Genetically
 Manipulated 


 

 
 
 Food


 News

7 February 2000

Table of Contents

letter to fellow activists
Re: letter to fellow activists
updated version of 'GE Crops and Contamination'
sources re: organic food being superior
A complete GE solution - Everyone Must Know
More on Frito-Lay & Biotech's Response
Shooting Up Biotech's "Humanized" Antibodies For Cocaine Addiction
GE propaganda trick
The Herald GM watch

Top NextFront Page

Date: 5 Feb 2000 14:56:12 U
From: Laurel Hopwood laurel.hopwood@sierraclub.org

letter to fellow activists

Friends

John Stossel, Dennis Avery, CAST are examples of the pimps representing the takeover by Corporate America. There's a war going on and we're on the front lines.

Please keep in mind that their strategy is the 4 Ds:

  1. Divide the activists
  2. Discredit the scientists
  3. Deny there's a problem
  4. Delay and ask for more science

Whatever we do, we must stay united. Even though all of us activists may be on different paths, we have the same goal.

I hope we can all keep in mind that we need to stay centered and not let them divide us, or we'll lose our power.

Laurel Hopwood


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 5 Feb 2000 18:16:50 U
From: Robert Mann robt_m@talk.co.nz

Re: letter to fellow activists

At 3:47 PM -0500 00/2/5, Laurel Hopwood wrote:

...

Please keep in mind that their strategy is the 4 Ds:

  1. Divide the activists
  2. Discredit the scientists
  3. Deny there's a problem
  4. Delay and ask for more science

Whatever we do, we must stay united. Even though all of us activists may be on different paths, we have the same goal.

Right, as us Berkeley folks took to saying in the late 1960s, on.

To take a particular example of potential unnecessary internal conflict, Jon recently mentioned that USA media might take up the theme of opposing militant homosexuality.

The superficial immediate response is that such a scenario is highly implausible - tolerating if not promoting hx & lesbian causes is lately a rather obvious crusade by many media.

But much more important is that the mention of this other contentious issue could do no good to the cause for which this list exists. I refrained from commenting at the time, because I wished that this irrelevant topic be not a subject for argument here - it should simply be left aside.

But now I do want to reinforce Laurel's utterly correct principles by asking that listees not introduce controversies on which we are almost certainly divided. Unity against GEF can only be impeded by such gratuitous irrelevant topics.

R

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


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 5 Feb 2000 19:13:18 U
From: Laurel Hopwood laurel.hopwood@sierraclub.org

updated version of 'GE Crops and Contamination'

Will Genetically Engineered Crops Mean Contaminated and Toxic Food, Bodies, And Ecosystems?

by Dr. Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/Bioethics
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
202-293-5105

Sections:
Problems
Government Assurance
Conclusions
Postscript
References
Postscript For Concerned Scientists
Potential Biohazards of GE Products

Problems

Without any scientifically or empirically verified evidence, advocates of agricultural biotechnology claim that genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) crops are the answer to world hunger and will give food security to an ever increasing human population. In fact, a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service Study of major transgenic crops that were planted in 1997 found that these crops, contrary to manufacturers' claims, did not show any improvement in yield or a reduction in pesticide costs compared to conventional crops (Food Chemical News, July 5, 1999, pp.13-14).

Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) soybeans have been found to produce lower yields than conventional beans, and farmers are using more Roundup herbicide to deal with weed resistance. (See: Benbrook, C. 1999. Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. (RR yield drag 98.pdf.) Ag BioTech InfoNet website at:[ http://www.biotech-info.net].

The claim that the agribiotechnology life science industry makes stating that by making conventional "production" agriculture more efficient, biodiversity can be protected and endangered species saved, is questionable. There is increasing scientific evidence to the contrary, which is why Great Britain is leading the European Economic Community (EEC) to put agricultural biotechnology on hold until more is known about the risks and benefits of GE crops, foods, and food additives and supplements (enzymes, vitamins, etc.); to more carefully monitor and effectively regulate agribiotechnology; and to apply the precautionary principle to this new technology.

According to the US Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Aabout 25 percent of corn, 38 percent of soybeans (other informed sources estimate 50 percent), 35 percent of canola, and 45 percent of cotton crops are derived from biotechnology (San Francisco Examiner, July 11, 1999). At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously for a declaration against the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture. The delegates called on governments and regulatory agencies throughout the world to immediately ban the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production since it involves: