X-Sender: rwolfson@pop3.concentric.net
Message-Id: <l03102804b2465250a911@[206.173.215.42]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:34:15 +0100
To: info@natural-law.ca
From: Richard Wolfson <rwolfson@concentric.net>
Subject: GE News
Here are two articles from the October issue of Alive Magazine.
Also, the "GAPS Analsis" report on the hazards/safety of BGH that was
described in a previous genetic engineering email has been posted by the
National Farmers Union at the website http://www.nfu.ca
...................
Biotech News, by Richard Wolfson, PhD
Reprinted with permission from the October 1998 issue of Alive: Canadian
Journal of Health and Nutrition, 7436 Fraser Park Drive, Burnaby, BC V5J
5B9
Health Canada Scientist Receives Gag Order
On Monday July 13, Shiv Chopra, PhD, a scientific evaluator in Health
Canada, received a registered letter from Health Canada forbidding him to
speak that evening at a public information session in Ottawa. The meeting
was about genetically engineered foods.
Dr. Chopra is one of a growing number of doctors and scientists working for
Health Canada who have expressed publicly their concern that Health Canada
is risking the safety of consumers, for the sake of industry profit. On
June 11, Dr. Chopra and Dr. Margaret Hayden, who also works in Health
Canada's Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, were interviewed on CTV (Canada AM).
The scientists stated that they are being pressured by their department to
approve antibiotics and hormones (such as genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone or rBGH) for use in cattle, even though there are unresolved
human safety concerns, such as antibiotic resistance, cancer, and other
possible dangers.
Health Canada has also begun disciplinary action following this interview,
preventing the scientists from expressing these concerns in public.
On Friday July 24, Dr. Chopra filed a grievance with Health Canada, asking
that these restrictions to his freedom of speech be removed, along with the
reprimand that he had received after speaking on CTV Canada AM. If Health
Canada does not respond within 25 days, the case may be taken to the
federal courts.
Report on rBGH Suppressed
Several Health Canada scientists, including Dr. Chopra, authored a recent
internal Health Canada report about the human safety hazards of rBGH. A
subcommittee of the Canadian Senate investigating the safety of rBGH
requested a copy of this report from Health Canada management, and were
refused. The Senate may subpoena the report.
A Call for Moratorium on Herbicide-Resistant Crops
The government's wildlife advisers in UK have called for a five-year ban on
the commercial growing of herbicide-resistant crops. Scientists fear that
while the biotech crops will be able to withstand the herbicides, the weeds
around them that are part of the food chain for insects and birds will be
eliminated. Birds that feed on the insects and seeds may be wiped out.
First Grassroots Gathering on Biodevastation
The First Grassroots Gathering on Biodevastation took place July 17-19,
1998 in Saint Louis, Missouri, the home of the biotech giant Monsanto.
There were over 120 conference participants from Europe, Asia, and North
America.
The conference was organized by the local Green Party (Gateway Greens) and
the Edmonds Institute. International environmental activists at the
conference included Dr. Vandana Shiva from India, Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher
from UK, and Brewster Kneen from the Canadian Environmental Network.
Participants emphasized that genetic engineering was primarily for
financial gain for the biotech industry, and does not serve the interests
of the public.
Mr. Kneen said a panel of four women scientists (Ms. Steinbrecher, Martha
Crouch from Indiana, Elaine Ingham from Oregon, and Sonia Shmitz from
Vermont) was a highlight of the conference. One by one, the women told
their personal stories of why they had broken ranks with their professional
colleagues and what their particular critique was of biotechnology.
"I have to keep wondering if there are not at least a few men somewhere who
have seen through and turned against the macho, violent culture of genetic
engineering," said Mr. Kneen.
Brian Tokar, Professor of Social Ecology at Goddard College, said "We need
a powerful political movement to counter the claims of the biotechnology
industry."
"We are at the crossroads of history with one road (leading to) Monsanto
and multinational corporations and industrial agriculture," said Ronnie
Cummins, director of the Pure Food Campaign. "If we don't organize a mass
movement to go down the other road (of sustainable agriculture), in 30
years the next generation is going to curse us."
Mr. Kneen suggested that while "good rebels" in Europe and the UK
decontaminate trial plots of genetically engineered crops, Canada should
join the Japanese in action at the supermarkets and in construction of
alternative food systems.
UK Court Decision Throws Seed Trials into Chaos
The future of genetically modified crops in UK was thrown into confusion in
July. A Court of Appeal insisted the government should enforce regulations
that it admitted breaching to allow the tests of genetically modified corn
to go ahead. Earlier, the court rejected an appeal by organic farmer Guy
Watson to stop trials of biotech corn being carried out on adjacent land.
Mr. Watson is concerned that the biotech corn could cross-pollinate with
his crops, throwing his organic status and livelihood into jeopardy.
However, now that the agriculture ministry has admitted it breached its own
regulations, the final outcome is not certain.
Beware of Canadian GE Canola
Farmers in UK are advised to avoid genetically engineered
herbicide-resistant canola seeds from Canada, should the crop be approved
for cultivation in Britain. In field tests, the biotech canola failed
standard performance criteria based on crop yield per acre, disease
resistance, and speed of germination.
According to the report from the 11/12/97 meeting of a joint
industry/government body, the approval committee in Canada changed their
evaluation system for the GE canola. Extra bonus points were added to
herbicide resistant varieties of canola so they could be approved in spite
of poor performance. It is perhaps no surprise that farmers in Canada have
reported reduced yields of up to 21percent with biotech canola, compared to
conventional varieties.
For further information on biotechnology and its hazards, visit the
website: http://www.concentric.net/~Rwolfson/home.html or email Richard
Wolfson at: rwolfson@concentric.net
.........................................
Feeding the World- or Global Disaster, by Richard Wolfson, PhD
Reprinted with permission from the October 1998 issue of Alive: Canadian
Journal of Health and Nutrition, 7436 Fraser Park Drive, Burnaby, BC V5J
5B9
The National Agriculture Environment Committee (NAEC) held a conference
July 28-29 in Ottawa on biotechnology and the environment. The conference
was promoted as a program to assist farmers in deciding whether to go ahead
with biotechnology. However, alternatives were practically ignored.
Biotech proponents who dominated the conference painted the usual portrait
of biotechnology being crucial to feeding the world. However, Ann Clark,
PhD, Associate Professor of Crop Science at the University of Guelph,
explained that high tech agriculture only feeds the wealthy.
About 78 percent of the dollar value of food exported from the developed
countries, and 67 percent of the food from the third world, is exported to
developed countries-- the wealthiest 17 percent of the world's population.
The developing (poorer) nations, accounting for 83 percent of the world's
population, cannot afford to keep food grown in their countries.
Biotechnology is expensive. Also, high tech agriculture has displaced
native farmers and destroyed their livelihood.
Nettie Wiebe, from the National Farmers Union, illustrated that
biotechnology can result in more use of toxic chemicals and damage the
environment, counter to industry claims. Her neighbour had to spray with
additional toxic chemicals to kill her herbicide resistant canola,
following a hail storm. The hail had destroyed the crop and spread the
seeds, effectively turning the biotech canola into herbicide resistant
weeds!
Biotech advocates claimed that biotech crops are well researched before
being approved. However, they admitted there are no standard procedures
for assessing the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops.
Many biotech products are deemed environmentally safe merely by observing
that their non-biotech counterparts are safe.
Several speakers claimed that foreign genes do not interfere with other
genes and cause unexpected problems. However, Dr. Clark referred to recent
cases in Mississippi: Genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" cotton had
produced malformed cotton bolls that fell off the plants, creating millions
of dollars of damage. Farmers have also observed that biotech canola did
not germinate normally.
Another problem is cross-pollination. Engineered genes move from biotech
crops to wild relatives and pollute the gene pool. This could potentially
wipe out indigenous species and causing unknown ecological effects. Crops
genetically engineered to withstand insect pests have killed beneficial
insects.
Dr. Clark pointed out that killing off one insect pest often results in the
proliferation of other insect pests. This aggressive approach of killing
off pests does not address the underlying ecological problem, and only
creates further imbalance in the eco-system. She described successful
organic, sustainable agriculture projects, countering the predominant view
that biotechnology and chemical based agriculture are essential.
Another concern expressed by both Dr. Clark and Michelle Brill-Edwards, MD,
a former senior regulator with Health Canada, is deregulation-- allowing
industry, rather than independent government regulators, to oversee safety
testing. Dr. Brill-Edwards cited the mad cow disease disaster in UK, and
the contamination of Canada's blood supply, which infected tens of
thousands of Canadians.
Both catastrophes resulted from deterioration of safety standards due to
deregulation. We should therefore proceed cautiously with this powerful
technology, rather than blindly allowing industry to go ahead without proof
of long-term safety.
For more information, see
<http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/www/CRSC/faculty/eac.htm> or
<http://www.concentric.net/~Rwolfson/home.htm>
_________________________________________________________
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 for 12 months
See website for details.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
dan.worley@mindless.com
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".