Palaces For The People
Saturday, December 27, 2003
 
Archives of SANET-MG Dec. (26th) 2003

Lion Kuntz

* Re: (49 lines)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:47:43 -0800
* "rGBH labeling may harm dairy industry" (178 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:48:23 -0800
* Re: "rGBH labeling may harm dairy industry" (66 lines)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:53:59 -0800
* All Clear™ unlikely to affect prions (116 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:59:18 -0800
* Another Prion-Memory (engram) statement (62 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:25:33 -0800
* Auditor: Monsanto-Cargill joint venture incurring sizable losses (132 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:52:36 -0800
* Be careful NOT to drive criminal getaway cars... (254 lines)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:35:44 -0800
* Biotechs in the Newz: Bayer (inventors of HEROIN) loses $2.2 billion. (85 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:13 -0800
* Biotechs in the Newz: Biotechs want to loot Minnesota pensioners next... (120 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:59 -0800
* Re: Chadwick influence, biodiversity, populations, etc (547 lines)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:17:57 -0800
* CIA: Biotech threat scenarios get scary (272 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:47:46 -0800
* CJD-victim donor's blood went to 46 countries... (64 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:58:50 -0800
* Critics say pesticide makers illegally influence EPA policy (136 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:54:14 -0800
* Dominos Falling -- Solutia Bankruptcy News: First Issue Free (179 lines)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:20 -0800
* Re: Encyclopedia Britannica detoxifies dioxin (717 lines)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:43:06 -0800
* FDA has lax rules for approving GMO foods, but strict rules for GMO drugs... (119 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:48:40 -0800
* Fwd: [indianenvironment] Fw: biotech giants launch law suit against a GM-free Mendocino (221 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:04:55 -0800
* Fwd: [indianenvironment] The Year of Fresh Water is coming to an End (99 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:07:31 -0800
* Got Dirty Secrets? Monsanto's Serial Murders at Anniston... (877 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:37:42 -0800
* Got Hormones? Maine farmers watching Monsanto/Oakhurst settlement talks (136 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:35:23 -0800
* Got Lawsuits? Maine businesses keep eye on settlement talks (197 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:36:08 -0800
* Got Posilac? (264 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:50:21 -0800
* Got Serial Murder? Anniston, Solutia, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Pfizer (104 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:38:53 -0800
* History of Monsanto Subversion of FDA regulatory process (384 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:35:47 -0800
* How $billion Monsanto-Solutia scam screws pensioners (278 lines)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:18:13 -0800
* Links for BSE TSE CJD vCJD contagious man-animal disease (170 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:22:35 -0800
* Medicino County to vote on GE-Free zone. (139 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:56:40 -0800
* Monsanto Fedayeen Sabotaging Freedom in Mendacino (147 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:25:14 -0800
* Neal's examples of behavior -- was Re: [SANET-MG] Abusive postings (207 lines)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:32:59 -0800
* Oakhurst Dairy and Monsanto near deal (237 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:51:57 -0800
* Organic Farmers Oppose Monsanto Tyrany in Mendocino California (224 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:28:11 -0800
* Peace on Earth AFTER evil has been driven off the face of it. (219 lines)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:12:56 -0800
* Re: Peace on Earth AFTER evil has been driven off the face of it. (152 lines)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:32:59 -0800
* Peter Young's call for censorship (131 lines)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:22:52 -0800
* Re: Prakash Cheap Shot (976 lines)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:34:12 -0800
* Serial Murderer Corporate Greed: Bhopal 19 years later... (215 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:15 -0800
* Re: Small farm profitability (47 lines)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:45:46 -0800
* Solutia's ultimatum is called bid for attention (241 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:53:25 -0800
* Starting Message Group is Easy -- Anyone Can Do It aAt Yahoo Groups. (108 lines)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 15:29:28 -0800
* Re: Tampering with the Truth (116 lines)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:45:12 -0800
* This supports my hypothesis that prions are engrams for memory storage. (125 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:13:16 -0800
* TSEs (MAD COW-like diseases) passed to humans from assorted animals (407 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:35:51 -0800
* TSEs from eating squirrels in Kentucky (89 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:40:53 -0800
* U.S. judge allows farmers' antitrust lawsuit against seed marketers (99 lines)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:51:05 -0800
* What MEDOCINO CALIFORNIA needs to know about GMO Fedayeen tactics (295 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:08:31 -0800
* When squirrels pass CJD the theories are false... (30 lines)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:00:51 -0800
* Whoops. Should've sold Solutia... (Monsanto's evil twin) (101 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:18:40 -0800
* Will "Pfizer Fellow" Dennis T. Avery Take a Pay Cut From Solutia's Dissolutia? (117 lines)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:49:23 -0800
* Zack's recommends: sell Solutia (Monsanto's evil twin)... (59 lines)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:36:40 -0800
* Re: [novusnow] Re: Economic possibilities (112 lines)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:31:54 -0800
 
The sera December 2003 Archive by author

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sera/2003-December/000366.html
[SERA] Monsanto Fedayeen Sabotaging Freedom in Mendacino
lionkuntz at yahoo.com lionkuntz at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 14:25:14 EST 2003

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sera/2003-December/000367.html
[SERA] Organic Farmers Oppose Monsanto Tyrany in Mendocino California
lionkuntz at yahoo.com lionkuntz at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 14:28:11 EST 2003

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sera/2003-December/000368.html
[SERA] History of Monsanto Subversion of FDA regulatory process
lionkuntz at yahoo.com lionkuntz at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 14:35:47 EST 2003

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sera/2003-December/000369.html
[SERA] What MEDOCINO CALIFORNIA needs to know about GMO Fedayeen tactics
lionkuntz at yahoo.com lionkuntz at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 15:08:31 EST 2003





 
Yahoo! Groups : ERAS-ag Messages : Message 11 of 11

From:
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:08 pm
Subject: What MEDOCINO CALIFORNIA needs to know about GMO Fedayeen tactics

ADVERTISEMENT
As the subversive jackals descend on Mendocino
California to PREVENT FREEWILL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS from
being undermined by crass Corporate Serial Murderer
Greed, they need the facts...

And here are some,,,
==============================
http://www.verdant.net/monsanto.htm
. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #563
.
. ---September 11, 1997---
.
. HEADLINES:
.
. WHY IS EPA IGNORING MONSANTO?
.

==============================
http://www.verdant.net/corp.htm
CORPORATE POWER, INFLUENCE, MONEY AND INTERLOCKING
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS PAGE

Here's the latest list of people in "our" government
and where they used to-or will soon-work after they
complete their assignments: Monsanto and G.W. Bush
Administration: Who Will Own the Store?

Here's another Monsanto connection: Donald Rumsfield.

Rumsfeld Lobbied FDA Approval of Toxic Aspartame
(continued)
...
It's obvious that Monsanto is well connected in
Washington. How does this insider power get used?
Here's a nice example from Times Beach, Missouri:
WHY IS EPA IGNORING MONSANTO?

In our humble opinion, Mr. Ruckelshaus', (director of
Monsanto-ex EPA director) Enterprise For The
Environment looks suspiciously like a greenwashing
front for corporate interests. i.e.

Read a few excerpts from an Interview with William
Ruckelshaus by Timothy K. Judge and Bruce W. Piasecki
Published in Corporate Environmental Strategies, the
Journal of Environmental Leadership

JUDGE: The effort you are leading at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, the Enterprise
for the Environment has been underway for about a year
now. How is Enterprise for the Environment changing
the debate and ultimately the publics view on
environmental issues?

RUCKELSHAUS: "Well, it's not changing any debate yet
because we haven't agreed on anything. We may change
the debate of the people going through the process,
but as of yet we have had no impact on the public
simply because what we've been doing has largely been
screened from public view...
==============================
http://www.rense.com/health3/milkhormone_h.htm

Monsanto's rBGH Milk
Hormone Linked
To Cancer?
http://www.
corpwatch.org/trac/corner/worldnews/other/173.html

* Monsanto says on camera that Canada's ban on rBGH
has nothing to do with human health concerns - but
Canadian government officials speaking on camera say
just the opposite. * Canadian government officials,
speaking on camera, say they believe Monsanto tried to
bribe them with offers of $1 to $2 million to gain
approval for rBGH in Canada. Monsanto officials say
the Canadians misunderstood their offer of 'research'
funds.

* Monsanto officials claim on camera that 'the milk
has not changed' because of rBGH treatment of cows. As
noted earlier, there is abundant evidence - some of it
from Monsanto's own studies -- that this is definitely
not true.

* On camera, a Monsanto official claims that Monsanto
has not opposed dairy co-ops labelling their milk as
'rBGH-free'. But this is definitely not true. Monsanto
brought two lawsuits against dairies that labelled
their milk 'rBGH-free'. Faced with the Monsanto legal
juggernaut, the dairies folded and Monsanto then sent
letters around to other dairy organisations announcing
the outcome of the two lawsuits - in all likelihood,
for purposes of intimidation. (Conveniently, the FDA
regulations that discourage labelling of milk as
'rBGH-free' were written by Michael Taylor, AN
ATTORNEY WHO WORKED FOR MONSANTO BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
HIS TENURE AS AN FDA OFFICIAL.)
==============================

Political Corruption
A Collection of Links on politics and political
corruption in relation to financial scandals.

Monsanto Accused of Attempt to Bribe Health Canada
Health Canada researchers accuse Monsanto of bribery
in bid to get approval for use of bovine growth
hormone.

==============================
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10009.htm

Monsanto Accused of Attempt to Bribe Health Canada for
rBGH (Posilac) Approval

Return to Monsanto Investing News web page.

[Excerpted The Ottawa Citizen, Fri 23 Oct 1998, Page
A1, by James Baxter]

Scientists `pressured' to approve cattle drug:
Health Canada researchers accuse firm of bribery in
bid to OK `questionable' product

Veterinary scientists from Health Canada's Human
Safety Division testified yesterday that they are
being pressured to approve a controversial hormone
intended to boost milk production in dairy cattle.
``We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of
questionable safety, including rBST,'' Dr. Shiv Chopra
told the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry.

The senators sat dumbfounded as Dr. Margaret
Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials from
Monsanto Inc., the drug's manufacturer, made an offer
of between $1 million and $2 million to the scientists
from Health Canada -- an offer that she told the
senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe.

Dr. Haydon also recounted how notes and files
critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were
stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. Dr.
Chopra said that all files pertaining to rBST are now
controlled by one senior bureaucrat and can only be
viewed by gaining permission. ``I can't even believe
I'm in Canada when I hear that your files have been
stolen and that all the files are now in the hands of
one person,'' said Senator Eugene Whelan. ``What the
hell kind of a system have we got here?''
==============================
http://ngin.tripod.com/295.htm

Scientists `pressured' to approve cattle drug:
HEALTH CANADA RESEARCHERS ACCUSE FIRM OF BRIBERY IN
BID TO OK `QUESTIONABLE' PRODUCT

Veterinary scientists from Health Canada's Human
Safety Division testified yesterday that they are
being pressured to approve a controversial hormone
intended to boost milk production in dairy cattle.
``We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of
questionable safety, including rBST,'' Dr. Shiv Chopra
told the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry.

The senators sat dumbfounded as Dr. Margaret
Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials from
Monsanto Inc., the drug's manufacturer, made an offer
of between $1 million and $2 million to the scientists
from Health Canada -- an offer that she told the
senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe.

Dr. Haydon also recounted how notes and files
critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were
stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. Dr.
Chopra said that all files pertaining to rBST are now
controlled by one senior bureaucrat and can only be
viewed by gaining permission. ``I can't even believe
I'm in Canada when I hear that your files have been
stolen and that all the files are now in the hands of
one person,'' said Senator Eugene Whelan. ``What the
hell kind of a system have we got here?''...

Grievance Hearings...
The Plot Thickens...
==============================
http://www.psrast.org/bghcanad.htm

MILK CONTROVERSY SPILLS INTO CANADA

(Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly #621; October
22, 1998)

(Editings in bold, italics and size have been added by
the editor of this website)

,,,However, a recently-released Canadian government
report indicates that the findings of Monsanto's
90-day rat feeding study were misreported by FDA in
SCIENCE in 1990.[5] The Canadian report says that 20%
to 30% of the rats fed rBGH in high doses developed
primary antibody responses to rBGH, indicating that
rBGH was absorbed into their blood. An antibody
response is evidence that the immune system has
detected, and responded to, a substance entering the
body. Furthermore, cysts reportedly developed on the
thyroids of the male rats and some increased
infiltration of the prostate gland occurred. Despite
these results, FDA reported in SCIENCE that there were
"no... clinical findings" in the Monsanto rat
study.[2,pg.878] The Canadian government report
concludes flatly that "the 3-month rat study did show
a physiological response."[5,pg.29]

One FDA official told the Associated Press this month
that FDA never examined the raw data from Monsanto's
rat feeding study but based its 1993 safety conclusion
only on a summary of the study provided by
Monsanto....

,,,** Two of the report's authors, and four other
Canadian government scientists, testified that they
have been threatened with transfers to other jobs
where "they would never be heard of again" if they did
not speed up approval of Monsanto's rBGH product in
Canada, despite the absence of long-term data showing
the product is safe for humans. Monsanto's application
to market rBGH in Canada has been pending since 1990.
According to the TORONTO STAR, "The scientists contend
managers in Health Canada [the Canadian equivalent of
FDA] are more concerned about pleasing the companies
that submit the drug applications and are paying for
their approval than they are about protecting
health."[7] The Canadian scientists have been
forbidden to speak to the press about their concerns,
but they testified last month before a government
board of inquiry.,,,
==============================
http://www.psrast.org/indmanipsci.htm

The Enemies of Democracy

Source: Rachel's Environment & Health News, #725, May
24, 2001

Editings in bold, italics and sub-headings added by
PSRAST

The enemies of democracy are flexing their muscles,,,
==============================


Because ephemeral news items can provide facts which
cause as a consequence a change of mind, there needs
to be a record of such emphemeral items somewhere. If
asked where did you come up with that opinion, one
should be able to quote a source. The USA copyright
laws permit, for educational and scientific purposes,
making such records without the permission of the
copyright owner, under FAIR USE criterion. The United
States Supreme court has even ruled that quoting an
entire short work can come under fair use if it meets
the other criteria of the laws. From time to time I
post articles which have a short shelf-life so as to
provide a hardcopy record of published information
sources, which constitute a short exerpt from the
entire work, and do not injure the copyright owners
right to profit off their work. This is FAIR USE.
==============================


 
Yahoo! Groups : ERAS-ag Messages : Message 10 of 11

From:
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:35 pm
Subject: History of Monsanto Subversion of FDA regulatory process

ADVERTISEMENT
Background ammunition for MEDOCINO CALIFORNIA as they
prepare to the first GMO-FREE county in the USA,
joining Canada and Europe and Japan in wisdom...

Send additional links for forwarding...


http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/991206a.htm

GM fraud and corruption in US - testimony at FDA
hearing


Robert Cohen appeared on an FDA panel in Washington on
Tuesday, November
30, 1999. Some of you may have seen his speech on
C-Span.
Mr. Cohen spoke last, and each of the other panel
members read prepared
statements. Members of the panel also included Mildred
Cody, who
represented the American Dietetic Association; Mario
Teisl, a professor
of economics at the University of Maine; John Gray,
president of the
International Food Service Distributors Association;
Kendal Keith,
president of the National Grain & Feed Association;
and Richard Caplan,
an environmental advocate with the US Public Interest
Research Group.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony 11-30-99

Hi everybody, I've got to apologize first - I don't
have a prepared
statement like the other panel members. All I'm going
to give here is
some facts.

I have a copy of the Federal Register. It says here
advertising this
meeting:

"FDA is not aware of information that will distinguish
genetically
engineered food as a class from other foods."

[ROBERT COHEN TURNS AND ADDRESSES FDA PANEL MEMBERS.]
I'm going to give you some information today, guys.

The greatest controversy in FDA history was the
approval process for
Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth
hormone. We shouldn't
be here today! We should not be in this room and I
shouldn't be here
because, in 1994, Congress HAD A BILL that was going
to require
mandatory labeling of all foods that were influenced
by genetic
engineering. I got my Congresswoman to co-sponsor that
bill - 181
congresspeople co-sponsored that bill, and you know
what? I learned how
Congress works that year because in 6 months they
stalled the bill - 12
members of the Dairy Livestock & Poultry Committee -
they stalled the
bill until the 1994 session of Congress expired and
the bill died.

I was so upset, I investigated these 12 men and found
that collectively
they took $711,000 in PAC money from companies with
dairy interests, and
four of the members of the committee took money
directly from Monsanto.

Now we've got a lot of political intrigue and some
real science here.
We've got science fiction, we've got a combination of
John Grisham and
we've got a combination of Stephen King.

Nikita Khrushchev said that what the scientists have
in their briefcase
is terrifying - [ROBERT COHEN THEN OPENED HIS
BRIEFCASE AND PULLED OUT
A STACK OF PAPERS] and I've got some interesting
things in my briefcase
to share with you today.

When Monsanto made their genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone,
they noticed a couple of problems right towards the
end - right before
approval. They noticed that laboratory animals were
getting cancer, and
they noticed that cows were getting mastitis, ulcers
in their udders.
They were putting more pus and bacteria into the milk.
So Monsanto
arranged

We've heard from Dr. Maryanski this morning, and Dr.
Maryanski talked
about the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act but what
he didn't tell you
was that in 1958, Robert Delaney, a congressman from
New York, added the
Delaney Amendment which was named after him. The
Delaney Amendment
stated that if a food additive caused cancer, it was
not to be approved
- a pretty good law - right?

Monsanto got their attorney, Michael Taylor from the
firm of King &
Spalding By the way, when they started in 1979, they
groomed their
attorney who is now in the Supreme Court, Clarence
Thomas, from the same
law firm.

Anyway, Monsanto's attorney, Michael Taylor, wrote and
minimized the
Delaney Amendment- he wrote a scientific paper that
was published in the
"Journal of Toxicology". Lawyers -they write in law
review journals,
but this lawyer wrote in the "Journal of Toxicology":
"a De-Minumus
interpretation of the Delaney Amendment" became the
new protocol, the
new standard operating procedure at FDA. They
minimized cancer.

Michael Taylor was hired by the Food & Drug
Administration, and became
the second most powerful man there, Monsanto's
attorney - he wrote the
standard operating procedure. In other words, if you
see cancer, ignore
it. Margaret Miller and Suzanne Sechen, Monsanto's
scientists, were
hired by the FDA to review Monsanto's own research.

Margaret Miller knew cows were getting mastitis. The
first week at the
FDA, December 3, 1989, she was given broad power, and
here's an affect
of genetic engineering nobody has considered. She knew
cows were
getting sick from the genetically engineered hormone.
She changed the
amount of antibiotics that farmers could have in their
milk. She
changed it from 1 part per 100 million to 1 part per
million - this is a
fact! She increased it by 100 times.

There is a hero of mine in the audience, Michael
Hansen from Consumer's
Union - Consumer's Union tested milk in the New York
metropolitan area
and
found the presence of 52 different antibiotics in milk
samples.

FDA published on August 24, 1990, the first time ever
in a peer-reviewed
journal, in "Science". "Science" was started by Thomas
Edison in the
1880's. They published a review of bovine somatotropin
-bGH -the
genetically engineered cow hormone. And in that
review, there were
seven
tables of data. Five of those tables came from one
study authored by
Richard, Odaglia and Deslex. This is the famous
"90-Day Study." Guess
what? This was actually a study lasting for 180 days
and when I first
heard about this in 1994, I filed a Freedom of
Information Act Request
for that study - because I saw from the data that the
average spleen of a
lab animal increased 46%.

I called FDA and spoke with Dick Teske. I said, "46%?
You said there
were no biological effects!"
He said, "That's not statistically significant."
I said, "Well, let me see the raw data."
He said, "It's a trade secret."
I called Monsanto, they laughed at me. They said,
"It's a trade secret
and you will never see it."

I'm smart, I filed a Freedom of Information Act
Request, but I didn't
realize you can't find out the study. I went to
Federal Court, I said,
"Your honor - spleen increase of 46%, that's leukemia
in 90 days!"

I met with FDA on April 21, 1995, and found out that
this was actually a
180-day study.

In Canada, they had this study. I have a letter here
[ROBERT COHEN
REACHES INTO HIS BRIEFCASE], an internal memorandum:

"This is to advise you that the copies of reports,
letters, etc. for
drug submissions have been stolen from my files."

This was stolen from a scientist's file in Canada.
They stole the second
half of the "90-Day Study."

We've got real science here. I'm going to talk briefly
about the real
science because when Monsanto made this hormone, they
had to tell the
FDA - they had to draw a chart of every amino acid -
the 191 amino acids.
And when FDA wrote their paper in "Science" magazine
they wrote that one
amino acid changed - it was a different hormone than
the naturally occurring
one.

At the same time, somebody hired C. Everett Koop to
come and say that
genetically engineered milk and the good old wholesome
milk is
indistinguishable. Well, it wasn't. Something happened
to the hormone
that Monsanto made. The FDA said that there was one
change in the
endamino acid. It became epsilon-N-acetyllysine. FDA
had written if there was a
change in the middle of the protein, there could be
disastrous results.
They cited Jerome Moore. I got Jerome Moore's paper.
It said if there
is a protein change in the middle, there could be
Alzheimer's or sickle
cell anemia or diabetes.

Four months after the hormone was approved, one of
Monsanto's
scientists, Bernard Violand, published in the July 3,
1994 issue of the journal
"Protein Science" evidence that Monsanto made a
mistake.

Oops! Monsanto created a freak amino acid. Did you
ever see that movie
"The Fly" with Jeff Goldblum when the fly comes in and
he becomes
half-human and half-fly? Monsanto created a freak
amino acid. Monsanto
admitted it but didn't tell the FDA. [ROBERT COHEN
TURNS AND POINTS TO
THE FDA PANEL MEMBERS].

Gentlemen, the hormone that's on the market today is
different than the
one you tested for seven years. Monsanto spent 500
million dollars,
submitted 55,000 pages of information to you, learned
late in the
process that they created a freak amino acid - that's
what was tested on
laboratory animals and it didn't matter because FDA
said to Monsanto,
you know something? It's safe because when you
pasteurize milk, you destroy
the hormone.

They performed this research up in Guelph, Ontario by
Paul Groenewegan,
and I've got his study. [ROBERT COHEN AGAIN ADDRESSES
FDA PANEL MEMBERS]
To this day, FDA thinks -it's on your web page - that
90% of the bovine
growth hormone is destroyed by pasteurization. But
what Paul
Groenewegan did working with Ted Elasser and Brian
McBride, two Monsanto scientists,
was he pasteurized milk for 30 minutes at 162ºF, and
when I read that -
I
said, wait a second, milk is pasteurized for 15
seconds at that
temperature - not 30 minutes. They intentionally tried
to destroy the
hormone, they only destroyed 19% of it - somebody
lied. And at that
moment, FDA said to Monsanto:

"Because you destroy it by pasteurization, you don't
have to do further
toxicology studies. You don't have to develop a test
for this hormone
in milk. It's now safe to drink."

They (FDA) developed a zero day withdrawal - they
determined it was safe
to drink.

We have a lot of political intrigue here. We have an
interesting
situation where people have said that a revolving door
policy exists at
FDA. I mean, where is the ex-FDA commissioner, guess
who he is working
for? He is working for Monsanto. Bob Dole ran for
President, his Chief
of Staff was Donald Rumsfeld (ex-president of Searle,
owned by Monsanto).
I have one last comment

[AT THIS POINT, THE MODERATOR INTERRUPTS MR. COHEN AND
TELLS HIM TO WRAP
IT UP AND TO ADDRESS LABELING]

I know, but we have a labeling issue here - we have a
right to know - I
have listened to comments about "multi-faceted
educational effort that
we need" - that's called brainwashing! I don't want a
"multi-faceted
educational effort" - I want a double helical
structure (AUDIENCE
APPLAUDS) on a piece of food that I'm going to buy in
the supermarket
because I have a right to know.

Because the bottom line is - mistakes were made and
when I hear from the
American Dietetic Association, [ROBERT COHEN ADDRESSES
A MEMBER OF THE
AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION WHO PREVIOUSLY SPOKE
AGAINST LABELING], I
want to remind you that Monsanto gave you $100,000 to
set up a toll-free
hotline about the bovine growth hormone.

Mistakes were made! We've got political intrigue here
and the bottom
line is we have a right to know what we are eating.
Thank you. (APPLAUSE)

End testimony 11-30-99
 
Yahoo! Groups : ERAS-ag Messages : Message 9 of 11

From:
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:28 pm
Subject: Organic Farmers Oppose Monsanto Tyranny in Mendocino California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/23/BAGTL3T1NO1.DTL

Organic farmers' initiative plants seeds of dissent
Mendocino County debates ban on genetically altered
organisms

Glen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer Tuesday,
December 23, 2003

If local organic farmers have their way, Mendocino
County will become the first county in the nation to
ban genetically modified organisms --

corn that contains toxin-producing genes from
bacteria, salmon crossed with flounder, goats
harboring spider DNA, and other plants and critters
not seen on earth in 2 billion years of evolution.

Earlier this month, the Mendocino County Board of
Supervisors authorized an initiative prohibiting the
cultivation or raising of genetically modified seeds,
plants and animals. Residents will vote on the issue
on the March 2 ballot. The development is being
closely tracked by commercial farming interests and
the large corporations that produce genetically
modified organisms, or GMOs.

In a preliminary legal shot across the bow Monday, an
agribusiness interest group filed suit in Mendocino
County Superior Court to quash the initiative.

The county's organic growers -- who eschew pesticides
and artificial fertilizers, and cultivate only
old-fashioned, unmodified crops -- say the ban is
needed if they're to maintain their organic
certification. They note that genes from modified
crops have been known to drift with pollen and infuse
related unmodified plants with foreign DNA.

Under certification standards adopted last year by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, any food that is the
product of genetic engineering cannot carry the
"organic" label.

"We're definitely supporting (the initiative), and so
are a lot of other growers we know," said Jonathan
Frey, the proprietor of Frey Vineyards near Ukiah.
Frey cultivates 110 acres of organic vineyard and
produces about 50,000 cases of organic wine annually,
both from his own grapes and from the vineyards of 15
other organically certified growers.

GMO producers say the initiative is much ado about
very little. GMO crops are the future of agriculture,
they say, and serve as a boon for both the economy and
the environment.

"These crops provide huge benefits, including greatly
reduced pesticide use," said Shannon Troughton, a
spokeswoman for Monsanto, the country's leading
producer of genetically modified food plants. "What's
important is that consumers have a choice."

The initiative would have little immediate effect.
There are no commercially available genetically
modified versions of Mendocino's major crops,
including wine grapes. But opponents of the technology
say it is only a matter of time, and that once those
crops are introduced, contamination of organic
products is a possibility.

"Grapes are wind-pollinated like corn, and genetic
drift can occur," Frey said. "Farmers elsewhere have
lost their organic certification from GMO
contamination -- particularly in the instance of
canola. We just want to make sure that doesn't happen
here. Our reputations are basically our insurance
policy."

Organic farming was a cottage industry until the late
1970s, when it began to attract serious practitioners
in numbers. It has always had a major base in the Bay
Area. By the mid-1990s, the movement had acquired
critical mass. Today, about one percent of
California's farmland is devoted to organic, yielding
produce worth $263 million.

"In the last five years or so, we've seen some really
large producers moving in,'' said Kristin Rosenow,
executive director of the Ecological Farming
Association in Watsonville.

Many top organic producers are closely watching the
outcome of the Mendocino initiative.

Supporters of the ban say that is needed because too
little is known about the long-term effects of
genetically engineered organisms. "No one is really
sure about the impacts," he said. "Two recent issues
of Scientific American specifically addressed the
great lack of specific knowledge about how genes work.
This is an industry crying out for regulation."

For Els Cooperrider, who spearheaded the initiative
effort, the bottom line is a big part of the beef with
GMOs.

"If we use ingredients in our beer or serve food in
our restaurant (affected by GMO crops), we could lose
our certification," said Cooperrider, who with her
husband, Allen, owns the Ukiah Brewing Co., the only
organically certified brew pub in the country.

"Organic food, wine and beer are extremely important
to the county's economy," she said. "If organic food
production is going to remain viable, we have to
safeguard it -- and this is one way to do that."

But Al Beltrami, a spokesman for the Employers Council
of Mendocino County, said there was plenty of local
opposition to the initiative. "We oppose it because
the issue is broader than Mendocino County," Beltrami
said. "It should be addressed by the state or federal
governments, not county governments."

Beltrami said the ban could also result in increased
government intrusion.

"The (county) agricultural commissioner could come
onto a property at will (to determine if genetically
modified organisms are being grown) and fine the
owner," he said. "This simply seems like a rush to
judgment -- we're not sure how it's going to affect
agriculture. The whole thing needs to be thought out
to a greater degree."

Though the initiative has not necessarily pitted
brother against brother, it has divided the wine
community.

"We have members on both sides of the fence," said
John Enquist, the executive director of the Mendocino
Winegrowers Alliance. "Our group hasn't taken a formal
position at this point. We're going to look at it
again in January, and we may or may not make a
decision then."

There are some signs that the debate is heating up.
Earlier this month, some environmentalists said
Monsanto was conducting "push polling" in the county
-- calling up residents and asking questions about GMO
crops phrased in a way that elicited answers favorable
to the biotech industry.

Monsanto spokeswoman Troughton vigorously denied the
contention.

"We are not doing polling of any kind," she said.
"Certainly, the industry at large is monitoring the
situation. The reality is that (GMO) crops have been
grown since 1996. The country's food commodity system
is working very well -- we've demonstrated that
organic and (bioengineered) crops can coexist."

Steve Beckley, the president of the California Plant
Health Association, the agribusiness group that filed
suit Monday to stop the initiative, said his
organization simply wants the debate conducted
honestly.

"The ballot as it stands is false and misleading,"
Beckley said. "It states that crops with some GMO
traits can't be sold as organic. That's just not true
-- federal guidelines specifically ban GMO crops, but
not those that may contain some (incidental) GMO
traits."

E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 19

==============================
Because ephemeral news items can provide facts which
cause as a consequence a change of mind, there needs
to be a record of such emphemeral items somewhere. If
asked where did you come up with that opinion, one
should be able to quote a source. The USA copyright
laws permit, for educational and scientific purposes,
making such records without the permission of the
copyright owner, under FAIR USE criterion. The United
States Supreme court has even ruled that quoting an
entire short work can come under fair use if it meets
the other criteria of the laws. From time to time I
post articles which have a short shelf-life so as to
provide a hardcopy record of published information
sources, which constitute a short exerpt from the
entire work, and do not injure the copyright owners
right to profit off their work. This is FAIR USE.
==============================

 
Yahoo! Groups : ERAS-ag Messages : Message 8 of 11

From:
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:25 pm
Subject: Monsanto Fedayeen Sabotaging Freedom in Mendacino

ADVERTISEMENT
Because ephemeral news items can provide facts which
cause as a consequence a change of mind, there needs
to be a record of such emphemeral items somewhere. If
asked where did you come up with that opinion, one
should be able to quote a source. The USA copyright
laws permit, for educational and scientific purposes,
making such records without the permission of the
copyright owner, under FAIR USE criterion. The United
States Supreme court has even ruled that quoting an
entire short work can come under fair use if it meats
the other criteria of the laws. From time to time I
post articles which have a short shelf-life so as to
provide a hardcopy record of published information
sources, which constitute a short exerpt from the
entire work, and do not injure the copyright owners
right to profit off their work. This is FAIR USE.
==============================

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news/25gmo_b1.html

Judge to rule on Measure H wording

Opponents of ban on genetically altered crops in
Mendocino County call language misleading

December 25, 2003

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

UKIAH -- In the first shot of what is fast becoming a
full-scale war over genetically modified plants, a
Mendocino County judge Wednesday heard arguments over
what voters should be allowed to read about a March 2
ballot measure that would ban biocrops.

Superior Court Judge Leonard La Casse is expected to
issue a ruling by next Friday in a lawsuit filed by
supporters of genetically engineered farming.

Their lawsuit challenges ballot arguments by
proponents of Measure H, which would make Mendocino
County the first in the nation to ban cultivation of
genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

On Wednesday, lawyers representing Measure H opponents
-- including the biotech lobbying group California
Plant Health Association -- sought to delete three
instances of what they argue is false and misleading
ballot language.

Susan Jordan, the attorney for three Mendocino County
residents named in the suit, countered that the
arguments are truthful and that removing them would
infringe on voters' free speech rights.

La Casse asked several questions that suggest he may
be leaning toward allowing the proponents' proposed
language.

"How much does the court need to get involved in
competing ballot arguments?" he asked at one point.
"Unless it's something completely outrageous, do we
need the courts to be micromanaging campaign
arguments?"

Robert McWhorter, a Sacramento lawyer for the biotech
group, argued that voters may be led astray by "scare
tactic" wording Measure H proponents submitted.

At issue in the suit are three statements in the
ballot argument for Measure H. The statements were
scheduled to be printed in official pamphlets sent by
the county to every registered voter before the
election.

One statement contends that "GMO-polluted wine is
unmarketable in Europe and Japan." A second states
that "organic farmers and wineries will lose organic
certification" if their crops become contaminated by
modified organisms. The third says that "GMOs will
irreversibly contaminate native plants and trees."

The wording seems absolute and suggests inevitability,
McWhorter argued.

"That is not the case," he said.

"Voters are intelligent," Jordan countered. "They can
read the arguments and can make up their own minds."

The lawsuit was filed against three Mendocino County
residents who signed the ballot statement and County
Clerk Marsha Wharff, who is responsible for printing
ballot pamphlets containing the arguments in favor of
Measure H. It seeks to delete the three statements
from the county ballot pamphlet.

Beyond the lawsuit, the greater issue is whether the
movement to ban genetically modified organisms can
gain a foothold in Mendocino County, where there are
150 organic farmers and wineries, Measure H supporters
said.

Biotech giant Monsanto Corp., a client of California
Plant Health Association, spent $1.5 million last year
to help defeat an Oregon ballot measure to force
labeling of genetically modified foods.

"We respect what they're doing here," said Steve
Beckley, president of the Sacramento-based
association. "But we think it's bad policy on a local
level."

Ron Epstein, a Mendocino County resident named in the
suit and a professor of environmental ethics at San
Francisco State University, said the local initiative
has national implications.

"There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake
for them and they will stop at nothing. That's why
they're here," he said.

 
Mad Animal Update

...While the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the cattle industry claim that neither BSE nor vCJD have been detected in the States, others point to evidence that plenty of TSEs are making their way through a variety of species in this country. Scrapie and Chronic Wasting Disease have been confirmed in sheep, goats, deer and elk (particularly in Colorado, Wyoming, and now Nebraska), mink, and even squirrels.

Doug McEwen, a thirty-year-old hunter who died of classic CJD in Utah in 1999, was a regular consumer of deer meat. However, because of his age and consumption habits, it may be more plausible that he died from vCJD. Blood plasma that McEwen had donated over a two-year period was accepted and distributed. A North Carolina company used the plasma to make various blood products and shipped them to 46 nations.

Mind-boggling? You bet. And this is only one example of how one vCJD positive victim could potentially affect thousands of other people beyond geographical borders. In early February the Sunday Times of London reported the worldwide count of CJD cases now stands at 104, of which 100 are in England. All human cases are directly attributed to BSE, and most of the victims are young. The World Health Organization estimates that between November 1986 and December 2000, the UK had racked up approximately 180,000 confirmed BSE animal cases, and other European nations had roughly 1,300. Close to 4 million cows have already been destroyed because of mad cow risks. In the U.S., scientific studies at Yale University and the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated that 13 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively, of individuals who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and other dementia had exhibited CJD. The presence of CJD was confirmed through autopsies....


 
Research With Sea Slugs and Yeast May Explain How Long-Term Memories Are Stored

This supports my hypothesis that prions are engrams for memory storage.

Research With Sea Slugs and Yeast May Explain How Long-Term Memories Are Stored
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE

Published: December 25, 2003

By tinkering with yeast and sea slugs, scientists have found a surprising possible explanation for the way the human brain stores long-term memories.

Those lowly creatures possess an unusual protein that exists in two shapes. In one shape, the protein is sluggish or inactive. In its second shape, the protein perpetuates itself indefinitely but can also harmlessly switch back to the inactive form.

Researchers believe that in higher organisms the same protein may exploit this second shape to confer lasting stability to sites on brain cells, called synapses, that store the memories of a lifetime.

Surprisingly, the shape-shifting protein in yeast and slugs has all the hallmarks of another protein, the infamous prion, found in humans and other animals. Such prions also assume two shapes. One serves a normal function in the brain. The second sets into motion a runaway process that converts normal prions into a toxic form. As a result, deadly clumps of protein leave holes in the brain and cause disorders like mad cow disease.

The disease-causing prion and the memory-storage protein are not identical, said Dr. Eric R. Kandel, a neuroscientist at Columbia University who shared the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on memory formation. But they share attributes that make prionlike behavior a perfect mechanism for storing memories.

With experience and learning, new synapses are formed and others are strengthened, Dr. Kandel said. Indeed, the mechanisms explaining the way short- and long-term memories are formed have largely been worked out. But the questions of how long-term memories are actually stored and what keeps synapses from losing their connectivity under the onslaught of constant cellular remodeling are outstanding mysteries in biology.

The first clue for the hypothesis came from yeast, which have their own version of a prion. It has several functions, none, of course, related to brains.

Still, researchers in the laboratory of Dr. Susan Lindquist, director of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have used yeast prions to explain the way different prion strains arise and other aspects of prion biology.

In studying yeast prions, Dr. Lindquist and her colleagues found a specific region of the protein that is responsible for its ability to adopt two shapes. But the second shape in yeast is inactive and does not cause disease, as it does in higher organisms.

Meanwhile, Dr. Kausik Si, a postdoc in Dr. Kandel's laboratory, was studying a protein in sea slug neurons with the ungainly name, cytoplasmic polyadenylation element binding protein, or C.P.E.B. He noticed that the end of that protein contains a region that looks much like the region that permits shape shifting in yeast.

The two laboratories mounted a series of experiments that are described in the Dec. 26 issue of the journal Cell. Basically, the researchers fused the end of the slug's C.P.E.B. protein into yeast to see what would happen.

Recall that in normal yeast, the prion is inactive when it assumes a self-perpetuating shape. The opposite is true in the fused hybrid. There, the self-perpetuating prion is highly active. It makes other prions adopt its shape without producing toxicity. It induces protein synthesis using molecules known to be involved in memory formation and does so with pinpoint precision, as if marking synapses for permanence.

These prionlike traits make C.P.E.B. an ideal candidate for keeping synapses permanently altered, as long as a memory lasts, Dr. Kandel said.

To find out if a new kind of prion is what enables memories to be stored, researchers have begun new experiments on flies and mice.
 



Why we don't publish the authors of the soil ecology article:
"Genetically Engineered Crops - A Threat to Soil Fertility?"

The article was drafted already in spring 1999. Initially a leading soil ecologists promised to contribute, finding the hypothesis very important. But due to pressure from a colleage at the same institute, this scientist withdrew. We then contacted several other leading soil experts. Only one of them was critical to the article, but in a very indiscriminate and emotional way. Three of those whom we contacted contributed with important viewpoints. One of them, recognized as a world authority in this field, actually made the most extensive and important contributions of all co-authors.

However none of the soil experts wanted to contribute openly even if they supported the article. This is understandable as the article presents a hypothesis that gives a reason to stop the cultivation of all GE plants, which would mean multibillion losses to the biotech industry. Even if, from a strictly scientific standpoint, it is fully justified to propose this hypothesis, there is a risk that especially the soil experts will be persecuted for doing so. - The biotech proponents have already created a "warning example" in the treatment of the world leading food safety expert, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who similarly threatend their interests by warning for GE foods on scientifically fully justifiable grounds (critique of the principle of substantial equivalence), see "World renowned scientist lost his job when he warned about GE foods - The Pusztai case".

This is an instance of the powerful tacit censoring influence of the mighty corporations that sponsor science to a rapidly growing extent (for more about this serious problem, see "Dysfunctional science")

The special competence of the non-soil ecology experts (their fields were a/o microbial ecology, horizontal gene transfer, genetics, gene flow and agriculture) has been necessary and valuable, because the nature of the issue requires an interdisciplinary team. Still it has been impossible to publish their names in an article, where no specialist in the main subject field of "soil ecology" has contributed, without risking their reputation. So therefore we been unable to publish it.

Because of the potentially serious complications warned for in the article, we feel we cannot take the responsibility to wait any more for willing soil ecologists to turn up. Therefore it is published now, without disclosing the names of any of the authors. This is no doubt a highly unusual measure. We hope that nevertheless the facts and ideas presented will be seriously considered.

It is, after all, the message and not the messengers that is really important in scientific literature.

On behalf of PSRAST

Jaan Suurk�la M.D.,
editor of the article

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of
Science and Technology (PSRAST)
 
Genetically Engineered Crops - A Threat to Soil Fertility?



For a non-technical condensate of this document, go to GE Crops - a Threat to Soil Fertility? (condensate)

Genetically Engineered Crops - A Threat to Soil Fertility?

For reasons explained elsewhere, the list of authors can not presently be disclosed. So it is presently published in the name of PSRAST.

Among the contributors to this paper have been

Three experts on Soil Biology and Soil Ecology.
An expert on Microbial Ecology who has done research on horizontal transfer problems.
A an expert on Virology and horizontal transfer specially in connection with transgenes
A an expert on Microbiology and Molecular genetics
An expert on Gene flow.
An expert on Genetics with extensive experience of transgenic organisms.
An Agricultural expert

Editor: Jaan Suurkula M.D.

NOTE: This on-line article will be continually revised as new research findings appear and comments and suggestions are received. We are grateful for comments, reports and observations of any kind, experimental as well as experiential, also from farmers, that might shed light on this issue. Please mail to Dr Jaan Suurkula at xpresident@psrast.org, but erase the x first (this is to confuse mail spam adress collectors).
Published on March 21, 20001, Last revised on December 20, 103

Powered by Blogger