A rare anomaly in the otherwise extremely proGM bias of the RSNZ: a
branch is permitted to present a scientific critic of GM. Who will go
along to learn something - that plurry Porluh, the unreasonable hijacker
Adrienne dubious 'interchurch commission', Barry Scott, etc etc?

ROYAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND MANAWATU BRANCH

The Manawatu Branch is hosting the talk "Superbugs and Corngate"
by Associate Professor Jack Heinemann (School of Biological Sciences,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch).

Superbugs are bacteria that cause disease while also being resistant to
common antibiotics. They provide many lessons for the regulation,
monitoring and containment of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). This
talk will address how both superbugs and corn evade our best biosecurity
technologies.

Sir P Reeves' Bioethics Ccl is convening focus groups with
delegates from MaDGE etc.

GM-fanatic Mike Berridge has been inserted into such a group which includes
RURAL WOMEN NZ, proGE scientists, GE FREE NORTHLAND, MAdGE, church groups,
...

Within these private mtgs, Berridge & co may well try to make out
that the proceedings and any records are secret. This is to be dismissed
vigorously - perhaps as a pre-emptive strike, which is what the present
note is to help with.

Those who have agreed to participate in the Bioethics Ccl
discussions are generally not representatives, but they are delegates whose
primary duty is to their respective groups. They will of course be
conveying to their groups some account of the proceedings. Participants
will therefore be suspicious about any attempted secrecy.

One discussant could possibly give the others a document labelled
'confidential', which means not to pass along its contents. Reasons for
this could be imagined, but by & large such secrecy should not be agreed to
except for v unusual reasons, which would have to justify each particular
proposal to classify any documen 'secret'.

The participants have agreed to participate in the unfortunate
condition that senior scientists critical of GM are not invited to discuss
under Sir Paul's aegis with the GM enthusiasts e.g M Berridge. To the
extent that Berridge (& his ilk) will try to declare authoritatively such
definitions as 'gene', 'insertion mutagenesis', 'non-nuclear genome' etc,
it is wrong that the BC has not arranged for scientific critics to
participate. The bias in invitees is so serious that the 'focus group'
for the BC's flak-catching cannot safely accept scientific material from
Berridge or other known unreliable GM-promotor (Conner, Hickford, Bellamy,
Poulter, etc).

Utterances on GM are routinely called 'debate' in the media. No
debate has occurred on a national scale between the gung-ho promotors and
the most relevant scientists - biochemists & biologists who have tried to
point out *scientific* defects in GM as now implemented. When Prof Patrick
Brown was brought to NZ it was only for discussions within CRIs, not any
debate that could impinge on public opinion. Those scientists who
formulated the NZ Assn of Scientists precautionary policy on GM (1977) have
been almost totally shut out of the media. Eichers' travesty prohibited at
least one of them from becoming a party to that flak-catching exercise.

Secrecy in such a context is particularly obnoxious and would in
general not be acceptable. The BC must not be allowed to conduct a secret
flak-catching focus sandpit. The RCGM already squandered millions of
public dollars on that process, and what is now needed is very different
processes.

Community Management of GMOs

Issues, Options and Partnership with Government

Executive Summary

1. This report investigates options for local authority management of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and follows the preparation of an
interim opinion by Dr Royden Somerville QC.

2. The use of GMOs is controlled at the national level by the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO). It was Government's intention at
the time this act was developed that HSNO would define national minimum
standards and local authorities would be free to set stricter standards to
apply within their territories. This option remains open to local government
through use of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

3. Such action would be part of a partnership between local authorities and
central government with respect to GM activities. Rather than either having
exclusive responsibility, management of GMOs would be shared - as first
envisaged.

Sources of Risk

4. The activities of principal concern to local governments are those
involving the outdoor use of GM organisms.

5. A leading economic risk is the difficulty in preventing GM production
from causing trace contamination in non-GM crops. High levels of consumer
resistance to GM foods in Europe and the wealthier Asian nations have led to
market rejection of conventional foods due to trace GM contamination.

6. Key environmental risks include: effects on non-target species,
invasiveness and reduced biodiversity. There is also uncertainty with
respect to the effect of GMOs on soil ecosystems and effects arising from
the use of plants to produce pharmaceuticals and other materials.

Uncertainty of Outcomes from ERMA Process

7. HSNO establishes the legal framework for assessments by the national
regulator, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). This provides
for minimum national standards to be set for GM activities.

8. The act invests a great deal of discretionary authority in ERMA and sets
remarkably few limitations on the outcomes it can deliver. From a local
authority perspective, this results in uncertainty on two levels:

Whether ERMA will agree with and act on certain concerns held by local
governments; and
Whether ERMA will exercise the same degree of caution as would local
governments in managing those risks it agrees need to be addressed.

9. One area of concern is that HSNO makes the exercise of precaution a
matter for ERMA's discretion. Precaution is an option, not a requirement.
ERMA states that it would be acting legally if it did not exercise caution.

10. A further area of concern is financial liability in the event of harm
being caused. If an agent making use of GMOs has inadequate financial
resources to cover environmental damage resulting from its activities, the
burden will tend to fall on local government.

11. Under HSNO, an agent using GMOs is not liable for harm caused as long as
it obtains and abides by an ERMA consent. Nor does HSNO require ERMA to
ensure that an applicant is financially fit and so able to pay compensation
should harm result.

Setting Controls Under the RMA

12. Should a local authority determine that particular risks were of concern
to its community and that it wished to ensure certain outcomes as a result
of this, then it can take action using other statutes. Of the existing
statutes available to local government, the RMA offers the most durable,
binding and well targeted instrument for regulating the outdoor use of GMOs.
The relevant RMA provisions are not in conflict with those of HSNO and the
two statutes can operate side by side.

13. The RMA provides a firm foundation for district councils to apply a
precautionary approach in regulating the outdoor use of GMOs. The courts
have ruled that a precautionary approach is inherent in the act. The RMA
also provides a mechanism to address liability and compensation concerns. A
community can put in place a liability regime requiring those engaging in a
GM release to pay compensation for harm caused by an approved release.

14. Under the RMA, the appropriate scope for evaluation of GM concerns is
the outdoor use of GMOs, and in particular field trials and releases,
expressly including: genetically modified food crops, trees, animals, and
pharma crops.

15. Not all categories of GMO use need be regulated with the same degree of
precaution. This may result in two or more different sets of rules in order
to group and match similar categories of risk with the appropriate controls.

16. Such rules can be argued to be efficient and effective in terms of RMA
section 32 on at least two grounds:

ERMA can not be relied on to provision against particular risks.
Local authorities may reasonably wish to set higher standards for controls
than ERMA sets. There is no legal barrier to councils setting higher
standards than those specified by ERMA under HSNO.

17. Advice from Government questioning the likelihood of meeting the section
32 test did not adequately investigate these grounds.

18. Through its statements, Government has given the impression that HSNO
and the ERMA process are extremely stringent - a "gold-standard" of
regulation. However, at the same time, it has explicitly declined to set
enforceable principles and standards that would provide surety that
stringency would be the outcome of the regulatory regime. The result is a
significant gap between expectations and the legal requirements. The setting
of rules by local government such that selected community determined
outcomes are assured can be an efficient and effective response.

HSNO Reform

19. The broad alternative to use of the RMA is for local government to press
for the amendment of HSNO. The rationale for this is to provide a simpler
means for local government to achieve the same regulatory effect as is
currently available to it under the RMA. Reform should be made on two levels
and provide for:

The ability for local authorities to issue policy statements on GM
activities under an amended HSNO, such that ERMA would be required to
accommodate these policy statements in its decisions;
The option to examine individual applications in tandem with ERMA
assessments and, if required, to set stricter controls to apply within a
local authority's district.

20. The proposal is for local authorities to have the opportunity, but not
the obligation, to work in tandem with ERMA. Such reforms would provide a
more direct means of achieving the desired outcomes set by a community,
while also giving an explicit statutory route and greater certainty to ERMA
applicants. LGNZ is the party best placed to investigate amending HSNO and
advancing proposals to Government.

Next Steps

21. A next stage of work will involve local authorities studying the risks
to the region and at the same time drafting control options if the analysis
suggests these are required. This process does not commit a council to
implement such controls but it is the next step towards such an outcome. It
would bring before a council information on the scope and severity of the
risks at the same time as detailing the options for their control and the
factors relevant in deciding between the options. Such work is required
irrespective of whether the statute that would be used is the RMA or an
amended HSNO Act.

22. A key part of this process would involve examining the outcomes a
council wishes to see and determining which can be expected to be delivered
by ERMA and which it wishes to ensure are delivered through its own
initiatives. Ideally, this work would be done as part of a joint project
between Northland local authorities. The analysis would provide a common
resource base for councils to work from and assist the evolution of a
uniform region-wide approach.

Download the full report
http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/docs/CommunityManagementGMOs.pdf

One question that bothers me is: why was maize line NK603 allowed to be
released without GOX? Glyphosate oxireductase (GOX) was required in earlier
lines to control accumulation of glyphosate. In NK603 the accumulation of
glyphosate was dealt with by duplicating EPSPS but that allows accumulation
of glyphosate in the food. Higher glyphosate in food was, I believe, allowed
by regulators , presumably to deal with the elevated accumulation of
herbicide. Nobody but me seems to worry about GOX-less corn that is
glyphosate enriched?

March 21, 2004

Prof. Joe Cummins
e-mail: jcummins@uwo.ca

NOTIFICATION C/GB/02/M3/3 FROM MONSANTO EUROPE S.A. FOR CONSENT TO MARKET
HYBRID MAIZE (NK603 X MON810): comments on the Genetic makeup

ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE UK COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTIVE
2001/18/EC NOTIFICATION C/GB/02/M3/3 FROM MONSANTO EUROPE S.A. FOR CONSENT TO
MARKET HYBRID MAIZE (NK603 X MON810) 5 MARCH 2004 has prompted a great deal of
discussion and concern. In particular, the molecular genetic components of the
genetic construction proved difficult for many to comprehend. The commentary
below is aimed at clarifying the genetic components.

Hybrid maize is produced by crossing inbred lines thus providing seed
uniformity and hybrid vigor (heterosis). The hybrid maize being promoted by
Monsanto Europe is a form of the YieldGard® variety marketed in North America.
It is created by crossing the inbred line NK603 genetically modified with
duplicate copies of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)
gene from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 with
the inbred line Mon810 modified with the Cry1A(b) insect toxin gene from
the soil microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis.

Both of the inbred lines are modified with a number of genes
that accompany the primary transgenes to provide means of activating the
primary genes and both of the primary genes are synthetic alterations of the
bacterial parent molecules (1,2). The numerous modifying genes and their
function is discussed below.

Mon810 originated from a strain Mon801 that was modified using two different
transformation plasmids. One plasmid contained the genes found in Mon810 while
the other plasmid contained one EPSPS insert along with the gene
glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOX). EPSPS provides an enzyme resistant to
inhibition to the herbicide glyphosate while GOX destroyed the accumulating
herbicide (3). In 1996 Monsanto received approval for commercial release of
strains Mon809 and Mon810 produced using the same plasmids as Mon801, Mon809
contained the plasmid for Cry1Ab along with the plasmid for EPSPS and GOX,
while Mon810 contained only the plasmid for Cry1Ab (4,5).

Mon810 integrated the PV-ZMBK07 plasmid which contains the cry1Ab
coding sequence, which expresses the insecticidally active Cry1Ab protein.
The cry1Ab coding sequence from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. HD-1 was
modified to increase the levels of the Cry1Ab protein in plants. The enhanced
cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter and hsp70 maize intron regulate
the expression of the cry1Ab coding sequence. The 3' nontranslated region of
the nopaline synthase (NOS) gene, isolated from the Ti plasmid of
Agrobacterium tumefaciens, terminates transcription and directs
polyadenylation of the messenger RNA (mRNA). The plasmid also contains the
neomycin resistance gene,phosphotransferase (nptII) coding sequence , that
encodes a bacterial selectable marker that was used to identify transformed
corn cells during the development process. However, that sequence does not
seem to have been integrated into the Mon810 crop plants(5)

The numerous code word changes used in constructing synthetic Cry !Ab toxin
gene from Bt HD1 are described in US patent 5,500,365 (6). Needless to say ,
the code word alterations are very extensive. The enhanced CaMV promoter
provides a powerful signal for Cry gene transcription (normally the promoter
drives virus replication) further powered up by introducing a duplication
of an enhancer sequence ( a small DNA code sequence increasing the
transcription power of the promoter). The enhanced promoter is like the
promoter itself a _cis_ regulatory gene, meaning that it acts a control gene
that does not produce RNA and protein (7). The corn heat shock protein 70
(hsp70) intron is introduced between the promoter and the start of gene
transcription to provide a signal that directs the RNA message out of the
nucleus to the cytoplasm (.

Introns are code sequences that normally interrupt the protein code
sequences in eukaryotes' DNA;
they function as signals directing RNA messages from nucleus to cytoplasm
and frequently signal splice sites providing alternative protein sequences
from one individual gene.
Normally, introns are located within the protein code sequence but plant
genetic engineers discovered that an intron can be located just ahead of the
protein translation start and here can provide a necessary signal for moving
the messenger RNA out of the nucleus. The hsp70 intron is from a heat shock
protein called chaperones that act to refold heat or stress damaged proteins
or as quality control to eliminate defective proteins(9). The presence of the
hsp70 intron should act as a point of DNA homology that will provoke
homologous recombination leading to disruption of both the hsp70 gene and the
transgene cry1Ab with untoward consequences.

The 3' nontranslated region of the nopaline synthase (NOS) gene, isolated from
the Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens, terminates transcription and
directs polyadenylation (poly A) of the messenger RNA (mRNA). Poly A means a
string of adenine (A) nucleotides at the tail (3') end of the RNA message that
signals the number of protein molecules made from the message (as the
message ages, A nucleotides are removed).

The "Cry1Ab gene" in transgenic maize MON810 is not a single gene but an array
of synthetic gene and bacterial genes along with corn plant gene fragments.

Maize line NK603 was produced by transformation of the inbred
maize line LH82xB73 with a DNA fragment containing two adjacent EPSPS
expression cassettes. Each cassette contained a single copy of the CP4 EPSPS
gene and respective regulatory sequences. In the first cassette,
expression of the CP4 EPSPS gene was regulated using the rice actin 1 promoter and
associated intron, and the 3' non-translated region of the nopaline synthase
gene from Agrobacterium tumefaciens (3’ NOS). Expression of the CP4 EPSPS gene
within the second cassette was controlled by the duplicated, enhanced, 35S
promoter from cauliflower mosaic virus (E35S) and the heat shock protein 70
intron from maize (ZmHSP70), and the 3' NOS transcriptional termination
signal. In both cases, post-translational translocation of the CP4 EPSPS
protein to the chloroplast was directed by inclusion of the chloroplast
transit peptide (CTP2; isolated from Arabidopsis thaliana EPSPS) signal
sequence at the 5' terminus of the CP4 EPSPS coding sequence (10).

What is being said here is that the indbred maize line conferring herbicide
tolerance was constructed from a plasmid bearing two copies of the EPSPS
gene that resists inhibition by the herbicide glyphosate. The GOX gene used
in earlier glyphosate tolerant transgenic maize to destroy accumulating
herbicide was not used in the NK603 maize line at risk of herbicide
accumulation in the human and animal food produced from the maize.

The synthetic EPSP gene used in NK603 was altered from the natural gene
found in the soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp. Not only were the amino acid
code words altered to the preferred plant usage but the amino acid glycine was
replaced with alanine , aparagine or aspartic acid to enhance performance
of the protein in plant cells (11). The United states Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved use of the synthetic enzyme in transgenic maize
line NK603 (12). One of the gene cassettes contains the rice actin promoter
gene and intron gene (13) to drive synthesis of the herbicide tolerance
enzyme ESPS and to enhance its transport from nucleus to cytoplasm in maize.
The other gene cassette employed the CaMV promoter, double enhancer and hsp
intron construction described above for the maize line Mon 810. (as indicated
earlier, .the promoter, enhancer and intron drive production of the
structural gene and transfer of the RNA message from nucleus to cytoplasm).
In both cassettes, post-translational translocation of the CP4 EPSPS protein
to the chloroplast was directed by inclusion of the chloroplast transit
peptide (CTP2; isolated from Arabidopsis thaliana EPSPS) signal sequence at
the start (5’) end of the EPSPS coding sequence. Transit peptides serve as
signals localizing proteins to chloroplasts or mitochondria, the peptides
signals are first recognized by heat shock protein 70 chaperones which direct
them to the chloroplast were the transit peptides are removed (14).The EPSPS
herbice resistance gnes must be located in the chloroplasts. The 3’
nontranslated region of the nopaline synthase (NOS) gene, isolated from the Ti
plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens, terminates transcription and directs
polyadenylation of the messenger RNA (mRNA) . The message end (3’)end
sequence provides the transcription stop signal and provides the polyA signal
that lays out how many protein molecules are made from each RNA message.

As in the case of Mon10 transgene the NK603 "gene" is complex with
two gene cassettes for EPSPS herbicide tolerance gene sequences with
different regulators for each EPSPS cassette. The cassettes are mixtures of
bacterial genes , plant and virus regulatory sequences and synthetic genes
related to natural bacterial genes.

All of the genes and their products in both Mon10 and NK603 were approved for
use by North American regulatory agencies. However, the safety tests for the
approval were not conducted on the synthetic genes but on their surrogates
the natural genes! (15). It is staggering to find that there has been so
little testing on the actual molecules. Because the transgenic foods for
humans and animals are not labeled in North America there is no adequate means
of locating any effect they have had on humans and animals.

References

1.Monsanto Europe SA “Summary notification information format (SNIF) for
products containing genetically modified higher plants (GMHP) NK603XMon810
Maize”2002 UK Notifcation number C/GB/02/M3/03 pp1-22

2.UK Competent Authority “ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE UK COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTIVE 2001/18/EC NOTIFICATION C/GB/02/M3/3 FROM MONSANTO
EUROPE S.A. FOR CONSENT TO MARKET HYBRID MAIZE (NK603 X MON810)”2004 pp1-16

3.USDA-APHIS “Petition 95-093-01 for Determination Nonregulated Status for
insect protectant corn Mon80100 Environment Assessment and finding of No
significant impact” 1995 pp1-39

4.United States EPA “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the
genetic material necessary for its production in corn” 1996 pp1-2

5.USDA-APHIS “Monsanto Corp. : Petition for determination of non-regulated
status Additional Yield Gard corn lines with the cry1Ab gene from Bacillus
thuringiensis subsp Kurstaki”1996 petition 95-228-01p pp1-40

6. Fischooff,D. and Perlak,F. “Synthetic plant genes” United States Patent
5,500,365 1996 pp1-59

7. Fang, R.,Nagy,F., Sivasubramaniam,S.and Chua,N. “Multiple cis Regulatory
Elements for Maximal Expression of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S Promoter
in Transgenic Plant” 1989 The Plant Cell, Vol. 1,141-50

8.Brown,S. and Santino,C. “Enhanced expression in plants” United States Patent
5,859,347 pp1-31

9. Cyr,D., Höhfeld,J and Patterson,C. “Protein quality control:U-box-
containing E3 ubiquitin ligases join the fold” 2002 TRENDS in Biochemical
Sciences .27 ,368-96

10.AgBios Data Base “Maize line NK603 Zea mays L. (Maize) Roundup
Ready®Glyphosate herbicide tolerance” 2004 http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php
Pp1-5

11.Eicholtz,D.,Gasser,C.and Kishore,G. “Glyphosate tolerant 5-3nolpyruvyl-3-
phosphoshikimate synthesis” 1994 United States Patent 5,310,667 pp1-52

12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration “Biotechnology consultation Note to the
file BNF No.000071-Monsanto roundup ready corn line NK603” 2000 pp1-4

13. McElroy,D. and Wu,R. Rice actin gene and promoter. 1997 United States
Patent 5,641,876 pp 1-52

14. Zhang,X. and Glaser,E. “Interaction of mitochondrial and chloroplast
signal peptides with the Hsp70 molecular chaperones” 2002 Trends in Plant
Science 7, 14-22

15. Cummins,J. “Bt toxins in genetically modified crops: Regulation by deceit”
2004 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ pp 1-5

From: "Shantu Sharma"
Subject: GM Crops & Organic Farming+Medicinal Herbs
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004

In The Financial Express, India, March 29, 2004
*********

Here Are FOUR News Stories :-

1. No Transgenic Tech For Organic Crops, Say Experts
2. Rectify Estimates On Organic Farms In India - FARM FRONT Column
3. ON MEDICINAL PLANTS - Global Demand To Touch $ 5 Trillion By 2050
4. Go Back To Basics - Organic Farming : Experts
----------------------------------

No Transgenic Tech For Organic Crops : Experts

Global Market For Organic Food Pegged At $ 36.89 billion;
Grows At 15-30 Per Cent Annually

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55802

ASHOK B SHARMA
New Delhi, March 28

Indian agro experts are of the view that transgenic technology should not
be applied to crops selected for organic farming, if the country is to take
any advantage of the lucrative $ 36.89 billion global market for organic
food.

The global market for organic food has grown at the rate of 15 to 30 per
cent annually in the last three years while Indian export of organic food
has remained negligible at $ 19.99 million (Rs 89.42 crore). Organic food
gets a price premium of 20 to 30 per cent over non-organic food.

Organic food retail sales took place in Europe and US in 2002 is estimated
to between $ 10,000 million to $ 11,000 million. If the country's export of
organic food increases optimistically by 25 per cent, the gains will be
substantial, they said.

Vowing to keep organic crops protected from any possible influence of
transgenics, the experts advocated that organic farming areas should be
distinctly earmarked away from areas of approved genetically modified (GM)
crops cultivation or field trial sites of GM crops. So far only GM crop
approved for commercial cultivation is Bt cotton which is grown in parts of
Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh
and Madhya Pradesh.

The deputy director-general (horticulture and crop science) in the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Dr Gautum Kalloo said, "Europe is a
growing market for organic food. The European consumers are against any food
containing even traces of transgenics. The EU Regulation 2092/91 forbids the
use of varieties obtained by genetic engineering in organic agriculture.
Further the regulation insists that parent plants of annual crops are to be
grown at least for one generation under organic conditions, while biennial
plants and pernnials for two years. We should, therefore, be very careful in
implementing these basic norms in our organic farming."

Dr Kalloo also exploded the myth that organic practices generally lead to a
lower yield. He said "our field experiments have shown that certain crops
respond exceptionally well to organic practices. Organic farming in
sugarcane has resulted in an increase in yield by 25 per cent. We should
select crops for organic farming with a view to boost our exports in dollar
terms. Crops like Basmati rice, soyabeans, cashewnuts, medicinal plants,
spices, tea, coffee and select fruits and vegetables should be taken up for
organic farming."

Though one of the ICAR's affiliate body, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute (IARI) has developed two Bt transgenic rice namely IR-64 and Pusa
Basmati-1 and has conducted bioassay for yellow stem borer resistance, the
ICAR director-general, Dr Mangla Rai has clearly said "the geographical
indications such as Basmati rice should be kept in tact and untouched by
transgenics. The developed GM Basmati rice will not be released for
commercial cultivation."

The public sector research system under ICAR have developed 14 experimental
transgenics in various crops and the private sector have developed 18
transgenic crops. All these transgenic crops will be released for commercial
cultivation only after assessing the situation vis-a-vis the organic farming
and export potential of organic food.

Several states governments have joined the race for organic farming.
Uttaranchal has established an Organic Commodities Board and the chief
minister, Narayan Dutt Tiwari has vowed to keep his state GM-free. Mizoram
has also declared itself totally organic and has not asked for allocation of
any chemical fertiliser in the current year's kharif (summer) season.

Sikkim, Nagaland and Meghalaya are in the process of declaring themselves as
organic states. Madhya Pradesh government has identified about 3,300
villages where only organic farming would be practiced. Madhya Pradesh
government and Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC) and some private
organisation and NGOs are actively engaged in promoting sale of branded
organic produce. Organic cotton produced in South India are marketed for
exports through an FAO-assisted programme.
-----------------------------

FARM FRONT Column

Rectify The Estimates Of Organic Farms In India

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55789

ASHOK B SHARMA

Government says that it is encouraging organic farming in the country so
that the farmers can get a better deal in terms of prices and the country
can earn foreign exchange. But all the plans seems to remain in paper work
rendering the gesture only as a lip service.

This is evident from the low official estimates which recognise only 5347
farms as organic covering 37,050 hectare in total. The estimated figure of
organic farms is not only erroneous but is also designed to benefit select
farmers.

The fact is that a large part of the country is organic by default and
without any effort of the government. One of the main reason for a large
part of the country remaining organic by default is that 60 per cent of the
cultivated area is rainfed where the use of chemical fertilisers is either
minimum or negligible or there is no use of it all.

The Economic Survey 2002-03 says "Of the 142.6 million hectares of net
cultivated area, 57 million hectares (40 per cent) is irrigated. The
remainder, 85.6 million hectare (60 per cent) is rainfed." It is common
knowledge that farmers resort to excessive use of fertilisers where there is
an assured irrigation. The farmers in rainfed areas by and large use organic
manure and traditional farming practices.

Also mechanised farming in the country is in areas under assured
irrigation. In rainfed areas the where the tilling of the soil is through
traditional means, the soil health in rainfed areas are better preserved
than that in areas under assured irrigation due to low tillage.

The Fertiliser Association of India has recently published `Fertiliser
Statistics 2002-03' giving in detail the district-wise consumption of
chemical fertilisers. Certainly the consumption of chemical fertilisers
cannot be more than that sold by the companies. The policy makers and the
bureaucrats should do well to study these data and find out the consumption
of chemical fertilisers per unit farm area before estimating the area under
organic farming.

The Fertiliser Statistics 2002-03 also states green manure crops covering
62,000 hectare area which is more than the government's estimate of 37,050
hectare area under organic farming. Certainly these green manure crops are
not grown with the help of chemical fertilisers. Besides green manure crops
there are other crops which are grown under organic farming conditions.
Hence the actual area under organic farming is much higher than the official
estimates.

Apart from 142.6 million hectare of net cultivated area in the country
there are orchards, plantation areas, forest and farm forestry areas (for
medicinal plants) many of which practice organic farming.

The next paramater for judgement of an organic farm is whether it uses any
chemical pesticides or not. Yes, some rainfed areas use some amount of
chemical pesticides to contain pests which occur on account of excessive
humidity in the atmosphere. Out of the total 85.6 million hectare of rainfed
area in the country, only the coastal areas and areas where the incidence of
rainfall is higher use a good amount of chemical pesticides. The use of
chemical pesticides in dry, arid and semi arid zone where there is no source
of assured irrigation, is negligible.

What is most interesting is that the government says that bio-control
agents are being used over 4.857 million hectare of cultivated land in lieu
of chemical pesticides (vide : Agenda Notes - National Conference on
agriculture For Kharif Campaign - 2004, page 82). The government's own
figure of cultivated area where bio-control agents are used in lieu of
chemical pesticides contradicts its estimate of 37,050 hectare under organic
farming!

The official estimate of 37,050 hectare under organic farming is designed
to benefit only 5347 farmers out of the estimated 127.6 million farmers in
the country, ignoring many organic farmers in the country. The government's
estimates of organic farm in the country is erroneous. States like
Uttaranchal, Sikkim, Nagaland and Meghalaya have declared themselves as
states for organic farming and Madhya Pradesh has declared 3,300 villages
under organic farming. Certainly the total cultivated area in these states
would aggregate to more than the official figure of 37,050 hectare!

Government should, therefore, take up in right ernest to rectify the
estimate of area under organic farming so that millions of farmers in the
country can benefit from the lucrative $ 36.89 billion global market for
organic food.
---------------------------

`Global Medicinal Plants Demand May Touch $ 5 Trillion By 2050'

Of 400 families of plants, 315 found in India; experts
urge government to capitalise on growing demand

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55804

ASHOK B SHARMA
New Delhi, March 28

India is also developing strategies to capture the $ 14 billion global
market for medicinal herbs (plant raw materials) and $ 60 billion market for
herbal medicines and food supplements.

Medicinal herbs which are largely organic are part of the $ 36.89 billion
global market for organic food. The demand for medicinal plant based raw
materials is growing at the rate of 15 to 25 per cent annually. According to
the estimate of the World Health Organisation (WHO) the demand for medicinal
plants is likely to increase from the current $ 14 billion a year to $ 5
trillion in 2050.

The global trade in medicines and food supplements made out of herbs is,
however, higher at $ 60 billion a year, of which India's total turnover is
only Rs 2,300 crore. Out this Rs 2,300 crore annual turnover, major
over-the-counter (OTC) products contribute around Rs 1200 crore, other
formulations fetch around Rs 650 crore while classical Ayurvedic
formulations contribute the remaining Rs 450 crore.

According to WHO there are about 400 families of flowering medicinal plants
in the world, out of which at least 315 are found in India. In this context,
the adviser in the Union ministry for science and technology, Dr Manju
Sharma while inaugurating an international conference on medicinal herbs and
products, organised jointly by Oxfam GB in India and the Community
Enterprise Forum of India (CEFI) in Delhi said "We therefore can capitalise
on this natural inherent strength and caputre large part of the growing
trade, provided we remain price competitive and ensure quality of the
produce and maintain standards."

Noted agri scientist Dr MS Swaminathan said "the main issues involves four
Cs - Conservation, Consumption, Commercialisation and Convergence. Organic
farming of medicinal plants should be promoted and health literacy
movemements should include ayurvedic, siddha and other Indian systems of
medicines in theier ambit. Moreover, brand names need to be established for
sustainable commercialisation". He also mooted setting up of an
International Research Centre for Intercultural Synergy for Herbal
Healthcare to achieve a synthesis of the best in Indian, Chinese and African
systems of medicines.

However, the spectacular growth of Indian exports that was expected in
medicinal plants is yet to be realised. A major fraction of the domestic
market is still unorganised and, therefore, not reported in most of the
published data.

A recent Oxfam GB supported study conducted in seven states namely Madhya
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
Kerala shows that trade in top 25 species account for more than Rs 14 crore.

On an average, each of these states witness trade in more than 300
speciesw in considerable volumes. It can be reasonably concluded that the
total volume of the market in these seven states alone is almost 10 times
the government figures, the study said.

The study further said that the most important fact is that these figures
only represent figures at the lowest end of the medicinal plant supply
chain, these are at the producer level.

As value is added further up the chain so is the profit and the trade
figures in terms of value are substantial if the total supply chain is taken
into consideration.

A number of NGOs are in the field of motivating farmers to grow medicinal
herbs. The government has set up National Medicinal Plants Board for
rendering assistance to growers and developing export stragies.
---------------------------------

Go Back To Bascis, Say Experts

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55787

Ashok B Sharma
New Delhi, March 28

The Green Revolution, though, has enabled the country to boost production
of staple crops, it has deteriorated the soil health due to excessive use of
chemical fertilisers and degraded the environment through use of chemical
pesticides.

The groundwater table has also been depleted on account of
over-exploitation. In this context, the experts who deliberated in the
national conference on organic farming for sustainable production which
concluded in Delhi on March 25 gave a clarion call "Go Back To Basics".

Sompal, chairman of the National Commission on Farmers, who is also a
former Union minister for agriculture and member of the Planning Commission
said "the Green Revolution resulted in mono-cropping system of high-yielding
varieties of wheat and rice. The result was that traditional varieties of
wheat and rice which were more nutritious went out of cultivation. Even the
nutritious coarse cereals which were earlier grown in arid and semi-arid
rainfed areas went out of cultivation. It is time to bring back traditional
crop varieties into cultivation and resort to multi-cropping system in the
interest of food and nutritional security."

He also said that not only excessive use of chemical fertilisers has
damaged soil health, the indiscriminate spray of chemical pesticides have
killed the bio-agents occurring in nature which protect the crops against
pests.

Mr Sompal who himself is a farmer also said that last year he tried
cultivation of some traditional varieties of wheat through organic practices
and this resulted in better yields. He said that these traditional varieties
of wheat has more nutrition content as compared to high-yielding varieties.

The clarion call of going back to the basics was also given by several other
experts. The director-general of Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR), Dr Mangla Rai in his message to the conference advocated the concept
of bio-dynamic agriculture which "has come into being alongwith modified
methodologies for preparations of farmyard manuare and other formulations
for pests and disease control." He said that concepts of integrated nutrient
management (INM) and integrated pest management (IPM) packages evolved by
ICAR includes use of natural or organic products like farmyard manuare, neem
seed kernel extracts, neem and karanj seed cakes and biological agents,
micobial preparations like Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Aspergillus,
Verticillium, Trichoderma to minimise the dependence of agriculture on
synthetic chemicals in effective crop production systems.

Dr Gautum Kalloo, deputy director-general, ICAR, said that shelf life of
organic fruits and vegetable are more than their non-organic counterparts.
organic farming is less expensive for farmers who can earn premium prices
for their produces. Hence proper marketing and cerification of organic
produces is absolutely necessary.

He said that the package for organic farming technology has to be location
specific and therefore "there is a need to explain our organic farming
practices to the international certifying bodies like IFOAM and other
quality certifying bodies in the importing countries. He said there is a
need to encourage farmers to produce on-farm organic manures as the
transportation of organic manures in bulk will invlove higher transportation
cost. He advocated use of green manuare, compost, nadep compost, cow dung,
cow urine, bio-fertilisers, vermicompost, vermi-wash, irrigation management
and biodynamic approach for enhancing soil fertility. For pests and diseases
management Dr Kalloo advocated use of bioagents for insect management and
nematode management.

Other scientists who gave the call `Go Back To Basics' included Dr YL Nene,
former plant pathologist in ICRISAT who advocated the farming principles as
narated in ancient Vedic texts, naming it as Vedic Krishi. Dr Mohan Shanker
Deshpande of Shri Samarath Agriculture Research Centre in Maharashtra
advocated Rishi Krishi ie farming principles as narated by saints. Dr GSR
Murthi said that homeopathic plant nutrients and protectors should be used
in organic farming. Dr Vasant Paranjpe was in favour of incorporating
traditional fire sacrifice, Homa in organic farming for purifying atmosphere
and enhancing plant growth.

Sompal Opposes Setting Up Of Organic Fariming InstituteÆ

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55788

Sompal, chairman of the National Commission on Farmers, has opposed the
government's proposal for setting up of a separate research body called
National Institute of Organic Farming (NIOF). He said that there should not
be a separate instutute as such. The entire ICAR system should be devoted to
promote organic farming.
---------------------------------------
For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the Ban-GEF list,
send email to Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com with HELP in the SUBJECT line.

Search the archives ('97-'01) at http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/, or go
to a recent day's digest at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ban-gef/.

ORGANIC BYTES #30
Food and Consumer News Tidbits with an Edge!
3/29/2004 By Organic Consumers Association

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

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

"The nightmare that county bans on genetically engineered crops
represent to intra- and interstate commerce is ridiculous. We'd be
ground to a halt."

Allan Noe, vice-president of CropLife America, a lobby group working for
Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. Quoted in San Jose Mercury (California)
3/1/04

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

ALERT: DEFEND THE MENDOCINO VICTORY & SPREAD GE-FREE ZONES EVERYWHERE
People across the U.S. and the world have been inspired by the historic
David versus Goliath victory in Mendocino County, California on March 2,
2004 where voters banned the production of genetically engineered crops
and animals. Mendocino is the first county in the U.S to implement such
a ban. The Mendocino GE ban has rattled Monsanto and the Gene Giants,
who fear that global civil society will now follow Mendocino's example.
Of course this is exactly what is happening. Just in the past week,
halfway across the world, a number of major agricultural states in
Australia, including Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria, have
already passed, or will soon pass, GE crop bans.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/tasmania032504.cfm

But as the OCA warned in an Action Alert last week, Monsanto and their
friends are fighting back. Sources have warned the OCA that the biotech
lobby will soon introduce a bill in California to nullify the Mendocino
GE ban and make it illegal for other California counties to pass similar
laws. World Trade Organization bureaucrats and the White House have also
made it clear in the past that local citizen control over unpopular
technologies such as genetic engineering will not be tolerated. OCA has
launched a major campaign called the Biodemocracy Alliance to defeat
this legislation and spread GE-Free zones across at least a dozen of
California's 59 counties, as well as counties all over the U.S.

We need your help to spread the word, organize GE bans in your local
area, and, most of all, we need donations to finance this effort. In the
past 10 days, since we sent out an Action Alert, we have raised $20,000
from online donations and checks in the mail, but we need to raise at
least $30,000 more in the next few weeks to keep up the momentum. We
believe this is the most crucial moment in the ten-year history of the
anti-GE foods movement. Please make an online donation today by clicking
here: https://www.securemysite.com/greenpeople/ocadonate.cfm

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

MONSANTO RESUMES ITS BULLYING ON GE WHEAT
Up until last week, Monsanto had promised that it would not press for
Bush Administration approval for its genetically engineered (GE) wheat
until Canadian regulatory officials were ready to approve the
controversial crop. However, due to strong resistance to GE wheat from
Canadian consumers and farmers, Monsanto has announced it may choose to
break this vow, causing great concern inside the U.S. wheat industry.
"If we introduce and the Canadians do not, that would make it easier for
countries to continue to insist on buying from a country that is GM-free
and it would give Canada a distinct marketing advantage," said U.S.
Wheat President Alan Tracy. Monsanto claims it has every right to do
what it pleases. The bottom line is that Monsanto is desperate and
believes that its friends in the White House have no qualms about
forcing Frankenfoods down consumers' throats--even if it means billions
of dollars in export losses for hapless U.S. wheat farmers.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/forcewheat031904.cfm

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

NEW MAD COW REGULATIONS STILL MAKE US MAD
In response to the discovery of the first case of Mad Cow Disease in the
U.S. last December, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced
it will increase testing of the nation's cattle up to 480,000 cows per
year. Consumer groups, including the Organic Consumers Association and
the Consumers Union, say these new projections for testing are
completely inadequate, given that the U.S. Cattle industry slaughters 35
million animals annually. The government and large beef corporations
fear more tests since they know Mad Cow disease has now spread to more
and more cattle in North America. However, many ranchers in Kansas,
California, and other states, desperate to regain their export markets,
say they're willing to test all cows, as Japan and other nations have
demanded. http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/nytimes032204.cfm

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

EARTH FRIENDLY LABELING LIES
Consumers are quickly learning that government oversight of product
labeling is all too loosely regulated. To add to the already existing
confusion, the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI),
an agribusiness and biotech front group, has announced it will now be
labeling qualifying products as "Earth Friendly". This designation will
be placed on genetically engineered foods and factory farmed meat and
dairy products.. The corporate-funded CGFI claim they have a right to
label products as such, given their "scientific" opinion that certain
aspects of GE crops and densely packed feedlots are better for the
environment than organic agriculture.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/labels031904.cfm

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:40:21 -0600
Organization: Organic Consumers Association
Subject: [SPAM] [Biodemocracy]Organic Bytes #30 - Food and Consumer
Tidbits with an Edge!
List-Subscribe: ,

Send
er: biodemocracy-bounces@lists.organicconsumers.org

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

WE NEED TO TALK
Interested in sharing your thoughts and ideas with thousands of other
like-minded folks locally and around the world? Register free for OCA's
new online web forum and chat center.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/chat/index.php If you are interested in
being a moderator of one of these forums, please contact
Craig@OrganicConsumers.org

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

Help others learn about food safety, organics, and related topics. Place
a link on YOUR website to http://OrganicConsumers.org
Banners for your use - http://OrganicConsumers.org/logos.htm

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

NOTE TO CO-OP AND NATURAL FOOD STORE SUBSCRIBERS:
Organic Bytes is a great tool for keeping your staff and customers up to
date on the latest issues. Feel free to forward this email to your staff
and print for posting on bulletin boards and staff break tables. You are
also welcome to use this material for your newsletters. There's an
attractive print-friendly PDF version of this available for free
download at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm

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

To subscribe to Organic Bytes,
send an email to: biodemocracy-request@lists.organicconsumers.org
with the word "subscribe" in subject.
To unsubscribe to Organic Bytes,
send an email to: biodemocracy-request@lists.organicconsumers.org
with the word "unsubscribe" in subject.

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

ORGANIC BYTES is a publication of:
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6101 Cliff Estate Road
Little Marais, MN 55614
Phone: (21 226-4164 Fax: (21 353-7652

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

For additional daily environmental and political news, visit:
http://www.ens-newswire.com http://www.planetsave.com

---------------------------------
Biodemocracy mailing list
Biodemocracy@lists.organicconsumers.org
http://lists.organicconsumers.org/listinfo/biodemocracy

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
EXCERPTS: Dr Kalloo also exploded the myth that organic practices
generally lead to a lower yield. He said, "Our field experiments have
shown that certain crops respond exceptionally well to organic
practices. Organic farming in sugarcane has resulted in an increase in
yield by 25 per cent. We should select crops for organic farming with
a view to boost our exports in dollar terms. Crops like Basmati rice,
soyabeans, cashewnuts, medicinal plants, spices, tea, coffee and
select fruits and vegetables should be taken up for organic farming."

"The geographical indications such as Basmati rice should be kept in
tact and untouched by transgenics. The developed GM Basmati rice will
not be released for commercial cultivation." (item 2)

1.Organic farming: A new boom arena
2.No Transgenic Tech For Organic Crops: Experts

---

1.COMMODITY WATCH
Organic farming: A new boom arena
Go Back To Basics, Say Experts
ASHOK B SHARMA
Financial Express
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55787&p
n=
1

NEW DELHI, MARCH 28: The Green Revolution, though it has enabled
the country to boost production of staple crops, has deteriorated the soil
health due to excessive use of chemical fertilisers and degraded the
environment through use of chemical pesticides.

The groundwater table has also been depleted on account of
over-exploitation. In this context, the experts, who deliberated in
the national conference on organic farming for sustainable production
which concluded in Delhi on March 25, gave a clarion call "Go Back To
Basics".

Sompal, chairman, the National Commission on Farmers, who is also a
former Union minister for agriculture and member of the Planning
Commission said, "The Green Revolution resulted in mono-cropping
system of high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice. The result was
that traditional varieties of wheat and rice which were more
nutritious went out of cultivation. Even the nutritious coarse cereals
which were earlier grown in arid and semi-arid rainfed areas went out
of cultivation. It is time to bring back traditional crop varieties
into cultivation and resort to multi-cropping system in the interest
of food and nutritional security."

He also said that not only excessive use of chemical fertilisers has
damaged soil health, the indiscriminate spray of chemical pesticides
have killed the bio-agents occurring in nature which protect the crops
against pests.

Mr Sompal, who himself is a farmer, also said that last year he tried
cultivation of some traditional varieties of wheat through organic
practices and this resulted in better yields. He said that these
traditional varieties of wheat has more nutrition content as compared
to high-yielding varieties. The clarion call of going back to the
basics was also given by several other experts. The director-general
of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Dr Mangla Rai in
his message to the conference advocated the concept of bio-dynamic
agriculture which "has come into being alongwith modified
methodologies for preparations of farmyard manuare and other
formulations for pests and disease control." He said that concepts of
integrated nutrient management (INM) and integrated pest management
(IPM) packages evolved by ICAR includes use of natural or organic
products like farmyard manuare, neem seed kernel extracts, neem and
karanj seed cakes and biological agents, micobial preparations like
Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Aspergillus, Verticillium, Trichoderma to
minimise the dependence of agriculture on synthetic chemicals in
effective crop production systems.

Dr Gautam Kalloo, deputy director-general, ICAR, said that shelf life
of organic fruits and vegetable were more than their non-organic
counterparts. Organic farming is less expensive for farmers who can
earn premium prices for their produces. Hence, proper marketing and
cerification of organic produces is absolutely necessary.

He said that the package for organic farming technology has to be
location specific and therefore, "There is a need to explain our
organic farming practices to the international certifying bodies like
IFOAM and other quality certifying bodies in the importing countries.
He said there is a need to encourage farmers to produce on-farm
organic manures as the transportation of organic manures in bulk will
invlove higher transportation cost. He advocated use of green manuare,
compost, nadep compost, cow dung, cow urine, bio-fertilisers,
vermicompost, vermi-wash, irrigation management and biodynamic
approach for enhancing soil fertility. For pests and diseases
management Dr Kalloo advocated use of bioagents for insect
management
and nematode management.

---

2.No Transgenic Tech For Organic Crops: Experts

Global market for organic food pegged at $36.89 billion; grows at
15-30 per cent annually

ASHOK B SHARMA

NEW DELHI, MARCH 28: Indian agro experts are of the view that
transgenic technology should not be applied to crops selected for
organic farming, if the country is to take any advantage of the
lucrative $36.89 billion global market for organic food.

The global market for organic food has grown at the rate of 15 to 30
per cent annually in the last three years, while the Indian export of
organic food has remained negligible at $19.99 million (Rs 89.42
crore). Organic food gets a price premium of 20 to 30 per cent over
non-organic food.

Organic food retail sales took place in Europe and the US in 2002 is
estimated to between $10,000 million to $11,000 million. If the
countryís export of organic food increases optimistically by 25 per
cent, the gains will be substantial, they said.

Vowing to keep organic crops protected from any possible influence of
transgenics, the experts advocated that organic farming areas should
be distinctly earmarked away from areas of approved genetically
modified (GM) crops cultivation or field trial sites of GM crops. So
far, only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation is Bt cotton
which is grown in parts of Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.

Dr Kalloo also exploded the myth that organic practices generally lead
to a lower yield. He said, "Our field experiments have shown that
certain crops respond exceptionally well to organic practices. Organic
farming in sugarcane has resulted in an increase in yield by 25 per
cent. We should select crops for organic farming with a view to boost
our exports in dollar terms. Crops like Basmati rice, soyabeans,
cashewnuts, medicinal plants, spices, tea, coffee and select fruits
and vegetables should be taken up for organic farming."

Though one of the ICARís affiliate body, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute (IARI) has developed two Bt transgenic rice namely IR-64 and
Pusa Basmati-1 and has conducted bioassay for yellow stem borer
resistance, the ICAR director-general, Dr Mangla Rai has clearly said,
"The geographical indications such as Basmati rice should be kept in
tact and untouched by transgenics. The developed GM Basmati rice will
not be released for commercial cultivation."

The public sector research system under ICAR has developed 14
experimental transgenics in various crops and the private sector has
developed 18 transgenic crops. All these transgenic crops will be
released for commercial cultivation only after assessing the situation
vis-a-vis the organic farming and export potential of organic food.

Several state governments have joined the race for organic farming.
Uttaranchal has established an Organic Commodities Board and chief
minister Narayan Dutt Tiwari has vowed to keep his state GM-free.
Mizoram has also declared itself totally organic and has not asked for
allocation of any chemical fertiliser in the current yearís kharif
(summer) season.

Sikkim, Nagaland and Meghalaya are in the process of declaring
themselves as organic states. The Madhya Pradesh government has
identified about 3,300 villages where only organic farming would be
practiced.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L31633996.htm

31 Mar 2004

Germany says restaurant food must be marked as GMO

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

HAMBURG, March 31 (Reuters) - Restaurant and canteen food containing
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must be clearly marked when new rules
on GMO labelling take effect in April, the German government said on Wednesday.

On April 18 new European Union rules mean food on sale in shops will have
to be labelled if it contains GMOs. Animal feed sold to farmers will also
have to be labelled.

The rules also apply to restaurants, Junior German Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Minister Alexander Mueller said in a statement.

"If canteens or restaurants use genetically-modified food this must be
clearly marked on the menu or in a notice," he said.

The ministry has completed talks with German state authorities, responsible
for food inspections, and food industry associations to achieve a smooth
implementation of the new regulations, Mueller said.

"It is now the responsibility of the private sector to fulfil its labelling
responsibilities," he added.

He expected state authorities to increase food inspections from April 18.

GM giant abandons bid to grow crops in Britain
By Andrew Clennell
31 March 2004
the independent

In a huge blow to the genetically modified food lobby, Bayer Cropscience has
given up attempts to grow commercial GM maize in Britain.

The decision, blamed by the company on government restrictions, means no GM
crop will be grown commercially in the UK in 2005 and raises questions about the
future of GM in this country.

The German biotechnology company will announce today that its maize variety
Chardon LL, which was to be developed as cattle feed, had been left
"economically non-viable" because of conditions set by the Environment
Secretary Margaret Beckett when she gave limited approval to the growing of the
crop this month.

A spokesman for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said
last night: "We do not apologise for the fact there is a tough EU-wide
regulatory regime on GMs. This is a commercial decision made by Bayer and they
have decided to withdraw their application, [which means] there will not be any
commercial cultivation of GM crops in 2005 in the UK.

"In the current climate in the EU, with member states' strong views on these
matters, there's little prospect of any GM crops coming forward for
consideration in the near future. We always said it would be for the market to
decide [the future of GM]."

There were suggestions last night that GM crops were unlikely to be grown in the
UK until 2008, when GM oil seed rape may be approved for cultivation.

Bayer's decision will be seen as a huge win for the former environment minister
Michael Meacher and green groups.

Chardon LL, which Bayer had wanted to commercially grow, was developed for
approval in 1999. It is already grown in the Netherlands.

A Bayer spokesman confirmed the imminent withdrawal of its application to grow
in the UK last night. The company told The Financial Times the UK's tough GM
regulatory regime could jeopardise the industry. It said: "New regulations
should enable GM crops to be grown in the UK - not disable future attempts to
grow them."

Chardon LL gained approval after trials showed it caused less damage to wildlife
than its conventional equivalent, but ministers have not yet decided rules for
mixing GM and non-GM crops and what compensation might be paid for
contamination by GM pollen.

Bayer said: "These uncertainties and undefined timelines will make this
five-year-old variety economically unviable."

Only three weeks ago in parliament, Ms Beckett controversially announced her
decision to allow Bayer to go ahead with its maize project. The decision came
after 15 years of field trials and four years of farm-scale evaluations.

Ms Beckett told the Commons the GM maize could be grown as soon as next year and
said non-GM farmers who suffered financial losses because of crop contamination
would be compensated by the industry, not the taxpayer.

At the time, Mr Meacher said: "This is the wrong decision. It is driven by the
commercial interests of the big biotech companies and, no doubt, pressure from
the White House."

March 2004 SFI E-zine


1. 2004 Soil Foodweb, Inc. Compost Tea Grant
2. Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea now available!
3. Observations on Woodpeckers
4. July 16 – 17, 2005 International Compost Tea Council “Practical, Hands-On Seminar”
5. Grower Experiences
a. Livestock and compost teas
b. Turf Compost tea programs
c. Asian rust and compost tea
d. Mycorrhizal fungi do the job
6. Major Development on GE Front
7. USDA REQUESTS NOMINATIONS
8. Eco-Farm Bans Compost Tea Information

1. 2004 Soil Foodweb, Inc. Compost Tea Grant

SFI is now accepting applications for the 2004 Compost Tea Grant.

The purpose of this Grant is to measure and record the effect of compost tea applications to soil. Participants will take composite soil samples from their specified project area and submit to SFI this spring, prior to any application of compost tea. Three applications of compost tea will be made to the area, by the Participant, during this growing season (in spring, summer and fall). Each compost tea must be sampled and sent into SFI for analysis. Recommendations will be made by SFI to maximize efficacy of compost tea applications based on Participant specific growing conditions and evaluation of compost tea analysis results.

In spring of 2005, another soil sample will be sent in to SFI for analysis. This will complete the Grant and provide Participants and SFI valuable data with which to evaluate the effectiveness of compost tea applications. The data received will help research, develop and establish the most effective practices for achieving the correct beneficial soil food web for each growing situation. Results will be shared with Grant Participants successfully completing the Grant.

The cost of participation in the Grant is $250.00, a significant reduction in cost for the detailed lab analysis performed.

This years Grant will include twenty-five Participants selected from individuals who submit a letter of interest describing how the Candidate intends to utilize the Grant. A detailed description of the proposed project in less than 250 words is due by March 31. Please respond to: teagrant@soilfoodweb.com

Thank you for your time.

Kevin John Richardson
Kevin John Richardson
SFI Compost Tea Grant Coordinator

2. Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea now available!

Soil Foodweb Inc. is offering the “Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea”, a compilation of compost_tea list serve questions and answers, arranged by topic so the information is easy to access.

The book is being offered at a SPECIAL, INTRODUCTORY price of $35. This price will increase to $45 on May 1, 2004, so order your Field Guide now!

Available through the Soil Foodweb website, www.soilfoodweb.com

3. Observations on Woodpeckers

Subj:[compost_tea] Fungi On Woodpecker Beaks Found Crucial To Forest Processes
From:kiphart@ev1.net

Thought this relevant to our cause.... not to mention fascinating.
http://www.enn.com/news/2005-02-04/s_12568.asp

Fungus in Woodpeckers' Beaks Crucial to Forest Process

NEW YORK, New York, February 11, 2004 (ENS) - A woodpecker's beak is a virtual petri dish of fungal spores that play a key role in the decay of dead trees, according to new research by the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Arkansas State University.

In their study published in the journal "Condor," the authors examined several species of woodpeckers living in ponderosa pine forests in northern California and Oregon. They learned that over 60 percent of the birds nesting in tree cavities had a variety of wood inhabiting fungi
living in their beaks. These fungi serve a critical role in the decomposition of dead trees, commonly known as snags, and influence how they are used by wildlife.

Unless trees decay, woodpeckers are unable to excavate nest cavities, which are used as nesting sites by a variety of wildlife species. While some forestry practices on public and private lands allocate a certain number of snags per acre for wildlife use, the recent Bush administration "Healthy Forests" policies calls for removing snags because of their perceived risk in forest fires.

The authors say that more factors need to be taken into consideration than just density or spatial arrangement of the snags.

"Our study shows that woodpeckers are really the architects and landlords of the forest," said WCS scientist Kerry Farris, the study's lead author. "Their activities play a key role in how snags decay and are used by other species."

Woodpeckers initially puncture dead and dying trees in search of bark beetles and other wood-boring insects, a process that creates holes in wood that serve as infection sites for airborne fungal spores. As the birds return to these holes to feed, or to excavate them further for nesting, they pick up the fungi in their beaks, then help spread the spores by foraging on other dead trees.

"Our research illustrates the numerous agents contributing to the complexity of snag decomposition and eventual cavity generation by woodpeckers," Farris said. "Forest management could benefit from a consideration of these processes when managing snags on public and private lands."

4. July 16 – 17, 2005 “Practical, Hands-On” International Compost Tea Council Seminar

Hold July 16 – 17, 2004 for the “Practical Compost Tea” meeting in Kirkland Washington!

I am kicking around the idea of doing the following “Brew-Off” at the ICTC meeting.
SFI will sponsor a prize of one of the new Each-Batch Compost Tea Testing Kits. Anyone want to work with me on designing this contest?

Stay tuned to the ICTC website, and the E-zine for more information on how to enter.

There will be an ICTC, Highlands S&W, and SFI sponsored meeting in Monterey next January, 2005 (last weekend in January, most likely) with likely speakers of Arden Anderson, Elaine Ingham, Mike Amaranthus, and Bob Schaffer as main speakers, and local compost tea makers and users also giving talks.

There is an east-coast ICTC compost tea meeting in the works as well, where we can repeat the Brew-Off experience on the east coast. Stay tuned for more news here!

5. Grower Experiences

a. Livestock and compost teas

We have found that if the livestock stay mainly on our 'biology' pastures, they have fewer flies (lots fewer (<20> - usually if cattle have >200 you figure it is economically viable to spray and reduce that number) - no, I don't actually count them!

We have sprayed CT on these <20 flies group and the flies all but disappear for a good 45-60 days.

We have also sprayed CT on some of our herds >200 flies that don't get to be on our 'biology' pastures very much. This spraying helps for only a few days.

So, got good biology in pastures, got fewer flies to torment our steers. But the message is, its a total package deal: healthy soil=healthy plants=healthy animals = healthy people.

That's my two cents worth.

Betsy
www.rossfarm.com
Granger, Texas

b. Turf Compost tea programs
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:01:30 -0500
From: Mike Bradley mailto:safelawn@mindspring.com

Hey Elaine -
Hope ya'll are having a good New Years. Our Lawn care program was the standard industry fare (7 visits per season) except we do not use synthetic forms of P or K.

We add some dormant beneficials and milorganite as a component...but were still relying on a lot of urea to compete with greenup and cosmetics in the highly competitive residential lawn care market. Here in the "lower transition zone " environment we are primarily working on Tall fescues.

Our major pest problems are annual crabgrasses and Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani)...both of these pests we were not controlling well with our standard treatments

I had read all about CT and had done mostly organic gardening personally...I have tested many products over my 25 year career. I like to tell customers I have over 60,000 hours of work experience and have stepped on over 60,000 yards...I was frustrated I was not having excellent lawn quality especially during adverse environmental conditions.

Last summer I started doing CT applications on a select group of customers. I was getting as good as control of Brown Patch as the new class of fungicides like Heritage...the control lasted about 4-5 weeks...I also tested adding supplements like mycorrhizae and the protein Harpin. Adding harpin seemed to speed up the curative affect of the Brown Patch...with every seeding plus aeration we did this fall we sprayed CT and Myco right on top of the seeding/cores...we removed the high rates of urea nitrogen that is traditional in our programs in the lawn care industry this fall and treated with 100 % organic miloganite type product...we plan to do a early spring treatment again without the high levels of quick release N and do our weed controls then...then starting in late spring we plan to do a series of 3-4 CT treatments with a liming also.

If this program is successful and produces quality turf and ornamentals in the upscale residential market we will have a true breakthrough in how a larger horticulture service provider can take care of the yards...I know we are not the first trying this, but the public is bombarded with advertising for products that save time and KILL everything in one fell swoop. But with proof and results that show the way the industry and do-it yourself fertilizer /pest control practices have created many of our problems I believe we can grasp the media and public attention long enough to educate them and get change moving fast ahead like many other industries.

Have a great day.
Mike Bradley, Naturalawn of America. Greensboro NC

c. Asian rust and compost tea

Someone wrote me to ask about rusts, and I asked the list in general if anyone had experience. Scott Alexander, daylily@bigpond.com , replied:

If it is a puccinia rust, I found that concentrated AACT applied monthly over the foliage of daylilies suppressed rust and/or helped the plant to build up a resistance to it. Not 100% but very high. All daylily leaves in a clump are very hard to get at!

More answers from Scott in a later e-mail, questions from the list serve (not Elaine):

I thought we came to the conclusion that EM only has a very limited microbial diversity and you are way better off with ACT.
Maybe EM has limited diversity but maybe the "naturally occurring beneficial microorganisms, principally lactic acid bacteria, yeast and phototrophic bacteria in a liquid solution" may not be in ACT. If you combine the two MAYBE you'll end up with a superior tea. I know this list is all about ACT but I can see the day that combinations of herb & plant teas, EM products and ACT will be found to be a superior blend.

How many years have you been using ACT and EM?
25 months of ACT specifically made and applied monthly since daylily rust arrived. 18 months prior to that, different forms of ACT was applied quarterly.

How are your Daylilies responding to the ACT?
Using ACT on daylilies is saving fertiliser costs. I no longer side-dress the plants with organic fertilisers annually.

I am finding that many varieties, particularly diploids, have built up tremendous resistance to daylily rust because of "something" in the ACT. My interest in adding herb and weed teas to ACT has been further increased after reading "comfrey and cow-parsnip extracts is associated with their action on the pathogenic fungus and with the activation of natural defense reactions of the host plant"

Scott Alexander

d. Mycorrhizal fungi do the job

I understand that ever since Dr. Bonnie Appleton, a professor at one of the Virginia schools did an experiment where she couldn’t get VAM established on the trees she inoculated with VAM, she has been negative about mycorrhizal colonization, and has been a major force in turning people away from use of mycorrhizal fungi on trees.

Lack of colonization means the whole concept is bunk? Should we take that attitude when someone can’t get pregnant the first time? Or one shot of Novocain doesn’t numb your mouth? Maybe the proper answer was not that mycorrhizal fungi don’t work, and don’t help trees, but that something else was operating to prevent establishment.

I have heard over and over that there are no data that mycorrhizal fungi improve plant growth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are a couple examples from Dr. Mike that inoculation DOES improve plant growth. - ERI
----

“The January issue of Arborage magazine features (cover photo and article) the results of mycorrhizal inoculation of planted ponderosa pine in a severely burned area in the Biscuit Fire. Melody Culp of the USDA Forest Service organized and facilitated the plantings and inoculation. The mycorrhizal inoculations resulted in a 42% increase in pine survival, improved root growth and seedling phosphorous and calcium nutrition.

You can go straight to the article at

http://www.greenmediaonline.com/aa/2004/0401/0401tm.asp

There is also an article in Erosion Control magazine that used our mycorrhiza on a rigorous site and got huge improvement in grass survival and nutrition. Go to

http://www.forester.net/ecm_0309_symbiotic.html

Take care

Mike”

6. Major Development on GE Front

The scientist involved in this field research is one of Europe's most prominent and runs a large, government-backed lab working on the impacts of GE foods. This story will have major repercussions worldwide.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Filipino farmers show GM pollen reaction-scientist

February 23, 2004
Reuters
KUALA LUMPUR- Norwegian scientist Terje Traavik was cited as saying on
Monday that Filipino farm workers living by a field of gene-modified maize showed signs of exposure to the plant's anti-pest toxin three months after the pollen season.

Traavik said that blood samples from 39 people in a farm community on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao carried increased levels of three different target antibodies, evidence of an immune reaction to the Bt toxin built in to combat pests, adding, "We are absolutely sure it's a reaction to being exposed to the Bt maize."

The story says that if more tests were to confirm his findings, they would fuel anti-GM campaigner arguments that extra caution is needed before wide-scale cultivation of modified crops such as maize, canola and cotton goes any further.

Traavik said the maize variety involved, sold as Dekalb 818 YG, came from U.S. crop company Monsanto.

The professor of gene ecology at Norway's University of Tromso is a critic of mainstream biotech research who says too few scientists are free from industry connections.

No one from Monsanto, whose representatives were present at the talks, was immediately available for comment.

Willy De Greef, a biotech law consultant formerly employed by Swiss agrochemicals company Syngenta, expressed surprise at Traavik's findings, saying research showed Bt maize pollen did not carry the toxin so no reaction should occur.
_____________

Charles Benbrook
Benbrook Consulting Services
5085 Upper Pack River Road Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
Voice: (20-263-5236 Fax: (20-263-7342
E-mail:

7. USDA REQUESTS NOMINATIONS TO FILL UPCOMING VACANCIES ON NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

WASHINGTON, March 8, 2004 - The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking
nominations to fill five upcoming vacancies on the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB). Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman will
appoint persons to serve a 5-year term of office to commence January 24,
2005, and run until January 24, 2010.

The NOSB is a 15-member board responsible for developing and recommending
to the Secretary a proposed National List of Approved and Prohibited
Substances. The NOSB also advises the Secretary on all other aspects of
the National Organic Program.

USDA is asking for nominations to fill the following five upcoming NOSB
vacancies: organic producer (two positions), organic handler, retailer,
and environmentalist. To serve on the NOSB, an individual must be either
an owner or operator of an organic production operation, an owner or
operator of an organic handling operation, an individual who owns or
operates a retail establishment with significant trade in organic
products, or an individual with expertise in areas of environmental
protection and resource conservation. USDA will follow equal opportunity
practices in all appointments to the NOSB.

Written nominations, accompanied by resumes, must be postmarked on or
before June 14, 2004, and sent to Ms. Katherine E. Benham, Advisory Board
Specialist, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW, Room 4008-S, Ag Stop 0268, Washington, D.C. 20250. For more
information, contact Ms. Katherine Benham at (202) 205-7806; e-mail:
Katherine.benham@usda.gov; or fax: (202) 205-7808.

Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm at Tolstoy
Grower of Organic Produce & Botanicals
33495 Mill Canyon Rd. Davenport, WA 99122
(509) 725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net http://www.thefutureisorganic.net
---------------
8. Eco-Farm Bans Compost Tea Information

Those of you who don’t like to hear about arguments in the world of sustainable or biological farming should just skip this article.

We have some egos in the world of sustainable ag. We need to work TOGETHER, but when someone acts to fragment that togetherness, or refuses to work with others, or goes off in a huff because of what someone said that someone else said and never checks out the validity of the rumor, or when someone tries to be territorial about sustainable approaches, then that situation needs to get aired.

I’ve tried to get resolution on this situation with Eco-Farm, but when you try to get people to tell you what’s going on, and you get no answer, or you get told “Too bad you listened to hearsay” when you have heard the same information from quite a few people, when Eco-Farm is doing nothing to rectify the harm that is being done to people’s reputations, then I am left with no way to deal with this situation than to put it out to the general public to try to get resolution.

So, here’s the situation -

I asked several friends to speak to their friends on the Board of Eco-Farm this year about doing a compost tea talk at Eco-Farm. One friend spoke to Bob Cantisano and related back to me that Bob Cantisano is telling people that the Board of Eco-Farm voted to never allow me to come to Eco-Farm again. Since I knew NOTHING about this, I wrote this letter to the Eco-Farm Board.
--------
To the Governing Board of Eco-Farm

A friend of mine attended Eco-Farm last week, and told me that they spoke to Bob Cantisano. They said that Bob told them that I (Elaine) ”have the distinction of being the only person not allowed to come to Eco-Farm meetings.”

I have never been told this before. I would like to know why Mr. Cantisano would say such a thing.

The person talking to Bob related that Bob said that I had argued with Vicki Bess about something in a seminar. That has never happened. I have never argued with any speaker in any forum at Eco-Farm.

Then the person said that Bob had said that someone else had argued with Vicki Bess at Eco-Farm about something I said. I cannot be held accountable for something that someone else did or did not do. I wasn't even at Eco-Farm last year to do anything about someone arguing with anyone.

To ban me from the meeting because someone else mentioned me is downright inappropriate.

I have explained to people why things Vicki Bess has said are not true. But supporting the truth should not result in me being not allowed to come to Eco-Farm meetings!

If it is true that the Board has decided that I am not to be allowed to come to Eco-Farm, or give talks there, I think the very least you should do is tell me about the decision. Or if what Mr. Cantisano has said is not true of Eco-Farm policy, then Mr. Cantisano should be told to not say such things.

Please let me know the truth in this matter ASAP.

Elaine Ingham
President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
Affiliate Faculty, Graduate Research, Southern Cross University
-------------------------------------------

To: Elaine Ingham
From: Kristin Rosenow, Executive Director, Ecological Farming Association
Re: Your "Query and Concern" dated January 29, 2004
Date: February 2, 2004
******************
Dear Elaine,

I'm sorry if hearsay from the 2004 Ecological Farming Conference has caused concern on your part regarding participation in our annual event. As a member of the Ecological Farming Conference Planning Committee and the staff representative on the EFA Board of Directors,
I can assure that there is no policy banning you from the Ecological Farming Conference.

At our 2003 conference there was a distasteful incident in our "Compost Tea Update" workshop, where a speaker was heckled by a member of the audience during a presentation. Said heckler also passed out literature during and after the workshop that specifically attacked the companies represented by the speakers. While Eco-Farm does not in general shy away from controversial topics, we will not allow such negative tactics to infiltrate and damage the atmosphere of collegial respect and honest debate for which Eco-Farm is known. As a result of the 2003 incident, the Eco-Farm Conference Planning Committee decided not to have a compost tea workshop in 2004 and not to invite any Soil Foodweb representatives as speakers. We will be monitoring the compost tea debate throughout 2004 in order to determine if we want to bring the topic back in 2005, and if so, which speakers we would like to invite.

I'd be happy to answer any further questions about our policies and procedures.

Regards,

Kristin Rosenow
Executive Director
Ecological Farming Association
Watsonville, California
831-763-2111
--------------------------------

First of all, to tell me that I listened to hearsay, when several people around the world have related the same story to me about Bob Cantisano’s behavior with regard to the Eco-Farm decision and I is just rude. Belittling other people’s concerns is not wise.

Second, Kristin tells me in that letter that I have indeed been banned, although maybe she doesn’t care to put it in that bald a terminology. She said in that letter, “and not to invite any Soil Foodweb representatives as speakers.”

Hum, maybe Bob isn’t going about spreading un-true information.

Since Kristin Rosenow did not address several of my points to the Board, I e-mailed back to her to ask her to tell me if any effort would be made by Eco-Farm to ascertain if Bob Cantisano, a member of their board, has indeed been going about saying that I have the unique distinction of being the only person banned by Eco-Farm.

I have had no response.

I also have asked who the person was that had heckled Ms. Bess during her presentation, since I would like to speak to that person and find out the whole story, a level of fairness that Eco-Farm has never been interested in apparently. They certainly never asked me if I was in any way responsible for whoever’s behavior before Bob Cantisano started telling people that I was banned from Eco-Farm meetings.

I thought I might know who the heckler was, but when I asked him, he said he had been in the meeting, but had not heard any heckler. They said some man had asked some pointed questions of Vicki Bess, but he wouldn’t call it heckling, and certainly nothing “distasteful”.

Go figure. Heckling is relative to one’s point of view, I guess. Who complained about heckling? Did a speaker complain that they had been asked some tough questions? Does that constitute a “distasteful incident?”

None of my employees were at Eco-Farm in 2002, or in 2003. I did not send a representative to the meeting and I did not attend Eco-Farm. I believe I was in Australia at the time. I did pay for some of the travel expenses for some friends to be able to travel through California, and they went to the Eco-Farm meeting. I wonder if they asked the tough questions? Did some people view the way the questions were asked as heckling, while others did not? How can I tell? I wasn’t there.

I had many people ask me to explain the E. coli report Ms. Bess presented at Biocycle, which appeared in written form in a Biocycle conference proceeding. I wrote some information and gave that out to quite a number of people so they could ask Ms. Bess about the important points when they saw her. These were points relative to how oxygen concentration had been measured, the fact that oxygen was not measured throughout the tea brew, that oxygen was not measured during the brew period when oxygen is most likely to drop into anaerobic conditions and therefore allow E. coli to grow unhindered by competitors, especially in a brew where E. coli laden compost was purposefully added. By definition, compost used in compost tea should at least pass the organic regs for composting, if it is going to be used in compost tea.

Tea made using manure should be called manure tea. It is not compost tea and should not be confused with compost tea. If people want to claim that organic composting regulations do NOT result in human pathogens being killed, then they need to PROVE that point. You cannot rely on people who SAY they are composting correctly, but still find human pathogens in the finished material. You have to have them document what they really did, and that they really composted correctly. Did the compost actually reach temperature for the time required? Did they turn the compost properly? That’s five times in 15 days of the compost being above 131 F. Show me you really composted correctly before you make statements that E. coli is still in the compost. Look for external contamination. That’s more likely to be the problem, not that E. coli survived the proper composting process. A recent paper claims E. coli survived proper cpmosting, but look at their methods. They turned the compost with a front end loader, which was used to move the fresh manure around, before turning the “finished” product.

Finished? Not if you use contaminated loaders to turn the compost! Using dirty equipment is NOT in keeping with organic regs.

But to ban further talks about Compost Tea from Eco-Farm, which is basically a ban on me ever presenting again at Eco-Farm, because of the actions of someone else is not appropriate. The Board of Eco-Farm should at least have let me defend myself before judging and “executing” me.

Why should a whole industry be excluded from a conference because ONE person wants to get a speaker to answer the questions put to them? When speakers side-step around the truth, and won’t answer the question asked, doesn’t that make you angry?

I suggested to Kristin that Eco-Farm put together a compost tea seminar where NONE of the manufacturers of compost tea speak, but instead have growers who ARE USING compost tea give talks about what they are doing, and how successful they have been. That would be the true test of what machine(s) work best.

But if Bob Cantisano doesn’t like me because I infringe on what he views as “his territory” then be honest about the real reason that I will never be invited to speak at Eco-Farm again.

I mentioned this situation to another friend of mine and all he did was laugh, and said –

“Elaine, you are in very good company if you have been banned from Eco-Farm. I’ve been banned for years, Dr. Arden Anderson has been banned, Dr. Phil Wheeler has been banned, Dr. Phil Callahan, and of course, Neal Kinsey has been banned for years longer than you. When ACRES ran a meeting in Sacramento, Bob Cantisano called Fred Walter up and told him he couldn’t have ACRES meetings in California, because this is Bob’s territory. You are NOT unique in being banned from Eco-Farm meetings.”

I feel really good about that comment. I stand in very good company, indeed, to be placed in the “banned from Eco-Farm box” with these other people whom I admire and respect.

But, I want people to know what has been happening with Eco-Farm. Those of you who have heard Bob say that I’ve been banned, please realize that I am not unique in the distinction.

In fact, I think it an honor to be banned from a group not interested in fair and impartial behavior. Any time the Eco-Farm Board wants to let me know who was the problem at the compost tea update, I’ll investigate.

But they should investigate Bob Cantisano’s behavior. I am happy to give the Board the names of those who have heard Bob say the board voted to ban me from Eco-Farm. Be glad to let them know where I’m hearing the information that Eco-Farm has banned all these great minds from their meetings. Maybe some resolution could occur, instead of letting stink continue to cloud the air.

So, I apologize to all of you who don’t like to hear negativity, but we are dealing with human beings, and with egos. When someone tells people I know that I’m banned from speaking someplace, I don’t take that lightly. I will do something about it. When I am prevented from getting a situation resolved through the logical pathway, I’ll find another way to get it resolved. The resolution I seek is to make certain that people know and understand the truth about what is going on with Eco-Farm, and why I, and apparently many other people, won’t appear there.

Elaine Ingham
---------------------------------

The essay competition run by Royal Dutch Shell and The Economist has
reached its fourth year. This time the question posed was "Do we need
nature?" Nearly 6,000 people, from all over the world, offered answers.

The first prize of $20,000 was won by Diane Brooks Pleninger from
Anchorage, Alaska, whose essay, printed here in slightly abridged form,
inverted the question neatly and informatively -----

D.P. Good evening, viewers. Our guest is Pilobolus crystallinus, author of
the award winning bestseller, "Do We Need Mankind? A Fungal Perspective".
Mr Pilobolus is a member of the kingdom Fungi, class Zygomycetes. He is a
scholar, lecturer, dung-dweller, and author. Welcome, Mr Pilobolus.

P.c. Thank you, Diane. Good to be here.

D.P. Mr Pilobolus, your most recent book raises tantalising questions about
the future of the biosphere and the role that you and other inhabitants
will play in it. Tell us how you came to write it.

P.c. The book resulted from a series of symposia I attended over the past
two centuries under the sponsorship of the World Federation of Fungi, on
the topic, "What Does Nature Need?" The Academy of the WFF is constituted
of one delegate from each family of fungi. I was fortunate to represent
the Pilobolaceae.

D.P. The 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have been a revolutionary period in
the biosphere. How have fungi been affected by the events of modern
history?

P.c. The modern history of the fungi, which I date from about 400 million
years ago, has been a remarkable success story. The fungi occupy two vital
niches in nature whose importance has never been challenged. In one niche,
we are drivers of the carbon cycle, elite teams of detritivores whose
mission is to digest organic matter and return the component parts to the
ecological system. Without our work, life on earth would long since have
ground to a halt for lack of raw materials.

In another niche, we act in partnership with the roots of plants to extend
their reach into the soil environment and enhance their uptake of water and
nutrients. These partnerships are called mycorrhizas. Myco for the
fungus, rhiza for the root. Animals in turn feed on plants and benefit
from this arrangement. So the fungi play two very distinct roles worldwide,
and both roles are critical to maintaining the biosphere.

D.P. When does mankind come into your history?

P.c. Mankind comes into our history about 20,000 years ago, at the time
they discovered the uses of alcoholic fermentation. We credit the genus
Saccharomyces with this development. Ancestral spores of that yeast
settled in a pot of gruel prepared by a group of hominids whose existence
up to that point was best described as nasty, brutish and short. This
began what we call the honeymoon period in the relationship of man and
fungus. Unfortunately, it didn't last long.

D.P. What happened to end it?

P.c. Two things. Agriculture was one. Monocropping and animal husbandry
led to concentrations of plant and animal populations that were vulnerable
to certain of our members, particularly the smuts, rusts, mildews and
blights. Some crops and herds proved to be sensitive to basic fungal
metabolites. For instance, my colleague Claviceps purpurea produces the
biochemical ergot. Ergot causes gangrene, madness and death in humans.

However, there is no credible scientific evidence that it evolved in
C.purpurea with harm to mega-fauna in mind. The same may be said of
Aspergillus flavus, which occurs on nuts and grains. The aflatoxins
produced by A. flavus are among the most powerful poisons and carcinogens
on earth. To A. flavus, they are merely metabolic by-products, with a
touch of self-defense function as well.

The other change for the worse resulted from transportation. The rapid
movement of species allowed no time for immunities to develop in local
populations. Many fungal species have been vilified for causing mass
exterminations of elms, chestnuts, potatoes and other plants. This mirrors
the unhappy experience of animal and viral micro-organisms implicated in
plagues and epidemics. The real culprits, of course, are the humans who
transport exotics from continent to continent.

D.P. As you see it, what has been the human purpose during recent centuries?

P.c. With the advantage of hindsight, I think we can summarise it as a
failed experiment in individualism. The idea of the individual--and there
is no fungal equivalent--arose during a period of rapid change in human
society. In the abstract, individualism looked defensible, even appealing.
The ideal individual was to be educated and enlightened, someone we'd all
like to know. However, as a practical matter, the culture of enlightened
individualism reformed itself after a brief period into a cult of personal
freedom. Over the next several centuries, unbridled personal freedom and
chance distributions of natural resources led to the creation of certain
wealthy and isolated colonies of humans. Their prosperity excited envy and
the rest of the world did what they could to emulate them. Large
populations of humans moved from a very simple experience of the natural
world to the expectation of a lifestyle similar to what the exploiters were
enjoying. This clamour for plenitude put enormous stress on the biosphere.

D.P. As we know, humans failed to reverse this trend. Can you explain
their failure to act?

P.c It certainly wasn't for want of trying. If you visit the media archives
of mankind--and we fungi are able to do so freely in spite of their efforts
to exclude us--you will see that environmental issues were at the forefront
of concern in all the wealthier nations for the past century and a half.
Treaties, regulations, protocols, public opinion were used to stem the tide
of harmful practices. But population growth outpaced the effectiveness of
trade boycotts and outran the ability of the media to cultivate public
awareness of environmental issues. And population growth added to the
pressure on the biosphere as more and more people demanded higher standards
of living.

A couple of analogies can help us visualise what was happening. One is the
problem of the universal solvent. If there were such a substance, what
would you keep it in? The phenomenon of affluence turned out to be a sort
of universal solvent. Nothing could contain it. More insight is provided
by the old canard about bread and circuses, which refers to the stultifying
effects of amusement. Poor-quality information tends to ferment into
low-grade entertainment. Under the sulphurous glare of continuous,
worldwide news broadcasts, human institutions--government, military,
religious, culture itself-became subjects of human amusement. This
unrelenting, self-referential entertainment left a large part of mankind
chronically inebriated and fundamentally uneducable.

D.P. Many times in your book, you mention what in earlier centuries would
have been called "values"--altruism, moderation, that sort of thing. How do
fungi define ethical values? Or perhaps you call them spiritual values?
P.c. (Laughs.) Much of what others consider spiritual, we call secular.
This does not mean we are without a theology. There are two major systems
of mycotheism in the fungal world. The more recent religion is only about
50 million years old, but it has a strong representation among the younger
orders. The older religion is more widespread, although it is also more
rationalised from the original texts. Overall, 99.4% of fungi are
adherents of one or the other faith. But the important thing to note is
that there are no tensions, no doctrinal disputes between the two theisms.
The core principle of both religions is identical.

D.P. And that principle is...?

P.c. Whereas the root principle of virtually all the religions of mankind
is behaviour modification, our core religious value is species recognition.
The fungi comprise nearly a million and a half species and uncounted
millions of mating types. The pressures that result from diversity of this
magnitude cannot be overstated. We have long recognized that the best way
to maintain order in the system is to encourage institutionalized
mycotheism. As a result, we are widely considered to be the polity most
capable of reaching consensus among ourselves and acting in concert upon
that consensus.

D.P. How do you describe the present relationship between nature and
mankind?

P.c. I can only speak for the fungi, who characterise mankind as
expendable. My chapter, "Many Keystones, One Arch", explores the uses that
mankind has made of the fungi, which range from antibiotics and
immunosuppressants to papermaking to bread, beer, cheeses and wines, and
the familiar delights of mycophagy.

Our members observed and recorded millions of human-fungus interactions
over a period of two centuries. Again, humans cannot escape our
observation. We are everywhere: on their skin, in their homes,
underground, in the stratosphere. After intensive analysis of these data,
the Academy was not able to identify even one indispensable human-fungus
transaction. No obligate parasitism, no essential relationships, no sine
qua non. I ask readers to remember this important fact as they learn the
startling outcome of our deliberations.

D.P. Without revealing the ending to your book, can you speak briefly about
the last chapter?

P.c. Recently, the Academy convened a plenary forum to review our findings
on the place of man-kind in the world ecosystem. We evaluated the state of
the biosphere, giving due weight to man-kind's most recent energy policies,
bioengineering innovations, developments in agriculture, industry and
transportation, the efforts made towards environmental remediation and
detoxification of hazardous and radioactive wastes.

We considered the question of just how much perturbation of the natural
order we should tolerate from human activities. We agreed that the
biosphere presently stands at 9.6 on a scale of disturbance from zero to
ten. Based on these findings, the Academy adopted a position statement
which we presented to the WFF. I have taken the title of that statement for
my last chapter, "The Knot of a Thousand Tyings". I'd like to read from it,
if I may.

D.P. Please do.

P.c. "Our members do not recoil from the future. We believe that life on
earth is embarked on a unique trajectory, one that will not be repeated.
We believe that the outward journey has entailed a long and intricate
interweaving of the interests of all living things. We believe that the
homeward path will entail the systematic unweaving of those threads. We
believe we are eminently suited for a role in this process."

---The full version of this essay, and the seven other prize-winning
entries, can be found at www.shelleconomistprize.com

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_14/b3877031.htm

How To Stymie The Snoop In Your PC
It's legal to install spyware without consent

By now, anyone who uses a PC knows about viruses and the need to defend
against them. But they are not the only threat. Spyware, programs that
snoop on your online activities and send the info to third parties
without your knowledge, is another class of software that requires your
attention. As usual, the cure requires buying and running still more
software.

Spyware comes in several varieties of varying nastiness. Adware tracks
your Web surfing activities and reports back to agencies, which use the
data to send you ads supposedly tailored to your interests. Worse are
key loggers, which can record everything you type and report personal
data, including user names and passwords, to identity thieves.

Some programs have a legitimate reason to report information, but any
program that is going to send data to a third party should get your
explicit, informed permission. Google offers a model of the right way to
do it. When you download the Google Toolbar, it asks if you want to
install a feature that reports information to Google that is used to
improve searches. If you say no, you still get the toolbar, but it
cannot personalize search results as precisely.

OTHER PROGRAMS ARE LESS UP FRONT. RealNetworks' (RNWK
) RealPlayer will include
reporting software unless you uncheck a box during setup. With the Kazaa
music download service, you have to drill down through five pages to
learn that you are installing adware from Claria. Some programs slip a
line granting permission to send data into the license agreement that
few read. And the most unscrupulous ones don't bother asking for permission.

Your first line of defense against spyware is to be careful about what
software you install and to pay close attention to the options offered
during setup. For example, I let the Google Toolbar send data because I
find it invaluable and I trust Google. But I say no to most everything else.

How do you protect yourself against sneaky spyware? A firewall program,
such as Symantec's (SYMC )
Norton Personal Firewall ($49.95) or Zone Labs' ZoneAlarm ($39.95 for
Plus version; basic version is free), is of some help because it will
object when a program unknown to it tries to send data to the Web.
Running a firewall is always a good idea, though the approach fails when
spyware succeeds in hiding itself inside a program, such as Internet
Explorer, that is authorized to send data.

The best solution is to get additional protection by adding a program
that is specifically designed to detect and block spyware. Many are
available, but be careful of free products because there are reports
that some actually contain spyware.

I recommend three programs: Spy Sweeper from Webroot Software, the
established leader; the new McAfee AntiSpyware; and Ad-aware from
Lavasoft. Both Spy Sweeper ($29.95 with a free trial) and AntiSpyware
($39.95 with a $10 rebate) are sold like antivirus software, with annual
subscriptions. Ad-aware, which has an automatic update service, costs
$26.95 for the Plus edition; a basic version is free. The paid versions
of these products give you much more control over what you want to allow
and what you want to block.

These do a good job, but it's annoying to have to buy and run software
to deal with a problem that lawmakers could do something about.
Surprisingly, it is perfectly legal for companies to install most
spyware without a user's informed consent. (The legality of key loggers
has yet to be tested.) Several bills have been introduced in Congress to
restrict the practice, but action is unlikely this year. (Utah recently
became the first state to restrict spyware.) So I am left offering the
familiar, but critical, advice: Be careful about what you download and
install, and consider adding an anti-spyware program to your computer's
armor.

By Stephen H. Wildstrom

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_14/b3877031.htm

N O R T H L A N D S T O R Y

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2859065a6015,00.html

NZPAWRAmjdgs 26/03/04 08-06NZ

Landmark legal finding on GM
29 March 2004

Councils have the ability to manage local effects of genetically modified
organisms, according to a legal opinion prepared by a top resource
management lawyer.

As part of a report on managing genetic modification, Royden Somerville QC
concluded that district councils have jurisdiction to manage GMOs and to
take a precautionary approach to GM activities in their Long Term Council
Community Plan (LTCCP):

"I am of the opinion that there is jurisdiction under the Resource
Management Act for (territorial authorities) and the Environment Court to
control land uses, regarding activities which involve outdoor field-testing
or the release of GMOs for research or commercial use, in order to promote
the sustainable management of natural and physical resources".

And in the wake of the landmark finding, GE Free Northland spokesperson
Zelka Grammer says the next logical step is for Northland - ideally placed
geographically - to become a regional genetic engineering exclusion zone.

She said: "We applaud the commitment of local government to address the GE
issue, as the Government continues to ignore the concerns of many eminent
scientists, territorial authorities and our key markets, as well as the
majority of New Zealanders. It is critical that the interests of local
government and ratepayers are protected and the risks of GE addressed."

The report was jointly funded by the Whangarei District Council, Far North
District Council, Kaipara District Council, Rodney District Council and
Local Government New Zealand. They were seeking clarification about
unresolved GE issues such as liability, ecological impacts, adverse impacts
on primary producers and key markets.

Dr Somerville's legal opinion is appended to a wider report prepared by
Simon Terry Associates, which notes that the Resource Management Act can be
used to establish areas in which GMOs are excluded, if this is what
communities consider appropriate: The law does not prevent communities
setting higher standards than those that may be imposed by the Environmental
Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

But in Parliament this week Environment Minister Marian Hobbs warned that
councils? controls would have to be science-based and effects-based just
like those of ERMA, and the hurdles involved might expose councils and
communities to legal expense.

Western Australia, declared this week it will ban the growing of all GM
crops, a decision which puts Australia at the global forefront of
recognising the importance and economic potential of a clean, green image
for agriculture.

Greg Massa reported "Well, they did it. The California Rice Commission let
down their growers,ignored public comment, and approved Ventria Biosciences'
protocol for the introduction of genetically modified, pharmaceutical rice to
California." and "The worst part is that they approved this protocol with a
special "emergency" petition, so that the California Secretary of Agriculture
has only 10 days to decide on the issue, rather than the standard 4 months.
This was to allow Ventria to plant the rice this year. This "emergency" may
completely eliminate the public's ability to comment on the decision."

There is a very disturbing side to the above development. Normally,
commercial production is preceded by USDA/APHIS approving a petition to
deregulate the crop being petitioned for. There does not appear to be any
recorded decision to deregulate published at this time and a retroactive
deregulation would not normally considered to be legal. Along with the
USDA/APHIS deregulation FDA must provide review and support for the
commercial production and marketing and no FDA action has been made available
to the public at this time. Finally, human lysozyme has been patented as a
plant incorporated protectant and thus the rice should have been evaluated by
EPA as well as FDA and USDA/APHIS. None of these evaluations, which normally
take years, have been made available to the public as is normally required.
Therefore, the rush to spring planting this year seem to say that US federal
law will be snubbed or the bureaucrats promise quick and dirty evaluations.
It may be that the governor of California plans to declare separation from
USA; there at least he can be president of something? I hope that this bizarre
matter can be clarified before the humanized rice is planted.

sincerely,

joe

Approval of this humanized crop seems to have been conducted in a corrupt
manner. The organic and conventional rice farmers will pay a heavy price for
corporate abuse of the regulatory system.

Posted on Mon, Mar. 29, 2004

Genetically altered crop coming to California

By Paul Jacobs and Lisa M. Krieger
Mercury News

YUBA CITY - An experimental new form of rice, engineered to produce commercial
quantities of prescription drugs, is placing California in the middle of a
raging international dispute over the use of genetically modified crops.

Sacramento-based Ventria Bioscience is seeking state approval to grow rice
that can produce commercial quantities of two human proteins, normally found
in breast milk and tears, for use in treating human illness.

If it gets the approvals it needs, the decade-old company would become the
first commercial producer of a genetically engineered ``pharmaceutical'' or
``pharm'' crop. Scientists use plants as ``factories'' to produce human
pharmaceuticals useful in treating disease. They hope this technology will
lead to safer, more abundant and more affordable new medicines.

But opponents, including some farmers and environmental activists, worry about
contamination of table rice and the potential damage to California's $500
million rice industry.

On Monday, a deeply divided California Rice Commission advisory committee,
meeting here in the state's Central Valley rice belt, voted 6 to 5 to endorse
Ventria's plan. The proposal contains a number of safeguards to prevent
contamination, including a provision that would limit planting to 10 counties
far removed from the state's rice-growing region.

The company hopes to plant up to 120 acres of the two modified rice varieties
in the next several weeks for harvest in the fall.

The advisory committee -- a mix of rice growers, marketers and experts --
recommended that the plan be given ``emergency'' approval by California Food
and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura, who will have 10 days to make a final
decision. The company will also need a permit from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to go ahead this season.

A handful of rice growers and environmentalists argued against the Ventria
plan before the advisory committee, which was set up by state law three years
ago to ensure the purity of dozens of rice varieties raised in California for
human consumption.

``I don't believe you can contain the rice,'' said Greg Massa, who grows rice
in Glenn and Colusa counties. ``It's a risk to the safety and purity of our
food.''

Scientists have spliced human genes into the rice so that it produces human
proteins, which can be used in medicines. Plant-derived proteins are superior
to those produced in animals, because they don't carry the risk of passing on
infectious diseases. Plants are also be cheaper. And rice plants, in
particular, are less likely to trigger an allergic reaction.

The altered rice produces two proteins, lactoferrin and lysozyme, both found
naturally in the human body. These proteins have anti-infection, anti-
inflammatory and iron-binding properties.

When used together, lactoferrin and lysozyme could treat severe diarrheal
diseases, according to Ventria Biosciences. Diarrheal disease is the leading
cause of death in the world among children under the age of 5.

``In the developing world, diarrheal disease can be a life or death
situation,'' said Ventria Biosciences CEO Scott Deeter. ``We hope to create a
powder that can just be added to water.''

Already, 80 acres of experimental research has been conducted by Ventria in a
rice-growing region of the northern Sacramento Valley in Sutter County,
between the town of Marysville and Sutter Buttes.

They appealed to the commission on an ``emergency protocol,'' so they could
start commercial planting of 120 acres this spring.

``You don't need much acreage,'' said Allan S. Felsot of Washington State
University in Richland, who tracks the industry. ``And only an elite type of
farmer will be interested. It'll be the best of the best, someone who is
willing to follow very very strict protocol.''

Company officials argued that in a year of negotations with the committee and
rice commission staff, it had modified its plans to keep its rice from
mingling with other varieties. In addition to planting outside the state's
rice belt, it agreed to transport the grains to mills only in closed trucks
and to ensure that the equipment used at harvest be restricted for producing
the new varieties or, in other cases, be carefully sanitized before being used
again.

March 29, 2004 ny times
Health Concerns in Nanotechnology
By BARNABY J. FEDER


Buckyballs, a spherical form of carbon discovered in 1985 and an important
material in the new field of nanotechnology, can cause extensive brain damage
in fish, according to research presented yesterday at a national meeting of
the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif.

Eva Oberdörster, an environmental toxicologist at Southern Methodist
University in Dallas, said the buckyballs also altered the behavior of genes
in liver cells of the juvenile largemouth bass she studied.

Buckyballs are part of a group of materials called fullerenes for their
structural resemblance to the geodesic domes designed by Buckminster Fuller.
Synthetically produced buckyballs, along with more recently created fullerenes
like carbon nanotubes, have played a major role in igniting interest in
nanotechnology, the field in which researchers manipulate materials with
dimensions measured in nanometers. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter -
tens of thousands of times thinner than a human hair.

The new carbon molecules have been studied for numerous potential uses in
advanced computer processors, lubricants, fuel cells and drug delivery systems.

But yesterday's report is the latest of several that raise questions about the
potential health and environmental effects of synthetic nanoscale materials.
Other researchers, including Dr. Oberdörster's father, Günter Oberdörster, a
professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester, have shown
that such particles can enter the brain. The fish studies, however, were the
first to indicate destruction of lipid cells, the most common form of brain
tissue.

Dr. Oberdörster of S.M.U. said that the results underscored the need to learn
more about how buckyballs and other nanoscale materials are absorbed, how they
might damage organisms and what levels of exposure represent hazards. But she
rejected arguments made by some nanotechnology critics that the limited
toxicological research to date justified a moratorium on the development and
sale of the new materials.

"This is a yellow light, not a red one," Dr. Oberdörster said in a telephone
interview last week.

Vicki L. Colvin, whose laboratory at Rice University's Center for Biological
and Environmental Nanotechnology supplied the buckyballs used by Dr.
Oberdörster, was even more cautious about the results, which have not yet been
reviewed by other scientists.

Dr. Colvin said that the surface characteristics of the lab's buckyballs,
which are not a form that is commercially available, needed further study. She
said that they had not been coated, a process that is commonly used to limit
the toxicity of such materials in applications like drug delivery.

David B. Warheit, a DuPont researcher who led a session on nanoparticles last
week at the Society of Toxicology's national meeting in Baltimore and also
presented a paper in Anaheim yesterday, said that numerous fundamental
questions about their toxicity are beginning to be addressed. Dr. Warheit
said
that how nanoparticles are coated and how quickly they clump together may be
more important factors in toxicity than their size.

Some companies making nanoparticles have conducted toxicology studies that
might offer additional illumination. The extent of those studies is not
known,
and some results have not been disclosed, either for competitive reasons or
because of the costs of preparing the data for publication in scientific
journals.

For example, C Sixty Inc., a start-up company in Houston working on drugs and
drug delivery systems based on buckyballs, said that unreported data on its
coated buckyballs in zebra fish embryos and adult rodents showed toxicity
levels comparable to or lower than many existing medicines.

The rodent tests indicated that C Sixty's buckyballs collect in the kidneys
and liver and are excreted like other wastes after completing their function
of delivering medicines, said Russell M. Lebovitz, the company's vice
president for research and business development.

The zebra fish studies were conducted by a contractor; the rodent studies were
done by Dr. Laura L. Dugan, an associate professor of neurology and medicine
at Washington University in St. Louis, Mr. Lebovitz said. Dr. Dugan is
preparing her work for submission to a scientific journal.

What does 'Judeo-Christian' mean?
Dennis Prager
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/archive.shtml
March 30, 2004

The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined
itself as Judeo-Christian. While the Western world has consisted of many
Christian countries and consists today of many secular countries, only
America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that
it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious
values.

But what does "Judeo-Christian" mean? We need to know. Along with
the belief in liberty -- as opposed to, for example, the European belief in
equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social
conformity -- Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all
other countries. That is why American coins feature these two messages:
"In God we trust" and "Liberty."

Yet, for all its importance and its repeated mention, the term is not
widely understood. It urgently needs to be because it is under ferocious
assault, and if we do not understand it, we will be unable to defend it.
And if we cannot defend it, America will become as amoral as France,
Germany, Russia, et al.

First, Judeo-Christian America has differed from Christian countries in
Europe in at least two important ways. One is that the Christians who
founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Old Testament, the Hebrew
Bible, as much as to the New. And even more importantly, they strongly
identified with the Jews.

For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the
United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt. Just as the Hebrews left
Egypt and its values, Americans left Europe and its values (if only those
who admire Jefferson would continue to take his advice).

Founders and other early Americans probably studied Hebrew, the
language of the Old Testament, at least as much as Greek, the language of
the New. Yale, founded in 1701, adopted a Hebrew insignia, and Hebrew was
compulsory at Harvard until 1787. The words on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim
Liberty throughout all the land . . . ," are from the Torah. Vast numbers
of Americans took Hebrew names -- like Benjamin Franklin and Cotton Mather
(kattan in Hebrew means "little one" or "younger").

The consequences included a strong Old Testament view of the world --
meaning, in part, a strong sense of fighting for earthly justice, an
emphasis on laws, a belief in a judging, as well as a loving and forgiving,
God, and a belief in the chosenness of the Jews which America identified
with.

The significance of this belief in American chosenness cannot be
overstated. It accounts for the mission that Americans have uniquely felt
called to -- to spread liberty in the world. This sense of mission is why
more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation's
soldiers.

It is why those who today most identify with the Judeo-Christian
essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of
dying to liberate countries -- not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and
Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries
threatened with extinction, Israel and Taiwan. That is why conservative
Americans are more likely to believe in American exceptionalism -- in not
seeking, as President Bush put it, a "permission slip" from the United
Nations, let alone from Europe.

The second meaning of Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical
God of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is
a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America
must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal,
governments of the world.

That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values lead the
fight against redefining marriage. We believe that a pillar of
Judeo-Christian values is to encourage the man-woman sexual and marital
ideal, and to provide children with the opportunity to benefit from the
unique gifts that a man and a woman give a child, gifts that are never
replicable by two men alone or two women.

That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values are
unmoved by the idea that the war in Iraq is moral if Germany, France, China
and Russia say so, but immoral if they oppose it. We ask first what God and
the Bible would say about liberating Iraq, not what Syria and other members
of the U.N. Security Council say.

That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values believe
that war, while always tragic, is on more than a few occasions a moral
duty. Nothing "Judeo" ever sanctioned pacifism. Of course, the Hebrew
Prophet Isaiah yearned for the day that nations will beat their swords into
plowshares. But another Hebrew Prophet, Joel, who is never cited by those
who wish to read the secular value of pacifism into the Bible, said
precisely the opposite: "Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning
hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, 'I am strong!'"

And that is why those who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear
from American public life affirm multiculturalism, seek to remove mention
of God from all public life, and make Christmas a private, not a national,
holiday.

The battle over whether America remains Judeo-Christian or becomes
secular like Europe is what this, the Second American Civil War, is about.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Indian Scientists Develop Transgenics of Fish Species

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=55480

ASHOK B SHARMA
New Delhi

India has developed experimental transgenics of rohu fish, zebra fish, cat
fish and singhi fish. Genes, promoters and vectors of indigenous origin are
now available for only two species namely rohu and singhi for engineering
growth.

Transgenic rohu recently produced from indigenous construct at Madurai
Kamaraj University has proved to be eight times larger than the control
siblings. This transgenic rohu attains 46 to 49 gram body weight within 36
weeks of its birth. In India, research in transgenic fish was initiated in
Madurai Kamaraj University (MKU), Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology
(CCMB), Hyderabad and National Matha College, Kollam with borrowed
constructs from foreign scientists. The first Indian transgenic fish was
generated in MKU in 1991 using borrowed constructs.

Taking the research further to promote the transgenic fish programme, the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) plans to develop
autotransgenesis in commercially important fish species with growth hormone
gene. ICAR plans also include production of pharmaceutical and other
industrial products from piscine origin, development of transgenic native
glow fish varieties, fish biosensors for monitoring aquatic pollution,
isolation of genes, promotors and synthesis of effective gene constructs,
researches in embryonic stem cells and in-vitro embryo production.

Indian scientists are concentrating on developing transgenic fish through
autotransgenesis which involves just increasing the copies of growth homone
genes present in a fish as opposed to allotransgenesis which amounts to
transfer of genes from different species. The increase in growth homone
genes leads to an increase in flesh content. Indian scientists feel that
autotransgenesis is safer and less controversial.

However, the protocols are available for transformation of only a few fish
species. Infrastructure and skilled manpower for transgenic fish production
is highly limited. Biosafety testing procedures specific to aquatic animals
are yet to be put in place.

But scientists like Dr TJ Pandian of the school of biological sciences in
the Madurai Kamaraj University is confident that Indian scientists can excel
their Asian counterparts in researches in transgenesis in fish species. He
said that as an experimental model, various fish species have several
advantages over mammalian model for transgenesis.

The generation time of most fish species is shorter and breeding frequency
is relatively higher. A single female can produce several hundred or
thousand eggs and thus provide a larger number of genetically identical
eggs. Besides, the most important advantage is that the fertilisation is
external and can be readily controlled by experimental manipulation, Mr
Pandian said.

According to Mr Pandian, "the limited availability of transgenes of piscine
origin had been the major hurdle in production of transgenic fish. However,
with advancements in molecular biology, more than 8,500 genes and cDNA
sequences of piscine origin have been isolated, characterised and cloned in
the world." He added, "Of these, 101 constitute commercially important genes
belonging to the somatotropin family and only 44 of them are growth hormone
sequences. In addition, less than a dozen of these sequences are inserted
into appropriate vectors and are ready for gene transfer studies. A survey
of these indicated that the available vectors and constructs are useful for
mostly for fishes consumed in western countries."

Dr Pandian said that Asian scientists were the first to initiate research
in transgenic fishes. In India researches in transgenic fishes was initiated
in Madurai Kamaraj University (MKU), Centre for Cell and Molecular Biology
(CCMB), Hyderabad and National Matha College, Kollam with borrowed
constructs from foreign scientists. The first Indian transgenic fish was
generated in MKU in 1991 using borrowed constructs. In 1998 a couple of
vectors were constructed using again borrowed growth homone sequences. In
2001 the growth hormone of a couple of freshwater fishes namely catfish and
rohu were isolated, cloned and sequenced to construct indegenous expression
vectors.

*World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria*

The most widely used sweetener in the world, found in fizzy drinks and
sweets, is being made using a secret genetic engineering process,
which some scientists claim needs further testing for toxic side-effects.

The use of genetic engineering to make aspartame has stayed secret
until now because there is no modified DNA in the finished product.
Monsanto, the pioneering GM food giant, which makes aspartame, insists
that it is completely safe. But some scientists fear that not enough
is known about the process of making it. One of the two elements that
make up the sweetener can be produced by genetically engineered
bacteria, and scientists say that they cannot rule out toxic side-effects.

The Independent on Sunday has found that Monsanto often uses
genetically engineered bacteria to produce the sweetener at its US
production plants. "We have two strains of bacteria - one is
traditionally modified and one is genetically modified," said one
Monsanto source. "It's got a modified enzyme. It has one amino acid
different."

A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the USA market is
often made using genetic engineering. But sweetener supplied to
British food producers is not. However, consumer groups say it is
likely that some low-calorie products containing genetically
engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain.

"Increasingly, chemical companies are using genetically engineered
bacteria in their manufacturing process without telling the public,"
said Dr Erik Millstone, of the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex
University, and a member of the National Food Alliance.

MPs want the government to launch an inquiry to see how much US
aspartame is coming into the UK. Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat
environment spokesman, will this week write to Jeff Rooker, the Food Safety
Minister, to ask him to ensure that US aspartame is labeled as
genetically modified. "Monsanto's sweetener," he said, "has turned
sour."

Aspartame is made by combining phenylalanine, which is naturally
produced by bacteria, with another amino acid. To make the bacteria
produce more phenylalanine, Monsanto has genetically engineered them.

"Whether such a contaminating compound will be toxic or not is
entirely unknowable until empirical studies have been done to test
toxicity," said Dr. John Fagan, a former genetic engineer who now
heads Genetic ID, the world's leading GM test centre. "No such studies
have been done, or at least they have not been placed in the public
domain."

The last phrase in this release may turn out to be the most significant
-- North American Millers Association asks for mandatory "liability
insurance coverage to indemnify food industry players from costs incurred
if products are contaminated with GMO material."

Sierra Club also asked for mandatory insurance to cover all economic,
health and environmental costs arising from transgenic crops.

Insurance premiums would add to the costs and insurance companies would
insist on a good hard look at the risks, and market incentives (in this
case, the insurance market) might actually work!

If there's no risk, those policies should be really cheap, right?

Jim
Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee


- - - - -

U.S. grain millers seek biotech crop controls

March 24, 2004

Crop Decisions.com

U.S. milling companies are asking the federal government to impose strict
controls on the production of medicines or industrial products using
genetically modified (GMO) crops.

The North American Millers Association (NAMA) sent a letter to the USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service warning that the nation's food
supply is at risk of contamination from crops that have been genetically
modified for pharmaceutical or industrial uses but not approved for use
in food.

"NAMA has significant concern that current confinement systems for
controlling the seed, pollen and output of plant-made pharmaceuticals and
industrial products cannot control 100 percent of the genetic material
... or prevent deliberate evasion of the security protocol," NAMA
Vice President Jim Bair wrote in the letter to APHIS.

NAMA represents 45 companies, including General Mills Inc., PepsiCo. unit
Quaker Oats, and ConAgra Foods Inc., which make food products from corn,
wheat, oats and other grains.

NAMA's letter was in response to the government's request for public
comment as it considers potential changes to current regulations covering
genetically engineered organisms. The deadline for the comments is
Tuesday.

In its letter, NAMA asked APHIS to prohibit food crops, especially corn,
from being used in plant-made pharmaceutical products.

It also seeks to expand grain segregation systems, create valid testing
to detect problem plants, and mandate liability insurance coverage to
indemnify food industry players from costs incurred if products are
contaminated with GMO material.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJVF&b=40349

Think Again: Misreporting Stem Cell Research

by Chris Mooney
March 25, 2004

Last week some journalists thought they had found a juicy story, full of
conflict: The military was doing an apparent end run around the Bush
administration's restrictive policy on stem cell research. "The Pentagon
has granted $240,000 to a Swedish team for embryonic stem-cell research
linked to Parkinson's disease ... despite U.S. government limits on
stem-cell research," reported Reuters on March 17. The president may have
curtailed research "in this country," noted MSNBC host Keith Olbermann in
reaction to the news, but he "never mentioned Sweden." "Let's see if we got
this straight," added the Dallas Morning News. "An injection of federal
money triggers the restrictions on [stem cell] research at American
universities ... So the Pentagon finds a university in Sweden that is happy
to conduct the research."

Um, no. The supposed "Sweden loophole" - a distinction between using
federal funds for American university stem cell research and research
abroad - is nonsense. Despite the misleading Reuters report, the Pentagon
was in fact supporting research on two stem cell lines that had
been derived by Swedish researchers before the president's August 2001
deadline and were therefore eligible for federal funding. This non-story
created considerable confusion, however, and underscores key deficiencies
in the way journalists have covered stem cell and cloning issues in the
United States. These failings aren't trivial: They've often helped to mask
serious flaws in the president's policies.

In general, reporting on biotechnology issues tends to focus on conflict
and drama and to be highly fragmentary or episodic, notes Matthew Nisbet,
an assistant professor of journalism and communication at the Ohio State
University who studies press coverage of the stem cell and cloning
controversies. Journalists in the major media will often latch onto these
issues suddenly and when drama can be found - "UFO cult claims cloned
baby," to take a prominent example from December of 2002 - and then drop
them again just as quickly. This stop-again, start-again coverage pattern
both alarms the public and fails to educate. Moreover, it creates a
situation in which important developments that are technical in nature get
ignored, while easily graspable controversies or even pseudo-controversies
(the Pentagon story, various human cloning claims) get magnified.

Here's how this helps Bush. It's abundantly clear by now that the
president's stem cell research policy has been a failure. Despite
Bush's promise of "more than 60" stem cell lines for research in August
2001, even now only 17 are available for shipping to scientists. At least
one prominent researcher has left the country in despair; states like
California and New Jersey are moving in to fund research to make up for the
lack of federal money; and universities, too, are setting up privately
funded centers to nurture science that has been stifled by Bush's policy.
All of this seems particularly inexcusable given revelations that Bush made
his "more than 60" lines claim, which startled experts, on the basis of
inadequately vetted scientific information. The president appears to have
been more interested in outlining a victorious "compromise" than in setting
good policy.

But despite ample evidence of this failing, Bush has never really been
held accountable by the press. Consider the NIH's disclosure, earlier this
month, that only 23 lines might ever be available under Bush's policy.
This was, arguably, the biotech equivalent of failing to find Saddam's WMD.
Suddenly the president's proposed "compromise" - "to explore the promise
and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral
line," as he put it - stood naked in all its inadequacy, its supposed
scientific foundations thoroughly undermined. Sure, there had been a steady
stream of criticism of Bush's policy, but now we had numbers - from NIH, no
less. Yet despite a story from the reliable Rick Weiss of The Washington
Post and a few other journalists, the media largely ignored the news. The
23 lines revelation "didn't get a lot of play at all," Nisbet notes.

How is this possible? Well, the number of stem cell lines is a technical
issue. And the complexities of stem cell policy - involving the dispersal
of stem cell lines across the globe, conflicts over intellectual property
rights, problems of line contamination, debates over the relative promise
of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells, and so forth - are
science-y and off-putting. Considerable drama may have lurked beneath the
surface of the "23 lines story": the news undermined one of the president's
first and most prominent policy decisions and arguably contributed to his
"credibility gap." But few reporters seemed prepared to wrap their minds
back around the complex stem cell issue, which hasn't been covered with any
real intensity since before 9/11.

Matters get even worse when stem cell research meets cloning, with which
it tends to get confused in the public mind thanks to the press. "In 2002,
30 percent of the time when stem cell research is covered, it's covered in
the context of the cloning issue," says Nisbet. That's troubling for the
following reason. The prospect of human cloning creates strong negative
connotations for the public, conjuring up the specter of armies of
look-alikes marching in lock-step. These concerns - valid or otherwise -
have nothing to do with the stem cell issue, but have been allowed to rub
off on it. Such confusion helps the president and pro-life interests, as an
issue that truly turns on whether abortion politics should block research
gets overshadowed by speculative concerns about the arrival of a Brave New
World.

A similar confusion has infected the related issue of research cloning, or
"therapeutic cloning." Scientists hope that by deriving stem cells from
cloned embryos, rather than embryos discarded from in vitro fertilization,
they will be able to circumvent possible immune system rejection issues as
they seek new treatments. But though there are good scientific reasons for
doubting whether cloned embryos actually have the potential to develop into
normal human beings if implanted in wombs, conservatives and President Bush
have consistently sought an outright criminal ban on all forms of cloning,
reproductive and therapeutic alike. This strategic yoking leverages a moral
fear of human cloning against scientific research that may never actually
lead to that outcome. But yet again, the press's consistent failure to
educate on these issues - and its tendency to create panics by covering
fringe groups claiming to have produced clones - confuses the science and
thus bolster's the president's policies.

Science issues aren't easy to cover, especially when they blend with
politics. But inconsistent, seat-of-the pants reporting has severe
consequences. There are countless parents out there whose kids have
juvenile diabetes, and for whom every passing day brings them closer to the
possible onset of serious complications. Many of these parents have
latched onto stem cell research as the best hope for a cure. In such a
situation, the last thing the press should be doing is providing a fig leaf
for the president's policies.

Chris Mooney (www.chriscmooney.com), a freelance writer living in
Washington, D.C., is writing a book about the Republican Party and science.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3556994&
thesection=business&thesubsection=world&thesecondsubsection=australia

Victoria stops GM canola for 4 years
NZ HERALD
26.03.2004
By MICHAEL BYRNES in Sydney

The Australian state of Victoria has introduced a new four-year moratorium
on the commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) canola.

Premier Steve Bracks said there were still deep divisions and uncertainty
in industry, farming and regional communities about market access for GM
crops.

This week, the Western Australian state Government placed an indefinite ban
on growing GM crops.

But the New South Wales Government is considering whether to let a
large-scale commercial trial crop of GM canola go ahead, possibly this year.

Last year, the federal Government's gene technology regulator approved
commercial canola crops.

But state Governments also have powers over the production and marketing of
GM crops.

Australia now grows only two GM crops, a large cotton crop in New South
Wales and Queensland, and a smaller carnation crop.

Victoria is Australia's largest dairy exporter, with products worth about
A$2.5 billion ($2.86 billion) a year. It also exports more than A$1 billion
of grain a year.

Bracks said the Murray Goulburn Co-operative dairy group, barley exporter
ABB Grain, wheat exporter AWB and Tatura Milk Industries shared concerns
about market access for GM produce.

Victoria intends to prohibit the commercial planting of GM canola until
2008.

Bracks said tightly controlled non-commercial, low-level trials would be
allowed.

Australia is the world's second-largest canola exporter after Canada, where
the crop is mostly genetically modified.

Europe, the main market for non-GM canola, takes only small amounts of
Australian canola because of shipping costs and competition from other
vegetable oils.

Of a national canola crop of 1.6 million tonnes to the end of this month,
Victoria is forecast to produce 420,000 tonnes and Western Australia 610,000
tonnes.

Federal Agriculture Minister Warren Truss said states that banned GM crops
could be disadvantaging their farmers and Australian agriculture.

There was no scientific reason for states to ban GM crops, and there were
doubts over claims of market advantages in bans.

- REUTERS

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3557157&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

Government doubts councils' right to control GMOs
NZ HERALD
26.03.2004

The Government has poured cold water on Northland hopes of controlling the
release of genetically modified organisms in the region.

Responding to a legal opinion from an environment lawyer, the Government
said it would be difficult for councils to show a real risk of adverse
effects of GMOs as opposed to a perceived risk or fear.

Royden Somerville QC had said in a legal opinion that councils could
regulate GMOs under the Resource Management Act through their district
plans.

But the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, said it would be
difficult for councils to identify issues that would not be adequately and
most appropriately addressed by the two Government measures set up to deal
with GMOs -- the Hazard Substance and New Organisms Act (HSNO) and the
Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The Whangarei, Kaipara, Far North and Rodney District Councils had clubbed
together $20,000 to get a legal opinion from Mr Somerville on whether they
could regulate against allowing GMOs to be released in the region.

Mr Somerville concluded that district councils had jurisdiction to manage
GMOs.

There was jurisdiction under the RMA for local authorities to control
activities that involved outdoor field-testing or the release of GMOs for
research or commercial use, to promote the sustainable management of natural
and physical resources.

Councils could also potentially claim compensation from those who used GMOs
if environmental problems resulted.

But Ms Hobbs said the Government got its own legal opinion on the subject
from the Crown Law Office last year that countered that from the councils.

Ms Hobbs said the Government's opinion meant that councils wanting to
control GMOs through the Erma would have to show that they were doing so to
"address matters over and above what's provided by the HSNO and Erma".

"That's a very high hurdle. (The Crown law opinion) states that 'although it
is possible for local authorities to utilise mechanisms under the RMA to
prohibit GMO activity in any area, if the scientific evidence is not soundly
based it is likely that, if the rule was challenged, such provisions would
not be upheld by the Environment Court'," she said.

"They can declare a GE-free zone, and there's nothing wrong with that, until
say Crown Research wanted to put GE pine trees in up there and challenge it
(in the Environment Court)."

Ms Hobbs said the district council's legal opinion would be fairly
ineffective and would cost ratepayers to uphold.

Councils would have to conduct scientific research to back up GE
restrictions and that research would have to be over and above what Erma
carried out.

"That could cost ratepayers if the council wants to go through with the
process.

"It would cost too much to employ scientists to provide scientific evidence
to back up a GE-free status," Ms Hobbs said.

"A council wanting to deal with GMOs should do it on a case-by-case basis,
rather than putting in a blanket ban -- that's what Erma does. And if a
council wanted to do that they would have to do it to the same high
scientific standards as Erma."

- NORTHERN ADVOCATE (WHANGAREI)

*Items Web-mounted on Tuesday, 23 March 2004****


Councils given green light to regulate GE livestock, crops
Northland district councils are preparing to fly in the face of
government efforts to regulate genetically engineered (GE) crops and
animals

Councils given green light to regulate GE livestock, crops

Northland district councils are preparing to fly in the face of government
efforts to regulate genetically engineered (GE) crops and animals

The councils today released a legal opinion prepared by a leading QC that
local authorities had the power to manage local effects of GE organisms.

"There is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for [territorial
authorities] and the Environment Court to control land uses regarding
activities which involve outdoor field-testing or the release of genetically
modified organisms for research or commercial use," Royden Somerville QC
told the councils.

In a report on managing GE for the councils and Local Government New
Zealand, Dr Somerville said councils could block farming of GE crops of
animals, or declare specific areas as zones for GE farming "in order to
promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources".

National regulation under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
(HSNO) did not prevent local or regional regulation of GE activities under
the RMA, Dr Somerville said.

Precautionary objectives, policies and methods could be lawfully included in
a district plan to manage risks involving GE-related land uses.

Dr Somerville said local authorities had jurisdiction to take a
"precautionary approach" to GE farming in their long-term community plans.

Wellington-based consultant on environmental issues, Simon Terry Associates,
produced the report to cover concerns raised by Northland councils about the
economic, environmental and cultural issues involved in GE releases.

Those issues included GE contamination of agricultural crops and native
plants and financial costs to councils of environmental damage.

Mr Terry - who is also executive director of the Wellington-based
Sustainability Council - said there were "communities of interest" among
producers, such as grapegrowers in the Marlborough wine industry and
kiwifruit growers in the Bay of Plenty which had expressed interest in
constraints on some GE crops.

The report was jointly funded by Whangarei District Council, Far North
District Council, Kaipara District Council, Rodney District Council and
Local Government New Zealand, and will be discussed at the Whangarei
council's next meeting on April 7.

Mr Terry said the report was a response by local government to a perceived
inability for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to cover local
community concerns over GE farming.

He said the Royal Commission on GE recommended the Government should provide
for declaration of GE-free zones for specific crops, such as kiwifruit, but
no such law change was made.

The councils' investigation had shown the potential for individual councils
to set higher standards than those required by the quasi-judicial
Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma).

The report focused on mechanisms to manage GE farming or field trials, with
RMA rules used to establish areas in which GE animals or crops were either
managed or excluded, according to community wishes.

The RMA was a very flexible tool, Mr Terry said.

"You could have some councils deciding certain parts of their territory will
be GE production and others GE exclusion, or in an extreme case, a whole
region declared a GE-free zone".

Simon Collins' article (25.03.2004) on GM-enthusiasts visiting from the USA
states that brothers Joe and Bill Horan of Iowa are already growing corn
which has been genetically altered to produce an enzyme "that helps cystic
fibrosis patients to digest food".

The pharmcrop which is being grown by the Horans is intended to contain
lipase, an enzyme which breaks down fats. This "drug" has not yet been
approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. So it would be accurate
to say they HOPE it will help cystic fibrosis patients.

In fact NO drug made in genetically engineered plants ("pharmcrops") has
yet been approved by the FDA.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has just proposed for public
comment the issues it will include in its Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in which the agency will study the environmental impacts of its
regulatory program for genetically engineered plants. One of the issues
USDA asks the
public to respond to is whether drugs and industrial chemicals should be
grown in food crops at all.

This is only the latest in a long line of tiresome PR confusing fact with
fantasy - cow's milk to contain human proteins to treat MS, CF, etc etc.
None of these happens to be real. It is seriously unethical to build false
hopes for treatment when none exists. Pharmcrops are a particularly
dangerous category of gene-tampering which should be viewed with far more
scepticism than Mr Collins has yet mustered.

Robert Mann
Remuera


-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00087.htm

GM PR Spreading Falsehoods Thicker & Faster

By Robert Mann

The 10-11-03 rave on Scoop 'GE witch hunts ' by Lance
Kennedy, also promulgated by the NZ "Life Sciences" propaganda agency,
sets new records for misleading promotion of GM food (GMF). Here I
correct some of Lance Kennedy's worst errors.

" ... in recent years one of the most successful witch-hunts
targeted an innocent technology. It all began in 1997 with a piece of
incredibly shoddy science." Kennedy omits to mention that this work,
by British experts Ewen & Pusztai, was published in "The Lancet".
Kennedy's purported summary
of the results is thoroughly misleading. Actually, Pusztai's preliminary
mention on TV of his
results was largely ignored at the time by the media. The facts of the case
have been widely published; see e.g.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/pulseofscience;
http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/Pusztaitcbh.htm ;
http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm ;
and the WEBCAST Dec 10 http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events.

Kennedy asserts "The GM potatoes were harmless ... All raw
potatoes, GM or not, are toxic to rats." This is thoroughly false. Rats
generally thrive OK on raw (or cooked) potatoes; and the Ewen/Pusztai tests
showed specific harm to those eating a particular GM-potato, harm not found
in the control rats eating Desiree (the parent strain). Kennedy shows no
regard for fact.

Kennedy asserts all government approved GM crops and foods
"are totally safe". Not one for
moderation, is he? The simple, big lie beloved of Goebbels is his
stock-in-trade. The truth is that only a handful of short-term animal
tests have been conducted on GM foods - Pusztai's being still among the
best. Medical observation of humans eating GM foods has been shunned by
governments. A colossal unmonitored ill-planned experiment is being
permitted.

When Kennedy says "Americans have been eaten [varieties of
GM-food] for years with no harm", this cannot be proven, since no studies
have been done to compare the health of the dupes with that
of otherwise similar populations not eating GMF. Lack of evidence is not
proof of safety.

Kennedy's version of the experience to date is: "over 2
billion people have eaten GM foods for over a decade and there is not one
single scientifically confirmed case of any harm, no matter how slight,
arising from the genetic modification of these foods".

It would be misleading to exclude food supplements from such
a statement. Indeed, the Showa Denko GM-tryptophan probably killed a few
hundred and injured thousands: see
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html.

Are GMFs useful? Kennedy's answer is in his usual vein of
extremism: "Absolutely". Not even
moderately? In fact, hardly at all. In a typical GM-fantasy, Kennedy
says GM sweet potatoes in Africa will feed an extra ten million starving
Africans. How will they afford it (poverty being the main reason why the
present surplus of food is not reaching the starving) ?

Kennedy rolls out a common PR deceit: "Golden rice is a GM
variety with extra vitamin A. It has
the potential to save hundreds of thousands of children from going blind."

The content of pro-vitamin A in this yellow rice is too low
to make much difference at any feasible rice-ingestion rate. And far better
ways of getting vitamin A, along with many other nutrients e.g folate, are
known: green vegetables grown by gardening.

"Some proponents suspect this is because Golden rice is
especially useful and if it were seen to
have dramatic benefits it would undermine the entire anti-GM crusade." If
this rice had indeed proven useful, which is not the case, that conclusion
would apply to that 'event' only. All other GMF would remain to be
appraised.

Kennedy says "anti-GM lobby groups ... increased their
earnings from under $50 million to over
$150 million US per year". I have no idea where such figures come from, but
judging by the lurid falsehoods with which Kennedy makes so reckless, he is
most likely making these up.

The idea that any of those working for control of GM have got
much money from it is without
foundation to the best of my knowledge. Those I know work for little or
nothing.

More offensively, Kennedy says these unnamed groups "rely
upon lies, wild speculation and
emotionalistic propaganda". This is a classic of the very important human
characteristic (recognised if under-rated by Freud) PROJECTION. Kennedy is
attributing to others what are in fact the main mental characteristics of
his own subculture - PR for GM.

"Anti-GM witch-hunters are causing enormous human suffering."
Again we see Kennedy's habit of projection, unjustly accusing others of
spreading "fear & paranoia" while it is he who does so.

Kennedy's paroxysm reaches white heat in this assertion:
"Much damage has already been done and the lives of thousands have been
lost by these ill advised attacks". No basis has been suggested fof this
wild claim. Even the pro-nuclear fanatics were rarely this reckless with
the truth.

Kennedy's extremely misleading rant was "provided as a public
service by the Institute for Liberal© Values". It is one of the most
inaccurate pieces of propaganda I have ever seen.

For more information we are told to "contact
peron@orcon.net.nz". What a charming sobriquet!
Neither Juan nor Eva would be admired by most decent folk.

Kennedy predicts: "From now on we can expect to see the
rational elements growing stronger". The media will have to tell a lot more
truth about GM crops If such a welcome trend is to emerge, increasing the
resistance to GM crops.

GM includes some valuable techniques in contained
laboratories. But it also includes the most
dangerous technology ever. These techniques are in their infancy. The
Prince of Wales, and the Sustainability Council, led by many careful
scientists, are correct in urging "keep it in the lab".

*****

- Robert Mann, consultant ecologist, Papamoa [sic - a
seaside settlement ca. 200 km from where I live]
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00087.htm

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1142

24 March 2004

Network of Concerned Farmers Press Release

Wednesday 24th March, 2004

Victoria extends moratorium on GM crops

The Victorian State Government extended their moratorium on GM crops for
another 4 years today.

"This is great news and we would like to congratulate the Victorian
government for making this decision," said Geoffrey Carracher, Victorian
Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers.

"Victorian farmers will be elated because the majority of farmers are
against the commercial release at this stage. This will give us time to look
carefully at what is fact and what is fiction and if there is a resolvable
solution," said Mr Carracher.

On Monday, West Australia announced a total ban on GM crops with the
Minister adopting a gate-keeper approach to future releases and a decision
is expected soon in South Australia regarding GM-free zoning. Attention is
now focussed on NSW now as farmers are anxiously awaiting a controversial
decision regarding large scale commercial trials.

"To support commercial release would have been foolish as the decision is
irreversible and the industry is not prepared. Traditional canola growers
were expected to pay for the costs relating to the introduction of GM
canola. At the moment Australian growers have the world as their market, why
should we be prepared to lose markets?"

"Farmers are being misled on a number of issues and this moratorium will
allow us to look at the real facts about risks and possible benefits."

The Network claims their research has found this debate very misleading
stating: "Despite promises, there is no evidence of above average increased
yields with GM canola. Coexistence is not possible because we can not have
any contamination in a non-GM product. We do not need to rely on Monsanto or
Bayer Cropscience to fund our plant breeding as we currently fund it
ourselves. We can have benefits without the risks with modern biotechnology
where we can use GM in the lab to give us the traits we need in non-GM
plants."

"It is a relief that governments are realising we are not prepared to give
away our non-GM status for nothing."

Contact:

Geoffrey Carracher (Victorian Spokesperson) 03 53866261

Julie Newman (National and WA Spokesperson) 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

Juliet McFarlane (SA Spokesperson) 02 6382 2506

24th March 2004: Questions for Oral Answer (Genetically Modified
Organisms - Community Management)

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader - Green) to the Minister for the
Environment: Has she received a copy of the report "Community Management
of GMOs" and what advice, if any, has she received on its contents?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Yes, my office has
received a copy of the report. I have been advised that appendix 1, the
interim opinion of Dr Roydon Somerville QC, does not differ materially from
the Crown Law advice to the Government.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When she was quoted by Morning Report this morning as
warning that councils wanting to use the Resource Management Act to create
GE-free zones may face an expensive legal battle, was she threatening
councils with a legal challenge to their plans and rules by central
government agencies, or was she merely warning them that the international
GE industry has very deep pockets, and might bankrupt their ratepayers?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, I have never issued a threat. I have never said that
local authorities cannot exercise their Resource Management Act powers to
regulate GMOs locally. However, the legal advice is clear that there are
high hurdles for councils doing so, which might expose them and their
communities to legal expense.

David Parker: Is the Minister aware of any reports indicating local
government attitudes to local control of GMOs?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Today, Morning Report reported that many councils
appeared satisfied with leaving central government to make the hard
decisions, rather than see local authorities take a piecemeal approach.
Local Government New Zealand has yet to consider the matter.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why is it straightforward under the Resource
Management Act for councils to prohibit the growing of pine trees in
certain areas as a land-use control, but not GE crops?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: That is interesting, because one can take the
hypothetical example that should the Environmental Risk Management
Authority give approval for a Crown research institute to grow genetically
modified pine trees in Northland under certain conditions, and the
Northland Regional Council attempts to oppose controls under the Resource
Management Act, the council's controls will have to be science-based and
effects-based, just like those of the Environmental Risk Management
Authority, and the Crown research institute will probably take them to task
if they are not.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is she aware of a report to the European Parliament
last year that stated: 
"The GMO-free region of upper Austria has become a magnet for seed
firms and has attracted foreign investment, because strict business rules
can be complied with here. In such a situation, retaining GMO-free status
may represent the most economic and effective measure for co-existence",
and does she support the right of New Zealand councils to exploit such
economic potential for their regions?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, I am not aware of that Austrian report.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=53009

Iowa leader backs US-NZ 'pharma-crop' tie-in
NZ HERALD
25.03.2004
By SIMON COLLINS science reporter

A man who might be the next Vice-President of the United States would like
to see New Zealand growing genetically modified "pharma-crops" in the
American off-season.

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, one of a clutch of names being touted as a
possible running mate for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, is
in New Zealand leading a delegation of Iowa biotechnology businesses.

He said farmers in New Zealand, as in the Iowa corn belt, needed new
high-value products to replace low-value agricultural commodities.

"As Brazil and South America and Africa and some of the other parts of the
world get their agricultural act together, our farms are going to be at a
serious disadvantage," he said.

"The only way we in the US and you in New Zealand are going to continue to
have prosperity is to figure out something new to add value to the food
we're producing.

"One way to do that is to have a value-added crop designed for a particular
application, such as growing crops that are designed to convert to ethanol,
or for medicines or nutriceuticals."

Two farmers in Mr Vilsack's 30-strong trade mission, brothers Joe and Bill
Horan of the Iowa Co-operative, are already growing corn which has been
genetically altered to produce an enzyme that helps cystic fibrosis patients
to digest food.

Another company has manipulated corn to produce a protein that is normally
expressed in human tears, and which can deal with the impact of dehydration
and stop diarrhoea.

Mr Vilsack said the Iowa businesses wanted to understand New Zealand's
regulations to see if it would be feasible to grow such crops here. "You
could have a combination of New Zealand and Iowa and get a year-long growing
season."

He accepted that farmers growing normal corn might be worried about
contamination of their crops from nearby corn that had been engineered to
produce medical proteins. He said one answer would be non-pollinating or
self-pollinating crops.

Another Iowa company, Phytodyne, has developed techniques to "edit" the
genetic structure of plants directly, without leaving traces of markers or
other foreign DNA in the plants afterwards.

Mr Vilsack's mission is visiting New Zealand alone, and not Australia.

The trip was initiated by a Cedar Rapids business owner, Marcia Rogers, who
lived in New Zealand for several years and saw parallels between the
biologically based industries of this country and the US state of just under
three million people.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9049317%255E26462,00.html

Plan to ban genetically modified crops

By Roger Martin and Michael Bachelard
NEWS.com.au.
23Mar04

WESTERN Australia has become the first state to ban genetically
modified crops, declaring it wants to tap consumer sentiment against
GM foods.

While the state had a moratorium on commercial GM crops until 2006,
Premier Geoff Gallop said he wanted to capitalise on the marketing
benefits of a full ban.

The ban would still allow laboratory and small field trials.

Most states have moratoriums on commercial GM crops, but Western
Australia is the first to ban them outright.

Dr Gallop said his state was adopting a "precautionary principle" on
GM crops.

"The jury is still out and, from a marketing point of view, it is very
important for Western Australia to keep its clean and green
reputation," he said.

"We certainly don't want to jeopardise our industry and, with the
consumer sentiment currently going against GM crops internationally,
we want to make sure our reputation is held intact."

The ban follows a parliamentary inquiry last year that suggested
farmers could capitalise on the state being declared GM-free. It found
that at least in the short term, there were market advantages in not
embracing the new technology.

The Victorian Government has yet to decide on a proposed commercial
trial of GM canola, even though a 12-month moratorium ends in a
month. Faced with backbench opposition, sources say the Government is
watching the strength of any political fallout over the NSW
Government's announced trial.

Premier Steve Bracks said yesterday he would make an announcement
within weeks.

The West Australian ban has divided the community. The Pastoralists
and Graziers Association warned that it could lead to the decline or
even devastation of the agriculture.

PGA spokesman Leon Bradley said farmers would be fighting overseas
and interstate competitors with "one hand tied behind their backs" because
other producers would have access to more economic GM crops.

Mr Bradley accused the Gallop Government of caving in to the green
lobby to secure preferences at the next election.

But the West Australian Farmers Federation supports the ban after a
survey last year found most of its members were wary of GM crops.

WAFF spokesman Garry Hine said contamination of regular crops by
GM crops was a real risk and farmers were happy with the status quo.

Network of Concerned Farmers national spokeswoman Julie Newman
said the Government's decision was commendable.

Press release from GM Free Cymru
24 March 2004. Immediate release

================
GM maize sunk by Welsh Assembly
================

It was confirmed this evening that Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Assembly's
Environment Minister, has agreed that he will not add Chardon LL maize to
the National Seeds List without the authorization of the Assembly through a
free vote on the issue.

The Minister has a UK veto on the listing of GM seeds, and on this matter he
has given up his delegated powers and agreed to follow the majority wishes
of Assembly members.

This means effectively that Chardon LL will not now be added to the Seeds
Register, and that there is no hope at all that it could be grown anywhere
in the UK before its current Part C consent expires in October 2006.

In today's debate on GM, instigated by the Lib Dems, the Minister was forced
to make his statement on a free vote by a threat from a number of Labour AMs
to abstain or vote for the Lib Dem motion. In the event the motion was
defeated by 26 votes to 29, and the significance of the Minister's pledge
went almost unnoticed in the welter of party-political points scoring.
Significantly, not a single AM spoke in favour of GM generally, or for the
seed listing of Chardon LL maize (1).

Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said this evening: "This is
fantastic news for Wales and for the rest of the UK. There is not the
slightest chance that when -- if ever -- the listing of Chardon LL comes up
for debate in the Assembly, it will be approved.

"Whatever their party politics may be, Assembly members are remarkably well
informed on GM issues, and there are many problems related to Chardon LL
which are only just coming to light. The science which has brought Chardon
LL this close to commercialization is corrupt, and we hope that Bayer
CropScience will now withdraw the various applications for GM maize and for
Liberty herbicide which are still on the table."

GM Free Cymru, which has lobbied hard for this decision along with many
other organizations across the UK, feels that the thousands of messages that
have poured in to Assembly members over the past week have not only
reflected public opposition to GM technology but have sent a corporate
raspberry in the direction of Margaret Beckett. On the 9th March she
famously flouted the wishes of the British people and the advice of the
Environmental Audit Committee by announcing that Chardon LL would be
commercialized (2).

In concluding the GM Free Cymru statement, Dr John said: "We applaud what
Carwyn Jones has done here. He is a very brave politician. It is not often
that a Minister passes a small part of his delegated responsibilities back
to an elected chamber, but that is what he has done. This is a triumph for
democracy, and if the Westminster government now tries to by-pass or
over-ride this decision by the Assembly Cabinet, it will have a massive
political crisis on its hands."

Contact: Brian John tel 01239-820470

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

NOTES:

[1] Assembly motions debated today:

(a) The text of the Liberal Democrat motion lost by 26 votes to 29:
NDM1886 Kirsty Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)
To propose that the National Assembly:

1. Directs the Labour Assembly Government to reiterate its policy of
applying the precautionary principle and adopting the most legally
restrictive policy possible in relation to GM crops;

2. Welcomes and endorses the conclusion of the UK Parliament’s Environmental
Audit Committee that it would be irresponsible for the UK government to
allow the commercial planting of GM crops;

3. Welcomes the investment in organic and traditional agriculture in Wales
but believes that this investment would be jeopardised by the commercial
growing of GM crops in the UK;

4. Deplores the announcement by the UK Government of its intention to
approve the growing of the GM Maize Chardon LL and directs the Labour
Assembly Government to ensure that Chardon LL is not added to the UK seed
list.

[b] The text of the Labour amendment approved by 29 votes to 26:
1. Karen Sinclair (Clwyd South) Labour
Delete all after National Assembly and replace with:
1. Supports the Welsh Assembly Government policy of applying the
precautionary principle and adopting the most restrictive policy possible
within current UK and EU legislation in relation to the cultivation of GM
crops;
2. Believes that robust coexistence measures should be in place prior to any
listing of GM crops.
(2) GM Policy Statenment to the House of Commons by Secretary of State
Margaret Beckett, 9th March 2004.

From: "Terje Traavik" To: Arpad Pusztai and Susan Bardocz

Dear both,

The Pres of the Royal Norwegian Academy of Sciences, prof. Lars Walløe,
rang me up yesterday and warned me that Peter Lachman was out hunting. He
had contacted Walløe and wanted him to take action with me:

1. Because of the Kuala Lumpur talk etc.
2. Because we had made Arpad scientific director of Genök (sic!).

I explained to him that we proudly had included Arpad in our KL
delegation, but otherwise I neither knew I was sacked, nor that Arpad was
out for my job.

Best regards
Terje

Terje Traavik, Dr. philos.
Professor of gene ecology, School of Medicine, University of Tromsö.
Scientific Director, GenÖk-Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology
Mail: P.O Box 6418, The Science Park, N-9294 Tromsö, Norway.
Office phone: +47 776 44379; Mob.: +47 95 8175 37
terjet@genok.org; terje_traavik@hotmail.com
www.genok.org

23 March 2004

David Straton,
Psychiatrist in private practice
Burleigh Heads, Australia

Karl Popper famously argued that the proposition that all swans are white
could not be proved true by any number of sightings of white swans.
Whereas it could be disproved by a single sighting of a black swan.

The proposition that GM food is safe, or that GM products are safe for
the environment, will never be proved, no matter how many apparently
innocuous cases can be demonstrated.

What is needed are serious and persisting efforts to look for 'black
swans' and the thorough investigation of any sighting.

The case of the epidemic of Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS) which
occured after genetic modification was used in the production of L-
Tryptophan, is one which deserved an independent forensic investigation.
There were demonstrable efforts to conceal the possible relationship with
GM. The connection was discounted on the grounds that filters were changed
at the same time as the GM technique was applied.

Such an argument can be easily refuted on logical grounds (since the
filters were downstream of the process that produced the deviant
chemical), but should also have been tested empirically, by, for example,
putting the GM product through more rigorous filtering to establish
whether filters had any relevance to the presence or absence of the
pathogenic chemicals.

This could still be done now, if some of the GM L-Tryptophan survives.

Mayeno, A. N., and Gleich, G. J. (1994). Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome
and tryptophan production: A cautionary tale. Trends Biotechnol. 12,
346-352.

(23 March 2004)

A BMA report (13-3-04) says there's no robust evidence to prove that GM
foods are unsafe. This is correct; the question then becomes, what would
count as proof.

But the BMA report goes further, asserting that preliminary, short term
studies of GM foods have not shown any health risks. This is incorrect.
Proof, no; but evidence, yes - some dismaying facts.

The 1999 paper in another leading medical journal showed harm to the gut
of rats within 10 d eating (raw or cooked) a certain GM-derivative of the
potato variety Desiree. The Aberdeen group who stumbled upon this damage
in development of methods to test GM-foods should be encouraged, and other
experts should repeat those experiments. Design has hardly begun of tests
for other types of harm, e.g. allergies.

Other evidence is seen in the epidemic of EMS caused by impurities (<1%)
in the food supplement L-tryptophan biosynthesized by GM-bacilli. Main
facts, with main references, on this are accessible at

[and here of course I gave

which has evidently been purged]

If your journal would be so good as to publish a full review of this
history, it would (I predict) constitute significant evidence - also short
of proof - of danger from deviant metabolism in a GMO.

The real practical question is, how much evidence short of proof should be
required, on the precautionary approach, to justify protecting people from
(especially, unlabelled) GM-food. And who should bear the onus of
providing evidence?

In order to implement a regulatory system based on such questions, it will
be necessary to organise scientific advisory bodies including scientists
critical of GM-food. The RS (and RSNZ) have not only failed to do this,
but have also persistently vilified such scientists and their ideas, in the
most drastic disgraceful misbehaviour. Such important advisory agencies
going astray has been a terrible effect of the gene-tampering fad.

L R B Mann
Auckland, New Zealand

Last year transgenic pigs were marketed from Guelph University; this
year it is TGN from Quebec. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) a
small sub department of Agriculture Canada a promoter and developer of
GM products handeled the matter with usuall contempt for the public. The
nature of the poison released is witheld and the evasions of the
government agency are truly goulish. The company web site is vague and
secretive and the actual products produced are withheld. It is of
interest that the location of the company is near the home of the
Raelian cloners.
The canadian regulators view the public as experimental white mice ,
incapable of intelligent thought and decision.
The growing evidence that CFIA condones dangerous experimentation on
the Canadian public is not surprising. The news media act as
coconspirators who provide a wall of silence from the victims of
government collusion with industry.

Attention News/Food Editors:

Joint Action to Control Release of GM Animal Material

OTTAWA, Feb. 16,2004 /CNW/ - Federal officials today announced action to
control a release of genetically modified animal material from TGN Biotech
Inc., a Quebec research firm. When notified by researchers at TGN Biotech
Inc., the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada (HC) and
Environment Canada (EC) acted immediately to assess potential risk to human
health, limit the distribution of the genetically modified material in
animal feed, and determine potential violation of federal regulations. Because
of the quick response, very few animals, if any, have consumed the affected
feed.

Three female pigs from the research firm were sent to a rendering plant
in Quebec. The rendered material was further distributed to a limited number
of feed mills and farms. TGN Biotech Inc. develops genetically modified pigs.
Only the male pigs produce pharmaceutical proteins for human and veterinary
use. These proteins are not present in the female pigs.

Health Canada's health-risk assessment concluded and advised that, based
on the information available, the low levels of rendered genetically
modified material in the feed are not likely to result in human exposure or
pose a health risk. Environment Canada is in the process of determining whether
this error contravenes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A similar
health risk assessment carried out by the CFIA has concluded that livestock
consuming the affected feed are not at risk.

Since the material is an unapproved feed ingredient, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency has taken steps to detain the rendered product and
associated feed. The CIFA is working with the provincial environment
ministries in order to ensure appropriate disposal of all products. The
CFIA, as part of its responsibilities for the Feeds Act and Regulations, has
traced the distribution of rendered products and animal feed to feed mills and
farms in Quebec and Ontario. All parties - TGN Biotech Inc., feed mills
and farms, distributors, and the renderer - are fully co-operating with the
Government of Canada.

For further information: Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Media
Relations: (613) 228-6682; Health Canada - Media Relations: (613) 941-8189;
Environment Canada - Media Relations: (819) 953-4016; TGN Biotech Inc. -
Jean-François Huc, President and CEO ( 418 ) 263-2000, ext. 202

Media Release

Midnight, Monday 22 March

Councils Can Set Own Standards for GMOs

Local authorities have the ability to manage local effects of GM
organisms according to a legal opinion prepared by a leading Queen's
Counsel.

As part of a report on managing genetic modification prepared for
Northland's district councils and Local Government New Zealand, Dr
Royden Somerville QC concluded that district councils have jurisdiction
to manage GMOs and stated:

"I am of the opinion that there is jurisdiction under the Resource
Management Act for [territorial authorities] and the Environment Court
to control land uses regarding activities which involve outdoor
field-testing or the release of GMOs for research or commercial use, in
order to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources."

National regulation under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
(HSNO) does not prevent local or regional regulation of GM activities
in the environment under the RMA. Rather than being incompatible, Dr
Somerville sees such an approach as complementary.

Precautionary objectives, policies and methods may be lawfully included
in a district plan to manage risks involving GMO-related land uses
according to Dr Somerville. In addition, Dr Somerville believes that
local authorities have jurisdiction to take a precautionary approach to
GM activities in their Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP).

Dr Somerville's legal opinion is appended to a wider report prepared by
Simon Terry Associates that reports on options for community management
of GMOs. It addresses a number of concerns raised by Northland local
authorities in regard to the release of GMOs. These include economic,
environmental and cultural issues such as: GM contamination of
agricultural crops and native plants, and the financial risk to local
authorities of having to meet the costs of any environmental damage.

The report focuses on the mechanisms that could be used to manage GM
activities. It notes that the RMA can be used to establish areas in
which GMOs are either managed or excluded if this is what communities
determine is appropriate. The law does not prevent communities setting
higher standards than those that may be imposed by the Environmental
Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

The report was jointly funded by the Whangarei District Council, Far
North District Council, Kaipara District Council, Rodney District
Council and Local Government New Zealand. The report will be discussed
and future options examined by the Whangarei District Council at its
next meeting on 7 April.

For more information please contact:

Kerry Grundy
Senior Environmental Planner (Policy)
Whangarei District Council
Private Bag 9023 phone: (09) 430 4200
Whangarei fax: (09) 438 7632
New Zealand email:kerryg@wdc.govt.nz

Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P.O. Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

Media Release

Midnight, Monday 22 March

Councils Can Set Own Standards for GMOs

Local authorities have the ability to manage local effects of GM organisms
according to a legal opinion prepared by a leading Queen's Counsel.

As part of a report on managing genetic modification prepared for
Northland's district councils and Local Government New Zealand, Dr Royden
Somerville QC concluded that district councils have jurisdiction to manage
GMOs and stated:

"I am of the opinion that there is jurisdiction under the Resource
Management Act for [territorial authorities] and the Environment Court to
control land uses regarding activities which involve outdoor field-testing
or the release of GMOs for research or commercial use, in order to promote
the sustainable management of natural and physical resources."

National regulation under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
(HSNO) does not prevent local or regional regulation of GM activities in
the environment under the RMA. Rather than being incompatible, Dr
Somerville sees such an approach as complementary.

Precautionary objectives, policies and methods may be lawfully included in
a district plan to manage risks involving GMO-related land uses according
to Dr Somerville. In addition, Dr Somerville believes that local
authorities have jurisdiction to take a precautionary approach to GM
activities in their Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP).

Dr Somerville's legal opinion is appended to a wider report prepared by
Simon Terry Associates that reports on options for community management of
GMOs. It addresses a number of concerns raised by Northland local
authorities in regard to the release of GMOs. These include economic,
environmental and cultural issues such as: GM contamination of
agricultural crops and native plants, and the financial risk to local
authorities of having to meet the costs of any environmental damage.

The report focuses on the mechanisms that could be used to manage GM
activities. It notes that the RMA can be used to establish areas in which
GMOs are either managed or excluded if this is what communities determine
is appropriate. The law does not prevent communities setting higher
standards than those that may be imposed by the Environmental Risk
Management Authority (ERMA).

The report was jointly funded by the Whangarei District Council, Far North
District Council, Kaipara District Council, Rodney District Council and
Local Government New Zealand. The report will be discussed and future
options examined by the Whangarei District Council at its next meeting on 7
April.

For more information please contact:

Kerry Grundy
Senior Environmental Planner (Policy)
Whangarei District Council
Private Bag 9023 phone: (09) 430 4200
Whangarei fax: (09) 438 7632
New Zealand email:kerryg@wdc.govt.nz

How Globalism Became Public Enemy Number One For Both Left And Right
By Franz Schurmann

[See also 'Globalism' explained appended below]

"mailto:fschurmann@pacificnews.org"

Date: 04-14-00

Until recently, the left saw capitalism as its ideological enemy while for
the right it was socialism. Today both left and right see globalism as
their main enemy. PNS editor Franz Schurmann argues that there is more to
this coming together than semantics. Schurmann is a professor emeritus of
history and sociology at UC-Berkeley and author of numerous books on global
politics.

First in Seattle and now in Washington, DC, left and right have come
together to trash globalism. Strange bedfellows or just bedfellows? An
answer can be found by looking at the word globalism. Widely used -ism
words give a sense of how public opinion interprets the flows of
contemporary history. The wide usage of the word globalism suggests public
opinion believes there is a driving force that is replacing the USA with
one world.

Both left and right now see globalism as their main enemy. Noam Chomsky
freely uses the word as does Pat Buchanan. That means they believe there
are powerful forces driving the globalization. Both agree it is the
multinational corporations and agencies like the IMF that promote
multinationalization.

Not so long ago left and right used very different -ism words to describe
their ideological enemies. For the left the main enemy was capitalism and
for the right it was socialism. The two were irreconcilable opposites.
The root word of capitalism, "capital," meant money to acquire means of
production in order to reap a profit. The suffix -ism made it an ideology
that operated through free markets.

The left called for an eventual abolition of capitalism and its replacement
by socialism. Under socialism strong government representing the working
class would bring equality and equity into the country's economic life.
The right regarded socialism as an ideology that stunted economic growth.
Look at the Soviet Union, they said. It has a strong socialist government
but can't feed its own people. Bring freedom and free markets to Russia
and soon enough prosperity would arise.

The main ideological code word for the left was class; for the right it was
economic freedom. But now with globalism their common foe both code words
have been left behind. Left and right agree the multinational corporations
that dominate the New World Order undermine the power both of the working
class and of God-fearing patriotic citizens. Over the last two decades
both left and right have been moving in new ideological and political
directions that have narrowed the gap between them. By advocating
diversity and multiculturalism, the left has taken over a key concept of
the right: identity. Identity implies identity groups. And identity groups
are those marked by racial, ethnic and religious differences.

The right has always believed in differences. It rejected the left's
contention that regardless of identity differences, in the end we are all
human beings. The only differences that remain, the left contended, are
those of class. Yet now various right-wing groups have been moving in
directions once advocated by the left.

The religious right, which historically was racist and exclusionary, has
lately been proselytizing among people of every race, culture and language.
For example, people of color from all over the world have been flocking to
the Mormon Church which not so long ago had racial restrictions. And for
years now, Pat Buchanan has been courting the working class. In Washington
the Teamsters are among his most ardent boosters.

At the same time the left has been moving towards nationalism. Leftists
call for a strong government to not only protect the rights of workers
but also protect the environment, advance human rights, and broaden
entitlements. Many leftist intellectuals have hoped that one world would
break up into three -- Europe, East Asia and America. So much for the
great slogan of the Communist Manifesto: "Workers of the world unite, you
have nothing to lose but your chains."

Besides agreeing on globalism, both left and right agree on two other -ism
words now popularized in America: racism and terrorism. Racism began as a
left concept. In the 1960s the worst racists were Southern
segregationists. The left played a leadership role in the Civil Rights
movement. But now just about the entire right -- except for fringe
neo-Nazi groups -- accepts the concept of racial equality. Even Bob Jones
University had to modify its stubborn racism. So as the left concentrates
its oppositional stance on globalist, environmentalist and human rights
issues, the right finishes cleaning out the last vestiges of racism in its
ranks.

Terrorism, practically speaking, refers mainly to neo-Nazi and Islamic
fundamentalist violence. There is little if any sympathy for either on the
right and nothing but loathing for both on the left. So globalism remains
the one driving issue for both left and right. Buchanan keeps moving
towards endangered American workers and the left moves away from its third
world affiliations. It is not inconceivable that left and right will, in
the coming years, fuse into a single national front in opposition to the
globalist establishment that runs the country.

Pacific News Service, 660 Market Street, Room 210, San Francisco, CA 94104,
tel: (415) 438-4755.

Jinn Magazine: Email:

HYPERLINK "mailto:pacificnews@pacificnews.org"

This article is available for reprint. For rates and information, call
(415) 438-4755 or e-mail HYPERLINK "mailto:pacificnews@pacificnews.org"
{ HYPERLINK "mailto:pacificnews@pacificnews.org" }pacificnews@pacificnews.org

**ENDS*****

"Globalism: The New Market Ideology by Manfred Steger
http://www.logosjournal.com/walker.htm

A 148 page pocket-sized book, which pinpoints WTO activity in the context
of a multidimensional synopsis of globalisation. It is written by Manfred
B. Steger, Associate Professor of Politics and Government at Illinois State
University and Affiliate Faculty Member and Publication Director at the
Globalization Research Centre at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa.

The book contains some supercharged statistics and diagrams. More
importantly, in my view, it makes clear the distinction between that
multidimensional process called globalisation [indicated by the contents
list below] and that ideology which endows the concept of globalisation
with neoliberal values and meanings. Author challenges five major
ideological claims made with great regularity by the influential advocates
of globalism or corporate globalisation.

Neoliberalism is clearly defined and 10 key attributes [the agenda] are listed.

Topics:

1 Globalization: A Contested Concept
2 Is Globalization a New Phenomena?
3 Globalization as Economic Process
4 Globalization as Political Process
5 Globalization as Cultural Process
6 Globalization as Environmental Process
7 Globalization as Ideological Process
8 Challenges to Globalization: From the Anti-WTO Protests in Seattle
tothe Terrorist Attacks on New York and Washington
9 'Globalizations Studies': A New Academic Discipline?
_________

The trouble with ISMs is ISM

Firstly ISMs become DOGMAS and the dogmatic modes of thought are the
enemies of OPEN SOCIETIES which require reasoned critical thinking to
sustain them. Secondly ISMs are used dishonestly by intellectual pugilists
during adversarial debate.
See below:

####

http://www.gentle.org/articles/the_complex_world_of_isms.htm

The Complex World of ~ism's [ABBREVIATED]

~isms are a way of labeling behavior. Ism is a suffix of action or of
state. Think of ~isms as registered trademarks owned by groups of people,
sharing common behavioral characteristics. Rather than proudly displaying
~isms as appliqués on the latest designer clothing, we often subconsciously
bare them as invisible tattoos. Eventually, our group membership is
revealed. It is not always easy to tell what the group does by their
name. You cannot simply sound out the ~ism phonetically and know what it
means. Utilitarianism has nothing to do with utilities. Dynamism
has nothing to do with dynamite. Pantheism has nothing to do with pants
or Godly cookware. Instrumentalism has nothing to do with music. We define ~ism members as ~ists or ~ics. For example, someone who
participates in racism is a racist. Someone who participates in
alcoholism" is an alcoholic. Don't try to understand this. There is no
clear formula to decide which suffix to use. There are even rare
instances when neither is appropriate even though the word is legitimate.
For example, not everyone who participates in baptism is a Baptist. This
is because a specific group has laid claim to that particular ~ist. To confuse the issue further, there are times when we might use both ~ist
and ~ic together. We then have capitalism, capitalist and capitalistic.
Then there are times when we can't use the ~ist as in patriotism and
patriotic. I love Englishism! There are many negative
~isms. Terrorism, Communism, Racism, Alcoholism, Botulism, Pessimism, Criticism, Skepticism, Marxism. There are some
indifferent ~isms Organism (which has nothing to do with musicians)
Industrialism, Capitalism, Globalism, Feminism, Materialism. We have religious ~isms Baptism, Taoism, Catholicism, Shamanism, Buddhism, Confucianism,
Monotheism, Materialism.

We have political ~isms Anarchism, Authoritarianism, Capitalism,
Communism, Communitarianism, Dialectical Materialism, Liberalism,
Libertarianism, Marxism, Socialism, Totalitarianism. There are
even imaginary ~isms like Altruism, which technically does not exist in the
purest sense of the word unless you use a short measuring stick. But
that's another story altogetherism. There are few positive ~isms.
Optimism Realism Patriotism

Copyright © Rod Ellis Use without permission is prohibited
___________
[*The term 'alcoholism' can also apply to the cult of 'booze' and
'booze-ups' as a kind of religion: the 'elbow benders' - as distinct from
the 'knee-benders' (Garry McCormack in New Zealand 'Heartland'Series]

Latin America
UNEP Regional Office Urges Caution on Transgenics
Diego Cevallos
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22681

MEXICO CITY, Mar 3 (IPS) - The United Nations Environment Programme warned
Wednesday in Mexico that transgenic crops could pose a threat to
biodiversity and human health, and recommended that the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean act with caution in using genetically modified
organisms (GMOs).

This stance clashes with the position taken by its sister organisation,
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in 2001.

The UNEP opinion on the controversial issue is laid out in its Global
Environment Outlook report (GEO 2003) for Latin America and the Caribbean,
presented in the Mexican capital Wednesday to enthusiastic applause from
environmentalists.

"It is quite surprising that the UNEP has taken this stance, one that we
agree with," Silvia Ribeiro, of the non-governmental Canada-based Action
Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), told IPS.

María Colín, legal adviser for the environmental watchdog
Greenpeace-Mexico, said, "We should celebrate" this declaration by an
agency of the United Nations system because it represents "an important
new approach."

According to the GEO 2003 report prepared for the UNEP regional office,
the application of this kind of biotechnology -- introducing the genes
>from one species of plant or animal into another -- could endanger natural
genetic diversity.

Of the document's 281 pages, just two take up the issue of "transgenic
contamination". The rest of the text outlines the results of a broad
investigation of the general state of the environment in Latin America and
the Caribbean, conducted under UNEP auspices.

Nevertheless, environmentalists placed great importance on the mere
mention because it is an area in which transnational biotech and seed
companies invest and earn billions of dollars a year -- and against which
the activists are waging an intense battle.

GEO 2003 warns of the possibility that modified genes might be spread
accidentally amongst species outside the laboratory, and could pose a real
danger to the biodiversity that is fundamental to humanity's food security.

The report states that the debate on GMOs involves polarised positions and
major commercial interests, and that the precautionary principle should be
applied as the norm until scientific consensus exists on the matter.

ETC Group and Greenpeace activists agreed that UNEP has taken a stance
that favours their groups' campaign against transgenics, and even wields
arguments similar to theirs.

The area planted with genetically modified seeds worldwide reached 67.7
million hectares in 2003, nine million more than in 2002, according to
figures from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, a non-governmental organisation that promotes the use of GMOs.

The commercial varieties of transgenic crops -- soya, maize, cotton and
canola -- are controlled by just five transnational corporations based in
the industrialised North, which own the patents for those seeds.

More than 90 percent of the area planted with transgenics is located in
Argentina, Canada and the United States, but these crops are expanding
rapidly in other countries.

In South America, for example, genetically modified soya has expanded from
Argentina to Paraguay and Uruguay, and is widely planted in southern Brazil.

The UNDP's Human Development Report for 2001 stated that GMOs could be the
key to fighting hunger in the world and that this branch of biotechnology
should not be ignored, a position that won the ire of environmental activists.

According to the UNDP, the environmental impact of GMOs has not been
proven. What is certain is that there are 850 million hungry people in the
world who could be fed with these kinds of crops, said the U.N. agency.

The ETC Group's Ribeiro believes the new position taken by the U.N.
Environment Programme "vindicates the U.N. system."

This is a bold declaration, "because it contradicts Washington and the
biotech companies, which argue that transgenics are the solution to ending
world hunger," she said.

Transgenics are organisms that have been modified in laboratory through
the introduction of genes from another species -- plant or animal -- or
the use of deactivated viruses or bacteria as vector agents.

Their application in agriculture is intended to increase crop yields or to
improve other characteristics, such as resistance to extreme climates,
pests or herbicides.

But anti-transgenic activists argue that GMOs pose a threat to human
health and the environment and create total dependence of farmers on the
transnationals that provide the transgenic seeds.

Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Aventis and Dow, leaders in transgenics and
also in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, argue that the GMOs pose no
such threats and that their main interest is to fight world hunger.

According to the policies of the transnationals, farmers who use the
genetically modified seeds are legally prohibited from saving seeds from
those harvests to replant in the next season.

Traditional agricultural practice is to select the best seeds from a
harvest to be used in the next planting season -- the oldest method of
crop improvement.

Transgenic seeds have been used without authorisation and have
contaminated wild species with their altered genetic material, as occurred
with maize in Mexico, the birthplace of this grain crop.

UNEP cites the Mexican example in its report as a reason for concern about
the introduction of modified genes into domestic plant varieties.

"I hope the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean take into
account the UNEP position on transgenics and adopt policies that are less
permissive with respect to the companies that promote them," said
Greenpeace spokeswoman Colín.

[You can post a response to this BMJ article at:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletter-submit/328/7440/602-a]

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

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7440/602-a
British Medical Journal
BMJ 2004;328:602 (13 March)

News roundup

GM foods should be submitted to further studies, says BMA

London Zosia Kmietowicz

More research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops
and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real
benefits over traditionally grown foods, says a BMA report.

The report calls for more long term research into the potential of GM food
to cause allergies, although it acknowledges that preliminary, short term
studies of GM foods have not shown any health risks. It says that more
research is also needed on the impact of GM foods in vulnerable groups, such
as babies, elderly people, and people with chronic diseases, and that the
health effects generally of GM foods should be closely monitored.

Consumer and other groups that have taken part in debates on GM foods have
called for an end to the sale of GM foods in the United Kingdom and a
continuation of the moratorium on farming GM crops. They also want to dispel
the assumption that GM foods are needed to feed starving populations, as
overcoming famine is more complex than simply growing more food, they say.

The report concludes: "The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the
risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA
sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the
introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of
evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic
manifestations."

"The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM
foods are unsafe, but we endorse the call for further research and
surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit."

Genetically Modified Food and Health: A Second Interim Statement is
accessible at www.bma.org.uk/GMFoods

This isn't an easy read but is

1) a good defense by a scientist for having spoken out rather than waiting
until after peer reviewed publication, and

2) better data than we've had on Bt corn as a possible allergen.

I'm very interested in this since I've believed from the start that
farmer / worker exposures and inhalational allergies might be far more
significant than food exposures, and Dr. Traavik's research points toward
that conclusion.

Please note that even if the illness among Philippine farmers wasn't
caused by Bt pollen, there is enough data here on production of antibodies
in an exposed population to challenge the suppositions of non-allergenicity
on which U.S. regulatory agencies relied when holding that Bt corn
contained no additives or adulterants and so didn't need to be labeled.

If Traavik's data is correct, the FDA should, under law, either recall Bt
corn or require it to be labeled.

Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee (chair)

A response to criticism about our work on GE biosafety.

The Cartagena protocol, the Precautionary principle, “sound science” and “early warnings”.

Terje Traavik, Dr. philos.
Scientific Director, GENØK-Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology
Professor of Gene Ecology, University of Tromso

Background.
On February 22, 2004, I presented the results of ongoing research at the Biosafety Symposium in Kuala Lumpur, held just prior to the first Meeting of the Parties on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Symposium was jointly organised by the Third World Network (a science-interested organisation), the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GENØK) and the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology. The Symposium was accessible to the public, but it was primarily a meeting for those with professional interests in biosafety.

The presentation of our preliminary research findings was done in the spirit of the greatest of traditions to share the results of research among peers. This tradition has dominated the biological sciences for centuries. Possibly that tradition has become difficult to recognise in an age when most research is filtered for information that must be kept secret for commercial or other reasons. I am proud and grateful to be supported by public agencies who impose no such requirements.

Speaking now for the two Institutes of Gene Ecology, we also reject any inclination among particular parties to define our peer group. The Institutes of Gene Ecology are organised on the principle that bio-applications will have impacts on the planet and the ecology of human beings that transcend dated and arbitrary notions of where biology ends and ethics, social science, law, economics, philosophy and culture begin. Our peer group is composed of those who are specialists in the impacts of genetically engineered organisms. As a community we have a membership that covers all traditional research backgrounds mentioned above. More importantly, each individual among us has a commitment to understand what can be learned from all those disciplines when focused on a single issue—genetically engineered organisms. That latter quality opens our minds to the bodies of knowledge held in non-traditional sources. By this we mean both NGOs and the industry. Our peer group and our emerging competence in holistic impact assessment is what we believe make us unique.

I have been criticised for speaking about my research at the Kuala Lumpur Biosafety Symposium. This is an insult to the audience who was composed of respected scientific specialists, members of the competent regulatory community, and accomplished researchers of the many disciplines whose interests intersect the impacts of new bio-applications, including genetically engineered organisms.

Cartagena Protocol
The Precautionary Principle plays an important role in the Cartagena Protocol, an international agreement on transboundary movement of GMOs (www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol), and in regulations, i.e. the Norwegian Gene Technology Act of 1993 (www.bion.no) and EU directive 2001/18/EC (www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html). The Precautionary Principle instructs us to anticipate the potential hazards of genetic engineering applications. Employment of the Precautionary Principle (PP) entails identification of risk, scientific uncertainty and ignorance, and involves transparent and inclusive decision-making processes (Freestone and Hey, 1996). Although a tool for policy decision, I will claim that implementation of the PP must have impact on the research agenda. Employment of the PP emphasises the importance of scientists taking responsibility for anticipation, acknowledgement and communication of uncertainty, in order to produce scientifically and socially robust knowledge (Myhr and Traavik, 2003).

In a very real sense, the spirit of Cartagena, perhaps uniquely, gives the environment legal standing and places the burden-of-proof of safety on those who might damage her. I favour application of a strong version of the PP, realizing the need to identify and acknowledge scientific uncertainty related to GE applications before they are commercialised. The future of mankind and the environment is inter-dependent. Damage to ecosystems and other species will also hurt mankind in the long run. Pure anthropocentric world views may be suicidal for the human species.

When I agreed to speak at the Biosafety Symposium, I fully understood the ethical dilemmas facing scientists when potential “early warnings” of harm to health and the environment appear in their own research. Raised a traditionalist, I began my talk by stating my respect for peer-review as an integrated and necessary part of “sound science” and I of course believe in it. In fact, I believe in it so strongly that I have always, and intend to always, place my work before the entire world, not just before the competent regulatory authorities with restrictions on discussing the content of my findings. This includes early warning reporting. Such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, giving them the opportunity to “anticipate and prevent”, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings
(reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/).

Peer review itself does not make a scientific finding either true or false. Peer review is neither a single event. Many peer-reviewed publications include the results of research previously tested in a seminar or conference before a critical audience, and before that in a grant application. Grant applications also often contain summaries of preliminary findings. This provides some confidence to granting agencies and their reviewers. The critical audiences alerted to your work during seminars may also begin the process of being inspired to reproduce or extend your findings in ways your imagination has not even considered. That is the process we foster in the professional community; not the process of secrecy.

When it comes to the environment and human health, I strive for nothing less than the most stringently conducted and reported science. That standard is not compromised because some warnings of potential hazard are notified to the competent community through the means discussed above, and early warnings do not preclude the work being subjected to further review as it progresses through to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal, often many months in the future.

By similar token, early insight into the commercialisation potential of a research finding would also not await publication in a peer-reviewed journal before a patent application was lodged. The patent is therefore based on observations and tests that have never been openly reviewed, yet applications protected by patents are no less prone to cause concern among the public and governments.

What was the research presented in Kuala Lumpur?
In my talk, in order to illustrate what I meant by “early warnings”, I very briefly summarized results from three on-going, long-term projects at GENØK:
- Feeding experiments in rats
- Antibody analyses of sera from Philippine farmers
- Safety aspects of transgenic poxvirus-vectored vaccines

The second item, sera from farmers, has attracted the greatest interest so I will briefly summarise those findings below.

We have used direct and inhibitory ELISAs (enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assays) to demonstrate IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies specifically binding to Bt-toxin Cry1Ab in sera from Philippine farmers. A general interpretation would be that the farmers had been exposed, in an immunologically meaningful way, to Cry1Ab, or an antigen sharing epitopes with Cry1Ab, during the last 6-9 months before blood samples were taken. This might indicate coincidence in time between three observed events: the very first pollination season for Bt-transgenic maize, an outbreak of respiratory/intestinal disease among individuals living close to the Bt-maize field, and the production of serum antibodies. I strongly emphasized that the tests could not establish any cause-effect relationships between the 3 events, neither could the results preclude such relationships, and hence they might represent an early warning. As I said at the time, even if I had been able to present the detection of specific anti-Cry1Ab IgE antibodies, my conclusions would have been the same.

Why have these results, among many thousands of scientific results presented at conferences annually, attracted so much attention?

These results could challenge long-standing claims based on many unpublished or not peer-reviewed research conducted over the years.

1. Cry1Ab is not immunogenic. The bacterial version of Cry1Ac shares antigenic ‘epitopes’ with Cry1Ab. Since Cry1Ac is strongly immunogenic in rodents, a fact backed up by a series of peer-reviewed articles (e.g. Moreno-Fierros et al 2002; Vazquez et al. 1999, Vazquez-Padron et al., 2000), it is a fair hypothesis that Cry1Ab could inspire an immunological response. Also, Bacillus thuringiensis spraying has elicited specific Cry1A antibodies in farm workers, within the same classes we detected, as well as allergy-related IgE antibodies. These findings were published already in 1999 (Bernstein et al., 1999). There is a distinct difference between being “allergenic” and “antigenic”/”immunogenic”: all that is immunogenic is not allergenic. However, immunogens invoke an immune response and any immune response should be further investigated for being indicative of a potential allergic response.

I am aware of no evidence in the existing peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates that these proteins are neither allergenic nor immunogenic. I am aware of claims that the linear amino acid sequence of the Cry proteins is not similar to any known allergens, but this again is controversial (i.e. Kleter and Peijnenburg, 2002) Furthermore, that type of evidence has never been evaluated as predictive of proteins that will turn out to not be allergens (Metcalfe, 1996; Stickler et al. 2003) . Moreover, the engineered plant versions of Cry proteins are C-terminally truncated compared to the bacterial protoxins. New epitopes may be created in plants due to new alternative posttranslational modifications and folding of the protein, or on the basis of complexing between the transgene product and endogenous protein(s). Indeed, most antibodies produced by an allergic individual to inhalant allergens appear to be toward discontinuous epitopes, but it is unknown whether this applies to antibodies to food allergens (Taylor and Lehrer, 1996). These are “sound” scientific hypotheses yet to be experimentally tested, which they should have been before commercialisation of Bt-transgenic plants.

2. Pollen does not express the cry1ab gene. This may be true, but if it is it needs to be verified rigorously. By that I mean it must be measured in all engineered plants, it must be measured in plants grown at all sites, and it must be measured for plants grown under different physiological conditions, for a start. The claim should also be made only after corroboration via a number of complementary techniques, e.g. antibody screening of pollen and microarray analysis. This is because eukaryotic promoters, in this case the 35S CaMV promoter used to drive the expression of the gene, can be inactive in one specific environment, for instance somewhere in the US, but there is not absolute reason for it to not be activated in other environments. To my knowledge, there are no data proving promoter silence in pollen of any Bt-transgenic maize variety, and some data to the contrary. For example, for MON 810 corn grown in the U.S., the concentration of Cry was low but detectable (< 90ng/g total protein) (U.S. EPA Bt crop reassessment data).

How much is too little to inspire an allergic reaction? There is currently no lower threshold for sensitization to allergens as far as I know, and certainly not food allergens, although very low concentrations make sensitization less likely . Furthermore, when Bt crops were assessed for allergenicity by the US, they were not carried out according to the best recommended methods (FAO/WHO), undermining confidence in that evidence. The regulatory assessment also assumed sensitization only via oral exposure, not possible respiratory exposure.

Conclusion
The Biosafety Protocol's main objective is to regulate the trans-boundary movement of genetically engineered organisms for purposes of protecting human and environmental health. In the spirit of the Protocol, that capacity must be relevant to the special or unique concerns of the importing nations and their environments.

It is broadly recognized that third world nations are a huge global repository of biodiversity, local knowledge and cultural treasures, much of it yet to be described. Since at present most genetically engineered organisms originate in the first world nations, their movement to other ecosystems must proceed only with the consent of the fully informed citizenry of these nations. With yet-to-be-determined impacts of genetically engineered organisms on biodiversity and human health, many species as well as cultures could be at risk from international movements of these organisms. In addition, since most genetically engineered organisms are imported along with first world co-technologies (such as certain agricultural practices, pesticides, herbicides, etc.), trans-boundary movement of genetically engineered organisms could threaten various cultures.

Astute observers of genetically engineered organisms cannot help but recognize that the limitations of biosafety infrastructure are not limited to third world countries, but are a result of a global under-investment in science-for-safety. In this regard, the two Institutes of Gene Ecology are optimistic that this is only the beginning of a sustained effort to raise global awareness and capacity in biosafety. In fact, that biosafety is the priority of the third world is an interesting testimony to the fact that priority investment in science-for-sale does not suit all cultures and is exposing significant gaps even among wealthy nations. Norway should also be proud that it has taken a leadership position in championing and resourcing the call for science-for-safety as the world's newest priority.

Literature cited

Bernstein, I.L, Bernstein, J.A., Miller, M., Tierzieva, S. et al. 1999. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 107: 575-582

CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ( http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol)

EEA: European Environment Agency (2002): Late lessons from early warnings. The precautionary principle 1896-2000 (http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/)

European Council Directive 2001/18/EC (http://www.europa.eu.int/commm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html

Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (1996): Origins and development of the precautionary principle, in Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (ed.), The precautionary principle and international law (Netherlands: Kluwer Law International), p.3-15.

Gene Technology Act 1993. The act relating to the production and use of genetically modified organisms. Act no. 38 of 2 April 1993, Oslo. http://www.bion.no/biotech_regulations_eng.shtml

Kleter, G.A. and Peijnenburg, AACM. 2002. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Structural Biology 2:8

Metcalfe, D.D., J.D. Astwood, R. Townsend et al. 1996. Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 36(S): S165–S186.

Moreno-Fierros, L., Garcia, N., Lopez-Revilla, R., Vazquez-Padron, R.I. 2000. Intranasal, rectal and intraperitoneal immunization with protoxin Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis induces compartmentalized serum, intestinal, vaginal and pulmonary immune responses in Balb/c mice. Microbes and Infection 2: 885-890

Myhr, A.I., Traavik, T., 2003. Genetically modified crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interests. JAGE 16, 227-247.

Stickler M., Much, J., Estell, D., Power, S., Harding, F. 2003. A human dendritic cell-based method to identify CD4+ T-cell epitopes in potential protein allergens. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 251-254

Taylor, S.L., S.B. Lehrer. 1996. Principles and characteristics of food allergens. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 36(S): S91–S118.
Vazquez, R.I., Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., de la Riva, G.A. 1999. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J. Immunol. 49: 578-584

Vazquez-Padron, R.I., Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., et al. 2000. Characterization of mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 33: 147-155

March 10, 2004

Prof. Joe Cummins

Really bad advice from the editors of Nature Biotechnology

Nature Biotechnology is the major trade journal for the biotechnology
industry. In the February 2004 issue of the journal an editorial ìDrugs
in cropsóthe unpalatable truth-editorial - (nature biotech 2004,volume
22,p.133) legitimate and timely concerns were raised about the
production of genetically modified (GM) food crops, such as corn
modified to produce biopharmaceutical products. The contamination of
food crops with biopharmaceutical products active at very low dose would
potentially eliminate major economic resources and would be very
difficult to deal with and to eliminate. Already, major food crops have
been contaminated with biopharmaceutical genes and since most field
tests have been undertaken in secret with collusion from government
regulators a number of such contaminations may be undiscovered.

The editors of Nature Biotechnology argued that production of
biopharmaceutical products in food crops should be limited
to islands such as Iceland or crops not used for food
"Let's grow pharma plants, but let those plants be Arabidopsis, or
flax, or duckweed". The editors were unwise to suggest that flax is a
suitable crop for biopharmaceutical production. Flax is produced for
fiber (linen) and for oil seed and for seed cake a protein rich animal
feed. Flax seed oil is called linseed oil whose main use is industrial
but it also has a large market in health foods and for salad dressing.
The leading world producers of flax are Canada, Argentina, China and
India. Canada produces about 40% of the worldís total flax production
and is the major exporter. In Canada, flax is grown in the Western
provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan. In the United States flax is grown
extensively in Wisconsin, Minnesota and other northern states.

Flax is a poor choice for producing biopharmaceutical products because
the crop is grown widely and because the crop is both self and insect
pollinated meaning that pollen escape would be difficult to impossible
to control. The sensible solution to biopharmaceutical crop production
is to limit production to contained greenhouse facilities. There is no
need to used open field production of products which have great value
and would, under those conditions, be difficult to protect from theft.

A reference on flax production :
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1999/v4-015a.html#flaxseed

Monsanto and other corporations plan to release information on corn DNA
sequences. It is worth pointing out that the sequences of patented
genes along with sequences of plasmids used to transform GM crops are
already in the public domain through patents, EPA or APHIS reports.
The "release" of other sequences seems generous until you read the small
print. The companies retain the right to license any of their corn
sequences released and thus they demand a "piece of the action" on
anything coming out of corn. They even have cheering sections of jolly
academic munchkins who always cheer at everything they do, anyhow.

March 17, 2004 ny times
Seed Concerns Donate Data on Corn Gene
By ANDREW POLLACK

The nation's two leading seed companies have agreed to make a vast amount
of information about corn genes available to government and academic
scientists, an effort that the companies and outside scientists said
could greatly accelerate improvement of one of the nation's most
important crops.

The move by the companies, Monsanto and the Pioneer Hi-Bred
International unit of DuPont, is at least partly aimed at persuading the
government to undertake what could be a complex and expensive project to
determine the entire DNA sequence of corn, something that could aid in
efforts to develop crops with higher yields, resistance to drought or
other desirable traits.

"The technology exists to sequence the corn genome very rapidly," Tom
Adams, the director for genomic technology at Monsanto, said in a
conference call on Monday when the data donation was announced. "It
really is a matter of lining up all the efforts together."

Ceres, a small plant biotechnology company in California that
collaborates with Monsanto, also said on the conference call that it
would make its information available. The donation of the data was
arranged in part by the National Corn Growers Association, which is also
pushing for a project to sequence the corn genome.

Academic scientists welcomed the decision, saying that the amount of
corn gene sequences that will be put into the public domain by the
companies vastly exceeds the amount that is there now.

"For the public sector it will be a very valuable asset," said Joachim
Messing, a professor at Rutgers University who has been active in
government-financed projects to determine corn genes. "We have been
trying to persuade the companies to do that and it has been very
difficult in the past."

The change of heart by the companies could reflect changing priorities
in the agricultural biotechnology industry. A few years ago the
companies, commanding budgets that public-sector scientists envied, were
far ahead in the search for genetic information on important crops. But
in the last few years the government has been financing gene sequencing
projects for crops, helping the public sector catch up.

Much of the information the companies developed is about specific genes,
and the companies are believed to have already filed for patents on some
of the information they are now making publicly available.

The next step is to find where in the chromosomes the genes are,
something that requires determining the entire DNA sequence of the crop.
But such raw sequence information is very expensive to obtain and does
not have that much value to any single company.

"They have recognized that no one company can afford to sequence the
maize genome," said Patrick Schnable, a professor of plant genetics at
Iowa State University. By contributing their data to the effort, he
said, the companies are sending a signal to the government about the
importance they attach to such a project.

The companies themselves, executives said, do not plan to put money into
the genome sequencing project, which could cost $30 million to $100
million and could be completed as early as 2007.

Executives at Monsanto, Ceres and Pioneer said scientists wanting to use
the donated information would have to sign an agreement giving the
companies the right to negotiate licenses for any discovery made from
the data. But any such licenses would be nonexclusive, meaning they
could be offered to other companies as well. Both Dr. Schnable and Dr.
Messing said the terms did not appear highly restrictive.

Big Al

>We published this as a column submitted by the Institute of Liberal®
>Values.

shame on you; was it not obvious to you that it was ignorant
misleading raving?

>I would be delighted to publish a rebuttal.

good - here it is at long last.

cheers

R

PROPAGANDA FOR GM-FOOD REFUTED

Robert Mann

Lance Kennedy B.Sc's mid-Nov 2003 article "GE witch hunts"
http://www.lifesciencenz.com/news-detail.asp?newsID=5295 imagines "one of
the most successful witch-hunts targeted an innocent technology". This
myth is supported by no evidence.

K's piece was a serious challenger for the title 'wildest rave of the
year'. I correct here its worst falsehoods, quoting them in turn.

K alleges "a piece of incredibly shoddy science ... fed raw genetically
modified potatoes to lab rats ... they became sick." The paper (S W B
Ewen & A Pusztai, The Lancet 1999; 354: 1353-54) remains the best among the
very few scientific reports of GM-food testing on mammals. It showed
damage to the gut in rats within 10 days of eating a certain GM potato (not
only raw - cooked were also tested). K has made no attempt to summarize
the Lancet paper but has ludicrously misrepresented it.

K then alleges "six months later two findings were ignored ... that the GM
potatoes were harmless ... raw potatoes, GM or not, are toxic to rats".
In fact, rats generally thrive OK on raw (or cooked) potatoes. More
importantly, no attempt at repeating the Ewen/Pusztai work has ever been
reported. K is just making it up. On a topic where science is crucial,
this is a major offence.

K: "Some of the larger groups, over six years, increased their earnings
from under $50 million to over $150 million US per year." I have no idea
where such figures come from, but judging by the lurid falsehoods with
which LK is so lavish, he is most likely making these up too. The idea
that any of those working for control of GM have got much money from it is
without foundation to the best of my knowledge.
Those I know work for little or nothing.

K: "Anti-GM hysteria was very profitable. These groups had vast amounts
of money under their control and that meant increased power. .. they rely
upon lies, wild speculation and emotionalistic propaganda."
This is a classic of the v important human characteristic (recognised if
under-rated by Freud) PROJECTION. The big money is on K's side. For
instance, a coalition of gene-jiggering companies, including Monsanto,
spent some U$5.5 million in their recent failure to stop Mendocino County
(Calif) going GM-free.

K boldly asserts GM foods "are totally safe". The more sophisticated
PR-agents for GM food normally say, correctly, that this is impossible to
prove. More to the point, few feeding tests have yet been done, even on
rodents.

K quoth "over 2 billion people have eaten GM foods for over a decade and
there is not one single scientifically confirmed case of any harm, no
matter how slight, arising from the genetic modification of these foods".
The millions of humans who have been fed unlabelled GM-foods have not been
monitored for harm, so thousands (a small fraction of 1%) could for all we
know have suffered damage without any statistical evidence coming into
existence. One of the very few traceable GM-foods, a purified food
supplement, killed a hundred or so and maimed a few thousand:
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html

K: "GM sweet potatoes in Africa are immune to a devastating disease ...
will feed an extra ten million
starving Africans". This again is just fantasy. This particular GM-plant
has turned out to be far from immune to the feared pathogen, and has failed
to provide any increased yield.

K: "Golden rice is a GM variety with extra vitamin A. It has the
potential to save hundreds of thousands of children from going blind."
Its content of pro-vitA is too low to make much difference at any feasible
rice-ingestion rate. And far better ways of getting vitA, along with many
other nutrients e.g folate, are known, namely eating vegetables.

K: "In the Philippines 30 percent of children suffer from vitamin A
deficiency. Golden rice, which was to be released there, was stopped by
anti-GM lobbyists." Since only a handful of this rice existed when it was
exposed as containing near-negligible pro-vitA, this is obviously false.

K: "Anti-GM witch-hunters are causing enormous human suffering." Look
who's talking about "fear & paranoia"!

K: "In Zambia, where 3 million people are starving, the United States
offered food aid in the form of corn that contained some GM varieties."
Since millions of tons formerly exported to Europe were now
rejected, it was extremely predictable that the USA govt would try to dump
the suspect stockpile as "charity" on the starving.

K: "From now on we can expect to see the rational elements growing
stronger." if so, that will increase the resistance to GM crops. Pro-GM
propaganda, examplfied luridly by K's wild rant, takes the biscuit by a
wide margin for irrationality.

Having said that, as a scientist I deplore the media favouring
ignorant publicity-cravers such as S Kitschley list-MP, Fiddler Bunkum
ex-list-MP, etc, who are incapable of discussing the science of GM. But
their ignorant utterances are not in the same class as the falsehoods
purveyed by the heavily-funded pro-GM propagandists.

K: "Much damage has already been done and the lives of thousands have been
lost by these ill advised attacks." No basis has been suggested for this
wild claim. Even the pro-nuclear enthusiasts were rarely this reckless
with the truth.

These hit-&-run raves by PR-agents are getting tiresome. If GM
food were a good idea its proponents would not resort to such misleading
furphies.

K's is one of the most inaccurate pieces of propaganda I've ever
seen. That Scoop could have published it is surprising. That the "Life"
Sciences® propaganda agency did publish it will give readers a fair
impression of how reliable is that outfit.

Reliable evidence on GM-food is available at www.psrast.org/

*

Dr Robert Mann, rtd senior lecturer in Biochemistry (U of
Auckland), served for its first decade on the NZ govt statutory board
advising successive Ministers of Health on poisons.

*

MannGram®: On the roles of mutation v. selection
March 2004

Neo-Darwinian theory resulted from merging 4 lines of theory:
mutation, selecting-out of the less fit, genetics, and population dynamics.
It is touted by aggressive atheists e.g R Dawkins, S Weinberg, L Wolpert,
claiming it is a thorough explanation of how species evolved.

NeoDarwinism is at last going thru some sceptical examination -
and is faring badly as in my opinion it deserves to because it can't
explain much.

Too few realise that natural selection is envisaged only as
decreases in the reproduction, and therefore after „1 generation the
abundance, of mutants that are somehow less fit for their environment at
the successive times when they live. No creativity is hinted at in this
'natural rogueing' role. Natural selection is actually claimed only to
*narrow* the variance. In the strict version, explicitly atheistic,
natural selection is blind, operating only to disfavour those who breed
less on the 'strength of properties expressed at the time. The environment
which does the selecting is assumed to be utterly unintelligent.

All the creativity in evolution is thus, in this theory, assigned
to mutation. This process is normally stated to be random - not at all
to any plan but merely changing nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) randomly
(through damage by radiation or chemical mutagens, etc).

If you can believe that randomness can lead - with remarkable
foresight - to coordinated ecosystems, or even so much as a single cell,
I suggest you read N Broom 'How Blind is The Watchmaker?' (IVP 2001).

A reason why I summarise this controversy is that many have assumed
neoDarwinism is well founded and a sufficient basis for predicting how,
say, bees or their pathogens will evolve in this or that changed
environment.

Gene-tampering is probably the most hazardous 'technology',
threatening a wide variety of novel epidemics & pathogens. Agencies (e.g
the NZ govt's quasi-judicial ERMA) claiming to assess these hazards in GMOs
are bluffing. More & more scientists are coming to the view that this is
a major example of the emperor's new clothes.

In addition to pointing out how neoDarwinism is inadequate, we must
point out the next step forward in this line of theorising - morphogenic
fields.

R

The escape frequency causing problems (as low as 1 in a thousand ) as
indicated below is well below the 9 or 10 per thousand proposed for
'permissible' GM pollution of seed stocks. It seems likely that the level of
acceptable contamination by GM seeds has been set in an arbitrary and
capricious manner or is intended to promote GM pollution of crops.

Ecology Letters
Volume 7 Issue 3 Page 213 - March 2004
doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00575.x

REPORT
Population genetics of transgene containment
Ralph Haygood 1*, Anthony R. Ives 1 and David A. Andow 2
Abstract

Several strategies have been proposed for creating transgenic cultivars
from which transgene escape to wild relatives would seem unlikely; for
example, to impede escape through pollen, a transgene could be inserted
into chloroplast DNA (cpDNA), which in many crops is rarely transmitted
through pollen. None of these strategies would be failsafe; for example,
the rate of cpDNA transmission through pollen may be low but non-zero in
many crops. Here, we study how the probability distribution of escape
time depends on the rates of pollen and seed flow from the crop to wild
populations, the number and sizes of the wild populations, the selection
coefficient for the transgene, and a leakage parameter characteristic of
the strategy, for example, the rate of cpDNA transmission through
pollen. We find that even with a leakage parameter as small as 10 to
minus 3, the probability of escape within as few as 10 generations
could be appreciable.

Radio NZ featured 4-3-04 an interview with Sir Patrick Bateson,
Cambridge professor of ethology, who was in NZ for reasons not made clear.
Bateson attempted to discredit what remains the best among the very
few scientific reports of GM-food testing on mammals (S W B Ewen & A
Pusztai, The Lancet 1999; 354: 1353-54). Bateson alleged "some of the
referees for the Lancet on the Pusztai paper specified serious flaws and
said it should not be published". Contrary to this claim, none of the 6
referees recommended, in the formal comments passed along to the authors in
the normal way by the editor, against publication of the paper. One of
them later changed his attitude. The editor thought the work should be set
forth for scientific readers. It showed damage to the gut in rats within
10 days of eating a certain GM potato.

Bateson also alleged that "attempts [plural] to repeat that work
have failed". Rumours are exactly what Prof Bateson says will not do; yet
he commits the offence of spreading just such a rumour. No papers -
whether with one dissenting referee or none - have been published on any
attempted repeat of the Pusztai/Ewen work. If Bateson is thinking of a
Chinese paper on GM tomatoes and GM peppers (Toxicology 188; 297-307,
2003), this is a poor paper and anyhow not a contradiction of the Scots
paper on the particular GM-potato derived from Desiree.

These hit-&-run raids by PR-poms are getting tiresome. If GM food
were a good idea its proponents would not resort to such misleading
furphies.

yrs etc

Robt Mann
Remuera
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

From the CropGen® wesbite
(V Moses)

=================
Here We Go Again

London, March 3rd, 2004 -- It is a well-practised habit of anti-GM
campaigners to start a hare running out of nowhere in the hope that, in all
the resultant fuss and concern, nobody will remember or care how it that
particular scare began. Thus it was with rats suffering intestinal lesions
from eating GM potatoes, with Monarch butterflies force-fed GM maize
pollen, patients suffering allergic reactions from Starlink maize and birds
falling out of the sky because of GM agriculture. Enormous amounts of
time, effort and money are spent refuting these stories one after another
but the campaigners don't care: causing disruption is what they want and,
by the time one story is resolved, they are two or three further down the
track.

They have just done it again, this time in the Philippines. The first we
heard about it was a report in the Daily Mail on claims by Professor
Terje Traavik, the Director of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology,
that villagers living near a GM maize field in the Philippines have
suffered a range of illnesses, including fevers, breathing problems,
intestinal and skin problems. Blood tests are said to have indicated that
the symptoms resulted in inhaling mutated maize pollen that had been
carried by the wind he went on to claim that the villagers antibodies
are considered to be evidence of an immune reaction to the Bt toxin. The
maize is produced by Monsanto who rejected the findings." Something
similar appeared in the Guardian. Rumours began to emerge local medical
officers had found similar symptoms in areas well away from Bt-maize
cultivation; to them it looked like flu.

Next we were told via a media advisory from the Southeast Asia Regional
Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) that on March 1st in Manila
Professor Traavik was to hold a news conference on "Preliminary Results Of
Study Show Immunological Reaction To Bt Toxin". On the 2nd, this was duly
reported in the Manila Times with a headline of certainty. There was,
however, no further information and "Traavik admitted that a more thorough
investigation is needed to establish the cause-and-effect link between the
production of antibodies against Bt toxin and the diseases that the
patients reportedly sustained from exposure to the nearby Bt corn farm.
Experts said such study could take one to two years." However, he also
said: that the results of this analysis can be treated as a scientific
fact, they cannot be presented as scientific proof yet". So now we know
exactly where we stand scientifically.

Not altogether surprisingly, neither medical nor agricultural authorities
in the Philippines were best pleased. Dr. Nina Gloriani Barzaga, Professor
of Medical Microbiology and Microbial Immunology at the College of Public
Health , University of the Philippines, Manila commented that "Traavik
needs to show pertinent scientific data that establish his claims, before
making press releases and unduly causing panic to the public. It is
important that Traavik specify which isotypes of antibodies were found to
be increased in these individuals, the levels of increases in these
individuals, the specific antigenic epitopes that these antibodies
recognized, and his data should also be able to establish that the presence
of these antibodies correlated with clinical signs and symptoms of
hypersensitivity (or any biologic activity) among these individuals. It is
also important for Traavik to indicate what types of tests were performed,
and in which laboratories these tests were performed. There are accepted
standardized and validated procedures used in any allergenicity testing."
Those do not seem to be bad suggestions.

Dr. Artemio M. Salazar, Department of Agriculture corn programme director,
said that it is impossible for humans to develop immunity from certain
antibodies by simple exposure to GM corn plants, either by planting it or
by eating it. It's ridiculous. It's the height of absurdity. You should
not touch it with a 10-foot pole. It's absurd. No Biology student will
believe it.

There we have it. How soon will the story die? Any bets?

Sources:

1. The Guardian (February 27th, 2004): Scientists suspect health threat
from GM maize http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-26/s_13486.asp

2. The Manila Times (March 2nd, 2004): People near Bt-corn farms carried
toxins in their blood
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/mar/02/yehey/business/20040302bus2.html

Food Safety Network: Response to claims of GM corn posing "serious health
threats " to Filipinos living near corn fields in Mindanao, Philippines
http://131.104.232.9/agnet/2004/3-2004/agnet_march_1.htm#story2

TITLE: Is Biotechnology Losing Its Nerve?
SOURCE: The New York Times, USA, by Andrew Pollack
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/business/yourmoney/29biotech.html
DATE: Feb 29, 2004

Is Biotechnology Losing Its Nerve?

As a founder of four biotechnology companies, Dennis A. Carson can
practically write an encyclopedia entry on risk. After all, his first
start-up, a gene therapy and vaccine company called Vical, still does
not have a product on the market after 16 years and more than $100
million spent.

But now Dr. Carson, who is also the director of the cancer center at
the University of California at San Diego, is playing it safe, or at
least safer. Rather than develop radical new technology or invent new
medicines, his latest venture, Salmedix, plans to sell drugs licensed
from other companies - drugs that are already on the market or that
have at least gone through some clinical trials.

"We sat back and said, 'We're not going to be successful starting
another company if it's going to take 15 to 18 years,' " said David S.
Kabakoff, the chief executive of Salmedix. "The only way to do it in
half the time is you have to start somewhere in the middle."

Many other biotechnology companies also appear to be taking fewer
chances lately - to the point that the industry seems to have lost its
nerve, some experts say. The worry, of course, is that their
increasingly chary approach to innovation will mean fewer breakthrough
drugs.

Biotechnology companies were once known for going boldly where the
big pharmaceutical companies would not, developing genetically engineered
medicines like Avastin, the Genentech drug, approved on Thursday, that
attacks cancer by a new method and prolongs the lives of patients.
Biotech ventures also plunged into experimental areas, like gene
therapy and stem cell research, that have not yet paid off and perhaps
never will.

But more and more start-ups now seem focused on scrounging around
for existing drugs to license, often castoffs from big pharmaceutical
companies. In doing so, fledgling biotech companies avoid the toil and
risk of trying to discover a new cause of disease or a new compound.
Some of the newer biotech companies do not even have laboratories.

"I don't know of a venture capitalist today who is willing to put
significant percentages of his fund's money into de novo discovery
companies," said Roger Longman, co-publisher of the medical business
magazines In Vivo® and Start-Up. "Instead, the real model is, 'How can
I get to a product quickly, without doing all of that early biology
and chemistry?' "

Most drug development companies that are planning initial public
offerings fit that mold. Of the 23 companies that filed late last year
to go public, for instance, 14 licensed their lead product after it
had been put into clinical trials by another company, and two licensed
products already on the market, said Arthur J. Klausner, a general
partner at Domain Associates, a venture capital fund for health care
enterprises that is based in Princeton, N.J.

What is behind the shift? Mr. Klausner and others point to a change in
the investment climate. It was once possible to raise money from
public investors years before products were on the market, thus
providing an early return to venture capitalists. But after biotech
stocks peaked in 2000 and then receded, taking such early-stage
companies public has been tough.

So venture capitalists, not wanting to wait 10 or more years for a
return on their investments, are backing companies that can move
products to market faster. That often means developing a drug
neglected by another company or finding a new use for or a new way of
delivering an existing drug. The industry buzzwords are no longer
"monoclonal antibodies" and "genomics" but "reformulate" and
"repurpose."

"It's very hard to do a soup-to-nuts company anymore, or what we call
molecule-to-market," Mr. Klausner said.

A decade ago, for instance, his firm helped finance Trimeris, the
company that tapped university research to develop Fuzeon, the first
of a new class of AIDS drugs. Today, a more typical start-up backed by
his firm is Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, a venture based in San Diego that
hopes to market a sleeping pill that contains a low dose of an
existing drug that has drowsiness as a side effect. "I hope we do
something as exciting as Trimeris today," Mr. Klausner said, "but we
do it on an exception basis."

No one disputes that licensing can save time and money. Drugs that
have already gone through clinical trials have at least been shown to
be basically safe, so the preliminary stages of formulating a drug or
testing it in animals can be skipped.

Consider Dr. Carson's company, Salmedix. Based in San Diego, it is
less than three years old and has raised only $22 million, but it
already has three drugs in clinical trials. One is a cancer drug, sold
by a company in Germany, that must be tested before entering the
United States market. Another, also a cancer drug, failed when tested
by others - but Salmedix has a diagnostic test that its executives say
will pinpoint which patients the drug will benefit. The third is
derived from an existing anti-inflammatory drug that company
scientists discovered serendipitously had an effect against cancer.

"Studies of older drugs in patients can give you information you can't
get from studies in the mouse,'' Dr. Carson said.

But while retooling older drugs can result in useful products, some
experts say the practice is not likely to produce home runs and could
slow innovation. "We're really doing therapeutics around the edges"
rather than attacking head on, said one venture capitalist, who spoke
on condition he not be identified because he did not want to
discourage entrepreneurs from approaching his firm.

"We're doing things like niche indications, new uses for old drugs,
out- licensing of products," he said. "There's a fair question:
Where's all the new stuff going on?"

Indeed, university officials say it is becoming harder to license
their discoveries to young companies, or for professors to get backing
to start new companies. Stanford and the University of California
campuses in San Francisco and San Diego - which together gave birth
to much of the state's biotechnology industry - have teamed up with SRI
International, a research institute, to do early drug testing
themselves, a move that would remove some risk from companies.

Mark G. Edwards, managing director of Recombinant Capital, a
company that tracks drug licensing deals, said that biotech companies had
licensed some 500 products from big pharmaceutical companies but
that "none of the top 30 selling drugs of the biotech industry have come
from that route."

The recycling trend could also hamper pharmaceutical giants. To fill
their depleted product pipelines, large companies have increasingly
turned to smaller ventures for drugs and research techniques. Now they
often find themselves in competition with biotech companies, which are
themselves looking for products to license from rivals. And the
suppliers of research techniques have also shifted to developing
drugs.

"All of these heretofore distinct needs can't be met anymore because
everyone's chasing the same products," said Ginny E. Llobell, vice
president of Defined Health, a pharmaceutical consulting company in
Millburn, N.J. "The whole complex of everyone running to the same side
of the boat is not sustainable."

With thousands of biotech companies out there, no one is suggesting
the end of innovation. For instance, several companies were formed
recently to pursue RNA interference, a promising new method of
treating diseases by turning off genes.

Mr. Longman, the magazine publisher, said that many of the companies
working with existing drugs were innovating, though not in the
traditional sense of finding a molecule in the body that could serve
as a target for a drug, or designing a drug to hit that target. "It's
expanding the definition of innovation to what it should be," he said,
"not limiting yourself to the belief that innovation is merely a new
target, new compound, new medicine."

Consider Hypnion, whose innovation is a new way to test whether a drug
is good at inducing sleep. But rather than screening new compounds,
the company is testing existing drugs that it can tweak. "Take a drug
that has a sleep side effect and is used for some other disease,''
said Dale M. Edgar, chief scientist and co-founder. "That's your
starting point.'' Hypnion, based in Worcester, Mass., put a drug into
a clinical trial in 18 months, rather than the usual three or four
years.

Then there is CombinatoRx, a start-up in Boston. The company is
pursuing the possibility that existing drugs, used in combination, are
effective in a way that the single drugs are not. It has set up a
robotic system that systematically tests all 2,000 existing chemical
drugs in combinations of two. The company, now four years old, has
already started clinical trials of three combinations. It found, for
instance, that a sedative and an antibiotic - both of which have been
around since the end of World War II - showed, in combination, some
effectiveness against cancer.

"Those things have been around for two generations, but no one's ever
used them together to treat cancer," said Alexis Borisy, co-founder
and chief executive. "How is that not innovation?"

Specialty pharmaceutical companies, like Forest Laboratories and King
Pharmaceuticals, have long licensed drugs from pharmaceutical giants
that had decided not to develop them. Such companies were largely
considered separate from the biotechnology industry, but now the
distinction is blurring as venture capitalists who back biotech
companies invest in this licensing approach. "I see one or two
business plans a week" from companies seeking to license someone
else's drug, said Brian G. Atwood, a managing director at Versant
Ventures in Menlo Park, Calif.

Several factors are pushing the trend. As big pharmaceutical companies
have become even larger, they have concentrated on drugs with
blockbuster potential rather than devote time to drugs with smaller
markets. But for a small company, a crumb from a pharmaceutical giant
can look like a feast.

Moreover, as big companies have merged, overlapping projects have
been cut. Some companies have decided it is better to get a return on these
redundant or minor drugs by letting someone else sell them in exchange
for a payment or royalties.

Also fueling the recycling trend are the problems of companies
involved in genomics, the technology that prompted an investor frenzy
four years ago. Genomics companies were formed to find disease-
related genes or to provide services and technology to drug companies.

But investors did not buy in as expected, and major pharmaceutical
companies have found the payoff from genomics to be slow. "There was a
clear message from Big Pharma that they did not want to buy research
assets anymore," said Charles M. Hartman, general partner of CW
Ventures in New York.

As a result, virtually every service and tool company is shifting to
developing or licensing drugs. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a leader in
genomics, has no drugs in clinical trials resulting from its own gene
hunting. Neither do big drug companies like Bayer and Abbott
Laboratories, which paid hundreds of millions of dollars to tap into
Millennium's expertise. A payoff may still come, but in the meantime
Millennium is using the money from the deals to buy a pipeline of
products. Its two drugs on the market, and all the ones in clinical
trials, have come through acquisitions or licensing.

Even companies trying to discover new drugs have felt pressure to
license products that are already on the market, or close to it. While
those products generate revenue, the company can go about the longer
process of developing novel products. For instance, Exelixis provided
some of its genomics expertise to Bristol-Myers Squibb and, in return,
got a cancer drug already in clinical trials. That drug has become its
lead product.

Other companies have successfully licensed and then resurrected drugs
that other companies passed up. Sales of Angiomax, a cardiovascular
drug, are increasing at the Medicines Company, which picked up the
product after it was dropped by Biogen and then passed over by many
other companies.

INDEED, some drugs initially dropped by one big pharmaceutical
company can end up at another after going through a smaller company. Indiplon,
a sleeping pill that is now in the final stages of clinical trials,
was licensed by the company now known as Wyeth to Dov
Pharmaceutical, which then sublicensed it to Neurocrine Biosciences.
Neurocrine in turn sold the marketing rights to Pfizer for $100 million
up front, and possibly much more later.

Some analysts and executives, however, say the specialty
pharmaceutical business has limits. For Big Pharma, licensing a
neglected drug to a smaller company may produce only modest
royalties.

And biotech companies that find new uses for old drugs may have
trouble protecting themselves from competition, particularly from
generic versions. Moreover, the specialty pharmaceutical business is
becoming mighty crowded. Some experts say that there are just not
enough compounds to go around.

For that reason, some venture capitalists say investment in companies
that recycle drugs will eventually wane. In a sense, it has to. Unless
new drugs are invented, there won't be any to recycle.

As Drew Senyei, general partner of Enterprise Partners in San Diego,
said, "At some point you are going to run out of late-stage companies,
and the question is, who will fund the discovery companies?"

Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List press-release@i-
sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i- sis.org.uk
ISIS Press Release 13/03/04

Exposed: More Shoddy Science in GM Maize Approval

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

The Food Standards Agency appears to be selectively
promoting and suppressing research results in projects it funds

Scientists should be afraid, very afraid of the extent to which the
academic-industrial-military complex is bending science to suit its
purpose. No, I am not only speaking about the United States, but the
United Kingdom here.

Horizontal gene transfer - a major uncertainty in GM safety

In the current issue of Science in Parliament [1], I found no less than
three mentions of horizontal gene transfer as a major uncertainty in the
safety of GM crops: in an article by Michael Meacher MP, "GM: the
politics of uncertainty", in a Parliamentary debate on biotechnology by
Joan Ruddock, and in the article " Nanotechnology: friend or foe?" by
Prof. George Smith of Oxford University.

Horizontal gene transfer is the process whereby genetic material jumps
into foreign genomes, or put the other way round, whereby foreign
genetic material jumps into genomes. That is exactly what genetic
modification involves: artificially constructed DNA (called GM DNA or
transgenic DNA) cobbled together from a wide variety of sources or
simply made in the laboratory, is inserted into the genomes plants,
animals and livestock.

But horizontal gene transfer can also happen unintentionally and without
our knowledge. It is the main process creating new viruses and bacteria
that cause disease epidemics and spreads antibiotic and drug resistance
besides, making the diseases more difficult to treat. Foreign genes
jumping into genomes, as many investigations on the genetic modification
process itself reveal, causes extensive genetic damage, scrambling and
rearranging genomes, resulting in inappropriate gene expression that can
trigger cancer.

Thereís lots of evidence that transgenic DNA may be more unstable and
more mobile than natural DNA [2], and molecular analyses of commercially
approved GM crops, carried out belatedly last year, found that
practically all the inserts have rearranged since characterised by the
company [3,4].

One big question is: what happens to the transgenic DNA that's in GM
food and feed? I have raised this question on numerous occasions with
our government over the past ten years, one of the more recent occasions
during the public hearing on Chardon LL T25 transgenic maize organised
by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) in 2002 [5].

At the same hearing, it was revealed that twice as many broiler chickens
died eating GM maize as non-GM maize. But because the experimental
design was so flawed, statistical analysis failed to detect a
significant difference between the two groups. Prof. Orskov of the
Macaulay Institute raised the issue of whether milk from dairy cows was
safe to drink, and spokespersons from Friends of the Earth also pressed
for feeding tests in the appropriate species - cattle - instead of rats
and broiler chickens.

ACREís written response to the Chardon LL Hearing (December 2002) stated
[6]: "The Company - Bayer - has commissioned a dairy cattle feeding
study with T25 maize and will present the data to the French competent
authorities when completed. As is the standard practice, ACRE will
review new information generated in this trial and update the risk
assessment accordingly."

Mystery of the missing study

But the result of this study has yet to see the light even though the GM
maize has now been approved for commercial growing as cattle feed.

Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru wrote to ACRE 24 February expressing his
concern that there are no published or peer-reviewed ruminant feeding
studies on the effects of T25 maize [7] and asked to see the study
mentioned by ACRE, especially in view of the recent report that twelve
dairy cows in Hesse Germany died after eating Syngenta's GM maize 176
[8]. ACRE has not replied, despite a reminder sent 5 March.

The study was supposed to have been done by Professor Richard Phipps in
the Centre for Dairy Research (CEDAR) at Reading University.

"There is no mention of the study on the CEDAR website." Brian John
said, "If the Chardon LL used in the study came from the FSE trial
sites, that would have contravened the FSE rules, and a separate consent
must have been signed by somebody."

Bayer was reportedly given a report of the study late in 2002, and one
of the researchers involved, David Beever, claimed the report had gone
to ACRE.

On 9 March, Brian John finally received, via the Welsh Assembly, a
"Background Information" paper from Richard Phipps, stating that the
study was conducted at the University of Reading for Bayer Crop Science.
The objective of the study was to determine the effect of silage derived
from T25 maize on feed intake and milk production in lactating dairy
cows compared with a near isogenic counterpart and silage of two further
commercial maize hybrids.

Furthermore, it stated that the study has been completed and presented
to the company, and they are in the process of preparing their data for
publication in an international scientific journal once the peer review
process has been completed, the same process followed in the study they
conducted for the UK Food Standards Agency, published in the Journal of
Dairy Science [9], a copy of which was enclosed.

They then went on to state,
"While it is not our policy to release details of studies prior to peer
review we feel able to say that the compositional, fermentation
characteristics and nutritional values of all four silages were
comparable and that there were no significant differences in milk yield,
milk composition and yield of milk constituents, when comparing the four
rations. In addition GM DNA was not detected in any of the milk samples
analysed by Polymerase Chain Reaction methodology. Cows remained in good
health throughout the study period."

Notice that the study focussed on silage, not on maize grain, which is
also widely fed to cattle. It concentrated on detecting GM DNA in milk,
but not the mouth, rumen or intestinal contents, blood, meat or other
animal tissues, where positive results have already been reported (see
below).

The FSA-sponsored study is presumably the reason our government has
given the go-ahead for approving Chardon LL T25 maize to be grown for
cattle feed, as the T25 study has yet to be published and there is a
dearth of published studies on feeding ruminants with GM feed. So, how
does that study stand up to scrutiny?

Study that found no results worth reporting is worthless

The study failed to find significant survival of GM DNA, or indeed any
single copy DNA in most of the tissue and tissue contents examined; but
it is deeply flawed.

First of all, the FSA-sponsored study has nothing to do with Chardon LL
maize. It was work carried out with a mixture of both Monsanto's Roundup
Ready soya GTS 40-3-2 (as soya meal) and Mon 810 maize (as maize grain)
at the same time, comprising only 13% and 18.5% respectively of the
total diet. This inevitably decreases the chance of detecting the GM DNA
belonging to the varieties.

Second, only six cows were used, three fed the GM diet and the other
non-GM. But a peculiar "single reversal design with three 4-wk periods"
was used, which I believe, meant that the groups of three cows
alternated between GM and non- GM diets. Thus one group would spend the
first four weeks on GM, the next four weeks on non-GM and then four
weeks back on GM; while the feeding regime for the other group would be
non-GM, GM, and non-GM. This design generates in effect 9 data points
each for the GM diet and non-GM diet. But, it also guarantees to balance
out the effects of GM versus non- GM diet and hence is utterly worthless
as far as detecting difference in weight gain or any other developmental
or physiological indicators between the diets.

Third, the researchers made a big blunder. Two of the cows in the non-GM
group were inadvertently fed on the GM-diet, so they ended up with 13
data points in the GM diet group and only 5 data points in the control
non-GM diet group.

Fourth, even though they had taken apparently carefully timed samples
from individual animals in each four week period, they pooled all the
samples from the same animal together, thus losing potentially valuable
information regarding the time course of the clearing of GM DNA from the
gut to the tissues and out of the body.

Fifth, and most serious of all, their PCR method for detecting GM DNA is
neither validated nor standardized. Its sensitivity varied over 1000
fold between different tissues and tissue-contents. The limits of
detection is such that in some samples, I calculate that more than 4 000
copies of the soya genome or 900 copies of the maize genome must be
present in the sample before a positive result is obtained. The usual
detection limit of PCR is 10 copies or less. Thus, given the minute
amounts of tissues and tissue contents used in a PCR test, as for
example, 0.3 millilitres of milk, it is no wonder that the only DNA that
can be detected at all reliably is the chloroplast gene, which exists in
10 000 copies per plant cell. And no wonder there is a rather large
number of neither positives nor negatives, but "inconclusives" in the data.
Poor PCR amplification is one of the most common causes of failing to
detect GM DNA

The "Background Information" on the study on Chardon LL claims that
their as yet unpublished results "support the 30 other peer-reviewed
papers in international scientific journals, which have failed to detect
GM DNA in milk, meat and eggs derived from animals fed diets containing
GM feeds."

In fact, poor PCR amplification is probably one of the most common
causes of having "failed to detect GM DNA". A Japanese research team,
which has documented the survival of both GM DNA and Bt toxin protein in
the digestive tract of mice, pigs and cattle [10], nevertheless reported
a failure to detect GM DNA in blood because as they stated, the PCR did
not work in blood. There are many unknown PCR inhibitors in different
tissues that can give false negatives. Phipps and coworkers also failed
to detect single-copy DNA in blood, GM or otherwise, they failed to
detect even the abundant chloroplast gene in the vast majority of samples.
GM DNA found to survive when PCR is adequate

One recent study documenting the survival of GM DNA in the mouth and
rumen of sheep was also funded by the Food Standards Agency [11]. This
research group from Leeds University found that DNA fragments containing
the entire coding region of the synthetic cry1Ab gene was still
amplifiable from rumen fluid 5 hours after feeding maize grains, though
not from rumen fluid sampled from sheep fed silage prepared from the
genetically modified maize line. But PCR amplification of a shorter
(211-bp) sequence was possible with rumen fluid sampled up to 3 and 24 h
after feeding silage and maize grains, respectively.

It is clear that GM DNA in maize grains persists, and "may, therefore,
provide a source of transforming DNA in the rumen".

But the authors are wrong to claim that the 211-bp sequence is "very
unlikely to transmit genetic information". For such sequences could be
promoters or enhancers containing hundreds of binding motifs for
transcription factors, and capable of boosting the expression of genes
inappropriately.

The researchers also found that plasmid DNA introduced into the mouth of
sheep and extracted from saliva sampled after 8min was still capable of
transforming Escherichia coli bacteria to kanamycin resistance,
"implying that DNA released from the diet within the mouth may retain
sufficient biological activity for the transformation of competent oral
bacteria".

They conclude: "The use of GM crops harbouring antibiotic resistance
genes, in particular the use of unprocessed grains in animal feed,
possibly deserves further evaluation."

A great deal of uncertainty remains over the fate of GM DNA. Further
research must be carried out with properly validated quantitative PCR
methods.

ISIS has discovered that information on this research is not easily
found on the FSA website, although the FSA has clearly funded the
research (the research grant is G01010). The FSA website does have
information on the research they fund (there is a Research Project List
for its Safety of Novel Foods Research Programme), some with the papers
themselves, others with just short information on the projects; this is
available for G01007-G01021, with the exception of G01010 and G01014. A
search of the FSA website with the term ëG01010í eventually turned up
some information on the project, although not the papers arising from
the research.

References

1. Science in Parliament 2004, Spring, The Parliamentary and Scientific
Committee.
2. Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, Chapter 11, ISIS & TWN, London
and Penang, 2003.
3. Ho MW. Trangenic Lines Proven Unstable. Science in Society 2003, 20,
35-36.
4. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. Science in Society 2004,
21, 23.
5. Ho MW. GM maize approved on bad science in the UK. Science in Society
2002, 15, 10.
6. ACREís Response to the Chardon LL Hearing, December 2002
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice.adv ice20d.htm
7. Letter to Dr. Clare Pitcher, ACRE Secretariat, DEFRA, from Brian
John, GM-Free Cymru, 24 February 2004.
8. Ho MW and Burcher S. Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society
2004, 21, 4-6.
9. Phipps RH, Deaville ER, Maddison BC. Detection of transgenic and
endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood and
feces of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86:JDS 3275 Take H502.
10. Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N,
Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. Detection of corn intrinsic and
recombinant DNA fragments and CrylAb protein in the gastrointestinal
contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11. J Anim Sci 2003,
81, 2546-51, and references therein; reviewed by Ho MW. Transgenic DNA
and Bt toxin survive digestion. Science in Society 2004, 21, 11.
11. Duggan PS, Chambers PA, Heritage J and Forbes JM. Fate of
genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep.
Journal of Nutrition 2003, 89, 159- 166.

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-
sis.org.uk/MSSIGMMA.php
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

The paper below illustrates what I have discussed in the past. GM DNA
content rules for seeds are currently unreliable. The rule should be
lowest detectable DNA level in seeds.

J. Agric. Food Chem., 52 (5), 1044 -1048, 2004. 10.1021/jf034574+
S0021-8561(03)04574-6
Web Release Date: February 6, 2004

DNA Content in Embryo and Endosperm of Maize Kernel (Zea mays L.):
Impact on GMO Quantification

Youssef Trifa and David Zhang

Abstract:
PCR-based techniques are the most widely used methods for the
quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the
determination of the ratio of transgenic DNA to total DNA. It is shown
that the DNA content per mass unit is significantly different among 10
maize cultivars. The DNA contents of endosperms, embryos, and teguments
of individual kernels from 10 maize cultivars were determined. According
to our results, the tegument's DNA ratio reaches at maximum 3.5% of the
total kernel's DNA, whereas the endosperm's and the embryo's DNA ratios
are nearly equal to 50%. The embryo cells are diploid and made of one
paternal and one maternal haploid genome, whereas the endosperm is
constituted of triploid cells made of two maternal haploid genomes and
one paternal haploid genome. Therefore, it is shown, in this study, that
the accuracy of the GMO quantification depends on the reference material
used as well as on the category of the transgenic kernels present in the
mixture.

The Institute of Science in Society
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List press-release@i-
sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i- sis.org.uk

ISIS Press Release 12/03/04
Bogus Comparison in GM Maize Trial

The research paper claiming that GM maize is better for the environment
than non-GM even if atrazine is not used is highly misleading. Prof.
Peter Saunders and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho report

Caught between fierce opposition from the public and heavy pressure from
the biotech industry, the UK government agreed in 2000 to fund the ëFarm
Scale Evaluationsí (FSEs) at a cost of £3 million to the taxpayer. Three
genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) crops ñ maize, oilseed
rape and sugar beet - would be grown side by side with conventionally
managed counterparts, so they could be compared.

The FSEs were severely criticised for being rigged in favour of the
industry right from the start. First of all, organically managed crops
were not included in the evaluations, nor were the crops grown under
other low-input, integrated management regimes.

The FSEs were not intended to address safety issues, as these were
assumed to have been satisfactorily resolved. There would be no
evaluations on the risks of gene-flow, nor threats to a whole range of
wildlife, livestock or human beings, nor effects on the soil ecosystem.
There would be no data collected on yields or other important agronomic
indicators.

The FSEs would estimate the effects on biodiversity using only a few
indicator species of weeds and insects; and if these proved to be the
same, or "substantially equivalent", then the GM crops would be given
the go-ahead.

It is rather like giving a MOT certificate to a car just by checking
that the tyres are OK.

But to everyone's surprise, when the results were published, it turned
out that GM oilseed rape and sugar beet had a more deleterious effect on
biodiversity than conventionally managed crops. GM maize, however,
appeared to do better than the conventional maize crop. The Government
therefore announced that it would permit GM maize to be grown
commercially but not the other two.

This was a very convenient result. It allowed the Government to portray
itself as being very cautious and responsive to scientific evidence and,
at the same time, let the GM lobby go ahead with commercial growing of
GM crops. What is at stake is the principle that GM crops can be grown
commercially in the UK, and it matters little whether it is maize,
oilseed rape or sugar beet. Once one GM variety has been agreed, then
more will follow, if for no other reason than that pollen from GM
variety will pollute the non-GM varieties, as is already happening in
North America and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, there was a snag. Almost all the conventional GM maize
had been treated with atrazine or other triazine herbicides, and just as
the results were announced, the EU banned these herbicides on
environmental grounds. This meant that the maize trial results were no
longer valid.

Then, just before the environment secretary Margaret Beckett was due to
give the official go-ahead for the GM maize, a paper that claimed to
rescue the Governmentís case was rushed online in the high prestige
journal Nature. It bore the confident title: "Ban on triazine herbicides
likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize
cropping." The eleven authors of this paper come from a whole collection
of Government-funded Institutes: Rothamsted Research in Harpenden,
Hertfordshire, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster,
Cumbria, Broomís Barn Research Station in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk,
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire and
Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee, Scotland.

The claim is that, according to further statistical analysis, the ban on
triazine herbicides, although it might reduce the benefits of GM maize,
is unlikely to cancel them out altogether. This would be a very
significant result, if only it were true.

From the data presented in the paper, there were indeed a few fields -
four of them to be exact - where non-triazine herbicides were used. Did
the researchers compare those to the GM maize fields in order to arrive
at their conclusion? No. Possibly because there was no significant
difference between the two groups, and in any case, the number of plots
was too few to support the claim that the GM maize would be better from
the standpoint of biodiversity.

So what did they do instead? The authors noted that on 16 occasions,
triazine herbicides had been applied before the maize emerged. On 24
occasions, it had been applied post-emergence only, as had the
non-triazine herbicides. They decided to leave out the data from the
plots on which triazine was applied pre-emergence, which clearly showed
a greater deleterious effect on biodiversity than any other treatment.

The GM maize was thus compared with data from the 24 plots on which the
now banned triazine herbicides had been used post-emergence plus the 4
on which non-triazine herbicides were used. There was now a significant
difference, which allowed the lead researcher, Perry, to say on the BBC
Radio 4 Today Programme that about one-third of the benefits of GM maize
would remain after triazines are no longer used.

But this is a highly misleading claim, because 24 out of the 28 plots
compared with the GM maize had in fact been sprayed with the banned
triazines.

They write in the paper, "If this pooled category of herbicide regimes
is indeed representative of weed control in post-triazine conventional
crops, and if the weed management in GMHT maize remains the same as
observed with the FSE, then final weed numbers would still be larger in
GMHT than in conventional maize." There is nothing that would justify
the first half of this statement (in fact the authors themselves point
out that the non-triazine herbicides had a consistently smaller effect
on biodiversity than triazines) and so the claim in the title of the
paper is simply bogus.

In reply to criticisms from the House of Commons Environment Audit
Committee reported in the Times newspaper, Les Firbank, one of the
authors of the Nature paper and also the coordinator of the FSEs, wrote,

"I find it astonishing that the chairman of the committee should
announce that the work is "neither robust nor particularly credible
science" within a few hours of its publication in Nature, the most
highly acclaimed scientific journal in the world."

We find it astonishing that the paper got past the referees of any
respectable journal, let alone "Nature, the most highly acclaimed
scientific journal in the world".

But that's not the whole the story. The reason yield is not measured is
because, if it were, it would very likely reveal a highly significant
difference between the GM maize and non-GM maize fields.

Jean Saunders, a citizen opposing the planting of GM crops, has taken
the trouble of photographing her local GM maize trial (see the
powerpoint presentation here), documenting the severe stunting of the GM
maize crop, delayed flowering, and much smaller and fewer cobs compared
with the conventional non-GM maize. This finding is surely a lot more
relevant to the farmer than data that the scientists have collected and
the spin that they have put on the data to allow commercial approval to
go ahead.

Sources

Perry JN, Firbank LG, Champion GT, et al. Ban on triazine herbicides
likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize
cropping. Nature 2004 |doi:10.1038/nature02374|www.nature.com/nature

Letter to the Editor from Les Firbank, Times on line
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,812 2-1034024,00.html

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-
sis.org.uk/BogusComparison.php

Bioethics and the Political Distortion of Biomedical Science

Published at www.nejm.org March 12, 2004 (10.1056/NEJMp048072)

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp048072v1.pdf

This might interest some on this list.

It is well known that the GM trade has almost always scorned the
principles which are apparently expounded by these jokers. Has Prakash
*ever* criticised any gene-tampering corporation for failure to observe the
methods of publication he pretends here to believe in?

Even though the requesters are amongst the dodgiest GE spinners
out there, and will no doubt try to attack on whatever minimal basis they
can find or make, the question remains whether their demand, tho'
spectacularly hypocritical, would be best actioned by Traavik.

I tend to think that, notwithstanding the routine scorning by most
if not all these demanders of the principles they're now pretending to
respect, it would be wise for Traavik to do as they so hypocritically
suggest.

R

Open letter to Terje Traavik
March 7, 2004

Dear Professor Traavik:

In the last week or so, there has been some coverage in the media of your
claims on health risks from GM crops, particularly in connection with your
recent work in the Philippines. We understand from media reports that you
consider that these results are too important to wait for peer review and
publication.

We believe that bypassing the peer review process is counterproductive and
ill-advised. It short-circuits the ability of science to be
self-correcting. It fosters public misinformation and miscommunication in
the complete absence of data. Public debate must be based on accurate
information. In that context, we write to request immediate, open, easy,
world-wide and detailed access to your team's data and methods, published in
an accessible site on the web, in English and other languages as
appropriate. Providing public access to your experimental methods and data
(not just summaries) will make it possible for other scientists to have a
chance to review your work, attempt to repeat it, and look for similar
examples elsewhere. We assume that both you and your supporters will want
this research to be as widely distributed as possible, and to have maximum
influence on the scientific community. Potentially inaccurate second hand
accounts and possibly exaggerated claims in the news media are no substitute
for the presentation of solid scientific evidence. There are guidelines for
the responsible conduct of science. Your turn has come to follow them.
Note that failure to release your data and methodology immediately will
prevent any and all legitimate scientists and health authorities from taking
your claims seriously.

Dr. Rick Roush, University of California, Davis
Professor Charles Arntzen, Arizona State University
Professor Bruce Chassy, University of Illinois
Professor James DeGregori, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Professor Thomas R. DeGregori, University of Houston
Dr. Judith A. Kjelstrom, University of California, Davis
Dr. Peggy G. Lemaux, University of California, Berkeley
Professor Martina McGloughlin, University of California, Davis
Dr. Alan McHughen, University of California, Riverside
Professor Wayne Parrott, University of Georgia
Professor C. S. Prakash, Tuskegee University
Dr. Chris Preston, University of Adelaide
Professor Tony Shelton, Cornell University
Professor Steve Taylor, University of Nebraska

Nonylphenol is a potent endocrine hormone disrupter that has been
found to leach from plastic into water, milk and food. Spring water and
organic milk may get contaminated from the container that it comes in.

J. Agric. Food Chem., ASAP Article 10.1021/jf0345696 S0021-8561(03)04569-2
Web Release Date: March 11, 2004

Migration of Nonylphenol from Plastic Containers to Water and a Milk
Surrogate

Jorge E. Loyo-Rosales, Georgina C. Rosales-Rivera, Anika M. Lynch,
Clifford P. Rice, and Alba Torrents*

Environmental Engineering Program, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, Area
de Química, FES-Zaragoza, UNAM, Prol. Plutarco Elias Calles y Batalla
del 5 de Mayo s/n, Mexico, 09239, DF, Mexico, Science Department,
Northwest High School, 13501 Richter Farm Road, Germantown, Maryland
20874, and Environmental Quality Laboratory, ANRI, ARS/USDA, 10300
Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Abstract:

Nonylphenol (NP) is used as an antioxidant and plasticizer in some
plastic products. After the discovery of its endocrine-disrupting
potential, concern over human exposure to this chemical has increased.
Recently, a group in Germany estimated the average daily intake of NP
>from food (7.5 g/day), excluding water. In the present study, NP,
octylphenol (OP), and their respective ethoxylates (1-5) were measured
in spring water bottled in three different types of plastic (HDPE, PET,
and PVC). NP was present in water from HDPE and PVC containers, at 180
and 300 ng/L respectively, which represent 4.8% and 8% of the value
calculated by the German group assuming a consumption of 2 L of water
per day. OP was found in water from HDPE extracts in lower amounts, 12
ng/L, and neither the NP- nor the OP-ethoxylates were detected in any of
the samples. Attempts to measure these compounds in tap water were
unsuccessful, probably because reaction with residual chlorine results
in the formation of chlorinated byproducts. Migration of NP from HDPE
containers to a milk surrogate was also evaluated; results indicate that
the amounts of NP leaching into milk might be similar to those in
bottled water.

The anonymous piece

>WAKE UP! IT'S YER FOOD FOR THOUGHT...
>
>MAIZE OF LIES

included this bit:

>A $6 million research project supposedly
>conducted by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute into a
>virus-resistant GM sweet potato which would double yields was in fact
>paid for by the World Bank, USAID and Monsanto. The corporate media in
>the USA loved this story, and used it to attack anti-GM campaigners.
>The only problem was that all the claims were complete crap - the
>sweet potato was susceptible to virus attack and yields were already
>at the target level!

Could the author please clarify this?

1. A minor point is whether the GMO was more susceptible to virus attack
than those varieties the farmers would normally grow. Some reports have
said so, but this summary obscures the comparison.

2. Some reports have also said the GM-yam yields were actually lower than
normal. But all this anon author says is
>yields were already
>at the target level!

This latter statement seems only to say that the yield hoped for by
the GM-yam project was no higher than normal. This is a v different
statement from what I'd read - the far more important statement that the
GM-yams actually yielded poorly.

In the interests of banning GM-food, which I deem more important
than stroking those I don't even know, I appeal for more careful writing.
And I sound anew the warning that email is a matchlessly slick channel for
planting disinformation which can then be rapidly propagated to our
disadvantage. If only scientific accuracy had prevailed in utterances on
GMF, there'd be none; and to ban GMF we will have to attain scientific
accuracy in our own utterances. We cannot directly compel it in those of V
Moses, his buddy Con, Conner, Prakash, or any of the other numerous
PR-liars for GMF; all we can do is to show a good example. Those who
strive primarily for an 'enraged' style are often observed to be careless
regarding accuracy. The movement to ban GMF should not be used as merely
another vehicle for 'enraged' trendy political campaigning. The cause is
the most important in the history of applied ecology. We are trying not
just to rant self-righteously but to prevent colossal epicemics of our and
other species, and to turn world agriculture toward sustainability. Study
what Charles Prince of Wales says on the subject - impeccable. A few
well-chosen words will always be better than a slick burble of trendy
phrases within which the actual content is poorly prepared.

R

The original discoverers of the now well-documented pollution of
Mexican corn are hardly mentioned in the voluminous report alluded to
below. This seems to be the old Soviet approach to rewriting history. In
this, case, at least for now, the discoverers have escaped the Gulag but
have been removed from their jobs. Only in North America, pity! Of
course, the USA has imitated Academician Lysenko in spreading flaky and
unreliable agriculture practices using totalitarian methods.

March 12, 2004 ny times
Research Panel Warns Mexico of Threat From Modified Corn
By ELISABETH MALKIN

MEXICO CITY, March 11 - Genetically engineered corn has made its way
into Mexican fields from modified American seeds and could ultimately
displace native corn varieties unless the government moves to protect
them, a multinational panel of researchers warned Thursday.

So little is known about the potential effect of altered corn in Mexico
- where maize was first domesticated 9,000 years ago - that risks to the
country's 60 corn varieties and the larger ecosystem are unpredictable,
said the panel, convened by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation
set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"One thing is clear," the study's coordinator, Chantal Line Carpentier,
said in a telephone interview from Oaxaca, where the panel was meeting.
"The huge diversity in Mexico should be protected in situ and in gene
banks. And Mexico does not have the money."

Much of the concern is that contamination of native varieties would
limit future possibilities of developing improved crop lines from corn
that is now completely free of genetic modification.

The commission will present a final report and recommendations to the
American, Mexican and Canadian governments in June.

Although Mexico imposed a ban on planting genetically engineered corn in
1998, scientists detected insect-resistant corn in Oaxaca fields in
2001. The researchers' draft report suggests that the modified corn got
into fields when farmers planted corn imported from the United States.

Mexico imports five million metric tons from the United States - mostly
for animal feed - of which about 30 percent is modified grain but is not
separated or labeled. In poor regions, farmers may use this grain for
planting.

There is still no conclusive study on how widely genetically modified
corn has spread in Mexico, said Amanda G·lvez Mariscal, a professor of
food sciences and biotechnology at the National Autonomous University of
Mexico.

Existing modified corn strains, designed for American farmers, are of
little use to Mexican farmers, a fact that helps to limit their spread
right now. But a future strain that increases Mexican yields might be
widely adopted, despite the planting ban, and overwhelm native
varieties, Ms. Carpentier said.

The report will probably call for some effort to educate farmers to stop
planting seeds imported from the United States and a vast program to
track modified corn.

"As long as we don't have regulation, we need to have monitoring that
will give you an early warning of the presence of transgenic material,"
said JosÈ Sarukh·n, a professor at the Institute of Ecology at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico and an adviser to the Nafta
commission.

Chelsea Green Publishing, founded in 1984, has become known as the
preeminent publisher of Books for Sustainable Living. One such book is
"Seeds of Deception" which presents overwhelming evidence documenting
serious potential health problems associated with the hi-tech foods that
Americans eat every day. Read about "Seeds of Deception" at
http://www.enn.com/businesscenter/products/797_13253.asp

A decade ago, my survey (in Forest & Bird and pasted below) of supply & demand
for electricity in NZ revealed a thousand-megawatt surplus generating
capacity. The efforts of those in the electricity supply industry, and
those involved in selling new power stations e.g Bryan Leyland, to make out
that there was a shortage had extended even to staging a phoney shortage
the previous year. Nobody issued any public disputes with that article.

Have any experts, or any journos, investigated the trends in demand
and in supply during the decade since that survey? What happened last
winter? Was another phoney shortage staged in effort to panic the nation
into authorising unnecessary investment in new power stations?

I am grateful to John Blakeley for pointing out the 'Energy Data File'
http://www.med.govt.nz/ers/en_stats.html

- in particular, chart G.4b shows that annual electricity
generation (i.e demand) did not increase at all in the 3 y 1999-2002. The
figures for 2003 are not given. The general trend of this graph 1974-2002
is not even linear, let alone exponential: the trend of the slope (the rate
of increase) is generally downwards.

It is a shame that the media frontperson for saving the Waitaki is
less than satisfactory. When the slick PR man Seay for Meridian® had
allowed her to hold forth extensively on Radio NZ this morning, without
interrupting on that occasion, it was stupid, as well as rude, for her to
interrupt him so soon as she did.

It is to be hoped that the cttee of parlt now considering the
unwanted Fast Track bill for project Aqua will append to its report an
updated version of my article. I suspect that the new generating capacity
added in this past decade will have preserved most of that gigawatt of
surplus capacity.

What is in a way more worrying is that Mr Blakeley tells me there
is no longer a man with a dirty big ammeter and the power to order the
stations in their 'merit order' to prepare to come online. This is Max
Bradford's more efficient, kmpetiti'v shambles - giving lower prices, he
claimed.

There are plenty of other good reasons why this stupiid destructive
project should be abandoned, but I urge that lack of proven need be a main
criterion in appraisal of 'Aqua'. The burden of proof should be on
Meridian to show need; but as usual it falls to the conservationists to
prove lack of need.

Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

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

So you've discovered a power station proposed for your district. Your branch of Forest & Bird, along with any suitable partners in a coalition, should present to the relevant planning authorities, and to the public, your clear & vigorous assessment of the proposal.

Or, even if no power station threatens your locality, you've realised that stabilising the electricity industry is required for the nation's and even the planet's health.

Either way, this article will be useful to you. Your primary argument will be lack of need - no new power stations are justified in N.Z. We give here the main facts which prove that conclusion.

NO MORE POWER STATIONS !
Robert Mann
Forest & Bird Nov. 1994

The nation was presented on May 19 with a concerted PR thrust for new power stations. The corporatised NZ Electricity Dept, now called Electricorp or ECNZ, asserted we may need extra power equivalent to 7 or even possibly 15 Clyde dams within a few decades. Another report the same day similarly suggested we must pay billions of dollars to meet accelerating "demand" for new power stations.

This is the latest flurry in a peculiar game which goes back at least a quarter-century. It was a power station scheme, Manapouri, which provoked the modern era of conservation awareness and action in this country. By the late 1970s, as a result of public participation especially around the Royal Commission on Nuclear Power, scientists became able to advise constructively what to do instead of new power stations:

• economically harness now-wasted electricity;
• deploy small-scale energy systems to capture renewable (solar) energy.

These preferable options still languish almost ignored. They are today even more potent because since the 1970s they have made considerable technical advances while big power stations have remained much the same dinosaurs. The above two principles were brought into focus in the late '70s, enunciated well in Amory Lovins' 'Soft Energy Paths' (1977), and remain correct but are still largely thwarted by those with vested interests in expanding mains electricity supply & consumption under the banner of economic growth. Any notion of saturation, or sufficiency, or limits to growth, seems beyond their ken.

Neglected too are tariff structures to discourage extravagant electricity consumption while allowing a reasonable amount at cheap rates.

In order to understand how we know that new power stations are the inferior path, we must be clear about a few words & numbers (see box).

================================================
{ BOX }
Energy is not Power

Power, an important technical term, is not the same as energy. Scientists & engineers use the word 'power' to mean instantaneous rate of flow of energy e.g. rate of doing work. The basic unit of power is the watt, but for many purposes the horsepower (746 W) or the kilowatt (kW) - 1,000 W - is a more convenient unit. A typical one-bar heater's rate of conversion of electrical energy to heat, that is its power, is 1 kW. One megawatt (MW) is one thousand kilowatts. The most powerful station on the N.Z. grid, Huntly, can send into the grid almost 1,000 MW of electrical power.

The familiar metered unit of electrical energy is the kilowatt-hour (kWh); a one-bar heater through which flows a power of 1 kW thus uses 1 kWh of energy each hour it runs. That same amount of electricity could run a 100W light-bulb for 10 hours. This amount of energy is the "unit" of our electricity bills.

Electricity supplies are subject also to measures of quality. Reliable supply - rather than blackout or brownout (voltage drop) - is more important to most householders and industries than small differences in energy price. More subtle aspects of quality include requirements, for certain types of electronic device, that the frequency of the mains must not vary more than a few percent from the standard 50 cycles per second.

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

The N.Z. Electricity System

The central government's NZ Electricity Dept built up (mainly through the Ministry of Works) a co-ordinated system of 40 power stations feeding into a national grid of high-power transmission lines.

Some electricity distributor/retailers run their own grid-connected mini-stations, mostly to save paying Electricorp's peak prices. These amount to about 5% of the grid's installed capacity.

A few industries, notably the geothermally-powered Tasman pulp mill (Kawerau), not only generate much or all of the electricity they use, and run industrial processes with leftover heat, but also are connected to the grid with sales in either direction. Such 'co-generation' or 'total energy' systems, if prudently encouraged, could be installed in various parts of the country, substituting at least 100 MW now drawn from the grid, and decreasing transmission losses.

The two latest Electricorp annual reports, and the 12-months report to 31-3-94, contain figures which have not been drawn to public attention, and which the NZ Herald has refused to publish, giving the lie to claims that new power stations are needed.

The installed generating capacity - the maximum power that could be fed into the grid if the corresponding demand ever occurred and if all stations were flat-out - is measured in megawatts. With the Clyde dam it reached, in round figures, 7700 MW. The maximum power that has ever been generated into the grid is far less: 5500 MW.

The actual surplus capacity is however not as much as that 40% margin. Electricorp has expressed the desire that 'spinning reserve', normal maintenance shutdowns, and other operating requirements should total 23% (1200 MW) beyond their peak generated power. Allowing that reserve capacity, we still have 1000MW surplus generating capacity. The Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury, published recently a big report on reliability of electricity supply which states "there is ample installed capacity in New Zealand to meet power system peaks".

The peak power demanded of Electricorp was essentially constant (5150 MW) for 4 winters 1989-92. For 1993 it was 5240 MW. Thus, over the past half-decade, annual increases in Electricorp's peak power have averaged 0.54%.

A grid, even if it has ample installed generating capacity (MW), can run short of energy to convert into electrical energy (MWh) on a time-scale of a year. This can happen through e.g. shortage of water, especially in a grid which is largely hydro-power like ours; or mismanagement such as selling fuel from stockpiles just before a dry winter; or breakdown of a large station for years (one of the many reasons to be glad we rejected nukes); or mothballing stations as if they were not needed (while also claiming that new ones are). We need therefore to arrange the capacity to supply not only peak power but also sufficient annual electrical energy.

The annual electrical energy fed into our grid reached a total of 30 million MWh for the first time in 1991. The following year of the "shortage", the total was 2.6% lower. For the year ended 31-3-94, with unrestricted supply, generation was 31.2 M MWh, resulting for the half-decade in an average annual energy increase of 1.9%. During the "shortage" winter of 1992, the 580MW gas-fired New Plymouth station was run far below capacity, illustrating Electricorp's "economic limit": the fuel-fired stations are insinuated to be too expensive to run at design capacity, even when people and hot-water cylinders are freezing, and in spite of the allegedly dominant lust to get rid of the Maui gas by 2010. But Electricorp admits that the existing public supply system of N.Z. can generate 38M MWh even in a "1-in-60" dry year.

On both measures, then - peak power and annual energy - the country has a large surplus capacity, built at public expense of more than a billion dollars and causing serious ecological damage, e.g. confiscation of much of the Wanganui headwaters (still only partially restored). This overgrowth was perpetrated by a growthmaniac electricity-supply industry using phony projections ("forecasts") of what they were pleased to call "demand". Those projections were produced by methods kept obdurately secret in committees dominated by the electricity-supply industry. They typically asserted that power demand would double in only a decade (approx. 7% compound annual increase). On this basis the NZED annually gave Parliament a 15-year Power Plan envisaging many billions of dollars' worth of new stations, mostly thermal which would have wasted most of the energy from oil, gas, coal, and geothermal brines. The NZED launched a deluded nuclear programme, stopped by a half-decade of public outcry. Even after pruning of such grandiosities, the long-standing pattern remained that one-third of government capital expenditure, year after year, went into expanding the nation's capacity to generate & transmit electricity. The Clyde dam, not only unnecessary but even illegal (until a special Mulgoon-Beetham act of parliament overrode normal procedures), has become a nightmare of waste & danger. Electricorp say the cost of generating a kWh at Clyde is 12¢ whereas their average cost of generation is 1.17¢/kWh.

But today's system is even worse. No official power planning exists. Parliament no longer gets an annual Power Plan and "forecasts" open to democratic scrutiny. The modest-sounding 2 - 3% compound annual increases projected by the electricity industry (still by secret methods) correspond to roughly the same amount of extra generating capacity annually as the bigger percentages of two decades ago which procured today's overcapacity. Mr Barrie Leay's Electrical Supply Authorities Association solemnly projects 'demand' of 40M MWh in 2005, rising to 54M MWh in 2010. This means adding, in that half-decade, almost one-half of today's total electricity sales! We really have run out of reasonable dam sites; nevertheless, dozens of agencies are speculating money on possible power stations, mostly hydro, from which they feel they might make money. The fact that some very bad planning was done in the 1970s is supposed to justify the abolition of planning. Ideological hatred of public enterprise and of planning has turned the public electricity system, national and local, over to "the market" which is known to be even less capable of serving the public interest than was the old NZED/power boards system.

In order to generate electrical power at 1 MW (denoted 1 MWe), fuel-burning power stations have to produce thermal power at 2 - 5MWt , i.e. various types' efficiencies are in the range 50% - 20% ; most of the energy in the fuel is wasted. These thermal stations produce the corresponding notoriously large tonnages of carbon dioxide. Geothermal stations have yet worse efficiencies, and some also produce major carbon dioxide byproduct, for which no use or disposal is in sight. The growth fantasies glimpsed in the May 19th PR-flush are in the region of 75 - 300 MW extra capacity added each year. The financial and environmental costs of such expansion would be very severe. The image "15 Clyde dams" is proferred to 'monster' the nation into permitting and paying for the 2 or 3 which is probably about all that Electricorp think they could organise at once. It is essentially the same old game. The vague tacit threat "we will black you out if you don't indulge our growthmania" persists. Thus do beneficiaries pose as benefactors.

A regrettable variant is "we will get rid of the Maui gas by 2010, so we may as well have a new power station to burn it in". That line of course puts commercial arrangements ahead of planetary health, not to mention sustainability. Whether it will survive judicial examination of the proposed Stratford 400MWe gas-burner remains to be seen.

Compared with other forms of energy, electricity is inherently expensive; even the best (Huntly) of the NZED gas-fired stations is only 32% efficient. The combined-cycle station proposed for Stratford is claimed to be 50% efficient. Transpower's losses are stated to average about 6%; local low-voltage distribution entails losses which I would rank as the under-rated weakness of central electricity systems. Modern gas appliances produce as useful heat at least 80% of the energy in the gas. It is obviously better to promote direct gas use for low-temperature heat instead of the inherently wasteful & polluting indirect use through power stations.

Let us insist, in any case, on logic: only if a clear need had been proven should any new power station be permitted. A mere claim that some parties expect to profit can not justify the environmental damage entailed in such wasteful projects. One of the May 19th main advocates, PR'd as an expert on projecting "supply & demand" [ Bryan Leyland], has been for years himself centrally involved in the Auckland Electric Power Board's consultant-driven project to build a gas-fired power station at Southdown. The public will be better advised by independent experts who have no such conflict of interest.

But isn't some growth inevitable? No. Industrial activity is already excessive, if we hold the health of the biosphere as our prime criterion. We should plan to provide a steadily-decreasing supply of increasingly-reliable electricity, and get serious about sustainable energy systems. The Faust act has gone quite far enough. We have passed NZ's all-time peak of electricity consumption; now let's settle down and organise some stability.

Casinofication

Keeping the national grid available and meeting high standards of quality is a difficult operational task. This public service may be severely compromised by expensive attempts over the past several years, led by Mr Jim McLay and his longtime political colleague Mr Barrie Leay, to sketch a "wholesale [actually futures] electricity market". In the McLay/Leay notion, Electricorp would be split into several "competitive" corporations, and would split off the grid proper (i.e. the long-distance transmission system) as "independent" Transpower. The vision then entails trading of electricity futures contracts between many companies daily. Submissions are specifically invited on whether the trading could be in half-hour blocks! Under cover of false or meaningless chants ('efficiency', 'competitivity', etc.), our grid is thus threatened with alienation to casino status, its major public resources degraded to mere gambling chips. If this were permitted, our electricity would become both less reliable and more expensive. Just the attempt to meter all the transfers involved would entail ridiculous costs, and opportunities for white-collar theft.

In the 1970s I was instrumental in pointing out why the NZED deserved the title "No. 1 Environmental Vandal" - confirmed publicly by the then Commissioner of Works, Mr R G Norman, who also claimed second place for his department; but it is a pleasure for me to record now that I would far rather deal with those agencies than with the robber barons to whom the traitor Douglas has given our main public assets. Public enterprise planned & created a system which now generates the very cheapest electricity in the world; how can we keep it that way?

Better Ideas

The fact that our electricity is generated very cheaply does not mean it should be sold cheaply. Tariffs should reflect the need for conservation {see box}. But lately, a major new barrier to conservation has been erected by Barry Brill & other power company executives who have imposed huge fixed charges. The effect is that the more electricity you save the more you pay per unit. It is right that there should be a small standing charge, because the energy retailer has sunk capital in the cables, meter etc, and has some running costs in reading the meter etc. What is not right is that huge fixed charges be levied for the purpose of guaranteeing profit, and with the perverse indirect effect of penalising conservation.

================================================
{ BOX }

INCREASING BLOCK TARIFFS Conservationists have been advocating for two decades, to little or no effect so far amongst the money-maniacs, that electricity should be retailed with pricing structures of this general form:

¢/kWh (at margin)
| | ---------------
| |
| |---------------|
| |
|-----|
|_________ kWh/month

The numerical details for a particular power board will take some working out. This process is not merely technical; it also inevitably entails value judgements. But it is certainly simpler, and actually worthwhile, compared with the protracted McLay/Leay casinofication attempt. If this type of tariff were instituted, direct gas and solar energy would be allowed to compete fairly. (Advanced Kiwi Conservation Club exercise: draw your household's electricity tariff as a graph on the above diagram.)

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

We are foisted with a new era of growthmania, not only at the national level (Electricorp) but especially among some of the distributing and retailing companies which were until recently municipal departments or consumers' co-operatives (power boards). We shall not shake free from this new mania until the nation at least creates an energy policy and a working mechanism for planning & stabilising - certainly not casinofying - the system. Under the Resource Management Act, a national energy policy could be stated; it should be. Meanwhile, as no additional power stations are to be planned, what should the Electricorp design staff do? They must be encouraged to meet the neglected challenges of providing higher reliability, and given resources to get serious about wind, especially to replace hydro (dams silt up within a half-century) and generating more electricity from the same water e.g. by cleaning out the existing Manapouri tailrace. Growthmania and monumentalism have already brought engineering into enough disrepute; let's see some eco-engineering!

================================================
{ BOX }
The Global Picture
Only this century, and only in some societies, have people become accustomed to abundant availability & use of energy. This is an anomaly, both historically and geographically. New Zealand's per capita annual consumption of traded energy is about 30,000 kWh, not very far short of the USA (74,000). Contrast these with Brazil & China (5,800), or India & the Philippines (2,200). We consume vastly more than our share. NZ's population is not increasing much, but global population growth is still as high as 1.7% p.a., adding thirty NZs each year. Diminishing resources of fuels and of ecologically acceptable hydro-power sites, and burgeoning pollution (notably atmospheric carbon dioxide), mean we have only one reasonable option: both using less and wasting less energy. The binge is over.

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

Electricity, no matter how generated, is always a relatively expensive form of energy, in money and in natural resources. A first principle of household energy planning is therefore to use electricity for only those functions which are inherently electrical (amplifiers & other electronics, certain tools and motors). Nevertheless, lighting & refrigeration are usually powered by electricity though gas-powered versions should be considered for remote locations.

The typical residence's energy consumption (averaging approx. 1 kW) is mostly for low-temperature heat. Direct solar-thermal conversions using your roof can be the principal supply for this: solar water-heating, and solar room-heating. These should be incorporated in new buildings and can usually be fitted into existing buildings. Compared with common heating systems which use entirely combustion (wood, coal or gas) or electrical heating, these buildings will use far less fuel, or fewer kWh; but some topping-up will generally be needed in cold weather.

Diverting energy which is now going to waste is your principal opportunity to save electricity promptly. Electricity is converted to low-temperature heat at 100% efficiency, e.g. in water- or room-heaters, but large losses of that heat then leak to waste through gaps and poor insulation. Ask your electricity retailer to help you assess your options and instal draught-proofing strips, foil or blanket insulation above ceilings, better insulation on hot water tanks, etc.

Conversion of electricity to light is generally inefficient. Ordinary light bulbs give out as heat, not light, about 9/10 of the electricity they consume! Modern fluorescent lights are several times more efficient. They are still so expensive that the savings take many years to pay off; but the main payoff is in rivers saved, less contaminated air & land, etc. And they do last 8 times longer than the disgraceful planned failure of modern ordinary bulbs. Major savings can also be achieved by up-to-date electric motors and controls.

Economical methods abound for diverting to use energy now wasted. These 'negawatts' are cheaper, sooner available, more reliably sustained, and far less damaging to nature, than any new power station. They can economically substitute for at least one quarter of the electricity used these days, according to several expert estimates. Electricorp, and energy retailers, should help to deploy these wiser solutions, rather than compounding our problems by threatening to build power stations.

================================================ { BOX }
On balance, conservation is served (not to mention the eyesight of the workers assembling TV sets) by switching TV sets to 'warm standby' rather than off. The small electricity consumption on standby is not entirely waste, giving a trickle of warmth within a house. Much more importantly, the energy embodied in a TV set far exceeds its 'lifetime' operating consumption. (Even such a device as a car, made for the purpose of converting energy on a scale of scores of kW, embodies as much energy in its metals, tyres etc. as all the fuel it so powerfully consumes in its working lifetime.) A TV set's working life is shortened by cold starts. Most TV-set failures are in the power supply, a section of parts which last much longer if kept warm. Failure rates in picture tubes are also lowered. Junked TV tubes, like fluorescent tubes, are often smashed making sharp edges which are especially hazardous because the phosphors on the inside surface of the glass are poisonous, severely inhibiting healing of such wounds. As with any equipment relying on vacuum tubes (valves), leave it on 'warm standby' unless you foresee no use within a week. This example illustrates the fact that running costs are never the whole story in energy conservation; making equipment last longer is often more important.

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

Generally, of course, technical fixes for increased efficiency in consumption offer less value than the intelligent restraints of prudent lifestyles - turning off lights when not needed, putting on jerseys instead of heaters, turning hot-water thermostats down to 55°, etc. This second meaning of the term 'energy conservation' is routinely mocked as 'candles & caves'; but in truth, many modern end-uses of energy are careless, frivolous, or downright dangerous, and society will be happier when they are curbed. On this issue, ecology aligns with economy, justice, security, and even pleasure!

New Zealand's global role is to show the overdeveloped world an example of consuming less and enjoying it more. A main reason why F&B is so large & successful is that our advocacy is based in active nature-study. I would be happier about our nation's future if teachers were still being properly trained in Nature Study, and if the "Technology curriculum" were worthy of the name and competently organised. The skills needed to compile the main facts in this article are, evidently, lacking in mass media and in the staff of conservation groups today.

The quarter-century of energy/environment awareness has, unfortunately, stimulated considerable growth of perverted, sometimes pseudo-green, propagandists. Surely we conservationists can overtake and outmatch their analytical & communication abilities.

And how can we help to accelerate the deployment of technology & education for the transition to sustainable renewable-energy systems? Having answered the relatively easy question "are more power stations needed?", let us discuss these genuine problems.

Dr Mann, former Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies, conducted (mainly with other University of Auckland staff) the Energy Project of the now-defunct Environmental Defence Society, 1973-83. He continues his work on energy/environment issues mainly with 'Forest & Bird', most recently for the Far North branch against the proposed Ngawha 8MWe geothermal power station.

Britain allows first genetically modified commercial crop, but under strict
limits

The British government on Tuesday approved the commercial cultivation of
a type of genetically modified corn but said the planting would be under
strict rules and the first crop would be at least a year away.
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-03-10/s_13856.asp

- wot no Stringent Restrictions??

From: webmaster@90degrees.net.nz
Subject: Monsanto applies for GE wheat to be legally approved as a food in
New Zealand.
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004

We've had to cull some interesting stories, so if you want to know more
about what's happening with GE overseas, we recommend GM Watch at
http://www.gmwatch.org/.

We've tried to keep in as many New Zealand stories as possible. The big one
this week is Monsanto's application to New Zealand and Australian food
authorities to allow GE wheat into our food.

The crazy thing is that GE wheat isn't even being grown commercially
anywhere in the world!

It's all part of a cunning plan to get consumer and regulatory acceptance
of GE wheat, and persuade North American farmers that it's a good bet.

If you eat bread, pasta, cakes, pies or anything else made from flour, then
this affects you. Find out how to have your say below.
--------------
Forward this email to anyone you know who doesn't want to see GE released
here. Encourage them to sign up for our free email newsletters

http://www.90degrees.co.nz/register.aspx
----------
Scientists open door on animal experiments
The culture of secrecy around animal experimentation is cracking, as
scientists recognise growing public concern about what they're doing behind
closed doors.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=cfUrQw6*c0206gfhzNzXTA
----------
New company ditches NZ
GE "pharm" animals, once hyped as a great opportunity for New Zealand, now
looks like a commercial dead-end.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=JLSDjEXV0k6JShSCw7w2*Q
----------
Key GE report due this month
An upcoming independent report on what local councils can do about GE
releases in their area is getting widespread council support.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=zdZuUkPxxU2lfXp6kiEkOw
----------
Labels for GE shipments
A world meeting on labelling GE trade has made some progress, despite
attempts by the US to bog it down from the sidelines.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=QLI0tNZUDEy6TJNm7ot31A
----------
Action - Do you want to eat GE wheat?
Monsanto has applied for GE wheat to be legally approved as a food in New
Zealand.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=ano8k69iLU6-xLC54KkvKA
----------
Possible GE crop allergy
Villagers in the Phillipines suffering fevers, skin rashes and respiratory
illnesses may be allergic to a GE crop grown nearby, a leading scientist has
found.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=wkrgnrWq6kuvmcGy4iofKQ
----------
GE wheat on the table
New Zealand is suddenly part of the latest and biggest battle over GE food.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=B-2lWDGhKECxcdUvMQG0HQ
----------
Action - direct action meeting
A national GE-Free meeting for those interested in direct action will be
held in Wellington this month.
http://www.90degrees.net.nz/view.aspx?id=*elsO4Vbl0eZS*8PHAecfw
----------

I have repeatedly argued that GM crops should be tested by feeding
them to experimental animals but the paper below suggests that such
feeding experiments may be done in a manner to support GM crops.

EPA has reviewed several feeding experiments using Bt toxin produced in
bacteria as a surrogate for Bt crops even though the bacterial toxin is
different from the Bt toxin in the crops.

The experiment below actually fed GM corn to mice but the full report
failed to mention which Bt cre
gene toxin had been used in the corn fed to the mice and it also failed to
report toxin protein levels in the feed. Both control mice and mice fed
Bt corn were fed certified rodent chow 5002 diet along with the corn
from the field . Rodent chow 5002 turns out to have 15% corn starch
and 5% corn oil, while the animals were fed 28% of the diet as "Bt"
corn! The rodent chow most likely contains from 50% to 90% of Bt corn !
It is no wonder they did not report analysis of Bt toxin levels. What I
am suggesting is that both control and treated animals were fed Bt corn
and no effort was made to fully study and report toxin levels (the Bt
corn may have had less toxin than the diet fed control and treated
animals alike )!

The community of GM advocates always seem to put together teams of high
priced ivy league academic munchkins who get hysterical every time
detrimental findings about GM crops are reported. The publication
below seems to have been warmly supported by the chemical society and
its reviewers, suggesting pr is favored above science in academic journals.

J. Agric. Food Chem., ASAP Article 10.1021/jf0347362 S0021-8561(03)04736-8
Web Release Date: March 4, 2004
Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Corn on Mouse Testicular
Development by Dual Parameter Flow Cytometry

Denise G. Brake, Robert Thaler, and Donald P. Evens

Abstract:
The health safety of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn (Zea mays L.) was
studied using mouse testes as a sensitive biomonitor of potential toxic
effects. Pregnant mice were fed a Bt corn or a nontransgenic
(conventional) diet during gestation and lactation. After they were
weaned, young male mice were maintained on the respective diets. At 8,
16, 26, 32, 63, and 87 days after birth, three male mice and an adult
reference mouse were killed, the testes were surgically removed, and the
percentage of germ cell populations was measured by flow cytometry.
Multigenerational studies were conducted in the same manner. There were
no apparent differences in percentages of testicular cell populations
(haploid, diploid, and tetraploid) between the mice fed the Bt corn diet
and those fed the conventional diet. Because of the high rate of cell
proliferation and extensive differentiation that makes testicular germ
cells highly susceptible to some toxic agents, it was concluded that the
Bt corn diet had no measurable or observable effect on fetal, postnatal,
pubertal, or adult testicular development. If data from this study were
extrapolated to humans, Bt corn is not harmful to human reproductive
development.
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

*Items Web-mounted on Monday, 8 March 2004**
http://www.rsnz.org/news/date/2004/3/8

NZ academic expects British decision on GE maize soon
Canterbury University visiting fellow led UK trials on the impact of GE
crops on the environment

GE crop contamination has serious implications for NZ - Greens
New Zealanders misled by Royal Commission, says Fitzsimons

**Overseas news*******

Ministers pave way for farmers to grow GM maize
Ministers have endorsed a decision by a Cabinet committee to give
qualified approval for sowing genetically modified (GM) maize. The
official announcement will be made next week. A recent study found
that GM maize increased biodiversity compared to conventional crops
and pesticides.

Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk 5 March 2004 p.13
See also: Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ 5 March 2004 p.1

US researchers produce 17 new embryonic stem cell lines
Researchers in the United States have derived and identified 17 new
stem cell lines from human embryos, in addition to the 15 that are
currently known to be available for publicly funded research in the
United States. BMJ http://www.bmj.com 328 6 March 2004 p.539

White House denies playing politics with science
White House science adviser, John Marburger, has moved to rebut
charges levelled by prominent US scientists that the Bush
Administration has manipulated science to advance its political
agenda. The debate was fuelled by: the release of two documents from
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on 18 February; a statement
on "restoring scientific integrity in policy making" that was signed
by 20 Nobel laureates; and a report summarising a series of case
studies which the UCS claim illustrate the distortion of scientific
findings by government officials. Science http://www.sciencemag.org
303 5 March 2004 p.1446-1447

A cock-a-doodle-doo genome joins the flock
The US National Human Genome Research Institute and its collaborators
last week released a rough draft of the genome of a red-jungle fowl,
considered the ancestor of all domestic chickens.
Science http://www.sciencemag.org 303 5 March 2004 p.1449

Harvard enters stem cell fray
Harvard University intends to raise approximately $100 million over
the next few years to establish a stem cell research institute. The
proposed initiative will operate without federal funding so as to
avoid government restrictions on this research.
Science http://www.sciencemag.org 303 5 March 2004 p.1453

The protests and repeated demand for transparent government action
points out a characteristic of apparent decline in the English speaking
world.

Governments are elected who seem to despise the people who
elected them and covertly serve the interests of corporations who
despise both the people who elected the politicians and the politicians
they elected. Instead of jailing or even deposing the politicians that
serve the interests of corporations the people seem confined by their
slavery.

Independent

GM: the closer it gets, the louder the protests
Government plans for the commercial planting of modified maize are
facing tough opposition.

Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell report
07 March 2004

Revealed: Shocking new evidence of the dangers of GM crops

GM: the closer it gets, the louder the protests

It was supposed, in Blairspeak, to provide "closure" for the public
debate over GM foods and to allow ministers and the nation to "move on".
But this week's much-delayed announcement that the Government favours
the first commercial planting of a modified crop in Britain is turning
out to be another episode in its long GM nightmare.

Instead of peacefully coasting towards the announcement - scheduled for
Tuesday - ministers are spending the weekend desperately trying to
rescue it amid objections from almost every quarter. They have had to
scale it down to a less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of the crop. And
if they are unable to overcome resistance from the Welsh and Scottish
devolved governments, they may have to emasculate it further.

Senior parliamentarians are furious that the Cabinet agreed to give the
green light to the planting of GM maize as they were about to produce a
report saying no decision should be taken until more research is carried
out. Top civil servants are angry that Downing Street pre-empted the
announcement with a leak of the decision on Thursday, in an apparent
attempt to spike the parliamentarians' guns.

The British Medical Association (BMA) is expected to issue a report this
week reiterating concerns about the effects of GM food on health. A
study on the environmental effects of growing the maize - which
ministers plan to use to shore up their position - is under attack for
being partially based on speculation. And research shows that two-thirds
of US conventional crops are contaminated with modified genes.

The leaders of nine organisations representing eight million Britons -
including the National Trust and the Women's Institute - have written to
the Prime Minister demanding that the decision be postponed.
Environmentalists are mobilising to pull up any crops that are planted.
And even the GM industry is privately unhappy that it has not fully got
its way.

However, the most serious threat to the Government's position is posed
by the Welsh and Scottish administrations. Ministers desperately want
them on board so that they can make a united announcement that, in
principle, growing the maize is acceptable. Even more crucially, by law
they have to have their assent before a definite go-ahead can be given
to cultivating the GM crop commercially anywhere in Britain.

Both devolved governments are far more sceptical about GM than Tony
Blair and his Cabinet. Two weeks ago, Carwyn Jones, the Welsh
environment minister, said that Wales took "the most restrictive
approach possible within current UK and European legislation". This
opposition has already held up an announcement for weeks.

Ministers are puttingpressure on both administrations. As a result, they
are expected to make new policy statements this week - but it is not yet
clear that they will toe the Downing Street line.

Already Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, is
planning to give only muted backing in principle to the maize, saying
that on the scientific advice available the Government can see no reason
not to give it the go-ahead. But unless the Welsh and Scottish
administrations can be brought into line she will be forced to weaken
the announcement or to make one that applies only to England and
Northern Ireland.

Worse, there is no sign that the devolved administrations will agree to
approve the planting of the maize, called Chardon LL, and Mrs Beckett is
planning to stop short of giving it specific clearance. Instead, she
will indicate a further delay by announcing a period of public
consultation into the distances that it should be grown from
conventional maize to minimise cross-pollination, and into who should
compensate non-GM farmers when contamination occurs.

She will also say that the maize will only be grown under tough new
conditions that many believe will make it uneconomic. And she will make
it clear that the Government wants the industry to meet the compensation
bills - which GM companies reject.

Because of all this, no GM maize will be grown this year. Ministers are
considering spinning out the consultation process to prevent planting
next year and avoid controversy in the run-up to a general election.
That would postpone it to 2006, when EU approval for the maize runs out
- meaning that it will have to be tested all over again.

However, none of this will satisfy the Government's growing army of
critics, which now includes the House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee. As The Independent on Sunday reported last week, the
committee said it would be "irresponsible" to approve growing the maize
until another four years of tests had been carried out.

Peter Ainsworth, the committee's chairman, is angry that the Cabinet
leaked the Government's decision the day before the committee's report
was published.

He also attacked a paper published in Nature last week, which is
expected to be cited by Mrs Beckett as evidence that GM maize does less
harm to the environment than cultivating conventional crops.

To add to ministers' troubles, the BMA is to report on the potential
health risks of GM foods this week, and is expected to raise concerns
that they could increase allergies and resistance to antibiotics.

Once the genes spread, there's no stopping them

Back in the autumn of 2000, the United States found to its horror that a
GM maize not cleared as safe for human consumption was showing up in
food products. Genes from Starlink, a modified crop approved only for
animals, which had been planted in only 0.4 per cent of US maize, had
spread to food all over the country and got into the seed supply.
Despite an immense campaign the authorities have still not been able to
eliminate it.

The episode shows how fast and pervasively genes from GM crops can
spread, and how hard it is to eliminate them. And this sort of
contamination has already occurred in the UK, even before any commercial
growing has been approved. A year and a half ago, illegal oilseed rape
was found to be growing in British GM trials. The oilseed contained a
gene resistant to antibiotics, something that caused particular concern
because of fears that people and animals that ate it could develop
immunity to these essential drugs.

Dangers to human health from such contamination will increase with the
next planned generation of GM crops, which will be modified to produce
medicines and industrial chemicals, essentially turning the plants into
biological factories. If these genes got into the ordinary food
supplies, they could damage the health of people who eat them.

Contamination could also spell ruin for organic farmers, who rely on
selling unmodified produce free of chemicals. Once the genes had spread
- for example though pollen carried from nearby GM crops - they would no
longer be able to sell their food as organic. In time, organic
agriculture would become impossible and people would beunable to eat
this food, which is growing in popularity.

Contamination also threatens the environment. Genes from crops modified
to resist pesticides have already spread to wild relatives, creating
superweeds.

And once the genes are out they cannot be recalled, but will go on
spreading. Unlike most forms of pollution, genetic contamination is
irreversible, as the Starlink experience has showed.

----
For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the Ban-GEF list,
send email to Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com with HELP in the SUBJECT line.

Search the archives ('97-'01) at http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/, or go
to a recent day's digest at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ban-gef/.
----

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/06/presidents_panelskewed_facts_2_scientists_say/

President's panel skewed facts, 2 scientists say
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff, 3/6/2004

Two scientists from President Bush's top advisory board on cutting-edge
medical research yesterday published a detailed criticism of the board's
own reports, and said the board skewed scientific facts in service of a
political and ideological cause.

The authors -- one is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and
the other was fired from the council over a week ago -- have accused the
council's chairman, Dr. Leon R. Kass, of ignoring their scientific advice
and refusing to include in the board's last report some information that
would challenge Bush's restrictions on stem cell research.

Their allegations mark the sharpest public split yet within the council,
formed in 2001 to guide US policy through the increasingly difficult
ethical terrain of such fields as cloning, in-vitro fertilization, and
embryonic stem-cell research.

The authors of the critique published yesterday were two of only three
full-time scientists on the council. They said the council's last report,
"Monitoring Stem Cell Research," did not make clear that a wave of recent
scientific research has cast doubt on the potential of adult stem cells --
a type of cell that Bush held up as a promising alternative when he
announced his restrictions on the use of embryonic cells.

Although the council is supposed to provide impartial advice to Bush, one
of the scientists said yesterday that its reports seemed to be driven by a
preexisting agenda and did not accurately portray the scientific
underpinnings of the ethical issues the council was grappling with.

"There is always this strong implication [in the reports] that medical
research is not what God intended, that there is something unnatural about
it," said Elizabeth H. Blackburn, a highly regarded biologist who was fired
from the panel last Friday. "We had a great many comments on the report,
and they would just make a little changes that didn't fully address them."

A spokesperson for Kass said that he had no comment on the allegations and
that the scientific comments of Blackburn and Janet Rowley, a University of
Chicago biologist who cowrote the critique, are adequately represented in
the council's reports.

Their critique was published online yesterday by the journal PLoS Biology.
It adds to growing criticism from scientists that the Bush administration
is manipulating the scientific advice it receives on politically charged
issues, ranging from climate change to mercury contamination. Last month,
the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement, signed by more that
60 Nobel laureates, that alleged the administration has manipulated
scientific findings to a degree unprecedented in recent White House history.

The critique also adds to the drama of what is becoming a cause for some
biologists: the firing of Blackburn. Blackburn, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, is often mentioned as a
likely candidate for the Nobel Prize for her work in cell biology. But
eight days ago, she was told the council had new priorities and she was
abruptly fired by a White House official. Kass, the council's chairman, did
not tell her she was going to be asked to leave and has not spoken with her
since, Blackburn said yesterday.

But shortly before she was fired, she showed him the text of yesterday's
critique and told him she had submitted it for publication. At the same
time Blackburn was fired, another council member was asked to leave,
medical ethicist William F. May of Southern Methodist University.

The firing has drawn attention in the scientific community and has been
criticized by some politicians.

"We have diseases that can be cured, and we have a president who has
kicked two people off the commission because they happen to think we ought
to be doing stem cell research and other kinds of research, and he doesn't
want that outcome," said Senator John F. Kerry yesterday through a
spokesman. "It is clear that the administration has no respect for
science."

The critique published yesterday focuses on two reports issued by the
council, one issued in October titled "Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and
the Pursuit of Happiness," and another issued in January titled "Monitoring
Stem Cell Research."

The two scientists' critique, entitled "Reason as Our Guide," alleges that
the "Beyond Therapy" report unfairly characterizes research into prolonging
healthy life as being dominated by scientists who are driven by the goal of
immortality. The report, they write, "falls short of explaining the serious
challenge of preventing and curing age-related disease to extend health --
very different from attempting immortality."

Blackburn, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco,
said that she had submitted a letter to the journal Science, outlining the
problems with that report, but that Kass ordered her to withdraw the
letter, which she did.

In another section of their critique, Blackburn and Rowley list a series
of problems with the stem cell report. The cumulative effect of the
problems, Blackburn said, is to overstate the current research promise of
adult stem cells and play down the potential of embryonic stem cells, which
are created by destroying a human embryo when it has reached a ball of
about 100 cells. To its critics, embryonic stem-cell research amounts to
taking a human life -- an objection that does not apply to the adult cells,
which can be extracted from a person's body without harm. In 2001, Bush
declared that the federal government would not fund research using human
embryonic cell lines that had not been created before his statement.
Michael S. Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at Dartmouth College who is the only
other full-time scientist on the council, said yesterday that he was "very
disheartened" that Blackburn had been fired, but that he had no plans to
quit the panel. Asked about the new critique by Blackburn and Rowley, he
said, "I 100 percent support what they are trying to do," but declined to
elaborate.

The report published yesterday is available at www.plosbiology.org.
Gareth Cook can be reached at cook@globe.com

Bullfrog Films, the oldest and largest publisher of videos and films about
the environment in the United States. Bullfrog Films is pleased to present
"Deconstructing Supper", a film that explores the phenomenon of industrial
agriculture and genetically-modified organisms.
Learn more about the video at
http://www.enn.com/businesscenter/products/797_13434.asp.
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

California county bans planting of biotech crops

- Opponents of genetically modified foods celebrated a historic victory
Wednesday after voters approved a measure to make Mendocino County,
California, the first in the United States to ban genetically modified
crops and animals.

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-03-04/s_13690.asp

California County Bans Planting of Biotech Crops
Reuters
Wed Mar 3

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Opponents of genetically modified foods
celebrated a historic victory on Wednesday after voters approved a
measure Tuesday night to make Mendocino County, California, the first
in the United States to ban genetically modified crops and animals.

The ban was approved despite strong opposition from biotech companies
including Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., which have successfully
defeated similar measures elsewhere around the United States.

"We won! We beat the biotech bullies," Laura Hamburg, spokesperson
for the "Yes on Measure H" campaign, said on Wednesday. "The people
emerged as victorious. We're sending Monsanto and the rest of the
biotech corporate club packing in Mendocino County."

The measure bans the planting of biotech crops and the raising of
livestock that have been genetically altered. Supporters said the
designation as a biotech-free county should make products grown there
more marketable, particularly to Europe where anti-biotech sentiment
is strong.

Biotech proponents, who spent more than $600,000 to try to defeat the
measure compared with about $80,000 raised by its supporters, said
they were evaluating how to respond, possibly including legal action.

"We are concerned about the precedent-setting nature of this vote and
the message it sends," said Allan Noe, a spokesman for Croplife
America, which represents the interests of an array of agricultural
and biotech companies.

Noe said passage of the measure was a "short-sighted move," as
technology in the pipeline could be beneficial to the county's
grape-growers.

But Hamburg said the 80,000 residents in the northern California
county, including about 50,000 voters, are dedicated to preserving
the purity of the vineyards and other agricultural resources there.

"We're part of a growing grass-roots movement of people all over the
world standing up to the biotech industry," said Hamburg.

Indeed, drives similar to Mendocino's effort are being planned in
other California counties, and a bill is pending in Vermont that
would place a two-year moratorium on planting and growing genetically
modified crops.

In North Dakota, where Monsanto is planning to roll out the world's
first genetically altered wheat, opponents are renewing efforts to at
least temporarily prohibit the biotech crop.

Two years ago, consumer groups in Oregon tried to pass a measure
requiring labeling of genetically modified foods, but lost after a
coalition of biotech companies, including Monsanto, spent some $5.5
million to kill the initiative.

The vote in California comes amid widespread concerns globally about
the genetic modification of crops.

Last week, countries across Asia, Africa, Europe and most of Latin
America agreed to tighter rules governing trade in gene-modified
seeds, over the opposition of the United States.

The United States has steadfastly defended the spread of biotech
crops and has pushed a WTO complaint against the European Union (news
- web sites) for keeping its borders closed to the altered foods.
Last month, the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs launched a Web site dedicated to biotech crop
development information.

Biotech crop critics say the government is putting corporate
interests ahead of the public interest.

They say the technology has not been fully tested to determine if it
will cause health problems or irreversible harm to the environment.
They also say it does little to address world hunger and health
problems and offers only minimal benefits to some farmers, while
contaminating conventional and organic crops.

From: Professor David Schubert
Salk Inst, La Jolla Calif.

Although I have recently been trying the keep out of the GE fray, the
article published in Heredity (_92_, 135) by Lichtenstein is so arrogant
and deceitful that I have an obligation to respond.

It is a prototype of the responses that I have been getting from plant
molecular biologists when I try to have a rational discussion with them
regarding the problems with their technology in the context of GE food
production.

It should not go unchallenged.

A central assumption of the typical molecular plant biologists is that
academic scientists like myself who work on animal cells are not qualified
to make any comments about plant biotechnology. What the plant biologists
do not understand, however, is that essentially all of the methods they use
(with the obvious exceptions of some of the plant-specific transfection
procedures, etc) were developed in animal cells and extensively used in
these cells well before being transferred to plants.

Indeed, labs studying mammalian systems are much further along than the
plant biologists in understanding and controlling basic issues that are
directly relevant to AG biotech, such as insertional mutagenesis.

An examination of any current issue of a plant science journal shows that
many of the articles are simply rediscovering the wheels upon which the
mammalian cell runs - perhaps with a slight twist, but there is nothing
fundamentally new.

Therefore it could be argued that molecular biologists who work with
animal cells have a much better understanding of nature than the plant
scienists, and are actually better qualified to judge plant biotechnology
and its implications.

The following, in CAPITAL LETTERS after Lichtenstein's statements, are my
responses to the many erroneous and fictitious claims that he makes.

Heredity (2004) 92, 135-136. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800422

News and Commentary
GM Debate: Dispelling myths
C Lichtenstein

Correspondence to: Conrad Lichtenstein, Professor of Molecular Biology
at the University of London's Queen Mary and Westfield College, was
among the first to use RNA silencing to engineer resistance to viral
infection in GM plants. He was the first to show viral integration into
plant genomes during evolution and is heavily involved in the public
understanding of science within the GM debate

I participated in a number of 'GM Nation?' debates in the early summer
of 2003, both as a plant molecular biologist with relevant research
interests, and as a panel member of Cropgen (www.cropgen.org). Cropgen
is a consumer and media information initiative that makes the case for
GM crops, helping to achieve a greater measure of realism and balance in
the GM debate that has been running these last few years.

Attendees at the debates I spoke at were largely anti-GM; thus it is not
surprising that the government report, which summarised the 37 000
questionnaires returned from the 675 meetings held across the country,
found antipathy to GM to be at odds with other polls of the population
as a whole. A number of other flaws in the analysis were recently shown
by Campbell and Townsend (2003). Nonetheless, the outcome of 'GM
Nation?' still puts the government in an awkward position in deciding on
the future of GM in Britain.

The debates covered a complex web of inter-related issues: (i) alien,
unnatural technology; (ii) food safety; (iii) intensification of
agriculture and its effect on the environment; (iv) genetic pollution;
(v) being driven solely by profits.

As a scientist, I saw the anti-GM 'scientists' as my principal
adversaries, who sought to use their scientific credentials to incite
fear in the hearts of the scientifically ignorant with a series of wild
statements about the dangers of GM. Yet when challenged, they were
unable to supply any peer-reviewed research as evidence to support them.

1) WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT GE CROPS ARE
DANGEROUS, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT.
THE USUAL ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CONSUMED FOR YEARS (ALTHOUGH THE
FIRST CROPS WERE INTRODUCED AS RECENTLY AS THE EARLY 90'S AND ONLY RECENTLY
WIDELY PLANTED) WITHOUT DOCUMENTED HARM IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. IN
THE USA THEY ARE CONSUMED IN LOW AMOUNTS; ANY POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK MAY BE
LONG-TERM; AND SINCE THERE IS NO TRACEABILITY BECAUSE NO LABELLING, IT IS
VIRTUALLY CERTAIN THAT ANY MEDICAL CONSEQUENCE WOULD GO UNDETECTED.

HOWEVER, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THE MOST RELEVANT POINT IS THAT THERE IS NO
MANDATORY SAFETY TESTING FOR THIS NEW AND EXPERIMENTAL TYPE OF PRODUCT.
AND IN FACT, RELATIVE TO THE SAFETY TESTING REQUIRED FOR OTHER CONSUMED
PRODUCTS SUCH AS FOOD ADDITIVES, THERE IS NO SERIOUS LONG-TERM TESTING OF
THE GE FOODS AT ALL.

IF ONE USES THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TO EXAMINE THE SO-CALLED
SAFETY TESTING PROCEDURES DONE BY AG BIOTECH COMPANIES ON THEIR FOOD CROPS,
IT WILL BE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO LONG-TERM, MULTIGENERATIONAL ANIMAL
TESTING FOR TOXICITY OR TERATOGENICITY OF GE CROPS.

THE LIMITED ALLERGENICITY TESTS DO NOT USE THE ACTUAL PLANT MATERIALS --
ONLY BACTERIAL EXPRESSED PROTEINS ARE USED, WHICH LACK THE POTENTIALLY
ADVERSE MODIFICATIONS FOUND IN THE PROTEIN EXPRESSED IN PLANTS.

IN ADDITION, THE COMPANIES CHOSE NOT TO USE METHODS AGREED UPON BY EXPERT
ALLERGISTS AND IMMUNOLOGISTS (E.G. FAO/WHO CONSULATION) TO ASSURE LACK OF
ALLERGENICITY.

THE ASSUMPTION BY MOST WHO EAT GE CROPS (AND THE PROMOS OF AG BIOTECH) IS
THAT THE FDA AND EPA HAVE RIGOROUS SAFETY TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE
CROPS. THIS IS SIMPLY A MYTH. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT SHOULD BE UP TO
THE PRODUCERS TO SHOW THAT THEIR PRODUCT IS SAFE - NOT THE CONSUMER. THIS
IS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. SINCE THERE IS NO PRESSING NEED FOR THE
GE PRODUCTS CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET, THERE IS TIME FOR TESTING.

It was on the first issue of 'alien unnatural technology' that I first
became engaged in the GM debate back in 1999: I led a project to
engineer transgenic virus-resistant plants by expressing a virally
derived antisense transgene that blocked expression of the invading
viral DNA replication machinery (Day et al, 1991). Tobacco was our
original chosen plant model for engineering plant resistance, and we
found that similar 'transgenes' were already present as multiple repeats
of methylated silent DNA on two different tobacco chromosomes (Bejarano
et al, 1996), as well as related species, suggesting an ancient
illegitimate viral DNA recombination event 25 million years ago (Murad
et al, 2004 and references therein). So, GM can happen in nature, I
argued, using this as an illustration because of the poignancy of it
being the same transgene that Mother Nature had 'used'. However, I made
the general point that horizontal gene transfer is natural - the real
driver being selection - citing the spread of antibiotic-resistance
genes in bacterial pathogens by artificial selection on natural plasmid-
and transposon-mediated gene transfer.

2) THE STATEMENTS IN THIS PARAGRAPH ARE AGAIN A PURE DISTORTION OF THE FACTS.
YES, IT IS TRUE THAT AN ARTIFICIALLY EXPRESSED GENE CAN INHIBIT THE
SYNTHESIS OF A PROTEIN AND A SIMILAR GENE CAN BE FOUND AMONGST THE
NON-CODING DNA OF THE PLANT GENOME. HOWEVER, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT
LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT THIS IS IN ANY WAY RELEVANT TO THE PROCESS OF GENETIC
ENGINEERING.

FIRST, THE GENOMIC 'JUNK' DNA IS NOT EXPRESSED, AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE
USED AS AN ANTISENSE GENE. AND IT MOST LIKELY NEVER WAS EXPRESSED SINCE IT
LACKS THE PROPER SIGNALLING SEQUENCES FOR CONTROLLED RNA SYNTHESIS.

SECOND, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE GE CONSTRUCT USED IN THE Day MANUSCRIPT
(Lichtenstein's 3rd ref) TO MAKE THE GE PLANT DOES NOT JUST CONTAIN ONLY
THE GENE ALLUDED TO ABOVE. THE SYNTHETIC 'GENE' CONTAINS, IN ADDITION, A
SEQUENCE THAT MAKES IT RESISTANT TO THE ANTIBIOTIC HYGROMYCIN (FOR
SELECTION OF PLANTS EXPRESSING THE DESIRED GENE), AND A PROMOTER SEQUENCE
DERIVED FROM A VIRUS WHICH CAUSES THE EXPRESSION OF THE TARGET GENE IN ALL
PLANT TISSUES (NOTE THAT THIS IS A COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL AND FOREIGN
PROCESS; IN NATURE, MANY GENES ARE ONLY EXPRESSED IN ONE OR A FEW TISSUES,
FOR EXAMPLE LEAVES OR SEEDS.) THE GE GENE IS EXPRESSED IN ALL PARTS OF THE
PLANT AT VERY HIGH LEVELS. THERE IS ALSO A LARGE PIECE OF THE DNA FROM THE
BACTERIAL VIRUS USED TO MAKE THE GE CONSTRUCT.

THEREFORE TO EQUATE THE GE PROCESS AND ITS RESULT WITH ANY NATURALLY
OCCURRING EVENT IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF REALITY.

Of course, all of agriculture is alien and unnatural and selective
breeding is artificial selection. What GM adds is artificial variation
in place of selection based on variation arising from random natural
mutations or, since the 1960s, from randomly induced variation using
gamma rays: the so-called 'mutation breeding'.

3) FOR COMMENTS ON MUTATION BREEDING SEE LATER.
WITH REGARD TO 'VARIATION AND SELECTION', IF THE GE PROCESS IS DONE
PROPERLY, THERE SHOULD BE NO VARIATION EXCEPT FOR THE TRANSGENE, BUT THE
SELECTION PROCESS IS UNNATURAL. A SPECIFIC GENE SHOULD BE INSERTED IN A
SPECIFIC SITE IN THE DNA AND EXPRESSED AT A SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE. THE
PROBLEM IS SELECTION, FOR UNLIKE NATURAL SELECTION WHICH OCCURS AT THE
LEVEL OF THE PRE-REPRODUCTIVE ORGANISM, THE GE SELECTION PROCESS OCCURS AT
THE SINGLE CELL LEVEL IN TISSUE CULTURE BASED UPON RESISTANCE TO AN
ANTIBIOTIC. THIS INITIAL LACK OF SELECTION AT THE LEVEL OF THE WHOLE
ORGANISM IS LIKELY TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPRESSION OF SUBTLE TRAITS THAT ARE A
RESULT OF THE GE PROCESS ITSELF (BY MULTIPLE GENE INSERTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE)
AND WOULD NOT NORMALLY OCCUR IN NATURE.

THUS, THE GE SELECTION PROCESS IS ANOTHER UNNATURAL ASPECT OF THE WORLD
OF GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PLANTS.

Conventional agriculture is now more productive than ever, with its new
crop varieties, the green revolution, and the use of fertilisers,
herbicides, and pesticides. This reduces biodiversity in the crop field,
but allows us to feed more people, more cheaply, and leaves more land free
of cultivation.

Organic farming is less productive and requires more land, but GM
technology offers organic farmers the opportunity to increase their
productivity organically, that is without the need to spray pesticides.
Future benefits include crop production on marginal lands, high in salt
or low in water. Thus the rejection of GM, an intrinsically organic
process, by the organic movement is puzzling. They are biting the very
hand that could feed them.

4) THIS IS AN INTERESTING APPROACH - REDEFINING ORGANIC FARMING TO
INCLUDE UNTESTED, EXPERIMENTAL GE CROPS. I SUPPOSE THE RECENT USDA RULES
DEFINING ORGANIC PRODUCTS ( THEY CAN NOT CONTAIN GE MATERIAL) WILL ALSO
HAVE TO BE CHANGED. IT IS ABOUT AS INTELLIGENT A COMMENT AS THE CLAIM
THAT GM CROPS ARE 'JUST LIKE' THOSE MADE BY STANDARD BREEDING.

I heard an anti-GM scientist say that GM foods cause cancer, that the
herbicide 'round-up' used both generally and on the herbicide-tolerant
GM crops in the recent farm-scale evaluations, causes neurodegenerative
diseases, yet no evidence was presented to support these claims. In any
case, GM is a process and not a product, so no generic statement is
possible on the safety of GM food unless we accept the flawed and
controversial data that Pusztai presented in the Lancet some years ago,
that the process is mysteriously able to make food harmful (Ewen and
Pusztai, 1999).

5) SEE '1' ABOVE. AGAIN, WHY DO THE PROMOTORS OF AG BIOTECH REQUIRE THAT
THE CONSUMER ASSUME THE BURDEN TO TEST WHETHER THE GE TECHNOLOGY IS
INHERENTLY SAFE? WE DO NOT SEE THE DRUG OR FOOD ADDITIVE COMPANIES MAKING
THIS DEMAND. UNLIKE DRUGS, FOOD ADDITIVES, AND EVEN COSMETICS, THE GE
CROPS HAVE NOT BEEN RIGOROUSLY TESTED FOR SAFETY. WHILE MANY MAY INDEED
TURN OUT TO BE SAFE, I AM CONVINCED THAT SOME WILL NOT.

IN THE ABSENCE OF SERIOUS TESTING AND LABELING WE MAY NEVER KNOW.
FINALLY, THERE IS VERY GOOD DATA SHOWING THAT THE HERBICIDE GLUFOSINATE,
WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP®) BUT, LIKE ROUNDUP, IS USED ON
SOME GE CROPS, IS BOTH EXCEPTIONALLY TOXIC AND PERSISTENT IN THE
ENVIRONMENT. GLUFOSINATE IS APPROVED FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA ON GE RICE
GROWN IN AREAS WHERE IT MAY CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER. ONCE GE PLANTS
BECOME RESISTANT TO THE MORE WIDELY USED HERBICIDE ROUNDUP, WHICH IS
RAPIDLY HAPPENING, MORE TOXIC HERBICIDES WILL BE REQUIRED TO KEEP THAT
TECHNOLOGY VIABLE.

An anti-GM scientist told us that GM technology was unstable and
unreliable, could cause mutations by inserting into genes, and that GM
transgenes were prone to methylation. It was not made clear why this was
a problem for anyone but the breeder, who might need to screen a number
of transgenic lines for their desired characteristics. The argument was
eclectic in failing to point out that mutation breeding, perhaps to a
even greater extent than GM, causes random unknown DNA damage, yet 70%
of crop varieties currently in use, including those by organic farmers,
were made by this method.

6) THE CLAIM THAT 70% OF ALL CURRENT CROP VARIETIES ARE MADE BY MUTATION
BREEDING IS A TOTAL FABRICATION.
I CHECKED THE MAJOR ONLINE PLANT REGISTRY, SPOKE WITH A LARGE-SCALE PLANT
BREEDER IN CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL VALLEY, AND WITH TWO EXPERTS IN WASHINGTON
DC. THE CONSENSUS AMONG ALL OF THESE SOURCES IS THAT MUCH FEWER THAN 1% OF
FOOD CROPS IN PRODUCTION (THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS ABOUT 1 IN A 1000) ARE MADE
BY MUTATIONAL BREEDING -- THE RANDOM INDUCTION OF MUTATIONS BY X-RAYS OR
MUTAGENS FOLLOWED BY SELECTION OF THE DESIRED TRAIT.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS CLEAR, FOR IN ORDER TO GET A MUTATIONAL 'HIT' ON A
DESIRED GENE IT IS NECESSARY TO CAUSE HUNDREDS OF UNRELATED MUTATIONS IN
THE SAME CHROMOSOME, SOME OF WHICH ARE GOING TO PRODUCE UNDESIRED
CHARACTERISTICS OR LIMIT PLANT VIGOR. THE BAD TRAITS CAN BE BRED OUT, BUT
OWING TO THEIR NUMBER THIS TAKES MANY YEARS WITH UNPREDICTABLE RESULTS.

PLANT BREEDERS NOW RELY ON MORE CONVENTIONAL BREEDING PROCEDURES THAT ARE
MORE EFFICIENT.

MUTATION BREEDING IS, HOWEVER, USED MORE FREQUENTLY IN THE PRODUCTION OF
FLOWERS, WHERE THERE IS NOT SO MUCH OF A PREMIUM ON VIGOR. EVER WONDER WHY
THE PLANT IN THE GARDEN SUPPORTING THAT SPECTACULAR ROSE LOOKS SO UNHEALTHY?

STATEMENTS LIKE THE 70% NUMBER REMIND ME OF ANOTHER FABRICATION PUT
FORWARD BY A LARGE GROUP OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS IN RESPONSE TO A PIECE I
PUBLISHED IN _NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY_ (Oct 2002) THAT POINTED OUT SOME
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH GE CROPS. IN THIS RESPONSE IT WAS CLAIMED THAT
THEY CAN DETERMINE IF THE FOREIGN PROTEIN INTRODUCED INTO GE CROPS IS THE
ONE AND ONLY ONE INTENDED. THIS STATEMENT WAS AGAIN A HUNDRED-FOLD
EXAGGERATION, FOR USING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY ONLY A FEW PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL PROTEINS IN CELLS CAN BE ASSAYED.

However, this argument generated the fear that these transgenes could
run amok and, due to their instability, leave the host plant escaping
into the wild. There was much vivid imagery and emotive language but no
clear mechanism to account for how such events might occur, nor for the
implication that 'GM DNA' was more dangerous to eat than any of the
other vast quantities of DNA that we eat every day.

7) THERE IS NOW UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE THAT SOME TRANSGENES HAVE INDEED
'RUN AMOK'. REPORTS FROM SEVERAL AGENCIES AND LABORATORIES HAVE
ESTABLISHED THAT NATIVE MAIZE POPULATIONS IN MEXICO ARE CONTAMINATED WITH
GE GENES, AND A RECENT SURVEY BY THE UNION FOR CONCERNED SCIENTISTS SHOWS
THAT VAST QUANTITIES OF SEED STOCKS OF CORN, SOY BEANS AND CANOLA ARE
CONTAMINATED.

IN ADDITION, THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT GENES FROM STANDARD CROPS
ESCAPE INTO THEIR WILD RELATIVES, SO THIS WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN WITH
TRANSGENES - AND IT HAS. SHIPMENTS OF CORN SEED TO NORTHERN ITALY HAVE
BEEN REJECTED BECAUSE OF HIGH LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION. SOME BELIEVE THAT
THE CONTAMINATION MAY BE ON PURPOSE BECAUSE ONCE THE ENGINEERED GENES
BECOME UBIQUITOUS THERE WILL BE NO MECHANISM TO CONTROL FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION.

THE EXTENSIVE LEVEL OF CONTAMINATION WAS PREDICTED BY MANY CONCERNED
(NON-PLANT) SCIENTISTS, AND IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR THE
CONTAINMENT OF CROPS PRODUCING PHARMACEUTICALS, WHICH ALL RATIONAL
SCIENTISTS AGREE CAN BE HAZARDOUS. LAST YEAR THERE WERE LARGE NUMBERS OF
PLOTS OF THESE PLANTS GROWN THROUGHOUT THE USA.

Unsubstantiated claims by the fear-mongering anti-GM scientists
highlight a central problem in a high technology society of specialists:
few, if any, of these anti-GM scientists are currently, or have ever
been, actively engaged in experimental research relevant to GM. Such
research could cover the regulation of gene expression; epigenetics and
gene methylation; DNA recombination; and construction and screening of
transgenic plants. No editor of a scientific journal would choose these
individuals as a reviewer. However, how is the layperson to evaluate the
credentials of these experts who present themselves to the media?
Society does currently seem to be moving in the wrong direction: a
distrust of mainstream 'conventional science' in favour of the fringe.

The challenge we face in countering the anti-GM scientists is to reduce
complex scientific principles to persuasive and understandable morsels
for the layperson, in the face of quasiscientific scare-mongering. One's
immediate instincts are to rebut with a reasoned, coherent scientific
argument that invalidates this techno-babble; the danger exists,
however, that only a scientist would realise the strength of your
argument, and that the lay audience is left as frightened as before.
Scare-mongers can use science to promote fear far more easily than
scientists can use science to reduce anxiety. Twas ever thus.

SEE MY INTRODUCTION.
IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ARROGANCE OF THE AG BIOTECH-SUPPORTED PLANT
MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS, THINKING THAT ONLY THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS AND
EVALUATE ISSUES OF GE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, GENETICS, AND ECOLOGY, THAT THEY
TRY AND LIMIT THE DEBATE. THEY DO NOT HAVE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE.
FROM MY LIMITED DEALINGS WITH THIS CATEGORY OF SCIENTISTS, THE FUTURE OF
OUR WORLD FOOD SUPPLY IS IN BIG TROUBLE IF WE MUST DEPEND ONLY UPON THEM TO
MAKE THE CORRECT CHOICES.

Among all this, what most worried people at these debates was
capitalism. There were conspiracy theories that GM technology, driven
solely by profits, was leading to global control of food production by
large multinational companies in collusion with governments, thus
exploiting poor farmers with expensive GM seed and doing nothing for the
needs of the developing world. Yet, with the collapse of communism, this
grievance against capitalism was not countered by any presentation of an
alternative.

With no training in economics, I found myself having to defend
capitalism by quoting from The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith: 'It is
not from benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest¼(Man is)
led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part his
intention¼" I pointed out that all economies need industry to be
profitable; that industry has to operate with profit in mind; that we
all have a stake in this profit as holders of ISAs and pension funds;
that new technologies increase capital value and benefit the whole of
society, without stealing from the poor to give to the rich: and that if
capitalism really was their concern, there were far bigger fish to fry
than GM.

9) THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CAPITALISM WHEN IT IS CONDUCTED IN A FAIR
AND HONEST WAY. HOWEVER, THERE CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE TYPE
OF PREDATORY CAPITALISM THAT IS PRACTISED BY THE BIGGEST AGRITECH COMPANIES
AND ENDORSED BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: ONE AGRITECH COMPANY HAS GONE INTO DEBT TO BUY
UP MOST OF THE LARGEST SEED PRODUCERS IN THE WORLD, AND THEN MAKES DEALS
WITH THE FARMERS SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THE GE SEEDS AT A REASONABLE
PRICE, BUT ONLY IF THE FARMER USES THE HERBICIDE PRODUCED BY THE COMPANY
SELLING THE SEEDS (I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE FARMERS, AND THEY CONFIRM THE
REPORTS THAT MOST GE FOOD CROPS DO REQUIRE MORE HERBICIDE!).

THE SAME COMPANY SUES NEIGHBORING FARMERS WHEN THEIR CROPS GET
CONTAMINATED BY WIND-BLOWN POLLEN FROM GE PLANTS, HIRES P.R. AGENTS (AND
ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS ON THEIR PAYROLL - WAS THERE A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
WITH THE LICHTENSTEIN ARTICLE?) TO INSULT ANYONE WHO CRITICIZES THEM OR
THEIR TECHNOLOGY, AND USES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO FORCE FOREIGN NATIONS
TO ACCEPT THEIR PRODUCTS.

THE CURRENT GE FOOD CROPS ARE OF LITTLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO ANYONE
EXCEPT THE AG BIOTECH COMPANIES AND THEIR GIANT MECHANIZED AMERICAN FARMS.

THERE HAS BEEN ONLY A VERY SMALL INVESTMENT IN ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP GE
CROPS THAT MAY BE USEFUL TO THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, WHERE WATER,
FOOD DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, AND DECENT LAND IS LIMITING - NOT THE 'MAGIC
BEAN' OF PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY.

AND LICHTENSTEIN WONDERS WHY THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WORRY ABOUT ISSUES OF
GLOBAL FOOD CONTROL AND SUPPLY GET THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING IS AMISS WITH
THE PURVEYORS OF GE FOOD! THERE MAY BE BIGGER FISH TO FRY, BUT TO ME
THERE IS NONE MORE MENACING UNTIL THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY OF GE FOOD
PRODUCTION IS SHOWN TO BE SAFE BY THE RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EACH
INDIVIDUAL STRAIN OF PLANT PRODUCED.

References

Bejarano ER, Khashoggi A, Witty M, Lichtenstein CP (1996). Integration
of multiple repeats of geminiviral DNA into the nuclear genome of
tobacco during evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 759-764. Article PubMed

Campbell S, Townsend E (2003). Flaws undermine resuts of UK biotech
debate. Nature 425: 559. Article PubMed

Day AG, Bejarano E, Buck KW, Burrell M, Lichtenstein CP (1991).
Expression of an antisense viral gene in transgenic tobacco confers
resistance to the DNA virus tomato golden mosaic virus. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 88: 6711-6715. PubMed

Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically
modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small
intestine. Lancet 354: 1353-1354. Article PubMed

Murad M, Bielawski J, Lim Y, Matyasek R, Kovarik A, Nichols RA, Leitch
AR, Lichtenstein CP (2004). The origin and evolution of
geminivirus-related DNA sequences in Nicotiana. Heredity, (in press).

BIO-IPR docserver
____________

TITLE: Would a Schmeiser win hurt plant breeding?
AUTHOR: Paul Beingessner
PUBLICATION: Crop Choice - Guest Commentary
DATE: 12 February 2004
URL: http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=2384
____________

WOULD A SCHMEISER WIN HURT PLANT BREEDING?

by Paul Beingessner
Canadian farmer, writer

(Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- In the wake of
Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, now being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada,
fear has been expressed about the consequences a Schmeiser win might have
for plant breeding in Canada.

The Canadian Seed Trade Association, for example, has said that weakening
patent protections would discourage seed companies from investing in or
serving Canadian customers. It has also urged the government to adopt even
more stringent plant protections than currently exist.

The notion that tightening up rules around plant patents will cause research
to wither and die needs some examining. It is based on two different but
related ideas. The first is that companies would not spend research dollars
in Canada because weakening patent laws would prevent them from getting
sufficient returns for their work. Since the public plant breeding programs
have been seriously under funded, the argument goes, they would not be able
to take up the slack created by the decline in private research.

The second argument is that Plant Breeders Rights alone is not sufficient
to protect plant varieties. Companies need the additional protection that
patents afford.

According to the Canadian Seed Trade Association, public breeding has shrunk
to an insignificant amount and private breeding must be encouraged if we are
to remain competitive in crop production.

But is this actually so? The numbers do not bear it out, at least in some
crops. In wheat, for example, a look at the list of recommended varieties
for Saskatchewan shows that the vast majority of varieties of all types of
wheat have come and are still coming from public breeding programs.

All varieties of durum listed in the guide come from public institutions,
all hard white spring wheat varieties, all Extra Strong varieties, all
winter wheats, all soft white spring wheats, six out of eight Prairie Spring
varieties, and 19 of the 26 listed hard red spring wheat varieties. Of the
seven red spring varieties that come from private breeding programs, only 3
were developed in Saskatchewan and none are grown on any significant acreage.

Nor is this situation limited to wheat. All but two of the oat varieties
listed come from public institutions. So do all fall rye varieties, 17 out
of 20 malt barley varieties, nine of ten feed barleys, 10 of 11 hulless
barleys and all 7 of what the guide calls intensive management barleys.

Despite 10 years of Plant Breeders Rights protection, private plant breeders
exhibit little interest in developing cereals for the Canadian prairies. Nor
are farmers short of good varieties to choose from in these crops.

While it is true that public money for plant breeding, that is money
directly from governments, has diminished greatly in recent years, much of
the slack has been taken up by direct farmer contributions through
check-offs. Royalties play a smaller role in funding public breeding, but
they are still significant. What is noteworthy is that these royalties
existed as part of the licensing system prior to the Plant Breeders Rights
Act, under the Seeds Act. One plant breeder told me that, though the
contribution from royalties is small, it is not tied to specific projects,
and so can be used for upgrading equipment and similar, less sexy needs.

Pulse crops, particularly lentil, chickpea and dry bean varieties similarly
show the impact of public breeding work. All lentils on the list, for
example, come from public work. Most of the work in breeding pulse crops
comes from the Crop Development Center at the University of Saskatchewan. It
is funded by a check-off collected from farmers when they sell pulses. The
Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, the organization that administers the check-off,
does not allow its varieties to be protected by Plant Breeders Rights
believing that farmers have already paid for the development of these crops
and should not have to pay again.

The exception to all this is canola. Many of the new canola varieties come
from private breeders. This explains the interest in patents exhibited by
the Canadian Seed Trade Association. Its members are largely involved in
canola work. Canola is cross-pollinated, rather than self-pollinated like
most cereals. Thus varieties may not hold true to type for as long. As well,
seed multiplication is much quicker, due to the small seed size and hence
large number of seeds produced. In short, there is more money to be made in
canola breeding.

What is apparent from all this is that the work of public plant breeding in
Canada remains extremely important. This work has not been enhanced
significantly by the existence of Plant Breeders Rights in that PBRs have
not resulted in many new cereals, pulses, or other smaller volume crops, or
in much new breeding in Canada. Multinational seed companies seem not much
interested in crops that will not make them lots of money.

There is however, some private money in breeding cereals. Quaker Oats, for
example, has funded oat development at the University of Saskatchewan for 30
years. Quaker Oats has no interest in PBRs or patents on these varieties. As
an end user, it simply wants to make sure farmers have access to good oat
varieties, so Quaker has a good product.

What Plant Breeders Rights legislation has done is given us a profusion of
look-alike varieties. With a decline in independent testing of these
varieties, farmers more and more have to choose based on advertising. Small
wonder then that, as a plant breeder told me, the advertising budgets of the
major seed companies far exceed their budgets for research and development.
You have to wonder how that makes farmers better off.

© Paul Beingessner

Email: mailto:beingessner@sasktel.net
Bio: http://www.newfarm.org/columns/saskatchewan/bio.shtml

... except for all the others

( - WSC after he'd come to tolerate it, at least for public consumption)

The following message comes from a contact in the US of A.
Think you may find it interesting.

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution,
in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The
University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian
Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which
is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

[Could this be a good spot to insert Wylde's immortal "the USA is
the only nation ever to go from barbarism to decadence without passing thru
the intermediate stage of civilisation"?]

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=22,427,000
States won by:
Gore=19;
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by :
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was
mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned
tenements and living off government welfare."

Olson believes the U.S is now somewhere between the "apathy" and
"complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with
some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the
"governmental dependency" phase.