I just found this on another list. Apparently organizations sponsored by
the IATP (The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy) are using the
same mailbox as eco-terrorists from Earth First!
Just when I thought I'd heard it all ...
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:39:50 -0800
Reply-to: Conspiracy Theory Research List
From: John Wallace
Subject: [CTRL] IATP TERRORISM
IATP CONNECTED TO TERRORISTS
IATP, SUSTAIN and project GEAN (Ge Action Network) use the same mail drop
as radical Earth First! group.
Organizers of the Keep Organic Campaign
http://www.saveorganic.org/home.shtml), who lobby to prevent the use of
biotechnology in organic production are using the same post-office drop
box as the radical Earth First! organization.
Sustain USA is run by organic advocate Jim Slama, who has registered an
anti-biotech organizing web site, http://www.geaction.org, to the same
address (a mail drop at Chicago Lock Box) as is noted for the mailing
address for the Chicago arm of Earth First.
The address for both is:
3400 W 111th Street, #154,
Chicago, IL 60655
In addition, the GEaction.org campaign notes their contact information on
their web site to be Renske van Staveren, a staffer with the
Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy (IATP).
IATP (The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy)
IATP (http://www.iatp.org) claims to be a non-profit agriculture, trade
and democracy group and is run by pro-organic eco-activist Mark Ritchie.
Ritchie is also on the corporation filing papers for the Tides Center in
San Francisco. Tides is noted for channeling contributions from organic
and natural products industry groups and other special interest groups to
specific activist groups, including hundreds of thousands of dollars a
year to scare-campaign expert Fenton Communications, which provides public
relations services to several anti-biotech campaigns.
For tax purposes, IATP claims, "The primary purpose of the Institute for
Agriculture Trade Policy (IATP) is to research and report on issues
related to the trade and agriculture policies in an effort to educate and
involve citizens upon such issues." IATP notes multi-million dollar assets
and revenues. IATP also notes salary and wage compensation for their staff
in excess of $1 million per year.
In addition to organizing anti-biotechnology, pro-organic events and
outreach campaigns (like the email@example.com listserv),
Ritchie's group also runs a for-profit organic coffee subsidiary:
Headwaters International (http://www.peacecoffee.com).
Sustain (http://www.sustainusa.org) claims to be an independent
"non-profit organization that uses innovative communications strategies to
help win environmental victories." Sustain also claims to be
three years old; however, no corporate/non-profit filing documents or
required tax filings with the name sustain can be found as having
registered in the U.S. or any related organization with the names Jim
Slama or Bill Boyd, the noted Sustain president and board chairman.
Earth First (http://www.EarthFirst.org) describes its purpose noting, "Are
you tired of namby-pamby environmental groups? Are you tired of overpaid
corporate environmentalists who suck up to bureaucrats and industry? Have
you become disempowered by the reductionist approach of environmental
professionals and scientists?... then Earth first if for you."
Earth First claims to "use all the tools in the box" to address their
issues, including "civil disobedience and monkeywrenching." Earth First
further defines "monkeywrenching" as: "ecotage; ecodefense; billboard
bandits; desurveying; road reclamation; tree spiking -- all these can be
defined as the unlawful sabotage of industrial extraction ... as a means
of striking at the Earth's destroyers at the point where they commit their
News reports have linked Earth First! to acts of eco-terrorism and
sabotage in the U.S. and Europe ranging from property destruction to arson
costing tens of millions of dollars. The FBI is reported to be
investigating a series of arsons linked to Earth First groups. According
to One such group, the Earth Liberation Front "claims to be an offshoot of
the radical Earth First. On its Web site, it says it emerged in Brighton,
England, in 1992 through Earth Firsters who did not want to abandon the
option of criminal acts to further their environmental goals."
HERE'S THE PROOF:
1. A Whois search at http://www.networksolutions.com reveals this address
for GEaction.com's administrative and technical contact, Jim Bell:
3400 W. 111th St #154
Chicago, IL 60655
2. If you go to the contact page at Earth First! and look at the Illinois
branch you will see this exact same address for Red Gate EF! The URL is
3. Now look at the this message which was posted to Mark Ritchie's IATP
listserv about an Earth First! gathering in Chicago. Scroll down to the
bottom and you'll see the same address as the one listed above.
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2001
Subject: GEAN (Genetic Engineering Action Network)
You're invited! Network forming to organize against Biotech industry in
Chicago. Red Gate Earth First! (Chicago) is helping to jump start some
actions this spring as part of GEAN Chicago! Get involved and
help plan the fun! All groups and individuals invited!
Invite activists and friends to the meeting who are interested in fighting
the GE industry. We are very excited about creating resistance to the NABC
Conference in May and the Monsanto exhibit at the Museum of Science and
Industry this fall.
See you this Thursday!
March 8, 2001
411 N Wolcott, 2nd Floor
Take Green Line coming from loop, Harlem line 2nd stop from loop, Ashland
stop, walk 3 city blocks west
Take Green Line coming from Harlem (west), Ashland line (or) East 63rd,
Ashland stop, walk 3 city blocks west
intersection: Wolcott / Kinzie
3 blocks south of Grand Avenue
2 blocks east of Damen Avenue
Red Gate Earth First!
Red Gate Earth First!
3400 West 111th St #154
Chicago, IL 60655
JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO PROTECT THE FABRIC OF LIFE
Bioengineering Action Network
Eugene, OR. 97440
The IATP and other the groups mentioned above are trying to give the
impression that they are peace-loving people who want to save the world
from the dangers of genetically modified food. In truth, they are
knowingly connected to a terrorist organization which helps them spread
scare stories so they can profit off the fear that drives people to buy
overpriced organic food.
There it is in an organic nutshell. You think the FBI might be interested?
Date: Mar 15 2001 14:25:23 EST
From: Barry Palevitz
Subject: Bt and mycotoxins
As I recall, there were few data to indicate any positive effect of Bt
corn in lowering aflatoxin levels. However, there are data for the
fumonosins. On the other hand, while data on aflatoxins as carcinogens are
good, the epidemiology of fumonosin effects on human health are not as
good, and are based mostly on effects in animals. This was my
understanding as of about 8 months ago, when I was working on an article
on Bt and mycotoxins. The situation may have changed since then. I stopped
doing research on this about the time the FDA issued its guidelines on
human exposure to fumonosins.
Barry A. Palevitz, Professor
Coordinator of Advising in Biology
Contributing Editor, The Scientist
Department of Botany
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-7271
Date: 15 Mar 2001 22:11:36 -0000
From: Craig Sams
Subject: Re: AGBIOVIEW: RICO, Peanut butter, 60 Minutes, Monarchs,
Conferences, India, GP and GR
Re: Peanuts and Mycotoxins. The references cited to show that organic
peanuts are higher in mycotoxins than conventional all refer to
non-organic peanuts. It is seems a common error on this list that people
confuse 'natural' and 'health food' with organic. As with the Odwalla
juices (referred to in confusion by Barry Palevitz in another posting
today), the 'organic' label is confusingly attached to something that is
not organic because it happens to be unpasteurised or health-oriented or
unrefined. The Dennis Avery
argument on E.coli was notoriously distorting in this respect, but it
seems that this misconception is deep-rooted, probably because so many
otherwise reputable people have repeated his statements without
examining the data. This is the kind of sloppy thinking that so
infuriates scientists when they hear it coming from GM critics.
Organic food is grown in conformance with defined standards and
monitored by at least annual inspection/audits. None of the peanuts or
nut butters in the references cited by John W. Cross were
organic. Whole Earth were the first company to produce organic peanut
butter, beginning in 1988, when the first certified organic peanuts became
available. Any peanut butter produced before 1988 cannot be described as
'organic,' though they may have been 'wholenut' 'unrefined' 'health food'
Our data are available and if someone would like to establish a group
to review them they are welcome to. The figures are unequivocal - the
organic peanuts we purchase come with lower aflatoxin levels than
Whole Earth Foods.
Date: Mar 15 2001 17:13:35 EST
From: Andrew Apel
Subject: Organic Production
There is a new report out which does side-by-side comparisons of organic
vs. conventional farming. Organic farming uses more gasoline, while
producing a good deal less food. It also has more problems with weeds in
wheat (biodiversity?), meaning extra processing to remove seeds.
Organic wheat is also lower in protein.
See: http://www.aventis.co.uk/farm%5Fstudy/archive/bread%5Freport.asp and
links to the tables, which also suggest that bread from organic wheat
doesn't taste as good either.
So: organic wheat production uses more gasoline to produce less food which
is lower in protein and requires extra processing. Rather unimpressive.
Date: Mar 15 2001 18:21:54 EST
From: "NLP Wessex"
Subject: Next green revolution - 2001 year of alternatives to GM
Foodís Frontier: The Next Green Revolution, a new book on efforts to
establish sustainable agriculture in developing countries around the globe.
Richard Manning / North Point Press, October 2000
How can we feed the Third Worldís exploding population? "Not the way you
think," says author of new book.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:31:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Allen Olson
Subject: [SCOPE:gmf-science] GM Soy (Forwarded question)
Another question for the list. Please respond to the list, and I will
forward it to the questioner.
Allen Olson firstname.lastname@example.org
SCOPE System Administrator http://scope.educ.washington.edu/
I am hoping you can assist me. Where might I locate information on
advantages of using gmo free soybeans vs. those soybeans that are not
gmo free. Please advise.
gmf-science mailing list
Bove sentenced for GM destruction
March 15, 2001
French anti-globalisation campaigner Jose Bove has been sentenced for the
destruction of genetically modified plants.
Mr Bove has attained folk hero status in France
A court in the southern French town of Montpellier gave the radical farmer
a 10-month suspended sentence and put him on two years' probation.
Mr Bove and two colleagues destroyed 3,000 genetically modified rice
plants at a research institute in June 1999.
The two others involved - both members of Mr Bove's radical Farmers'
Confederation - were also given suspended sentences.
"The courts in Montpellier have shown yet again that they are supporters
of genetically modified food," said Mr Bove after the sentencing.
"The justice system has not understood a thing about the dangers that face
Mr Bove shot to fame after he attacked a McDonald's restaurant in his home
town of Millau in protest at US trade restrictions, and has become a
popular champion of environmental and farming issues.
He is currently appealing against a three-month jail sentence he received
for the McDonald's incident.
Mr Bove stood by his destruction of the rice plants during the hearing
last month, telling the court that it was a "battle for the future".
"GMOs are a necro-technology. They are the result of technological
tinkering," he said.
He has said he will appeal against the sentence and continue his campaign
against genetic modification.
"No prison sentence or fine is going to prevent us from saying that
genetically modified crops are dangerous," he said.
Mr Bove is now an international figurehead for the anti-globalisation
movement and was a leading figure in the Seattle demonstrations.
He recently met Subcomandante Marcos, the leader of the Mexican Zapatista
Business Standard (India)
March 16, 2001
Most controversies often die down with time. But some tend to endure. This
is true not only of politically contentious issues but also of the
bickering in the scientific community. The prolonged debate on human
safety and the environmental implications of the use of emerging sciences
like molecular biotechnology and genetic engineering, as also the old and
established practices like the use of fertilisers and chemicals in
agriculture, are a typical case in point. The latest to jump into this
fray is the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Norman B Borlaug who, during his
week-long visit to India, defended both biotechnology and chemicals in
unmistakable terms. He went to the extent of describing as "nonsense" the
green lobby's plea that organic farming could meet the world's need for
food and other agricultural produce. Only those who know something about
agriculture could hold this view, he asserted. On biotechnology, too, he
has warned the countries against the designs of the antagonists of this
potentially loaded science. They were out to derail the development
programmes through disinformation campaigns, he maintained, and averred
that till date there was no evidence of any adverse effect of genetically
modified soyabeans, maize or cotton on human, animal or plant life. Such
crops are being grown extensively in several developed countries,
including the US and Europe, for years now.
This view of the Father of the Green Revolution is not wholly unfounded.
Instances are legion where apprehensions about any new technology owe
their origin to the fear of the unknown, rather than the actual ground
realities. True, very few technologies are totally risk-free. But their
nastier aspects are the result mostly of misuse. Take, for instance, DDT.
This much-maligned molecule did serve mankind across the continents
extremely well by keeping malaria under check for as long as the
mosquitoes did not develop immunity against it. True, its residue has been
traced even in mother's milk in India. Nevertheless, there has been no
recorded case of a human ailment that can be attributed directly to the
DDT or its residue in food items.
Similarly, the long-term fertiliser experiments conducted on the same
field for nearly 30 years by the New Delhi-based Indian Agricultural
Research Institute have discounted all fears of the soil getting harmed in
some way. To be sure there is a need for caution because every chemical,
or for that matter, genetically modified product, cannot be presumed to be
non-hazardous. But caution need not, and should not, take the form of
prevention. The developing countries, including India, which are being
excessively cautious in these matters are paying a heavy price for it.
Many of the transgenic plant varieties and other useful technologies
developed in these countries at substantial cost and scientific labour are
lying unused. This is widening the chasm between the developed countries
which are already reaping the fruits of these technologies and others
which are waiting to do so but hesitating because of the misinformation
being spread by the ignorant.
New GM food check
March 13, 2001
A major independent review is to be carried out into the benefits and
risks of using genetically modified plants in food, writes David
The Royal Society is to examine evidence collected since the publication
of its last report on GM plants in September 1998 which concluded that
they might lead to improvements in food quality, nutrition, health and
Dr Jim Smith, chairman of the studyís working group, said yesterday:
"Scientists, industry and policy-makers must appreciate the publicís
legitimate concerns about GM foods.
"Consumer confidence, based on an appreciation of the scientific evidence,
together with the regulatory checks and balances, is central to the
question of whether GM plants will lead to better food in both developed
and developing countries."
EU parliament voices support for biotechnology
March 15, 2001
STRASBOURG, France, March 15 (Reuters) - The European Parliament declared
support for biotechnology on Thursday, but stopped short of calling for
the European Union to lift its ban on new genetically modified ( GM ) food
The parliament said in statement that genetic technologies were good for
employment and could help the environment.
The non-binding resolution may give a rare morale boost to biotechnology
firms, which still face an unofficial EU ban on most of their products due
to concerns that genetically altered plants could contain hidden health or
The parliament itself recently approved a tough new system for licensing
new GM foods strains for use in the 15-country bloc.
The statement, drafted by British Conservative John Purvis and approved by
a majority of EU deputies attending the assembly in Strasbourg, said the
parliament "resolved to support the development of biotechnology in the
But the assembly deleted a paragraph criticising "government actions to
delay authorisation of GM products for reasons not based on objective
scientific opinion", which would have been a direct attack on the EU
freeze on granting new GM licences.
The EU has not authorised any new GM strains since April 1998 pending new
rules on testing and monitoring their effect on the environment.
Governments will re-consider the ban in the coming months once the final
elements of the new regulatory system have been drafted by the EU's
The biotech industry may get more support next week when EU Enterprise
Commissioner Erkki Liikanen presents a 10-year policy paper on
biotechnology and life sciences to EU leaders at a summit in Stockholm.
Liikanen welcomed the parliament's "valuable input" into developing
biotechnologies in the EU.
"Biotechnology has a very important role to play in fulfilling the
commitment made (by the EU) to develop a competitive knowledge-based
economy," he said in a statement.