July 26, 2000

Subject: GMO Update #26: The GE Food Alert Campaign + The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans + Genetically Engineered Spider Toxin Threatens Butterflies

(Note as you see this is the 26th such Update I've prepared for a separate GMO e-list on which you may be added upon requesting it to me at globalvisionary@cybernaute.com. These updates are not posted on any website. So if you want to follow this ongoing worldwide fight against GMOs, being on this other list is a good way to start...)

Hello everyone,

I've decided to share with you this GMO Update #26 I sent to my GMO e-list last week as well as to my worldwide media e-list, because I this is all important stuff to know about as you will see. In case anyone is interested to receive such GMO Updates from time to time, simply ask me to be added to the GMO list.

The first part is about the beginning of a 6 month-long Food Alert campaign in the U.S. designed to pressure major food companies to stop using genetically engineered ingredients in their products.

The second one describes the not-so-distant possibility of the emergence of a genetically enhanced human species, a frankly nightmarish, Frankensteinish scenario currently promoted by top U.S scientists and undoubtedly the cause for possibly the biggest global fight of the 21st century against all those mad scientists who want to play God with the human genome.

The third one is about another largely unreported global biopollution through the imminent field trials of baculoviruses modified with a gene inducing the production of a toxin from one of the world's deadliest spiders in an attempt to replace chemical pesticides. Once introduced into the environment, this virus which self-replicates in unpredictable ways, could play havoc with the ecosystems of the planet and even become a threat to humans because it can infect human liver cells.

I don't know about you, but frankly I have had enough of all this profit-driven mad rush towards biotech hell. As long as we will let the corrupted politicians we have cavort with the rich and foolish, our future will remain very grim indeed.

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

IMPORTANT! See also "FDA Taken To Court By Its Own Scientists" at

From: "The Campaign" <label@thecampaign.org>
Subject: The GE Food Alert Campaign
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000

Dear Health Freedom Fighters,

On Wednesday, a coalition of activist groups launched a new campaign to
pressure major food companies to stop using genetically engineered
ingredients in their products. Campbell Soup is the first major company
targeted. However, since Greenpeace has already had an action going against
Kellogg's, they are also included in this initial effort. You can send an
e-mail to Campbell's, Kellogg's and the FDA by going to the web site at:

The action is called the Genetically Engineered Food Alert. There are seven
primary organizations behind the GE Food Alert. They are: Center for Food
Safety, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
National Environmental Trust, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide
Action Network North America, and the State Public Interest Research Groups.

Over 250 organizations and individuals have endorsed the three principle
points of the GE Food Alert. Supporters include chefs, religious leaders,
doctors, environmental and health leaders, farm interests and scientists.
The statement of endorsement reads:

"Genetically engineered food ingredients or crops should not be allowed on
the market until:

1) Independent safety testing demonstrates they have no harmful effects on
human health or the environment,

2) They are labeled to ensure the consumer's right-to-know, and

3) The biotechnology corporations that manufacture them are held responsible
for any harm."

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has signed on to endorse
these three points.

The national press conference in Washington, DC featured Congressman Dennis
Kucinich, primary sponsor of the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know
Act. Congressman Kucinich sang the Campbell Soup song with new lyrics about
GE foods. I was a speaker at the event in Seattle that featured a 25 foot
genetically engineered inflatable salmon.

The announcement of the Genetically Engineered Food Alert was kept
relatively quite without much lead publicity because promoters did not want
to tip off the food companies and the biotech industry in advance. And it
seemed to work. Most of the supporters of biotechnology seemed to have been
surprised by the public events that took place on Wednesday.

Below are five articles about the Genetically Engineered Food Alert. The
first is from the Washington Post, the second is from the New York Times,
the third is from Reuters news service, the fourth is from Bloomberg news.

The fifth article below is from a group called the National Consumer
Coalition's Food Group. This is a new group that is a front for the
promoters of genetically engineered foods, irradiated foods and pesticides.
This is another example of an food industry backed organization that gives
themselves a name that sounds like they represent consumers. But they really
represent the interests of industry.

The National Consumer Coalition's Food Group found out about the GE Food
Alert campaign on Wednesday morning and attempted to respond. Besides the
Washington, DC press conference, there were some activists in the nation's
capitol that demonstrated outside of a Safeway in the Georgetown area. NCC
quickly put together a letter to Safeway (included below) and showed up to
stage a counter-demonstration. NCC had ten people and the anti-biotech
demonstrators had three times that number, along with lots of signs and

The National Consumer Coalition's Food Group is calling the supporters of
the GE Food Alert "a new BioLuddite coalition." In truth, supporters of the
Genetically Engineered Food Alert are concerned consumers, scientists,
farmers, chefs and others who are asking for three very reasonable steps. We
would like genetically engineered foods to be tested for safety, we want
them labeled, and if they do create problems, we want the companies who
manufacture them to be held responsible.

The biotech industry has a $50 million budget to promote their untested,
unlabeled gene-altered products. But according to the polls, 81% of the
public, which means over two hundred million Americans, would like these
experimental foods labeled. We have public support on our side and we
continue to get more and more organized. No wonder the promoters of
genetically engineered foods are resorting to calling us names.

Craig Winters

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049
Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: label@thecampaign.org
Web Site: www.thecampaign.org

Groups Launch Campaign Against Biotech Foods

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday , July 20, 2000 ; A05

Opponents of biotechnology have begun a national campaign to pressure major
food companies to stop using ingredients made through genetic engineering,
or at least to label their products that contain genetically modified

A coalition of activist groups announced yesterday that it has selected
Campbell Soup Co. as the first of six targets, and that it would encourage
consumers to protest directly to the company about its use of genetically
engineered ingredients.

"As an American family icon associated with trust and wholesomeness,
Campbell's has a responsibility to the American public," said Andrew
Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, one of seven
groups leading the campaign. He said that Campbell's does not use
genetically engineered ingredients in Europe, and should do the same in the
United States.

Campbell spokesman John Faulkner said yesterday that the company has no
intention of avoiding the genetically engineered corn and soybeans it uses
in the United States, and that foods made with the help of biotechnology are
"equally safe and nutritious" as conventional foods. He said the company
does not use genetically modified ingredients in Europe because the "supply
chain" there is free of genetically modified foods. "Things are different in
the U.S."

The anti-biotech campaign comes on the heels of a $50 million, nationwide
effort by the biotechnology industry to promote the safety and usefulness of
its products. The issue has been a highly contentious one in Europe for
several years, and the newly organized campaigns for and against biotech
suggest that it may become a higher profile fight in the United States as

The Food and Drug Administration has generally regarded plants and grains
made through gene modification as no different from conventional crops. The
National Academy of Sciences has largely supported the technology, saying in
a recent report that it is safe and useful, though in need of increased

But opponents contend the technology has not been well tested, and that
American consumers have become "guinea pigs" for a wide array of genetically
modified products. They also say that the unplanned spread of modified seeds
could have potentially harmful effects on the environment.

Their campaign against individual food companies parallels earlier European
campaigns, and is designed to raise public concern before the September
release of new Clinton administration rules on biotechnology. The activists
believe that the proposed administration rules--which call for voluntary
labeling of genetically engineered foods and mandatory notification when new
biotech products are invented--are inadequate.

Genetically engineered foods are widespread in the United States;
approximately one-third of the corn supply, for instance, comes from biotech
sources. The biotechnology industry has opposed the additional government
testing the activists are demanding, and has also opposed the labeling of
genetically engineered foods.


The New York Times

July 19, 2000

Food Companies Urged to End Use of Biotechnology Products

A coalition of consumer and environmental groups announced yesterday what
they hope will be the biggest and best-organized effort yet in the United
States to pressure food companies to abandon the use of genetically modified

Starting with the Campbell Soup Company, the coalition said it would target
well-known food companies and try to generate thousands of consumer letters,
phone calls and signatures on petitions urging them to stop using
genetically modified foods until more testing was done. The group also wants
all companies to label products that contain such ingredients.

In Europe, food companies have largely abandoned the use of such ingredients
because of consumer opposition fanned by aggressive campaigns. But in the
United States, consumers have expressed little concern about genetically
modified foods and many are not even aware that such foods are being sold.

"This is going to be the first sort of sustained effort on the European
model," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust,
one of the groups in the coalition, the Genetically Engineered Food Alert.


From: Eric Fawcett <fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca>
Date: 17 juillet, 2000
Subject: The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans

By Marcy Darnovsky, WHO works with the Exploratory Initiative on the New
Human Genetic Technologies, and teaches courses in the politics of
science, technology, and the environment in the Hutchins School of Liberal
Studies at Sonoma State University, California.

At the cusp of dot-com frenzy and the biotech century, a group of
influential scientists and pundits has begun zealously promoting a new
bio-engineered utopia. In the world of their visionary fervor, parents
will strive to afford the latest genetic "improvements" for their
children. According to the advocates of this human future (or, as some
term it, "post-human" future), the exercise of consumer preferences for
offspring options will be the prelude to a grand achievement: the
technological control of human evolution.

My first close encounter with this techno-eugenic enthusiasm was in a 1997
book written for an unconverted lay audience by Princeton geneticist Lee
M. Silver. In Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (New
York: Avon Books), Silver spins out scenarios of a future in which
affluent parents are as likely to arrange genetic enhancements for their
children as to send them to private school.

Silver confidently predicts that upscale baby-making will soon take place
in fertility clinics, where prospective parents will undergo an IVF
procedure to create an embryo, then select the physical, cognitive, and
behavioral traits they desire for their child-to-be. Technicians will
insert the genes said to produce those traits into the embryo, and implant
the embryo in the mother's womb. Nine months later, a designer baby will
be born. After a few centuries of these practices, Silver believes,
humanity will bifurcate into genetic ubermenschen and untermenschen--and
not long thereafter into different species. Here is Silver's prediction
for the year 2350: "The GenRich--who account for 10 percent of the
American population--all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in
the laboratory....The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary class of genetic
aristocrats....All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment
industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the
GenRich class."

How do the other 90 percent live? Silver is quite blunt on this point as
well: "Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers." That
rich and poor already live in biologically disparate worlds can be argued
on the basis of any number of statistical measures: life expectancy,
infant mortality, access to health care. Of course, medical resources and
social priorities could be assigned to narrowing those gaps. But if Silver
and his cohort of designer-baby advocates have their way, precious medical
talent and funds will be devoted instead to a technically dubious project
whose success will be measured by the extent to which it can inscribe
inequality onto the human genome. Silver pushes his vision still further:
"[A]s time passes,...the GenRich class and the Natural class will become
the GenRich humans and the Natural humans--entirely separate species with
no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each
other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."

Silver understands that such scenarios are disconcerting. He counsels
realism. In other words, he celebrates the free reign of the market and
perpetuates the myth that private choices have no public consequences:
"Anyone who accepts the right of affluent parents to provide their
children with an expensive private school education cannot use
`unfairness' as a reason for rejecting the use of reprogenetic
technologies....There is no doubt about it...whether we like it or not,
the global marketplace will reign supreme."

When I first read Silver's book, I imagined that these sorts of bizarre
prognostications must be the musings of a lab researcher indulging in
mad-scientist mode. I soon learned differently. They are not ravings from
the margins of modern science, but emanations from its prestigious and
respected core. Silver vividly and accurately represents a technical and
political agenda for the human future that is shared by a disturbing
number of Nobel laureate scientists, biotech entrepreneurs, social
theorists, bioethicists, and journalists.

Since the late 1990s, this loose alliance has been publicly and
energetically promoting the genetic technology known as "human germline
engineering"-- modifying the genes passed to our children by manipulating
embryos at their earliest stages of development. Such genetic
modifications would be replicated in all subsequent generations, providing
supporters with the basis to claim that "we" are on the brink of "seizing
control of human evolution." Frank about their commitments to control and
"enhancement," advocates of human germline engineering claim that the
voluntary parental participation they foresee refutes any characterization
of their project as "eugenic." With public conferences, popular books,
scholarly articles, websites, and mainstream media appearances, they are
waging an all-out campaign to win public acceptance of their
techno-eugenic vision.

The promoters of a designer-baby future believe that the new human genetic
and reproductive technologies are both inevitable and a boon to humanity.
They exuberantly describe near-term genetic manipulations--within a
generation--that may increase resistance to diseases, "optimize" height
and weight, and boost intelligence. Further off, but within the lifetimes
of today's children, they foresee the ability to adjust personality,
design new body forms, extend life expectancy, and endow
hyper-intelligence. Some even predict splicing traits from other species
into children: In late 1999, for example, an ABC Nightline special on
human cloning speculated that genetic engineers would learn to design
children with "night vision from an owl" and "supersensitive hearing
cloned from a dog."

How plausible are such scenarios? Because human beings are far more than
the product of genes--because DNA is one of many factors in human
development--the feats of genetic manipulation eventually accomplished
will almost certainly turn out to be much more modest than what the
designer-baby advocates predict. But we cannot dismiss the possibility
that scientists will achieve enough mastery over the human genome to wreak
enormous damage--biologically and politically.

Promoting a future of genetically engineered inequality legitimizes the
vast existing injustices that are socially arranged and enforced.
Marketing the ability to specify our children's appearance and abilities
encourages a grotesque consumerist mentality toward children and all human
life. Fostering the notion that only a "perfect baby" is worthy of life
threatens our solidarity with and support for people with disabilities,
and perpetuates standards of perfection set by a market system that caters
to political, economic, and cultural elites. Channeling hopes for human
betterment into preoccupation with genetic fixes shrinks our already
withered commitments to improving social conditions and enriching cultural
and community life.

Germline engineering is now common in laboratory animals, though it
remains at best an imprecise technology, requiring hundreds of attempts
before a viable engineered animal is produced. Human germline manipulation
has not been attempted: The only kind of human genetic procedures
currently practiced involve efforts to "fix" or substitute for the genes
of somatic (body) cells in people with health problems that in some way
reflect the functions of genes.

In about five hundred "gene therapy" clinical trials since the early
1990s, doctors have tried to introduce genetic modifications to patients'
lungs, nerves, muscles, and other tissues. These efforts have been largely
unsuccessful. In late 1999, their safety was also called starkly into
question by the death of an 18-year-old enrolled in a clinical trial, and
by ensuing revelations of almost 700 other "serious adverse effects" that
researchers and doctors had somehow failed to report to the proper
regulatory authorities. Some observers have commented that gene therapy
would more accurately be called "genetic experiments on human subjects."

Many people are reluctant to oppose human germline engineering because
they believe that "genetics" will deliver medical cures or treatments. But
there is no reason that we cannot forgo germline engineering and still
support other genetic technologies that do in fact hold promising medical
potential. In fact, the medical justifications for human germline
engineering are strained, while its ethical and political risks are

Fortunately, the distinction between human germline engineering and other
genetic technologies (including somatic genetic engineering) is a
reasonably clear technical demarcation. In many countries, this
demarcation is being drawn as law. Legislation that would ban human
germline engineering and reproductive cloning is making its way through
the Canadian parliament. Germany's Embryo Protection Act of 1990 makes
human cloning and germline engineering criminal acts, and the Japanese
legislature is considering establishing prison terms for human cloning. A
number of other European countries forbid cloning and germline engineering
indirectly by outlawing non-therapeutic research on human embryos.
Twenty-two European countries have signed a Council of Europe bioethics
convention that includes similar restrictions. In the United States,
however, neither federal law nor policy forbids human germline engineering
or cloning, though federal funds cannot be used for any kinds of human
cloning experiments.

In order to bring the new human genetic technologies under social
governance, strong political pressure and a broad social movement will be
necessary. Though no such movement currently exists, efforts to alert and
engage a variety of constituencies are getting underway.

The movement that this work aims to catalyze will need to draw in a wide
range of constituencies, and encompass a variety of motivations. Some
participants will base their opposition to a techno-eugenic future on
their commitments to equality and justice, and to human improvement
through social change rather than technical fix. Others will be moved by
the threats to human dignity and human rights, and the horror of treating
children as custom-made commodities, that germline engineering and cloning
entail. Still others will find their primary inspiration in the
precautionary principle, or their wariness of techno-scientific hubris and
a reductionist world view, or their objections to corporate ownership of
life at the molecular level, or their skepticism about the drastic
technological manipulation of the natural world.

It will be far easier to prevent a techno-eugenic future if we act before
human germline manipulation develops further, either as technology or
ideology. This is a crucial juncture: a window that the campaign for human
germline engineering is trying to slam shut. Your participation is
urgently needed.

(This article is appearing as a Different Takes issue paper from the
Hampshire College Population and Development Program. A longer version is
forthcoming as "The Case Against Designer Babies: The Politics of Genetic
Enhancement," in Brian Tokar, ed. Redesigning Life? The Worldwide
Challenge to Genetic Engineering, Zed Books.)

The Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies (466
Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133, USA, phone: 415-434-1403) is
working to oppose genetic technologies especially human germline
engineering and reproductive cloning, that foster eugenic ideologies and
objectify and commodify human life. To subscribe to its free on-line
newsletter, or for other inquiries about becoming involved, please e-mail
Marcy Darnovsky at <teel@adax.com>.

Books opposing techno-eugenics:

Andrews, Lori. The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive
Technology. New York: Henry Holt, 1999.

Appleyard, Bryan. Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in the Genetic Future.
New York: Viking, 1998.

Hubbard, Ruth and Elijah Wald. Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1997.

Kimbrell, Andrew. The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and
Marketing of Life. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.

Rifkin, Jeremy. The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking
the World. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam, 1998.

Books supporting techno-eugenics:

Pence, Gregory E. Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.

Silver, Lee. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a
Brave New World. New York: Avon, 1997.

Web sites opposing techno-eugenics:
Council for Responsible Genetics http://www.gene-watch.org
Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering and its Dangers

Web sites supporting techno-eugenics:
UCLA Program on Medicine, Technology and Society (GregoryStock, director)

From: Bflyspirit@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
Subject: Genetically Engineered Spider Toxin Threatens Butterflies

July 19, 20000

Genetically Engineered Spider Toxin Threatens Butterflies

Can a deadly spider replace chemical pesticides? Could this be a threat to
human livers and human health?

Viruses given a gene for a toxin from one of the world's deadliest spiders
could replace chemical pesticides, say researchers in the US. They plan to
carry out field trials, although there are fears about the wisdom of
releasing such viruses.

Glenn King of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington and
his colleagues recently identified a unique family of toxins in the venom of
a funnel-web spider. These neurotoxins are lethal when injected into insect
tissues, yet have no effect if eaten by insects or other animals (Nature
Structural Biology, vol 7, p 505).

King's team is now engineering the gene for one of these toxins into
baculoviruses, common viruses that infect certain moths and butterflies, and
have long been used as "biopesticides." When the modified baculovirus infects
a butterfly or moth, the insect's cells should start to produce the toxin,
killing it faster than wild viruses. Because the host butterfly or moth) dies
quickly, before much virus can replicate, the modified virus shouldn't
persist in the environment, say the researchers. Critics contend that the
risk to butterfly and human populations and survival is not worth taking

"I welcome a potentially environmentally friendly pest control but it's
abundantly clear we need to be more firm about risk issues," comments George
McGavin, an entomologist at Oxford University. "If we are not 100 per cent
sure, it shouldn't be in the field."

There have already been several field trials worldwide of baculoviruses given
a gene for a scorpion toxin (New Scientist, 21 January 1995, p 6). However,
most of the scorpion toxin made in infected insects fails to fold into the
correct shape, says King. By contrast, tests in bacteria suggest that almost
100 per cent of the spider toxin should fold properly, making the virus

King thinks engineering toxin genes into viruses is preferable to adding them
to plants, such as Bt maize. Not only does it mean that people do not have to
eat plants that produce insecticidal toxins, but only target insects will be
affected, he says. "These viruses can be exquisitely specific, right down to
infecting individual species," King claims. "This means that only the pest
insects will be killed whilst beneficial insects such as bees remain

However, critics fear that the virus will spread into the environment and
affect other kinds of butterflies and moths. "A containment environment
could not possibly hold a virus," says McGavin, who opposed trials of a
scorpion toxin virus in Oxfordshire in the 1990s. "If you could get a
specific baculovirus it would be great, but baculoviruses do pass on {to
other species}."

"This is problem that really concerns us," said Alan Moore of the Butterfly
Gardeners Association, a local group that advocates for the conservation of
butterflies and their habits. This is at least the third time that
Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs have been targeted against butterflies.

Bt-corn has genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis spliced into the
plant genes and its toxin is carried by wind-driven pollen to the leaves of
milkweed where they can poison monarch caterpillars feeding on milkweed. "I
think this clearly shows transgenic corn could be a serious threat to
monarchs," said Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist with the New York-based
Environmental Defense Fund in a story published by the San Francisco
Chronicle about Bt-corn . "I doubt if it would push them over the edge by
itself, but it adds substantially to the other risks they face."

Moore makes the point that the industry states that Bt-corn alone could not
push monarchs and other butterflies over the edge, but a combination of other
Monsanto and industry innovations just might. "Now we have Roundup ready
crops and spider poison enhanced butterfly pathogens to deal with. Roundup
ready crops are a direct threat in that they target milkweed, the monarch's
host plant, as well as a whole spectrum of annual and perennial weeds for
elimination. Many of these weeds are host plants for other butterflies as
well," says Moore

There are also fears that the toxin gene might be transferred to other
viruses. "There is no instance of a toxin gene jumping from virus A to virus
B," says Bruce Hammock of the University of California, Davis, who is also
working on modified baculoviruses. "But if it jumped, the new virus would
become less effective."

Jenny Cory of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxford agrees transfer
of the toxin gene is unlikely, but thinks further tests would be helpful.
"It's a vicious circle," she says, "you have to do a risk assessment before
you do the experiment but we don't know all the risks without doing field
experiments in the first place."

"Soon after GM virus were developed for insect control it was found that
baculovirus were capable of infecting human liver cells," says Joe Cummins,
Prof. Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario. "For that reason
baculovirus vectors were developed to treat liver disease. Interestingly, the
fact that baculovirus can infect human liver cells seems to have been ignored
by those developing the virus for commercial pest control. The following
discussion will deal with the use of baculovirus vectors and their safety. I
understand that there has been a great deal of pressure to hasten approval of
the GM baculovirus for pest control."

"Ecological considerations for the impact of recombinant baculovirus
insecticides have been studied extensively. Impact on non-target insects is
extrapolated from insects of related phylogeny, a practice difficult to
defend. The recombinant baculovirus were very persistent and capable of
reshaping an ecosystem."

"Baculovirus is a circular DNA duplex, it replicates in the insect cell
nucleus and replication is prone to the generation of defective genomes by
deletion. The mode of virus replication seems to make the recombinant virus
highly unpredictable and prone to generating potentially undesirable
variants. This important finding has not yet influenced the risk analysis of
recombinant baculovirus insecticides and gene therapy vectors."

"The most disconcerting finding is the one showing that replication of the
baculovirus is inherently unpredictable, says Cummins. "There may be some who
believe that we should all have unlabelled liver gene therapy with our salads.

"We need to educate the American consumer on the threats of GMOs to human
health and butterflies, says Moore. That is why we have joined Bay Area
Rage, Global Exchange, the Bay Area Seed Interchange Library, the Berkeley
Ecology Center, and the Organic Consumers Association in bringing this issue
before the public. That is why we are here today at this Market Street
Safeway in San Francisco."

Prepared by New Scientist authors Mark Robins and Michael Le Page (New
Scientist issue: 17th June 2000), Butterfly Gardeners director Alan Moore,
and Prof. Joe Cummins of University of Western Ontario

For more information contact the New Scientist Washington office
202-452-1178 newscidc@idt.net

Alan Moore
Butterfly Gardeners Assoc. & Project Chrysalis/Director and founder
1563 Solano Ave. #477, Berkeley, CA 94707
510-528-7730 bflyspirit@aol.com

Prof. Joe Cummins
University of Western Ontario
73 8 Wilkins St., Ontario N6C4Z9 Canada
(519) 681-5477 jcummins@julian.uwo.ca