sanet-mg-digest Wednesday, February 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number
832
In this issue:
RE: Re: Malarial Mosquitoes -- neem
RE: Re: Malarial Mosquitoes -- neem
Re: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
Re: Edna's Post, County Agents, and Using Natural Products
GM Ban Would Foul European Laws
British GM Report Stifled
We Apparently Trust Safety of GM Crops
Re[2]: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:08:25 -0500
From: Sustainable Agriculture Network <SAN@nal.usda.gov>
Subject: RE: Re: Malarial Mosquitoes -- neem
Please see below:
Re: Malarial Mosquitoes
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:12:50 -0400
From: Bob MacGregor <rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca>
Subject: Re: Malarial Mosquitoes
Are there toxicological references on neem? If it has pesticidal
properties (or repellant, at least?), I'd like to know it was fairly
specific to the target species and didn't have broader effects on other
ecosystem elements (like beneficial insects) or humans.
BOB
___________________
Bob,
Thanks to Jayne MacLean, former Coordinator of the Alternative Farming
Systems Information Center (AFSIC), now an occasional volunteer in our
office, for doing a cursory literature review on the effects of neem on
nontarget species.
Here's some of what she found:
AU: Kreutzweiser,-D.P.
TI: Nontarget effects of neem-based insecticides on aquatic
invertebrates.
SO: Ecotoxicol-environ-saf. Orlando, Fla. : Academic Press. Mar 1997.
v.
36 (2) p. 109-117.
CN: DNAL QH545.A1E29
LA: English
FROM the conclusions(this experiment was on forest use of neem), I quote:
"These experiments indicated there is little risk of direct adverse effects
on aquatic macroinvertebrates resulting from contamination of water bodies
with neem-based insecticides used in forest pest management applications."
A few other comments from Jayne's search:
a) She found no references to the use of neem against mosquitoes;
b) neem is almost entirely non-toxic to warm-blooded organisms, including
humans.
A few other citations:
AU: Schmutterer,-H.; Ascher,-K.-R.-S.
TI: The neem tree (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) and other meliaceous
plants : sources of unique natural products for integrated pest management,
medicine, industry and other purposes.
SO: Weinheim, Ger. ; New York : VCH, c1995. xxiii, 696 p., [20] p. of
plates : ill. (some col.)
CN: DNAL SB317.N43N45--1995
LA: English
Singh,-R.-P. (Rajendra Pal), 1930-
CA: World Neem Conference (1993 : Bangalore, India).
TI: Neem and environment.
SO: Lebanon, N.H. : Science Publishers, c1996. 2 v. : ill., map
CN: DNAL SB317.N43N44--1996
LA: English
AU: Wan,-M.T.; Watts,-R.G.; Isman,-M.B.; Strub,-R.
TI: Evaluation of the acute toxicity to juvenile Pacific Northwest
salmon of azadirachtin, neem extract, and neem-based products.
SO: Bull-environ-contam-toxicol. New York : Springer-Verlag, 1966-.
Mar
1996. v. 56 (3) p. 432-439.
CN: DNAL RA1270.P35A1
LA: English
AU: Pathak,-P.H.; Krishna,-S.S.
TI: Postembryonic development and reproduction in Corcyra cephalonica
(Stainton) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on exposure to eucalyptus and neem oil
volatiles.
SO: J-Chem-Ecol. New York, N.Y. : Plenum Press. Dec 1991. v. 17 (12)
p.
2553-2558.
CN: DNAL QD415.A1J6
LA: English
AU: Dabire,-C.
TI: use of neem seed cake and of 2 vegetables oils to control bean
weevil in cowpeas.
SO: Agricultural alternatives and nutritional self-sufficiency for a
sustainable agricultural system that respects man and his environment proc
of the IFOAM Seventh Int Scientific Conference, Ouagadougou, January 2-5,
1989. [Witzenhausen?] : Ekopan, c1990.. p. 385-393.
CN: DNAL S605.5.I45-1989
LA: English
AU: Hellpap,-C.
TI: Insect pest control with natural substances from the neem tree.
SO: Agricultural alternatives and nutritional self-sufficiency for a
sustainable agricultural system that respects man and his environment proc
of the IFOAM Seventh Int Scientific Conference, Ouagadougou, January 2-5,
1989. [Witzenhausen?] : Ekopan, c1990.. p. 368-376.
CN: DNAL S605.5.I45-1989
LA: English
AU: Karel,-A.K.
TI: Response of Ootheca bennigseni (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to
extracts from neem.
SO: J-Econ-Entomol. Lanham, Md. : Entomological Society of America.
Dec
1989. v. 82 (6) p. 1799-1803.
CN: DNAL 421-J822
LA: English
Andy
Andy Clark, Ph.D.
SAN Coordinator
c/o AFSIC, Room 304
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
PH: 301-504-6425
FAX: 301-504-6409
san@nal.usda.gov
http://www.sare.org
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:23:45 -0500 (EST)
From: dsc17@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: Re: Malarial Mosquitoes -- neem
One non-scientific observation..
when i was in senegal, there were lots of neem trees, lots of mosquitoes
and lots of malaria...so Neem is not a panacea for malaria (not that
anyone implied it was)
take care all
David
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:37:15 +1
From: "Frits v/d Laan" <F.vd.Laan@inter.nl.net>
Subject: Re: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
> Subject: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
Cannabis is gowing to be a major fibercrop which is much cleaner
than cotton and grows almost anywhere.
If the US government is really that stupid to let cropkilling
fungi into the environment the best reaction from the rest of the
world can only be a complete ban on unsterilized agricultural
products to avoid contermination by these fungi.
(Eurasia could react with a simular fungi killing soya but ;-)
>
> In brief, Monsanto and Dow will develop a GMO fungus "designed"
>to kill
> target plant species.
>
> SEC. 303. MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES TO CONTROL NARCOTIC CROPS.
>
> (a) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of National Drug
>Control Policy shall develop a 10-year master plan for the use
>of mycoherbicides to control
> narcotic crops (including coca, poppy, and cannabis) in the United
> States and internationally.
Frits v/d Laan
Organic horticulture. Gouda - Netherlands
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/F.vd.Laan/
mail f.vd.laan@inter.nl.net
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:06:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Eliza Lindsay <eliza@q7.com>
Subject: Re: Edna's Post, County Agents, and Using Natural Products
Oops, ayup NaCl would be table salt... ayup.... no sodium bicarbonate as
has been pointed out to me...But, well you get the point of the example I
hope.
Also, lest I get any more comments to the effect that the usda/epa could
hardly care about sodium bicarbonate levels in our hypothetical farmers'
watermelons. Let me be perfectly clear...My example was an illustraion not
meant to say anything about the reality of what the usda/epa cares about
or doesn't when it comes to these things...The whole example was
hypothetical (every bit of it) and sorry if my use of the phrase "not
based on knowledge" led anyone astray, it as merely meant to indicate the
hypotheticality of the example....
thanks eliza
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:06:47 -0500
From: "Jessica Vallette" <JVallette@foe.org>
Subject: GM Ban Would Foul European Laws
======================================================
The Daily Telegraph Wednesday 17 February 1999
BAN WOULD FALL FOUL OF EUROPE'S FREE TRADE LAWS
By David Brown
Britain is powerless to impose a moratorium on growing
genetically modified crops even if it wanted to because it would
be over-ruled by the European Union.
The Ministry of Agriculture said last night: "There is no legal
basis for such a move under European Union Single Market
legislation."
The Government could face heavy fines in the European Court
if ministers yielded to increasing pressure from the
Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and environmental and food
campaign groups and tried to impose controls which amounted
to a restriction of trade, farming industry leaders warned.
The threat of court action would come from the EU
Commission, farming organisations, individual farmers or
traders. France is already facing legal action from the
commission for trying to block genetic crops.
The National Farmers' Union of England and Wales said that its
own legal advice supported the Government stance. Ian
Gardiner, policy director of the NFU, said: "The British
Government cannot impose a moratorium. This is a decision
that is made at European level."
The legal position means that the Government, which has
already rejected the idea of a moratorium, would have to enlist
the support of most other EU countries to change existing
European regulations on genetically modified organisms if it
changed its mind. Past experience in Brussels has shown that
this is a time-consuming and difficult procedure.
There is also no appetite for a major re-think on GMOs as
agriculture and finance ministers are set to embark on key
negotiations to reform the Common Agricultural Policy. GMOs
are not on the agenda.
Blocking GMOs would also fall foul of World Trade
Organisation rules on free trade in agricultural and food
products. Such a move could lead to a trade war with America
which argues that the foods should be traded openly because
there is no scientific evidence that they are harmful.
American negotiators, who have already waged a long campaign
against the EU over its ban on beef produced with the use of
hormones, have only grudgingly accepted that GM soya or
other products need to be labelled.
The EU is slowly accepting that, under World Trade
Organisation rules, it cannot ban the hormone-aided meat, and
is considering a compromise to allow American beef imports
that are properly labelled.
Farmers in Britain are relieved that they cannot be barred
unilaterally from growing GM crops. Already reeling from what
the Government has acknowledged as the worst collapse in
incomes for nearly 30 years, they face the threat from the
Department of the Environment of a tax on the pesticides they
use.
Any unilateral ban on GM crops - which can be bred to be
naturally resistant to pests without using chemical sprays -
would make their food even more uncompetitive against that
produced in countries where the GM technology has been
embraced.
Melvyn Askew, head of alternative crops and technology at the
Central Science Laboratory in York said last night that he
believed it would be two years before the first commercial GM
crops were planted in Britain. Mr Askew is head of IENICA -
an EU funded project to explore alternative crops.
So far, hundreds of small test plots of GM crops have been
grown in Britain. The first field-size trial crops of oilseed rape,
sugar beet and maize for cattle food, are to be planted this
spring.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:05:47 -0500
From: "Jessica Vallette" <JVallette@foe.org>
Subject: British GM Report Stifled
The Daily Telegraph Wednesday 17 February 1999
GOVERNMENT STIFLED REPORT ON GM RISKS
By Charles Clover and George Jones
Genetically modified crops could wipe out some of our
most familiar farmland birds, plants and animals, according to a
suppressed report written for the Government last year.
The report was leaked yesterday as Tony Blair's chief scientific
adviser, Sir Robert May, and his leading "green" adviser, Sir
Crispin Tickell, added to the controversy by raising new
concerns about such crops.
Unlike the Prime Minister, who says he is happy to eat GM
foods, Sir Crispin said that he "would hesitate" before tackling
them.
Asked if he would eat a GM tomato, for example, he said: "I
would like to know more about the consequences of growing it.
It might not be bad for me - though I don't know - but it might
well be bad for the environment."
With ministers clearly taken aback by the scale of the row and
their failure to reassure the public about "Frankenstein foods",
the Government softened its line by ruling out any commercial
planting of GM crops this year.
But the announcement by Jeff Rooker, the agriculture minister,
was immediately discredited when the Agriculture Ministry
admitted that Britain was powerless to impose a moratorium on
such crops.
It said: "There is no legal basis for such a move under European
Union single market legislation." France is already facing legal
action from the European Commission for trying to block
genetic crops.
The Government's attempt to defuse the row came after Mr
Blair rejected Tory demands for the resignation of Lord
Sainsbury, the science minister, because of a potential conflict
of interest caused by his business links with genetically modified
food.
Mr Blair, visiting a hospital in Hampshire, accused the Tories of
"hounding" Lord Sainsbury, former chairman of the
supermarket group, who has given about £3 million to Labour.
He said: "There is no conflict of interest whatsoever and he has
followed the rules to the letter, as he should do." It was
disclosed that Lord Sainsbury does not take part in Government
discussions and decisions on GM food and had left a Cabinet
committee meeting on Feb 3 when the issue arose.
The report on the effects of GM crops on the countryside was
leaked by the Friends of the Earth. It was compiled by the
biotechnology unit of the Environment Department for a
meeting of ministers shortly before the publication of an article
by the Prince of Wales on GM crops in The Telegraph.
The draft paper was intended to be published after a list of
experts had given their comments. This has not yet happened.
Its publication is understood to have been delayed indefinitely
by Jack Cunningham, the Government's "enforcer" who chairs
the Cabinet committee on GM crops, after the Ministry of
Agriculture expressed concern about its contents.
The paper issues a warning that the over-effective control of
weeds or pests could result in diminished food or habitat
resource for insects and those species which depend on them,
particularly farmland birds such as the corn bunting, partridge
and skylark.
It points out the possibility of the unforeseen harmful effects of
pesticidal plants and the conferring of herbicide tolerance to
wild crops.
The report says that there is no strategic planning on GM crops
and that the Government is assessing applications for releases
on a "first come first served" basis. It says also that the
introduction of some GM crops could make it impossible for the
Government to meet its targets in restoring declining species,
such as the skylark.
The report concludes that "a greater understanding of the
potential indirect effects of GM crops on wildlife needs to be
gained" and that, while there are strict regulatory regimes in
place to assess the safety of GM crops and any pesticides which
may be applied to them, "the assessment of the wider
implications of GM crop use in agriculture may require further
consideration".
Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said: "If there was ever a
case for a five-year freeze on GM crops, this report makes it.
No wonder they did not publish it. It contradicts reassurances
from ministers about the ecological safety of these crops."
Melvyn Askew, of the Central Science Laboratory in York,
said: "I think it will be two years before the first commercial
GM crops are planted in this country."
In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir Robert May
emphasised the potential damage to the environment as one of
the unsolved challenges of regulating the new technology.
He said that GM crops could damage the countryside in a
number of ways, from its diversity of birds, insects and other
wildlife to its social make-up.
GM crops would "accelerate existing trends toward realising the
millennial-old dream of growing crops that no one eats but us -
it's the aim of agriculture. And the more successful we get at
that, the worse the news for the wild flowers, the insects, the
birds and the countryside."
The embattled Lord Sainsbury, whom colleagues expect to
weather the storm over genetically modified foods, issued a
detailed statement about his position. He acknowledged that he
had owned a patent on a biotechnology product, but denied that
it was the key gene at the centre of the GM controversy.
He said that all his business interests, including his large
shareholding in Sainsbury's, were now held in a blind trust and
that he had no knowledge of their current status.
The Tories said that he was in danger of becoming a "lame
duck minister" because he could not take part in one of the
most controversial areas of science policy under consideration
in Whitehall.
William Hague, the Tory leader, said: "He has to leave the room
whenever the matter is discussed. He is in the wrong job."
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:10:14 -0500
From: "Jessica Vallette" <JVallette@foe.org>
Subject: We Apparently Trust Safety of GM Crops
==============================================
The Daily Telegraph Wednesday 17 February 1999
CONSUMERS TRUST US GOVERNMENT ON SAFETY OF NEW CROPS
By Aisling Irwin
In America, a nation obsessed with food safety, genetically
modified crops have slipped easily into general use. There was
plenty of opposition to early GM proposals in the late Seventies
and early Eighties but there seems to be little now.
In 1974, two biologists said they could genetically modify living
things. After a meeting in California, known as the Asilomar
meeting, the scientists called their own brief moratorium on
their research while the authorities examined the issue. The US
and British responses to the resulting anxiety were different.
The Americans, citing fears of interference, produced guidelines
on the research; the British produced regulations.
This attitude was echoed a decade later, in 1986, when Britain
opted to create laws dealing with GM foods but the US
considered that existing laws would suffice. Today the
distinction persists: US companies have been able to opt out of
regulation of GM foods once they have proved their safety but
in Britain companies must apply for a permit.
In 1982, two Californian scientists requested permission to test
the Ice minus bacterium which could impede frost production
on strawberries. Ice minus encountered strong opposition and
the case spent years in the courts, delaying field testing until
1987. Ice minus was classified as a pesticide and more or less
disappeared. GM supporters say it was over-regulated to death.
Americans feared biotechnology then. A 1986 survey showed
that 44 per cent believed "we should not meddle with nature".
But regulations were reduced in 1989-90 by the Republican
government and the first real GM "story" arose in 1992, when
the Food and Drug Administration approved the Flavr Savr
tomato, with a gene switched off to prevent it softening.
Dr Thomas Hoban, of North Carolina State University in
Raleigh, US, who regularly surveys public attitudes, said: "The
media ran loads of stories, both pro and con and used all those
words you are experiencing now such as 'frankenfoods'."
But the coverage overall was balanced and no Flavr Savr
tomato products appeared in the shops because, for other
reasons, the tomato was not a commercial success.
It took another two years before the next genetically modified
product was approved. Bovine somatotrophin (BST) is a
substance produced by a genetically engineered bacterium
which boosts milk yield.
Dr Hoban says: "We thought there would be a lot of
controversy but there were just a few stories and they were
balanced. Consumers had very little concern. Someone they
trusted [the FDA] said it was safe."
In late 1995 seven crops received approval but there was
virtually no media coverage. Between 15 and 20 further crops
have now been approved in the US. In 1998, 25 million acres
were planted with genetically modified soya. There is no
requirement for labelling of such foods and little demand from
consumers for it.
American people understand little about the subject but think it
is safe, Dr Hoban has found. Several reasons have been
suggested. Environmental groups such as Greenpeace have little
presence in the US. Americans trust their regulatory authority,
the FDA. There is a history of swift response to food scares
and there has been no BSE scandal to erode that confidence.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:27:08 EST
From: "John Henning, Eco-Echo, McGill U., Montreal, Ca"
<INF3@musicb.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re[2]: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
The recent posts regarding MYCOHERBICIDES provide yet another
rationale for the international community to start moving on
this issue. Move over traditional biological weapons; there
is a new tool in the arsenal to wage economic warfare between
commercial interests or between belligerent nations.
Unfortunately, it appears that the technological capability to
produce these sorts of weapons is quickly spreading and I suppose
there will be a need for some sort of international convention.
It would be a pitty if the US were to the first to use this
weapon in a foreign nation ...... getting the genie
back in the bottle would be a wee bit difficult.
john henning, mcgill u.
==============================
From: "Frits v/d Laan" <F.vd.Laan@inter.nl.net>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:37:15 +1
Subject: Re: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
> Subject: MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES
Cannabis is gowing to be a major fibercrop which is much cleaner
than cotton and grows almost anywhere.
If the US government is really that stupid to let cropkilling
fungi into the environment the best reaction from the rest of the
world can only be a complete ban on unsterilized agricultural
products to avoid contermination by these fungi.
(Eurasia could react with a simular fungi killing soya but ;-)
>
> In brief, Monsanto and Dow will develop a GMO fungus "designed"
>to kill
> target plant species.
>
> SEC. 303. MASTER PLAN FOR MYCOHERBICIDES TO CONTROL NARCOTIC CROPS.
>
> (a) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of National Drug
>Control Policy shall develop a 10-year master plan for the use
>of mycoherbicides to control
> narcotic crops (including coca, poppy, and cannabis) in the United
> States and internationally.
Frits v/d Laan
Organic horticulture. Gouda - Netherlands
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/F.vd.Laan/
mail f.vd.laan@inter.nl.net
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
------------------------------
End of sanet-mg-digest V1 #832
******************************
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the comannd
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clara K. Cohen, AAAS Fellow
USAID/G/EGAD/AFS
RRB 2.11-102
Washington, D.C. 20523-2110
Phone: (202) 712-1116
Fax: (202) 216-3010
e-mail: ccohen@usaid.gov
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail