30 April 99

Table of Contents

Food trial (New Zealand)
Scientists Warn of GM Crops Link to Meningitis
Avebe Suspends GE Potatoes
EPA, Critics Soften Stance on Pesticidal Plants
Food Hysteria
"Nutrapoison: Aspartame".
Unilever goes GM FREE.
Food statistics, some having to do with GE
Super seeds: Growing controversy
USDA's Glickman on EU Genetic Crop Delays: Commodity Comment
Monsanto wins hormone exemption at European Court
British Revolt Grows Over 'Genetic' Foods
Amylopectin Project (Transgenic Potatoes) gets heavy blow.
EU to ban 'hormone-free' US beef
Canola: No Literature, No Testing -- No allergies?

Top NextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 03:04:14 -0500
From: (jim mcnulty)

Food trial (New Zealand)

The Dominion, April 24, 1999
© Copyright 1999, _____via IntellX_____


It is disturbing to hear that the international chemical giant [ Monsanto ] is seeking permission to trial, in New Zealand, a genetically-altered plant that produces the seed used in the production of canola cooking oil.

The purpose? So plants can be developed that will be unaffected by the herbicide Roundup, which, when applied, will only kill weeds in the crop.

I do not wish to consume a product that has ingested such a powerful toxicant, whose residuals in canola Monsanto is also seeking approval to increase by 200 times.

Monsanto's business is the chemical industry, but we must be aware that it profits (nothing wrong with that in itself) from the food cropping industry.

I believe that in the United States the only evidence attesting to the safety of some genetically-engineered food has come from Monsanto itself. That clearly must be unacceptable to New Zealanders.

There is a fast-growing demand around the developed world for organically (naturally) grown food. With our small population, horticultural knowledge, climate and excess of arable land, this is the rewarding direction in which this country should be moving, not as a test bed for overseas commercial convenience.



Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 03:05:30 -0500
From: (jim mcnulty)

Scientists Warn of GM Crops Link to Meningitis

Daily Mail, UK, Comment - Page TEN, April 26, 1999
© Copyright 1999, _____via IntellX_____

THE nightmare possibility of GM food experiments producing untreatable killer diseases has been underscored by senior Government scientists.

They fear new strains of meningitis and other infections could be created by crops which may already be in the food chain.

Experts on the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes have issued a warning about plants being grown in the U.S. and parts of Europe which contain a gene resistant to antibiotics.

They are concerned that, if workers breathe in dust as the crops are processed, the resistance could be transferred to bacteria in their throats.

Around one in five people are carriers of the meningitis bacteria, even though they are not affected by the disease. Microbiologist Dr John Heritage, a member of the committee, has written to American authorities to express his worries. 'It's a huge concern to me,' he said. 'While the risk is small, the consequences of an untreatable, life-threatening infection spreading within the population are enormous.' [ Monsanto ] , the biotech company growing one of the crops, reacted angrily to suggestions that there could be a danger and the Agriculture Ministry said they could not be planted here. But its spokesman added: 'The question of antibiotic resistance is one the government and the committee are taking very seriously.' The new worries coincided with reports that a senior Monsanto director in the U.S. had conceded that GM crops can crossbreed with native plants, creating hybrids resistant to some weedkillers.

Gary Barton, director of biotechnology communications, also admitted that insects can develop a resistance to plants genetically engineered to kill them. Environmentalists seized on his admissions as 'groundbreaking'.

The concerns about new strains of diseases centre on maize containing an antibiotic-resistant gene called bla, which can affect meningitis bacteria, and cotton containing a gene called AAD, which can affect the sexually-transmitted disease gonorrhea.

The bla gene could make meningitis immune to penicillin - one of the normal treatments - and possibily mutate further, making the killer disease resistant to other cures.

The genes are added to the plants as a 'marker' to help biotech scien- tists monitor how well they take up the modified genes they are given.

Breathing in dust from the crops is not the only potential transfer mechanism. There are also fears that antibiotic resistance could 'jump' to bacteria in the gut of an animal or person who ate the food.

Experts believed until recently that the genes break down too quickly for this to happen. But a study by a Dutch team, reported in New Scientist magazine earlier this year, suggested that DNA from food lingers in the large intestine for several minutes. Strands of genetic code could have time to transfer from food to bacteria, potentially passing on key characteristics.

In a report on Monsanto's U.S. cotton crop, being used primarily for animal feed, the Government advisory committee says: 'The clinical consequences of such an evolutionary step would be grave.' The experts say that, while they accept that the risk 'is small and cannot be quantified' the Government should adopt 'a precautionary stance'.

Last night the Ministry of Agriculture said maize containing the gene was grown in France and Spain last season, while the cotton was being grown in America.

The spokesman said such crops could not be planted in Britain and the Government had opposed moves to allow the cotton to be grown anywhere else in Europe.

He said: 'There's no real evidence these crops can cause problems, but because these antibiotics are so important to us, it is felt prudent not to take any risks.' But Friends of the Earth campaigner Pete Riley said the Government was not doing enough to prevent such crops being imported.

Animal feed came into Britain unmarked and farmers had no idea whether they were giving livestock genetically modified maize. Cotton from the U.S. could also be entering the British food chain through circuitous routes.

Mr Riley demanded: 'If the Government isn't happy about these crops, what's it doing about them?

The lack of labelling on animal feed is putting farmers in the same position as they were with BSE.

'Some supermarkets are looking at a system to identify meat and dairy products which are free of these organisms, but at the moment there's no way.' Under EU law, maize with the AAD gene can be grown or imported anywhere in the community. But Austria and Luxembourg have already imposed their own import bans.

Monsanto reacted furiously to the suggestion that its cotton posed a risk to human health. Tony Combes, its director of corporate affairs in London, said: 'All too often risk is judged solely on the horror that is imagined to be the worst possible theoretical outcome, rather than the statistics of how likely any risk actually is in the real world.'

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 05:35:54 -0500
From: wytze

Avebe Suspends GE Potatoes

Agrarian Journal 27-4-99

Veendam- Starchconcern AVEBE has decided to suspend the growth and processing of the genetically modified amylopectine potato for this growing season. There is great commotion among the threehundred growers of the potato, partly because to a certain extend the potato already has been planted. AVEBE says that a certain amount of normal starchvarieties is still available. Farmers who have planted the GE potatoes will have to take them out again. AVEBE stops the cultivation because a renewal of the permission by the Minstry of Environment is not coming. The Ministry has not decided yet about the renewal. The 400 hectares for the growth of plantmaterial will not be suspended.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 11:21:49 -0500
From: Matthew Hodges Subject: from Science, 4/9/99

Hope this isn't redundant... Anybody know of this March 24 hearing?


EPA, Critics Soften Stance on Pesticidal Plants

By Michael Hagmann, Science, Volume 284, Number 5412 Issue of 9 Apr 1999, p 249.

Four years after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aired a controversial plan to require companies to show that plants equipped with new or foreign genes coding for pesticides or other resistance traits are safe for humans and harmless for the environment, the agency and its critics are finding common ground. At a 24 March hearing on Capitol Hill, EPA officials said they plan to make changes--for example, expanding a list of plant modifications exempt from regulation--before issuing a final rule this year. EPA's relaxed stance, however, may raise the hackles of some groups that want to see even more stringent regulation.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 11:34:54 -0500
From: Matthew Hodges

Food Hysteria

From Nature, 22 April 1999

This is a table of contents/abstract of the special feature on GM food in this week's Nature, available at In effect, this is a collection of relevant articles published in Nature over the past year. There is a strong bias represented here, with selective coverage and all the usual tricks of rhetoric. Out of the 20 articles presented, only 2 discuss any research. It appears that Nature IS the media they condemn.

Reading this, I had the idea to conduct a search for all documents containing "genetic," "food," and "hysteri*." ["Hysteria" is the keyword most commonly used by science media to fend off critical examination.] The search returned 12,992 hits.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 13:19:16 -0500
From: "Tom de Munck"
From John Winston.

"Nutrapoison: Aspartame".

Here is something I found on the the Internet that speaks ill of of about everyone in the human race, some of which I voted. It's negative and bad so don't read it if you are easily upset.


Subject: :::A Holy Dose of Aspartame:::

From: C B

Nutrapoison Part One by Alex Constantine

I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle.

Edgar Mo-santo Que-ny, Mon-anto chairman, 1943-63,

"The Spirit of Enterprise", 1934.

The F-A is ever mindful to refer to aspartame, widely known as NutraSweet, as a "food additive" - never a "drug." A "drug" on the label of a Diet Coke might discourage the consumer. And because aspartame is classified a food additive, adverse reactions are not reported to a federal agency, nor is continued safety monitoring required by law.

NutraSweet is a non-nutritive sweetener. The brand name is misnomer. Try Non-NutraSweet.

Food additives seldom cause brain lesions, headaches, mood alterations, skin polyps, blindness, brain tumors, insomnia and depression, or erode intelligence and short-term memory. Aspartame, according to some of the most capable scientists in the country, does. In 1991 the National Inst-tutes of Health, a branch of the Depar-ment of Health and H-man Services, published a bibliography, *Adverse Effects of Aspartame*, listing not less than 167 reasons to avoid it.

Aspartame is an rDNA derivative, a combination of two amino acids (long supplied by a pair of Maryland biotechnology firms: Ge-ex Corp. of Rockville and Purification Eng-neering in Baltimore.)

The Pent-gon once listed it in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress. But instead of poisoning enemy populations, the "food additive" is currently marketed as a sweetening agent in some 1200 food products.

In light of the chemo-warfare implications, the pasts of G.D. Se-rle and aspartame are ominous. Established in 1888 on the north side of Chicago, G.D. Sea-le has long been a fixture of the medical establishment. The company manufactures everything from prescription drugs to nuclear imaging optical equipment.

Directors of G.D. Sear-e include such geopolitical heavy-hitters as Andre M. de Sta-rcke, Rea-an's ambassador to Belgium and Reuben Ri-hards, an executive vice president at Cit-bank. Also Arthur W-od, the retired CEO of S-ars, Roebuck & C disgorged by the clan of General Robert E. Woo-, wartime chairman of the America First Co-mittee. America Fi-sters, organized by native Na-is cloaked as isolationists, were quietly financed by the likes of Sul-ivan & Cromw-ll's Allen Du-les and Edwin W-bster of Kidder, Peabody.

Until the acquisition by Mons-nto in 1985, the firm's chairman was William L. S-arle, a Harvard graduate, Naval reservist and a grim irony in view of aspartame's adverse effects-an officer in the Army Ch-mical Corps in the early 1950s, when the same division tested L-D on groups of human subjects in concert with the C-A.

The chief of the Chemical War-are Division at this time was Dr. Laurence Laird La-ton, whose son L-rry was convicted for the murder of Congressman Leo R-an at J-nestown ("Come to the pavilion! What a legacy! "). Jo-estown, of course, bore a remarkable likeness to a concentration camp, and kept a full store of pharmaceutical drugs. (The Jon-stown pharmacy was stocked with a variety of behavior control drugs: qualudes, valium, morphine, demerol and 11,000 doses of thorazine-a better supply, in fact, than the Guy-nese government's own, not to mention a surfeit of cyanide.)

Dr. Lay-on was married to the daughter of Hugo Phi-lip, a German banker and stockbroker representing the likes of Sie-ens & Ha-ske, the makers of cyanide for the Final Solution, and I.G. Far-en, the manufacturer of a lethal nerve gas put to the same purpose. Dr. La-ton, a Q-aker, developed a form of purified uranium used to set off the Manhattan Project's first self-sustaining chain reaction at the University of Chicago in 1942 by his wife's German-born Uncle, Dr. James Fr-nck. At Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, Dr. Lay-on concentrated his efforts, as did I.G. Fa-ben, on the development of nerve gasses.

Dr. L-yton later defended his participation in the Army's chemical warfare section:

"You can blow people to bits with bombs, you can shoot them with shells, you can atomize them with atomic bombs, but the same people think there's something terrible about poisoning the air and letting people breath it.

Anything having to do with gas warfare, chemical warfare, has this taint of horror on it, even if you only make people vomit."

Naz-s and chemical warfare are recurring themes in the aspartame story. Currently, the chief patent holder of the sweetener is the Monsan-o Co., based in St. Louis. In 1967, Monsant- entered into a joint venture with I.G. Farbe-fabriken, the aforementioned financial core of the H-tler regime and the key supplier of poison gas to the Naz- racial extermination program. After the Holocaust, the German chemical firm joined with American counterparts in the development of chemical warfare agents and founded the "Chem-grow Corporation" in Kansas City, Missouri, a front that employed German and American specialists on behalf of the U.S. Army C-emical Corps.

Dr. Otto Ba-er, I.G.'s research director, had a binding relationship with M-nsanto chemists. In the post-war period, Dr. B-yer developed and tested chemical warfare agents with Dr. Gerhard Sch-ader, the N-zi concocter of Tabun, the preferred nerve gas of the SS. Sch-ader was also an organophosphate pioneer, and tested the poison on populated areas of West Germany under the guise of killing insects. Sc-rader's experiments reek suspiciously of the ongoing aerial application of malathion-developed by Dr. Sc-rader, a recruit of the U.S. Chemical Wa-fare Service when Germany surrendered-in present-day Southern Califonia.

Another bridge to I.G. Farb-n was M-nsanto's acquisition of American Vis-ose, long owned by the England's Cour-auld family. As early as 1928, the U.S. Com-erce Department issued a report critical of the Court-uld's ties to I.G. Far-en and the Na-i party. Incredibly, George Cou-tauld was handed an appointment as director of personnel for England's Sp-cial Operations Executive, the wartime int-lligence service, in 1940. A year later, with the exhaustion of British military financial reserves, American Vi-cose, worth $120 million was put on the block in New York. The desperate Br-tish treasury received less than half that amount from the sale, brokered by Siegmund War-urg, among others.

Mo-santo acquired the company in 1949. The Naz- connection to Monsan-o crops up again on the board of directors with John R-ed, a former crony of "Putzi" Han-stangl, a Harvard-bred emigre to Germany who talked Hi-ler out of committing suicide in 1924 and contributed to the financing of *Mein Ka-pf*. Reed is also chairman of Citi-ank and long a confederate of the CI-. According to a lawsuit filed by San Francisco attorney Melvin Be-li, Reed was an instigator, with Ronald R-agan, James B-ker and Margaret Tha-cher, of the "Purple Ink D-cument," a plan to finance -IA covert operations with wartime Japanese gold stolen from a buried Philippine hoard.

Other covrt military connections to Monsa-to include Dr. Charles Allen Tho-as, chairman of the M-nsanto Board, 1965[?]. Dr. Th-mas directed a group of scientists during WW Il in the refinement of plu-onium for use in the atomic bomb. In the postwar period Mo-santo operated Tennessee's Oak Ri-ge National Laboratories for the Manhattan Project. (Manhattan gestated with the Oak Rid-e Institute for Nuclear Studies, where Lethal doses of radiation were tested on 200 unwary ca-cer patients, turning them into "nuclear calibration devices" gratis the A-C and N-SA, until 1974.)

Naz- scientists and a 7,000 ton stockpile of uranium were delivered to the Project by its security and counter-intelligence director, Col. Boris P-sh, a G2 designate to the C0-A's Bloodstone program-and the *eminence grise* of PB/7, a clandestine -azi unit that, according to State Department records, conducted a regimen of political assass-nations and ki-nappings in Europe and the Eastern bloc.

M-nsanto Director William Ruck-lshaus was an acting director of the -BI under Richard N-xon, a period in the Bureau s history marred by COI-TELPRO outrages, including assas-inations. N-xon subsequently appointed Ruck-lshaus to the position of -PA director, a nagging irony given his ties to industry (Browning Ferris and Cum-ins Engine Co.). C-A counterintelligentsia on the Mons-nto board include Stansfield Tu-ner, a former Director of Ce-tral Intelligence, and Earle H. Ha-bison, an Agency information specialist for nineteen years. Har-ison is also a director of Merrill L-nch, and thus raises the spectre of C-A drug dealing.

ln 1984 President Ronald Re-gan's Commission on Orga-ized Crime concluded that Merrill Ly-ch employed couriers "observed transferring enormous amounts of cash through investment houses and banks in New Y-rk City to It-ly and Swit-erland. Tens of millions of dollars in h-roin sales in this country were transferred over seas." Merrill L-nch invested the drug proceeds in the New bu-lion market before making the offshore transfers. As might be expected in view of Mo-santo's N-zi, chemical w-- are and -IA ties, NutraSweet is a can of worms unprecedented in the Amer-can food industry. The history of the product is laden with flawed and fabricated research findings and, when necessary to further the product along, blatant l-es-the basis of FD- approval and the incredulity of independent medical researchers. of the drug industry in 1985, but she comports under all regimes. In the C--nton administration for example, Mike T-ylor was graced with the position of deputy director of the FD-.

Tay-or is a cousin of Tipper G-re, Vice President Albert Gor-'s wife, and once an outside counsel to Mons-nto. (Gor- voted with Senate conservatives in 1985 against aspartame labelling.) Under the tutelage of the Cli--ton administration, one Chicago reporter quipped, the F-A strictly enforces one "unwritten" violation of law-failure to b-ibe.


Subject: Fill Her Up With Aspartame.
Part 2 of 2. April 27, 1999.

This is politics at it's very worse, so don't read it if you are sensitive.

Granitic Believers


G.D. S-r!e, the pharmaceutical firm that introduced NutraSweet, worked symbiotically with fed-al and con-essional officials, bri-d investigators when violations of law were exposed, *anything* to move aspartame to market. As far back as 1969, an internal S-rle "strategy memo" concluded the company must obtain FD-approval to outpace firms competing for the artificial sweetener market. Another memo in December 1970 urged that F-A officials were to be "brought into a subconscious spirit of participation" with Se-le. To that end, with enormous profits at stake, the pharmaceutical house set out on a long struggle to transform the Pe-agon's biochemical warfare agent into "the taste Mother Nature intended".

The official story is that aspartame was discovered in 1966 by a scientist developing an ulcer dr- (not a "food additive"). Supposedly he discovered, upon carelessly licking his fingers that they tasted sweet. Thus was the chemicals industry blessed with a successor to saccharine, the coal-tar derivative that foundered eight years later under the pressure of ca-er concerns.

Aspartame found early opposition in consumer attorney James Tu-er, author of *The Chemical Feast* and a former Na-er's Raider. At his own expense, Turn-r fought approval for ten years, basing his argument on aspartame's potential side effects, particularly on children. His concern was shared by Dr. John Ol-y, Professor of neuropathology and psychiatry at Was-ington School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Olne- found that aspartame, combined with M-G seasoning, increased the odds of brain damage in children.

Other studies have found that children are especially vulnerable to its toxic effects, a measure of the relation between consumption and body weight.

The F-A determined in 1981, when the sweetener was approved, that the maximum projected intake of Aspartame is 50 milligrams a day per kilogram of body weight. A child of 66 pounds would consume about 23 milligrams by imbibing four cans of Diet Coke. The child might also conceivably down an aspartame-flavored snack or two, nearing the FDA's projected maximum daily intake. Dr. William Part-idge, a professor of neuroendocrine regulation at M-T, told *Common Cause* in August 1984 that it wouldn't be surprising if a child-"confronted with aspartame contained in iced tea chocolate milk, milk shakes, chocolate pudding pie, Jello, ice cream and numerous other products" -consumed 50 milligrams per kilogram in a day.

Internally, aspartame breaks down into its constituent amino acids and methanol, which degrades into formaldehyde. The FD- announced in 1984 that "no evidence" has been found to establish that the methanol byproduct reaches toxic levels, claiming that "many fruit juices contain higher levels of the natural compound." But the Medical W-ld News had already reported in 1978 that the methanol content of aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods under F-A control. NutraSweet, the "good stuff" of sentimental adverts, is a truly insidious product. According to independent trials, aspartame intake is shown by animal studies to alter brain chemicals affecting behavior.

Aspartame's effects on the brain led Richard Wu-man, an MI- neuroscientist, to the discovery, as recorded in The New England Jo-rnal of Medicine (No. 309, 1983), that the sweetener defeats its purpose as a diet aid, since high doses may instill a craving for calorie-laden carbohydrates. One of his pilot studies found that the NutraSweet-carbohydrate combination increases the "sweetener's effect on brain composition." Sea-le officials denigrated Wurt-an 's findings, but the American Can-er Society has since confirmed the irony-after tracking 80,000 women for six years-that "among women who gained weight, artificial sweetener users gained more than those who didn't use the products," as reported in Medi-al Self-Care (387). (Since his battle with G.D. Sear-e, Wu-tman founded Interneuron Pharma-euticals, Inc., the producer of a sports drink that enhances athletic performance, and a weight loss drug marketed in over 40 countries. Wurtm-n's share of the company, established in 1989, was worth $10 million by 1992.

Even more daunting are the findings of Dr. Paul Sp-ers, a neuropsychologist at Boston's Beth Is-ael Hospital, that aspartame use can depress intelligence. For this reason, he selected experimental subjects with a history of consuming it but unaware that they might be suffering ill effects. The subjects were given NutraSweet in capsules of the F-A's allowable limit. Spi-rs was alarmed to One of the tests required recall of square patterns and alphabetical sequences, becoming increasingly more difficult. The test is challenging, but most people improve as they learn how it is done. The aspartame users, however, did not improve. "Some frankly showed a reverse pattern," said Spiers."

Aspartame has been shown to erode short-term memory. At the May, 1985 hearings on NutraSweet, Louisiana Senator Russell L-ng related a bizarre anecdote:

SENATOR LONG: I have received a letter recently from a person who is well known to me and whose word is impeccable, as far as I am concerned. This person told me that she had been dieting and she had been using diet drinks with aspartame in it. She said she found her memory was going. She seemed to be completely losing her memory. When she would meet people whom she knew intimately, she could not recall what their name was, or even who they were. She could not recall a good bit of that which was going on about her to the extent that she was afraid she was losing her mind. . . In due course, someone suggested that it might be this NutraSweet, so she stopped using it and her memory came back and her mind was restored. Senator Howard Metz-nbaum replied that he had received "a number of letters from doctors reporting similar developments. . .

There have been hundreds of incidents of people who have suffered loss of memory, headaches, dizziness, and other neurological symptoms which they feel are related to aspartame."

Senator Orrin Ha-ch, a hidebound archconservative and NutraSweet advocate, downplayed criticism of the sugar substitute. "Some people have lost their memory after drinking a variety of things," he argued. The bottom line is this: The studies supporting aspartame's approval have been examined and rexamined. More than enough sound, valid studies exist to demonstrate aspartame's safety."

Ha-ch of Utah, reports the Wall St-eet Journal, has "given his strong support of the pharmaceutical industries." So have the "Hatchlings." David Ke-sler, FD- Commissioner under presidents B-sh and C--nton, was once an aide to Orrin Ha-ch. Hat-h's former campaign manager and aide, C. McClain Ha-dow, was sentenced to prison for conflict-of-interest charges arising from his work as a Re-gan administ-ation health official. And Thomas Pa-ry, Hat-h's former chief of staff, has carved a sumptuous life for himself as a Repu-lican fund-raiser and lobbyist with clients in the pharm-ceutical industry. All told, Par-y represents 30 clients, including Eli L-lly, Warner-La-bert, and John-on & J-hnson, not to mention ranking defense firms and the Ba-amas government. P-rry's pharmace-tical clients have enriched Senator Hat-h's campaign coffers, and in turn H-tch lavishes his attentions on them.

By the time Orrin Hat-h was stumping for NutraSweet in the U.S. Senate, the Center for Di-ease Control in Atlanta had received 600 letters complaining of NutraSweet's adverse effects. The Nati-nal Soft Drink Association (N-DA) had them too. "There have been hundreds of reports from around the country suggesting a possible relationship between their consumption of NutraSweet and subsequent symptoms including headaches, aberrational behavior, slurred speech, etc." -DA Commissioner Arthur Hull Ha-es, appointed by Ronald Re-gan in April, 1981 (moving the New Y-rk Times to observe that "some industry officials consider Dr. Ha-es more sympathetic to their viewpoints than Of course, like scores of other conservatives roaming the executive branch in the 1980s, the ethics of Arthur Hull H-yes were entirely malleable-not only did he approve a product based on studies that were "scien-ifically lacking in design and execution," according to a report issued by Sc-ence Times in February 1985, but upon leaving the F-A he took the post of senior medical consultant for Burson-Ma-steller, the public relations firm retained by G.D. Sar-e. Burson-M-rsteller, a huge public relations conglomerate, swelled in the 1980s by leve-aging smaller competitors -including Bl-ck, Ma-afort, St-ne & Ke-ley, a lobbying firm best known for influence peddling along the Beltway-presently outsizing even the Hill & Kn-wlton empire.

Typical in the aspartame story are Burson-Marstel-er's links to the in-elligence community and rightwing operatives of the G-P. Thomas Devereaux B-ll, Jr., an executive officer of the firm, is the former chairman of the Center for naval An-lysis in Alexandria, Virginia. Be-l was also the executive director of Ronald Rea-an's Inaugural Ball Committee (in which capacity he ushered in the likes of Licio Ge-li, head of P2, the notorious Ital-an secret society). Bel-'s career in Washington began in 1971 as a deputy director of Richard N-xon's Committee to ReElect the President. He went on to serve as an administrative aide to Senator William Bro-k and the Rea-an transition team.


Cap'n Billy: Generally right twice a day.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 14:40:03 -0500
From: (jim mcnulty)

Unilever goes GM FREE.

Channel Four TV News. 7.30 Gmt.

European giant of the food indusrty Unilever has announced that they will be ceasing to use GM ingredients in their foods forthwith. This has special significance for Greenpeace who have waged war with the company for the last two years, over their refusal to label foods containing GM ingredients.

The famous brand names of, Bird's Eye, Vesta and Beansfeast, the textured vegetable protein product that was relaunched by the company as a GM food, was singled out for particulat attention by the enviromental group.

"This will have global significance", said the Chairman of Unilever, it will send the much needed message to countries like Brazil whose farmer's may be guaranteed that their GM free crops, WILL find a market outlet.

Also the news that Tesco, the last major player to identify GM free supplies for their 'own brand' food lines, today stated that "It had been having discussions with Greenpeace as to "how to locate GM free soya etc.

Prevoiusly the major foodstores had stated that GM free soya was difficult to source, however the news that the once solid position of 'no segragation'by the US markets, was now in taters, as a GM free processing mill has now commenced operations.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 15:03:42 -0500
From: Betty Martini

Food statistics, some having to do with GE

Shift Magazine, April l999
Number of genetically altered crops currently being field-tested, including tomatoes spliced with fish genes:678
Number of the 300 English test fields of bioengineered crops that have been sabotaged by environmentalists:40
Percentage of the public that wants labels on genetically altered food:93
Percentage of genetically altered foods that are labelled as such in North America:0
Ratio of livestock to humans on earth:3 to 1
Percenetage of all land that is used for livestock breeding and grazing:50
Number of people who could be fed if North Americans consumed 10 per cent less meat:100 million
Number of people who die annually from malnutrition and starvation:18 million
Percentage of Africans who are malnourished:75
Percentage of all U.S. deaths each year that are related to poor diet:67
Percentage rise in blood cholesterol from consuming one egg per day:12
Percentage rise in the risk of heart attack from a 12% increase in blood cholesterol:24
Percentage of calories attributed to fat in the average American's diet:40
Percentage in Japan:20
Percentage increase over the past 20 years in the amount of money North Americans spend on fast food:1,567
Chance that an American has worked at McDonalds:1 in 8
Average number of pounds a North American gains between thanksgiving and New Year's Day:6
Percenetage of 10 year old girls who fear becoming fat:81
Percentage of teenage girls who diet:50
Percentage of U.K. food advertising to which children are exposed that promotes fatty, sugary or salty foods:95
Number of taste buds on the human tongue:10,000
Number of deaths in the U.S. attributed to food poisoning each year:9,000
Chance that a peach contains levels of insecticides unsafe for children:1 in 4
Rank of lettuce among vegetables with highest levels of pesticides:1
Rank of strawberries among fruit containing highest levels of pesticides:1
Number of symptoms, including death, of sugar substitute ASPARTAME reported to the FDA:92
Number of people who have filed complaints with the FDA about Olestra, the fat substitute infamous for causing "anal leakage and loose stool":15,000
Percentage of all antibiotics consumed in the U.S. that are fed to animals: 55
Percentage of solid waste from slaughterhouses fed back to livestock in British Columbia:25
Number of pounds of industrial toxic waste used as farm fertilizer in the
U.S. between 1990 and 1995:270 million
Percentage of food sales comprised of organic produce:1
Percentage of North Americans who would buy organic food if prices were comparable to non-organic alternatives:90
Percentage of grocery sales that online supermarkets will account for by 2003:2
Number of roller-skating waiters at Bangkok's Royal Dragon restaurant, the world's laragest:1,200
Number of countries in which rodents are part of a regular diet:42
Year of the Great Ukrainian Famine, during which food markets reportedly sold human flesh:1932
Percentage of men who would eat a piece of food after a fly had landed on it:70
Percentage of women who would:41

This came from Shift Magazine, April l999

Betty Martini, Mission Possible International


  1. Take the 60-day No Aspartame Test and send us your case history. Mission Possible International 5950-H State Bridge Rd. #215 Duluth, GA 30097 USA

  2. Tell your doctor and all of your friends!

  3. Return Asparcidal food to the store. (anything with Monsanto's NutraSweet / Equal / Spoonful / Benevia / NatraTaste)

VISIT Get links to over 30 sites on aspartame
VISIT ..FAQs & Cases
VISIT Exposing Bovine Growth Hormone

Disability and Death are not acceptable costs of business!

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 27 Apr 1999 15:54:56 -0500
From: (jim mcnulty)

Super seeds: Growing controversy

Sunday Gazette-Mail, April 25, 1999
© Copyright 1999, _____via IntellX_____

GENETIC engineering of plants already is boosting America's food production. High-yield crops will help feed billions as world population soars. But the new "designer" plants are causing legal problems.

[ Monsanto ] , the giant chemical firm, wants to keep tight control over superior "transgenic seeds" bred by the company, and thus gain maximum profits from them.

Scientists can insert a gene from one plant species into another. The new seeds become the "intellectual property" of the company producing them, explains an article by Jennifer Kahn in the April Harper's titled "The Green Machine: Is Monsanto Sowing the Seeds of Change or Destruction?"

Many U.S. farmers eagerly pay more for the new seeds. They produce bigger crop yields and require fewer expensive pesticides and fertilizers.

But there's a catch.

Farmers cannot legally save seeds from these crops to plant again next year. The seeds are the exclusive property of Monsanto and other companies holding patents on genetically engineered seeds.

Monsanto employs five full-time inspectors to hunt down and prosecute farmers who are "seed pirates."

The use of transgenic seeds is expanding rapidly. They produced 4 million acres of crops in 1996, but 70 million in 1997.

Many biologists, Kahn writes, fear corporate farming and genetic engineering creates a lack of genetic diversity in crops that have been grown from the beginning of human history. As genetic diversity declines, plants and animals become less resistant to life- threatening bacteria and viruses.

There is an irony to all this. During the "chemical age" following World War II, Monsanto and other chemical giants tried to control food production by making farmers dependent on fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," published in 1962, was one of the first exposes revealing how chemicals like the pesticide DDT killed birds, insects, fish and other animals.

By the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had identified Monsanto as a "potentially responsible party" at 48 polluted Superfund sites. These included the Nitro plant that produced dioxin-laden Agent Orange used to kill foliage during the Vietnam War.

"But these days," Kahn writes, "life sciences are more profitable than chemical weapons."

In 1997, Monsanto sold its chemical division and began buying seed and genetics companies. [ DuPont ] sold [ Conoco ] , its petroleum division, and set up a research partnership with the world's largest seed company.

Many Third World nations worry about inroads of new genetically altered crop seeds.

Some farmers can trace their seeds and harvests back to biblical times - an unbroken chain of planting, harvesting, replanting. The seeds that survive are the strongest, most disease-resistant. They are natural products of natural selection.

One new transgenic seed could be dubbed the "suicide seed," Kahn writes. [ Delta & Pine Land ] , a U.S. seed company, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture hold patents on "terminator technology" - a genetic alteration that causes seeds to die after a single season. That way, farmers cannot replant them.

India has already banned the import of the new "suicide seeds."

The transition from producing polluting pesticides and fertilizers to developing "life science" technology has a consistent theme: Monsanto and a handful of big corporations want to make big profits from manipulating the food supply.

It's like Goldfinger from the James Bond film. But this time it's Cropfinger.

The new technology may help raise more crops to feed a growing population. But Kahn's article raises some questions that need answers.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 28 Apr 1999 18:22:37 -0500

USDA's Glickman on EU Genetic Crop Delays: Commodity Comment

Washington, April 26 (Bloomberg)

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on delays by the European Union in approving use of gene-altered crops: when world trade ministers open talks in November, Glickman told the National Association of Farm Broadcasters at a briefing. shares my concern about the approval process. In my judgment, if the Europeans continue to fight us on the approval

Companies such as Monsanto Co. and Dow Chemical Co. now wait up to two years for regulatory approval in Europe of genetically modified corn, cotton, soybeans and other crops, compared with nine months in the U.S.

Currently, no applications are being approved, and earlier this month, Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. and A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. said they'll reject genetically modified corn that's not approved in Europe. If the approval process become arbitrary and capricious, and not then I think it could

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 28 Apr 1999 18:24:01 -0500

Monsanto wins hormone exemption at European Court

LUXEMBOURG, April 22 (Reuters) - U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto < MTC.N > on Thursday won a European Court of Justice ruling that would exempt the company from having to set maximum residue levels (MRLs) for its Somatech hormone, used on cows.

The court said in a statement the ruling annulled a European Commission decision to reject an MRL exemption for Somatech.

However, the judgment will have no immediate impact because of a European Union ban on milk boosting bovine somatotrophin (BST) hormones currently in place until the end of 1999.

The Commission has recently conducted further tests on BST and suggested the ban could be extended at the end this year.

The court based its decision on a similar case brought by Lilly Industries LLY.N over its Somidobove hormone, which contains the same active ingredient as Somatech.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 29 Apr 1999 05:48:18 -0500
From: Colleen Robison-Spencer

British Revolt Grows Over 'Genetic' Foods

By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 1999; Page E02

Britain's largest grocery chain yesterday announced it would phase out genetically modified foods from its shelves, and two large British food processors said they would work to eliminate gene-altered ingredients, adding momentum to a European consumer revolt that is threatening a number of U.S. exports.

Tesco stores, with more than 700 grocery outlets in the United Kingdom, said it would try to switch to suppliers whose foods are not made from gene-altered crops. Those crops, including many new varieties of soybean, corn, cotton and potato widely grown in this country, have stirred controversy in Europe because of fears that their cultivation may harm the environment or human health.

Nestle UK Ltd., noting that "consumer confidence in the technology appears to be low," also said it would ensure that the vast majority of its products will not be made with genetically modified ingredients -- and it would label any products that have such ingredients.

And Birds Eye Wall's and Van der Bergh Foods, two popular brands of processed foods owned by the consumer products giant Unilever UK, declared their intention to stop using, "for the time being," genetically modified ingredients.

"We have taken this decision in direct response to the wishes of a growing number of customers in the U.K.," said Isin Ferguson, chairman of Bird's Eye Wall's.

The dispute is over foods made from crops harboring extra genes that make them resistant to insects or weed-killing chemicals. The plants are not licensed to be grown in Europe yet, but are popular among U.S. farmers. About half of this year's U.S. soy crop will be grown from gene-altered seeds, for example, and those beans will not be kept separate from ordinary ones. About one-fourth of the U.S. soy harvest is typically exported to Europe, and soy is found in about 60 percent of all processed foods.

Yesterday's announcements followed similar declarations by other U.K. food distributors in recent months, despite repeated assurances from U.S. regulatory agencies, which have deemed the new varieties safe for consumption and environmentally safe when cultivated appropriately.

Activists applauded the news as a victory for consumers. But U.S. commodities experts called the growing movement a triumph of fear over scientific reason.

Separately, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials said late yesterday they had reached an agreement that defused a European Union threat to ban "hormone-free" beef imports. Earlier in the day, the EU had said it would impose such a ban because several samples of certified "hormone-free" beef had tested positive for growth hormones, used by most U.S. cattlemen. Details of the agreement, which would call for more careful oversight and sampling of hormone-free beef, were not yet worked out, USDA trade adviser Isi Siddiqui told Reuters yesterday.

© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 29 Apr 1999 07:28:55 -0500
From: wytze Subject: Blow to AVEBE much bigger!!!

Amylopectin Project (Transgenic Potatoes) gets heavy blow.

Agrarian Journal 29-4-99, A summary

Veendam- Not only the cultivation of transgenic amylopectin potatoes will be suspended this year. Also the production of propagationmaterial is being as good as stopped. Even if starchconcern AVEBE manages to get a license for 2000 the planted area will be no bigger than 80 hectares. The amylopectin project is a joint project of two concerns, AVEBE and Hettema. Hettema still has a permision for this year but no more than 6 or 7 hectares. This would produce propagationmaterial for 80 hectares for next year. It is still not clear whether the whole project will be completely cancelled.

Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 29 Apr 1999 08:11:15 -0500
From: MichaelP

EU to ban 'hormone-free' US beef

By Stephen Castle in Brussels, INDEPENDENT (London) April 29

THE BITTER trade war between Europe and the United States escalated yesterday when Brussels announced a total ban on US beef imports on health grounds.

The move, which follows the bitter dispute over European banana imports, comes into effect on 15 June, and now includes American beef that is being sold as "hormone-free".

Most US beef is already banned from Europe because of safety fears over the use of hormones which are widely used to stimulate growth in cattle. That restriction is highly controversial, and the World Trade Organisation has ordered its removal, unless the EU can prove that eating US beef is unsafe.

Yesterday's widening of the trade embargo, ordered by the EU's standing veterinary committee, follows scientific tests which showed that 12 per cent of supposedly hormone-free US beef contained hormone residues.

The British Government last night attacked the EU decision, arguing that the ban was unnecessary because there was no evidence of a genuine health risk from the American meat.

A British official said: "We are concerned about the shortcomings in the US control systems which the test findings showed up [and] we are glad that the US is taking them seriously. But given that the analysis showed that the residual level of hormones were below the minimum human risk level, we believe that the Commission's proposals are disproportionate."

The EU imports between 7,000 and 8,000 tons of US hormone-free beef a year, which is worth around $20m (£12.5m) and is marketed as high-quality meat. But with a final settlement of the high-profile transatlantic row over the EU's banana import regime still not reached, there is concern that the decision could worsen the diplomatic climate.

In London yesterday Lord Young of Graffham, the former Conservative trade minister, warned that the world could be plunged into a global depression if the simmering trade war escalates out of control.

Addressing the annual convention of the Institute of Directors, he said there was a new "crisis" looming over the hormone-treated beef. There was a danger, he added, of Europe being seen by the US as a "Fortress Europe for Food" .

Later, Philip Lader, the US Ambassador in London, sought to play down the tensions. He acknowledged that there were "significant differences" dividing the US and Europe and said his aim was to "lower the decibel level". Last month Mr Lader was given a dressing down by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers over the 100 per cent tariffs imposed by the US on British goods such as cashmere sweaters and batteries.

After yesterday's ruling in Brussels , the acting European agriculture commissioner, Franz Fischler, said he is "ready to work closely with the US authorities to resolve this problem". But Mr Fischler added that yesterday's decision can only be reversed when the EU is satisfied that America's beef exports to Europe have been produced without the use of hormones.

The commission said that, until the ban comes into force on 15 June, EU member states should increase to 100 per cent their checks on imports of US beef and bovine liver imports. Commission officials stressed there was still a possibility of averting the ban, if the EU and the US could agree on a way of monitoring its hormone-free beef before 15 June.

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. ***

Top PreviousFront Page

Date: 29 Apr 1999 09:00:54 -0500
From: Colleen Robison-Spencer

Canola: No Literature, No Testing -- No allergies?

Hi List, {Found a glaring typo!]

Some of you may have read the GRAS petitions and areoallergen information. I have added some new questions in light of the [mis]information that was recently given by Canola Council and the Univ. of Nebraska. I am outraged that an oil used in medical procedures, as food and in cosmetics has never been documented in food allergy literature. We've had 42 years! Thanks, Colleen [just another lab rat]

NO RESEARCH on food allergies for canola
A Nightmare For The Allergist
GRAS [Generally Recognized As Safe]

NO RESEARCH on food allergies for canola

While researching rapeseed/canola the last 13 months, I have found NO RESEARCH on food allergies for this oil. I have not found any study researching multiple oils that included rape/canola. No food allergy research on a product that is transgenic, a process that we repeatly hear is safe, with many safeguards. Where are the safeguards when the product hasn't been tested in the first place!

I called, or had others call, 16 allergists and four labs in the U.S. and Canada after finding no states near me testing for the oil. I researched in excellent medical and national libraries and medical abstract websites so was surprised to see the following email on the Canola Council of Canada[CCC] website in their discussion group, nutrition section.[1]

March 02, 1999 Lisa Gruener, research coordinator, answered a parent of a one-year old who had reactions after consuming canola: "According to an extensive literature review on the allergenicity of edible oils done by the University of Nebraska, canola oil is considered to be non-allergenic. Research has shown that refined edible oils, which is the form in which oils are commonly available to consumers, are non-allergenic, as they do not contain any traces of protein" and "Cold-pressed oils, which are less commonly available to consumers may contain trace amounts of protein, thus posing some risk to food-allergic individuals. As I mentioned previously, to date we have not seen any confirmed cases of an allergy to canola oil, cold-pressed or refined."

March 17 I contacted Ms. Gruener to ask if an article in FOODTECHNOLOGY by Hefle and Taylor, co-directors of Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, was the article she had cited.[2] She answered that it seemed to be the same article, without charts.

I also called Dr. Steven Taylor, listed in U.of Nebraska faculty profile as Head, Food Science & Technology Dept. and one of the review's authors.[3] I explained my situation and asked where he had found the research articles showing canola/rapeseed to be nonallergenic. Dr. Taylor answered that there was no canola allergy literature to review!

The Univ. of Nebraska literature review states "Some oil sources, such as canola or olive are nonallergenic." and "While many of the oils used in the studies described in this review are cold-pressed, virtually all oils consumed in the United States made from allergenic sources are solvent-extracted." The authors reviewed studies of peanut, almond, walnut, sunflower, both refined and coldpressed; soy, refined and crude; hazelnut, mixed; macadamia, cold-pressed and pistachio, mixed. It stated that cold-pressed or unrefined oils may contain "residual but detectable amounts of protein."

  1. The study should have read "There are no published canola food allergy studies to review."

  2. FOODTECHNOLOGY is used by food processors as confirmation that canola is nonallergenic, NOT that research hasn't been done on it.

  3. Cold-pressed/expeller pressed canola may contain enough protein to cause an allergic reaction. The oil is commonly found in health food stores where people are shopping for pesticide & gmo-free food for ethical and health reasons. I have seen the same oils in conventional grocery stores "natural foods" sections.

  4. Taylor was one of 6 editors/authors of "Allergenicity of Foods Produced by Genetic Modification." The report was an effort of International Food Biotechnology Council and International Life Science Institute [Allergy and Immunology Institute]. The science-based, decision tree approach to assess the allergenic potentials of transgenic foods is included in the report.[4]

I have 7 full studies and 2 editorials on rapeseed as an aeroallergen. The studies were from the U.K., Austria and Spain, none in North America. I have abstracts of other European studies, but do not have the full studies to use.

  1. The earliest study I have, from Scotland's Angus District, was initiated after the Director of Enviromental Health, L.A. Cameron, found himself reacting to rapeseed fields near his home, with no prior hayfever problems.[5]

    The Angus council kindly sent copies of their original work, letters from people outside the test areas, study procedures and those involved. Interestingly, Mr. Cameron commented in the paper that the research community was very helpful, but was concerned with government apathy where human health was concerned. In a newspaper article he photocopied [no date, name] Dr. T. S. Callaghan, Stracathro Hospital, said of Mrs. Edwina Currie, junior minister for health: "..Mrs. Currie is strictly correct in that her department has no evidence [of asthma & allergy symptoms]." "But he added, there is no evidence because it has not been looked at."

  2. A recent study by McEwan/Smith noted "the possible allergic/irritant nature of OSR plants has been attributed to several groups of particulates or chemical, pollen, fungal infections and VOCs.... While the number of people affected by plant derived VOCs has not been quantified, studies of similar chemicals have shown that they can have toxic or allergic effects in other circumstances."[6]

  3. An editorial by C. McSharry, Glasgow, reported "It is important that sensitization among farmers is investigated since they are at the front line of contact with OSR." and "Canada is currently the largest exporter of rapeseed but there is little evidence of a problem. This could be due to the wide Canadian spaces dissipating the pollen and VOC, or perhaps in common with other countries there may be a natural reluctance to acknowledge even a trivial problem with such a valuable commodity. McSharry called for a "coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach, with respiratory physicians, clinical scientists and plant biologists..."[7]

  4. An Austrian study found "...OSR sensitization was of a similar magnitude like allergy to ragweed and nettle, which are considered relevant allergens in Austria...We therefore consider OSR should be included in routine allergy screening series in countries with rape cultivation."[8]

Where are the pollen/VOC studies for North America?

Ms. Gruener of CCC commented in a personal email "The producers that I know that are allergic to canola flowers use an antihistamine during the flowering season...." Is that in Canada? Are the surrounding areas warned of the VOC and pollen problems?

A Nightmare For The Allergist

James Maryanski Ph.D., FDA Strategic Manager for Biotechnology, and Dean Metcalfe, NIAID/NIH, both confirmed to me recently that the only way to test for transgenic foods is to obtain each individual product and skin test. There are no commercial extracts available.

Will insurance companies pay for multiple tests of a product? Can you imagine an allergist trying to isolate an allergic response if there are 20 different canola/rapeseed novel oils to test? This would seem to be a nightmare for the allergist, as well as the patient.

GRAS [Generally Recognized As Safe]

Rapeseed oil [hydrogenated, 40% erucic acid] was used in peanut butter as early as 1961. A recent check of the grocery store shelves showed rapeseed in all peanut butters but the "natural" products without peanut oil removed.

Proctor & Gamble submitted a 1974 petition to the FDA requesting that fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil and superglycerinated fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil be give GRAS [Generally Recognized As Safe] status.[9] In the 1977 Federal Register: "The natural oil contains a high percentage of long chain fatty acids, 40 percent of which is unsaturated erucic acid. Experimental studies with erucic acid in rats have demonstrated that this unsaturated fatty acid is readily absorbed, accumulated in the heart and liver, and is the substance in rapeseed oil which is responsible for the observed fatty infiltration and degeneration of heart muscle. The hydrogenation converts the erucic acid to the saturated behenic acid which is poorly absorbed. As a result, the feeding of fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil and superglycerinated fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil to rats did not produce the aforementioned lipid accumulation and effects on the heart muscle."[10]

This final rule also stated that superglycerinated fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil "has been used since 1957 in cake mix formulations as an emulsifier in shortening at a maximum concentration of 4 percent of the shortening or at 0.5 percent of the total weight of cake mix."

In 1982 Agriculture Canada filed to get LEAR [low erucic acid rapeseed oil] GRAS status in the U.S.[11] It could have up to 2% erucic acid content. The final ruling was made in 1985. "FDA has found that LEAR oil does not produce the adverse effects produced by rapeseed oils containing higher levels of erucic acid, and that there are no significant differences in toxicity between LEAR oils and other vegetable oils."[12] Dec. 19, 1988 Canola oil was recognized as an interchangeable name with low erucic acid rapeseed oil [LEAR].[13]

Peanut allergies are rising in the U.S.--including anaphylaxis. Why has rapeseed been used in peanut butter for the last 42 years without allergy tests? The oil can replace up to 2% of the product. I have seen peanuts cooked in vegetable oil, which could be canola, since it isn't always labelled as such.

NOTE: Erucic acid is still being debated.

Canola is also used in cosmetics and as an anticoagulant [according to CCC. From APHIS, USDA website: Traditional and other uses have been for lamp oils, soap making, high-temperature and tenacious high-erucic acid lubricating oils, and plastics manufacturing.[14} The 1998 Canola convention proceedings estimated that "each product could generate 20,000 to 50,000 acres of demand and there could be as many as 20 different varieties in the marketplace in the coming years." [15}


[1] Canola council

[2] Hefle & Taylor, "The Allergenicity of Edible Oils, FOODTECHNOLOGY Feb. 1999; 53:2, 62-70.

[3] Dr. Taylor's research interests are "development of immunochemical methods for the detection of allergens, proteins, and toxin; the assessment of the allergenicity of genetically-engineered foods; the effect of food processing on food allergens; and the evaluation of the safety of foodborne chemical, both natually-occurring and additive."

[4} Critical Review of Food Science and Nutrition 1996; 36 Suppl. International Food Biotechnology Council; w/ILSI Allergy and Immun. Institute. Editors: Dean Metcalfe [NIH & Int'l Life Science Inst; Allergy and Immunology Institute]; Roy L. Fuchs [Monsanto];James D. Astwood [Monsanto]; Rod Townsend [Pioneer Hi-Bred International] and Hugh A. Sampson [John Hopkins Univ.; Steve L. Taylor[Univ.of Neb.] Joseph R. Fordham.

[5] Study, Angus District Council; 14 Sept. 1989 Scotland

[6] McEwan,M., MacFarlane Smith, W.H.Identification of volatile organic compounds emitted in the field by oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp. oleifera) over the growing season. Clin Exp Allergy 1998, 28: 332-338

[7] McSharry, C., Oilseed rape sensitivity, Clin Exp Allergy 1997; 27:125-127.

[8] Hemmer W. et al, Oilseed rape pollen is a potentially relevant allergen. Clin Exp Allergy, 1997 Feb, 27:2, 156-61.

[9] Federal Register, Feb. 14, 1974 (39 FR 5674)

[10]Federal Register, Sept. 23, 1977(42 FR 48335) Docket # 77G-0100.

[11]Federal Register, 1982

[12]Federal Register, Jan. 28, 1985 (50 FR 3745) Docket # 82G-0207

[13]Federal Register, Dec. 29, 1988 953 FR 52681) Dockets # 82G-0207; #86P-0506, and #87P-0199]

[13] U.S. Biotechnology permits.

[14] Canola council - 1998 proceedings