3 articles
Daniel D. Worley (dan.worley@icepr.com)
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:48:31 -0400
>Errors-To: <rwolfson@concentric.net>
>X-Sender: rwolfson@pop3.concentric.net
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:56:25 -0500
>To: info@natural-law.ca
>From: Richard Wolfson <rwolfson@concentric.net>
>Subject: 3 articles
>X-UIDL: b2a78af1ba900ec81c34d439f443b1bb
>
>Here are 3 articles: from USA, Indonesia, and UK
>
>................
>
>Thanks to Joe Toth <jthoth@lisco.com> for posting this on the
><allsorts@gn.apc.org> news group:
>
>
>USA
>
>Genetically engineered cotton suffers setback Thursday, January 22, 1998
>
>The Environmental Protection Agency UUSA) has issued a decision that will
>severely cut back the amount of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant
>cotton planted in the United States this year. The agency has decided not
>to grant a petition from Rhone Poulenc to extend the use of the herbicide
>bromoxynil in gene-altered cotton during the 1998 growing season.
>
>The genetically engineered cotton was developed to enable it to withstand
>bromoxynil, a known carcinogen that kills ordinary cotton plants. Farmers
>could spray a field of the genetically engineered cotton with bromoxynil
>and kill any other weeds that occurred. The decision was made under the
>rigorous standards of the new Food Quality Protection Act.
>
>The decision is a blow both to Rhone-Poulec, the manufacturer of the
>herbicide and Calgene, a subsidiary of Monsanto, the distributor of the
>cotton seed.
>
>"This decision unmasks the myth that genetically engineered crops are
>benign," said Dr. Jane Rissler, a plant pathologist and senior scientist
>for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The sole purpose of this cotton is
>to expand the use of a very dangerous pesticide."
>
>The EPA's decision will drastically reduce the amount of gene-altered
>cotton planted during the 1998 growing season. The agency is sending
>letters to the nation's cotton growers informing them that without the
>maximum residue limit, it
>will be illegal to use bromoxynil on genetically engineered cotton and that
>they should plan accordingly.
>
>"We congratulate the EPA for making public safety paramount," said Rissler.
>
>Copyright 1998, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved
>
>
>Related sites:
>
>Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org
>
>................................
>
>JAKARTA POST January 22, 1998
>
> BY WORLDSOURCES ONLINE, INC.,
> JAKARTA (JP): Environmentalists warned yesterday that Indonesia could
>soon be the target market for genetically modified crops which they claim
>have long-term harmful side effects.
> Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist from India and Tewolde
>Egzaiber, the head of the Ethiopian Conservation Garden, said genetically
>modified food commodities such as soybean could be bound here in increasing
>numbers as traditional markets such as Europe become more selective of such
>products.
> While long-term studies still prove inconclusive, they strongly suspect
>that genetically modified crops could be harmful to consumers' health and
>the environment.
> They said that Europe was already debating measures to scrutinize such
>products by labeling them.
> Speaking at a discussion on genetic engineering and biosafety in the
>Third World here yesterday, they said Indonesia could become a ''dumping
>place'' if people in other parts of the world began refusing to consume
>such commodities. The demand here could also increase.
>
> Indonesia already imports between 400,000 and 600,000 tons of soybean
>annually, mostly from the United States.
> Indonesia was last year hit by a severe drought which has seen soybean
>production shrink by 3.82 percent.
> Tariffs on items such as soybean have also been reduced to 20 percent
>and will go down further to 5 percent in 2003.
> Vandana, an internationally recognized physicist, said it was now up to
>consumers to resist genetically modified food commodities in the market
>since the government could no longer regulate such prohibitions.
> But she maintained that the government could help by separating the
>shipment of genetically modified foods from organically processed food to
>allow consumers to differentiate between them.
> She also called for a campaign to increase public awareness on the
>possible long-term side effects of such products.
> Tewolde, a delegate at biodiversity conventions, said the government
>could help raise awareness by providing factual information. (09)
>Copyright 1998 JAKARTA POST all rights reserved as distributed
> by WorldSources Online, Inc.
>
>...............
>
>From: MichaelP <papadop@PEAK.ORG> Subject: gen down on the pharm
>
>London Times January 26 1998 BRITAIN
>
>Nigel Hawkes looks at the implications of using genetically modified
>farmyard animals to compete with the pharmaceutical industry giants
>
>Dr James Robl, right, pictured with Steven Stice of Advanced Cell
>Technology, discussing the plans for the calves George and Charlie
>
>Drugs factory down on the pharm
>
>DRUG factories of the future will walk around on four legs and eat hay,
>according to the pioneers of "pharming", a new type of farming. A dozen
>goats, a flock of sheep or a few cows, modified by the insertion of a human
>gene, can produce as much as a large modern manufacturing plant costing
>tens of millions of pounds.
>
>Two products made in this way are already in clinical trials, with dozens
>more likely to follow. As well as promising cheaper drugs for the many,
>pharming offers hope to the few people with diseases so rare that
>pharmaceutical companies cannot justify producing remedies.
>
>The newest animals down on the pharm are two calves, George and Charlie,
>which have been cloned from foetal cells and incorporate human genes. Their
>births were announced last week at a conference in Boston by scientists
>from Advanced Cell Technology and the University of Massachusetts. George
>and Charlie prove that techniques proved on sheep and goats will also work
>with cows.
>
>One of the scientists, Dr James Robl, said that the technique was
>"repeatable and commercially viable". A single cow carrying the gene for
>human serum albumin, used in blood transfusions, could produce 80kg a year
>in its milk, worth =A3150,000.
>
>Animals are not the only means of producing drugs or vaccines: plants can
>also be modified so that their leaves, seeds, fruit or tubers contain
>active materials. Dr Iain Cubitt, of Axis Genetics, a Cambridge company
>that has produced a vaccine against parvovirus in dogs using the cowpea,
>says that plant-based vaccine production would not only be simpler but
>"orders of magnitude" cheaper than today's complex procedures.
>
>Dutch researchers have engineered rabbits to produce an enzyme to treat
>people with the rare genetic Pompe's disease. They believe milk from 200
>rabbits would produce enough to satisfy world demand.
>
>Most drugs consist of fairly small molecules created by chemists and
>manufactured synthetically. Animals cannot make these but they can make
>biological products - hormones, proteins and enzymes - that have a growing
>role in medicine but are so complex that they cannot be synthesised.
>
>Three companies own most of the important patents on transgenic animal
>technology: PPL Therapeutics, set up to exploit research at the Roslin
>research institute in Edinburgh where the cloned lambs Dolly and Polly were
>produced; Genzyme Transgenics, of Framingham, Massachusetts; and Pharming
>Holding NV, based in Leiden in The Netherlands. Advanced Cell Technology is
>a relative newcomer run by Steve Parkinson, a Scot who in the early 1990s
>was sales manager at PPL but then left to join Genzyme before setting up on
>his own.
>
>Over the past year Genzyme has made a string of announcements as it has
>successfully incorporated human genes for a variety of products into mice.
>These include human growth hormone, used for treating growth deficiency in
>children and a wasting condition linked to Aids, the market for which is
>worth $1.1 billion a year. Genzyme has also produced beta-interferon, a
>natural product used to treat multiple sclerosis.
>
>Mice do not produce practical amounts of a drug but they are a quick and
>cheap way of proving the technology. The genes can then be incorporated
>into sheep, goats or cows, "bioreactors that eat hay", in the words of
>Harry Meade, a vice-president of Genzyme.
>
>In a recent issue of Nature Biotechnology, he and Carol Ziomek, also from
>Genzyme, gave a breakdown of the costs of producing human growth hormone in
>cows. One cow, yielding 10,000 litres of milk a year, would produce 10kg of
>growth hormone. If it cost $10,000 a year to keep the cow, the hormone
>would be produced at $1 a gram, thousands of times cheaper than present
>production.
>
>Milk is not the only bodily fluid that can be used to yield drugs. In the
>same issue of Nature Biotechnology, a team led by Dr Robert Wall of the US
>Department of Agriculture reported that they had produced mice that
>generated human growth hormone in the lining of their bladder, so that it
>appeared in their urine. Since urine contains little protein, extracting
>the product may be simpler than from milk but production levels appear
>lower, at least in these experiments.
>
>Of the two pharmed products in clinical trials, one is alpha 1 antitrypsin,
>produced by Roslin/PPL and intended for the treatment of patients with
>cystic fibrosis. The other is antithrombin III, made by Genzyme in goats,
>which is a blood plasma protein with many uses in the treatment of accident
>victims or those having organ transplants or hip implants.
>
>Products from milk should be safer than those derived from human blood
>donations because they will not run a risk of passing on human viruses such
>as HIV or hepatitis. But extreme care will have to be taken to ensure that
>animal viruses are not transmitted.
>
> The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has announced that it plans to hold a
>new inquiry into the genetic modificatiuon of plants that will include both
>practical and ethical implications. The working party will be chaired by
>Professor Alan Ryan, the Warden of New College, Oxford.
>
>** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
>distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
>receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **
>
>_________________________________________________________
>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
>email: rwolfson@concentric.net
>
>Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
>contains more information on genetic engineering.
>
>To receive regular news on genetic engineering and this
>campaign, please send an email message with 'subscribe GE'
>to rwolfson@concentric.net for details. To unsubscribe, send
>the message "unsubscribe"
>__________________________________________________________
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".