REGARDING: the posting which noted that BASF funded Connecthotel and
Marcus Williamson who is an anti-biotechnology activist who supports
violence against research...
> AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org,
> p.s. I noticed from your web site that one of your
> business clients is BASF. Did you know that they
> too develop biotechnology applications in
> agriculture? I wouldn't want you to support or take
> money from someone engaged in activities you believe
> dangerous or unethical.
Activists frequently use strong arm tactics to threaten companies to avoid
GMOs, threaten boycotts and engage in misleading fear campaigns to
influence consumers. Worst of all they promote violence against
researchers and those seeking answers about biotechnology risks and
benefits; however, I find it ironic that they use money they derive from
companies whose practices they oppose to do so.
More ironic is that these companies are willing to help them do it. I
suspect it is unwittingly.
Scientists and those who care about delivering on the promises of
biotechnology should not fund or support those who engage in these
activities. I noticed another case, where New England BioLabs 2000-01
Catalog gives space and notes funding and support for the Union of
UCS has many good people and causes; however, their campaign against
biotechnology is not one of them. They help spread fear and misinformation
and attack scientists who support the technology. New England Biolabs,
and their customers, like BASF, and their customers, should not support
I've copied New England Biolabs and BASF on this message; perhaps others
should consider the same when they find similar examples.
Date: Jul 30 2000 22:40:26 EDT
From: Andrew Apel
Subject: GM Labeling
GOVERNMENT WARNING: This product is made from Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs). Making GMOs a significant part of your daily diet could
significantly restrict or reduce your
normal daily dietary intake of pesticides, herbicides and foreign matter,
and contribute to unemployment in various chemical industries.
From: "J. Bishop Grewell"
Subject: Labeling Suggestion
As one main concern with mandatory labeling seems to be that the labels
will imply that GMO's are bad (beyond any concerns over the costs of
labeling), perhaps companies should consider a pre-emptive strike on the
Date: Jul 31 2000 04:48:22 EDT
From: Marcus Williamson
Subject: GM foods 'banned' from school menus
GM foods 'banned' from school menus
Date: Jul 31 2000 06:08:29 EDT
Subject: Re: 92% OF INDIAN FARMERS INTERVIEWED THINK BIOTECHNOLOGY IS BEN
There's no reason here to mention that India is a huge country, and over
60 per cent of its 1 bn population is
dependent on agriculture.
However, this does not mean that 92 per cent of millions of Indian farmers
are in favour of biotechnology and that it is beneficial to all these 92
per cent as this so-called study conducted by ORG-MARG tries to convey.
A miniscule number of Indian farmers - 1000 - were supposed to have been
intereviewed by the ORG - MARG based on which the report's heading says 92
per cent of Indian farmers are in favour of biotechnology.
This is nothing but misleading to millions of readers of the Agbioworld
newsletter, which I am sorry to say is itself short of giving a balanced
perspective on the vital subject of biotechnology. The heading of the
ORG-MARG's published report too gives a distorted picture of India's views