August 24, 1999

Subject: FWD Extensive Anti-Genetic Engineering Resource list+ Farming's genetic revolution has yet to materialise + New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup To Cancer + DIOXIN ON OUR PLATES + Japanese Choke on American Biofood + British 'Supergerm' Created For Defense and more

This whole email below was sent to a large media and environmental group list but not to the Earth Rainbow Network emailing list. It is posted here for reference.


Reviewing this amazing list. I now understand why the environmentalists have been so successful in the UK and Europe to bring the GE foods to the forefront of the public agenda. But that the UK government is still going ahead with plans to authorize tests for more GE crops in the field only underlines the reach and power of megacorporations such as Monsanto and Dupont to prevail over the will and active protests of so many organizations and concerned citizens.

We will never stop "them" here in North America, the planetary heartland of the bioengineering craze$$$, if hundreds of organizations and millions of consumers don't band together to save our food supply from being patented and owned forever by these greedy corporate vilains who simply don't care that we all get cancer and die from their Frankenfood.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH says nuf! :-((

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

Activist Mailing List -

GE - Resource list from Luke Anderson <>


There are hundreds of groups around the world campaigning on genetic
engineering issues. While some choose to focus on the genetic engineering
of crops, others focus on patenting. Some want complete bans, some the
labelling of genetically engineered products, and others moratoriums, while
others are simply concentrating on raising public awareness in any way they
can. Listed below are just a few of these groups and organisations-if you
don't find the information you are seeking here, many of these groups may
be able to put you in touch with other sources of information and support.
First points of contact in the UK

Genetic Engineering Network, PO Box 9656, London N4 4JY. Tel: 0181 374
9516. <> Valuable first point of contact which aims to
provide information that helps people to take action. Puts individuals in
touch with different national and international campaigns, and especially
local groups throughout the country. Offers help on a range of issues,
e.g. how to set up a campaign in your area, ideas for protests and things
you can do if you don't have much time to spare. Also publish bi-monthly
newsletter, Genetix Update.

Greenpeace UK 'True Food Campaign', Canonbury Villas, Islington, London, N1
2PN. Tel: 0171 865 8100.
<>" Working with consumers, food
professionals, retail outlets, gardeners, restaurants and the food
industry to provide practical ways to stop the genetic engineering of food
and to promote organic. Provide campaigning material including leaflets,
stickers, briefings etc. Greenpeace has 110 local groups around the
country, all of whom are campaigning on this issue. Daily news updates on
their website. See also Greenpeace International on p.125.

Friends Of the Earth Campaign for Real Food, 26-28 Underwood Street, London
N1 7JQ. Tel: 0171 490 1555, Fax: 490 0881. <> o/index.htm
Has 250 local groups campaigning on GE. Very active on government and
regulatory issues, and putting pressure on retailers. Also involved in
legal challenges on issues such as field trials and seed laws. FOE provides
free briefings and leaflets on GE as well as a monthly news update on their

Soil Association, Bristol House, 40-56 Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6BY.
Tel: 0117 914 2449, Fax: 0117 925 2504. <> Leading organic food and farming charity,
representing both farmers and consumers. Actively campaigning for a ban on
GE in agriculture in the UK. Provides free information on organic farming
and GE, including campaign leaflets, technical briefings, scientific
papers and info on what you can do.

Women's Environmental Network, 87 Worship Street, London EC2A 2BE. Tel:
0171 247 3327, Fax: 0171 247 4740.
<> WEN has a core group of
geneticists and biologists, and is very active and well informed on GE
issues. Information packs available with detailed information about
GE-related issues, and also practical campaigning resources with ideas for
action that can be taken by individuals and groups.

Totnes Genetics Group, PO Box 77, Totnes, TQ9 5ZJ. Tel: 01803 840098, Fax:
864591. <> Very active community-based campaign in South
Devon. Provides speakers, info, resources, ideas, support, street theatre,
and other ideas for local campaigning. Website contains contact details of
local groups throughout the UK, links to other groups and practical
campaigning information. Other campaigns in the UK
ActionAid, Campaigns, Hamlyn House, Macdonald Road, Archway, London N19
5PG. Tel: 0171 561 7611, Fax: 0171 281 5146. <> Active at a grass roots level in 30 countries. Working
on an international food rights campaign, and is increasingly focused on
GE and patenting. Published a report on Astra-Zeneca in May 99-see their

Campaign against Human Genetic Engineering, PO Box 6313, London N16 0DY.
<> Opposes the genetic engineering of humans. Also
working on related issues such as genetic discrimination and eugenics.

Compassion in World Farming, Charles House, 5A Charles Street, Petersfield
GU32 3EH. Tel: 01730 264208 / 268863, Fax: 01730 260791.
<> Concerned about the genetic
engineering of animals and xenotransplantation. Provides videos and other
resources suitable for use in schools, etc.

Earth First! UK <>
63 local groups in the UK. Activities include grassroots organising, civil
disobedience and direct action. Important network for radical environmental
activists and covers anti-GE protest in its monthly newsletter (contact
<> or send s.a.e. c/o Cornerstone Resource Centre,
16 Sholebroke Avenue, Leeds LS7 3HB. 01132 629 365).

The Gaia Foundation, 18 Well Walk, Hampstead, London NW3 1LD. Tel: 0171
435 5000, Fax: 0171 431 0551. <> Links with farmers,
scientists and grass roots organisations in Third World. Raises awareness
about the impact of GE and patenting in these countries.

Genetix Food Alert, c/o 23 Fleming Street, Glasgow G31 1PQ. Tel: 0141 554
6099, Fax: 0141 556 5589.
Initiative founded by the UK wholefood trade to source and supply GE-free
products. Provides practical information about these issues.

GeneWatch UK, The Courtyard, Whitecross Road, Tideswell, Buxton SK17 8NY.
Tel: 01298 871898, Fax: 01298 872531.
<> Specialises in the
science, ethics, risks and regulation of GE. Undertakes research and
analysis on its implications. Published a detailed report in June 1999 on
the releases of GE microorganisms into the environment.

Henry Doubleday Research Association (HDRA), Ryton Organic Gardens,
Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Coventry CV21 3LG. Tel: 01203 303517, Fax: 01203 639229.
Europe's largest organic association, which researches and provides advice
on organic gardening and growing. Runs schemes to preserve traditional
vegetable varieties which would otherwise be casualties of EC legislation.

International Society for Ecology and Culture, Apple Barn, Week,
Dartington, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6JP. <> Affiliated to the
International Forum on Globalisation. Write to ISEC for information on
globalisation/free trade issues.

The Pesticides Trust, Eurolink Centre, 49 Effra Road, London SW2 1BZ. Tel:
0171 274 8895, Fax: 0171 274 9084. <> A charity addressing the health and
environmental problems of pesticides and working for a sustainable future.
Has newsletter and publications list.

Other international and national organisations Action for Solidarity,
Equality, Environment and Development (ASEED), PO Box 92066, 1090AB
Amsterdam, Holland. Tel: 20 66 82 236, Fax: 20 66 50 166.
Global youth network focusing on issues of environment and development.
Initiates and coordinates actions and campaigns. ASEED Europe comprises
organisations and individuals in over 30 European countries.

Australian Gene Ethics Network (AGEN), 340 Gore St, Fitzroy 3065, Victoria,
Australia. Tel: 03 9416 2222, Fax: 03 9416 0767. <> Federation of groups and individuals in Australia
promoting critical discussion and debate on the environmental, social and
ethical impacts of GE.

Campaign for Food Safety (Formerly Pure Food Campaign), 860 Highway 61,
Little Marais, Minnesota 55614, USA. Tel: 218 226 4164, Fax: 218 226 4157.
<> Dedicated to healthy, safe,
and sustainable systems of food production. Acts as a global clearinghouse
for info on GE; offers grassroots technical assistance.

Council for Responsible Genetics, 5 Upland Road, Suite 3, Cambridge, MA
02140, USA. Tel: 617 868 0870, Fax: 617 491 5344. <> Focuses on human genetics issues including genetic
discrimination and patenting. Also active on biosafety and consumer 'right
to know' issues. Produces and distributes educational materials.

The Edmonds Institute, 20319-92nd Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington 98020,
USA. Tel: 425-775-5383, Fax: 425-670-8410. <> Conducts research, answers inquiries,
publishes policy analysis and scientific thought pieces, distributes
information, sponsors public workshops, provides expert witnesses at
national events and for international bodies engaged in decision-making.
Disseminates information about and criticism of technology assessment,
encourages pro bono research and policy analysis by scientists and
scholars, and seeks to create alliances and coalitions with like-minded
organisations and individuals. Contact: Beth Burrows.

Genetic Concern, Camden House, 7 Upper Camden Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: 353 1 476 0360, Fax: 353 1 476 0361. <> cconcern/
Provides info and promotes debate on GE issues. Has campaigned against the
releases of GE crops in Ireland, challenging them in the Irish Courts.

Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN), Girona 25, pral. E-08010
Barcelona, Spain. Tel: 34 93 301 1381, Fax: 34 93 301 1627.
<> International NGO with offices in
Spain and the Philippines, established in 1990 to help further a global
movement of popular action against the threat of genetic erosion. Very
well informed on patenting, biodiversity, etc.

Greeenpeace International, Chaussesstr. 131-10115 Berlin, Germany. Tel: 49
30 30 889914, Fax: 889930. International environmental organisation
that both lobbies and takes non-violent direct action. Opposed to the
release of genetically manipulated organisms into the environment. Their
new GE website includes info on a range of issues, as well as press
releases, information about actions, etc.

Organic Consumers Association, 860 Highway 61, Little Marais, MN 55614,
USA. Tel: 218 226 4792, Fax:218 226 4157. <> Protects the integrity of the organic label,
promotes sustainable agriculture, and opposes the use of genetic
engineering in food and farming.

Pesticide Action Network (PAN), North American Office (PANNA). 49 Powell
St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA. Tel: 415 981 1771, Fax: 415
981 1991. <> Has campaigned to replace pesticides with
ecologically sound alternatives since 1982. PANNA is one of five PAN
Regional Centers in Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America, Europe and North

Research Foundation For Science, Technology & Natural Resource Policy, A-60
Haus Khas, New Delhi 110016, India. Tel: 91 11 696 8077, Fax: 685 6795.
<> Focuses on biodiversity conservation,
food security, globalisation, patenting, genetic engineering, biosafety,
sustainable agriculture, WTO and GATT.

Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) 110 Osborne St., Suite
202, Winnipeg, Ontario, Canada R3L 1Y5 Tel: 204 453 5259, Fax: 204 925
8034. <> <> An international non-governmental
organisation dedicated to the conservation, sustainability and improvement
of agricultural biodiversity, and to the socially responsible development
of technologies useful to rural societies. RAFI is an important contact
for info on patenting, terminator technology, the biotech industry and the
loss of genetic diversity, and the relationship of these issues to human
rights, agriculture and world food security.

Third World Network, International Secretariat, 228 Macalister Road, 10400
Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 60 4 2266728 or 2266159, Fax: 2264505.
<> /bio.htm
Network of organisations and individuals involved in issues relating to
development, the Third World and North-South issues. Their website is a
useful source of information about biopiracy, patents, the WTO and GE.

Union of Concerned Scientists, National HQ, 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA
02238-9105, USA. Tel: 617 547 5552.
<> biotech.html
Alliance of 70,000 committed citizens and leading scientists who aim to
"augment rigorous scientific research with public education and citizen
advocacy to help build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world".
Provides a critique of the various applications of genetic engineering, and
supports sustainable alternatives. See Gene Exchange, p.127. Magazines,
Journals etc
Corner House Briefings, The Corner House, P.O. Box 3137, Station Road,
Sturminster Newton, Dorset DT10 1YJ, UK. <> Detailed briefings by a skilled
team of researchers, which include one on the issue of patenting, and
another on GE and World Hunger.

Corporate Watch, Tel: 01865 791391.
<> Magazine which addresses the power of
multinational corporations. From September 1999, the independent research
group (also called Corporate Watch) which publishes the magazine will be
providing information on the biotech industry as a resource for anti-GE

The Ecologist, Unit 18, Chelsea Wharf, 15 Lots Road, London SW10 0QJ.
Tel: 0171 351 3578, Fax: 0171 351 3617. Publishing radical green thought for 30 years.
Regular features and updates on issues related to genetic engineering and
the biotech industry.

Earth First! Journal, Contact: Earth First!, POB 1415, Eugene, OR 97440,
USA. Tel: 541 344 8004, Fax: 344 7688.
<> <> A forum for the radical
environmental movement: news and views of radical ecologists and
discussions of direct action. Published eight times a year.

The Gene Exchange index.html
A valuable resource, edited by Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon from the
Union of Concerned Scientists. Look up website for info on how to receive
by email. By post, send request to Direct Mail Administrator, UCS, Two
Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105.

GenEthics News, PO Box 6313, London N16 0DY, UK.
<> Founded by
geneticist Dr. David King. Bimonthly newsletter covering the ethical,
social and environmental issues raised by GE and human genetics.

Genetic Network News, c/o ngin, 26 Pottergate, Norwich NR2 1DX, UK.
<> Free newssheet published bi-monthly by
Norfolk Genetic Information Network. Send large sae for information. Also
see website.

Genetix Update see Genetic Engineering Network, p.122.

GeneWATCH (not to be confused with GeneWatch UK!) is a magazine produced by
the Council for Responsible Genetics (see p.125).

GeneWatch Briefings Valuable briefings from GeneWatch UK, see p.124.

GM-FREE magazine Tel: 01695 50504 <>
" .uk/pbrown/index.htm. Magazine which aims to
warn people of the risks to health and the environment from GE.

Manual for Assessing Ecological and Human Health Effects of Genetically
Engineered Organisms A two-volume, peer-reviewed manual written by a group
of scientists from a wide range of disciplines. Available for cost of
mailing from the Edmonds Institute (see p.125).

The Monsanto Monitor Same contact as ASEED Europe, p.124. A resource for
organisations and individuals campaigning against Monsanto and its

Permaculture Magazine Hyden House Ltd, The Sustainability Centre, East
Meon, Hants. Tel: 01730 823311. <> Quarterly
magazine. Can also be contacted for general info about permaculture,
including local contacts and details of the UK Permaculture Association.
Send 1 in stamps for a sample copy of the magazine.

RAFI Communiqu s Valuable and detailed analysis of patenting issues,
terminator technology and the life science industry. See RAFI, p.126.

The Ram's Horn S6 C27 RR#1, Sorrento BC, V0E 2W0, Canada. Tel/Fax: (250)
675-4866. <> Eight pages of information and analysis of the food
system, published monthly. Increasingly focused on the issues and dangers
posed by GE.

Seedling (see GRAIN for contact details). Quarterly newsletter which aims
to provide a platform for the exchange of news and analysis among people
engaged in GE issues. Free to groups and individuals in the Third World and
also to campaign groups in the West.

Selling Suicide: farming, false promises and genetic engineering in
developing countries Report published by Christian Aid and available from
them at PO Box 100, London SE1 7RT, or on the web at

The Splice of Life c/o The Genetics Forum, 94 White Lion Street, London
N1 9PS. Tel: 0171 837 9229, Fax: 0171 837 1141. The magazine produced by The Genetics Forum, a
UK watchdog on GE issues. It covers the social, environmental and ethical
implications of GE.

Third World Resurgence see Third World Network (TWN), p.126. Monthly
magazine published by TWN on the environment, health and basic needs,
international affairs, politics, economics, culture, etc. from Third World
Email information services
Genetic Engineering Network (GEN) List 1 A UK-based, free service; a
moderated list averaging about 5 emails per day. Includes information about
all aspects of GE with a close eye on worldwide resistance to the
technology (Archived as 'info4action' at <> since 1998). GEN
List 2 is a much quieter list which sends out GEN's newsletter as well as
action reports. Email <> to subscribe and state which of
the two lists you want to be on (all info in list 2 is covered by list 1).

BAN GEF Free US-run list with useful daily digest. For instructions send
email to <> with HELP in the Subject line.

BIO-IPR In-depth list put out by GRAIN (see p.125). Circulates information
about recent developments in the field of patenting related to
biodiversity, etc. To join, send the word "subscribe" (no quote marks) as
the subject of an email message to <>.

Center for Food Safety To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter,
Campaign for Food Safety News (formerly called Food Bytes), send an email
to <> with the simple message in the body of the text:
subscribe pure-food-action.

GENET Moderated list: information exchange among European NGOs and
grassroot groups (archived at <> since 1998). Email
<> for subscription details (service is not free).

GENTECH Unmoderated list about all aspects of genetic engineering
(archived at <> since 1995). Send a message with the word
"subscribe" in the subject to: <>.

Nginews Free e-mail bulletins from Norfolk Genetic Information Network.
Email <> with the word "subscribe".

NLP Wessex List Concentrates on crop issues. Subscribe on website:

Organic Consumers Association To subscribe to the free electronic
newsletter, Organic View, send an email to
<> with "subscribe" written in the body of
the text.

PANUPS Free weekly on-line news service from PANNA (see p.126).
Subscription information available on website

Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly Weekly news with searchable archive Send the word "Subscribe" by itself (no quote
marks) in an email to: <>.

WEN Local food list <> Biodiversity, local food and
sustainable agriculture. UK-based, but also contains international news.
Other information on websites
Ag BioTech InfoNet Focuses on scientific
reports and technical analysis of GE issues. Aims to provide a forum where
a broad spectrum of people and organizations can raise tough questions,
report new technical findings, and offer conflicting views.

Food 'n' Health 'n' Hope Visit this site to listen to (or download)
a song about a certain company.

Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers gedanger.htm
A series of articles and essays covers a wide range of issues including GE
and biological weapons, spiritual perspectives etc. Compiled by Dr Ron
Epstein, Philosophy Department, College of Humanities, San Francisco State
University, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA.

Genetix Snowball Website and handbook of the
Genetix Snowball, a "campaign of nonviolent civil responsibility", which
aims "to safely remove GE crops from the ground".

Ifgene Particular focus on the worldviews with
which people approach science, and the moral and spiritual implications of

List of GE test sites in the UK eries/
Visit this website to find out where your nearest test site is: just type
in your postcode or village/town name. Test site information can also be
obtained from the Department of the Environment, Tel: 0171 890 5275/5277.

OneWorld Online biotech/front.html
Dedicated to promoting human rights and sustainable development by
harnessing the democratic potential of the Internet. Highly regarded

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and
Technology <> A global network of scientists.
Website e range of science-based information about the hazards of GE. An
important resource if you want more scientific detail about these issues.

UK Five Year Freeze iance
Find out here how to join the UK coalition (over 90 national organisations
by July '99) calling for a five year 'freeze' on all releases of GE
organisms, all GE food imports, and all patents on food crops.

Wessex Natural Law Party
http://www.btinter Useful resource,
especially for farming-related issues. Contains lists of quotes about GE
from scientists, farmers and other public figures. Recommended books on
genetic engineering The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking
the World by Jeremy Rifkin, Tarcher/Putnam (New York), 1998. Very readable
overview of developments within the field of GE.

The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops by Jane Rissler and Margaret
Mellon, MIT Press, 1996. One of the key texts on GE and the environment.

Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity, British Medical Association, London,
1999. Covers the issue of GE and biological warfare.

Biopolitics edited by Vandana Shiva and Ingunn Moser, Zed Books, London,
1995. Essays analysing the politics of the biotech industry.

Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge by Vandana Shiva, Green
Books, 1998. Patenting, biopiracy and the 'new colonialism'.

Exploding the Gene Myth by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Beacon Press,
1997. A critique of genetic determinism.

Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in the Genetic Future by Bryan Appleyard,
Viking Press, New York, 1998. Explores human GE issues.

Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology by Brewster Kneen, New
Society, Gabriola Island, BC, 1999. Critique of GE as reductionist science,
motivated by corporate profit.

Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science
and Big Business by Mae-Wan Ho, Gateway Books, 1998. Scientific critique of
GE and mechanistic views of the genome.

Against the Grain by Mark Lapp and Britt Bailey, Earthscan, 1999. Covers
agricultural GE issues, such as the impacts of herbicide-resistant crops.

Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering our Diet by
Stephen Nottingham, Zed Books Ltd, 1998. Detailed information on issues
ranging from the science of GE to the regulatory systems in Europe & USA.

The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of Life by Andrew
Kimbrell, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. Accessible introduction to the
commercialisation of the human body.

For all those who are interested in the relationship between apathy and
action, and the response of the human heart to ecological crisis, I
recommend the following two books:

Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our World by Joanna
Macy and Molly Young Brown, New Society, Canada, 1998. A heartful book
which contains a wealth of practical information and exercises that can be
used by both groups and individuals.

World as Lover, World as Self by Joanna Macy, Parallax Press, Berkeley,
1991. Explores activism, ecological despair, systems theory and spiritual

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed for research and educational purposes only. **

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,
contains more information on genetic engineering as well as previous
genetic engineering news items. Subscription fee to genetic engineering
news is $35 (USD for those outside Canada) for 12 months, payable to
"BanGEF" and mailed to the above address. Or see website for details.

To subscribe, write to

* The Activist *

This is not about the world that we inherited from our forefathers,

It is about the world we have borrowed from our children !!


Please see my comment on this issue (above at the top of this webpage) in the accompanying email entitled "FWD Extensive Anti-Genetic Engineering Resource list". This material below was put aside over the course of the last 2 months for inclusion in another update on the fight to stop the genetic manipulations in our food supply - so some of this material is obviously not timely but still very useful to know about if you have not seen this yet.

And thank you for your attention to this important matter

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

Pest may beat GM insecticide

Scientists have shown that a key way of preventing pests becoming
resistant to the defences of genetically-modified (GM) crops may not be
effective. If confirmed by larger-scale experiments, it would mean that
GM crops developed at great expense would quickly become useless. It would
also be a boost to those opposed to GM crops, who argue that the
technology cannot solve problems of heavy pesticide use.

[1] The pest is the Pink Bollworm, the plant is Bt Cotton made by
Monsanto. For the full text of the article, go to

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999
From: steve diamond <>
Subject: interesting g.e. foods Petition

Thought you might like to see this. Best wishes, steve

Date: 7/20/99 6:38:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: (NLP News Flashes)



CBS-TV has just informed us that Dan Rather of CBS Evening News
will interview John Fagan, Ph.D., a molecular biologist who is
an eloquent international spokesperson concerning the hazards of
genetically engineered foods, on Wednesday, July 21, and
Thursday, July 22, during the 5:30 p.m. (Central time) national
broadcast of CBS Evening News. Please tune in according to your
time zone.

Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999
From: Mark Graffis <>
Subject: Farming's genetic revolution has yet to materialise

UK Contact: Claire Bowles

US Contact: New Scientist Washington office

[3]New Scientist

Most American farmers who have turned to genetically engineered
crops seem to be getting yields no better than farmers who grow
traditional varieties. They also appear to be using similar
quantities of pesticides.

Last week, the US Department of Agriculture released figures for
1997 and 1998 on the performance of modified cotton, maize and soya
beans. Some of the genetically modified crops produce an
insecticide called Bt. Others are modified to tolerate high doses
of the herbicide glyphosate.

To study the use of pesticides on these crops, the USDA divided the
country into various different regions. In seven of the 12
combinations of crops and regions, farmers using modified crops had
had to add the same quantities of pesticides to their fields as
those growing non-modified crops. To study yields, the USDA looked
at 18 crop/region combinations. In 12 of them, yields of modified
crops were no better.

Companies promoting genetically modified crops have argued that
farmers growing them will benefit from improved yields and reduced
pesticide costs. And they are taking heart from some improvements
seen within the USDA's analysis. In one region in the Midwest, for
instance, farmers planting Bt maize had yields 30 per cent higher
than those growing ordinary crops. "The analysis shows that crop
biotechnology works," claims Margaret Spike of the American Crop
Protection Association in Washington DC.

USDA officials, however, admit that at face value the figures don't
provide much support for those who argue that genetic engineering
will bring about a revolution in agriculture. But USDA economic
analyst Ralph Heimlich warns that the study could be misleading.
For instance, farmers who have embraced modified crops might have
had worse problems with pests to begin with.


Author: Kurt Kleiner, Washington DC
New Scientist magazine issue 7th July 1999




Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999
From: Mark Graffis <>
Subject: New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup To Cancer

Subject: Roundup and Cancer

PRESS RELEASE - 22 JUNE - New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer

A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael
Eriksson of Sweden [1], has revealed clear links between one of the world's
biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of
cancer [2].

In the study published in the 15 March 1999 Journal of American Cancer
Society, the researchers also maintain that exposure to glyphosate 'yielded
increased risks for NHL.' They stress that with the rapidly increasing use
of glyphosate since the time the study was carried out, 'glyphosate
deserves further epidemiologic studies.'

Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is the world's most widely used
herbicide. It is estimated that for 1998, over a 112,000 tonnes of
glyphosate was used world-wide. It indiscriminately kills off a wide
variety of weeds after application and is primarily used to control annual
and perennial plants.

71% of genetically engineered crops planted in 1998 are designed to be
resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as
Roundup. Companies developing herbicide resistant crops are also increasing
their production capacity for the herbicides such as glyphosate, and also
requesting permits for higher residues of these chemicals in genetically
engineered food. For example, Monsanto have already received permits for a
threefold increase in herbicide residues on genetically engineered soybeans
in Europe and the U.S., up from 6 parts per million (PPM) to 20 PPM.

According to Sadhbh O' Neill of Genetic Concern, 'this study reinforces
concerns by environmentalists and health professionals that far from
reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased
residues to which we as consumers will be exposed in our food.'

'Increased residues of glyphosate and its metabolites are already on sale
via genetically engineered soya, common in processed foods. However no
studies of the effects of GE soya sprayed with Roundup on health have been
carried out either on animals or humans to date,' she continued.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics from 1997
show that expanded plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans (i.e. soybeans
genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide) resulted in a 72%
increase in the use of glyphosate. According to the Pesticides Action
Network, scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be
herbicide resistant will actually triple the amount of herbicides used.
Farmers, knowing that their crop can tolerate or resist being killed off by
the herbicides, will tend to use them more liberally.

O' Neill concluded: 'The EPA when authorising Monsanto's field trials for
Roundup-ready sugar beet did not consider the issue of glyphosate. They
considered this to be the remit of the Pesticides Control Service of the
Department of Agriculture. Thus nobody has included the effects of
increasing the use of glyphosate in the risk/benefit analysis carried out.
It is yet another example of how regulatory authorities supposedly
protecting public health have failed to implement the 'precautionary
principle' with respect to GMOs.'

Further information: Sadhbh O' Neill at 01-4760360 or 087-2258599 or
(home) 01-6774052

[1] Lennart Hardell, M.D., PhD. Department of Oncology, Orebro Medical
Centre, Orebro, Sweden and Miikael Eriksson, M.D., PhD, Department of
Oncology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, 'A Case-Control Study of
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides', Cancer, March 15, 1999/
Volume 85/ Number 6.

The findings are based on a population-based case-control study conducted
in Sweden between 1987 - 1990. The necessary data was ascertained by a
series of comprehensive questionnaires and follow-up telephone interviews.
Dr. Hardell and Dr. Eriksson found that 'exposure to herbicides and
fungicides resulted in significantly increased risks for NHL'.

[2] Lymphoma is a form of cancer that afflicts the lymphatic system. It
can occur at virtually any part of the body but the initial symptoms are
usually seen as swellings around the lymph nodes at the base of the neck.
There are basically two main kinds of lymphoma, i.e. Hodgkin's disease and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The incidence of NHL has increased rapidly in most Western countries over
the last few decades. According to the American Cancer Society, there has
been an alarming 80% increase in incidences of NHL since the early 1970's.

To Unsubscribe: Email with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:


Food industry's mad scientists


We are now plagued by an unexpected fear: our daily food. From mad
cow disease to dioxin in chicken, from hormone contaminated beef,
transgenic soya, animals reared on bonemeal to contaminated mineral
water and Coca Cola, the list of adulterated foodstuffs grows
longer. There is a common thread to all these aberrations: the
pursuit of maximum profits by the food industry giants is
transforming farming and leaving little room for the farmer. Having
accommodated the big seed producers by agreeing to the introduction
of transgenic maize, the French government seems now to have
regained its senses and is calling for a moratorium on the
licensing of further GMOs in Europe.

Translated by Malcolm Greenwood

Japanese Choke on American Biofood

TOKYO - The video whirs, and an American food exporter's nightmare rolls
across the screen. A potato bug is shown munching on the deep green leaf of
a potato plant--genetically engineered in the United States, the narrator
says, to produce a toxin that kills Colorado potato bug larvae. The bug
falls off the leaf, flailing its legs in the air in what looks like insect

"They say this is safe, but I don't want to eat it. Do you?" asked the
filmmaker, Junichi Kowaka, in an interview.

Surveys show that most Japanese do not. In this land where food is
considered most delicious when eaten raw or as close to its natural state
as possible, genetically manipulated food is seen as synthetic, unwholesome
and definitely unappetizing.

To blunt a nascent consumer rebellion, the Japanese government has proposed
labeling bioengineered food to give consumers the freedom to reject it.
That in turn has alarmed the United States, which fears that the move could
threaten its $11-billion annual sales--including about $1.3 billion from
California--to Japan, the No. 1 market for U.S. agricultural exports.

Japan is not the only nation gagging at the idea of genetically altered
fare. A truly global food fight is underway. The outcome of the regulatory,
marketing and public perception battle that has been joined in Japan could
have far-reaching effects on what U.S. farmers plant next year, on the
skyrocketing U.S.-Japan trade imbalance and on the struggle between biofood
promoters and foes for the hearts and palates of consumers around the

At issue in the emotional political debate that has erupted worldwide is
how much to regulate and whether and how to label genetically modified
organisms, known in biospeak as GMOs. These organisms are created when new
genes--sometimes from another species--are introduced into a plant or
animal to produce "desirable" traits, such as resistance to cold, pests,
disease, spoilage or even a particular brand of herbicide. While U.S.
farmers are quickly increasing the acreage planted with GMO seeds--to 40%
or more of some crops--there is growing opposition in Europe, Japan and in
some Third World countries on environmental, health, philosophical or
religious grounds. The European Union has slapped restrictions on
genetically modified plants and passed a law requiring GMO foods to be

Well-organized environmental groups are crusading against what they have
branded "Frankenstein food," fanning doubts about the products from Iceland
to New Zealand. Anti-GMO protests have been staged in the Philippines,
India and Hungary, according to activists, who are flooding the Internet
with virulent attacks on biofoods. In London, where foes dumped bags of
bioengineered soybeans onto Downing Street in protest last month, a poll by
the Independent newspaper found that 68% of Britons were "worried" about
eating GMO food. Only 27% said they were happy to eat it. Not all countries
are hostile to foods altered by gene-splicing: GMO seeds reportedly have
received a warm welcome in Russia, China and Argentina. And plenty of
consumers have nothing against GMO foods so long as they know what is on
the menu. A 1994 poll in Australia, for example, found that 61% were happy
to try GMO foods, but 89% wanted them labeled. Australia and New Zealand
are now trying to set up a common labeling system. New Zealand Prime
Minister Jenny Shipley said earlier this month that consumers have a right
to know whether their food contains GMOs. Nevertheless, a heated battle
broke out last month at a U.N.-sponsored conference in Cartagena, Colombia,
where delegates from more than 130 countries failed to agree on an
international treaty to govern biosafety and trade in GMOs.

The U.S. government warned that the restrictions being debated in Cartagena
would paralyze international trade. According to media reports and
conference participants, the United States and five other agricultural
exporters that opposed labeling GMOs were bitterly accused by the other
nations of torpedoing a global environmental pact to safeguard the
interests of their farmers and biotech firms. The debate is by no means
limited to food. Genetically modified material is being used in a wide
range of products, from textiles to pharmaceuticals.

Food Draws the Most Emotional Response

Yet it is food that seems to generate the most emotional response. Consumer
advocates say that people must have the right to know--and thus
reject--food that has been subjected to genetic "tampering." Biotech
backers say that requiring such labels is tantamount to branding
demonstrably safe food as inedible and would raise food prices for all

Proponents of bioengineering also say "genetically enhanced" species are
essential to generate the crop yields needed to nourish the world's
exploding population and to reduce use of herbicides and pesticides. They
say the foods have been exhaustively tested and demonstrated to be safe
enough to pass muster with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as international regulators. Foes
assert that long-term studies on the effects of eating GMO foods have been
inadequate. They question the environmental risks of developing
pest-resistant or chemical-resistant crops, and they fear that bionic
organisms could crowd out native species.

A subtext in many countries is suspicion of scientific "miracles," new
technologies and imperfect regulators, and the perception that the U.S.
biotech industry has been heavy-handed in trying to shove new foods down
frightened consumers' throats, said Beth Burrows, president of the
nonprofit Edmonds Institute in Edmonds, Wash., who attended the Cartagena

Europeans have been sensitized to food-safety issues by the outbreak of
"mad cow" disease. In Japan, the credibility of the Ministry of Health and
Welfare was severely damaged by the 1996 revelation that its bureaucrats
had knowingly allowed the sale of HIV-tainted blood products--a scandal
that broke the same year that the ministry approved the first of 22 GMO
crops for human consumption here. Availability of GMO foods in Japan has
not led to acceptance. More than 80% of those questioned in a 1997
government survey said they have "reservations" about such foods, and 92.5%
favored mandatory labeling. Unease is beginning to translate into action.
The city of Fujisawa, near Tokyo, has banned all GMO foodstuffs from its
school lunches. A tofu maker has begun advertising its product as
"recombinant-DNA-soybean free." And a number of powerful food-buying
co-ops--which claim nearly 20 million members, or about 1 in every 6
Japanese--are trying to screen out or label GMO foods.

"It seems Americans only care about the quantity of their food, but
Japanese are concerned about the quality," filmmaker Kowaka said. "Nobody
wants to eat this stuff."

Kowaka is a food-safety activist with the Japan Descendants Fund, a
nonprofit group that has succeeded in provoking widespread concern among
Japanese consumers about chemical-emitting plastics in food packaging and
the use of post-harvest chemicals on food. Last year, a number of ramen
makers changed their packaging after Kowaka's group reported that chemicals
suspected of disrupting the human endocrine system leached from the plastic
bowls when boiling water was poured over the dried noodles. Kowaka's
current video, titled "The Dangers of Recombinant-DNA Food," has sold about
1,000 copies at $130 each and is being shown at lectures and gatherings by
consumer, environmental and religious groups, he said. The Japanese
government is countering anti-GMO groups like Kowaka's with a campaign to
convince a skeptical Japanese public that <b>genetically</b> <b>altered</b>
<b>foods</b> are not only safe but desirable. In fact, despite its draft
proposal for a GMO labeling law, the Japanese government has been actively
promoting biotechnology as a vital technology for the coming century and is
investing billions to try to turn Japan into a world-class competitor. It
is even attempting to genetically engineer strains of rice that will be
tastier and hardier than conventional varieties.

The politics of genetically engineered food here have been complicated by
the fact that all the GMO foods offered for sale so far have been imported.
Japanese companies have not dared introduce gene-spliced foods of their
own, and although farmers can legally plant GMO seeds, so far none has
chosen to do so, said Kazuhiko Kawamura, who deals with the labeling issue
at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Foreign food
producers complain that Japan's powerful agricultural interests are trying
to scare off consumers from GMO foods as part of a campaign to boost
domestic agriculture.

"Over the last 30 years, there has been a concerted effort here in Japan to
paint imported foods as being dangerous, as being less desirable," said
Dennis Kitch, Japan director of the U.S. Grains Council. The effort has
included everything from asserting to Japanese that their intestines are
ill designed for digesting Western beef to convincing them that foreign
produce is more chemical-laden than home-grown fare. Though false, U.S.
officials and industry sources say, such claims have succeeded in
instilling alimentary xenophobia. Kowaka's video is no exception. As the
narrator warns that "we Japanese are being used as guinea pigs" for
inadequately tested GMO foods, the camera shows unwitting children eating
French fries--by suggestion, those made from genetically altered plants
that kill potato bugs--at that archetypal American eatery, McDonald's.
"They think all imported food is bad. That gets to be protectionist," said
a U.S. government official who argues that GMO labeling should not be used
to reinforce unfounded consumer fears.

U.S. Wants Japan to Accept Standards

The United States has decided to require labels on genetically altered
foods that are nutritionally different from traditional fare, that might
contain allergens or that pose religious problems--such as a plant
containing a pig gene--if and when any are introduced. Yet it doesn't
require labeling of foods whose chemistry is essentially unchanged, solely
on the basis of genetic origin. GMO foes in the United States have filed
suit in an attempt to reverse that decision, but meanwhile, the U.S.
government is lobbying Japan to accept its standards. "We're asking them
not to have a labeling requirement that stokes the fear that these foods
are bad without any basis in fact," said a U.S. official, adding that there
is no evidence these foods are unsafe. Kowaka insisted, however, that a
potato with an inborn insecticide is no ordinary spud, and should bear a
warning label if it cannot be banned altogether.

The Japanese committee studying labeling for the Agriculture Ministry has
not yet ruled on the issue or decided what any label would say. The
influential American Chamber of Commerce in Japan warns that GMO labeling
"will create new nontariff trade barriers to imports." And while U.S.
officials are trying to keep their criticisms scientific and low-key, they
also have hinted to Japan that they may protest any mandatory labeling
requirement to the World Trade Organization--as they have done over the
European Union law.

Japanese consumer advocates are outraged by the American stance. Setsuko
Yasuda, who runs the "No! GMO" campaign for the Consumers Union of Japan,
said Americans should not meddle with Japan's right to regulate food safety
and quality.

If Americans truly believe in free trade and consumer choice, she said,
they should label GMO food for what it is and let international customers
make up their own minds.

"But to try to hide information [about product origin] and force-feed
people what they don't want to eat . . . is wrong," Yasuda said. "It is
American arrogance, and it will provoke anti-American sentiment here. You
will lose hearts around the world."

For Japan and the United States, the stakes in the GMO battle are high.
Japan absorbs nearly 20% of all U.S. food exports. With the American farm
economy ravaged by the Asian economic crisis, the affluent Japanese market
is one that farmers and food processors can ill afford to lose, grain
lobbyist Kitch said. Japan's decision on labeling will be vital, and not
just because of the size of its market; Tokyo's decisions tend to influence
regulators in other Asian capitals.

For Japanese, who must import more than half of the calories they consume
each day, the increasing prevalence of GMOs in their food supply reinforces
a feeling of food vulnerability.

For example, 97% of Japan's soybeans are imported, mostly from the United
States, and are turned into tofu, fermented miso, natto and other staples
of the Japanese diet. However, 28% of last year's U.S. soybean crop came
from GMO seeds, according to the American Soybean Assn. That percentage
could double when farmers plant this spring's crop. "We will have to find
non-GMO sources," Yasuda said, adding that if American farmers want Japan's
business, they will have to segregate crops.

Trouble is, U.S. farmers often plant GMO and traditional crops in the same
field, use the same machinery to harvest and transport them, and pour their
grains into container ships that bring a river of food across the Pacific
to Japan.

However, DNA testing is so sensitive that it can detect one GMO part per
trillion, Kitch said. That means a few stray kernels of GMO corn could
"contaminate" bushels. To certify a product GMO-free would require costly
testing and segregation at every stage in the processing and distribution
chain, he said.

These obstacles have so far prevented Europe from fully implementing its
labeling law, industry sources said.

As GMO crops or livestock come to dominate the U.S. market, genetically
pristine products will become scarcer and more costly. No one knows how
much more expensive--though some estimate a "GMO-free" label could add 30%
or more to the price, and wonder whether Japanese consumers will be willing
to pay it.

Japan's draft proposal on labeling does not specify how pure a non-GMO
product would have to be. But without a threshold standard, a can of
California tomato paste containing a smidgen of cornstarch that might have
been made partly from GMO corn could wind up with a warning label--even if
the tomatoes are all natural, Kitch said.

Consumer advocate Yasuda and her allies say that imperfect labeling is
better than none. And the fewer the "food miles" from farm to dinner table
the better, they argue, even if home-grown fare is more costly. "Now, with
globalization, we don't know where our food comes from, how it is produced,
and what kind of contaminants it might contain," Yasuda said.

"Does free trade automatically mean that the cheapest food is the best
food? We don't think so."

7. Potential for Food Labelling of Vegan Products in Canada

Health Canada is reviewing its Nutrition Labelling Policy and is currently
in its national consultation phase. As it exists now, nutrition labelling
in Canada is voluntary. Health Canada is looking to move towards either a
voluntary system with incentives, or a mandatory system with exemptions.

Go to and click on
"Nutrition Labelling..What's your opinion?"

In various sections they ask for your opinion. The bottom box is open for
any additions.

Please take a few minutes to mention that you'd like to see 'Contains no
animal products' or 'Suitable for a vegan diet' or something similar on

Also, mention that you'd like labelling to designate whether ingredients in
the product have been genetically manipulated.

Thanks all, this would be a huge step, please forward this far and wide!!!
Go Canada!

- Dave
Victoria Green Pages =-


British 'Supergerm' Created For Defense

'Ethnic Specific' Germs Discussed By Joe Murphy London Sunday Telegraph 8-3-99 Britain's Ministry of Defense has disclosed that it is creating lethal genetically modified (GM) organisms in a secret program to prepare defenses against a new era of germ warfare. Tests of the potential of "GM supergerms" are being conducted at Porton Down, the headquarters of the government's chemical and biological defense establishment. The research uses similar genetic engineering techniques to those that create GM foods sold in supermarkets. It was launched to study the implications should such technology be developed for weapons of mass destruction by an enemy power. The government has kept the experimental research secret, but the London Sunday Telegraph has learned it has been going on for at least five years. The theoretical threat posed by GM germs has alarmed the Ministry of Defense. Genetic techniques can make biological weapons more dangerous to humans and less easy to detect or counter.

It is already feasible to use genetic engineering to introduce a lethal toxin into a pathogen -- an organism that attacks humans -- to increase its killing potential. Organisms can also be modified to resist antidotes. In the future, it may be possible to wipe out an army with mutant germs that would then be made benign by a genetic flaw, enabling an enemy force to invade in safety. An enemy may be more ready to deploy such "controllable" GM weapons than existing organisms such as anthrax. Ultimately, it may be possible to develop an "ethnic destruction" germ, that is, an organism that would attack the genes of a particular race.

In January, a study by the British Medical Association warned that a plague or toxin designed to kill specific racial groups could be only five to 10 years away. Britain has signed treaties prohibiting the creation of biological weapons for military purposes. The sole reason for the research at Porton Down is to develop protection measures against any threat posed to the population or to servicemen. A Ministry of Defense spokesman said: "To perform this task our scientists have to be at the cutting edge of biological scientific knowledge, including the techniques of genetics."

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999
From: "Beverly B. Ferguson" <>
Subject: Fantastic Fact

Hi Jean,

Read this on a package of Hummus mix thought you might find it interesting:-))

Amount of water to produce 1 pound of wheat: 25 gallons

Amount of water to produce 1 pound of beef: 2,500 gallons

The Hunger Site will allow you to feed a hungry person every day at no cost
to yourself. You can feed one hungry person everyday just by going to the
website and clicking a button. The food is paid for by corporate sponsors.
This is an easy way to do a really good deed. Please visit today and pass
the word.


Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999
From: Teresa Perez <>
Subject: [wrmfriends] WRM Bulletin 25

"Additionally, a new threat to biodiversity is appearing within the
plantation model: that of "super-trees" produced by genetic engineering.
Such monsters, claimed as perfect timber producers because of their
ability to produce wood in very short rotation periods, will constitute a
real nighmare: the current negative impacts of "standard" fast-growing
tree species would be multiplied with the use of these new "trees", with
the added threat of the unknown consequences that these genetically
modified organisms might have on the environment. Will the Convention on
Biological Diversity do nothing about all this?"