today in the magazine Nature.

Much of that loss - more than one in 10 of all plants and animals - is
already irreversible because of the extra global warming gases already
discharged into the atmosphere. But the scientists say that action to curb
greenhouse gases now could save many more from the same fate.

It took two years for the largest global collaboration of experts to make
the first major assessment of the effect of climate change on six
biologically rich regions of the world taking in 20% of the land surface.

The research in Europe, Australia, Central and South America, and South
Africa, showed that species living in mountainous areas had a greater
chance of survival because they could simply move uphill to get cooler.

Those in flatter areas such as Brazil, Mexico and Australia, were more
vulnerable, faced with the impossible task of moving thousands of miles to
find suitable conditions.

Birds, which had the greatest chance of escape, could in theory move to a
more suitable climate but the trees and other habitat they needed for
survival could not keep pace and all would die.

Professor Thomas said: "When scientists set about research they hope to
come up with definite results, but what we found we wish we had not. It was
far, far worse than we thought, and what we have discovered may even be an
underestimate."

Among the more startling findings of the scientists was that of 24 species
of butterfly studied in Australia, all but three would disappear in much of
their current range, and half would become extinct.

In South Africa major conservation areas such as Kruger national park
risked losing up to 60% of the species under their protection.

In the Cerrado region of Brazil - also known as the Brazilian Savannah -
which covers one fifth of the country, a study of 163 tree species showed
that up to 70 would become extinct. Many of the plants and trees that exist
in this savannah occur nowhere else in the world. The scientists concluded
that 1,700 to 2,100 of these species - between 39% and 48% of the total -
would disappear.

In Europe, the continent least affected by climate change, survival rates
were better, but even here under the higher estimates of climate change a
quarter of the birds could become extinct, and between 11% and 17% of plant
species.

One British example is the Scottish crossbill which is found nowhere else.
The future climate in Scotland will be different and the birds will be
unable to survive, especially with rivals from warmer climes moving in.

The crossbill would need to move to Iceland, but currently there are
virtually no trees and suitable food. The scientists conclude: "It seems
unlikely that the species will manage to move to Iceland."

In Mexico, studies in the Chihuahuan desert confirmed that on flatter land
extinction was more likely because a small change in climate would require
migrations over vast distances for survival. One third of 1,870 species
examined would be in trouble and three small rodents, the smokey pocket
gopher, Alcorn's pocket gopher, jico deer mouse would go the way of the
dodo.

In South Africa, where many popular garden plants originate, 300 plant
species were studied and more than one third were expected to die out,
including South Africa's national flower, the king protea.

Commenting on the findings in Nature, two other scientists, J Alan Pounds
and Robert Puschendorf, who has studied the extinction of frogs in the
mountains of Costa Rica since the 1980s as a result of climate change, say
their colleagues have been "optimistic".

When other factors as well as increased temperatures were taken into
account the extinctions would probably be greater.

"The risk of extinction increases as global warming interacts with other
factors - such as landscape modification, species invasions and build-up of
carbon dioxide - to disrupt communities and ecological interactions."

So many species are already destined for extinction because it takes at
least 25 years for the greenhouse effect - or the trapping of the sun's
rays by the carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide already added to the
air - to have its full effect on the planet. Deserts, grasslands and
forests are already changing to make survival impossible.

The continuous discharging of more greenhouse gases, particularly by the
USA, is making matters considerably worse. The research says if mankind
continues to burn oil, coal and gas at the current rate, up to one third of
all life forms will be doomed by 2050.

Prof Thomas said it was urgent to switch from fossil fuels to a non-carbon
economy as quickly as possible. "It is possible to drastically reduce the
output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this research makes it
imperative we do it as soon as possible. If we can stabilise the climate
and even reverse the warming we could save these species, but we must start
to act now."

If conservation groups wanted to save species they should devote at least
half their energies to political campaigning to reduce global warming
because that was the greatest single threat to survival of the species.

John Lanchbery, climate change campaigner for the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, agreed: "This is a deeply depressing paper. President
Bush risks having the biggest impact on wildlife since the meteorite that
wiped out the dinosaurs.

"At best, in 50 years, a host of wildlife will be committed to extinction
because of human-induced climate change. At worst, the outcome does not
bear thinking about. Drastic action to cut emissions is clearly needed by
everyone, but especially the USA."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1118170,00.html

GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use
John Vidal
Thursday January 8, 2004
The Guardian

Eight years of planting genetically modified maize, cotton and soya beans
in the USA has significantly increased the amount of herbicides and
pesticides used, according to a US report which could influence the British
government over whether to let GM crops be grown.

The most comprehensive study yet made of chemical use on genetically
modified crops draws on US government data collected since
commercialisation of the crops began.

It appears to undermine one of the central selling points of GM farming -
that the crops benefit the environment because they need fewer manmade
agrochemicals.

Charles Benbrook, the author of the report, who is also head of the
Northwest Science and Environment Policy Centre, at Sandpoint, Idaho, found
that when first introduced most of the crops needed up to 25% fewer
chemicals for the first three years, but afterwards significantly more.

In 2001, the report states, 5% more herbicides and insecticides were
sprayed compared with crops only of non-GM varieties; in 2002 7.9% more was
sprayed; and in 2003 the estimated rise was 11.5%. In total, £73m more
agrochemicals were sprayed in the US during 2001-2003 because of GM crops,
says the report, which was commissioned by Iowa State University, the
Consumers' Union and others.

During 2002-2003, an average of 29% more herbicide was applied per acre on
GM maize. But this trend was not sustained over the eight years. Overall,
modest reductions in insecticide usage with maize and cotton were recorded,
with no sign thatthe pests were starting to build up resistance.

UK farm trials found that two of the three GM crops grown experimentally
in Britain, oil seed rape and sugar beet, were more harmful to the
environment than conventional crops but that GM maize allowed the survival
of more weeds and insects. The key to insects' and weeds' survival was the
quantity of chemicals used on either conventional or GM crops.

Dr Benbrook said: "The proponents of biotechnology claim GM varieties
substantially reduce pesticide use. While true in the first few years of
widespread planting ... it is not the case now. There's now clear evidence
that the average pounds of herbicides applied per acre planted to
herbicide-tolerant varieties have increased compared to the first few
years."

Last night, the Agriculture Biotechnology Council, a British GM industry
trade group, criticised the findings, saying it was not possible to
directly correlate pesticide use with GM crops. "There are lots of seasonal
conditions that have effects [on how much pesticide is used]. Global
warming is also important. We do not dispute that there was a 20% increase
[of pesticides] in 2002 over 2001, but that [2001] was the lowest figure in
years."

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said yesterday:
"This is compelling evidence that GM maize will lead to higher spray use
and serious damage to wildlife if the crop is grown in this country.

"The biotechnology companies have been claiming that GM crops result in
large reductions in the use of sprays, and GM maize is their frontrunner
for commercial growing in the UK. Until now, there has been no clear
evidence over the whole eight years of commercial growing in the US to show
their claims are false - that's what the evidence in this report gives us.

"It would be inconceivable for the government to give the go-ahead to GM
maize now this damning evidence is out."

However, one of the most important factors involved in the increase of
herbicides is thought to have been the recent termination of the patent
protection for glyphosate herbicide, made by the leading GM company
Monsanto. This is the main chemical the plants are engineered to tolerate.

According to the report, new, competing products have halved prices and
encouraged more spraying.

Tony Blair yesterday said that public opinion would play a part in the
development of GM products in the UK. Speaking at prime minister's question
time about what impact recent government soundings would have on a final
decision on GM in Britain, he said it was "vital that we proceed - by
public consultation but also on the basis of the science of GM".

Editor
The Guardian

Dear Sir

We are concerned that the substance of our letter (Dec 27) on the
priority for the title 'first powered takeoff' was purged by your editorial
action. We mentioned that New Zealander Richard Pearse's best-attested
takeoff was on 31-3-03, which implies priority over the Wrights.

The historian Gordon Ogilvie has researched Pearse's
accomplishments for several decades. The 4th edition of his book 'The
Riddle of Richard Pearse' (Reed 2003) is the main source for the date we
asserted. Perhaps you would be good enough to put your readers in touch
with this book, and to print that key date.

yrs etc

Robt Mann
34 Norana Avenue
Remuera, Auckland 1005
New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

==========

as sent in:

Editor

Your columnist George Monbiot (Dec 16) is unusually well informed on the
New Zealander Richard Pearse who achieved powered takeoff on 31-3-1903 -
before the Wrights.

However, Monbiot is over-generous in his corrections. Pearse did
not, at first, fly "for more than a kilometre", but only a hundred metres
or so. More importantly, when Monbiot says Pearse "even managed to turn
his plane in mid-flight" this should not be taken as evidence of controlled
flight. The definition of powered flight for 'world records' purposes
includes not only takeoff but also lateral control circling around to land
near the takeoff point. Pearse never claimed to achieve this (neither did
the Wrights until 1905). His landing on a 12-foot gorse hedge may have
been a shrewdly extemporized cushioning, but was more likely due to
uncontrolled sideways drift; he invented & successfully operated tricycle
undercarriage, and probably meant to use it to land on the road from which
he had taken off seconds before.

Pearse patented the aileron. His first bamboo plane was
remarkably similar to the 'microlight' which caught on some 8 decade later.
The engine he made himself using 4-inch drainpipes as cylinders may well
have had a world-leading power/weight ratio for its time. His rapid
achievements working virtually alone with slender resources qualify him as
a blazing genius. The Wrights had Lilienthal's book on gliders, and a
well-equipped workshop in their successful Dayton, Ohio cycle emporium.
Their success was much more systematic than Pearse's; he worked faster and
more intuitively. It is also true that they progressed for many years
afterwards whereas Pearse failed to build on his dazzling first success;
but that is irrelevant to the current question of who first effected a
powered takeoff.

Although no plans nor many parts survive of the Pearse Mk 1,
imaginative vague replicas have been built in New Zealand to celebrate the
centenary of the first powered takeoff, and one has been exhibited this
year at at Britain's Shuttleworth Museum.

yrs etc

Robert Mann Ph.D
Christopher Marks M.E
Geoffrey Rodliffe AMRAeS
Auckland, New Zealand

as pubd Dec 27, with headline 'A blazing genius of flight', and cartoon
showing crate on hedge and 2 men nearby 'I wonder whether I should patent
the gorse-hedge landing method':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1112895,00.html

Letters

A blazing genius of flight

Saturday December 27, 2003
The Guardian

The New Zealander Richard Pearse did not, at first, fly "for
more than a kilometre", as George Monbiot writes (A weapon with wings,
December 16), but only a hundred metres or so.

More importantly, when Monbiot says Pearse "even managed to
turn his plane in mid-flight", this should not be taken as evidence of
controlled flight. The definition of powered flight for world record
purposes includes not only take-off but also lateral control to land near
the take-off point. Pearse never claimed to achieve this (neither did the
Wrights, until 1905). His landing on a 12ft gorse hedge may have been a
shrewdly extemporised cushioning, but was more likely due to uncontrolled
drift.

Pearse patented the aileron. His first bamboo plane was
remarkably similar to the microlight that caught on eight decades later.
The engine he made himself using 4in drainpipes as cylinders presumably had
a world-leading power-weight ratio for its time. His rapid achievements
working virtually alone with slender resources qualify him as a blazing
genius. The Wrights had Lilienthal's book on gliders and a well-equipped
workshop in their cycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. Their success was much more
systematic than Pearse's; he worked faster and more intuitively.

Although no plans survive of the Pearse Mk 1, imaginative
replicas have been built in New Zealand to celebrate the centenary of the
first powered take-off, and one has been exhibited at Britain's
Shuttleworth Museum.

Geoffrey Rodliffe
Christopher Marks
Robert Mann
Auckland, New Zealand

This is the lead item in today's ENN Daily News (produced by the
USA National Geographic Society). That mere fact may offer some hope.

If ever there was a case of technology for the people, low-tech,
and intermediate-tech, and vernacular water-supply systems must rate at a
high priority. In practice, water-disposal systems must come along with
them (if only to prevent cross-contamination). The actual science relating
to such technology - e.g for monitoring contamination - is a whole
theme in itself; where can we read up on it?

R


Today's Headlines
ENN DAILY NEWS

Scientists and citizens are stymied by water crisis

- The world is sharply divided in terms of access to safe hydration.
Those who can afford it are guzzling ever-increasing numbers of designer
water bottles, while half the world's population lacks basic sanitation
facilities.

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-01-08/s_9210.asp

Transfer of vCJD by blood transfusion is being taken seriously in UK. In
spite of the evidence of spread in blood USDA still allows use of blood
meal in cattle feed. That threatens cows with BSE and farm hands with
vCJD through exposure to blood in cuts and lesions along with breathing
dust from cattle feed. USDA's crazed indifference is perplexing. Do they
patent blood meal diets along with GM crops?


Patient's death from vCJD may be linked to blood transfusion

Committee to discuss need for further precautions to prevent possible
vCJD transmission through blood

Stephen Pincock

The Lancet
Volume 363, Issue 9402 , 31 December 2003, Page 43

News that a UK patient died from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(vCJD) after receiving blood from a donor who later died from the
condition has raised concerns that vCJD could be transmitted via
transfusion.

UK health minister John Reid told parliament on Dec 17 that the patient
died in autumn this year and a post-mortem in December confirmed the
diagnosis of vCJD.

In 1996, the patient had received a transfusion of blood from a donor
who was, at the time, free of signs of vCJD but developed the condition
in 1999 and later died.

"It is therefore possible that the disease was transmitted from donor to
recipient by blood transfusion", Reid said. "This is a possibility, not
a proven causal connection."

It is also possible that both individuals separately acquired vCJD by
eating meat or meat products that were infected with bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, he said.

This is the first report of possible vCJD transmission through blood.
Nevertheless, health agencies in the UK and elsewhere have long
considered this eventuality.

In the USA and other countries, for example, there are restrictions on
blood donation by people who have spent time in the UK since the disease
first surfaced.

Since 1999, leucodepletion of donated blood has been practised in the
UK, and all blood products have been made using plasma imported from the
USA. In December last year, the UK government spent nearly £50 million
(US$88 million) buying Life Resources Incorporated - the largest
remaining independent US plasma collector - to ensure plasma and
plasma-related products were derived from sources outside the UK.

As recently as October this year, the UK government's Advisory Committee
on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation
said it was not necessary to stop people who have received a blood
transfusion from giving blood.

"However, in the light of today's statement, we have asked that
committee to look comprehensively at whether further precautionary
measures could be taken that would not adversely impact on the safety or
availability of blood", Reid said. This further investigation is being
overseen by the Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson.

At this early stage it is not clear exactly what precautions the
committee will focus on, a Department of Health spokesman told The Lancet.

Stephen Dealler, a microbiologist at Lancaster Royal Infirmary,
suggested the possibilities could include offering self-transfusion,
considering prophylaxis with pentosan polysulphate, using techniques to
clean prions from plasma, and developing tests to detect prions in blood.

"I think within a few years we'll get somewhere with that", he said of
such tests. There are many companies involved in that field, and with
the right support, "it's possible we'll get there much sooner", he told
The Lancet.

Donaldson distributed Reid's speech to doctors across the country on the
day it was made, noting "you may get patients coming to you with
questions relating to this".

The UK is generally regarded internationally as having a "very safe"
blood service, Reid stressed. The National Blood Service responded to
the health minister's statement by reiterating how vital it was that
donors continue to come forward to donate blood, which is already in
short supply.

"It is important to balance the unknown risk of contracting vCJD through
a blood transfusion against the risk of a patient not receiving the
blood transfusion they require", the blood service said in a statement.

The spread of vCJD in the UK has not reached the scale that some had
feared it might: as of Dec 1, there have been 143 cases of definite or
probable vCJD (see also p 51-61), and over the past 3 years, the number
of new cases has fallen year on year.

15 patients in the UK are known to have received blood donated by people
who later developed vCJD. They are being contacted and will be told
about the circumstances of their case and have the opportunity for
counselling, Reid said.

Thousands of patients who received blood products from donors before
plasma was imported from the USA are also likely to be contacted.
However, Reid said the CJD incidents panel considered the risk for these
patients was "even lower than for those who received whole blood".

ISIS Press Release 06/01/04
Organic Outperforms Conventional in Climate Extremes

Long-term research has shown that organic cropping systems give higher
yields than conventional during periods of drought or torrential rains.

Lim Li Ching reports.

Sources for this report are available in the ISIS members site. Full
details here

The Rodale Farming Systems Trial was started in 1981 at the Rodale
Institute in Pennsylvania, USA. It compares the benefits and risks of
three farming systems, two organic - manure-based (MNR) and legume-based
(LEG) - and one conventional (CNV), on a long-term basis.

The MNR system is a 5-year maize-soybean-wheat-clover/hay rotation, the
LEG a 3-year maize-soybean-wheat-green manure, and the CNV a 5-year
maize-soybean rotation. The MNR system includes livestock and uses
manure as fertilizer, while LEG incorporates leguminous crops into the
soil. Both the organic systems rely on mechanical cultivation and
heterogeneous crop mixes for their weed and pest control. The CNV system
uses mineral fertilizer and pesticides.

After a transition period of four years, crops grown under the organic
systems yielded as much as and sometimes better than conventional crops.
Average maize and soybean yields were relatively similar in all three
systems over the post-transition years (1985-199.

Five moderate drought years, with total April-August rainfall less than
350 mm, occurred between 1984 and 1998. In four of them the organic
maize out-yielded the CNV by significant margins. For example, in 1998,
organic maize yielded 141% and 133% relative to CNV in the LEG and MNR
treatments, respectively.

In 1999, a severe crop season drought in the northeastern US was
followed by hurricane-driven torrential rains in September, offering a
unique opportunity to observe how the systems responded to
climate-related stress. As evidence of global warming gathers (see "Life
of Gaia" series, SiS 20), there is greater likelihood of increased
incidence and severity of droughts, flooding and other extreme climatic
events. Long-term crop yield stability and the ability to withstand
climatic stresses will be crucially important for sustainable and secure
food production.

The Rodale researchers examined crop and water dynamics by measuring
cover crop and crop biomass, weed biomass, grain yields, percolated
water volumes, soil water content and water infiltration rates.

Crop season rainfall for April, May, June, July and August 1999 were
55%, 66%, 17%, 29% and 40% of normal for those months, respectively.
September 1999, with 268%, was a complete reversal of previous months as
a result of Hurricane Floyd, and was the wettest September on record in
the Northeast US.

Due to the severe drought, all crop systems suffered heavy depressions
in yield in 1999: to less than 20% of the long-term average in maize and
60% in soybean.

There were substantial yield differences between systems. With one
exception (LEG maize), organic systems gave significantly better yields
than the conventional system.

Organic LEG and MNR maize yielded 38% and 137% respectively relative to
CNV. LEG soybean yields were significantly higher than MNR, and MNR in
turn yielded significantly higher than CNV. Organic LEG and MNR soybean
yielded 196% and 152% respectively relative to CNV.

The severely reduced yields in the LEG maize plots were largely due to
pressure from weeds and excessive cover crop biomass (nearly twice that
necessary for adequate nitrogen inputs) in that year. Skill in managing
weeds is therefore an important part of organic farming. Both these
factors contributed to over-consumption of the limited soil water,
thereby more than canceling out the benefits of the LEG soilís good
water-holding capacity and infiltration rate.

The primary mechanism thought to be responsible for the higher yields in
the organic systems is indeed the improved water-holding capacity of the
soils during water deficits. Data collected over the past 10 years of
the Rodale research show that the MNR and LEG treatments improve the
soils' water-holding capacity, infiltration rate and water-capture
efficiency. LEG maize soils averaged a 13% higher water content than CNV
soils at the same crop stage, and 7% higher than CNV soils in soybean plots.

In combination, these factors have led to optimum drought adaptiveness
in the MNR maize plots and both the MNR and LEG organic soybean plots.
In contrast, the CNV system had poor soil water-holding capacity and
infiltration, limiting the ability of the crop to adapt to drought
despite negligible water use by weeds and no water use by a cover crop.

Earlier research showed that organic techniques significantly improve
soil quality, as measured by structure, total soil organic matter (a
measure of soil fertility) and biological activity. The improved soil
structure created a better root-zone environment for growing plants and
allowed the soil to better absorb and retain moisture. Apart from the
benefit during low-rainfall periods, it reduced the potential for
erosion in severe storms. The higher organic matter content also made
organic soils less compact so that roots could penetrate more deeply to
find moisture.

Furthermore, the organic soils showed good late-season flood
performance, with good water capture and reduced runoff. Water capture
is important for groundwater recharge. Soils in the organic plots
captured more water and retained more of it in the crop root zone than
in the CNV treatment in 1999. Water capture averaged 30% higher in the
organic plots than in the CNV plots, and in September, following high
rainfall, water capture in the organic plots was approximately 100%
higher than in CNV plots.

In May, at the onset of drought, the CNV plots, for the only time in
1999, had more percolated water than the other treatments, indicating
that in the LEG and MNR plots more water was retained in the soil for
crop use during a time when water was limiting. Over a 5-year period,
the LEG and MNR systems captured 16% and 25% more water than the CNV
system, respectively. The MNR plots captured significantly more water
than the LEG system.

The Rodale Instituteís research provides yet more evidence that organic
agriculture can help ensure sustainable long-term food production (see
also The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World by the Independent Science
Panel, ). These results highlight the benefits to soil quality organic
farming brings, and itsí potential to avert crop failures. "Our trials
show that improving the quality of the soil through organic practices
can mean the difference between a harvest or hardship in times of
drought", said Jeff Moyer, Farm Manager at Rodale Institute.

Given the increasing incidences of climate extremes, and projections
that these are likely to occur more frequently, organic crop management
techniques will be important in providing soil and crop characteristics
that can better buffer environmental extremes.

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicOutperforms.php

Mad cow is one of many mystifying diseases

- For all the worry mad cow disease is generating, it's just one in a
family of 10 diseases discovered so far that are arguably medicine's most
mystifying maladies.

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-01-06/s_11748.asp

January 6, 2004 NY Times
Questions Linger on Price of Seeds
By DAVID BARBOZA

ST. LOUIS -- Senior executives at the two biggest seed companies in the
world met repeatedly in the mid- to late 1990's and agreed to charge
higher prices for genetically modified seeds, according to interviews
with former executives from both companies and to court and other documents.

The Monsanto Company and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. acknowledge
that their executives met to discuss genetically modified seeds.
Monsanto also said the companies discussed prices, but added that they
were engaged in legitimate negotiations about changes to an existing
licensing agreement, not illegal price fixing.

Interviews with former and current executives of major seed companies,
along with company documents, however, show that through much of the
1990's Monsanto tried to control the market for genetically altered corn
and soybean seeds. Monsanto spent billions in the 1980's to invent
specialized seeds and sold the rights to make them to big seed companies
like Pioneer.

More than a dozen legal experts contacted by The New York Times say that
if the goal of the talks between the rivals was to limit competition on
prices, they would have violated antitrust laws.

The talks, which occurred from 1995 to 1999, involved licenses that let
Pioneer sell altered seeds developed by Monsanto, which is based here.
In those talks, according to interviews with dozens of executives and
court and other documents, the companies discussed prices, swapped
profit projections and even talked about cooperating to keep the prices
of genetically modified seeds high.

The talks involved top executives at both companies, including Robert B.
Shapiro, then Monsanto's chief executive, and Charles S. Johnson, then
Pioneer's chief executive, as well as Richard McConnell, now president
of Pioneer, and Robert T. Fraley, now Monsanto's chief technology
officer, according to company officials and documents. Together, Pioneer
and Monsanto control about 60 percent of the nation's $5 billion market
for corn and soybean seeds.

Also in the late 1990's, Monsanto pressured at least two other big seed
companies to coordinate their retail pricing strategies with Monsanto's,
former chief executives at those companies said. The executives, who ran
Novartis Seeds and Mycogen, said they rejected Monsanto's entreaties as
anticompetitive and potentially illegal.

Analysts estimate that more than $10 billion worth of genetically
altered seeds have been sold in the United States since they were
commercialized in 1996. Monsanto and Pioneer did not have to succeed in
actually raising retail seed prices to have violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act, legal and economic experts say; just agreeing to
coordinate prices is against the law.

Companies found to have violated federal antitrust law could be subject
to criminal fines and civil class-action litigation. In the civil
lawsuits, courts can award triple monetary damages.

"If they're talking to Pioneer about raising the ultimate price to the
farmers, that's illegal," said Austan Goolsbee, a professor of economics
at the University of Chicago and a former Justice Department consultant
on antitrust issues. "Monsanto shouldn't care about the final price.
They should only care about the royalty payments they receive from Pioneer."

Royalty payments were at the heart of the matter. Before it realized how
successful altered seeds would be, Monsanto sold the technology to some
companies, including Pioneer, for relatively modest sums. When the seeds
proved to be a hit, Monsanto tried to renegotiate many of those deals to
ensure that the seeds sold for higher prices, executives and records show.

Monsanto said it brought up those early agreements only in the context
of negotiating a licensing deal with Pioneer for new seeds that Monsanto
was developing.

"Monsanto did offer to expand and revise existing licenses with
Pioneer," Lori J. Fisher, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said in an e-mail
message. "In the context of a potentially new license for technology, it
is absolutely within the law to discuss the price and the means of
compensation to the licensing party."

Pioneer, a division of DuPont, also denied that the discussions were
used to fix prices. "We set our own prices," it said in a statement. "We
do it independently, and without consultation with our competitors." It
added that it believed that all of its talks with Monsanto about
technology licensing were "legitimate and appropriate business
negotiations" intended to benefit its customers. "Pioneer at no time
engaged in illegal or inappropriate activity regarding the prices of our
products," it said.

Some leading antitrust experts, however, said the talks resembled an
effort to suppress competition on retail prices for seeds, though they
cautioned that they had not seen documents in the case.

Before Monsanto struck the 1992 and 1993 licensing agreements with
Pioneer, it had monopoly rights to its technology and could set any
price it wanted. But once Pioneer bought the licenses, it became
Monsanto's competitor and, legal experts say, the companies were no
longer supposed to talk about how much to charge.

"Once you've created the competition," said George Hay, a law professor
at Cornell University, "you can't take other steps to snuff it out."

The Justice Department is already looking into whether Monsanto engaged
in anticompetitive action in the herbicide market, which it dominates
with its Roundup weed killer.

The department is aware of the seed pricing talks, according to
government officials. But it is unclear if a formal inquiry has begun. A
department spokeswoman declined comment.

And a group of farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto in
1999, accusing it of several misdeeds, including seeking to organize a
cartel to control the market for biotech seeds. In September, a federal
judge here dismissed some claims, but not the accusation of price
fixing. The farmers' lawyers have appealed the judge's rulings.

Monsanto began its work on seeds in the 1980's, when it applied the
emerging science of genetic engineering to agriculture. One idea was to
develop soybeans impervious to Roundup, which would let farmers attack
weeds without killing crops. Another idea was to make a type of corn
with its own insect repellent, to save the cost and trouble of killing
pests.

The company spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these and other
projects, and when the first altered seeds were ready for market, it
sold the rights to produce and market them. Pioneer was one of the first
to sign up, paying $450,000 in 1992 for nonexclusive rights to altered
soybean seeds. In 1993, Pioneer paid $38 million for nonexclusive rights
to the biotech corn.

Monsanto officials initially viewed the deals as a vote of confidence in
biotechnology, former executives said. But soon after, some senior
executives complained that the technology had been sold too cheaply.

"I left in '93, and they tried to undo the deal," said Geert Van Brandt,
a former Monsanto executive who helped negotiate the 1993 agreement.
"They wanted more money; they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too."

By 1995, Monsanto revamped its licensing program to what some executives
called a value capture system to reap bigger profits. Under this system,
companies that licensed the technology had to require farmers to sign a
grower licensing agreement that forbade them to replant seeds saved from
harvest. Monsanto also required the companies to charge a technology fee
for every bag of biotech seed; licensees were to collect the fee and pay
it back to Monsanto.

Most big seed companies ó including several that Monsanto has since
acquired ó agreed to use the system, which legal experts say is a
legitimate exercise of Monsanto's licensing and patent rights.

But one major company was absent from the program: Pioneer, which
already had the right to sell Monsanto's altered soybeans and corn.
Worried that Pioneer might undercut prices being charged by other
licensees, Monsanto asked Pioneer to renegotiate the 1992 and 1993
deals, according to executives involved in the talks.

"We bought Roundup soybeans for about $500,000," said Thomas N. Urban,
the former chairman and chief executive of Pioneer. "They hated us.
Every time we had a meeting, they'd say, `You need to pay us more.' We
said, `Why?' "

Monsanto executives wanted to make their pricing system an industry
standard, according to former industry executives.

"We had commercial concerns about somebody willfully trading away the
value of the technology," said Arnold Donald, Monsanto's former
president and a leading figure in the Pioneer negotiations. "If Pioneer
and Asgrow went out and charged a normal seed price and didn't put any
value on the technology, in that scenario, we have no value."

Asgrow is the nation's biggest soybean seed producer; Monsanto bought it
in 1997 for $240 million. Mr. Arnold said he believed that what Monsanto
did was legal.

Pioneer, however, was reluctant to go along, according to current and
former Pioneer executives, because it saw no advantage in collecting a
separate fee for its rival and because it worried about offending
customers by adopting the grower agreement, effectively forcing them to
buy new seed every year.

But former executives who were briefed on the talks say that Pioneer
considered acceding to Monsanto's proposal in exchange for more advanced
seeds and for getting the underlying genetic engineering expertise,
called enabling technologies, that Pioneer could use to develop new
seeds by itself.

Monsanto balked at sharing that technology, according to lawyers and
executives. Instead, it offered other incentives, including $25 million,
if Pioneer would adopt the grower agreement and technology fee in 1995,
according to lawyers. At one point, Monsanto also offered to let Pioneer
keep the technology fee just so long as it charged one.

"We said, `Just go with our form and keep the money.' And they didn't
want to go," said Mr. Donald, now the chief executive of Merisant, a
Chicago company that makes artificial sweeteners.

When talking failed, Monsanto tried a threat. Former Monsanto executives
said they told Pioneer they would withhold new technology from Pioneer
if it did not renegotiate.

"We said, `You paid us; you have every right,' " Mr. Donald said. " `But
now we have a value capture for the industry.' And we said, `If you want
future technology from us, you need to honor it.' "

Monsanto and Pioneer, which is based in Des Moines, declined to discuss
specifics of their talks.

In 1997 and 1998, Pioneer executives told Monsanto they would agree to
simply charge an "elite" or premium price ó in effect agreeing not to
compete with Monsanto and its partners on price ó in exchange for
Monsanto's giving Pioneer access to new varieties of modified seeds and
the technology to make others, according to people who have seen
documents relating to this.

Mr. Shapiro declined to comment when reached by telephone. Other current
executives of Monsanto and Pioneer who participated in the talks were
not made available for comment by the companies.

In the mid- to late 1990's, Monsanto sought similar agreements from
other rivals, according to former seed executives.

For example, Monsanto asked the seed unit of Novartis, the Swiss maker
of drugs and nutrition products, to charge premium prices for its
altered soybeans even though Novartis, like Pioneer, had a license to
market them independently, according to former executives.

"They came to us; they did pose that question," said Ed Shonsey, the
former chief executive of Novartis's crop science unit. "We felt it was
inappropriate. We refused."

In 1995, Monsanto asked Mycogen, which is based in San Diego, not to
compete with Monsanto or its partners on the price of biotech seeds in
exchange for access to some of Monsanto's patented technologies,
according to former executives and others who were close to the talks.

Carlton Eibl, former chief executive of Mycogen, said Monsanto also
sought to combine its seed technology with Mycogen's to bring his
company into Monsanto's pricing system.

"They wanted us to license enough of their technology so they could
control pricing under the G.L.A.," he said, referring to Monsanto's
grower licensing agreement. "That was a fundamental thing about
controlling price that we did not agree with. No matter how you look at
it, it was anticompetitive." Mycogen later was acquired by Dow Chemical.

Monsanto denied it sought an agreement on price with either Novartis or
Mycogen; it said it was simply engaged in licensing negotiations.

BIO-IPR docserver
____________

TITLE: This Time, It's Genetically Altered Fish
AUTHOR: Anil Netto
PUBLICATION: Inter Press Service
DATE: 28 October 2003
URL:
http://www.domino.ips.org/ips%5Ceng.nsf/vwWebMainView/7638917B7DCBB71DC1256DCD00
542F70/?OpenDocument
____________

THIS TIME, IT'S GENETICALLY ALTERED FISH

By Anil Netto

Penang, Malaysia, Oct 28 (IPS) -- As rising demand for fish puts pressure on
global supply, more developing nations are turning to aquaculture or farmed
fish. But like other farmed animals and crops, farmed fish has also become a
target for controversial genetic tinkering -- and ultimately, for ownership
claims on genetically "improved" breeds.

Genetically modified (GM) rainbow trout, carp, tilapia and abalone are now
being developed around the world. Cuba, for instance, is involved in GM
tilapia.

But since GM food has been suffering setbacks in the market, scientists have
also been stepping up efforts to produce genetically improved breeds of fish.

Saying that their works has nothing to do with GM, these scientists use
biotechnology means such as sex manipulation, polyploidy, hybridisation and
genetic changes.

These also make the fish more amenable to patenting than the more
traditional selective breeding, say some researchers. ''The trend towards
the patenting of fish genetic resources, and even the patenting of new
breeds of fish is accelerating,'' observed researcher Anna Rosa Martinez, in
a study commissioned by the Chennai- and Brussels-based International
Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).

The Barcelona-based researcher noted that the expectations of long-term
productivity increases from the use of fish genetic resources have led to
the extension of property rights over them -- in a process that parallels
that of plant genetic resources for agriculture.

Some of the other implications of farmed fish also raise ethical concerns,
activists say. These include the potential loss of biodiversity, the threat
of contamination of wild fish by farmed fish, and the outbreak of disease.

Many also worry about whether genetic research would lead to the patenting
of strains of genetically improved fish and the transfer of "ownership" or
commercial rights of such fish from the public to the private domain.

Much attention has focused on a species of fish known as tilapia, which is
widely regarded as ideal for breeding. They grow fast, waste little food,
and require little attention. Tilapia are said to be similar to rats in
their ability to adapt and can take advantage of whatever they find to feed
on -- and that is precisely why they can pose risks to the balance of
natural ecosystems.

The International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM),
now known as WorldFish Centre, initiated a major international collaborative
effort, the Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) project, in 1988 in
the Philippines. The project was aimed at providing increased income and
improved nutrition for the poor as well as transferring scientific knowledge
and technology.

Wild Nile tilapia was collected from rivers in Egypt, Ghana, Senegal and
Kenya. Together with four Philippine commercial strains, these were crossed
to establish a broad genetic platform for the later selection programme run
by the GIFT-project.

In 1998, after six generations of selective breeding, the rights to the
fish, which had shown 85 percent improved growth compared to wild tilapia,
were handed over to the non-profit GIFT Foundation International Inc (GFII).
GFII was set up to ''continue the research, market the fish, and use the
revenues generated to further research work on tilapia''.

A Norwegian biotechnology company, Genomar ASA, started a collaborative
research programme with the GFII in 1999. ''GenoMar then resumed all
commercial rights to the GIFT foundation fish and received a copy of all the
latest families,'' said Morten Hoyum, vice president and chief operating
officer of GenoMar, responding to queries from IPS.

Since then, GenoMar has introduced state-of-the-art DNA "tagging" of the
fish in its breeding scheme and is now developing the 14th generation, said
Hoyum. GenoMar has maintained the full genetically diverse platform and has
also done extensive research on saline tolerant fish that can be utilised in
brackish water, he added.

"According to the agreements, ICLARM or now the Worldfish Centre has some
fish from Generation 9 that was moved to Malaysia," said Hoyum.

The Worldfish Centre's assistant director-general (international relations),
Modadugu V Gupta, clarified that the GIFT tilapia that is with the Worldfish
Centre is being given to any government that requests it.

"Genomar can claim that what they are developing started with the GIFT
fish; they are further improving it under their name," Gupta told IPS, when
asked why the commercial rights had been transferred to a private firm.
"Likewise, many other countries which received the germplasm or fish from
us are continuing their own research, further improvement. The GIFT fish is
still in the public domain," he insisted.

Hoyum agrees that the WorldFish Centre, with headquarters here in Penang,
has the rights to the fish recently transferred to Malaysia. This fish,
however, "was just ordinary (Generation 9 GIFT tilapia) fish that has been
available in the Philippine market as fingerlings as well. The same fish was
also provided to the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources in the
Philippines."

But Hoyum asserted that, according to the spirit of the agreement with
GenoMar, Worldfish Centre "should not use the fish for commercial
activities but would be free to use it for scientific and research purposes".

Genomar has already entered into commercial ventures using the trademark
name GenoMar Supreme Tilapia in the Philippines, Brazil and China, a major
market.

Gupta, who is also on the board of GFII, declined to furnish a copy of the
agreement between GFII and GenoMar, describing it as "confidential".

As a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), an association of public and private members supporting a system of
16 international food and environmental research centres, Worldfish Centre
has endorsed the group's intellectual property rights (IPRs) policy.

The CGIAR says it is promoting the transfer of intensified production
systems for the benefit of the poor, noted Martinez, but "its IPR policy is
highly controversial".

On one hand, she observed, it was designed to prevent others from obtaining
intellectual property rights on genetic resources as collected and provided
by gene banks. On the other, it allows for the "defensive patenting" of
in-house developed technologies and products. "It legitimates the patenting
of genetic resources," she said.

The Convention on Biodiversity, adopted in 1992, upholds the conservation of
biological biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of
genetic resources.

But in practice, many signatory governments are driven by market principles
and the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

"The CGIAR should not be involved in assisting the privatisation of common
goods -- such as fish stocks -- removing them from continued free access by
fisherfolk," Patrick Mulvany, food security policy adviser of the
Intermediate Technology Development Group, told IPS.

ITDG is a British-based group promoting the use of sustainable use of
technology to reduce poverty. "As a public research body the CGIAR should
insist that the products of its research remain in the public domain," he
added. (END/IPS/AP/DV/EN/WD/AN/JS/03)

_____________

GOING FURTHER (compiled by GRAIN)

Anna Rosa Martinez Prat, "The Impact of TRIPS and the CBD on Coastal
Communities", Occasional Papers, International Collective in Support of Fish
Workers, Chennai/Brussels, 2003, 55 pp.
http://www.icsf.net/jsp/publication/occasionalpapers/trip.pdf
or download from
http://www.icsf.net/jsp/english/pubPages/occasionalpapers/impactoftrips.jsp

ABOUT THIS LISTSERVER -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver put out by
GRAIN. Its purpose is to circulate information about recent developments in
the field of intellectual property rights related to biodiversity &
associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly non-commercial and educational
service for nonprofit organisations and individuals active in the struggle
against IPRs on life. The views expressed in each post are those of the
indicated author(s).
HOW TO PARTICIPATE -- To get on the list, send a blank email to
mailto:join-bio-ipr@titan.sparklist.com. To get off the list, send a blank
email to mailto:leave-bio-ipr@titan.sparklist.com. You can also manage your
subscription at http://titan.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bio-ipr.
To submit material for posting on the list, please address it to
mailto:grain@baylink.mozcom.com. A note with further details about BIO-IPR
is sent to all subscribers.
ABOUT GRAIN -- For general information about GRAIN, and access to our
publications, please visit our website http://www.grain.org.

January 3, 2004
Prof. Joe Cummins
e-mail: jcummins@uwo.ca

Homologous recombination: a problem with gene stacking

Recently the United States (US) and Canada approved genetically modified
(GM) crops that contained two different Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry
genes to enhance insect bio-control. Both maize and cotton were modified
with two genes using a procedure called "stacking" in which GM strains
of the crop that had been approved for commercial release were mated to
produce the stacked variety. Since both parental lines were approved it
was presumed that the stacked product of the mating would simply produce
both forms of the insect toxin with no further complications.

However, the two genes and their associated
promoters, transcription terminators, and introns along with their
source plasmid associated genes including the selectable markers
(antibiotic resistance genes) have considerable DNA sequence homology.
Genes with sequence homology within a set of chromosomes may trigger
recombination leading to translocations, duplications and deficiencies
in both pollen and egg formation and in somatic tissue. Such chromosome
abnormalities lead to loss of fertility and tissue disruption.

A simple description of recombination may help explain why DNA sequence
homology triggers chromosome instability. Recombination is the exchange
of genes between related organisms. Its purpose is to generate optimum
gene combinations to cope with a changing environment. Homologous
recombination is the gene exchange that depends on DNA sequence homology
to initiate gene change at a locus (chromosomal address of a gene in
which small alterations in DNA sequence are called alleles). The process
leads to mixing of different alleles to provide variation upon which
natural selection can act. In meiosis (formation of egg or sperm)
parental chromosomes align and exchange strands initiated at exchange
points (chiasmata) starting at a point of homologous recombination.
Homologous recombination is most active at meiosis but also takes place
in somatic tissue both spontaneously at low frequency, or at elevated
frequency following gene damage. Homologous recombination is the process
providing genetic variability for selection of
agricultural crops in the long history of agriculture. GM crops,
however, are created by a process called illegitimate recombination
which does not depend on homologous recombination (legitimate
recombination).

GM crops are created by the insertion of non-homologous
DNA into gaps produced in broken chromosomes. The original DNA insert
has no allelic counterparts in the chromosome (the insert is hemizygous)
but alleles of the illegitimate insertions can be selected by crossing
(for example selfing a hemizygous plant yields 25% homozygous transgenic
plants). In homozygous transgenic plants homologous recombination may
take place at the transgene or if two homologous transgenes are inserted
present on different chromosomes (or loci) these transgenes may
participate in homologous recombination leading to chromosome disruption.

Homologous recombination in somatic tissue is also called mitotic
recombination. Mitotic recombination was initially studied in fungi in
which homologous chromosomes were associated in pairs during vegetative
growth. Later, as genetic analysis became more sensitive, mitotic
recombination was observed in mammals and in higher plants. Recently,
both somatic recombination and chromosome rearrangements were observed
in plants infected with pathogens (viral and fungal pathogens) and that
increase was observed in the progeny of infected plants and could be
transmitted through graft unions (indicating that the recombination
stimulus was likely to activate a signal pathway)1,2,3. The stress
related recombination response provides a pool of genetic variability
from which resistant forms may be selected. However, transgenic
modification of crops may lead to additional homologous sequences that
would lead to extensive chromosome rearrangement causing loss in
fertility of the plant. Multiple Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-DNA
insertions in Arabidopsis caused multiple gene duplications and
chromosome translocations in the cells of somatic tissues (4). Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) insect toxin genes Cry1Ac inserted at
different loci in the same cotton line were found to have unstable
non-Mendelian patterns of inheritance in early generations but the
patterns were stabilized after multiple generations (5). The authors
argued that the instability in Bt genes needed time for the gene to
"compatibilize". Finally, somatic inter-chromosomal recombination led to
the formation of a new zeon allele in hybrid maize.

The somatically derived recombinant gene can give rise to a new allele
because plant reproductive tissue is directly derived from somatic tissue (6).

Addition of homologous transgenes at separate loci (gene stacking)
predictably leads to chromosome instability and the impact of stress leading to
enhanced mitotic recombination has not been evaluated by regulators.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved for commercial
release a stacked variety of maize called Yieldgard Plus Corn containing
Bt Cry 1Ab to control corn borer, and Bt Cry 3Bb1 to control corn
rootworm (7). The stacked hybrid is produced by mating inbred lines one
bearing the gene Bt Cry11Ab and the other Bt Cry 3Bb1. For that reason
the parental lines will not be effected by somatic recombination between
the Cry genes or associated genes such as promoter, intron, antibiotic
resistance gene, etc. but the marketed hybrid will be strongly
influenced by mitotic recombination between the two inserts. Of course,
since the hybrid is not a source of seed for planting somatic
recombination will not have a major impact but any seed corn pollinated
by the crop will show detrimental side effects. EPA does not seemed to
have considered the probable complication of somatic recombination
between the two genes in their evaluation of the stacked corn line. EPA
approval of the original Bt corn lines was also criticized on the basis
that the mammalian and environmental safety testing of the Cry gene
toxins accepted by EPA was done with toxin proteins that were produced
in bacteria and the toxin proteins tested were clearly different from
the protein toxin produced in the commercial maize crop (.

EPA approved for commercial release Bollgard II cotton modified with Bt
Cry 2Ab at one locus and Bt Cry1Ac at a second locus to produce high
levels of the two toxins to control lepidopteran pests (9). The Canadian
government promptly provided for commercial release of the modified
cotton (Canada does not grow cotton but imports cotton seed meal for
cotton seed oil for human and animal consumption)(10). Unlike corn,
which is commercially produced as hybrid from inbred lines, cotton is
self pollinating but also subject to insect pollination (11). The
presence of two separate Cry toxin loci with a high level of homology
along with the associated transgene promoter, intron, transcription
terminator etc. along with the parental insertion of antibiotic marker
from the inserted bacterial plasmid must confer upon the stacked cotton
a fundamental genetic instability and that instability will be enhanced
by a number of environmental stresses.

It seems bizarre that both North American regulatory agencies have
ignored the implications of fundamental genetic instability.

Cotton crops inadvertently pollinated by the transgenic cotton will suffer
significant genetic insult.

Furthermore, the primary seed stocks of the stacked cotton lines will
require constant screening to eliminate recombinant individuals.

In conclusion, gene stacking might appear to be a reasonable approach to
improving approved GM crops by combining the approved genes and gene
products to make a bargain bundle for the grower. However, the
regulators seem to have ignored the fundamental genetic instability of
the stacked lines and their potential to rapidly recombine to create
novel toxins attacking those who consume the crop. They have neglected
current findings showing that stress such as virus or fugal attacks can
greatly amplify gene rearrangement leading to consequences that should
have been evaluated before the stacked crops were commercialized.

The stacked crops should not have been released without adequate safety
testing.

References

1.Dong,X ìPathogen induced systemic DNA rearrangement in plantsî 2004
Trends in Plant Science (in press).

2 Luch,J.,Mauch-Mani,B.,Steiner,H.,Metraux,J.,Ryalsi,J., and Hohn,B.
ìPathogen stress increases somatic recombination frequency in A
rabidopsisî 2002 Nature Genetics 30,311-5

3. Kovalchuck,I.,Kavaichuck,O.,Kalck,V.,Boykot,V.,Filkowski,J.,Heinline,M.
and Hohn,B. ìPathogen induced systemic plant signal triggers DNA
rearrangementsî 2003 Nature 423, 761-5

4. Tax,F. and Vernon,D. ìT-DNA-Associated Duplication/Translocations in
Arabidopsis. Implications for Mutant Analysis and Functional Genomicsî
2001 Plant Physiology 126,1527-38

5.Wu,J.,Zhang,X.,Lou,X. and Tian,Y. ìInheritance and segregation of
transformants in cotton with two types of insect resistance genesî 2003
YiChuan XueBao 7,631-6

6.Hu,W.,Timmermans,M.,and Messing,J. ìInterchromosomal recombination in
Zea maysî 1998 Genetics,150,129-37

7.US Environmental Protection Agency ìPesticide Products;Registration
Applicationsî 2003 Federal Register 68,16036-38

8.Cummins,J. ìRegulatory sham on Bt-cropsî2003 pp1-4
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

9.Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
ìMonsanto Co.; Availability of determination of non regulated status for
cotton genetically engineered for insect resistanceî 2002 Federal
Register 67, 70391-2

10. Canadian Food Inspection Agency ìDecision Document DD2003-45
Determination of the safety of Monsantoís insect resistant bollgard II
Cottonî 2003
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd0345e.shtml pp1-13

11. Lasky,J and .Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service ìBiotechnology Permits-Biology of Cottonî 2003
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/bp/cotton.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031231/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_dna_james_watson_1

Documentary Series Tells Tale of DNA
Wed Dec 31 2003

By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK - James Watson, who rocked the human race a half-century ago by
discovering the DNA molecule's double-helix structure, has only one
complaint about "DNA," a documentary series in which he serves as the
overarching presence.

"I wish they had shot it 20 years ago when I didn't look so old," the
75-year-old Watson says with a rueful laugh. "It's not the view I have of
myself."

Still, a big part of his view of himself - also clearly visible to the
outside world - is that of someone who likes to rock the boat and create
waves. And that part seems impervious to age.

"I haven't changed my behavior since the age of 10," he says in his
Manhattan apartment high above the East River. "It's not because I became
famous."

Watson upholds practical solutions and the bold pursuit of them, and,
along the way, he says what he thinks. ("If we don't play God," he
declares on "DNA" in its first moments, "who will?")

But there is more than Watson's outspokenness on this epic series of five
programs, airing weekly at 10 p.m. EST Sunday on most PBS stations. Each
is a freestanding, digestible hour that hears from other key figures while
using you-are-there visuals and computer animation to investigate a story
that, after 50 breakthrough years, is more thrilling than ever.

"We're in the midst of a revolution," says Watson, wearing the slightly
bemused smile with which he greets the world. "It will affect the way we
think about ourselves every bit as profoundly as the one which occurred
after Darwin's `Origin of Species,' which shocked a lot of people. We're
related to monkeys! That was a really upsetting thought and, for some
people, still is."

On "The Secret of Life" this Sunday, Watson retraces the contest he and
Francis Crick waged against a rival team of young scientists, Rosalind
Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, as well as a third contender, Nobel laureate
Linus Pauling.

With the discovery by Watson and Crick that the DNA molecule forms a
double helix - resembling a ladder twisted into a spiral - the manner in
which DNA could carry a living thing's genetic code and precisely duplicate
it became clear. Their findings were published in April 1953 and won them
the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine and physiology, which they shared with
Wilkins. (Franklin, who had died from cancer in 1958, was a vital but
largely overlooked participant, and the subject of "Secret of Photo 51," a
PBS documentary that aired last April.)

After that discovery, says narrator Jeff Goldblum (who himself played
Watson in a 1987 TV docudrama), "whole new fields of science and technology
burst into being, as our understanding of the genetic code buried in DNA
grew."

The subsequent "DNA" episodes:

"Playing God" (Jan. 11) introduces the pioneers who carried out the
first genetic engineering experiments, which triggered an outcry over the
dangers of genetic manipulation while spurring a multibillion-dollar
biotech industry whose early products included genetically engineered
insulin and genetically improved cotton and potatoes.

"Human Race" (Jan. 1 chronicles another bruising competition. This
time, two groups of scientists scrambled to be the first to catalogue all
38,000 genes in the human genome, which could serve as an "instruction
manual" for troubleshooting diseases and disabilities in humans. After a
decade of epic labor and bitter rivalry, success by all was declared at a
celebration thrown by President Clinton at the White House in June 2000.

"Curing Cancer" (Jan. 25) notes that all cancers are caused by damage to
DNA. And when a faulty, cancer-causing gene is identified and the right
drug is developed to repair it, then that particular cancer can be cured.
Example: Bud Romine, who, near death in 1997 from chronic myeloid leukemia,
became the first patient ever to take a drug called Gleevec. Within 17
days, he was healthy. More such drugs for other cancers are on the
horizon.

Finally, "Pandora's Box" (Feb. 1) returns the spotlight to Watson, who
contemplates the future of genetic science. He speaks of a "new eugenics"
that might address what he calls genetic injustices (such as Down Syndrome,
cystic fibrosis or mental illness), giving people the means to correct
them. And what's wrong with people customizing the evolution of their
descendants to assure a better-looking or smarter kid?

These are exciting but often thorny issues, and Watson embraces them -
both as a public advocate and as president of Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory, one of the world's leading genetic labs.

"I'm just trying to use common sense," he says, punctuating his point
with a grin and chuckle. "There are still big things you could do and that
I'm trying to do. Cancer hasn't been stopped yet. And I'm still trying to
be a better tennis player than I was when I was 25.

"My dream would be to die playing singles tennis," he confides. "Not
doubles! Doubles is an old man's game."

On the Net:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna

EDITOR'S NOTE - Frazier Moore can be reached at fmoore@ap.org

The Making of a Human Clone
(PDF Format)
7 days inside a maverick embryo lab
Wired - January 2004

CREATION, SCIENCE AND "CREATION SCIENCE"

by Donald A. Nield

Real World 19 (Nov 1999) 24-28

I hesitate to express in writing my personal views on the present subject, knowing that I am likely to be labeled as superstitious by some people and an agent of the Devil by others. However, though the matter is unimportant for my personal faith, it is very important for many other people. For one thing, it produces a reluctance of some students, particularly those from the Pacific Islands, to study science at university because they fear that that what they will be taught in biology and geology classes will conflict with their Christian faith as received from their parents. More generally, it serves as a stumbling block for many who would be otherwise attracted to Christianity but are repelled because Christianity is perceived as being in conflict with a rational scientific view of the world. Hence I am led to write this article. The following account is impressionistic, because right now I have neither time nor space to write a more coherent version.

At the outset, I distinguish "creation science" from creation and science. The term "creation science" should always be put in quotes because it is a misnomer. "Creation science" involves a distorted view of the Christian doctrine of creation, and a distorted view of science. It is a term coined within the last forty years in the USA by people who wanted to circumvent the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to get their version of origins, a version based on a literal reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, taught in the public school system at the expense of the teaching of evolution. "Creation science" has since been exported to other countries, including New Zealand. The result has been that Christianity has been placed in a position of disrepute. As a Christian, I deeply regret that I have to admit that I find a great deal of truth in the book by Ian Plimer titled "Telling Lies for God" (Random House Australia, 1994).

The spur for my current concern has been my friend whom I will call Edward (to protect him from a possible backlash from "creation scientists"), who for a number of years has been deeply interested in the "creation science" literature, but is still ready to listen to other views. Edward recently invited me to attend with him a talk given by John McKay, Director of the Creation Research Institute in Australia (not to be confused with the Institute of Creation Research in California). Two things about the talk remain in my memory. One slide shown by McKay was a copy of a page of a book by Derek Ager, showing a photograph that apparently supported McKay's view. The speaker emphasized the authority of the author, asking us, "Who of you has had a book published by Oxford University Press?" Later when I read the book in the University library (it is actually published by Cambridge University Press, 1993, and is titled "The New Catastrophism"), I found in the preface an explicit disclaimer, in bold type, by the author that "in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationist' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')." In my view it is intellectually dishonest to claim as support from an author when one is taking something out of context with an implication that is diametrically opposite from the author's intention. (Incidentally, "creation scientists" place a great deal of emphasis on the academic credentials of authors. I happen to have University degrees in both Science and Theology, but readers should not be excessively impressed by that fact!) The second memorable thing was that at question time Edward asked McKay why his view of geological science was so important. In reply, McKay started with the verse from Jeremiah 33:20, which refers to day and night and the covenant with David. The connection with Genesis 1:3 was so tenuous that even Edward was not impressed by the answer he got.

After the talk, I had the opportunity to buy some books that McKay had brought with him. I by-passed the books by Whitcomb, Morris and Gish that I had already read (at least in earlier editions) and bought the book "God at Ground Zero: The Manhattan Project and a Scientist's Discovery of Christ, the Creator", by Curt Sewell (Master Books, 1997). The subtitle is misleading. Sewell was not a scientist and he did not design experiments at Los Alamos; rather he was an engineer who built specialized measuring instruments. Further, he was a lifetime Christian who only much later adopted a creationist position. The book is an honest account. Sewell provides little in the way of new argument, but he summarizes well the anti-evolution arguments of others. These are convincing enough for a fundamentalist Christian layman, but Sewell, like other "creation scientists", does not deal properly with the vast amount of evidence, from a variety of disciplines, that has accumulated over the last 150 years which shows that evolution has occurred. Further, he uses space to include arguments that long ago have been convincingly discredited. Examples of such arguments are the claim that human footprints occur alongside dinosaur tracks in Cretaceous limestone of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas, and the claim that the speed of light has varied substantially over the last 300 years and so radiometric dating is unreliable. To his credit, Sewell admits that these claims are controversial, but the fact that he mentions them at all is an indictment of his scientific judgement.

That led me to do some more reading. It is regrettable but understandable that the Auckland Public library does not hold books on "creation science". (Even if it held them, their classification would be controversial. Logically they should go in the Theology section, with books on Genesis.) Fortunately, I was able to borrow a number of interesting books from Edward. One of them was by Andy McIntosh, "Genesis for Today",(Day One Publications, 1997). Like myself, the author is an applied mathematician who works on problems involving fluid flow and heat transfer, and last year he gave an excellent seminar in the Mathematics Department of the University of Auckland. However, when it comes to biblical scholarship we part company dramatically. McIntosh takes Genesis 1-11 as both literal history and as allegory, prefiguring Christ. Thus McIntosh is ignoring all modern scholarship about the book of Genesis.

It is useless to argue with "creation scientists" about evolution, because these people are committed to a world view which rejects any possibility of any compromise. They believe that any departure from their particular interpretation of Genesis will cause the collapse of Christian faith and its implications for morality, and so they will go to any lengths to maintain their position. For example, if a scientist points out that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form between reptile and bird, then they say that it is a bird (because it has feathers), despite the fact that it is so close to being a reptile that the first fossil specimens found were originally labeled as reptiles. If a scientist points out that a multitude of different ways of measurement show that the age of the Earth is many million years rather than a few thousand years, the "creation scientists" say that all those measurement techniques must be flawed.

The interpretation by "creation scientists" of the book of Genesis is based on a doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, a doctrine that is alien to the church fathers and later theologians such as Calvin, and which is in fact a product of the Enlightenment. By inerrancy they mean inerrancy with regard to statements about events that are described as occurring in the past. They are unable to accept that the early chapters of Genesis are not talking about history, but are theological stories, written with the purpose of setting apart the monotheistic religion of Israel from the polytheistic religion of its neighbours. A single short passage should be enough to convince anyone with an open mind that not all of Genesis is history. The passage is Genesis 9:8-17. In this passage God says that he is setting his rainbow in the clouds as a sign of a covenant that he has established between himself and all flesh upon the earth. Unless one is prepared to accept a disruption in the laws of physics, it is nonsense to take this as implying that there was a time before which the raindrops in clouds did not refract sunlight. The passage is clearly concerned with theology, not history nor science.

Earlier I wrote that "creation science" led to faulty science and faulty theology. As an instance of faulty science, I instance the fact that a special issue (Vol. 10, part 1, 1996) of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal was devoted to discussion of the post-flood geological discontinuity. The "creation scientists" should (but will not) recognize from the fact that they disagree on the date of this discontinuity that there is no discontinuity, and in fact that there is no evidence for a world-wide flood. It would be disastrous if "creation scientists" ever prevented the teaching of evolutionary based science in universities or if they ever controlled research funds for science.

The faulty theology of fundamentalist "creation scientists" is also a serious matter. They give an undue emphasis to the mechanics of creation and to what happened at a single point in time. They thus largely overlook other scriptural references to creation, as in Psalms and Isaiah. Further, their interpretation of the second chapter of Genesis has had unfortunate consequences with regard to the subjection of women to men, and the dominion of men over the environment. Even in insisting that God created ex nihilo , the creationists are misinterpreting the beginning of Genesis, in which God is described as creating order out of chaos, rather than creating something from nothing. Also, the creationists downplay the fact that God is the sustainer, rather than just the creator, of the universe.

It is ironic that fundamentalist Christians and atheists both regard the Bible from the view of the Enlightenment, and see the topic of evolution as a battlefield. Atheists like Richard Dawkins claim that evolution occurs by blind chance, and that this provides a basis for their atheism. It is easy to show that they are wrong, and my Engineering Faculty colleague Neil Broom in his book "How Blind is the Watchmaker?" ( Ashgate, 1998 ) has demonstrated this in detail very well.

I also find it ironic that forty years ago, when I was a member of the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, there was a general acceptance amongst British evangelical Christians that there was no conflict between Christian faith and an acceptance of the conclusion by scientists that evolution had occurred. It was seen that Genesis is concerned with "who" created the world and not "how" the world was created.

I conclude by listing some books, held in the Maclaurin Chapel library, that I have found helpful.

James Barr, "Escaping from Fundamentalism", SCM Press, 1984
R. J. Berry," God and Evolution", Hodder & Stoughton, 1988

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251842298

Bayer staff win protection over GM protests

By Nikki Tait, Law Courts Correspondent
Published: December 31 2003 4:00 | Last Updated: December 31 2003 4:00

The homes of thousands of employees of Bayer, the chemicals group, are
to be protected from protesters opposed to genetically-modified crops
by special exclusion zones.

This marks the first time that anti-harassment laws have been invoked
in the furore over GM foods.

A High Court judge on Tuesday granted a wide-ranging interim
injunction, which will create exclusion zones around employees' homes
- ranging from 100 yards in most cases to a square kilometre in one -
as well as around corporate buildings.

The order, which will run until a further court hearing on February
11, puts severe restrictions on the permitted protest activity by
certain named campaigners and anti-GM organisations, and requires them
to notify the police in advance. It also curtails photography and
video footage of employees and clamps down on certain e-mail activity.

Bayer, which owns Aventis CropScience, is one of the leading GM
players in the UK. Lawyers seeking the order on behalf of employees of
Bayer and eight of its subsidiaries claimed there had been a sustained
campaign against the group, ranging from e-mail "blockades" to site
and office "invasions".

They cited as examples the damage done to cars parked in one
employee's driveway last month, and also the jamming of company locks.

Tim Lawson-Cruttenden, appearing for the claimants, told Mr Justice
Treacy that the injunction was particularly necessary because a
planned "week of activity" started on Monday. "I am satisfied that
this is a case where it is appropriate to grant an interim
injunction," said the judge, although he refused some provisions
sought, such as the protection of former employees. Protection of on-
site contractors - such as security guards or catering staff - will
also only come into force if a further witness statement is provided
this week.

None of the named protest organisations - which include Stop Bayer's
GM Crops, Leeds Earth First, Bayer Hazard, Earth Liberation Front and
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty - nor the six individual defendants
were represented in court.

Bayer's success in getting an injunction marks a growing use of
anti-harassment laws by companies keen to protect themselves.

Subject: GMO-free Mendocino wins lawsuit against biotech industry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Laura Hamburg/cell 707 621-0906
Email: laura@bullhornrag.com

December 30, 2003

GMO-FREE MENDOCINO WINS LAWSUIT AGAINST BIOTECH INDUSTRY

Ukiah, Mendocino County - In a sweeping victory for Mendocino's effort
to ban the growing of genetically modified crops and food, a Superior
Court judge refused today (Wednesday, Dec. 30) to change language in
the upcoming March election ballot.

Earlier this month, California's largest consortium of biotechnology,
agri-chemical corporations sued the County Elections Clerk as well as
the proponents of Measure H - the citizen-led initiative to make
Mendocino the first county in the nation to ban the growing of GMOs.
The lawsuit launched by the industry consortium of multinational
corporations attempted to prevent Mendocino County voters from reading
key ballot arguments in support of Measure H.

In today's ruling, Superior Court Judge Leonard J. LaCasse decided not
to change a single word on the ballot in support of Measure H. His
judgment clears the way for the election ballots to be printed in time
for the March election - and uncensored.

"Judge LaCasse in his opinion recognized the effort for what it really
was - an effort to keep the truth from the voters of Mendocino
County," said Ukiah attorney Susan B. Jordan, who represented the
Measure H citizen group pro bono. "Judge La Casse endorsed the
intelligence of the Mendocino County electorate and said they can read
the arguments, and they can decide for themselves."

The group behind the lawsuit, the California Plant Health Association,
represents some of the biggest names in GMO production and the world's
leading producers of herbicides and pesticides including Monsanto
Corporation, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer Corporation, Helena Chemical and
DuPont.

The biotech industry's Sacramento-based law firm attempted to strike
sections of the election ballot arguments in favor of Measure H before
voters even had a chance to read the pamphlet.

For example, their attorney told Judge LaCasse that since
GMO-contaminated wine is not yet on the shelves, Mendocino County
voters should be prevented from reading that GMO-contaminated wine is
unmarketable in Europe and Japan.

But after it was revealed in court that there are 30 laboratory trials
of GMO-grapevines currently under development in California, it simply
underscored the need for Measure H as protection for the future of
Mendocino County's agricultural economy.

"These corporations don't care about Mendocino County," said Els
Cooperrider, a local owner of the Ukiah Brewing Co. & Restaurant, who
was named in the lawsuit. "They don't live here. They don't work here
or own farms here," she said. "We care about protecting our local
crops from future contamination from GMOs. These outside corporations
only care about profit and their multi-billion dollar industry."

If approved by voters in the March election, Measure H will prohibit
the "propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of genetically
modified organisms in Mendocino County." It is not a labeling law. And
Measure H does not affect food products found in the aisles of grocery
stores or livestock feed.

The initiative has drawn the support of Mendocino County Sheriff Tony
Craver, local physicians such as Dr. Marvin Trotter, who is Mendocino
County's Public Health Director, and local families concerned about
the untested health risks of GMOs.

In addition, some of the County's leading grape growers - both organic
and conventional, endorse the measure including Dan Fetzer, Frey
Vineyards, Roederer Estates and Hubert Germain-Robin of Redwood
Valley's Germain-Robin, makers of world-renowned brandy and cognac.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=6833

December 18, 2003

The University of California, Davis, is recalling about 30 tomato seed
samples, distributed during the past seven years to research colleagues in
the United States and abroad, after recent tests showed that the seed was
not the intended variety, but rather a very similar variety developed
through biotechnology.

The seed contains a commercially approved biotech trait, referred to as
the PG trait. That trait, which improves the thickness of tomato paste,
had been approved in 1994 for use in human food. A similar tomato variety
with the PG trait had previously been planted commercially in California,
and tomato paste with the trait had been sold to consumers, primarily in
the United Kingdom.

THE SEED AND ITS DISTRIBUTION

Since 1996, small quantities of seed of the processing-tomato variety
known as UC-82B were provided, upon request, by UC Davis to researchers at
12 institutions in the United States and to researchers in 14 other
countries. Each sample included about 25 seeds to be used in research
projects at those institutions. Two samples were also sent abroad for
demonstration gardens in England and Ethiopia. UC Davis and the recipients
were unaware that these particular UC-82B seeds carried the PG trait.

UC Davis officials have determined that the seeds carrying the PG trait
originated from a 20-gram seed sample donated to UC Davis in 1996 by
Petoseed Company, which has since been acquired by Seminis Vegetable
Seeds. It is unclear when or where the seeds were mislabeled.

The seed mix-up came to light when the Charles M. Rick Tomato Genetics
Resource Center at UC Davis sent samples of what was thought to be
unmodified UC-82B to the UC Davis Plant Transformation Facility. This
research service unit genetically modifies small numbers of plants for use
in campus research projects. In working with the seeds, staff scientists
detected the unexpected presence of a commonly used "marker" gene, NPT II,
and notified the Rick center. The protein derived from the NPT II gene has
been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a food additive.
Subsequent testing also revealed the presence of the PG gene.

A similar tomato variety with the same combination of PG gene and NPT II
was commercialized in 1996 through a collaboration between Petoseed
Company and Zeneca Plant Science. That variety was approved for food and
tomato production in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1995. It also was approved for
food consumption by the government of the United Kingdom in 1995 and in
Canada by Health Canada in 1996. That variety also passed scientific
review in the European Union. It was grown commercially in California and
sold as tomato paste product in the United Kingdom between 1996 and 1999.

RESPONSE BY UC DAVIS AND SEMINIS

Upon learning of the apparent mix-up, the Rick tomato center curator
reviewed records and found that the UC-82B seed had been obtained in 1996
>from Petoseed. Although that seed variety had been developed in 1976 by a
UC Davis plant breeder, the campus supply had run low and Petoseed had
replenished it.

"We immediately tested our seed and informed both Seminis and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture," said Neal Van Alfen, dean of UC Davis' College
of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. "DNA sequencing conducted at
UC Davis has confirmed the presence of the PG trait.

"We have notified the individuals or research units that received the
seed," Van Alfen added. "We are asking the recipients to let us know how
they used or disposed of the seed, and to send any seeds remaining from
the original sample to an independent laboratory for DNA testing."

Ed Green, senior vice president of research and development at Seminis,
said: "We will continue to work closely with the university to determine
how this error occurred. We have offered the full analytical resources of
Seminis and have made our records available to university officials.

"While current regulatory controls and technological advances would make
this type of mix-up highly unlikely today, we also feel it's prudent to
review our seed handling, storage and sharing protocols to look for
improvements, " Green said.

Green added that only a small fraction of Seminis' current research
involves biotechnology because the company's focus is on traditional plant
breeding. Seminis does not sell any tomatoes developed with biotechnology.

BACKGROUND ON THE RICK CENTER AND SEMINIS

UC Davis' Charles M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource Center is associated
with the National Plant Germplasm System. Upon request, the center
provides seed samples to scientists and educators worldwide. The center
houses seeds of more than 3,600 wild species and domesticated varieties,
and is considered the most diverse collection of its kind in the world.

Seminis markets more than 4,000 vegetable and fruit varieties. Its
products reduce the need for chemical pest controls, improve grower yields
and offer improved nutrition, flavor and convenience, according to Seminis
officials.

Media contact(s):
* Gary Koppenjan, Seminis, Oxnard, Calif., (805) 918-2220,
gary.koppenjan@seminis.com
* Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, pjbailey@ucdavis.edu
* Lisa Lapin, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9842, lalapin@ucdavis.edu