AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com
Subj: Re: Negotiating
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:21:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Andrew Apel
The anti-biotech activists will only negotiate to the extent that it is
in their interests to do so. As the anti-biotech campaign has been an
enormous success for them, both financially and politically, any
negotiated truce or honest cooperation from their side would only be
forthcoming if it in some way could increase the level of hysteria which
they, literally, bank on.
Because of this, if they come to the table when invited, you may rest
assured that the gesture will be exploited--probably branded a
capitulation, at the very least.
Subj: RE: Super Broccoli
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:22:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Dear Dr. Prakash;
I agree with your comments below. It has become clear that products
derived from biotech are automatically suspect while products derived from
"natural" breeding are consider safe. Just imagine the uproar from the
environmental activitists if a researcher had announced that he/she had
been successful to
increase a plant component 100 fold through genetic engineering! I doubt
that, in the current situation, this product would be able to be
commercialized even with the regulatory system in place.
Additional troubling aspects of the article for me were;
-the assumption that the 100 fold increase in sulphorophane content would
enhance the cancer fighting ability of broccoli - is there any evidence of
this? Is the cancer fighting ability of broccoli related to a single
compound or a complex set of compounds in specific ratios?
-the emphasis in the article - apparently on the part of Richard Mithen -
that stresses that this development was not achieved by genetic
engineering and therefore the new broccoli is 'not genetically modified'-
if the new broccoli was not genetically modified, then it would not have a
higher level of sulphorophane.
In addition to these points, the article indicated that John Innes Center
holds a patent on this material. It is interesting to me that the
reporter never questioned (or certainly didn't report on) the safety of
product or the fact that the center had patented the new plant. Further
confirmation that the media, in many cases, have bought into the double
standard for the products of genetic engineering vs. traditional plant
Subj: Re: Anthony Trewavas - GM is the best option we have
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 8:56:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gordon Couger firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Anthony Trewavas - GM is the best option we have
> GM is the best option we have
As a farmer of 25 years I totally agree.
All the conventional farmer I know design their own rotations with
frequent changes because of market forces. I know of non that rely on
anyone but themselves for their over all planing and choices. They do rely
on chemical firms for instructions on how to use their product and they
rely on their independent chemical applicator for recommendations about
pesticides as well.
Most farmers I know base their decisions on market forces, their own
experience, their neighbors experience, university test plots, fertilizer
and pesticide dealers and university extension in that order.
Almost all farmers I know will put in their own test plots to try out new
seed or chemicals before wide spread use.
And as far as anyone trying to tell them what to do the idiot that tries
it will get at best a cold shoulder and a worst physically removed from
the farmers presence by what ever means necessary.
Maybe the farmers on your side of the pond are more docile but from what I
have read about them I doubt it.
I do agree that we all need more information about indirect cost
associated with the way we farm. This will be hard to do anything about
until the farmer is making enough money to implement it. With the prices
the way they have been for the last two decades the main concern of
farmers has been to stay in business. The only way they can do that is
make cost and income their main consideration. Long term planing and
uilding the soil take a distant second place to maximizing profit to
generate enough money to live on and pay for putting in the next crop. I
can tell you it can get pretty thin on 2.50 wheat and 45 cent cotton.
Gordon Couger email@example.com
Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger
Date: Jun 09 2000 11:09:10 EDT
Subject: Re: Vandana Shiva's Opposition to Food Aid
When reading the press release I was so shocked that I was looking for
confirmation first whether the press release is actually published by
RFSTE before sending the press release to my internal network (there is so
much junk available on the web, that we sometime have to be careful....)
The - confirming - reply is attached for your information.
Jens Katzek, KWS SAAT AG (j.Katzek@kws.de)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Message confirmed by
Legal and Gender Director, RFSTE and Coordinator, Diverse Women for
At 06:00 PM 6/8/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Excuse me for bothering you again. But could you please indicate your
>so that I know who has confirmed this message?? Thank you
>Divwomen on 08.06.2000 08:35:50
>Thema: Re: Question concerning your press relase (2.6.2000)
>Versendezeitpunkt: 08.06.2000 18:55
>Yes confirming source of press release - RFSTE.
>At 03:29 PM 6/7/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>Could you please confirm whether or not this press relase (see below) had
>>been published by RFSTE??
>> Because I could not find the press release on your internet page, I
>>thought the most simple way is to ask you via e-mail
>>Thank you very much for your help in support
Subj: Re: Penguin, prince, Shiva and more
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 2:36:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Can some one give me the following information
1. "Contract Research Organisation" concept in agbiotechnology
2. Is CRO model a economically viable business model
3. Are there any such companies (in USA or globally) which are into
exclusively contract research
4. Prospects of a CRO model in developing countries like India, China etc
I would appreciate if you could provide me tha above information or give
me some sources/ URLs where I can get these information
Subj: Re: Re: Organic food
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 3:21:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Thomas Bjorkman
>Subj: Re: Organic food
>Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 9:00:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> If "method of production" is a sufficient criteria for a USDA label,
>why not a USDA label for Kosher, or any other food production method
>based on personal or religious belief?
I feel like a very unlikely person to provide basic information about
organic production issues, but I happen to know the answer to this one as
Kosher food is certified by many different agencies (Kosher Union, Circle
K and others). Here in the Northeast I know that each certification
organizations has strong adherents among consumers. There are various
arguments about who is better or more Kosher. In many respects, this
system is comparable to the organic certification system in place now.
The consumers of organic food were not satisfied with the situation that
had varying certifications standards, and some vendors selling food
labelled organic when it did not meet any certification
organization's standards. It was a consumer-driven effort at unification
that prompted the petition of the USDA to provide uniform standards and to
prohibit uncertified foods from bearing an "organic"
label. Through legislation and many committees (in particular the National
Organic Standards Board) that included producers, distributors and
consumers, a set of standards was eventually arrived at in 1995. The
current proposed standards are a revision of the standards that NOSB
In short, it was a case of consumers asking the USDA for help in providing
uniformity and accuracy in labelling. The USDA certainly did not ask to do
To directly answer you questions, consumers have not asked for any other
labelling based on method of production, as far as I know. If it were
important to a group of consumers to have such labelling, they could do
the work to get appropriate legislation passed.
Dr. Thomas Bjorkman
Assoc. Professor of Vegetable Physiology
Department of Horticultural Sciences NYSAES
View archives at