Today's Topics in AgBioView.
* Apel Confronts Greenpeace; Contacting GP
* Don't Waste Time and Energy in Dialog
* If We're Not Sure About GM, We Shouldn't Do It
* Modification Part of Balanced Chain
* Militants Vow To Continue Destruction of GM Crops
* The Stakes 'After Genoa' Are High
* Brazil - Major Producer of GM-Free Soya, But For How Long
* GM Ranks Below Road Safety...Still Concerns
* Biotech Food Fast Fact on Consumer Attitudes
* Aussie- NZ User Guide to GM Labelling
* New Food Safety Music CD Released!
From: Andrew Apel
Subject: Greenpeace/Craig Culp Comments
Dear Ms. Bryant:
Those with closed minds cannot be persuaded, only discredited. The latter can easily be accomplished by exposing their lies, distortions and illogic, and Greenpeace‚ Mr. Craig Culp repeats many of the group's favorites:
1 That "many hundreds of scientists" are against genetic engineering. Those scientists form a tiny minority, and many of those are trained in fields unrelated to biotechnology. Furthermore, insisting on unanimity to signal scientific consensus is just as pointless and impossible as demanding something be "proven completely safe."
2 That genetic engineering threatens monarch butterflies and non-target species. This is the classical "fallacy of the omitted control," which crops up everywhere in the debate. All such threats have to date been found illusory, but assuming such threats exist, they must be compared to the threats posed by alternative technology. The lack of that comparison that "control" makes the argument specious.
3 Lack of testing for environmental and health impacts. Greenpeace knows full well that such tests have been carried out and that the results are available. As far as "long-term" testing goes, that's a red herring. Greenpeace will be against genetic engineering for exactly as long as it can continue to imagine something threatening about it and deem its benefits, actual and potential, to be irrelevant. Therefore, no term of testing will ever be long enough.
4 PCBs and DDT. These are not the products of genetic engineering. Furthermore, the presence of these substances in the environment has not been traced to environmental or human harm. Nonetheless, these are offered up as proof that humans are not omniscient. Point taken, making this merely the precautionary principle in disguise (see #8, below).
5 Organisms beyond recall in the environment. In the worst case, this results in herbicide-tolerant weeds (weeds are already insect-resistant and drought-tolerant) and a loss of income for chemical companies. Cases worse than that are the products of an overactive imagination.
6 Soybean allergies suddenly emerging. GM crops are tested for allergenic potential before being released for cultivation, Greenpeace knows this, too.
7 That genetic engineering creates "brand new" organisms that have "never existed before." This argument is easily reduced to absurdity. These organisms differ from their relatives by only a few genes. If this is the standard of what we should fear, then evolution must equally be feared. Since evolution produces biodiversity, biodiversity must then be feared as well.
8 That we have "no clue" about how novel organisms will interact with the environment in the near term or "over the next thousand years." Actually, five thousand years of agriculture have taught us quite a bit about how this works and five thousand years of breeding novel organisms have filled seed banks around the world to the point of bursting. While this argument seems to be no more than the product of ignorance, it is actually part of a larger theme: that we can't predict the future well enough to satisfy some people. Look more closely and you'll see that this is merely the 'precautionary principle'‚ in disguise, i.e., "Since I feel ignorant, you shouldn't do something.'
9. Bt toxin could create "super pests." Unregulated use of Bt by organic farmers has resulted in at least nine Bt-resistant insect species. There are no indications that these pests have become "super: somehow. It's just bad news for companies that use Bt technology. And an embarrassment for organic farmers, who should learn where to point the finger.
10. Destruction of organic farming by genetic engineering. Organic farming is only what people believe it is. It's an ideology, and will only be destroyed if believers believe it has been destroyed.
11. Evils of money and corporate America. This is meant to imply that activities motivated by profit are inherently untrustworthy or duplicitous, and that organized activities motivated by profit may even be worse. Marxism didn't work. Maybe Greenpeace has a better idea like scaring people into turning over their money, instead of offering them something of value. That sounds more like mugging, and hardly more sustainable than Marxism.
12. Humans have no greater claim on the right to live than any other organism. Better alert the organic farmers on this one, they better quit pulling those weeds!
Kindest regards, Andrew Apel
Andrew Apel is No Darling of Greenpeace!
Ms. Mary Bryant forwarded the above comments to Mr. Craig Culp of Greenpeace and got the following reply:
>Mr. Apel needs no help in discrediting himself. And using him as a
>source may go a long way toward discrediting you, Mary......Craig
Andrew Apel wrote back to Ms. Bryant,
I suppose I must be a Bigger Bad Guy than even the Big Bad Wolf himself to earn
such a scathing and irreproachable riposte from Greenpeace, the notorious
Writing to Greenpeace
>From CSP: A few readers have asked me for information on contacting Greenpeace. Please see below (thanks to Andrew Apel) for information:
The Greenpeace Press Officer for 'Genetic Engineering' is :
Mr. Craig Culp
Phone: 202-319-2461; Fax: 202-483-8683; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
No Point in Arguing with Greenpeace
From: "Gregory L. Guenther"
Subject: Re: AGBIOVIEW: Greenpeace Dialog
I have said it before and I will say it again. There is NO POINT in arguing with the "enviro's" such as Greenpeace, EDF Sierra Club and others on the scientific merits of this technology.
Their agenda has nothing to do with food safety, bio-diversity, human health or any of the other supposedly noble causes that they espouse. The ultimate goal of theses people is to reduce the population (human of course) on this planet. Therefore anything that constrains the food supply for people is a laudable goal to them. They know the science as well as anyone and basically couch their arguments in terms carefully calculated to instill fear in the "unwashed masses" Their strategy is working wonders in the E. U. and other places where science and enlightenment are still lagging behind. Emotion,misinformation and outright lies are their basic weapons.
You are wasting your time and energy in trying to dialogue with these people.
If We're Not Sure About GM, We Shouldn't Do It
Neew Zealand Herald, September 6, 2001
Resistance to genetic modification is based on the risks involved and scientific uncertainty, not a lack of reasoning, writes ANNETTE COTTER (* Annette Cotter is a member of Greenpeace Aotearoa.).
Why is there such overwhelming resistance to genetic modification? Many suggest scaremongering by GM-free groups, fear and lack of reasoned assessment. I would argue the opposite. Genetic modification is fundamentally different from anything ever done before. We are changing the nature of nature through the insertion of foreign genes into a closed DNA sequence.
What is created is an inherently unpredictable organism. And it's not just for now, it's changing the genetic make-up of organisms for all time. Resistance to this affront is widespread and growing, which is why many companies are removing GM from their foods - because it's here that the public have all the power.
No one will grow GM crops if there's no demand for their produce. Indeed, global consumer rejection has stymied the flow of GM crop plantings overseas. In the midst of the genetic modification controversy, many claims and counterclaims have been bandied regarding the motivation of those in favour of, and those opposed to, GM in the environment.
With the notable exception of tangata whenua, who are opposed to all genetic manipulation, most groups and individuals draw the line at the laboratory door. Keep it in the lab and out of the food and fields. The argument that the "agitators" are not interested in scientific debate is erroneous.
During the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, a great deal of information was presented to the commissioners about the scientific concerns with genetic engineering. Some of these concerns were incorporated in the body of the report but failed to see light of day in the recommendations.
For instance, chapter six states that "there are some significant gaps in knowledge on which to base risk assessments for field trials or release of genetically modified organisms".
Isn't risk assessment the whole premise for release into our environment? If there isn't enough information available, there is absolutely no justification for allowing field trials or release to occur.
Again in chapter 6: "Little is yet known about the environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms and, in particular in New Zealand, 'on the potential adverse effects, or risks of such effects, on the indigenous biota'." The report goes on to outline that any damage may take time to manifest itself and the costs will be socialised. This sounds loud alarm bells for our environment and for the food chain.
It's these concerns, as well as the human health implications, that have contributed to the rejection of GM organisms here and abroad. The impact of GM on human health is a great concern and the fact that issues of the safety of the technology could not be ignored was acknowledged by the commission.
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has released a report looking at the allergenicity of an unapproved corn variety, Starlink, in the food chain in that country. The panel expressed concern about the production of new proteins through genetic modification. It concluded that "the science we have before us now indicates that it's not possible to establish a tolerance or maximum safe level for Starlink". It also stated that there was a need for the issues of allergenicity to be more fully developed in the context of GM crops and foods.
All this scientific uncertainty and concern necessitates the enactment of the precautionary principle. This is a principle embodied in the Biosafety Protocol, an international agreement by which New Zealand is bound. If it is scientifically uncertain whether GM might harm the environment or human health, that uncertainty must not stop decisions minimising or avoiding those potential effects.
In other words, if you aren't sure what the effects are, don't do it.
This is a clear message - no release of GM into the environment. There is too much uncertainty, the risks are too great and the outcome is for all time. Let's not leave the consequences of a vast genetic experiment for future generations to deal with. New Zealanders are not rejecting GM because they are ignorant, misinformed or have irrational fears. They are doing so because the available information, scientific uncertainty and caution demands it.
Modification Part of Balanced Chain
Boston Globe; September 4, 2001
Kerry, Ireland - Plant genetically modified, or GM, crops anywhere in Europe and in a trice you will have a crowd of protesters at your gate waving "Frankenfood" placards and lying down in front of tractors.
The furor over genetically modified foods has been stronger in Ireland than in the United States, where nearly three-quarters of the world's genetically modified crops have been planted with less hubbub. The idealism of the European GM protesters is admirable, but for all their black-and-white certainty about what is to be avoided, they have not yet articulated an environment-friendly program for feeding the billions of people on the planet, or the billions more who are on the way.
Genetic science has put powerful new technologies in the hands of farmers. Like all technologies, genetic engineering has the potential for conferring blessings on the human race - and terrible mischief, too.
What are the potential benefits? Professor Anthony Trewavas, a molecular biologist at Edinburgh University, said: "Helping to control devastating crop viruses and pests which destroy worldwide an estimated 40 percent of the harvest; to improve use of marginalized land and save genuine wilderness from the plough; to improve the nutritional quality of food to reduce blindness, child death and reduce the incidence of spina bifida; to reduce the environmental impact of man on the planet; to produce vaccines in foods and pharmaceuticals in abundance, which should see the end of diseases such as cholera, hepatitis B and eventually malaria; to improve cancer treatment and diagnosis; to help maintain and increase an abundance of food production and continue the reduction in food prices which dropped fourfold in real terms in the last century."
Whew! Sounds fantastic. But scientists involved in genetically modified research can be expected to be boosters, and Trewavas's gush can be taken with a spoonful of salt. There's another side of the argument, too, not the least of which is our gut aversion to mixing the genes of different species.
As with most new technologies, such as nuclear power, the problems of genetically modified agriculture are more likely to become apparent after the fact rather than before. Which is why we must rely on government regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture to insist that the application of genetically modified technologies be slow and cautious. Anti-GM anxieties about superweeds and species extinctions will keep the regulators on their toes, which is just where they should be.
Mistakes will inevitably be made, but no one - booster or detractor - has the prescience to know if the ultimate balance sheet for genetically modified foods will be plus or minus. Certainly, the environment is currently under greater and more certain strain from older technologies - automobiles, for example, which consume more and more of our land and resources, or fire, one of the oldest technologies of all, which is being used to wreak havoc on tropical habitats and species.
Then there's the non-GM agricultural technology that is fouling the landscape outside my window in Ireland, and around the world. Until a few years ago, I looked out upon an ancient patchwork of fields separated by hedgerows among which farmers rotated crops and animals in a system that naturally maintained the fertility of the soil. The varied fields and lush hedgerows supported a rich variety of wildlife.
It's all gone now. Encouraged by government subsidies, farmers have knocked the hedgerows and planted their newly consolidated fields with a single intensive crop. To maintain the fertility of the soil, they rely upon chemical fertilizers, which make the crop susceptible to diseases that have to be countered with yet more chemicals. Nitrate runoff from the fields poisons streams and ground water. Wildlife is devastated.
The result of this epoch-making transformation of agriculture has been cheaper and more plentiful food on supermarket shelves and more prosperous farmers, but at what cost to taxpayers and the environment? Where were the radical protesters when this was happening? I know of no consequence of genetically modified foods more harmful to the environment than the switch from mixed farming to chemical-based monocultures.
But I tend to be an optimist when it comes to technology, and I suspect that we will eventually see a return to more environment- friendly forms of agriculture, in Ireland and in other parts of the world. Genetically modified plants and animals will be part of a yet- to-be-imagined equation, incorporating new cross-bred crops, mixed farming, crop rotation, and the sparing use of synthetic fertilizers and pest controls.
Finding the balance that will work best for feeding the 8 or 9 billion people we can expect by mid-century, while protecting as many other species as possible, will take the combined wisdom of farmers, scientists, ethicists, environmentalists, agribusiness managers, government regulators, politicians, and, yes, the feisty young radicals who inject urgency and idealism into the debate. New Zealand's broad-based attempt to establish a GM policy can stand as a model. Interested readers can see the result at http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz.
Militant French Farmers Vow To Continue Destruction of GM Crops
Paris, Sept 5 (Agence France-Presse) - Members of France's radical Peasants Confederation vowed Wednesday to continue destroying fields of genetically modified crops and urged the government to ban such experimental fields.
"We will continue such operations but we will be more discreet in our preparations than in the past since the government has said it wants to stop such actions," Bernard Moser, secretary general of the group said. Members of the Peasants Confederation, headed by sheep farmer turned activist Jose Bove, have destroyed several fields of genetically modified maize in recent weeks. The militant action came after Bove, who has attained folk hero status in France because of his anti-globalization campaign, issued a call in July urging "civil disobedience" unless the government ordered the destruction of all genetically modified crops being grown for test purposes by August 12.
Moser said the militants in their upcoming operations planned not only to target maize, but also potato, rape and beetroot fields. He said the farmers' union had sent an open letter to Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin urging him to order a ban on such experimental crops. Moser said that his organization also planned to target the companies funding such research but he did not elaborate.
The Stakes 'After Genoa' Are High
- Naomi Klein, The Globe and Mail, 05 Sept2001
Part of the tourist ritual of traipsing through Italy in August is marvelling at how the locals have mastered the art of living -- and then complaining bitterly about how everything is closed.
"So civilized," you can hear North Americans remarking over four-course lunches. "Now somebody open up that store and sell me some Pradas NOW!" This year, August in Italy was a little different. Many of the southern beach towns where Italians hide from tourists were half-empty, and the cities never paused. When I arrived two weeks ago, journalists, politicians and activists all reported that it was the first summer of their lives when they didn't take a single day off. How could they? First, there was Genoa, then: After Genoa.
The fallout from protests against the G8 in July is redrawing the country's political landscape -- and everybody wants a chance to shape the results. Newspapers are breaking circulation records. Meetings -- anything having to do with politics -- are bursting at the seams. In Naples, I went to an activist planning session about an upcoming NATO summit; more than 700 people crammed into a sweltering classroom to argue about "the movement's strategy After Genoa." Two days later, near Bologna, a conference about politics "After Genoa" drew 2,000; they stayed until 11 p.m.
The stakes in this period are high. Were the 200,000 (some say 300,000) people on the streets an unstoppable force that will eventually unseat Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? Or will Genoa be the beginning of a long silence, a time when citizens equate mass gatherings with terrifying violence?
For the first weeks after the summit, attention was focused squarely on the brutality of the Italian police: the killing of 23-year-old Carlo Giuliani, reports of torture in the prisons, the bloody midnight raid on a school where activists slept. But Mr. Berlusconi, whose training is in advertising, is not about to relinquish the meaning of Genoa that easily. In recent weeks, he has been furiously recasting himself as "a good father," determined to save his family from imminent danger. Lacking a real threat, he has manufactured one -- an obscure United Nations conference on hunger, scheduled for Rome from Nov. 5 to Nov. 9.
To much media fanfare, Mr. Berlusconi has announced that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) meeting will not be held in "sacred Rome" because "I don't want to see our cities smashed and burnt." Instead, it will be held somewhere remote (much like Canada's plans to hold the next G8 in secluded Kananaskis).
This is shadow boxing at its best. No one had planned to disrupt the meeting. The event would have attracted some minor protest, mostly from critics of genetically modified crops. Some hoped the meeting would be an opportunity to debate the root causes of hunger -- much as those pushing for slavery reparations are doing in Durban.
Jacques Diouf, director of FAO, seems to be relishing the unexpected attention. After all, despite being saddled with the crushing mandate of cutting world hunger in half, the FAO attracts almost no outside interest -- from politicians or protesters. The organization's biggest problem is that it is so uncontroversial, it's practically invisible. "For all these arguments about this change of venue, I would like to say I am very grateful," Mr. Diouf told reporters last week. "Now people in every country know that there will be a summit to talk about the problems of hunger."
But even though the threat of anti-FAO violence was dreamed up by Mr. Berlusconi, his actions are part of a serious assault on civil liberties in After-Genoa Italy. On Sunday, Italy's Parliamentary Relations Minister Carlo Giovanardi said that during November's FAO meeting, "demonstrations in the capital will be prohibited. It is a duty," he said, "to ban demonstrations in certain places and at certain times." There may be a similar ban on public assembly in Naples during the NATO meeting, which has also been moved out of the city.
There was even talk of cancelling a concert by Manu Chao in Naples last Friday. The musician supports the Zapatistas, sings about clandestinos and played to the crowds in Genoa. That, apparently, was enough for the police to smell a riot in the making. In a country that remembers the logic of authoritarianism, this is all chillingly familiar: First create a climate of fear and tension, then suspend constitutional rights in the interest of protecting "public order."
So far, Italians seem unwilling to play into Mr. Berlusconi's hand. The Manu Chao concert took place as planned. There was, of course, no violence. But 70,000 people did dance like crazy in the pouring rain, a much-needed release after a long and difficult summer.
The crowds of police ringing the concert looked on. They seemed tired, like they could have used a day off.
Brazil Is The Only Major World Producer Of GM-Free Soya, But For How Long
- Sue Branford, The Guardian 5 September 2001
September is the beginning of the planting season for soyabeans in Brazil and a vicious battle over whether or not the government will authorise genetically modified (GM) crops has reached fever-pitch. Much is at stake. With GM crops permitted in both the US and Argentina, Brazil is the only big world producer that can offer GM-free soya. If the Brazilian government succumbs to pressure - as the giant biotechnology company, Monsanto, is hoping - the battle will be over. Then Europe and Asia will have no option but to eat poultry and cattle reared on fodder produced from GM crops.
The Brazilian authorities are deeply divided. A powerful faction within the federal government, led by agriculture minister Marcus Vinicius Pratini de Moraes, believes that Brazil is damaging its chances of becoming the world's leading agricultural exporter by preventing the dissemination of biotechnology, which, it argues, will dominate global farming in the 21st century. But another group, led by the attorney general and a consumer association, Idec, and supported by environmental groups, is equally determined to prevent both the cultivation and consumption of GM crops until full investigations have been carried out into their impact on the environment and the health of the population. Brazil is under intense pressure from the US to approve GM crops. Earlier this year Bob Callanan, a spokesman for the American Soyabean Association, a trade group that strongly favours the use of gene-altered crops, said: 'We are very hopeful the last domino will fall. That's why the environmentalists are putting up a stink
And so it seemed. On 20 July Pratini Moraes announced in New York to a group of US investors that he was about to authorise the planting of GM crops. 'It is obvious,' he said, 'that we must not deter the advance of technology.' But the minister's announcement caused a furore at home. A federal judge warned the minister that he would be prosecuted if he defied an earlier court ruling against the planting of GM. The minister has said no more about his plans.
Since then, the pro-GM lobby has changed tactics, opting for more ingenious and arcane manoeuvres to get the planting of GM crops authorised. The latest twist in the tale took place two weeks ago. On 22 August a close aide to President Fernando Henrique Cardoso unexpectedly put forward a resolution to the working group on GM crops, set up by the National Environment Council (Conama), to delegate authority for the authorisation of GM crops to the National Technical Bio-Safety Commission (CTNBio), a body known to favour GM crops.
As the CTNBio tried unsuccessfully in 1998 to exempt Monsanto from the legal requirement to carry out an environmental impact study for its GM soya, the anti-GM lobby was quick to draw its own conclusion. 'It was a shameful attempt by the government to sabotage Conama's work,' said Andrea Salazar, Idec's legal consultant. After discussion within the working group the government agreed to withdraw the resolution. Another round to the anti-GM lobby, but no one believes that the war is over.
Monsanto has a great deal to lose if GM crops are not authorised. By aggressively buying up local companies, it now controls two-thirds of Brazilian seed production and is poised to dominate the predicted move of the huge farm sector into biotechnology. A few days ago Monsanto opened a USDollars 550m ( pounds 378m) factory in the north-east of Brazil, which will produce, for the first time in Latin America, the raw materials for its Round Up pesticide, specially developed to be applied to Round Up Ready soya. Over one third of the investment was supplied by the Brazilian government under a tax incentive scheme. The plant will be the centre of Monsanto's regional operations, with exports going to Argentina, Paraguay and Colombia.
Yet the factory could become a huge white elephant. Public opinion outside north America is moving against GM crops. For the moment, Monsanto has the support of a large group of Brazilian farmers who believe that GM soya would bring down their costs.
Yet Brazil's non-GM soya exports have been booming this year, largely as a result of increased demand from Europe and Japan. Some farmers are already questioning the wisdom of moving headlong into the GM crop, particularly as Brazil does not have the storage and transport facilities to prevent contamination. Monsanto knows that time may be running out. This may be the last opportunity to present the world with a fait accompli. Sue Branford, with Jan Rocha is writing a book about the Brazilian landless movements.
GM Ranks Below Road Safety But Still Concerns: Survey
- hane Wright, AAP News 3 September 2001
Canberra - Australians rank concern over genetically modified food below road safety but would not drink milk from a GM cow, a new survey has found. The survey, of 120 Sydney grocery buyers, ranked gene modification 11th out of 15 separate issues of concern.
When asked about food quality, people ranked GM lower than diseases which can be passed on to humans, antibiotics in meat and pesticide residue on fruit and vegetables. The survey also found consumers were erratic in their attitudes towards GM foods, saying they would not drink milk from a modified cow but would happily consume milk modified to reduce cholesterol. Compiled for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the report is one of the first to dissect the attitudes of consumers towards a range of GM scenarios.
Respondents ranked the cost of living, drugs, unemployment, crime, education, public hospitals, the environment, water and air quality, driver safety and food quality ahead of GM when asked about their greatest concerns. When asked about food quality issues, concerns about foot-and-mouth disease and mad cow disease ranked much higher than the repercussions of genetically modified food. If there was something wrong with a GM product, consumers were quick to lay the blame at the feet of scientists and farmers.
"Although confidence was reasonably high for some government organisations, the level of confidence in farmers and producer groups, scientists and in state and federal politicians was generally low," it said. Just one in 10 people could name the main GM bureaucracy, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
The survey found consumers shunned GM products but would accept them if the product had been modified to provide a health benefit. Almost 70 per cent said they would stop buying or would buy less milk which came from a cow that had been genetically modified to grow faster. But 54 per cent said they would buy the same or even more milk which was altered to reduce cholesterol levels.
A similar proportion said they would by potatoes modified to reduce fat absorption in frying, but 56 per cent said they would not buy GM potatoes. "Purchase behaviour indicates that both the type of modification and the nature of benefits are important to acceptance of GM foods," the authors said.
From: Michael Fumento
Subject: Biotech Food Fast Fact on Consumer Attitudes
The quickest way to reassure a consumer about biotech food is simply to inform him he's already been eating it. A survey of Americans sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology in January of 2001 found that only 19% said they've eaten genetically-engineered foods, while 62% said they had not. It also found that a mere 29% considered such foods "basically safe," while almost as many considered them "basically unsafe" and about half didn't have an opinion. Nevertheless, once these people were informed that more than half of the food in grocery stores contains genetically-engineered ingredients, almost half said they considered the food "basically safe," with those remaining in the "basically unsafe" category dropping to a mere fourth of those surveyed.
"Summary of Findings: Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food," Prepared by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, March 2001, at: http://pewagbiotech.org/research/survey3-01.pdf
From: Javier Verastegui - CamBioTec
Subject: Aussie- NZ User Guide to GM Labelling
For your information, the link to the "User Guide for the Australia-New Zealand Standard for Labelling Genetically Modified Food" is shown below. This guide, developed by the inter-governmental task force, helps explain the requirements for labelling genetically modified food which come into force in December 2001
New Food Safety Music CD Released!
September 5, 2001; FOODSAFE (Via Agnet )
From: Carl Winter
I am pleased to announce the release of my latest food safety music CD "Still Stayin' Alive: A Take Out Menu of Musical Hits." This CD contains parodies of popular songs with the lyrics modified to humorously educate about contemporary food safety issues. It includes 17 songs that represent a variety of musical styles (pop, rock, oldies, Latin, rap, country, disco, Spanish) and is nearly one hour in length. Topics include food safety microbiology, biotechnology, pesticides, regulation, and nutrition. This CD supersedes my two prior CDs "Stayin' Alive" and "Sanitized for Your Consumption" for which nearly ten thousand copies have been distributed throughout the world. A few copies of the prior CDs are still available. Here are the selections on the newest CD, followed by the song they parody:
Stomachache Tonight (Eagles, "Heartache Tonight")
Beware La Vaca Loca (Ricky Martin, "Livin' La Vida Loca")
Stayin' Alive (BeeGees, "Stayin' Alive")
Still Seems Like Food to Me (Billy Joel, "Still Rock and Roll to Me")
You'd Better Wash Your Hands (Beatles, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand")
U.S.D.A. (Village People, "YMCA")
Mantenga Bien La Comida (Ritchie Valens, "La Bamba")
We are the Microbes (Queen, "We are the Champions") I Sprayed It on the
Grapevine (Marvin Gaye, "I Heard It Through the Grapevine")
Don't Get Sicky Wit It (Will Smith, "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It")
Clonin' DNA (Beach Boys, "Surfin' USA")
Food Irradiation (Little Eva, "Do the Locomotion")
Rat Number 49 (Clovers, "Love Potion Number Nine")
Frank N. Foode (Chuck Berry, "Johnny B. Goode")
Don't Be a Gambler (Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler")
Eat It (Michael Jackson, "Beat It")
Political Hay s(Carl Winter, original)
Information about ordering the CD is provided at the Food Safety Music
website at http://foodsafe.ucdavis.edu/music.html
Also available on the website are streaming audio files that can be heard using RealPlayer software, lyrics, video clips, my performance schedule, and reviews. PowerPoint slide shows containing lyrics and clip art for individual songs can also be downloaded from the website and provide effective visual complements to the music for presentations and training sessions. I hope you enjoy the music!
Regards, Carl Winter