Genetically
 Manipulated 


 

 
 
 Food


 News

21 January 2000

Table of Contents

BIOWATCH: Quotes from Scientists.
Urgent! Support GE-free Rio Grande Manifesto Before 16th March!
Letter Re: USFDA DOCKET#99P-4613.(Monsanto RBgh/RBst)
US Corngrowers Survey GMO Planting Intentions
Purdue Corn Specialist Talks Turkey On Transgenics
GE Listservers and Websites

Top NextFront Page

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:53:18 +0200
From: "ekogaia" ekogaia@iafrica.com

Although this is a long post, I thought it may be worthwhile to share this sage information.

Glenn

BIOWATCH: Quotes from Scientists.

Sections:
Professor Philip James
Dr. George Wald
Professor Bevan Mosely
Professor Richard Lewontin
Colin Blakemore
Professor Arpad Pusztai
Professor Richard Lacey
Dr. Philip Regal
Andrew Kimbrell
Prof. George Gaskell
Dr Michael Antoniou
Professor John Fagan
Jonathan Porritt
Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher
Prof. Samuel Epstein, M.D.
Prof. Dr. Joseph Cummins
Warning from The New England Journal of Medicine
Professor Weatherall
Joseph Rotblat
Dr Mae-Wan Ho
Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists
Prof. Wangari Mathai
Jim Hope
Professor Dennis Parke
Dr Peter Wills,
Dr Norman Ellstrand
Dr Erwin Chargoff

Professor Philip James

(author of the "James" report on the structure and functions of the proposed UK Food Standards Agency to oversee national food safety standards), Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, on genetically engineered food.

Rowett Research Institute
The Foods Standards Agency

Covered up US study shows damage to rats from BST "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into."

Dr. George Wald

* Nobel Laureate in Medicine (or Physiology) 1967 * Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University.

"Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution."

" Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms. The results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled."

"Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors." "It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to ho ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."

From: 'The Case Against Genetic Engineering' by George Walt, in The Recombinatnt DNA Debate, Jackson and Stich, eds. P. 127-128. (Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976 issue)

Professor Bevan Mosely

, former head of the Institute of Food Research, Reading, and a current member of the United Kingdom's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) responsible for reviewing the safety of genetically modified foods, in a response to the question - "So how can we know that something isn't really going to go horrendously wrong?" - put to him by Charles Colett of Radio Wey Valley, Hampshire, United Kingdom, February 1998.

"Well, I agree with you in the sense that when you use these methods you don't know what part of the chromosome that the new gene is being introduced into and that is, you know, what I would say is a drawback to the technology."

Professor Richard Lewontin

Professor of Genetics, Harvard University

"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."

Colin Blakemore

Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

"I see worries in the fact that we have the power to manipulate genes in ways that would be improbable or impossible through conventional evolution. We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."

Professor Arpad Pusztai

of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, on the health risks associated with genetically engineered food.

"If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."

And on the ability of the regulatory system to cope with prospect of the arrival of large numbers of GM crops: "Once the floodgate was opened, it's almost impossible. A committee cannot deal with it."

No faith in GM approvals system

Professor Richard Lacey

microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University, world famous for his accurate prediction of the dangers of " Mad cow disease". Professor Lacey has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods, because of 'the essentially unlimited health risks'

"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction."

And additionally with reference to the BSE crisis, "We know to our cost that an organism which was utterly unknown to science 30 years ago, the prion, is capable of jumping from species to species, and changing its own physical characteristics each time it crosses the barrier. This shows that it is impossible to forsee what dangers lie in store... If we continue to create new life forms artificially, we lay ourselves open to the possibility of similar unimaginable dangers."

New Scientist - BSE's hidden horror

Dr. Philip Regal

Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognised plant expert, on the decision (May 1998) by concerned scientists and consumers to sue the US Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) for failing to protect public health and provide consumers with relevant information about GM foods:

"Over the last fifteen years, I and other scientists have put the FDA on notice about the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods. Instead of responsible regulation we have seen bureaucratic bungling and obfuscation that have left public health and the environment at risk."

Details of FDA lawsuit launched May 1998 More information on the work of Professor Regal

Andrew Kimbrell

Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), commenting on the same FDA court action. International Center for Technology Assessment Andrew Kimbrell interview on the hazards of human and animal cloning

"The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labelling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances."

Prof. George Gaskell

professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics

"There are a lot of people in Europe in favour of biotechnology, who are prepared to take risks, but a considerable number are resistant and see no benefits. Many people see biotech taking us into the realm of unknown dangers. ...This is a Pandora's box and a lot of people wonder whether it's worth opening it."

Dr Michael Antoniou

senior lecturer in molecular pathology from London, biotechnology advisor to the farming and food industries, and chief biotechnology advisor to the Natural Law Party

"Information provided to governments and food suppliers by the biotechnology industry is not fully representative of the technical limitations of genetic engineering, and therefore does not give a complete picture of the potential dangers in its use."

"The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light."

"Once released into the environment, unlike a BSE epidemic or chemical spill, genetic mistakes cannot be contained, recalled or cleaned up, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely".

Professor John Fagan

award winning molecular biologist and cancer researcher, Professor of Microbiology at Maharishi University of Management, ...has renounced $3 million in US government research grants to publicise the dangers of misuse of biotechnology. He advocates a science-based precautionary approach requiring the labelling of all novel foods. He says

"The process of genetic engineering always involves the risk of altering the genetics and cellular functioning of a food organism in unanticipated ways. These unanticipated alterations can result in GE foods being allergenic, toxic, or reduced in nutritional value".

"Without labelling it will be very difficult for scientists to trace the source of new illness caused by genetically engineered food".

Jonathan Porritt

patron of The Soil Association

"The huge arrogance of the companies developing GMO crops and their determination to destroy the line of accountability which links the developer to the product is breath-taking. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, there will be a great benefit to those who have taken a stance against genetically modified organisms."

Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher

of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis Ababa, in response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed that those who want GMOs banned are undermining the position of starving people in Ethiopia.

"There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy ....we strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public."

Prof. Samuel Epstein, M.D.

Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of report which concludes that milk from cows in the US injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans.

"rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered. The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?"

BST (rBGH) cancer link BST background genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone scandal

Prof. Dr. Joseph Cummins

professor emeritus in genetics at the University of Western Ontario

"Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power."

Warning from The New England Journal of Medicine

in 1996 against the use of micro-organisms rather than food plants as gene donors

"...the allergic potential of these newly introduced microbial proteins is uncertain, unpredictable and untestable,..."

Professor Weatherall

Regis Professor of Medicine at Oxford University speaking on BBC Radio 4 Medicine Now, 27 August 1996 on the experimental nature of genetic engineering

"It's never been easy to safely introduce genes into cells S.It has involved attaching genes to viruses with possible harmful side effects. Getting the gene - once it's in the cell - into the right place, then finally getting it to behave itself - to produce the right amount of material in the cell, to produce it at the right time during a person's lifetime, in developmental stages and then making absolutely sure that the gene, because it's not in its usual place, doesn't interfere with any other genes that are near to it - we haven't really made much progress in any of these phases yet."

Medical problems and fatalities with genetically engineered insulin

Joseph Rotblat

the British physicist who won the 1995 Nobel Prize after years of battling against nuclear weapons Viral risk from GMOs

"My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there."

Dr Mae-Wan Ho

head of the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK "The Unholy Alliance" by Dr Mae-Wan Ho

"Gene technology is driven by bad science. It may well ruin our food supply, destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics of antibiotic resistant infectious diseases."

"Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism."

Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists

and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN in response to claims by Monsanto that GM crops will help feed the world's growing population.

"We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."

Prof. Wangari Mathai

of the Green Belt Movement Kenya

"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds".

Jim Hope

a scientist at the Neuropathogenics Unit, Edinburgh, on the earlier BSE crisis.

"We were the experts. We didn't have many of the answers ... Rather than explain that to a general public it was thought better to give the impression that we had everything under control, which we didn't and which we never have."

Scientists warned of BSE human health risks eight years before CJD link established, BBC report - February 1998

Professor Dennis Parke

of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats".

Dr Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered organisms, foods, and medicines.

Dr Peter Wills,

theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "Genes encode proteins involved in the control of virtually all biological processes. By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".

Dr Norman Ellstrand

Professor of Genetics at the University of California, is one of theworld's leading authorities in genetic engineering. He comments on the economic implications for farmers of gene exchange between crops and weedy relatives.

"We see this as a multi-million dollar problem. In Europe, there is already a big problem with gene flow between wild beet and cultivated beet. Oil-seed rape also has close relatives and is going to cause problems in the future. One would expect that the kind of genes that are now being engineered are going to be the ones that have a higher potentiality for causing trouble".

Dr Erwin Chargoff

eminent biochemist who is often referred to as the father of molecular biology, warned that all innovation does not result in "progress." He once referred to genetic engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz" and warned that the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology.

"I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate," he wrote in his autobiography, Heraclitean Fire. "Noting the 'awesome irreversibility' of genetic engineering experiments being planned, Chargoff warned that, "...you cannot recall a new form of life...It will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it."


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:16:22 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay glenda@global.co.za

Urgent! Support GE-free Rio Grande Manifesto Before 16th March!

Urgent Support Needed for the State Of Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil, whose government has declared its intention to stay free of Genetic Engineering.

The State faces an attempt to remove the right of its government to make decisions to protect health, the environment and the consumer with regard to Genetically Engineered Organisms

Here is a message from the State of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, which has taken a brave stand against genetic engineering in agriculture and also wishes to become free of pesticides and herbicides.

They need our support right now! Here is their message:

Friends,

We are launching the Manifesto, IN DEFENCE OF LIFE, which goes beyond mere party positions, in support of the Governor of the State, Olivio Dutra. He has decided to veto an attempt to introduce a legal project which seeks to remove from the State of Rio Grande do Sul the right to make decisions on issues related to genetically engineered organisms.

We are counting on your participation to disseminate this Manifesto and get as many people to support it as possible within the State of Rio Grande do Sul, and in other Brazilian states and other countries around the world.

Please send your name and organisation BEFORE 16th March 2000, the deadline for the veto. Please send it to:

agapan@ax.apc.org.br or by fax to 00 51 211 5546.

If you want more information you can get it from:

Vanete: 00 51 211 5546 Vicente: 00 51 210 2913

Speak to them in Portuguese or Spanish!

Thank you!

Here is the Manifesto:

IN DEFENCE OF LIFE

We wish to endorse the initiative of Olivio Dutra, Governor of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, to veto the proposed law which has been designed to remove from the State of Rio Grande do Sul its constitutional competence to make decisions on health and environment with respect to activities involving genetically modified organisms.

We re-affirm that it is the duty of the public authority of the state to protect health, the environment and the consumer and to fully adopt the precautionary principle which now has international recognition.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:11:16 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay glenda@global.co.za CC:

Letter Re: USFDA DOCKET#99P-4613.(Monsanto RBgh/RBst)

Dear Dr Henney & FDA officials ( JHENNEY@OC.FDA.GOV )

I am writing from South Africa to let you know that as a health practitioner I'm very concerned about genetically engineered food ingredients....and am particularly dismayed South Africa has licensed the use of RBst/RBgh here. Having informed myself via my global networks of health practitioners and scientists of the inherent risks of this prematurely commercialised technology,

I find it outrageous that innocent consumers around the world are being exposed to unlabelled, inadequately tested, novel gene combinations that have never been included in human foods before.

Knowing your country grows and exports so many GMOs, unsegregated and unlabelled, for over two years now I have not bought any foods made in the US, or containing ingredients from the US . I have also recommended this precautionary measure to my colleagues, professional networks, neighbours, family, clients and their families.

As a specialist in nutrition, reproductive and mother & baby health issues, I particularly urge you to support the banning of Monsanto's rBGH/RBst, which is exposing vulnerable populations to unacceptable health risks.

I am especially alarmed at the very real possibility that in developing countries (especially South Africa) where many emerging farmers lack the sophistication or information to choose wisely, BSE (Mad Cow Disease) could easily result from feeding RBst-treated cows cheap 'dumped/black market' (unfortunately common) animal-based high protein feed to boost the body condition cows lose when over-producing milk in response to the GE hormone injections.

It is my hope that the US will live up to their PR as champions of democracy, truth and justice ...a reputation seriously tarnished by the FDA's current global exposure as having ignored its own scientific expert's advice that GE foods are NOT 'substantially equivalent' to their conventionally raised counterparts.

The world is watching. Genetic pollution is irreversible. Please do the right thing for the sake of our world and future generations.

In hope
Glenda Lindsay NFMC, CTT, CA, NGMGC


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:12:50 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay glenda@global.co.za

US Corngrowers Survey GMO Planting Intentions

Farmer Planting Intentions of GMOs For 2000

WASHINGTON, DC. February 10, 2000

The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) has contracted with a national research company to survey farmers on their planting intentions concerning genetically modified crops for 2000. This survey will fulfill the scientific polling methods missing in many of the earlier surveys on what farmers would plant this coming spring.

"Back in August of 1999, the ACGA forecast a sizeable drop in genetically modified (GMO) planted corn acres for this year based on farmer contacts. While other surveys seem to support the ACGA forecast, our own, scientific, randomly selected survey would either agree or disagree with our prediction. We await the results and are anxious to see what America's farmers have decided to do," said Gary Goldberg, Chief Executive Officer of the ACGA.

This survey is being performed as part of the Farmer Choice-Customer First Program, developed by the Corn Growers to provide unbiased, objective information to production agriculture about the debate surrounding GMOs. Because the ACGA does not accept any financial contributions from the seed or chemical industry, the ACGA has no conflicts of interests in the execution of this informational program.

"Farmers need to be asking the right questions before they can secure the answers. Farmer Choice-Customer First addresses the questions surrounding marketability, certification, segregation, cross-pollination, corporate concentration and liability. By asking these questions and seeking the answers, production agriculture places themselves in a better position to decide what direction they would like to take concerning the issues of biotechnology and genetically modified crops," added Goldberg.

The ACGA survey, possibly the most important and accurate account of production agriculture's planting intentions, will be distributed as soon as it is completed.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:12:50 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay glenda@global.co.za

Purdue Corn Specialist Talks Turkey On Transgenics

February 9, 2000 AgAnswers

You say GMO, I say transgenic. But before we call the whole thing off, Purdue Extension corn specialist Bob Nielsen says there are key facts we all should know about growing the controversial crops. Before passing judgement on so-called genetically modified crops or transgenics containing genes physically transferred from another species we should understand current agronomic and marketing truths.

"First, recognize that insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant varieties are not critical for the successful production of corn and soybeans in Indiana." he says.

"In other words, growing non-transgenics will not result in economic ruin for most Indiana farmers!" Nielsen also says farmers do not necessarily need to secure a contract to grow non-transgenic crops. "Growing non-transgenics will not automatically require efforts to segregate and certify non-transgenic status," he says. "However, if you want to aim for a non-transgenic market premium, you should arrange for a contract or an agreement with the grain buyer to guarantee that your non-transgenic grain has a home this fall."

Nielsen points out that fulfilling such contracts may require certification that grain is non-transgenic cost-free as producers see the grain through harvest and delivery.

The Indiana Crop Improvement Association (ICIA) will be offering a certification service for non-transgenic corn hybrids in 2000. The ICIA certification guidelines for 2000 corn production include:

For more information on ICIA's certification service, call (765) 523-2535 or e-mail icia@indianacrop.org.

When deciding what to plant this spring, Nielsen says Indiana growers must determine the balance between the agronomic costs, agronomic benefits and market uncertainties.

"The cost of the technology is simple to figure, it is simply the 'technology fee' added to the seed cost by the seed company," he says.

"The agronomic benefit of the technology is more difficult to ascertain. Commonly available sources of information about these benefits include magazine or TV marketing pieces, sales pitches by company sales representatives, and testimonials by folks who have used the technology in the past. All of these sources should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt."

As always, Nielsen stresses that farmers should study performance data comparing the transgenic varieties of interest with alternative non-transgenic varieties.

"Ideally, these data should be summarized from trials conducted over many locations and/or years," he says. "In my opinion, the best way to use such data sets is to compare the top-yielding transgenic varieties in a trial with the top-yielding non-transgenic varieties in the same trial. Comparisons to 'normal' counterparts or to 'top-selling' competitors are not necessarily fair comparisons because these varieties are not always the 'latest and greatest' varieties. This fact is important because you need to determine whether the transgenic variety in question yields as good or better than the best available variety in today's marketplace."


Top PreviousFront Page

Date: 20 Jan 2000 08:20:08 U
From: Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)

GE Listservers and Websites

There are several good GE listservs which bring news and discussion on the topic of GE food. etc., everyday. At the end of this message are some more good websites and info on news summaries and periodic reports.

Sections:
E-mail List Servers
News Summaries:
North American GE Websites
Relevant websites:

E-mail List Servers

  1. Our own international GE news and discussion listerv, Ban-GEF. Has a digest form which gives you the days' news in one message. To subscribe (free) Address your email to Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com with subscribe in the Subject line.

  2. The German GE listserv Gentech gentech@gen.free.de Messages are in English To subscribe To: gentech-request@ping.de Subject: subscribe http://data.free.de/gentec/earth.html

  3. Biotech Activists, biotech_activists@iatp.org - very good and active, put out by Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy mritchie@iatp.org    http://www.iatp.org To subscribe, send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body of the message type: subscribe biotech_activists

  4. Another called BAN out of the Pacific Northwest ban@lists.tao.ca is centered around GE activism and they also have some truely great environmentalists on their list.

    SUBSCRIBE to the listserve of the Bioengineering Action Network of North America by sending a message of SUBSCRIBE to: ban-request@tao.ca BAN can be reached through the Hexterminators at: lamaga@earthlink.net    http://www.ceep.com/artactivist    http://www.tao.ca/~ban/ar.htm

  5. UK: Genetics Listserve, genetics@foe.co.uk

  6. The newest GE listserv: biotech-L@cornell.edu A group of Cornell students has formed around the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO), particularly pertaining to agricultural commodities and foods.

    To get on this list send an email to: listproc@cornell.edu In message text write: SUB biotech-L your name No commas or periods and all on the same line. For more info contact Scott Fuller smf13@cornell.edu. Items can also be posted to biotech-L@cornell.edu (biotech and L are not case sensitive) without actually being on it.

  7. Genetic Engineering List New Zealand Natural Law Party Administration : listadmin@NaturalLaw.org.nz List Messages : ge@NaturalLaw.org.nz Web Page : http://www.NaturalLaw.org.nz/genetic

    The GE List is a service of the Natural Law Party to provide a discussion forum for organisations concerned about the dangers of genetic engineering. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Natural Law Party. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please email the list administrator at listadmin@NaturalLaw.org.nz

    "Gary T. Benner" gary@corporate.co.nz owner    "Clive Elwell" jevans@thenet.co.nz

  8. Jest-west has its origins with a group from Vancouver, Canada (BCBC) and now goes far beyond these boundaries. It provides a Canadian perspective on genetic engineering developments occuring around the world.

    Send subscription request to Christine Massey,list manager, at cmassey@sfu.ca

  9. Sanet-MG is an e-mail discussion group concerning sustainable agriculture. It was initiated in September of 1991. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

    News Summaries:

  10. Mothers for Natural Law puts out a GE news summary about every 2 weeks. To subscribe, send an email to ge-news-subscribe@egroups.com

  11. Richard Wolfson, PhD puts one out every day, just about. email: rwolfson@concentric.net His website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic contains more information on genetic engineering as well as previous genetic engineering news items. Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 (USD for those outside Canada) for 12 months, and mailed to the above address. Or see website for details.

  12. Pure Food Campaign sends out a great report about once a month. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1527

  13. Good US campaigning website: http://www.purefood.org/gelink.html

  14. The excellent RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY often carries GE news.

    http://www.monitor.net/rachel Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free.

  15. ngin: http://members.tripod.com/~ngin

    North American GE Websites

    Good urls for North American friends who need an introduction to the issues:

  16. on What to Eat, How to Shop to avoid genetically engineered foods: http://www.safe-food.org/-consumer/foods.html

  17. an excellent intro to the concerns about GE in food and agriculture: http://www.cqs.com/gmohazard.htm

  18. Here's a url for the excellent introductory press article in our last bulletin: ' "Transgenic" pollution a new concern': http://www.msnbc.com/news/309357.asp#BODY

  19. The Edmonds Institute website contains remarkable Revolving Door information on interpenetration of biotech companies and US administration: http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html

  20. Good US campaigning website: http://www.purefood.org/gelink.html

  21. They also have a 4-page GE facts flyer that can be downloaded as a pdf file: http://www.purefood.org/ge/gefacts.pdf

    Relevant websites:

  22. http://www.thecampaign.org/international.htm The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

  23. http://www.psagef.org/indexgen.htm Physicians And Scientists Against Genetically Engineered Food

  24. http://www.safe-food.org - Mothers for Natural Law Lists of GE-free foods. and how manufacturers can source non-GE ingredients. Links with Union of Concerned Scientists who keep a chart of GE crops and products, e.g., vaccines. Sign and download National Petition to get GE foods labelled. Also sign toll-free 1-877-REAL-FOOD

  25. http://www.bio-integrity.org - Steve Druker's Lawsuit against the FDA ongoing from May 98

  26. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/Genetic%20Engineering.htm. San Francisco State Philosophy Department - answers questions

  27. http://www.genetic-id.com - Dr. John Fagan's Genetic tests and analysis for the food industry

  28. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1527 - Pure Food Campaign

  29. http://www.essential.org/crg - The Council for responsibility in Genetics

  30. http://www.zero.com.au/agen - Australian Gene Ethics Network

  31. Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST) A Global Network for impartial interdisciplinary evaluation of the safety of new technologies

    E-mail: info@psrast.org Tel: +46-322622966 Fax: +46-322620944 http://www.psrast.org/indexeng.htm Winner of the StudyWeb Academic Excellence Award

-------------------------------------
Green Homes For Sale: http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate
Green Building Pros: http://www.greenbuilder.com/directory
Calendar: http://www.greenbuilder.com/calendar
Bookstore: http://www.greenbuilder.com/bookstore