--Dan Worley in Sunny Puerto Rico--
>Thanks to Raphael Thierri <firstname.lastname@example.org> for forwarding this article
>from the Globe & Mail (Canada), March 21, Business section, [STARS AND
>DOGS] p. B21.
>"MONSANTO -- A report in Britain's independent newspaper says the Church
>of England investment fund has dumped its shares in the U.S. drug giant
>because the company's genetic-engineering experiments aren't exactly in
>line with Genesis. No word yesterday from a Monsanto spokesperson."
>Shares are valued at $50.25, down $0.56
>Thanks to Allsorts (also rts) <email@example.com> for posting the
>The [London] Guardian March 21 1998
>Food chains by Joanna Blythman
>Britain's sugar barons are refusing to accept any genetically- engineered
>sugar beet through their factory gates. The reason: they don't want a
>repeat of what happened in Holland last year, when a tiny amount of sugar
>from genetic- engineering trials was accidentally introduced into bags of
>Dutch sugar. Once discovered, there was a public outcry, and the whole
>batch, all 12,000 tonnes of it, had to be disposed of - at great expense.
>"This paints a rather bleak future for genetically-modified sugar beet,"
>says British Sugar's spokesman, Geoff Lancaster. "Public suspicion may
>sink this technology completely."
>Not so long ago, the UK food industry was brimming with "Tomorrow's World"
>style enthusiasm about genetically- engineered foodstuffs, but a wave of
>cynicism has since swept through the ranks following the Monsanto biotech
>company's successful efforts to force genetically-engineered soya on to the
>market by refusing to segregate it at source from the conventional soya
>supply. So now we must accept that 60 per cent of all the processed food
>we eat contains genetically- engineered soya - and unlabelled too, if you
>But might it be that Monsanto has pushed its luck too far? After all,
>British Sugar is now responding to pressure from food manufacturers and
>retailers to supply "clean" sugar that hasn't been contaminated" by genetic
>engineering. Like glistening, white sugar, it seems that consumer thinking
>on gene foods is crystallising, and that the previously unthinkable is
>becoming a definite possibility - an outright ban.
>In June, the Swiss will hold a national referendum on the issue, seeking a
>mandate to ban, among other things, genetically-engineered crops. Recent
>polls suggest that 58 per cent will vote in favour of a ban. And a 1998
>Europe-wide survey published in the journal Nature has shown that the more
>the public knows about biotechnology, the more fears are aroused.
>In the UK, the Soil Association (SA), which promotes organic food and
>farming, would like Britain to declare itself a genetic engineering-free
>zone. The Iceland retail chain has already banned genetically-engineered
>ingredients from its own-brand products, and SA has challenged the major
>supermarkets to eliminate foods containing genetically- engineered
>ingredients from their shelves by December 31, 1999. A response is
>awaited, but, apart from Safeway, whose unquestioning commitment to gene
>foods becomes more outlandish by the day, the others seem to be
>increasingly wary of "gene smog".
>Gene smog is the new name, used in Europe and America, for the genetic
>pollution that is slowly permeating our food chain. The tactics of
>Monsanto et al are to introduce genetic engineering by the back door. They
>hope that, by the time gene smog has reached critical levels - soya
>derivatives throughout the food chain, animals eating genetically-
>engineered feed, humans eating their meat, and so on - the commercial train
>of genetic engineering will have left the station and it will be too late
>to bring it back.
>"The market mechanism could send that train back into the station if
>supermarkets listen to public opinion," says SA spokesman Patrick Holden.
>That's because many consumers just don't buy the "assurances" of
>supermarkets and government, hiding behind the edifice of "science" and the
>discredited guarantee of labelling. It is not comforting to think that
>those who should be protecting us are being pressured by megacorporations
>and crossing their fingers, hoping that nothing goes wrong.
>SA is urging consumers to complain to supermarkets about the unpredictable
>nature of gene technology and the threat it poses to the environment and
>human health. Also, that if they want their customers to have faith in
>their brand image, they need to tell their suppliers of their intention to
>eliminate all foods with genetically-engineered ingredients from their
>shelves by the millennium.
>I've just picked up my pen.
>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
>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 for 12 months
>See website for details.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command