8 August 2000

Table of Contents

BIOWATCH: Fw: Biotech: Not the Answer to Hunger
BIOWATCH: Southern Africa: Seed Requirements after the Floods
Assessment of the Seed Requirements After the Floods in the 1999/2000 SEASON
BIOWATCH: Worldwide GMO debate + Effects on Business
What is GM Food and what’s all the fuss about
Soybean Products – A Recipe for Disaster?
BIOWATCH: Say no to Canola
"GE-free" companies

Top NextFront Page

Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:34:46 +0200
From: "ekogaia"
From: "Biowatch listserver"

I know I have been sending out lots of information this week, but it is a big week in the debate around GE in South Africa. Knowledge is power.
All the best


BIOWATCH: Fw: Biotech: Not the Answer to Hunger

By Devinder Sharma, From: Business Line; July 21, 2000

The genetic engineering industry has been claiming that at a time when more than 800 million people go to bed hungry, and their number is likely to swell to over 1.5 billion in the next ten years, biotechnology provides the only hope to feed the burgeoning population.

Jumping on to the biotechnology bandwagon are many of the Nobel laureates, distinguished agriculture scientists, corporate bigwigs and of course the economists. After all, the cutting-edge technology, as biotechnology is fondly called, provides them with a perfect tool to distract the decision-makers from the more pressing problems of alleviating hunger and poverty.

The fact is that even at present the world has enough food to feed these 800 million hungry mouths. If the food that is currently available is to be evenly distributed among the 6.4 billion people on the planet (providing each individual with a minimum intake of 2,500 calories), there would still be a surplus left for 800 million people. The problem, therefore, is not of production but clearly of access and distribution. It involves more of politics than technology, with biotechnology having virtually no role to play.

A third of the world's 800 million hungry live in India. How grim is the poverty scenario is clearly evident from a recent World Bank poverty update: in absolute terms, the number of those below the poverty line who cannot manage two-square meals a day shows a significant increase in the post-reform era (after 1991). The number of the hungry and malnourished in India alone have been steadily rising. In the rural areas, from 224 million in the early 1990's to 250 million in the mid 1990's. This corresponds to an almost constant increase in the incidence of rural poverty and a slow decline in the incidence of urban poverty, the report states.

Eradicating hunger from India, therefore, would alleviate much of the problem at the global level. Successive governments, especially in the past three decades following the advent of green revolution, have, however, very conveniently abdicated their constitutional responsibility to feed the nation. Year after year, the governments have managed a sizeable buffer stock essentially by depriving the poor of their basic human right --- food.

India is once again faced with an unmanageable food glut. From a foodgrain surplus of ten million tonnes in 1999, the stocks have multiplied to 42 million tonnes of wheat and rice this year, some 18 million tonnes more than the annual buffer requirement of about 24 million tonnes. Instead of distributing the surplus grain among those who desperately need it, the government is toying with the idea of either finding an export market or releasing it in the open market (read the private trade) at a subsidised price.

Much of the plentiful stocks are lying in the open for want of adequate storage space, and by the time the next harvest flows into the markets, considerable quantity would have been rendered unfit for human consumption. Is the biotechnology industry competent to address the problems arising from over-production and its lack of distribution? Even if we were to buy the industry's argument that the technology will increase food production, how will it solve India's hunger crisis has never been spelled out and for obvious reasons.

In 1999, India had produced a bumper harvest of wheat, some six million tonnes more than what it produced a year before. It already had a carryover stock of four million tonnes. In effect, the country was saddled with a ìsurplusí wheat stock of ten million tonnes, above the buffer requirements. Aware that at least 250 million people were going to bed hungry every night, still the government had allowed the surplus stocks to be exported.

Although the country is "self-sufficient" in foodgrain production, reports of hunger and starvation pour in regularly from the infamous Kalahandi region of Orissa. The region, with a population of 20 million, suffers from the pangs of hunger and malnutrition despite any visible signs of ecological devastation. Kalahandi is otherwise a fertile tract and has traditionally been food surplus. So much so that in 1943, at the time of the great Bengal famine, Kalahandi had come to the rescue of the famine stricken Bengal.

Even in Kalahandi, the problem is not of production. What is not known is that Kalahandi region is the biggest contributor of surplus rice to the central food reserves. In the past five years, Kalahandi has provided some 50,000 tonnes of rice on an average to the food reserves of the government of India, the highest from the State. People die of starvation and hunger for the simple reason that they cannot afford to buy the food they produce.

Meanwhile, an American company, RiceX, has entered into a joint collaboration with the multinational agri-business giant, Monsanto, to produce and test its patented technology for nutritious food, converting the traditionally used cattle feed ñ rice bran ñ into a human food. While the surplus grains are being exported ñ much of it goes for the cattle in the west, the government has invited the American companies to convert cattle feed into a nutritious food for its ever-growing population of the poor and hungry.

This is merely an attempt to provide a clean cover-up to the collective guilt of the nation, which fails to find a solution of hunger, malnutrition and starvation. One doesnít know for sure how many Kalahandisí are tucked in different parts of the country. The only way to escape the humiliation and shame that is associated with governing over a country where at least a third of the population is deprived of food, is to find solace and escape in cosmetic measures. Biotechnology is yet another cosmetic tool, which is being attempted in the name of eradicating hunger.

Faulty policies have ensured that food reserves are built essentially by keeping the food away from the reach of the poor. But with food prices continuously rising, and with the percentage of the population earning less than a dollar a day also keeping pace, more and more people are finding it difficult to meet their daily food needs. How will biotechnology provide food to those who are desperately in need? In fact, given the high seed cost, royalty and the cost of other inputs that the farmers will have to use (for instance, more herbicides in the herbicide-tolerant plants), the cost of cultivation will go up and so will the market price. Food will then go out of the reach of still more people. Biotechnology will ultimately subject more people to hunger and starvation.

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:27:52 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay
From: Diverse Women for Diversity
From: Africa Committee of Stiftung Umverteilen! für eine, solidarische Welt (Foundation Redistribution! for one world in solidarity), Berlin/Germany
Via: Ute Sprenger

DWD:: Southern Africa, disaster relief, seed material, agrobiodiversity, review study, SPGRC, CTDT

BIOWATCH: Southern Africa: Seed Requirements after the Floods

Berlin, 31 July 2000

The Study

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The Study

Please find attached the electronic version of the "Assessment of the Seed Requirements after the Floods in the 1999/2000 Season" in Southern Africa.

The study was undertaken in March 2000 by SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) and Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), and commissioned by Stiftung Umverteilen.

Except for one complex table (Table 3) - a compilation by Source, Variety, Maturity, Stocks Available, and Seed Quantities expected to be harvested - the study is completely mailed-out here.Table 3 is only available as a Word-formated file to be mailed out as an attachment on request by CTDT – e-mail: – or SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) – e-mail:

The Seed Study and further information is also available at:


In March 2000 two organizations one from Zambia and the other one from Zimbabwe, SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) and Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), started the "Seed Initiative" in order to help restore a sustainable agriculture after the flood disaster in the Southern African Region.

Due to the devastating effects of cyclone eline and cyclone gloria which raged largely in most parts of Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, and in view of the destruction of the agricultural base of farming communities, including crop losses, the organisations made an appeal to the regional and international community in disaster relief and developmental assistance, calling for a short, medium, and long term approach, and a co-ordinated effort.

As a first and fast response to the disaster they suggested to conduct an immediate review study on reserves of local seed for relief purposes in the region. This survey was meant to help avoid the introduction of inappropriate crop varieties, including genetically modified varieties, which may be a threat to local production systems, biodiversity and the ecology. The Africa Committee of Stiftung Umverteilen in Germany joined in and commissioned this study, which we are pleased to present here electronically.

However, the report is not comprehensive enough, we suppose due to the duplication of efforts between the initiators of the exercise and activities of GTZ, an organisation in developmental cooperation. As hinted in the report under section 3.0 "Outcome", a confusion among the targeted organisations and institutes in the region apparently hampered higher turnout. This confusion came about because at the same time this study was realized, a parallel survey was carried out by GTZ asking the same people for the same information.

We think that rather than competing, the prospective challenges for those active in this field should be to maintain an open atmosphere, conducive for cooperation for the benefit of local farmers and communities in the SADC region.

Nevertheless, it is hoped that the information herewith provided on seed stock availability will be useful to the various Aid and NGO communities that are involved in the affected areas.

Ute Sprenger
on behalf of the Africa Committee of Stiftung Umverteilen

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:27:52 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay
From: Diverse Women for Diversity
From: Africa Committee of Stiftung Umverteilen! für eine, solidarische Welt (Foundation Redistribution! for one world in solidarity), Berlin/Germany
Via: Ute Sprenger

Assessment of the Seed Requirements After the Floods in the 1999/2000 SEASON

Report by G.P.Mwila, Commissioned by The Stiftung Umverteilen, Germany
© Copyright: SPGRC, CTDT, Stiftung Umverteilen, June, 2000

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Methodology
3.0 Outcome

1.0 Introduction

The floods, arising from excessive rains and from the cyclones Eline and Gloria during the 1999/2000 season inflicted some of the countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region destroying the agricultural base of farming communities, including crop losses. This disaster is leaving the affected communities with almost no hope of any harvest and eroding the traditional local seed supply system. This situation has led to responses from International Aid Agencies in many ways including emergency food supplies.

Crucial after the floods in Southern Africa is to rebuild the agriculture in order to restore food security in the affected regions. Thus, the aid activities are expected to go beyond emergency operations to those aimed at addressing the restoration of livelihood systems, in particular agriculture. The most obvious intervention for agricultural restoration is the supply of appropriate and locally adapted quality seed and planting material to enable farmers plant in the next cropping season.

In view of the above, the SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) in Zambia and Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT), a local NGO based in Zimbabwe together with the Germany based Stiftung Umverteilen (Foundation Redistribution), in March 2000 launched an initiative, calling for a short, medium, and long term approach in order to restore a sustainable agriculture.

As part of this "Seed Initiative" an open letter was issued and mailed out widely in order to draw the attention of regional and international bodies in disaster relief and developmental assistance to the impact of the importation of inappropriate seeds and to co-ordinated efforts imperative to reconstitute the various agricultural systems (see open letter at: ). Moreover, as a first response to the disaster, an immediate review study on local seed stocks in the region was initiated with the aim of making this information available for i.e. organisations in the relief sector.

This survey was meant to help avoid the introduction of inappropriate crop varieties, including genetically modified varieties, which may be a threat to local production systems, biodiversity and ecology.

It is hoped that the information herewith provided on seed stock availability will be utilised by the Aid Agencies that are involved in the procurement and supply of seeds to the affected areas.

We are most grateful to all people who have contributed information and helped to compile the data for this report.

© Copyright: SPGRC, CTDT, Stiftung Umverteilen! The information in this study can be used freely as long as it is for non-profit purposes. As for any quotation please refer to this paper and its initiators. Thank you!

2.0 Methodology

The exercise was supposed to cover Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Crops to be included were Maize, Sorghum, Pearl millet, Rice, Cowpea, Beans and Groundnuts.

Information was to be obtained from the eight countries and two persons to gather the data. Mr Mwila based in Zambia was to cover the following countries: Zambia, Tanzania, Lesotho and Malawi whilst Dr Mpofu based in Zimbabwe was to collect the same information from Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland.

Faxes were successfully sent to all contact persons in each country except Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The focus in terms of collecting this information was on Zambia, Tanzania and Malawi.

In Zambia the seed companies and other agencies involved in seed production and supply were contacted through fax messages. Second reminders were sent when no responses were forthcoming two weeks after sending the first messages.

Information requested was on the following:

  1. Number of varieties available for each crop
  2. Variety names
  3. Variety type (Hybrid, OPV)
  4. Maturity class
  5. Yield potential
  6. Special attributes
  7. Adaptation
  8. Seed stocks currently available
  9. Seed stocks expected after harvest
  10. Expected surplus from the next harvest

3.0 Outcome

The "Seed Initiative" was launched in March 2000 by SPGRC and CTDT in order to support co-ordinated efforts to restore a sustainable agriculture after the flood disaster in the Southern African Region, with the immediate survey being part of this initiative.

Almost at the same time the above mentioned inquiries were being send out to the different stakeholders in the region, a similar survey was undertaken by another body, approaching the same organisations and people. Besides the fact that this "Seed Initiative" survey was conducted at short, the unfortunate duplication of efforts was possibly also affecting the turnout, and thus affected the results.

Therefore, at the moment the information included in this report are obtained from one country: Zambia. For information on other countries of the region we refer to a complementary study of the SADC-Food Security Unit/GTZ.

The information in this report is presented in summary form in terms of total quantities available and expected to be harvested per crop in Zambia (Table 1), seed quantities available with each seed company/agency for each crop (Table 2) and details of seed stock situation for each crop (Table 3).

Table 1

. Seed stocks Available in Zambia and Quantities expected to be Harvested during the 1999/2000 Season

CropStocks Available
Stocks Expected to be Harvested (MTs)
Pearl millet1.6300

Table 2

:Seed Stocks Available with different seed agencies for each crop

Seed AgencyMaize
Pearl millet
SeedCo Zambia412.50.00.0
Sempro (Pannar)60000.00.0
PAM (NGO)26.930.171.64

Seed AgencyCowpea
SeedCo Zambia0.01.0329.5
Sempro (Pannar)

The yield potential of the maize varieties given in this report is 4-6 tonnes per hectare for early maturing varieties, 6-8 tonnes per hectare for medium maturity varieties and more than 10tonnes per hectare for late maturing varieties.

Varieties classified as early are expected mature within the 100-115 days period, those which are medium within 125-140days and late varieties within 140-150 days

Based on the average seed rates for each crop the available seed from Zambia could be provided for the following hectarage:


The expected seed stocks that are expected to be harvested for maize during the 1999/2000 season could be much more than as one of the seed company did not indicate the expected seed quantities that is expected. The experience of the seed companies is that they always have some carryover seed especially for maize.

Conditions in some parts of the country allow for winter seed production, especially for maize. Some seed companies, in particular, Zamseed have the capacity to produce seed for most of these crops if required.

4.0 Table 3: Details on seed stocks available with different Seed Companies/Agencies in Zambia

These details are a complex table of three pages, a compilation by Company or Source, Variety Name, Variety Type, Maturity Class, Stocks Available (Tonnes), and Seed Quantities expected to be harvested (Tonnes).

Table 3 is only available as a Word-formated file to be mailed out as an attachment on request. Interested parties should contact Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT) in Zimbabwe: e-mail: or SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) in Zambia: e-mail:

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:08:52 +0200
From: "taynton"

BIOWATCH: Worldwide GMO debate + Effects on Business

Dear Sirs

  1. The Worldwide Debate Over genetically Modified Foods + Effects on Business:

  2. Serve Your Customers Safely and Effectively in the Non-GMO Market:

Andrew Taynton

*********************************************************************** BR> This Email From:
Andrew Taynton, SAFE FOOD COALITION , P O Box 665, Linkhills, 3652,
KwaZulu-Natal, Republic of South Africa;
tel: 031-763 2634, Cell 083 662 0411, e-mail:

References On Genetically Modified Foods And Crops + What You Can Do.

  1. World Scientists call on Governments to immediately withdraw GM foods: signed by 200 physicians/scientists.

  2. Will GM crops benefit farmers? Read up on the frequent poor physical and economic performance of GM crops:

  3. GM crops will NOT solve world hunger say scientists:

  4. The South African health authorities use "substantial equivalence" as a standard to determine the "safety" of GM foods. They ignore scientific opinion that this is "unscientific and arbitrary":

  5. The world renowned scientist who lost his job when he warned about GE foods. The Pusztai case:

  6. THE SAFETY OF GE FOODS. Reasons To Expect Hazards And The Risk Of Their Appearance: Dr M Antoniou, et al.

  7. What you can do: Greenpeace

  8. Top US investigative journalists fired for exposing the link between genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone (BST or rBGH) used on dairy herds and cancer in humans drinking "GM milk". Follow their court cases: For more information on "GM milk" banned in over 100 countries but licenced for sale in SA see:

  9. Lawsuit. The United States government deception on GM foods. (the government contradicted its own experts in approving GM foods & misprepresented facts in order to promote the US biotech industry):

  10. Genetically Manipulated Food News:

  11. Find out how to help eliminate poverty and feed humanity on pure organic food: hppt//

  12. Visit this alternative Monsanto site, maintained by THE DECEPTICONS. "Decepticons is pleased to present this site to Monsanto, for the clarification of Monsanto's messages." + SEND MONSANTO AN E-MAIL: hppt://


  14. GENETIC RESOURCES IN FOOD & FARMING IN SOUTH AFRICA. To endorse the Freeze document contact SAFeAGE at Tel 021-761 0549 or e-mail

*********************************************************************** *

Abuse Of Taxpayers Money.

Marketing organisations, backed by vested interests, promote GM foods and masquerade as being "science based". In the USA $ 50 million is spent anually promoting GM technology to the uninformed and unsuspecting consumer. The South African public are being targeted in the same manner. Africa Bio has been launched to bring the "benefits" of GM foods & GM crops to the South African consumer. Africa Bio is a coalition of over 40 companies with vested financial interests in this controversial technology. SA Government departments using taxpayers money are also members of Africa Bio.

Taxpayers Money Must Be Used On Investigating Safe And Viable Alternatives Rather Than On This Dubious And Potentially Dangerous Technology.

"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector,"

THE LANCET, April 2000

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:28:58 +0200
From: Angus Durran

What is GM Food and what’s all the fuss about

The Great GM Debate

Andrea Hensher, 18/2/00, South Africa

What say the retailers?
And overseas?
Current South Africa legislation


Biotechnology is the latest buzz-word in agricultural science, particularly when it comes to the genetic modification of food. Genetically Modified (GM) foods contain elements which have been altered at cell level to make them resistant to certain diseases, or toxic to natural pests.

This is done by injecting genetic material originating from one source into the cells of another. So, for example, a gene found in fish which makes them resistant to frost could be engineered into the cells of an organism which normally has low frost resistance, such as tomatoes.

This ground-breaking technology has, not surprisingly, its supporters and opponents, and arouses high emotion as it opens up ethical questions and presents potentially lucrative possibilities for large and small producers alike.


Biotechnologist Muffy Koch has been involved with the monitoring of genetic crops since 1989, when the Government asked a committee of scientists called the South African Committee for Genetic Experimentation (SAGENE), to investigate an application for the first field trial of an insect-resistant cotton crop originating in America. Since the GMO Act was passed in 1997 "to promote the responsible development, production, use and application of genetically modified organisms" , SAGENE have reviewed 150 field trials of various crops, including maize, potatoes, cotton, soybeans, canola and sugar cane. Of those trials, two crops have been approved for commercial production in South Africa; cotton and yellow maize which are both insect-resistant. The maize is currently approved for use in animal feeds and maize-based products. There is currently no genetically modified fresh produce originating in South Africa.

GM crops are not a cheap option by any means. Trial crops must be tested over six growing seasons, then producers can expect to wait for up to two years to bulk up enough seed to sell once they get their commercial licences. Naturally, seed companies will charge a premium on GM seed to recoup their development costs. Currently the technology fee on GM maize seed is about 14% higher than on normal seeds. According to Muffy Koch and other supporters of the technology, farmers are recouping those costs in the decrease in the amount of insecticides used . "Farmers are prepared to pay for it because it's delivering," Koch says, "There are a lot of market checks and balances on this system."

But what are the benefits of this technology? Why go to all this trouble? Large food companies such as Monsanto say that biotechnology will solve the world's food problems, allowing farmers in the poorer parts of the world to get more return on their labour. Examples are given of small-scale projects with spectacular results, such as that of a field trial on the Makathini Flats in Kwazulu-Natal of bt (insect resistant) cotton, where farmers experienced increased yields ranging from 18% - 30% compared with their conventional crops, as well as decreased use of insecticides.

The pro-GM lobby claim that this new technology could alleviate world hunger. According to Professor Prakash from Tuskegee University in the USA," The development of local agriculture and increasing food production regionally… is the key to addressing economic inequity. Genetically reprogrammed seed is 'scale neutral' in that a poor rice farmer with one acre in Bangladesh can stand to benefit from it as much as a large farmer in California". Or, we assume, a maize farmer in Makathini flats.


Angus Durran, a founder member of South African lobby group the Safe Food Coalition, has been involved in protesting against the widespread use of GM foods since 1997.

"Until it's been thoroughly tested and proved I think a moratorium should be called for. There are too many unanswered questions for my liking, " he says. His view is not an unscientific one. Dr Mae-Wan Ho from the Open University in the UK says "there is no need for genetically modified crops. On the contrary, they will undermine food security and biodiversity." These concerns stem from the fear that large biotechnology companies will be able to take out patents on seed varieties in a form of restrictive practice which will have a damaging impact on small-scale producers.

Durran describes the claim that genetic modification will feed the world as "Propaganda. There's more food in the world than people can eat. It's not true that GM food could solve the world's hunger problems. GM food is lining the pockets of the multinationals."

As far as government legislation is concerned, Durran is sceptical. "When we can't even issue driver's licences in this country how can we possibly monitor GM crops? I think it's irresponsible to even consider that they can be monitored. How can you control the wind? How can you control insects?"

GM foods are reported to have already caused harmful health and environmental effects. A widely-reported trial of an American GM maize crop on a species of butterfly found the maize pollen to be toxic to the butterfly, which feeds on a plant which normally grows near maize crops. A soybean engineered with a gene from a brazil-nut was found to produce highly allergic reactions in a group of consumers. Durran points to these examples as reasons why further and more extensive testing needs to happen. He says that consumers run the risk of eating increasing amounts of potentially harmful material. " We sprayed maize previously with pesticides. This used to wash off within about four days. Now we genetically engineer the maize with pesticide which goes into every cell of the plant, so every single piece of maize you consume contains a (GM) gene."

American biotechnologist Dr John Fagan voices concerns over the potential dangers of GM technology: "genetic engineering can cut and splice very precisely in a test tube but the process of putting these genes into a living organism is extremely imprecise, inaccurate and uncontrolled."

GM crops also present a danger, accepted by scientists on both sides of the argument, of cross-pollinating with non-GM crops, with potentially dangerous consequences. Africa is being used, Durran claims, as a giant laboratory by the biotech companies who see the continent as a soft option. "Consumers are guinea pigs in this big experiment," he says.

What say the retailers?

Although there is no GM food currently produced for consumption in South Africa, consumers are exposed to imported GM products, particularly coming from the USA.

Pick 'n Pay have stated that they are currently working alongside the Department of Health on interim labelling solutions, as well as encouraging suppliers to provide GM-free alternatives wherever possible and calling on Government to speed up labelling legislation.

Woolworths have stated that they will endeavour to make their food ranges GM-free wherever possible, and clearly label those items for which no GM-free alternatives can be found.

And overseas?

It's fair to say that overseas the anti-lobby have gained the most ground in the battle for the hearts and minds of the public. Well organised and vocal protests across the world have led some governments to slow down their fast-developing biotech industries and re-evaluate the technology.


In June 1999, European Union environmental ministers moved to implement the legal equivalent of a three-year moratorium on the approval of any new GM foods or crops, pending the implementation of stricter safety regulations in 2002.


Japanese govt officials announced in June 1999 that they would suspend approval of Bt(insect resistant) crops for agricultural production, pending the establishment of criteria for safety evaluation.

New Zealand

The Independent Biotechnology Advisory Committee , set up by the New Zealand government has been urged by organisations representing fruit and vegetable producers that all new genetic material, not just that produced through biotechnology, must be assessed before being introduced into the country.

Current South Africa legislation

The Genetically Modified Organism Act (1997)

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:32:14 +0200
From: "Anthony van Zyl"
Subject: More on soya dangers

Dear folks,

Enclosed is further information on the potential health risks of soya, GM and and powderized milk and more.

(The full document can be downloaded from: )


Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 4, #3 (April-May 1997). PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381 From our web page at:

Extracts originally published in Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients May 1996.

Soybean Products – A Recipe for Disaster?

© by Joseph G. Hattersley
(From the forthcoming book Stopping Crib Death) with Dr Lendon Smith and due for publication 1997-98.

Infant Formulas In 'hot Water'
Cows' Milk-based Formulas

Numerous studies show that soybean-based products are not as healthy for us as we'd like to believe.

Infant Formulas In 'hot Water'

Sudden infant death is not so sudden at all. As I argue in my book (co-written with Lendon Smith, MD), crib (or cot) death is neither random nor sudden, and the causes are known. Preventive techniques have been known and used with 100 per cent success for 40 years, and many studies have been published.


"The growth of vegetarianism among the more affluent classes has greatly accelerated the acceptability and use of these ersatz products. This helps American farmers to sell their enormous yearly output of soybeans. Unfortunately, as we have seen, they pose numerous dangers."1

The fatty acid profile of the soybean includes large amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids compared to other pulses; but these omega-3 fatty acids are particularly susceptible to rancidity when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. This is exactly what is required to remove oil from the bean, as soybean oil is particularly difficult to extract.

Hexane or other solvents are always used to extract oil from soybeans, and traces remain in the commercial product.1 Hexane is "any of the five colorless, volatile, liquid hydrocarbons C6H14 of the paraffin series". Do you really think that ingestion of hexane, even in tiny quantities, will benefit your baby?

Cows' Milk-based Formulas

What about cows' milk-based formulas? Studies have linked modern commercial milk products with serious afflictions such as allergies, asthma, arthritis, autoimmune diseases, cancer, childhood anaemia and heart disease.

For example, Dr J. C. Annand made an epidemiological study of the effect of milk pasteurisation on cardiac and stroke mortality in the 1920s. He found there had been a significant sudden rise in mortality from heart attack and stroke within, at most, two years after the start of compulsory Holder pasteurisation. The milk was heated for 30 minutes to not less than 145¡F (62.8¡C).23

A clinical trial appeared to confirm Annand's hypothesis: "All patients suffering from AHD [atherosclerotic heart disease], who maintained a diet devoid of [extended-period] heated milk protein, either showed a sustained improvement in their condition or failed to deteriorate further. On the other hand, patients who for various reasons did not maintain this diet evinced a high incidence of thrombosis and/or cardiac irregularities together with congestive failure."23

Later, researchers at the Institut National Agronomique in Paris found that consuming plain commercial milk boosted the risk of cataracts among people, especially diabetics, who are able to digest lactose, a milk sugar. Such digestion releases galactose, a substance the researchers blamed for promoting cataracts.

But, natural milk products have a long history of conferring good health in many parts of the globe. For example, the three areas noted for great longevity of local populations&emdash;the Caucacus Mountains in the southern republics of the former Soviet Union, the village of Vilcabamba in Ecuador, and the land of the Hunza in northern India&emdash;all use whole unprocessed milk products.

And Weston Price, studying isolated population groups in the 1930s, found many supremely healthy populations using cows' milk as their principal food.23

Milk products form the backbone of the Hindu diet. J. E. Crewe at the Mayo Clinic, in 1929 cured patients of anaemia, hypertension, tuberculosis and many other diseases and conditions using large quantities of raw milk. In his work, pasteurised milk accomplished little against disease because, he wrote, "the heat of pasteurising destroys the enzymes in milk, needed for its complete utilisation and to enable it to do its healing wonders.

"Processing is the problem," according to Fallon and Enig. "The path that transforms healthy milk products into allergens and carcinogens begins with modern feeding methods that substitute high-protein, soy-based feeds for fresh green grass; and breeding methods to produce cows with abnormally large pituitary glands so that they produce three times more milk than the old-fashioned scrub cow.

These cows need antibiotics to keep them well. "Their milk is then pasteurised so that all valuable enzymes are destroyed: lactase for the assimilation of lactose; galactase for the assimilation of galactose; phosphatase for the assimilation of calcium. Literally dozens of precious enzymes are destroyed in the pasteurisation process; without them milk is very difficult to digest.

The human pancreas is not always able to produce these enzymes; overstress of the pancreas can lead to diabetes and other diseases. "The butterfat of commercial milk is homogenised, subjecting it to rancidity or, even worse, removed altogether. Skim milk is sold as a health food but the truth is that butterfat is in milk for a reason. Without it the body cannot absorb and utilise the vitamins and minerals in the water fraction of the milk. "Along with valuable trace minerals and short-chain fatty acids, butterfat is America's best source of preformed vitamin D.

Synthetic vitamin D, known to be toxic to the liver, is added to replace the natural vitamin D complex in butterfat. Butterfat also contains re-arranged acids which have strong anticarcinogenic properties."26

Further, non-fat dried milk is added to 1% and 2% milk. Unlike the cholesterol in fresh milk, which plays a variety of health-promoting roles, the cholesterol in nonfat dried milk is oxidised and it is this rancid cholesterol that promotes heart disease.27

The multi-source oxysterols injury theory brought together oxysterols from oxidised powdered milk, powdered egg yolk, etc.; those generated internally by homocysteine and from other sources; Matthias Rath's and cellular biologist Bruce H. Lipton's theories into a composite explanation of atherogenesis, the beginning of arterial damages.28-30

In Part 5 of my book, I describe how oxidised dried milk can contribute to causing a little- known kind of crib death. Fallon and Enig point out that " all spray-dried products, non-fat dried milk has a high nitrite content [as is well-known, nitrites are carcinogenic]. Non-fat dried milk and sweetened condensed milk are the principal dairy products in third world countries; use of ultra-high-temperature pasteurised milk is widespread in Europe.1 "Further, soy formulas lack cholesterol, which is absolutely essential for the development of the brain and nervous system; they also lack lactose and galactose, which play an equally important role in the development of the nervous system."


(The full document can be downloaded from: )

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:05:29 +0200
From: "Wally"

BIOWATCH: Say no to Canola

By Athalie Russell, Johannesburg, South Africa

Dear Editors

Recently I bought a cooking oil that's new to our supermarkets, Canola Oil. I tried it because the label assured me it was lowest in "bad" fats. However, when I had used half the bottle, I concluded that the label told me surprisingly little else and I started to wonder: where does canola oil come from?

Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from sunflowers; but what is a canola? There was nothing on the label to enlighten me, which I thought odd. So, I did some investigating on the Internet.

There are plenty of official Canola sites lauding this new "wonder" oil with all its low-fat health benefits. It takes a little longer to find sites that tell the less palatable details.

Here are just a few facts everyone should know before buying anything containing canola. Canola is not the name of a natural plant but a made-up word, from the words "Canada" and "oil". Canola is a genetically engineered plant developed in Canada from the rapeseed plant, which is part of the mustard family of plants.

According to AgriAlternatives, The Online Innovation and Technology Magazine for Farmers, "By nature, these rapeseed oils, which have long been used to produce oils for industrial purposes, are ... toxic to humans and other animals". (This, by the way, is one of the websites singing the praises of the new canola industry.)

Rapeseed oil is poisonous to living things and an excellent insect repellent. I have been using it (in very diluted form, as per instructions) to kill the aphids on my roses for the last two years. It works very well; it suffocates them. Ask for it at your nursery. Rape is an oil that is used as a lubricant, fuel, soap and synthetic rubber base and as a illuminant for colour pages in magazines. It is an industrial oil. It is not a food. Rape oil, it seems, causes emphysema, respiratory distress, anaemia, constipation, irritability and blindness in animals and humans. Rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in England and Europe between 1986 and 1991, when it was thrown out.

Remember the "Mad Cow disease" scare, when millions of unfortunate cattle in the UK were slaughtered in case of infecting humans? Cattle were being fed on a mixture containing material from dead sheep, and sheep suffer from a disease called "scrapie". It was thought this was how "Mad Cow" began and started to infiltrate the human chain. What is interesting is that when rape oil was removed from animal feed, 'scrapie' disappeared. We also haven't seen any further reports of "Mad Cow" since rape oil was removed from the feed.

Perhaps not scientifically proven, but interesting all the same. US and Canadian farmers grow genetically engineered rapeseed and manufacturers use its oil (canola) in thousands of processed foods, with the blessings of Canadian and US government watchdog agencies. The canola supporting websites say that canola is safe to use. They admit it was developed from the rapeseed, but insist that through genetic engineering it is no longer rapeseed, but "canola" instead. Except canola means "Canadian oil"; and the plant is still a rape plant, albeit genetically modified.

The new name provides perfect cover for commercial interests wanting to make billions. Look at the ingredients list on labels. Apparently peanut oil is being replaced with rape oil. You'll find it in an alarming number of processed foods.

There's more, but to conclude: rape oil was the source of the chemical warfare agent mustard gas, which was banned after blistering the lungs and skins of hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians during W.W.I.

Recent French reports indicate that it was again in use during the Gulf War. Check products for ingredients. If the label says, "may contain the following" and lists canola oil, you know it contains canola oil because it is the cheapest oil and the Canadian government subsidises it to industries involved in food processing.

I don't know what you'll be cooking with tonight, but I'll be using olive oil and old-fashioned butter, from a genetically unmodified cow.

Yours Sincerely
Say No to Canola

Athalie Russell
Tel: (011) 704 2522    Fax: (011) 462 8263    Cell: 082 445 8195
Johannesburg, South Africa

Top PreviousFront Page
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 11:22:47 +0200
From: Angus Durran
Originated from:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 06 August 2000 07:29
Subject: "GE-free" companies

Dear folks,

This is a good overview of companies around the world who have removed GMOs from their products - or who are currently in the process of doing so. It's worth keeping in mind though, that although actual GMOs may have been removed from the food, many products could still be affected by GM derivatives and GM enzymes. (Yet another reminder to ask companies to put in writing that their products are free from GM ingredients derivatives and enzymes).


"GE-free" companies

Stop press- Novartis will not use its own GMO products and has announced that will make its food products GMO-free!

  1. Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., Australia (AFX Asia, 2 Nov 1999);
  2. Sanitarium Health Food Company, Australia;
  3. Cadbury-Schweppes, Australia;
  4. Master Foods, Australia;
  5. Mars Confectionery, Australia;
  6. Wyeth, Australia;
  7. Heinz Watties Australasia
  1. Perdigao, one of Brazil's largest poultry and pork producers, said it had turned back from port a cargo ship carrying U.S. corn suspected of being transgenic. Perdigao said it had bought 27,500 ton of corn in the U.S. but the supplier could not provide a certificate that the cargo was guaranteed GM-free. (See: Reuters, 11 Feb 2000)
  1. McCain Foods, the largest potato and frozen french fry processor in the world, will not use Monsanto's Bt potatoes anymore (Ottawa Citizen, 29 Nov 1999)
  1. With more and more major food retailers, restaurants, and processors in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia, the UK, and others going "GE-free" a huge market now exists for certified "non-GE" and organic products;
  2. Foodcompany Unilever switches to non-GE ingredients for its European factories. The new suppliers are being selected between now and 2002. Reason: declining sales of GE products. (See: Volkskrant, 24 May 2000, pg.2, "UNILEVER STOPS GENETECH IN EU")
  1. Carrefour (France's largest supermarket chain), will buy 180,000 tons of non-GE soybeans from Brazil in 2000 (See: Reuters, "Carrefour Leads Purchase of Non-GMO Brazil Soy", 22 Feb 2000)
  1. Kampfmeyer, the largest German milling company for grain and corn, tests *every* incoming batch by PCR in double-blind analysis in two labs for GMOs. The Kampfmeyer CEO said that they would *by no means* be able to mill a GM variety, as the public would plainly avoid their products after a scandal for at least the usual span a consumer would remember (about 3 months) and that would mean their end. And no matter how WTO would decide, Kampfmeyer simply would not be able to use such batches because they would upset their clients. (Taken from SANET posting, May 2000)
Hong Kong:
  1. Nestle Hong Kong;
  2. Vitasoy;
  3. ParknShop (See: South China Morning Post, 11 Feb 2000, "Nestle to Phase Out GM Ingredients in All Products", Alex Lo)
  1. Esselunga;
  1. Nissin Food Products;
  2. Kirin Brewery;
  3. Itochu Corp., Japanese trading house;
  4. Itochu Feed Mills;
  5. Sapporo Breweries;
  6. Nippon Flour Mills;
  7. Fuji Oil Co.;
  8. Japan Tofu Association (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999);
  9. a division of Honda Motor Company is building a soy- handling plant in Ohio to supply non-GE soybeans to Japan;
  10. Pioneer-Hybrid Japan will import non-GE soybeans from the US; (See: Campaign for Food Safety News #22 Oct-Nov 1999, "News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics" by Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston);
  11. Kibun Food Chemifa Co Ltd, Japan's largest soybean milk maker (50% of Japan soymilk market, worth 17 B yen in 1999), will use rice bran oil instead of corn oil and sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999);
  12. Nisshin Flour Milling Co Ltd, Japan's largest flour miller, will use wheat instead of soybean protein (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999);
  13. corn snack maker Tohato Inc, will switch from US to French corn (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999);
  14. Jusco Co Ltd, major Japanese supermarket operator with 300 stores nationwide, will label GE food products (Reuters, Tokyo, 8 Sep 1999);
  15. Hironori Kijima, director-general of the Japan Tofu Association, expects GM labelling will create annual demand for 300,000 tonnes of non-GM soybeans from Japanese soybean curd makers.
JAPAN imports:
  1. Japan imported 2.45 million tonnes of soybeans in the first half of 1999, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 2.11 tonnes or 86.2 percent. In the same period Japan imported 9.13 million tonnes of corn, of which imports from the U.S. accounted for 8.82 million tonnes or 96.5 percent. "We want to avoid the GM label as it could hurt the image of our products. We plan to switch to non-GM soybeans," Kijima said. (Aya Takada, Reuters, 24 Aug 1999)
  1. Responding to growing controversy Mexico's largest corn flour company, Maseca, recently announced a ban on GE ingredients in their products, according to the New York Times. Mexico, with a population of over 90 million, is the second largest buyer of US corn in the world, purchasing $500 million in US corn exports annually. (See: Campaign for Food Safety News #22 Oct-Nov 1999, "News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics" by Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston)
  1. Retail chain Woolworths will remove all known GM foods from its shelves (Reuters, 21 Dec 1999);
  1. The Korean Bean Processing Association and the Korea Soybean Food Association want to cultivate non-GM beans through contracts with farmers in the U.S., Canada and Australia... Meanwhile the Korea Consumer Protection Board said Wednesday that a GM bean ingredient has been found in 18 tofu (bean curd) products out of 22 examined, or 81.8 percent, and many famous tofu makers were also found to have used GM beans imported from the U.S. (Asia Pulse, 4 Nov 1999)
  1. Spanish grain shippers said it was very hard to guarantee that foods and raw materials were GM-free, and that lab facilities for testing the GM content of grains and oilseeds were scarce in Iberia.
  2. The Spanish subsidiary of Nestle SA has banned use of GM ingredients due to consumer concerns over possible health risks.
  3. Pryca Espana, a hypermarkets unit of French retailer Carrefour,
  4. and the franchisees of Burger King in Spain and Portugal have asked suppliers not to use GM ingredients.
  5. At the annual meeting of the Spanish Association of Cereals and Oilseeds Merchants in Madrid last week, Monsanto and Novartis officials said it was practically impossible to prevent the wind from carrying pollen from GM crops to nearby fields, delegates said. (See: SPANISH SHIPPERS SAY HARD TO SEGREGATE GM FOODS by David Brough, 14 Jun 1999, Reuters)
  6. Spain's association of corn food starch producers, HUMAIZ, has told govt officials that Bt corn is costing it money. HUMAIZ chief Felipe Albert said "we have made clear to the agriculture ministry that the current situation is unsustainable" and "we hope the new minister will move quickly to solve our problems." HUMAIZ says GMO corn is causing two major problems. European food processors are wary of Spanish corn starch for fear of GMO content. HUMAIZ also says that testing and segregation costs are hurting their competitiveness. (See: Cropchoice News, 10 May 2000, "Spanish Corn Starch Industry says Bt Corn is a Problem")
  1. Migros;
  1. Unilever, the world's largest food manufacturer (See: Independent, 28 Apr 1999);
  2. Tesco (Britains biggest supermarket chain, sales: #18.5bn) (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999);
  3. Asda, a major British supermarket chain (See: Independent, 27 Jan 1999);
  4. Kentucky Fried Chicken UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999);
  5. Iceland, a British frozen food specialist;
  6. Marks and Spencer, another British retail chain;
  7. Waitrose, UK;
  8. McDonald's, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999);
  9. Burger King, UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999);
  10. United Biscuits, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999);
  11. Sainsbury, UK;
  12. UK Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association (BLRA) (See: "UK BREWERS SAY NO GM MAIZE IN BRITISH BEER", 24 Sep 1999, Reuters);
  13. Sun Valley, Britain's largest chicken producer, has banned GM Soya in its chickenfeed. (31 Jan 2000, " Greenpeace Claims 'Victory For Consumers' As British Chickens Go GM Free!")
  1. Food caterers at the House of Commons avoid GM ingredients "in response to the general unease about such foods expressed by significant numbers of our customers". At the Welsh and
  2. Scottish Assemblies, caterers also have a policy of avoiding GM ingredients.
  3. The European Parliament has banned them too. (Alex Kirby, BBC Online, 22 Dec 1999)
UK (Monsanto):
    GM food has been banned from the staff cafeteria at Monsanto Co.'s UK headquarters by the company's own caterer, Monsanto confirmed Tuesday. Granada Food Services, whose customers include Monsanto's High Wycombe office near London, recently told clients it would not supply food containing GM soya or maize due to customer concerns. Granada said the move was designed "to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."
  1. Twenty-one resolutions calling for restraints on the use of GE ingredients are on the annual meeting agendas at some of America's leading food and seed manufacturers this year, up from zero a year ago. Many resolutions call for more long-term research before GE materials are used in food. Others propose mandatory labeling of products with GE ingredients. (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN)
  2. A concerted shareholder campaign against GM foods is about to hit corporate America with a flood of resolutions at company meetings demanding a moratorium until proper testing has been done. Initially targeted are 24 firms including household names such as Coca-Cola, Heinz, the US Safeway chain and McDonald's, as well as Monsanto, the firm at the centre of the GM controversy.
  3. The campaign is coordinated by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), an umbrella body for 275 religious and other groups which claims to control $100bn of shares in US companies. The ICCR has led a number of successful shareholder campaigns, including withdrawal from South Africa, action against tobacco products and pressure for companies to adopt environmental policies. Targets include biotech firms American Home Products, Dow Chemical and Du Pont, the food ingredients company Archer Daniels Midland, consumer products groups General Mills, PepsiCo, Philip Morris, Quaker Oats, and Sara Lee. Aside from Diageo, European targets include Hoechst, Novartis, Rhone Poulenc and Schering. (See: The Guardian/Finance, 20 Dec 1999, "Corporate America faces GM onslaught Shareholders demand a ban", Roger Cowe)
  4. William C. Wardlaw III, great-grandson of one of the first shareholders in Coca Cola, sponsored a resolution at the shareholders' meeting, asking the company to avoid GM ingredients at least until the environmental impact of GE becomes clear. Wardlaw (who said it is the first time he had interfered in such matters) controls 2,020,682 shares valued at $98 million. His move similar to that of the New York-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, against McDonalds, General Mills, PepsiCo, Quaker Oats, Sara Lee and Procter & Gamble. (See: San Francisco Chronicle, Tom Abate, "Major shareholder in Coca Cola adds his voice to the chorus of protests against GM ingredients", 2 May 2000) (See also: (click on "Investor Relations", then "Proxy Statements") e/2000/04/03/BU91580.DTL>
  5. Wendy's (See: NLP Release, "Setback for GM potatoes in USA", 4 Feb 2000);
  6. Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), buyer and exporter of farm commodities, asked farmers to segregate their GE and non-GE crops at harvest, because " in Europe and Japan some people are willing to pay a premium for segregated crops," said senior VP for corp affairs Larry Cunningham (See: New York Times, 4 May 2000, "New Theme For Shareholder Activism: Policing Genetically Modified Food" By JENNIFER FRIEDLIN) (See also: "Food War Claims Its Casualties", by Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 12 Sep 1999; Page A01)
  7. Seagrams;
  8. the entire sugar industry;
  9. R.D. Offutt Co., one of largest US producers of potatoes (See: "McDonald's, Other Fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato" By Scott Kilman, Wall Street Journal, 28 Apr 2000);
  10. Texas-based PepsiCo unit Frito-Lay Co., which makes potato-chip brands Lay's and Ruffles. (See: "McDonald's, Other Fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato" By Scott Kilman, Wall Street Journal, 28 Apr 2000);
  11. fast-food chain McDonald's Corp;
  12. Idaho-based J.M. Simplot Company, a major potato supplier. (See: Scott Kilman, "McDonald's, Other fast-Food Chains Pull Monsanto's Bio-Engineered Potato," WALL STREET JOURNAL April 28, 2000, pg. B4);
  13. Colorado-based Wild Oats, 110 stores in 22 states, over 700 brands;
  14. Austin-based Whole Foods Market Inc., 103 stores in 22 states, including such stores as Fresh Fields, Bread & Circus, Nature's Heartland, Bread of Life, Merchant of Vino and Wellspring Grocery, and 600 private-label products (See: Organic View, v.2 n.1, 23 Jan 2000);
  15. Procter & Gamble, maker of Pringles potato chips;
  16. Frito-Lay, which markets Lay's and Ruffles potato chips as well as Doritos, Tostitos, and Fritos; Frito-Lay bought 1.2 billion pounds of U.S. corn in 1999 (See: Bloomberg News, 28 Jan 2000, "Frito-Lay Doesn't Want Bioengineered Corn") (See also: "Eating Well; What Labels Don't Tell You (Yet)," NEW YORK TIMES February 9, 2000, pg. F5); Burger
  17. King Burger King (Farmers Weekly, 3 Dec 1999);
  18. Hardees, restaurant chain;
  19. Hain Food Group, which sells the Little Bear line of natural snacks as GE-free (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999);
  20. H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh;
  21. Calif.-based Healthy Time Natural Foods; (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999) Worthington Foods, maker of Morningstar Farms veggie burgers (See: Organic View, v.1 n.15, 14 Oct 1999);
  22. baby food giants Mead-Johnson (infant formula) and Gerber (owned by GE giant Novartis and the nation's largest maker of baby food, producing 5.5 million jars per day and annual worldwide sales of $1 billion (AP Online, 30 Jul 1999);
  23. Ohio-based pet food maker Iam's Co. (See: "Food War Claims Its Casualties", by Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 12 Sep 1999; Page A01); supermarket chain Genuardi's (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000);
  24. a number of leading supermarket chains admit privately that mandatory labeling of GE foods is probably inevitable (See: Organic View, v.2 n.2, 29 Feb 2000)

Roberto Verzola

The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe, subscribe or help is:

The searchable WWW list archive is available at

For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the Ban-GEF list, send email to with HELP in the SUBJECT line.

Search the archives (since '97) at or go to a recent day's digest at Updated weekly.