And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

X-Originating-IP: [208.147.34.84]
From: "Douglass Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:  Genetically Altering the World's Food
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:02:04 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain



>
> .
>> .  From:         RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #639           
.
>> .                    ---February 25, 1999---                    .
>> .                          HEADLINES:                           .
>> .             GENETICALLY ALTERING THE WORLD'S FOOD             .
>> .                          ==========                           .
>
> On January 14, after an 8-year scientific review, Canada rejected
>> Monsanto corporation's request for approval of its genetically
>> altered milk hormone, rBGH, a drug that makes dairy cows produce
>> 10% more milk than normal.[1] This was a serious setback for
>> Monsanto because rBGH was the company's first
>> genetically-engineered product and Monsanto had hoped
>> international acceptance of rBGH would smoothe the way for its
>> other genetically-engineered farm crops like cotton, tomatoes,
>> potatoes, rice, corn, and soybeans.
>> 
>> The approval process for rBGH in Canada became an embarrasing
>> political fiasco when Canadian health officials claimed Monsanto
>> had tried to bribe them, which the company denied, and government
>> scientists testified that they were being pressured by higher-ups
>> to approve rBGH against their better scientific judgment. (See
>> REHW #621.)
>> 
>> Ultimately, Canada gave a thumbs down to rBGH because, as the
>> product label acknowledges, it can cause udder infections,
>> painful, debilitating foot disorders, and reduced life span in
>> treated cows.
>> 
>> U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of rBGH
>> in U.S. dairy cows in November, 1993, without taking a position
>> on the issue of cruelty to animals. Monsanto will not reveal how
>> widely the drug has been adopted by U.S. dairy farmers.
>> 
>> Monsanto says it will appeal the rBGH decision within the
>> Canadian government. But more importantly, Monsanto will ask the
>> World Health Organization's Codex Alimentarius to declare rBGH
>> safe when Codex meets in Rome this coming summer. If Codex issues
>> the statement that Monsanto wants, under the World Trade
>> Organization's rules, Canada will lose its right to ban the use
>> of rBGH within its borders, and Monsanto will be one step closer
>> to its goal.[1] At bottom, this is what "free trade" is about --
>> freeing transnational corporations from control by nation states.
>> Codex Alimentarius is widely perceived to be dominated not by
>> public-spirited health specialists but by scientists aligned with
>> the interests of transnational corporations.
>> 
>> Despite the recent setback for rBGH in Canada, Monsanto is
>> pressing ahead with its plan to dominate world agriculture by
>> selling genetically modified seeds -- a plan it is pursuing with
>> powerful aid from the highest levels of the U.S. government.
>> 
>> Both inside and outside the U.S., Monsanto is selling two basic
>> varieties of genetically-modified seeds: "Roundup Ready" seeds
>> that have been genetically modified to withstand a heavy soaking
>> with Monsanto's best-selling herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). And
>> a group of seeds implanted with a Bt gene, which produces a
>> pesticidal toxin in every cell of the resulting plant.

>> Caterpillars that eat any part of such a plant will die, at least
>> until the whole caterpillar population develops "resistance" to
>> the Bt toxin. (For more detail, see REHW #637 and #638.)
>> 
>> Within the U.S., genetically altered crops are rapidly coming
>> into widespread use. In 1995, no genetically-modified crops were
>> grown for commercial sale. Three years later, in 1998, 73 million
>> acres of genetically-modified crops were grown worldwide, more
>> than 50 million acres of them in the U.S. To allow this rapid
>> change to occur with a minimum of resistance from consumers, the
>> FDA has declared that genetically modified foods do not need to
>> be labeled, thus depriving consumers of the opportunity to make
>> an informed choice in the grocery store. You cannot refuse to buy
>> what you cannot identify. It is presently estimated that some
>> 30,000 items in U.S. grocery stores already contain genetically
>> modified organisms.[2]
>> 
>> Monsanto has announced that by the year 2000 (next year), 100% of
>> U.S. soybeans (60 million acres) will be genetically modified.
>> 
>> Actually, 100% really means something like 99.9%. Even if
>> Monsanto reaches it's "100%" goal, there will continue to be a
>> small acreage devoted to organically-grown, traditional soybeans.
>> However, if Monsanto has its way, even these organically-grown
>> non-genetically-modified soybeans will become difficult to
>> identify. Last year when the U.S. Department of Agriculture
>> (USDA) proposed national standards to define what "organically
>> grown" means, Monsanto and USDA proposed to allow
>> genetically-modified crops to be labeled "organic." (See REHW
>> #583.) After USDA received 300,000 letters of opposition from an
>> angry public, USDA and Monsanto both withdrew the proposal. But
>> three years from now, Monsanto will be back, urging the
>> government to allow the "organic" label on genetically modified
>> crops. If USDA goes along with Monsanto's plan, then the
>> "organic" label will become meaningless and consumers will have
>> to trust their grocers to supply soybeans that have not been
>> genetically modified. But few grocers will have any way to know.
>> 
>> According to a series of reports by Bill Lambrecht in the ST.
>> LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Monsanto's overarching plan is to gain
>> approval for genetically modified crops in Europe, then use the
>> European imprimatur to sell its technology to Europe's former
>> colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
>> 
>> It won't be easy. In Ireland, Great Britain, France and India,
>> farmer-led uprisings have burned and destroyed Monsanto's test
>> plots. In India, Monsanto is growing genetically modified plants
>> in green houses constructed of bullet-proof plastic. Monsanto
>> insists its goal is "doing well by doing good" but farmers
>> outside the U.S. are deeply suspicious.
>> 
>> Of particular concern is Monsanto's latest genetic technique
>> called the Technology Protection System, commonly known as
>> "terminator technology." Developed with taxpayer money by the
>> U.S. Department of Agriculture but patented by a

>> Mississippi-based seed company that Monsanto has recently
>> purchased, terminator technology is a genetic technique that
>> renders the seeds of crops sterile after one or two years. This
>> assures that Monsanto's seeds cannot be illegally saved and
>> re-planted year after year.
>> 
>> With terminator technology, anyone who becomes dependent upon
>> Monsanto's genetically-modified seed will have to come back to
>> Monsanto year after year to purchase new seed. By this means,
>> Monsanto will gain a substantial measure of control over the food
>> supply of any nation that widely adopts the company's genetic
>> technologies. It is not a conspiracy, merely a shrewd business
>> venture, but it is clear that Monsanto's goal is effective
>> control of many of the staple crops that presently feed the
>> world.
>> 
>> From its own perspective, the U.S. government evidently believes
>> Monsanto's goal is worth supporting. According to Bill Lambrecht
>> of the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, when Irish Prime Minister Bertie
>> Ahern arrived in the U.S. in 1998 for a St. Patrick's Day visit,
>> he was met by Sandy Berger, the director of the U.S. National
>> Security Council. The topic of conversation at lunch was not
>> peace in war-torn Ireland, but Ireland's pivotal vote in a
>> pending European Community decision on Monsanto's genetically
>> modified corn.[3] Lambrecht reports that when Monsanto flew a
>> group of Irish journalists to the U.S. to help them prepare for
>> the debate over genetically modified foods, their trip included a
>> stop in the Oval Office at the White House -- an inner sanctum
>> that few visitors to Washington ever see.
>> 
>> When the French were reluctant to allow Monsanto's seeds to
>> sprout on French soil, Secretary of State Madeline Albright and
>> U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky intervened on
>> Monsanto's behalf. When the French still refused to yield,
>> President Clinton personally took up the matter with French Prime
>> Minister Lionel Jospin and gave him "an earful," Lambrecht
>> writes. When that didn't work, Vice-President Gore followed up
>> with a phone call to the French Prime Minister. Ultimately, the
>> French gave in to the steady, high-level pressure.
>> 
>> "Wherever Monsanto seeks to sow, the U.S. government clears the
>> ground," writes Lambrecht, who calls the U.S. government
>> Monsanto's "most powerful ally."
>> 
>> "From the White House and the National Security Council on down,"
>> Lambrecht writes, "the apparatus of the U.S. Government worked
>> this year [1998] on behalf of biotechnology. For Monsanto, at
>> this moment, it is like having an Olympic basketball team with
>> several Michael Jordans."[3]
>> 
>> We are speculating, but it appears to us that the U.S. government
>> may view genetically modified crops as a powerful new arm of U.S.
>> foreign policy. Nations whose staple foods are grown from seed
>> that they must purchase year after year from a handful of U.S.
>> corporations are nations likely to see the world the way the U.S.
>> wants them to see it. When asked, they are likely to play ball,
>> whether they want to or not. A new world order, indeed.

>> 
>> *          *           *
>> 
>> Readers who would like to become active on this issue are urged
>> to read the new publication, MONSANTO MONITOR, which is now being
>> published in the Netherlands. Available via mail or E-mail.
>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or write: P.O. Box 92066, 1090
>> AB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Phone: +31-20-468 2626; fax:
>> +31-20-468 2275. Or: www.antenna.nl/aseed.
>> 
>> *          *           *
>> 
>> Other excellent sources for action ideas and information include
>> these:
>> 
>> 1) Canada's Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) at
>> www.rafi.org; In North Carolina, phone (919) 542-1396; fax: (919)
>> 542-0069; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Canada, phone (204) 453-5259;
>> fax: (204) 925-8034; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>> 2) Physicians and Scientists Against Genetically Engineered Food
>> at www.psagef.org/sitemap.htm.
>> 
>> 3) The Campaign for Food Safety at www.purefood.org; telephone
>> (218) 226-4164; e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>> 4) Food & Water, 389 Vermont Route 215, Walden, VT 05873; phone:
>> (802) 563-3300; fax: (802) 563-3310. Their FOOD & WATER JOURNAL
>> is must reading.
>> 
>> 
>> ==========
>> [1] Kelly Morris, "Bovine somatotropin--who's crying over spilt
>> milk?" LANCET Vol. 353 (January 23, 1999), pg. 306. For more
>> detail on this story, see Brewster and Cathleen Kneen, "rbGH--for
>> the last time?" RAM'S HORN No. 166 (February 1999), pg. 1. The
>> RAM'S HORN [ISSN 0827-4053]: S-12, C-11, R.R. #1, Sorrento, B.C.
>> V0E 2W0, Canada, is $20 (U.S.) per year (11 issues). E-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or phone (250) 835-8561. Well worth the
>> price.
>> 
>> [2] These big-name products include genetically modified
>> ingredients: Coca-Cola (corn syrup and/or Aspartame), Fritos
>> (corn), Green Giant Harvest Burgers (soy), McDonald's french
>> fries (potatoes), Nestle's chocolate (soy), Karo corn syrup
>> (corn), NutraSweet (Aspartame), Kraft salad dressings (canola
>> oil), Fleishmann's margarine (soy), Similac infant formula (soy),
>> Land o' Lakes butter (rBGH), Cabot Creamery Butter (rBGH).
>> 
>> If you want to avoid genetically modified products entirely, stay
>> away from non-organic tomatoes, potatoes, corn, soy, canola and
>> yellow squash. Avoid corn syrup and fructose--which are in almost
>> all beverages and sodas (even health food brands) and in almost
>> all sweet products, yogurt and aspirin. Avoid non-organic corn
>> oil, cornstarch, corn meal, baking soda, baking powder, glycose
>> syrup. Avoid soy; soy flour in baked goods, pizza, cookies,
>> cakes, pasta; fillers in meat products (for example Big Macs),
>> vegetarian meat substitutes (for example tofu, tofu burgers, tofu
>> hot dogs), soy milk, infant formula, babyfoods; diet and protein
>> shakes, protein bars; chocolate and candy bars; margarine; ice
>> cream; pet food; soy oil in salad dressings and snack chips; soy
>> sauce; lecithin and soy lecithin. In all, well over 30,000
>> products.
>> 
>> Aspartame--the artificial sweetener Equal or NutraSweet--contains
>> a genetically engineered enzyme, as do most non-organic cheeses.
>> Amylase (used in making bread, flour, whole wheat flour, cereals,

>> starch), Catalase (used in making soft drinks, egg whites, liquid
>> whey) and Lactase are all genetically altered.
>> 
>> Most livestock and commercial seafood are being fed genetically
>> modified feed. Commercial pork has been genetically altered with
>> DNA from human beings.
>> 
>> Data from: Phillip Frazer and Annie Berthold-Bond, editors, NEWS
>> ON EARTH, December, 1998, pg. 4. NEWS ON EARTH [ISSN 1099-0054]
>> is a high-quality environmental newsletter published monthly;
>> write them at 175 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 2245, NY, NY 10010; or
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or phone (212) 741-2365.
>> 
>> [3] Bill Lambrecht, "World Recoils at Monsanto's Brave New
>> Crops," ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH December 27, 1998, pg. A1.
>> 
>> Descriptor terms: monsanto; biotechnology; food safety;
>> pesticides; food security; U.S. foreign policy; genetic
>> engineering; rbgh; bovine growth hormone; canada; roundup;
>> glyphosate; bt; resistance; organbic standards; usda; fda; bill
>> lambrecht; france; ireland; terminator technology; national
>> security council;
>> 
>> ################################################################
>>                              NOTICE
>> Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
>> version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
>> even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
>> to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
>> free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
>> (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
>> your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
>> Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
>> not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
>> information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
>> by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
>> (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
>>                                         --Peter Montague, Editor
>> ################################################################
>> 
>> 
>
>_________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

           &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
          Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
                     Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
                  http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/       
           &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
                             

Reply via email to