31 July 99 – South African News

Table of Contents

South African Depts of Agriculture & Health workshop re Labelling of GM Foods
South African Petition for Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
Check Food Labels For The Following Ingredients -
US Lawsuit Uncovers Disagreement Within FDA Over Safety of Biotech Foods
Derailing the Biotech Express: US & Global Activists at the Crossroads
US Summit: 500,000 Petition for Mandatory Labelling
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: Food gains for the world's ...
World Authority to Aid South Africa's Safe Food Campaign
Monsanto in South Africa

Top NextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:22:55 +0200
From: "Glenda Lindsay"

ACTION ALERT - SA Depts of Agriculture & Health workshop re LABELLING OF GM FOODS Tues 24th Aug 99

Hi Everyone

NOW is the time to start emailing/faxing your vote for FULL DISCLOSURE LABELLING of ALL GM ingredients (INCLUDING oils, sugars, flours used in processed foods)

The above Depts meet with 'a limited number of representatives' from 'interested groups' to discuss the issue on TUESDAY 24th AUGUST. Please print, photocopy & use the attached petition to collect signatures (family/friends/colleagues/fellow food shoppers, etc) to fax to: Ms Elsa Van Rensburg, Dept of Agriculture - convenor of the workshop - BEFORE August 24th (Fax 012 326 4374) Lets go for it! - and get as many thousands of signatures as possible tabled at this workshop, showing vast public support for FULL DISCLOSURE LABELLING OF ALL GM INGREDIENTS.

Individual emails are also effective .... Elsa Van Rensburg's email address is Raise your voice!!!!

For your information, the third attachment - 'Check Food Labels' - is an indication of imported ingredients in locally available foods which are likely to be genetically modified (but not labelled as such by the exporting countries due to bodies like America's Food & Drug Administration agenda to promote the biotech industry despite safety concerns over GM foods by their own scientific experts!!....see second attachment)

I'm away and unable to send/receive email from this Thursday 22nd July until September, so please continue to support the challenge to Genetic Modification in South Africa via

Future generations will thank you!!


Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: 1. August 1999
From: Franz Beck

South African Petition for Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods

Here some technicalities about the petition. Additional to handing out copies of the petition form to friends and familiy, you can look up the form on the internet address . Please print it, copy and distribute as wide as possible.

Good distribution points are:

For better visibility I have put a petition flyer on the net under . It will show sideways and is designed to print on any printer on one A4 page in landscape (i.e. sideways) 'Petition for Labelling Genetically Modified Food - Please sign'. This page can be glued to the wall just above the petition forms to catch the eyes of people passing by.

Many people ask, why signatories don't have to give their ID number. I have asked this question to my lawyer and he confirmed that a petition of this nature does not require an ID number. Only petitions which enter the legal arena (i.e. court or are against an existing regulation or law) require the ID.

Please submit the filled out petition form directly to Ms Elsa Van Rensburg before 24 August 1999.

Thank you for your cooperation!

Franz Beck
Safe Food Coalition

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:22:55 +0200
From: "Glenda Lindsay"

Check Food Labels For The Following Ingredients -

If they are imported (especially from the US or Argentina) They May Be Genetically Modified (but not labelled as such because these countries do not require labelling - and because they are not segregated from non-GM varieties)


(50% of US-grown soy is genetically modified)


CANOLA (Oilseed Rape/Rapeseed Oil)



Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:22:55 +0200
From: "Glenda Lindsay"

**************************CONSUMER ALERT****************************

Ingredients passed as safe by the following US body have been allowed, unquestioned as ingredients in supermarket foods in South Africa

Contact National Consumer Affairs Office South Africa
Director Lana Van Zyll (012) 310 9791 Fax: (012) 322 8489

US Lawsuit Uncovers Disagreement Within FDA Over Safety of Biotech Foods

June 24, 1999

From Alliance for Bio-Integrity P.O. Box 110, Iowa City, IA 52244-0110
Tel: 515-472-5554; Fax:515-472-6431
Contact: Steven Druker, ph. 515-472-5554, or Bob Roth, ph. 515-469-5081

Agency Contradicted Own Experts in Approving Genetically Engineered Foods

Misrepresented Facts in Order to Promote U.S. Biotech Industry
False Claims and a Policy at Odds with the Law
FDA Scientists Protest Attempt to Equate Genetic Engineering with Conventional Breeding
Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the Foods
Violating Federal Law

Misrepresented Facts in Order to Promote U.S. Biotech Industry

Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of gene-spliced foods, and an attorney on the case (in collaboration with the Legal Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).

In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all genetically engineered foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v. Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA’s own files confirm how well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies of these files – totalling over 44,000 pages – to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

False Claims and a Policy at Odds with the Law

The FDA’s records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts – all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose:

  1. agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and

  2. that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency’s current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the same as natural ones.

Besides contradicting the FDA’s claim that its policy is science-based, this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by qualified experts.

FDA Scientists Protest Attempt to Equate Genetic Engineering with Conventional Breeding

The FDA admits it is operating under a directive ‘‘to foster’’ the U.S. biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that bioengineered foods are essentially the same as others. However, the agency’s attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.

According to Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, ‘‘There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document.’’ He added that several aspects of gene splicing ’’...may be more hazardous.’’

Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, objected that the agency was ’’...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices.’’ She said: ‘‘The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.’’

Moreover, Dr. Jim Maryanski, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests.

Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the Foods

Nonetheless, so strong was the FDA’s motivation to promote the biotech industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took a public position that was the opposite. Its official policy asserts: ‘‘The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way....’’ Thus, although agency experts advised that genetically engineered foods should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats in charge of the policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all.

Violating Federal Law

Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA’s behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing. While the FDA admits that bioengineered organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are ‘‘generally recognized as safe’’ (GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in the scientific community.

Further, the statute prescribes that additives like those in bioengineered foods can only be recognized as safe on the basis of tests that have established their harmlessness. But no such tests exist for gene-spliced foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was intended to permit marketing of substances whose safety has already been demonstrated through testing, the FDA is using it to circumvent testing and to approve substances based largely on conjecture – conjecture that is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts.

Consequently, every genetically engineered food in the U.S. is on the market illegally and should be recalled for rigorous safety testing. The FDA has deliberately unleashed a host of potentially harmful foods onto American dinner tables in blatant violation of U.S. law.

South Africans …..add your support to local groups concerned about Genetically Engineered Foods:
Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:47:18 +0200
From: "Glenda Lindsay"
From: Consumer Food Network
From: Ronnie Cummins

Dear Consumer Food Network,

This, in my view, is the best summary of what is happening internationally with GE food. Worth subscribing to if you don't already get it - see end of newlsetter for how to subscribe. I am forwarding it just this once for your information (apologies if you already get it).


Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:46:58 -0600
From: Ronnie Cummins
Subject: Campaign for Food Safety News #20 (July 14, 1999)

Campaign for Food Safety News #20 July 14, 1999
News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, & Organics
by: Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston
Campaign for Food Safety <>;

Affiliated with the Organic Consumers Association <>; __________________________________________________________________

Derailing the Biotech Express: US & Global Activists at the Crossroads

Quote of the Month:

"Almost 100 % of our agricultural exports in the next five years will be genetically-modified or combined with bulk commodities that are genetically modified...The Europeans have an absolute fear, unfounded by any scientific basis, of accepting these products... The EU's fear of bioengineered foods ... is the single greatest trade threat that we face."

Stuart Eizenstat, nominee for the second-highest job at the US Treasury Department, testifying before the US Senate on June 29, 1999.

A specter haunts the boardrooms of Monsanto and the Gene Giants. Mass public resistance against genetically engineered (GE) foods and crops in Western Europe and India, spearheaded by an incredible grassroots campaign in Britain, appears on the verge of spreading into North America and across the globe. Rumors are circulating in Europe that two of the largest GE transnationals,Novartis and AstraZeneca, may bow out of ag biotech altogether. If mass anti-biotech campaigns catch fire in North America and Japan – and solidarity and cooperation continues to increase between activists in the North and South – the Brave New World of ag biotech may be short-lived. Even more unnerving to certain sectors of the economic elite, as Monsanto and other biotech hard liners, including the US government and trade officials, turn to evermore extreme measures to force the citizenry to "shut up and eat their Frankenfoods," and compel farmers to plant their "Terminator" and "Traitor" seeds, trade wars and collateral damage could seriously undermine GATT and the World Trade Organization.

In this issue of CFS News we will review some of the major developments on the GE front over the past few months and focus specifically on US government and industry plans to co-opt and divide the growing international anti-biotech movement and stifle debate in the US. First a few of the major developments over the past 90 days:

CFS's well-informed sources in Washington tell us that the Clinton administration and the Biotechnology Industry Organization are increasingly worried. Chemical & Engineering News reported in its May 31 issue that Thomas Nickson, a Monsanto regulatory official, "now considers the labeling of genetically modified crops for export inevitable." According to C&E News, giant commodities traders Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland also believe currently co-mingled export crops will soon have to be segregated and labeled. Although the USDA hasn't yet endorsed the idea of labeling GE foods for export, according to a June 27 story by Bill Lambrecht, the USDA hopes that new proposed federal organic standards, due to be released as early as October, will "ease the worries of biotech-wary consumers" by prohibiting the use of genetically engineered ingredients in foods labeled "USDA Organic." In other words, if you don't want GE, buy organic.

Proponents of GE realize they're going to have to make at least some minor concessions on the biotech labeling front in order to head off a trade war with the EU, prevent the GE controversy from heating up too much in Japan and other major US export markets – and prevent the emergence of a serious debate and organized opposition movement in the USA. The biotech industry understands quite well consumer polls over the past ten years that show that 80-90% of Americans support mandatory labeling, and that 60% or so, if foods were clearly labeled, would attempt to avoid buying GE products. They also understand that there isn't more of a controversy yet in the USA because almost half of all consumers erroneously believe that there aren't any GE foods (except for rBGH-derived dairy products) on the market. A 1999 study by the International Food Information Council, a government and industry-funded group, found that 47% of Americans believe that there aren't any genetically engineered foods on the market yet.

As danger signs mount of an impending increase in grassroots activism and public debate over gene-foods, the Clinton administration is taking steps to create the impression they're willing to address public concerns:

The biotech lobby apparently believe that a more moderate set of proposed national organic standards – one that specifically excludes GE, irradiation, and toxic sludge – will placate US organic consumers. Beyond this, if the overall biotech debate in the US starts to get out of hand, they are willing to entertain the notion of partial, voluntary industry labeling. The White House and the Gene Giants believe that segregation and labeling of GE exports will placate Europeans and Asians, and that over time everyone will calm down or else become fatalistic as they realize that GE crops and ingredients are everywhere. In the meantime they intend to use the GATT, the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, and other corporate and biotech-friendly institutions to rewrite global trade agreements and investment policies so that nation states no longer have the ability to respond to citizen demands for rigid controls over genetic engineering and other out-of-control technologies. As an ultimate fall-back plan, our sources tell us, the White House would conceivably consider a general and deliberately vague label on food products that says something like "This product may contain bioengineered or irradiated ingredients..." Of course this is not enough. Campaigners in the US and around the world must prepare ourselves for a protracted struggle. The battle has just begun.

End of Campaign for Food Safety News #20

Ronnie Cummins, Director
Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Association
860 Hwy 61, Little Marais, Minnesota 55614
Telephone: 218-226-4164 Fax: 218-226-4157
email: URL:

Affiliated with the Organic Consumers Association

To Subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Campaign for Food Safety News send an email to: with the simple message in the body of the text: subscribe pure-food-action

To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Organic View, send an email to: with the simple message in the body of the text: subscribe

Dick Copeman
Food Network Coordinator, Consumers' Federation of Australia
223 Logan Road, Buranda QLD 4102, Australia
Ph (+61) 07 3217 3187     Fx (+61) 07 3217 3028

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:36:16 +0200
From: "Glenda Lindsay"
From: Bob Phelps []

Myth-makers fall out over GE food/ US Petition for labelling

US Summit: 500,000 Petition for Mandatory Labelling

On June 17, 1999 in Washington, DC, a National Summit of eminent scientists, doctors, public policy experts, leaders in industry, farmers, religious leaders, and consumer groups submitted to the US President, Congress, USDA, FDA, and EPA 500,000 petition signatures calling for the mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods.

The room was packed with over 140 individuals, including representatives from the US Congress, the Senate, and various other government agencies. Several dozen national and international press covered the event, including Boston Globe, LA Times, Reuters, BBC, and Financial Times of London. The serious risks of genetically engineered foods were discussed in detail.

Dr. Gary Kaplan, Director of the North Shore University Hospital in New York, said inserting genes from other species into plants for human or animal consumption is dangerously unpredictable. Dr. Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, said we are totally in the dark about knowing how to assess genetically engineered food. He said: "You don't even know what questions to ask because of the time it takes for some of these impacts of genetic modifications to show up."

Industry representatives said that the US industry was losing its European market because European consumers were not buying GE foods. Consumer and religious groups explained that their ethical rights were being violated and that GE foods should be labelled so that consumers can have a choice.

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:36:16 +0200
From: "Glenda Lindsay"

ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION: Food gains for the world's ...

Wire Service: OTC (COMTEX Newswire), Date: Fri, Jun 25, 1999

JUN 25, 1999, M2 Communications - WASHINGTON, D.C. – Promising advances that may help improve the food supply to poor people in developing countries are under threat from the increasingly passionate rhetoric over genetically modified (GM) crops, according to Professor Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation. However, many concerns from consumers and environmental groups are legitimate and need to be properly addressed and monitored.

There also needs to be a change in policy by the Monsanto Company, the largest player in commercial plant biotechnology, to enter into an open and honest dialogue over the issues - including a commitment to drop the idea of "terminator" seeds and to invest more in strengthening plant science research in developing countries.

Conway also came out in favor of labeling food products not because GM foods are inherently dangerous, but rather because consumers have a "right to know" what they purchase and consume.

Conway, in a speech to Monsanto's board of directors in Washington, D.C. said a more responsible approach to the introduction of GM technology is needed. Unless this happens there is a real danger that the potential benefits of the technology will be lost in an increasingly hostile consumer or legislative backlash.

Conway pointed out that the Rockefeller Foundation has funded more than $100 million of plant biotechnology research and trained more than 400 plant scientists from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Rockefeller Foundation's grantmaking in biotechnology supports advances that the Foundation believes will be particularly important to the world's poor and excluded, especially those living on less favored agricultural lands. Prior to widespread European outcry, real gains from GM technology were near, especially for use in developing countries. These included insect and disease resistant rice - but also rice with added beta-carotene, which is turned into Vitamin A in humans. In developing countries 180 million children suffer from Vitamin A deficiency and each year two million die from it. Adding different genes to rice could boost its iron content by three-fold. Some two billion people worldwide suffer from anemia, a condition caused by iron deficiency.

Rockefeller Foundation-funded researchers in Mexico have added genes to rice and maize to increase tolerance to aluminum - a soil toxicity problem that blights vast areas of the tropics. In India, scientists have added two genes to rice which appear to help the plant survive being submerged for long periods, a common problem in Asia.

"We believe these achievements hold the real promise of considerable benefits for the people of the developing countries. However, the use of this research, particularly by the poor and excluded, is being threatened by the mounting controversies in Europe and to some extent in the United States. There is a real danger that the research may be set back, particularly if field trials are banned. It is, of course, only through field trials that we can truly assess both the benefits and the risks," said Conway.

He added: "The controversy in Europe and the developing world over the use of plant biotechnology is intensifying and science is not at the center of it. There is now a real danger that research will be delayed, field trials will be stopped and irrational restrictions will be imposed on the use of foods produced by new technology."

"Much of what is being said in Europe is driven by passion. Some of it is motivated by simple anti-corporate or anti-American sentiment. But underlying some of this rhetoric are genuine concerns about the ethical consequences of biotechnology, about fear for the environment and about the potential impact on human health."

Conway said the commercial rush to get products to market had resulted in mistakes, misunderstandings and a backlash against plant technology. There were concerns about the unequal negotiating position of poor farmers and plant breeders in developing countries against the might of giant industrialized firms.

Conway said fears that genes added to new crops could spread to nearby weeds or other plants had to be taken seriously, as did possible fears of creating new strains of viruses from using viral genes in plants. The technology needs to proceed cautiously under close monitoring.

However, fear that GM crops could increase antibiotic resistance could be easily resolved by dropping the antibiotic markers inserted in such plants, as these were not necessary for the crops to grow.

As to wider public fears about the harmful effects on human health, including cancer risks, Conway warned that such concerns cannot be dismissed simply because of an absence of evidence. "You will not be able to cope with these fears by saying you see no evidence of harm. Remember, this is what the British government said about eating meat from BSE-infected cows and what the Belgian government said, until a few weeks ago, about animal feedstuffs containing petrochemicals."

Conway said there needed to be a new approach of watching, openness and discussion about the possible health effects of the technology. "There must be a new culture, with appropriate systems and on-going institutional support, that provides careful monitoring, open reporting and transparency, and a place for public participation about the impact of plant biotechnology on human health. Only if you are seen to be careful, concerned, interested and open-minded will you convince the reasonable majority that you are a partner to be trusted in looking for new ways to feed people without creating health problems that are worse than hunger." "It is true that the risk-benefit equations may be different in developing countries. Those faced with malnutrition or starvation may be less worried about the incompletely-defined health risks cited by American and European pressure groups.

"But the poor have a right to decide for themselves and they need the information and tools with which to do so. Their decisions must be based on their own analysis of their own needs and priorities. They cannot be bribed into becoming guinea pigs for the North."

Conway said the patenting of new plants utilizing GM technology should be restricted. There is a danger of trying to place intellectual property protection rights on knowledge rather than on invention. There is also a need, in addition to scientific studies, to study the economic impacts of such technologies on developing countries.

Conway called for greater consumer choice and labeling over whether to eat GM foods or not, and the end of research into terminator technology. "The agricultural seed industry must disavow the use of terminator technology to produce seed sterility."

Agro-industrial companies should not simply respond to criticism by issuing statements "reassuring poor people you are committed to feeding them and caring for their environments."

Offering advice to Monsanto's board of directors, he added: "It would be better to treat the poor as equal partners in an honest dialogue. Acknowledge that you are concerned about returns on investment, market penetration, continued growth and other commercial issues. Admit that you do not have all the answers but set out those which you do have and commit to prompt, full and honest sharing of data as you get it."

"This is not the time for a new issues management program or a new offensive by a public relations agency. It is time for a new relationship based on honesty, full disclosure and a very uncertain shared future." Conway concluded: "The clients of the Rockefeller Foundation are the poor and excluded, those who remain untouched by the benefits of globalization. I believe that much of what you have found could be important to these clients of ours. Monsanto needs to speak and to act differently if GM technology is to be a part of the solution to the problems faced by the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings."

Professor Gordon Conway is also author of The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century, a recently published book on global food security and is the former vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex. He is a noted authority on agriculture in the developing world.

The Rockefeller Foundation is a global foundation with a mandate and commitment to enrich and sustain the lives of the poor and excluded throughout the world.

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

Bob Phelps
Director, Australian GeneEthics Network
c/- ACF 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy. 3065 Australia
Tel: (03) 9416.2222 Fax: (03) 9416.0767 {Int Code (613)}
email:     WWW:

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

"Non-cooperation with injustice is a sacred duty."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead

When spiders unite, they can tie down a lion

Ethiopian proverb

Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling

Top PreviousNextFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:14:32 +0200
From: Kerry Niddrie,SFC

World Authority to Aid SA Safe Food Campaign

Ethical Stand Untainted by Vested Interests
Genetic Testing Service for Safe Food
Invitation to Support Safe Food Campaign

At the invitation of SFC Professor Dr John Fagan, an anti-genetically-engineered food campaigner, award winning microbiologist and cancer researcher with 23 years of experience at the cutting edge of molecular genetics techniques in cancer research, will visit South Africa in October this year.

Dr Fagan, 47, a Cornell University-trained molecular biologist, is Professor of Molecular Biology and co-director of the doctoral programme in Physiology, Molecular and Cell Biology at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa.

During his visit to South Africa, Dr Fagan will meet with decision-makers and opinion leaders and he will run information seminars for special interest groups and for the general public.

Ethical Stand Untainted by Vested Interests

Dr Fagan is known for his courageous ethical stand against the hazards of these untested new technologies. He initiated world-wide debate on genetics research in 1994 when he returned almost two million dollars of grants from the US National Institutes of Health because of concerns about the dangers of genetic engineering and the hazards of releasing GE organisms into the environment. He called for a 50-year moratorium on the most dangerous applications of genetic engineering and called on researchers to explore safer, more productive avenues of research. News of Dr Fagan's action went around the world through widespread international TV and radio news coverage and hundreds of major newspaper and magazine articles. In the context of a world lecture tour, campaigning for safe alternatives to genetic technologies, Dr John Fagan has published a book called Genetic Engineering: The Hazards, Vedic Engineering: The Solutions.

Genetic Testing Service for Safe Food

Dr Fagan is also chief scientific adviser to Genetic ID, a company that provides genetic testing services to food, nutritional, and agricultural industries throughout the world. The tests Dr Fagan has devised extremely sensitive and can detect the minutest trace of any genetically modified organisms.

Invitation to Support Safe Food Campaign

If you would like more information on Dr Fagan's seminars or testing service or you would like to join the Safe Food Coalition in sponsoring Dr Fagan's tour of South Africa please call Angus Durran (011)318-1399 or Richard Broome (011)483-0685.
Top PreviousFront Page
Please print and sign the South African petition for GE food Labelling
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:17:17 +0200
From: "Lori Lake & Ross Suter"

Monsanto in South Africa

Dear Franz

Great to see a petition happening.

What is your response to Monsanto's application for a Patent for Plant Gene expression including their recent majority shares in Sensako (?) SA's biggest seed distributor and the potential of SA becoming the market for their terminator (sterile) seed - the implications for SA agriculture are potentially disastrous!

What is the status of this patent and who can we send letters/petitions to? For more info on British and European responses to Monsanto see Greenpeace website!

Will forward petition to Environmental Educator's Association and to EJNF W. Cape.

Hope to hear from you soon!