[CTRL] Biotech Quotes of the Month
-Caveat Lector- http://www.purefood.org/newsletter/biod30.cfm Quotes of the Month: "Agricultural biotechnology will find a supporter occupying the White House next year, regardless of which candidate wins the election in November..." Monsanto's electronic newsletter www.monsanto.com 10/06/00 "The [StarLink corn] protein, known as Cry9C and not found in other crops that are genetically modified, is safe for animals but may trigger allergic reactions in humans, including fever, rashes or diarrhea, according to government scientists." Washington Post, "Corn Woes Prompt Kellogg to Shut Down Plant" 10/21/00 "I think they ought to leave nature alone. There is a reason food grows like it does.'' A consumer, Krista Beddo, shopping in a supermarket near Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, Associated Press, "Concern Surfaces Over Taco Recall" 10/25/00 "U.S. grain exporters expressed relief on Friday after the government lifted export restrictions on shipments tainted with traces of an unapproved biotech corn, allowing shipments of previously banned corn to Latin America, Asia and Europe. While the Clinton administration action removes some legal liability for exporters, companies said they are still worried about losing overseas sales to other nations... Archer Daniels Midland executives said its [StarLink-tainted] corn shipments would be traveling to South America, Europe, [and] Mexico, but not to Japan. 'I think we are going to have to wait a little bit on Japan,' an ADM spokesperson stated.' " Reuters 10/27/00 __ ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES http://www.anomalous-images.com A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Biotech - Bacteriophages
from: http://www.washtech.com/washtechway/1_5/moretech/884-1.html Click Here: A HREF="http://www.washtech.com/washtechway/1_5/moretech/884-1.html"Biotech/A - Biotech March 13, 2000 By Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED], In a few months, scientists at Intralytix will begin scraping the bottom of Baltimores Inner Harbor for what they hope is a cure for infections. While most medical researchers synthesize new therapeutic compounds in sterilized laboratory clean rooms, the scientists at this small Baltimore startup hope to harvest naturally occurring predators of bacteria known as bacteriophages, or phages. That means the company must scour the dank, grimy nooks that bacteria call home, whether it is the harbor, or the sewers at the nearby University of Maryland Baltimore campus. What the company scoops up could keep the practice of medicine from getting drop-kicked back into the days before the penicillin revolution. Thats because bacteria are quickly adapting and developing resistance to antibiotics. All these things modern medicine is so proud of, such as chemotherapy and organ transplants, will become impossible if bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, says Alexander Sulakvelidze, who along with Torrey Brown, a former Maryland Secretary of Natural Resources, and five others, founded Intralytix. That will mean a setback of modern medicine to the pre-antibiotic era, which is very alarming, Sulakvelidze says. The two-year-old company wants to develop phages for industrial uses, such as wiping out microorganisms in food processing plants and hospitals, and for therapeutics. Intralytix is at a very early stage in its development, but so far has secured a sponsored research arrangement with the University of Maryland and a similar agreement with one of the worlds most largest food processors although it wont identify the company. While declining to talk specifically about the companys budget, Sulakvelidze says Intralytix has spent more than $1 million since its inception. In the next two years the company hopes to have a product on the market to mitigate bacteria contamination in industrial facilities, but clearing the Food and Drug Administration regulatory process for use in humans is likely to take much longer. Thats not to say the idea of using phages in humans is new. People have been ingesting them to fight bacteria for almost a century. In fact, starting in the late 1930s a factory in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia pumped out phages by the ton to be used in Red Army medical kits, where they were used to combat e.coli, dysentery and salmonella infections. Phages ability to destroy bacteria was first discovered in the early 1900s, but took a backseat in the fight against disease when antibiotics were discovered. But phages never fell out of favor in the Soviet bloc, where they were manufactured at the Eliava Institute, in Tblisi, Georgia. Now, Intralytix, which funds research activities at Eliava and two other U.S. companies, is trying to usher phages into widespread use in this country. Think of phages as the hydrogen bomb in the war against bacteria. The self-replicating viruses, which have alien-like tails and clunky heads, are wired to reproduce inside of specific bacteria and kill it, but leave all mammal and plant cells unscathed. Theyre really cute, says Sulakve-lidze, admiring a slide of the tiny killers. Another Maryland company that is hoping to wipe out microorganisms. But Antex Biologics, based in Gaithersburg, is taking a different approach. Instead of using phages, the company is undertaking pre-clinical trials of compounds that modulate bacterias virulence, essentially rendering the organisms toothless but not killing them. New therapies are needed, says Theresa Stevens, Antexs vice president of corporate development, because the currently marketed pharmaceuticals are meeting a high level of resistance to the antibiotics that are out there. Stevens says that Antex considered testing phages but decided against it. It still has to be evaluated in humans, but the idea certainly has merit. It seems to be coming into favor a little bit more recently, Stevens says. Last month, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease signaled it was interested in bacteriophages when it announced that it would give challenge grants, starting at $25,000, to companies involved in phage research. Specifically, the institute wants to determine if phages will kill Enterrococci, the leading cause of hospital infections in the United States. The bacteria are demonstrating increased resistance to Vancomycin, an antibiotic. Carl Merril, chief of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics at the National Institute of Mental Health, has helped advance the field, beginning with a paper on phages he authored in 1996. Merril, along with colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, continues to work with phages, manipulating them so they target a wider range of bacteria
[CTRL] BIOTECH IN TROUBLE
BIOTECH IN TROUBLE The agricultural biotechnology industry's situation is desperate and deteriorating. To be sure, genetically engineered (GE) food is still selling briskly on grocery shelves in the U.S. but probably only because GE products are not labeled, so consumers have no idea what they're buying. At present, an estimated 2/3rds of all products for sale in U.S. grocery stores contain genetically engineered (GE) crops, none of which are labeled as such.[1] However, polls show that U.S. consumers overwhelmingly want GE foods labeled. In a TIME magazine poll in January, 1999, 81 percent of respondents said genetically engineered foods should be labeled.[2] A month earlier, a poll of U.S. consumers by the Swiss drug firm Novartis had found that more than 90% of the public wants labeling.[3] The NEW YORK TIMES reported late last year that a "biotech industry poll" showed that 93% of Americans want genetically engineered foods labeled.[4] Legislation requiring labels on GE foods was introduced into Congress last November by a bi-partisan group of 20 legislators.[5] For five years the GE food industry has been saying GE foods couldn't be labeled because it would require segregating GE from non-GE crops -- a practical impossibility, they said. However, in December, 1999, Monsanto announced that it had developed a new strain of rapeseed (a crop used to make canola cooking oil) that might raise the levels of vitamin A in humans.[6] How could consumers identify (and pay a premium price for) such a product if it weren't labeled? Obviously labeling will become possible -- indeed, essential -- when it serves the interests of the biotech corporations. Many food suppliers seem to have figured out for themselves how to segregate GE crops from non-GE. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, Kellogg's, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Nestle USA, and Quaker Oats all sell gene-altered foods in the U.S. but not overseas.[7] Gerber and H.J. Heinz announced some time ago that they have managed to exclude genetically modified crops from their baby foods. For its part, the U.S. government has steadfastly maintained that labeling of GE foods is not necessary -- and might even be misleading -- because traditional crops and GE crops are "substantially equivalent." For example, the government has maintained that Monsanto's "New Leaf" potato -- which has been genetically engineered to incorporate a pesticide into every cell in the potato, to kill potato beetles -- is substantially equivalent to normal potatoes, even though the New Leaf potato is, itself, required to be registered as a pesticide with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (See REHW #622.) Now the government's position has become untenable. In February of this year, the government signed the international BioSafety Protocol, a treaty with 130 other nations, in which all signatories agree that genetically modified crops are significantly different from traditional crops. Thus with the swipe of a pen, the U.S. government has now formally acknowledged that GE crops are not "substantially equivalent" to traditional crops. Meanwhile, a groundswell of consumer protest reached a crescendo last year in England and Europe, then spread to Japan and the U.S. where it has severely eroded investor confidence in the industry. Major U.S. firms that had invested heavily in the technology are now being forced to pull back. As we reported earlier (REHW #685), Monsanto, Novartis, and AstraZeneca all announced in early January that they are turning away from -- or abandoning entirely -- the concept of "life sciences" -- a business model that combines pharmaceuticals and agricultural products. The NEW YORK TIMES reported in January that American Home Products -- a pharmaceutical giant -- "has been looking for a way to unload its agricultural operations." At that time the TIMES also said, "Analysts have speculated that Monsanto will eventually shed its entire agricultural operation."[8] In late February, DuPont announced that it was returning to its traditional industrial chemical business to generate profits. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said February 23, "But the big plans DuPont announced for its pharmaceuticals and biotech divisions fizzled as consolidation changed the landscape, and investor enthusiasm cooled in the face of controversy over genetically engineered crops."[9] Investors are not the only ones turning away from genetically engineered foods. The WALL STREET JOURNAL announced in late April that "fast-food chains such as McDonald's Corp. are quietly telling their french-fry suppliers to stop using" Monsanto's pesticidal New Leaf potato. "Virtually all the [fast food] chains have told us they prefer to take nongenetically modified potatoes," said a spokesperson for the J.M. Simplot Company of Boise, Idaho, a major potato supplier.[10] The JOURNAL also reported that Procter and Gamble, maker of Pringles potato chips, is phasing out Monsanto's pesticidal potato. And Frito-Lay --
[CTRL] BIOTECH IN TROUBLE--PART 2
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT HEALTH WEEKLY #696
---May 11, 2000---
BIOTECH IN TROUBLE--PART 2
We saw last week that the genetically-engineered-food industry
may be spiraling downward. Last July, U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture Dan Glickman -- a big supporter of genetically
engineered foods -- began comparing agricultural biotechnology
to nuclear power, a severely-wounded industry.[1] (Medical
biotechnology is a different industry and a different story
because it is intentionally contained whereas agricultural
biotech products are intentionally released into the natural
environment.)
In Europe, genetically engineered food has to be labeled and few
are buying it. As the NEW YORK TIMES reported two months ago,
"In Europe, the public sentiment against genetically engineered
[GE] food reached a ground swell so great that the cultivation
and sale of such food there has all but stopped."[2] The
Japanese government also requires GE foods to be labeled.
Americans in overwhelming numbers (80% to 90% or more) have
indicated they want GE foods labeled but the GE firms consider a
label tantamount to a skull and crossbones and the Clinton/Gore
administration has sided with the biotech corporations against
the people. To be fair, there are no indications that a
Republican president would take a different approach. The
biotech firms have invested heavily in U.S. elections and the
resulting government represents their interests at home just as
it does abroad. On this issue, to an astonishing degree, the
biotech firms ARE the government.
Since the early 1980s, biotech corporations have been planting
their own people inside government agencies, which then created
a regulatory structure so lax and permissive that biotech firms
have been able to introduce new genetically modified foods into
the nation's grocery stores at will. Then these same
"regulators" have left government and taken highly-paid jobs
with the biotech firms. It represents an extreme case of the
"revolving door" syndrome.
The U.S. regulatory system for GE foods, which was created in
1986, is voluntary.[3,pg.143] The U.S. Department of Agriculture
regulates genetically engineered plants and the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) regulates foods made from those
plants. If any of the plants are, themselves, pesticidal then
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gets involved. But in no
case has any long-term safety testing been done. As the NEW YORK
TIMES reported last July, "Mr. Glickman [U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture] acknowledged that none of the agencies responsible
for the safety of genetically modified foods -- the Agriculture
Department, the F.D.A., and the Environmental Protection Agency
-- had enough staff or resources to conduct such testing."[1] At
the time Mr. Glickman made his statement, 70 million acres in
the U.S. had already been planted with genetically modified
crops and 2/3rds of the food in U.S. grocery stores contained
genetically modified plant materials.[3,pg.33]
The importance of safety testing was emphasized by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) in its latest (April 2000) report on
biotech foods. The NAS [pg. 63] said safety problems might
include these:
** New allergens may be introduced into foods.
** New toxins may be introduced into foods. The NAS said,
"...there is reason to expect that organisms in US
agroecosystems and humans could be exposed to new toxins when
they associate with or eat these plants." [pg. 129]
** Existing toxins in foods may reach new levels, or may be
moved into edible portions of plants. ("Overall increases in the
concentrations of secondary plant chemicals in the total plant
might cause toxic chemicals that are normally present only in
trace amounts in edible parts to be increased to the point where
they pose a toxic hazard," NAS said on pg. 72.)
** New allergens may be introduced into pollen, then spread into
the environment. [The NAS remains silent on the human-health
implications of new allergens spread via pollen. If the biotech
firms have their way, we will learn about this by trial and
error. Unfortunately, trial and error has a serious drawback in
this instance: once new genetic materials are released into the
environment, they cannot be retrieved. Unlike chemical
contamination, biotech contamination is irreversible.]
** Previously unknown protein combinations now being produced in
plants might have unforseen effects when new genes are
introduced into the plants;
** Nutritional content of a plant may be diminished. [pg. 140]
The mechanism for creating unexpected proteins or unexpected
toxins or allergens would be pleiotropy, the NAS explained [pg.
134]. Pleiotropy is the creation of multiple effects within an
organism by adding a single new gene. In other words, putting a
new gene into a tomato, intending to make the tomato more
resistant to cold weather, might by chance,
[CTRL] BIOTECH IN TROUBLE--PART 1
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT HEALTH WEEKLY #695 ---May 4, 2000--- BIOTECH IN TROUBLE--PART 1 The agricultural biotechnology industry's situation is desperate and deteriorating. To be sure, genetically engineered (GE) food is still selling briskly on grocery shelves in the U.S. but probably only because GE products are not labeled, so consumers have no idea what they're buying. At present, an estimated 2/3rds of all products for sale in U.S. grocery stores contain genetically engineered (GE) crops, none of which are labeled as such.[1] However, polls show that U.S. consumers overwhelmingly want GE foods labeled. In a TIME magazine poll in January, 1999, 81 percent of respondents said genetically engineered foods should be labeled.[2] A month earlier, a poll of U.S. consumers by the Swiss drug firm Novartis had found that more than 90% of the public wants labeling.[3] The NEW YORK TIMES reported late last year that a "biotech industry poll" showed that 93% of Americans want genetically engineered foods labeled.[4] Legislation requiring labels on GE foods was introduced into Congress last November by a bi-partisan group of 20 legislators.[5] For five years the GE food industry has been saying GE foods couldn't be labeled because it would require segregating GE from non-GE crops -- a practical impossibility, they said. However, in December, 1999, Monsanto announced that it had developed a new strain of rapeseed (a crop used to make canola cooking oil) that might raise the levels of vitamin A in humans.[6] How could consumers identify (and pay a premium price for) such a product if it weren't labeled? Obviously labeling will become possible -- indeed, essential -- when it serves the interests of the biotech corporations. Many food suppliers seem to have figured out for themselves how to segregate GE crops from non-GE. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, Kellogg's, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Nestle USA, and Quaker Oats all sell gene-altered foods in the U.S. but not overseas.[7] Gerber and H.J. Heinz announced some time ago that they have managed to exclude genetically modified crops from their baby foods. For its part, the U.S. government has steadfastly maintained that labeling of GE foods is not necessary -- and might even be misleading -- because traditional crops and GE crops are "substantially equivalent." For example, the government has maintained that Monsanto's "New Leaf" potato -- which has been genetically engineered to incorporate a pesticide into every cell in the potato, to kill potato beetles -- is substantially equivalent to normal potatoes, even though the New Leaf potato is, itself, required to be registered as a pesticide with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (See REHW #622.) Now the government's position has become untenable. In February of this year, the government signed the international BioSafety Protocol, a treaty with 130 other nations, in which all signatories agree that genetically modified crops are significantly different from traditional crops. Thus with the swipe of a pen, the U.S. government has now formally acknowledged that GE crops are not "substantially equivalent" to traditional crops. Meanwhile, a groundswell of consumer protest reached a crescendo last year in England and Europe, then spread to Japan and the U.S. where it has severely eroded investor confidence in the industry. Major U.S. firms that had invested heavily in the technology are now being forced to pull back. As we reported earlier (REHW #685), Monsanto, Novartis, and AstraZeneca all announced in early January that they are turning away from -- or abandoning entirely -- the concept of "life sciences" -- a business model that combines pharmaceuticals and agricultural products. The NEW YORK TIMES reported in January that American Home Products -- a pharmaceutical giant -- "has been looking for a way to unload its agricultural operations." At that time the TIMES also said, "Analysts have speculated that Monsanto will eventually shed its entire agricultural operation."[8] In late February, DuPont announced that it was returning to its traditional industrial chemical business to generate profits. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said February 23, "But the big plans DuPont announced for its pharmaceuticals and biotech divisions fizzled as consolidation changed the landscape, and investor enthusiasm cooled in the face of controversy over genetically engineered crops."[9] Investors are not the only ones turning away from genetically engineered foods. The WALL STREET JOURNAL announced in late April that "fast-food chains such as McDonald's Corp. are quietly telling their french-fry suppliers to stop using" Monsanto's pesticidal New Leaf potato. "Virtually all the [fast food] chains have told us they prefer to take nongenetically modified potatoes," said a spokesperson for the J.M. Simplot Company of
[CTRL] biotech / biowar
-Caveat Lector- God save us from greed crazed corporations "improving" nutritional content of foods. Their track record with "improving" any other thing is pretty dismal. Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com/dave LATimes December 31. A Few Rush to Exploit New Biotech Crops Genetics: Young firms such as Ceres see this as a golden age. Despite protests, they are inventing the next generation of plants. By PAUL JACOBS, LA Times Staff Writer Worldwide protests against genetically engineered crops are on the rise. America's trading partners are calling for labeling of foods that contain ingredients from genetically modified plants. Federal regulators are reexamining the rules for assuring the safety of biotech foods. Against this tumultuous backdrop, a handful of young companies are busily inventing the next generation of biotech plants--crops that promise increased food production and improved nutritional content, or that offer a renewable, low-cost supply of medications and industrial chemicals. These small firms see this as a golden age of plant biology, and they are betting that the controversies will cool and the world will warm to their innovative products. One of the newest and most promising of these emerging companies is Ceres Inc., started in 1997 by a UCLA professor and his corporate partners with more than $50 million in private capital. After leasing unused lab space on the university campus, the company now sits in what at first blush seems the most unlikely of places for an agricultural research facility--high on a hill above Malibu Canyon, with a glorious view of the Pacific. Like its competitors, which include the large seed producers as well as smaller firms, the company is rushing to exploit new developments in plant biology. The advances include the rapid decoding of genes, high-speed methods for isolating gene products and discovering their function, and efficient ways to transplant desirable genes from one species into another. The search for genes is called genomics, and says UCLA biologist Robert B. Goldberg, a co-founder of Ceres, the company is "trying to position itself to be the premiere plant genomics company in the world and compete with DuPont and Monsanto and Novartis." Goldberg says that unearthing just a few important genes--he calls them "undiscovered diamonds"--from the tens of thousands present in a few species of plants will be enough to put the company over the top. "We're looking for breakthrough traits," he said. And the company may already have some of them, licensed from UCLA and other University of California campuses. These are genes that can boost grain tonnage by increasing the size of seeds, by growing seeds not just from flowers but in leaves, and by producing seeds without pollination. Cranking up food production will be increasingly important to feed a growing world population--more important in many parts of the world than advances in genetic engineering that lead to new medications, says Richard Flavell, Ceres' chief scientific officer. "In that part of the world where 3 billion people suffer from nutritional deficiency, your first thought is not how to get [medicine] to people, but how do I feed them," Flavell said. The hiring of Flavell was a coup for the fledgling company. He's the former director of the John Innes Centre in England, a world leader in plant genetics. Last year, he was elected to Britain's Royal Society--a body that includes numerous Nobel laureates and that was once headed by Sir Isaac Newton. "To kick-start the firm," Flavell said, the company has farmed out its gene sequencing--the decoding of the chemical building blocks of plant DNA--to Genset, a French company that has one of the world's largest factories for deciphering plant, animal and microbial genes. And it is working closely with university scientists at University of California campuses in Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, Berkeley and Davis. "The business strategy is to get immediate access to mature programs," he said, by licensing technology already developed and working with established researchers. Ceres recently broke ground on its first greenhouse. "Most of our plants are in enclosed cabinets," Flavell said. "But we're moving to a bigger scale, we're ramping up. In a couple of years we'll be into crop plants." The company is planning to work with the large seed companies to distribute its products. "If we want to penetrate large markets, as a small company, we can't do that efficiently by ourselves," he said. But eventually, Ceres could develop its own line of seeds. "We want to be a product company, and not just a technical supplier," Flavell said. Goldberg helped found the company after a successful collaboration with Plant Genetic Systems in Belgium that led to a new method for creating plant hybrids that is widely used in the seed industry. That work, Goldberg said, convinced him of the power of collaboration in producing improved plant
[CTRL] Biotech News: Industry claim torpedoed, no higher yields, POORER nutritional content.
-Caveat Lector- Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.ioa.com/~davehart ... Biotech News, by Richard Wolfson, PhD Reprinted with permission from the October 1999 issue of Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition, 7436 Fraser Park Drive, Burnaby, BC V5J 5B9 Biotech Soybeans Deficient New research shows that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans may be less potent sources of phytoestrogens than their conventional precursors. The research, published in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Vol. 1, no. 4, 1999), reported an overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent in genetically altered soybeans, compared to non-GE varieties. Soy foods are recommended largely for their dietary phytoestrogen content. This research refutes claims that genetically engineered foods are 'substantially equivalent' to their non-GE counterparts. Genetically engineered herbicide-resistant soy is already on the market in Canada, unlabelled and mixed in with conventional varieties. Industry Claims Torpedoed New research by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that biotech crops do not produce higher yields or result in reduced pesticide use, as claimed by industry. American experts studied biotech soy, corn, and cotton across huge tracts of the U.S. farming belt, where both GE and non-GE varieties were being grown. The researchers found no increase in yields from GE crops in 12 of 18 areas. In some areas, conventional varieties produced yields 10 percent or more higher than comparable GE varieties. In 7 of 12 areas studied, farmers growing biotech varieties used at least the same amount of pesticide as those growing traditional crops. Farmers growing Roundup Ready (herbicide-resistant) soybeans used 2 to 5 times more herbicide per acre, compared to the other popular weed management systems with non-GE soybeans. The research shoots down arguments that Frankenstein foods could help stop hunger in the Third World, or are more environmentally friendly. Roundup Linked to Cancer A recent study published in the Journal of the American Cancer Society (March 15, 1999) showed that exposure to the herbicide glyphosate results in increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is the world's most widely used herbicide. Seventy-one percent of biotech crops planted in 1998 (including biotech soy, canola, and corn) were genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate or other herbicides. Herbicide resistant crops allow increased use of these toxic chemicals to kill weeds. Marks Spencer First to go GE-Free Marks Spencer, one of UK's largest food chains, announced that it has become the first major UK retailer to go completely genetically-engineered food free. From July 1, all MS foods were produced without GE ingredients or derivatives. More than 5,000 ingredients made from soy and corn were checked and changes were made to 1,800 recipes to strip all products of GE ingredients or derivatives. FDA Ignored Warnings Records from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveal that in approving genetically engineered foods, the agency ignored some of its own scientists. These people repeatedly cautioned against GE foods because of unexpected and untested toxins and allergens. For instance, Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, stated "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." Codex Fails to Approve Hormone At a recent Codex (the international food regulating body) meeting in Rome, governments failed to agree on an international standard on genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH). BGH is widely used in USA, where it injected into cows to increase milk production. BGH is not allowed in Canada or EU due to concerns for both human and animal safety. Failure to agree on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for BGH means that individual governments will maintain their freedom to decide whether to allow BGH in their countries. Consumers International applauded the decision not to approve BGH internationally as a victory for the health and safety of consumers. .. Greenpeace and Council of Canadians Expose Food Industry Double Standards On Genetically Engineered Food Toronto, September 27 /CNW/ - Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians today called on the country's food retailers and producers to give Canadians the same environmental and health protection that Europeans receive and take genetically engineered (GE) foods off retail shelves. At a news conference in front of a Loblaws supermarket, the organizations released documents from ten international food companies who have taken genetically engineered ingredients out of their products in Europe, but refuse to do so in Canada. The companies
[CTRL] Biotech on trial (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- -- Forwarded message -- September 13, 1999 Anti-Biotech Activists Plan Lawsuits By The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- Opponents of biotechnology plan to file antitrust lawsuits in 30 countries accusing major life-science companies of using genetic engineering to gain control of world agriculture. Major grain traders and processors also will be named in the lawsuits, said anti-biotech activist Jeremy Rifkin, director of the Foundation on Economic Trends. The legal actions will force governments to consider curbing the power of a shrinking number of giant agribusiness companies, Rifkin predicted Monday. Eight major antitrust law firms have agreed so far to handle the lawsuits, he said. In addition to Rifkin, the plaintiffs will include individual farmers and the National Family Farm Coalition. Plans for the legal action were first reported in Monday's editions of the Financial Times. Biotech companies are genetically manipulating plants to make fruits and vegetables more attractive, speed the growth of crops or make them resistant to insects, disease and weedkillers. The companies control the spread of the technology by patenting the seeds and then leasing them to growers, rather than selling them, to prevent the farmers from reproducing the seeds. While the crops have grown quickly in popularity with American farmers, the technology has had trouble getting accepted by consumers in Asia and Europe. Defenders of the technology say it can increase yields while reducing the need for pesticides and eventually will lead to nutritionally enhanced crops. ``Biotechnology is being adopted at an unprecedented rate by American farmers because it's giving them more choices than ever before in how they grow their crops. It's producing benefits for them in terms of higher yields and less use of pesticides,'' said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. But critics say the technology raises a number of environmental concerns in addition to giving giant agribusiness companies, such as St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. and Novartis AG of Switzerland, new power over farmers. A third of the nation's corn crop and about 55 percent of the soybeans U.S. farmers are growing this year have been genetically engineered. The soybean seeds are sold by Monsanto for use with its popular Roundup weedkiller. Rifkin said the lawsuits would be filed before the next round of negotiations by the World Trade Organization starts in November. Biotechnology is expected to be a major issue of the global trade talks. ___ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. -- DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] BioTech
-Caveat Lector- The perils of the biotech century Will genetic engineering one day go the way of nuclear power? Jeremy Rifkin thinks it should, but argues that we can still benefit from the new science http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199909060007.htm The perils of the biotech century Will genetic engineering one day go the way of nuclear power? Jeremy Rifkin thinks it should, but argues that we can still benefit from the new science PictureAfter more than 40 years of parallel development, the information and life sciences - computing and biology - are fusing into a single, powerful force that is laying the foundation for the biotech century. Increasingly, the computer is used to decipher, manage and organise the vast amounts of genetic information that will be the raw resource of the new global economy. The biotech century promises great riches: genetically engineered plants and animals to feed a hungry population; genetically derived sources of energy and fibre to build a "renewable" society; wonder drugs and genetic therapies to produce healthier babies, eliminate suffering and extend the human lifespan. But a question will haunt us: at what cost? The new genetic commerce raises more troubling issues than any other economic revolution in history. Will the artificial creation of cloned, chimeric and transgenic animals mean the end of nature and the substitution of a "bio-industrial" world? Will the mass release of thousands of genetically engineered life forms into the environment cause catastrophic genetic pollution and irreversible damage to the biosphere? What are the consequences of the world's gene pool becoming patented intellectual property, controlled exclusively by a handful of corporations? What will it mean to live in a world where babies are genetically engineered and customised in the womb, and where people are increasingly identified, stereotyped and discriminated against on the basis of their genotype? What are the risks we take in attempting to design more "perfect" human beings? The question is not about the science but about how we apply it, and the great debate of the biotech century will be about which of two broad alternatives we choose to adopt. The first is the Baconian view, with which we have become so familiar that we forget that there are any other approaches at all. Francis Bacon saw nature as a "common harlot" and urged future generations to "tame", "squeeze", "mould" and "shape" her so that "man" could become her master and the undisputed sovereign of the physical world. Many of today's best-known molecular biologists are heirs to the Baconian tradition. They see the world in reductionist terms and themselves as grand engineers, continually editing, recombining and reprogramming the genetic components of life to create more compliant, efficient and useful organisms that can be put to the service of humankind. Others, although equally rigorous, take a different approach. The ecological scientists see nature as a seamless web of symbiotic relationships and mutual dependencies. They see the Earth and its living things as a single organism - the biosphere. They favour more subtle forms of manipulation, which enhance rather than sever existing relationships. Agriculture offers a good example of these two different approaches. Molecular biologists insert alien genes into the biological code of food crops to make them more resistant to herbicides, pests, bacteria and fungi. They envision these engineered hybrids living in a kind of genetic isolation, walled off from the larger biotic community, and ignore the environmentalists' fears of genetic pollution. Many ecologists, by contrast, use the new genomic information to help them understand how environmental factors affect genetic mutations in plants. Instead of genetic engineering, they use the new scientific knowledge to improve classical, sustainable farming methods, such as breeding, pest management, crop rotation. Similarly, in medicine, many molecular biologists focus their research on somatic gene surgery, which pumps altered genes into sick and disordered patients. They try to cure those who are already ill. Other researchers (including a small but growing number of molecular biologists) use new genetic information to explore the ties between genetic mutations and environmental triggers. They hope to create a better approach to preventive health. Their aim is to stop damaging genetic mutations occurring in the first place. It needs to be emphasised that a number of genetic diseases appear to be unpreventable and immune to environmental mediation. But more than 70 per cent of all deaths in the industrialised countries are attributable to what physicians call "diseases of affluence", such as heart attacks, strokes, breast, colon and prostate cancer and diabetes. People vary in their genetic susceptibilities to these diseases. However, their onset
[CTRL] Biotech Goes Wild
-Caveat Lector- The following article should prove to be of interest. http://www.techreview.com:80/articles/july99/mann.htm DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Biotech
http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Biotech1.doc
