Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on

Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives





May 2, 2000


Combined postings May 3, 2000


<br /> Combined postings May 3, 2000<br />

- http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

(Twelve Contributions below..... ..I know that all of you are now
flooded with emails because of increased postings.  I will try
to combine them as much as I can.  Soon, I plan to get the
discussions to a website with threaded follow up on topics that would
ease your email congestion....thanks for patience!..CSP)


From: "L. Val Giddings" <shiva@pop.net>

Subject: Re: Misconstruing Rachel Carson and other matters

For the record, Carson wrote in the third para of the last chapter

"The Other Road") of Silent Spring the following:

"A truly extraordinary variety of alternatives to the chemical
control of

insects is available.  Some are already in use and have achieved

success.  Others are in the stage of laboratory testing. 
Still others are

little more than ideas in the minds of imaginative scientists,
waiting for

the opportunity to put them to the test.  All have this in
common:  they are

boilogical solutions, based on understanding of the living organisms

seek to control, and of the whole fabric of life to which these

belong.  Specialists representing various areas of the vast
field of biology

are contributing -- entomologists, pathologists, geneticists,

biochemists, ecologists -- all pouring their knowledge and their

inspirations into the formation of a new science of biotic

Any unbiased reading of Carson, coupled with a  review of what

has contributed to agriculture to date, would lead one to the
conlusion that

the true heirs of Carson's vision are the biotechnologists, not

representatives of the protest industry.

----- Original Message -----

From: Andrew Apel <agbionews@earthlink.net>

> I wonder how many activists out there who wave Rachel

> Carson's (author of 'Silent Spring') name around like a


some unfortunate notoriety since it was my genetically modified

pineapple plot that was attacked by vandals in Australia. As part

the Australian Biotechnology Association meeting, I have been

asked to participate in a forum about GMOs (advantages, risks,

uses, etc.). Although I'm subscribed to Agbiotech, the sheer

of messages makes it impossible for me to follow it closely. I

like your assistance in order to compile some material for my

presentation. I want to do a good job since this forum could have

important repercussion in the Australian public acceptance of

biotechnology products. Do you keep a summary of the different

topics discussed in the disscusions? Where could I get reliable

about how much pesticide, herbicide etc has been used in the GM

crops as compared to regular crops? Any help would be

greately appreciated.


Jimmy Botella


From: willy.degreef@seeds.Novartis.com

Subject: Re: Comments from Ann Oaks

Dear all,

I just want to add a snippet of info to the point  made by Olin
Anderson on

triticale. Triticale is by no means a failed crop. According to a
review made by

CGIAR in 1997, it is grown on a couple of million hectares, and
continues to be

the target for vigorous research. Here is the relevant webpage.

http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/newsletter/april97/8tritic. >html

In my view, triticale is an example of spectacular success in
creating a

completely new crop "from scratch" in a few decades. That
may sound long in the

time of instant revolutions, but we tend to forget that living
systems are

complex and take a while to change. It used to take a few millenia to
get this

far in the good old days.....

Willy De Greef



From: willy.degreef@seeds.Novartis.com

Subject: A BBC initiative worth noting

Dear all,

On the webpage below you will find the "Reith Lectures" of
this year. The theme

this year is population explosion. It is a site worth visiting.

The "theme leaders" (of which there are 6) include the
Prince of Wales and

Vandana Shiva. The only scientific voice in the debate is that of Jim

Need I say more? There is also an intens e-mail conference going on
around the

contributions of these people.

I think it would be a good idea if the attention of the scientific

were drawn to this conference, and that we start making our voice
heard on the





From: prakash@tusk.edu

US governors band together to promote
biotechnology in food

May 3, 2000

By Bill Tomson, BridgeNews

Washington--May 2--Thirteen U.S. state governors have taken on a
mission to promote the benefits of biotechnology on farms, North
Dakota Governor Ed Schafer announced Tuesday.

Schafer, a Republican, spoke to reporters after joining Democratic
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to stress that genetically modified foods
are the keys to easing world hunger and reducing environmental
hazards created by traditional farming methods.

"After returning from China, I am more convinced than ever that
scientific research in areas such as biotechnology is critical to
helping feed the world's growing population," Schafer said.
"But, we must increase consumer understanding to build
acceptance and confidence in our nation's already stringent
regulatory systems."

Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
said she agreed with Schafer that a better job must be done to
convince the U.S. public that genetically modified foods offer
substantial benefits. She said money farmers save from buying less
inputs for genetically modified organisms that produce their own
pesticides and herbicides are passed along to consumers.

Dry and Robert Earl, of the International Food Information Council,
predicted that a new wave of genetically enhanced food that will
boast significant health benefits to consumers is on the way. Dry and
Earl said they eagerly await this second wave because it presents a
far simpler and easier sell to the public.

Schafer said the 13 governors have no firm plan on how to get their
message out, but he said the effort is necessary in order to show
consumers that it's not just "the big bad chemical
companies" that favor genetically modified food.

"It makes sense to have a political side of things," the
North Dakota governor said.

Schafer and Vilsack said the 13 members of the coalition may disagree
on some details, but all are strong advocates for biotechnology.

Other governors in the group include Dirk Kempthorne, R-Idaho, Frank
O'Bannon, D-Ind., John Engler, R-Mich., Tom Carper, D-Del., Mel
Carnahan, D-Mo., Kenny Guinn, R-Nev., Jim Hunt, D-N.C., Tommy
Thompson, R-Wis., George Ryan, R-Ill., Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and Gary
Locke, D-Wash. End [Begin BridgeLinks]

Bill Tomson, BridgeNews, Tel: 202-220-3730

Send comments to grain@bridge.com [End BridgeLinks]


From: sterling stoudenmire <sstouden@thelinks.com>

Subject: Re: Multiple Contributions May 1, 2000

i want to say one thing about the comments made below:  the idea
that we

need to try to educate the public is wrong.. We must understand the

of advertising.  Look at the advertising thatthe big companies

First off very few words ever appear in an advertisement

Secondly, the same ad is played over and over and over again.

Thirdly, the most important part of the ad is the trademark

    you keep changing the ad but the trademark

         it cost $245 to get
a trademark and that is the beginning of

         promoting GMO.

suggest we limit the theme to 30 words and decide on a trademark

every three months we change the 30 words but keep the same
trademark, logo

and artwork..



From: sterling stoudenmire <sstouden@thelinks.com>

Subject: Re: Biotech oversight checkpoints

I have a tremendous problem with the statement that

"Public acceptance of these foods ultimately

depends on the credibility of the testing and regulatory

process.  ....    If the public understood how
thoroughly biotech products

are tested and scrutinized, much of the uneasiness surrounding

would go away." 

this is the cause and source of the pr problem noone trust government

one absolutely noone.. that is why the forces which oppose the GMO
try to

get government involved..

government approval says clearly to the people there is something

with the foods.. the makes of these foods needs the government

because there is something wrong with these foods..and the government

be sure only a few (of its friends and insiders get to make these

another government franchise given to a few people to make them
wealthy in

exchange for votes, power, and



>C.S. Prakash

>  A long-awaited report by the National Research Council

>should reassure consumers that foods derived from

>biotechnology are thoroughly tested and safe. The counc



From: Zeami2000@aol.com

In a message dated ......


<< We have been so demonified by the anti-biotechnology

movement (I refuse to refer to them as environmentalist on this
issue) that

it is necessary to counterbalance that with a more glowing dream

where we are hoping to go with this technology and praise ourselves

Dear David

   Thanks for thoughts about the CBI advertisements. Surely
there is a lot of

subjectivity in appreciating the ads. I'd agree about the glowing
dream, but

it smacks of multi-national corporate glowing dream to me. Just an

    It will be interesting to see how the campaign
fares. I wonder, does

anyone know how the "success" of the campaign will be
measured or evaluated?

Joseph Houseal


From: Alex Avery <aavery@rica.net>

Subject: Re: Misconstruing Rachel Carson and other matters

At 03:53 PM 5/1/00 -0500, Andrew Apel wrote:

>I wonder how many activists out there who wave Rachel

>Carson's (author of 'Silent Spring') name around like a


>The fact of the matter is, Carson had facts.

Sorry Andrew, but Carson's "fact" was that DDT killed
Robins.  It didn't.

Robins can consume and excrete huge amounts of DDT without
ill-effect.  In

fact, most of Ms. Carson's "facts" have since been proven
wrong.  While I'm

not calling for the return of widespread use of DDT (it is afterall

long-lived organochlorine and we have better alternatives) it is a

mistake to imbue Ms. Carson's work as anything remotely

I agree that her concept was noble and prescient, but not


It is also worth remembering that spot treatment of homes and bedding

DDT is still the only effective means of malaria prevention in many

and that the rhetoric lingering from Carson's incorrect fiction

even this important use, despite the fact that such limited and
precise use

of DDT (as opposed to using it as a crop insecticide) does not pose

threat to birds or other wildlife.

Accuracy is critical.

Alex Avery

Center for Global Food Issues

Hudson Institute

from Klaus Ammann <kammann@sgi.unibe.ch>

Dear Prakash,

here some information about the authors (see also my comment in

2000'0420 e: Greenpeace broadside on EPA Bt approvals

The first author is well known for its reductionistic strategies in

feeding experiments. They prove rightly that Bt can be toxic to

non-target insects, but on the other hand this author is refusing to

that in the field things look differently. I will come back on

attitude, also in relation to the recent meeting in California.

Here her new address:

Dr. Angelika Hilbeck


Geobotanisches Institut

Zürichbergstr. 38



Tel. +41 (0)1 632 43 22

Fax 1 +41 (0)1 632 12 15

Privat +41 (0)1 461 11 37

email hilbeck@geobot.umnw.ethz.ch

Priv. Adr. Birmensdorferstr.604


Andrea Raps is a She, here her address:

Dr. Andrea Raps

FAL Reckenholz

Reckenholzstr. 191



Tel. +41 1 377 74 30

Fax 1 +41 1 377 72 01

cheers, Klaus


From: "Charles J. Arntzen" <cja7@cornell.edu>

Subject: for agbio


You may want to advertise the OECD website that gives the reports

the meeting held in Edinburgh earlier this year.  The web site


I gave a background talk on genetic improvement of food crops that

on that site.

Charles J. Arntzen

President and CEO

Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc.


From: mls@gmabrands.com

Subject: Re:Contributions May 2, 2000

The Mexican labeling legislation was not acted upon and hence, dead
for this

legislative session.  (Sorry 'bout that Tom- looks like you need
to re-write

your op ed piece).  If it will be re-introduced - it will not be
done until

later this year or early 2001 - which will give us time to ensure
that, in fact,

it WILL NOT be re-introduced.

Best to all,

Mari Stull

Director, International Regulatory Policy

Grocery Manufacturers of America