Merla Barberie
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:51:29 -0700
Hi all, I really enjoyed the "Radionics, Voodoo, Holy Cards and Third-class relics" thread. Graeme, Eric, Gil, Garuda, James, Roger, Lloyd, Markess, Peter Michael, Rex (hope I haven't left anyone out.). I'll have to reread this a lot more to understand the whole subject. I'm sure glad this has been talked about. I would like to see Eric come back on the list and have emailed him asking him to write to Allan. I am lurking because I am doing a total lead cleaning of our cabin with HEPA vacuum, respirator and Tri-sodium phosphate. It's brutal, but has high priority so I can have a chelation for lead and mercury. I haven't forgotten promised frog for trade. I'm just way behind. I have a huge really good frog that I may send if it comes out well in the next firing. I finally made myself a ceramic dowsing weight which will go into that firing and I really appreciated receiving a picture of a pyramid. I'm hoping to get around to making ceramic large egg-shaped receptacles for BC and 500 and prep storage. Summer is a beautiful time for me, but a really busy time, and it's been as high as 98ºF here in the afternoons. Thanks goodness for an arid climate. Our garden is beautiful. We're hoping to get into the tower before winter. It would be so nice to have a bigger living space. I'm thankful for our sails on the lake. It's so peaceful to be floating on the waves and feeling the air. If anyone has ever been able to restore a decayed tooth, would you please write to me privately. I have one under a gold crown that didn't show up on an X-ray until it had contacted the nerve. I hate to have it pulled. Last resort. Best to everyone, Merla P.S.: Here are some bits of info about GMOs that you may or may not have seen already: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTS BIOTECH REGULATIONS ON TRACEABILITY AND LABELLING The European Parliament on 2 July adopted in its second reading two Commission proposals on the labelling and traceability of genetically modified (GM) food and feed. The Parliament's vote will now have to be approved by the European Council of Ministers, expected for later this month. US farm groups and governmental sources strongly criticised the draft regulations for being unworkable, while civil society groups welcomed amendments introduced by the Parliament to regulate co-existence between GM and non-modified crops. Specifically, the European Parliament approved the thresholds adopted by the Environment and Agriculture Ministers in late-2002, i.e. a threshold of 0.9 percent, below which GM products would be exempt from labelling, and 0.5 percent for the adventitious presence of GM organisms (GMOs) that are unauthorised but have nevertheless been assessed as risk-free (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 December 2002, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-12-11/inbrief.htm). They also amended the draft regulations to allow EU member states to impose "appropriate measures" to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products ("co-existence"). New regulations evoke various reactions While the amendment to allow the implementation of co-existence measures was hailed as an important step forward by civil society groups, which have long been campaigning for strong measures to prevent contamination (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 10 March 2003, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-03-10/story1.htm), they called for such measures to be made mandatory rather than optional. Friends of the Earth also criticised the 0.9 percent threshold as too high and called for strict liability regulations. US farm groups strongly criticised the Parliament's decision, which they fear will create an even greater barrier to trade than the current de facto moratorium on the approvals of GMOs, currently being challenged by the US and others at the WTO (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 15 May 2003, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-05-15/story1.htm). "With this new labelling and traceability requirement, the EU has only made a bad situation worse," said the American Farm Bureau, which urged the US administration to continue to "aggressively prosecute" the WTO case. Similarly strong criticism could be heard from US government sources. "We think [the draft regulations] are unworkable, and unenforceable," said US Department of Agriculture trade official David Hegwood. The Parliament's vote will now have to be approved by the European Council of Ministers, expected for later this month. The regulation would then enter into force in September with a six-months compliance period. While the European Commission has repeatedly said that the de facto moratorium would be lifted once the regulations entered into force, it remains unclear whether the US and others would drop their WTO challenge even if approvals resumed. What will be different under the new regulations? - While the European food safety regulations introduced broad traceability requirements for food, feed, food-producing animals and any other substances intended for food use (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 7 March 2002, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-03-07/story2.htm), there are currently no specific requirements for products that contain or are derived from GMOs. Under the new regulations, operators using or handling GM products would be required to retain the information at each stage of the placing on the market. - The new regulations would require labelling for GM feed and for products derived from but no longer containing GMOs, these are exempt from labelling under current rules. - The current rules do not set a threshold for the accidental presence of unapproved GMOs in food or feed that have been assessed as risk-free. Under the new rules, the threshold would be 0.5 percent. - Under the draft regulations, the current authorisation process would be simplified with a "one door - one key" procedure, i.e. a single risk assessment and a single application would be required to obtain approval for the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and for use in food or feed. Scientific risk assessments would be conducted by the European Food Authority. The Commission would then draft a proposal for granting or refusing authorisation, which would be submitted for approval by member states within a Regulatory Committee. Links for this article European Parliament <http://www.europarl.eu.int/home/default_en.htm> "Wallstr=F6m and Byrne welcome EP acceptance of a trustworthy and safe approach to GMOs and GM food and feed," European Commission press release, July 2, 2003. <http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettx t=gt&doc=IP/03/935|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display> "Questions and answers on the regulation of GMOs in the EU," European Commission press release, March 4, 2003. <http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettx t=gt&doc=MEMO/02/160|0|AGED&lg=EN&display+> A. Scott, "Trade dispute over GMOs reignites," The Scientist, June 26, 2003. <http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030626/04/> ----------------------------------------------------- CODEX COMMISSION ADOPTS BIOTECH RISK ANALYSIS STANDARDS The Codex Alimentarius Commission -- the UN body charged with setting international standards related to food safety -- at its meeting in Rome, Italy, from 30 June to 7 July, approved three risk analysis standards for biotechnology derived food. The standards had been forwarded by the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Food Derived from Biotechnology in March 2003 (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 21 March 2003, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-03-21/story2.htm). The standards include references to the "tracing of products" and food labelling as risk management tools. Many observers believe that the agreement reached at the Codex meeting might mark a breakthrough in international negotiations on the use of traceability systems and at least partially vindicate the EU's insistence on introducing a labelling and traceability system for genetically modified foods, which has repeatedly come under criticism in the WTO from the US, Canada, Argentina and others (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 27 June 2002, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-06-27/story3.htm). This perception of the Codex standard assumes that 'tracing of products' and 'traceability' are the same. However, the US -- supported by the food industry -- has insisted that the two terms are not equivalent, arguing that 'product tracing' is limited to 'one step forward and one step back' whereas 'traceability' of products refers to the whole production chain of a product. To date, there is no agreed Codex definition for traceability and/or product tracing. Consumer groups welcomed the adoption of the Codex guidelines. "These standards are a tremendous victory for consumers, for science, for good regulation and for common sense," said Julian Edwards, Director-General of Consumers International. Greenpeace, the environmental campaign group that has been one of the fiercest critics of GM foods, said the Codex guidelines were "an important step forward" in assessing safety, which highlighted the shortcomings of procedures in the US, where most GM crops are grown and sold. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), more than 50 bio-engineered foods are currently on the US market. "The guidelines serve to highlight the inadequacies and lack of scientific rigour used in the approval process in the US," Greenpeace said. However, the WHO says no effects on human health have been reported from countries where GM foods are widely available. www.codexalimentarius.net ------------------------ MONSANTO SUING ANOTHER DAIRY Monsanto is suing Portland, Maine-based Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." According to Monsanto, manufacturer of the genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (known as rBGH or rBST), Oakhurst Dairy does not have the right to let its customers know whether its milk is laced with genetically engineered hormones. Oakhurst says they've been labeling their products like this for four years, in response to consumer demand. Although rBGH has been banned in every industrialized nation in the world except for the United States, Monsanto continues to claim that rBGH-derived milk is no different from the natural stuff, despite documentation that rBGH milk contains substantially higher levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1. Monsanto sued two dairies and threatened several thousand retailers in 1994 for labeling or advertising milk and dairy products as "rBGH-free." Despite Monsanto's intimidation tactics, more than 10% of U.S. milk is currently labeled as "rBGH-free," while sales of organic milk and dairy products (which prohibit rBGH) are booming. In recent months a Monsanto-funded front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched a smear campaign against organic dairies, including Organic Valley, claiming they are defrauding consumers. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/071303_rbgh.cfm> For a full discussion on the rBGH controversy, see the rBGH section on the OCA website: <http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.html> ------------------------------------------------------------ QUICK QUIZ: HOW U.S. DEMOCRACY WORKS Question: How is it that every industrialized nation in the world has banned Monsanto's rBGH as unsafe, but it's legal (and unlabeled) in the United States? Answer: In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto. ------------------------------------------------------------ WEIRD WHEAT WEILDS WOES Scientists from the University of Manitoba have released a report indicating, "Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in Western Canada would be environmentally unsafe." Monsanto's GE wheat would lead to an increase in the use of glyphosate herbicide, a widely-used chemical now being linked to increased growth of fungal plant pathogens, known as fusarium head blight (FHB). FHB has already caused tens of millions of dollars in losses for wheat farmers on the eastern prairies of Canada. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/071403_ge_wheat.cfm> ------------------------------------------------------------ HOW MONSANTO'S POLICIES HAVE BECOME U.S. POLICY Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board) ------------------------------------------------------------ GE-WHIZ, AFRICA'S POOR, NOT DUMB According to a piece in the New York Times, Bush and his biotech backers are grossly mistaken in their claim that GE crops would help alleviate hunger in Africa. "The first generation of genetically modified food crops - corn and soybean seeds - were created to make pest management simpler on America's large, mechanized farms. The technologies would be far less effective on African farms, which are small and diversified and rely largely on human labor," wrote respected scientist Dr. Charles Benbrook. The article also points out that GE crops need nearly ideal growing conditions, something the arid and drought-ridden climes of Africa simply cannot provide- not to mention the fact that impoverished African farmers can't even afford GE seeds, which typically cost 35% more than traditional seeds. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/071403_ge_africa.cfm> ------------------------------------------------------------ COTTON FILLS BELLIES If the Bush Administration is truly interested in helping Africa's ailing economy, consideration should be given to a July 11 New York Times Op Ed piece from African agricultural experts. Put simply, these experts point out that government subsidies to U.S. cotton farmers are strangling Africa's economy. Cotton production accounts for as much as 40% of exports in some African nations, where much of the cotton is grown with few or no pesticides. In contrast, over 70% of U.S. cotton is genetically engineered, and it has become the most pesticide intensive crop. U.S. cotton farmers received over $3 billion in government subsidies in the last two years, more than the entire economic output of African nations like Burkina Faso, where more than two million people depend on cotton. <http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/071303_cotton_subsidies.cfm> For a full discussion on the global cotton crisis see the Clothes for a Change section on the OCA website: <http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/> ------------------------------------------------------------ ECOSOC CALLS FOR END TO AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES During the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) annual meeting held in Geneva from 30 June to 25 July, ministers issued a declaration urging rich countries to reduce and eliminate agricultural subsidies to ease market access for products from developing countries. Furthermore the declaration highlights the need for the implementation of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the urgent need for WTO Members to address, at Cancun, issues such as agricultural export subsidies, domestic support and enhanced market access, as well as special and differential treatment for developing countries. Speaking on 30 June at the opening session of the meeting UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said commitments made at the 2001 WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha must now be implemented. The challenge "is not to decide what to do, but rather, simply, to do it," according to Annan. He called on countries to show greater flexibility to meet the Millennium Development Goals drawn up at the UN Millennium Summit. The Director General of IUCN, Achim Steiner supported the decision of ECOSOC to promote an integrated approach to rural development for poverty eradication and sustainable development. In this respect he said: "A challenge remains in the need to link this work with the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO. Without supportive processes in the financing and trade agendas, sustainable development will not be possible. We are at a critical moment in time to prove that the good intentions reflected in the commitments made by countries are put into practice and that ECOSOC can play a leading role in ensuring that this happens." "ECOSOC Calls For Abolition Of Agricultural Subsidies," UN NEWS CENTER, 2 July 2003; "Annan Urges Action on Rural Poverty," ENS, 1 July 2003; "UN Chiefs Plead With Powers For Fairer Farm Trade," REUTERS, 30 June 2003; "The poverty development nexus," IUCN, 9 July 2003. _______________________________________________ BDNow mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can unsubscribe or change your options at: http://lists.envirolink.org/mailman/listinfo/bdnow