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





August 6, 2000




Contrary to geno's contention, the news came from Greenpeace, in a
widely-circulated press release. Reuters later picked it up as news and,
interestingly, adopted the Greenpeace text almost wholesale.

This is another instance of (1) irresponsible reporting and (2) an
illustration of the fact that food companies won't "take a bullet" for the
biotech companies.

I would also point out that, according to my contact with Novartis Seeds,
this new decision will affect as much maize and soybeans as might be grown
in a single county in Iowa--that is to say, it will have no effect on the
market Whatsoever. Which makes this whole thing less than news, and more
like a Combined Greenpeace/Novartis stunt, with both of them pandering to
the same Croud.

From: geno@zap.a2000.nl
Subject: Biotech Giant Novartis Bans GMOs From Own Foods

Contrary to Mr. Apel's claim that the news on Novartis comes from
Greenpeace the below article shows that the real source is Reuters. Here
Is the full article.

Thursday August 3 1:14 PM ET

Biotech Giant Novartis Bans GMOs From Own Foods

By Robin Pomeroy

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Novartis, one of the world's largest providers of
Seeds for growing genetically modified (GM) food, confirmed on Thursday
That it has made Its own food products GM-free.

Date: Aug 04 2000 16:55:52 EDT
From: geno@zap.a2000.nl
Subject: Greenpeace & Others Legal Challenge to Bt Crops Continues

On 4 Aug 2000, at 12:43, Biotech Activists wrote:

Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org) Posted:
By kimberly.wilson@sfo.greenpeace.org


On July 21, federal judge Louis Oberdorfer granted a Greenpeace motion to
voluntarily withdraw its lawsuit against the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on genetically engineered “Bt” crops. Contrary to erroneous
statements released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), no
judgement was issued against the Greenpeace claims nor did the court find
the suit to be lacking in merit.

According to Progressive Farmer magazine, BIO spokesperson, Michael
Phillips, fallaciously stated that Judge Oberdorfer dismissed the case
“with prejudice,” and claimed this was the court’s way of telling
Greenpeace that its case “’never should have been brought to our attention
in the first place.’” Both of Phillips’ statements are patently false.

The Facts. In January, Judge Oberdorfer ordered EPA to respond to the
scientific and legal questions raised by Greenpeace — clearly indicating
that the court found these concerns to be legitimate. The July 21 order
states that all counts except one "in the [Greenpeace] case are dismissed
without prejudice." [emphasis added] By agreeing to dismiss the case
without prejudice, Greenpeace makes no concessions regarding the adequacy
of EPA’s response or its registration process. Since the Judge forced EPA
to respond to Greenpeace’s claims this spring, Greenpeace agreed that one
charge — that EPA’s failure to respond caused an “unreasonable delay —
could be dismissed with prejudice.

Greenpeace is now preparing further legal steps in its battle to force EPA
to withdraw its approval of insect-resistant Bt crops. The environmental
group and its co-plaintiffs (who represent family farmers, organic
growers, consumers and environmentalists) are developing a series of
legal actions against EPA for its failure to adequately protect the
environment from the threat of Bt crops.

“We will continue to challenge EPA’s unwarranted and unscientific defense
of Bt crops as long as the agency refuses to take precautionary action to
prevent harm to the environment,” said Charles Margulis, Greenpeace
genetic engineering specialist. “Consumers and growers need to know that
organic food and the environment won’t be sold out for biotech industry

“Our legal action on this issue is continuing,” said Center for Food
Safety’s Joseph Mendelson, lead attorney on the case. “We are currently
preparing, and will file, several legal actions against EPA.”

Last year, BIO’s Phillips became embroiled in scandal when he assembled a
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee for a report on Bt crops. The
make-up of the committee was criticized from the outset for being heavily
weighted with members who had direct and indirect ties to the biotech
industry. Later, a New York Times investigation found that Phillips had
interviewed for his position with BIO while he was serving as the
coordinator of the NAS Committee.

For more information:
Charles Margulis, Greenpeace, 410-327-3770; Craig Culp,
Greenpeace Media, 202-319-2461.

Kimberly Wilson
Genetic Engineering Campaign
965 Mission Street, Suite 965
San Francisco, CA 94103 USA
(415)-512-1032 - phone
(415) 512-8699 - fax

Date: Aug 04 2000 23:22:40 EDT
From: "Jian DUAN"
Subject: Re: Novartis quits, family farms, BBC, BT

I really feel sorry for Novartis - whoever made the decision to stop
producing GM food should be fired from the company.

----- Original Message -----
From: "AgBioView"
To: "AgBioView"
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:17 AM
Subject: Novartis quits, family farms, BBC, BT

> AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com
> Date: Aug 03 2000 12:58:02 EDT
> From: Andrew Apel
> Subject: Another Domino
> Colleagues,
> Greenpeace is circulating a press release which I have excerpted below.
> Historians will recall that the Alar hoax proceeded through a 'domino'
> effect; first, one baby food maker tipped over, then the rest did. Then a
> major supermarket tipped over (Greenpeace is working on that), and then
> the rest did. (Not what marketing pressure in Britain regarding GM did to
> the major supermarkets.) Now Greenpeace claims to have toppled a big food
> manufacturer domino. Will marketing folks in other food manufacturers
> compelled
> to follow suit? Read on: