Genetically
 Manipulated 


 

 
 
 Food


 News

1 November 99

Table of Contents

Collateral damage ?
EU proposes renewal of ban on cattle hormone BST
Billions at stake as food is frozen out
Two UK Guardian's GE websites
13 Myths About Genetic Engineering
Iceland stores ban sweetener in tumour link fear
"Canadian Claims That GM Foods are Tested More Than Pharmaceuticals and Pesticides are Pure Propaganda"
Animal feed to be given GM labelling
Britain and America have given big business an inhuman bonus
Farmers warned of high-tech backlash
Philippine consumer groups lobby for GMO labelling
Australia to press ahead with detailed food labeling
Japan: Gov't to impose rules for verification of GMO -free food
Council of Canadians Backs Wheat Board's Call for Gene-food Moratorium
Glyphosate May Harm Beneficial Organisms
Gene Therapy Deaths Will Be Secret?
The last taboo
Worry over GMO food slowly growing in Japan
Epidemic fear over animal transplants
Anti-Ageing cream raises fear of infection
U.S. Department of Frankenculture
NIH Not Told Of Deaths in Gene Studies
Japan: Non-GE Soybeans at all-time high price
Websites for Debate on GE food
Useful databases to subscribe to
The process of genetic engineering..........
BSE companies putting GM in animal feeds, reveals report
Introduction into Animal Feeds and Strategic Overview

Top NextFront Page

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-27

Collateral damage ?

New Scientist October 23, 1999 Pg. 27

A common weedkiller is under suspicion of harming beneficial insects. A German report to the European Commission describes lab tests showing that glyphosate can kill parasitic wasps and lacewings. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the European Union, where it is approved under national regulations.

The Commission is evaluating pesticides for approval at European level, and the report recommends postponing approval until further studies have been conducted in the field. Monsanto is already marketing glyphosate in the US specifically for use with crops genetically modified to tolerate it. It wants to get the same crops approved for use on European farms. The company argues that more appropriate tests of glyphosate, which show no evidence of harm, have already been submitted. For more science news see http://www.newscientist.com


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-27

EU proposes renewal of ban on cattle hormone BST

BRUSSELS, Oct 26 (Reuters)

The European Commission on Tuesday proposed renewing its ban on animal welfare grounds on the use and marketing of the hormone BST, which is used to boost milk production in dairy cows, it said in a statement.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-27

Billions at stake as food is frozen out

By CRAIG SKEHAN, Herald Correspondent in Bangkok Date: 27/10/99

Thai authorities are struggling to protect billions of dollars worth of exports as countries with restrictions or bans on genetically modified crops start to reject Thai food products.

The trade impact is such that the Thai Government is considering a proposal to set up a special agricultural zone to produce, for export and local consumption, crops which have not been genetically modified.

In one case, Thai exporters have been forced to start using sunflower oil instead of soybean oil in cans of tuna because the European Union banned Thai tuna canned in oil made from imported genetically modified soybeans.

The stakes are high. Canned tuna exports alone earn Thailand $1.2 billion annually.

Lucrative exports of farm prawns to certain markets could also be jeopardised if it were established that genetically modified feedstocks were being used. The recent rejection by Germany of flour sourced from a Thai agricultural project has added to political sensitivity.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-27

Two UK Guardian's GE websites

GM achives at http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/gmdebate/Index/0,3332,68901,00.html

http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/society/0,3147,68900,00.html. Another GE achive, with cross related stories, from the Nuffield Council, Prince Charles etc.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-27

13 Myths about Genetic Engineering

That a few scientists at the Dunedin Polytech could produce the following popular-level piece gives some real hope. The following was prepared by Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering.

13 Myths About Genetic Engineering

Sections:
Myth No. 1 - Genetic engineering (GE) is not new.
Myth No. 2 - Genetic engineering is precise.
Myth No. 3 - GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has been modified.
Myth No.4 - GE food is extensively tested and the GE food at present on our supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat.
Myth No. 5 - Genetically engineered food has improved nutritional value.
Myth No.6 - One can always choose not to eat GE food.
Myth No. 7 - Farmers will benefit from growing GE crops.
Myth No.8 - GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides.
Myth No. 9 - There is no evidence that GE crops are harmful to the environment.
Myth No. 10 - GE crops will save the world from famine.
Myth No. 11 - You can trust the scientists that GE food is good for you and the world.
Myth No. 12 - You can't stop progress.
Myth No. 13 - There are more important things to worry about than GE foods.

Myth No. 1 - Genetic engineering (GE) is not new.

It.. is just the same as speeded-up selective breeding. FACT: Genetic engineering (GE) and conventional breeding are worlds apart. Breeding does not manipulate genes; it involves crossing of selected parents of the same or closely related species. In contrast, GE involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another completely different organism (eg. food crops). GE usually employs virus genes to smuggle in and promote the inserted genes, and antibiotic resistance genes to act as markers. All these inserted genes are present in every cell of the plant.

Myth No. 2 - Genetic engineering is precise.

FACT: The function of only a small proportion of the DNA in a higher organism is known. Modern genetics has shown that genes do not operate in isolation. Rather they interact in a complicated way, changing their behaviour in response to influences from other genes. Although a gene can be cut out precisely from the DNA of an organism, its insertion into the DNA of another organism is entirely random. This results in the disruption of the order of the genes on the chromosome and may result in random and unexpected changes in the functioning of the cells.

Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard University, has said of GE: 'We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another.'

Myth No. 3 - GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has been modified.

FACT: The random insertion of foreign genes into the genetic material may cause unexpected changes in the functioning of other genes. Existing molecules may be manufactured in incorrect quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules may be produced. GE foods and food products may therefore contain unexpected toxins or allergenic molecules that could harm our health or that of our offspring.

Myth No.4 - GE food is extensively tested and the GE food at present on our supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat.

FACT: No GE food testing is done in America. We rely almost entirely on the testing carried out by the GE biotechnology companies that have spent billions of dollars developing the food and intend to make a profit selling it to us. There are serious doubts about the adequacy of the testing and the validity of the conclusions drawn from the results. Independent long-term testing is required before we can be sure that GE food is safe to eat. Another health concern is the possible acceleration of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics due to the use of antibiotic resistance genes in the production of GE foods.

Myth No. 5 - Genetically engineered food has improved nutritional value.

FACT: No GE food produced to date has been shown to be more nutritious than non-GE food. Most GE crops are only designed to be resistant to specific herbicides, to produce their own insecticides or to have an increased shelf life.

Myth No.6 - One can always choose not to eat GE food.

FACT: At present most foods on American supermarket shelves containing GE ingredients are not labelled, so there is no way of knowing whether we are eating them. GE products are likely to be found in foods containing the following ingredients:

Soya flour and oil (in many common foods including breads, sausages, etc.) Lecithin (in chocolate, ice cream etc.) Canola oil Corn (maize) extracts.

Myth No. 7 - Farmers will benefit from growing GE crops.

FACT: Seeds of genetically engineered crops are more expensive than those of conventional crops. Farmers in the UK and USA report that yields are generally no better, the crops are less reliable and overall have not improved profitability. Non-GE crops now receive a premium and as more countries reject GE foods, the opportunities to sell GE produce overseas are diminishing. Because of risks associated with GE crops insurance companies in the USA and UK are now reluctant to insure them. Farmers growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts with the biotechnology producers. These commit them to using only the herbicides produced by that company and prohibit them from the traditional practice of saving seed for the next season. Most third world farmers certainly will not benefit.

Myth No.8 - GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides.

FACT: Crops engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides may encourage more liberal use of those herbicides. This has been anticipated by one manufacturer, who has applied to ANZFA (Australia New Zealand Food Authority) to have the allowable residue of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup=AE) in foods sold in New Zealand increased by 200 times. In areas of the USA where crops engineered to produce their own insecticide are grown, pesticide use has not decreased.

Myth No. 9 - There is no evidence that GE crops are harmful to the environment.

FACT: Insects, birds and the wind carry genetically altered pollen and seeds into neighbouring fields and far beyond. Cross-pollination occurs between GE crops and non-GE crops and their wild relatives. In this way resistance to weed killer, for example, might be transmitted to weeds making them more difficult to control. There is evidence that crops engineered to produce their own insecticide can kill beneficial insects.

Myth No. 10 - GE crops will save the world from famine.

FACT: A major cause of famine is the unequal global distribution of food. Food mountains exist in much of the western world and food is regularly dumped. Poor people have limited ability to buy either GE or non-GE food. There is no evidence that GE crops produce higher yields than conventional crops or that GE products will be cheaper.

Myth No. 11 - You can trust the scientists that GE food is good for you and the world.

FACT: The money for scientific research on GE here and overseas comes from either the biotechnology companies or the government. Both are committed to the promises of biotechnology. This means that even when scientists have concerns about the safety or commercial application of the technology, it is often hard for them to risk their careers by being openly critical. One respected scientist in the UK who spoke up about his experimental results showing damaging effects of feeding rats on a type of genetically engineered potato was immediately fired from his job.

Myth No. 12 - You can't stop progress.

FACT: No of course we can't; and why would we want to? Progress implies change for the better. Change for the worse is regression. We must be sure that GE products have benefits for the consumer and are safe if they are to be introduced into our foods. We must not commit ourselves to a dubious technology that cannot be reversed.

Myth No. 13 - There are more important things to worry about than GE foods.

FACT: Many scientists don't think so. For example Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won a 1995 Nobel Prize says: "My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there."
Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-27

Iceland stores ban sweetener in tumour link fear

By Dominic Rushe, London's Sunday Times, Oct 24, 1999.

ICELAND, the grocer, will announce this week that it is banning aspartame, the artificial sweetener better known as NutraSweet, from its own- label foods.

The move follows growing concern among consumers about a possible link between the sweetener and brain tumours. Aspartame is consumed by 250m people worldwide and has been used in low-calorie food and drinks such as Diet Coke for 20 years.

But in recent years there have been increasing fears about possible health risks. The compound has been linked to multiple sclerosis and even Gulf war syndrome.

These worries, spread on the internet, are hotly disputed by NutraSweet's owner, Monsanto, the GM (genetically modified) food giant.

Iceland will become the first national grocers' chain to impose a ban and the move will be closely watched by its larger rivals. Iceland is trying to reposition itself as a "green" grocer and has already banned other artificial colours and flavourings from its own goods.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

"Canadian Claims That GM Foods are Tested More Than Pharmaceuticals and Pesticides are Pure Propaganda"

by Joe Cummins, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Genetics
University of Western, Ontario
e-mail: jcummins@julian.uwo.ca Oct. 27, 99

Recently Prof. David Suzuki , a respected geneticist and television commentator, pointed out that GM crops are not tested adequately. The response from representatives of the biotechnology industry including a Professor of Crop Science on leave to promote GM technology was that testing of GM crops was more extensive than the testing of pesticides and pharmaceuticals.

Those public relations claims were supported by bureaucrats from government ministries of agriculture and health responsible for permitting GM crop release and promoting their export. Suzuki was correct the responding public relations was just fairly un-clever falsehoods.

The Canadian government bureaucracy that takes millions in direct funding from GM industry has been a long term promoter of the "substantial equivalence " concept. Substantial equivalence has been described as "pseudo-science" by at least one British scientist. It is a simple assumption that GM crops are equivalent to crops that are not genetically modified. However, Canadian bureaucrats just wink and nudge when findings such as the deficiency in phytoestrogens in roundup ready soy are mentioned.

It seems to me, these claims that GM crops are tested beyond pharmaceuticals and pesticides is a desperate effort to move the backlog of GM crops now in storage elevators. Certainly, no expense will be spared in promoting that falsehood in the European Union and the Canadian Government will likely piously participate in the scam.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

Animal feed to be given GM labelling

By Oliver Tlckell, Independent, 27th October, 1999

A GM-LABELLING system is to be introduced for animal feeds sold in Britain to uphold consumers' right to choose, Nick Brown, the Minister of Agriculture, said yesterday.

Speaking in the Butchers' Hall at Smithfield, London, he said: "Animal feeds should be labelled as to whether or not they contain GM ingredients as it is a consumer right to have traceability through the food chain.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

by GEORGE MONBIOT, Guardian (London) Thursday October 28, 1999

Britain and America have given big business an inhuman bonus

Pirates are seizing the genome

If today's intellectual property laws had been in force during the 15th century, British researchers have pointed out, Columbus could have patented America. The explorers racing to discover the 21st century's new continent of knowledge, the uncharted inner kingdom of the human genome, have their eyes on riches which the old pirate navigators could only have dreamt of: they can obtain a legal monopoly on everything they encounter.

In 1995, MEPs defied the European Commission by rejecting its directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Doctors, researchers and patient groups had argued that patenting genes would make the diagnosis and treatment of disease more expensive, laboratories more secretive and scientists less adventurous - disinclined to look for new cures if someone else owned the genes on which they were based.

Labour members of the UK parliament signed an early day motion supporting the European parliament's decision and urging "the European Commission to reassess its policy on biotechnology and genetic engineering to ensure proper respect for human life". Thirteen of these MPs have since become ministers.

In 1997, the commission re-submitted its directive. The new draft proposed that "An element isolated from the human body . . . including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element."

The directive was supported by a massive corporate lobby and several European governments. Britain's was by far the most aggressive. It argued that companies would be able to use the new law to patent the technologies surrounding genetic engineering, but not the genes themselves. Without "a favourable climate for investment, based on the security of a firm legal framework", British-based companies, it warned, would flee Europe for the United States and Japan.

The directive would insure that EU patent provisions were "harmonised" with those of the United States, as a step towards the global regime for which the big biotech companies had been lobbying. None of the ministers who opposed the bill in opposition raised a squeak of protest.

One of them, Kim Howells, became responsible for insuring that British law was compatible with the directive. The bill's critics, the government maintained, were "scare-mongering" and "hysterical".

At length, the European parliament succumbed to the multi-million pound assault on its intellect, and passed the re-drafted directive. On September 1 this year, the bill became European law. The rest of the story hardly needs relating. An American company, Celera Genetics, has done precisely what the bill's opponents predicted, and staked a claim to a great chunk of the human genome. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have begged Celera to re-consider its application, and Celera has chosen to ignore them. The blueprints of human life will become its private property.

It will, if the British and American governments have their way, be able to pursue its claims throughout the world. By January 1 2000, the signatories to the general agreement on tariffs and trade must implement its "Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights" (Trips) provisions. Trips came about, according to James Enyart, a senior employee at Monsanto, after "industry identified a major problem for international trade. It crafted a solution, reduced it to a concrete proposal, and sold it to our own and other governments".

Both India and the Organisation of African Unity have decided to oppose the Trips provisions granting patents on life, on the basis that they legalise the theft of their biological resources. They are demanding that the legislation be re-negotiated.

They will fight corporate attempts to force the rest of the world into line with Europe and America by extending global property rights to the human genome during the world trade talks starting in Seattle next month.

India and the OAU will be opposed at every turn by the two countries, Britain and America, which claim to be contesting corporate attempts to monopolise humanity.

In the past, governments sought to protect their fleets from piracy. Today they arm the pirates and offer them legal protection, arguing that if they failed to do so the buccaneers would sail away and the native cut-throats would lose their jobs.

None of this, in the age of corporate government, should be surprising. What does astonish me is that Blair and Clinton should profess themselves nonplussed when the pirates use the weapons they have been given, to open fire.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

Farmers warned of high-tech backlash

BY Pauline Tam, The Ottawa Citizen, Monday, October 25, 1999 A1

Exporter tells growers of dangers of relying on genetically modified corn

Ontario's largest corn buyer is urging farmers to plant conventionally bred as well as genetically modified varieties next spring because of uncertainty over what North American and European consumers will tolerate. Casco Inc. of Toronto, the province's largest exporter of corn products, wants suppliers to take such precautions in case some countries begin requiring labels to be put on products containing genetically altered food. It might be best to consider planting GM-free corn to maximize (farmers') says Casco spokesman John Peakes.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

Philippine consumer groups lobby for GMO labelling

MANILA, Oct 22 (Reuters)

Philippine consumer groups asked the government on Friday to require food firms to label food products containing ingredients with genetically modified organisms (GMO). "If we cannot prevent the entry of GMOs...let us be given information to exercise our choice," Francis de la Cruz, executive director of the Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection said at a forum on GMOs. "What we are proposing is labelling of genetically modified foods," he added.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

Australia to press ahead with detailed food labeling

CANBERRA, Australia (AP)

Ignoring pleas from their grocers, Australian and New Zealand governments decided Friday to press ahead with plans to require detailed labeling of products containing genetically modified foods


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

Japan: Gov't to impose rules for verification of GMO -free food

Japan Economic Newswire, TOKYO, Oct. 23 Kyodo

The Agriculture Ministry plans to impose new rules requiring the food industry – retailers, farmers and food-products makers – to ensure the verity of food labels attesting that their foodstuffs are not genetically modified, ministry officials said Saturday. The ministry would require the food industry to issue certificates attesting that they did not allow genetically modified organisms ( GMOs) to be mixed with unmodified foods in the course of production or distribution, the officials said. The ministry would also empower its investigators to conduct on- the-spot inspections of farms, plants, wholesalers and retailers that falsified certificates, and publicly divulge the identity of offenders, they said.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:33:36 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-29

Council of Canadians Backs Wheat Board's Call for Gene-food Moratorium

Media Release, Ottawa, October 29, 1999

The call by the president of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) for a moratorium on new Genetically Engineered (GE) crops, has the support of a major citizens' group. The news comes as consumers demonstrate today, across Canada, to voice their concerns about GE foods. Earlier this week, the country's largest exporter of corn called on farmers to plant GE free crops.

"The whole plot is coming unraveled for those who are trying to push GE foods down our throats," said Jennifer Story, Health Protection campaigner for The Council of Canadians. "The Canadian Wheat Board is taking a responsible and appropriate position in response to consumer concerns about GE foods. Consumers are alarmed because there has been no adequate testing for health and safety."

In Canada, and around the world, consumers are rejecting GE foods. Canada has seen Canola, Soy and Corn export markets in Europe crumble because of GE crops grown here. "There is a simple solution to the loss of these markets," said Story. "Stop growing GE crops."

At present, no GE wheat is grown in Canada. Monsanto, however, has spent millions of dollars developing GE wheat that could reach the market in three or four years. "It would be virtually impossible to sell premium GE wheat to anywhere but the US," said Story. "In the midst of the biggest crisis in farm income since the depression, GE crops are bad news for farmers."

The Council of Canadians, Canada's largest public interest group, is calling on Loblaws President Galen Weston to make his stores GE free. Actions are taking place outside grocery stores today right across the country, including: St John's, Charlottetown, Fredericton, Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Salmon Arm, Richmond and Vancouver. At present 60-75% of prepackaged foods in Canada contain GE food.

For more information: Jennifer Story (613) 233-4487, ext. 234


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:36:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-31

P A N U P S
Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
October 27, 1999

Glyphosate May Harm Beneficial Organisms

Glyphosate may pose a significant risk to various predatory mites and parasitoids, according to a yet-to-be-released European Community (EC) report on the herbicide. Documents submitted to the EC show that even when correctly applied for intended uses, glyphosate may harm beneficial organisms. Because of these potentially significant impacts, widespread use of this broad spectrum herbicide may have adverse consequences for non-target beneficial species and biodiversity.

The detailed report, produced by the German government as part of an extensive review process to determine which pesticides will be allowed for use in the European Union (EU), was completed in December 1998. It is currently being discussed by member state regulators and has not been released to the public. Early next year, regulators and the EU should decide whether glyphosate will be added to the list of approved pesticides. However, the report calls for the decision to be postponed pending further studies.

Since only a handful of pesticides have gone through the review process, individual countries' regulations are currently still in force. Eventually, any pesticides not included on the list will effectively be banned for use across Europe.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:36:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-31

Gene Therapy Deaths Will Be Secret?

By Rick Weiss and Deborah Nelson
Washington Post Staff Writers, Saturday, October 30, 1999; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/30/173l-103099-idx.html

Sponsors Want to Keep Gene Test Deaths Secret
Requests Spur Debate About Openness

A leading scientist and a drug company have asked federal regulators to keep information secret about the death and illnesses of patients undergoing experimental gene therapy, stirring controversy in a field of medical research that has prided itself on openness.

In one case, the researcher provided sketchy details of a patient's recent death and his conclusion, in a letter to the National Institutes of Health, that it was not caused by the experimental treatment. But he asked that "this letter be kept confidential and not part of the public record," even though that office has traditionally made all such reports public.

The death notification, which is required under federal regulations, and the accompanying request for confidentiality came just two weeks after the biotechnology company the scientist founded had filed for an initial public offering of stock.

Details of his request, and separate ones from a drug company, Schering-Plough Corp., came to light through interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Post, after weeks of grumbling by NIH insiders concerned about a growing number of secrecy requests from researchers. NIH officials objected to the confidentiality claims, but government lawyers concluded that the regulations insisting that researchers make such reports public were imperfectly worded, and so might not be enforceable.

The revelations come at a time of increased interest in the safety of gene therapy, an experimental field in which genes are given to patients to correct inherited disorders and treat cancer. Last month, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania reported the first publicly acknowledged death thought to be caused by gene therapy.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:36:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-31

The last taboo

New Scientist, Editorial, Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Full text at:
http://www.newscientist.co.uk/ns/19991023/editorial.html

If genetic engineering could be made safe, would you let your baby have it?

FIRST it was transgenic lab mice. Then came the pigs with humanised organs and Dolly the sheep. Now there is talk of creating artificial life forms from scratch. So relentless has the march of biomedicine become that even the experts are locked in a perpetual game of catch-up.

The latest development offers no respite for the footsore. Indeed, even hardened observers could be forgiven for blinking at the news that scientists have invented artificial chromosome that can be inserted into the cells of mammals and passed from one generation to the next (see p 4).


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:36:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-31

Worry over GMO food slowly growing in Japan

By Aya Takada, TOKYO, Oct 28 (Reuters)

When children in the Japanese city of Kawagoe on Tokyo's outskirts sit down for their school lunch, nothing on their plate must contain genetically changed food, local officials have ruled. The decision, which follows a petition from parents, reflects a slowly growing controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that has led seven other Japanese local governments to also eliminate genetically modified (or GM) foods from school meals.

An education committee in Kawagoe City, which daily provides meals to about 28,000 students in 56 local schools, basically selects home- grown farm products for the meals, because genetic engineering technology is not used in domestic farming. When it purchases food produced from imported farm products, the committee buys it from suppliers who can certify that their products are free from GM ingredients, such as soybean and corn. "We want to take into consideration worries among parents about genetically altered foods. Until such worries are wiped out, we will continue a freeze on GM foods usage," said Hideo Okuhara, the education committee chairman.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:36:45 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN10-31

Epidemic fear over animal transplants

By Anthony Browne, Health Editor Sunday October 31, 1999

Emergency plans have been drawn up to contain a potential outbreak of lethal infectious disease as a result of pig-to-human transplants. The move comes as the Government decides whether to allow the first animal transplant trials in Britain.

The plans, which include emergency legislation and the use of police to detain people with infectious illnesses, have been drawn up by a regulator appointed by government to oversee any animal to human transplants. Last week a biotech company made a formal application to government to conduct the first full clinical trials on British patients.

The race to be the first to develop the technology to transplant hearts, kidneys and livers from pigs to humans has advanced rapidly in the past few months, and is putting pressure on the Government to allow trials, which are going ahead in the US. The Department of Health refused to reveal the name of the company that has applied to conduct the trials, or the nature of the transplants.

The only previous application to do such trials, from the US company Genzyme, has lapsed because there were no official guidelines in place at the time.

However the official regulator has now drawn up proposals - to be confirmed in December - in case the experiments lead to an outbreak of infectious disease that threatens large swaths of the population. Concern is high as both Aids and CJD are thought to have transferred to humans from animals. A French virologist, Claude Chastel, has said it could lead to 'a new infectious Chernobyl'.

The report, by the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, which is made up of a panel of experts, raises the prospect of the dramatic events depicted in the Hollywood film Outbreak happening in Britain.

It says: 'Local, regional and national incident/outbreak plans should outline the key steps in an incident response, the key participants and their roles and responsibilities.' It adds: 'If xenotransplantation gave rise to a demonstrable emergency, such as the emergence of a highly infectious disease, then it would be feasible to introduce rapid emergency legislation (including detention for testing).'

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:21:58 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN11-4

Anti-Ageing cream raises fear of infection

By James Meikle, GUARDIAN Tuesday November 2, 1999

Government officials were for years worried that women might be at risk of infection from the BSE agent by using anti-ageing creams but never warned the public, it emerged yesterday.

They knew that some expensive formulations sometimes used material from a cow's spleen, thymus or placenta, body parts thought likely to carry the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent, and might infect people with cuts, scratches or abrasions. But they never checked the detail of what was going into products, according to a summary of evidence published by the BSE inquiry.

Civil servants had decided by 1990 that they did not want to creat a "huge stir" or "unjustified fuss" and that the risk was "too remote" to take action on shops or to establish how many products with bovine offal were in the pipeline.

Instead, they relied on the cosmetics trade body to police itself, even though they knew it did not represent all manufacturers. Legally binding rules covering the use of bovine products in cosmetics were introduced only via the European commission in 1997.

The confusion within government over risks of infection via cosmetics was such that between 1989 and 1991 three departments, agriculture, health and trade and industry, all thought one of the others was doing research on whether the industry was covered by regulations to protect the food chain and the extent of the use of sheep and cattle materials in cosmetics. None was.

The inquiry's draft factual account of how the cosmetics issue was tackled between 1987, soon after BSE was identified in cattle, and 1996, when the government conceded that victims of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease had probably died from eating infected beef, stated that the department of trade and industry had said "it was not aware of any research in BSE conducted by the cosmetic or soap industry and that it had not conducted any research itself".

The document also revealed that the trade body believed that most of the upmarket facial creams about which there was most concern were made in France and the US, but it did warn its members not to use British bovine material.

Richard Roscoe, who was a middle-ranking official at the department of trade and industry responsible for the safety of cosmetics between 1983 and 1992, told the inquiry it would have been "inappropriate" to contact manufacturers who did not belong to the trade body through the press "as the media would have jumped on the bandwagon and scared the public, creating an unjustified fuss".

He said: "It is a serious flaw in the system that there is no complete list of cosmetic manufacturers."

Experiments using mice in 1996 showed that it was possible to infect them with scrapie, a condition in sheep similar to BSE, through cuts.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:21:58 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN11-4

next article posted by Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)

U.S. Department of Frankenculture

New York Times, Carol Kaesuk Yoon, 11.03.99
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/110399sci-ge-squash.html

The U.S. Department of Agriculture frequently approves the use of new genetically engineered crops based on unsupported claims and shoddy studies by seed companies, say many scientists who have studied the approval process. The USDA, the primary agency responsible for assuring the ecological safety of such plants, has not rejected a single application for a genetically modified crop. A growing number of studies suggest that genetically modified crops could lead to rapid evolution of pesticide-resistant insects and superweeds, create new plant diseases, and harm insects that are beneficial to agriculture. But the USDA has set no scientific standards for proving the environmental safety of a plant and it asks only that petitioners explain why the new plant is likely or unlikely to pose a number of broadly defined risks. Even some scientists at seed companies acknowledge that they could have done a more thorough job of providing data to regulators.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:21:58 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN11-4

NIH Not Told Of Deaths in Gene Studies

By Deborah Nelson and Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 3, 1999; Page A01

Researchers, Companies Kept Agency in the Dark

Scientists and drug companies have failed to notify the National Institutes of Health about six deaths that occurred in gene therapy experiments in the past 19 months, keeping details of the deaths from becoming public, according to interviews with researchers and federal officials.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:21:58 -0500
From: Richard Wolfson GEN11-4

Japan: Non-GE Soybeans at all-time high price

APAN: November 2, 1999, Reutrers

TOKYO - Japanese have recently bought corn and soybeans grown exclusively from non genetically modified (GM) seeds, at premiums roughly 40-50 percent higher than those for mixed GM and non-GM crops, traders said.

Premiums for non-GM, U.S.-grown corn were purchased at premiums of 40-50 cents a bushel more than the cost of genetically mixed varieties. As for soybeans grown in the U.S. states of Indiana, Ohio and Michigan (IOM) that contain higher protein and are suitable for food use, non-GM soybeans were purchased at premiums of 50-60 cents a bushel over unsegregated IOM soybeans.

Soybeans for crushing have not been segregated on the basis of genetic origin as Japanese oilseed crushers are exempt from government GMO labelling requirements that take effect in April 2001, traders said.

"Japanese food companies will start receiving non-GM corn deliveries from the U.S. this month. The volume of imports (of non-GM U.S. corn to Japan) will likely reach 70,000-80,000 tonnes by the end of this year," said a trader at a grain trading house.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **


Top PreviousNextFront Page
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:45:50 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay glenda@global.co.za

Websites for Debate on GE food

BIOWATCH: Debate on GE food

Hello Biowatch listserver biowatch@sunsite.wits.ac.za,

You have received a message from Glenn Ashton, Cape Town, regarding an article on Intellectualcapital.com:

For any of you who are interested in the debate for and agianst GE food and Bioengineering ( and who is'nt? ) here is an excellent site to check out for the whole range of views. Compulsory viewing for scientists and industry insiders. Enjoy.

Read the full text of the article at: http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue312/item6924.asp

Brought to you by Intellectualcapital.com http://www.intellectualcapital.com


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:17:37 +0200
From: Glenda Lindsay glenda@global.co.za

Useful databases to subscribe to

I am setting up a database of useful/informative GE addresses to subscribe too and web pages of organizations to visit.

If you have time please forward. Preferably the whole email from them so I can see what they offer.(any GE topic)

Thanks
Andrew

***********************************************************************
For information on Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms see website: http://home.intekom.com/tm_info

Further information, see the Natural Law Party international website: http://www.natural-law-party.org . For GM food issues click on "current issues"

Andrew Taynton, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa;
tel: (031) 764 2209, e-mail: taynton@cdrive.co.za
***********************************************************************


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 30 Oct 1999 03:11:04 -0500
From: RBBAX@aol.com

The process of genetic engineering..........

News clip: GM beet could have health benefits - Novartis

BELGIUM: October 29, 1999 Genetically modified sugar beet can benefit consumers worried about bulging waistlines and heart disease, a sugar biotechnology executive said yesterday.

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

Dr John Fagan, Professor of Molecular Biology
Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, USA.


Top PreviousNextFront Page

Date: 31 Oct 1999 06:07:05 -0500
From: mail@icsenglish.com

Please note: Their briefings can be viewed on their website http://www.corporatewatch.org or they can send you an e-mail version - e-mail from site.

Corporate Watch briefing on GM animal feed

Other titles in this series include major animal feed manufacturers:

Corporate Watch -- Press release
for immediate release, 29 October 1999
Contact: Corporate Watch UK
44 (0)467 304155, 44 (0) 1865 791391

BSE companies putting GM in animal feeds, reveals report

As the scandals about French beef fed on sewage sludge and the latest twists in the BSE story grip the UK, campaigners are focusing on one of the biggest forgotten dangers now facing consumers genetically modified animal feed.

New research by Corporate Watch has revealed that the vast majority of genetically modified crops imported into this country now banned from most supermarket shelves are taken straight to animal feeds mills to be later fed to cattle, pigs and other farm animals.

This vast loophole in our safety regulations is a lifeline for agri-biotech companies like Monsanto, who have been vilified for their efforts to force unwanted GM foods down the throats of unwilling consumers. Over 2 million tonnes of unsegregated soya GM and non-GM all mixed together are imported into the UK each year and fed to animals.

Corporate Watch has also revealed in four hard-hitting briefings distributed to activists across the UK this week that the companies behind GM animal feeds are the same companies now being blamed for taking the profit-saving shortcuts which caused BSE.

Dalgety, BOCM Pauls and Associated British Nutrition (part of the ABF group, which includes the Silver Spoon sugar, Kingsmill bread and Twinings tea brands) are all currently giving evidence to the BSE enquiry. All have already admitted to producing cattle feed containing meat and bone meal from other cattle.

Corporate Watch spokesperson Mark Lynas said: iLatest estimates suggest that the BSE crisis cost this country £4 billion, and new variant CJD has now killed 43 people. This is what happens when animal feeds companies take short-cuts in order to bolster their profits just like they are now doing with genetically-modified animal feed ingredients. UK farmers are already having a tough time, and this could be the last straw. Itis time that these companies either reformed their practices or went out of business.i

More information:

For copies of the Corporate Watch animal feeds briefings email mail@corporatewatch.org
For further information contact Mark Lynas on 0467 304155 or 01865 791391


Top PreviousFront Page

Date: 31 Oct 1999 06:07:05 -0500
From: mail@icsenglish.com

Corporate Watch Update:

Introduction into Animal Feeds and Strategic Overview

Sections:
What is this briefing?
Why animal feeds?
The animal feeds industry
United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA)
Traceability
Public relations
Animal feed supply chain
The Feed Mill
What goes into animal feed?
Micro ingredients
Government reassurance
Conclusion
References

What is this briefing?

This briefing aims to give campaigners an introduction to the animal feed industry. It is part of a GE series providing detailed briefings on the major issues and companies involved in the biotech sector. Details of how to obtain these can be found at the end of this document.

Why animal feeds?

  1. Over half of all genetically modified crops grown in the world are fed to animals... [2]
  2. A quarter of the entire US soya crop is imported by the European Union... [1]
  3. Two million tonnes of soya is imported into the UK each year for use in animal feeds... [1]
  4. Of this year's US soya crop, 55% is genetically modified... [3]
"If we were to lose a debate on GM animal feed ... it could be very damaging."

Dr Harry Swann, Monsanto [4]

Over 50% of genetically modified crop material grown around the world currently goes into animal feed [2]. It is no accident that the crops that have gone into commercial production first - soya, maize, oilseed rape and cotton - are all key ingredients in animal feed. As consumers around the world mobilise against GM products in their own food, few people realise that eating meat and dairy products is throwing a lifeline to the biotechnology industry.

Animal feeds mean a lot to the agri-biotech industry. Four crops made up almost all the transgenic harvest in 1999: soybean (54% of the total acreage of GM crops), corn (28%) canola (rapeseed, 9%) and cotton (9%) All four are major components in animal feeds [5]. Three countries grew almost all of the world's commercially-produced transgenic crops in 1999: the United States (72%), Argentina (17%) and Canada (10%). As the world leader in agri-biotech, US agribusiness is the main target of efforts to cut off the markets of GM producers.

Early in 1999 Monsanto's chief executive Robert Shapiro told shareholders that the introduction of GM was "the most successful launch of any technology ever, including the plough". Yet within months, US agricultural exports were in crisis - in large part due to a refusal by European consumers to bow to the GM 'revolution'. It was reported recently that US corn exports to the EU dropped 96% [6], and the EU's import ban on GM corn is costing the US $200 million annually in lost sales to Europe [7].

The American Corn Growers Association has urged its members to consider using non-GM seeds next year. "We're sure as hell not going to grow a product the customer doesn't want," said the assocation's chief executive, Gary Goldberg. [8] The ACGA had been expecting a 25% increase in the amount of GM corn grown in the US. Now it's predicting a 25% drop [9].

Deutsche Bank analyst Timothy Ramey has long been predicting the emergence of a two-tier market in which 'improved' grains would sell for less than traditional non-GM varieties. The recent announcement by commodity exporter Archer Daniels Midland that farmers should keep GM grain and conventional grain segregated at silos shook the industry to its foundations. Even food trading giant Cargill is getting interested in the potential for segregation.

Eliminating GM crop material from animal feed would hit the biotech industry hard.

The animal feeds industry

Animal feeds companies are currently particularly vulnerable. The industry has been hit both by the crisis in British livestock farming and by the continuing scrutiny of the BSE Inquiry. Their reliance on GM leaves them in an even weaker position. Anticipating increasing consumer opposition to GM in animal feeds, the industry is already investigating options for sourcing "identity preserved" ingredients and has formulated a defensive public relations strategy.

The animal feeds manufacturing and distribution industry is dominated by three companies: BOCM Pauls, Dalgety and Associated British Nutrition (ABN) [10]. All of them use GM ingredients in most of their animal feeds. BOCM Pauls and Dalgety are both privately owned, having last year been subject to management buyouts. ABN is a subsidiary of Associated British Foods PLC, whose other subsidiaries include Silver Spoon sugar, Allinson and Kingsmill breads and Twinings teas. The company trades as J Bibby Agriculture, the name by which its products are best known. It also trades as Trident Feeds.It is difficult to gauge how dominant these companies are, but it is safe to say that BOCM Pauls and Dalgety have a combined market share well in excess of 50% of animal feed manufacture [10].

United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA)

Offices:
3 Whitehall Court, London, SW1A 2EQ
Telephone: 0171 930 3611
Contacts: Feed Manager Judith Nelson judith.nelson@ukasta.org.uk or biotech spokesperson (Seed Manager), Paul Rooke paul.rooke@ukasta.org.uk

The United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA) represents about 350 companies, co-operatives and agricultural merchants who either manufacture animal feed or sell inputs such as feed, seed, fertilisers, agrochemicals and forage additives to farmers and /or market arable crops on their behalf. The combined turnover of the membership is in excess of å£5 billion annually. Its stated aims are to achieve the most favourable economic conditions possible for members through effective lobbying, supplying business information and helping shape public 'understanding' of the industry [11].

UKASTA's statement on the use of GM ingredients in animal feeds begins: "UKASTA believes that technological advances, such as genetic modification of plants, will offer significant future benefits to consumers and play an important part in satisfying rising world demand for efficiently produced food."

It goes on to claim that research has shown that the processing breaks down the cellular structure of the crop, so that no intact genes can be passed on to livestock or humans, and that it is unlikely (emphasis added) that the consumption of livestock products could lead to specific genes being transferred to humans even if they are intact in feed.

The statement also stresses that cross-pollination, the difficulty of achieving total segregation throughout the whole supply chain and the absence of any tolerance levels may make it impossible to guarantee wholly GM-free feed [3].

Traceability

Since the BSE crisis the animal feed industry has been trying to regain public confidence. One attempt is the 'UKASTA Feed Assurance Scheme'(UFAS).

According to UKASTA it has been developed to provide a unifying set of principles or minimum standards for the safe handling of animal feed and help restore confidence in the industry. Although limited, the scheme could help manufacturers source GM-free ingredients because it does provide for traceability, and is a service that the big three manufacturers all provide [11].

The UKASTA feed assurance scheme provides complete traceability - meaning a farmer can find out exactly what ingredients are in a feed, where they come from and where they have been at every stage in the supply chain, right back to the farmer who grew the crop. There's one snag: this information is only available to industrial customers.

Public relations

Both UKASTA and Dalgety Agriculture use the same PR company, Mistral. Their representative there is Mike Evans. He claims that it is impossible to guarantee GM free animal feed, and gives two principal reasons. The first is that segregated or "identity preserved" (IP) crops are not available in sufficient quantities. Less than 1 million tonnes of the 75 million tonnes of the 1998 US soya crop was IP [3].

The second is that many of the micro ingredients used in animal feed, such as vitamin B12, are also genetically engineered [12]. He also claims that the "upoor old animal feed companies" (his words) are trapped between raw materials suppliers who don't segregate - or charge a massive premium when they do - and supermarkets, which demand animal products at low prices.

Mistral "develop creative communications solutions based on carefully planned, sound marketing strategies". They are also members of EnviroComm, "an international group of independent agencies specialising ienvironmental communications". As well as representing UKASTA and Dalgety, Mistral have done PR work for ICI and Monsanto [13].

Contacts: Mike Evans on 01865 883308, or at Mistral, Jericho Farm Barns, Cassington, Oxford, OX8 1EB

Animal feed supply chain

Animal feed manufacturers buy their bulk raw materials from suppliers such as Archer Daniels Midland and Arkady Feed - the two biggest suppliers to the industry [10]. Some of these, such as wheat, are grown in the UK. However it is the imported raw materials, such as soya and maize, that are GM. They arrive by ship at docks, where they are stored temporarily.

Arkady Feed is the primary user of Merlin Stores Ltd's facility at South West 1 Canada Dock in Liverpool [14]. They move in excess of 200,000 tonnes of animal feedstuff through Liverpool each year. From here it is transported to mills where it is processed and mixed with micro ingredients (see below). As well as imports, animal feed contains raw materials that come from both farms and the by-products of the human food industry. From the mill most feed goes direct to farmers, though some is sold through intermediaries.

ADM Head Office:

ADM International
Church Manorway, Erith, Kent, DA8 1DL
Telephone: 01322 443000

Arkady Feed:
Congress House, Lyon Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 2HY
Telephone: 0181 424 9222 / 0181 420 9000 Fax: 0181 424 0694

The Feed Mill

Animal feed is manufactured in mills. Bulk materials (eg soya, maize, wheat etc) are delivered to the mill in lorries and are transferred to a storage bin or silo. They are then transferred to blending bins where they are mixed, often with micro-ingredients such as vitamins and amino acids (see below).

These ususally come in the form of a pre-mix which arrives at the mill in bags. Depending upon the type of feed the mix may be pressed into pellets or cake before going to a finished product bin. Other types of feed go straight into finished product bins.

From here the final products are despatched to farms (or occasionally to regional distribution centres) either in bags or in bulk lorries, many of which are part of the company's own fleet of vehicles.

What goes into animal feed?

As well as dioxin, excrement and their aunts and uncles (all sources of recent food scares), livestock are fed a carefully regulated diet, depending on the kind of animal, breed, age and function. Feed is split broadly into two types, for monogastrics (for animals with one stomach such as pigs and poultry) and ruminants (for animals with more than one stomach such as sheep and cattle). While it is possible to produce ruminant feed without using soya or maize, it is apparently impossible to raise pigs and poultry to the standards demanded by supermarkets and consumers on a soya-free diet [12].

Feed mixtures typically include protein concentrates from fishmeal or soya bean and additives - vitamins, trace minerals, food colourings and antibiotics [10].

Micro ingredients

This is the collective term used to describe the additives used to enhance the nutritional quality of animal feed. Most of these are produced by genetically engineered micro-organisms like bacteria. A recent Genewatch report revealed that releases of genetically modfied micro-organisms are taking place every day from laboratories and factories across the UK [15].

Government reassurance

A team at Leeds University led by Professor Mike Forbes is currently conducting MAFF-funded research on the effect of feeding livestock GM material. Oddly, in the tests the materials used for this research were not GM crops, but the gene used was chosen because its DNA sequence is similar in length to the transgene in GM maize [16].

An earlier MAFF-commissioned report from the University of Leeds, stated: Genetically modified crops [could] exacerbate the problem of resistance to strains of bacteria, already causing significant problems such as the resurgence of tuberculosis. It is unlikely to be proved impossible for transfer of such genes from plant to microbe to be completely excluded.[17]

Conclusion

Animal feed manufacturers have up until now largely evaded the public spotlight, despite the overwhelming consumer rejection of GM technology in human food. This is because people simply don't realise that when they buy meat and dairy products they are indirectly consuming GM products.The bottom is falling out of the GM market. Segregation is being re-introduced, even by the industry's biggest players. Yet millions oftonnes of transgenic soya and maize are continuing to be imported into this country as animal feed ingredients. If animal feed manufacturers can be persuaded to avoid GM ingredients, biotech companies will be starved of one of their most vital sources of income.

References

  1. Irish Times 4 September 1999, quoting from American Soyabean Association

  2. Conversations with MAFF and UKASTA, July-September 1999

  3. UKASTA position statement on the use in animal feed of ingredients from GM crops

  4. The Millenium Environment Debate – Genetically Modified Animal Feed. June 1999

  5. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, and World Watch Institute via Washington Post, 9 October 1999

  6. Guardian 9 October 1999

  7. International Trade Reporter, vol 6, no. 39, 6 October 1999

  8. Los Angeles Times, 5 October 1999

  9. BBC Online, 5 October 1999

  10. Key Note Report. Animal Feedstuffs. 1999. Key Note Ltd

  11. UKASTA website. http://www.ukasta.org.uk

  12. Various industry sources. August/September 1999

  13. Public Relations Consultancy Association Yearbook 1997

  14. Mersey Docks and Harbour Company website. http://www.merseydocks.co.uk

  15. Leaking from the lab? The contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms in the UK, GeneWatch, June 1999. http://www.genewatch.org

  16. Leeds Team Addresses Fears Over GMOs in Feed, Farmers Weekly, 11 June 1999

  17. MAFF-commissioned report from the University of Leeds (CS0116)

Other titles in this series:

Other major animal feeds manufacturers Also available:

Copies of these briefings can be obtained by sending an A4 SAE (45p postage) to Corporate Watch. You can also see them on our website (www.corporatewatch.org) or we can send you an e-mail version.


Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign, for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
500 Wilbrod Street Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596 email: rwolfson@concentric.net

Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html contains more information on genetic engineering as well as previous genetic engineering news items. Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 (USD for those outside Canada) for 12 months, payable to "BanGEF" and mailed to the above address. Or see website for details.