American Farmland Trust Info

Ruth Goldstein (rgoldstein@communitymediadc.org)
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:43:36 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Storelli, Stephen: "State of California Issues Request for Proposals"

American Farmland Trust can be reached in Washington at (202) 331-7300 or on their website at www.farmland.org.

Ruth Goldstein
-----Original Message-----
From: sanet-mg-digest [SMTP:owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:21 AM
To: sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1485

sanet-mg-digest Thursday, December 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1485

In this issue:

Re: media looking for contact
Rotenone Hazards?
Re: Rotenone Hazards?
docuemnts (fwd)
Re: Source for New Zealand-type electric fence charger needed.
Re: More Monsanto, etc.
Re: WTO Re: Off subject? (fwd)
Re: De-commodification (was: GMO labeling)
Re: GMO labels
USDA's Version of Food Safety?
RE: USDA's Version of Food Safety?
rBST FREE labeling is alive and well
FW: Externalities of UK agriculture
Re: Spraying Bt Corn

See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:00:51 -0800
From: "Hook Family" <guldann@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: media looking for contact

Michael, This is just someplace to look. I think its on the American
Farmland Trust Web Page. This is a organization that attempts to preserve
farmland. I think I read somewhere (could have been a link) that there are
house developement plans that preserve green spaces/farms. But anyway they
might be an organization to check with. Beth

> I am working with a journalist who is working on a follow-up story from
the
> California Farm Conference, on the topic of building the urban-rural
> connection.
>
> She is wondering if anyone out there has worked "to educate urban building
> trades unions about the downside of developing farmland (just as
> environmentalists have had to dialogue with
> loggers.)"
>
> If you know of any individuals or organizations working along these lines,
> please forward me their contact information.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ++++++++++++++
> Michael Straus
> Beyond Organic - Innovative Marketing & Public Relations for Progressive
> Agriculture
> 22890 Highway 1, Marshall, CA 94940 USA
> phone: 415-663-8343; fax: 415-663-8346
> www.beyondorganic.com; info@beyondorganic.com
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> 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

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
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, 15 Dec 1999 19:20:00 -0600
From: mmiller@pcsia.com
Subject: Rotenone Hazards?

What does anybody know about the safety of rotenone? How fast does it
degrade and can it be absorbed into body via skin or lungs? Being an equal
opportunity skeptic, the report below raises some concern about the use of
this natural material and any synthetic analogues in food production.

Below are relevant parts of an article referenced to an article in JAMA
entitled Pesticide Study Aids Parkinson Research.
See http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v282n23/full/jmn1215-4.html

Mike Miller - who now thanks to the USDA can glow in the dark after eating
"beef, pork or lamb" :>))

snip ...

Rotenone, which is not
selective in this manner, kills neurons whether or not they carry
a dopamine transporter and, therefore, was used to investigate
whether systemic inhibition of complex I would cause selective
neurodegeneration.

Rotenone is a common insecticide, said Greenamyre, that is
perceived in many quarters as relatively innocuous. "On the
Internet it is touted as an organic or natural alternative to
synthetic pesticides because it is a natural product. It's often
used in reservoirs in the United States and to kill nuisance
fish."

snip...

Greenamyre said the results of his team's investigation indicate
that systemic administration of rotenone brings about selective
retrograde degeneration of the nigrostriatal system and mimics
the slowly progressive course of PD.

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:08:53 -0500
From: Alex McGregor <waldenfarm@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rotenone Hazards?

Mike,

Rotenone is a nerve agent. That's why it's such a good insecticide. It (and
other botanical insecticides) are also dangerous to vertebrates (last time I
looked I was one). They will cause nerve damage, at least. What they have going
for them is that they degrade in the environment in 24 hours or so.

They're not on "allowable" lists for certified organic farmers- they're on the
"restricted" list. This means they may be used to save a crop and use must be
justified to the certifying agency on a case by case basis.

I don't use them (and advise others not to) for 2 reasons- First, they're
dangerous for the user. I counsel people to use them in a water solution if
they must. This keeps the dust down and the product out of the lungs.

Second, even though they are botanicals, they are still broad spectrum
insecticides. They will kill the predators as well as the pest insects. This
results in throwing the insect ecosystem way out of balance. And the predator
population takes a lot longer to rebuild. So, in the long run, you're doing
more damage than good.

I don't know if anyone has looked at the effect of these botanicals on the soil
life- couldn't be good. Anybody out there know about this?

Alex

mmiller@pcsia.com wrote:

> What does anybody know about the safety of rotenone? How fast does it
> degrade and can it be absorbed into body via skin or lungs? Being an equal
> opportunity skeptic, the report below raises some concern about the use of
> this natural material and any synthetic analogues in food production.

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:39:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <london@metalab.unc.edu>
Subject: docuemnts (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:09:51 GMT+1
From: abdelkader ibnelazyz <ibnelazyz@caramail.com>
To: London@sunsite.unc.edu
Subject: docuemnts

Ecole Natinale D'agriculture de meknes
BP s/40
Meknes
Morocco
Email-ibnelazyz@caramail.com

hello,

I m student in national school of agricultur, in ordzer
to obtain Engeneer grad in agronomic science speciality of plant
pathology, a have to find a study or reseach entitled:
Plant Grouth Rhizobacteria used in biocontrol of Downy
mildiew in vitro and under field conditions caused by Plasmopara
halstedii and Phytophtora infestans" For this subject, I need some
articls of reseach about Bacteria used in biocontrol of plant
pthogens, i ask you about some documents a,nd ihave receved yaour
emil in review.

In the end thank you verry much for yor cooperation.

______________________________________________________
Boite aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:31:24 -1000
From: Glenn <glenn@smallfarms.com>
Subject: Re: Source for New Zealand-type electric fence charger needed.

Dear Lawrence,

Pell and Gallagher are two companies that manufacture electronic control
modules for electric fencing. My memory says they're both out of New
Zealand, and the literature I've read makes claims for controlling wild
game animals including deer. Both companies make several models with a
range of specs. including working off batteries.

Will you do me a favor? Ask the farmer you're passing this info on to
to please check local suppliers before attempting to mail order. The
maintenance issues come into play, and a local dealer will probably be
able to answer questions and make suggestions for specific fence design
in the area. Buying locally strengthens the dealer and hopefully, the
local community. Local patronage helps keep the dealers in business so
other small farmers and ranchers can continue to patronize them. You
know, the sustainability thing.

For me, it's the same as buying food from the local farmer.

glenn
Buy from the Farmer
http://www.smallfarms.com

> Can anyone recommend specific brands of New Zealand-type electric
> fence chargers to use for deer control? I need the model that runs off
> a battery that can be recharged with a trickle charger or a solar array.
> A 3 joule model is the minimum capacity required. What are recommended
> mail order sources?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Lawrence
>
> Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm
> http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden
> /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech
> lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:18:02 -0800
From: Bargyla Rateaver <brateaver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: More Monsanto, etc.

I just received the regular publication that I get, from Leopold Center in
Iowa,and during an interview with farmers, sure enough, the Monsanto kind of
dealings came up. People are certainly aware of they want to be.

Bluestem Associates wrote:

> Forwarded from Natural Food Merchandiser (online):
>
> ==========
>
> Monsanto Co. helped pay for a demonstration in favor of
> genetically modified organisms in Washington, D.C.,
> according to a published report. About 100 members of a
> Baptist church got a check from the biotech giant, an
> organizer of the protest said.
>
> Scientists say they've found a way to genetically alter
> young hogs so they grow much faster and larger than normal
> swine, as reported nationally this week. Less noticed was a
> report about a new hog-production system that promises
> tastier pork, less damage to the environment and the
> potential for greater profits among independent farmers.
> That system would eschew modern factory farms.
>
> ===========
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> 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

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:52:54 -0800
From: Bargyla Rateaver <brateaver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: WTO Re: Off subject? (fwd)

Evrybody please note--this man says , too, that cancer is now half the
population== 1 in 2, he says. When I said that here, without data to prove it, I
got a slap, but Dr. Nigh did have the info.

Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:35:07 EST
> From: SCook21809@aol.com
> Cc: csa-l@prairienet.org
> To: osalt@teleport.com
> Subject: Re: Off subject?
>
> Yes Will,
>
> CSAs will be affected by WTO.
> If you ask any Biologist monitoring life on the planet they will tell
> you we are entering a period of "mass extinction". Loss of habitat and
> degradation of the environment is quickly decreasing the diversity of life
> forms that live in, on and above the earth. From my own experience as a
> health care provider I have seen the life time incidence of cancer skyrocket
> from 1 in 8; to 1 in 2; in less than 25 years. In the next decade there
> won't be any question about if you will have a cancer diagnosis. Rather,
> will you notice your cancers in time for treatment? Add to this the genesis
> of an Evil Empire euphemistically called free trade and boy do we have a
> problem.
> Does racing for the cure give us time to observe the causes and take
> action to prevent them? Does fighting an unsustainable system give us
> resources to create a sustainable alternative? I believe we need to focus on
> filling the glass the rest of the way rather than grapple with the gross
> exteriors of who is responsible for partially emptying it. We all deny
> culpability.
> On closer inspection of the hand I use to point a finger at someone else
> I always find three fingers pointing back at me. "We have met the
> enemy...and he is us." I need to learn to save seed better. I need to teach
> more people about composting and growing more food on less land. I need to
> find a way to biofilter my water to remove pollution. Most of all I need to
> learn to interact and cooperate with my neighbors toward common goals.
> How do I want to spend the rest of my life? Because now is the only
> promise I have.
>
> Focus!
>
> Art Biggert
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> 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

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:46:03 -0800
From: Bargyla Rateaver <brateaver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: De-commodification (was: GMO labeling)

It seems so clear to me, Dale Wilson, that my original impression of you here is
exactly what I thought. Anyone can see on whose side you are.

Wilson, Dale wrote:

> Gary,
>
> > Dale, you say it is expensive to segregate "commodities".
> > Your choice of words detail the problem. People do not eat
> > commodities, they eat food.
>
> If you had 1000 tons of wheat in your backyard, you too would probably think
> of it differently than the granola in your breakfast bowl. The seed
> industry would be quite happy if grains were de-commodified. We would like
> to see the identity of our genetic products preserved, because the users of
> the grain would be willing to pay for the quality and health attributes we
> are developing. Probably, identity preservation will become common, but the
> transition is difficult.
>
> > It has an emotional and cultural connection for them, something
> > the conventional food business has forgot. Agri-culture.
>
> Not really. The processors and repackagers haven't forgot. The big grain
> handlers sell to the food companies, who try to connect with consumers.
>
> > Perhaps the food business should listen to their customers.
> > They are always right, no matter how you think they are wrong.
>
> I agree completely. But right now, it isn't clear what the customers want
> regarding transgenic foods. This controversy will facilitate
> de-commodification.
>
> Dale
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> 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

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:42:05 -0800
From: Bargyla Rateaver <brateaver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: GMO labels

what I want to know is, how does the non-GM do the job of upsetting what the GM
does?

wytze wrote:

> Your Viagra-corn example is right on. This actually is the case with Zeneca's
> GE tomato that's being grown in California. This tomato is grown completely
> separated from non GE tomatos. Why? A Zenecarepresentative explained: the GE
> tomato would loose it's GE when it crosses with non GE tomatos. (Maybe an idea
> for California based activist: put some non-GE tomatoseeds in the GE tomato
> fields)
> Wytze de Lange
>
> Bill Liebhardt wrote:
>
> > When we buy any product we are not buying the product but the perceived
> > benefit. Think about anything you buy or would like to buy and it is the
> > benefits you really are thinking about and thats the reason you make the
> > purchase. Now ask the question-why doesn't the bio tech industry want
> > labeling? I would suggest that the reason is that most of the products
> > they have brought on line have no perceived benefits and may actually have
> > negative factors associated with them to the ultimate consumer. So when
> > that is the case they fight labeling because they do not want an informed
> > public being able to make that choice. Let's look at bovine growth hormone
> > sold by Monsanto. They did everything possible with FDA help to keep
> > people in the dark(The mushroom complex) They fed us a lot of horse manure
> > and kept us in the dark as much as possible. There is absolutely no
> > benefit to drinking milk with the artificial bovine growth hormone. In
> > fact there are reasons why you would not want to drink it with respect to
> > social and environmental issues. From a health standpoint there are
> > potential risks. Harvard based studies has shown that levels of IGF-1
> > influences the risk of getting breast and prostrate cancer. Levels of
> > IGF-1 in normal milk are 1-9 nanograms/ml and with rbgh is 1-13. Women
> > with high levels of IGF-1 are 7X more likely to get breast cancer than
> > women with low levels and in men it is 4X more prostrate cancer. So you
> > can see why Monsanto does not want an informed public on this issue.
> >
> > When bio tech products benefit the consumer it will be easy to separate the
> > products, foods or commodities. For example suppose that some food could
> > eliminate Alzheimer and could do it at a very reasonable price. I do not
> > think we would hear that it is too expensive to segregate.
> >
> > Suppose for example that Pioneer was able to genetically engineer corn that
> > had the same effect as Viagra on men. Suppose also that there were no
> > other problems, no side effects and no environmental problems. Suppose
> > also that 25 g of corn flakes provided the effect and it cost only $2.00.
> > Do you think Pioneer would say it is too expensive to separate? The obvious
> > answer is a big NO. And why would that be the case? Because it would be
> > in their interest to segregate and it would be beneficial and profitable to
> > them. I know this maybe an outrageous example but it gets the point(no
> > pun intended) across.
> >
> > Sleep on that one.
> >
> > Bill Liebhardt
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> > 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
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> 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

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:45:19 -0600
From: mmiller@pcsia.com
Subject: USDA's Version of Food Safety?

>From http://ens.lycos.com/ens/dec99/1999L-12-15-09.html

"...'Irradiated fats tend to become rancid." (??more quickly??) "Even at
low doses, some irradiated foods lose 20 percent of sensitive vitamins such
as C, E, K, and B complex,' the association says. Ionizing radiation is so
powerful that it knocks electrons out of atoms and creates free radicals,
the group and other critics claim. "These free radicals react with food
components, creating new radiolytic products, some of which are toxic -
benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides - and some of which may be unique to
irradiated foods." Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown
increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage, the group claims."

Irradiation is another example of a technology searching for a problem to
justify it's existence. What happened to steam autoclaving so recently
touted as the solution to 0157 in meats caused by fecal contamination in
the packing plants? What about cleaning up the meat packing operation in
the first place?

Didn't a Purdue or Cornell study show the 0157 problem could be solved by
switching from corn to grass and allowing the animal's digestive track to
return to normal a few weeks before slaughter?

Just what we need, food with even fewer essential nutrients and more free
radicals than that which industrial ag is producing now.

Mike Miller

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:06:30 -0500
From: awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us
Subject: RE: USDA's Version of Food Safety?

Actually, the study showed that as little as 5 DAYS of grass or hay rather
than intensive grain feeding returned the rumen to its normal acidic state,
and 0157 can't survive in that environment. Even if we can't (or won't)
force the packing plants to clean up their act, we could stop 0157 at the
source, but it's too simple, and too 'cheap' a solution. We believe it just
gives us another tool in marketing our organic, grass finished beef.

Alison Wiediger
Au Naturel Farm
Smiths Grove, KY

> Didn't a Purdue or Cornell study show the 0157 problem could be solved by
> switching from corn to grass and allowing the animal's digestive track to
> return to normal a few weeks before slaughter?
>
>

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:32:04 -0500
From: Mark <markl@buylocalfood.com>
Subject: rBST FREE labeling is alive and well

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:07:48 -0800
>From: William Evans <williamevans@home.com>
>Subject: rBST FREE labeling is alive and wellRe: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1483
>
>. Some how Monsanto seems> to have gotten the gov. to make it illegal
>to label milk as free of added
>> hormones. This has always troubled me
> In California state at leaaast, ther's lots of dairy products labled "
>rBST FREE" ....is any other state /country really different????
>

Here in MA we work with a dairy cooperative that states on its carton that
"all of our cows are raised with care and love, and not treated with rbST."
The state has no problem with that. The only people I have heard complain
about that language are other dairy farmers who say that the cooperative
should not put that language on the carton because it makes other dairy
farmers look bad. Is safe to presume that these "other farmers" are using
rbST then? What's to keep them from not using it and putting it on their
cartons??

Mark
- ----------------------------------------------------
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA)
An independent non-profit organization.

http://www.buylocalfood.com

893 West Street
Amherst MA 01002-5001
T: 413-559-5338
F: 413-559-5404

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:05:06 -0500
From: "Hal Hamilton" <hhamilton@centerss.org>
Subject: FW: Externalities of UK agriculture

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jules Pretty [mailto:jpretty@essex.ac.uk]
Subject: Externalities of UK agriculture

Dear all

Thought you might like to see today's New Scientist report and leader.
Details of our work (Essex Univ, Euro Envt Agency, RSPB, CLM) on the
externalities of UK agriculture. Total annual costs - ?2.3 bn; equal to
?200+ per ha.

Merry Christmas to one and all - and don't ponder too long on those
external costs whilst munching on mince pies, turkey, plum pudding etc.

Warmest regards

Jules

http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991218/newsstory4.html

http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991218/editorial.html

***************************************************
Professor Jules Pretty
Director, Centre for Environment and Society
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK

Tel: +44-(0)1206-873323
Fax: +44-(0)1206-873416
E-mail: jpretty@essex.ac.uk
Website: http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/
****************************************************

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:43:26 +0100
From: wytze <geno@zap.a2000.nl>
Subject: Re: Spraying Bt Corn

Biotech Activists wrote:

> ================================
> >From List: Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)
> Date Posted: 12/16/1999
> Posted by: stauber@compuserve.com
> ================================
>
>
>
> NEWS 18/12/99
>
> This week's stories
> from New Scientist
> available online.
>
>
>
> Keep that spray
>
> Crops made resistant to pests still do
> better with chemicals
>
> FARMERS may need to douse their fields
> with yet more pesticides to
> get the best out of genetically modified
> plants. At least, that's the
> implication of patent applications filed
> by Novartis of Basle in Switzerland,
> one of the leading companies in the field.
>
> The applications (WO 99/35910 and WO
> 99/35913) were filed after
> scientists at Novartis realised that a
> wide spectrum of insect pests was
> attacking Bt maize, its major GM crop.
> Genes inserted into the maize
> enable it to make the Bt toxin, a
> bacterial protein that kills European corn
> borer larvae. These larvae chew their way
> into the stems of young maize
> plants and can kill them before they get
> established.
>
> But many GM plants that saw off the borer
> larvae were later attacked by
> sap-sucking insects. "Bt toxin has a
> rather narrow spectrum of activity, so
> you don't get control of all pests," says
> Walter Smolders, head of patents
> at Novartis Seeds.
>
> To find a way round the problem, Novartis
> scientists tried applying
> different combinations of the company's
> pesticides to the Bt maize. Their
> patents identify combinations of
> pesticides that could raise yields of the
> maize by 20 per cent.
>
> The same pesticides appear to increase the
> yields of other GM plants,
> including those engineered to resist the
> effects of herbicides. So
> Novartis has extended its patents to cover
> use of the pesticides on a
> long list of transgenic crops including
> maize, cereals, soya beans,
> potatoes, rice, cotton and mustard. If the
> patents are granted, this means
> they will also apply to crops from
> competitors such as Monsanto of St
> Louis, Missouri.
>
> Heinz Hammann, head of patents in
> Novartis's crop protection division,
> claims the pesticides mentioned in the
> patents are mostly
> environmentally benign, killing only the
> pests which attack the plants.
> Maize, for example, is vulnerable to
> sapsuckers such as the flea beetle
> (Phyllotreta agriotes) and various aphids.
> "Non-target species don't
> suck the plants, so they're not harmed,"
> he says.
>
> But some of the pesticides are less
> friendly. Carbamates, for example, act
> on the nervous system of pests and are
> known to affect birds, fish, game,
> bees, mammals and other farmland wildlife.
> And given that agribiotech
> firms have consistently argued that GM
> crops will reduce pesticide use,
> Novartis's patent applications are sure to
> be seized upon by groups that
> oppose the technology.
>
> Brian Johnson, head of the biotechnology
> advisory unit at English
> Nature, a conservation watchdog, says he
> wants to see evidence
> confirming Novartis's suggestion that the
> use of pesticides on GM crops
> outlined in its patent applications will
> be less environmentally damaging
> than conventional chemical treatment of
> ordinary maize. "It's the impact of
> the whole process on biodiversity that
> counts," he says. "But the impacts
> of what they are proposing are not known.."
>
> Andy Coghlan and Barry Fox
>
> From New Scientist, 18
> December 1999
>
> ================================
> How to Use this Mailing List
> ================================
>
> You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the biotech_activists mailing list.
>
> To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body of the message type:
> unsubscribe biotech_activists
>
> To post messages, send email to biotech_activists@iatp.org.
>
> For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to listserv@iatp.org.
> In the body of the message type:
> help
>
> For other questions email support@iatp.org

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

End of sanet-mg-digest V1 #1485
*******************************

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the comannd
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

Previous message: Storelli, Stephen: "State of California Issues Request for Proposals"