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
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

May 15, 2000

Subject:

Six Contributions

 

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

Date: May 16 2000 09:45:05 EDT
From: "Clothier, Jeffrey"
Subject: RE: GM Eggs and Ham, Sam I Am?


At last, a welcome bit of humor in what has so far been an exasperatingly
humorless public debate. It has occurred to me that what is needed is a
drumbeat, a positioning campaign that is simple, direct, to the point,
with a single message that is easily repeatable. I offer the following
(tongue-in-cheek) suggestions for a kickoff slogan:

"Better... because it's transgenic!"
"GMO means Good Eating!"
"Make mine Genetically Enhanced!"
"Frankenfood... It's Alive!"
"Hey... Cool Genes!"

and my personal favorite:
"Mama Don't Take My Chromosome Away!"

I invite others to add to this collection.

Jeff Clothier (515) 270-3989
Web Coordinator
Corporate Communications
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc.
400 Locust St.
Suite 800
Des Moines, IA 50306
______________________________________

Date: May 16 2000 01:10:47 EDT
From: "Tracy Sayler"
Subject: Re: GM Eggs and Ham, Sam I Am?

For the record, it's Mr. Sayler. Thanks for the kudos, Mr. Apel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Apel
To: Tracy Sayler
Cc: AgBioView
Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: GM Eggs and Ham, Sam I Am?

Andrew Apel wrote:

>Sometimes, by recalling the simple, marvelous lessons we
>learned in our youth, and revisiting them in maturity, we
>discover that as children we learned more than we suspected.
>Ms. Sayler is to be applauded, and her contribution deserves
>widespread and thoughtful attention.
_____________________________________


Date: May 16 2000 11:25:46 EDT
From: "Person, Janice"
Subject: Technology Protection and Control of Plant Gene Expression


Dr. Prakash and AgBioView subscribers,

Dr. Harry Collins and I appreciate the discussion on the Technology
Protection System. We have enjoyed the comments on the topic and have
found there is significant insight to be gained from the group. As others
on the list have said, we (Delta and Pine Land Company) share the patent
for this technology with the USDA. We thought that some of you may be
interested in a brief paper we generally circulate on the topic. There
are many benefits to be gained through technology of this sort and we are
confident that efforts to communicate the truth will pay off. The
briefing is posted on our website at

http://www.deltaandpine.com/html/company/plantgeneexpression.htm

One note that comes from the discussion on AgBioView is about terminology.
We use both technology protection system and control of plant gene
expression in discussion this transgenic system. Protection of the
technology is one use of the system and we have talked about that use more
often in ag circles. There are several other benefits to controlling plant
gene expression and we discuss some of them in the brief paper. We refuse
to use of the sensational names our critics have bestowed on the system
since they inaccurately depict the uses and our use would seem to endorse
the sensationalism.

If you have any questions on the project, please feel free to contact us as
we welcome discussion on the topic. Dr. Collins is our point person on the
project and I work with him to respond to media inquiries, etc. His full
contact info is included in the brief or you can get him via e-mail at
harry.b.collins@deltaandpine.com

Thanks for your support,
Janice Person

------------------------------------
Janice Person
Delta and Pine Land Company
Public Relations
PO Box 157
Scott, MS 38772
662-742-4280
janice.l.person@deltaandpine.com
______________________________________________________

Date: May 16 2000 06:20:45 EDT
From: "N.R. CLARK"
Subject: Organic article

While reading my paper today I cvan across an apeice about teh
safety of organic fodd bu a paper that is very anti GM and very pro
organic, surprise surprise organic is safe they say.
The reason I write is that there are serval things they mention as
false that I had read people in the forum saying as true
The main one is quoted before, I have not heard the source of this
information before but it has been quoted in many a different
source, it is true or not?

"In 1998, Avery published "The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food"
in American Outlook, a quarterly Hudson Institute publication. It
began: "According to recent data compiled by the US Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and 'natural' foods
are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be
attacked by a deadly new strain of Ecoli bacteria (0157:H7)."
The trouble was, the CDC denied ever having done the studies."

If it is true can somebody, or many people even send letters to the
editor with source or references for this or other studied which
show the same end.
They also claim that the E.coli found in teh Tesce mustrooms, (see
the e-mail from before) was a non dangerous one, not being a
mircobiologist I can not comment.
The full text can be found at
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/health/story/0,3605,221400,00.h
tml

Letter should be sent to letters@guardian.co.uk
A reference for the article, Page 9 in the G2 section, Is organic
food dangerous? needs to be included, as does a full postal
address.
Nick Clark
N Clark bgy7nrc@leeds.ac.uk
____________________________________


Date: May 16 2000 02:44:22 EDT
From: Art Chatroo (by way of C. S. Prakash)
Subject: RE: USDA Organic Standards; Call for Comments

Why don't we suggest that organic labels also include a statement
that they= provide no nutritional benefit over non-organic foods, and
warning that they may contain higher levels of bacterial and fungal
toxins.
_____________________________________

Date: May 16 2000 02:42:08 EDT
From: "C. S. Prakash"
Subject: from Tony Combes Re: Interview with Gordon Conway of
RockefellerFoundation


From: "COMBES, TONY [FND/8000]"

As you can see from below, for some reason my input last night in to the
agbiolist discussion was returned, even though I receive all the messages
going. I wonder, could you post it for me, please?

{Note from Prakash: this problem was due to email aliases such as
alternate forms of email you may have (e.g., having 'ea' in your
email address here while the listbot may have your email address
simply as tony.comes@monsanto.com). To remedy this, please enter
alternate forms of your email addresses as 'aliases' in the listbot
site at http://www.listbot.com so that it will recognize variations
of your email address properly}

Subject: Re: Interview with Gordon Conway of Rockefeller Foundation

In a message dated 5/14/00 05:06: Joseph Houseal writes
Britain had an enormous amount to do with public ire and distrust. This
conviction was an indictment of Monsanto's approach to the public looking
for answers:lies. It was a huge and influential error. What it reveals
about Monsanto is base.

May I please set the record straight once and for all? A visit to
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/99/august99/110899_monsanto.html
is Monsanto's response to the UK Advertising Standards Authority's ruling
where it did NOT uphold 10 of the 14 complaints they received about our
one-off 1998 UK print advertising and information campaign.
See also http://www.asa.org.uk/ for their ruling in our favour in a Dec.'98
adjudication. Amongst those 10 complaints NOT upheld are our
statements about important
issues such as the environmental benefits of plant biotechnology.

Those 4 complaints which WERE upheld included 2 adverts where they could
have been thought to infer that GM tomatoes and potatoes had been approved
for sale in the UK (the mistake was noticed, and the text changed, before
any complaints were received). Another was our claim we had been testing GM
products for 20 years but could only provide evidence of 16 for those
products included in the ad, and the fourth was quotes from academics which
did not make clear that expert opinion is divided on whether gene
technology
is an extension of traditional plant breeding. So 4 technical mistakes
which
are hardly "fraudulent", let alone "lies"!

If you want to see the print ads and judge for yourself, go to
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/highlights/ads/ad1.html but please don't ring
the telephone numbers included in them, as many have changed! Thank you.

Tony Combes
Director of Corporate Affairs
Monsanto UK
LONDON.
Tel: 0044 (0)207 495 8455
Fax: 8361